this post deserves some extreme loveWith that kind of fraternity, I know I'm convinced.
this post deserves some extreme loveWith that kind of fraternity, I know I'm convinced.
I think it's also reasonable that with four high lottery picks over 3/4 years, you can build a pretty awesome young team yourself that's under team control for a long time. This path forward is bolstered by the fact that these kids are going to develop within a winning organization that demands they play the game the right way in order to gain playing time. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I really don't like the idea of trading any of these picks and would prefer to proceed with the original plan of Tatum (RIP Fultz) and Hayward. Now we have yet another potential lottery pick to add next year to the core instead of a mere one. I want this team to be good for as long as possible - we have the foundation in place to support a 15-20 year run through patience and good drafting.Moreover, in a summer where Butler, George and presumably Porzingis is available, there's quite a bit of pressure for Ainge to close on one of these. He's built a war chest and if these 3 went other places and he was left holding a bag of picks, the master plan would start to look a little sketchy.
It really doesn't, as Porzingis has the potential (much of it already achieved) to be a difference maker on both ends. Nate Silver just posted this chart showing his defensive impact, and again this is on a team with no leadership or direction:this post deserves some extreme love
Supposedly Philly turned down Butler for the #3 whereas here posters are saying #3, + LAL, + players.You think Butler or George would be far less? I don't. George less than Butler yes but it's for only 1 year at much more salary than Porzingis. KP was playing for a much worse team in the triangle offense. You stick KP in a free-flowing offense with a much better team around him and I think those scoring numbers go up significantly.
Getting KP for a couple of the picks, plus a player or two (and I'd include anyone except Isaiah and Jaylen), does not impact their ability to go after Hayward at all. A starting five of Horford, Porzingis, Hayward, Bradley/Smart, and IT is damn tempting.I think it's also reasonable that with four high lottery picks over 3/4 years, you can build a pretty awesome young team yourself that's under team control for a long time. This path forward is bolstered by the fact that these kids are going to develop within a winning organization that demands they play the game the right way in order to gain playing time. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I really don't like the idea of trading any of these picks and would prefer to proceed with the original plan of Tatum (RIP Fultz) and Hayward. Now we have yet another potential lottery pick to add next year to the core instead of a mere one. I want this team to be good for as long as possible - we have the foundation in place to support a 15-20 year run through patience and good drafting.
I'd be thrilled to include Isaiah, one of the only ways to dump him that the fanbase won't go nuts over.Getting KP for a couple of the picks, plus a player or two (and I'd include anyone except Isaiah and Jaylen), does not impact their ability to go after Hayward at all. A starting five of Horford, Porzingis, Hayward, Bradley/Smart, and IT is damn tempting.
Guys over 7'2" don't exactly have a track record of longevity in the NBA, and the foot problems are more concerning in those guys as they get fairly immobile pretty quickly. So there's a pretty big risk in this case, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable emptying the war chest on 7'3" guy that's already had a host of lower extremity issues.From January of 2016 until February of 2017 (approximately one year and one month), Porzingis suffered six different injuries. He has injured his left Achilles, left groin, left leg, right shoulder, right ankle, and right foot.
The thing is, Anthony Davis ha shad as extensive injury list, yet everyone is willing to give up every asset the Celtics have
It really doesn't, as Porzingis has the potential (much of it already achieved) to be a difference maker on both ends. Nate Silver just posted this chart showing his defensive impact, and again this is on a team with no leadership or direction:
I think that's a terrible return because I don't think Booker is particularly good. I realize I'm much lower on Booker than consensus, but see the Demar Derozan thread for my general thoughts on inefficient high-volume gunners who don't do much of anything else and are terrible at defense.Thoughts and prayers to Knicks fans? Why?
The Knicks should absolutely be asking for packages like that to even consider dealing Porzingis.
That's a great highlight on why several of us are ready to give up a lot for a healthy KP. The offensive numbers are very good - especially for his age - but given how valuable defense is in the post-season, this ups his value significantly.It really doesn't, as Porzingis has the potential (much of it already achieved) to be a difference maker on both ends. Nate Silver just posted this chart showing his defensive impact, and again this is on a team with no leadership or direction:
Durant, Lebron, Kyrie, and Shaq, for those curious. Not sure who the other guy is from my B-Ref search, but if we expand to age 21, there's a bunch more guys who Booker will never be as good as, plus Terry Cummins, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Antoine Walker and Andrew Wiggins.Booker's 20 years old and was the sixth player in NBA history to average over 21 points per game, and he did that at basically league average efficiency. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit improvement to be made from an efficiency standpoint, and he'll also get better as a ball handler and passer in the pick and roll.
Apropos of nothing and without agreeing or disagreeing, I absolutely love the phrase "Booker is a lie". And I will love it even more if Phil Jackson trades for him and the lie turns out to be true.Booker is a lie. Trading Porzingis for him and the #4 pick seems terrible to me.
