OT - Celtics to trade #1 overall pick?

[Ring 6]

Not only that but if Shaq, Alcindor or Magic we're in this draft he would have kept the pick.

Right but the point is you don't get return based on it being a 1, you get return based on who is available to select, as well as the dropoff if any to the next player(s).

 

[RobertWeathers]

This trade will be evaluated based on whom the Celtics take. Suppose Ainge think Jackson is the best in the draft. Is sure makes sense to trade from #1 to #3 and you still get the guy you want PLUS another first rounder.

If Fultz becomes a perennial all star, then the trade will be seen as a disaster.

Only if Jackson becomes the next Greg Oden. If Jackson is a 18/8/5 kid with elite NBA ready D I'd be pretty happy

 

[Love The Drake]

I read a rumor on some sports website that said Westbrook may ask the Thunder to trade him if they can't show they can build a winner and the Celtics have the picks to entice this incredible long shot.
Basically if they were foolish enough to entertain the notion the Celts would have the best chance of landing him even further than a Longshot of course.

 

[Froob]

I read a rumor on some sports website that said Westbrook may ask the Thunder to trade him if they can't show they can build a winner and the Celtics have the picks to entice this incredible long shot.
Basically if they were foolish enough to entertain the notion the Celts would have the best chance of landing him even further than a Longshot of course.

Don't really want him to be honest, he'd cost a lot and I doubt we can win a title with him. Plus he's turning 29 and relies mostly on athleticism. I'd pass on him if it requires high picks and/or Jaylen Brown.

 

[borg]

Whether Ainge is lying about the quality of offers is irrelevant. Whether Ainge feels someone other then Fultz or Ball is the best pick is irrelevant. It's a bad trade because the return on a trade of the #1 overall pick is insufficient. Nobody had a gun to Ainge's head, forcing him to make a trade or die. If you don't have a good enough offer, you don't have to make the trade. That's simple. If you take the bad trade, you've taken a bad trade. That's also simple.

Sometimes, taking a bad trade is a move worth making. Time will tell if this is one of those times.

What would be considered a superior offer and which team is capable of delivering this mind-blowing bounty?
Are we pretending multiple teams exists at the very top of the draft with a surplus of future #1 picks to compete with Philly's bid for the Celtics' #1?
LA has nothing to deal in order to jump one slot. Their 2018 #1 is gone and their 2019 #1 will likely be unimpressive given the soon-to-be reality that premium FAs will be gravitating to LaLa Land in the very near future.
Should Ainge look for a better deal that includes dropping down to #4 or lower, and risk not getting the player he says he would be drafting at #1 regardless? I absolutely believe Ainge's indirect declaration Fultz is not #1 on his board.
I don't understand the logic that it is better to take Jackson(?) at #1 than to drop down 2 slots and grab the same player (Jackson?) while banking a future #1 of a bad team .....because that is a "bad trade"?

 

[BobDigital]

Here is what I know about Fultz. He is 6'4 and the amount of guys who are 6'4 or smaller that take you to the promised land as the #1 on your team is a short short list. I do not believe they are passing on a player they will regret. He is not Curry and i strongly doubt he will be Westbrook or Paul caliber either.

It is unfortunate that they got the #1 pick in such a year. The more i think about it the more i think trading is the right move. I'd rather take a shot with Josh Jackson (higher upside) and roll the dice with this trade and maybe miss than go with Fultz and have what IMO will be a pretty good to very good player that doesn't really change much for you.

Sadly it looks like they don't get a chance at another #1 which is sad as if a generational talent comes out in 2018 or we have only 1 shot at #1 but if one comes out in 2019 we will have nearly no shot.

