2017 mock draft (Fultz, Swanigan, Oliver, Hart to BOS)

[PickNRoll]

Take Jackson.

- high IQ
- great work ethic, reportedly
- smart and emotionally mature (watch his interviews)
- elite athlete
- size and versatility lets him guard 1-3 and play with anyone
- point forward skills, secondary playmaker
- high motor and effort on D, impact player
- rebounds his position (7.4/game)

Fultz doesn't check as many boxes.  Fultz can be a tier 1 scorer, but Jackson has Paul Pierce potential.

Didn't we pretty much draft this guy last year?

Nope.  They have some things in common though.  Jaylen's more of a slasher and a brute force player.  Jackson is a more cerebral player on the court (despite Jaylen being some kind of nerd off the court).  Jackson is more rangy on D, moves his feet better and threatens to block shots.  Higher assist, block, and steal rates... a more impactful defender and a MUCH better passer.

Jackson is a good player, but he played for a better program (and better fit) at an older age.

I may be wrong, but I feel Jaylen has bigger upside.

While I don't necessarily think they would be redundant, and I would have been perfectly happy drafting him at 2/3/4, I don't see how you don't take Fultz at 1.

Jaylen is stronger, a better shooter, and probably better on the low block with his back to the basket.  Jaylen is a 3 who plays like a 4.  Jackson is a 3 who plays like a 2.  I agree, not a lot of overlap.

Let's say both Fultz and Jackson fulfill their potential.  Would you rather have the 6'4" scoring machine or the 6'8" 2-way player?  Do me a favor and look at the last 30 Finals MVP's.

There was this skinny kid from Philadelphia, about an inch taller than Fultz, who was drafted #13 in 1996.   He was a scoring machine.  He probably represents Fultz' upside "potential" as a scoring machine.

He's not a popular guy among Celtic fans, but he did have a helluva career.

Fultz actually has a lot of potential on defense as well, by the way.  Tremendous wingspan (his dimensions are similar to Wade's).   He's a lot younger than Jackson.  I don't think it's quite fair to characterize him as just a one-way player yet.  Especially if we are talking about 'potential'.

Fultz is not the same size as Kobe Bryant.  Kobe's a legit 6'6".  It's hard for me to even imagine Kobe being as apathetic about defense and losing as Fultz was.

Well, given that we don't have any sort of independent combine event type measurement, we don't really know how 'legit' that 6' 6" is.    Not that it matters.  That's a red-herring.

However you might feel about Fultz' psychology, that nevertheless is his 'potential' as a scoring talent in this league.  Fultz has all the check-boxes to be a high-volume, high-efficiency and extremely versatile scoring guard in the NBA.   He has shot-making body control that is 'Kobe-like'.  He may never ever reach such a lofty ceiling, but again, we are talking about his potential.

You're making my point for me.  In the last 40 years, how many times has a 6'4" guard who doesn't play D led a championship team?   I'm not trying to draft Gilbert Arenas.  I'm trying to win #18.

[PickNRoll]

Take Jackson.

- high IQ
- great work ethic, reportedly
- smart and emotionally mature (watch his interviews)
- elite athlete
- size and versatility lets him guard 1-3 and play with anyone
- point forward skills, secondary playmaker
- high motor and effort on D, impact player
- rebounds his position (7.4/game)

Fultz doesn't check as many boxes.  Fultz can be a tier 1 scorer, but Jackson has Paul Pierce potential.

Didn't we pretty much draft this guy last year?

Nope.  They have some things in common though.  Jaylen's more of a slasher and a brute force player.  Jackson is a more cerebral player on the court (despite Jaylen being some kind of nerd off the court).  Jackson is more rangy on D, moves his feet better and threatens to block shots.  Higher assist, block, and steal rates... a more impactful defender and a MUCH better passer.

Jackson is a good player, but he played for a better program (and better fit) at an older age.

I may be wrong, but I feel Jaylen has bigger upside.

While I don't necessarily think they would be redundant, and I would have been perfectly happy drafting him at 2/3/4, I don't see how you don't take Fultz at 1.

Jaylen is stronger, a better shooter, and probably better on the low block with his back to the basket.  Jaylen is a 3 who plays like a 4.  Jackson is a 3 who plays like a 2.  I agree, not a lot of overlap.

