Late First Rounders -- Now What?

CSteinhardt

"Steiny"
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
3,201
Cambridge
By the end of the 2016 draft, the Celtics are currently on track to have a roster of something like:
 
Expected to be major pieces:
Olynyk
Sullinger
Smart
[Max contract UFA]
2015 BOS 1st (lottery)
2016 BKN 1st (likely lottery)
 
Hopefully useful, but not (yet) major pieces:
Young
Bradley
[Possibly re-sign Zeller, 2016 RFA]
2015 LAC 1st (likely not lottery)
2015 PHI 2nd (likely top pick of round)
2016 BOS 1st (likely not lottery)
2016 CLE 1st (likely not lottery)
2016 DAL 1st (likely not lottery)
 
That's already 13 players, or 3-4 more than you'd expect to have in your regular rotation.  I haven't included veteran signings apart from one free agent, or the likelihood that something interesting will come out of one of the other 2nd rounders.  One or two of the 2016 1st might start in Maine, but even so, there would be a roster crunch pretty quickly.  
 
The question is, should we indeed select this many 1st rounders, or should we package them for a smaller number of higher picks.  538 did a study (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-is-winning-the-nba-draft-lottery-really-worth/) suggesting that the proper value for four non-lottery first rounders is approximately the third and fourth picks in a typical draft.  That strikes me as more than most GMs would actually give us for them, which means there's more value in keeping them, except of course for the roster crunch.  Similarly, Danny's been good at finding late first-round gems; with four such picks, it would be all that much more sensible to take players with question marks and high upside like Melo and Sullinger, knowing that it's okay to miss some of the time.  I suppose keeping players in Europe for a season or two is another option, but the team listed above is very likely a playoff team in 2015-16 and adding four first rounders to a playoff team should be able to produce a contender almost immediately; over the first five seasons, the, say, 10th, 20th, 23rd, and 25th picks would on average be worth about 45 win shares.  But, again, that assumes they all get to play enough to contribute that much, which is the key question.  Especially because your late first rounders are more likely to be complementary pieces than major ones.
 
So, what's the best plan here?  Package assets?  Or swing for the fences with most of these picks and assume that you'll hit on some, miss on others, and you really only need to worry about the hits?
 
 
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
Bundling the picks seems like the obvious choice. Returning either a better pick or a good player. Danny is playing it right, acquire multiple assets and then cash them in when the time is right.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
The goal eventually should be trade some of these assets for a top player.  Who and when I have no idea.
 
Bundling picks for a higher pick sounds good in theory but it simply doesn't happen very often and I wouldn't expect it to happen easily for Ainge.  Whatever 538 might say, most GMs in the league are going to hang up the phone laughing if you call them and offer 2-3 low firsts for one of the top picks in the draft.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
could package them to leapfrog someone in the lottery.  For example, 10 + 20 for 8th.  15 + 25 for the 12th.  Some permutation of that.  Could swap multiple 2nds for a 1st.  Could swap into future years to defer the pick.  But, yeah Ainge has too many pennies, nickels and dimes and needs to try to convert them into a smaller number of quarters or dollars.  The problem is everyone else in the league who's paying attention knows this too, which makes it tougher for Ainge to extract full value.
 

CSteinhardt

"Steiny"
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
3,201
Cambridge
ALiveH said:
could package them to leapfrog someone in the lottery.  For example, 10 + 20 for 8th.  15 + 25 for the 12th.  Some permutation of that.  Could swap multiple 2nds for a 1st.  Could swap into future years to defer the pick.  But, yeah Ainge has too many pennies, nickels and dimes and needs to try to convert them into a smaller number of quarters or dollars.  The problem is everyone else in the league who's paying attention knows this too, which makes it tougher for Ainge to extract full value.
 
