Hoopsworld column

["Josh Ozersky" <jozersky1@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Here it is in text form...nothing groundbreaking.
I just laid out some general dilemmas the Celtics
face at draft time.  This is part 1 of 3 of my draft
preview.  Next up is what will probably be my last
interview with Chris Wallace.  Any questions you
might have, now's the time to suggest them.

Josh

It's hard to be unhappy when you have two draft picks, but Celtics fans still
try. Here I was, happily pondering whether Marcus Banks or Marcus Moore would
be a better choice, when I ran into this exquisitely masochistic essay on the
Concord Monitor web site. Don't read it if you're not looking to writhe with
remorse: it's a fictional account of a Celtic dynasty built on all the players
we passed up, let go, or missed out on. Tim Duncan, Tracy McGrady, Ben
Wallace, and Tony Parker cavort alongside Paul Pierce, and David Wesley and
Rick Fox sit alongside hall of fame sixth man Antoine Walker.

Back in this universe, however, the Celtics are in a familiar place. With a
star nucleus and a competent cast of role players, they find themselves
needing a major talent infusion to keep their heads above water. They were
absolutely exposed by the Nets, and Detroit is poised to add at least one star
to their roster, and maybe two. Meanwhile, their picks are in the middle of
the first round, miles from the nearest sure thing. So what do they do to keep
the Fellowship of the Miserable, six years hence, from a similar orgy of
self-flagellation? Assuming they can't trade up, or acquire a veteran
contributor, here are the basic dilemmas the Celtics face:

The Mind / Body Problem. Just ask Jerome Moiso about this one. Historically,
the Celtics have overachieved, given the level of athletic talent in green.
This was never truer than in the 1980s, and led the team to undervalue
athleticism for quite a few years. But after Michael Smith, Acie Earl, Eric
Montross, Fred Roberts, John Bagley, Joe Klein, a beat-up Xavier McDaniel and
the rest didn't deliver, the new administration came in and erred on the other
side, beating the bushes for raw projects with freakish speed and athleticism.
Thus, the Pitino / Wallace years have been marked by a bias for lanky
superbodies: Jerome Moiso, Keon Clark, Tony Battie, Walter McCarty, Ron
Mercer, Kedrick Brown. Even had Pitino not dealt away the 8th pick in the 1999
draft, the Celtics would have taken Shawn Marion, not Andre Miller. Now the
Celtics find themselves in need of both athletes and basketball players. But
their pick isn't high enough to get both in one guy. So do they go for
physical talent, of the kind you need against high-powered teams like the
Nets? Or do you go for a developed skill set, one that will actually score
points or rebound instead of merely showing flashes of uncanny talent? By
phrasing it that way, I'm giving away my bias toward the latter; but anyone
who has watched all the slow, undersized, heady players who were compared to
Bird and Stockton over the last few years knows that you can't just ignore
physical ability. Especially when your two stars are both only so-so athletes
(and that's giving Antoine a lot.)

Need vs. Talent. This is another one that sounds like a no-brainer, but isn't.
The old adage that you draft for the Best Available Athlete was sorely tested
by the Celtics' catastrophic 2001 draft, in which Chris Wallace selected three
players at a position the Celtics were already hip-deep in. In fact, had they
drafted for need that year, they could have had gifted young big men in
Brendan Haywood, Troy Murphy, Zach Randolph, or Vlad Radmonivic. Or,
alterately, ready-to-go point guards in Jamaal Tinsley or Tony Parker. In
fact, they could have thrown three darts at a draft board and come away with
more than they got. This year's talent pool is easier, since very few players
on the board are naturals at a given NBA position. People talk a lot about
true centers and true point guards, but in fact there are very few "pure"
anythings any more. Most guards are combo guards, most forwards are swingmen,
more big men are...whatever they are. Still, the Celtics have a crying need
for floor leadership, and a crying need for rebounding. The two picks should
probably go to address those two problems; let's not draft two of the same
players again, leaving it for one to be traded. Trading young talent is a
losing proposition; it should only be done when absolutely necessary.

The Short Run and the Long Run. This one is always a killer. You'd have to be
flatout stupid not to draft a player you thought might be a superstar; if an
NBA team could claim the draft rights to the three-year-old in the TV
commercial, I have no doubt that one would. And they would be right to. But
few players have that kind of talent in this draft, and none of them will fall
below four or five. So that leaves the Celtics with the familiar choice of a
"Next Gasol" or a "Now Najara." Given that the Celtics are young veteran team
with two stars in their primes, it would make sense at this point to go with a
contributor. Nick Collision or Mike Sweetney might not be exciting, but they
can help a team win. And the Celtics need all the help they can get.

Fits and Starts. Someone once asked Joe Cronin, the Red Sox' manager, if he
thought he could get along with Ted Williams. "Any manager that can't get
along with a .400 hitter should have his head examined," Cronin replied.
Coaches get along with their stars, and even more so in the NBA. Hence the
O'Brien / Walker dynamic. Antoine wants to play 40 minutes a game exclusively
at the 4 spot, so that's where he plays. Or possibly O'Brien, in his stubborn
way, just won't consider playing him anywhere else. But whatever the reason,
the Celtics have been essentially locked out of the power forward talent pool
for the last six years. It doesn't matter who the guy was: Vin Baker, Danny
Fortson, Tony Battie. If he wanted to play in Boston, it had to be either at
center, or spot minutes. That's a crippling factor for a weak rebounding team,
and one of the reasons I think O'Brien needs to be relieved. The same dynamic
works to cripple the Celtics' offense. Antoine requires that the offense run
through him; therefore any point guard the Celtics play has to be a spot up
shooter whose only role is to walk the ball upcourt and deliver it to Antoine.
Even Kenny Anderson couldn't get the ball out of Antoine's hands; so what
chance does a 20 year old rookie have? The ray of light here is that with
Ainge running the Celtics, O'Brien knows he has to see the light or hit the
bricks. The Celtics will have to practice the running game, and play the
running game, even though they would prefer to set up and take their time in
the halfcourt set. They will get a point guard one way or another, and O'Brien
will have to let the guy run the team. Who knows? He may even be forced to
give Vin Baker a chance to contribute.

But for the purposes of the draft, O'Brien's stubborn ways still cast a cloud
over whom we select. Maybe the guy won't get traded after two months, as with
Chauncey Billups or Joe Johnson; but will O'Brien let him develop? It's not
even a matter of appeasing Antoine; wiggles has been pulling for Kedrick Brown
to get more minutes all season, and even he couldn't get O'Brien to do the
right thing. So the question still lingers if the player we select can
flourish under the current coaching regime. Remember, the Celtics don't want
to fire O'Brien; they value the respect, motivation, and chemistry that has
emerged under his watch, and for which he is justly credited. They can do it;
but that would be, to their minds, blowing up the team. You won't see that
happen for at least a year, if it happens at all. Which means that this year's
draft has to be made with the assumption that O'Brien will be developing the
player for the next couple of years at least. That's a scary thought.





These are just a few of the issues the Celtics have to look at in a general
sense. But much more important are the actual players out there. Next column
will feature a close-up analysis of the talent pool in the 2003 draft.