Post#195 » by SensiBull » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:37 am
I want to address the idea that the outcome of the Boston series is my sole determining factor for who we draft, and the related point that the outcome of the Boston series should have nothing to do with who we draft.
I don't think that it should be the sole determining factor, but our ability to get into the playoffs with a late-season burst, and then to be able to make a real series of it, has effected everyone's notion of how successful this team can be, as well as the viability of the model that was employed to achieve that.
I dare say that, had we missed the playoffs, we'd probably all be talking about gutting the team save Rose. I also dare say that, if not for the fact that the series played out more like a four seed versus a five see (rather than the steam rolling that the two seed and seven seed seemed more inclined to be) we'd be talking more about cashing some of these players with expiring contracts in for draft picks, a la Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry's now infamous sign-and-trade moves for cash, picks and fledgling players.
For some reason, this board is relatively void of any such discussion, and I think that's largely because we as a fan base have been convinced that something about this team we just witnessed largely works, and I think, whether admitted or not, the competitiveness of the Boston series is the source of that confidence.
Perhaps that's misguided. Perhaps the sole reason that the series was so competitive was the absence of Kevin Garnett, but, although somewhat less noteworthy, it's worth mentioning that Deng Was out too. Certainly those factors don't completely neutralize each other. Garnett is clearly the better, but we're not the chumps I suspect we would have made ourselves out to be had the Boston series been so competitive, and that's difference between drafting someone to address a specific need, versus re-modelling the team identity in some significant way.
So, to me, the outcome of the Boston series has everything to do with who we draft. I really don't think it's deniable. It is, however, not the sole determing factor in who we pick, and characterizing my views in this way misrepresents them.
Defending the three point threat is an interesting charateristic of team play, and the notion that Ray Allen would have had to be series MVP is just the second in what appears to be a forming pattern of stratospherically unrealistic standards that my proposals have to meet in order to justify simple consideration of what is really only a practical issues (like suggesting thata the #16 pick has to be equal in production to Ben Gordon to be the right pick).
Ray Allen doesn't have to have been the series MVP to merit additional defensive attention, and ignoring a 51-point performance from him in Game 6 to set such a standard is really splitting hairs. It really smacks of opposition for opposition's sake, to be honest.
That the nearly all of our floor time at both guard positions goes to players who are 6'3" or less is a well documented concern on the defensive end. I don't think I'm breaking new ground to make that observation. I fail to see the controversy.
The loss of Ben Gordon is a real possibility. Adding a player like DeJuan Blair might help if we had the opportunity to get a do-over next year, but there is a strong possibility that the team we bring back next year won't look anything like the one we brought last year if that happens.
The thing about the three point threat is exactly that, that is, that is's a threat. Splitting hairs about the total points produced is like some small unarmed nation calling America's nuclear arsenal more dangerous than Russias, simply because America has more. The reality is that either one could wipe you off the map, and it's the threat of destruction, not just the actual missile count itself, that poses the danger and alters the course of the plans of other nations.
By proposing the drafting of a Terrence Williams, I am simply suggesting that having a starting guard who, like Gordon, has a three point threat, we keep a dimension to our offense that might otherwise be lost. Terrence Williams doesn't have to be equal in total production, and Ray Allen doesn't have to be series MVP, and Israel and Palestine don't have to first settle their differences, and the world doesn't have to replant lost South American rain forest territory first, or whatever other lofty, fictitious pre-requisite standards might further be suggested, before this becomes a legitimate concerns.
But if Terrence Williams isn't the right player, that could be true. I'm open to hearing some valid arguments as to why that's the case.
Everbody doesn't have to agree with me.
http://www.un.org/en/peace/"While people are saying, "There is
peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them ..., and they will not escape." - 1 Thess 5:2-3
