Redrafting the 2006 Draft

Hoopsworld redrafts the 2006 draft. Where do they think players would have been picked if they knew then what we know now. Does this make the draft look like a complete crapshoot, or like there are some GMs that have a cunning eye for talent and how cheaply (i.e. not burning a high draft pick to get a player they can draft lower) they can get them?

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=20461

bob


.

Redoing the draft, Aldridge should be the top pick, and I think I'd put Rudy Gay second. Rondo is obviously a talented player who brings something special to the Celtics, but he thrives because he's on a team that has the players and system to minimize the negative impact of his shooting. Put him on a team where he'd be expected to be a primary scorer, and his perceived value would drop.

Don't get me wrong, I think he's a really good player -- top-notch defender, great athlete, fine passer, tough as nails -- but he's not a primary scorer like Aldridge. They obviously play different positions, but Aldridge is a step above as a complete player.

On a side note, I think Rondo will benefit greatly from any delay to the season from the lockout. His elbow injury was awful, and playing too soon (which he'd be likely to do) would be detrimental. I still can't believe he played after dislocating it. Man, that kid is tough. But this is an injury that may affect him the rest of his career. I hope I'm wrong. Andrew Bogut was significantly impacted last season after dislocating his elbow at the end of the 2009-10 season, although he hurt his shooting arm while Rondo hurt his "off" (left) arm. In any event, I think the additional recovery time will benefit Rondo.

Outside

Outside

gonna dis a little IMHO players like Aldridge ar e bit easier to find than a top flight PG with a pass first mentality.

Plus he has never been asked to be a primary scorer and few point guards are expected to be.

Yeah the C's have people for him to pass to, but I think he would make any teams shooters better. ( some teams are a bit better than others) but put any good player in a good situation and they should thrive.

Can't remember the coach that said it but when asked about his teams outside shooting he said something like this.....

"Yeah we got some good outside shooters..........to bad all our games are played inside."

beat

These things are always a fun way to pass the time. Of course, my view is that if you are starting a team you go for a big first. I have that Rondo guy falling to #7 LOL The rap on Rondo is that he has no shot, can't even hit his foul shots. The other rap is that he is only this good because he has 3 HOFers.
Very few pgs can take over a game. The really great ones can do so. There is only one pg that can take over a game as a pass first pg who drives to the hoop. That pg is Rondo. The other elite pgs are great shooters who can also dish the ball. No doubt in my mind that Rondo would excel where ever he went. Why? Because of his mind set. He has the mind set to be the best and he works hard to improve, just like all great players. One thing I remember from the draft is that Rondo was the first real pg taken. He sure is #1 with me.

Outside,

Is Aldridge a more complete player? Only if assists are a non-factor and there's no credit given for elevating the play of the other players on the floor with him. Unless you are an amazing scorer like Kobe and MJ (to name just two), primary scorers can be shut down. To maintain their effectiveness as primaries, you need other players to step up and siphon off some of the defensive pressure and that's where a pass-first pg comes in. Is Rondo more effective because he plays with 3 future HOFers? Of course, however, the nature of his game would elevate even mediocre players' games and could make good players into all-stars (or, at least, improve their stats so they'd be a legitimate consideration). I absolutely concur with what you said about his injury, his toughness and how this lockout might be the best thing for his career.

Mulcogiseng,

How are you doing?

I'd have to put Steve Nash at the top of that list. A pass-first pg who cannot be left alone. Quite frankly, I'd put Nash ahead of Rondo for that reason, but I wouldn't build a team around Nash now because of his age. When Nash was Rondo's age, that's a different story. One advantage Rondo has over Nash is his defense. Nash is not a good defender. Feisty, but not willing to "give it up" on the defensive end. That's because he's a maestro on the offensive end and is confident he can "get it back" once the ball is in his hands. The good news is that Rondo's outside shooting improved last year, thanks to the work put in by him and shooting coach Mark Price last summer. Unfortunately, he's still thinking way too much on his free throws. So, the opportunity for Rondo's shooting to improve to the point where he's as lethal as Nash on the offensive end and vastly superior on the defensive end, is still something we can hope for in years to come.

Caveat: this assumes there isn't permanent damage to his elbow, which I truly fear given the severity of the injury.

bob

.

Bob,

Whatever term we choose to use -- "complete," "better," "more valuable," or whatever -- yes, I'd pick Aldridge over Rondo. Caveats apply -- comparing a point guard and power forward is apples to oranges, the particular needs of the team drafting would be a huge consideration -- but overall, I'd pick Aldridge, without a doubt.

A big part of my thinking is that Boston is the absolute best situation for Rondo, by far. His skills are exactly what Boston needs, and his lack of shooting isn't a problem. I cannot think of another team where he would fit so well, and a corollary of that is that he wouldn't fit as well on most other teams. Their games are totally different, but the situation that comes to mind is Trevor Ariza, who was fourth or fifth as an offensive option every time he stepped onto the floor with the Lakers and struggled terribly in Houston when expected to be one of the top scorers. With the Lakers, Ariza was a great young talent on the rise to a bright future, but he had his limitations exposed and lost a lot of the luster off that future when forced into a prominent role in Houston. I would see the same thing happening to Rondo if he were to go elsewhere.

