Poll: #4 overall pick for Jabari Parker

[tankcity!]

The 4th pick for Okafor may be better for the team. IMO both have the potential to get a lot better, especially since it is their rookie year.

I did have a plan to get both but we are not "tanking"....and it may have involved us already having Myles Turner on the team. Dam, the way things are going with the Kings I bet we could essentially have done Turner for Cousins and fillers.

I actually like that trade. Only thing that concerns me is that Okafor had a torn meniscus. That's scary for a big man. It ruined Andrew Bynum's career.

[Dino Pitino]

Jabari might not be lighting the league on fire, but he's been averaging over 17 points and over 6 rebounds per game since the start of February.

In over 36.8 minutes a game! Only by a hair, but unlike every other such prospect, those numbers would be adjusted down per 36. He's played, like, the 3rd most minutes per game in the league in that span.

Well, yes, but he's not really using up a bunch of shots.  His scoring efficiency has been excellent - typically over 55% TS.

It's taking him 37 minutes to get those points because Milwaukee doesn't use him heavily, as his USG% has been only about 20% all year.   That's basically 4th-option usage.  Even though it has increased the last month or so, it still has been only ~23% in March/April.   That's basically '3rd-option' usage.

Who knows, maybe if he were the focal point of the offense then he could score like a Glenn Robinson or maybe even a Carmelo. However, he's still only getting 6 rebounds in 36 minutes a game as a PF. My hunch is that he's the worst-rebounding PF in the league, which I'll check bref about shortly. (EDIT: Seems so.) He's a mediocre defender as is, but he would be horrid as a SF. One way or another, he's got a defense-crippling flaw. He does nothing good except score, and he'd have to be a sensational league-lead-territory or super-efficient scorer to be really valuable. Otherwise, he's just Big Dog. Show of hands, how many people would trade the 4th pick for Glenn Robinson? I hope not too many. We should be shooting for a bigger impact than that from the 4th pick, there'll be a better player than Glenn Robinson available at #4.

Dude, Glenn Robinson is better than any player on the Celtics roster at the moment IMO.

1. No, Isaiah is better.

2. He'd be the worst defender in the rotation. I'd much rather have Jae Crowder than Glenn Robinson. You're overly impressed by one-dimensional scoring.

And do you realize how much of a big risk the 4th pick really is? What is the chance that player makes the all star team?

They're all risks. The reward is supposed to be higher than a Glenn Robinson ceiling at #4. Almost every single year there are multiple players better than Glenn Robinson drafted at #4 or soon after, in the top 10 or 15. A front office is supposed to be shooting for one of those players, not be content with a Glenn Robinson. If we aimed for better but wound up with a Glenn Robinson instead, then we can be satisfied, happy enough given the uncertainty, but that cannot be the goal.

 

I mean if it was Ben Simmons or Ingram I would understand, but we're talking about the 4th pick here. Parker would probably go 2nd in this draft as well. So your point makes no sense.

He might go 2nd, depending on which team is there, if that team's management and scouting happens to be bullish on him, pictures him developing parts of his game that suck or don't exist yet, but the hype that was there before the 2014 draft has faded a little, it takes more imagination now to see him being worth that high a pick. Teams would have more information than before to project him with, and that information includes "He's stuck at PF" and "He's a crap rebounder" and "He's not good on defense". There might still be a team that takes him that high, but most teams would be looking for more than a weak-rebounding weak-defending one-dimensional scorer at PF out of a top 4 pick.

Also the draft the Smart was in was supposed to be loaded, and we didn't end up getting an all star.

Yet. We did almost certainly get an All-Defensive player.

I actually think you're being very unfair to Parker, who is coming off a torn acl surgery.

His athleticism is actually better than ever. That's not the problem with his game right now. But now that you mention it, yeah, he's at a much higher risk for re-injury down the line. Another reason why teams might balk at him at the top of the lottery and prefer to gamble on someone with a better best case scenario.

I mean the Celtics are in desperate need of another scorer. They don't just come by that easily.

They also don't help you win games if all they are good at is scoring and they're a negative on defense and a big negative on the boards if it's a PF. We need a scorer, sure. We need a scorer who is a better overall player than Jabari Parker or Glenn Robinson, though.

Just to make sure, who are you drafting at 4? So I can come back next year and see if that player is going to be an all star.

This isn't a personal prediction urination contest. I am not a scout. It could be any one or more of the players regularly mocked between 4 and 15 who winds up being a much better two-way pro. But I'm very confident that there will be such a player, probably multiple players. The people whose job it is to research and compare all the players should be able to figure it out. But inevitably they won't, most of them, and there will inevitably be a better All Star than Big Dog picked later in the lottery or mid 1st. I hope it's Danny doing the picking by that point.

