Author Topic: Marvin Bagley  (Read 3320 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Marvin Bagley
« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2017, 02:46:39 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3564
  • Tommy Points: 322
Interesting debate about the Minni pick.

So in this case, it is true to say that Minni got Flynn in the trade but it is not true to say the Celtics gave up Flynn.  And it is also true that Minni would have gotten Flynn in either case as the protections would have prevented the pick from being conveyed.

What was the question again and what does this have to do with the Kyrie trade?
Yeah, that's how I see it.

The pick sent to Minnesota ended up being Minnesota’s own 2012 second round pick. That wasn’t Johnny Flynn.
How do you figure?

EDIT: I think I get what you're saying because that's what the Celtics pick would've been if they had held onto the pick but the act of trading the pick back to Minnesota negated those conditions.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 03:09:19 PM by Big333223 »

Re: Marvin Bagley
« Reply #46 on: December 05, 2017, 03:27:10 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33225
  • Tommy Points: -27967
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Interesting debate about the Minni pick.

So in this case, it is true to say that Minni got Flynn in the trade but it is not true to say the Celtics gave up Flynn.  And it is also true that Minni would have gotten Flynn in either case as the protections would have prevented the pick from being conveyed.

What was the question again and what does this have to do with the Kyrie trade?
Yeah, that's how I see it.

The pick sent to Minnesota ended up being Minnesotaís own 2012 second round pick. That wasnít Johnny Flynn.
How do you figure?

EDIT: I think I get what you're saying because that's what the Celtics pick would've been if they had held onto the pick but the act of trading the pick back to Minnesota negated those conditions.

It didnít really negate any conditions. If we traded the pick that turned into Flynn to Minnesota, that means we could have used that pick but for the trade, and that Minnesota wouldnít have had the pick but for the trade.  Neither is true.

Rather, but for the trade, we would have had Minnyís 2012 #2 pick. Instead, Minnesota got that pick. We traded a conditional pick that never vested, leaving us - and thus Minnesota - with a second rounder.

Itís a simple concept: you canít trade a pick that you never had a right to. We never, ever owned the Flynn pick, so we couldnít trade it.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Marvin Bagley
« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2017, 04:38:31 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3564
  • Tommy Points: 322
Interesting debate about the Minni pick.

So in this case, it is true to say that Minni got Flynn in the trade but it is not true to say the Celtics gave up Flynn.  And it is also true that Minni would have gotten Flynn in either case as the protections would have prevented the pick from being conveyed.

What was the question again and what does this have to do with the Kyrie trade?
Yeah, that's how I see it.

The pick sent to Minnesota ended up being Minnesotaís own 2012 second round pick. That wasnít Johnny Flynn.
How do you figure?

EDIT: I think I get what you're saying because that's what the Celtics pick would've been if they had held onto the pick but the act of trading the pick back to Minnesota negated those conditions.

It didnít really negate any conditions. If we traded the pick that turned into Flynn to Minnesota, that means we could have used that pick but for the trade, and that Minnesota wouldnít have had the pick but for the trade.  Neither is true.

Rather, but for the trade, we would have had Minnyís 2012 #2 pick. Instead, Minnesota got that pick. We traded a conditional pick that never vested, leaving us - and thus Minnesota - with a second rounder.

Itís a simple concept: you canít trade a pick that you never had a right to. We never, ever owned the Flynn pick, so we couldnít trade it.
When the Celtics traded the pick back to Minnesota, the conditions no longer applied since the conditions could not be applied to Minnesota because, you know, they are themselves.

While the Celtics never could've owned the #6 pick in 2009 they certainly could've owned picks 15-30. So to say the Celtics "never owned the Flynn pick" ignores that the pick could have fallen elsewhere in the draft and been a player who wasn't Jonny Flyyn.

I'm sorry to have dragged this Bagley thread this far into the weeds. Suffice it to say these two web sites are in agreement and I agree with their tracking of the pick.

