|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 29, 2017 11:58:41 GMT -5
Meanwhile, Boston Herald's Mark Murphy just tweeted that Pritchard's last demand was both of LAL/SAC/PHI pick and BRK pick along with starters. If that's true . . . dear God no.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by wcp3 on Jun 29, 2017 12:01:48 GMT -5
Meanwhile, Boston Herald's Mark Murphy just tweeted that Pritchard's last demand was both of LAL/SAC/PHI pick and BRK pick along with starters. If that's true . . . dear God no. Fortunately, it's not true. |
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 3,048
|
Post by mobaz on Jun 29, 2017 12:02:55 GMT -5
Meanwhile, Boston Herald's Mark Murphy just tweeted that Pritchard's last demand was both of LAL/SAC/PHI pick and BRK pick along with starters. If that's true . . . dear God no. NOPE. But really it's a Brooklyn pick higher than what we've already heard, assuming Bradley and Crowder are the starters. Agree with most folks, no on Bk pick/JB/Tatum. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 29, 2017 12:07:58 GMT -5
It does highlight how a vague tweet (or even article) can make it seem like more is going on.
- Is Boston "in position" to sign Hayward and trade for George? Of course. They have Max Room and assets to make Indy happy. Does that mean it's anywhere close to happening, though?
- Is it possible that the could convince George to sign an extension after a trade and that the conditions of that might depend on Hayward signing? Sure.
- Don't remember the exact wording of Wojo's article but I don't recall it saying much more than Boston was trying (and has the ability).
They are "in position" to do those things. A word here. A phrasing there. Makes all the difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 29, 2017 12:59:45 GMT -5
I want to add that in Ford's tier ranking he doesn't go into details about it. Like the Celtics a stacked team. All the tier one players didn't fit a need. There were no centers or power forwards. So the next step for a team is to rank those players. Also need doesn't always supercede talent. For example you could have Tatum and Brown at SF, but if the next LeBron comes along in draft you take him. Not all tier 1 players are the same. Players like Davis and KAT were clearly above players like Parker and Wiggins for example. I fear you're being too limiting in your definition of need: - One could argue size and/or length is ALWAYS a need in the NBA (put it this way, if KAT and DAVIS were 6-5, what would their evaluation look like) - Athleticism could be a need - Needs could also be defined by what's happening down the road (ie preparing for another player's pending FA status). EVERY team has needs. Even Golden State. I fear you are trying to really stretch the definition of need so you're right. Per that article the teams biggest needs ranked the players. We did need size, we still do. Brown doesn't give us size or length. Sure a team could want to get more athletic, do you really think that was one of our biggest needs? A bunch of experts ranked our needs and that wasn't listed. When we drafred Brown we had Crowder signed for 4 more years. Looking down the road, you would have went sg or pg as Bradley, Thomas and Smart are going to be free agents. Davis and Kat projections don't change. They were elite across the board. They had all the tools to be elite. Had great production. Were the leaders on a couple of great College teams. Were two way players that could score and play D. NBA ready type players, that were very skilled. If you're trying to say that Brown is a smaller version of those two players you are dead wrong. He has great upside do to his physical tools, but he is raw. He lacks the production and skill those two players had. He didn't lead his College teams to a bunch of wins. Heck at draft time people questioned if he loved the game. Mainly because of how smart he is, yet he has a very low basketball IQ. It took Davis and KAT almost no time to become NBA superstars. Brown is a long-term project. If he does become a star, I fell he will take the Hayward route. Gets better each year and reaches that level in his 5-7 year. When his skill level and basketball IQ will match his elite physical tools. Danny took Brown for one reason. He thought he had the higgest ceiling in the draft at pick #3. It's the same reason he took Rozier while having Thomas and Smart. Same reason he took Jackson when we had Rozier, Smart and Thomas. Best player available. That's what you should do in NBA draft, take best player available over need. Workout the fit down the road, just get the best talent. |
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jun 29, 2017 13:09:59 GMT -5
Umass you are putting a lot of faith in Ford and his tier concept. Interesting tool that appears to have some sound principles. Example, numbers say 16 gm's think fultz was the number one player on the board. 14 do not. Does that make him the number one pick because the numbers are averaged together? Danny, Doc and Greg P all seem different than the norm gm. I would think their top picks are different than the herd. if you ask the top 10 gm's in the draft who is the top players in order, does that mean they will tell Ford the truth? The successful gm's and teams go with their system and it works. they do not go with the average of what the other guys say. Bill B with the pats uses his own system As long as YOUR system works such as Bill B and Greg P I guess you continue to use it. Writers are still guessing who the best players are and what tier they belong in. CBS gave the Celtic's a D because they did not trade for butler or that they traded the first pick for the 3rd. Taking fultz was a given to CBS not tatum. I guess those two transactions did not meet Danny's tier and rating level's. Michael J was taken 3rd in the draft. That seemed to work out pretty good. Paul P was drafted 11. Every GM and team has a matrix of skills and personal qualities that make up their rating systems. Russell was rated the second best player in the draft 2 years ago. It would be interesting to see if magic were running the lakers back then, is that who he would have taken. Based on the fact he moved him this year because of personal quality skills . The draft is a gamble. By all indications Danny got the guy he wanted with his pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 29, 2017 13:35:47 GMT -5
Well the results of Fords tier system speak for themselves. All the tier one guys have gone on to become all stars or should be down the road. It nails the bad drafts by not giving any players tier 1 rankings. I mainly use it to judge the strength of the draft and it works great for that. This is a tool designed for fans, not teams. To give us a general idea of what teams are thinking.
