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 umassgrad2005 on Jun 23, 2017 13:33:00 GMT -5
There IS value in late 1st rounders and why they aren't just expendable assets. You need to post that on LeBrons twitter account because he doesn't know that. He seems to think young players are the devil or something. It's so funny, LeBron is the reason he needs to keep changing teams every 3 years. You know he forced that Korver trade with all his crying to the media. He always complains about depth, but won't ever let a team develop it. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 23, 2017 13:39:04 GMT -5
If he's #1 on your board and you couldn't trade down, they would have taken him #1. For example what if the Sixers were like we will trade for #1, but we are only giving you two second round picks. We like the top 3 equally, but wouldn't mind first choice. Danny did the smart thing and picked up another huge asset, while getting his guy. Still think he would have taken him #1 if things worked out differently. You only gamble on not getting your #1 player if you get a big return. While I like what Danny did, if he hadn't made the pre-draft trade, he could've taken Fultz and then made a deal with whomever took Tatum. He got more for it going the way he did but, if you truly would've taken him 1, then getting him plus ANYTHING is better than just getting him. The only caveat to this would be if Tatum and Fultz were THAT far apart (and there is no indication that is true). The question was would Danny really have taken Tatum #1. I think so. I get what your saying. Trying to maximize value, which is what he did. The thing is what if those trades weren't there, would he take Tatum #1? That's the question. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 13:41:32 GMT -5
Fair.
I guess I don't see a scenario where a team that took Tatum (bc he was BPA) wouldn't give you SOMETHING along with Tatum for Fultz.
Probably too Devil's Advocate but even a 2nd rounder plus Tatum is better than just Tatum.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 23, 2017 13:48:00 GMT -5
One thing that is just really interesting. Harry Giles per report's his medicals were better than expected, but his agent didn't share the information will all teams. Only a few teams that he wanted him to play for. One of those teams were the Kings. Who per one report were going to take him at #10 if they couldn't trade down. They got picks 15 and 20 and still got there guy at 20.
I think that says a lot about Giles future. He was willing to turn down more money for a great fit. Thinking about his second contract, not his first one. Can't wait to see if that was the right play. The Kings are a great fit though.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 23, 2017 13:49:45 GMT -5
Fair. I guess I don't see a scenario where a team that took Tatum (bc he was BPA) wouldn't give you SOMETHING along with Tatum for Fultz. Probably too Devil's Advocate but even a 2nd rounder plus Tatum is better than just Tatum. Not if you thought there was even a small chance you don't get him. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 13:56:10 GMT -5
And I don't think there is even a small chance that anyone who would've taken Tatum wouldn't have happily done a deal (and the requisite hat switch) to get Fultz.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 14:04:25 GMT -5
There IS value in late 1st rounders and why they aren't just expendable assets. You need to post that on LeBrons twitter account because he doesn't know that. He seems to think young players are the devil or something. It's so funny, LeBron is the reason he needs to keep changing teams every 3 years. You know he forced that Korver trade with all his crying to the media. He always complains about depth, but won't ever let a team develop it. I think that's where people were on giving up a late 1st rounder to get Ibaka. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 23, 2017 14:08:46 GMT -5
And I don't think there is even a small chance that anyone who would've taken Tatum wouldn't have happily done a deal (and the requisite hat switch) to get Fultz. They talked about this on ESPN last night. There were two groups of people when it came to the top 5 in this draft. Those that thought Fultz was clearly #1 and those that thought 1-5 were very close and had other players at #1. You are the first group and your thinking is all other teams shared your opinion. I just don't think that's true. For a second assume Fultz wasn't #1 on all teams boards, because he clearly wasn't. It changes everything and makes what your saying not true. He wasn't on Celtics board. I don't think he was #1 on Lakers board. Like I said before I think Lakers take Ball over Fultz. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 23, 2017 14:12:41 GMT -5
You need to post that on LeBrons twitter account because he doesn't know that. He seems to think young players are the devil or something. It's so funny, LeBron is the reason he needs to keep changing teams every 3 years. You know he forced that Korver trade with all his crying to the media. He always complains about depth, but won't ever let a team develop it. I think that's where people were on giving up a late 1st rounder to get Ibaka. Come on, where not the Cavs. We could have traded a #1 pick and never missed it. We could have 4 of them next year. Can you see us adding 4 rookies next year on top of all the young player we already have? We need to trade some of those picks, we can't make all of them. Either package them for players, to move up in draft or push them into the future. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 23, 2017 14:25:08 GMT -5
Regarding Allen and Bird there are two things I can say about taking them. One, is that right now guard may seem like the deepest position but if they trade two of Bradley, Smart, Rozier and Jackson that is no longer the case. And really they just need to trade one to open a spot for one of those guys.
