|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2005 16:38:05 GMT -5
Ok I admit players do develop. Steve Nash is another. But you have to look at where they come from and where you want them to go. Taking a guy who does nothing (like Perk) in his rookie year, and expecting him to be a future all star is a pretty big leap. Taking guys that do something their rookie years (like Al J, Nash, and M Redd who might be the best 2nd rnder ever) and making those guys into something good is a lot easer and more realistic. Following that logic there is only so much we can expect from Justin Reed and Gomes. Reed and Gomes are definitely good players to have to come off the bench but to expect them to be solid starters in this league is kind of unrealistic. It's not like we're talking about HS ball players. These are 4-year college atheletes who performed at the college level who aren't going to be anymore than the 9th or 10th player coming off the bench. Yes, I do believe in players do develop over time especially more down there career i.e. steve nash. But, seriously we're talking about late 2nd rounders who haven't shown much of anything right now and probably won't show anything spectular especially with the depth this team has at the wing position.
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Dec 22, 2005 1:29:42 GMT -5
I don't think Jermaine O'Neal or Tracy McGrady justify waiting 4 or 5 years cause they might end up as good as them. Perk already has the physical tools Jermaine didn't have his first 4 years, so it makes sense to judge him and Al J sooner. Also even if Green does become the next Tracy McGrady so what? All he did is hurt 2 franchises before becoming a baged up Rocket. But outside of Boston, not many basketball fans know about Al Jefferson or Kendrick Perkins. Prior to breaking out on their own, mostly Blazers fans knew about Jermaine O'Neal. Same with Tracy McGrady in Toronto. Sure outside fans knew them by name because of the hype they received, but hardly anyone outside of their hometowns and the few who read Slam magazine knew the type of game they had. Plus too, their potential were much higher than Jefferson's and Perkins'. Keep in mind that Pierce also wasn't a star right off the bat. He had to play behind Ron Mercer for a good part of his rookie year. Luckily, we didn't judge his overall value by who he could beat out in his rookie season.
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Dec 22, 2005 9:06:16 GMT -5
Jermiane O Neal was was skinny kid drafted like 17th and Al j was drafted 13th after years of scouts getting used to drafting high school kids so I'm not sure why Jermaine had more potential. Also I think Pierce was 2nd or third in ROY voting, got tons of minutes, and scored like 16ppg. Also Mercer was better in his first couple years
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Dec 23, 2005 15:21:24 GMT -5
When Jermaine, McGrady, KG, and Kobe came out from high school, teams were more hesitant to draft them high because they weren't really sure what to expect from high schoolers.
If any one of these players were drafted today, they'd certainly be top picks. Nowadays, you have 10 high schoolers declaring for the draft (obviously this isn't the case anymore after Stern set the 1-year post high school rule), and even with that, Jefferson was not the top high school player--he went after Dwight Howard, Shaun Livingston, Robert Swift, and Sebastian Telfair.
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Dec 23, 2005 15:30:41 GMT -5
Exactly. And nobody should wait 5 years for those guys either. And when you look at them it looks like 3 of them are gonna be damn good, 1 of them probably will be if he gets his health taken care or and one of them will never do anything. What is the point of drafting a Jermaine or a Tracy when by the time they get good they are on another team?
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Dec 23, 2005 15:45:23 GMT -5
What is the point of drafting a Jermaine or a Tracy when by the time they get good they are on another team?
Well, I'm sure the intent of every team who drafts players is to develop them and keep them. What team do you know looks to draft a player, develop them, and then give them to another team? OK, bad question for Boston fans after we gave up Chauncy Billups and Joe Johnson ;D
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Dec 24, 2005 0:25:57 GMT -5
Its a tough call when drafting high school players. Just like drafting foreign players as well. There is probably an example of one player that "got away", and one player that they should have let get away. Example - ***O'Neal
***Chandler
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Dec 25, 2005 16:02:45 GMT -5
I think when you draft you draft to get help now, not in 5 years. And who is to say the other guy you draft won't be good in 5 years? Who wants to draft a guy that will take a third of his career to get good?
