Poll

Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?

Yes.
No, but I'd do it for #3 and #4
No, but I'd do it for #2 and 3 or 4.
No.
Something else.

Author Topic: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?  (Read 5496 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2017, 05:08:47 PM »

Online hpantazo

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24882
  • Tommy Points: 2700
I think the only three definite "yes" answers are '01, '07 and '13.

The definite "no" answers are '02, '03, '04, '11, '12 and '15.

Now, recognize that of the definite "yes" answers, one is because of injury, and the others were in weak drafts.

Of the definite "no" answers, there are no such injury concerns, and many of these answers are in strong drafts.

Then here's my question: without any injury concerns (I don't think there are any), and in a strong draft, why would you pick "yes" now?


I agree, TP for the nice breakdown. The only way I can see Ainge doing this is if he really does want Jackson or Tatum and does not want Fultz or Ball either way. Then it would make sense to trade down and get an additional asset, or just trade out for a an established star.

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2017, 05:23:54 PM »

Offline Yoki_IsTheName

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11134
  • Tommy Points: 1304
  • I'm a Paul Heyman guy.
Just draft the guy you want at #1. The Celtics don't need more rookies. They could have upwards of 4 next year with the Nets pick, Zizic, Yabusele and Nader. We also want to keep our cap space in order and don't need another rookie cap hold costing us not being able to offer a max contract.

The Celtics are past the collecting assets part of their rebuild. Its time to cash those assets in for wins.


This is so shortsighted.  You could potentially get two future all stars for the price of one.  Hell trade the #4 pick and just keep #2 if you feel that strongly.
Or you could be passing up on the only All-Star in this class for two players that become nothing. Or you could be passing up on landing a max free agent for a rookie that becomes nothing.

Also, I don't know where you are getting #2 and #4 from. The question was #1 for #3 and #5.

Sure, you say potato I say po-TA-to.  The theory is that 2-4 are equivalent and not a big step down from #1 (if you say that's Fultz).  So getting a two-for-one is an amazing offer.

You're the one who said the only reason not to do it was because the C's have too many young players or would need to shave more salary to offer a max contract.  In my opinion that's unbelievably short-sighted.  To get the #4 for just moving down from #1 to #2 is an incredible offer that IN THIS DRAFT you just can't pass up.  This isn't the Durant/Oden draft where you have such a cliff after the top two.
You're still stuck on #2 and #4. That isn't the trade. Its #3 and #5.

And you think its short sighted, I think its better to take your best shot at the draft.

I also am not as enamored with this draft class as some so that is effecting my opinion here. So many, including you, are already crowning these players as future All-Stars and yet not of the top players could even lead their team into the Final Four. Color me unimpressed.

But this is not a valid argument Nick (I realize I'm going against my Jedi Master here, but hey, you have to to be the master, right?).

Kyrie Irving didn't reach the Final Four as well, but turned out to be great. James Harden only got as far as the Round of 32. DeMar DeRozan lost in the 1st round. The number one overall pick last year wasn't even in the Tournament, but a lot of people are convinced that he will be, at the very least, very good.

Kevin Durant can only go as far as the 2nd round, Kawhi Leonard only went as far as the Sweet 16, and these are two of the Top 5 players in the league (depending on who you ask I guess, but they will be there)

Also, the guy we are supposed to pick at #1 didn't even make the Tournament.

Yes, it tells a lot if top rated players help their teams reach the Final Four, but it doesn't mean the ones that aren't won't turn into any good. We

Scouts can miss for sure, but they are mostly on point on evaluation, and according to scouts and writers that talk to scouts, this will be a very deep draft. I'm not saying we just do it right then and there, but this would be a good draft class as it could be to consider it if it was actually offered.
2019 CStrong Historical Draft 2000s OKC Thunder.
PG: Jrue Holiday / Isaiah Thomas / Larry Hughes
SG: Paul George / Aaron McKie / Bradley Beal
SF: Paul Pierce / Tayshaun Prince / Brian Scalabrine
PF: LaMarcus Aldridge / Shareef Abdur-Raheem / Ben Simmons
C: Jermaine O'neal / Ben Wallace

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2017, 08:10:47 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
In one of the other threads on this topic I went through and analyzed the last 20 or so drafts and even doing 1 vs 2 and 4 you would want 1 in more drafts than you would want 2 and 4.  If you actually make the right selections on all of the picks then you want 1 vs 2 and 4 pretty much every single time.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2017, 08:41:25 PM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3845
  • Tommy Points: 257
Looking back, there were only a couple at 1 that were superhuman players. Lebron, and the dude in NO.  I take those guys no matter the offer. Without an all-NBA special player, I'd take two top 5 picks over one #1. Just to reduce exposure to injury or bust risk, and give an extra shot at someone special.

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2017, 08:42:15 PM »

Offline Sixth Man

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1008
  • Tommy Points: 82
Looking at the options listed in this poll, why on Earth would ANYONE choose to trade the #1 for #3 + #5 when you could alternatively select the option of trading #1 for #2 + #4 ??  Seriously, folks, this is an exceedingly simple logical proposition...

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #35 on: April 08, 2017, 08:43:54 PM »

Offline Darío SpanishFan

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 981
  • Tommy Points: 141
You cannot make stats out of, say, 20 drafts, and assume them as valid for any of the next ones. Every draft has a different level.