LOL!!! Ron Artest comparison. Now you're just being silly. Artest played a different position so his defense was way more important. My god, can you cool your jets on your love for Smart? Can the guy make an all defense team first?

"Way more important"? In today's perimeter-centric league a 6'4" defender who can guard PG, SG, and SF is way less important? Sure, we can wait until Smart makes the All-Defensive team first. Probably won't be waiting long. But if given at least as much time as it took Artest to make one, that means we can wait until his 4th year.

Thank you for speaking the truth. Artest is taller and better around the rim. I mean he also at least shot 40% his rookie year. People like to blame Marcus for his 3 pt shooting, but he isn't able to create his own shot. It's hard for him to find angles to drive. He lacks a first step.

Artest is taller, is a SF, attempted more shots closer to the rim, right. So him shooting 40% was about as bad as Marcus shooting what he has as a SG. You can't have it both ways.

[TheTruth]

Dino,

I think it's a fair question to ask who you would pick fourth over taking Parker, unless you are just all talk which it's becoming abundantly clear that you are.

[Dino Pitino]

Dino,

I think it's a fair question to ask who you would pick fourth over taking Parker, unless you are just all talk which it's becoming abundantly clear that you are.

You don't think it's a fair question, you think it's a "gotcha" question. You want me to name a prospect so that you can then "get me" by contrasting a completely unproven and mostly unknown player with a player who has produced something in the NBA, because the latter player is always going to look better by default.

It's not an unfair question in a vacuum, but it's not really an important question. I am a nobody on a message board. I am not on the staff of an NBA franchise. I don't know which player or players mocked in the lottery or mid 1st will be better than Parker. Most NBA front offices don't and won't, either. But based on basically every draft in history, I am fairly certain there will be such a player or players. Here are some recent years where a player more valuable than Parker or Big Dog was drafted, only between 4-15, excluding the top 3, not even counting any late 1st or 2nd round sleepers.

2013 Noel at 6, Antetokounmpo at 15
2012 Lillard at 6, Drummond at 9
2011 Kemba at 9, Klay at 11, Kawhi at 15
2010 Cousins at 5, Hayward at 9, George at 10
2009 Curry at 7, Derozan at 9
2008 Westbrook at 4, Love at 5, Lopez at 10
2007 Conley at 4, Noah at 9
2006 Roy at 6, Gay at 9...but since Roy got hurt and Gay isn't that valuable, I'll concede this year
2005 Paul at 4
2004 Deng at 7, Iguodala at 9

It would be unfair in hindsight to rake a GM over the coals for taking a Parker or Big Dog over those kind of players. But any GM who would be satisfied before the draft taking a Parker or Big Dog ahead of those kind of players is a bad, unambitious GM. You want a name? Just look at the 3rd through 15th slots on DX's mock draft and choose a couple names at random. That's how equipped we are as message board fans to accurately pre-judge these prospects compared to the information actual NBA execs and scouts have. But yeah, it's almost a guarantee that a better-than-Parker player or two exists in that range.

That's what the Celtics should be shooting for with the 4th pick. If they keep it. If they don't keep it, if they use it in a trade package, then they can definitely get a better player.

p.s. As I will continue to do whenever "TheTruth" trolls me, I invite everyone to look at my signature.

[tankcity!]

Dino,

I think it's a fair question to ask who you would pick fourth over taking Parker, unless you are just all talk which it's becoming abundantly clear that you are.

You don't think it's a fair question, you think it's a "gotcha" question. You want me to name a prospect so that you can then "get me" by contrasting a completely unproven and mostly unknown player with a player who has produced something in the NBA, because the latter player is always going to look better by default.

It's not an unfair question in a vacuum, but it's not really an important question. I am a nobody on a message board. I am not on the staff of an NBA franchise. I don't know which player or players mocked in the lottery or mid 1st will be better than Parker. Most NBA front offices don't and won't, either. But based on basically every draft in history, I am fairly certain there will be such a player or players. Here are some recent years where a player more valuable than Parker or Big Dog was drafted, only between 4-15, excluding the top 3, not even counting any late 1st or 2nd round sleepers.

