#1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?

[tarheelsxxiii]

I wouldn't consider it holding us back by keeping our own #1 pick - a player that they say is one every 10 years type of player.

They are saying Fultz could be a one in 10 years type of player, but to be fair people said that same thing about Simmons too.  They even said it about Wiggins - and as capable a scorer as he is, he's been quite a dissapointment IMHO.   

We drafted Brown last year at #3 - he's been buried behind Crowder on the bench and only played 17 MPG (in which he averaged 6.6 points, 2.8 reb, 0.8 assists).  We have seen that he has talent, and I think we can all safely conclude that if he played on a team that gave him starters minutes, he'd be up there in ROY voting right now and would almost certainly be on an All-Rookie 1st team. 

At the guard spots we are even deeper then we are at SF, so the risk is even higher.  Instead of playing behind Crowder (a guy who only this season got promoted from 6th man to permanent starter) Fultz would be playing behind an All-Star (Thomas) and a two-way guard who also happens to be the longest tenured player on this team (Bradley).   Smart is a young prospect who had a huge impact in the playoffs and is a coach and fan favourite - trading him to free up minutes for an unproven rookie seems like a big call.  Rozier has been buried on the bench for years and has shown potential, he deserves minutes - so maybe they trade Rozier to another team where he can hopefully get more opportunity.  Even if that's the case, all that does is free up Rozier's 17 MPG for Fultz.

If Fultz plays 17 MPG then he's in the same boat as Brown.  He could be one of the few #1 picks to come in to the NBA, be healthy, and still not make an All Rookie Team, due purely to lack of opportunity.

I'm genuinely concerned about this team potentially drafting Fultz with the #1 pick, only to have him struggle to earn more then 20 MPG off the bench, leading to restricted development.

I'm also seriously concerned that they might go the opposite route and trade a proven contributor like Bradley or Smart in order to gift Fultz a role, only to find that it takes him 2-3 seasons to get to the point where he can actually help us win games.

If we traded him for Simmons, then our desperate need for a PF guarantees we'd never need to worry about that.  He would absolutely get starters minutes - and if nothing else, he's almost certainly assist us with our rebounding issues from day one.

Philly was pretty good at times last year. Consider if they play with a healthy Embid and their other pieces if we gave them a future superstar point guard. All they lose is a guy that hasn't yet played due to injury.

I love how you describe Fultz as a "one in 10 years type player", but describe Simmons as just "a guy that hasn't played yet due to injury". 

Fultz hasn't played a game in the NBA yet either, so Philly could argue all we are losing is "a guy who hasn't played a game outside of college yet".   At least Simmons has played in Summer League and has practised and been around NBA games, has had access to NBA trainers, etc for the past season. 

Fultz will be coming in fresh from college with no NBA experience whatsoever.

Simmons, even if it's for that reason alone, is far more likely to be playing in ROY form this year  then Fultz is.  Not saying it's a given, but top shelf prospects who missed their first year due to injury often end up coming back with a vengeance the following year.  Blake Griffin for example misses his first year, then came back in his second season averaging 22/12/4 - and Griffin is a very, very similar player to Simmons (if anything Simmons is more versatile and has a higher upside). 

Simmons and Fultz both have the potential to be "once in 10 year" type players, so by doing this trade the 76ers would be giving that up just like us.  Both teams take risk here.  If Simmons ends up a star and Fultz ends up dissapointing, then the Sixers look like idiots.  If the opposite happens, Boston looks like idiots. 

It's an equal risk for both teams.

First, I am not sold on Simmons as a PF. So you think he can hold his own with the likes of Anthony Davis or Kevin Durant? He would be crushed. And as far as I can remember Simmons can't shoot.

Why wouldn't Simmons be able to hold his own against AD or KD?  He's just as tall as those guys, he's stronger then either of them, and he's arguably more athletic then either of them.  He gives up length against them sure, but he certainly has the size, stength and athleticism to compete against them.

