RE: looking ahead

["Orion" <jlyell@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gene, I do recall you were big on Tinsley as were others, and I was a big
Jefferson fan. I thought he gave us an athletic defender. It will be
interesting if he gets the assignment on Kobe to see what he can do. I still
can't forget  his amazing block of a Jason Richardson dunk in the NCAA
playoffs.

I hope you are right on Forte, or that we can sucker someone into a trade
for a late first early second rounder..

I would love to see the C's trade up into the early second round and take
Juan Dixon. This guy has heart.




http://www.nbadraft.net/

This mock draft has the Denver Pick taking Chris Wilcox, with Gooden going
after him. Either would have been a nice inside addition, as would Boozer
and Gadzuric available where we would have picked. Looking back at last
years draft and the Joe Johnson trade, I see these as  2 big mistakes with
the trade a failure that could hurt the teams future, especially if Rogers
leaves.

We could have had Tinsley or Parker, and Boozer or Gadzuric.




I read Nene Hilario from Brazil or Nickoloz Tskitishvili could be this years
Gasol.









.







  -----Original Message-----
  From: gene kirkpatrick [mailto:gk_tyler@yahoo.com]
  Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 8:21 PM
  To: jlyell@netzero.net
  Subject: RE: looking ahead



    Orion <jlyell@netzero.net> wrote:

    Gene, I don't see how you can say Forte is better that Strickland and
Delk.
    He has shown nothing and at this point could be seen as 'El busto #2",
    especially how Tony Parker played. Unless it is strictly for salary
reasons
    I don't expect him to be kept. Can we really take a chance on both him
and
    cook. I thin his shortcomings of being too short for the 2 guard and not
a
    good enough shooter, and not a floor leader for the pint make him just
    another player. Only time will tell.

    Rogers has the problems he has had elsewhere. Too small for the 4 spot,
too
    slow for the 3 spot. Jersey and Kidd and Williams beat us on the boards
    badly, and were much quicker and aggressive.


    I am not sure I agree with Kenny & Battie. if we could have pulled off
that
    Van Exel deal this would have improved us. Kenny has limited range and
is no
    longer a real outside threat. Battie is Battie. Awesome one game MIA the
    next 4. Would not be bad at the 4 spot but we need a physical 5. I
wonder
    what difference V would have made, if any.


    John










    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-celtics@igtc.com [mailto:owner-celtics@igtc.com]On Behalf Of
    gene kirkpatrick
    Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 5:03 AM
    To: celtics@igtc.com
    Subject: looking ahead


    Some ideas about players #3 thru #12:

    Kenny and Battie are signed and deserve to continue their roles as
starters.
    Battie, in particular, should continue to improve as our veteran big
man.
    Williams is an enigma. He's been a favorite of mine, but my early season
    opinion was that if he got twenty minutes a game, we would be in
trouble.
    Well, yes and no. We had something building when Joe Johnson started and
    showed flashes of all-around play, but I think that O'Brien and Wallace
were
    not on the same page regarding rookies and veterans. Wallace drafted for
    long term development and contribution while O'Brien clearly favors
vets.
    I'm with Wallace, because finding a Kobe or a Kidd or Parker or a
Kedrick ??
    means a 12 year ride. Alas, we chose a faster ride and it took us to the
    championship round in the East. OK, I digress. Williams gives us a lot,
    but we won't go further without Kedrick taking over there.

    Off the bench: Rogers is very helpful. I think he developed both an
inside
    game and a defensive presence that had not been required of him before.
    Plus, he has the presence that allows him to play without undue
deference to
    Antoine and Paul. Delk is just another small two guard. He's not bad,
but
    if he's all we keep from the trade, then we gave away Joe Johnson. I
    wouldn't want to make the decision on Strickland. If he could restrain
his
    offensive bluster, he would be a keeper, but he's still a back-up point.
I
    suspect he's a luxury since we must develop a starting point guard.
McCarty
    and Blount can be number ll and 12, I guess; somebody has to be.

    Vitaly. Anybody's guess with his injury. I would trade him unless we
plan
    an offense that actually uses our big men, both decent scorers.

    Forte is better that Delk and Strickland, but it would take a year of
    playing him to show that. I expect our penchant for vets will cause us
to
    lose him, too.

    And Kedrick. I saw the flashes, too. Maybe he can develop. If he
doesn't,
    I lay the fault at the coaches not the drafter.

    So, McCarty and Blount and Delk and Strickland, plus Vitaly and Forte
are
    expendable. That would have us fill in with cheap veterans and hope that
    Kedrick and Cook develop into special players. Let the bargaining for a
    rebounder begin.

    Gene
    Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

  John.  I think that Forte has an all around game and brings big time
offensive abilities to the guard spot.  Delk and Strickland are limited
offensively and I wouldn't want either to have the ball at crunch time.  I
saw a lot of Forte in college and I would be surprised if he can't develop
into a very good pro.  His size may keep most teams from giving him the
chance and I doubt we'll do it, but I would rather have seen us develop
rookies than turn to Delk and Strickland.  I don't think the difference
would have been that noticeable.  But I lean to rookies.  Still, my two
choices--that I wrote to Chris Wallace about--were Jefferson and Tinsley; I
wouldn't have drafted Forte.  It'll be fun to see how Obie and Wallace work
together to bring in another couple of players.  Gene




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup