CBS Sports Latest Mock: Sixers Trade Okafor to Celts for 3rd Pick, take Dunn

[loco_91]

I would not trade the #3 pick for Okafor. Okafor had a bad rookie season by every metric except points per game.
-Okafor's advanced stats were poor. Due to his inefficiency and poor AST:TOV ratio, he only managed 0.3 offensive winshares on the year-- an exceedingly bad number for a supposedly offensive minded big man-- and he posted a VORP of -0.8. For contrast, even Marcus Smart managed 0.7 OWS his rookie year, and he managed an excellent 1.4 VORP on the back of his outstanding defensive stats.
-By all accounts, Okafor was either a bad defender or a terrible one. He looks like a disaster in the PnR, and you can bet that in the playoffs, opposing teams are going to gameplan for him. He doesn't show much motivation on that end, so there is no reason to believe that he will improve. One-way offensive centers need to be extremely good on offense to make up for their D, especially when they also don't shoot 3's.
-Finally, Okafor only managed a 12.8TRB%, which unfortunately compares with Olynyk's career mark (12.4%). Typically, a center will collect over 15% of available rebounds. Moreover, rebounding does not tend to improve with age, so it's unlikely that Okafor will ever be close to an average rebounder. This is especially bad for a team that hangs its hat on defense and that likes to play small.

[yagru]

Players that have proven they can play in the NBA are always way more valuable then the crapshoot of the nba draft. The NBA draft is at least 50% luck if not more.

I don't see philly trading away someone who has already proven he can effectively score in the NBA. If they do then the Cs should be ecstatic.. it would be a big win especially considering this pick was essentially gifted.

[Big333223]

I don't like Okafor. I don't like centers who don't rebound and I'm not impressed by his hollow offensive stats in light of all of the advanced stats that say his presence on court did not help the team win.

That said...

I just watched a highlight package for Okafor this year and his handle seems pretty solid for such a bulky guy. He seems well balanced and his jumper looks like it could have some promise. He shot terrible from mid range this season but the jumper doesn't look bad and he shot almost 70% from the FT line. Is it possible that in the right circumstance, with the right coaching, he could become a Marc Gasol-light as a distributor but with a better back-to-the-basket game?

[CoachBo]

It absolutely is.

He is a kid himself, a quality the Benderphiles trumpet proudly when constructing alibis for his mediocre performances.

[byennie]

I wouldn't trade #1 pick for him, but #3? Yes, yes I would.

Sure there is risk attached. The advanced stats are a little scary. But compared to the risk of a player like Bender, or Hield, or Murray? The upside is just as high, and the floor is what? Brook Lopez?

Suppose we utilize him smartly, and he becomes a "mere" 18/8 center with a block or two every night and average defense. Develops a decent midrange game and hits his free throws. On certain nights/matchups he becomes a nightmare for teams with no post defense. That's a [dang] valuable asset.

[Big333223]

I wouldn't trade #1 pick for him, but #3? Yes, yes I would.

Sure there is risk attached. The advanced stats are a little scary. But compared to the risk of a player like Bender, or Hield, or Murray? The upside is just as high, and the floor is what? Brook Lopez?

Suppose we utilize him smartly, and he becomes a "mere" 18/8 center with a block or two every night and average defense. Develops a decent midrange game and hits his free throws. On certain nights/matchups he becomes a nightmare for teams with no post defense. That's a [dang] valuable asset.

I don't disagree with this, in spirit, but I don't think it's accurate to say Okafor's upside is as high as someone like Bender. Bender's upside is a 7-foot rim protector who can shoot 3's, distribute, and guard anyone in the frontcourt. There isn't even a good NBA comp for a guy like that.

btw, this is my 1000th post. 

[ssspence]

Not a perfect fit, but he's absolutely the best talent at 3 available over the guys in the draft.

As far as you know. Until a player taken at 3 or after becomes better, which one almost certainly will. At which point said player will absolutely be the best talent available over Jahlil Okafor.

I'm sorry, but if the Cs are in the market for a one dimensional player with the #3 pick in the draft, I have a problem with that.

You realize this is contradictory, right? lol You can't say "one almost certainly will" become better after having the previous sentence be "as far as you know." 

It's a figure of speech. I'll avoid spelling it out to spare myself a wrist slap from the mods.

Your perspective is 'absolute' because you're not an NBA scout, so it's easy to make this claim in a bird-in-the-hand capacity. The point remains.... the Cs should aspire to better with #3, whether via trade or pick.

