GP on KHTK in a little bit

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

While you did mention you wanted up to trade up from the R. Robertson slot in '99, the greater debate was about Petrie moving up in general and the players you had mentioned earlier came from a number of years. For many of the players and years other than '99-'00 the Kings did not have secound round picks as they were thrown into other deals. Unless your suggesting that Petrie should have traded those 99'/'00 picks for a second rounder 4-5 years later to get Monta Ellis. In that case I will concede that Petrie's scouting of 7th-8th graders leaves a lot to be desired.

Quit trying to intentionally misconstrue my argument. I'm not saying that Petrie should have known in 2000 who was going to be a good player available in the second round in 2004. I am saying that I don't think it's unreasonable that Petrie should have known (or had a good idea) in 2000 who was going to be a good player available in 2001, and planned accordingly.

I actually don't sweat Ellis so much, because that year our pick went to Boston in payment for the Songaila trade. But, unless I'm mistaken, Utah drafted Paul Milsap using the pick they got from us in the Keon Clark trade... why did we make that trade again?

He might not have known in 2000 who was going to pan out in 2006, but by 2004, he should have had an idea...

1 - No need to do any homework for me. We were never discussing if role players ever got drafted in the second roung. This started as a discussion about getting real impact players like Arenas, Ellis and Redd.

Uh, no. I am responsible for this thread hijack, and I'm quite certain that my foray into this thread consisted of the words "solid NBA players," not "impact players." I started mentioning those players only because it was intimated that Oz rarely, if ever made mistakes, and since he's only taken one "bust" in the first round, it doesn't count, as if you can't expect to get good players in the second round. My contention was that you could, and that we didn't.

Looking at it another way, in 2001, Oz traded the 29th pick in the draft to Atlanta for, from my point of view, no good reason. Carlos Boozer was taken 34th. Instead of wasting a first-rounder on Atlanta, we should have just kept it and taken Boozer. Now, technically, Oz still has a chance to redeem himself, since we're still owed a "future" first-rounder from Atlanta... But, as they appear to be a team on the rise, I'm not holding my breath. I don't know what the statute of limitations is on that pick, but their pick may not even be as good as ours by the time they give it to us.

Something tells me you still would not be singing Petrie's praises on this subject if he had traded up to get Earl Watson, Ryan Hollins or some of the other guys on this appended list. That list is highly dissapointing as it is, most of those are fringe role players or rotation players for team worse than us. I can see the headline for Petrie's firing now: "Geoff Petrie fired by Kings for failing to trade multiple second round picks he didn't have to acquire Dan Gadzuric to sit on the bench like he does for the Bucks, a worse team in a worse conference.

Right, 'cause who the hell needs a career 7.5 point, 4.5 assist, defensive backup point guard that's been a proven rotation player (and even starter) in this league?

Your definition of "fringe role players" is highly dubious. I named nine guys in my last post. Six of them either are right now, or have in the recent past, proven to be starters and/or top-seven rotation players on playoff teams. Who needs guys like that, right?

2 - You are right. I was using NBADraft.net and their formatting for the 1998 draft only listed draft night trades, not previous player trades which netted second round picks. That was a mistake on my part. However, if that counts, Petrie did get a 2nd round pick in the Bibby trade which is essentially the same thing as this.

That remains to be seen.

3 - While I get the final point you are trying to make, it is still a sophistry. Yes, pointing out that other GMs have made mistakes does not mitigate another GM of his responsibilities. However, I also feel pointing out every player a GM did not draft is not a fair indictment of his abilities.

I don't. If the average poster on KingsFans appeared to think the Petrie were an average GM, then I might. But that's not how it appears to me. From my point of view, it appears as though the average poster on KingsFans considers Petrie to be the Great and Powerful Oz. To me, when you're considered elite, you get held to a different standard. I don't hold Oz to the same standard of Isaiah Thomas, I hold him to the standard of RC Buford, of Joe Dumars, of (God help me) Mitch Kupchak. Saying that "Joe Dumbass GM screwed up, too, so Petrie must be okay" doesn't cut it with me. Like I said before, what other GM's do is of little consequence to me and, in my opinion, holds little to no bearing on what Petrie does/should do.

 

[BMiller52]

I'm sure he's talking about Gallinari. I'm sure Geoff isn't real excited about the draft, it's really a lame draft IMO and we got a lame pick (for a rebuilding team.) I'm praying for a miracle in the lottery.

