Re: '01 draft revisited and O'Brien's culpability

[Cecil <cecil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's a possibility that the C's wanted a bigger player to defend against the
likes of Jason Kidd.  It may have been felt that Forte may have been better
for that role since they had Antoine and Paul who bring the ball up a large
percentage of the time.

I will enjoy watching this theory ripped to shreds.

Cecil



----- Original Message -----
From: <Eggcentric@AOL.com>
To: <Celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: '01 draft revisited and O'Brien's culpability


> < The point I'm trying to make is that looking back at the 2001 draft and
> blaming O'Brien for drafting Forte at #21 instead of  a PG - be it Parker
> or even Tinsley - conveniently ignores the fact that Kenny had two years
> left on his contract and was still owed some $15M at that time and thus
> a rookie PG would have seen little immediate PT because of that very fact.
>
> Additionally, from the POV of a GM, history tells us PGs are readily
> available every draft. This year is no different. To blame O'Brien for not
> drafting Parker two years ago is definitely a reach. > - CeltsSteve
>
> <Steve, good points about Kenny and the draft. You're absolutely right.>
> - Paul M.
>
> While on the brink of apoplexy, I respectfully disagree with your
> logic, CeltsSteve and Paul M.  Why draft a dog (Forte) with intentions
> of converting him to a cat, when you could draft a cat (Parker) to
> begin with?
>
> So what if Kenny had two more years on his contract.  I still would
> have preferred to see a true PG (Parker) be slowly brought along and
> groomed as KA's heir apparent than to suffer a season of frustrating
> attempts to convert troubled SG Forte into that PG.  And who can
> assume that the talented Parker would only have logged as few minutes
> as the incorrigible and useless Forte, that he wouldnbt have eventually
> replaced non-PG Erick Strickland, or that his presence would not have
> at least allowed the aging Kenny the luxury of less minutes?
>
> I also disagree with Steve's assertion of history telling us that point
> guards are ''readily available every draft.''  Mediocre PG's maybe, but
> certainly not pure PG's.  Surely Steve must realize that pure PG's have
> become almost as extinct as the Great Auk, since the bulk of PG
> first-rounders (including this year's hyped group) are seldom more than
> athletic shoot first- pass second SG's who have been adjudged too short
> to effectively man that position in the NBA.
>
> Wouldn't we all just love to see the Celts with a pure/classic PG, rather
> than a pretender created out of default?
>
> Parker was that guy; Forte was never that guy.  And I don't consider that
> a reach.
>
> Eggy