With Aldridge, however, I can't think of a team where he wouldn't fit, with the only scenario being a team that already has a top-level power forward. And he's become a player able to thrive in that prominent role. Consider his per-game stats from last season:

21.8 points, 14th in the league
8.8 rebounds, 14th in the league
50.0% FG on the 8th-most attempts in the league
79.1% FT on the 17th-most attempts in the league
2.1 assists
1.0 steals
1.2 blocks
1.9 turnovers

Here are stats for Rondo:

10.6 points
4.4 rebounds
47.5 FG%
56.8 FT%
11.2 assists, 2nd in the league
2.3 steals, 2nd in the league
0.2 blocks
3.4 turnovers, 7th most in the league

Defense doesn't lend itself to stats, and that is an area that Rondo clearly has an advantage. But if I look for an area of Aldridge's game where I could say, "he stinks," all I can come up with is three-point shooting, whereas with Rondo, I can point to all outside shooting, free throws, and turnovers. (I did a query on players with at least 50 games and 20 minutes per game, and Rondo was 9th worst in free-throw percentage, and one of those worse than Rondo was Bogut, who was 62.9% the season before but shot 44.2% after he hurt his elbow.) Rondo's steals, assists, overall defense, and ability to run a team are all excellent, but his weaknesses are just too glaring to put him above Aldridge.

Rondo's a Celtic and is going to get the love here, as he should. I'm not a Rondo hater; I really do like him. But given all the caveats and general nature of the "who would you pick first now" question, I'd go with Aldridge.

Outside

Outside wrote:Bob,

Whatever term we choose to use -- "complete," "better," "more valuable," or whatever -- yes, I'd pick Aldridge over Rondo. Caveats apply -- comparing a point guard and power forward is apples to oranges, the particular needs of the team drafting would be a huge consideration -- but overall, I'd pick Aldridge, without a doubt.

A big part of my thinking is that Boston is the absolute best situation for Rondo, by far. His skills are exactly what Boston needs, and his lack of shooting isn't a problem. I cannot think of another team where he would fit so well, and a corollary of that is that he wouldn't fit as well on most other teams. Their games are totally different, but the situation that comes to mind is Trevor Ariza, who was fourth or fifth as an offensive option every time he stepped onto the floor with the Lakers and struggled terribly in Houston when expected to be one of the top scorers. With the Lakers, Ariza was a great young talent on the rise to a bright future, but he had his limitations exposed and lost a lot of the luster off that future when forced into a prominent role in Houston. I would see the same thing happening to Rondo if he were to go elsewhere.

With Aldridge, however, I can't think of a team where he wouldn't fit, with the only scenario being a team that already has a top-level power forward. And he's become a player able to thrive in that prominent role. Consider his per-game stats from last season:

21.8 points, 14th in the league
8.8 rebounds, 14th in the league
50.0% FG on the 8th-most attempts in the league
79.1% FT on the 17th-most attempts in the league
2.1 assists
1.0 steals
1.2 blocks
1.9 turnovers

Here are stats for Rondo:

10.6 points
4.4 rebounds
47.5 FG%
56.8 FT%
11.2 assists, 2nd in the league
2.3 steals, 2nd in the league
0.2 blocks
3.4 turnovers, 7th most in the league

Defense doesn't lend itself to stats, and that is an area that Rondo clearly has an advantage. But if I look for an area of Aldridge's game where I could say, "he stinks," all I can come up with is three-point shooting, whereas with Rondo, I can point to all outside shooting, free throws, and turnovers. (I did a query on players with at least 50 games and 20 minutes per game, and Rondo was 9th worst in free-throw percentage, and one of those worse than Rondo was Bogut, who was 62.9% the season before but shot 44.2% after he hurt his elbow.) Rondo's steals, assists, overall defense, and ability to run a team are all excellent, but his weaknesses are just too glaring to put him above Aldridge.

Rondo's a Celtic and is going to get the love here, as he should. I'm not a Rondo hater; I really do like him. But given all the caveats and general nature of the "who would you pick first now" question, I'd go with Aldridge.

Outside

outside,

well thought out, as usual. That's why I so look forward to reading your posts.

As far as Rondo being the #4 shooter, it's easy to stack a roster with shooters and runners. It's not so easy to find a player who will deliver the ball where they like it and that will reward them for their running. The assumption that Rondo's weakness as a shooter on another team will be revealed assumes that he'll be expected to shoot more on another team. I believe what would happen is that the other players on the team will work harder and run more precisely because they know Rondo wants to get them the ball. And if there aren't enough shooters on the team when Rondo gets there, it will only take one offseason or trading deadline, to supplement that corps.

