Draft day musing on Danny Ainge

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
I think it's too early to be upset the Celtics didn't trade for Jimmy Butler.

I'm probably as higher on Butler than average, but I'm still happy they passed.

In my mind, I think it means Ainge feels good about his chances to land Hayward.

They're already trying to thread the needle to get to max cap space, trading for Butler before free agency would've made the eye of that needle even smaller.

If Ainge doesn't land Hayward, or another expensive impact player with his cap space, then I might be upset about the missed opportunity with Butler. But if Ainge feels he has a legit shot at his free agent target, I think it would've been a mistake to trade assets for a slightly better guy in Butler.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
I agree with this
He got some good value with later picks, and had decent results but is there a single home run?
Smart. Good, great defensively. Hugely flawed.
Brown hugely flawed

Tatum good at everything great at little to nothing.
Who did he draft high who was right and took a leap, even with good coaches.



It could be. But you guys all encourage yourselves to get more and more optimistic and slam people who raise questions.
He's fine but his ceiling requires what huge defensive improvement, huge shooting improvement or both.
You can only draft from the players available.

Who are the guys from the Smart/Brown drafts that you would've picked that have showed you more and don't have flaws.

And as everyone else has said, Rondo is an obvious home run. Al Jefferson probably is at least close.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
Does anyone know why the Celts didn't take Bell at 37? He went the next pick to the Warriors.
From what I saw during Oregon's run in the NCAA tournament, Bell's ability to rebound and block shots would have helped the Celtics.
I know they liked and selected Ojeleye, but it seems like Bell may have a better skill set at defense and rebounding, but I could be wrong.
Because they preferred to draft a player who can shoot. Bell is an undersized power forward who cannot shoot. His ceiling is Leon Powe. I like Leon Powe, and drafting Bell would've been a perfectly good pick, but drafting an athletic wing who can shoot threes and finish at the rim instead seems perfectly reasonable. The Celtics clearly have minimal interest in bigs that can rebound but don't provide offensive spacing, so people should probably stop wondering why they don't draft or sign such players.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,089
Because they preferred to draft a player who can shoot. Bell is an undersized power forward who cannot shoot. His ceiling is Leon Powe. I like Leon Powe, and drafting Bell would've been a perfectly good pick, but drafting an athletic wing who can shoot threes and finish at the rim instead seems perfectly reasonable. The Celtics clearly have minimal interest in bigs that can rebound but don't provide offensive spacing, so people should probably stop wondering why they don't draft or sign such players.
Anyone know why Ainge didn't trade #3 for DeAndre Jordan?

*ducks*
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
You can only draft from the players available.

Who are the guys from the Smart/Brown drafts that you would've picked that have showed you more and don't have flaws.

And as everyone else has said, Rondo is an obvious home run. Al Jefferson probably is at least close.
I didn't say bad picks. I just said he's picked well lower but less clear higher. I wouldn't die on my ainge is a better scout than everyone else hill is all.

Look I think he got fair value, with really only one bidder. He's good at deals. He didn't lose. He had a weak hand. I just struggle with the idea you shouldn't question ainge on this move because he's so great at the draft.

With brown I will just shut up. He's better than I thought and in a great position to maximize his talent maybe he'll shock but I don't see what you guys are so excited about.
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
4,810
On Ainge being an average drafter: Honestly, I thought he was a below-average drafter before that thread here showing that he had done an average job and much of the problem was that the Celtics just didn't have very high picks. It's hard to snag a franchise-changing talent at positions 17+.

Still, this last draft felt kind of "meh." We traded down to get the #4 player at #3, a high floor guy who probably has a lower ceiling than the other top four picks. This was the best play for a superstar? Semi was good but Jordan Bell went next and Golden State got him, which has lately been an above-average drafter I think (note: HRB did point out Bell was red-flagged for foot issues, but in the second round, maybe you take a chance on someone like that expecting the return for a #37 isn't normally going to be too great anyway?). I actually kind of liked Kadeem at #53 -- maybe we can afford to keep a defensive specialist with expanded rosters -- but not sure about Bird.

