Author Topic: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?  (Read 18264 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2015, 03:19:21 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Quote
It's a matter if you think a skilled 22 year old will finally make it or not, it's really that simple

He is not skilled.

He averaged less than 4 RPG, less than 1 APG, shoots under .40% for his career and less than .5 SPG and .5 BPG.   What skills exactly does he possess.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/2991473/anthony-bennett

The whole premise of my post is that Bennett still has potential.  The tools are there. His production has obviously been horrible.  If his stats weren't horrible, there's no way you could trade a lowly 16th pick for him.  Bringing up how horrible is stats are seems to miss the point entirely.

It's like last year when I'd say, "We should go after Ben McLemore... he's been a major disappointment... he theoretically could be available for dirt cheap, but everything I see about him suggests those shots will eventually start falling", and people would respond by saying, "no way... McLemore is horrible... look at his stats!".  Yeah, no kidding... that's the point.  Teams don't usually abandon a #6 pick after a single season.  His garbage stats were why he was theoretically available.   Then Ben goes from averaging 8.8 points on 37%/32%/80% shooting to 12 points on 44%/36%/81% shooting...  Finishes out the final month this season averaging 16 points, 3.1 assists, 3.6 rebounds, 1.8 steals on 49%/35%/75% shooting... The 22 year old has a future.  Theoretically we could have snagged him for very little.  Too late now.  Now the Kings have Stauskas who was even worse as a rookie and people once again are saying, "he's horrible!"... I mean, he could shoot in College.  Players take time to develop.  YOu can't call them busts after a single season.

Bennett has busted for two season, though and I can't fault anyone for writing him off.  I feel like there's at least some partial excuse for Bennett's 2 years of futility (as pointed out in my original post).  There are some explanations for his struggles.  I still there's reason to believe he can develop into something.  The question is, do you think he has more potential at this point than whoever we're going to get with the 16th pick?   I think he probably does.   

Ultimately hopefully that doesn't matter and Ainge cons some team into trading down to #16.  But it'll be interesting to revisit this thread in a few years to see how #16 is doing in comparison to Anthony Bennett.  Maybe they are both out of the league by then.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2015, 03:32:41 PM by LarBrd33 »

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2015, 03:57:13 PM »

Offline ImShakHeIsShaq

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7739
  • Tommy Points: 804
People say KO can't bring a pick better than 20, they say he stinks, they would trade him for Bennett. This just proves the point I have made for a long time, our players are never good enough and even when they totally outperform someone they are still the worst player in the proposed deals in the minds of CB. Our players have ALWAYS reached their ceilings while any other player has endless uptapped potential. Then people add Sully to this trade idea? Ha, good thing I decided to laugh more instead of arguing as much as I use to.
It takes me 3hrs to get to Miami and 1hr to get to Orlando... but I *SPIT* on their NBA teams! "Bless God and bless the (Celts)"-Lady GaGa (she said gays but she really meant Celts)

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #32 on: May 30, 2015, 04:14:52 PM »

Offline Future Celtics Owner

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3097
  • Tommy Points: 191
  • Celtic's only raise championship Banners
No because I'd rather have Robert Upshaw than Bennet

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2015, 05:24:30 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13002
  • Tommy Points: 1756
  • Everybody knows what's best for you
No because I'd rather have Robert Upshaw than Bennet

And this is a fair point. If you are looking for potential star/bust players, you might as well go with the one that is a bonafide center. I mean, I get trading a possible Portis pick for Bennett, but I can see Upshaw with more upside to our organization than Bennett.

But LarBrd does make a very compelling argument and I do agree that Bennett possibly still does have a very promising future.

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2015, 05:49:02 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
Quote
It's a matter if you think a skilled 22 year old will finally make it or not, it's really that simple

He is not skilled.

He averaged less than 4 RPG, less than 1 APG, shoots under .40% for his career and less than .5 SPG and .5 BPG.   What skills exactly does he possess.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/2991473/anthony-bennett

The whole premise of my post is that Bennett still has potential.  The tools are there. His production has obviously been horrible.  If his stats weren't horrible, there's no way you could trade a lowly 16th pick for him.  Bringing up how horrible is stats are seems to miss the point entirely.

