I think a lot of people doubt whether his game will translate – at least in terms of being a quality starter vs a role player. But that's besides the point.
Comparing Hield an Okafor in such simplistic terms is silly. One is 20 years old and the other will be 23 in his rookie season. One is putting up 17 points in his first NBA season, while the other is a fringe top-5 prospect in one of the worst draft classes in recent memory. One provides elite scoring potential at a position where scoring is rare, while the other brings a top-flight shooting stroke to a position where we already have a potential long-term starter.
I'm glad you acknowledge Okafor is better, but other than massive generalizations like "they're offensive first and don't play defense", there are very little similarities there.
I find it interesting that you didn't even deal with your first mistake - the fact that I started a thread about acquiring Okafor months ago. Whoops!
Actually, most scouts don't doubt Buddy's game. They doubt whether Buddy can do anything more than being a scorer. Plus, you missed the point in that Buddy was an example. A top 5 pick is generally a very valuable asset and this rhetoric of "worst draft classes in recent history" is exactly that- rhetoric. First, it's not supposed to be that weak. When it has (supposedly) 2 sure fire superstars in Simmons and Ingram and a host of other very good players it can't be called weak. Secondly, no one will know how good or bad it is until 2 years from now. 2014 was supposed to be stacked. That assessment isn't quite as rosy today. There's a litany of past drafts being called strong or weak where the scouts turned out to be wrong.
To summarize, you don't start throwing around a #5 pick in offers like it's not worth much. It's often quite valuable in the right hands and personally I like Danny's track record in the draft.
There's no doubt Crowder is on an unbelievable contract. Easily one of the best in the NBA, especially with his improvement on the offensive end this season.
But you don't build teams by assembling role players first. That's how you end up in perennial mediocrity. If you think Jahlil is a star, you don't say, "well we can't trade an excellent role player on a bargain deal." That's not how you build a championship contender.
Again, you might not think Okafor is a star. It's why I prefaced my previous answer with your personal view on the player. However, there are certainly a lot of people who think Okafor is that star. If Danny's one of them, then I'm more than willing to give up that package – even with Crowder's friendly deal.
Edit: It's also important to note that Okafor is on a rookie deal for the next three years and would locked up for the next seven if we choose to keep him.
And you still didn't address the problem. If you get Okafor and you deal Crowder you have no one to play the SF. Moreover, you'd give away the top 5 pick in which to acquire a replacement. Now there's always someone available but now you're also locked into an overpay and that's how you ruin your cap position.
If you acquire someone, you don't want to move the role players that would best compliment the game of the guy you're acquiring! It's the same reason you wouldn't want to move KO in this deal.
Come on now.
Marcus is one of my favorites. He's a winner. He's a guy you want on a championship team. I can certainly respect not wanting to include him the deal.
But if you're comparing the two players, I'm willing to bet that 99% of non-Celtic fans trade Marcus Smart for Jahlil Okafor. You're right that this is absurd.
I'll reiterate that it's a bigger package than we'd need for Philly to move Okafor in all likelihood. However, if Danny believes Okafor is a star, this is a no-brainer despite Crowder, Smart and the lotto pick's value.
Right back at ya. Come on now.
Your best comeback is you're willing to bet that non-Celtics fan trade Smart for Okafor? This is what you think passes as a rational retort? You have no idea what 99% of non-Celtic, Celtic or Celtic F.C. fans think. That's more than a bit presumptuous don't you think?
While I support my position with factual statistical data, you don't offer any proof at all whatsoever to suggest that Okafor is better than Smart. As I said before, 22 year olds who can lock down 4 positions on the court and don't need the ball in their hands to help a team win are valuable commodities not to be taken lightly. I'm frustrated with the lack of growth in Marcus' offensive game. But I also realize that the kid helps the Celtics win basketball games. I'm not convinced that Okafor helps the Cs win more games next year.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't move Smart for Okafor due to the makeup of the current squad. But it does mean that Smart and Okafor are comparable commodities and it's ridiculous to treat Marcus as some sort of "throw in" on this deal.
Now somehow if you believe that Okafor - right now, today - is a blue-chip superstar who should command the type of "everything including the kitchen sink" trade deal in order to acquire him, then this is the type of offer you pony up. But if you believe that:
(1) Okafor is not yet worth a superstar's ransom;
(2) Realize that by offering such a massive package for this kid that you're in essence starting over in the rebuild process because this WILL NOT make the team better in the near future;
(3) That BOTH the top 5 pick and Smart have a reasonable chance to be better players than the guy that's being acquired;
Then you realize how absurd this offer truly is.
I've said the right deal all along is the Brooklyn pick + Bradley for Okafor with maybe a throw in later pick (Phily re-acquiring their 2nd rounder). Philly gets another top pick, a 3-and-D guy they desperately need and they remove the logjam they'll have in the front court if Embiid comes back healthy. The Cs give up their top pick and lose their 3-and-D guy but have potential replacements and remove the logjam they have in the backcourt.
