"Hill has a long ways to go"

I was rooting for Jennings or Lawson ....... but if we where gonna pick a PF why not Hansburo ......... kid is gonna be great just needs i good team like the spurs or celtics

Anybody wishing we drafted Lawson after last night?

26:25 mins, 17pts, 6ast, 4rebs, 7-13 fg, 0-2 3pt


Duhon:
31:31 mins, 3pts, 5ast, 1reb, 1-7 fg, 1-6 3pt

Hill:
1:45 mins, 0pts, 0rebs, 0-1 fg (and that was a terrible shot from a player that looked lost the short time he was out there)


That draft was so important to the 2010 plan. I'm really surprised they picked a 22 year old project with a low IQ. We needed to draft a productive player to showcase to the free agents in 2010 that we have a solid foundation.

Instead we got Jeffries (sucks), Curry (doesn't play), Chandler (sucks), Hill (doesn't play) and Douglas (mediocre at best). Only Gallo looks like he could be a decent complimentary player.

I think we might look back on this draft and view it as the main reason why the Donnie Walsh plan was a complete and utter failure.

I don't begrudge Walsh for his formula for success (Hire D'ant, clear payroll, attract a BIG time free agent like Lebron, Wade or Bosh + 1).

I do think he forgot to include DRAFT WISELY in his equation!

I was high on Eric Gordon, and I felt Lopez was a safe bet; I didn;t know much about the Italian, but after reading about him I did feel he offered the most upside-potential. However, was that the wise choice if you were following a 2010 2-year plan? I mean, would swinging for the fences on the first of two anticipated lottery selection the move? You had a tough combo guard who could score and defend, and then you had a franchise center?

Instead we opt for the Italian. I think this move works on some levels, b/c 6"10' point-fwds who can shoot and control the ball are the craze in the NBA these days. But, again, if we were to attract a Lebron, why bother taking risks?

ANYWAY, let me get back on point (b/c I do have high hopes for DG); I do think we blew it this draft, and this might be the blow that destroys the Walsh plan.

THE NUMBER ONE GOAL of last summer (and by extension that draft) was to procur our future PG (and we were lucky enough to be drafting in a PG rich draft). I'm sorry, if that means sacrificing a Wilson Chandler- SO BE IT!

The 2010 plan did not rest in the fate of Wilson Chandler. It probably does rest on the fact that we do not have a PG. Our system is based on having a PG. D'ant is like an NFL coach who is handicapped b/c he doesn't have a QB to run his system. Wilson Chandler is just not that good to pass on drafting a PG. He is not a lock to be a star player (or even a 3rd option on a championship team).

We could have traded Wilson Chandler and put ourselves in a position to draft Flynn, Rubio or Curry. If they wanted Curry that much, you have to give-2-get.

Curry-Gallineri-Lee should have been the core to sell to Lebron.

How does Chandler becoem the dealbreaker? I think Walsk played his hand perfectly UNTIL he balked at WAS's demands.

Wilson may or may not become a reliable starting SG in this league. Maybe. But how does he fit in our future plans? With no legit PG, that probably means no Lebron. NO Lebron means DW plan is a complete failure!

I would prefer Curry/Rubio plus D-Blaire over Chandler, Hill & Douglas.

I'm still bitter that we didn't get Curry, what a bad beat. We had the 8th pick in a 7 player draft. It's ridiculous when your Top 10 pick doesn't crack the rotation.

For the last time.

WE COULDN'T TRADE CHANDLER!!!!!!!!!

We proposed that trade and it was REJECTED.