It's like last year when I'd say, "We should go after Ben McLemore... he's been a major disappointment... he theoretically could be available for dirt cheap, but everything I see about him suggests those shots will eventually start falling", and people would respond by saying, "no way... McLemore is horrible... look at his stats!".  Yeah, no kidding... that's the point.  Teams don't usually abandon a #6 pick after a single season.  His garbage stats were why he was theoretically available.   Then Ben goes from averaging 8.8 points on 37%/32%/80% shooting to 12 points on 44%/36%/81% shooting...  Finishes out the final month this season averaging 16 points, 3.1 assists, 3.6 rebounds, 1.8 steals on 49%/35%/75% shooting... The 22 year old has a future.  Theoretically we could have snagged him for very little.  Too late now.  Now the Kings have Stauskas who was even worse as a rookie and people once again are saying, "he's horrible!"... I mean, he could shoot in College.  Players take time to develop.  YOu can't call them busts after a single season.

Bennett has busted for two season, though and I can't fault anyone for writing him off.  I feel like there's at least some partial excuse for Bennett's 2 years of futility (as pointed out in my original post).  There are some explanations for his struggles.  I still there's reason to believe he can develop into something.  The question is, do you think he has more potential at this point than whoever we're going to get with the 16th pick?   I think he probably does.   

Ultimately hopefully that doesn't matter and Ainge cons some team into trading down to #16.  But it'll be interesting to revisit this thread in a few years to see how #16 is doing in comparison to Anthony Bennett.  Maybe they are both out of the league by then.

The problem with your mclemore point, as well as bennett, is that they both assume these guys can be had for cheap cause they have poor statistics. Do we really have reason to believe that these teams can't see the same things you are seeing? Granted, they are both pretty disfunctional franchises. However, you have to some assume that their staff and trainers working with these guys every day have a pretty good idea of what they are capable of. They have access to a lot more practice film and training sessions that we would never get to see. If they are as good as we think, why would the teams sell low on them? It is not like it would save them a bunch of cap space? I too would be interested in Bennett (and would have been in Ben), but I am not sure why their teams would not want a ton for them.

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2015, 06:08:09 PM »

Offline Irish Stew

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • Tommy Points: 56
I just can't believe that people are talking about trading players with respectable NBA resumes like Sullinger and Olynyk for someone like Bennett who has been a complete washout so far. But just giving them Sullinger or Olynyk is not enough, others feel we also need to add a 1st round pick to give Minnesota fair compensation. Sullinger will make $2.2 million next year and Olynyk $2.1 million while Bennett will get $5.8 million. If you really must have Bennett, wait until the end of next season when Minnesota refuses to exercise their team option for $7.3 million and you can sign him for peanuts. Why anyone would want to even do that I still can't understand but that is at least a more reasonable course of action.

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2015, 06:15:01 PM »

Offline chambers

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7482
  • Tommy Points: 943
  • Boston Celtics= Championships, nothing less.
I wouldn't even trade our #28 for him.
His defense is absolute puss. He's a terrible shooter. Unfortunately he's a bust. Should find a role as a back up PF somewhere as a 2nd or 3rd string guy.
That's not even going into how much he gets paid.
Starting caliber NBA players generally have a feel for the game. This guy is just always one or two steps behind.

With picks #16 and #28 we're looking for role players who may become NBA starters one day.
This guy was born as a role player who occasionally has solid games against the bums of the NBA.

Anthony Bennett is a bum, and shouldn't be touched with a 10 foot pole.
Can you imagine wasting the #1 pick on this scrub? What were they thinking?
"We are lucky we have a very patient GM that isn't willing to settle for being good and coming close. He wants to win a championship and we have the potential to get there still with our roster and assets."

quoting 'Greg B' on RealGM after 2017 trade deadline.
Read that last line again. One more time.

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #37 on: May 30, 2015, 06:20:49 PM »

Online Birdman

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9170
  • Tommy Points: 412
No way!!! Cavs blew it with that pick..should have took Noel
C/PF-Horford, Baynes, Noel, Theis, Morris,
SF/SG- Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Smart, Semi, Clark
PG- Irving, Rozier, Larkin

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #38 on: May 30, 2015, 06:28:47 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
No way!!! Cavs blew it with that pick..should have took Noel
Agree with the Noel bit.  Still angry that he fell to 6th.  I wanted very desperately for us to trade Rondo to Charlotte for the 4th pick so we could take him.  I realized it was probably a pipe dream anyways... and then bam... Jrue Holiday gets traded for Noel and a future 1st (which became Elfrid Payton... which became Dario Saric and a future 1st)

I still think healthy Jrue Holiday and pre-exposed Rondo had comparable trade value.  Sure would have been nice to trade him for Noel and Elfrid Payton, right?