Let's say both Fultz and Jackson fulfill their potential.  Would you rather have the 6'4" scoring machine or the 6'8" 2-way player?  Do me a favor and look at the last 30 Finals MVP's.

What does finals mvp have to do with anything?

That's assuming both have an equal chance to fulfill their potential, and that their ceiling is the same. Almost nobody believes that Jackson is as good a prospect as Fultz. His height and his position is irrelevant when looking at them individually as prospects.

This isn't a real difficult pick to make. Fultz is a significantly better prospect.

It matters because we're Celtics fans and we're trying to field the next Finals MVP, not the next stat stuffing highlight reel.

No, we're trying to draft the best player available. Drafting for the "next XXX" gets you stuck with guys like Adam Morrison.

That's semantic.  "Best player available" does not necessarily mean most skilled offensive player. 

If a player was guaranteed to be the next Finals MVP, would you take him?  Would you agree that such a guarantee would make him the "best player available"?  If not, what does "best player available" even mean?

[Birdman]

Need to trade those 2nd round picks..don't need them

[mmmmm]

Take Jackson.

- high IQ
- great work ethic, reportedly
- smart and emotionally mature (watch his interviews)
- elite athlete
- size and versatility lets him guard 1-3 and play with anyone
- point forward skills, secondary playmaker
- high motor and effort on D, impact player
- rebounds his position (7.4/game)

Fultz doesn't check as many boxes.  Fultz can be a tier 1 scorer, but Jackson has Paul Pierce potential.

Didn't we pretty much draft this guy last year?

Nope.  They have some things in common though.  Jaylen's more of a slasher and a brute force player.  Jackson is a more cerebral player on the court (despite Jaylen being some kind of nerd off the court).  Jackson is more rangy on D, moves his feet better and threatens to block shots.  Higher assist, block, and steal rates... a more impactful defender and a MUCH better passer.

Jackson is a good player, but he played for a better program (and better fit) at an older age.

I may be wrong, but I feel Jaylen has bigger upside.

While I don't necessarily think they would be redundant, and I would have been perfectly happy drafting him at 2/3/4, I don't see how you don't take Fultz at 1.

Jaylen is stronger, a better shooter, and probably better on the low block with his back to the basket.  Jaylen is a 3 who plays like a 4.  Jackson is a 3 who plays like a 2.  I agree, not a lot of overlap.

Let's say both Fultz and Jackson fulfill their potential.  Would you rather have the 6'4" scoring machine or the 6'8" 2-way player?  Do me a favor and look at the last 30 Finals MVP's.

There was this skinny kid from Philadelphia, about an inch taller than Fultz, who was drafted #13 in 1996.   He was a scoring machine.  He probably represents Fultz' upside "potential" as a scoring machine.

He's not a popular guy among Celtic fans, but he did have a helluva career.

Fultz actually has a lot of potential on defense as well, by the way.  Tremendous wingspan (his dimensions are similar to Wade's).   He's a lot younger than Jackson.  I don't think it's quite fair to characterize him as just a one-way player yet.  Especially if we are talking about 'potential'.

Fultz is not the same size as Kobe Bryant.  Kobe's a legit 6'6".  It's hard for me to even imagine Kobe being as apathetic about defense and losing as Fultz was.

Well, given that we don't have any sort of independent combine event type measurement, we don't really know how 'legit' that 6' 6" is.    Not that it matters.  That's a red-herring.

However you might feel about Fultz' psychology, that nevertheless is his 'potential' as a scoring talent in this league.  Fultz has all the check-boxes to be a high-volume, high-efficiency and extremely versatile scoring guard in the NBA.   He has shot-making body control that is 'Kobe-like'.  He may never ever reach such a lofty ceiling, but again, we are talking about his potential.

You're making my point for me.  In the last 40 years, how many times has a 6'4" guard who doesn't play D led a championship team?   I'm not trying to draft Gilbert Arenas.  I'm trying to win #18.

No, as koz pointed out, the Celtics are trying to draft the best player available.

And the "doesn't play D" is just your little projection so let's ignore that.

Teams win titles.   And an awful lot of those teams have had at least one elite scoring guard on them.    Whether that player was the "leader" of the team is a separate issue.

Michael Jordan clearly was the 'leader' of his team on the way to 6 rings.   Kobe was the clear leader on one of his 4, but Shaq was the man on 2 of them and Gasol, though perhaps not the 'leader' was arguably the best player on the other.  Curry was pretty clearly the leader on his title team.   Wade ... that can generate debate as to who the leader of his various teams were.  But nevertheless he has multiple rings.

