Ford 4.0

[footey]

If there's disagreement about the top 3 it could help us in two ways. We might get the guy we want at a lower slot. Or, if we have #1 or #2 we can trade down a slot and still get who we want.

We might have to trade up a slot or two if other teams think the same thing, of course. But I think Danny will play things close to the vest, while some other GMs seem less shy about announcing their intentions.

Trading to move down a slot is basically impossible isn't it?

Celtics (#1): hey Lakers, we know you really want Ball so why don't you trade up to make sure you get him?

Lakers (#2): wait, why would you be trading down unless you didn't want Ball? We'll just pick him at #2.

Celtics: oh.

That actually happened a couple of places in the 2006 draft re Aldridge and Thomas, as well as Foy and Roy.

Yes, and in 1993 when Orlando moved Webber (#1) for Penny (#3) and three first rounders.

Except that Webber was the consensus #1 pick.  In this case, we're asking the lakers to move up to pick a player that may fall in their lap regardless. 

The way I see it, if we want to draft fultz and land at #1 then don't get cute.  It gets trickier of course if we want to draft Jackson (and are at #1).

You've pretty much got it right.  I was listening to the trade deadline podcast on the Vertical, and the thing that struck me most was a comment Scal made, in reference to deals that didn't happen, was how much the Celtics love Fultz.  Scal was saying that the front office can't stop talking about him -- he's their guy.  Scal didn't talk about Ball or Jackson or anyone else -- for all I know the only prospect he knows is Fultz, because that's the only name that's being talked about in the Garden.  The comment from Scal also pretty much came out of nowhere -- they weren't discussing the draft at the time.  He just needed to say how much the Celtics love Fultz to add context to the discussion.

Anyway, if the Celtics pick first, they're not going to play games with that pick.  Fultz is their guy, and I don't see anyone moving above him.  Now is it possible someone else wants Fultz at least as much, and a trade can be worked out? Sure.  But trading down a spot or two just because?  I think there's a pretty big gap in the Celtics' minds between Fultz and whomever is #2 on their board.

Not sure just because Scal said that means that the front office rates Fultz ahead of the others. Danny is extremely tight lipped about what he thinks. It would be dumb to show his hand for obvious reasons. Mike Gorman probably has the same amount of access as Scal. I think he predicted we'd take Bender last year. I just wouldn't put much weight on this. But I'll give it a listen. Thx.

[saltlover]

If there's disagreement about the top 3 it could help us in two ways. We might get the guy we want at a lower slot. Or, if we have #1 or #2 we can trade down a slot and still get who we want.

We might have to trade up a slot or two if other teams think the same thing, of course. But I think Danny will play things close to the vest, while some other GMs seem less shy about announcing their intentions.

Trading to move down a slot is basically impossible isn't it?

Celtics (#1): hey Lakers, we know you really want Ball so why don't you trade up to make sure you get him?

Lakers (#2): wait, why would you be trading down unless you didn't want Ball? We'll just pick him at #2.

Celtics: oh.

That actually happened a couple of places in the 2006 draft re Aldridge and Thomas, as well as Foy and Roy.

Yes, and in 1993 when Orlando moved Webber (#1) for Penny (#3) and three first rounders.

Except that Webber was the consensus #1 pick.  In this case, we're asking the lakers to move up to pick a player that may fall in their lap regardless. 

The way I see it, if we want to draft fultz and land at #1 then don't get cute.  It gets trickier of course if we want to draft Jackson (and are at #1).

You've pretty much got it right.  I was listening to the trade deadline podcast on the Vertical, and the thing that struck me most was a comment Scal made, in reference to deals that didn't happen, was how much the Celtics love Fultz.  Scal was saying that the front office can't stop talking about him -- he's their guy.  Scal didn't talk about Ball or Jackson or anyone else -- for all I know the only prospect he knows is Fultz, because that's the only name that's being talked about in the Garden.  The comment from Scal also pretty much came out of nowhere -- they weren't discussing the draft at the time.  He just needed to say how much the Celtics love Fultz to add context to the discussion.

Anyway, if the Celtics pick first, they're not going to play games with that pick.  Fultz is their guy, and I don't see anyone moving above him.  Now is it possible someone else wants Fultz at least as much, and a trade can be worked out? Sure.  But trading down a spot or two just because?  I think there's a pretty big gap in the Celtics' minds between Fultz and whomever is #2 on their board.