As far as Rondo's turnovers being the 7th in the league, I call that a plus. Why? Because he's 2nd in the league in assists and a key stat, especially for players that handle the ball more, is assist-to-turnover ratio. That's one area where the pg to pf comparison falls short. It's not about total assists, of course Rondo will have more than Aldridge, it's what price does the team pay for those assists? How many times does he turn it over?

Here are the assist-to-turnover ratios for top players, against their peers, per 36mpg, last season.

Aldridge 1.7:1.5 ====> 1.13:1
KG 2.8:1.9 ====> 1.47:1
Boozer 2.8:2.9 (by far the worst of his career,his career avg is 2.7:2.5) ====> .97:1
Gasol 3.2:1.7 ====> 1.9:1 (Outstanding for a PF!)

Rondo 10.8:3.3 ===> 3.27:1
Rose 7.4:3.3 ====> 2.24:1
Nash 12.3:3.8 ===> 3.24:1
Westbrook 8.5:4.0 ====> 2.13:1

FG%
Rondo ===> 47.5%
Rose ===> 44.5%
Nash ===> 49.2% (Phenomenal!)
Westbrook ===> 44.2%

Do Rondo's peers shoot more from outside, diluting their fg%? Absolutely, but I find it hard to disapprove of layups, and layups are why Rondo's shooting percentage is so good. Ask any coach if he'd mind if his pg took the ball to the iron on a regular basis and I'll bet the overwhelming response would be "Are you kidding me? I'd love it!"

Aldridge ===> 50.0%
KG ===> 52.8%
Boozer ===> 51.0%
Gasol ===> 52.9%

My point in this exercise, Outside, is to point out how Rondo stacks up against his exemplary All-Star peers vs how Aldridge stacks up against his. You were quite right in pointing out that comparing the two positions is tenous at best. While Aldridge holds his own in many counts, Rondo excels against his two equally young competitors, Rose and Westbrook, and struggles only against the former NBA MVP and 1st ballot lock for the HOF Nash (and he doesn't even struggle too badly there either). And as you pointed out, defensive stats are less available and less revealing. Rondo, as a 3x NBA All-Defense player (2x 1st team, 1x 2nd team in just 4 years in the league) is much superior to all of his peers, including one of my favorite players in the league, that sneaky little Canadian, Nash.

bob

.

Bob,

You make a good case for Rondo. The only thing I'll quibble with is leaving out some point guards from your assist-to-turnover ratio comparison.

Chris Paul 9.8:2.2 ===> 4.45:1
Jose Calderon 8.9:2.2 ===> 4.05:1
Jason Kidd 8.2:2.2 ===> 3.73
Deron Williams 12.8:3.6 ===> 3.35:1

But your point is still valid that the high turnovers can be an acceptable cost for the benefit of high assists.

I guess the upshot is that, if you and I were the first two GMs in this do-over draft, it wouldn't matter who was first because we'd both get our guy. And even if I took Rondo and you took Aldridge, we'd both wind up happy.

Outside

On the right team Rondo can be a "better" player than Aldridge. On most teams Aldridge would probably be a better choice.

Considering how early in the draft it was, most teams (assuming they are bad since they got to pick so early) would probably be better off getting Aldridge, he would fit better into their team (or lack of team).

Outside wrote:Bob,

You make a good case for Rondo. The only thing I'll quibble with is leaving out some point guards from your assist-to-turnover ratio comparison.

Chris Paul 9.8:2.2 ===> 4.45:1
Jose Calderon 8.9:2.2 ===> 4.05:1
Jason Kidd 8.2:2.2 ===> 3.73
Deron Williams 12.8:3.6 ===> 3.35:1

But your point is still valid that the high turnovers can be an acceptable cost for the benefit of high assists.

I guess the upshot is that, if you and I were the first two GMs in this do-over draft, it wouldn't matter who was first because we'd both get our guy. And even if I took Rondo and you took Aldridge, we'd both wind up happy.

Outside

outside,

I just grabbed the first top pgs I thought of, but you have pointed out there are others. I'm not sure how I forgot about CP3. Still, Rondo's still in the top tier of pgs, just not alone at the top. Is Aldridge in the top tier of 4s?

I disagree with your final point though. If I picked first, I'd take Aldridge. Then, I'd trade him to you for the #2 pick (which would be Rondo) and another draft pick and/or player. It worked once for Red, when he traded the #1 pick in the draft to GSW for the #3 pick and Robert Parish. That #3 pick was Kevin McHale. Maybe lightning will strike twice. :-)

bob


.

