Would you trade the #1 pick to Philly for #4 and #8?

[Donoghus]

Nope. 

1.  4 and 8 have way less value than 1
2.  Boston doesn't need 2 lesser young players
3.  Boston doesn't need 2 for 1 period

That said if there were other components of the trade and it was clear Boston was moving on from Horford, Thomas, etc. then it might make mores sense.  If it was 2 and 8, that would be a bit different as that makes the trade fairly reasonable on the value side of things.

This draft has depth but its not like lebron or towns and then the rest

Fultz is good but is he absolutely better than Tatum? Or ball? Even Isaac has a very high end upside if he can add weight and keep improving on his game

You can't just keep adding 19-20 year old kids to this roster.  It creates a handful of issues.  Once again, some people are too tied up in the allure of potential, IMO.

You can if they are good enough. If there's not a significant separation between 1-10, why wouldn't you rather have 2 vs 1. You can always make trades later....

You really want Fultz over Tatum/Jackson and Giles?

You going to be able to develop all these kids with enough minutes AND remain competitive in the East?  You want to field a team where, say,  75% of the roster has 5 years of experience or less and expect to win games?  Not to mention the extension decisions to be made down the road.

"You can always make trades later".  Sure.  But will they be trades that actually benefit the Celtics or getting 25 cents on the dollar because the Celtics have low leverage?

[chambers]

Nope. 

1.  4 and 8 have way less value than 1
2.  Boston doesn't need 2 lesser young players
3.  Boston doesn't need 2 for 1 period

That said if there were other components of the trade and it was clear Boston was moving on from Horford, Thomas, etc. then it might make mores sense.  If it was 2 and 8, that would be a bit different as that makes the trade fairly reasonable on the value side of things.

This draft has depth but its not like lebron or towns and then the rest

Fultz is good but is he absolutely better than Tatum? Or ball? Even Isaac has a very high end upside if he can add weight and keep improving on his game

You can't just keep adding 19-20 year old kids to this roster.  It creates a handful of issues.  Once again, some people are too tied up in the allure of potential, IMO.

You can if they are good enough. If there's not a significant separation between 1-10, why wouldn't you rather have 2 vs 1. You can always make trades later....

You really want Fultz over Tatum/Jackson and Giles?

You going to be able to develop all these kids with enough minutes AND remain competitive in the East?  You want to field a team where, say,  75% of the roster has 5 years of experience or less and expect to win games?  Not to mention the extension decisions to be made down the road.

"You can always make trades later".  Sure.  But will they be trades that actually benefit the Celtics or getting 25 cents on the dollar because the Celtics have low leverage?

I guess the aim is trying to get All Stars on our team. With IT and Al Horford as our two best players we aren't going far unless we get All Stars. So if can't trade the pick for a star, then we should try and draft two, especially if we think there are two guys available at those spots in a very deep draft.
This is seen as a draft where most of the top 10 would be top 3,4 or 5 picks in many cases.

You're looking at this the wrong way IMO. Rather than think 'why add more young guys when we want to compete for a ship'. Well if we are drafting then we have to add one young guy. So why not two if we must draft? We already have some great young pieces like Smart, Brown, Rozier. Adding two more young studs who Brad can teach/develop is a way to develop more assets and potentially develop some stars.

4 and 8 actually have more value than #1 if you think the guy available at #4 is better than the guy Philly really wants with the #1 pick- and in this draft there are no clear cut top 3 guys. It's very, very deep.

I think Fultz is a good player, but if Lonzo Ball is there at #4 or Josh Jackson (who you think are better than Fultz), then making the trade makes sense doesn't it? Especially if Giles or Tatum are available at #8 (as an example).

[Donoghus]

Nope. 

1.  4 and 8 have way less value than 1
2.  Boston doesn't need 2 lesser young players
3.  Boston doesn't need 2 for 1 period

That said if there were other components of the trade and it was clear Boston was moving on from Horford, Thomas, etc. then it might make mores sense.  If it was 2 and 8, that would be a bit different as that makes the trade fairly reasonable on the value side of things.

