rookies (was Tayshaun prince)

[Mark Piotrowski <markp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark,

Maybe my last post was a bit muddled.  I'll try (and fail) here to be 
more succinct:

1.  I *do* agree -- and think most on this list would agree -- that 
the 2001 draft was a disaster for all the reasons we've listed over 
the past 2 years.  Even on draft night -- and oh how I remember 
running home to watch "the draft that would change the future of my 
beloved Celtics forever" -- I was simply deflated and disappointed 
(although truth be told leading up to the draft I was hoping we'd 
take Battier (10), Diop (11) and Haywood/Tinsley/Parker at 21 -- I 
still have the post I sent to the list and just checked it).  I 
secretly held out hope the picks would pan out, but am not surprised 
how they have.


2.  The main issue we (and others) seem to be debating is not HAVE we 
seen something from Kedrick -- the only remaining Celtic from 2001 
draft -- but WHY HAVEN'T we seen MORE.  Following the discussion it 
seems we're divided into roughly 2 camps (I'm too lazy to go back and 
say who's been in which camp):

a.  Kedrick hasn't "seized" the opportunity b/c he can't -- he 
doesn't have the skills to do so at the NBA level. I assume, based on 
your posts, this is where you lean towards.

b. Kedrick hasn't "seized" the opportuniy b/c he hasn't been given 
(a) the minutes to do so and (b) the role that fits his skills (i.e. 
being asked to stand out at the 3pt line rather than be a slasher). 
I guess I'd say I'm in this camp

Arenas, Richardson and Murphy played more minutes (1,155; 2,629; and 
1,448 respectively) their first year than Kedrick has played in his 
first 2 combined (911).  I'd suggest that this is b/c of the 
different approaches of the teams they went to, rather than a total 
reflection on their individual talent level.  The Warriors just said 
last year "we're gonna play the rookies and suck", but the emphasis 
was on developing their young team.  The C's on the other hand I 
think said "lets win with the Veterans".  I know i'm oversimplifying 
that but I think that's a big part of why Brown has gotten less 
minutes.

Bremer played so much this year b/c Delk got hurt.  There was really 
no other option.  I think he showed he belonged but w/o Delk going 
down would we be counting on him for his contributions every night? 
I guess my overall point is its not just about seizing  the 
opportunity and desire.  I think the situations players are placed in 
has a lot to do with it.  If, god forbid, Pierce or Walker were hurt 
for any extended lenght of time I think we'd see Brown play 20 mins a 
game.  Then we'd be able to see if he can "sieze it".


3.  Joe Forte and Joe Johnson aren't walking through that door.  They 
are someone else's problems now (thankfully, imho).  But the debate 
remains over WHY did we take them -- or who knew what & when?  This 
of course is part of the larger debate on the skills or lack thereof 
of the BDT.  I know everyone (myself included) becomes a draft expert 
a few years after the fact, but I think a few things are obvious 
about the 2001 draft:

a.  the BDT screwed it up
b.  the BDT never should have taken Denver's pick
c.  your assesment of Joe Johnson is spot on.  BUT i think it was 
also generally accepted wisdom among just about everyone when he came 
out.  Only creatively could you say JJ was "the most physically ready 
player in the draft".  Certainly Richardson and Battier were more 
"ready".

I live in SEC country and I barely follow college basketball.  But 
even I had heard and seen what you say about Johnson -- back then. 
If I saw it, heard it from other SEC coaches and pundits, why didn't 
Wallace see it?  Is Wallace so clueless to think that he knows more 
than everyone else?  And did he really think that Johnson would turn 
into our PG of the future (or that Forte would, for that matter?)

More than anything I think the mistake of drafting of Joe Johnson was 
(a) amplified b/c of the other miserable picks of the 2001 draft 
(after all it was much better than our previous #10 pick, Moiso), (b) 
amplified because of what we ended up with from the trade to Pheonix 
(essentially Delk).  However if and (c) amplified b/c of our 
miserably low talent level and the expectations that went along with 
the #10 pick.  Its why I think Pheonix is much happier with JJ than 
we were:  For us he was expected to be the starting SG (as a 
Sophomore) on a team with desperate playoff aspirations;  For them 
he's the first guard off the bench behind Marbury and Penny.  They 
*need* much less of him, much less quickly.

That was my point with the question of development.  If you're gonna 
build through the draft -- which b/c of the boneheaded FA signings of 
Pitino (and Wallace) we really needed to-- then you are going to have 
to be much more patient while the players develop.  Especially with 
HS, Freshmen, & Sophmores.  By patience I mean either take your lumps 
and lose for a few years (like the warriors) or give the rookies a 
longer leash to "sieze" the opportunity (like I'm advocating with 
Brown).

- Mark (trying to match the other Mark for most posts in a day)


-------------------
(the other) Mark wrote:
-------------------

Mark, Arenas, Richardson and Murphy (a more mature college player) were
taken in the same draft as our collection of busts. After two seasons,
Arenas is one of the hottest free agents on the market, Murphy is a regular
double-double guy and Richardson is the second-leading scorer on one of the
most improved teams in the league. Arenas and Richardson were playing
significant minutes as rookies.

Look at the rest of that draft. High schoolers like Chandler, Curry and
Brown are much further along than any of the moderately college-trained
Celtic picks. So is Richard Jefferson, another young guy.

I'm not discounting a need for seasoning when drafting young players, but
after two years, you expect them to show SOMETHING. The league is full of
freshman/sophomore draftees-even high school draftees-who have shown much
more in a short amount of time than Johnson, Brown and Forte have shown.

I just don't think your argument holds up. Heck, Joe Johnson may have been
the most physically ready player in that draft-he had the body for his NBA
position, plus all the ball skills and shooting ability and range. He had an
understanding of the game. That's the reason he got so much early playing
time. But it didn't take that long for it to become obvious that he was a
drifter out on the floor. If things came to him, fine. If they didn't, fine.
And that's the kind of player he remains.

To be honest, I can't believe this is still a debate. How anyone could look
at those picks as anything other than a disaster is beyond me.

Mark