So we shouldn't draft Okafor because, though he's the best available talent as of this point, some time in the future someone picked three or later could be better than him. I mean, technically it's a valid argument, because due to the sheer volume of players selected three or later, there is a decent chance that someone picked three or later will end up being better than him. However, the chance of us picking that exact player, which there won't be many if any at all, are much lower than the chances of someone actually being better than Okafor, which makes this argument not very strong.

I'll take my chance on the more proven player who has shown that he can actually play at the NBA level rather than taking a much smaller chance on someone who ultimately may be better than Okafor in the future.

I think you're still missing the point. What I'm saying is that there's a very high likelihood that there's a better talent (to use your term) available at #3 than Okafor. That player may not yet be fully developed, but no GM takes a player at #3 with immediate contribution as their top priority. It's the job of the Celtics to identify how and why that's the case, pick that talent, and develop it.

So what I'm saying is: you're not qualified to call Okafor vs. the entirely of the 2016 NBA draft past picks 1 & 2 'absolutely' a superior talent. In fact, the opposite is almost certainly ABSOLUTELY true. So if you want to say: "i'm not comfortable taking my chances, i'd rather have Okafor than take the the risk of missing on the pick", i have no problem with that. I think it's wrong -- the Celtics have long struggled to find true NBA stars via the draft and FA, and this is one of those opportunities so you shouldn't wuss out in exchange for a one-dimensional post player who isn't a true star -- but I follow what you mean.

It's the part where you've declared Okafor a better talent than every player you may or may not have thoroughly scouted and understand considering you're an everyday schmo like the rest of us that I'm calling you out on....

[byennie]

I wouldn't trade #1 pick for him, but #3? Yes, yes I would.

Sure there is risk attached. The advanced stats are a little scary. But compared to the risk of a player like Bender, or Hield, or Murray? The upside is just as high, and the floor is what? Brook Lopez?

Suppose we utilize him smartly, and he becomes a "mere" 18/8 center with a block or two every night and average defense. Develops a decent midrange game and hits his free throws. On certain nights/matchups he becomes a nightmare for teams with no post defense. That's a [dang] valuable asset.

I don't disagree with this, in spirit, but I don't think it's accurate to say Okafor's upside is as high as someone like Bender. Bender's upside is a 7-foot rim protector who can shoot 3's, distribute, and guard anyone in the frontcourt. There isn't even a good NBA comp for a guy like that.

btw, this is my 1000th post. 

I like Bender, but that's just not true. Porzingis is an easy NBA comp who is nearly a best case scenario for Bender 2 years from now. Bender is a good prospect but he's hardly the first sweet shooting euro big man. Will he be as good as Gallinari, Kirilenko, Nowitzki?

Okafor's upside is a 7 foot All-Star center who averages over 20/10 with a couple blocks for the next 10 years. Not saying it's going to happen, but he's hardly set in stone with the limitations of his 20 year-old season. Guys who can average 18/7 before their 21st birthdays have every bit the upside of any 18 year-old prospect who hasn't played in a top level league, with the exception of maybe LeBron back in the day. He could score 25ppg one day.

I can't fault anyone for objectively preferring Bender, but I just don't see the logical argument that one of these guys definitely has a higher upside than the other. Okafor is just as capable to improve his defense and score 25 per game, as Bender is to develop from euro bench player to NBA star in his 18-22 years.

[Eddie20]

Considering they're similar type players, why do some think Ainge would trade a #3 pick, and perhaps even more, for Okafor when he showed absolutely no interest in Monroe last summer? Both are good low post players, lack range, and are bad defensive players. However, Monore is a better passer and rebounder and has has zero off the court issues.

[Rosco917]

Generally, I like centers that are quick, strong defensively, can pass, work well in the pick and roll, and protect the rim.

On the other hand, I refuse to think Okafor will not improve his game, in all phases in the coming years. He's only 20 years old. Pair him with an athletic PF, to help with the defense and rim protection, and we may find we have a solid front court.