 

[BlacknGold77]

Here is what I know about Fultz. He is 6'4 and the amount of guys who are 6'4 or smaller that take you to the promised land as the #1 on your team is a short short list. I do not believe they are passing on a player they will regret. He is not Curry and i strongly doubt he will be Westbrook or Rose caliber either. It is unfortunate that they got the #1 pick in such a year. The more i think about it the more i think trading is the right move. I'd rather take a shot with Josh Jackson (higher upside) and roll the dice with this trade and maybe miss than go with Fultz and have what IMO will be a pretty good to very good player that doesn't really change much for you.

based on his 1 year in college, he projects as a Westbrook type. He did everything for Washington.

23 ppg
6 rpg
6 apg
1.6 stl
1.2 blk
47.6% FG, 41.2% 3pt...very solid %s for someone carrying a bad team.

by comparison, Westbrook's best year in college is much worse:

13 ppg
4 rpg
4 apg
1.6 stl
0.2 blk
46.5% FG, 33.8% 3pt

 

[BobDigital]

Also I want to throw this out here just to be devil's advocate. Lets say the Celtics trade for Anthony Davis with a bunch of first round picks and a player. That be great but he will be 25 next year. Even if he stays here for the long haul for his career likely the Celtics have no chance to win anything for the next 3-4 years with the GSWs in the way. So he may be 28-29 before they have a legit chance to win anything. Seems like a small window. And yes they could try to build a team around him but I just don't see the team we can build which can beat GSWs right now to be honest.

 

[Ring 6]

Also I want to throw this out here just to be devil's advocate. Lets say the Celtics trade for Anthony Davis with a bunch of first round picks and a player. That be great but he will be 25 next year. Even if he stays here for the long haul for his career likely the Celtics have no chance to win anything for the next 3-4 years with the GSWs in the way. So he may be 28-29 before they have a legit chance to win anything. Seems like a small window. And yes they could try to build a team around him but I just don't see the team we can build which can beat GSWs right now to be honest.

You can not try for 3 years because you think another team is unbeatable. Well unless you are the Jete.

 

[BobDigital]

You can not try for 3 years because you think another team is unbeatable. Well unless you are the Jete.

Not saying they shouldn't do it. Just pointing out the issues they have if they do it. Also no one is saying don't try but I am saying there is a logic to not pushing all your clips in if you feel this year or the next few you don't have the best chance. I am saying you don't need to burn all your resources to try to win now. That is not the same as not trying.

 

[BobDigital]

based on his 1 year in college, he projects as a Westbrook type. He did everything for Washington.

23 ppg
6 rpg
6 apg
1.6 stl
1.2 blk
47.6% FG, 41.2% 3pt...very solid %s for someone carrying a bad team.

by comparison, Westbrook's best year in college is much worse:

13 ppg
4 rpg
4 apg
1.6 stl
0.2 blk
46.5% FG, 33.8% 3pt

Sure but that doesn't automatically mean anything. I am talking about the player Westbrook is now and that Fultz likely won't be that. What they did at college isn't really important it is more about just odds. Not many people expect Westbrook to be what he was. If so he would have gone #1 in his draft not #4.

 

[BlacknGold77]

Not saying they shouldn't do it. Just pointing out the issues they have if they do it. Also no one is saying don't try but I am saying there is a logic to not pushing all your clips in if you feel this year or the next few you don't have the best chance. I am saying you don't need to burn all your resources to try to win now. That is not the same as not trying.

fair, but if pushing in the chips gets you Anthony Davis, then you do it.

Adding Davis to this roster lifts them above Cleveland and would be the type of big leap forward to make.

and small point, but Davis will be 24 next year, not 25. Either way you dont have to win now when getting him, there's time to grow. Its not like when they got KG and Allen and had a ticking clock

 

[BlacknGold77]

Sure but that doesn't automatically mean anything. I am talking about the player Westbrook is now and that Fultz likely won't be that. What they did at college isn't really important it is more about just odds. Not many people expect Westbrook to be what he was. If so he would have gone #1 in his draft not #4.

no, but a draft is about projecting. and Fultz, starting out, projects far better than Westbrook did at that age. hence "he appears to be a Westbrook TYPE of player"

 

[IllegalContact]

It's still a better jumpshot than Jason Kidd's was when he came out. I don't see any flaws with Ball that a decent coach can't improve (or conceal).

