OT - Celtics to trade #1 overall pick?

[Deus Irae]

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).

No

The point is that you get the return based upon both the pick being #1 and the talent/desirability of the players involved.

 

[Deus Irae]

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"?

Did you miss the part where I said that sometimes you take a bad deal, even though it's in my quote that you responded to, and you quoted that section? It sure seems so.

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

 

[Ring 6]

No

The point is that you get the return based upon both the pick being #1 and the talent/desirability of the players involved.

This is just wrong. The players are known.

 

[Ring 6]

It's not.



It's not.

So you think the fact that the player you want is available in the spot you trade down to is irrelevant to the decision to trade? Really?

And you think that, the price anyone is willing to trade for your asset is irrelevant to whether you got its value? Really??

 

[Deus Irae]

So you think the fact that the player you want is available in the spot you trade down to is irrelevant to the decision to trade? Really?

No, but that's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is good trade/bad trade.

And you think that, the price anyone is willing to trade for your asset is irrelevant to whether you got its value? Really??

Sometimes, yes. You keep doing what you always do, which is ignore the obvious.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is just wrong. The players are known.

Ok, this has to be willful ridiculousness on your part, because your reading comprehension is not this bad. I'm not going down that road with you. When you're ready to discuss what's actually being discussed, rather than making posts and then moving your own goalposts, perhaps we can try again.

 

[Ring 6]

No, but that's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is good trade/bad trade.



Sometimes, yes. You keep doing what you always do, which is ignore the obvious.

The obvious is that a trade has to happen within its own circumstances not in a vacuum.

 

[Ring 6]

Ok, this has to be willful ridiculousness on your part, because your reading comprehension is not this bad. I'm not going down that road with you. When you're ready to discuss what's actually being discussed, rather than making posts and then moving your own goalposts, perhaps we can try again.

Nice try.
I am being very clear. The pick is the player at this point.

No one is trading more than fultz is worth because he is the first pick.

There is no goal post moving.

I am talking about THIS trade at THIS time within the circumstances that exist.

If your point is that this is bad value for an unnamed first pick in an unnamed draft, you may be correct, but regarding this pick in this draft the players available and what other teams are willing to give up is exactly what determines whether it not it was a good trade.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Bottom line: If you think that Jayson Tatum or Josh Jackson is going to be as good as Markelle Fultz (or better),

and further if you think that one of them is a better fit for your team, then trading the #1 to get the player that you want the most anyway, PLUS another significant asset, is a good trade, unless you are wrong in your player assessment.

There is no way right now to know if such an assessment is wrong or not. The development prospects of these 19-year-olds require an awful lot of growth projection and (one thing everyone forgets) a decent estimate of how hard the various players want to work on their game to get better.

 

[rochrist]

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

Russell Westbrook was part of a loaded UCLA team that went 35-4. Fultz was on a 9-22 team playing an easier schedule and he was absolutely the only threat on the team.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Knicks are listening to offers for kristops Porzingis. Celtics are one of the teams mentioned - they have the draft capital now to make such a move.

Celtics interested in trading for Knicks star Kristaps Porzingis

 

[captain stone]

He looks like a stick figure.

No doubt about it, but Isaac is only < 10lbs lighter than Kevin Durant when he was
drafted in 2007.
He is still adjusting to his body because of the nearly 6" growth spurt he experienced during his senior year year of high school and his one year at IMG.
What makes Isaac worthy of #3 is his ball-handling ability relative to his height, his shot selection (he forces very few shots), his mechanics (his release point makes his shot nearly unblockable), his passing, his ability to defend 2s, 3s & non-power 4s,
his coachability, his unselfishness and his maturity.

Besides, if Danny chooses either Josh Jackson or Jason Tatum, then what must he be thinking about the long-term viability of the SF tandem of Jay Crowder/Jalen Brown?
There will not be enough minutes to go around for the investment made at this one position, and none of the above 4 are viable options at the 2 (even a Big 2) or 4 (even a Small 4).

 

[Deus Irae]

Nice try.
I am being very clear. The pick is the player at this point.

No one is trading more than fultz is worth because he is the first pick.

There is no goal post moving.

I am talking about THIS trade at THIS time within the circumstances that exist.

If your point is that this is bad value for an unnamed first pick in an unnamed draft, you may be correct, but regarding this pick in this draft the players available and what other teams are willing to give up is exactly what determines whether it not it was a good trade.

I made specific points on my posts. I also responded to a post you made by pointing out something you'd failed to add. Instead of just acknowledging that error, you moved the goalposts. The following

No

The point is that you get the return based upon both the pick being #1 and the talent/desirability of the players involved.

Is absolutely true, regardless of how you try moving the goalposts. As a follower of the NFL, this can't possibly be a surprise to you, because we see it with QBs v. other positions at #1, all the time.

Since you're unable to accept something as obvious as

Trade value = pick location + players involved

there's nothing more to discuss, and we're done here.

 

[Ring 6]

I made specific points on my posts. I also responded to a post you made by pointing out something you'd failed to add. Instead of just acknowledging that error, you moved the goalposts. The following



Is absolutely true, regardless of how you try moving the goalposts. As a follower of the NFL, this can't possibly be a surprise to you, because we see it with QBs v. other positions at #1, all the time.

Since you're unable to accept something as obvious as

Trade value = pick location + players involved

there's nothing more to discuss, and we're done here.

I was clearly discussing THIS trade and I clearly am correct.

This was my post that you disagreed with.

I don't see how it's a bad trade if:
Ainge really felt someone other than fultz or ball is best pick, and
Ainge isn't lying that this was the best offer by a lot.

I don't see fultz as the kind of guy anyone would trade a bounty for.

Inserting QBs and NFL draft picks into the discussion is YOU moving the goalposts.

You may well be right about what you are talking about but that is not what I was talking about when you jumped in. I was talking about THIS trade, and every comment I have made makes that clear.

With that, I agree, we are done here.

 

[borisman]

Knicks are listening to offers for kristops Porzingis. Celtics are one of the teams mentioned - they have the draft capital now to make such a move.

Celtics interested in trading for Knicks star Kristaps Porzingis

I think the Celtics will be a team mentioned in EVERY trade possibility since they have a few decent players making small $ (by NBA standards) and more draft picks (at least 1st rounders) in the next few years than any other team. So anytime a big name goes on the market the C's will be involved, unless said player comes out publicly and states he will not accept a trade to Boston.

 

[borg]

Ratcheting up the rumor intensity meter

Report: Celtics turned down Bulls' trade offer of Jimmy Butler for No. 3 pick in draft

 

[borg]

Lakers Trade D’Angelo Russell to the Nets, Which Means One Thing

 

[borg]

NBA Draft: Bulls, Knicks reportedly have interest in top-five prospect Josh Jackson

 

[Ivan]

I'll bet Dan Gilbert would trade LeBron to the Celtics for all those high picks.

 

[Jackson 2]

NBA Draft: Bulls, Knicks reportedly have interest in top-five prospect Josh Jackson

I'd do it for Porzingas.