Also, I'm not sure why you would raise his shooting/scoring ability as a concern.  Lets look at the college stats:

* Simmons averaged 19.2 points, 11.8 rebounds, 4.8 assists, 2.0 steals, 0.8 blocks in 35 minutes as a 19 year old freshman

* Fultz averaged 23.2 points, 5.7 rebounds, 5.9 assists, 1.6 steals, 1.2 blocks in 36 minutes as an 18 year old freshman

Simmons averaged 19 PPG as a freshman in college DESPITE the fact that he's a pass-first player who doesn't have a consistent jumper.  Even with those limitations, he STILL dominated on offence.   

Fultz is already a developed scorer in all aspects, and he's a ball dominate shoot-first PG, yet he didn't really average THAT much more then Simmons did. 

My concern here wouldn't be the fact that Simmons isn't a consistent shooter.  My concern here would be how utterly devastating Simmons could be if he ever DOES become a consistent shooter.

There is also the other question - what can Fultz offer his team when his shot is not falling?  He has the same issues as Simmons on defence (high upside, inconsistent effort) and while he's a skilled passer and rebounder, he's not dominant in either of those two areas.

The greatest stars in this league are usually the guys who will always make an impact on the game, even if/when their shot is not falling.  In addition to his scoring potential, Simmons is an elite rebounder and passer at the PF spot - so when his shot isn't falling he can still contribute on the boards and by create shots for others.

In addition to that, Simmons has unbelievable versatility. He might be only the 3rd player in NBA history (along with Magic and Lebron) who has the legitimate ability to play all 5 positions on the court. 

At 6'10" / 240 lbs / 7' wingspan Simmons has the physical measurements of Al Horford, combined with the athletic ability of Jaylen Brown, the rebounding ability of Kevin Love, and the passing ability of Lebron James.  Defensively he has the ability to switch on to ANY position - you cannot begin to describe how valuable that is. 

The biggest thing people criticise Simmons for are his lack of a jumpshot, and his questionable effort on defence.  People had those exact same criticisms of Lebron, and those weaknesses have stuck with Lebron his entire career - he's still an inconsistent shooter, and he still frequently takes plays off on defence.

Yet those flaws have little impact on James' success because although he's never developed a deadly jumper, he can still make you pay (in a big way) if you sag off him.  And as much as his defensive effort is questionable, what he gives up in effort is nothing compared to the positive impact his teams gain from his ability to switch and defend all five positions. 

On the other hand Fultz looks like he's going to be an amazing player - I have incredibly high hopes for him, and I feel like he's almost certain to become a perennial All-Star.  But what I'm not certain about is whether he will be a one trick pony. 

* Is he ever going to develop into the defensive player he has the POTENTIAL to become?  Because he's not a great defender right now. 

* Is he ever going to develop into a game changing passer?  Because right now he's more Derek Rose then Chris Paul in that regard. 

* When teams find a way to take him out of the game offensively, is he going to be able to find other ways to help his team? 

Maybe he will.  He certainly has a lot of POTENTIAL in areas beyond scoring - rebounding, passing, defence, etc.  But while he has potential and ability in those areas, he's not elite at them, so you still have to ask if he will ever be. 

Simmons on the other hand is already elite as a rebounder and a passer, and he's unstoppable in transition, so if his jumper isn't falling you know he's going to be able to help the team in other ways.   

Absolutely not. This is not a win-win. It would be a killing by Philly.

Sorry, not buying it.

Fair enough.  Though I disagree, you do have the right to your opinion!

Same.

[mahcus smaht]

Id be very intrigued if not for the injury. lower body injuries on big guys are really concerning to me.

I think coming out they were very similar level prospects, although Id give Fultz the edge by a hair because he can score.

Simmons fit is picture perfect so I might be willing to break the BPA rule to take him, but that injury knocks his value down enough that its no longer worth it.

[hodgy03038]

Where did you get the alternative option from?

From watching them play in the NBA

If you think Durant is stronger then Ben Simmons in LSU in 2015 then I'll say you're crazy.

Call me crazy.