I keep thinking that there was something on Fultz's medicals that prompted the Celtics to take a pass, and it will emerge now that he's with the Sixers. As someone joked before, the Sixers had to give Fultz a physical to make sure he had a broken foot.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
Still, this last draft felt kind of "meh." We traded down to get the #4 player at #3, a high floor guy who probably has a lower ceiling than the other top four picks.
I don't think is the right way to describe Tatum. Go to scoring is one of the hardest things to find in the NBA - give me someone who can do that over an pure athlete on the wing who can't shoot. If they were not going to take Tatum at #3, I'd rather have seen them take Fox (despite not being a good fit with the current roster) or Isaac.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,491
Just got back from Earth-3 and in that universe, the Cs took Jordan Bell and the Ws paid $3M to draft Ojeleye, and wouldn't you know it but there's a long thread on SonsofWesGardner asking why Danny didn't take Ojeleye.
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
4,810
I think "meh" was probably not best word to use, as it connotes a bit of "yuk." Probably better to just say this seem like an okay draft, considering we started with the #1 pick -- not great, not bad. My earlier post sounds a bit dour, sorry. I am excited to see what Tatum can do as a scorer. A free throw percentage of 85% is practically elite, and that bodes well. I've seen his footwork in highlight reels, and it's impressive. Plus when you see him go up against Isaac, you think he's more polished because he's older. But I found it surprising he's almost half a year younger -- so he's quite poised for his age. So it's easy to see the glass as half full too. I just hope Markelle doesn't tear it up in summer league or Danny's gonna be on the hot seat.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I think "meh" was probably not best word to use, as it connotes a bit of "yuk." Probably better to just say this seem like an okay draft, considering we started with the #1 pick -- not great, not bad. My earlier post sounds a bit dour, sorry. I am excited to see what Tatum can do as a scorer. A free throw percentage of 85% is practically elite, and that bodes well. I've seen his footwork in highlight reels, and it's impressive. Plus when you see him go up against Isaac, you think he's more polished because he's older. But I found it surprising he's almost half a year younger -- so he's quite poised for his age. So it's easy to see the glass as half full too. I just hope Markelle doesn't tear it up in summer league or Danny's gonna be on the hot seat.
Tatum's mechanics are that of a kid who can easily and I'm guessing fairly quickly become a very good spot-up 3-point shooter. The FT% numbers pass on the analytics side as well. He is made to be a starting 4 in today's game.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,403
around the way
I think "meh" was probably not best word to use, as it connotes a bit of "yuk." Probably better to just say this seem like an okay draft, considering we started with the #1 pick -- not great, not bad. My earlier post sounds a bit dour, sorry. I am excited to see what Tatum can do as a scorer. A free throw percentage of 85% is practically elite, and that bodes well. I've seen his footwork in highlight reels, and it's impressive. Plus when you see him go up against Isaac, you think he's more polished because he's older. But I found it surprising he's almost half a year younger -- so he's quite poised for his age. So it's easy to see the glass as half full too. I just hope Markelle doesn't tear it up in summer league or Danny's gonna be on the hot seat.
Danny won't be on the hot seat based on a summer league performance. Danny will be on the hot seat if Fultz dominates, Tatum is meh, and we don't get a high pick from the trade down. As he should. But that's almost two years from now, before we know all of this. Man has stones regardless.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Still, this last draft felt kind of "meh." We traded down to get the #4 player at #3, a high floor guy who probably has a lower ceiling than the other top four picks. This was the best play for a superstar?
Yeah I'm worried about Fultz, but who knows about ceilings? To me the CEILING on this guy:






Is this guy:


 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I'm not a Tatum fan, but I don't grant that he's low ceiling. Paul Pierce really does seem like a plausible outcome. I preferred Isaac pretty strong cause he seems like higher floor and higher ceiling, but I don't think Tatum has no chance of stardom or anything.

Jackson was the high floor , low ceiling guy in that spot I think (I know this is opposite of conventional wisdom on him).

Edit - reversed the description of Jackson initially.
 
Last edited:

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,152
San Francisco
I still don't 'get' Jackson as a top prospect. Definitely seems like the lowst cieling of those three. More and more it seems like guys who can't shoot are being pushed out of the game, and Jackson has the most to prove in that area.
 

