Re: It is Time

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We have glaring weaknesses at point guard and in the frontcourt. The reason
I advocate taking care of point guard first is because a good point guard
can improve everyone's play. So by improving at one position, you actually
can improve at every position. But it has to be the right point guard.

As for drafting for need... You just can't do it. You have to draft the best
player or else use the pick as a trade to address a need. The mistake the
BDT made in the 2001 draft wasn't because of strategy (best available), but
because of execution. They didn't identify the best available-not by a long
shot. If you draft a good player who doesn't play a position of glaring
need, you can use him (or another player he makes expendable) in a trade to
fill a need. In other words, if you draft Pavlovic and feel comfortable by
midseason with him seeing increased minutes at small forward, then you can
afford to trade EWill's expiring contract for point guard or frontcourt
help.

But, if you draft a point guard or power forward who can't play, just
because they occupy a position of need, then you come away empty.
Personally, I'm a big believer in identifying the guy you want, who fits a
need, and making it happen. In other words, instead of sitting there at 16
and 20, do what you can to move up to get the player you want or trade those
picks for the player you want. If Ainge decides Kirk Hinrich is the perfect
point guard for this team, then try to put together a package to get him (I
don't think Hinrich is the guy; just an example). I said the same thing in
2001. The Celtics had three picks in a draft full of quality big men who
would be taken early in the lottery (K. Brown, T. Chandler, P. Gasol, E.
Curry, E. Griffin). But instead of identifying the guy they wanted and going
after him with all that ammo, they sat tight, waited to see who would fall
to them (Johnson), made a dumb, unnecessary deal to overdraft Kedrick Brown,
then compounded it by taking a headcase who couldn't play with their third
pick. Houston, in the same position as the Celtics only with less attractive
picks, packaged their three picks and moved up to 7 for Eddie Griffin, who
they felt filled a need.

The point is, yes, you need to address your areas of need. But you can't
make a reach to do it. If the right guy is there, great. But if he's not,
then take the best player on the board and use other avenues to fill your
need. Or be proactive and deal up in the draft to get the guy you want.
That's the great value in having two picks.

Anyway, I agree with you that I don't see any home runs at 16 and 20. Not
yet. But there could be some decent players.

Mark

--- --- ---

You wrote:

It is Time to finally take care of some of our weaknesses.  We have needed a
rebounding power forward or center for the last Ahh... 8 plus years.  The
Celtic are and have been among the weaker rebounding teams in the NBA for
years.  We want a point guard to run the offense but if you can't get the
ball you can't run and you can't score. Rebounding is our Number ONE
weakness.   The Celtic do need a point guard but a rookie point guard at #16
is probably not going to help us this year. 
I look at the Draft this year and don't see anything special at 16 & 20 and
until the anchor of Vin Baker gets lifted we are not really going anywhere
(Thanks Wallace).  Danny Angie need to start addressing the needs of the
team.  If we can address one need a year we can and will get better.  Free
agency - Trade - trade up in the Draft- or just draft, do anything but let's
address at least one need.  Scoring is not the major need of the Celtic!  We
can score we need the other teams to score less.  Forget the jump shooting
Swing-man.