A 6'10" big man who can rebound, score, pass, dribble - all as well as he can?  We haven't seen that since Lebron. 

We still haven't seen it in the NBA.

If you think Durant is stronger then Ben Simmons in LSU in 2015 then I'll say you're crazy.  If you think Durant is stronger then Simmons will be after a year of being around NBA trainers, then I'll say you're completely out of your mind. 

Yes I am completely out of my mind.

Didn't Fultz miss significant time in college due to a knee injury?   Guess he's out of the running too then, since you don't want damaged goods and all. 

So who then? Ball?

If Fultz is not 100% after the physicals then I would move on from him as well. Ball - NEVER.

People said Bradley can't shoot when we drafted him, and kept complaining about it even after he put together multiple quality shooting seasons and this year he shot 39% from three. 

Bradley can shoot but cannot create his own shot like IT and presumably Fultz.

I'd be interested to come back here 12 months from now (when next season ends) and see which of these two players is looking like the better prospect.  Honestly I don't know which was it'll go because they both look like they have the potential to be great - but if Simmons is dominating guys while Fultz is playing 20 MPG off the bench, then this may look like a massively missed opportunity.

I would like to return in 12 months also. Simmons may dominate guys and Fultz may play 20 MPG but first let's see who plays more games.

[moiso]

Simmons will be the next Beasley

just not a fan of his attitude

That is just an utterly nonsensical comment. 

Beasley never had a fraction of the talent Simmons has.  Beasley was just another undersized offensive oriented tweener - no different from all the other such players that we've seen come and go over the years.

Simmons has a level of talent and versatility that we haven't seen since Lebron James.  Not even Kevin Durant can claim the same level of versatility Simmons has.   

Comparing Simmons to Beasley is like comparing Fultz to Jamaal Crawford. Crawford is a big PG who can shoot and can dribble - shall I just go right ahead and say that Fultz is going to follow in Crawford's footsteps and build a nice lengthy career as a perennial 6th man?

Beasley was projected to be awesome, possibly a better prospect than Simmons.  It's easy to see why Beasley failed in hindsight but he was a top level prospect.

[Tr1boy]

Simmons will be the next Beasley

just not a fan of his attitude

That is just an utterly nonsensical comment. 

Beasley never had a fraction of the talent Simmons has.  Beasley was just another undersized offensive oriented tweener - no different from all the other such players that we've seen come and go over the years.

Simmons has a level of talent and versatility that we haven't seen since Lebron James.  Not even Kevin Durant can claim the same level of versatility Simmons has.   

Comparing Simmons to Beasley is like comparing Fultz to Jamaal Crawford. Crawford is a big PG who can shoot and can dribble - shall I just go right ahead and say that Fultz is going to follow in Crawford's footsteps and build a nice lengthy career as a perennial 6th man?

Beasley was projected to be awesome, possibly a better prospect than Simmons.  It's easy to see why Beasley failed in hindsight but he was a top level prospect.

exactly

can Simmons shoot?   Beasley can

And I was not even comparing the two in terms of talent... both have the physical tools/talent to be good

but its their poor attitudes.... Beasley failing drug tests...happy to just come off the bench (what a waste of talent)

Simmons missing class/failing class.  Poor defensive effort/body language during his freshman year at LSU

[Celtics4ever]

I am hoping we trade it for a star, not an unproven one either.

[crimson_stallion]

Simmons will be the next Beasley

just not a fan of his attitude

That is just an utterly nonsensical comment. 

Beasley never had a fraction of the talent Simmons has.  Beasley was just another undersized offensive oriented tweener - no different from all the other such players that we've seen come and go over the years.

Simmons has a level of talent and versatility that we haven't seen since Lebron James.  Not even Kevin Durant can claim the same level of versatility Simmons has.   

Comparing Simmons to Beasley is like comparing Fultz to Jamaal Crawford. Crawford is a big PG who can shoot and can dribble - shall I just go right ahead and say that Fultz is going to follow in Crawford's footsteps and build a nice lengthy career as a perennial 6th man?