2013 Noel at 6, Antetokounmpo at 15
2012 Lillard at 6, Drummond at 9
2011 Kemba at 9, Klay at 11, Kawhi at 15
2010 Cousins at 5, Hayward at 9, George at 10
2009 Curry at 7, Derozan at 9
2008 Westbrook at 4, Love at 5, Lopez at 10
2007 Conley at 4, Noah at 9
2006 Roy at 6, Gay at 9...but since Roy got hurt and Gay isn't that valuable, I'll concede this year
2005 Paul at 4
2004 Deng at 7, Iguodala at 9

It would be unfair in hindsight to rake a GM over the coals for taking a Parker or Big Dog over those kind of players. But any GM who would be satisfied before the draft taking a Parker or Big Dog ahead of those kind of players is a bad, unambitious GM. You want a name? Just look at the 3rd through 15th slots on DX's mock draft and choose a couple names at random. That's how equipped we are as message board fans to accurately pre-judge these prospects compared to what actual NBA execs and scouts know. But yeah, it's almost a guarantee that a better-than-Parker player or two exists in that range.

That's what the Celtics should be shooting for with the 4th pick. If they keep it. If they don't keep it, if they use it in a trade package, then they can definitely get a better player.

p.s. As I will continue to do whenever "TheTruth" trolls me, I invite everyone to look at my signature.

Look I'm personally not trying to troll you. We will see how great Smart is in two years and discuss then since you clearly think he is a future all star. The only thing I know is that from reading this board, you don't look at the other side. If you don't think Parker is that good of a player, then there is nothing I can say or do. However, time will tell us how good he is. I personally think he can be a great player. I love his intangibles as well. Point is it's clear you think Smart is better than Parker. That alone makes me think it is pointless to have discussion with until we are two years down the line.

Funny enough, I hope you do realize that Ainge may end up trading him. He tried last off season. I wouldn't be surprised if he was dealt for Okafor. If something like that does happen, I will be curious to see your thoughts then. I personally think this debate will resolved much sooner than later.

[TheTruth]

Dino,

Cherry picking past drafts does not bolster your point.

Take this year's draft for what it is. You said you would rather have the fourth pick over Parker. So which player or players do you think has more potential than him?

Or do you not have any basketball sense and can't tell who might be good or not because it's starting to seem that way.

And

Since you hate Parker's game so much, it shouldn't be hard for you to find someone to pick fourth but for some reason it is. You are all talk.

[tankcity!]

Dino,

I think it's a fair question to ask who you would pick fourth over taking Parker, unless you are just all talk which it's becoming abundantly clear that you are.

You don't think it's a fair question, you think it's a "gotcha" question. You want me to name a prospect so that you can then "get me" by contrasting a completely unproven and mostly unknown player with a player who has produced something in the NBA, because the latter player is always going to look better by default.

It's not an unfair question in a vacuum, but it's not really an important question. I am a nobody on a message board. I am not on the staff of an NBA franchise. I don't know which player or players mocked in the lottery or mid 1st will be better than Parker. Most NBA front offices don't and won't, either. But based on basically every draft in history, I am fairly certain there will be such a player or players. Here are some recent years where a player more valuable than Parker or Big Dog was drafted, only between 4-15, excluding the top 3, not even counting any late 1st or 2nd round sleepers.

2013 Noel at 6, Antetokounmpo at 15
2012 Lillard at 6, Drummond at 9
2011 Kemba at 9, Klay at 11, Kawhi at 15
2010 Cousins at 5, Hayward at 9, George at 10
2009 Curry at 7, Derozan at 9
2008 Westbrook at 4, Love at 5, Lopez at 10
2007 Conley at 4, Noah at 9
2006 Roy at 6, Gay at 9...but since Roy got hurt and Gay isn't that valuable, I'll concede this year
2005 Paul at 4
2004 Deng at 7, Iguodala at 9

It would be unfair in hindsight to rake a GM over the coals for taking a Parker or Big Dog over those kind of players. But any GM who would be satisfied before the draft taking a Parker or Big Dog ahead of those kind of players is a bad, unambitious GM. You want a name? Just look at the 3rd through 15th slots on DX's mock draft and choose a couple names at random. That's how equipped we are as message board fans to accurately pre-judge these prospects compared to the information actual NBA execs and scouts have. But yeah, it's almost a guarantee that a better-than-Parker player or two exists in that range.

That's what the Celtics should be shooting for with the 4th pick. If they keep it. If they don't keep it, if they use it in a trade package, then they can definitely get a better player.

p.s. As I will continue to do whenever "TheTruth" trolls me, I invite everyone to look at my signature.

I'd also like to mention everyone on this board already knows this. You're not sharing something we don't know. I don't get your point. It's about the percentages. Risk vs. Reward. Ainge traded a top ten pick for Sebastian Telfair if I recall correctly. I mean has Ainge ever drafted a perennial all star?

I love how you put the greek freak on there as well. It makes no sense because the Celtics passed up on him, lol.

Look, no point in debating with you at this point.

[TheTruth]

Dino,

How am I trolling you.

