A trade down in the draft?

[Nef-Oracle]

If you're a Celtics fan you probably know about the picks Brooklyn owe us & regularly check the mock drafts & watch college ball like me, just to know the next superstar we will be drafting thanks to the them. Right?

 Okay looking at it lately I've found that the best players in this year's draft are mostly perimeter players.

 Out of the top 10 there are just two big men: Giles & Markannen, the rest are guards (Fultz, Ball, Smith Jr, Monk, Fox) & small forwards (Tatum, Jackson, Isaac, Bridges).

While Giles is totally worth a top 5 pick, his injury history is just too long to use it on a player who might be Greg Oden 2.0. Markkannen meanwhile as good as he is, is not a top 5 pick.

So after review we're left with players we won't play much if drafted because we already have established veterans with not-so much trade value

As much as keeping the pick is a nice idea, we'd better trade it because other teams will know that if we draft a player playing a position we already have established players there, we'll be obligated to make trades afterwards & they won't give much knowing so.

To sum it up a trade, especially a trade down is the best idea as there's no star on the market nor is anyone out there worth the nets pick.
Philly is an ideal trade partner;  they have young talent, a top 10 pick via LAL & are rebuilding.

The trade here is the Nets pick for Okafor, #10 & Hollis Thompson. We'll have to include Zeller & Rozier/Green to make it work for the player's numbers, Amir is an option too.


Why it works: We'll have little to no use of the players we'll get at #3 so we trade down pick up another lottery pick & a more useful player. Philly does it because getting two of the top 3 players in the most loaded draft is a dream scenario.

The beauty of this trade is that we can even do it at deadline & not wait till the draft.


Thoughts?

[Somebody]

Hm, we'll really need to see if Giles' knees are solid before trading the pick, if he is healthy is upside is transcendency

[alewilliam789]

So with Giles there's actually a posibiloty he's paying within 2 weeks. Would't trade  it for Okafor. The only way I would conceivably trade down in such a strong class as this is if we are getting a nice to move up, like player and late lottery pick, or package of nice players.
I personally wouldn't because this draftis way too deep and has elite talent at the top 5/6 positions.

[Nef-Oracle]

Hm, we'll really need to see if Giles' knees are solid before trading the pick, if he is healthy is upside is transcendency

Yup but knees injuries are very hard to overcome. We saw that with Rose, Oden, Brandon Roy just to name a few. I don't think he will ever play that long,  two surgeries already show that he's not a safe pick.

[Nef-Oracle]

So with Giles there's actually a posibiloty he's paying within 2 weeks. Would't trade  it for Okafor. The only way I would conceivably trade down in such a strong class as this is if we are getting a nice to move up, like player and late lottery pick, or package of nice players.
I personally wouldn't because this draftis way too deep and has elite talent at the top 5/6 positions.

Okafor & Hollis-Thompson are both nice players & the Lakers pick is a lottery pick, am I wrong?
Okafor is definitely a starting center who will fits nicely here as a low post scorer,  rebounder & shot, Hollis-Thompson is the back up we need for Avery or Jae as he can shoot the treys, play D. With the LAL pick we can still get an impactful player: Rabb, Markkanen, Hartenstein or Bryant to come and replace Olynyk if we don't pay him. It's a win-win for both teams we get some missing pieces & Philly gets two top 5 pick to build on for the future.

[Celtics4ever]

We don't even know where we will be picking and you want to trade down, to quote Tommy, " Oh Boy, Oh Brother!"

[BitterJim]

We're in no position to be making a quality-for-quantity trade right now. We need top end talent, not 3 more "nice players". A young guard with legitimate star potential is a lot more valuable than a backup SF, a middling center prospect, and a late lottery pick

[GratefulCs]

We don't even know where we will be picking and you want to trade down, to quote Tommy, " Oh Boy, Oh Brother!"

lets not forget "you gotta be kidding me"

And "what a terrible call"

Ha

[Moranis]

To realistically trade down you actually have to know what the picks are.  I could certainly see a scenario where Boston gets 1 and the Sixers end up with 3 and 8 (or something like that), where Philly wants that 1st pick (for Fultz) and uses either 3 and a player or 3 and 8 to move up to 1.  I could see something like that happening especially if Boston isn't entirely sold on Fultz as the 1 pick.  Boston could then drop back and pick up Isaac, Jackson, or Smith at 3 and Giles at 8 (or whatever). 

[green_bballers13]

We don't even know where we will be picking and you want to trade down, to quote Tommy, " Oh Boy, Oh Brother!"

It's not a crazy idea.

I was thinking similarly- if there's a lot of parity in terms of talent in the top 10, and the Celtics don't have a specific position that they are looking to fill, but would rather get the BPA, why wouldn't we consider trading the pick to a team that is looking to fill a specific spot.

Let's say we get #2 and we think we can get one of Giles/Isaac/Tatum at #7, why not pick up additional draft capital/players?

In theory, the Celtics could have done the same thing this past year if Danny wasn't as high on JB. A lot of people thought there was parity after the second pick.

[clevelandceltic]

The Cs have a ton of players already. Why are we trying to add quantity over quality? When I look at this team I see three things. 1. They need a star/franchise level player. 2. Their guards are small. I could see taking a wing and making a decision on what to do with Rozier. 3. This team needs another two way big that can rebound.

The only cavet I see in this draft is if they are put in a position where PGs are the next 3 best players then maybe I would change my mind.

[green_bballers13]

The Cs have a ton of players already. Why are we trying to add quantity over quality? When I look at this team I see three things. 1. They need a star/franchise level player. 2. Their guards are small. I could see taking a wing and making a decision on what to do with Rozier. 3. This team needs another two way big that can rebound.

The only cavet I see in this draft is if they are put in a position where PGs are the next 3 best players then maybe I would change my mind.

I agree with the bolded. I'm not trying to trade the prospect of drafting an A- player for 2 B+ players. That doesn't help us.

While this might be contrarian, I don't think that a top pick automatically equals an all star. Maybe it is a quasi-Belichickian mindset, but I like the chances of picking multiple guys, b/c you never know how will be good until they start playing NBA games. Kwame Brown and Anthony Bennett were expected to be all stars, but thy were not. Furthermore, guys like Draymond, Rondo, Butler, and Kawhi fell b/c of some perceived reason or another. The draft process is still an educated guess.

If I'm Danny, I'm not trading the pick down if a top guy that I covet is there. If there are a bunch of guys that I would be happy with, I'd trade down for another 1st rounder or useful asset, b/c no one knows where the all stars will be picked.

[Cman]

I know we need a big man, but if the Cs have the #3 pick,  the BPA is a PG, and the best "big man" is slated to go around #10, I make that pick for the PG at #3 10 times out of 10. Why? because the big man is probably not that talented. I prefer rolling the dice with a high upside, talented player at a position we are stacked with, rather than rolling the dice with a "meh" person at a position of need.

[Donoghus]

I hate the idea of trading down in the NBA.    This isn't then NFL where that strategy is quite effective. 

Rosters are much more limited in the NBA and its certainly a matter of quality over quantity.

[Celtics4ever]

It's not a crazy idea.

I was thinking similarly- if there's a lot of parity in terms of talent in the top 10, and the Celtics don't have a specific position that they are looking to fill, but would rather get the BPA, why wouldn't we consider trading the pick to a team that is looking to fill a specific spot.

Let's say we get #2 and we think we can get one of Giles/Isaac/Tatum at #7, why not pick up additional draft capital/players?

I think we have too many assets, we just let RJ walk, so picking up another draft capital/players is  certainly an option but we have an embarrassment of riches in regards to that presently.     Why add more to that mix?