Beasley was projected to be awesome, possibly a better prospect than Simmons.  It's easy to see why Beasley failed in hindsight but he was a top level prospect.

exactly

can Simmons shoot?   Beasley can

And I was not even comparing the two in terms of talent... both have the physical tools/talent to be good

but its their poor attitudes.... Beasley failing drug tests...happy to just come off the bench (what a waste of talent)

Simmons missing class/failing class.  Poor defensive effort/body language during his freshman year at LSU

Beasley was never a Simmons calibre talent.  He wasn't even selected at #1 in the draft.

Simmons was a clear cut #1 on just about every single mock draft that I ever saw - with the
exception of the small handful of individuals who honestly believed Ingram was a better prospect, which sounded just as ridiculous then as it still sounds now.   

Simmons has been described by most people who have known him as being a good kid who is extremely intelligent, is a great teammate, and who has his head screwed on straight - he just happens to have not cared too much about his schooling, probably because he knew he could make a career playing sport (that's his personal choice and has nothing to do with basketball) and who has been questioned about his defensive effort.

Half of the big name prospects who come out of college are criticised for poor defensive effort.  Fultz himself has been criticised for that probably even more then Simmons was.  Even Lebron James was criticised for poor defensive effort and body language during the draft, but he still went #1 because he was clearly the best talent in the draft - just like Simmons.   

You're comparing that to a guy who is a complete head case, with Delonte West calibre mental / behavioural issues?

Give me a break.

[Tr1boy]

Simmons will be the next Beasley

just not a fan of his attitude

That is just an utterly nonsensical comment. 

Beasley never had a fraction of the talent Simmons has.  Beasley was just another undersized offensive oriented tweener - no different from all the other such players that we've seen come and go over the years.

Simmons has a level of talent and versatility that we haven't seen since Lebron James.  Not even Kevin Durant can claim the same level of versatility Simmons has.   

Comparing Simmons to Beasley is like comparing Fultz to Jamaal Crawford. Crawford is a big PG who can shoot and can dribble - shall I just go right ahead and say that Fultz is going to follow in Crawford's footsteps and build a nice lengthy career as a perennial 6th man?

Beasley was projected to be awesome, possibly a better prospect than Simmons.  It's easy to see why Beasley failed in hindsight but he was a top level prospect.

exactly

can Simmons shoot?   Beasley can

And I was not even comparing the two in terms of talent... both have the physical tools/talent to be good

but its their poor attitudes.... Beasley failing drug tests...happy to just come off the bench (what a waste of talent)

Simmons missing class/failing class.  Poor defensive effort/body language during his freshman year at LSU

Beasley was never a Simmons calibre talent.  He wasn't even selected at #1 in the draft.

Simmons was a clear cut #1 on just about every single mock draft that I ever saw - with the
exception of the small handful of individuals who honestly believed Ingram was a better prospect, which sounded just as ridiculous then as it still sounds now.   

Simmons has been described by most people who have known him as being a good kid who is extremely intelligent, is a great teammate, and who has his head screwed on straight - he just happens to have not cared too much about his schooling, probably because he knew he could make a career playing sport (that's his personal choice and has nothing to do with basketball) and who has been questioned about his defensive effort.

Half of the big name prospects who come out of college are criticised for poor defensive effort.  Fultz himself has been criticised for that probably even more then Simmons was.  Even Lebron James was criticised for poor defensive effort and body language during the draft, but he still went #1 because he was clearly the best talent in the draft - just like Simmons.   

You're comparing that to a guy who is a complete head case, with Delonte West calibre mental / behavioural issues?

Give me a break.

What about the rumor Simmons was not liked in the dressing room (when he played in Austrailia)

Or that he cant shoot

If Simmons is a 6'10 rondo... Thats not too bad I guess

[Ilikesports17]

Simmons will be the next Beasley

just not a fan of his attitude

That is just an utterly nonsensical comment. 