Bob,
I continue to struggle with my health, Had to close my center in tucson cuz it was just too hot but Im feeling much better this week with the cooler temps and esp the rain. thanx

Steve Nash is awesome and certainly a much better shot now then when he first entered the league. But didn't we exclude Canadians from this conversation? lol If I had to choose between the two of them given the disparity in their ages Id pick Rondo all day long. But expect Nash to play well for a couple of more years. He has that mind set and as long as he does he will be dangerous. Rondo won't even hit his prime for a couple more years and he is still getting better in ever facet of his game except those pesky foul shots and that has to be a product of his huge hands, dontchathink?

mulcogiseng wrote:Bob,
I continue to struggle with my health, Had to close my center in tucson cuz it was just too hot but Im feeling much better this week with the cooler temps and esp the rain. thanx

Steve Nash is awesome and certainly a much better shot now then when he first entered the league. But didn't we exclude Canadians from this conversation? lol If I had to choose between the two of them given the disparity in their ages Id pick Rondo all day long. But expect Nash to play well for a couple of more years. He has that mind set and as long as he does he will be dangerous. Rondo won't even hit his prime for a couple more years and he is still getting better in ever facet of his game except those pesky foul shots and that has to be a product of his huge hands, dontchathink?

mulcogiseng,

I'm very sorry to hear about your continuing health issues. I trust you are doing whatever is necessary to improve it. Your health is your most important personal asset. Perhaps a change of location...?

Nash motors at just the right speed. He doesn't try to fly down the court like the way many players do, he goes down at just the right speed for his teammates to be in position to finish the play. He's far from blindingly fast, never was, but he has a very quick crossover dribble that enables him to penetrate in the halfcourt.

Another great example of why basketball is NOT about who can run faster or jump higher.

I saw improvements in Rondo's outside shooting last season. I cringed when I saw him run down the clock and try a "hero ball", but I suppose I should be grateful that he's not afraid to take them. Now that he's made his point and we know that, he should stop taking them. I think his problem at the free throw line now is less about technique (there have been some improvements there, ergo the improvement in his shooting) and more about that he's thinking too much. Watch Ray. He doesn't think when he's at the line. He's all about "his drill". He lines up his feet, looks at the hoop, does his little practice "swish" or two, and then asks for the ball and does the same thing everytime. When Rondo's on the line he's looking around like he's running an offensive set. Too much thinking. That's my opinion, anyway.

bob

.

bob and outside

Very interesting discussion. I personally don't pay very much attention to individual stat line figures as a factor in determining the success or failure of a team. The one stat line figure that to me means the most, is the point differential between points scored and points allowed. Thats the stat number that reflects the success of the team as a whole, rather than any one particular statistic such as a players assist ranking in the league.
To make my point I will use the assist as an example. I just don't see the glorifying of the number of assist that a player gets in a game. Who cares whose pass leads to a score. The below figures cover the years 1986-87 through 2010-11, a span of 24 years (Did not include 1998-99 strike year).
Over those 24 years, only one assist leader was on a championship team-Magic in 1986-87. On the other 23 league champs, the leading assist leader for each team, ended up with a average ranking that placed them 19th out of a average of 28 teams. Only 5 players ranked in the top 10, while in those 24 years the assist leader ranked 15th or worse 17 times. At the same time, the top ranked assist leader for the each year, played on a team that had a winning percentage average that placed them 9th in the standings.
Swish

Bob,
I am thinking of a change of location. Right now it's either north to Cottonwood or Sedona, Az or east to NC near my parents. I would love to come back home to NH or even Maine near my daughter or perhaps Vt but how do I survive winter? lol Right now with my impaired immune function I need to stay in the middle, like a good Buddhist. lol

One of the things that I like about Rondo is that he can move fast or slow or somewhere in between but it always seems to be the right speed. He still makes mistakes but he improves every aspect of his game, every year. Remember when he would drive and just throw it up hoping something good would happen? He has cut those types of turnovers tremendously and now more and more makes those crazy shots he tries. You rarely see Doc going crazy on those types of drives so I am sure he is practicing them and has Doc's blessings to go for it during the games.

Ever notice how Rondo often makes a last second shot even when missing many easier attempts? I know what you mean about cringing but I love his confidence and willingness to take that last shot. Next year they will fall at an even higher percentage.

mulcogiseng wrote:Bob,
I am thinking of a change of location. Right now it's either north to Cottonwood or Sedona, Az or east to NC near my parents. I would love to come back home to NH or even Maine near my daughter or perhaps Vt but how do I survive winter? lol Right now with my impaired immune function I need to stay in the middle, like a good Buddhist. lol

One of the things that I like about Rondo is that he can move fast or slow or somewhere in between but it always seems to be the right speed. He still makes mistakes but he improves every aspect of his game, every year. Remember when he would drive and just throw it up hoping something good would happen? He has cut those types of turnovers tremendously and now more and more makes those crazy shots he tries. You rarely see Doc going crazy on those types of drives so I am sure he is practicing them and has Doc's blessings to go for it during the games.

Ever notice how Rondo often makes a last second shot even when missing many easier attempts? I know what you mean about cringing but I love his confidence and willingness to take that last shot. Next year they will fall at an even higher percentage.

mulcogiseng,

Let us know when you are moving, so we'll know why you're taking a hiatus and will look for you to return. You gotta take care of yourself first.