Go back like 20 pages when we won draft lottery. I was the only person on board saying Fultz wasn't a lock. I got a lot of nasty replies for those comments. Fords rankings are a big reason I felt that way. His comments about how a team had Tatum ranked #1 on there board, even though most other sites had him rated in the 5 to 7. His comments about how a bunch of teams didn't see a big difference in the top 5 of this draft. Add that to Danny just doesn't care about what anyone else thinks.
Also you are getting the tier system wrong. They don't vote on who the number one player is, only which tier he is in. Fultz for example got 30 votes for tier one. Every team believed he was a tier 1 player. That doesn't mean every team had him #1 on there board. Ball got the majority of votes for tier one and Jackson, Tatum and Fox all got tier 1 votes, while falling into tier 2. That's why teams have no problem ranking the players by tiers. It doesn't give the other teams a look at who certain teams have #1 on there board.
We know the Celtics rated Fultz tier 1 and also rated Tatum tier 1. They had Tatum number 1 on there board.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 29, 2017 13:41:50 GMT -5
First of all, you said in your post above exactly why Brown might not be a good example at all. Because it's possible Danny had him in a Tier above Ingram (which wouldn't debunk the "need" idea AT ALL). Then, of course, you chose to ignore that for the remainder of the thought.
Second, I find it truly ironic that a guy has now twice accused me of interpreting information to try and be right when you've literally ignored 2 very explicit sentences out of an article by a guy we both defend. All to defend your position. I'm not saying it's so. I'm taking Ford's words and trying to make sense of what we've seen. That is all. Again, it's possible Danny isn't even a "tier GM", which makes trying to figure out how Brown fits in utterly useless. Speaking of which . . .
I shouldn't be surprised at this, though. As I've read your posts in all other threads, this is a recurring trend. You refuse to admit other possibilities. Insist you KNOW what happened and insult/condescend along the way. Having a discussion with you is . . . utterly useless.
So thank you for providing much needed clarity on the dynamic here. Not sure why it took so long to sink in but it'll prove helpful going forward.
JMei, no need to reprimand on my end. My side of this stops now.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 29, 2017 13:48:35 GMT -5
Woj bomb... chris paul is being traded to the Rockets.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 29, 2017 14:10:36 GMT -5
If Danny had Brown rated as a tier 2 guy, how does that not debunk that he took him because of need? It means he took him based on talent. One thing that is very clear with Danny drafting is that need doesn't come into play. I don't care what system he uses that seems crystal clear. He takes best player available. It's that simple. The fact he took Smart, Rozier and Jackson. Then Brown, Tatum and Ojeleye proves just that.
I like Fords tier rankings, the results are great. I use them to judge the talent level in draft and how teams have players ranked. As the votes are from the teams. When you get into how you use that information to make picks, that's his opinion. I don't care about that one bit. Only his insider information. Any system that says an NBA team should draft based on need is flawed! It's NBA draft 101 that you draft the best player available regardless of need! If you think they should draft based on need all the power to you. History says that's the worst thing you could do. That's why I trust Danny, because he doesn't do stupid things like draft for need!
|
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jun 29, 2017 15:12:53 GMT -5
Do you guys start a new thread on Saturday when FA starts? Or do we keep umass filling up pages on this one.? For me I am done with this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 29, 2017 15:21:55 GMT -5
This is the offseason thread so no we don't start a new one. You can simply not read certain posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jun 29, 2017 16:03:19 GMT -5
This is the offseason thread so no we don't start a new one. You can simply not read certain posts. OK roger that. I will continue to read all the posts and understand I am not going to get the last word or be right. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 29, 2017 16:06:30 GMT -5
Per the article, the need rule only applies within a tier. IF Brown was tier 2 with Ingram (as you offered), then Brown was taken bc he was the last tier 2 guy.