Royal Reader

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2005
2,275
UK
@ Bowiac: I thought the conventional wisdom was exactly what you said? Jackson's the elite athlete who can't shoot. If he improves his shot to be a real weapon, that seems like a guy who can do it all. On the other hand if he can't shoot, then he can't be on the floor at the end of games, which I think qualifies you as a bust if you're going top-5.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
@ Bowiac: I thought the conventional wisdom was exactly what you said? Jackson's the elite athlete who can't shoot. If he improves his shot to be a real weapon, that seems like a guy who can do it all. On the other hand if he can't shoot, then he can't be on the floor at the end of games, which I think qualifies you as a bust if you're going top-5.
Whoops. I reversed that. I meant to write high floor, low ceiling. I will edit.

I am basically skeptical that even if Jackson miraculously learns to shoot, that he has that much in the way of shot-creation ability, which limits his upside. Also the shooting is a big if. Guys with that poor a FT% are huge longshots to become even passable shooters, let alone plus guys. He's a great athlete, and should be a good defender, but he's got less than idea measurements there, so maybe not an elite guy. I don't see the realistic star upside with him, although the athleticism and defense should make him a rotation guy regardless.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,742
Rotten Apple
Seems like the biggest sticking point with JJ was his demeanor while Tatum's biggest asset was also his demeanor. They like Tatum as a fit to what this team wants to be and hated JJ stiffing the visit. They want guys who buy in to the team concept and are open to coaching and organizational disciple. I get why they loved Tatum in that regard. Still not totally sure why they soured so much on Fultz.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,491
I am interested in seeing how Jackson's athleticism translates to the NBA. Yes he has world class athleticism. But his athleticism seems to be more quickness than explosiveness or strength and it will interesting to see how he handles playing guys who are stronger or more explosive night in, night out.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,742
Rotten Apple
I am interested in seeing how Jackson's athleticism translates to the NBA. Yes he has world class athleticism. But his athleticism seems to be more quickness than explosiveness or strength and it will interesting to see how he handles playing guys who are stronger or more explosive night in, night out.
He's not just an athlete, his motor is extraordinary. Guys with his level of intensity usually find a way to make themselves useful in some way.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Seems like the biggest sticking point with JJ was his demeanor while Tatum's biggest asset was also his demeanor. They like Tatum as a fit to what this team wants to be and hated JJ stiffing the visit. They want guys who buy in to the team concept and are open to coaching and organizational disciple. I get why they loved Tatum in that regard. Still not totally sure why they soured so much on Fultz.
I don't think they did sour on Fultz. I think they just don't see the difference between the two players being greater than a 2018 lottery pick. I also suspect that, given their history, they were being serious when they said they had Tatum rated higher.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
He's not just an athlete, his motor is extraordinary. Guys with his level of intensity usually find a way to make themselves useful in some way.
Agreed. My comp for him is rich man's Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. He's better than that, although Jackson was like 18 months older than MKG in college.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
SiriusXM NBA Radio host opined earlier that Ainge went with Tatum BECAUSE of the Jackson incident--that he made an emotional decision.

Then again, an ESPN guy said that the Celtics drafted Tatum to fill the same role they drafted Brown for last year and Ainge must not like Brown.

I guess what I'm saying is it's a pretty low bar to be an NBA expert.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,742
Rotten Apple
Agreed. My comp for him is rich man's Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. He's better than that, although Jackson was like 18 months older than MKG in college.
I think that's a fair comp. JJ will have a much better highlight reel, though.
Tatum and Brown should play well quite together, better than Brown and JJ would likely co-exist. That's a bad take.
As far as passing on Ball and Fultz, it would be a minor tragedy if IT's hip is so bad that losing out on the opportunity to draft and salary control primary ball handlers of such high quality that it sets the franchise back for a long time. Then again, there are so many PGs out there now perhaps that's part of Tatum's value and Danny's thinking. Either way, Danny's decision making became a big vote of confidence for IT.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
Then again, there are so many PGs out there now perhaps that's part of Tatum's value and Danny's thinking.
I think this is part of it for sure. The league is flush with PG's right now. What the league is lacking is scoring from the wing position. If the need arises, finding a capable PG should not be that difficult.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,754
Pittsburgh, PA
Seems like the biggest sticking point with JJ was his demeanor while Tatum's biggest asset was also his demeanor. They like Tatum as a fit to what this team wants to be and hated JJ stiffing the visit. They want guys who buy in to the team concept and are open to coaching and organizational disciple. I get why they loved Tatum in that regard. Still not totally sure why they soured so much on Fultz.
On the bolded - ya think?