Not sure just because Scal said that means that the front office rates Fultz ahead of the others. Danny is extremely tight lipped about what he thinks. It would be dumb to show his hand for obvious reasons. Mike Gorman probably has the same amount of access as Scal. I think he predicted we'd take Bender last year. I just wouldn't put much weight on this. But I'll give it a listen. Thx.

It's near the end of the podcast.  Maybe I was projecting, but I don't think so.  There was a sincerity about the way Scal said it that wasn't the same as someone feeding Gorman something to say about Bender.  (Mind you, I do think that the Celtics legitimately liked Bender).  And Ainge is tight-lipped, but he lets things slip too.  I thought it was pretty obvious in May 2014 that Smart was Ainge's guy if available.  I went into draft night expecting Jaylen to be selected.  (Didn't see Rozier or Olynyk coming, but it's tougher to guess mid-round picks anyway).  I really think Fultz is his guy, and if the Celtics win the lottery, I'd be much more surprised if they trade the pick than if they don't win it.

[footey]

If there's disagreement about the top 3 it could help us in two ways. We might get the guy we want at a lower slot. Or, if we have #1 or #2 we can trade down a slot and still get who we want.

We might have to trade up a slot or two if other teams think the same thing, of course. But I think Danny will play things close to the vest, while some other GMs seem less shy about announcing their intentions.

Trading to move down a slot is basically impossible isn't it?

Celtics (#1): hey Lakers, we know you really want Ball so why don't you trade up to make sure you get him?

Lakers (#2): wait, why would you be trading down unless you didn't want Ball? We'll just pick him at #2.

Celtics: oh.

That actually happened a couple of places in the 2006 draft re Aldridge and Thomas, as well as Foy and Roy.

Yes, and in 1993 when Orlando moved Webber (#1) for Penny (#3) and three first rounders.

Except that Webber was the consensus #1 pick.  In this case, we're asking the lakers to move up to pick a player that may fall in their lap regardless. 

The way I see it, if we want to draft fultz and land at #1 then don't get cute.  It gets trickier of course if we want to draft Jackson (and are at #1).

You've pretty much got it right.  I was listening to the trade deadline podcast on the Vertical, and the thing that struck me most was a comment Scal made, in reference to deals that didn't happen, was how much the Celtics love Fultz.  Scal was saying that the front office can't stop talking about him -- he's their guy.  Scal didn't talk about Ball or Jackson or anyone else -- for all I know the only prospect he knows is Fultz, because that's the only name that's being talked about in the Garden.  The comment from Scal also pretty much came out of nowhere -- they weren't discussing the draft at the time.  He just needed to say how much the Celtics love Fultz to add context to the discussion.

Anyway, if the Celtics pick first, they're not going to play games with that pick.  Fultz is their guy, and I don't see anyone moving above him.  Now is it possible someone else wants Fultz at least as much, and a trade can be worked out? Sure.  But trading down a spot or two just because?  I think there's a pretty big gap in the Celtics' minds between Fultz and whomever is #2 on their board.

Not sure just because Scal said that means that the front office rates Fultz ahead of the others. Danny is extremely tight lipped about what he thinks. It would be dumb to show his hand for obvious reasons. Mike Gorman probably has the same amount of access as Scal. I think he predicted we'd take Bender last year. I just wouldn't put much weight on this. But I'll give it a listen. Thx.

It's near the end of the podcast.  Maybe I was projecting, but I don't think so.  There was a sincerity about the way Scal said it that wasn't the same as someone feeding Gorman something to say about Bender.  (Mind you, I do think that the Celtics legitimately liked Bender).  And Ainge is tight-lipped, but he lets things slip too.  I thought it was pretty obvious in May 2014 that Smart was Ainge's guy if available.  I went into draft night expecting Jaylen to be selected.  (Didn't see Rozier or Olynyk coming, but it's tougher to guess mid-round picks anyway).  I really think Fultz is his guy, and if the Celtics win the lottery, I'd be much more surprised if they trade the pick than if they don't win it.

"I know for a fact. For a fact, that Danny and the staff absolutely love Marcelle Fultz." Just listened to Scal on the podcast you mentioned. That's pretty clear. Thanks.

[chambers]

If there's disagreement about the top 3 it could help us in two ways. We might get the guy we want at a lower slot. Or, if we have #1 or #2 we can trade down a slot and still get who we want.