Confidence has never really been one of Rondo's weaknesses. Listening? Yes. Shot selection? Yes. Free throws? Yes. Confidence? No.

For what it's worth, I cringe when Pierce winds down the shot and takes a hero shot too. I'd much rather see them run a play. So my beef isn't so much with Rondo so much as I the strategy.

bob

.

bob,
they relied on Paul for so long to take a hero shot that as much as Doc preaches against it its still the strategy that gets employed. This team works best when they are aggressive and Rondo attacks so offense can flow. To hold the ball and wait for a last shot shows lack of confidence in the ability of the offense to score no matter how they do it. they should never stop attacking and that goes for the bench as well. When you play defense the way the C's do and you can still outscore your opponent, well, that is wicked kewl for us. lol

NBATV is running their old ByW bio series. Saw the shows on Cousy and Red last night along with Red Kerr and Bob Pettit. Missed the Dolph Shayes episode but will look for it and the others that they might show. Encourage all to check it out and see how the game is played when played the right way, the way Red invented and Cousy implemented it. I may have changed my mind about Rondo possibly supplanting the guy who originated the position. lol

mulcogiseng wrote:bob,
they relied on Paul for so long to take a hero shot that as much as Doc preaches against it its still the strategy that gets employed. This team works best when they are aggressive and Rondo attacks so offense can flow. To hold the ball and wait for a last shot shows lack of confidence in the ability of the offense to score no matter how they do it. they should never stop attacking and that goes for the bench as well. When you play defense the way the C's do and you can still outscore your opponent, well, that is wicked kewl for us. lol

NBATV is running their old ByW bio series. Saw the shows on Cousy and Red last night along with Red Kerr and Bob Pettit. Missed the Dolph Shayes episode but will look for it and the others that they might show. Encourage all to check it out and see how the game is played when played the right way, the way Red invented and Cousy implemented it. I may have changed my mind about Rondo possibly supplanting the guy who originated the position. lol

I agree wholeheartedly!!

bob

.

bobheckler wrote:outside,

I just grabbed the first top pgs I thought of, but you have pointed out there are others. I'm not sure how I forgot about CP3. Still, Rondo's still in the top tier of pgs, just not alone at the top. Is Aldridge in the top tier of 4s?

I disagree with your final point though. If I picked first, I'd take Aldridge. Then, I'd trade him to you for the #2 pick (which would be Rondo) and another draft pick and/or player. It worked once for Red, when he traded the #1 pick in the draft to GSW for the #3 pick and Robert Parish. That #3 pick was Kevin McHale. Maybe lightning will strike twice. :-)

bob


.

Bob,

Here's a quiz for you. The reason I didn't respond to your scenario for four days is because:

a. I couldn't stop laughing when I read it
b. I choked on my gum when I read it, had to give myself a Heimlich, and was laid up until now
c. I refused to talk to you after bringing up the worst trade in Warriors' history

Actually, it was d, I was out of town, but you can rest assured that my answer would be an impolite form of "no." Something may strike you twice, but it wouldn't be lightning.

Nice try

Outside

Outside wrote:

bobheckler wrote:outside,

I just grabbed the first top pgs I thought of, but you have pointed out there are others. I'm not sure how I forgot about CP3. Still, Rondo's still in the top tier of pgs, just not alone at the top. Is Aldridge in the top tier of 4s?

I disagree with your final point though. If I picked first, I'd take Aldridge. Then, I'd trade him to you for the #2 pick (which would be Rondo) and another draft pick and/or player. It worked once for Red, when he traded the #1 pick in the draft to GSW for the #3 pick and Robert Parish. That #3 pick was Kevin McHale. Maybe lightning will strike twice. :-)

bob


.

Bob,

Here's a quiz for you. The reason I didn't respond to your scenario for four days is because:

a. I couldn't stop laughing when I read it
b. I choked on my gum when I read it, had to give myself a Heimlich, and was laid up until now
c. I refused to talk to you after bringing up the worst trade in Warriors' history

Actually, it was d, I was out of town, but you can rest assured that my answer would be an impolite form of "no." Something may strike you twice, but it wouldn't be lightning.

Nice try

Outside

outside,

I forgot you were a Warrior fan. I didn't bring that trade up to stick my thumb in your eye, it's just a stark example of how a good horse trader can trade up. Sorry.

How about Bill Russell (the #1 pick in the draft and the leader of the NBA's second dynasty) for Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan to St. Louis?

How about Vlade Divac for the #13 pick in the 1996 draft (the same draft year as Ray Allen) who turned out to be Kobe Bryant?

How about the Suns trading the #21 pick in the 2006 draft (Rajon Rondo) for, I believe, cash?

bob

.