As to Fultz, they may not have "soured" on him so much as decided that he wasn't "a likely high lottery pick" better than Tatum. Ainge really got an incredible deal there, and unless Fultz becomes a superstar I think that will become the consensus soon enough. If we end up with two top-5 picks next year in a loaded draft, Nip will have to reboot the server after all the fapping posts.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,536
Things like this can't be said enough on sports message boards, it is really amazing that we regularly say (insert player) sucks. I do it, but I know I mean it as "among professional athletes". Joe Rogan was talking about a grappler one time and he said something like "I've been training a long time, I've choked some good people. Against Marcelo Garcia, I might as well have never done jiu jitsu in my life."
I bet there are people in his hometown who say that Mario Mendoza is the best athlete they've ever seen. This is the guy who is the measuring stick for offensive ineptitude, but to people in his hometown, he's probably the greatest.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
On the bolded - ya think?

As to Fultz, they may not have "soured" on him so much as decided that he wasn't "a likely high lottery pick" better than Tatum. Ainge really got an incredible deal there, and unless Fultz becomes a superstar I think that will become the consensus soon enough. If we end up with two top-5 picks next year in a loaded draft, Nip will have to reboot the server after all the fapping posts.
It's not an incredible deal. It's a good deal. It's a fair deal given his opinions.
We don't know how hear guys will pan out and frankly no one does.
This was a good to excellent draft a few short days and weeks ago. Now all Celtics fans are saying oh maybe it wasn't.
I suspect Tatum will be a good maybe very good player. But he's got one plausible elite skill, shooting. And that is projection in itself. He going to work hard and try hard but I doubt he's going to make himself flexible or able to stay in front of fast guys.

My issue with the move is you gave up the best chance of a star you've had. Number 1 in a good draft and came away with an extra pick (but can't be a number one) and a player with a small chance of being a true star.
The Celtics seem to have everything but their franchise two way guy. Maybe it comes later but I would not give up a high upside offensive weapon who has the tools to be okay to good defensively who really could be a star to ... max IT4?

Anyway whatever I am trying to judge on decision not results. Because the results have a huge luck component. The decision is fine. He got back likely slightly more than average value for the difference from pick 1 to 3.
However, almost universally consensus number one picks in a good draft are really bad. Guards even more the case. I don't know we have seen enough from ainge to say his scouting is better than everyone else.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
I don't think they did sour on Fultz. I think they just don't see the difference between the two players being greater than a 2018 lottery pick. I also suspect that, given their history, they were being serious when they said they had Tatum rated higher.
On the bolded - ya think?

As to Fultz, they may not have "soured" on him so much as decided that he wasn't "a likely high lottery pick" better than Tatum. Ainge really got an incredible deal there, and unless Fultz becomes a superstar I think that will become the consensus soon enough. If we end up with two top-5 picks next year in a loaded draft, Nip will have to reboot the server after all the fapping posts.
"Soured" is definitely the wrong word. But given how much weight Ainge puts on personality inventories, competitiveness, and work ethic, I think Fultz fell out of favor as they dug into his intangibles. The detail about how "losses don't seem to bother him" from the Washington reporter that came out before the trade seems like the sort of thing to make Ainge re-evaluate a guy.

Ainge clearly values winning as part of his development formula. I think the pre-Garnett results soured Ainge on the "lose to build" method. This time around he has maximized current opportunities to build a competitive team while stockpiling assets. He now has a roster that demands Smart, Brown, and Tatum raise their game and be professional in their approach. As opposed to Philly, who are just stockpiling the best possible players, Ainge seems to be stockpiling the guys he thinks are winners and hoping they maximize their talent.

