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

[celticsclay]

Im all for a good hypothetical ( see what would happen if IT averaged 28 points for 5 years), but this seems a bit strange because this is a scenario that is in the near future that has about a 1% chance of happening. Then if that 1% hits, who knows if it would even be offered.

Philly could end up with the 1st and 9th pick. The 6th and 8th pick. Or only one pick.

Also where did the 4 and 8 come from?

Philly is currently tied for 3rd but they have also played .500 in their last 10 games. They seemed to have stopped tanking because they stopped playing the horrible Okafor.

[nickagneta]

Last year everyone wanted the Cs to consolidate picks and draft up. Now its, " Lets trade down for quantity. Make up your minds.to

I dont see Ainge willing to give Stevens likely 5 rookies next year (2017 picks suggested here, Yabu, Zizac and Nader) while also having a 2nd year player in Brown and 3rd year players like Rozier and Mickey still on the team.

I think Danny keeps the number 1 pick and gets rid of some youth(Rozier, Yabu, Zizic, Young, Mickey) for bench vets on short contracts or he trades it plus youth for a superstar. But there is no way Ainge keeps that many, 7-8 inexperienced players while also trying to get the team to be more of a contender. Contenders dont have 8 players on their teams with lesd than 3 years experience. They just dont

[sdceltsfan]

I'm actually praying for this opportunity. There's like 6 prospects in this draft that would have been the #1 or #2 overall picks in most of the drafts of the last 5 seasons.

If Philly gets #4 and that Laker pick ends up in the 6-8 range, I am absolutely on the phone with them, dangling Fultz/Ball

But I would make them also include Okafor. I think the trade value of #1 is pretty much even in points with a swap for #4 and #8. But like any other trade, the team with the higher value single asset going out, usually forces an overpay from the team sending multiple assets.

So I'm thinking the final trade with Philly looks like:

#1, Boston 2018 1st round to Philly

#4, #8, Okafor to Boston

Philly is desperate for their PG to make all this tanking and drafting bigs/wings to start becoming cohesive. They likely take Fultz #1 overall.

I think at #4 we take Josh Jackson. If he goes at #3, then we take Tatum. Both of those guys are Brandon Ingram-type players that would normally be a #1 or #2 consideration in most drafts, IMO.

at #8 we take whoever is left between Malik Monk or Harry Giles

Because of his injury history, I think Giles is the one who slides, and with our rotation depth, we are more then happy to take him at #8.

[TheTruthFot18]

Last year everyone wanted the Cs to consolidate picks and draft up. Now its, " Lets trade down for quantity. Make up your minds.to

That's the difference between a loaded draft and a two player draft.

[kraidstar]

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.

TP.

You're also more likely to get a generational superstar talent at the very early positions. I'd trade two low-level all-stars for LeBron any day.


If Danny feels there is a Michael Jordan or a Bill Russell in this draft, or a Magic Johnson an Oscar Robertson, or a Hakeem Olajuwon, we need to make SURE we get that guy.

[LarBrd33]

I still don't understand the premise of this.  Everything I read about the draft suggests there's multiple all-star prospects at the top of this draft with no clear separation.   Ford and Pelton just had an article the other day suggesting there were as many as 8 guys in the running for the #1 pick this year.  Why would you trade two of those guys for one of those guys?

[JBcat]

Last year everyone wanted the Cs to consolidate picks and draft up. Now its, " Lets trade down for quantity. Make up your minds.to

I dont see Ainge willing to give Stevens likely 5 rookies next year (2017 picks suggested here, Yabu, Zizac and Nader) while also having a 2nd year player in Brown and 3rd year players like Rozier and Mickey still on the team.

I think Danny keeps the number 1 pick and gets rid of some youth(Rozier, Yabu, Zizic, Young, Mickey) for bench vets on short contracts or he trades it plus youth for a superstar. But there is no way Ainge keeps that many, 7-8 inexperienced players while also trying to get the team to be more of a contender. Contenders dont have 8 players on their teams with lesd than 3 years experience. They just dont

I understand what you are saying but I think we are in a very unique situation where the top 1/2 of or roster can be used to compete for the playoffs, and most of the bottom half for developing.  Yes there will have to be some consolidation.

Let's say Ainge decides who to keep between Jackson and Rozier as a PG to open 1 roster spot.  Zizic takes Zeller's roster spot who hardly plays anyway.  Brown can fill more of Jonus's role so JJ is gone opening a roster spot.  I still have a glimmer of hope for Young but Green is already filling his role, and I would like Green back.  Maybe Danny decides to keep only 1 of Yabu or Mickey.

