June 25, 2007

I loved that Simmons column, but couldn't figure out how to make a post out of it (because I'm too lazy to find supporting links or think about anyone other than the Celtics). Most drafts I've seen have the Celtics taking Yi, but I wonder about the logic there: a small, local paper described him as a "Yao-style talent", which suggests the writer doesn't know anything about Yi and can't be arsed to find a comparison outside the player's ethnicity. I like Simmons' idea better anyway. There's no big-time center available to them in free agency or the draft, but I can't see adding another swing man. And if they trade Jefferson for KG, that will suck. No offense to KG, I just can't see how hamstringing yourself on a max salary veteran on his way down is a good idea for a team with multiple needs.

posted by yerfatma at 02:24 PM on June 25, 2007

And if they trade Jefferson for KG, that will suck. No offense to KG, I just can't see how hamstringing yourself on a max salary veteran on his way down is a good idea for a team with multiple needs. How do you feel about this potential deal?

posted by lilnemo at 05:23 PM on June 25, 2007

I meant the contract would give the Celtics two max salary guys, which would leave them with no room to add anyone else. And it's not like the team doesn't have holes to plug. How do you feel about this potential deal? I can't really tell what it is: some combination of the #5 pick, Theo Ratliff and bodies to make the numbers work for Jermaine O'Neal? I like O'Neal, and if it were for the #5 pick and salary dumps, I would be a fan, but he's not making much less than KG (and I can't tell how many years are left on his deal). At this point, my take is the best thing would be to draft Yi, sign Kirilenko and make do. Not great, but better than selling the future to just make some noise in the East for a year or two.

posted by yerfatma at 05:37 AM on June 26, 2007

Yes.

posted by yerfatma at 08:22 AM on June 26, 2007

Not great, but better than selling the future to just make some noise in the East for a year or two. But is pierce going to wait around long enough for the young guys to mature? How far away is Yi from being viable? I really don't know. I think I would take my shot now with Pierce and KG/O'neal. I guess I don't know the roster well enough to know their holes but look at Cleveland, that's Lebron and the rest is hole.

posted by tron7 at 10:30 AM on June 26, 2007

Oh damn. What's so bad about Boston anyway? I'll play for them.

posted by tron7 at 12:17 PM on June 26, 2007

I love Paul, but if that's the way it has to be, I think I'd prefer to see them move Pierce (or deal with a less-than-gruntled Pierce if nothing valuable is available) than trade the possibility of real future success for a couple of second-round exits. The trouble is, what do you get for Pierce at this point? And if you're going to trade him, is that the only deal you're going to make this off-season? Would Ainge be able to surround the kids with a veteran presence after such a deal? Would he be able to replace Pierce's scoring? In all fairness, Paul probably should have been dealt before or during last season, rather than been made to suffer through the kids growing pains. There is no way the Celtics seriously compete for the playoffs during Pierce's remaining stay.

posted by lilnemo at 02:13 PM on June 26, 2007

That could work, but Jonathan Lipnicki is too old to bring about a Celts revival. Christ that kid looks like Anthony Michael Hall already.

posted by lilnemo at 02:25 PM on June 26, 2007

Alot of these scenarios don't make sense to me. As a Pacer fan I'd glady dump JO for Odom and Bynum. What I really don't understand is the whole "Conley at #3 is way too high". Atlanta needs a PG, and they have the #3 and the #11. I see no reason whatsoever not to just draft Conley and pick up whichever SF's stock fell the most at #11, you know SOMEBODY in the Brewer/NC Wright/Kansas Wright group will be there. In fact this is probably the thing I hate the most about "draft analysis" - experts sitting around making lists, and then giving out "draft grades" based upon how closely teams matchup the "perceived value of the prospect" with the slot they're drafting. Honestly, who gives a shit? Everyone's pretending that Randolph in Portland has trade value but the dude is as flat-footed as the 45 year olds at the local ymca. He's not a franchise player, he's a poor mans shareef abdur-rahim. I could care less about Boston's plan for the draft, because they have an idiot GM and an idiot coach. They could trade for Marion and there's a lot of good reasons to do so, they could slowly trade/get rid of their bad contracts, trade Pierce for 75c on the dollar, and be stubborn like Chicago and acquire young pieces until some of them stick, and that'd work to. But none of it matters because 3 weeks after the draft there will be a new plan with a new vision anyway. Pacers traded their way out of the draft, traded their 1st for a player they then traded, traded their 2nd for a player they then cut. I don't agree with getting rid of Carlisle, especially if they're gonna get of JO anyway, and if they're gonna get rid of Carlilse why bring in his twin in O'Brien? Dunleavy (paying to much), Orien Greene, David Harrison (never gonna work out), Rawle Marshall, Keith McLeod (terrible), Troy Murphy (terrible, paying too much), and Jamall Tinsley (never gonna stay healthy), and Jermaine O'Neal (unhappy, never gonna stay healthy, can't carry a team) all need to go. Pacers have gaping holes at PG, SG, C. It's frustrating because when he has the right offensive parts around him JO is a fantastic defender at the 4. He makes sense for Phoenix in a lot of ways. I'd do a JO + Granger for Marion + Diaw + Bell in a heartbeat, but I wonder if the Suns would bite. Maybe JO for Marion + Bell otherwise.

posted by chmurray at 11:03 AM on June 27, 2007