OT - Celtics to trade #1 overall pick?

[ctpatsfan77]

Me too. I'm high on Tatum but, as some have pointed out, he's most effective as an ISO so he may not be an ideal fit in BS's motion offense.

Of course, if a Porzi??is trade can be worked out, that would really be something.

Lemme guess . . . copy and paste from Wikipedia?

 

[Ring 6]

OKC was a great example, should have hung onto Harden. They were right there in it and could have won one.

It's not even just tanking, giving up great picks and young players for Butler is short sighted.

Okc drafted well. I don't see them as a team that said they weren't competitive so they backed away from trying to get better than came out strong in the long run.
I think they are kind of the opposite. If they realized what they had an kept harden they probably won a championship last year.

 

[Froob]

Okc drafted well. I don't see them as a team that said they weren't competitive so they backed away from trying to get better than came out strong in the long run.
I think they are kind of the opposite. If they realized what they had an kept harden they probably won a championship last year.

They weren't willing to pay the lux tax to keep him. I doubt anybody thought he'd be a superstar, but most people knew he was a good player. Ownership messed up, should have ponied up a bit and they'd probably have made out okay in the end.

 

[BobDigital]

The only thing I don't give up is the 2018 Brooklyn pick. They can get all the very good players they want but they still need a true super star and that is still their best chance.

Edit: Unless you get Anthony Davis. He is the only exception.

 

[borg]

If I was Ainge, this would be my game plan....centering on the theme of slow and steady improvement ....maintaining sufficient assets to strike if and when a championship is there for the taking.
2017-2018:
Draft Isaac
Sign Hayward
Bring on Zizic

Isaac/Zizic combo will replace the ineffective Amir Johnson bringing real rebounding skills and more athleticism while allowing Horford to continue his versatile role.
Hayward gives the Celts the 2nd legit shot creator +shooter they desperately need.
A Horford / Hayward / Isaac-Zizic front three is a huge improvement from last year and a better fitting unit.
If they can maintain the depth of Olynick, Brown, Crowder.....few teams have so many options and versatility to attack in so many ways.
With the same guard rotation, this roster is significantly improved and better balanced. No longer is Boston a guard oriented team.
One of the team goals should be to ween itself away from Isaiah dependency on offense. If they are successful, their next off season could include dramatic changes. I don't see IT as anything more than a super 6th man for a legit champion contender . At least hold off committing to IT for a year.

2018-2019:

With many contracts expiring, the Celts have multiple assets to replace and improve via the draft and still plenty of coin to fill holes on their terms. Bigs and guards will be the offseason theme. Committing multiple max contracts now is too soon and unnecessary.
Patience......small steps forward

Note: I see Hayward and Tatum as the same player and therefore an unnecessary luxury if the Celts acquire both
Note 2.0: When Stevens allowed his big men to rebound on offense, they weren't horrible. But Stevens reluctance had everything to do with his fear of getting burnt on the fast break counter that left Ancient Amir and Clydesdale Kelly in their dust. Stevens can now be more aggressive knowing he has a freak in Isaac and East European known for his non-stop motor to run the floor. In other words, the Celts are solving deficiencies

 

[Bill Lee]

They weren't willing to pay the lux tax to keep him. I doubt anybody thought he'd be a superstar, but most people knew he was a good player. Ownership messed up, should have ponied up a bit and they'd probably have made out okay in the end.

And that's what's different about the NFL: if they had the franchise tag available, he doesn't even hit the market. Instead, in the NBA, players make the market. Sure, the Bird rules mean that there's a financial incentive to stay with the home team, but in the end, the power is with the player. They can do like LeBron did, twice, and chose less money but more freedom to chose what team they play for and the players they play with. And given almost any team can go from average to exceptional just by getting two or three excellent players, the balance of power can tip, and the owners can't do anything about it.

 

[BobDigital]

The absolute worst thing you can do in the NBA right now is fool yourself into thinking you are closer to contention than you really are.

Yep and that is my thought process. What do we need to do to beat GSWs? Well first you need to understand only 5 people play at a time so there are diminishing returns. The top matters a lot more than the bottom and frankly the 8th man come playoff time means fairly little forget the 9th.

The big three are Durant/Curry/Thompson (Green is really good too). You need to get close to those 3. The question is can you do it without Anthony Davis? I say a resounding NO!. I think the conversation probably starts with him. IF you can't get him you can't compete with GS. Lebron/Irving/Love were outclassed clearly. We need to probably do better without the best player in the league. That is a tall task.

So if you can't get Davis you may as well think about the future more than next year. Lets say you decide to push a lot of assets on the table and build a good team this year.

If your best player is Butler lets say GS has without question the 2 best players in any contest with you. You start at a huge disadvantage with returns diminishing fast cause only 5 people play at a time and both of them will be on the floor 40 minutes if need be to win and handling the ball increasing their influence of the game.

