Re: Billups makes old team wonder

[Kestutis.Kveraga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kestutis Kveraga)]

--- You wrote:
If the C's had kept Wallace, would they have had the opportunity to draft
Billups, and if they did have the opportunity and kept both Billups & Wallace,
would they have had a shot at drafting Pierce?
--- end of quote ---

 I seriously doubt that having Ben Wallace as a rookie (who was barely getting
off the bench for Washington in '96-'97) would have affected the fate of
Captain Carr's Titanic one bit. The Celtics had the same determination to lose
then that Cleveland does now. Besides, if they'd had a lower pick in '97, who
knows, maybe they would've taken a shot at McGrady.

And  in '98, they might've had a chance to draft Nowitzki. What makes you think
that the remainder of the '97-'98 season would've been dramatically better with
Billups and Wallace in the lineup? You're projecting what these players are now
to that season 6 years ago, before Wallace became a prime example for what
steroids can do for a pro athlete's career, and before Billups had found his
niche in the NBA.  Kenny played great initially  - I remember Cooz cooing like
a pigeon about Kenny's play. I remember being astounded at the difference
between Kenny and Chauncey in terms of PG skills. Kenny was a point guard we
hadn't had since John Bagley. Then, of course, it went downhill, as some many
things did in the Pitino era. 

Anyway, this whole business of projecting what might have been is silly,
because our guesses require that other things stay the same. And they never
would, because we're dealing with a chaotic system here. If you could change
one little thing back in '96 or '97, it's likely - even highly probable -  that
today's NBA would be dramatically different. Only one thing would remain
constant - the BDT would still be idiots. 
Kestas