Bob,

I can't hold a grudge because you're a semi-Warriors fan yourself. Truth be told, I wasn't irked with you to begin with; I was just filling out my quiz list, and that's what came to mind. Sometimes it takes a while for the true winner and loser in a trade to be revealed, but I remember thinking at the time what an awful trade that Parish deal was, so even if I agreed to one of your deals, I wouldn't be the worst executive in history.

But you are right with your horse trader observation, and considering that I didn't even think of it but you came up with ideas right away, you'd be a better GM than me. I'd at least have the common sense to be leery of any trade you proposed, unlike the poor sap who agreed to that trade with Red. Red probably threw a bad deal in now and then just to make himself look fallible so that he could get someone to agree to deals he really wanted, otherwise it seems incredible that anyone would agree to any deal with him. I don't know if he was the best GM of all time, but to have excelled so completely as both a coach and GM is remarkable. You are wise to follow his lead, but please take your deals somewhere else. I'll stick with my first or second pick and avoid being a footnote to a lopsided trade.

If we ever wind up in a poker game, I can see I'm going to have to keep my eye on you.

Outside

Outside wrote:Bob,

I can't hold a grudge because you're a semi-Warriors fan yourself. Truth be told, I wasn't irked with you to begin with; I was just filling out my quiz list, and that's what came to mind. Sometimes it takes a while for the true winner and loser in a trade to be revealed, but I remember thinking at the time what an awful trade that Parish deal was, so even if I agreed to one of your deals, I wouldn't be the worst executive in history.

But you are right with your horse trader observation, and considering that I didn't even think of it but you came up with ideas right away, you'd be a better GM than me. I'd at least have the common sense to be leery of any trade you proposed, unlike the poor sap who agreed to that trade with Red. Red probably threw a bad deal in now and then just to make himself look fallible so that he could get someone to agree to deals he really wanted, otherwise it seems incredible that anyone would agree to any deal with him. I don't know if he was the best GM of all time, but to have excelled so completely as both a coach and GM is remarkable. You are wise to follow his lead, but please take your deals somewhere else. I'll stick with my first or second pick and avoid being a footnote to a lopsided trade.

If we ever wind up in a poker game, I can see I'm going to have to keep my eye on you.

Outside

outside,

IF there's a season, let's hope the Warriors start showing signs of improvement under the new ownership and coaching staffs. Lord Knows they can't do worse. I thought a couple of times they were going to have a breakout next season, only to see them regress. It'd be nice to be able to sit in my favorite bar and actually be happy with the play of the local team (one can root for them without being pleased with their play).

Did Red throw in a bad deal to look fallible? I can't think of one off-hand. Then again, I forgot about CP3 as an elite guard. Don't take it out on that "poor sap" too much, Red did it to just about everybody else too. His eye for horseflesh was unparalleled. He could see things in players nobody else could, like the way dogs can hear things we can't hear. Danny Ainge had the luxury of knowing Red, negotiating with Red (Danny was his own agent) and seeing how deals were done by Red and why. Obviously, Danny had an interest in learning this beyond just wanting to know who he's going to be playing with. IMO, watching the master at work has served him well so far as the Celtics GM.

bob

.

Bob,

If you're pointing to the Russell/MacAuley/Hagan trade as lopsided, I'd have to think twice about that.

At the time, in Russell, the Celtics were getting an untested rookie whose NBA worthiness was questioned in many quarters because of his alleged lack of offense. Moreover, Russell would have been vilified as a black in St. Louis much more overtly than in Boston, so Kerner shrewdly figured he might as well get two likely Hall-of-Famers in trade for Russ. (In fact, Rus was vilified when he did appear in St. Louis with the Celtics.)

Hagan was also untested, but he was widely considered more of a sure thing because he had the offense that Russell lacked. And Hagan wound up being a truly great Hall of Fame player.

MacAuley was nearing the end of the line. But he was plenty good enough (with Petit beside him to do the rebounding) to lend a Hall of Fame presence as center on a championship St. Louis team (and lose another championship in a double-overtime seventh game).

It is certainly fair to credit Red with amazing vision in acquiring Russell. But I don't believe even Red could foresee the heights to which Russ would climb (literally and figuratively).

A more lopsided trade could have been Red's prior trading of an Ice Capades date to Rochester so they would draft Sihugo Green instead of Russell with their #1 pick. (I wonder, if that trade were made today, whether the Ice Capades' collective salaries would have counted against the cap for salary matching purposes.) Heck, if the Royals had gotten Russell to go with guys like Oscar Robertson, Maurice Stokes, Jack Twyman, Wayne Embry and Adrian Smith, the balance of NBA power could have been a lot different from the late fifties to the mid-sixties...and the Royals might even still be in Cincinnati.

Anyway, I don't believe the Russell/Hagan/MacAuley trade (involving trading away two futue Hall-of-Famers for one future Hall-of-Famer) was nearly as lopsided as the swap of Joe Barry Carroll for Parish and McHale (trading away one decent player for two future Hall-of-Famers).

Sam

sam wrote:Bob,

If you're pointing to the Russell/MacAuley/Hagan trade as lopsided, I'd have to think twice about that.

