The 76ers are fools for not knowing were taking Tatum #1

[bellerephon]

I don't totally agree. Fultz would need to be a lot better than Tatum and whoever the Celts get with the pick for the trade to be viewed as a flop. If he's just a little better it's not really a big deal. In fact, the only way it's a big problem is if Fultz ends up as an elite, championship type player. Otherwise, I see it as a risk worth taking.

[Smitty77]

At the top of the draft secrets are not kept well. The last time I remember not being certain of the #1 pick was When the Cavs took Bennett #1.

 Everyone knew we loved Brown last year and we took him, we clearly loved Tatum this year and we took him. Jackson's camp knew we were taking Tatum over him..

 Even if the 76ers were wrong about who the Celtics we're going to pick, they would have been left with Tatum, Jackson, and Fox. Fox who I personally think will have the better career.

 Good job Danny for holding onto your hand and not letting anybody see your Ace's, but an even worse job from Philly from not gathering better Intel.

Lots of revisionism around here.  You said you wanted #3 and Simmons for the #1.  Others wanted #3, Lakers 2018 and Kings 2018 or #3, Lakers 2018 and Saric.  The actual trade would have been ridiculed as a trade proposal on here.   

The Sixers got the best prospect and by far the best fit for them.  Tatum, Jackson and Fox would have been much more difficult to fit with Simmons and Embiid.  If the trade hadn't occurred and Fultz was already taken, they probably would have ended up with Dennis Smith. 
The Sixers clearly were not fools to give up as little as they did to go up and get their guy for as little as they gave up.

Please explain this statement and BACK IT UP with FACTS:

"by far the best fit for them."

How do YOU know that Fultz was the BEST FIT for the 76ers?  You sound so sure of yourself.  I just am asking that YOU back it up with FACTS!!!

Thanks,

Smitty77

[Smartacus]

The logic that the Sixers are blameless here is that even if we liked Tatum as the best prospect maybe we could have taken Fultz and traded him for something more.

Andrew Wiggins netted a prime Kevin Love so who is to say what a bird in the hand Markelle Fultz could have got us? Would we have taken Tatum over Fultz as our player? Plausible. Would we rather have someone like a top 15 guy instead of Tatum? Also Plausible.

The Sixers removed that temptation and we ended up with our guy and hopefully another great pick. Win win.

[Granath]

At the top of the draft secrets are not kept well. The last time I remember not being certain of the #1 pick was When the Cavs took Bennett #1.

 Everyone knew we loved Brown last year and we took him, we clearly loved Tatum this year and we took him. Jackson's camp knew we were taking Tatum over him..

 Even if the 76ers were wrong about who the Celtics we're going to pick, they would have been left with Tatum, Jackson, and Fox. Fox who I personally think will have the better career.

 Good job Danny for holding onto your hand and not letting anybody see your Ace's, but an even worse job from Philly from not gathering better Intel.

Lots of revisionism around here.  You said you wanted #3 and Simmons for the #1.  Others wanted #3, Lakers 2018 and Kings 2018 or #3, Lakers 2018 and Saric.  The actual trade would have been ridiculed as a trade proposal on here.   

The Sixers got the best prospect and by far the best fit for them.  Tatum, Jackson and Fox would have been much more difficult to fit with Simmons and Embiid.  If the trade hadn't occurred and Fultz was already taken, they probably would have ended up with Dennis Smith. 
The Sixers clearly were not fools to give up as little as they did to go up and get their guy for as little as they gave up.

Please explain this statement and BACK IT UP with FACTS:

"by far the best fit for them."

How do YOU know that Fultz was the BEST FIT for the 76ers?  You sound so sure of yourself.  I just am asking that YOU back it up with FACTS!!!

Thanks,

Smitty77

It's an opinion but this doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. They needed a PG more than any other position and Fultz was the best one. They've been drafting bigs for years and Simmons isn't a PG (he's better off as point forward) so they need someone to run the offense. Ball could have worked in this spot but for the 76ers a scoring threat like Fultz was probably the better play.

See how easy that was?

[KGs Knee]

I have to say the premise of this thread is seriously flawed. There is weak evidence Ainge would have ever actually drafted Tatum at #1. Tatum may very well have been Ainge's top draft target, but that doesn't mean he would have taken him #1.

The reason is rather simple and exactly why Ainge made the trade with Philly, everyone else seemed to have Fultz as their top target. It would have been a misuse of the pick to take Tatum #1 if everyone else values Fultz more.

