Author Topic: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?  (Read 11567 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2017, 10:18:11 PM »

Offline Future Celtics Owner

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3097
  • Tommy Points: 191
  • Celtic's only raise championship Banners
I'd look to do a trade involving their 2019 SAC unprotected 1st

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #46 on: May 28, 2017, 10:27:00 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2948
  • Tommy Points: 320
I think Simmons is a very interesting player. I'm just not sold on having him run the Celtics offense. I'd obviously be fine with Greek Freak/Lebron as a point forward, but I think Simmons has a lot to prove before turning the keys over to him, esp. regarding the jump shot. Fultz's shooting ability is a better fit for this team's needs.

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #47 on: May 28, 2017, 10:28:01 PM »

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10774
  • Tommy Points: 789
I'd probably do it, but I think I'd try to make it a larger trade

1, Crowder/Smart, BOS 18, MEM 1st for Simmons, 3

I think that is a better trade for Boston.  I'd even let them pick between Crowder and Smart.

As ever I am relieved you aren't the GM.
That is a pretty good trade.  #1 for Simmons is pretty even.  #3 for Crowder/Smart, Boston (not Brooklyn) 18 and the Memphis protected 19 is significantly in our favor.  Crowder isn't needed if we get Hayward and Smart just isn't worth much.  Boston 18 will be a late 1st and Memphis 19 will most likely be outside the lottery. 

IT/Bradley/Hayward/Simmons/Horford would be a really good balanced team. 

Plenty of good talent available with the #3 that would help us.  Or you could use it and Bradley to get Butler or PG.

I don't see Simmons as equal value for Fultz. Fultz is a better prospect for today's game.

Furthermore, offering Crowder and Smart for the number 3, let alone adding multiple 1sts, strikes me as a drastic overpay.

The top of this draft is nice but not that nice. I'm not convinced Jackson, Tatum, or Monk is so likely to be a valuable contributor that it would make sense to give up all those assets.


Edit:  OK, I see that it's Crowder / Smart, not both.

Still, I think one of those plus two picks is kind of a lot just to add number three to this deal. And I really don't want to swap Fultz for Simmons. Come at me when Simmons is hitting threes or playing defense.

Overall, it strikes me as an idea that appeals to the mindset of someone who thinks the Celts need to totally revamp their roster, particularly with an eye toward being worse now and better later.

I don't think that is necessary or especially beneficial.

Fultz is our guy. Crowder and Smart are nice role players to put around the stars we have and the star we are about to draft.

Doesn't make sense to be in a hurry to trade em away.

Also that Memphis pick could be pretty good.
If anything I'd rate Simmons higher than Fultz.  His floor is a very big Rondo which is a good thing.  Simmons would slot right in as starting PF and provide more immediate contribution than Fultz would.  He'd address our rebounding problem.  He'd be able to beast in the paint with the other starters being good shooters.  His passing/court vision are divine and he's dynamic on the fast break.  I think Simmons salary would be about 1M less then Fultz.  Which would help acquire Hayward who would be a significant improvement over Crowder.

You really are devaluing the #3 pick.  Like you said Crowder and Smart are role players.  The Boston 2018 will be a late 1st which most likely is a bust or back bencher.  The protected  Memphis pick is at least 2 years away and is unlikely to be a lottery pick and not anywhere close to the #3 pick in this draft.  Top 5 picks have a good chance of becoming a star.  I'd probably use it for Fox who could end up better than Fultz.  Jackson, Tatum and Isaac are possibilities too. 

This would be a good win now, win later team.  Use the room exception to get a good backup PF.  Definitely not a step back scenario.  Hayward >> Crowder, Fox >> Rozier, Simmons >>>> Amir/KO.

IT/Fox
Bradley/Smart
Hayward/Brown
Simmons
Horford/Zizic
Simmons is truly trash. He has no jump shot

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #48 on: May 28, 2017, 10:28:01 PM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
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.

I would say that defence, right now, is a pretty gaping hole in Fultz's game. 

There were concerns about Simmon's lack of effort/intensity on defence, but he at least somewhat makes up for that with his ridiculous versatility on that end of the floor.  He's the type of guy who is THAT talented that he can potentially play lazy on defence and still have an impact.

If Fultz had Penny Hardaway's freakish combination of height / length / athleticism at the PG spot then maybe I'd say the same about him.  He doesn't though.  He's got good size, good length and excellent athleticism for the PG spot, but his physical tools are in the realm of "excellent", not "freakish".  Fultz is going to need to play with effort and desire on the defensive end, because as talented as he is physically, he's not talented enough to make up for lack of effort / desire. 

If Fultz maintains his laziness on defence, then he'll likely become a terrible defensive player.  If Simmons maintains his laziness on defence, he'll probably still be an average defensive player based on physical talent alone.

As for shooting, this is probably one of the most common areas where players struggle early and develop to become quite good later on. 