Beasley never had a fraction of the talent Simmons has.  Beasley was just another undersized offensive oriented tweener - no different from all the other such players that we've seen come and go over the years.

Simmons has a level of talent and versatility that we haven't seen since Lebron James.  Not even Kevin Durant can claim the same level of versatility Simmons has.   

Comparing Simmons to Beasley is like comparing Fultz to Jamaal Crawford. Crawford is a big PG who can shoot and can dribble - shall I just go right ahead and say that Fultz is going to follow in Crawford's footsteps and build a nice lengthy career as a perennial 6th man?

Beasley was projected to be awesome, possibly a better prospect than Simmons.  It's easy to see why Beasley failed in hindsight but he was a top level prospect.

exactly

can Simmons shoot?   Beasley can

And I was not even comparing the two in terms of talent... both have the physical tools/talent to be good

but its their poor attitudes.... Beasley failing drug tests...happy to just come off the bench (what a waste of talent)

Simmons missing class/failing class.  Poor defensive effort/body language during his freshman year at LSU

Beasley was never a Simmons calibre talent.  He wasn't even selected at #1 in the draft.

Simmons was a clear cut #1 on just about every single mock draft that I ever saw - with the
exception of the small handful of individuals who honestly believed Ingram was a better prospect, which sounded just as ridiculous then as it still sounds now.   

Simmons has been described by most people who have known him as being a good kid who is extremely intelligent, is a great teammate, and who has his head screwed on straight - he just happens to have not cared too much about his schooling, probably because he knew he could make a career playing sport (that's his personal choice and has nothing to do with basketball) and who has been questioned about his defensive effort.

Half of the big name prospects who come out of college are criticised for poor defensive effort.  Fultz himself has been criticised for that probably even more then Simmons was.  Even Lebron James was criticised for poor defensive effort and body language during the draft, but he still went #1 because he was clearly the best talent in the draft - just like Simmons.   

You're comparing that to a guy who is a complete head case, with Delonte West calibre mental / behavioural issues?

Give me a break.

You are correct that Simmons was the clear cut #1 and he WAS a better prospect than Beasley, but Simmons being #1 was more of a product of that draft being Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.ty at the top, rather than Simmons being some transcendent prospect. You also severely underrate Michael Beasley, he was a very good prospect out of college. The comparison is useless between the two anyways because Beasleys issues seem a lot different than Simmons, but it is ridiculous to act like Beasley wasnt a good prospect.

[incoherent]

Hey everyone needs to go back and watch some tape on Simmons.  He is ridiculously good.

Simmons is probably better then Fultz right now and for the next couple years.  If Simmons develops any kind of good outside shot.. he will be the better player.

[Ilikesports17]

Id be very intrigued if not for the injury. lower body injuries on big guys are really concerning to me.

I think coming out they were very similar level prospects, although Id give Fultz the edge by a hair because he can score.

Simmons fit is picture perfect so I might be willing to break the BPA rule to take him, but that injury knocks his value down enough that its no longer worth it.

this is where I am.

If both were coming out of this draft, I think id be pretty torn.

Simmons fits like a glove. Hes a good rebounder, can switch everything, can pass the basketball really well and while he cant stretch the floor at all, or score that well, he would be playing next to Horford and hopefully Thomas and Hayward and Brown would be enough scoring and floor spacing.

That said, as important as it is to have a facilitator, scoring is the most important skill in this game. Fultz projects as an elite scorer, while Simmons does not. Also, Simmons contract is a year shorter and most importantly Simmons is a big man who has missed the last season with a lower body injury.

A factor perhaps overlooked is that Simmons is actually cheaper by 1.6 million dollars this season.

That would mean, if Im not mistaken, that we could fit Gordon Hayward''s max under the cap and also answer the PF question in one fell swoop.

[Ilikesports17]

Hey everyone needs to go back and watch some tape on Simmons.  He is ridiculously good.

Simmons is probably better then Fultz right now and for the next couple years.  If Simmons develops any kind of good outside shot.. he will be the better player.

