Re: Is Tinsley available at #21 still?

["Jaims" <jaims@info.com.ph>]

I agree with Kevin regarding who/how to pick in the draft via "Best player
available" and not via needs.  The 21st pick is so intriguing and also
important.  Kevin stressed that there's next year's PG crop where we could
choose from...we have kenny, randy and Milt with us still anyways. So why
not just pick out the best talent available regardless of position.

Sorry for my lack of knowledge re: Gerald Wallace, why is he really a hot
commodity?  I checked out his stats in Bama and it's not impressive.  I hope
somebody could convince me on why he's worth picking.

Jaims

----- Original Message -----
From: "kevin from singapore" <bostonceltics17@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sports.basketball.nba.boston-celtics
To: <bostonceltics@yahoogroups.com>; <Celtic_Pride@egroups.com>;
<celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 5:59 PM
Subject: Is Tinsley available at #21 still?


> What SportsIllustrated said:
> "If you want a point guard, try next year. With guys like Duke's Jason
Williams,
> Illinois' Frank Williams and Memphis signee DaJaun Wagner waiting until
2002,
> Iowa State's Jamaal Tinsley is the only sure first-rounder at the
position."
> ================================
> Everywhere I read, Tinsley sounds like a late round pick, or mid round at
best.
> They graded him not to be all-star type, but a good ROLE player. So, teams
> drafting him would be doing out of "needs", instead of "potential or
upppside".
>
> With this in mind, I did a little guesswork with all picks upto #21,
asking each
> team "do you need to draft Tinsley?"
>
> Here goes:
> 1. Washington
> Rod is gone, Chris Whitney is the anioted one. If they trade down, it's a
> possibility. But at #1, no way they draft Tinsley.
>
> 2. L.A. Clippers
> No way at #2. Anyway, they got Dooling and McGinnis at cheap rates.
>
> 3. Atlanta
> Not here, unless they trade down. Brevin Knight backed up by Tinsley,
quite
> potent.
>
> 4. Chicago
> Not here, Jamal Crawford is their point guard of the future.
>
> 5. Golden State
> Not here. Maybe at their other pick (#14)
>
> 6. Vancouver
> Unless they trade down and move Bibby, why waste a high pick on a ROLE
player.
>
> 7. New Jersey
> No need as they've got 71mil dollar man - Marbury.
>
> 8. Cleveland
> Andre Miller is here, backed up by Bimbo Coles. So , no.
>
> 9. Detroit
> Got Chucky Atkins and their point guard of the future, Cleeves, So. no.
>
> 10. Boston
> you make your own calculations.
>
> 11. Denver (if we don't take it)
> They need a back up PG to Van Exel, but if other potentials are available,
would
> they go for it? Judging from last year's draft, Issel tried very hard to
get
> their big man of the future (drafted N'aye - since traded, McClinton -
likely
> not resigned). With this draft loaded with big man potential, I think
Issel
> would try again to get his big man centre.  So, unlikely.
>
> 12. Seattle
> They got Payton (disgrunted) and Shammond Williams (FA). They got no
centre, so
> they likely will go big. I say 30% they go for Tinsley.
>
> 13. Houston
> They already got Francis. They have got other holes (SF and C) to fill up.
So,
> no.
>
> 14. Golden State (from Indiana)
> Mookie is going into last year of the contract and Cummings seemed unable
to get
> it done (long term). They've got big money invested in C (Dampier), PF
> (Fortson), SG (Sura), so it is likely they would take a PG.
>
> 15. Orlando
> I think not, as T-Mac can play part-time point and Armstrong is still good
for
> at least 2 years still.
>
> 16. Charlotte
> I think not, as Wesley and Davis are good for next 3-4 years.
>
> 17. Toronto
> They've got Childs under contract and look to lock up Alvin Williams (to
appease
> Carter). So not likely they go for Tinsley.
>
> 18. Houston (from New York through Phoenix and Orlando)
> This pick might go Detriot. Either way, Detriot or Houston ain't picking a
PG.
>
> 19. Portland
> Barkley still couldn't get the minutes, why would they want to add to the
> logjam?
>
> 20. Cleveland (from Miami)
> I think they would go for more "upside or potential" type.
>
> In summary, we face competition in drafting Tinsley with:
>
> Washington #1 - Only if they trade down for multiple picks
> Atlanta #3 - Only if they trade down for multiple picks
> Vancouver #6 - Unless they trade down and/or Bibby is gone.
> Denver #11 - Not likely, as Issel might draft for size.
> Sonics #12 - Not likely, as they need size.
> Golden State #14 - likely, but depending on what players with
potential/upppside
> are available.
>
>
> So, we've got just Golden State to "compete with" for Tinsley. I think we
should
> just draft Best Available Player at 10 and 11, and wait for Tinsley to
fall to
> #21. If Tinsley is gone by #21, Cook should still be around.
>
> But at #21, I would rather (again) go for Best Talent/Potential Available
> (Gerald Wallace? Cisse?), as I think Anderson/Brown/Palacio/Walker will be
> adequate at the PG position till next season, when Jason Williams, Frank
> Williams are available.
>
> cheers
> kevin
>
>