Because he has a current "contender", Ainge also had to consider fit a bit more than he would have if the team was bad and the plan was to continue to be bad. In that case, pairing Fultz and IT would have been a no-brainer. But because there are few backcourt roles open - unless there are trade(s) to thin the roster - the fit for a guard wasn't there, while there is a need for wing scorers. If he thinks Tatum is a better fit now, a better fit as a complementary piece / apprentice on a winning team over the next four years, and has a chance to be the best player in the draft if he develops fully, then passing over Fultz for intangible and fit reasons is defensible on its own.

I agree that if they end up with #1 overall (from Brooklyn) and #2 overall (from LAL via Philadelphia) next season, not only will Nip need new servers, but every Celtics fan will need new pants. That is worth the risk, and justifies any reason used to pass on Fultz.
 

Kid T

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
793
San Francisco
What's the one thing all superstars can do? Score!

What is Jacksons biggest weakness? a jumper

As for Isaac...

While he can do a little bit of everything, Isaac lacks a degree of skill to play on the wing full-time, like some may project him. He stays in his lane, but doesn't have the most natural feel for the game, and isn't very advanced out of ball-screens at this stage of his career. He also still has to prove himself as a shooter from NBA range. He is a lifetime 31.7% from three and shot only 16.7% from three in March and 21.4% from three in December. Simply put, Isaac projects more as a hyper-elite role-playing starter who can switch everything, defend the opponent's best perimeter player, protect the rim off the ball, defensive rebound, likely make enough jumpers to keep the defense honest, and play within himself in the half court. - Source: http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Jonathan-Isaac-90052/ ©DraftExpress
Maybe Ainge had to squint too hard to see him developing into a transcendent player.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
My issue with the move is you gave up the best chance of a star you've had.
Best chance yet. There's still a bunch of bullets in that gun my friend. The non-zero chance of 1 & 2 next year, or a top 3 in 18 and another top 3 in 19 (not to mention Memphis completely falling apart between now an then) gives the Celtics a few more bites at that star apple. And yes, there's some risk of it being nowhere near that good, but the odds are in our favor.

There is a good possibility that FEDS becomes the next big thing in the NBA; that's a lot of raw talent on one roster. However, it's worth noting that none of them has played a winning season of basketball, at any level, for more than a year. Can you get used to losing? Does a "winning culture" matter? Does veteran leadership matter? It'll be fascinating seeing Philly answer those questions.

Meanwhile, the Celtics are probably favored to make it back to the ECF, added the #3 pick in the draft (from a college program noted for its commitment to winning), and who knows what next. Plus, they might get 2 or 3 more bites at the star apple in the draft, if they don't cash in those chips on a superstar in trade and a veteran FA signing of consequence (who is only coming here because the team is ready to "win now").

Completely opposite approaches. It really is fascinating.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
So Ibaka kinda?
Longer and maybe even bouncier. But that's a pretty apt comp for Isaac's ceiling. Like I said in the Paul George thread, he'd be perfect for the Celtics if they were adding George and Hayward, but outside that I'm happy with the Tatum result.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,742
Rotten Apple
The biggest thing that stuck out to me during Danny's presser after the draft was the question of how different teams approached the Celtics with trade proposals knowing that Boston had many draft picks in the bank to play with. Danny publicly agreed with that, implying that trade offers coming in were kind of ridiculous and the trade offers he made were never going to be good enough since the other team would keep angling for more picks. It's a first world type problem but I think that was Danny's way of saying that he would have liked to have done more and be even bolder (which I would read as Porzingis) but the asking prices got too crazy.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Doesn't the huge number of draft picks in the cupboard mean you take the shot at the superstar vs get another (worse) chance later.

The odds of getting a superstar are massively higher at 1 than anywhere else and he gave up a 1 for a trade he can't get another.

You are never guaranteed a number 1. All the shit given the sixers they got 1 and that was squeaky bum time. And that whole time sixers got shot for not landing a star.
Look I don't agree with the scouting but assuming the scouting it's totally reasonable decision and trade.

