Of course. But next years draft is a lot stronger, so while it my not cost quite as much to move up, I don't think it will be cheap.It's a bit of a different thing to move from 5 to 3 as it is to move from 3 to 1.
Of course. But next years draft is a lot stronger, so while it my not cost quite as much to move up, I don't think it will be cheap.It's a bit of a different thing to move from 5 to 3 as it is to move from 3 to 1.
I guess that they can release Larkin as a fourth string point guard would be unnecessary, but keeping Rozier around as the third string point guard seems a waste.Are you going to pony up to sign Smart with Young in the fold? I wouldn’t.
I’m hopeful that Justin Jackson floats down to Boston.Let's talk for a second about the Celtics' own first rounder.
Anyone that people like at that point? Would Grayson Allen, warts and all, make sense there?
I don't know. Despite being lumped together a lot, Smart and Rozier are pretty dissimilar players. And Smart has got to be playing his pricetag down with his lack of scoring. And a lot of what Rozier does better than Smart (eg, score) is less important with Hayward back in the fold.I've been steadfast, much to nighthob's dismay, on Rozier stepping into Smart's role (which will be more limited once Hayward returns) on his rookie deal with the 4th guard being an acquisition of some sort who will be able to then move into Rozier's roles on HIS rookie deal the following year. Those backup minutes have always been a revolving door for Ainge so I could see this happening if the 3 top bigs are gone......I could also see Ainge moving the 5th pick for the 9th to get his guy while rolling over another lottery pick into next year or the following to secure more assets for Brow or whomever.
Here's a breakdown of Young's mechanics (with tips for those who play). He's not changing his mechanics. His low release compensates for lack of strength. It'll be interesting to see if Young has any problems getting his shot off but as the commentator says below, Dame also has a lower-ish release. They are both really wuick which helps a lot (unlike Lonzo, who takes an extra beat to load because of his form).This piece touches on his release, with clips:
https://www.thestepien.com/2017/12/11/can-trae-young-generational-shooter/
He gets it off so quickly, and so effectively off the bounce, that I wouldn't be too concerned with his low release point. Plus, as Zwicker points out in the article, he can do what Tatum did and tweak his mechanics with a shooting coach after the college season ends. His form looks solid enough to me, it's not like it would need major reconstructive surgery to raise his release point a bit. I guess you never know, but it seems to be working out for our guy pretty well.
I don't know. Despite being lumped together a lot, Smart and Rozier are pretty dissimilar players. And Smart has got to be playing his pricetag down with his lack of scoring. And a lot of what Rozier does better than Smart (eg, score) is less important with Hayward back in the fold.
No doubt Ainge has a hard cap on what he would be willing to offer Smart to extend him. But how many teams are realistically going to exceed that level in free agency? I don't know.
The decision to keep him vs let him go will be up to other teams (if teams are willing to step up and offer more than Ainge's cap, he's gone), but even with that in mind I don't think it is a given that he'll be gone.
The book appears to still be out as to whether Smart has made real shooting strides that were overshadowed by ankle injuries early in the season or if he is the same old bad shooter that has just seen normal variability early in the season.Smart has worked himself into a legitimate point guard who can create offense for others. Rozier is more of an undersized SG. They get lumped together because they are both terrible shooters, decent rebounders, and both good on D, with Smart being more versatile. I think Rozier comes at a cheaper price tag but I also think he'll draw more interest around the league than Smart if he continues to shoot the 3 at a league average clip.
I'm not ready to claim Rozier is actually an average to decent shooter, but he may very well be. He had a pretty bad start to the year but has been pretty good since. This is also his 2nd real season since his rookie year he didn't play much. Over the last 29 games, he's shooting .393/.392/.806 (47-120 from 3). That's easy to live with when over half his shots are from 3. Up to .385/.366/.796 for the year. I always envisioned Rozier as a Lou Williams/Jamal Crawford type with less play making ability, better defense and slightly worse offense. A .400/.370/.800 type who scores 12 a night off the bench mostly shooting 3s.
Although, Marcus Smart has been much better of late too. Over the last 19 games, he's shooting .415/.375/.657. (30/80 from 3). Considering he's only played 37 games, that's more than half his season. In his first 18 games, .265/.244/.764, 21/86 from 3. His season numbers are going to look horrible pretty much regardless of what he does for at least the next 10-15 games. Those first 18 games were just putrid. Overall, he went 48/181 from the field. Unlike Rozier though, Smart has a far bigger sample size and this is his 4th real season of play. It's far harder to ignore those career numbers.
Pretty remarkable even though this is unlikely to hold. Barring something unforeseen, the Celtics are going to have a legitimate shot at threading this needle.PSA:
Far more athletic. FAR.Starting to wonder what Bagley's game is in today's NBA. He's dominating (and awesome) in college but he's doing his damage in a way that will not and does not translate. Beware of Okafar.
Exactly. Totally different body type, lean and quick. And showing a developing perimeter game.Far more athletic. FAR.