A healthy Embiid playing 75 games is going to be an MVP candidate.It really doesn't, as Porzingis has the potential (much of it already achieved) to be a difference maker on both ends. Nate Silver just posted this chart showing his defensive impact, and again this is on a team with no leadership or direction:
3 lottery protected 1st rounders? Sure.Ian Begley on Sportscenter just floated out that the C's may be able to land Zinger for 3 1st rounders and Jaylen Brown....
Good reminder of why I haven't watched SC in years.
This isn't exactly true -- there really are only a handful of shotblockers in league history that have 3 point range.the problem is, you are picking two stats/skills that aren't related to point out how unique the player might be, but this is a fruitless exercise. No offense. People do it with baseball players all the time (Player x just did thing a and thing b that only y players in history have done before at z age!!!). I'm not saying it isn't fun, but I don't think it's a good way to evaluate impact and ability.
Not really. I guess it depends on what you consider a shot blocker. Especially if you consider Josh Smith a capable 3 point shooter with his career 28.5% from 3. Josh Smith, Eddie Griffin, Raef LaFrentz, Brook Lopez, AK47, Kevin Durant, Draymond Green, Donyell Marshall, KAT, Rasheed Wallace, Marc Gasol, DeMarcus Cousins, Derrick Coleman, Chris Webber, Al Horford, Serge Ibaka, Spencer Hawes, Kristaps, Joel Embiid, Tracy McGradyThis isn't exactly true -- there really are only a handful of shotblockers in league history that have 3 point range.
You can make the parameters quite lenient before you'll find more than a dozen.
Davis doesn't shoot all that many threes -- at least not compared to Porzingis. Giannis fits if you drop the block criteria a bit, and the rest of those guys are role players. An obvious guy who you missed with similar BLK% and 3PTR numbers is Embiid, although he's hardly played.Thon Maker, Myles Turner, Anthony Davis, Giannis, Chriss, Richaun Holmes etc.
3PTR (% of shots that are 3PA)what did you use for rates?
I mean what numbers? like nBLK%, what is n? 5% 6%?3PTR (% of shots that are 3PA)
BLK% (% of opposing possessions that ended in a blocked shot by the player)
Because he was talking about why people are enamored with Porzingis--a young player with these skills.Why are you filtering it out by age 21 or younger?
Phil cannot be that dumbBack to Porzi rumors: just heard on Sirius XM NBA channel that Knicks asking price was this year’s #3 and next year’s Nets pick. Rumor floated on an NBA talk show, so take it with a grain of salt.
I think you make that trade in a heart beat. You acquire KP without thinning out your roster? Crowder/Bradley/Jaylen/Smart/IT/Rozier/etc remain as potential assets along with the 18 LAL/19 SAC pick.Back to Porzi rumors: just heard on Sirius XM NBA channel that Knicks asking price was this year’s #3 and next year’s Nets pick. Rumor floated on an NBA talk show, so take it with a grain of salt.
Fair enough, but 21 is pretty young. 24-25 seems like a better cut off. Plus, while it may have been a rare combo 10-15 years ago, there are lots of guys in the NBA that have that combo now. Unless you don't really consider KAT, Giannis, Myles Turner, Thon Maker, etc. It makes sense intuitively, as stretch bigs are all the rage now.Because he was talking about why people are enamored with Porzingis--a young player with these skills.
There's a difference in searching for, say "Guys that have hit 45 HRs in a season" and "Guys that have hit 45 HRs in a season before age 22."
If you think Porzingis is going to stay healthy, that is a pretty fair trade. He's not the type of player you do a Herschel Walker type trade for. I'd personally pass if I were the Celtics but I'm very skittish on tall players who have had issues with their feet.Phil cannot be that dumb
I'd do neither but I'd give the Nets pick significantly more value as it has no protections and because they are a worse team. The LAL/SAC pick has a lot more volatility to it.Whats the board take on the difference Value wise between:
#3 + 18 Nets
or
#3 + 18LAL/19SAC
I do the latter but not the former.
And the Nets pick is 2018 whereas the other pick is likely 2019 so there is additional discounting needed on top of all the various protections.I'd do neither but I'd give the Nets pick significantly more value as it has no protections and because they are a worse team. The LAL/SAC pick has a lot more volatility to it.
I'm sure Phil would ask more from a division rival and a franchise that he personally detests. But Ainge doesn't need to trade for Porzingis and Jackson doesn't need to trade him so I highly doubt we ever see a deal here even though the Celtics clearly have the pieces to get it done.If Phil was offering KP for Phoenix's #4 and Booker, and was turned down, why would Ainge offer much more than #3 (better than the #4) and a choice of (1) Bradley/Smart/Crowder?
Ainge's job is to rebuild the Celts, not the Knicks.
It doesn't say whether he was rebuffed or not. Just that that was the asking price. Why would you need to beat an asking price?The point was Phil set a price, was rebuffed, and there is no need to beat that offer.If you can get KP for a decent price/discount from a distressed seller, you pursue it. And Phil is distressed, he's getting killed in NYC, and he needs players.