Just tell me one thing... If you guys are so interested in trading Fultz....

[mef730]

Is it good or bad that he played on a west coast team that nobody has watched?

In other words, it could be a good thing. He might be better than anybody dreamed, but nobody's actually seen the guy play, so we're just not aware of what he is.

On the other hand, there's the whole "familiarity breeds contempt" thing, i.e., the best part of the guy is the unknown.

Mike

[OldSchoolDude]

For a marginal star, when he's apparently supposed to be like a Brandon Roy, Damian Lillard, James Harden, type of player with his arsenal of moves, why would you trade someone like that for Jimmy Butler, or Paul George? KP? Really?

Both George and Butler are better players than Damian Lillard.

I'd rank them:
1. PG13
2. Lillard
3. Butler

I think Butler is a really good player but I think Hayward is better.  I think Hayward suffered a bit playing in Utah.  The media votes for the all NBA team and Chicago is a bigger market so that may have played in to it.  PG13 plays in a small market as well.

The best option and what I think they do, I'd draft Fultz and try and get Hayward as a FA.  Plan B would be to draft Fultz and try and sign Griffin as a FA.   I don't know if we could work the roster to afford both Hayward and Griffin, but that would be awesome.

[johnnygreen]

For a marginal star, when he's apparently supposed to be like a Brandon Roy, Damian Lillard, James Harden, type of player with his arsenal of moves, why would you trade someone like that for Jimmy Butler, or Paul George? KP? Really?

Both George and Butler are better players than Damian Lillard.

If given the choice between those three players, I wouldn't hesitate to pick Lillard. Arguably, the most underrated star player in the league. He has been the more consistent player over their careers and averaged 27 PPG this season.

[PaulP34]

Unless a Fultz trade brought back someone like Anthony Davis, it simply can't be done.

I don't think Ainge is stupid enough to let go of that pick.

What if it got us Jayson Tatum and Micheal Porter ?

[Monkhouse]

For a marginal star, when he's apparently supposed to be like a Brandon Roy, Damian Lillard, James Harden, type of player with his arsenal of moves, why would you trade someone like that for Jimmy Butler, or Paul George? KP? Really?

Both George and Butler are better players than Damian Lillard.

Fultz has a chance of becoming a Damian type of player plus two way capabilities..

I mean, so did Damian Lillard ...right?

I don't think anyone thought that... he was a terrible defender in college.

[rochrist]

I don't Fultz. I want a 5-6 year window of contention with Paul George who i'm not banking on Fultz being better than. I for one, wanted those BK picks with the pure intention of building a prime 27-28 year old super team to beat Lebron down and compete for titles. They were always just assets to me.

I want to go for it now with IT4 and Horford. Let's grab 2 stars and go for it, as long as our core is 27-28 i don't feel bad about being impatient. We're in the ECF right now, 2 stars with Jaylen and Fultz as the trade bait with BK 18 and i think we can add two prime stars. That is multiple title shots imo, i'm not afraid of that Cleveland team, especially with a Paul George and Hayward/Butler.

Bleah.

Ok, Felger, we get it. Need clicks NAOW!

[droopdog7]

For me it comes down to win now and for the next 5 years or win in 4 years for the next 10 years. If we weren't built to win now why did we sign Horford? We should've given that money to someone younger.

I just know when Ainge landed Allen and KG we were good for 5 years and could've easily won 3 titles.

Veteran teams win, young teams with potential get coaches fired.

That is just the wrong way to look at it.  It should not be win now, win later.  The only reason for trading fultz should be to mitigate risk; bird in the hand worth two in the bush.  George and Bulter are more of a sure thing that Fultz.

[cousytoheinsohn]

For me it comes down to win now and for the next 5 years or win in 4 years for the next 10 years. If we weren't built to win now why did we sign Horford? We should've given that money to someone younger.

I just know when Ainge landed Allen and KG we were good for 5 years and could've easily won 3 titles.