Re: Marvin Bagley
« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2017, 04:48:50 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33225
  • Tommy Points: -27967
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Interesting debate about the Minni pick.

So in this case, it is true to say that Minni got Flynn in the trade but it is not true to say the Celtics gave up Flynn.  And it is also true that Minni would have gotten Flynn in either case as the protections would have prevented the pick from being conveyed.

What was the question again and what does this have to do with the Kyrie trade?
Yeah, that's how I see it.

The pick sent to Minnesota ended up being Minnesotaís own 2012 second round pick. That wasnít Johnny Flynn.
How do you figure?

EDIT: I think I get what you're saying because that's what the Celtics pick would've been if they had held onto the pick but the act of trading the pick back to Minnesota negated those conditions.

It didnít really negate any conditions. If we traded the pick that turned into Flynn to Minnesota, that means we could have used that pick but for the trade, and that Minnesota wouldnít have had the pick but for the trade.  Neither is true.

Rather, but for the trade, we would have had Minnyís 2012 #2 pick. Instead, Minnesota got that pick. We traded a conditional pick that never vested, leaving us - and thus Minnesota - with a second rounder.

Itís a simple concept: you canít trade a pick that you never had a right to. We never, ever owned the Flynn pick, so we couldnít trade it.
When the Celtics traded the pick back to Minnesota, the conditions no longer applied since the conditions could not be applied to Minnesota because, you know, they are themselves.

While the Celtics never could've owned the #6 pick in 2009 they certainly could've owned picks 15-30. So to say the Celtics "never owned the Flynn pick" ignores that the pick could have fallen elsewhere in the draft and been a player who wasn't Jonny Flyyn.

I'm sorry to have dragged this Bagley thread this far into the weeds. Suffice it to say these two web sites are in agreement and I agree with their tracking of the pick.

This off-shoot started when it was suggested that the KG trade would look different if the Wolves had taken Steph Curry with the pick they got from us. That never could have happened. We never owned the right to that pick.  Thatís simply a fact.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Marvin Bagley
« Reply #49 on: December 06, 2017, 09:26:09 AM »

Offline chilidawg

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1740
  • Tommy Points: 219
Interesting debate about the Minni pick.

So in this case, it is true to say that Minni got Flynn in the trade but it is not true to say the Celtics gave up Flynn.  And it is also true that Minni would have gotten Flynn in either case as the protections would have prevented the pick from being conveyed.

What was the question again and what does this have to do with the Kyrie trade?
Yeah, that's how I see it.

The pick sent to Minnesota ended up being Minnesotaís own 2012 second round pick. That wasnít Johnny Flynn.
How do you figure?

EDIT: I think I get what you're saying because that's what the Celtics pick would've been if they had held onto the pick but the act of trading the pick back to Minnesota negated those conditions.

It didnít really negate any conditions. If we traded the pick that turned into Flynn to Minnesota, that means we could have used that pick but for the trade, and that Minnesota wouldnít have had the pick but for the trade.  Neither is true.

Rather, but for the trade, we would have had Minnyís 2012 #2 pick. Instead, Minnesota got that pick. We traded a conditional pick that never vested, leaving us - and thus Minnesota - with a second rounder.

Itís a simple concept: you canít trade a pick that you never had a right to. We never, ever owned the Flynn pick, so we couldnít trade it.
When the Celtics traded the pick back to Minnesota, the conditions no longer applied since the conditions could not be applied to Minnesota because, you know, they are themselves.

While the Celtics never could've owned the #6 pick in 2009 they certainly could've owned picks 15-30. So to say the Celtics "never owned the Flynn pick" ignores that the pick could have fallen elsewhere in the draft and been a player who wasn't Jonny Flyyn.

I'm sorry to have dragged this Bagley thread this far into the weeds. Suffice it to say these two web sites are in agreement and I agree with their tracking of the pick.

