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

Re: Okafor

very good point Kim -- one that yes i'd been putting out of my mind for the time being -- but let me pose a couple counter questions:

given the concern -- but assuming that he's worth the risk -- how might you tweak what we offer? i.e. just 2 #1s and Mihm? I guess that's why i was trying to have gooden included.

With the Rookie Pay scale its not like taking Sam Bowie or signing Hill or Mourning and having them on your cap forever.

I'm willing to gamble with Welsch (since we have Pierce and Davis), Blount (since he's probalby going to leave anyways), and the #1 picks (since probably 1 would be a stater, 1 a role player and one a miss (based on the law of averages?)) because IMO a Pierce/Davis + a Hunter/LaFrentz/Okafor/Perkins frontline could/would rival Detroit, Indy and the West.

(the other) Mark

On Apr 7, 2004, at 2:32 PM, Kim wrote:

OK, I don't follow college hoops, so I don't know the reality of what they're talking about, but doesn't the reported history of real back problems with Okafor concern any of the people - not you specifically, Mark, I just finally picked a post to respond to with the question - pushing so hard for us to get him? One time could be brushed off, but if there's a real history of them at his age and with his game, seems to me real cause for concern about exactly what we'd be getting and for how long with that pick.
Kim


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Piotrowski <markp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Apr 7, 2004 1:38 PM
To: Celtics <celtics@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Okafor

I was thinking about this at lunch the other day.  I agree that 3 picks
won't get it done. Do you think the following would get it done?

Assuming Orlando gets the #1 pick and is willing to trade it, i'd think
they'd want:

(1) 2-3 #1 picks
(2) 2-3 players (at least 1 starter)
(3) a 4-for-3 (us giving 3, taking 4 players) or 3-for-2 deal to give
them added roster flexibility, and
(4) for us to take on a crappy contract (Garrity)

In that case we might actually be in a stronger position than Utah --
who don't have many players to trade back to Orlando even though their
picks might be slightly better than ours.  Of course Ainge won't get
the credit for adding talent top-to-bottom that may allow us to get
Okafor, but that's a different story.

IMO the best case scenario would be us including a signed-and-traded
Blount + 3 #1 picks + McCarty + (and here's where it gets dicey) either
Banks or Welsch (assumign they'd rather not have Davis (whom i'd rather
keep)).

Everything up to Banks/Welsch I'm willing to give up, and would be
willing to take back Garrity (4 years), Lue, Steven Hunter and probably
one other player.  I would push strongly for Gooden (who seems to be
the odd man out ridiculously enough).

But I'm completely torn on if i'd give up either Banks or Welsch or
which one.  I believe that the C's should have a 3-man 2/3 rotation of
Pierce/Davis/Welsch each playing 30-33 min.  But if I had to give up
one of them I might give up Welsch -- but very, very reluctantly.

I'm almost more reluctant to give up Banks -- mostly b/c I still think
we don't know what we have with him.  Though I suspect Orlando may want
him more since they've said they'd like to upgrade the PG position
most.  With Welsch at least, I think we can project him out to
realistically max out at a Scottie Pippen-lite talent level -- 17 ppg,
5 asst, 5 reb.  Which is really good, really really good.  But I would
be willing to risk giving that up to get Okafor, esp. considering we'd
still have potential all-star starters in Pierce & Davis.

But with Banks we still don't know.  Could he become the next Gary
Payton?  Tony Parker?  Tim Hardaway?  Or Dee Brown, Darrell Armstrong,
etc.

To me this is the greatest mistake the C's have made in the last 10
years -- regardless of skill level, either giving up on players before
you know what you've got (Billups, Bowen, Johnson, Songaila, Blount
(the first time)), getting players that won't get much better (Baker,
Potapenko (for the #8 pick),) or sticking with players in roles greater
than their talent level (McCarty, Delk (who should have been a perfect
6th man)).

I guess if pressed i'd agree to:

Scenario 1 -- Blount agrees to sign-and-trade:

Welsch, Blount, McCarty, 3 #1 picks --->  Okafor, Gooden, Garrity,
Gaines & Hunter

Scenario 2 -- Blount won't agree to sign-and-trade:

Welsch, Hunter (who I'd give up to get Gooden), Stewart (to add to
their capspace next summer) & Mihm --> Okafor, Gooden, Garrity, Gaines
& Hunter

Boston - Scenario 1
PG: Atkins / Banks
SG: Pierce / Gaines
SF: Davis / Garrity / (IR-J. Jones)
PF: Gooden / B. Hunter / Mihm (IR-Stewart)
C: Okafor / LaFrentz / Perkins / (IR-S. Hunter)

Boston - Scenario 2
PG: Atkins / Banks
SG: Pierce / Gaines
SF: Davis / Garrity / J. Jones
PF: Gooden / LaFrentz / McCarty
C: Okafor / (LaFrentz) / Perkins / (IR-S. Hunter)

Orlando - Scenario 1
PG: #1 pick / Lue
SG: McGrady / Stevenson
SF: Weslch / Bogans / (McCarty) / 2nd Round pick (pick #31)
PF: Howard / DeClercq / McCarty / #1 pick
C: Blount / Pachulia / #1 Pick

Orlando - Scenario 2
PG: #1 pick / Lue
SG: McGrady / Stevenson
SF: Weslch / Bogans / 2nd Round pick (pick #31)
PF: Howard / B. Hunter / DeClercq / #1 pick
C: Mihm / Pachulia / Stewart / #1 Pick



(the other) mark


On Apr 7, 2004, at 6:51 AM, Dan Forant wrote:

Certainly I would do all 3 picks for Okafor but that wouldn't satisfy.
Other
player(s) would have to be involved, that's where it gets too expensive
depending on who the other players are.

DanF

----- Original Message -----
From: <Bos3332@xxxxxxx>
To: <celtics@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 10:50 PM
Subject: Okafor


I think we need to do whatever it takes to get Okafor. I believe a
front
court of Okafor and Raef would be great. If we can keep Bount/Mihm and
Hunter 
would be great depth. I think we really need to get Okafor, I would
do all
3 draft
picks for Okafor.

Tony