That's a lot of rings in the pockets of just 4 elite scoring guards in the last 30 years.   Two of them taller than Fultz.  One shorter.  One the same height.

I've probably forgotten a player or two.  Those were just off the top of my head.

[mmmmm]

Take Jackson.

- high IQ
- great work ethic, reportedly
- smart and emotionally mature (watch his interviews)
- elite athlete
- size and versatility lets him guard 1-3 and play with anyone
- point forward skills, secondary playmaker
- high motor and effort on D, impact player
- rebounds his position (7.4/game)

Fultz doesn't check as many boxes.  Fultz can be a tier 1 scorer, but Jackson has Paul Pierce potential.

Didn't we pretty much draft this guy last year?

Nope.  They have some things in common though.  Jaylen's more of a slasher and a brute force player.  Jackson is a more cerebral player on the court (despite Jaylen being some kind of nerd off the court).  Jackson is more rangy on D, moves his feet better and threatens to block shots.  Higher assist, block, and steal rates... a more impactful defender and a MUCH better passer.

Jackson is a good player, but he played for a better program (and better fit) at an older age.

I may be wrong, but I feel Jaylen has bigger upside.

While I don't necessarily think they would be redundant, and I would have been perfectly happy drafting him at 2/3/4, I don't see how you don't take Fultz at 1.

Jaylen is stronger, a better shooter, and probably better on the low block with his back to the basket.  Jaylen is a 3 who plays like a 4.  Jackson is a 3 who plays like a 2.  I agree, not a lot of overlap.

Let's say both Fultz and Jackson fulfill their potential.  Would you rather have the 6'4" scoring machine or the 6'8" 2-way player?  Do me a favor and look at the last 30 Finals MVP's.

What does finals mvp have to do with anything?

That's assuming both have an equal chance to fulfill their potential, and that their ceiling is the same. Almost nobody believes that Jackson is as good a prospect as Fultz. His height and his position is irrelevant when looking at them individually as prospects.

This isn't a real difficult pick to make. Fultz is a significantly better prospect.

It matters because we're Celtics fans and we're trying to field the next Finals MVP, not the next stat stuffing highlight reel.

No, we're trying to draft the best player available. Drafting for the "next XXX" gets you stuck with guys like Adam Morrison.

That's semantic.  "Best player available" does not necessarily mean most skilled offensive player. 

Certainly.  But it does if the player's offense is so far ahead of others that it outweighs their defensive skills.

If a player was guaranteed to be the next Finals MVP, would you take him?  Would you agree that such a guarantee would make him the "best player available"?  If not, what does "best player available" even mean?

Given that we don't get gifted a crystal ball to see the future, I doubt that a GM like Ainge sits there trying to guess which one is going to be a Finals MVP.   Instead, I suspect he has a methodology for rating their expected future value as basketball players over the next 4-10 years that incorporates a ton of different variables.   And when it's close, he probably goes with his gut.

I do know that he seems to value performance in private workouts highly and he also places a premium on the player having at least one truly 'elite' skill/ability that will translate to the NBA.

[hwangjini_1]

I will be shocked if any of the picks that BOS owns after number one ends up on the roster next season.

Same.

powe, big baby, e'wuan, gomes, erden, ....shocked may be a bit of an over reaction since ainge does have a talent for spotting talent in the second round. he also almost took IT.

[PickNRoll]

Take Jackson.

- high IQ
- great work ethic, reportedly
- smart and emotionally mature (watch his interviews)
- elite athlete
- size and versatility lets him guard 1-3 and play with anyone
- point forward skills, secondary playmaker
- high motor and effort on D, impact player
- rebounds his position (7.4/game)

Fultz doesn't check as many boxes.  Fultz can be a tier 1 scorer, but Jackson has Paul Pierce potential.

Didn't we pretty much draft this guy last year?

Nope.  They have some things in common though.  Jaylen's more of a slasher and a brute force player.  Jackson is a more cerebral player on the court (despite Jaylen being some kind of nerd off the court).  Jackson is more rangy on D, moves his feet better and threatens to block shots.  Higher assist, block, and steal rates... a more impactful defender and a MUCH better passer.

Jackson is a good player, but he played for a better program (and better fit) at an older age.

