A trade down in the draft?

[Jon]

As other have said, it'd likely be a terrible idea. We need more quality, not more quantity.

[green_bballers13]

I think it only makes sense if Danny's view of the draft board is even for a while (maybe 5-8 guys ranked evenly). This probably wasn't the case last year, as he apparently loved Jaylen in workouts. If he has a particular view of a certain player this year that he think he can get later, I have no problem with him trading back.

If the player turns out to be as good as Rondo or Pierce, I see no reason to not take this route.

 The draft is not a perfect system. It's not as cut and dry as people seem to be stating- the best players don't always go first. There are a crazy amount of examples to support this.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I know we have a ton of guards, but Fultz or Ball are getting drafted if they're there.  I am cautiously optimistic we get Fultz, that kid is can't miss and we could have IT as the 6th man. 

[Nef-Oracle]

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

Surely a top 5 unless Brooklyn improves somehow. If we get Fultz it's a good thing but when you have to trade Smart & IT for bag of chips because teams don't value them enough to pay a lot it's a bad idea

[Nef-Oracle]

I think it only makes sense if Danny's view of the draft board is even for a while (maybe 5-8 guys ranked evenly). This probably wasn't the case last year, as he apparently loved Jaylen in workouts. If he has a particular view of a certain player this year that he think he can get later, I have no problem with him trading back.

If the player turns out to be as good as Rondo or Pierce, I see no reason to not take this route.

 The draft is not a perfect system. It's not as cut and dry as people seem to be stating- the best players don't always go first. There are a crazy amount of examples to support this.

I'm on board with you. There are good guys,  Devin Booker type of sleepers we can't get later in the draft like Hartenstein, Bryant that could be better than they're ranked & help in the near future. That's why I proposed this trade.

[Nef-Oracle]

I know we have a ton of guards, but Fultz or Ball are getting drafted if they're there.  I am cautiously optimistic we get Fultz, that kid is can't miss and we could have IT as the 6th man.

Isaiah as a 6th man is doable in the future but is it worth to pay him 20+ millions to have him sit on the bench?

[Nef-Oracle]

As other have said, it'd likely be a terrible idea. We need more quality, not more quantity.

Okafor + another lottery is definitely quality isn't it? Clearly we need a starting big to complement Horford,  score when he can't & rebound when he's hunting on the perimeter. Okafor fits in the system too. There will sleepers too, players will slip in draft, under perform then be good in the league. There are a lot of Myles Turner type of player in this year's draft. I see quality there.

[Nef-Oracle]

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.

I said this can be done before or during draft day.  The best players in the draft are all perimeter players. Our best players IT, AB, Crowder are all perimeter players & we have Brown, Smart, Rozier waiting on the sidelines. Nader is looking good tho,  ditto for Jackson. Meanwhile we're thin in the frontcourt, Kelly is a FA, Jonas is too, Amir is useless & Zeller can't rebound. Al is 30 something so we need to upgrade sooner than later. Okafor plus another big picked with the Lakers picks does just that. It's a Spurs strategy, building for the future.

[Nef-Oracle]

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).

We can win or not, whatever happens we need help in the ftoncourt. A player to pair with Horford as well young bigs for the future as he's getting old & both Kelly and Jonas are FA. A trade down is likely the best idea to build a contender.

[GRADYCOLNON]

In the event we get the number 1 pick, I'd only think the Celtics would be willing to trade down if the talent in the top 4 have equal value.  This situation gives the Celtics more opportunity to maximize the first pick similarly to how we acquired McHale and Parish.  If the number one player is the best player in the draft then there should be no discussions in the front office from trading down in the draft because the quality is impossible to get.  Now, if a top 3 player in the league is being offered in a single swap then the previous sentence could he disregarded. 

Example of this might be Fultz and Ball and Jackson are equally good options, so trading down for Jackson to the second or third spot so a team like Philly could pick their preferred pg would net us a top prospect like okafor, etc.  Or is Durant is being offered for #1 pick.

[Nef-Oracle]

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.

The top players in the draft this years are PG, the others are SFs & there's only two big projected to go in the first round with one being injury prone. The next big are all projected to be picked later so there's definitely a way to get them later. With Kelly, Jonas, Amir & Green being FA I can't see a scenario where they are not getting more money elsewhere so the draft is the only option to get talent for cheap. Okafor is talented enough to be a franchise player & can definitely rebound.

[Nef-Oracle]

As other have said, it'd likely be a terrible idea. We need more quality, not more quantity.

We have three FA in Kelly, Jonas & Green that will likely be offered more money elsewhere & will need to be replaced. Amir a FA too will likely be let go, Horford is in his 30s & will start declining soon so there's something to be done here & this draft is stacked enough to find high end role player & sleepers to keep building a contender. Quantity in this draft equal quality in others draft IMO.

[Evantime34]

The answer to this as it is with most things is, it depends.

If you believe that the top tier of players in this draft is pretty fluid then trading back to get two players in the top tier instead of one is a good idea. Personally I don't think there is going to end up being a huge difference between Fultz, Jackson, Tatum, Giles, Isaac, Fox, Ball, Bridges and Markkanen.

If the Celtics make a big trade where they send out 3 or 4 guys and only get back 1 then trading down is a good idea, provided you believe that the top tier is fluid.

If the Celtics aren't able to add anyone in free agency and end up just re-signing Olynyk and replacing Amir with a middle tier free agent on a short deal then our team is probably too young to add two firsts plus whoever we pick in the second.

If Zizic and Yabu come over then we probably have too many young guys to add two firsts and multiple seconds.

[spikelovetheCelts]

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?

If we don't like the pick trade it for an established player. With this pick we will have three people coming not including 3 second picks we need to have less players if we drop to 4 it would be better to give up assets if one of the top 3 is a game changer. IMO.

[Nef-Oracle]

In the event we get the number 1 pick, I'd only think the Celtics would be willing to trade down if the talent in the top 4 have equal value.  This situation gives the Celtics more opportunity to maximize the first pick similarly to how we acquired McHale and Parish.  If the number one player is the best player in the draft then there should be no discussions in the front office from trading down in the draft because the quality is impossible to get.  Now, if a top 3 player in the league is being offered in a single swap then the previous sentence could he disregarded. 

Example of this might be Fultz and Ball and Jackson are equally good options, so trading down for Jackson to the second or third spot so a team like Philly could pick their preferred pg would net us a top prospect like okafor, etc.  Or is Durant is being offered for #1 pick.

I get your point. You don't pass on talent for nothing, it's okay. But with us already having established players on the talent on this team it's obvious we'll have to free up space for new comers, which is a little more complicated cause the league won't give much for them knowing we'll have to sell to clean up the logjam…You get mine? We have bigger needs especially in the front court that can't be addressed by drafting a perimeter player & will put us in a bad position afterward. With three big men heading to free agency as soon as this off season & likely getting more money elsewhere than we have to offer it's THE priority. Getting a young big to complement Horford as well as another one via the LA pick does just that.