Veteran teams win, young teams with potential get coaches fired.

That is just the wrong way to look at it.  It should not be win now, win later.  The only reason for trading fultz should be to mitigate risk; bird in the hand worth two in the bush.  George and Bulter are more of a sure thing that Fultz.

Does it have to be one or the other?

Why not: win a lot now in the process of being ready to win even more later?

And, with all due respect to Jimmy and Paul, where is the evidence reflected in results that either is a transformative player?

I'm skeptical, and concerned about what the Celtics would have to give up in order to acquire them both. Probably not worth it.

[footey]

Is it good or bad that he played on a west coast team that nobody has watched?

In other words, it could be a good thing. He might be better than anybody dreamed, but nobody's actually seen the guy play, so we're just not aware of what he is.

On the other hand, there's the whole "familiarity breeds contempt" thing, i.e., the best part of the guy is the unknown.

Mike

I watched him play 4 games this past season.  Witnessed pretty all the good written about him (great handle, can score multiple ways, looks for team-mates, blocks shots) and bad (mediocre foul shooter, seems to have a disinterested face). He is not a passive player.  There were a lot of times he would try to let another player make something happen, and when he couldn't, he'd step in and attempt to bail the team out.  Saw this many times. If I were to pick one word to describe Fultz it would be "Fluid".   

[TheSundanceKid]

For a marginal star, when he's apparently supposed to be like a Brandon Roy, Damian Lillard, James Harden, type of player with his arsenal of moves, why would you trade someone like that for Jimmy Butler, or Paul George? KP? Really?

Both George and Butler are better players than Damian Lillard.

Fultz has a chance of becoming a Damian type of player plus two way capabilities..

I'm not wading in on which path is right or wrong but he has a chance, not a guarantee. Paul George is a guarantee of how good he is. That's the reason trades like this happen.

There is a chance that Fultz flames out and can't adapt to the NBA. There's a chance he never bothers learning defense. There's a chance he becomes an arrogant tool and says it's him or IT. You make a rational judgement at the time, you don't take the best case scenario and say I'm going to compare all my other options to that because obviously they won't stack up...

[Monkhouse]

For a marginal star, when he's apparently supposed to be like a Brandon Roy, Damian Lillard, James Harden, type of player with his arsenal of moves, why would you trade someone like that for Jimmy Butler, or Paul George? KP? Really?

Both George and Butler are better players than Damian Lillard.

Fultz has a chance of becoming a Damian type of player plus two way capabilities..

I'm not wading in on which path is right or wrong but he has a chance, not a guarantee. Paul George is a guarantee of how good he is. That's the reason trades like this happen.

There is a chance that Fultz flames out and can't adapt to the NBA. There's a chance he never bothers learning defense. There's a chance he becomes an arrogant tool and says it's him or IT. You make a rational judgement at the time, you don't take the best case scenario and say I'm going to compare all my other options to that because obviously they won't stack up...

PG13 hasn't come out and said he would agree to any extension as of yet, in regards to trade talks.

If you're going to trade Fultz for 1 year for PG13, that is just bad business, considering IT, Bradley, George, Horford isn't going to be able to beat GSW.

Adding Hayward in replace of Bradley, I still have to question what IT, Hayward, George, and Horford can stack up to GSW.

[TheSundanceKid]

For me it comes down to win now and for the next 5 years or win in 4 years for the next 10 years. If we weren't built to win now why did we sign Horford? We should've given that money to someone younger.

I just know when Ainge landed Allen and KG we were good for 5 years and could've easily won 3 titles.

Veteran teams win, young teams with potential get coaches fired.

Signing Horford made us a lot better no doubt and I'm sure we are trying to be the best we can be. However, adding Horford achieves more than just that. It enhances the development of our guards because they have a fantastic big man to play with. He teaches the team how to play fluid basketball and play for the team not the individual. All things that will matter after he is gone. So there are definitely long term benefits to his signing that don't mean a commitment to win now at all cost