Guys who can't rebound from day one rarely become good rebounders. Guys who can't defend from day one rarely become good defenders.  Guys who can't pass from day one rarely become good passers. 

But it's not uncommon for guys who can't shoot from day one to become quality shooters.

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #49 on: May 28, 2017, 10:31:11 PM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
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

Simmons absolutely can defend 1-5 in spurts. 

With his combination of lateral quickness, 6'10" / 240 lbs frame, 7'0" wingspan and 42" vertical he has the physical tools to defend every position.

Force him to switch on to a quicker guard like Wall - Simmons can simply sag off him a little, and Wall would struggle to blow by because of Simmons' length and quickness.  If Wall decides to pull up instead, then Simmons has the length and leaping ability to easily contest the shot and force a difficult jumper.

Also, why would you think Simmons can't defend centres?  Simmons has the exact same physical measurements as Al Horford, who has been defending centres extremely effectively since he entered the league.  He struggles a bit against especially large and imposing centres (Cousins, etc) but that kinda of centre is rare in today's NBA with so many teams playing small ball. 

Believe me, if Draymond Green (at 6'7" / 230 lbs) can defend centers in today's undersized NBA, then Simmons most definitely can too. 

Lebron James is a guy who is very inconsistent in his defensive effort, yet he is still one of the biggest impact defenders in the NBA and that's almost entirely due to his ability to switch on to any position.  Lebron can play lazy defence for 50% of a game and still improve his team dramatically on the defensive end, due to his sheer physical talent alone. 

Simmons has that very same question mark regarding effort on defence, but he also has the same type of massive advantage Lebron has in terms of physical talent.    Like Lebron, Simmons is the type of guy who could play lazy on defence 50% of the time and STILL make his team significantly better on that end of the floor. 


Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #50 on: May 28, 2017, 10:36:28 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8595
  • Tommy Points: 842
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

Simmons absolutely can defend 1-5 in spurts. 

With his combination of lateral quickness, 6'10" / 240 lbs frame, 7'0" wingspan and 42" vertical he has the physical tools to defend every position.

Force him to switch on to a quicker guard like Wall - Simmons can simply sag off him a little, and Wall would struggle to blow by because of Simmons' length and quickness.  If Wall decides to pull up instead, then Simmons has the length and leaping ability to easily contest the shot and force a difficult jumper.

Also, why would you think Simmons can't defend centres?  Simmons has the exact same physical measurements as Al Horford, who has been defending centres extremely effectively since he entered the league.  He struggles a bit against especially large and imposing centres (Cousins, etc) but that kinda of centre is rare in today's NBA with so many teams playing small ball. 

Believe me, if Draymond Green (at 6'7" / 230 lbs) can defend centers in today's undersized NBA, then Simmons most definitely can too. 

Lebron James is a guy who is very inconsistent in his defensive effort, yet he is still one of the biggest impact defenders in the NBA and that's almost entirely due to his ability to switch on to any position.  Lebron can play lazy defence for 50% of a game and still improve his team dramatically on the defensive end, due to his sheer physical talent alone. 

Simmons has that very same question mark regarding effort on defence, but he also has the same type of massive advantage Lebron has in terms of physical talent.    Like Lebron, Simmons is the type of guy who could play lazy on defence 50% of the time and STILL make his team significantly better on that end of the floor.
If you expect Simmons to be like Lebron or Draymond on defense you are going to be sorely dissapointed
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #51 on: May 28, 2017, 10:49:30 PM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
I think Simmons is a very interesting player. I'm just not sold on having him run the Celtics offense. I'd obviously be fine with Greek Freak/Lebron as a point forward, but I think Simmons has a lot to prove before turning the keys over to him, esp. regarding the jump shot. Fultz's shooting ability is a better fit for this team's needs.

Neither Giannis nor Lebron have ever been good shooters through their careers. 

Giannis has a shot 35% from three his first year, then went on to shoot 16% from three his  year, 26% his third year, and 27% his fourth year.  He's a pretty poor shooter, and he's not even close to the playmaker Simmons is, and Simmons is also a better ball handler, a far better rebounder, a better inside scorer, and a comparable athlete.  He's a far stronger prospect then Giannis every was in just about every category (only exceptions being length and defense) so if you think Giannis is impressive, then Simmons will blow your mind.

Lebron shot 29% from three his first year, 35% his second year, 33% his third year, 32% his fourth year.  His outside shot has been mediocre throughout his career, and he's shot 36% or higher from three only four times in his 14 year career.  Physically, Lebron is a a little bit faster/quicker then Simmons, but Simmons is taller, is probably a better leaper (42" vertical) and has comparable strength to what Lebron had as a rookie.  Comparing both players on draft day, Lebron was a superior ball handler, they are about equal as passers, they're about equal as scorers, they're about equal as defenders, and Simmons is a far superior rebounder.     

Who was the last 19 year old freshman to average 19 points, 12 rebounds and 5 assists while shooting 56% from the field? 

