|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 8, 2016 8:29:41 GMT -5
Assuming no trades in the 1st, I do like the idea of Zizic at #16 and then the "wild card" at #23. Don't know if I'd go Diallo or Maker (if both are available) but maybe I'd lean towards the 7-footer (unless Diallo is just far and away the better raw talent).
Still can't wrap my head around #3.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 8, 2016 11:03:48 GMT -5
Not newsworthy but funny. Legal Seafood is apparently offering Kevin Durant free crab legs (his favorite) if he comes to Boston.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 8, 2016 14:36:01 GMT -5
Cover your ears WCP: Chad Ford and Kevin Pelton discussed some C's possibilities with their picks. High(low)lights: At #3, Ford thought they should look to trade. Doesn't think Love or Okafor/Noel makes sense. Does think Thomas/Jerebko/#3 for Butler would be interesting to both teams. Pelton took an analytical approach and thought Thomas' value plus the expected value (factoring in salary commitments for both) is too much to give up for Butler. Says that the value would be more in line with getting Jokic/Nurkic for #3. Ford replied that they should just pick it then. On the pick, both felt that Bender/Dunn/Murray/Chriss are likely candidates. Dunn/Murray more in the "help me know" group. Bender/Chriss in long term category. Both would go Bender (strange since Ford has yet to go that route in his mocks). Both think they should be able to trade some #2s as the depth of the draft will create value there. That depth hurts the value of the other 1st rounders (why give up an asset plus a guaranteed contract to a player who is not much better than the guy you can get in the 2nd). Both say international picks are likely (shocker) with Ford thinking they go developmental (Skal/Maker/Diallo) and Pelton saying Patrick McCaw (or someone else who'd be able to fill a role if someone like Bradley went down again). Pelton seemed a little crazy saying #3 for Nurkic is fair in a weak draft. I find that nuts and I really like Nurkic. Maybe #3 for #7 and Nurkic, that seems more like a fair trade. Ford thinks most likely picks are Murray and Dunn. I find it really interesting if that's true and Bender isn't in mix. As to trading second round picks in a deep draft, that is also deep in international prospects, I don't agree. Well at least the high second round picks, I would really use them in this draft. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 8, 2016 15:06:28 GMT -5
Just read that Steve Kyler (BI) thinks Bender might be dropping out of the lottery. I can't believe that's true (most likely the typical GM rubbish that you hear before drafts).
Not so sure it's CRAZY with Jurkic. Let's go with the assumption that it would cost #3 PLUS to get Okafor. Jurkic is only 8 months older and a much better defender. While he'll likely never be the 20-pt guy that Okafor is, in the advance stat world (where Pelton "lives"), their current and projected go-forward values are probably not all that different. And if the suggestion is "straight up" compared to having to add something to get Okafor . . .
Now, I wouldn't do it mind you but in the context of advanced metrics, it's not outlandish.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 8, 2016 15:54:56 GMT -5
I would be utterly shocked if Bender fell out of top 8. That sounds like GM gamesmanship right there.
You can't compare Nurkic with Okafor, you compare to #3 pick. Nurkic also has two less years of team control and saw a decrease in minutes last year compared to rookie year. The reason I like Nurkic is his advanced stats, but I'm not sure he's elite at anything. He just seems to be good at a lot of things. Okafor could and most likely will be an elite low post scorer. A guy that can score at will in the box, that's a very rare skill set. Okafor reminds me of Lopez and Nurkic is like a less athletic version that doesn't score as much, but does play better post D. The problem with Nurkic is that against certain teams he will be useless, because he is an old school big. The Warriors for example, he would be a big defensive liability against them. Just not a player you trade for #3 pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 8, 2016 16:22:20 GMT -5
Agreed. I wouldn't want that trade. But Pelton's role in those discussions are purely analytical. Statistically driven projections combined with value of contract.
I probably should restate that, in the real world (going beyond just data), it probably IS crazy. In the context of data, it's not.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 8, 2016 16:29:42 GMT -5
In an updated mock today, Kyler himself was only willing to drop him down to 8.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 8, 2016 17:19:18 GMT -5
Agreed. I wouldn't want that trade. But Pelton's role in those discussions are purely analytical. Statistically driven projections combined with value of contract. I probably should restate that, in the real world (going beyond just data), it probably IS crazy. In the context of data, it's not. Yea but that what makes no sense, as Pelton own values mean that trade is stupid. With what he projects Bender and Murray to be worth and the fact that Nurkic has two years less of team control, it doesn't make sense at all from an analytical point of view or real world value point of view. The only thing that trade does is decrease risk, as you know what Nurkic is more so than Murray and Bender. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 8, 2016 21:01:22 GMT -5
I think he places a total value on the contract and doesn't factor in yrs of control but . . . Whatever.
Probably way too many words spent on what is intended to be a comparative exercise.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 10, 2016 7:52:12 GMT -5
Murray is 6'3" out of shoes and 6'5 in shoes. I don't know how player heights are usually measured. His measurable shot smaller with the draft vetting which isn't surprising that his college program would list his bigger height with shoes.
The rumors of Ainge really liking Brown better not be true unless he is trading back up for him.
Love is a bad fit for the Cavs. And if I'm the Celtics he's off my list no matter the cost. I wouldn't even want to absorb his contract to be honest. You know how you never want to trade two or three Ponys for a Horse? Well the Cavs are the perfect example of a team that should do that. They would be much better if they had Johnson, Crowder and Smart than Love. Of course that probably just proves Love isn't a horse.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 10, 2016 14:06:13 GMT -5
When you look at height it's always in shoes, only combine does without for some reason. Next year in NBA Murray will be listed at 6'5'', not 6'3''.