This draft has depth but its not like lebron or towns and then the rest

Fultz is good but is he absolutely better than Tatum? Or ball? Even Isaac has a very high end upside if he can add weight and keep improving on his game

You can't just keep adding 19-20 year old kids to this roster.  It creates a handful of issues.  Once again, some people are too tied up in the allure of potential, IMO.

You can if they are good enough. If there's not a significant separation between 1-10, why wouldn't you rather have 2 vs 1. You can always make trades later....

You really want Fultz over Tatum/Jackson and Giles?

You going to be able to develop all these kids with enough minutes AND remain competitive in the East?  You want to field a team where, say,  75% of the roster has 5 years of experience or less and expect to win games?  Not to mention the extension decisions to be made down the road.

"You can always make trades later".  Sure.  But will they be trades that actually benefit the Celtics or getting 25 cents on the dollar because the Celtics have low leverage?

I guess the aim is trying to get All Stars on our team. With IT and Al Horford as our two best players we aren't going far unless we get All Stars. So if can't trade the pick for a star, then we should try and draft two, especially if we think there are two guys available at those spots in a very deep draft.
This is seen as a draft where most of the top 10 would be top 3,4 or 5 picks in many cases.

You're looking at this the wrong way IMO. Rather than think 'why add more young guys when we want to compete for a ship'. Well if we are drafting then we have to add one young guy. So why not two if we must draft? We already have some great young pieces like Smart, Brown, Rozier. Adding two more young studs who Brad can teach/develop is a way to develop more assets and potentially develop some stars.

4 and 8 actually have more value than #1 if you think the guy available at #4 is better than the guy Philly really wants with the #1 pick- and in this draft there are no clear cut top 3 guys. It's very, very deep.

Not really.  If this team was in "blow it up" mode or Philly circa 2015, then I would be much more open to that direction.  However, this team is past that.  It's a top 4 team in the east with a solid mix of young guys & vets.  Going too heavy with young guys at this point is a step backwards for the Celtics.  I'm fine integrating a young guy here & there (like they're doing with Brown) but they don't need to keep going to the well and trying to add 2-3 rookies a year.  The number of roster spots doesn't support it.

[chambers]

Nope. 

1.  4 and 8 have way less value than 1
2.  Boston doesn't need 2 lesser young players
3.  Boston doesn't need 2 for 1 period

That said if there were other components of the trade and it was clear Boston was moving on from Horford, Thomas, etc. then it might make mores sense.  If it was 2 and 8, that would be a bit different as that makes the trade fairly reasonable on the value side of things.

This draft has depth but its not like lebron or towns and then the rest

Fultz is good but is he absolutely better than Tatum? Or ball? Even Isaac has a very high end upside if he can add weight and keep improving on his game

You can't just keep adding 19-20 year old kids to this roster.  It creates a handful of issues.  Once again, some people are too tied up in the allure of potential, IMO.

You can if they are good enough. If there's not a significant separation between 1-10, why wouldn't you rather have 2 vs 1. You can always make trades later....

You really want Fultz over Tatum/Jackson and Giles?

You going to be able to develop all these kids with enough minutes AND remain competitive in the East?  You want to field a team where, say,  75% of the roster has 5 years of experience or less and expect to win games?  Not to mention the extension decisions to be made down the road.

"You can always make trades later".  Sure.  But will they be trades that actually benefit the Celtics or getting 25 cents on the dollar because the Celtics have low leverage?

I guess the aim is trying to get All Stars on our team. With IT and Al Horford as our two best players we aren't going far unless we get All Stars. So if can't trade the pick for a star, then we should try and draft two, especially if we think there are two guys available at those spots in a very deep draft.
This is seen as a draft where most of the top 10 would be top 3,4 or 5 picks in many cases.

You're looking at this the wrong way IMO. Rather than think 'why add more young guys when we want to compete for a ship'. Well if we are drafting then we have to add one young guy. So why not two if we must draft? We already have some great young pieces like Smart, Brown, Rozier. Adding two more young studs who Brad can teach/develop is a way to develop more assets and potentially develop some stars.