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #39 on: May 30, 2015, 06:47:23 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Quote
It's a matter if you think a skilled 22 year old will finally make it or not, it's really that simple

He is not skilled.

He averaged less than 4 RPG, less than 1 APG, shoots under .40% for his career and less than .5 SPG and .5 BPG.   What skills exactly does he possess.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/2991473/anthony-bennett

The whole premise of my post is that Bennett still has potential.  The tools are there. His production has obviously been horrible.  If his stats weren't horrible, there's no way you could trade a lowly 16th pick for him.  Bringing up how horrible is stats are seems to miss the point entirely.

It's like last year when I'd say, "We should go after Ben McLemore... he's been a major disappointment... he theoretically could be available for dirt cheap, but everything I see about him suggests those shots will eventually start falling", and people would respond by saying, "no way... McLemore is horrible... look at his stats!".  Yeah, no kidding... that's the point.  Teams don't usually abandon a #6 pick after a single season.  His garbage stats were why he was theoretically available.   Then Ben goes from averaging 8.8 points on 37%/32%/80% shooting to 12 points on 44%/36%/81% shooting...  Finishes out the final month this season averaging 16 points, 3.1 assists, 3.6 rebounds, 1.8 steals on 49%/35%/75% shooting... The 22 year old has a future.  Theoretically we could have snagged him for very little.  Too late now.  Now the Kings have Stauskas who was even worse as a rookie and people once again are saying, "he's horrible!"... I mean, he could shoot in College.  Players take time to develop.  YOu can't call them busts after a single season.

Bennett has busted for two season, though and I can't fault anyone for writing him off.  I feel like there's at least some partial excuse for Bennett's 2 years of futility (as pointed out in my original post).  There are some explanations for his struggles.  I still there's reason to believe he can develop into something.  The question is, do you think he has more potential at this point than whoever we're going to get with the 16th pick?   I think he probably does.   

Ultimately hopefully that doesn't matter and Ainge cons some team into trading down to #16.  But it'll be interesting to revisit this thread in a few years to see how #16 is doing in comparison to Anthony Bennett.  Maybe they are both out of the league by then.

The problem with your mclemore point, as well as bennett, is that they both assume these guys can be had for cheap cause they have poor statistics. Do we really have reason to believe that these teams can't see the same things you are seeing? Granted, they are both pretty disfunctional franchises. However, you have to some assume that their staff and trainers working with these guys every day have a pretty good idea of what they are capable of. They have access to a lot more practice film and training sessions that we would never get to see. If they are as good as we think, why would the teams sell low on them? It is not like it would save them a bunch of cap space? I too would be interested in Bennett (and would have been in Ben), but I am not sure why their teams would not want a ton for them.
McLemore was supposedly very available when he was struggling.

In the case of Bennett, the Wolves have other options like Dieng, Townes, Pekovic that makes him somewhat expendable.  Teams often decide to just cut their losses... especially if a player is expendable.  It happens pretty frequently that a team gives up on a player drafted high. 

I'm not going to post a whole thread about it, but another guy who would probably be a good buy-low candidate for Ainge is McLemore's own teammate Nik Stauskas.  Said this in another thread:  He was picked 8th.  He shot 47%/44%/82% in College.  While McLemore was breaking out (he started all 82 games), Stauskas came off the bench and struggled.  Stauskas has already displayed positive signs.  First half of the season shot an uncharacteristic 33%/26%/86% ....  Post-All-star he saw an increase in both minutes and production, shooting 42%/42%/86%.  We have more evidence to support Stauskas as an elite shooter than not.  He has legit size at 6'6 205 for the SG position.  Stauskas would presumably be available due to McLemore being already there.  It's not unthinkable that the Kings would trade him for #16.   That's another one that you'd have to at least consider.   I'll let others let their imagination run wild on another deal that could involve us giving up #16 + Sully/Oly/Bradley + other assets for Stauskas and #6...   but #16 for Stauskas alone would make some sense.

