Re: Hoopsworld column

["Greg Odegaard" <grodeg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Now see wasn't that easy Josh?

And thanks Ryan for being the "voice" of reason around here, what long
history you have of doing anything so noble.  I guess there has to be a
first for everyone sometime.  Glad to see no others so willing to wear their
hypocritical badges of honor so proudly.

Take care all,
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Ozersky" <jozersky1@nyc.rr.com>
To: "celtics list" <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:56 AM
Subject: Hoopsworld column


> 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.