Author Topic: Trade #1 for Porzingis  (Read 14141 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #45 on: May 17, 2017, 04:19:19 PM »

Offline Jvalin

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3737
  • Tommy Points: 737
No. Porzingis will be a good player and gets a lot of attention because he's in New York, but Fultz is a different class of prospect. We are talking about somebody on the Anthony Davis/Karl Towns/Ben Simmons level here.
Besides Magic who stands at 6-9, have you even seen a point guard being that dominant in this league? I mean, Davis is/was projected to be the next KG. Towns might be the closest thing we 've seen to Tim Duncan.
You mean other than Steph Curry, Russel Wesbrook, James Harden and Allen Iverson?
We are talking about KG/Duncan level of dominance. Westbrook, Harden and Iverson have never won a ring. Westbrook put up historically great numbers, yet the Thunder failed to progress through the first round. Harden couldn't help the Rockets make a deep playoff run either. Iverson got to the finals just once and the Sixers lost 4-1 to the Lakers. Curry is the only one who has won a championship but I wouldn't say he is (or will ever be) as dominant as KG/Duncan were. While he is definitely an elite shooter/offensive player, he is a below average defender. If you can't impact games on both ends of the floor you will never be dominant enough to be compared with KG, Duncan and those kind of guys.

Fultz is projected to be great on both ends of the floor as well. The thing is he is 6-4. Don't get me wrong, that's great size for a point guard. What I am trying to say is that when it comes to dominance, size matters. Magic dominated the league from the PG position because he stands at 6-9. Penny Hardaway did the same thing for a couple of seasons (prior to the injuries) but he stands at 6-7. How do you match up against a 6-7/6-9 point guard? How do you match up against Giannis when he runs the point for the Bucks? You just can't. If Fultz were 6-6 or something I would be over the moon with him. At 6-4 I 'm not that confident he is gonna impact games the way taller players can do. He will most likely become a hell of a player though and that's definitely good enough for me.
Fultz is reportedly 6'5 now, and has the reach of most 6'8 players.

Yes, to be taller but have the same athleticism and skill would be great, but I remain baffled that some Celtic fans are lamenting that we're going to get this great prospect. He has almost no weakness in his game.

Most of the guys you mention didn't win because they were tall, or even because they were dominant. Were Kobe & MJ not dominant at 6'6? The reason they and your list won titles was because they played on great teams. Fultz is tall enough and has an incredible handle. He's going to be a handful for our opponents as he learns the pro game.
Who is lamenting? All I am saying is that as much as I like him (and I like him a lot) I would most likely do the trade suggested by the OP.

As for Kobe and MJ, there is a significant difference between being 6-4 and 6-6. In fact, that's exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that ''if Fultz were 6-6 or something I would be over the moon with him''. To my way of thinking, he looks like a great prospect, just a couple of inches short of being a transcendent talent.

Do you happen to have any link available of him being 6-5? Wherever I look they keep listing him at 6-4 with shoes.

Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #46 on: May 17, 2017, 04:24:32 PM »

Offline Casperian

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3501
  • Tommy Points: 545

I simply don't understand why "hasn't won a championship" is a metric here. Who are we trading that pick for?

Jimmy Butler, who hasn't won a championship?
Paul George, who hasn't won a championship?

It's not a metric at all. What I'm saying is that we're talking about 18yo kids here, and even if we can safely assume that Fultz has the most upside of them all, we can't be sure he will ever reach it. He could, heaven forbid, blow out his knee on the first day of training camp, for example.
Building a successful team is a bit more complicated than just picking the best kid at #1, as evidenced by many, many #1 picks who never won a championship.

If the right offer comes along, and let me be clear that Butler or PG straight up for the pick is NOT the right offer, we should do our due dilligence and explore our options. I don't think this is an outrageous position to take.


I'm categorically saying we should not move the pick unless it's Anthony Davis or a Godfather offer.

You don't look a gift horse in the mouth. This is the best gift horse the Celtics could have received.

Yes, I agree, and I was also talking about a potential Godfather offer, which wouldn't be unheard of. I wonder if Celtics fans in the 80ies also thought we should "not overthink it" and pick Joe Barry Carroll at 1.