The other is maybe one will agree to do the Nader thing and either play in the D League or over-seas
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 14:35:10 GMT -5
I think that's where people were on giving up a late 1st rounder to get Ibaka. Come on, where not the Cavs. We could have traded a #1 pick and never missed it. We could have 4 of them next year. Can you see us adding 4 rookies next year on top of all the young player we already have? We need to trade some of those picks, we can't make all of them. Either package them for players, to move up in draft or push them into the future. Wasn't intending to drum up whether we should have traded for him but, instead, someone was downplaying the value of late 1sts (I'm now guessing it may have been you in this context but I didn't know when I first made the post). Just more that player X wasn't going to change the ultimate destiny of team A and a late 1st rounder could probably be put to better use. Depending on what happens next, I'd much rather give up a late 1st as part of a package for George (where it can now, along with other moves, move the needle) than give it for 1/2 season of Ibaka. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 23, 2017 15:33:23 GMT -5
Regarding Allen and Bird there are two things I can say about taking them. One, is that right now guard may seem like the deepest position but if they trade two of Bradley, Smart, Rozier and Jackson that is no longer the case. And really they just need to trade one to open a spot for one of those guys. The other is maybe one will agree to do the Nader thing and either play in the D League or over-seas Allen is an undersized pg, that does have a huge 6'9'' wingspan. He got a good amount of steals and can shoot the 3 ball. His production was very low and he's not a good passer. I don't think he's near the player Jackson is and Jackson never got off the bench for us. If you wanted a bottom of bench guy to develop I would have went with Kobi Simmons upside. Not the worst pick, but still a head scratcher. If he was a few inches taller he might make a good 3 and D SG. Bird is even worse. He can shoot the 3, but thats it. He doesn't defend. Know as a penetrator, but doesn't get to the FT line. He is an NBA level athlete, but he lacks skills after 4 years in College. Has good size for his position, but only one skill. If he could defend he might be a useful player, but he can't. His steal numbers are pathetic for a good athlete. Now I get your point about a trade, thing is we can use front court help right now. There is no if we do move on from a player. After doing research I don't have a huge problem with the Allen pick. I can see his role in the NBA. Not Bird though. Oliver, Peters or Motley made a lot more sense. I would rather resign James Young over Bird for example if you wanted SG depth. I don't see one advantage Bird has over Young. They are both only shooters, with good athletic abilities. Thing is Young has age on his side and elite size, with his crazy wingspan. Young also put up much better numbers as one of the youngest freshman in his lone College season compared to Birds senior year. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 23, 2017 15:45:18 GMT -5
Come on, where not the Cavs. We could have traded a #1 pick and never missed it. We could have 4 of them next year. Can you see us adding 4 rookies next year on top of all the young player we already have? We need to trade some of those picks, we can't make all of them. Either package them for players, to move up in draft or push them into the future. Wasn't intending to drum up whether we should have traded for him but, instead, someone was downplaying the value of late 1sts (I'm now guessing it may have been you in this context but I didn't know when I first made the post). Just more that player X wasn't going to change the ultimate destiny of team A and a late 1st rounder could probably be put to better use. Depending on what happens next, I'd much rather give up a late 1st as part of a package for George (where it can now, along with other moves, move the needle) than give it for 1/2 season of Ibaka. In the end it didn't matter, we made the ECF. Would have been a different story if Rondo didn't go down and our rebounding caused us to lose in the first round to the Bulls. I might be alone in this thinking, but making the ECF is going to really help us get a max free agent. With LeBron getting older and a free agent after next year. The Celtics look the the clear front runner to be the #1 team in the East in the near future. Add a Hayward or Griffin and it might be next year. That's a major selling point to those two players. To make sure we were seen as that team I would have gladly given up a late first round pick. It's a mute point now, we got the best of both worlds. Made the ECF and still have the pick. We also have Rozzier, so it worked out really well for us. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 16:07:57 GMT -5
True indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jun 23, 2017 17:30:33 GMT -5
Very sorry, but I do not know what ECF means. I think you guys are thinking more in line now of what I was thinking a few pages back. Lots of good young players on the roster now. Possibly 4 more coming on board with this year's draft results and still one BIG pile of quality possibilities coming over the next 3 yrs. How much luxury tax do you want to pay? I stumbled on using salary cap as a term and not total salary management. How many max contracts do you want to hand out to get to the goal of the title? Who do you give the max numbers out to? I have seen Thomas's name thrown out there for a max. I understand the need for a draw for a top of the line guy who puts you over the top coming because Thomas is here. Is it worth it to have Thomas in 4 yrs coming off the bench making max money? WOW! not sure. Signing George or Hayward, is that a big enough draw for THE guy to come? WOW! With what you have now, plus 4 guys pushing hard from the draft and overseas, plus 2 top 5 guys next year and 5 more picks over the 2 yrs after that creates quite a crunch. 26 guys for 12 spots on active roster. Does not include signing a hayward or George. One massive puzzle. A great one to have but very tough to choose the right answer. I have no idea of what the answer is? But, I will throw out a puzzle. Brown ,crowder, green, tatum, the smu guy, and I give you Hayward. You get to keep 3 maybe 4 , who do you keep? and why? You lose one maybe two very good players.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 23, 2017 17:57:03 GMT -5
Eastern Conference Finals
We have had the debate on Thomas, you know my opinion.
As to your puzzle of Brown, Crowder, Tatum, Ojeleye, Green and Hayward. I guess I'm confused. You could have all 6 players. If Green will sign for Vet minium again after you get Hayward. I think you're looking at it, like they are all small forwards, so you can only keep a set amount. Green is a SG. I also expect those guys to play a ton at PF. I wouldn't be shocked if Tatum for example started at PF next year. If a guy is moved I would expect Crowder is that guy and Green might not be back.
The draft picks will all not be picked and on our team. They will make a trade for other players, to move up in draft or trade them for future picks.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 23, 2017 20:35:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jun 24, 2017 7:27:04 GMT -5
CBS sports gives the Celtic's a D for grade on the draft. Their point is that Danny should have taken a known all star for the 3rd pick. And fultz should have been the pick and not tatum. Good point on butler, a known young proven star player versus a future maybe star. Maybe Danny's bluff got called and he lost out on that hand. Not sure butler would get us by the cav's. As far as fultz goes, umass said there was a couple of camps on who the best players where. and Danny thought Tatum was better. In my mind is fultz a winner? I know he played on a bad team with a bad coach, but early in the season before some of the injuries etc. Washington lost to Yale. I would think that if fultz is as good as everyone thinks fultz should have beaten yale almost by himself. Tough call. time will tell as to how things will work out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Canseco on Jun 24, 2017 7:47:15 GMT -5
I think that's where people were on giving up a late 1st rounder to get Ibaka. Come on, where not the Cavs. We could have traded a #1 pick and never missed it. We could have 4 of them next year. Can you see us adding 4 rookies next year on top of all the young player we already have? We need to trade some of those picks, we can't make all of them. Either package them for players, to move up in draft or push them into the future. I'm not big on trading for... well, most players who are available in a trade. The C's need to hold onto most, if not all, of those picks and look at the big picture. For the next couple of years, even still, the East goes through Cleveland. Ainge needs to continue his construction of tremendous depth with players who have long term upside (a la last year's two Euro 1st round picks) all while maintaining a VERY competitive current roster. As far as the 2018 draft goes, you make your picks. The (potentially) two lottery picks should be BPA, but the others should be foreign youngsters who can be stashed for 2-3 years. Those rookie contracts make the impending big money guys (Thomas, Bradley, and potentially Hayward) affordable. By the time some of those deals expire, it will be time to lock up our recent/future draft picks to big deals. To me, that is the best way to maintain a rock solid, almost Spurs-like consistency over the long haul. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 24, 2017 7:52:14 GMT -5