I really hope Spencer gets more PT next year, I think he's ready for 20-25+ mpg. Trading Brad would be a good idea, doubt we'll get much for him but anything with a shorter contract would be nice or maybe equal contract but with a prospect/draft pick thrown in.

I think Brad has decent value. He put up 13/9/4/1blk and he still has a couple more good years left in him while only 2 more years on the contract.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I think Brad has decent value. He put up 13/9/4/1blk and he still has a couple more good years left in him while only 2 more years on the contract.

At Brad's age/stage of career, his performance can take a permanent nose dive at any point.

 

[VF21]

...If the average poster on KingsFans appeared to think the Petrie were an average GM, then I might. But that's not how it appears to me. From my point of view, it appears as though the average poster on KingsFans considers Petrie to be the Great and Powerful Oz.

Actually I think the average poster here simply thinks Petrie has done a fair job. But when people go to great lengths to post his shortcomings, others feel somewhat honor bound, I think, to go the other direction. Yes, there are those who think Petrie is all that and a bag of chips but there were those who thought the same about SAR, too. I don't think either represent the vast majority of our members.

My biggest complaint about this kind of argument is that hindsight is always 20/20. It's really easy to sit here years down the road and look back and realize Petrie could have done better. But it's always just hypothetical, right?

Look at Kevin Martin. If he wouldn't have turned out, Petrie would be taking a lot of heat over his selection. BUT he did turn out and Petrie's gamble (which IMHO is what the draft generally is anyway) bore fruit.

I look at the draft as a "no guts, no glory" proposition, especially once you get past the first few players. I'd just as soon see Petrie reach for those Peja Stojakovics or Kevin Martins. If they do work out, the rewards are a whole lot of fun.

 

[bajaden]

At Brad's age/stage of career, his performance can take a permanent nose dive at any point.

Thats why its important to deal him now, while he has value. Good centers are always in demand. I'm sure Dallas would rather have Miller than Dampier. Would you trade Miller straight across for Dampier? I wouldn't. This is all subjective of course, but a person needs put on the glasses of another team as much as possible.
My point is, that we see our own team members up close and personal on an almost daily basis. We know where all the warts are located, and sometimes we exaggerate those deficiencies as well as the good things. I think that blurrs our vision a little. Thus we tend to undervalue or overvalue. In this case I think your undervaluing Miller.

 

[VF21]

Brad's contract will expire in 2010, which is good reason to keep him around to mentor Hawes and provide veteran experience just long enough to make sure Spencer is capable of filling the role.

This idea that you always have to move someone while their value is up is okay IF there's a reason to do so. It's generally because their contract is going to last longer than their worth. In the case of Miller, I don't think that's necessarily true. Trading someone in anticipation of their eventual decline just doesn't always seem to be the right solution.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Thats why its important to deal him now, while he has value. Good centers are always in demand. I'm sure Dallas would rather have Miller than Dampier. Would you trade Miller straight across for Dampier? I wouldn't. This is all subjective of course, but a person needs put on the glasses of another team as much as possible.
My point is, that we see our own team members up close and personal on an almost daily basis. We know where all the warts are located, and sometimes we exaggerate those deficiencies as well as the good things. I think that blurrs our vision a little. Thus we tend to undervalue or overvalue. In this case I think your undervaluing Miller.

Yea, of course that's why it's important to deal him now, but other teams are aware of this tendency in older players as well. Chances of him stayin at this level of production are slim.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Quit trying to intentionally misconstrue my argument. I'm not saying that Petrie should have known in 2000 who was going to be a good player available in the second round in 2004. I am saying that I don't think it's unreasonable that Petrie should have known (or had a good idea) in 2000 who was going to be a good player available in 2001, and planned accordingly.

No one is trying to misconstrue your argument. The key word there was "unless." You did originally name players from a wide variety of years.

I actually don't sweat Ellis so much, because that year our pick went to Boston in payment for the Songaila trade. But, unless I'm mistaken, Utah drafted Paul Milsap using the pick they got from us in the Keon Clark trade... why did we make that trade again?

Financial reasons. That was around the time the Maloofs went into serious cost cutting mode. We traded Clark and two second rounders for one second rounder.

Uh, no. I am responsible for this thread hijack, and I'm quite certain that my foray into this thread consisted of the words "solid NBA players," not "impact players." I started mentioning those players only because it was intimated that Oz rarely, if ever made mistakes, and since he's only taken one "bust" in the first round, it doesn't count, as if you can't expect to get good players in the second round. My contention was that you could, and that we didn't.