If anything, user's will look at your sig and see you are trolling me. I can't post one thing about Smart without you responding.

Occasionally I reply to your posts like I reply to many others. But you typically reply to almost all of mine about Smart.

So who is the troll?

Regarding your signature, I'm fine with it. I am surprised the mods allow posters to mock others in their sig. That is what you are trying to do right? Mock me?

You act like a child.

Let's also not forget how the mods had to delete 3 posts from you when you kept responding to my posts calling me stupid. You are the troll.

[D Dub]

TP for Dino for detailing his position.   

[Donoghus]

Dino,

How am I trolling you.

If anything, user's will look at your sig and see you are trolling me. I can't post one thing about Smart without you responding.

Occasionally I reply to your posts like I reply to many others. But you typically reply to almost all of mine about Smart.

So who is the troll?

Regarding your signature, I'm fine with it. I am surprised the mods allow posters to mock others in their sig. That is what you are trying to do right? Mock me?

You act like a child.

Aaaaand with that......we'll put this to an end.  Hopefully, you enjoyed your mini-return. 

[tankcity!]

Dino,

How am I trolling you.

If anything, user's will look at your sig and see you are trolling me. I can't post one thing about Smart without you responding.

Occasionally I reply to your posts like I reply to many others. But you typically reply to almost all of mine about Smart.

So who is the troll?

Regarding your signature, I'm fine with it. I am surprised the mods allow posters to mock others in their sig. That is what you are trying to do right? Mock me?

You act like a child.

Let's also not forget how the mods had to delete 3 posts from you when you kept responding to my posts calling me stupid. You are the troll.

I actually don't think Felger and Mazz are bad. They're better than all the other radio hosts in Boston.

[tankcity!]

Dino,

How am I trolling you.

If anything, user's will look at your sig and see you are trolling me. I can't post one thing about Smart without you responding.

Occasionally I reply to your posts like I reply to many others. But you typically reply to almost all of mine about Smart.

So who is the troll?

Regarding your signature, I'm fine with it. I am surprised the mods allow posters to mock others in their sig. That is what you are trying to do right? Mock me?

You act like a child.

Aaaaand with that......we'll put this to an end.  Hopefully, you enjoyed your mini-return.

What did he do wrong? Was it the name calling? Just want to know so I don't get in trouble in the future.

[Donoghus]

Dino,

How am I trolling you.

If anything, user's will look at your sig and see you are trolling me. I can't post one thing about Smart without you responding.

Occasionally I reply to your posts like I reply to many others. But you typically reply to almost all of mine about Smart.

So who is the troll?

Regarding your signature, I'm fine with it. I am surprised the mods allow posters to mock others in their sig. That is what you are trying to do right? Mock me?

You act like a child.

Aaaaand with that......we'll put this to an end.  Hopefully, you enjoyed your mini-return.

What did he do wrong? Was it the name calling? Just want to know so I don't get in trouble in the future.

No.  Just someone trying to circumvent a ban.

[PhoSita]

I actually don't think Felger and Mazz are bad. They're better than all the other radio hosts in Boston.

Eh, I prefer Toucher and Rich, but at least when it comes to discussing the NBA, it's not saying much to be the best in Boston.

[Dino Pitino]

Dino,

Cherry picking past drafts does not bolster your point.

Take this year's draft for what it is. You said you would rather have the fourth pick over Parker. So which player or players do you think has more potential than him?

Or do you not have any basketball sense and can't tell who might be good or not because it's starting to seem that way.

And

Since you hate Parker's game so much, it shouldn't be hard for you to find someone to pick fourth but for some reason it is. You are all talk.

It's not cherry picking the drafts. It's either 90% or 100% of the drafts in a 10-year span which all had 1 to 3 players available between #4 and #15 better than Parker. That's the opposite of cherry picking, which you do not seem to know the meaning of.

Sorry (not sorry) to frustrate your Felgerish hope of backing me into a corner so you can go to troll town on me. I am not going to do it. I don't need to do it. Doing it would serve no purpose. My point stands without it. Giving a specific choice would be completely missing the point.

But let's assume that the #4 through #15 picks are, say, Bender, Brown, Dunn, Hield, Murray, Poeltl, Ellenson, Labissiere, Jackson, Luwawu, Davis, Rabb, and Chriss. I can pretty much guarantee you that one, two, or three of those players will be better choices than Parker. That is the point. There are people who get paid a lot of money to try to figure out which one to pick. All that matters is whether they can make the right specific choice. Here's what doesn't matter: A message board troll's demand that a message board nobody give him pointless flame war fodder.

EDIT: Nevermind, hit Post before seeing the latest developments. Yay, I get to change my sig.