Should the Celts attempt to buy another first rounder?

[Chris]

I think more than any other year, the C's will be looking to get extra picks this draft.  Forget the age thing, they need bodies.  The fact that they signed two D-League guys to look at over the summer is telling IMO.  They are going to be pushing the limits of their budget this summer, just to resign Ray, and one or two other guys.  Using the MLE is going to be an expensive venture for them.  They are going to need to fill out as much of the roster as possible with cheap contracts, and you can get those with late first rounders.

[Chief]

If Rivers is the coach, NO!!!!! If he steps down, then yes!!!!!!

[slamtheking]

If Rivers is the coach, NO!!!!! If he steps down, then yes!!!!!!

I was going to reply "Is there anyone that would ever seriously say "No"?  but you just answered that for me.  I'm stunned.

To me, it's a no brainer.  buy as many as there are available.  get 1, 2 even 3 1st rounders if available.  they make excellent trade chips for future picks or combining to move up in the draft for better players.  Or, throwing this one out there for consideration, using it (or the C's pick instead and keeping the purchased one) to package with Sheed to get him out of town.  Too many reasons to buy one and no good ones not to -- Doc not withstanding.

[Fan from VT]

Gotta start rebuilding.  You can even pick up a guy that's a little more of a project, since we're really looking at 2012 as being when the full-bore rebuilding project begins.  Right now, we basically have zero "developmental"-type players on the roster, and precious few young guys in general.

Here's a related question.  If you buy that pick from Atlanta, would you consider packaging it and #19 to move up into the late lottery?  #24 and #19 would likely be able to get you a pick in the #10 - #13 range, right?  Be more apt to get an impact player, albeit at a higher salary and with the extra $3M cost of buying Atlanta's pick.

And the thing is, it's not even rebuilding. If you're using the MLE to add a body, remember:

-Even adding a more experienced player is not a sure thing
-You have to overpay with money and years, because there's an open market

Think about the Suns a few years ago: They NEEDED a steady backup PG. Sold their pick in the 20s for 3 mil, and then signed a more veteran backup for 5 years 21 million. Of course, they could have just used the pick on a point guard to play the 10 mpg behind Nash, and that would have cost about 6.5 for 4 years. The names? that suns pick was the one we bought and used on Rajon Rondo, while the free agent was Marcus Banks. Who has barely played since.

Considering it's not a sure thing at all to sign a "veteran," and you have to overpay to get them, why not use that free agent mentality on a draft pick?

Also remember, for a Free Agent, you have to give the best monetary offer (or match the best offer) and the player has to want to play for your team. Of course a lot of us on this blog get offended when it's suggested that a free agent would rather join teams down south than join boston(thanks to weather), and even MORE offended when there may be 5-10 teams next year that would be a better spot for an MLE guy trying to give himself the best title shot, but the reality is that there may be several teams that a player would rather join than the celtics if the money is equal. I think a lot of people think every player should inherently be lining up to join the celtics, but that's not the case. Draft picks can't be choosy.

Some specifics:
Outlaw: He's nice. I like him. But so do others. What would it take to get him? Will someone offer 5yrs, 21 mil? Is that unreasonable?

Al Harrington?
Mike Miller?
Drew Gooden?
Amir Johnson?
Raja Bell?
Craig Smith?

All the above are similar. How much would you have to overpay to get them? Could we get them? would they want to come here for a bench role?

If we're looking for a wing, would you rather overpay for an on-the-downside Bell (who is likely to have several teams trying to add him and may not want to come here anyway), or throw down 10 million (which includes the 3 million purchase) for 4 years of a young athletic wing?

[nickagneta]

Over the last 3 seasons here is a list of some of the talent that was drafted between 19 and say 26:

Daequan Cook
Jared Dudley
Wilson Chandler
Rudy Fernandez
Aaron Brooks
JJ Hickson
Ryan Anderson
Courtney Lee
Serge Ibaka
Nicolas Batum
George Hill
Darren Collison
Omri Casspi
Rodrique Beaubois
Taj Gibson

How can adding an extra pick in this area of the draft be a bad thing? I don't care who is coaching this team next year. The players you draft this June are for the coach who follows Doc, not for Doc. And besides, if they are players, Doc will use them and develop them.

