No. Absolutely not.
Statistically and historically the guy selected #1 has an overwhelming chance to be a star as compared to the 4th or 8th pick. While every draft is different, I'm a firm believer of playing the odds unless a real and specific case can be made to justify why we should buck the trend. I'm not seeing that case made thus far. In the NFL, when it comes to draft picks more = better. That's not true in a top-heavy league like the NBA. That's why the #1 pick is so valuable.
Moreover, the Cs have two overseas stashes that will be looking to make their way to the roster next year and the Cs already have a BUNDLE of draft picks stashed already. Roster space is already very tight and I don't see that easing up next year. We could have Yab, Zizic, #1 draft pick and perhaps even Nader on the roster next year. There's not much room for other rookies unless we're going to go into tank mode (which makes absolutely no sense). At this point more picks means less to the Cs than perhaps any other team in the NBA right now.
To move down the deal would have to be so totally unbeatable that you simply can't turn it town. Otherwise, you stay at #1, select a star and pare them with Brown to form the core of a team that can compete now and has potentially a championship window of a dozen years or so.
Irrelevant. This is the 2017 draft.
Which means what exactly?
This... Explained here by OP. It's a deep draft.
. 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.
I hear that seemingly every year with our potential picks. Last year it was there was no difference between #3 and #10. The year before it was that no one worth a darn was going to be available after #15. In 2014 it was that everyone between #4 and #9 were equal.
It turned out that wasn't really true for those drafts and it's not likely to be true in this one. Just because there are attractive draft targets in this years' draft doesn't mean that they're all equal or even close to equal. We won't know that until quite close to the actual draft.
History also teaches us that this is rarely true. Even in drafts where there isn't a Lebron or Duncan the guy at the top is quite often a superstar. So if you're going to advocate bucking the trend on history then you need a compelling case to do so. That case hasn't been made yet. If it's made then it's something to consider.
But even when considering it there's point #2 that hasn't been addressed which is roster space. Moving down doesn't do you any good if you're cutting players who have decent potential to be NBA players. Nor can you have a half the squad as rookies coming off the bench. You need a good mix. The Cs are going to have at least 1 first and 2 2nds this draft. They have two draft and stash guys coming. There's Nader to consider as well. Even if they dump the 2nds and Nader doesn't make it that's no fewer than 3 rookies. That's 1/5th of the team already and that cuts into the bench depth big-time as those guys get up to speed.
So in trading down you have to justify two points.
#1 - Prove that the draft is flat enough to justify it
#2 - Show how the Cs are going to absorb so many new players and not simultaneously hurt their chances to compete with their current squad.
Topic: Would you trade the #1 pick to Philly for #4 and #8? (Read 14478 times)