So, answering the opening question, it depends on how high our FO considers the gap between 1 and 3 potential picks and the inside info on who those teams would select.

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #36 on: April 08, 2017, 09:24:44 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
You cannot make stats out of, say, 20 drafts, and assume them as valid for any of the next ones. Every draft has a different level.

So, answering the opening question, it depends on how high our FO considers the gap between 1 and 3 potential picks and the inside info on who those teams would select.
Sure you can.  Just look at the very deep at the top drafts, even in those you still take the top guy more times than not.  I mean 2003 you had James, Wade, Anthony, Bosh all in the top 5.  You'd still want James over the two other HOFers basically every time.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #37 on: April 08, 2017, 09:57:40 PM »

Offline mahcussmaht

  • Payton Pritchard
  • Posts: 118
  • Tommy Points: 6
Josh Jackson could still go 1st in the draft.  Nobody is giving up 3 and 5 for 1.  There isn't that much separation.  This isn't a two player draft.

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #38 on: April 08, 2017, 11:02:00 PM »

Offline No Nickname

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 774
  • Tommy Points: 81
Just draft the guy you want at #1. The Celtics don't need more rookies. They could have upwards of 4 next year with the Nets pick, Zizic, Yabusele and Nader. We also want to keep our cap space in order and don't need another rookie cap hold costing us not being able to offer a max contract.

The Celtics are past the collecting assets part of their rebuild. Its time to cash those assets in for wins.


This is so shortsighted.  You could potentially get two future all stars for the price of one.  Hell trade the #4 pick and just keep #2 if you feel that strongly.
Or you could be passing up on the only All-Star in this class for two players that become nothing. Or you could be passing up on landing a max free agent for a rookie that becomes nothing.

Also, I don't know where you are getting #2 and #4 from. The question was #1 for #3 and #5.

Sure, you say potato I say po-TA-to.  The theory is that 2-4 are equivalent and not a big step down from #1 (if you say that's Fultz).  So getting a two-for-one is an amazing offer.

You're the one who said the only reason not to do it was because the C's have too many young players or would need to shave more salary to offer a max contract.  In my opinion that's unbelievably short-sighted.  To get the #4 for just moving down from #1 to #2 is an incredible offer that IN THIS DRAFT you just can't pass up.  This isn't the Durant/Oden draft where you have such a cliff after the top two.
You're still stuck on #2 and #4. That isn't the trade. Its #3 and #5.

And you think its short sighted, I think its better to take your best shot at the draft.

I also am not as enamored with this draft class as some so that is effecting my opinion here. So many, including you, are already crowning these players as future All-Stars and yet not of the top players could even lead their team into the Final Four. Color me unimpressed.

I'm not stuck on anything. I'm proposing an additional option (what if the C's get the #2 pick...) for some to ponder. What's wrong with that? Starting a new thread with that seems ridiculous.

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #39 on: April 08, 2017, 11:18:21 PM »

Offline mahcussmaht

  • Payton Pritchard
  • Posts: 118
  • Tommy Points: 6
There's no way a team would give up 3 and 5 in this draft for 1.  3 might be Ball or Fultz.  You might be able to do #1 and Jaylen Brown for #3 and #5, because 3 is a tiny downgrade from 1 and Brown is a significant downgrade from 5.   Might have to do #1 + Jaylen + Yabusele for 3 and 5.

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #40 on: April 08, 2017, 11:19:07 PM »

Offline Smokeeye123

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2374
  • Tommy Points: 156
How about bradley and 1 for saric and 3? Or 1 for saric and 5?

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #41 on: April 08, 2017, 11:20:10 PM »

Offline mahcussmaht

  • Payton Pritchard
  • Posts: 118
  • Tommy Points: 6
How about bradley and 1 for saric and 3? Or 1 for saric and 5?
1 and Smart for Saric and 5 might work.  I don't want to trade Smart, tho

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #42 on: April 08, 2017, 11:28:18 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
There's no way a team would give up 3 and 5 in this draft for 1.  3 might be Ball or Fultz.  You might be able to do #1 and Jaylen Brown for #3 and #5, because 3 is a tiny downgrade from 1 and Brown is a significant downgrade from 5.   Might have to do #1 + Jaylen + Yabusele for 3 and 5.


This is utterly ridiculous. I'll take Brown over Monk, Fox, or Smith.

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #43 on: April 08, 2017, 11:29:01 PM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19479
  • Tommy Points: 1871
There's no way a team would give up 3 and 5 in this draft for 1.  3 might be Ball or Fultz.  You might be able to do #1 and Jaylen Brown for #3 and #5, because 3 is a tiny downgrade from 1 and Brown is a significant downgrade from 5.   Might have to do #1 + Jaylen + Yabusele for 3 and 5.

I hope you are not a GM. Actually, I hope you are a GM with a lot of assets that is just anxious to deal with Danny Ainge.

Re: Poll: Would you trade #1 for #3 and #5?
« Reply #44 on: April 11, 2017, 02:09:24 PM »

Offline LatterDayCelticsfan

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2195
  • Tommy Points: 171
  • Community Text
I voted something else. I would propose the No. 1 for Willie Cauley Stein and the Sac lottery pick.

He is a clear upgrade on interior D, that will not get lost in switches. He boosts our rebounding and I reckon he will be smart enough not to be a black hole on offense (stick to setting hard screens, rolling to the basket and passing to an open teammate​ when on the floor)
Banner 18 please 😍