I assume this is just bad timing on my part. We just won the lottery, people are understandably excited, and are still dreaming of the next homegrown Celtics superstar. I just believe the Celtics should still keep their options open, and we fans should manage our expectations accordingly.

It's one thing to not overthink it, it's another to not at least think about it.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2017, 04:31:28 PM by Casperian »
In the summer of 2017, I predicted this team would not win a championship for the next 10 years.

3 down, 7 to go.

Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #47 on: May 17, 2017, 04:28:21 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8595
  • Tommy Points: 842
No. Porzingis will be a good player and gets a lot of attention because he's in New York, but Fultz is a different class of prospect. We are talking about somebody on the Anthony Davis/Karl Towns/Ben Simmons level here.
Besides Magic who stands at 6-9, have you even seen a point guard being that dominant in this league? I mean, Davis is/was projected to be the next KG. Towns might be the closest thing we 've seen to Tim Duncan.
You mean other than Steph Curry, Russel Wesbrook, James Harden and Allen Iverson?
We are talking about KG/Duncan level of dominance. Westbrook, Harden and Iverson have never won a ring. Westbrook put up historically great numbers, yet the Thunder failed to progress through the first round. Harden couldn't help the Rockets make a deep playoff run either. Iverson got to the finals just once and the Sixers lost 4-1 to the Lakers. Curry is the only one who has won a championship but I wouldn't say he is (or will ever be) as dominant as KG/Duncan were. While he is definitely an elite shooter/offensive player, he is a below average defender. If you can't impact games on both ends of the floor you will never be dominant enough to be compared with KG, Duncan and those kind of guys.

Fultz is projected to be great on both ends of the floor as well. The thing is he is 6-4. Don't get me wrong, that's great size for a point guard. What I am trying to say is that when it comes to dominance, size matters. Magic dominated the league from the PG position because he stands at 6-9. Penny Hardaway did the same thing for a couple of seasons (prior to the injuries) but he stands at 6-7. How do you match up against a 6-7/6-9 point guard? How do you match up against Giannis when he runs the point for the Bucks? You just can't. If Fultz were 6-6 or something I would be over the moon with him. At 6-4 I 'm not that confident he is gonna impact games the way taller players can do. He will most likely become a hell of a player though and that's definitely good enough for me.
Fultz is reportedly 6'5 now, and has the reach of most 6'8 players.

Yes, to be taller but have the same athleticism and skill would be great, but I remain baffled that some Celtic fans are lamenting that we're going to get this great prospect. He has almost no weakness in his game.

Most of the guys you mention didn't win because they were tall, or even because they were dominant. Were Kobe & MJ not dominant at 6'6? The reason they and your list won titles was because they played on great teams. Fultz is tall enough and has an incredible handle. He's going to be a handful for our opponents as he learns the pro game.
Who is lamenting? All I am saying is that as much as I like him (and I like him a lot) I would most likely do the trade suggested by the OP.

As for Kobe and MJ, there is a significant difference between being 6-4 and 6-6. In fact, that's exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that ''if Fultz were 6-6 or something I would be over the moon with him''. To my way of thinking, he looks like a great prospect, just a couple of inches short of being a transcendent talent.

Do you happen to have any link available of him being 6-5? Wherever I look they keep listing him at 6-4 with shoes.
Draftexpress has a 6'4.75" measurement in shoes from 2016.

He's only 18, so he's actually decently likely to put on a half inch or so.

Kobe is listed at 6'6" but he claims to be "6 foot 4, 6 foot 5 in sneaks"

Listed heights are notoriously sketchy and there's no official measurements for Kobe.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #48 on: May 17, 2017, 04:37:57 PM »

Offline Jvalin

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3737
  • Tommy Points: 737
Also, just because a measurement was not made at the NBA combine doesn't necessarily make it unofficial (or unreliable, for that matter). Not as long as it's an actual measurement taking place as opposed just pulling a number out of your rear end and putting it in the media guide.

I'm not saying that he's 6'5 now, but he might be, and given his reach I'm not particularly concerned about him being undersized for a scoring wing. He'll be fine.
Of course he 'll be fine. The question is ''do you think he is gonna be as dominant as Davis/KAT is''? That's how the whole conversation started. Personally speaking, no I don't and the main reason behind this is his relative lack of height.