4 and 8 actually have more value than #1 if you think the guy available at #4 is better than the guy Philly really wants with the #1 pick- and in this draft there are no clear cut top 3 guys. It's very, very deep.

Not really.  If this team was in "blow it up" mode or Philly circa 2015, then I would be much more open to that direction.  However, this team is past that.  It's a top 4 team in the east with a solid mix of young guys & vets.  Going too heavy with young guys at this point is a step backwards for the Celtics.  I'm fine integrating a young guy here & there (like they're doing with Brown) but they don't need to keep going to the well and trying to add 2-3 rookies a year.  The number of roster spots doesn't support it.

I just don't have a problem with adding two guys when we have 15 roster spots and the Claws.
Waive Young, let Jonas and Amir walk.
There will be some teething period but if someone said to me 'you can have two top 3 picks this year but you have to get rid of 2 of your 15 man roster', it's a deal 110% of the time.

[Moranis]

Nope. 

1.  4 and 8 have way less value than 1
2.  Boston doesn't need 2 lesser young players
3.  Boston doesn't need 2 for 1 period

That said if there were other components of the trade and it was clear Boston was moving on from Horford, Thomas, etc. then it might make mores sense.  If it was 2 and 8, that would be a bit different as that makes the trade fairly reasonable on the value side of things.

This draft has depth but its not like lebron or towns and then the rest

Fultz is good but is he absolutely better than Tatum? Or ball? Even Isaac has a very high end upside if he can add weight and keep improving on his game

You can't just keep adding 19-20 year old kids to this roster.  It creates a handful of issues.  Once again, some people are too tied up in the allure of potential, IMO.

You can if they are good enough. If there's not a significant separation between 1-10, why wouldn't you rather have 2 vs 1. You can always make trades later....

You really want Fultz over Tatum/Jackson and Giles?

You going to be able to develop all these kids with enough minutes AND remain competitive in the East?  You want to field a team where, say,  75% of the roster has 5 years of experience or less and expect to win games?  Not to mention the extension decisions to be made down the road.

"You can always make trades later".  Sure.  But will they be trades that actually benefit the Celtics or getting 25 cents on the dollar because the Celtics have low leverage?

I guess the aim is trying to get All Stars on our team. With IT and Al Horford as our two best players we aren't going far unless we get All Stars. So if can't trade the pick for a star, then we should try and draft two, especially if we think there are two guys available at those spots in a very deep draft.
This is seen as a draft where most of the top 10 would be top 3,4 or 5 picks in many cases.

You're looking at this the wrong way IMO. Rather than think 'why add more young guys when we want to compete for a ship'. Well if we are drafting then we have to add one young guy. So why not two if we must draft? We already have some great young pieces like Smart, Brown, Rozier. Adding two more young studs who Brad can teach/develop is a way to develop more assets and potentially develop some stars.

We

Sure, historically teams mess up and 4 + 8, may yield a better result than 1, but that is extremely rare.  Before the last draft lottery, I actually went through and analyzed 1 vs. 2 and 4 (in case Boston got 1 and Philly got 2 and 4) and even in that scenario you were often better off with 1 than with 2 and 4.  The difference between 2 and 4 and 4 and 8 is immense. 

Here is the list of #8 picks historically.

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/history-of-the-nba-draft-by-pick/history-of-the-nba-draft-pick-number-8/

Here is a recent analysis of the odds of landing an All Star with picks 1-8 in the 35 drafts starting in 1980.  Sorted by best %.  http://www.nba.com/magic/gallery/cohen-8ball-history-picking-1-8-nba-draft-percentage-all-stars-1980

1 - 77%
3 - 49%
2 - 34%
5 - 31%
4 - 29%
6, 7 - 20%
8 - 11%

So Pick 4 and 8 combined are just 40%, while pick 1 alone is 77%.  In other words, 4 and 8 just aren't worth 1, but it is a lot more interesting if it is 2 and 8 given how much better players at 2 and 3 are than players taken at 4.  Still probably not worth it, but at least worth considering. Now if the offer is 2 and 4, then you really have something to think about unless you are absolutely sold on a player at 1.