At the time, in Russell, the Celtics were getting an untested rookie whose NBA worthiness was questioned in many quarters because of his alleged lack of offense. Moreover, Russell would have been vilified as a black in St. Louis much more overtly than in Boston, so Kerner shrewdly figured he might as well get two likely Hall-of-Famers in trade for Russ. (In fact, Rus was vilified when he did appear in St. Louis with the Celtics.)

Hagan was also untested, but he was widely considered more of a sure thing because he had the offense that Russell lacked. And Hagan wound up being a truly great Hall of Fame player.

MacAuley was nearing the end of the line. But he was plenty good enough (with Petit beside him to do the rebounding) to lend a Hall of Fame presence as center on a championship St. Louis team (and lose another championship in a double-overtime seventh game).

It is certainly fair to credit Red with amazing vision in acquiring Russell. But I don't believe even Red could foresee the heights to which Russ would climb (literally and figuratively).

A more lopsided trade could have been Red's prior trading of an Ice Capades date to Rochester so they would draft Sihugo Green instead of Russell with their #1 pick. (I wonder, if that trade were made today, whether the Ice Capades' collective salaries would have counted against the cap for salary matching purposes.) Heck, if the Royals had gotten Russell to go with guys like Oscar Robertson, Maurice Stokes, Jack Twyman, Wayne Embry and Adrian Smith, the balance of NBA power could have been a lot different from the late fifties to the mid-sixties...and the Royals might even still be in Cincinnati.

Anyway, I don't believe the Russell/Hagan/MacAuley trade (involving trading away two futue Hall-of-Famers for one future Hall-of-Famer) was nearly as lopsided as the swap of Joe Barry Carroll for Parish and McHale (trading away one decent player for two future Hall-of-Famers).

Sam

Sam,

I understand what you're saying about the Russ trade. Macauley made it somewhat easier by requesting a trade to St. Louis but he was only 28.

I'm not as sanguine about your final statement, "trading away one decent player for two future Hall-of-Famers". Just as Russ was an unknown when he was drafted, so was Joe Barry Carroll. Keven McHale was highly regarded in college, but did anybody foresee him becoming the prototypical PF of the '80s? Did anybody see him as being a first round lock for the HOF? Robert Parish was considered a disappointment at GSW. That's not his fault entirely, he was expected to carry the team, but he was averaging about 14ppg during his 4 years there (17ppg his last 2). His fg% went up after he came to Boston and his rebounding became consistently better. In other words, he became a HOFer after he joined Larry etal. This comes as no surprise to me. We know that a different team, with different players, playing a different system can make or break a player. In Parish's case it made him, but suppose he had stayed in GSW? His legacy as a team player and a member of The Big 3 would be different, of course, but would he still shine as an individual player and accumulate the credit and stats to warrant the HOF? Maybe not, and that's why the surrendering of Parish to Boston being a bad move wasn't as obvious then as it is today. Let's also remember, back then, #1 picks were extremely valuable, more so than today. Why? Well, in part because of the legacy of Joe Barry Carroll (and Olawakandi, Pervis Ellison, Danny Manning and Joe Smith. The last two were good players, but #1?).

Chris Mullin is another good example. Quite frankly, when he came out of St. Johns (the school closest to where I grew up and where I took come summer courses) I never thought he'd make it in the NBA. He was a classic tweener. Not fast enough to play 2 and not really strong enough to play 3. Slow of foot and completely earthbound. He surprised me by having a pretty darn good career, but his high points were really only in the few years that Run-TMC were together (Tim Hardaway, Mitch Richmond, Chris Mullin). Imagine if he was a Celtic? We'd be talking about him like the new Havlicek. Non-stop motion in the halfcourt, deadly shooter, tall enough to shoot over picks, full-court runner (even he wasn't leading it). A different system, with different teammates and who knows?

The story about the Ice Capades is classic. I wish I had thought of that one. I guess, though, that when you throw that into the mix the trade now becomes Macauley/Hagan/Ice Capades for Russell, which would make the deal look even less good. :-)

bob

.

Bob,

Regarding Parish, any capable player would get better going to a better situation, so of course he got better once he went to Boston (along with Bird and McHale). There's no way to know whether Parish would've been a HOFer if he'd stayed at Golden State, but odds are against it considering there have been many fine players who didn't get in because they were on bad teams. He certainly wouldn't have been able to prove himself in the playoffs like he did in Boston, which is a key aspect to a HOF career.