You have to REALLY believe you or yours are the smartest in the NBA and I think that's a lot to take on faith myself
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
LS, I don't understand your posts on this. I thought Fultz was the pick, but I can see people having a different point of view. Lots of people think Ball is the best player. If Ainge thinks Tatum is actually the better prospect, why wouldn't he trade out? Who do you think Ainge should have taken with the first pick assuming Fultz wasn't #1 on his board? I mean, the Celtics traded from 1 to 3 before and it turned out they got the best player in the draft at 3.

Edit: And again, it's quite conceivable without the trade the draft would have gone Tatum/Ball/Fultz.

Edit2: I'm pretty sure Ainge made that trade with the STIPULATION the Sixers were taking Fultz.
 
Last edited:

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
Doesn't the huge number of draft picks in the cupboard mean you take the shot at the superstar vs get another (worse) chance later.

The odds of getting a superstar are massively higher at 1 than anywhere else and he gave up a 1 for a trade he can't get another.
Reading this makes it sound like taking Tatum at 1 would have been smarter than taking Tatum at 3 and getting another valuable asset. Danny clearly took the player he thinks is best.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,491
I think people are overthinking it. From what I understand, Fultz struggled in college against better athletes at PG (i.e., Allen) and figured if he had to go with the above-average athlete who can score, he'd go with the 6'8" guy who has room to get bigger rather than the 6'4" guy, particularly when his best player is 5'8".

I.e., Fultz is going to be good but probably not generational; Ball is going to be good but probably not generational; Jackson is going to be good but probably not generational; and Tatum is going to be good but probably not generational.

So let's get another asset to get the guy who fits our team better.

One thing about Tatum that most fans don't give enough credence to. The run and jump and dunk thing is great to watch as a fan but the footwork that Tatum has mastered is an incredibly important part of being a successful basketball player.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Reading this makes it sound like taking Tatum at 1 would have been smarter than taking Tatum at 3 and getting another valuable asset. Danny clearly took the player he thinks is best.
I don't feel this is clear at all or else he wouldn't have spent 12 hours in the air flying cross country and back to meet with Jackson two days before the draft.

If you take Danny at his word he stated following the Philly trade that they hadn't decided on a target and that there were a couple guys that they liked a lot. His actions from that point up until the draft seem to co firm this.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I think people are overthinking it. From what I understand, Fultz struggled in college against better athletes at PG (i.e., Allen) and figured if he had to go with the above-average athlete who can score, he'd go with the 6'8" guy who has room to get bigger rather than the 6'4" guy, particularly when his best player is 5'8".

I.e., Fultz is going to be good but probably not generational; Ball is going to be good but probably not generational; Jackson is going to be good but probably not generational; and Tatum is going to be good but probably not generational.

So let's get another asset to get the guy who fits our team better.

One thing about Tatum that most fans don't give enough credence to. The run and jump and dunk thing is great to watch as a fan but the footwork that Tatum has mastered is an incredibly important part of being a successful basketball player.
Excellent post. Agreed on all counts with exception to his one game struggle against Allen when the entire defense was shading him because he had no help.

While Fultz may have been the consensus #1 he certainly was not the consensus to be head and shoulders above Jackson, Ball, and Tatum.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
I don't feel this is clear at all or else he wouldn't have spent 12 hours in the air flying cross country and back to meet with Jackson two days before the draft.

If you take Danny at his word he stated following the Philly trade that they hadn't decided on a target and that there were a couple guys that they liked a lot. His actions from that point up until the draft seem to co firm this.
I agree with this. You didn't know for sure who the Lakers were taking either. It's unclear from his behavior tatum was his guy. Just that fultz wasn't clearly above the others.

I disagree HRB that fultz was clearly consensually a tier above.
I read far far too much on the draft this year. Every single guy I read had fultz tier 1, some had fultz and ball tier one and a couple had ball 1 fultz 2. Many had ball lower. Tatum was as high as 2 and as low as 10-12. But only a handful (and none I can think of) had Tatum or Isaac or any others on the same tier as fultz.
A couple had Jackson as a third tier one but I don't remember anyone not lowering their opinions after closer tape watching.

Look again I think the trade made sense. The price was fair. Of course there aren't many fair trades a for a number 1 pick. You usually have to overpay.
I'm just surprised.