Rotation players for next year
Thomas, Bradley, Smart, Rozier, Crowder, Green, Horford,Kelly, free agent x (at least as good as Amir)

Players to develop
Let's say Tatum and Giles from proposed trade, Nader, Yabu, and Zizic.

That leaves actually 1 spot for another FA or to bring one of the current players back.  At the very least we would be as good as this year while upgrading our young talent.

[Evantime34]

My opinion is that Fultz, Ball, Jackson, Tatum, Monk, Isaac and Smith are of similar quality. While Giles, Markkanen, Fox and Ntilikina could join that group.

If we can trade a pick that would have us draft one for two picks that would have us draft 2 guys out of the group I'm all for that.

For instance I'd rather have Jackson and Giles than Fultz. Danny talks about draft picks as swings at the plate. If you value all the players in the top 8 as similar level prospects then twice as many chances are worth more than one.

[Evantime34]

I still don't understand the premise of this.  Everything I read about the draft suggests there's multiple all-star prospects at the top of this draft with no clear separation.   Ford and Pelton just had an article the other day suggesting there were as many as 8 guys in the running for the #1 pick this year.  Why would you trade two of those guys for one of those guys?

From Philly's perspective? They would have to think the number one prospect was much better than the other top prospects.

I agree with you though, if I'm the Sixers I'm taking the best two available guards. Embiid, Simmons, Saric, Monk and Smith would be a crazy young nucleus.

Honestly they could play with Monk defending 1's and have Simmons run the offense then grab a quality defender to play the 2 that might be preferable.

[byennie]

I still don't understand the premise of this.  Everything I read about the draft suggests there's multiple all-star prospects at the top of this draft with no clear separation.   Ford and Pelton just had an article the other day suggesting there were as many as 8 guys in the running for the #1 pick this year.  Why would you trade two of those guys for one of those guys?

Perhaps you want a point guard to play with Embiid, there are two franchise PGs in the draft, it has to be someone who can start on Day 1, and you definitely don't want another center.

Not saying it's likely, but that's one scenario.

[sdceltsfan]

My opinion is that Fultz, Ball, Jackson, Tatum, Monk, Isaac and Smith are of similar quality. While Giles, Markkanen, Fox and Ntilikina could join that group.

If we can trade a pick that would have us draft one for two picks that would have us draft 2 guys out of the group I'm all for that.

For instance I'd rather have Jackson and Giles than Fultz. Danny talks about draft picks as swings at the plate. If you value all the players in the top 8 as similar level prospects then twice as many chances are worth more than one.

^This

All day. I understand the percentages increase exponentially at probability of drafting an allstar at #1. However, isn't every draft a case by case? This draft seems to have 4 guys who would be a #1 or #2 pick in most drafts, and then another 3 guys who are a #3/4 overall.

If a team like Philly has a hard-on for positional drafting, and are in love with a player like Fultz, wouldn't you want to get two of these #1/2 and #3/4 caliber type of players?

[celticsclay]

I think a lot of people have started to feel Fultz may be the best. I suspect by the draft there will be a clear 1 or 2 top guys. Aside from the Bennett draft this has been the case every single year I can remember.

[jambr380]

Unless a guy like Fultz proves to be the next consensus #1 like Lebron, Davis, or Towns, I definitely do it.

We keep talking about using our BKN 1st to use in a trade for an all-star, but people also want to build around that young prospect. This would give us the opportunity to do both - presumably by trading #4 (along with players/other picks) and hoping to land a player like Giles at #8 for us.

I believe this is the definition of having our cake and eating it, too...

[slamtheking]

I think a lot of people have started to feel Fultz may be the best. I suspect by the draft there will be a clear 1 or 2 top guys. Aside from the Bennett draft this has been the case every single year I can remember.

you can add the 1998 draft where Michael Olowakandi went number one over a bunch of players that turned out to be much better such as our own Paul Pierce.

[Donoghus]

I think a lot of people have started to feel Fultz may be the best. I suspect by the draft there will be a clear 1 or 2 top guys. Aside from the Bennett draft this has been the case every single year I can remember.

you can add the 1998 draft where Michael Olowakandi went number one over a bunch of players that turned out to be much better such as our own Paul Pierce.

The cream usually rises to the top. With very few exceptions.

Just use the #1 pick and don't out-think yourself.