I may be wrong, but I feel Jaylen has bigger upside.

While I don't necessarily think they would be redundant, and I would have been perfectly happy drafting him at 2/3/4, I don't see how you don't take Fultz at 1.

Jaylen is stronger, a better shooter, and probably better on the low block with his back to the basket.  Jaylen is a 3 who plays like a 4.  Jackson is a 3 who plays like a 2.  I agree, not a lot of overlap.

Let's say both Fultz and Jackson fulfill their potential.  Would you rather have the 6'4" scoring machine or the 6'8" 2-way player?  Do me a favor and look at the last 30 Finals MVP's.

There was this skinny kid from Philadelphia, about an inch taller than Fultz, who was drafted #13 in 1996.   He was a scoring machine.  He probably represents Fultz' upside "potential" as a scoring machine.

He's not a popular guy among Celtic fans, but he did have a helluva career.

Fultz actually has a lot of potential on defense as well, by the way.  Tremendous wingspan (his dimensions are similar to Wade's).   He's a lot younger than Jackson.  I don't think it's quite fair to characterize him as just a one-way player yet.  Especially if we are talking about 'potential'.

Fultz is not the same size as Kobe Bryant.  Kobe's a legit 6'6".  It's hard for me to even imagine Kobe being as apathetic about defense and losing as Fultz was.

Well, given that we don't have any sort of independent combine event type measurement, we don't really know how 'legit' that 6' 6" is.    Not that it matters.  That's a red-herring.

However you might feel about Fultz' psychology, that nevertheless is his 'potential' as a scoring talent in this league.  Fultz has all the check-boxes to be a high-volume, high-efficiency and extremely versatile scoring guard in the NBA.   He has shot-making body control that is 'Kobe-like'.  He may never ever reach such a lofty ceiling, but again, we are talking about his potential.

You're making my point for me.  In the last 40 years, how many times has a 6'4" guard who doesn't play D led a championship team?   I'm not trying to draft Gilbert Arenas.  I'm trying to win #18.

No, as koz pointed out, the Celtics are trying to draft the best player available.

I think Jackson IS the best player available.  "Best player" and "Player most likely to lead us to a championship" are interchangeable to me.

[PickNRoll]

Take Jackson.

- high IQ
- great work ethic, reportedly
- smart and emotionally mature (watch his interviews)
- elite athlete
- size and versatility lets him guard 1-3 and play with anyone
- point forward skills, secondary playmaker
- high motor and effort on D, impact player
- rebounds his position (7.4/game)

Fultz doesn't check as many boxes.  Fultz can be a tier 1 scorer, but Jackson has Paul Pierce potential.

Didn't we pretty much draft this guy last year?

Nope.  They have some things in common though.  Jaylen's more of a slasher and a brute force player.  Jackson is a more cerebral player on the court (despite Jaylen being some kind of nerd off the court).  Jackson is more rangy on D, moves his feet better and threatens to block shots.  Higher assist, block, and steal rates... a more impactful defender and a MUCH better passer.

Jackson is a good player, but he played for a better program (and better fit) at an older age.

I may be wrong, but I feel Jaylen has bigger upside.

While I don't necessarily think they would be redundant, and I would have been perfectly happy drafting him at 2/3/4, I don't see how you don't take Fultz at 1.

Jaylen is stronger, a better shooter, and probably better on the low block with his back to the basket.  Jaylen is a 3 who plays like a 4.  Jackson is a 3 who plays like a 2.  I agree, not a lot of overlap.

Let's say both Fultz and Jackson fulfill their potential.  Would you rather have the 6'4" scoring machine or the 6'8" 2-way player?  Do me a favor and look at the last 30 Finals MVP's.

What does finals mvp have to do with anything?

That's assuming both have an equal chance to fulfill their potential, and that their ceiling is the same. Almost nobody believes that Jackson is as good a prospect as Fultz. His height and his position is irrelevant when looking at them individually as prospects.

This isn't a real difficult pick to make. Fultz is a significantly better prospect.

It matters because we're Celtics fans and we're trying to field the next Finals MVP, not the next stat stuffing highlight reel.

No, we're trying to draft the best player available. Drafting for the "next XXX" gets you stuck with guys like Adam Morrison.

That's semantic.  "Best player available" does not necessarily mean most skilled offensive player. 