[PickNRoll]

I would not trade the #3 pick for Okafor. Okafor had a bad rookie season by every metric except points per game.
-Okafor's advanced stats were poor. Due to his inefficiency and poor AST:TOV ratio, he only managed 0.3 offensive winshares on the year-- an exceedingly bad number for a supposedly offensive minded big man-- and he posted a VORP of -0.8. For contrast, even Marcus Smart managed 0.7 OWS his rookie year, and he managed an excellent 1.4 VORP on the back of his outstanding defensive stats.
-By all accounts, Okafor was either a bad defender or a terrible one. He looks like a disaster in the PnR, and you can bet that in the playoffs, opposing teams are going to gameplan for him. He doesn't show much motivation on that end, so there is no reason to believe that he will improve. One-way offensive centers need to be extremely good on offense to make up for their D, especially when they also don't shoot 3's.
-Finally, Okafor only managed a 12.8TRB%, which unfortunately compares with Olynyk's career mark (12.4%). Typically, a center will collect over 15% of available rebounds. Moreover, rebounding does not tend to improve with age, so it's unlikely that Okafor will ever be close to an average rebounder. This is especially bad for a team that hangs its hat on defense and that likes to play small.

He played on, arguably, the worst team of all time, for the most dysfunctional franchise of all-time.  Some of his fellow starters were literally much worse than replacement level.  That means that even though they could have improved his teammates by adding D-League standouts or walk-ons, they deliberately declined.

You can't go very deep on analytics in a situation like this.  The team was engineered to be terrible.  How would any competitive athlete react to such a strange reality, let alone a young kid?

[PickNRoll]

Considering they're similar type players, why do some think Ainge would trade a #3 pick, and perhaps even more, for Okafor when he showed absolutely no interest in Monroe last summer? Both are good low post players, lack range, and are bad defensive players. However, Monore is a better passer and rebounder and has has zero off the court issues.

Okafor basically matched Monroe's production and Okafor was a rookie on one of the worst teams of all time.

Monroe is a B to B- player.  Okafor is a B with the potential to be a solid A in a league where the only thing that matters is finding A-caliber players.

[Eddie20]

Considering they're similar type players, why do some think Ainge would trade a #3 pick, and perhaps even more, for Okafor when he showed absolutely no interest in Monroe last summer? Both are good low post players, lack range, and are bad defensive players. However, Monore is a better passer and rebounder and has has zero off the court issues.

Okafor basically matched Monroe's production and Okafor was a rookie on one of the worst teams of all time.

Monroe is a B to B- player.  Okafor is a B with the potential to be a solid A in a league where the only thing that matters is finding A-caliber players.

Okafor produced basic stats, but that also came with horrible advanced numbers. That said, he might have benefited from being a bad team/stats guy. As his usage rate was 27.3% to Monroe's 23.5%. However, the point is that they're similar players (except Monroe is a better rebounder and passer) and Ainge showed no interest in courting Monroe during free agency. Why? If it's fit then why the notion that he's done a 180 on that player type (low post scorer, no range, bad defender) and would be willing to trade a valuable #3 pick on Okafor?

[PickNRoll]

Considering they're similar type players, why do some think Ainge would trade a #3 pick, and perhaps even more, for Okafor when he showed absolutely no interest in Monroe last summer? Both are good low post players, lack range, and are bad defensive players. However, Monore is a better passer and rebounder and has has zero off the court issues.

Okafor basically matched Monroe's production and Okafor was a rookie on one of the worst teams of all time.

Monroe is a B to B- player.  Okafor is a B with the potential to be a solid A in a league where the only thing that matters is finding A-caliber players.

Okafor produced basic stats, but that also came with horrible advanced numbers. That said, he might have benefited from being a bad team/stats guy. As his usage rate was 27.3% to Monroe's 23.5%. However, the point is that they're similar players (except Monroe is a better rebounder and passer) and Ainge showed no interest in courting Monroe during free agency. Why? If it's fit then why the notion that he's done a 180 on that player type (low post scorer, no range, bad defender) and would be willing to trade a valuable #3 pick on Okafor?

The stats just aren't very useful here.  They're not as similar as you make out.  Monroe is a vet on a middling team with a high-ish usage rate and solid post game.  Okafor has shown flashes of brilliance - like the potential to be the best pure low post PF scorer since Al Jefferson or dare I say, Kevin Mchale.  I promise you that he hasn't benefited from being on the 6ers.  20ppg on 60% shooting for multiple years is a real possibility for this kid. 

[MBunge]

Considering they're similar type players, why do some think Ainge would trade a #3 pick, and perhaps even more, for Okafor when he showed absolutely no interest in Monroe last summer? Both are good low post players, lack range, and are bad defensive players. However, Monore is a better passer and rebounder and has has zero off the court issues.

Ainge could think the third pick in the worth the difference between a rookie deal and a max contract.

Mike