As for Philly, they paid a fair price to get the guy they wanted, with zero assurances he would be there at #2, let alone #3.

Both teams did the right thing for their team based on how they valued the players involved.

[tazzmaniac]

At the top of the draft secrets are not kept well. The last time I remember not being certain of the #1 pick was When the Cavs took Bennett #1.

 Everyone knew we loved Brown last year and we took him, we clearly loved Tatum this year and we took him. Jackson's camp knew we were taking Tatum over him..

 Even if the 76ers were wrong about who the Celtics we're going to pick, they would have been left with Tatum, Jackson, and Fox. Fox who I personally think will have the better career.

 Good job Danny for holding onto your hand and not letting anybody see your Ace's, but an even worse job from Philly from not gathering better Intel.

Lots of revisionism around here.  You said you wanted #3 and Simmons for the #1.  Others wanted #3, Lakers 2018 and Kings 2018 or #3, Lakers 2018 and Saric.  The actual trade would have been ridiculed as a trade proposal on here.   

The Sixers got the best prospect and by far the best fit for them.  Tatum, Jackson and Fox would have been much more difficult to fit with Simmons and Embiid.  If the trade hadn't occurred and Fultz was already taken, they probably would have ended up with Dennis Smith. 
The Sixers clearly were not fools to give up as little as they did to go up and get their guy for as little as they gave up.

Please explain this statement and BACK IT UP with FACTS:

"by far the best fit for them."

How do YOU know that Fultz was the BEST FIT for the 76ers?  You sound so sure of yourself.  I just am asking that YOU back it up with FACTS!!!

Thanks,

Smitty77

It's an opinion but this doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. They needed a PG more than any other position and Fultz was the best one. They've been drafting bigs for years and Simmons isn't a PG (he's better off as point forward) so they need someone to run the offense. Ball could have worked in this spot but for the 76ers a scoring threat like Fultz was probably the better play.

See how easy that was?

Simmons is going to run a lot of their offense.  Fultz can share the load doing so but he can also play off ball.  The Sixers fans are already drooling with the pick and roll options with Simmons, Fultz and Embiid.  Unless they've worked wonders with Simmons' shooting, they can't afford to have poor shooter out there with him. 

Love Fox but his poor shooting makes him a bad fit for the Sixers.  Same goes for Jackson's shooting.  They already have Simmons and Saric so they definitely don't need another PF in Tatum.  Same goes for Isaac and he is quite raw.  As for Ball, he might have worked but I don't trust his shooting and he rarely drives to the basket.  I think he'll struggle as PG in the half court. 

[KG Living Legend]

I have to say the premise of this thread is seriously flawed. There is weak evidence Ainge would have ever actually drafted Tatum at #1. Tatum may very well have been Ainge's top draft target, but that doesn't mean he would have taken him #1.

The reason is rather simple and exactly why Ainge made the trade with Philly, everyone else seemed to have Fultz as their top target. It would have been a misuse of the pick to take Tatum #1 if everyone else values Fultz more.

As for Philly, they paid a fair price to get the guy they wanted, with zero assurances he would be there at #2, let alone #3.

Both teams did the right thing for their team based on how they valued the players involved.

 With all do respect KG, I think your wrong, hence the thread. Who do you think the Celtics would have took #1 with no trade? It would have been Tatum.

 That means that Fultz would have indeed been there at three. The funniest thing about this is that Good buddy Magic Johnson, might have been the Key for us, when he made those comments about how great Fultz is.

 I don't believe for a second Magic takes anyone but Ball, but Magic may have scared Philly.

[Scintan]

The 76ers needed a point.  They got their point, and at a fire sale price.  To say they were fools to make the move is, well, foolish.

[moiso]

I have to say the premise of this thread is seriously flawed. There is weak evidence Ainge would have ever actually drafted Tatum at #1. Tatum may very well have been Ainge's top draft target, but that doesn't mean he would have taken him #1.

The reason is rather simple and exactly why Ainge made the trade with Philly, everyone else seemed to have Fultz as their top target. It would have been a misuse of the pick to take Tatum #1 if everyone else values Fultz more.

As for Philly, they paid a fair price to get the guy they wanted, with zero assurances he would be there at #2, let alone #3.

Both teams did the right thing for their team based on how they valued the players involved.

 With all do respect KG, I think your wrong, hence the thread. Who do you think the Celtics would have took #1 with no trade? It would have been Tatum.