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #40 on: May 30, 2015, 06:49:00 PM »

Offline ImShakHeIsShaq

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7739
  • Tommy Points: 804
I don't have any hate towards Bennett, I'm not even arguing we should not send 16 for him if it was possible. I just find it amusing how other players who haven't even proven they are better than Pressey get so much love when our guys get trashed.

I started to hope Bennett found his way into becoming a very good player after that trade and most of the reason is b/c the Cavs would have given up Wiggins and Bennett for Love. It wasn't a good idea to give up Wiggins alone, add Bennett becoming good and it just looks ewwww. Cavs won't regret it bc of how lucky they have been with the lotto and LBJ but that was a bad deal in any other situation.  Wait, what else did they add to that deal? Wasn't it more than those 2?

Imagine how LBJ could have helped mold Wiggins by showing how to work and show him what to do and not do. Would have been crazy.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2015, 07:03:40 PM by ImShakHeIsShaq »
It takes me 3hrs to get to Miami and 1hr to get to Orlando... but I *SPIT* on their NBA teams! "Bless God and bless the (Celts)"-Lady GaGa (she said gays but she really meant Celts)

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #41 on: May 30, 2015, 06:53:50 PM »

Offline LGC88

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1500
  • Tommy Points: 167
People say KO can't bring a pick better than 20, they say he stinks, they would trade him for Bennett. This just proves the point I have made for a long time, our players are never good enough and even when they totally outperform someone they are still the worst player in the proposed deals in the minds of CB. Our players have ALWAYS reached their ceilings while any other player has endless uptapped potential. Then people add Sully to this trade idea? Ha, good thing I decided to laugh more instead of arguing as much as I use to.

Thank god, I thought I was alone on this.

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #42 on: May 30, 2015, 07:04:21 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
I don't have any hate towards Bennett, I'm not even arguing we should not send 16 for him if it was possible. I just find it amusing how other players who haven't even proven they are better than Pressey get so much love when our guys get trashed.

I started to hope Bennett found his way into becoming a very good player after that trade and most of the reason is b/c the Cavs would have given up Wiggins and Bennett for Love. It wasn't a good idea to give up Wiggins alone, add Bennett becoming good and it just looks ewwww. Cavs won't regret it bc of how lucky they have been with the lotto and LBJ but that was a bad deal in any other situation.  Wait, what else did they add to that deal? Wasn't it more than those 2?
Some of that is internal pessimism from folks like me who overcompensate with anti-homer grey-tinted glasses.    But some of what you're lamenting is just our inherent gravitation towards physical characteristics. 

You'd think that a fanbase that won 3 championships with the infamously slow/unathletic Bird would know better, but even I (whose screenname is named after him) is a slave to conventional wisdom regarding the human body.  And you, whose screenname is named after Shaq, should understand as well as any what kind of impact the human body can make on this game.    A 5'9 midget like IT will always be somewhat of an liability on the defensive end and that prevent him from ever being taken seriously as a starter in this league.   A lankly plodding big man like Olynyk will never be taken seriously as a rim protector due to his T-Rex arms.   An overweight ground-oriented big like Sullinger will never be seen as a threat above the rim.  Some of this stuff doesn't matter.  But when evaluating prospects, there's some stuff that stands out.  We see that Biyombo has freakish length and can develop into a rim protector.  We see Nerlens Noel's speed and size and how it can impact a team's defense.   We can see Anthony Bennett's shooting stroke, movement and explosiveness and how that can translate into success.   We can see how a guy like Nik Stauskas has the tools to eventually develop into a floor-spacing dangerous offensive weapon.   We can see how a beast of a human like DeAndre Jordan can develop and use his athleticism, strength and size to impact the game.  Alternatively, we can see how a 6'2 180 pound guard like Bradley will always struggle to use his main strength (defensive intensity) against larger guards.  This kind of thinking isn't limited to our perception of guys on other teams.  People here sold themselves on Fab Melo's potential.  There's a reason why James Young has so many fans here.   "Potential" is subjective and sometimes arbitrary, but we have certain things we consistently look for.   Sadly, Brian Scalabrine had a perceived ceiling.  Darius Miles didn't.   But of course, that doesn't mean Miles ended up having a better career. 