[Who]

There are rumors that Atlanta is willing to sell the #24 pick for $3 million.  In past years, other teams have been similarly willing to sell picks from around the 20th pick onward.

Should the Celts attempt to get into this market?  I say yes.  This team is an aging one, and they need an infusion of young, athletic talent.  I don't have a particular player in mind, but this is supposed to be a fairly deep draft, and last year guys like Darren Collison (21), Omri Casspi (23), Rodrigue Beaubois (25), and Taj Gibson (26) were all picked in about the range that we'd be buying into.

Certainly, there's risk involved; the team could easily end up wasting $3 million, and be forced into giving a rookie deal to a player who doesn't play (i.e., J.R. Giddens).  However, based upon where the Celtics are in terms of their window, I think it's worth a shot to potentially find a rotation player, while building for the future.

Of course, and they should do so every year. The benefits far outweigh the costs.

It is never a good decision to sell a first round draft pick and it always an excellent decision to buy a pick.

The cost of the $3 million relative to the cost of the rookie scale contract vs the cost of a veteran player acquire via free agency ... it's a home run decision.

[Evantime34]

As a fan of course we would say they should buy a first rounder.

It's not our money that is being used to buy the pick from another team, then pay the pick, then pay the luxury tax that is associated with the pick. Let's say that they have interest in doing this but only if they could increase ticket prices an extra 5-10% (on top of the normal yearly increase), does that change the answer to this question?

[jasail]

Here's a related question.  If you buy that pick from Atlanta, would you consider packaging it and #19 to move up into the late lottery?  #24 and #19 would likely be able to get you a pick in the #10 - #13 range, right?  Be more apt to get an impact player, albeit at a higher salary and with the extra $3M cost of buying Atlanta's pick.

It probably depends upon what the rest of the board looks like.  I personally think that there's not a ton of separation in this draft in terms of the late lottery vs. early 20s, so I'd probably prefer two bites at the apple.  However, Danny is certainly a better talent evaluator than I am, so if there's a guy he really likes, he should attempt to move up.

I agree it depends on what the board looks like, particularly if there is a top 10 talent that has slipped.  But IMO late lottery picks are about as likely to pan out as late teens/early twenties picks.  Look at the past 4 or so drafts, and I think it clearly demonstrates that you are as likely to pick up an impact player at 10-13 as you are at 19-24.

To further that point I think that you can get greater value to the team with 19 and a mid-twenties pick than you can with one 9-12 pick.  Again look back on the last 5 years.  The sum of two players may often be greater than the product of one marginally better talent.  For the sake of argument look at the 2008 draft.  Hickson and Kufous combined are far better than Baylis, Thompson and Rush are individually.  But again if you can get a Lopez for those two picks you may want to trade up.  But there is no guarantee that the team with that pick is going to want to trade down.  

That said the C's need youth and the energy and athleticism that comes with it, particularly in the front court.  I think it is an important year to maximize your value in the draft if you are the C's, regardless of who the coach is.  They need to infuse this roster with some guys who hopefully will be able to contribute next year, but more importantly will be able to contribute enough in a year or two to be traded with a contract for an all-star or step up into a starting role.  

Considering Danny's success with mid-round picks and creating value there, I am in full support of this.    

[nickagneta]

As a fan of course we would say they should buy a first rounder.

It's not our money that is being used to buy the pick from another team, then pay the pick, then pay the luxury tax that is associated with the pick. Let's say that they have interest in doing this but only if they could increase ticket prices an extra 5-10% (on top of the normal yearly increase), does that change the answer to this question?

I don't think so.

Look at it this way Evantime, $3 million for the pick at 24, another $7 million for 4 years in salary and at least another $3 million in luxury taxes for two years. That's $13 million to $17 million(depending on if they are paying luxury taxes the last two years) for a guy that could be anywhere from a bust to a superstar.

Is there any way whatsoever you are going to sign a free agent for 4 years and between $13-17 million total outlay that has ANY chance whatsoever of becoming a superstar? Or even a solid sixth man?

[Evantime34]

As a fan of course we would say they should buy a first rounder.