[rollie mass]

 point guard is the toughest position to impact as a rookie-
imagine fultz being defended by avery or marcus
,imagine him playing defense against the lineup of top point quards
imagine trying to beat an avery and be met by length and strength ,vertical and speed
imagine dealing with the injuries that marcus,gordon ,jabari parker,randle ,nance, levine,winslow
exum,embid,simmons,noel have all had to suffer

[BitterJim]

Nope. 

1.  4 and 8 have way less value than 1
2.  Boston doesn't need 2 lesser young players
3.  Boston doesn't need 2 for 1 period

That said if there were other components of the trade and it was clear Boston was moving on from Horford, Thomas, etc. then it might make mores sense.  If it was 2 and 8, that would be a bit different as that makes the trade fairly reasonable on the value side of things.

This draft has depth but its not like lebron or towns and then the rest

Fultz is good but is he absolutely better than Tatum? Or ball? Even Isaac has a very high end upside if he can add weight and keep improving on his game

You can't just keep adding 19-20 year old kids to this roster.  It creates a handful of issues.  Once again, some people are too tied up in the allure of potential, IMO.

You can if they are good enough. If there's not a significant separation between 1-10, why wouldn't you rather have 2 vs 1. You can always make trades later....

You really want Fultz over Tatum/Jackson and Giles?

You going to be able to develop all these kids with enough minutes AND remain competitive in the East?  You want to field a team where, say,  75% of the roster has 5 years of experience or less and expect to win games?  Not to mention the extension decisions to be made down the road.

"You can always make trades later".  Sure.  But will they be trades that actually benefit the Celtics or getting 25 cents on the dollar because the Celtics have low leverage?

I guess the aim is trying to get All Stars on our team. With IT and Al Horford as our two best players we aren't going far unless we get All Stars. So if can't trade the pick for a star, then we should try and draft two, especially if we think there are two guys available at those spots in a very deep draft.
This is seen as a draft where most of the top 10 would be top 3,4 or 5 picks in many cases.

You're looking at this the wrong way IMO. Rather than think 'why add more young guys when we want to compete for a ship'. Well if we are drafting then we have to add one young guy. So why not two if we must draft? We already have some great young pieces like Smart, Brown, Rozier. Adding two more young studs who Brad can teach/develop is a way to develop more assets and potentially develop some stars.

We

Sure, historically teams mess up and 4 + 8, may yield a better result than 1, but that is extremely rare.  Before the last draft lottery, I actually went through and analyzed 1 vs. 2 and 4 (in case Boston got 1 and Philly got 2 and 4) and even in that scenario you were often better off with 1 than with 2 and 4.  The difference between 2 and 4 and 4 and 8 is immense. 

Here is the list of #8 picks historically.

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/history-of-the-nba-draft-by-pick/history-of-the-nba-draft-pick-number-8/

Here is a recent analysis of the odds of landing an All Star with picks 1-8 in the 35 drafts starting in 1980.  Sorted by best %.  http://www.nba.com/magic/gallery/cohen-8ball-history-picking-1-8-nba-draft-percentage-all-stars-1980

1 - 77%
3 - 49%
2 - 34%
5 - 31%
4 - 29%
6, 7 - 20%
8 - 11%

So Pick 4 and 8 combined are just 40%, while pick 1 alone is 77%.  In other words, 4 and 8 just aren't worth 1, but it is a lot more interesting if it is 2 and 8 given how much better players at 2 and 3 are than players taken at 4.  Still probably not worth it, but at least worth considering. Now if the offer is 2 and 4, then you really have something to think about unless you are absolutely sold on a player at 1.

Nice analysis. TP.

[clevelandceltic]

Nope. 

1.  4 and 8 have way less value than 1
2.  Boston doesn't need 2 lesser young players
3.  Boston doesn't need 2 for 1 period

That said if there were other components of the trade and it was clear Boston was moving on from Horford, Thomas, etc. then it might make mores sense.  If it was 2 and 8, that would be a bit different as that makes the trade fairly reasonable on the value side of things.