 That means that Fultz would have indeed been there at three. The funniest thing about this is that Good buddy Magic Johnson, might have been the Key for us, when he made those comments about how great Fultz is.

 I don't believe for a second Magic takes anyone but Ball, but Magic may have scared Philly.

You have no idea which team would have taken which player.  For all we know, Ainge just wanted to "win" another trade by getting a second lottery pick and saving some cap money for Hayward.  And you have no idea if the Lakers would have taken Ball if Fultz were available.

[tazzmaniac]

I have to say the premise of this thread is seriously flawed. There is weak evidence Ainge would have ever actually drafted Tatum at #1. Tatum may very well have been Ainge's top draft target, but that doesn't mean he would have taken him #1.

The reason is rather simple and exactly why Ainge made the trade with Philly, everyone else seemed to have Fultz as their top target. It would have been a misuse of the pick to take Tatum #1 if everyone else values Fultz more.

As for Philly, they paid a fair price to get the guy they wanted, with zero assurances he would be there at #2, let alone #3.

Both teams did the right thing for their team based on how they valued the players involved.

 With all do respect KG, I think your wrong, hence the thread. Who do you think the Celtics would have took #1 with no trade? It would have been Tatum.

 That means that Fultz would have indeed been there at three. The funniest thing about this is that Good buddy Magic Johnson, might have been the Key for us, when he made those comments about how great Fultz is.

 I don't believe for a second Magic takes anyone but Ball, but Magic may have scared Philly.

If the Sixers were scared, they wouldn't have held out for #1 protection on both years.  They ended up making a good deal to move up a couple spots to ensure they got their guy in Fultz while ensuring they still have a chance at the #1 pick in 2018 and 2019.  There is no guarantee the Lakers wouldn't have taken Fultz at #2 or that they wouldn't have traded the pick if a good offer was made from the Suns or the Kings.  Colangelo would have looked really stupid if he hadn't made the trade and ended up losing out on Fultz. 

[SparzWizard]

But they get Markelle Fultz. Let's see who will be the fool next summer!

[MichaelJ]

At the top of the draft secrets are not kept well. The last time I remember not being certain of the #1 pick was When the Cavs took Bennett #1.

Right up there with Darko and Greg Oden.

I don't buy that the Celtics wouldn't have taken Fultz with their #1 pick.

They had the number one pick and traded down, and added a pick.  I don't see how you could not buy it.  Ainge was in the driver seat and there were rumors of Fultz not shooting well at our workout.  If he wanted him he could have taken him, he didn't and traded down and added an asset and got his guy.

ESPN’s Jeff Goodman went on WEEI’s “Dale and Holley with Keefe” on Monday and shed some light on the Washington guard’s audition. “From what I’m told, Fultz didn’t shoot the ball exceptionally well in his workout in Boston,” Goodman said. “But they know he can shoot the ball. So, it’s one workout. … I still think it’s gonna be Fultz at (No. 1), Lonzo Ball at (No. 2).”

Read more at: http://nesn.com/2017/06/markelle-fultz-reportedly-had-bad-shooting-day-in-celtics-workout/

That they traded down for me is not indicative of anything, and I'm not selling the idea that they wanted Tatum all along. I'm just not buying that they would've used the 1st pick of the draft on him.

sorry to have to ask this bc, but aside from wishful thinking, what basis do you have for your argument above? ainge could have drafted fultz if he wanted him. he did not HAVE to trade the #1 away. but he did. ainge simply did not seem to value fultz the same way you do.

To be honest hwangjini_1 I'm not sure I'm buying that either.

I know that became the narrative as soon as Ainge traded the pick but that was the only narrative to sell a Celtics Nation who wanted to hang Danny by his earlobes for trading the #1. I don't know if Danny truly preferred Tatum or he thought that Tatum and Fultz were close enough in talent to make trading down a viable option. We'll never know.

I do know it took some massive balls to make that deal. If Tatum - or the LAL 18 pick - doesn't turn out to be at least close to the level of Fultz then that will always taint Ainge's legacy. The Cs could win 3 Championships over the next 10 years but if Fultz > Tatum + LAL18 then the narrative will be "how many more would we have won if Danny didn't make that deal"? It takes some major cajones to buck the consensus when you know doing so will always define you. The safer move would be to take Fultz.

Of course, if he did that then this season would be defined by a constant narrative of "can Fultz make IT expendible?". Plus we'd only have one more guaranteed lottery shot. By making the move Ainge removed that possible cloud and created even more of an opportunity next year. So I'm not saying it was the wrong move. But I'm not sure I'd have had the guts to make it.

