Really couldn't have fought for more favorable protections...?

[perks-a-beast]

So if you haven't heard the Celtics receive the Lakers 2018 pick from Philly. But we only get the pick of it falls between 2-5. If the pick doesn't convey, we are awarded Sacramentos 2019 1st (unprotected)

I won't get into the fact that the 76'ers have a lot of other good, young prospects the Celtics could have squeezed out of them (Holmes, Saric, Okafor, Luwawu, Korkmaz...)

But my problem is that there is absolutely NO guarantee that the 2018 Lakers or 2019 Kings will be bad enough to land the Celtics an appealing pick. Take for example the 16-17 Miami Heat...Before the season began, that team had arguably one of the worst teams in paper. People were already penciling them in for a top 5 pick before any games had been played...they won around 40 games and barely missed out on the playoffs. Whose to say that won't happen with LA or SAC?

My point is that things change rapidly in the NBA. Lets say that after the Celtics traded KG and PP in 2013 that they traded away their 2015 1st. Almost every one would assume that the Celtics would still be bad enough 2 years later to make that a fairly high pick. But in the span of two years we added Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder, and a lot of our young players improved quite a bit, landing us a playoff berth. Whose to say the Lakers or Kings won't go trough that transformation? They aren't exactly the Nets. They both have quality young players, cap space, and an attractive destination for free agents...

Can someone please tell me if I'm being paranoid or reasonable? Thanks.

[kozlodoev]

So if you haven't heard the Celtics receive the Lakers 2018 pick from Philly. But we only get the pick of it falls between 2-5. If the pick doesn't convey, we are awarded Sacramentos 2019 1st (unprotected)

I'm pretty sure it's a reverse protection. Get it if it's #1, get Sacramento 2019 otherwise.

[KGs Knee]

So if you haven't heard the Celtics receive the Lakers 2018 pick from Philly. But we only get the pick of it falls between 2-5. If the pick doesn't convey, we are awarded Sacramentos 2019 1st (unprotected)

I won't get into the fact that the 76'ers have a lot of other good, young prospects the Celtics could have squeezed out of them (Holmes, Saric, Okafor, Luwawu, Korkmaz...)

But my problem is that there is absolutely NO guarantee that the 2018 Lakers or 2019 Kings will be bad enough to land the Celtics an appealing pick. Take for example the 16-17 Miami Heat...Before the season began, that team had arguably one of the worst teams in paper. People were already penciling them in for a top 5 pick before any games had been played...they won around 40 games and barely missed out on the playoffs. Whose to say that won't happen with LA or SAC?

My point is that things change rapidly in the NBA. Lets say that after the Celtics traded KG and PP in 2013 that they traded away their 2015 1st. Almost every one would assume that the Celtics would still be bad enough 2 years later to make that a fairly high pick. But in the span of two years we added Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder, and a lot of our young players improved quite a bit, landing us a playoff berth. Whose to say the Lakers or Kings won't go trough that transformation? They aren't exactly the Nets. They both have quality young players, cap space, and an attractive destination for free agents...

Can someone please tell me if I'm being paranoid or reasonable? Thanks.

The Lakers are obviously an unknown, which is why Ainge got protection on the pick if it falls below #5.

The Kings on the other hand appear to be locked into perpetual sucktitude.  Nobody really wants to go to Sacramento and now without Cousins for the entire year, and no real top prospects, I expect to see them bottom out even more over the next few years.

It is obviously a gamble, but a reasonable gamble.

[max215]

So if you haven't heard the Celtics receive the Lakers 2018 pick from Philly. But we only get the pick of it falls between 2-5. If the pick doesn't convey, we are awarded Sacramentos 2019 1st (unprotected)

I'm pretty sure it's a reverse protection. Get it if it's #1, get Sacramento 2019 otherwise.

 Nope, we get it if it falls 2-5. No chance at #1.

[mef730]

The only thing I can surmise is that they viewed Jackson and Fultz equally, if not Jackson higher, and that anything that they could get was simply gravy. Philly called them on it and refused to give up more.

I'm just thankful we got the 2-5 protection. We could have gotten stuck with #9 or something.

Mike

[Who]

More worried about Sacramento than LAL.

I expect LAL to suck again next year. Only way they don't is if they trade off some of their youth for veterans which doesn't appear to be their game plan. Their youth isn't ready to win now. Randle too flawed. Ingram too young. Clarkson and Russell do not fit together. Their vets do not fit their roster. I don't think they are going to get their answer with the #2 pick either.

Sacramento, on the other hand, I expect to be bad but not flat out suck. They have decent depth and decent youth. They have a team that fits together (unlike LAL). I expect them more in the 5-10 range than a top 5 pick.

Very happy with the protections on the LAL pick. Having that protection on the back end and a 2nd chance with Sacramento was well done.