* Anthony Davis averaged 14 / 10 / 1
* Cousins averaged 15 / 10 / 1
* Blake Griffin averaged 15 / 9 / 2

Lebron and Dwight came straight from high school, so no college stats there to compare.

Lets be honest - nobody has put up all-round stats like that as a freshman in recent history.
 Even Kevin Durant (who is an outstanding passer for a big) only averaged 1 assist per game as a freshman (to go with his 26 and 11). 

Simmons is an unbelievable talent who has the potential to be an all-time great if he plays his cards right. 

Fultz has a ton of upside and could also be an elite player, but I don't think his upside is as high as Simmons overall.  Simmons is one jumpshot away from being a Lebron James calibre prospect. 

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #52 on: May 28, 2017, 11:03:28 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8595
  • Tommy Points: 842
You overrate Simmons
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #53 on: May 28, 2017, 11:43:42 PM »

Offline playdream

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1665
  • Tommy Points: 88
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

Simmons absolutely can defend 1-5 in spurts. 

With his combination of lateral quickness, 6'10" / 240 lbs frame, 7'0" wingspan and 42" vertical he has the physical tools to defend every position.

Force him to switch on to a quicker guard like Wall - Simmons can simply sag off him a little, and Wall would struggle to blow by because of Simmons' length and quickness.  If Wall decides to pull up instead, then Simmons has the length and leaping ability to easily contest the shot and force a difficult jumper.

Also, why would you think Simmons can't defend centres?  Simmons has the exact same physical measurements as Al Horford, who has been defending centres extremely effectively since he entered the league.  He struggles a bit against especially large and imposing centres (Cousins, etc) but that kinda of centre is rare in today's NBA with so many teams playing small ball. 

Believe me, if Draymond Green (at 6'7" / 230 lbs) can defend centers in today's undersized NBA, then Simmons most definitely can too. 

Lebron James is a guy who is very inconsistent in his defensive effort, yet he is still one of the biggest impact defenders in the NBA and that's almost entirely due to his ability to switch on to any position.  Lebron can play lazy defence for 50% of a game and still improve his team dramatically on the defensive end, due to his sheer physical talent alone. 

Simmons has that very same question mark regarding effort on defence, but he also has the same type of massive advantage Lebron has in terms of physical talent.    Like Lebron, Simmons is the type of guy who could play lazy on defence 50% of the time and STILL make his team significantly better on that end of the floor.
He having physical tools does NOT mean he can defend, unless you mean 1 out of 10 for " in spurts"

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #54 on: May 28, 2017, 11:48:01 PM »

Offline ETNCeltics

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2720
  • Tommy Points: 306
The people here who - ridiculously - hand the lazy tag on Fultz would have to do it doubly so on Simmons if they watched him at LSU in 15-16.

Wonderfully talented player, frequently played without a lot of fire. I'd still love to have him. It's hard to hold it against him that he played on a team that wasn't going anywhere and that he knew he would only be with for a few months.

While the OP is right, he can be a dominant rebounder and passer, he comes up short in what is, IMO, the most important thing an NBA player can do right now, shoot the rock.

It's tempting, but I like Fultz a little more. I think if we sit tight, we're about to get our next superstar.

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #55 on: May 29, 2017, 12:12:26 AM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
They both look lazy at times.  But that's been the trend lately -- go to an average college program, show out your NBA-level skills, and avoid injury.  The Celtics have a great culture for fostering intangibles though and I'm glad to have these top prospects coming in. 
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #56 on: May 29, 2017, 12:21:30 AM »

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10774
  • Tommy Points: 789
Simmons hasn't taken the NBA by storm. He's garbage

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #57 on: May 29, 2017, 12:30:18 AM »

Offline ETNCeltics

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2720
  • Tommy Points: 306
They both look lazy at times.  But that's been the trend lately -- go to an average college program, show out your NBA-level skills, and avoid injury.  The Celtics have a great culture for fostering intangibles though and I'm glad to have these top prospects coming in.
Me too.

It's kind of hard to blame the kids. 1 and done rule has created this.

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #58 on: May 29, 2017, 02:43:58 AM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5515
  • Tommy Points: 549
I wouldn't, although its close. I've heard several experts say they would have Fultz ranked ahead of Simmons if they were in the same draft. Then you have to consider the injury risk with Simmons and the fact he has one year less on his contract. The real reason I wouldn't do it is the talent set. Fultz has the potential to be elite offensively with a guard skill set that fits exactly where the league is going. If Simmons jumper doesn't improve dramatically it becomes difficult to build a good offense team around him

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #59 on: May 29, 2017, 11:56:51 PM »

Offline vjcsmoke

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3173
  • Tommy Points: 182
Hell no.

Simmons can't shoot.

Simmons is injury prone.

Simmons hasn't played a single minute in the NBA.

No indication whatsoever that he is worth a #1 pick.

Unless you're a summer league junkie, but everyone looks great in Summer League.

PS I dare you to put up a poll, just so you can see how many NO's you're going to get on this trade idea.  LOL