[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Mark Blount "Instrument" and other miscellaneous thoughts (long)

After last night, doesn't Mark Blount need a nickname? The Instrument
(Blount Instrument)? How about "May I be" (May I be Blount?) ... Or my
personal favorite, "Where the hell did that come from?"



I knew we'd be discussing the absolute end-of-the-world importance of
keeping Blount around after last night's game. I think the Celtics
absolutely should try to keep him. But only at a reasonable price. If
someone goes crazy and offers him big money - and I mean even mid-level
exception money - then let him be their problem. Do not, under any
circumstances, overpay for the guy. Learn from Seattle's mistakes.

completely agree here Mark -- and i hope that the (third) Mark remembers his experience going to Denver and stays here for less $$. i'm imagining he's having as much fun playing with Hunter & Atkins as we are watching.

So, you have the expansion draft. My guess is they protect:

Pierce
Davis
Welsch
Perkins
Hunter
Banks
Mihm
Blount

That means they leave Atkins and Raef unprotected. Raef is a natural
choice. His contract will scare the Bobcats away. I suspect the same is
true of Atkins. There are two more seasons at $4 mill each left on his
deal. I don't see the Bobcats taking on that kind of contract for a
player whose greatest value is to a winning team. Just doesn't make
sense. No, I actually think the protected list is pretty easy. Banks
would be snatched up in a heartbeat. Same with Mihm or Blount (even if
it was just to allow them to walk and clear cap room for the Bobcats).

I could be wrong, but I believe you have to protect Mihm (as a Restricted FA), but not Blount -- who if he exercised his option would become an unrestricted FA (who can't be protected).

the question comes down to when Blount can/will exercise his option -- Patricia Bender's site (http://www.dfw.net/~patricia/nba-daily/dates.txt) says that contracts end after the expansion draft.

At this point, i'd rather risk losing Blount -- with Raef, Mihm, Perkins & Stewart on board -- than chance losing Atkins -- with only Banks on board -- who I think could very well be drafted by the Bobcats as a place holder for whoever they think will eventually run the team.

Mark P., you have made some great posts lately, but I have to disagree
with the "instead of Nikoloz Tskitishvili (#5) or DaJuan Wagner (6) you
get Jiri Welsch (16)" argument. Sure, there are examples like that. But
that's like saying "instead of Kwame Brown (#1) you get Tony Parker
(29). Sure, that happens sometimes. But your odds of getting a better
player are much greater the higher you pick. And if you have 10 chances
at picking seventh in a draft, and 10 chances at picking 15th, I bet you
end up with the better player picking seventh something like 8 our of 10
times. This is a significant difference this season. If the Celtics were
on pace for 45 wins and battling for the eighth spot, I'd agree with
you. Playoffs would be better. But they're not. They're going nowhere
this season and that eighth playoff spot would just cost them a very
valuable draft pick - whether they use the pick or, as Ray points out,
package it in trade.

while i agree in general that you get a better chance at getting a better player with a higher pick -- my point was to point to the subtle shift in the NBA Draft and what it means to a team like the Celtics -- especially in the context of the (largely hypothetical/meaningless (though i enjoy it)) debate of whether to make the playoffs:

Someone said that in 1996 we picked Walker at #6 and Kerry Kittles went at #9 -- and that that was evidence of a big drop off -- as an argument about how big a difference draft position makes vis-a-vis makingthe playoffs/being in the lottery.

My argument with that "instead of Nikoloz Tskitishvili (#5) or DaJuan Wagner (6) you get Jiri Welsch (16)" business was to show that the 1996 draft was a different era in the NBA -- when top-pick talent was generally high, then dropped off (of course with the every-so-often busts like Pervis Ellison).

These days -- i was trying to show -- you have a higher chance of striking out with a high pick (and arguably a higher chance of hitting gold -- but that's unclear) than you would have "back in" 1996 b/c the players being picked #3-9 (like Tskitishvili, Wagner, Bender) have a much smaller body of work (as high schoolers, very young international players or college freshman) and are being taken largely on *potential*, whereas the players (college seniors and more seasoned international players) who might have less "potential" but who are a bit surer bets are "slipping" to picks 14-20.

You could argue that we ended up with Paul Pierce due to the very begining of this shift -- Larry Hughes (a sophmore) and Dirk (a young Euro) were taken ahead of Pierce *in part* b/c he had supposedly maxed out his potential. Again, I think this is a *shift* not a hard and fast rule -- you're right that you have a better chance the higher you draft. But, drafting is inherently about (impossibly) trying to project human development. I guess i was saying that that projecting is getting to be harder b/c you're starting at an earlier point in players' development and therefore there are more variables that will impact whether a Tskitishvili, Wagner, or Bender ever pan out.

My larger point, though, was that since these days there is a higher likelyhood of considerable talent to be had at the #16 pick -- I would rather have a good winning streak that would need to preceed making the playoffs and start NOW redeveloping the core of this team. Ainge can theorhetically get talent anywhere in the draft*, but he can't do anything to improve morale on the court and developing trust between players -- only playing and winning together can do that, IMO, and i'm fearful that we were begining to lose it as a team.

(* I say theorhetically b/c there are always sliders (Z. Randolph (21), Arenas (2nd Round), tony parker (28), hunter and songaila (2nd round) there to be had -- he just has to be able to identify the talent which is harder than i'm making it sound to be sure))

You saw what such a run might mean last night. Pierce LOOKED like a different player -- just in his body language and facial expressions (he actually was SMILING! which I haven't seen in a long time). He was doing much better of giving the ball up to Atkins, and not going 1 on 3 but taking (and making) the open jumpers quickly. There is a fire back with this team. They didn't care that the 3 wins came against TOR & ORL -- I think they just needed something to feel good about. And a win vs. Washington will give them a much better shot of playing well, competing (and thus learning) against Minnesota than they had a week ago. Imagine if they keep this up, and make the playoffs.

My point was the momentum that a winning streak to end the year and a good fight in the playoffs (sure they won't win the finals) makes up for the loss of draft position -- especially when you factor in the "shift" in the Draft i suggest above.

viva la Celtics!!!!
(the other) mark