If Celtics were rebuilding then I think I'd be all over getting him and figuring it out. But he needs a team to build a system around him? No, thanks. He's not that good.He is a high-usage big man who averages 0.9 blocks and 0.7 made 3s a game. Ben Simmons is the only 6-foot-10-or-taller player in the NBA this season who averages more than 15 points per game and fewer than one block and one made 3. Simmons, like Giannis Antetokounmpo and LeBron James, can handle the ball and make plays out of the pick-and-roll. Bagley is a good ball handler and passer for a guy his size, but he’s never going to be confused with a full-time point guard. Fitting him into an NBA offense wouldn’t be easy.
This is a good point regarding the Celtics, and it's why I think Bamba, as a lower usage guy who can contribute in a bunch of other ways, would be comparatively higher on the Celtics draft board, while Bagley and Ayton might make more sense for your typical lottery team. And while they're not the end-all defensive indicators, Bagley and Ayton's steal and block rates are pretty atrocious for guys with their size and athleticism.Here's a pretty good Tjarks article laying out some of the issues:
https://www.theringer.com/nba/2017/12/18/16790032/marvin-bagley-2018-nba-draft-position
Key point:
If Celtics were rebuilding then I think I'd be all over getting him and figuring it out. But he needs a team to build a system around him? No, thanks. He's not that good.
I watched most of the Texas-KU game and Bamba was an absolute monster on the defensive end, blocking and changing shots while showing the ability to step out and guard the perimeter. He had 22 points, but looked pretty limited on the offensive end. He did hit one 3, and has a pretty good looking stroke and touch around the rim. Needs strength obviously.This is a good point regarding the Celtics, and it's why I think Bamba, as a lower usage guy who can contribute in a bunch of other ways, would be comparatively higher on the Celtics draft board, while Bagley and Ayton might make more sense for your typical lottery team. And while they're not the end-all defensive indicators, Bagley and Ayton's steal and block rates are pretty atrocious for guys with their size and athleticism.
Counterpoint: this a thread on the 2018 NBA Draft, if people want to get into the specific players, I say go nuts.It's really exciting that the Celtics have a good chance at getting the pick, but I wouldn't get too into the specific players, except inasmuch as other teams are getting super excited about them.
I like getting into specific players because I am an NBA fan, not specifically a Celtics fan (and I watch a ton of college basketball, my favorite sport). This is the 2018 NBA Draft thread. If this is not the thread to discuss specific players ("I wouldn't get too into the specific players") then where can I post about that?It's really exciting that the Celtics have a good chance at getting the pick, but I wouldn't get too into the specific players, except inasmuch as other teams are getting super excited about them.
If everyone perceives this draft as being amazing, then the Ainge play would be to try and turn a #3 in this draft into 2 likely top 5s in future drafts, or one #5-6 in 2018, then a future high pick.
If you're trading for the next disgruntled superstar, it's generally better to be offering 2 high lottery picks than one. Obviously this changes if said star is available at the time of the draft and his team wants a specific player, but if it's about keeping options open for later trades, history suggests that it's better to offer multiple high picks rather than one objectively better pick.
Don't forget he traded the #1 pick. Expect less of a haul if we end up at #4.Would be pretty slick if Ainge could trade down a few spots just like last year and pick up another top 5'ish pick in the following year
Jaylen + a Bamba type pick is a really good return for a team trading a stud. That said, I'd expect given where the Celtics are in terms of contention that they'd prefer to use the pick this year if they can't get AD and set up for a title run in the immediate and long term. Certainly drafting Tatum looks like a perfect expression of this.It's really exciting that the Celtics have a good chance at getting the pick, but I wouldn't get too into the specific players, except inasmuch as other teams are getting super excited about them.
If everyone perceives this draft as being amazing, then the Ainge play would be to try and turn a #3 in this draft into 2 likely top 5s in future drafts, or one #5-6 in 2018, then a future high pick.
If you're trading for the next disgruntled superstar, it's generally better to be offering 2 high lottery picks than one. Obviously this changes if said star is available at the time of the draft and his team wants a specific player, but if it's about keeping options open for later trades, history suggests that it's better to offer multiple high picks rather than one objectively better pick.
Oh, we definitely should get into it, it's fun and relevant! But from the Celtics' point of view, a big part of this is figuring out how OTHER teams will see the players in question.Counterpoint: this a thread on the 2018 NBA Draft, if people want to get into the specific players, I say go nuts.
If the draft is perceived as generational, the #4 gains a ton of value.Don't forget he traded the #1 pick. Expect less of a haul if we end up at #4.
Do you have any examples to show a #4 pick (or thereabouts) being traded for multiple top lotto picks in the year after?If the draft is perceived as generational, the #4 gains a ton of value.
There's really no team that has 2 likely top 5's in future drafts. The best match I could find was Philly, who gets SAC's '19 first if this pick conveys to Boston. But that's assuming Philly doesn't improve and stays in the top 5, since they'd be including their '19 or '20 1st to the deal. I don't see that happening. The C's also have two '19 1sts possibly conveying from MEM and LAC. At some point, Danny has to cash in some of these chips for players.It's really exciting that the Celtics have a good chance at getting the pick, but I wouldn't get too into the specific players, except inasmuch as other teams are getting super excited about them.
