SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2017 Celtics offseason
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 14, 2017 10:55:01 GMT -5
I kept waiting for the endearing part of Lonzo Ball's story... that part was basically a PSA on how not to parent.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 14, 2017 11:55:31 GMT -5
The reports were the agents wouldn't allow it, has nothing to do with the players. This was weeks ago anyway. It's the same thing agents have done to Kings for years. In a way it makes perfect sense. Brown got less playing time on Celtics, then he would have on Lakers for example. An agent can't "not allow it". The player has to agree to it. Were talking about very young people here, they hire agents because they know the game better and how the system works. They don't have to agree to it, they just have to listen to the guys they hired to act in there best interest. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 14, 2017 12:23:44 GMT -5
The reports were the agents wouldn't allow it, has nothing to do with the players. This was weeks ago anyway. It's the same thing agents have done to Kings for years. In a way it makes perfect sense. Brown got less playing time on Celtics, then he would have on Lakers for example. Sure agents might not prefer it but players run the agents or at least they are supposed to. It only makes sense if you have no confidence in yourself, aren't competitive or aren't ready for the NBA. I think the last part is the most telling. A lot of these so called elite prospects aren't even ready to play in the NBA yet. The Kings are a crappy team in dysfunction that's not comparable to the Celtics situation. Brown got less playing time and is probably a better player as a result of his situation. He's also gone out of his way to talk about how that's been good for him. So you hire a top NBA agent, who tells you the Celtics just aren't a good fit for you. If you listen to the guy you hired to act in your best interest it means a bunch of negative stuff about the player? Come on Rip that's just crazy. Ball's not working out for Celtics and it's not because of anything you just mentioned. It's because of money and wanting to play in the LA market. He's not working out for Celtics because other teams are a better fit for him. While I agree playing for a winning team has it's benefits, it has a ton of negatives. Playing time is by far and away the most important thing in a players development. Your chances for winning rookie of the year are way lower. That's an award that can mean 10s of millions in endorsement deals. From a money point of view getting more minutes and having the team handed to you is better. Being seen as the face of the franchise will get you a bunch more endorsement deals and money. That's an agents real job to make his players the most money. Get them to a place were they get that big second contract. Look at Brown, his earning potential would be higher if he was on a team like the Lakers last year. He's going into his second year after having a good rookie season and has almost no chance of starting and playing 35 minutes a night. There's also the benefit of a young player developing in a lower stress environment and learning to carry a team. Look at Paul Pierce. Playing on all those crappy teams didn't ruin him, it gave him the expiernce to lead a team. Then when they added more talent, he easily became a team player along with Allen and KG. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 14, 2017 14:01:39 GMT -5
I kept waiting for the endearing part of Lonzo Ball's story... that part was basically a PSA on how not to parent.  |
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Jun 14, 2017 14:29:59 GMT -5
An agent can't "not allow it". The player has to agree to it. Were talking about very young people here, they hire agents because they know the game better and how the system works. They don't have to agree to it, they just have to listen to the guys they hired to act in there best interest. No. Anyone who has an advisor needs to take with them, not blindly do what they say. If he's telling you not to try to be the number 1 pick, which means less money and less of a chance to win, you ask why. If the answer is because he doesn't think you're good enough to play there, then it's up to you whether you accept that or reject it. Even at 19. And these kids have families and coaches to talk to too, by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 14, 2017 14:37:52 GMT -5
Were talking about very young people here, they hire agents because they know the game better and how the system works. They don't have to agree to it, they just have to listen to the guys they hired to act in there best interest. No. Anyone who has an advisor needs to take with them, not blindly do what they say. If he's telling you not to try to be the number 1 pick, which means less money and less of a chance to win, you ask why. If the answer is because he doesn't think you're good enough to play there, then it's up to you whether you accept that or reject it. Even at 19. And these kids have families and coaches to talk to too, by the way. Who said it was because they didn't think the player was good enough? I clearly made the points an agent might not think Boston wasn't a good fit and not one of them was about a player not being good enough. It's mostly about playing time, chance to start and money. |