As to Love you guys are overreacting to how he looks in finals. He is a bad fit in Cleveland on that team. He needs the offense to run threw him, something that never happens in Cleveland as he is third fiddle. Not all horses can play together and be effective, doesn't mean he's not a horse.
I can totally understand not wanting to trade a good amount to get Love, but saying you wouldn't absorb his contract is crazy talk.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 10, 2016 14:25:58 GMT -5
It's not crazy talk. When you have a salary cap contract is huge
Add: I don't think he's a terrible player, I just don't think he's the type that's worth that contract for a championship team. There's all sorts of ways to win but a big who can't play defense at all and makes that much doesn't do much for me.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,860
|
Post by wcp3 on Jun 10, 2016 15:13:52 GMT -5
His contract won't be bad next year, and especially the year after. But considering the Cavs are trying to win now, I doubt they'd part with him without it costing a steep price.
Short of LeBron bolting again (unlikely), I don't see the Cavs and Celts being compatible trade partners anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Jun 10, 2016 18:14:17 GMT -5
I'd offer them Bradley, Johnson, maybe a throw-in like Mickey or Young and a non-Brooklyn 1st.
While that may not sound like enough for a supposed superstar like Love, I think his value is really down right now. Most people are looking at him as a great bad team player but not a guy who can be a key cog on a title contender. Meanwhile, Cleveland is well over the cap and needs pieces who help them win right now.
Johnson and Bradley, imo, add the perfect amount of defensive toughness to Cleveland, which is really what they need. It allows the team to offensively be centered on Lebron and Kyrie with complimentary scorers and shooters. Johnson fits perfectly with Thompson, allowing him to be more of a 4. Bradley can be the backup point, teaming with Smith or Sumpert when Irving needs a break, as well as obviously playing the 2.
That deal makes a lot of sense for Cleveland, I believe. I'm not sure there's going to be a better fit for a Love deal under the cap that fits their needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 11, 2016 7:41:30 GMT -5
I've been one of Bradley's biggest critics but I agree that getting him and Johnson would make the team better than having Love. As a Celtics fan, I'd rather have Bradley as well. The way the game has gone his back court D is so valuable and his shooting has gotten better.
Love is expensive and soft and had gotten injured each of the last two finals. I know I know it's separate injuries not his fault etc. But every year he gets older and bigs don't age well or get tougher and more durable as they age. I don't care if his stats say his contract isn't that bad the next couple years, he's not a player I ever see winning a Title. Maybe once he has to take the veteran who's made his money contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jun 11, 2016 9:56:08 GMT -5
I think Danny might low ball the Cavs for Love again, something like Amir, Young and 16. Doubt he would trade Bradley for him after his stock has plummeted.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,860
|
Post by wcp3 on Jun 11, 2016 14:38:44 GMT -5
None of these trades would get a deal for Love done.
|
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Jun 12, 2016 14:27:05 GMT -5
None of these trades would get a deal for Love done. It's easy to just say things like that. But, again, Love's value is dropping, probably significantly. Cleveland has a limited window to win titles (2 years, maybe 3?) and Love clearly isn't working out there. They need to move him for pieces that give them a shot against the best of the West. And it needs to work against the cap. If you can suggest realistic trades for Love to other teams, that would actually be adding to the conversation. Either way, my point remains that my offer is the most I would give for him. And I'm not 100% sure I want to give that much, or even anything at all. |
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,860
|
Post by wcp3 on Jun 12, 2016 16:02:15 GMT -5
None of these trades would get a deal for Love done. It's easy to just say things like that. But, again, Love's value is dropping, probably significantly. Cleveland has a limited window to win titles (2 years, maybe 3?) and Love clearly isn't working out there. They need to move him for pieces that give them a shot against the best of the West. And it needs to work against the cap. If you can suggest realistic trades for Love to other teams, that would actually be adding to the conversation. Either way, my point remains that my offer is the most I would give for him. And I'm not 100% sure I want to give that much, or even anything at all. Lol, so salty. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 13, 2016 7:15:59 GMT -5
It's easy to just say things like that. But, again, Love's value is dropping, probably significantly. Cleveland has a limited window to win titles (2 years, maybe 3?) and Love clearly isn't working out there. They need to move him for pieces that give them a shot against the best of the West. And it needs to work against the cap. If you can suggest realistic trades for Love to other teams, that would actually be adding to the conversation. Either way, my point remains that my offer is the most I would give for him. And I'm not 100% sure I want to give that much, or even anything at all. Lol, so salty. He has a point. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 13, 2016 7:20:02 GMT -5
Per ESPN player forecasting model, this draft is deepest since they started keeping track in 2001.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 13, 2016 9:00:34 GMT -5
You both have points. But Amir Johnson isn't enough to get Love. I actually think he would be a good addition but they need more help now pieces. Hunter and the 16 don't fit. They need defensive length and probably better three point shooting. Yea I know their volume is good but they need better consistency from at least one.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 13, 2016 9:10:42 GMT -5
I'm going to duck after typing this but A. Sherrod Blakely insists that if they keep #3 (he indicates they are being VERY aggressive in trying to move the pick) that Jaylen Brown is the guy.
Hard to tell if that's straight up opinion or if he has some intel but . . . there you go.
Fire away.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 13, 2016 9:44:36 GMT -5
I feel that's his opinion, with maybe a little inside info that Celtics like him. At this point I don't think Danny knows who he is picking.
Personally I would be shocked if Brown was the pick. We would have a great defensive team that can't shoot.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 13, 2016 9:53:51 GMT -5
I wouldn't be shocked from a player profile standpoint. Defensively, he fits what Boston likes (Defensive Flexibility as he can guard multiple positions). I hate the value at 3 and the fact that he wouldn't improve that which we need most (scoring) but I can see him loving the player.
|
|