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Dec 25, 2005 19:16:13 GMT -5
I think when you draft you draft to get help now, not in 5 years. And who is to say the other guy you draft won't be good in 5 years? Who wants to draft a guy that will take a third of his career to get good? Of course, that is the ideal situation. You'd want a drafted player making contributions for the team in his first year in the league. And we had that with Tony Allen and Delonte last year (before West went down with an injury). But the reason Ainge drafted Perkins, Jefferson, and Gerald Green was not because he wanted projects on the team for Doc to toil with. He selected them because of the players who were available at the time we selected, they had the most upside. And that makes more sense than passing over a high ceiling talent than to go with a safer, but much lower ceiling player. We are not in a position to be picky about whom we draft. We all know that we are rebuilding for the future. We are trying to acquire high caliber impact players. It makes sense to go after these guys while we are still in our developmental stage. Now if we are close to being a contending team, drafting 4 year college veterans who can make immediate contributions is the way to go. Or better yet, moving the picks to go after a specific need would be much better towards winning a championship. But I have no problem with Ainge grabbing Jefferson and Gerald Green in hopes of building a team around them in 4 years, when they develop their games. With our young nucleus of players, our projected window is in that time frame anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2005 0:09:03 GMT -5
This is kind of a dead subject especially with the new CBA in placed. BUT, you take the best available player at you're spot in the draft. Then you go by position and dictate if it's better to hold onto the pick or trade away for other help
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Dec 26, 2005 0:40:26 GMT -5
This is kind of a dead subject especially with the new CBA in placed. BUT, you take the best available player at you're spot in the draft. Then you go by position and dictate if it's better to hold onto the pick or trade away for other help Well, I think the debate is best player available vs. high ceiling player. For a team right on the brink of contention, grabbing the best player available is the best move because they need someone contributing right away. But for a team who's fallen on their butt, getting a player with the highest ceiling, despite how raw he may be, is the logical move.
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on Dec 27, 2005 12:22:29 GMT -5
The term potential just means "sucks right now". That's all it means. Who is to say if someone has a higher or lower ceiling? I remember when Kwame Brown and all those other guy's ceilings were so high. Here you go. Brown, Chandler, Curry, Battier, Diop, Kedrick Brown. Who is best now? Where are the "experts" admitting they were wrong and who really had the highest ceiling? The reason teams are playing a very dangerous gamw with drafting these so called "upside" kids is when the upside turns out to not be there after 4 or 5 years and you draft another kid with "upside" it's another 4-5 years and maybe that kid doesn't work out too. Whereas all along you could have had the Battiers and the Jameer Nelsons helping you. If you had been drafting in the top 5 since 2001 and you had gone with proven upper classmen you could have easily drafted Battier, Drew Gooden, Dwayne Wade, Okafor or Gordon, and Bogut or Derron Williams. If you went for downside you could have easily taken Kwame, Dejuan Wagner, Darko, Livingston (ok I admit when he is actually healthy he's decent), and Marvin Williams. Who is to say that Marvin Williams' upside is higher than anyone else? Upside is just a trap. If they can't be good and good fast don't take them, cause then it's just a waiting game in the dark. That's what separates the Lebrons from everyone else. Everyone knew he'd be good and good fast. If it would take 5 years for him to get where he is now it would have made way more sense to take Dwayne Wade
|
|
|
Post by Celtic17 on Dec 27, 2005 19:41:50 GMT -5
Did we give up on Reed, Gomes and Greene to gain trade value on Banks and Blount? If it works, it's all good for the future. Same might go for gangsta-Allen.
|
|
|
Post by The Eye of the Q is upon you! on Dec 27, 2005 22:33:26 GMT -5
I am just sick and tired of hearing about how the Celtics lack defensive players. Any one in the NBA can play defense with effort. Any big can learn rebounding...... To me it is inexcusable that Blount and Raef fare so poorly on defense and rebounding. I think once again, to sound like a broken record, it is coaching.
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Dec 28, 2005 0:26:59 GMT -5
Actually, its not just Blount and Raef. Pierce and Ricky aren't doing that good defensively either. The team in general lacks the feel for defense.
|
|