I think HRB's point makes sense post trade.
pre-trade, if a team wants to work you out to pick you number 1 overall? You're going to take your guarantee at 4 instead? That's multiple millions of dollars on the rookie deal, and number 1 picks often get endorsements right away. I'm not arguing that the reasons aren't correct, but I think it's bad business.
HRB's overarching point is right but the execution sucked and certainly stonewalling the Celtics while they had #1 seems weird.
The same exact thing happened with Sixers and Porzingis 2 years ago. Sixers had 3 and Knicks had 4, just like Boston and Phoenix. Porzingis and his people simply refused Philly's overtures and he ended up going #4. He didn't play any additional games, like canceling a workout midway on a 6 hour flight.
And how did that work out for Porzingis? Two years later, his GM is trashing him in the media, his current team is a dumpster fire, and the team he wanted no part of is now has one of the best young rosters in the league. It's not always a slam dunk case that it appears to be. What happens if Hayward stays in Utah, Crowder gets traded, etc.? And there is absolutely a benefit to playing for Stevens vs. other coaches. The next contract is 4 years away - plenty of time for situations to change.
In the end, Jackson and Armstrong are free to handle however they see fit. I understand the larger rationale but thought the workout cancellation on a flight was pretty weak.