Looking at it another way, in 2001, Oz traded the 29th pick in the draft to Atlanta for, from my point of view, no good reason. Carlos Boozer was taken 34th. Instead of wasting a first-rounder on Atlanta, we should have just kept it and taken Boozer. Now, technically, Oz still has a chance to redeem himself, since we're still owed a "future" first-rounder from Atlanta... But, as they appear to be a team on the rise, I'm not holding my breath. I don't know what the statute of limitations is on that pick, but their pick may not even be as good as ours by the time they give it to us

Considering out pick was the last pick of the first round, it would be tough to imagine Atlanta's first rounder being worse.

Also, to make sure I understand your point of view correctly, your argument against Petrie's track record went from 3 Wahads for every Martin to he has not traded up in the second round to land a solid role player.

Right, 'cause who the hell needs a career 7.5 point, 4.5 assist, defensive backup point guard that's been a proven rotation player (and even starter) in this league?

Your definition of "fringe role players" is highly dubious. I named nine guys in my last post. Six of them either are right now, or have in the recent past, proven to be starters and/or top-seven rotation players on playoff teams. Who needs guys like that, right?

Ok, let's review the players' Petrie should have traded up for.

Daniel Gibson - given, good young rotation player on a playoff team
Ryan Hollins - barely even got minutes on a poor Hornets team that was playing Nazr Mohammad for 20-25 minutes a game and averaged 2 pts and 2 rbs (rounding up)
Royal Ivey - A mediocre role player for the non-playoff Hawks (where he could not get minutes over Tyron Lue) and Bucks. Had a career year this season averaging 5 points and 3 assists (rounding way up)
Chris Duhon - Decent, but questionable, career 38% shooter, who according to ESPN "reportedly missed multiple team events due to his love of the nightlife -- including a film session before Game 3 of the Detroit series (according to the Chicago Sun-Times) -- and that had Chicago pursuing trade options after the season."
Luke Walton - given, decent role player for a good team
Dan Gadzuric - His best season he averaged 7 and 5 for a team that was 30-52 in the Eastern Conference. That was his peak. He was never a good player. Now in his 6th season he rotted on the bench for one of the worst teams in the Eastern Conference.
Luis Scola - forein player, your position was about scouting American players, disqualified from list
Earl Watson - I actually like Watson and played against him a few times at UCLA. On the fence with this one, since he's a terrible shooter who has struggled to get a starting job over Luke Ridenour for one of the worst teams in the league.
Eddie House - He is a role player for a playoff team, a playoff team who's widely known weakness is that outside of their top 3 (maybe 4 now with Rondo), their role players are terrible. On a team desperate for role players, he's played less than 5 minutes a game in the playoffs.

So that gives us maybe 3 players who are even decent role players right now. Not a scintillating list. And considering again, that we haven't had many second round picks to be trading away, the only way we could have traded up to get these guys would be by trading first round picks or players. Since no one is giving us picks for the guys we want to trade Miller, KT, etc. The only way to trade up for these guys would be by trading future first round picks or our young guys like Martin, Garcia, etc. Unless you have another suggestion, I would consider those a downgrade.

That remains to be seen.

Who we draft remains to be seen. That Petrie made the move is already a given.

I don't. If the average poster on KingsFans appeared to think the Petrie were an average GM, then I might. But that's not how it appears to me. From my point of view, it appears as though the average poster on KingsFans considers Petrie to be the Great and Powerful Oz. To me, when you're considered elite, you get held to a different standard. I don't hold Oz to the same standard of Isaiah Thomas, I hold him to the standard of RC Buford, of Joe Dumars, of (God help me) Mitch Kupchak. Saying that "Joe Dumbass GM screwed up, too, so Petrie must be okay" doesn't cut it with me. Like I said before, what other GM's do is of little consequence to me and, in my opinion, holds little to no bearing on what Petrie does/should do.

No one has ever stated that Petrie is some kind of omnipotent God. However, I do think he is in the upper echleon of NBA GMs. Buford, Dumars, and Kupchack passed on many if not all of the same players you have been mentioning. They have not been aggressive in trading for more second round picks. I am not looking to criticize these three because I think they have all done a nice job, but they are far from flawless.

Dumars has done nicely, but if Petrie had drafted Darko instead of Carmello, Bosh and Wade I am sure you would be calling him out worse than you are for not trading up for a better secound round pick. I am sure we can also compile a list of all the players Dumars did not draft as well.