But I have to disagree about the trade. I liked Parish at Golden State, a lot. He was never one to carry a team, but he was such a solid performer that you didn't have to worry about that position, and you could fill in pieces around him. The problem with the Warriors at that time wasn't Parish, it was the other pieces. When the trade was announced, I couldn't understand it. Here was the deal:

Boston acquired Parish and the no. 3 pick
Golden State acquired the no. 1 pick and no. 13 pick

So from the Warriors' perspective, they were essentially trading Parish for Joe Barry Carroll and the no. 3 pick for the no. 13 pick. This would only make sense if Joe Barry was a superior talent, but he wasn't. He wasn't athletic; he was more of a "plodder." He had a nice offensive game, better than Parish, but he was a subpar rebounder, defender, and passer. I remember distinctly hoping at the time that Joe Barry would be better than I thought he would, that the Warriors were right and saw something in him that I didn't, because I really liked Parish and hated to see him go. Unfortunately, I wasn't wrong.

You can say that McHale exceeding expectations is what makes the trade look so lopsided in hindsight, and that's true to an extent, but the trade still looked lopsided at the time. Since the Warriors already had a solid performer at center, taking Joe Barry Carroll wasn't an upgrade, which leaves trading a no. 3 for a no. 13. The Celtics hitting the jackpot with McHale at no. 3 and the Warriors striking out with Rickey Brown at no. 13 makes it all the worse, but trading down 10 spots in the draft is a dumb move.

Maybe there are extenuating circumstances, like Parish being disgruntled at Golden State, but he's such a mild-mannered, team guy that I just find it hard to believe that the Warriors felt compelled to unload him.

So the net result is that I thought it was a bad trade at the time, and the McHale-Rickey Brown disparity eventually made the trade look epically lopsided. Red fleeced the Warriors, plain and simple.

How exactly did Red wind up with the no. 1 pick in that draft anyway, after finishing 61-21? I'm sure he acquired that pick from some other poor sap, since he was the best horsetrader around.

Outside

Outside wrote:Bob,

Regarding Parish, any capable player would get better going to a better situation, so of course he got better once he went to Boston (along with Bird and McHale). There's no way to know whether Parish would've been a HOFer if he'd stayed at Golden State, but odds are against it considering there have been many fine players who didn't get in because they were on bad teams. He certainly wouldn't have been able to prove himself in the playoffs like he did in Boston, which is a key aspect to a HOF career.

But I have to disagree about the trade. I liked Parish at Golden State, a lot. He was never one to carry a team, but he was such a solid performer that you didn't have to worry about that position, and you could fill in pieces around him. The problem with the Warriors at that time wasn't Parish, it was the other pieces. When the trade was announced, I couldn't understand it. Here was the deal:

Boston acquired Parish and the no. 3 pick
Golden State acquired the no. 1 pick and no. 13 pick

So from the Warriors' perspective, they were essentially trading Parish for Joe Barry Carroll and the no. 3 pick for the no. 13 pick. This would only make sense if Joe Barry was a superior talent, but he wasn't. He wasn't athletic; he was more of a "plodder." He had a nice offensive game, better than Parish, but he was a subpar rebounder, defender, and passer. I remember distinctly hoping at the time that Joe Barry would be better than I thought he would, that the Warriors were right and saw something in him that I didn't, because I really liked Parish and hated to see him go. Unfortunately, I wasn't wrong.

You can say that McHale exceeding expectations is what makes the trade look so lopsided in hindsight, and that's true to an extent, but the trade still looked lopsided at the time. Since the Warriors already had a solid performer at center, taking Joe Barry Carroll wasn't an upgrade, which leaves trading a no. 3 for a no. 13. The Celtics hitting the jackpot with McHale at no. 3 and the Warriors striking out with Rickey Brown at no. 13 makes it all the worse, but trading down 10 spots in the draft is a dumb move.

Maybe there are extenuating circumstances, like Parish being disgruntled at Golden State, but he's such a mild-mannered, team guy that I just find it hard to believe that the Warriors felt compelled to unload him.

So the net result is that I thought it was a bad trade at the time, and the McHale-Rickey Brown disparity eventually made the trade look epically lopsided. Red fleeced the Warriors, plain and simple.

How exactly did Red wind up with the no. 1 pick in that draft anyway, after finishing 61-21? I'm sure he acquired that pick from some other poor sap, since he was the best horsetrader around.

Outside

outside,

Upon re-reading my posts, I see I have given the impression that I didn't think this trade was lopsided. In fact, I believe this is one of the most lopsided trades in history. I guess this is what comes from arguing just to argue. You are correct in your assessment of the trade overall. Parish was certainly not significantly worse than Joe Barry Carroll, and the #13 for the #3? There must be more to this than meets the eye because, as you astutely point out, there's really no obvious silver lining here for GSW.

To answer your last point, Red got the #1 pick in the draft by trading Bob McAdoo (or as we called him in Boston, Bob McOO for his lack of "D") to Detroit in 1979 for M.L. Carr and the #1 and #13 first round picks in 1980. These are the two draft picks used to acquire the #3 pick and Parish from GSW in 1980. Not being a big McAdoo fan myself, I consider this to be another unbelievable feat of horsetrading by Red too. So in the final analysis the trade was, from Boston's view, McAdoo for Carr/Parish/McHale. Looks even more lopsided now, doesn't it?

bob

.