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Jun 14, 2017 14:58:27 GMT -5
No. Anyone who has an advisor needs to take with them, not blindly do what they say. If he's telling you not to try to be the number 1 pick, which means less money and less of a chance to win, you ask why. If the answer is because he doesn't think you're good enough to play there, then it's up to you whether you accept that or reject it. Even at 19. And these kids have families and coaches to talk to too, by the way. Who said it was because they didn't think the player was good enough? I clearly made the points an agent might not think Boston wasn't a good fit and not one of them was about a player not being good enough. It's mostly about playing time, chance to start and money. Getting playing time is about whether you are good enough to earn it. And you were referencing the stories that said agents didn't want their players going to Boston, which was all about there being too much talent in Boston for the players to get PT. Those reports were referring to picks later on, but you implied it might be why Jackson wasn't working out here. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 14, 2017 15:18:11 GMT -5
Like I said, I can understand a lessor player but if I'm sitting there number one and someone doesn't want me to draft them because we are too talented and too good for them then I don't want that player.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 14, 2017 15:22:54 GMT -5
Who said it was because they didn't think the player was good enough? I clearly made the points an agent might not think Boston wasn't a good fit and not one of them was about a player not being good enough. It's mostly about playing time, chance to start and money. Getting playing time is about whether you are good enough to earn it. And you were referencing the stories that said agents didn't want their players going to Boston, which was all about there being too much talent in Boston for the players to get PT. Those reports were referring to picks later on, but you implied it might be why Jackson wasn't working out here. You're wrong those reports were about the #1 pick of the Celtics and agents comments about there players working out for Celtics. I didn't imply that's why Jackson cancled his workout, I said it could be the reason, but most likely it was something else . Not many rookies are good enough to earn minutes on one of the better teams in the league, that has great depth. That's the whole point. It's not the agent saying your not good enough to go there. It's just Boston is stacked with talent. If no trade is made Fultz has to battle Bradley, Thomas, Smart and Rozier for minutes. That's not a knock on Fultz, it's just Boston has 4 legit good young NBA players at guard. Not many teams have that type of depth and Boston is the only one in lottery. That's why we all assume a guard needs to be traded if we pick Fultz. If you're Jackson's agent you could look at Crowder and Brown as legit obstacles to Jackson getting a lot of playing time. Like I said before I think Jackson works out for Celtics, it just makes sense. If he doesn't then all those rumors about agents not wanting to steer there players to Boston were 100% true. I mean we already know Ball won't workout for Celtics, so it wasn't all BS. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 14, 2017 15:35:56 GMT -5
Fords draft tiers have been posted. 2 Superstars (Fultz and Ball) and 8 more All Stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 14, 2017 16:02:01 GMT -5
Last years draft for example only had one tier one player Simmons and one tier 2 guy in Ingram. That's how stacked this draft is compared to last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Jun 14, 2017 20:31:23 GMT -5
According to Chad Ford, the same guy who has been caught altering his mock drafts and player rankings post-draft. Lol ESPN Insider.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 14, 2017 23:14:45 GMT -5
So he does that once and everything he says from that point on (even if it agrees with what many have been saying for over a year) is rubbish?
The grudge holding against this guy is absurd.
Knowing what we know about ESPN, would it shock any of us to find out that they pushed him to alter his mocks? Does that ruin his credibility for ever?
And, again, he's not saying anything that we haven't been reading fron other sources for months.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 15, 2017 0:00:08 GMT -5
According to Chad Ford, the same guy who has been caught altering his mock drafts and player rankings post-draft. Lol ESPN Insider. Tell me whats wrong with his tier system? It's a poll of GM and front office guys from NBA teams. The results over the years have been great. So when he lists Ball in top tier you should respect that. He's never miseed on a tier one guy. Frankly Chad Fords draft coverage is one of the best out there. I also really like draft express and nbadraft.net. When you add the 3 together you get a great picture of the whole draft. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 15, 2017 6:01:47 GMT -5
Unfortunately as a "journalist" once you put your credibility in question then yes it does taint everything else you do. Even if he was pressured by ESPN executives that doesn't make it any better on his part.