We might have to trade up a slot or two if other teams think the same thing, of course. But I think Danny will play things close to the vest, while some other GMs seem less shy about announcing their intentions.

Trading to move down a slot is basically impossible isn't it?

Celtics (#1): hey Lakers, we know you really want Ball so why don't you trade up to make sure you get him?

Lakers (#2): wait, why would you be trading down unless you didn't want Ball? We'll just pick him at #2.

Celtics: oh.

That actually happened a couple of places in the 2006 draft re Aldridge and Thomas, as well as Foy and Roy.

Yes, and in 1993 when Orlando moved Webber (#1) for Penny (#3) and three first rounders.

Except that Webber was the consensus #1 pick.  In this case, we're asking the lakers to move up to pick a player that may fall in their lap regardless. 

The way I see it, if we want to draft fultz and land at #1 then don't get cute.  It gets trickier of course if we want to draft Jackson (and are at #1).

You've pretty much got it right.  I was listening to the trade deadline podcast on the Vertical, and the thing that struck me most was a comment Scal made, in reference to deals that didn't happen, was how much the Celtics love Fultz.  Scal was saying that the front office can't stop talking about him -- he's their guy.  Scal didn't talk about Ball or Jackson or anyone else -- for all I know the only prospect he knows is Fultz, because that's the only name that's being talked about in the Garden.  The comment from Scal also pretty much came out of nowhere -- they weren't discussing the draft at the time.  He just needed to say how much the Celtics love Fultz to add context to the discussion.

Anyway, if the Celtics pick first, they're not going to play games with that pick.  Fultz is their guy, and I don't see anyone moving above him.  Now is it possible someone else wants Fultz at least as much, and a trade can be worked out? Sure.  But trading down a spot or two just because?  I think there's a pretty big gap in the Celtics' minds between Fultz and whomever is #2 on their board.

Not sure just because Scal said that means that the front office rates Fultz ahead of the others. Danny is extremely tight lipped about what he thinks. It would be dumb to show his hand for obvious reasons. Mike Gorman probably has the same amount of access as Scal. I think he predicted we'd take Bender last year. I just wouldn't put much weight on this. But I'll give it a listen. Thx.

It's near the end of the podcast.  Maybe I was projecting, but I don't think so.  There was a sincerity about the way Scal said it that wasn't the same as someone feeding Gorman something to say about Bender.  (Mind you, I do think that the Celtics legitimately liked Bender).  And Ainge is tight-lipped, but he lets things slip too.  I thought it was pretty obvious in May 2014 that Smart was Ainge's guy if available.  I went into draft night expecting Jaylen to be selected.  (Didn't see Rozier or Olynyk coming, but it's tougher to guess mid-round picks anyway).  I really think Fultz is his guy, and if the Celtics win the lottery, I'd be much more surprised if they trade the pick than if they don't win it.

"I know for a fact. For a fact, that Danny and the staff absolutely love Marcelle Fultz." Just listened to Scal on the podcast you mentioned. That's pretty clear. Thanks.

Can someone post link to this particular podcast?
Much appreciated.

[saltlover]

If there's disagreement about the top 3 it could help us in two ways. We might get the guy we want at a lower slot. Or, if we have #1 or #2 we can trade down a slot and still get who we want.

We might have to trade up a slot or two if other teams think the same thing, of course. But I think Danny will play things close to the vest, while some other GMs seem less shy about announcing their intentions.

Trading to move down a slot is basically impossible isn't it?

Celtics (#1): hey Lakers, we know you really want Ball so why don't you trade up to make sure you get him?

Lakers (#2): wait, why would you be trading down unless you didn't want Ball? We'll just pick him at #2.

Celtics: oh.

That actually happened a couple of places in the 2006 draft re Aldridge and Thomas, as well as Foy and Roy.

Yes, and in 1993 when Orlando moved Webber (#1) for Penny (#3) and three first rounders.

Except that Webber was the consensus #1 pick.  In this case, we're asking the lakers to move up to pick a player that may fall in their lap regardless. 

The way I see it, if we want to draft fultz and land at #1 then don't get cute.  It gets trickier of course if we want to draft Jackson (and are at #1).

