If We Get #1, Then Trade Down With Philadelphia For #2 AND #7?

[Phantom255x]

Obviously it hasn't been determined yet where the picks will land for each team and there are still lots of games to be played.

But lets say the odds are in our favor.. and Brooklyn are #1 in the draft, meaning we swap and have the #1 pick. Philadelphia end up at #2. Philadelphia want Fultz BADLY.

Would you be okay trading down for their #2 pick AND #7 (via Lakers)? That way, we don't get Fultz but we can still get Lonzo Ball, AND with #7 we can get any of Giles/Jackson/Tatum.

We can get one of the BPA available still (Fultz/Ball both have tremendous talent), while also adding a forward/big with tons of upside - a NEED (I love/prefer Giles here.. and if his health checks out I would take the risk - his draft stock will probably fall a bit as well due to less games and past injuries).

[footey]

Not sure there is enough separation between Fultz and the rest of the field to warrant that. Certainly I would make that trade. I know Red would.

[PhoSita]

I'd go ahead and take the guy I think is the best in the draft at #1 and feel good about it.

We've got enough players to develop and fit into the rotation as it is.

[max215]

It seems like a good idea right now, but historically speaking, this isn't a course of action that would work out well.

[Vermont Green]

I can't see Philly doing it.  Maybe if it is say 4 and 7 or something like that but definitely not 2 and 7.  Maybe 1 and Rozier for 2 and 7.  It should be interesting.

[Donoghus]

I'm more about quality over quantity at this point.  Celtics have plenty of the latter, still digging for more of the former.

[clevelandceltic]

I dont think Philly would do it if they landed at 2. They might if it was 3 or 4.

It seems like a good idea right now, but historically speaking, this isn't a course of action that would work out well.

[guava_wrench]

We have a lot of people on the roster. We don't need a #7. We need the player we like most. If the Celtics like the consensus #2 better than the #1, then a trade might make sense if we want the #2 more. Otherwise, more is not better. Better is better.

[clevelandceltic]

So you wouldnt take Giles and Tatum for Fultz? I would and I like Fultz alot.

I'm more about quality over quantity at this point.  Celtics have plenty of the latter, still digging for more of the former.

[clevelandceltic]

Yes we have alot of people on the roster but please tell me how many bigs do we have that can rebound and play D while giving you scoring? Horford thats it.

How many wings do we have that can create a shot? Maybe one in Brown.

This team has alot of players who are very limited in their scope of abilities and thus us looking for a star. Oh the 6 bigs that we have, I can see bringing back 2. The rest could be upgraded.

Crowder is a 3 and D guy on a team that lacks scorers and playmakers. He is a very good player in that role but you do need someone who can create at that spot.

Taking Tatum at 3 he could fit right into what Jerebko does and at 7 you take Giles and you cant tell me his rebounding isnt better than most on this team. Those arent bodies. They are legit future players with Tatum I think starting at the 3 long term and Brown at the 2.

This group of players is good enough to win you game but not the big games. Im swinging for the fences on this deal. This is my big trade. If I get an established player its through FA.

I agree with Scal in that I dont see a player out there in a trade that can put this team in a position to beat the Cavs hence me going for 2 young players now with the hope that you hit an FA in 18.

We have a lot of people on the roster. We don't need a #7. We need the player we like most. If the Celtics like the consensus #2 better than the #1, then a trade might make sense if we want the #2 more. Otherwise, more is not better. Better is better.

[saltlover]

It is too difficult to give the minutes needed to two top rookie draft picks while fielding a roster that hopes to contend.  It's tough enough just finding the minutes for Jaylen.  One at a time please.

If you wanted to move down a spot or two to grab the unprotected Sacramento pick in 2019, I could be sold.  Otherwise, take the best guy and move on.

[Donoghus]

So you wouldnt take Giles and Tatum for Fultz? I would and I like Fultz alot.

I'm more about quality over quantity at this point.  Celtics have plenty of the latter, still digging for more of the former.

I'd take Fultz and call it a day.

This roster is already plenty young enough.  They don't need to add two more first year players to it, the way that they're already constructed.   Where are the spots to go around?  At some point, you need to get past the point of adding first year players and make sure your roster has plenty of quality experienced players.   

[mmmmm]

I'd go ahead and take the guy I think is the best in the draft at #1 and feel good about it.

We've got enough players to develop and fit into the rotation as it is.

'Pretty much my thoughts exactly.

I also look at next year as when we'll almost certainly also be bringing in Yabusele and Zizic.

The more I look at Zizic (who had a very nice turn last night in his 2nd EuroLeague game:  14 points on 6 of 8 and 9 rebounds in just 24 minutes) the more he looks like if he had waited to declare in THIS draft, with it's shortage of top big men, might have gone closer to #10 than #20.

Most mock's I've seen have Bam Aydebayo as the highest ranked 'true center' at #13-15 and Zizic looks like a much more impressive prospect.

Yabusele is harder to compare to anyone, let alone anyone in this particular draft, but he was a #16 last year and has looked good all this season while doing everything Danny has wanted of him (i.e., I don't think we should hold the level of competition in the CBA against him).

Together with whomever we pick with the Nets pick (assuming no trade), that's plenty of young talent to have to integrate as rookies.

Folks should note that we also have three SECOND round picks coming in this draft, including the #36 (from MIN), so that isn't a throw-away.   Hopefully Danny will be able to trade those excess picks away for something useful or in the future.
 
So I concur with Phosita, here.  Just take the best player with our first pick and be happy.

[Phantom255x]

So you wouldnt take Giles and Tatum for Fultz? I would and I like Fultz alot.

I'm more about quality over quantity at this point.  Celtics have plenty of the latter, still digging for more of the former.

This is the route I was suggesting. Giles + Tatum. Yes please. And I also love Fultz.

[libermaniac]

It seems like a good idea right now, but historically speaking, this isn't a course of action that would work out well.

The 1980 draft would be to differ ... #1 (Joe Barely Cares) for #3 (McHale) and a young Robert Parish.