Buford blindly stumbled into Duncan, made two awesome picks in Parker and Manu and has botched any number of other free agent signings and draft picks. And again, we could pretty easily list the players he did not draft or trade up for.

Kupchack inhereted Kobe Bryant and was so miserable for the beggining of his tenure that he had Kobe demanding a trade and Lakers fans calling for his head. Again, if Petrie had traded away Caron Butler for Kwame Brown, there would be posts complaining about that every day. He made a couple of nice value picks in Byunm and Farmar in particular, but again, if you want me to start a list, I can start naming all of his botched moves and the players he did not draft or trade up for.

The other irony of this list is that 2 of the 3 GMs you named, came into their position already inheriting 2 of the best players in the history of the NBA. They have hardly built a team from the ground up.

So if you want to compare Petrie against these guys, what is the standard? As I have said before, blindly point to players we did not draft or did not trade up for is not a realistic way to bash a GM as it can very easily be done for every GM in the NBA including the 3 you named.

 

[bajaden]

Brad's contract will expire in 2010, which is good reason to keep him around to mentor Hawes and provide veteran experience just long enough to make sure Spencer is capable of filling the role.

This idea that you always have to move someone while their value is up is okay IF there's a reason to do so. It's generally because their contract is going to last longer than their worth. In the case of Miller, I don't think that's necessarily true. Trading someone in anticipation of their eventual decline just doesn't always seem to be the right solution.

If the team thinks he has more value as a mentor, fine. All I'm saying, is that if the team wants to rebuild with youth, and you can trade a player that you don't see as part of the future of the team, then trade him while he has the most value you can get for him. My premise has nothing to do with length of contract. It has to do with value.

Old teams get older by hanging on to the glory days of the past too long. Which is happening to Dallas right now, and could happen to the Spur's if their not careful.

I just had another thought, and its not meant to be critical, but if Miller would be such a good mentor, why then do we need a big mans coach? Just thinking out loud.

 

[Bricklayer]

You don't need a $12 million mentor. EVER.

And when that mentor could maybe bring you back something of value, rather than sit around and steal minutes from his "protege", its a no brainer. As has been mentioned before I am also not sure that there is anything that Brad can teach that iw ant Hawes to learn. If anything he threatens to be a bad influence on him. Spencer already has passing instincts -- and you don't teach instincts anyway. And I don't want him learning any of Brad's defense or jump shooting. Or woe is me I'm being picked on whining to refs for that matter.

A coach would be a good idea. An overpaid impediemnt to Spencer's development, not so. What Spencer needs now is to get out on the court, stay on the court, take his lumps, and learn his lessons the hard way.

 

[bajaden]

You don't need a $12 million mentor. EVER.

And when that mentor could maybe bring you back something of value, rather than sit around and steal minutes from his "protege", its a no brainer. As has been mentioned before I am also not sure that there is anything that Brad can teach that iw ant Hawes to learn. If anything he threatens to be a bad influence on him. Spencer already has passing instincts -- and you don't teach instincts anyway. And I don't want him learning any of Brad's defense or jump shooting. Or woe is me I'm being picked on whining to refs for that matter.

A coach would be a good idea. An overpaid impediemnt to Spencer's development, not so. What Spencer needs now is to get out on the court, stay on the court, take his lumps, and learn his lessons the hard way.

Sorry. I left the 12 mil out. Expensive coach..

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

No one has ever stated that Petrie is some kind of omnipotent God. However, I do think he is in the upper echleon of NBA GMs. Buford, Dumars, and Kupchack passed on many if not all of the same players you have been mentioning. They have not been aggressive in trading for more second round picks. I am not looking to criticize these three because I think they have all done a nice job, but they are far from flawless.

Dumars has done nicely, but if Petrie had drafted Darko instead of Carmello, Bosh and Wade I am sure you would be calling him out worse than you are for not trading up for a better secound round pick. I am sure we can also compile a list of all the players Dumars did not draft as well.

Buford blindly stumbled into Duncan, made two awesome picks in Parker and Manu and has botched any number of other free agent signings and draft picks. And again, we could pretty easily list the players he did not draft or trade up for.

Kupchack inhereted Kobe Bryant and was so miserable for the beggining of his tenure that he had Kobe demanding a trade and Lakers fans calling for his head. Again, if Petrie had traded away Caron Butler for Kwame Brown, there would be posts complaining about that every day. He made a couple of nice value picks in Byunm and Farmar in particular, but again, if you want me to start a list, I can start naming all of his botched moves and the players he did not draft or trade up for.