The fultz is a loser stuff is dumb. The team was bad and the conference was good. He put up a hell of a line anyway! In his past he won everywhere including with the us junior team!
The kid has been through a lot and his mum taught him to stay level and calm. I think that's great. You got to shout and jump to be competitive now?

Anyway it will be an interesting rest of the off-season.
 

Kid T

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
793
San Francisco
The fultz is a loser stuff is dumb. The team was bad and the conference was good. He put up a hell of a line anyway! In his past he won everywhere including with the us junior team!
The kid has been through a lot and his mum taught him to stay level and calm. I think that's great. You got to shout and jump to be competitive now?

I don't think you have to jump and shout, but I recall reading how Ainge/Stevens loved Crowder because he always seemed to have a chip on his shoulder. You see this all the time with Patriot players also. While I am sure Fultz didn't enjoy losing, maybe they were looking for someone who had a little more edge to them.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Some random thoughts on this topic:

- DA knows a hell of a lot more about these guys and the game than anyone here cares to pretend they do. Also, the same applies to the draft pundits and media that espouse on tiers and rankings for clicks. If he made the decision that Fultz wasn't that* much ahead of Tatum, well, then I disagree with those that don't think he deserves the benefit of he doubt. (I say this as someone who wanted them to take Fultz).

- I think it's kind of silly to think that since they were flying out to work out JJ that means he's spinning Tatum as his top player. As someone else stated, it's due diligence and we had no confirmation that LA was taking Ball, whom the Celtics likely had little interest in. If the Pacers or Bulls or Knicks called the Lakers and said 'take Tatum and we'll build a trade around him for our star', then the Celtics would have been left either taking a guy they hadn't worked out or Issac.

- my only criticism of DA on this trade is that I think he pulled the trigger too soon. Had he waited a few days, he'd have had that in his pocket for KP. That being said, it seems like Phil Jackson was blowing smoke anyway. The #1 protections are disappointing but the chances they play out are small to begin with.

- for those citing the Memphis pick, again, its heavily protected the next two drafts. It'd be great if they crap out this season but if that happens we're not paying off for a couple years. I don't see much reason to think they'll be dropping to bottom 8 his season so I'd temper expectations on that one.

- the only draft pick DA has made that I'll give him legit crap about is Olynyk, when the Greek Freak was there. Not for assessment but because at the time he should have been swinging for the fences. Otherwise I think it's kind of crazy to criticize him. Sure, if you want to call him average, knock yourself out. But for where he's drafted I think it's tough to second guess the picks he's made or say he can't judge young talent. (I'll also add that perhaps Doc had something to do with their development, but that's speculation).
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
- the only draft pick DA has made that I'll give him legit crap about is Olynyk, when the Greek Freak was there. Not for assessment but because at the time he should have been swinging for the fences. Otherwise I think it's kind of crazy to criticize him. Sure, if you want to call him average, knock yourself out. But for where he's drafted I think it's tough to second guess the picks he's made or say he can't judge young talent. (I'll also add that perhaps Doc had something to do with their development, but that's speculation).
I agree, and it surprises me that many are not willing to criticize him for this one. I think Danny generally leans towards being a low-risk, low-reward kind of drafter (hence the Olynyk pick) and the situation he was in in 2013 called for the opposite approach.

To be fair, there was another swing for the fences type option in that draft who was taken right around the same time as Giannis and has not turned out nearly as well - Dennis Schroeder.

Overall, I pretty much agree that Danny has been an average drafter, not a great one or a poor one.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,465
Somewhere
I'm not really a second-guesser by nature, but there have been two Celtics picks that I've second guessed at the time they were made:

J.R. Giddens (I wanted Chalmers)
Joe Forte (I wanted Tinsley)
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
On Josh Jackson's ceiling: since Kawhi Leonard i the poster child for someone becoming a better shooter in the pros, comparing their college FT% might be useful:

* Kawhi Leonard: 72.6%
* Josh Jackson: 56.6%
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
Listening to draft recaps on radio it really seems a bunch of ESPN guys and gals REALLY want Ainge to have missed this, because they rave about Jackson.