Certainly.  But it does if the player's offense is so far ahead of others that it outweighs their defensive skills.

If a player was guaranteed to be the next Finals MVP, would you take him?  Would you agree that such a guarantee would make him the "best player available"?  If not, what does "best player available" even mean?

Given that we don't get gifted a crystal ball to see the future, I doubt that a GM like Ainge sits there trying to guess which one is going to be a Finals MVP.   Instead, I suspect he has a methodology for rating their expected future value as basketball players over the next 4-10 years that incorporates a ton of different variables.   And when it's close, he probably goes with his gut.

I do know that he seems to value performance in private workouts highly and he also places a premium on the player having at least one truly 'elite' skill/ability that will translate to the NBA.

"Finals MVP" is shorthand for "player most likely to lead us to banner 18".  So yes, Danny does try to predict such things.  In fact, it's the primary thing he considers.

He's not interested in raw offensive output or he'd just use this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_season_scoring_leaders

What do 99% of these guys have in common?

[hpantazo]

Ainge has repeatedly said the last 2 years that the major team need is scoring and shooting, particularly clutch scoring. This roster has most everything else. We need a top tier scorer who can create his own shot and get to the line to take the pressure off IT and others. Fultz is exactly what we need.

[mmmmm]

Take Jackson.

- high IQ
- great work ethic, reportedly
- smart and emotionally mature (watch his interviews)
- elite athlete
- size and versatility lets him guard 1-3 and play with anyone
- point forward skills, secondary playmaker
- high motor and effort on D, impact player
- rebounds his position (7.4/game)

Fultz doesn't check as many boxes.  Fultz can be a tier 1 scorer, but Jackson has Paul Pierce potential.

Didn't we pretty much draft this guy last year?

Nope.  They have some things in common though.  Jaylen's more of a slasher and a brute force player.  Jackson is a more cerebral player on the court (despite Jaylen being some kind of nerd off the court).  Jackson is more rangy on D, moves his feet better and threatens to block shots.  Higher assist, block, and steal rates... a more impactful defender and a MUCH better passer.

Jackson is a good player, but he played for a better program (and better fit) at an older age.

I may be wrong, but I feel Jaylen has bigger upside.

While I don't necessarily think they would be redundant, and I would have been perfectly happy drafting him at 2/3/4, I don't see how you don't take Fultz at 1.

Jaylen is stronger, a better shooter, and probably better on the low block with his back to the basket.  Jaylen is a 3 who plays like a 4.  Jackson is a 3 who plays like a 2.  I agree, not a lot of overlap.

Let's say both Fultz and Jackson fulfill their potential.  Would you rather have the 6'4" scoring machine or the 6'8" 2-way player?  Do me a favor and look at the last 30 Finals MVP's.

What does finals mvp have to do with anything?

That's assuming both have an equal chance to fulfill their potential, and that their ceiling is the same. Almost nobody believes that Jackson is as good a prospect as Fultz. His height and his position is irrelevant when looking at them individually as prospects.

This isn't a real difficult pick to make. Fultz is a significantly better prospect.

It matters because we're Celtics fans and we're trying to field the next Finals MVP, not the next stat stuffing highlight reel.

No, we're trying to draft the best player available. Drafting for the "next XXX" gets you stuck with guys like Adam Morrison.

That's semantic.  "Best player available" does not necessarily mean most skilled offensive player. 

Certainly.  But it does if the player's offense is so far ahead of others that it outweighs their defensive skills.

If a player was guaranteed to be the next Finals MVP, would you take him?  Would you agree that such a guarantee would make him the "best player available"?  If not, what does "best player available" even mean?

Given that we don't get gifted a crystal ball to see the future, I doubt that a GM like Ainge sits there trying to guess which one is going to be a Finals MVP.   Instead, I suspect he has a methodology for rating their expected future value as basketball players over the next 4-10 years that incorporates a ton of different variables.   And when it's close, he probably goes with his gut.

I do know that he seems to value performance in private workouts highly and he also places a premium on the player having at least one truly 'elite' skill/ability that will translate to the NBA.

"Finals MVP" is shorthand for "player most likely to lead us to banner 18".  So yes, Danny does try to predict such things.  In fact, it's the primary thing he considers.

Uh ... you just made a weird jump. I have no idea how you got here.  Do you have a link to something Danny said that would support this assertion?