The other irony of this list is that 2 of the 3 GMs you named, came into their position already inheriting 2 of the best players in the history of the NBA. They have hardly built a team from the ground up.

So if you want to compare Petrie against these guys, what is the standard? As I have said before, blindly point to players we did not draft or did not trade up for is not a realistic way to bash a GM as it can very easily be done for every GM in the NBA including the 3 you named.

You win via forfeit.

I spent thirty-five minutes last night drafting a counter argument to this, when a power spike sent it to the big electron prairie in the sky... I told myself that I would try again after work today, with a clear head but, after re-reading this thread once again, I've decided that Petrie just isn't worth this much of my time, not by half.

I do not concede a single one of your arguments. Quite frankly, I'm intransigent on the subject of Petrie, and I can't imagine that anything that you would say in response to what I would have posted would have caused me to reconsider my opinion, anyway.

So, here are the terms of my "surrender," as it were: whenever someone praises Oz, I will hold my tongue. I will continue to shake my head wearily and think you're all nuts, but I will keep my opinion to myself. I will also refrain from mentioning that, though the Emperor is not naked, that he is prone to walking around in a a g-string and a tube top these days.

Well, at least until TDOS is over...

 

[Spike]

I will also refrain from mentioning that, though the Emperor is not naked, that he is prone to walking around in a a g-string and a tube top these days.

...shudder...

Thanks for burning that image into my mind.

 

[Kingster]

Where you see "pie in the sky," I see a general manager that is reactive rather than proactive. And I don't like it the least little bit. I see a GM who either didn't adequately scout the talent, or wasn't willing to make the moves necessary to move up to get it. Petrie mortgaged our future to try and win it all between 2001-03, and that's to his credit, but he didn't have a backup plan, and now we're dealing with the aftermath of his failed gambit.

Couldn't agree more: reactive, ad hoc, never trades up, overpays. Looks good on the upward curve, terrible on the downward curve. And to extend the analogy, his downward curve is soo gradual in descent and so long that by the time he gets upward trajectory the players that are tradeable will be too old to trade.

On the positive side: he does tend to draft well. Which makes it all the more frustrating he never trades for extra #1s or trades up.

 

[LPKingsFan]

On the positive side: he does tend to draft well. Which makes it all the more frustrating he never trades for extra #1s or trades up.

More or less, yes, but the recent years haven't been especially comforting. Hawes was pretty much a no brainer once Noah was taken. And every Celtics game I see makes me more and more frustrated over the Douby pick (with Rondo available and PG very much a need).

 

[CruzDude]

Couldn't agree more: reactive, ad hoc, never trades up, overpays. Looks good on the upward curve, terrible on the downward curve. And to extend the analogy, his downward curve is soo gradual in descent and so long that by the time he gets upward trajectory the players that are tradeable will be too old to trade.

On the positive side: he does tend to draft well. Which makes it all the more frustrating he never trades for extra #1s or trades up.

Unfortunately you forget he was Executive of the year twice during that high period. So his peers thought he was the best at what he did. Hindsight is always 20-20 and I can see why he passed on Rondo for a pure shooter which is what we needed at the time.

His out-in-left-field drafts include an unknown Euro (Peja) who turned out better than ALL of us thought. And Kevin was a virtual unknown and has turned out better than any of us would have guessed, if we had known who he was. And Douby was the best available at the time. The Kings had Jason Hart and Ronnie Price at backkup PGs at the time as well and it was thought Ronnie was the heir apparent at backup PG at the time.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

More or less, yes, but the recent years haven't been especially comforting. Hawes was pretty much a no brainer once Noah was taken. And every Celtics game I see makes me more and more frustrated over the Douby pick (with Rondo available and PG very much a need).

Really, Hawes was a "no brainer." Maybe you thought he was, but if you read the posts on this board right around the draft, a number of people were pissed we drafted him.

Agree on the Rondo pick though, I wanted Rondo at the time, although I am not ready to label Douby a bust yet. But passing on Rondo could prove to be a big mistake, although, I am glad we did not take Marcus Williams. Never been a fan of his.

 

[Bricklayer]

Really, Hawes was a "no brainer." Maybe you thought he was, but if you read the posts on this board right around the draft, a number of people were pissed we drafted him.