This draft has depth but its not like lebron or towns and then the rest

Fultz is good but is he absolutely better than Tatum? Or ball? Even Isaac has a very high end upside if he can add weight and keep improving on his game

You can't just keep adding 19-20 year old kids to this roster.  It creates a handful of issues.  Once again, some people are too tied up in the allure of potential, IMO.

You can if they are good enough. If there's not a significant separation between 1-10, why wouldn't you rather have 2 vs 1. You can always make trades later....

You really want Fultz over Tatum/Jackson and Giles?

You going to be able to develop all these kids with enough minutes AND remain competitive in the East?  You want to field a team where, say,  75% of the roster has 5 years of experience or less and expect to win games?  Not to mention the extension decisions to be made down the road.

"You can always make trades later".  Sure.  But will they be trades that actually benefit the Celtics or getting 25 cents on the dollar because the Celtics have low leverage?

I dont understand this argument at all. Taking two players in the top 8 does not mean you arent trying to compete. OKC had 5 years or less experience and made it to the Finals. The last point isnt even my point. My point is even if you take 2 guys you arent shaking up the team. The way the team is constructed its doubtful that any would even be starters so lets take a look at a hypothetical.

Smart plays 30 min as a primary bench ball handler.
Zizic replaces Zeller who barely plays.
Tatum replaces Jerebko and his min
Brown's min increase to 20
Giles would take Mickey's role until he proves that his D can get him on the court or split KO time eventually.
Rozier still in a limited role.
You can add in vets for the rest of the bench.

I dont see how this changes our outlook going for a title or how it makes them very young.

[CelticGuardian]

Nope. 

1.  4 and 8 have way less value than 1
2.  Boston doesn't need 2 lesser young players
3.  Boston doesn't need 2 for 1 period

That said if there were other components of the trade and it was clear Boston was moving on from Horford, Thomas, etc. then it might make mores sense.  If it was 2 and 8, that would be a bit different as that makes the trade fairly reasonable on the value side of things.

This draft has depth but its not like lebron or towns and then the rest

Fultz is good but is he absolutely better than Tatum? Or ball? Even Isaac has a very high end upside if he can add weight and keep improving on his game

You can't just keep adding 19-20 year old kids to this roster.  It creates a handful of issues.  Once again, some people are too tied up in the allure of potential, IMO.

You can if they are good enough. If there's not a significant separation between 1-10, why wouldn't you rather have 2 vs 1. You can always make trades later....

You really want Fultz over Tatum/Jackson and Giles?

You going to be able to develop all these kids with enough minutes AND remain competitive in the East?  You want to field a team where, say,  75% of the roster has 5 years of experience or less and expect to win games?  Not to mention the extension decisions to be made down the road.

"You can always make trades later".  Sure.  But will they be trades that actually benefit the Celtics or getting 25 cents on the dollar because the Celtics have low leverage?

I dont understand this argument at all. Taking two players in the top 8 does not mean you arent trying to compete. OKC had 5 years or less experience and made it to the Finals. The last point isnt even my point. My point is even if you take 2 guys you arent shaking up the team. The way the team is constructed its doubtful that any would even be starters so lets take a look at a hypothetical.

Smart plays 30 min as a primary bench ball handler.
Zizic replaces Zeller who barely plays.
Tatum replaces Jerebko and his min
Brown's min increase to 20
Giles would take Mickey's role until he proves that his D can get him on the court or split KO time eventually.
Rozier still in a limited role.
You can add in vets for the rest of the bench.

I dont see how this changes our outlook going for a title or how it makes them very young.

We have two guards set to hit free agency next year at the same time, guys. That's our starting PG and SG, Danny needs to draft a guard. I don't know how highly he thinks of Demetrious Jackson apparently not much because at least James Young gets to sit on the bench for this team. Rozier is being showcased lol So yeah, we need to get more security in the backcourt.

[gift]

Not only might there not be a lot of drop off between #1 and #4, the Celtics might value the guy who would be available at #4 as their #1 anyway. In that scenario there is no reason not to trade.