This off-shoot started when it was suggested that the KG trade would look different if the Wolves had taken Steph Curry with the pick they got from us. That never could have happened. We never owned the right to that pick.  Thatís simply a fact.

Shouldn't you guys take this arcane, irrelevant debate somewhere else so the rest of us can talk about Marvin Bagley?

Re: Marvin Bagley
« Reply #50 on: December 06, 2017, 09:46:53 AM »

Offline JHTruth

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1647
  • Tommy Points: 78
Bagley w 34/15 vs Bamba, 30/15 vs Florida. Guy looks like a lock for the no 1 to me..

Re: Marvin Bagley
« Reply #51 on: December 06, 2017, 10:16:27 AM »

Offline coffee425

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 880
  • Tommy Points: 106
For all of his strengths, Bagley (and Bamba) are probably the two least versatile players in the projected "top 5" of the draft.

Bagley is a pure power forward. On defense, he isn't physical enough, nor protect the rim well enough, to play Center. On offense, he can't shoot well enough to space the floor nor pass enough to initiate an offense.

I'm still not sure how to feel about him. I guess he can be compared to Andre Drummond who is just as bad on defense. Maybe in time, Bagley can extend his offense to where Lamarcus Aldridge is now?

For my Celtics perspective, this lack of versatility sounds like something Ainge would trade down from ;)
Quote
Even at the end of the game, we lined up in different formation that he hadn't seen and he called out our play before I got the ball. I heard him calling it out. -John Wall on Brad Stevens

Re: Marvin Bagley
« Reply #52 on: December 06, 2017, 11:55:41 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3564
  • Tommy Points: 322
For all of his strengths, Bagley (and Bamba) are probably the two least versatile players in the projected "top 5" of the draft.

Bagley is a pure power forward. On defense, he isn't physical enough, nor protect the rim well enough, to play Center. On offense, he can't shoot well enough to space the floor nor pass enough to initiate an offense.

I'm still not sure how to feel about him. I guess he can be compared to Andre Drummond who is just as bad on defense. Maybe in time, Bagley can extend his offense to where Lamarcus Aldridge is now?

For my Celtics perspective, this lack of versatility sounds like something Ainge would trade down from ;)
I'm also not totally sold on Bagley but disagree with your assessment of him. He's incredibly versatile on defense and he's been a very physical player. He's still only 18 and he can definitely get stronger but his willingness to play physical and mix it up under the basket is unquestionable.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 06:48:14 AM by Big333223 »

Re: Marvin Bagley
« Reply #53 on: December 06, 2017, 09:30:21 PM »

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4570
  • Tommy Points: 297
Having Bagley would be a good problem to hawb if you view him as that

Re: Marvin Bagley
« Reply #54 on: December 07, 2017, 10:45:02 PM »

Offline chilidawg

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1740
  • Tommy Points: 219
For all of his strengths, Bagley (and Bamba) are probably the two least versatile players in the projected "top 5" of the draft.

Bagley is a pure power forward. On defense, he isn't physical enough, nor protect the rim well enough, to play Center. On offense, he can't shoot well enough to space the floor nor pass enough to initiate an offense.

I'm still not sure how to feel about him. I guess he can be compared to Andre Drummond who is just as bad on defense. Maybe in time, Bagley can extend his offense to where Lamarcus Aldridge is now?

For my Celtics perspective, this lack of versatility sounds like something Ainge would trade down from ;)

When looking at prospects I like to look at 3 things, what they can do, what they clearly can't do, and what they show flashes of that they might develop.

For me Bagley looks like he currently can score in the paint and rebound.  He's showing flashes of ball handling and shooting (7-20 from 3).   He's showing flashes defensively, but I worry more about that developing.  I'm not seeing much that I think he'll never be able to do.  I think in fact he'll turn out to be a very versatile player because he has length, motor and burgeoning skill.  But it's very much about the projection.