You've pretty much got it right.  I was listening to the trade deadline podcast on the Vertical, and the thing that struck me most was a comment Scal made, in reference to deals that didn't happen, was how much the Celtics love Fultz.  Scal was saying that the front office can't stop talking about him -- he's their guy.  Scal didn't talk about Ball or Jackson or anyone else -- for all I know the only prospect he knows is Fultz, because that's the only name that's being talked about in the Garden.  The comment from Scal also pretty much came out of nowhere -- they weren't discussing the draft at the time.  He just needed to say how much the Celtics love Fultz to add context to the discussion.

Anyway, if the Celtics pick first, they're not going to play games with that pick.  Fultz is their guy, and I don't see anyone moving above him.  Now is it possible someone else wants Fultz at least as much, and a trade can be worked out? Sure.  But trading down a spot or two just because?  I think there's a pretty big gap in the Celtics' minds between Fultz and whomever is #2 on their board.

Not sure just because Scal said that means that the front office rates Fultz ahead of the others. Danny is extremely tight lipped about what he thinks. It would be dumb to show his hand for obvious reasons. Mike Gorman probably has the same amount of access as Scal. I think he predicted we'd take Bender last year. I just wouldn't put much weight on this. But I'll give it a listen. Thx.

It's near the end of the podcast.  Maybe I was projecting, but I don't think so.  There was a sincerity about the way Scal said it that wasn't the same as someone feeding Gorman something to say about Bender.  (Mind you, I do think that the Celtics legitimately liked Bender).  And Ainge is tight-lipped, but he lets things slip too.  I thought it was pretty obvious in May 2014 that Smart was Ainge's guy if available.  I went into draft night expecting Jaylen to be selected.  (Didn't see Rozier or Olynyk coming, but it's tougher to guess mid-round picks anyway).  I really think Fultz is his guy, and if the Celtics win the lottery, I'd be much more surprised if they trade the pick than if they don't win it.

"I know for a fact. For a fact, that Danny and the staff absolutely love Marcelle Fultz." Just listened to Scal on the podcast you mentioned. That's pretty clear. Thanks.

Can someone post link to this particular podcast?
Much appreciated.

https://sports.yahoo.com/video/nba-trade-deadline-show-232730570.html

I thought it was near the end, but I just listened to the segment on the Celtics about an hour and fifty minutes in, and it wasn't there, so maybe it happened earlier.  Maybe towards the end of the first hour.

[chambers]

If there's disagreement about the top 3 it could help us in two ways. We might get the guy we want at a lower slot. Or, if we have #1 or #2 we can trade down a slot and still get who we want.

We might have to trade up a slot or two if other teams think the same thing, of course. But I think Danny will play things close to the vest, while some other GMs seem less shy about announcing their intentions.

Trading to move down a slot is basically impossible isn't it?

Celtics (#1): hey Lakers, we know you really want Ball so why don't you trade up to make sure you get him?

Lakers (#2): wait, why would you be trading down unless you didn't want Ball? We'll just pick him at #2.

Celtics: oh.

That actually happened a couple of places in the 2006 draft re Aldridge and Thomas, as well as Foy and Roy.

Yes, and in 1993 when Orlando moved Webber (#1) for Penny (#3) and three first rounders.

Except that Webber was the consensus #1 pick.  In this case, we're asking the lakers to move up to pick a player that may fall in their lap regardless. 

The way I see it, if we want to draft fultz and land at #1 then don't get cute.  It gets trickier of course if we want to draft Jackson (and are at #1).

You've pretty much got it right.  I was listening to the trade deadline podcast on the Vertical, and the thing that struck me most was a comment Scal made, in reference to deals that didn't happen, was how much the Celtics love Fultz.  Scal was saying that the front office can't stop talking about him -- he's their guy.  Scal didn't talk about Ball or Jackson or anyone else -- for all I know the only prospect he knows is Fultz, because that's the only name that's being talked about in the Garden.  The comment from Scal also pretty much came out of nowhere -- they weren't discussing the draft at the time.  He just needed to say how much the Celtics love Fultz to add context to the discussion.

Anyway, if the Celtics pick first, they're not going to play games with that pick.  Fultz is their guy, and I don't see anyone moving above him.  Now is it possible someone else wants Fultz at least as much, and a trade can be worked out? Sure.  But trading down a spot or two just because?  I think there's a pretty big gap in the Celtics' minds between Fultz and whomever is #2 on their board.