That said, the word on the street is Ainge likes Tatum.

jason kidd has nothing to do with this

none of them are instant success and Ball comes with baggage plus showed up out of shape

 

[zydecochris]

based on his 1 year in college, he projects as a Westbrook type. He did everything for Washington.

23 ppg
6 rpg
6 apg
1.6 stl
1.2 blk
47.6% FG, 41.2% 3pt...very solid %s for someone carrying a bad team.

by comparison, Westbrook's best year in college is much worse:

13 ppg
4 rpg
4 apg
1.6 stl
0.2 blk
46.5% FG, 33.8% 3pt

I'm afraid that I respectfully disagree with the Westbrook comparison. Because I grew up originally in Oklahoma (and was excited when I heard that Oklahoma was getting a NBA team), I followed Westbrook quite closely early on. In college, he was basically an unbelievably strong and athletic, super competitive guy with few skills, just about as raw as you could get. And, as you point out, he wasn't particularly productive in college. Heck, he didn't even start his Freshman year and only started his Sophomore year because the starter Darren Collison was injured. In summary, he was super athletic and competitive, but not particularly skilled and very much a work in progress.

In contrast, Fultz has good skills and compared to Westbrook in college is much more of a finished product. I think an absolutely best case scenario (I'm not saying he will reach this level) for him might be a less skilled but more athletic James Harden, not Westbrook. However, that is just my humble opinion.

 

[borg]

very solid %s for someone carrying a bad team.

Did he "carry" a bad team or simply have the best stats on a bad team.
Where did he "carry" his team to?
I don't doubt his extreme talent but I'm not willing to elevate based on a false narrative. I refer you to Carmelo Anthony as the ultimate stat accumulator.
The most common knock on Fultz is his perceived lack of passion/ emotional investment for the game ....and for me, this is a huge determining factor when selecting your future star/team leader. There are many incredibly talented athletes in the NBA but too many operate like robots devoid of an inner fire. Jimmy Butler comes to mind. I worry about Jaylon Brown as well.
Then there are players like IT who's fire elevates him to levels that exceed his physical stature.

We'll see

 

[BlacknGold77]

I'm afraid that I respectfully disagree with the Westbrook comparison. Because I grew up originally in Oklahoma (and was excited when I heard that Oklahoma was getting a NBA team), I followed Westbrook quite closely early on. In college, he was basically an unbelievably strong and athletic, super competitive guy with few skills, just about as raw as you could get. And, as you point out, he wasn't particularly productive in college. Heck, he didn't even start his Freshman year and only started his Sophomore year because the starter Darren Collison was injured. In summary, he was super athletic and competitive, but not particularly skilled and very much a work in progress.

In contrast, Fultz has good skills and compared to Westbrook in college is much more of a finished product. I think an absolutely best case scenario for him might be James Harden, not Westbrook. However, that is just my humble opinion.

didnt mean Westbrook stylistically as much as mean it as a "does everything, stat sheet filler"...the way Westbrook and Harden are.

i expect Fultz to "make himself" with hard work and drive like guys like Westbrook have. those close to the situation describe Fultz as a gym rat and a basketball junkie

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

jason kidd has nothing to do with this

none of them are instant success and Ball comes with baggage plus showed up out of shape

If he's a meathead that's another matter, my point is he's a rare talent. I've never met the guy but concede that it's a bad sign that he won't stop in for a private workout with the Celtics.

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

You guys are gonna be disappointed on Butler and Hayward if the Celtics invest big money on them. Butler wouldn't even be the #2 in one of those super teams and Hayward is just a spot up shooter.

Well I remember that spot up shooter posterizing the Greek freak this season.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think it is very relevant if you trade down from 1 to 3 because the player you think is the best player in the draft (even if only best for your team) is there at 3.

It's not.

Of course what others are offering is relevant.

It's not.