# no bell, no dixon, no woods



## nyksju (Feb 11, 2003)

im surprised they werent taken. all 3 have good upside.

also they have no guards! maybe they will trade pachula or pavolicic for a mid 1st rounder and take jameer nelson.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

Bell - I doubt West left him unprotected. Mayeb the lists were wrong.
Woods - Maybe protected, maybe too much of a delinquent.
Dixon - No reason not to pick him. He might be better than Greg Anthony in '95.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Didn't the Bobcat GM say he was going to be making a lot of trades? Should be an interesting week in Charlotte. Can't wait to see the new team play. :yes:


----------



## lacbrand42 (Jun 2, 2004)

Best player they got Gerald Wallace. He is a young player who has room to improve. I aagree, I don't know why they didn't take dixon


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jokeaward</b>!
> Bell - I doubt West left him unprotected. Mayeb the lists were wrong.
> Woods - Maybe protected, maybe too much of a delinquent.
> Dixon - No reason not to pick him. He might be better than Greg Anthony in '95.


I'm pretty sure Bell was indeed exposed. The Grizzlies are so deep and have so many good players that they could not afford to expose, so they were forced to expose both of the young players (Bell, Jones). I was disappointed Bickerstaff didn't take either Dixon nor Bell...they're young, scoring guards that have potential and need a chance because they're caught in logjams on their teams.

As for Woods, I thought they would take Stepania over Woods to give them a rebounding presence, but apparently they shied away from the trouble child and went for Ferguson .


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Theron Smith will be a good player. Thats why they didnt pick Bell. But I have no idea why they didnt pick Dixon pobably didnt want his contract same with Woods. They want to pay people what they want to pay' em not take contracts from another team.


----------

