Would you trade down in the draft? At what position and to where?

[CoachBo]

No....no....no.

At this point, quality > quantity.

This.

Absolutely not.

The days of hoarding assets need to end. Cash them in.

trading back doesn't necessarily mean quantity over quality. I mean what if you get Saric and 4 for 2 (as an example).  That might be both better quantity and better quality.

Why would Philly do such a thing?

[Irish Stew]

Yes, I'd trade #1 or 2 to NYK for #7 (Monk) and Porzingis. We get a guard that would pair perfectly with Smart or Rozier and a big to build around. That would give us a young core of Smart, Rozier, Monk, Brown, Yabusele, Porzingis, and Zizic. Plus we would still have next year's BKN pick.

Not bad...not bad

If Porzingis were in this draft he would go either 1 or 2. He is the prototype for the 2017 NBA big man. Why would the Knicks do this?

[tazzmaniac]

No....no....no.

At this point, quality > quantity.

This.

Absolutely not.

The days of hoarding assets need to end. Cash them in.

My original point was that there may be players later in the draft that are the same "quality" or close enough. We can't assume that just because Ball, Tatum, and Jackson are ranked 2-4 right now that they definitely are a tier above the guys going after them in mocks currently.

So really my question was about how do you rank the players in the lottery? If there is a player you think is underrated and better than those aforementioned players, would trading down be a prudent option?

The mocks are meaningless.  Teams have done plenty of scouting on most of the top prospects and they still have the workouts to go through.  If a GM thinks an "underrated" player is 3rd best in the draft, chances are other GMs do also.  You don't trade down several spots assuming the guy you want will still be there.  The mocks generally had Brown going around 8th in last year's draft and yet Ainge took him 3rd. 

Once teams have done their workouts, I think there will be clear tiers after Fultz.  I definitely wouldn't draft Collins in the top 10 as I don't see him having star potential.  In contrast, I have concerns about Markkanen but I do see some star potential so he's a top 10 pick for me.  As for Fox he's my favorite player in this draft.  Don't think his shooting will be that bad but there are plenty of successful poor shooting PGs in the NBA. 

[action781]

Overall, it depends on how much difference there is between who I would take at the higher pick and who I believe will be available at the later pick.  I'm not a Tatum fan, but rather an Isaac fan at #4.  If I think he'll be available later or if I like another guy (Giles?) who I'd also be happy with and feel safe about being there in case somebody takes Isaac, then sure I'd pull the trigger on trading down. 

1. If they get #4, I could see them moving down to get WCS and #8. I don't think that's likely but that's about the only scenario where I see them moving down. 

This is the exact kind of move I could be cool with if I believe my above scenario was to be true.

[obnoxiousmime]

No....no....no.

At this point, quality > quantity.

This.

Absolutely not.

The days of hoarding assets need to end. Cash them in.

My original point was that there may be players later in the draft that are the same "quality" or close enough. We can't assume that just because Ball, Tatum, and Jackson are ranked 2-4 right now that they definitely are a tier above the guys going after them in mocks currently.

So really my question was about how do you rank the players in the lottery? If there is a player you think is underrated and better than those aforementioned players, would trading down be a prudent option?

The mocks are meaningless.  Teams have done plenty of scouting on most of the top prospects and they still have the workouts to go through.  If a GM thinks an "underrated" player is 3rd best in the draft, chances are other GMs do also.  You don't trade down several spots assuming the guy you want will still be there.  The mocks generally had Brown going around 8th in last year's draft and yet Ainge took him 3rd. 

Once teams have done their workouts, I think there will be clear tiers after Fultz.  I definitely wouldn't draft Collins in the top 10 as I don't see him having star potential.  In contrast, I have concerns about Markkanen but I do see some star potential so he's a top 10 pick for me.  As for Fox he's my favorite player in this draft.  Don't think his shooting will be that bad but there are plenty of successful poor shooting PGs in the NBA. 

I never said trading down only a few spots. If that is the case, yes the risk is too much and you might as well take the guy. However, to argue that all the GMs know exactly how good these guys are flies in the face of history, where players taken outside of 2-4 end up being as good as the ones taken there very often.

2010: Gordon Hayward (9) and Paul Goerge (10) end up being much more valuable than 2-4: Evan Turner, Derrick Favors, Wesley Johnson.