CBS sports gives the Celtic's a D for grade on the draft. Their point is that Danny should have taken a known all star for the 3rd pick. And fultz should have been the pick and not tatum. Good point on butler, a known young proven star player versus a future maybe star. Maybe Danny's bluff got called and he lost out on that hand. Not sure butler would get us by the cav's. As far as fultz goes, umass said there was a couple of camps on who the best players where. and Danny thought Tatum was better. In my mind is fultz a winner? I know he played on a bad team with a bad coach, but early in the season before some of the injuries etc. Washington lost to Yale. I would think that if fultz is as good as everyone thinks fultz should have beaten yale almost by himself. Tough call. time will tell as to how things will work out. Trading the 3rd pick for an all-star in this case Jimmy Butler would be ridiculously stupid of Ainge. It's a move most GMs would make which makes me thank God that Danny is the GM of this team. If you traded for Butler then you cannot add a max free agent without gutting your roster via trade. So basically that move looks like this: Tatum and max free agent (Hayward or Griffin) for Butler and lesser free agent (probably KO coming back). Edit: to be clear I know you were not suggesting they should have. I was replying to the CBS guy not you. |
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jun 24, 2017 10:39:21 GMT -5
I think with the Laker's trade for Lopez plus Ball and other acquisitions, it is unlikely that the 2018 Laker pick will be utilized. Russell, off last year, was not a big loss.
I don't have a feeling on the Nets but any assumption that we will have 2 picks next year in the top 5 is pie in the sky.
To make a big jump beyond being a 'scrappy team', we are in desperate need of a Hayward type.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 24, 2017 11:56:21 GMT -5
Come on, where not the Cavs. We could have traded a #1 pick and never missed it. We could have 4 of them next year. Can you see us adding 4 rookies next year on top of all the young player we already have? We need to trade some of those picks, we can't make all of them. Either package them for players, to move up in draft or push them into the future. I'm not big on trading for... well, most players who are available in a trade. The C's need to hold onto most, if not all, of those picks and look at the big picture. For the next couple of years, even still, the East goes through Cleveland. Ainge needs to continue his construction of tremendous depth with players who have long term upside (a la last year's two Euro 1st round picks) all while maintaining a VERY competitive current roster. As far as the 2018 draft goes, you make your picks. The (potentially) two lottery picks should be BPA, but the others should be foreign youngsters who can be stashed for 2-3 years. Those rookie contracts make the impending big money guys (Thomas, Bradley, and potentially Hayward) affordable. By the time some of those deals expire, it will be time to lock up our recent/future draft picks to big deals. To me, that is the best way to maintain a rock solid, almost Spurs-like consistency over the long haul. After free agency Danny won't have to worry about cap space anymore. I would expect trades to balance out roster if they get Hayward. They call him trader Danny for a reason. I really hate your idea of locking a team into a plan when you just don't have enough information to know if that's what they should do. For one you have no clue what type of international players will be there next and the year after that. You have no idea what type of trade they could make or what players they could get. There's a reason I gave a bunch of different ways they can go and didn't try to lock the team into a certain path. For one Danny is not predictable and second we don't have enough information on what he should do to even make an informed guess. You really can't even start talking about who to draft till you know where we pick and the players in the draft. If there is some very good international guys there I have no problem taking one. I just want to maximize the value of the pick. That could be taking best player available, an international guy, trading for a Vet, trading the pick for a future pick or using the picks to move up in draft and get the elite guy we want. I want to add that when the Spurs got Parker and Manu international guys were undervalued. In some ways they are now overvalued