Conventionally, all NBA measurements are reported with shoes. So when you read that Kobe is 6'6 and Ray Allen is 6'5, that's measured with shoes on.
Likewise, when you read that Fultz is 6-4, that's measured with shoes on as well.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2017, 04:43:10 PM by Jvalin »

Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #49 on: May 17, 2017, 04:44:48 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Of course he 'll be fine. The question is ''do you think he is gonna be as dominant as Davis/KAT is? That's how the whole conversation started. Personally speaking, no I don't and the main reason behind this is his relative lack of height.
What have KAT and Davis dominated so far other than the stat sheet? By the definition of "dominance" that have been bandied around, they're big fat zeroes.

They're real tall though, so I guess that makes it ok.


Conventionally, all NBA measurements are reported with shoes. So when you read that Kobe is 6'6 and Ray Allen is 6'5, that's measured with shoes on.
Likewise, when you read that Fultz is 6-4, that's measured with shoes on as well.
Correct. That was when he was 17. That's why I said he may or may not play most of his career as a 6'5, depending on whether he has another half an inch to an inch of growth in him.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #50 on: May 17, 2017, 04:45:21 PM »

Offline ETNCeltics

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2720
  • Tommy Points: 306

Who is lamenting? All I am saying is that as much as I like him (and I like him a lot) I would most likely do the trade suggested by the OP.

As for Kobe and MJ, there is a significant difference between being 6-4 and 6-6. In fact, that's exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that ''if Fultz were 6-6 or something I would be over the moon with him''. To my way of thinking, he looks like a great prospect, just a couple of inches short of being a transcendent talent.

Do you happen to have any link available of him being 6-5? Wherever I look they keep listing him at 6-4 with shoes.
No, I'm going by a draft show I watched the other night that referred to him as having great size at PG at 6'5. AFAIK he didn't get measured at the combine, and I don't think any other measurement is recent.

Isaiah Thomas (not our IT) was what, 6', if that, and he was dominant player. As someone said above, Wade won a title pre-Lebron at 6'4 playing the 2. Hakeem is probably the greatest center of the last 25 years and he was an undersized 6'10. Barkley was a dominant player at the 4, and he was only 6'4.

As a point guard, Fultz is bigger for his position than each of those all time greats, and his reach is elite for a PG. And that says nothing of the fact that this is a much different league now. It's a perimeter league where big men are devalued, and the league's best team won a title with a 6'3 point guard and a 6'7 power forward.

I don't have the slightest reservation about MF's height, as far as I'm concerned, he has good size and is about the closest thing to a flawless prospect as we could hope for.

Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #51 on: May 17, 2017, 04:48:21 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8595
  • Tommy Points: 842
Also, just because a measurement was not made at the NBA combine doesn't necessarily make it unofficial (or unreliable, for that matter). Not as long as it's an actual measurement taking place as opposed just pulling a number out of your rear end and putting it in the media guide.

I'm not saying that he's 6'5 now, but he might be, and given his reach I'm not particularly concerned about him being undersized for a scoring wing. He'll be fine.
Of course he 'll be fine. The question is ''do you think he is gonna be as dominant as Davis/KAT is''? That's how the whole conversation started. Personally speaking, no I don't and the main reason behind this is his relative lack of height.
ahhhh

OK. I agree there. Thing is, I dont think Porzingis is particularly close to that level.

Id prefer Giannis and Davis and maybe Towns to Fultz.

I dont think Zinger is as good a prospect and Towns inability to defend is a bit concerning to me, but hes so good otherwise that I still probably have to take him over Fultz.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #52 on: May 17, 2017, 04:53:10 PM »

Offline ETNCeltics

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2720
  • Tommy Points: 306
Also, just because a measurement was not made at the NBA combine doesn't necessarily make it unofficial (or unreliable, for that matter). Not as long as it's an actual measurement taking place as opposed just pulling a number out of your rear end and putting it in the media guide.

I'm not saying that he's 6'5 now, but he might be, and given his reach I'm not particularly concerned about him being undersized for a scoring wing. He'll be fine.
Of course he 'll be fine. The question is ''do you think he is gonna be as dominant as Davis/KAT is''? That's how the whole conversation started. Personally speaking, no I don't and the main reason behind this is his relative lack of height.