IMO if you want to beat GSW here is the team you need. Davis, Butler, Hayward, Porzingus, Thomas and keep Howard as your Center. That gives you a very good 6 and you can try to out physical them and keep up point wise but you need to hit 3s.

If they do that maybe they have a shot. Maybe. But that doesn't likely give you an answer for their 3s.

 

[captain stone]

I understand the thought process but are there any examples of teams that tanked to load up later that ever became championship contenders?

Can't think of any NBA teams off the top of my head (maybe the Orlando Magic of the early '90s), but the ****sburg Waterfoul of the NHL had 3 #1 overalls in a row in the mid-2000s.

 

[PatsFan2]

Jayson Tatum = Young Paul Pierce...nuff said.

 

[zydecochris]

I understand the thought process but are there any examples of teams that tanked to load up later that ever became championship contenders?

In both cases it was tanking over only part of one season, but the Spurs and Warriors. After David Robinson was injured, the Spurs definitely tanked for the rest of the season the year they lucked into the #1 pick, took Tim Duncan, and broke the heart of Celtics fans everywhere. There was also a year that the Warriors had to turn over a pick if it fell out of the top 8 or 9 (I forget which) and they tanked even more egregiously, it was one of the first examples of extreme tanking I think, they kept trotting out ridiculous lineups (in a year before they got good of course). I'm on a plane about to take off, so I can't research the details.

EDIT: Part of my post is clearly wrong, my apologies. Although it is correct that the Spurs and Warriors have tanked in the past to great benefit, off the top of my head, I said: "the Warriors tank job was one of the first examples of extreme tanking", but after reading PalmBeachPatsFan post 399, that is clearly not the case. In fact, it sounds like the extreme tanking by the 83-84 Rockets is the reason the lottery exists.

 

[PatsFan2]

It's looking like Tatum and that would be a solid pick but at 3 I would go Isaac just because his ceiling is higher

The thing that bothers me about Jonathan Isaac is that skinny frame it looks at least four years away yikes.

 

[captain stone]

Jayson Tatum = Young Paul Pierce...nuff said.

Then what does that make Jalen Brown?

 

[captain stone]

Jackson's comments seem to indicate that he's looking at a young player coming back in the trade, as well as the pick(s). So, if he holds out for his price, it's probably something like #3 and Brown, with maybe another pick or two (i.e. Memphis pick) from the upcoming drafts.

Even better.

 

[PatsFan2]

cap I would move Jalen Brown in a Trade if they are going to sign Gordon Hayward. I think right now Jayson Tatum better than any Player of this current roster not named IT.

 

[Ring 6]

They weren't willing to pay the lux tax to keep him. I doubt anybody thought he'd be a superstar, but most people knew he was a good player. Ownership messed up, should have ponied up a bit and they'd probably have made out okay in the end.

Right so that isn't an example of the worst thing you can do is think you are closer to contention than you are right? Or am I missing something?

 

[Ring 6]

In both cases it was tanking over only part of one season, but the Spurs and Warriors. After David Robinson was injured, the Spurs definitely tanked for the rest of the season the year they lucked into the #1 pick, took Tim Duncan, and broke the heart of Celtics fans everywhere. There was also a year that the Warriors had to turn over a pick if it fell out of the top 8 or 9 (I forget which) and they tanked even more egregiously, it was one of the first examples of extreme tanking I think, they kept trotting out ridiculous lineups (in a year before they got good of course). I'm on a plane about to take off, so I can't research the details.

I'm not sure that fits the discussion (which isn't specifically tanking)

The comment was the worst thing you can do is think you are closer to competing than you are.

My response was I disagree because I don't see any teams that were in that position and folded with good future results.

In other words middle of the pack teams can try to get better or dump everyone and start from scratch. I think there are examples of this teams getting better by building (isn't that Gsw?) and I don't see any that dumped and tried starting over that it ever worked for.

I know the common perception is you need 3 superstars to win but who ever got there by starting all over?
Not saying I'm right because I am not that close an NBA follower but asking if there are any examples of this plan to dump and start over with high picks and cap space that have succeeeded.

 

[patsfan13]

Jaylen Brown is untouchable to me. If we trade the #3 and the Laker selection next year that satisfier's Jackson's requirements (as stated). Throw in their choice of Smart, Rozier or Bradley.

Get KP.

I we had said trade the #1 and Smart for KP that is a no brainer.

Do it Danny.

 

[rochrist]

I understand the thought process but are there any examples of teams that tanked to load up later that ever became championship contenders?

San Antonio tanked and ended up with Tim Duncan.

 

[BobDigital]

Here is what I do if I am the Celtics.

Tatum or Jackson (Tatum I think makes more sense). Then draft again next year hoping to get 2 of the top 3 picks (hopefully a #1 pick too)

Sign FAs as you can but if you can't get Davis don't use the assets to build a team that can't win.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

article on best tank jobs in the NBA:

5 NBA Teams That Successfully Tanked for the Draft