Not sure just because Scal said that means that the front office rates Fultz ahead of the others. Danny is extremely tight lipped about what he thinks. It would be dumb to show his hand for obvious reasons. Mike Gorman probably has the same amount of access as Scal. I think he predicted we'd take Bender last year. I just wouldn't put much weight on this. But I'll give it a listen. Thx.

It's near the end of the podcast.  Maybe I was projecting, but I don't think so.  There was a sincerity about the way Scal said it that wasn't the same as someone feeding Gorman something to say about Bender.  (Mind you, I do think that the Celtics legitimately liked Bender).  And Ainge is tight-lipped, but he lets things slip too.  I thought it was pretty obvious in May 2014 that Smart was Ainge's guy if available.  I went into draft night expecting Jaylen to be selected.  (Didn't see Rozier or Olynyk coming, but it's tougher to guess mid-round picks anyway).  I really think Fultz is his guy, and if the Celtics win the lottery, I'd be much more surprised if they trade the pick than if they don't win it.

"I know for a fact. For a fact, that Danny and the staff absolutely love Marcelle Fultz." Just listened to Scal on the podcast you mentioned. That's pretty clear. Thanks.

Can someone post link to this particular podcast?
Much appreciated.

https://sports.yahoo.com/video/nba-trade-deadline-show-232730570.html

I thought it was near the end, but I just listened to the segment on the Celtics about an hour and fifty minutes in, and it wasn't there, so maybe it happened earlier.  Maybe towards the end of the first hour.

Sweet, thanks. TP

[footey]

Happened about 2/3 in. I didn't get the actual time. But yeah, he seemed very confident about them really liking Fultz.

[Csfan1984]

I agree with Fultz being #1. I like the idea of Jackson but Fultz is so good and little to no flaws. If C's had the second pick I'd take Jackson over Ball though.

[droopdog7]

If there's disagreement about the top 3 it could help us in two ways. We might get the guy we want at a lower slot. Or, if we have #1 or #2 we can trade down a slot and still get who we want.

We might have to trade up a slot or two if other teams think the same thing, of course. But I think Danny will play things close to the vest, while some other GMs seem less shy about announcing their intentions.

Trading to move down a slot is basically impossible isn't it?

Celtics (#1): hey Lakers, we know you really want Ball so why don't you trade up to make sure you get him?

Lakers (#2): wait, why would you be trading down unless you didn't want Ball? We'll just pick him at #2.

Celtics: oh.

That actually happened a couple of places in the 2006 draft re Aldridge and Thomas, as well as Foy and Roy.

Yes, and in 1993 when Orlando moved Webber (#1) for Penny (#3) and three first rounders.

Except that Webber was the consensus #1 pick.  In this case, we're asking the lakers to move up to pick a player that may fall in their lap regardless. 

The way I see it, if we want to draft fultz and land at #1 then don't get cute.  It gets trickier of course if we want to draft Jackson (and are at #1).

You've pretty much got it right.  I was listening to the trade deadline podcast on the Vertical, and the thing that struck me most was a comment Scal made, in reference to deals that didn't happen, was how much the Celtics love Fultz.  Scal was saying that the front office can't stop talking about him -- he's their guy.  Scal didn't talk about Ball or Jackson or anyone else -- for all I know the only prospect he knows is Fultz, because that's the only name that's being talked about in the Garden.  The comment from Scal also pretty much came out of nowhere -- they weren't discussing the draft at the time.  He just needed to say how much the Celtics love Fultz to add context to the discussion.

Anyway, if the Celtics pick first, they're not going to play games with that pick.  Fultz is their guy, and I don't see anyone moving above him.  Now is it possible someone else wants Fultz at least as much, and a trade can be worked out? Sure.  But trading down a spot or two just because?  I think there's a pretty big gap in the Celtics' minds between Fultz and whomever is #2 on their board.

Yeah, I love me some Fultz too.  But with a 75% chance of NOT getting the chance, I'm not going to get my hopes up.  I'd put ball third behind Jackson as well.  Just not sure how he'll do with limited offense.

[Casperian]

If there's disagreement about the top 3 it could help us in two ways. We might get the guy we want at a lower slot. Or, if we have #1 or #2 we can trade down a slot and still get who we want.

We might have to trade up a slot or two if other teams think the same thing, of course. But I think Danny will play things close to the vest, while some other GMs seem less shy about announcing their intentions.

Trading to move down a slot is basically impossible isn't it?

Celtics (#1): hey Lakers, we know you really want Ball so why don't you trade up to make sure you get him?

