Re: Okafor

[Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 03:18 PM 4/7/2004, Mark Piotrowski wrote:
> 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.

I'm really not good at the virtual GM stuff, but that's a deal I would 
certainly make. I understand the need to get better and draft picks as a 
route to that but I really don't want us adding 3 rookies unless we're 
planning on a complete urban renewal blow up vs trying to build at least in 
part on the run around Pierce while he's in his prime. And while I like 
Mihm, I don't have vast warm fuzzies that he'll ever live up the promise of 
that athleticism. So you're giving up a young big man with relatively known 
issues but still worth seeing in terms of potential plus a pick I don't 
necessarily want us using for a younger big man with more unknowns 
(starting with just the switch to the NBA) but a considerably greater 
potential upside. One problem though - at his height, Okafor's natural NBA 
position is PF vs center. And we lose both Blount and Mihm without 
replacing them and we have issues there. Perkins is likely the center of 
the future, but he still needs backup and someone to practice against that 
can push him. Gooden is also really a PF...

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

Yup, entirely valid point.
OTOH, I'm tired of listening to the whining about how we screwed up the 
amazing opportunity of the last time we had 3 picks and don't really want 
to hear -or watch on the court- the sequel. It's a key turning point to get 
it right if we're going to advance within the next few years, even if it's 
a matter of the right deal vs the right drafting with them.

> I'm willing to gamble with Welsch (since we have Pierce and Davis),

Borderline, although I still don't consider him interchangeable with Pierce 
or Davis (the Cs apparently are on your side with this, given the 
rotations), since they play such different games and Jiri is the only one 
of the three who has made those around him better to any significant 
degree. Something that he himself can get better at too and that is a huge 
part of taking the next step to solidify greater individual talent with 
better team play. Sorry, I'm a virtual coach at heart, not a virtual GM and 
tend to think more in terms of better using what we have : )

>  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?))

Yes to both.

>  because IMO a Pierce/Davis + a Hunter/LaFrentz/Okafor/Perkins frontline 
> could/would rival Detroit, Indy and the West.

Yup, could be, so long as the back and height (yeah, I know, but NBA is 
worlds apart from college up front) aren't real issues. One thing you don't 
mention BTW, that I think is worth considering, is that even though he 
would be a rookie, from what I've seen, I think Okafor would take a 
significant amount of pressure off Perkins to ease his transition to 
significant minutes as an NBA center and might provide him with some of 
that challenge in practice despite the different positions. Perkins coming 
out right can play a big part in our future in the center challenged east.

Kim