You aren't wrong in pointing out that some of the guys we have are more productive than some of the guys we want.  But there's this belief that our guys have a ceiling while others have untapped potential.  Some of that is anti-homerism.  Some of it is true.   
« Last Edit: May 30, 2015, 07:13:43 PM by LarBrd33 »

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #43 on: May 30, 2015, 07:14:41 PM »

Offline Jferrari401

  • Oshae Brissett
  • Posts: 50
  • Tommy Points: 9
People say KO can't bring a pick better than 20, they say he stinks, they would trade him for Bennett. This just proves the point I have made for a long time, our players are never good enough and even when they totally outperform someone they are still the worst player in the proposed deals in the minds of CB. Our players have ALWAYS reached their ceilings while any other player has endless uptapped potential. Then people add Sully to this trade idea? Ha, good thing I decided to laugh more instead of arguing as much as I use to.

Since I previously suggested a trade of KO for Bennett I will respond. I think that Kelly is going to be a below average to average NBA player throughout his career. We have seen his strengths and weaknesses and I am of the belief that he is not a great piece going forward. You are right, Bennett has been very bad so far in his career and Kelly has been better. This is the reason a trade like this would work. Kelly may be better now but the idea is that Bennett has far more potential. Let's not forget that he was a number 1 overall pick, whether that was the right decision or not. The point that you make about our players always reaching their potential is one of the main reasons I would make that trade. This season almost every player on our team had a career year under Stevens. He is a master at getting the most out of his players. If Stevens could get Anthony Bennett to maximize his potential he could become a very good NBA player. Again, he could never blossom and remain a bust but that is the risk of the deal. I am of the mindset that the risk of losing Kelly for the chance of Bennett turning into a player worthy of a high draft pick is worth it. I am not claiming that Bennett is better as of now and I am also not suggesting trading Sully.
I told the driver Lenny swing me by the garden I gotta talk to Pat
Showed him some stacks
Then showed him the gat like ‘you’re gonna miss the finger roll right?’
Yes, Mr. Baklava

Re: Would you trade #16 for Anthony Bennett?
« Reply #44 on: May 30, 2015, 07:59:06 PM »

Offline ImShakHeIsShaq

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7739
  • Tommy Points: 804
People say KO can't bring a pick better than 20, they say he stinks, they would trade him for Bennett. This just proves the point I have made for a long time, our players are never good enough and even when they totally outperform someone they are still the worst player in the proposed deals in the minds of CB. Our players have ALWAYS reached their ceilings while any other player has endless uptapped potential. Then people add Sully to this trade idea? Ha, good thing I decided to laugh more instead of arguing as much as I use to.

Since I previously suggested a trade of KO for Bennett I will respond. I think that Kelly is going to be a below average to average NBA player throughout his career. We have seen his strengths and weaknesses and I am of the belief that he is not a great piece going forward. You are right, Bennett has been very bad so far in his career and Kelly has been better. This is the reason a trade like this would work. Kelly may be better now but the idea is that Bennett has far more potential. Let's not forget that he was a number 1 overall pick, whether that was the right decision or not. The point that you make about our players always reaching their potential is one of the main reasons I would make that trade. This season almost every player on our team had a career year under Stevens. He is a master at getting the most out of his players. If Stevens could get Anthony Bennett to maximize his potential he could become a very good NBA player. Again, he could never blossom and remain a bust but that is the risk of the deal. I am of the mindset that the risk of losing Kelly for the chance of Bennett turning into a player worthy of a high draft pick is worth it. I am not claiming that Bennett is better as of now and I am also not suggesting trading Sully.

I guess you missed the part about how people assess our player's ceiling vs. other guys. I can name many physically gifted players who never get better or guys who aren't as good as KO. What does that mean though? I don't even care about the proposed trade, it still rings true, you guys will take any player over our players just to say you have something new and shiny. The same people who talk about Bennett's potential would be the same ones to throw JY in as filler. Again, he's a Celt so he's a bust or nothing more than a role player. If he played for another team you guys would ship Sully off for him. Look at how much love Stauskas gets.
It takes me 3hrs to get to Miami and 1hr to get to Orlando... but I *SPIT* on their NBA teams! "Bless God and bless the (Celts)"-Lady GaGa (she said gays but she really meant Celts)