2011: Kemba Walker (9), Klay Thompson (11), Kawhi Leonard (15) are better than 2-4: Derrick Williams, Enes Kanter, Tristan Thompson.

2012: Beal (3) and Lillard (6) are probably the best players from 2 on. But Drummond went 9th. I can see a team that already had a PG and SG being OK with Drummond over those guys.

2013: McCollum (10) and Giianis (15) much better than 2-4, Oladipo, Porter, and Zeller.

2014: The jury isn't totally out on this draft, but it looks like Parker (2) and Embiid (3) were pretty much taken where they should have been, though injuries have hurt them. Nurkic, Warren, Hood, Capela, all those guys are good but haven't shown they will be as good as those two.

2015: Myles Turner (11), Devin Booker (13), probably not as valuable as Porzingis (4), but they have shown as much so far as Russell (2) and Okafor (3).

2016: Way too early to know, but so far 2-4 Ingram, Brown, and Bender haven't shown they're much better than some guys taken way later.

Anyway, based on this recent history the 2-4 slots aren't close to being a guarantee that they are in a different "tier" than players taken in the 9-15 range.

You're entitled to your opinion regarding the talent levels of all the draftees but to say that there are "clear tiers" after the 1st pick and that the GMs all know this doesn't jive with history.

[tazzmaniac]

No....no....no.

At this point, quality > quantity.

This.

Absolutely not.

The days of hoarding assets need to end. Cash them in.

My original point was that there may be players later in the draft that are the same "quality" or close enough. We can't assume that just because Ball, Tatum, and Jackson are ranked 2-4 right now that they definitely are a tier above the guys going after them in mocks currently.

So really my question was about how do you rank the players in the lottery? If there is a player you think is underrated and better than those aforementioned players, would trading down be a prudent option?

The mocks are meaningless.  Teams have done plenty of scouting on most of the top prospects and they still have the workouts to go through.  If a GM thinks an "underrated" player is 3rd best in the draft, chances are other GMs do also.  You don't trade down several spots assuming the guy you want will still be there.  The mocks generally had Brown going around 8th in last year's draft and yet Ainge took him 3rd. 

Once teams have done their workouts, I think there will be clear tiers after Fultz.  I definitely wouldn't draft Collins in the top 10 as I don't see him having star potential.  In contrast, I have concerns about Markkanen but I do see some star potential so he's a top 10 pick for me.  As for Fox he's my favorite player in this draft.  Don't think his shooting will be that bad but there are plenty of successful poor shooting PGs in the NBA. 

I never said trading down only a few spots. If that is the case, yes the risk is too much and you might as well take the guy. However, to argue that all the GMs know exactly how good these guys are flies in the face of history, where players taken outside of 2-4 end up being as good as the ones taken there very often.

2010: Gordon Hayward (9) and Paul Goerge (10) end up being much more valuable than 2-4: Evan Turner, Derrick Favors, Wesley Johnson.

2011: Kemba Walker (9), Klay Thompson (11), Kawhi Leonard (15) are better than 2-4: Derrick Williams, Enes Kanter, Tristan Thompson.

2012: Beal (3) and Lillard (6) are probably the best players from 2 on. But Drummond went 9th. I can see a team that already had a PG and SG being OK with Drummond over those guys.

2013: McCollum (10) and Giianis (15) much better than 2-4, Oladipo, Porter, and Zeller.

2014: The jury isn't totally out on this draft, but it looks like Parker (2) and Embiid (3) were pretty much taken where they should have been, though injuries have hurt them. Nurkic, Warren, Hood, Capela, all those guys are good but haven't shown they will be as good as those two.

2015: Myles Turner (11), Devin Booker (13), probably not as valuable as Porzingis (4), but they have shown as much so far as Russell (2) and Okafor (3).

2016: Way too early to know, but so far 2-4 Ingram, Brown, and Bender haven't shown they're much better than some guys taken way later.

Anyway, based on this recent history the 2-4 slots aren't close to being a guarantee that they are in a different "tier" than players taken in the 9-15 range.

You're entitled to your opinion regarding the talent levels of all the draftees but to say that there are "clear tiers" after the 1st pick and that the GMs all know this doesn't jive with history.

