Re :Enough with the old draft already...

["James A. Hill" <jahill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> The entire draft disaster should be enough to have the entire BDT removed
>> from ever having input into a draft again.  The drafts under this group
has
>>set this team back further then the Baker trade ever will.
>

>Got to disagree there..
>Bad drafting will get you in the long run..but the BDT was part of the
Pierce
>decision making process. The Baker trade was a contract disaster that will
>hem the team in for an entire generation. Draft picks can be moved for
talent
>even if they don't pan out..ala Mosio because of their low cost/small
contract
>status.

>Kedrick Brown has alot more value then Baker does and a far smaller
>contract..even though he is a "bust". It's silly to constantly malign the
Celtics for
>passing over Tony Parker. Drafting isn't a science...luck plays a huge
factor.
>Many other teams passed on Parker. They weren't  "stupid" they just didn't
>know how he would play against NBA talent, and how he would react mentally
to
>this challenge.

>Baker OTOH was a known figure in the NBA. Wallace has no excuse for that.

>Pete

That's OK if you have a different opinion.  I see the lack of 6 serviceable
1st round rookie contract players in the last 4 drafts for 5+ years minimum,
at least two-three that should have had a chance at becoming starters as a
much bigger blow to the team then one bad contract for two-three years that
becomes a tradable commodity in it's last year.  The C's will get more out
of Baker then they did out of Forte or VP.  1/12th Vs. 1/2 of the team.
What would 6 rookie contracts do for our cap numbers?

As far as "luck" in picking talent, I don't buy it in the middle of the
first round.   At 10 and 11 it should be choice of skill sets Vs. blind
luck.  The fact that Pierce slide to 10 was "lucky" but 9 or 11 in that
draft would have been pretty good also.   The Moiso draft was weak but there
were some players after 10 that can play.  Let's not even go back to
Wallace's first draft and just blame that disaster on Ricky.

Where Parker was picked at 28, then sure it's luck to end up with a starter
on a Championship caliber team, but we didn't even get a starter 18 picks
before him.

Baker was a long shot gamble that costs us so far.  Seattle ended up with
little to show for it also. If Baker had stuck to his side of the agreement
and been in the "best shape of his career" then he may have been a huge plus
for us.  He may still contribute on the court or he may contribute his
salary slot one day.  I still hope it's on the court.  If the Celtics had at
least chosen a player in the last 4 drafts then they wouldn't have had to
reach for a Baker.  It all goes hand-in-hand.

<Jim