as draft and stash guys. It's been like 15 years since the Spurs got a great player from the international pool. Also like half the international guys want to come over and play now. Zizic for example wanted to come over last year, but agreed to stay overseas for one year. He was never going to stay overseas for 2-3 years. If the reports are right that's why Yabu went so high, because he agreed to stay overseas for two years if he had to. Thing is he wanted to come over last year. Top international guys like Nurkic, Jokic, and Zubac all wanted to play in NBA right away. I told everyone to not assume Fultz would be the pick. The reason was simple Danny is very unpredictable and doesn't value players the way the main stream media does. We have seen it for years now. I get what your saying and it makes sense. Spread out the assets. The thing is that can be done without taking international guys. You can simple trade a pick for a future pick. You can trade Vets for future picks. I certainly would part with picks for the right players like the Unicorn. If the next Sullinger or Rondo falls in draft I sure hope Danny picks them over an international guy. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 24, 2017 12:09:11 GMT -5
CBS sports gives the Celtic's a D for grade on the draft. Their point is that Danny should have taken a known all star for the 3rd pick. And fultz should have been the pick and not tatum. Good point on butler, a known young proven star player versus a future maybe star. Maybe Danny's bluff got called and he lost out on that hand. Not sure butler would get us by the cav's. As far as fultz goes, umass said there was a couple of camps on who the best players where. and Danny thought Tatum was better. In my mind is fultz a winner? I know he played on a bad team with a bad coach, but early in the season before some of the injuries etc. Washington lost to Yale. I would think that if fultz is as good as everyone thinks fultz should have beaten yale almost by himself. Tough call. time will tell as to how things will work out. Trading the 3rd pick for an all-star in this case Jimmy Butler would be ridiculously stupid of Ainge. It's a move most GMs would make which makes me thank God that Danny is the GM of this team. If you traded for Butler then you cannot add a max free agent without gutting your roster via trade. So basically that move looks like this: Tatum and max free agent (Hayward or Griffin) for Butler and lesser free agent (probably KO coming back). Edit: to be clear I know you were not suggesting they should have. I was replying to the CBS guy not you. I think the Bulls were stupid. We all knew Danny wasn't going to trade for him till after free agency. He's been planning this for years. If you couldn't get a max guy or lets say you got Griffin, Danny might then have looked at trading for Butler. Not for this years pick, but he could have given them a better package then they received. They got LaVine, Dunn and the value of the 23rd pick, thats the difference in moving from 16 to 7. Nevermind LaVine is a restricted free agent after this year. It was just a horrible trade. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 24, 2017 12:24:43 GMT -5
I think with the Laker's trade for Lopez plus Ball and other acquisitions, it is unlikely that the 2018 Laker pick will be utilized. Russell, off last year, was not a big loss. I don't have a feeling on the Nets but any assumption that we will have 2 picks next year in the top 5 is pie in the sky. To make a big jump beyond being a 'scrappy team', we are in desperate need of a Hayward type. Let's see what they do going forward. Russell was there top returning scorer, so it's a loss. If everything goes right we most likely don't get the pick, but it's not a given that happens. Is Ball legit from day 1? That's the biggest factor. Does Ingram improve? He was brutal last year. One injury and that pick is in play. Can they get some good Vets on one year deals. The West is going to be brutal if the Clips and Jazz keep there free agents. Both Minny and Portland have improved. That conference could really help us. Even the bottom teams all made nice moves like the Kings, Suns and Mavs. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 24, 2017 14:39:23 GMT -5
I think with the Laker's trade for Lopez plus Ball and other acquisitions, it is unlikely that the 2018 Laker pick will be utilized. Russell, off last year, was not a big loss. I don't have a feeling on the Nets but any assumption that we will have 2 picks next year in the top 5 is pie in the sky. To make a big jump beyond being a 'scrappy team', we are in desperate need of a Hayward type. As it stands now the Lakers still suck bad. Lopez was part of the Nets last year... he's not someone to worry about. |
|
|