It's just too hard to say in a vacuum that you absolutely do or do not make that trade (unless trading the #1 pick for a star. Then the #1 absolutely has more value).

[Roy H.]

If I was picking, probably yes.  There will be a definite "best player" in this draft, but I don't trust myself to identify him.

Danny is a professional, though. I think he'd prefer a shot a taking the best.

[Donoghus]

Nope. 

1.  4 and 8 have way less value than 1
2.  Boston doesn't need 2 lesser young players
3.  Boston doesn't need 2 for 1 period

That said if there were other components of the trade and it was clear Boston was moving on from Horford, Thomas, etc. then it might make mores sense.  If it was 2 and 8, that would be a bit different as that makes the trade fairly reasonable on the value side of things.

This draft has depth but its not like lebron or towns and then the rest

Fultz is good but is he absolutely better than Tatum? Or ball? Even Isaac has a very high end upside if he can add weight and keep improving on his game

You can't just keep adding 19-20 year old kids to this roster.  It creates a handful of issues.  Once again, some people are too tied up in the allure of potential, IMO.

You can if they are good enough. If there's not a significant separation between 1-10, why wouldn't you rather have 2 vs 1. You can always make trades later....

You really want Fultz over Tatum/Jackson and Giles?

You going to be able to develop all these kids with enough minutes AND remain competitive in the East?  You want to field a team where, say,  75% of the roster has 5 years of experience or less and expect to win games?  Not to mention the extension decisions to be made down the road.

"You can always make trades later".  Sure.  But will they be trades that actually benefit the Celtics or getting 25 cents on the dollar because the Celtics have low leverage?

I dont understand this argument at all. Taking two players in the top 8 does not mean you arent trying to compete. OKC had 5 years or less experience and made it to the Finals. The last point isnt even my point. My point is even if you take 2 guys you arent shaking up the team. The way the team is constructed its doubtful that any would even be starters so lets take a look at a hypothetical.

Smart plays 30 min as a primary bench ball handler.
Zizic replaces Zeller who barely plays.
Tatum replaces Jerebko and his min
Brown's min increase to 20
Giles would take Mickey's role until he proves that his D can get him on the court or split KO time eventually.
Rozier still in a limited role.
You can add in vets for the rest of the bench.

I dont see how this changes our outlook going for a title or how it makes them very young.

Not saying you have to understand it.  I see it as a potential step backwards.  Where are all the minutes going to come from for development?  Also, as illustrated above and what I mentioned before, I trust that the #1 pick will pan out quite fine versus the possibility of trading down and nabbing #4 & #8 instead.  My philosophy of "quality over quantity" at this point.

If this team was in the early stages of a rebuild, I might actually be swayed to do this.

[CelticGuardian]

Not only might there not be a lot of drop off between #1 and #4, the Celtics might value the guy who would be available at #4 as their #1 anyway. In that scenario there is no reason not to trade.

It's just too hard to say in a vacuum that you absolutely do or do not make that trade (unless trading the #1 pick for a star. Then the #1 absolutely has more value).

The thing is then the C's could be passing up on a future superstar in favor of guys that won't become as good as that #1 overall. We should want the absolute best for our team.

[td450]

How about giving Denver the right to swap with us in exchange for Jokic, if we get him now?

[gift]

Not only might there not be a lot of drop off between #1 and #4, the Celtics might value the guy who would be available at #4 as their #1 anyway. In that scenario there is no reason not to trade.

It's just too hard to say in a vacuum that you absolutely do or do not make that trade (unless trading the #1 pick for a star. Then the #1 absolutely has more value).

The thing is then the C's could be passing up on a future superstar in favor of guys that won't become as good as that #1 overall. We should want the absolute best for our team.

Agreed. But the best guy might get picked at #4. The Celtics could pick #1 and still be passing on a future superstar for a lesser player. While this is true most any year, it has a higher chance of happening this year than most because of the closeness of the talent in the top 4-7 players.

I'm not saying it's the right move. I'm just saying that if there was a year to try it might be this draft.