That's the reason I brought up the 538 study -- I agree with the previous post as well about the nature of the box that we're in.  If this study is correct (it seems like it's in the right ballpark, but I'm not sure beyond that), 10th + 20th is worth much, much more than 8th; it's worth at least the 3rd pick.  However, no GM is likely to actually give you 3 for 10+20, so you're left with the choice of making a bad trade, taking too many players for the amount of development time available and dealing with it later, or taking players who will stay in Europe or something for a couple of years until you can figure out which ones are keepers.  And these are all bad options when you're starting with a playoff team, as I expect they'll be starting with when we hit the 2016 offseason.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
Danny's strong suit seems to be finding talent in the middle of the first round.  Rondo was #21.  If he has 4 shots at it, he may well come up with one star from that batch.  If he is also able to do well with his two lottery picks (assuming your projections are accurate), he can probably build a good roster, perhaps strong enough to persuade a free agent max player type to join the mix.  It's a bit of a long shot, but it seems like the most fruitful path from here. 
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
CSteinhardt said:
 
That's the reason I brought up the 538 study -- I agree with the previous post as well about the nature of the box that we're in.  If this study is correct (it seems like it's in the right ballpark, but I'm not sure beyond that), 10th + 20th is worth much, much more than 8th; it's worth at least the 3rd pick.  However, no GM is likely to actually give you 3 for 10+20, so you're left with the choice of making a bad trade, taking too many players for the amount of development time available and dealing with it later, or taking players who will stay in Europe or something for a couple of years until you can figure out which ones are keepers.  And these are all bad options when you're starting with a playoff team, as I expect they'll be starting with when we hit the 2016 offseason.
If you believe this, then smart GMs should be trading down to get more first round picks. Assuming there are no roster crunch issues. If Boston had gotten the 3rd pick this year would you have wanted Ainge to trade it for three mid to low round picks? Possible, I guess.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
Draft studies are going to be confounded by all sorts of noise. Good teams with late draft picks are more likely to select role players with a high floor. Those teams will also have better opportunities for those players to succeed, if they are good enough to crack the rotation. On the other hand, role players don't have a ton of value on a terrible team (like the Celtics!) and you're going to have a lot of Stromile Swift-type whiffs at the top of the draft.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
ALiveH said:
could package them to leapfrog someone in the lottery.  For example, 10 + 20 for 8th.  15 + 25 for the 12th.  Some permutation of that.  Could swap multiple 2nds for a 1st.  Could swap into future years to defer the pick.  But, yeah Ainge has too many pennies, nickels and dimes and needs to try to convert them into a smaller number of quarters or dollars.  The problem is everyone else in the league who's paying attention knows this too, which makes it tougher for Ainge to extract full value.
The other GMs aren't worrying about Ainge though as their focus is on themselves. If they have the 7th or 8th pick and know their guy will be there at 10 we could package the 20 with the 10 to slide up a couple spots. No GM in their right mind gives up a Top-5 pick so they can pick up a flier at 20. Usually the most you can move up in an NBA draft is a couple of slots by adding a lower first.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
Another way to use low 1sts is to be sure to take shots at Euros and guys who will need NBDL time---freshman who jump too soon, guys with talent who drop out of school, etc.   Those guys can develop elsewhere and see what happens.
 
The thing you don't want is what I fear this year---winning 35-40 games and being in the 'no mans land' of the draft each year with your own pick.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
If they can use their own picks on guys like Marcus Smart then they should have a decent shot at an all-star or two along with a ton of cheap filler like Olynyk and Sullinger. Then they can add another all-star player through free agency and build a contender.
 
That's why I think trading Jeff Green after dumping Rondo is a must. They can't afford to end up picking tenth or eleventh.
 

oumbi

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2006
4,167
Could Ainge also "roll over" picks through trades? Given that Ainge may have accumulated an unprecedented number of first round picks for the next few years, might he trade some of them for further-in-the-future picks from other teams? For example, team X had no picks this year, but covets a player. Ainge could trade a first rounder to them for one of their future first rounders, hopefully one that will be more favorable, or a future first rounder with a second rounder attached to it.
 
If Ainge could do the above, it would push the some of the Celtics' first round pick collection farther into the future, and perhaps even improve the drafting position if the trading partner does poorly. 
 
Normally, most GMs do not have nearly this number of first round picks, so such a strategy is more of a "one time" movement. But Ainge might be able to push the Celtic's draft advantage out for a few years. Basically, Ainge would be betting that the trading partner will become a worse team in the near future and try to profit off of their decay.
 
I am not saying Ainge will do this, but it may be one way to help alleviate the glut of first round picks for the next few years.