Lakers (#2): wait, why would you be trading down unless you didn't want Ball? We'll just pick him at #2.

Celtics: oh.

That actually happened a couple of places in the 2006 draft re Aldridge and Thomas, as well as Foy and Roy.

Yes, and in 1993 when Orlando moved Webber (#1) for Penny (#3) and three first rounders.

Except that Webber was the consensus #1 pick.  In this case, we're asking the lakers to move up to pick a player that may fall in their lap regardless. 

The way I see it, if we want to draft fultz and land at #1 then don't get cute.  It gets trickier of course if we want to draft Jackson (and are at #1).

You've pretty much got it right.  I was listening to the trade deadline podcast on the Vertical, and the thing that struck me most was a comment Scal made, in reference to deals that didn't happen, was how much the Celtics love Fultz.  Scal was saying that the front office can't stop talking about him -- he's their guy.  Scal didn't talk about Ball or Jackson or anyone else -- for all I know the only prospect he knows is Fultz, because that's the only name that's being talked about in the Garden.  The comment from Scal also pretty much came out of nowhere -- they weren't discussing the draft at the time.  He just needed to say how much the Celtics love Fultz to add context to the discussion.

Anyway, if the Celtics pick first, they're not going to play games with that pick.  Fultz is their guy, and I don't see anyone moving above him.  Now is it possible someone else wants Fultz at least as much, and a trade can be worked out? Sure.  But trading down a spot or two just because?  I think there's a pretty big gap in the Celtics' minds between Fultz and whomever is #2 on their board.

Yeah, he said the same thing in a segment on CSNNE around the trade deadline. He seemed pretty convinced Fultz is their guy.

[Celtics4ever]

Fultz is so good and little to no flaws

How about the losing record 9-18 with him?   That is a flaw.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/09/college-hotline-is-washingtons-markelle-fultz-the-best-player-on-the-worst-team-in-pac-12-history/

How about gimpy knees?   That is a flaw.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-husky-basketball/washingtons-markelle-fultz-misses-third-game-due-sore-knee/

So two flaws right there, were you not aware or are you blind to them?

[Big333223]

Fultz is so good and little to no flaws

How about the losing record 9-18 with him?   That is a flaw.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/09/college-hotline-is-washingtons-markelle-fultz-the-best-player-on-the-worst-team-in-pac-12-history/

How about gimpy knees?   That is a flaw.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-husky-basketball/washingtons-markelle-fultz-misses-third-game-due-sore-knee/

So two flaws right there, were you not aware or are you blind to them?

He probably meant no flaws in his game. Those are certainly flaws when evaluating the entire player and need to be taken into account but I think you're both right.

[saltlover]

Fultz is so good and little to no flaws

How about the losing record 9-18 with him?   That is a flaw.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/09/college-hotline-is-washingtons-markelle-fultz-the-best-player-on-the-worst-team-in-pac-12-history/

How about gimpy knees?   That is a flaw.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-husky-basketball/washingtons-markelle-fultz-misses-third-game-due-sore-knee/

So two flaws right there, were you not aware or are you blind to them?

It's a 9-16 record with him.  It's also an 0-5 record with an average margin of defeat of 19 points without him.  Washington is a very bad team.  They have 5 freshmen and 5 sophomores on the team, and their coach hasn't made the tournament in several years, despite a lot of talent.  I think you're a little blind focusing on Washington's record.

But I'm sure you know best.

[Celtics4ever]

I was simply noting he had some flaws, every player does and no one is perfect.  He is still a great prospect if his knees  check out.

As for the bad team, great players often elevate those around them.  Sometimes they can carry a bad team.  Not sure the excess of freshman is little more than an excuse.   I seen some teams do ok with freshman though it is rare.  Another thing is it is easy to put big numbers on a bad team.  Still worth a look, though, and most have him as the number one pick.

[Csfan1984]

I was simply noting he had some flaws, every player does and no one is perfect.  He is still a great prospect if his knees  check out.

As for the bad team, great players often elevate those around them.  Sometimes they can carry a bad team.  Not sure the excess of freshman is little more than an excuse.   I seen some teams do ok with freshman though it is rare.  Another thing is it is easy to put big numbers on a bad team.  Still worth a look, though, and most have him as the number one pick.

So we all agree his team is bad and if his knees checks out then that is pretty much little to no flaws right?