That being said, I believe his tier 1 guys since he started that system are as follows (list is mostly off of memory so may not be compete):
Anthony Davis
John Wall
Karl Anthony Towns
Kyrie Irving
Blake Griffin
Ben Simmons
Andrew Wiggins
Jabari Parker
Joel Embiid
Blake Griffin
Also of Note the terrible 2013 draft had no Tier 1 or Tier 2 prospects listed and this has played out that way.
I disagree with Ball being Tier 1 and his ranking in Tier 1 was far from unanimous but the track record is hard to argue with. Wiggins is the only player who hasn't been injured that's fallen short and he's a damn good player and may still get there. Fultz was a unanimous Tier 1 future super star selection so that says a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Jun 15, 2017 7:41:33 GMT -5
Yes. Of course yes. How many times need a writer deceive his readership before he is dismissed? He falls in the same general category as Ron Borges, the plagiarist and John Tomase, the fake news guy: Not Worth Reading, and, Always Worthy of Scorn. He dishonored his profession, his craft. Lol. What "do we know" about ESPN that would make this claim remotely plausible? Yes. Of course yes. Great. Maybe we could cite some of these other sources? . |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 15, 2017 7:48:37 GMT -5
There has been a lot of juice about Blake Griffin around Boston the past day about him coming to Boston.
Either way, I see the Celtics getting one of Hayward or Griffin. Someone could convince me that Griffin is the better player when healthy overall too and he actually fills more of a need on this team (big man that can rebound).
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 15, 2017 10:45:27 GMT -5
At a minimum, we know ESPN has to approve everything they put out online. So we know they, at least, endorsed what he did (if not drove the move themselves).
And, again, what he did doesn't have anything to do with the info he recieves and sources he has. It was a silly decision to do something that nobody really cared about.
No other sources put together thsee tiers (a system that is used by many teams during the draft) in that format. One could easily take the system and apply it to other rankings and get value out of it if you prefer. The concept is useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 15, 2017 12:55:04 GMT -5
Yes. Of course yes. How many times need a writer deceive his readership before he is dismissed? He falls in the same general category as Ron Borges, the plagiarist and John Tomase, the fake news guy: Not Worth Reading, and, Always Worthy of Scorn. He dishonored his profession, his craft. Lol. What "do we know" about ESPN that would make this claim remotely plausible? Yes. Of course yes. Great. Maybe we could cite some of these other sources? . If you need us to provide you other sources, then you shouldn't be saying anything. They all say the same thing. Are you really questioning if this is a great draft? What sources do you use that are so much better than Ford? Here's the thing about Ford he didn't make up fake news or copy other people's work. The only thing he did was change his mock after the draft so it looked better years ago. It wasn't even right after draft if I remember right, it was years later. So the information he gave you was 100% correct. There's a massive difference. I wouldn't listen to a word he said if he was just making stuff up or stealing other peoples work. I could really care less what his mock looks like after the draft. The only thing I care about is his inside information leading up to the draft. It's what sets him a part from draftexpress and nbadraft.net. They don't give you info like Fultz is #1 on Celtics board, but they are still looking at Ball, Fox, Tatum and Jackson. They don't give you tier rankings that from 2009 have been one of the best draft tools available. You can hate Ford all you want. I really don't care. Thing is if your going to question his information, show me some proof the information is bad. Not he changed a mock after the draft years later, so everything he says is garbage. That's just not true, his tier rankings prove just that. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 15, 2017 13:21:18 GMT -5
Per Ford, the majority of Balls votes were tier 1. It seems everyone hates Ball now because of his father. I get it, the guy is a tool. He wants to become the Kardashians and I wouldn't be surprised if they get a TV show. At the same time, the father doesn't seem stupid. It's like people calling out Kris Jenner for how she used her kids to make money. Thing is she has made her kids a ton of money.