That, in that example, would NOT debunk the need component of the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 29, 2017 17:00:10 GMT -5
I don't care about Ford's or anyone else's opinion about how to use the tier system. The basic concept is always take a guy from the higgest tier. I believe that 100%. How you rank guys in the same tier is a matter of opinion. If all teams used the system, they wouldn't all rank players in the tier the same way. My point from the start is that teams aren't going to pick one player over another based just on need. Maybe if they had two players ranked exactly the same, but that almost never happens. All guys in a certain tier aren't all rated the same, which is what I think you believe. That all tier 1 players are equal and need is how teams pick within that tier. That's what Ford does for Mocks and we all know how they come out. He does that because there are so many stupid GMs that draft for need. Even when history tells us that's just stupid. Look at the Ainge line of front office guys. The GM of the Suns. He took best player available with Jackson, even though he doesn't fill a big need. He also plays the same position of one of there best young players in Warren. If he went off need he would have taken Fox, which is what a ton of Mocks had them doing.
As to Brown it debunks that he was picked based off need, which was my whole point. Danny doesn't draft based off need. Very few good GMs do. Sometimes they just get lucky. Think Warriors trading for 38th pick and Bell sitting there. He was the best player on the board in my opinion and he filled a big need. Or Hornets getting Monk at 11. The Kings passed on Monk, because they have Hield. That's stupid and might come back to haunt them, unless Giles can stay healthy. Same thing with Portland, they didn't need Monk. So they took Collins. That could be a big mistake down the road. The biggest draft blunders of all time were the results of teams drafting for need over best player available. Think Pistons taking Darko over Melo and Wade.
So when someone says teams should pick players by need. I don't need to debunk it. History has already done that.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 29, 2017 18:05:00 GMT -5
Zizic is in Boston so Visa issues are mute
|
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Jun 29, 2017 18:54:56 GMT -5
Zizic is in Boston so Visa issues are mute Oh, no. Is it laryngitis, or something more serious? |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 29, 2017 19:27:18 GMT -5
Olynyk received qualifying offer today.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 29, 2017 19:29:07 GMT -5
Olynyk received qualifying offer today. I'm sure if he accepted it they could trade him easily but he won't accept it anyways |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 29, 2017 19:42:27 GMT -5
True. I would imagine the only other "danger" is that he signs an offer sheet before they Hayward (Griffin? Others?) decision. Would imagine they walk away in that case.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 29, 2017 19:55:19 GMT -5
I can't even imagine one multi year deal I would want them to match for KO... he's fine on a rookie wage scale or a one year deal
|
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jun 30, 2017 6:41:50 GMT -5
Do you think the Celtic's make any moves this weekend? it looks like the Hayward situation will play out to Monday or Tuesday. What happens if the Celtic's get neither George or Hayward?
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 30, 2017 6:50:28 GMT -5
Don't think they'll do anything until they hear about Hayward which might be by the 4th. So far, I've read nothing on a visit for Blake (I read he has 1 with Phoenix) or any other FA. Supposedly they have "contingencies" (per that Woj report). I have zero idea what that means. Gotta believe something will happen as this is the last time theyll have cap space unless they start dumping vets. Using space to renegotiate and extend IT is probably not ideal right now (unless you're getting a huge discount bc of his injury?  ) |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 30, 2017 6:54:13 GMT -5
I don't think anything will happen this weekend. It is clear they will meet with Hayward and everything else depends on what he says.
Sounds like the asking price for George is ridiculously high per reports but it also makes sense that it would be right now. The Pacers have nothing to lose since the Celtics cannot make a trade for PG or anyone else until after Hayward signs so why not ask for the moon? Low chance Danny caves but maybe he will if he feels he needs PG13 to get Hayward.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 30, 2017 6:55:59 GMT -5
If they don't get Hayward they will try for Griffin and if they don't get either there will be no PG13 trade and they will go with last years squad plus Tatum and sign some other free agents. Like mayve they sign JaMychael Green
|
|
)