He's not interested in raw offensive output or he'd just use this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_season_scoring_leaders

What do 99% of these guys have in common?

I have no idea what this list has to do with anything we are talking about.

[green_bballers13]

I will be shocked if any of the picks that BOS owns after number one ends up on the roster next season.

Same.

Supposedly a deep draft, I'd like to see a trade up for a developmental big man. Harry Giles, Ike Anibogu, and Jonathan Jeanne all intrigue me, and I don't think it would require much draft capital to get into the late first.

[Celtics4ever]

I rather see us take Kyle Kuzma. PF. Utah. over Hart.  I think he has more upside than Oliver and he is a legit 6-9 and  not a tweener

[jakeopp]

Take Jackson.

- high IQ
- great work ethic, reportedly
- smart and emotionally mature (watch his interviews)
- elite athlete
- size and versatility lets him guard 1-3 and play with anyone
- point forward skills, secondary playmaker
- high motor and effort on D, impact player
- rebounds his position (7.4/game)

Fultz doesn't check as many boxes.  Fultz can be a tier 1 scorer, but Jackson has Paul Pierce potential.

Didn't we pretty much draft this guy last year?

Nope.  They have some things in common though.  Jaylen's more of a slasher and a brute force player.  Jackson is a more cerebral player on the court (despite Jaylen being some kind of nerd off the court).  Jackson is more rangy on D, moves his feet better and threatens to block shots.  Higher assist, block, and steal rates... a more impactful defender and a MUCH better passer.

Jackson is a good player, but he played for a better program (and better fit) at an older age.

I may be wrong, but I feel Jaylen has bigger upside.

While I don't necessarily think they would be redundant, and I would have been perfectly happy drafting him at 2/3/4, I don't see how you don't take Fultz at 1.

Jaylen is stronger, a better shooter, and probably better on the low block with his back to the basket.  Jaylen is a 3 who plays like a 4.  Jackson is a 3 who plays like a 2.  I agree, not a lot of overlap.

Let's say both Fultz and Jackson fulfill their potential.  Would you rather have the 6'4" scoring machine or the 6'8" 2-way player?  Do me a favor and look at the last 30 Finals MVP's.

There was this skinny kid from Philadelphia, about an inch taller than Fultz, who was drafted #13 in 1996.   He was a scoring machine.  He probably represents Fultz' upside "potential" as a scoring machine.

He's not a popular guy among Celtic fans, but he did have a helluva career.

Fultz actually has a lot of potential on defense as well, by the way.  Tremendous wingspan (his dimensions are similar to Wade's).   He's a lot younger than Jackson.  I don't think it's quite fair to characterize him as just a one-way player yet.  Especially if we are talking about 'potential'.

Fultz is not the same size as Kobe Bryant.  Kobe's a legit 6'6".  It's hard for me to even imagine Kobe being as apathetic about defense and losing as Fultz was.

Well, given that we don't have any sort of independent combine event type measurement, we don't really know how 'legit' that 6' 6" is.    Not that it matters.  That's a red-herring.

However you might feel about Fultz' psychology, that nevertheless is his 'potential' as a scoring talent in this league.  Fultz has all the check-boxes to be a high-volume, high-efficiency and extremely versatile scoring guard in the NBA.   He has shot-making body control that is 'Kobe-like'.  He may never ever reach such a lofty ceiling, but again, we are talking about his potential.

You're making my point for me.  In the last 40 years, how many times has a 6'4" guard who doesn't play D led a championship team?   I'm not trying to draft Gilbert Arenas.  I'm trying to win #18.

When was the last time a sub 60% free throw shooter in college became at least a decent shooter in the NBA? Because that's exactly what Josh Jackson is...

Give Fultz some time with the C's and Stevens, then we can make judgements on his defense. He didn't become the #1 prospect in the world by being lazy, and coach Stevens won't even play rookies if they can't defend.

[Beat LA]

I'm probably wrong, here, but what a terrible haul, especially with those last three picks.  Yikes.

[liam]

I will be shocked if any of the picks that BOS owns after number one ends up on the roster next season.

Same.

Supposedly a deep draft, I'd like to see a trade up for a developmental big man. Harry Giles, Ike Anibogu, and Jonathan Jeanne all intrigue me, and I don't think it would require much draft capital to get into the late first.

I don't think Danny would want to trade into the late 1st round. He'd probably want to avoid guaranteed money.