If you weren't talking about trading down only a few spots what were you talking about?  Trading down a lot of spots would be even worse.  I didn't say anything about GMs knowing exactly how good the prospects are or that all GMs would have the same tiers.  GMs don't all use the same criteria for ranking prospects.  Some GMs are more risk adverse than others. 
All the one-and-done players certainly make player assessment much harder but if you want to maximize your chance of success in the draft, you still want to draft as high as possible. 

[obnoxiousmime]

No....no....no.

At this point, quality > quantity.

This.

Absolutely not.

The days of hoarding assets need to end. Cash them in.

My original point was that there may be players later in the draft that are the same "quality" or close enough. We can't assume that just because Ball, Tatum, and Jackson are ranked 2-4 right now that they definitely are a tier above the guys going after them in mocks currently.

So really my question was about how do you rank the players in the lottery? If there is a player you think is underrated and better than those aforementioned players, would trading down be a prudent option?

The mocks are meaningless.  Teams have done plenty of scouting on most of the top prospects and they still have the workouts to go through.  If a GM thinks an "underrated" player is 3rd best in the draft, chances are other GMs do also.  You don't trade down several spots assuming the guy you want will still be there.  The mocks generally had Brown going around 8th in last year's draft and yet Ainge took him 3rd. 

Once teams have done their workouts, I think there will be clear tiers after Fultz.  I definitely wouldn't draft Collins in the top 10 as I don't see him having star potential.  In contrast, I have concerns about Markkanen but I do see some star potential so he's a top 10 pick for me.  As for Fox he's my favorite player in this draft.  Don't think his shooting will be that bad but there are plenty of successful poor shooting PGs in the NBA. 

I never said trading down only a few spots. If that is the case, yes the risk is too much and you might as well take the guy. However, to argue that all the GMs know exactly how good these guys are flies in the face of history, where players taken outside of 2-4 end up being as good as the ones taken there very often.

2010: Gordon Hayward (9) and Paul Goerge (10) end up being much more valuable than 2-4: Evan Turner, Derrick Favors, Wesley Johnson.

2011: Kemba Walker (9), Klay Thompson (11), Kawhi Leonard (15) are better than 2-4: Derrick Williams, Enes Kanter, Tristan Thompson.

2012: Beal (3) and Lillard (6) are probably the best players from 2 on. But Drummond went 9th. I can see a team that already had a PG and SG being OK with Drummond over those guys.

2013: McCollum (10) and Giianis (15) much better than 2-4, Oladipo, Porter, and Zeller.

2014: The jury isn't totally out on this draft, but it looks like Parker (2) and Embiid (3) were pretty much taken where they should have been, though injuries have hurt them. Nurkic, Warren, Hood, Capela, all those guys are good but haven't shown they will be as good as those two.

2015: Myles Turner (11), Devin Booker (13), probably not as valuable as Porzingis (4), but they have shown as much so far as Russell (2) and Okafor (3).

2016: Way too early to know, but so far 2-4 Ingram, Brown, and Bender haven't shown they're much better than some guys taken way later.

Anyway, based on this recent history the 2-4 slots aren't close to being a guarantee that they are in a different "tier" than players taken in the 9-15 range.

You're entitled to your opinion regarding the talent levels of all the draftees but to say that there are "clear tiers" after the 1st pick and that the GMs all know this doesn't jive with history.

If you weren't talking about trading down only a few spots what were you talking about?  Trading down a lot of spots would be even worse.  I didn't say anything about GMs knowing exactly how good the prospects are or that all GMs would have the same tiers.  GMs don't all use the same criteria for ranking prospects.  Some GMs are more risk adverse than others. 
All the one-and-done players certainly make player assessment much harder but if you want to maximize your chance of success in the draft, you still want to draft as high as possible.

Now you're making it seem like these decisions are made with no evaluation, that just taking someone 2-4 means you have better odds at getting a more talented player. But we've seen from history that people's rankings are often wrong. It may be the case that Ainge doesn't think Tatum, Jackson, or Ball are any better than someone who is probably going 9-10. If that is the case, what's wrong with trading down, as long as you make sure you are still in a safe spot to get the guy you want?

