Tinsley, Parker and the "braintrust"

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>]

Let me preface this by saying it's too early to make any sweeping
conclusions. A lot can happen. 

Having said that, does it bother anyone else that rookie point guards Jamaal
Tinsley and Tony Parker are starting for playoff teams, while the "best
player available" sits on the Celtics' injured list because there aren't
enough minutes to go around for the swingmen on this team? And while Kenny
Anderson and Milt Palacio continue to run the point?

We were fed the "best player available" line and for the most part bought it
hook, line and sinker. Hey, I agree with the idea of taking the best player
available. Don't force a pick for need. But I think there's more than a
small question as to whether Forte was the best player at 21 (I'm sparing
Kedrick because he's a project, but Troy Murphy and Richard
Jefferson-another super athlete-look pretty darn good so far). 

It seems the best players available at 21 were point guards-a tremendous
area of need-and we passed on them for an undersized swingman who we hope to
turn into a point guard (but who falls around fifth or sixth on the depth
chart at his natural position). And I'm willing to say right now that Forte
will never turn into the natural point guard that Tinsley and Parker are
already. He may very well turn into an effective "shooting" point like a
Shammond Williams, Chauncey Billups or Jeff McInnis, but you don't learn
point guard instincts on the NBA level.

Paul M. says the current "braintrust" brought in more talent in six months
than Pitino did in four years... but the picks that netted Brown and Forte
were acquired under Pitino's watch. If you don't want to give Pitino credit
for Paul Pierce (a no-brainer pick), then it's hard to give the "braintrust"
credit for Joe Johnson. So let's judge them on the other picks, Kedrick
Brown and Joe Forte. I'd say the jury remains very much out on those
selections.

I'm not giving up on Brown and Forte. Not at all. But this team has a lot of
needs that weren't filled either in the draft, free agency or through
trades. The reason given was that the players selected were vastly better
than anyone else on the board. I guess we'll see, but the early returns
aren't good.

Mark

P.S. I thought Jordan's remarks on Antoine were pretty accurate (except for
the part about being "more talented than Bird"-please). Like Josh said, we
can debate Antoine till the end of time (Joe, I'll add your e-mail address
to my will... I suggest you do likewise with mine), but it boils down to one
of three positions: 1. You accept Antoine for what he is and believe his
faults would disappear with better teammates (Paul M., Alex); 2. You believe
Antoine eventually will "get it" and are willing to wait; 3. You either
don't believe Antoine will "get it" or after five years are unwilling to
wait any longer. Count me in this group. And as Josh points out, advocating
trading Antoine isn't saying "the team would be better off without him."
It's saying the team could be better with the players you receive in return
for Antoine. And his list, which I thought was pretty good, includes some
very good players.