I take Tatum + another high pick over Fultz any day and don't look back.  I'm biased because I preferred Tatum to Fultz anyway, but the potential for two top picks next year to add to an already very good team seals it for me.  Danny has exploited his opportunities to position the Celtics to be very good for a long time.  If the Celtics go on to win multiple titles and Fultz winds up better than Tatum, the answer to the question 'but how many more would we win?' is none.  Fultz would have to be better than Tatum AND whatever Danny brings in with that additional pick.

[MichaelJ]

The 76ers needed a point.  They got their point, and at a fire sale price.  To say they were fools to make the move is, well, foolish.

If that Laker pick winds up in our camp next June, calling it a firesale price is foolish.

[tazzmaniac]

At the top of the draft secrets are not kept well. The last time I remember not being certain of the #1 pick was When the Cavs took Bennett #1.

Right up there with Darko and Greg Oden.

I don't buy that the Celtics wouldn't have taken Fultz with their #1 pick.

They had the number one pick and traded down, and added a pick.  I don't see how you could not buy it.  Ainge was in the driver seat and there were rumors of Fultz not shooting well at our workout.  If he wanted him he could have taken him, he didn't and traded down and added an asset and got his guy.

ESPN’s Jeff Goodman went on WEEI’s “Dale and Holley with Keefe” on Monday and shed some light on the Washington guard’s audition. “From what I’m told, Fultz didn’t shoot the ball exceptionally well in his workout in Boston,” Goodman said. “But they know he can shoot the ball. So, it’s one workout. … I still think it’s gonna be Fultz at (No. 1), Lonzo Ball at (No. 2).”

Read more at: http://nesn.com/2017/06/markelle-fultz-reportedly-had-bad-shooting-day-in-celtics-workout/

That they traded down for me is not indicative of anything, and I'm not selling the idea that they wanted Tatum all along. I'm just not buying that they would've used the 1st pick of the draft on him.

sorry to have to ask this bc, but aside from wishful thinking, what basis do you have for your argument above? ainge could have drafted fultz if he wanted him. he did not HAVE to trade the #1 away. but he did. ainge simply did not seem to value fultz the same way you do.

To be honest hwangjini_1 I'm not sure I'm buying that either.

I know that became the narrative as soon as Ainge traded the pick but that was the only narrative to sell a Celtics Nation who wanted to hang Danny by his earlobes for trading the #1. I don't know if Danny truly preferred Tatum or he thought that Tatum and Fultz were close enough in talent to make trading down a viable option. We'll never know.

I do know it took some massive balls to make that deal. If Tatum - or the LAL 18 pick - doesn't turn out to be at least close to the level of Fultz then that will always taint Ainge's legacy. The Cs could win 3 Championships over the next 10 years but if Fultz > Tatum + LAL18 then the narrative will be "how many more would we have won if Danny didn't make that deal"? It takes some major cajones to buck the consensus when you know doing so will always define you. The safer move would be to take Fultz.

Of course, if he did that then this season would be defined by a constant narrative of "can Fultz make IT expendible?". Plus we'd only have one more guaranteed lottery shot. By making the move Ainge removed that possible cloud and created even more of an opportunity next year. So I'm not saying it was the wrong move. But I'm not sure I'd have had the guts to make it.

I take Tatum + another high pick over Fultz any day and don't look back.  I'm biased because I preferred Tatum to Fultz anyway, but the potential for two top picks next year to add to an already very good team seals it for me.  Danny has exploited his opportunities to position the Celtics to be very good for a long time.  If the Celtics go on to win multiple titles and Fultz winds up better than Tatum, the answer to the question 'but how many more would we win?' is none.  Fultz would have to be better than Tatum AND whatever Danny brings in with that additional pick.

The trade made sense for both teams.  How well it actually works out is pure speculation at this point.   Who says we win any championships with or without the trade.  Fultz, Simmons and Embiid could become a 3 headed monster that keeps us out of the finals.  We could win a championship without Tatum or whoever we get with the Lakers/Kings pick contributing much and wonder how many more we could have won with Fultz.   

[ManUp]

You're "every one knew" is hindsight.

Nobody knew we were taking Jaylen last year they thought it was Kris Dunn, and nobody knew we were taking Tatum this year they thought it was Fultz and when we traded down it was Josh Jackson.

The Celtics do very well at keeping information within the organization until they are ready to deal.