I'm not one of those people who's trying to maximize every last inch of value out of our assets. I just thought that if Collins truly is slated into that 10 spot (as most mocks have him), I would be open to trading down.

Again, it's fine that everyone has differing opinions on prospects. But you make it seem like trading down automatically means we're getting a lesser talent, when it isn't the case if you've scouted correctly.

I know it's not that easy to trade down in the NBA because it's not like the NFL with so many picks and wild diversity of rankings of players. There are only two rounds in the NBA and really most of the talent is concentrated at the top. I was just throwing it out there, mostly because I think Collins may end up better than people think.

[tazzmaniac]

No....no....no.

At this point, quality > quantity.

This.

Absolutely not.

The days of hoarding assets need to end. Cash them in.

My original point was that there may be players later in the draft that are the same "quality" or close enough. We can't assume that just because Ball, Tatum, and Jackson are ranked 2-4 right now that they definitely are a tier above the guys going after them in mocks currently.

So really my question was about how do you rank the players in the lottery? If there is a player you think is underrated and better than those aforementioned players, would trading down be a prudent option?

The mocks are meaningless.  Teams have done plenty of scouting on most of the top prospects and they still have the workouts to go through.  If a GM thinks an "underrated" player is 3rd best in the draft, chances are other GMs do also.  You don't trade down several spots assuming the guy you want will still be there.  The mocks generally had Brown going around 8th in last year's draft and yet Ainge took him 3rd. 

Once teams have done their workouts, I think there will be clear tiers after Fultz.  I definitely wouldn't draft Collins in the top 10 as I don't see him having star potential.  In contrast, I have concerns about Markkanen but I do see some star potential so he's a top 10 pick for me.  As for Fox he's my favorite player in this draft.  Don't think his shooting will be that bad but there are plenty of successful poor shooting PGs in the NBA. 

I never said trading down only a few spots. If that is the case, yes the risk is too much and you might as well take the guy. However, to argue that all the GMs know exactly how good these guys are flies in the face of history, where players taken outside of 2-4 end up being as good as the ones taken there very often.

2010: Gordon Hayward (9) and Paul Goerge (10) end up being much more valuable than 2-4: Evan Turner, Derrick Favors, Wesley Johnson.

2011: Kemba Walker (9), Klay Thompson (11), Kawhi Leonard (15) are better than 2-4: Derrick Williams, Enes Kanter, Tristan Thompson.

2012: Beal (3) and Lillard (6) are probably the best players from 2 on. But Drummond went 9th. I can see a team that already had a PG and SG being OK with Drummond over those guys.

2013: McCollum (10) and Giianis (15) much better than 2-4, Oladipo, Porter, and Zeller.

2014: The jury isn't totally out on this draft, but it looks like Parker (2) and Embiid (3) were pretty much taken where they should have been, though injuries have hurt them. Nurkic, Warren, Hood, Capela, all those guys are good but haven't shown they will be as good as those two.

2015: Myles Turner (11), Devin Booker (13), probably not as valuable as Porzingis (4), but they have shown as much so far as Russell (2) and Okafor (3).

2016: Way too early to know, but so far 2-4 Ingram, Brown, and Bender haven't shown they're much better than some guys taken way later.

Anyway, based on this recent history the 2-4 slots aren't close to being a guarantee that they are in a different "tier" than players taken in the 9-15 range.

You're entitled to your opinion regarding the talent levels of all the draftees but to say that there are "clear tiers" after the 1st pick and that the GMs all know this doesn't jive with history.

If you weren't talking about trading down only a few spots what were you talking about?  Trading down a lot of spots would be even worse.  I didn't say anything about GMs knowing exactly how good the prospects are or that all GMs would have the same tiers.  GMs don't all use the same criteria for ranking prospects.  Some GMs are more risk adverse than others. 
All the one-and-done players certainly make player assessment much harder but if you want to maximize your chance of success in the draft, you still want to draft as high as possible.

Now you're making it seem like these decisions are made with no evaluation, that just taking someone 2-4 means you have better odds at getting a more talented player. But we've seen from history that people's rankings are often wrong. It may be the case that Ainge doesn't think Tatum, Jackson, or Ball are any better than someone who is probably going 9-10. If that is the case, what's wrong with trading down, as long as you make sure you are still in a safe spot to get the guy you want?