Conventionally, all NBA measurements are reported with shoes. So when you read that Kobe is 6'6 and Ray Allen is 6'5, that's measured with shoes on.
Likewise, when you read that Fultz is 6-4, that's measured with shoes on as well.
Would I trade him for Davis? In a heartbeat. Almost any team would trade any single player or pick they have for Davis. Davis' skillset at his size and his age might make him the most valuable commodity in the league.

Would I for KP? Absolutely not. Using a reversal of your argument, how many 7'3 players have been the cornerstone of a championship? Most freakish tall nba players have struggled with injuries and inconsistent play. Watching KP, I see a guy who is going to blossom into a really good nba player, but for a guy that size, he's not a great rebounder, and too slow to be an elite defender. I like his game, and I'd love to see him in Boston, but I like Fultz's potential much more.

For my $$, the best player in the NBA is Kawhi Leonard. At his position, he has mere average size at 6'7. Much like MF, he has elite length though with a 7' reach.


Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #53 on: May 17, 2017, 04:56:10 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Draftexpress has a 6'4.75" measurement in shoes from 2016.

He's only 18, so he's actually decently likely to put on a half inch or so.

Kobe is listed at 6'6" but he claims to be "6 foot 4, 6 foot 5 in sneaks"

Listed heights are notoriously sketchy and there's no official measurements for Kobe.
He measured 6'4 in shoes in 2015, 6'3.5 in early 2016, and 6'4.75 in mid-2016.

It's hard to say what the precise size will be in his NBA sneakers this fall, but if he bombs out, it is not going to be because he was an inch too short.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #54 on: May 17, 2017, 05:04:05 PM »

Offline Dannys Chipotle Guy

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 279
  • Tommy Points: 48
Draftexpress has a 6'4.75" measurement in shoes from 2016.

He's only 18, so he's actually decently likely to put on a half inch or so.

Kobe is listed at 6'6" but he claims to be "6 foot 4, 6 foot 5 in sneaks"

Listed heights are notoriously sketchy and there's no official measurements for Kobe.
He measured 6'4 in shoes in 2015, 6'3.5 in early 2016, and 6'4.75 in mid-2016.

It's hard to say what the precise size will be in his NBA sneakers this fall, but if he bombs out, it is not going to be because he was an inch too short.
false. If Fultz is 6'4" hes a roleplayer, 6'5" hes an all-time great.

Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #55 on: May 17, 2017, 05:19:19 PM »

Offline Jvalin

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3737
  • Tommy Points: 737
No, I'm going by a draft show I watched the other night that referred to him as having great size at PG at 6'5. AFAIK he didn't get measured at the combine, and I don't think any other measurement is recent.
I was watching the lottery on ESPN and for some reason they kept referring to Ben Simmons of the Sixers as a guard. They even showed a depth chart where he was listed as a guard!! ;D ;D


Isaiah Thomas (not our IT) was what, 6', if that, and he was dominant player. As someone said above, Wade won a title pre-Lebron at 6'4 playing the 2. Hakeem is probably the greatest center of the last 25 years and he was an undersized 6'10. Barkley was a dominant player at the 4, and he was only 6'4.

As a point guard, Fultz is bigger for his position than each of those all time greats, and his reach is elite for a PG. And that says nothing of the fact that this is a much different league now. It's a perimeter league where big men are devalued, and the league's best team won a title with a 6'3 point guard and a 6'7 power forward.
That's a great point. Can't argue with that. Size will always be important though. Look at what Giannis is doing with the Bucks. All I'm saying is I would be much more high on Fultz if he were  a couple of inches taller. I really like him at 6-4, I would be over the moon with him if he were around 6-6 or something. I mean, if he had the same skill set at 6-6 I would feel like we are about to draft the next Kobe. I may be wrong, but the way I see it, those 2 inches make a huge difference in terms of his ceiling.


I don't have the slightest reservation about MF's height, as far as I'm concerned, he has good size and is about the closest thing to a flawless prospect as we could hope for.
Flawless than Porzingis? Does Porzingis have any major flaws?

Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #56 on: May 17, 2017, 05:21:46 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
I don't have the slightest reservation about MF's height, as far as I'm concerned, he has good size and is about the closest thing to a flawless prospect as we could hope for.
Flawless than Porzingis? Does Porzingis have any major flaws?
Um... can't rebound all that well, can be muscled around, is somewhat fragile, tends to wear down over the course of a full 82 game season... there is plenty to see if you'd look.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #57 on: May 17, 2017, 05:54:39 PM »

Offline Jvalin

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3737
  • Tommy Points: 737
Of course he 'll be fine. The question is ''do you think he is gonna be as dominant as Davis/KAT is? That's how the whole conversation started. Personally speaking, no I don't and the main reason behind this is his relative lack of height.
What have KAT and Davis dominated so far other than the stat sheet? By the definition of "dominance" that have been bandied around, they're big fat zeroes.

They're real tall though, so I guess that makes it ok.
Sure but they are both too young to be judged on their current accomplishments in terms of dominance. That's why I mentioned Duncan and KG in the first place.


I don't have the slightest reservation about MF's height, as far as I'm concerned, he has good size and is about the closest thing to a flawless prospect as we could hope for.
Flawless than Porzingis? Does Porzingis have any major flaws?
Um... can't rebound all that well, can be muscled around, is somewhat fragile, tends to wear down over the course of a full 82 game season... there is plenty to see if you'd look.
Do you consider those things to be major flaws? I mean, they are all fixable. Sure, he is skinny/fragile. If he muscles up, he is gonna be far more dominant on the boards. In all likelihood he will be much more durable as well.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2017, 06:23:11 PM by Jvalin »

Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #58 on: May 18, 2017, 10:25:56 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Of course he 'll be fine. The question is ''do you think he is gonna be as dominant as Davis/KAT is? That's how the whole conversation started. Personally speaking, no I don't and the main reason behind this is his relative lack of height.
What have KAT and Davis dominated so far other than the stat sheet? By the definition of "dominance" that have been bandied around, they're big fat zeroes.

They're real tall though, so I guess that makes it ok.
Sure but they are both too young to be judged on their current accomplishments in terms of dominance. That's why I mentioned Duncan and KG in the first place.
But you've judged Fultz before he was even drafted. Ok then.

I don't have the slightest reservation about MF's height, as far as I'm concerned, he has good size and is about the closest thing to a flawless prospect as we could hope for.
Flawless than Porzingis? Does Porzingis have any major flaws?
Um... can't rebound all that well, can be muscled around, is somewhat fragile, tends to wear down over the course of a full 82 game season... there is plenty to see if you'd look.
Do you consider those things to be major flaws? I mean, they are all fixable. Sure, he is skinny/fragile. If he muscles up, he is gonna be far more dominant on the boards. In all likelihood he will be much more durable as well.
Sure. Or he may not. Or 17-hear old Fultz can perhaps grow an inch.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Trade #1 for Porzingis
« Reply #59 on: May 18, 2017, 11:01:56 AM »

Offline coffee425

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 955
  • Tommy Points: 122
Would I trade him for Davis? In a heartbeat. Almost any team would trade any single player or pick they have for Davis. Davis' skillset at his size and his age might make him the most valuable commodity in the league.

Would I for KP? Absolutely not. Using a reversal of your argument, how many 7'3 players have been the cornerstone of a championship? Most freakish tall nba players have struggled with injuries and inconsistent play. Watching KP, I see a guy who is going to blossom into a really good nba player, but for a guy that size, he's not a great rebounder, and too slow to be an elite defender. I like his game, and I'd love to see him in Boston, but I like Fultz's potential much more.

For my $$, the best player in the NBA is Kawhi Leonard. At his position, he has mere average size at 6'7. Much like MF, he has elite length though with a 7' reach.

Never liked this approach. Why compare to past history, when the game's significantly changed?
 Not to mention, it's the outliers that disrupt the league the most.
The best team in the league has a 6'6 center. Lebron's the heaviest SF in history. Isiah Thomas (DET) became the first scoring pg to win a title.
I'd focus more on making history, rather than following it.

And to counter your injury point..
Kareem was 7'2 and played for 20 years at a high level.
Duncan was 7'0 and played for 19 years at a high level
Dirk is 7'0 and is still killing it.
Kevin Durant is 7'0 and is an MVP candidate for the next 5 years.

Really, only Yao is the only superstar talent giant that had recurring foot issues, but he played 110 games a year lol.
Quote
Even at the end of the game, we lined up in different formation that he hadn't seen and he called out our play before I got the ball. I heard him calling it out. -John Wall on Brad Stevens