The thing is Ball doesn't seem to be like his father. Just a young adult that has listened to his father's plan for his whole life and it sure does seem like it's coming true. I like the player. What he did at UCLA was special. The way he ran the offense and made the players around him better. Very few players have his passing ability. His floor vision is off the charts. He's like Rondo, but he can shoot the ball and finish at the rim at a very high level. Sure his shot is funky, but it goes in. He made so many deep 3s it was crazy. He also has to work on his D, but he has the tools. If we had pick #2 and weren't going to trade down, I take Ball. A passer like that running Stevens offense would be deadly.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 15, 2017 14:13:15 GMT -5
It's going to be interesting if Ball can shoot off his left shoulder like he does in the NBA. He can hit open 3s but can he drive right and finish and can he have any type of mid- range game.
|
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Jun 15, 2017 19:21:09 GMT -5
I don't "need" other sources. I suggested the previous poster use other sources that don't "shiny' their work after the fact. Was my comment that unclear? I didn't question if it was a great draft. I didn't involve other "sources" into the discussion, other than if, as the poster claimed, they all 'say the same thing" why not use a different one? Was my writing that unclear? You never read archived material? It's "news" when one reads it, right? I don't "hate" Ford. But thank you for your permission. And it seems you do care, at least somewhat. Thing is I didn't "question his information." I questioned his character as a writer. Was my comment that unclear? ditto . |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 15, 2017 23:05:00 GMT -5
I don't "need" other sources. I suggested the previous poster use other sources that don't "shiny' their work after the fact. Was my comment that unclear? I didn't question if it was a great draft. I didn't involve other "sources" into the discussion, other than if, as the poster claimed, they all 'say the same thing" why not use a different one? Was my writing that unclear? You never read archived material? It's "news" when one reads it, right? I don't "hate" Ford. But thank you for your permission. And it seems you do care, at least somewhat. Thing is I didn't "question his information." I questioned his character as a writer. Was my comment that unclear? ditto . Read your comment yesterday at 9:31pm. Right after I made a comment about Ford. If that's not questioning the draft, then yes what you are saying isn't very clear. Texas said that because your comment appears to question the strength of the draft, because it came from Ford, so it can't be true. Hence the all sources say the same thing. Everyone see your comment as questioning the draft, but you. Archived material is not news, it's information. When you watch the news do they talk about our founding fathers or current events? Yes your comment was very unclear. You didn't just call him a hack. You said it in a way that makes it seem you don't believe the information, because it came from Ford. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 15, 2017 23:33:46 GMT -5
www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/19641152/latest-nba-draft-intel-boston-celtics-losGet ready to lose your minds. Another GM that says he has picked Dannys brain for years believes Jackson is the player Danny wants. Uses examples of past draft picks like Rondo, Bradley, Smart and Brown as proof of the type of players Danny likes. Jackson is the best of them. Jackson agent basically says while they are in contact with Boston, he might not work out there. With other sources saying it's because they think the Lakers and Sixers are better fits. He can get more playing time. Those teams don't have Crowder and Brown. A Celtic source says they will still take Jackson if he doesn't workout, if they think he is there player. Says we have a week to make that decision. All of a sudden a bunch of things are starting to make sense. Like Fultz working out for Kings. Things might not be as clear cut as people think. Some trade rummors don't seem so crazy anymore. If your the Celtics and you are going to pass on Fultz, you have to trade down. Get extra value and still get your player. Now this could be nothing, but it does make sense. Jackson is Dannys type of player. Like I said before he sure looks to be the best two way player in draft. If Danny has a type of player Jackson is it. Things are starting to heat up.
|
|
|
|
Post by ryusagara on Jun 16, 2017 0:09:47 GMT -5
Josh Jackson to me only makes sense if we trade down, and pick up a haul from whatever team we trade down to. Even then though there's always a chance the Lakers take him, because I really don't think they like Ball as much as most think they do. Say Philly trades with us and grab Fultz, then the Lakes take JJ. That scenario would be the absolute worst case. Even if we get a haul from Philly. Although I should say the Celtics keeping the pick and selecting JJ or ball is worse in my eyes, but I just don't see those things happening. Also this time of year we always hear fake rumors, even if those rumors have sources. Misinformation runs rampant this time of year.
|
|
|