It's not our money that is being used to buy the pick from another team, then pay the pick, then pay the luxury tax that is associated with the pick. Let's say that they have interest in doing this but only if they could increase ticket prices an extra 5-10% (on top of the normal yearly increase), does that change the answer to this question?

I don't think so.

Look at it this way Evantime, $3 million for the pick at 24, another $7 million for 4 years in salary and at least another $3 million in luxury taxes for two years. That's $13 million to $17 million(depending on if they are paying luxury taxes the last two years) for a guy that could be anywhere from a bust to a superstar.

Is there any way whatsoever you are going to sign a free agent for 4 years and between $13-17 million total outlay that has ANY chance whatsoever of becoming a superstar? Or even a solid sixth man?

I agree with all that. However, if I go under the assumption that it's not my money and I don't care how much it costs, I am all for buying another pick. As a fan who doesn't pay any of the players as long as it doesn't hurt the chance of us signing good players (1.5-2 Million a year really doesnt) then I am ok with it.

[guava_wrench]

I would buy it, esp since there is no luxury tax associated with it. Much better than having to take on a bad contract.

Kinda low pick though.

[Brendan]

Yes its worth it. Look at BBD and Powe... those guys went even lower.

Tony Allen and West weren't super high either, you never know when a gem will fall.

[amenhotep04]

I'd buy the pick, but there has to be commitment from the organization(including the coaches) that they will develop these players. Makes no sense to pick players and then let them rot on the bench. Nevertheless, this is a deep draft, so Danny could hypothetically get three serviceable players in this draft if they buy the Atlanta pick.

Whomever we get however should be integrated into the rotation at least through the regular season. You don't have to sacrifice wins to get some minutes from one player or maybe two during the season.

[fairweatherfan]

As a fan of course we would say they should buy a first rounder.

It's not our money that is being used to buy the pick from another team, then pay the pick, then pay the luxury tax that is associated with the pick. Let's say that they have interest in doing this but only if they could increase ticket prices an extra 5-10% (on top of the normal yearly increase), does that change the answer to this question?

I don't think so.

Look at it this way Evantime, $3 million for the pick at 24, another $7 million for 4 years in salary and at least another $3 million in luxury taxes for two years. That's $13 million to $17 million(depending on if they are paying luxury taxes the last two years) for a guy that could be anywhere from a bust to a superstar.

Is there any way whatsoever you are going to sign a free agent for 4 years and between $13-17 million total outlay that has ANY chance whatsoever of becoming a superstar? Or even a solid sixth man?

As others have pointed out though, the alternative is filling roster spots with veterans, who will probably cost more unless they're at vet minimum, and have no chance at all of becoming much better than they are now.

If we are looking to get younger moving forward, we'll need to start developing guys now.  If our choices are filling a roster spot by buying a first and getting another young guy or picking up another stopgap journeyman, I say go with the pick.  This draft seems to have a pretty deep middle, and we know talent will be there.

Of course we could circumvent a lot of this by just buying an early 2nd rd pick instead.

[nickagneta]

As a fan of course we would say they should buy a first rounder.

It's not our money that is being used to buy the pick from another team, then pay the pick, then pay the luxury tax that is associated with the pick. Let's say that they have interest in doing this but only if they could increase ticket prices an extra 5-10% (on top of the normal yearly increase), does that change the answer to this question?

I don't think so.

Look at it this way Evantime, $3 million for the pick at 24, another $7 million for 4 years in salary and at least another $3 million in luxury taxes for two years. That's $13 million to $17 million(depending on if they are paying luxury taxes the last two years) for a guy that could be anywhere from a bust to a superstar.

Is there any way whatsoever you are going to sign a free agent for 4 years and between $13-17 million total outlay that has ANY chance whatsoever of becoming a superstar? Or even a solid sixth man?

As others have pointed out though, the alternative is filling roster spots with veterans, who will probably cost more unless they're at vet minimum, and have no chance at all of becoming much better than they are now.

If we are looking to get younger moving forward, we'll need to start developing guys now.  If our choices are filling a roster spot by buying a first and getting another young guy or picking up another stopgap journeyman, I say go with the pick.  This draft seems to have a pretty deep middle, and we know talent will be there.

Of course we could circumvent a lot of this by just buying an early 2nd rd pick instead.

Exactly. TP.