Agree on the Rondo pick though, I wanted Rondo at the time, although I am not ready to label Douby a bust yet. But passing on Rondo could prove to be a big mistake, although, I am glad we did not take Marcus Williams. Never been a fan of his.

Hawes was absolutely a no brainer, and everybody who was using their head knew it. We were going to take whichever of the Top 10 bigs that fell to us, whether it be Noah, Wright, Yi or Spenser. Now many peopel were disappointed that we got stuck with Spenser, perhaps even Geoff included who was trying to move up until jsut before our pick. But that's nto the same thing as that pick being anything but obvious. He was the last of the true bigs, and with Julian Wright a tweener and slipping into 12-15 range before the draft, we just took who was there. If Chicago takes Spenser #9, the no brianer would have become Noah. If Noah and Spenser go #8/#9, and Wright slips, welcome Brandon Wright, Sacramento King. That was always the shtick.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Hawes was absolutely a no brainer, and everybody who was using their head knew it. We were going to take whichever of the Top 10 bigs that fell to us, whether it be Noah, Wright, Yi or Spenser. Now many peopel were disappointed that we got stuck with Spenser, perhaps even Geoff included who was trying to move up until jsut before our pick. But that's nto the same thing as that pick being anything but obvious. He was the last of the true bigs, and with Julian Wright a tweener and slipping into 12-15 range before the draft, we just took who was there. If Chicago takes Spenser #9, the no brianer would have become Noah. If Noah and Spenser go #8/#9, and Wright slips, welcome Brandon Wright, Sacramento King. That was always the shtick.

Brick, I totally understand what you are saying about Spencer being the most logical choice based upon our draft position and needs. However, you always have a choice of who you draft and the fact it, if Petrie though that Spencer would be a bust, he could have drafted Wright, Thornton, Jason Smith, etc. No matter what people think of Petrie's overall record, we can all agree that he always takes who he thinks is best and has never succomed to public opinion about who is the next logical pick (i.e. Peja over John Wallace and Douby over Rondo/Williams). Many posters on this board would have taken another player other than Hawes if they had the pick. So while I agree that Hawes was a logical pick, to call him a "no brainer" as part of an attempt to discredit Petrie's recent record (as the other poster was doing I responded to, not necessarily you) simply isn't fair.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Hawes is going to be a very solid center in the league IMO. I thought Petrie made a good choice and I couldn't blame him one bit on draft night even though I liked Wright a smidge more; Hawes wasn't a no brainer pick, but he wasn't a daring pick either. He was the last of the elite bigs of that draft.

 

[Kingster]

No matter what people think of Petrie's overall record, we can all agree that he always takes who he thinks is best and has never succomed to public opinion about who is the next logical pick (i.e. Peja over John Wallace and Douby over Rondo/Williams).

That is absolutely not true. Jason Williams. He was drafted because of NEED. There was huge pressure on Petrie to draft a pg that year, and he succumbed. He as much as said it afterwards. There were a couple of guys that he passed on - Pearce and Nowitski. And I don't believe for a nano-second that Petrie thought Williams was more talented than those two.

 

[VF21]

The fact Petrie picked Jason Williams on need does NOT contradict the statement that Petrie drafts who he thinks is best and doesn't succumb to public opinion.

If you have a quote that proves otherwise, I'd really be interested in seeing it.

 

[bajaden]

That is absolutely not true. Jason Williams. He was drafted because of NEED. There was huge pressure on Petrie to draft a pg that year, and he succumbed. He as much as said it afterwards. There were a couple of guys that he passed on - Pearce and Nowitski. And I don't believe for a nano-second that Petrie thought Williams was more talented than those two.

Petrie new that the Lakers were coveting Williams, and he also thought that Williams would be a very good player. Its OK to draft for a need, if the player you draft is someone you think will excell at that position.
Just because we needed a point guard doesn't mean that Petrie would have drafted whoever was available at that position.. I beleive that he would have passed on the pt guard position and drafted one of the other players if he felt that whoever was available at the pt wasn't a special player.

 

[kingsnation]

And every Celtics game I see makes me more and more frustrated over the Douby pick (with Rondo available and PG very much a need).

While I would love to have Rondo over Douby as well. Keep this in the back of your mind: Rondo is playing with KG, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and Sam Cassell on a 65-win team.

Douby is playing limited time with Ron Artest, Mikki Moore, a rookie coach and a team that missed the playoffs.

Switch the teams and players, and Douby just might be close to the type of player Rondo is. And Rondo's development might be just as stunted as Doubys.