RE: [bostonceltics] Is Tinsley available at #21 still?

["De Mora, Jose Luis (London)" <JoseLuisD@exchange.uk.ml.com>]

have you heard about Pau Gasol? I heard that Celtics could choose him in
position 14th. He is a 7 foot playing as forward with great numbers in the
Spanish league.  I think he can be another Dino Radja.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	kevin from singapore [SMTP:bostonceltics17@yahoo.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:59 AM
> To:	bostonceltics@yahoogroups.com; Celtic_Pride@egroups.com;
> celtics@igtc.com
> Subject:	[bostonceltics] 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
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> bostonceltics-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>