If everyone perceives this draft as being amazing, then the Ainge play would be to try and turn a #3 in this draft into 2 likely top 5s in future drafts, or one #5-6 in 2018, then a future high pick.
If you're trading for the next disgruntled superstar, it's generally better to be offering 2 high lottery picks than one. Obviously this changes if said star is available at the time of the draft and his team wants a specific player, but if it's about keeping options open for later trades, history suggests that it's better to offer multiple high picks rather than one objectively better pick.
The post was less than 3 hours ago and quoted several times - "If everyone perceives this draft as being amazing, then the Ainge play would be to try and turn a #3 in this draft into 2 likely top 5s in future drafts". Again, 6 months ago the Celtics traded the #1 pick for a trade back + high lotto pick. That's a lot different than the #4 or so pick, even if the draft has some more talent. And again, if someone wants to make the case the Celtics are better off trading the better talent when they are in contention for a championship, that would be helpful to understand. Clearly the Tatum pick was a case where they valued him equally or more and were very comfortable with the likely #1 and #2 picks. Those odds decrease when you're picking #4 and don't know the top 6 picks of the draft and likely can't make a trade until draft night.I don't hink anyone has proposed that they trade out of the generational draft, only that perhaps they trade down a few spots and pick up an asset. Sure, it is unlikely, but they just did something similar 6 months ago, so it is not unprecedented.
Yes. If we assume (seems like a pretty safe assumption) that Tatum was the Celtics' choice all along, then we have (among other people) Lavar Ball and the Lakers to thank for the fact that the Sixers deal was even possible at all.The post was less than 3 hours ago and quoted several times - "If everyone perceives this draft as being amazing, then the Ainge play would be to try and turn a #3 in this draft into 2 likely top 5s in future drafts". Again, 6 months ago the Celtics traded the #1 pick for a trade back + high lotto pick. That's a lot different than the #4 or so pick, even if the draft has some more talent. And again, if someone wants to make the case the Celtics are better off trading the better talent when they are in contention for a championship, that would be helpful to understand. Clearly the Tatum pick was a case where they valued him equally or more and were very comfortable with the likely #1 and #2 picks. Those odds decrease when you're picking #4 and don't know the top 6 picks of the draft and likely can't make a trade until draft night.
The glass half empty view is no blocks for Bagley, 9-23 shooting with 7 turnovers for Young.Just another ho-hum 39/14 for Trae, in conference against #10 TCU. He's gonna lead the country in points and assists as a rookie and put up insane PER and OBPM numbers. He'll have a good case for best freshman season ever for a guard.
Bagley puts up 32 & 21 on 17 shots against FSU.
If scoring 39 on 23 shots with a 2-1 assist-to-turnover is the bad night...The glass half empty view is no blocks for Bagley, 9-23 shooting with 7 turnovers for Young.
To further your point, the only 2019 first rounder currently outstanding in a trade that is not owed to Boston or Philly is Cleveland's top-10 protected 2019 first owed to Atlanta. The only unconditional 2020 first rounder currently outstanding is OKC's owed to Orlando. The only conditional 2018 first rounder that might roll over to 2019 is Milwaukee's which is owed to the Suns this year only in slots 11-16. Multiple teams are likely to have multiple picks in this year's draft, but I don't know how interested Danny would be in adding more picks this year.There's really no team that has 2 likely top 5's in future drafts. The best match I could find was Philly, who gets SAC's '19 first if this pick conveys to Boston. But that's assuming Philly doesn't improve and stays in the top 5, since they'd be including their '19 or '20 1st to the deal. I don't see that happening. The C's also have two '19 1sts possibly conveying from MEM and LAC. At some point, Danny has to cash in some of these chips for players.
I think the more likely scenario is your second one, where he trades back a few spots and picks up a valuable future 1st. For example, if Orlando falls to 5 or 6 and really wants someone in the top 3, they could offer up their pick plus a 2019 1st with limited protections. They pick up someone like Ayton while Danny gets his guy Trae Young. That's definitely an Ainge move.
Because this is a 2018 NBA draft thread, not a Celtics 2018 potential pick thread. Regardless, discussing needs of teams that will probably fall ahead of a potential Celtics draft slot is rather relevant I would think.Why are you guys discussing it anyway? It has nothing to do with the Celtics so we shouldn't even talk about it.
Yeah, I don't get it either. Doncic plays a different position, and if you think Trae is the second coming of Steph, you don't let Schroder stop you from picking him anymore than you'd let the promise John Collins is showing stop you from drafting Ayton.Why would they pass up someone with that much talent to keep Schröder?
Not 100%, but I think there was a hefty dose of sarcasm in that post.Because this is a 2018 NBA draft thread, not a Celtics 2018 potential pick thread. Regardless, discussing needs of teams that will probably fall ahead of a potential Celtics draft slot is rather relevant I would think.
He was mocking my earlier post, while completely missing its point, which was that the way other teams view the strength of this draft is highly relevant to the Celtics' options come June if the LAL pick conveys.Not 100%, but I think there was a hefty dose of sarcasm in that post.