[obnoxiousmime]

The only thing I can surmise is that they viewed Jackson and Fultz equally, if not Jackson higher, and that anything that they could get was simply gravy. Philly called them on it and refused to give up more.

I'm just thankful we got the 2-5 protection. We could have gotten stuck with #9 or something.

Mike

Right, this only makes sense if they feel that Fultz really is the same or worse than Jackson/Tatum/somebody else. I suppose it could also mean they feel future drafts might be a little stronger at the top, but it's such an unknown that I don't think it'd be a huge factor, just an ancillary one.

They were also OK with giving Philly exactly what they feel like they need. If they felt Fultz was really a game-changer on the level of an Harden/Irving/Wall/Lillard type I'm not sure you feel great guaranteeing he will be in Philly for the next 8-9 years.

If they really thought he'd be a great one I doubt they'd let Thomas being on the team discourage them.

[Snakehead]

I think the protections are very favorable.  I think it's really hard to do better (part of why the Nets trade was such a fleecing).  He did the best he could to guarantee a top 5 pick basically, and it could even be the first pick if it becomes the Sac one.

[hwangjini_1]

i agree with mef above. sometimes ainge doesnt have the power of compulsion working for him. 

also, even in the worst case scenario - pick conveys to sac's 2019 - it probably wont be a terrible pick. since cousins arrive in Sac, they have always picked in the 5th to 8th range.

http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/teams/Sacramento-Kings/25/Lottery-History

that team without cousins? i dont see it improving all that much, and would not be surprised if it was worse.

it is not a guarantee the pick will be great, or mediocre, or bad. that is the luck of the nba. but did anyone imagine the nets trade giving up so many top 5 picks to the celtics?

ainge worked out the best deal he could it seems. the celtics get whom they want and get another pick.

[tarheelsxxiii]

They're not bad, but I would've fought to include Holmes in the deal.  He's now a luxury on what's becoming a dangerously big and talented team.  At worst, Luwawu, if Ainge expects to move AB/Crowder/Smart.

[Somebody]

If I were Ainge I'd try to push for the Laker pick to convey in the 1-5 range, it's ridiculous that Philly gets to keep the pick if it's 1, if it happens they'll have that pick, Fultz, Embiid, Simmons and their 18 pick. I mean add 2nds if needed but you have to get that 1 protection off.

[ThaPreacher]

I think the protections are very favorable.  I think it's really hard to do better (part of why the Nets trade was such a fleecing).  He did the best he could to guarantee a top 5 pick basically, and it could even be the first pick if it becomes the Sac one.

Nonesense.  Ainge could have held out until draft day.  Asked for no-protections on the LA pick.
Frankley, we should have asked for that and the Sac Pick.  It's a small price for moving up in this draft.  Danny dealt way to early.  Could have held out until Wednesday anyway.  Makes no sense.
Even if another deal is in the works. 

Easy to beat this guy in poker.

[fairweatherfan]

These are really favorable protections, either we get a Top 5 pick next year (barring #1) or the unprotected pick of a team that's likely to be utterly terrible that year. With the exception of the #1 they couldn't be much more favorable to us.

Take for example the 16-17 Miami Heat...Before the season began, that team had arguably one of the worst teams in paper. People were already penciling them in for a top 5 pick before any games had been played...they won around 40 games and barely missed out on the playoffs. Whose to say that won't happen with LA or SAC?

Vegas' over-under for Miami wins last offseason was 36.5. http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/vegas-releases-2016-17-nba-season-overunder-win-totals-for-every-team/ Below average but not a bottom feeding team, and not far from where they wound up.

People started thinking of them as a bottom 5 team when they played like one the first half of the season.

[Somebody]

I think the protections are very favorable.  I think it's really hard to do better (part of why the Nets trade was such a fleecing).  He did the best he could to guarantee a top 5 pick basically, and it could even be the first pick if it becomes the Sac one.

Nonesense.  Ainge could have held out until draft day.  Asked for no-protections on the LA pick.
Frankley, we should have asked for that and the Sac Pick.  It's a small price for moving up in this draft.  Danny dealt way to early.  Could have held out until Wednesday anyway.  Makes no sense.
Even if another deal is in the works. 

Easy to beat this guy in poker.

It would've been the equivalent of us giving the 18 Brooklyn pick and the Memphis pick alonv with the 3rd pick for the 1st pick, which I would never do. I think Danny could've definitely gotten that 1 protection off but that deal you're proposing is ridiculous rn.

[Somebody]

These are really favorable protections, either we get a Top 5 pick next year (barring #1) or the unprotected pick of a team that's likely to be utterly terrible that year. With the exception of the #1 they couldn't be much more favorable to us.

It couldn't be more unfavourable for us when the NBA decides to screw us by giving Philly two top 5 picks by making the LA pick 1.  We should really push to get rid of that trash protection at 1.