He is a prospect of similar level to Fultz. Fultz is also ridiculously good. Fultz, however doesnt have the injury red flag to the extent Simmons does, making Fultz the better prospect.

[gouki88]

Despite being a tantalising prospect, Simmons has a massive hole in his game - no jump shot. Not even the kind of lack of a shot where he'll miss mostly - at LSU he would literally pass up wide open mid-range jumpers.
In today's NBA, that lack of a shot is incredibly problematic, especially on a team like Boston which likes it's 4's and 5's to spread the floor as much as possible.

Compare this to Fultz, who has no gaping holes in his games, but rather areas for improvement. He is far more dynamic scoring the ball, WAY better shooting the ball, and their defence is quite comparable. Simmons is not a particularly good defender in a similar way to how Fultz isn't a particularly good defender. They're both dead on average, but can look quite good when they're engaged, as well as having all the tools to be good defenders.

Regardless of this, Simmons has a far more worrying injury history and a very questionable lack of skill (shooting), whereas Fultz looks like he'll be an absolute beast.

[action781]

Hey everyone needs to go back and watch some tape on Simmons.  He is ridiculously good.

Simmons is probably better then Fultz right now and for the next couple years.  If Simmons develops any kind of good outside shot.. he will be the better player.

He is a prospect of similar level to Fultz. Fultz is also ridiculously good. Fultz, however doesnt have the injury red flag to the extent Simmons does, making Fultz the better prospect.

Ilikesports has hit on 2 of the main 3 things I think there are to consider here and I'll add on with #3:

1.  They are similar level prospects.  If you like one better than the other, that is fine, but neither one is a universally regarded better prospect than the other.

2.  Simmons has injury concerns.  This is true, but Fultz also was shut down for the end of his season with a knee injury.  Simmons does seem more serious, but I wouldn't say Fultz is "in the clear".  Everybody has risk for injuries.

3.  When players come into the league of similar level, it's going to come down to how you develop them.  Not only do the Celtics have a need at the PF position to compete right now, but more importantly, they have minutes available there to give Simmons so he can develop as a pro.  Fultz being a guard will not have as many minutes available to him.  So I think in the Celtics specifically, Simmons has a better chance to develop and thrive.

With those reasons considered, I'd slightly prefer Simmons.  Partly because I give stronger weight that most people do to defensive players.  I love that hes a PF who will basically be able to defend 1-5 in the NBA when he hits his prime.  That's going to be incredibly valuable.

[playdream]

Hey everyone needs to go back and watch some tape on Simmons.  He is ridiculously good.

Simmons is probably better then Fultz right now and for the next couple years.  If Simmons develops any kind of good outside shot.. he will be the better player.

He is a prospect of similar level to Fultz. Fultz is also ridiculously good. Fultz, however doesnt have the injury red flag to the extent Simmons does, making Fultz the better prospect.

Ilikesports has hit on 2 of the main 3 things I think there are to consider here and I'll add on with #3:

1.  They are similar level prospects.  If you like one better than the other, that is fine, but neither one is a universally regarded better prospect than the other.

2.  Simmons has injury concerns.  This is true, but Fultz also was shut down for the end of his season with a knee injury.  Simmons does seem more serious, but I wouldn't say Fultz is "in the clear".  Everybody has risk for injuries.

3.  When players come into the league of similar level, it's going to come down to how you develop them.  Not only do the Celtics have a need at the PF position to compete right now, but more importantly, they have minutes available there to give Simmons so he can develop as a pro.  Fultz being a guard will not have as many minutes available to him.  So I think in the Celtics specifically, Simmons has a better chance to develop and thrive.

With those reasons considered, I'd slightly prefer Simmons.  Partly because I give stronger weight that most people do to defensive players.  I love that hes a PF who will basically be able to defend 1-5 in the NBA when he hits his prime.  That's going to be incredibly valuable.

Simmons can't defend 1-5.. maybe can't even defend the 4...
and his attitude is the least we want and a worst fit for can't shoot
whereas Fulz a IT's friend and an elite shooter