I'm not one of those people who's trying to maximize every last inch of value out of our assets. I just thought that if Collins truly is slated into that 10 spot (as most mocks have him), I would be open to trading down.

Again, it's fine that everyone has differing opinions on prospects. But you make it seem like trading down automatically means we're getting a lesser talent, when it isn't the case if you've scouted correctly.

I know it's not that easy to trade down in the NBA because it's not like the NFL with so many picks and wild diversity of rankings of players. There are only two rounds in the NBA and really most of the talent is concentrated at the top. I was just throwing it out there, mostly because I think Collins may end up better than people think.

No I didn't.  I specifically mentioned GMs using different criteria and player assessments being harder with all the one-and-done players.  My previous post mentioned all the scouting that teams have done already and the upcoming workouts.  As you said most of the talent is concentrated at the top of the draft, which is exactly why you keep top picks.  If there are 3 stars in a draft and you have the 4th pick, you may not even get a chance to draft one of the stars if the 3 teams before you "scout correctly". 

The notion of "scouting correctly" is odd considering the lists of hits and misses you mentioned.  If those teams that got good players with later draft picks actually had scouted correctly, they would have traded up to ensure they got that good player rather than hoping the player fell to them.  Player assessment is as much an art as it is a science.  Scouting correctly just means gathering as much information (on and off court) on the players as you can to make your assessments.  There's no magic to it but there is a significant degree of uncertainty. 

Let's look at some of Ainge's moves.  Ainge traded up to take KO bypassing Giannis.  He attempted to trade up to get Winslow bypassing Turner and Booker.  Taking Brown at 3.  He reached for Rozier at 16 even though he was mocked as a late 1st.  He reached for Yabu at 16 even though he was mocked as an early 2nd round pick. 

If you think Collins is a top 4 pick, why don't you make a new post on that directly and discuss the reasons why you think he's being underrated?  It is not clear to me whether you really like Collins or if you just don't like the top picks after Fultz. 

[Csfan1984]

Anything is possible.

[Celtics4ever]

Bender haven't shown they're much better than some guys taken way later.

Bender was terrible and  had a disappointing year.  Not NBA ready.

[tazzmaniac]

Bender haven't shown they're much better than some guys taken way later.

Bender was terrible and  had a disappointing year.  Not NBA ready.

The whole 2016 class has been disappointing so far.  Simmons out all year.  Top ROY candidates are 2 2014 draftees and a 2nd round pick.  Bender wasn't NBA ready this year but that doesn't mean he won't be in the future.  With all the one-and-done players, not being NBA ready initially should be expected.  The 2013 draft class looked really poor after the 1st year but now it looks much better. 

 

[droopdog7]

This ain't the NFL.  Value thins out very quckly.  You don't wnt to trade out of an impact player into someone that may not become anything at all.

[Tr1boy]

Bender haven't shown they're much better than some guys taken way later.

Bender was terrible and  had a disappointing year.  Not NBA ready.

Eddie20 disagrees

Right? 

[Beat LA]

Yes, I would, and TP for the thread, friend .  I have yet to work out all of the trade scenarios, however, but I think I'd start with #1 for 2 and 28, followed by 2 for 5, 10, and 34, and Crowder to New York for 44 and 58 (I'm assuming that his value has tanked judging by his performance in the postseason to date, but hopefully I'm wrong as usual, lol ).  Sorry, I've just never been a fan of his.  The guy is all talk, to me, plus the second round, as is this draft, is loaded, imho. 

[chambers]

I wouldn't trade the #1 pick for anything.
Fultz is our best shot at a franchise caliber/generational talent.

Your in for a huge disappointment if you keep thinking Celts are locked to draft Fultz...its not a lock

The op is stating if celts pick 3-4...trade down?

Its a valid question

I didn't say the Celtics are a lock to draft Fultz. They still have to get lucky and win the lottery.
However I do believe if we get the #1, that there is no question we will draft Fultz.

I answered the OP's question, not sure why you're telling me it's a valid question...

Well, the original question was, do you trade down if you don't get the #1 pick. So no, you didn't answer that question.

Well i did answer the question. I said i wouldn't trade down for anything if we got the #1 pick.
And triboy is in for a HUGE disappointment if he thinks we aren't locked on Fultz.