Ive never understood the "promise" pick. Unless the player REALLY wants to go there, what benefit is there?
Your preferred Celtic target at #3
- Thread starter In my lifetime
- Start date
Like any other agreement there has to be a win-win advantage for BOTH team and player. In the case of Dunn it clearly was not advantageous to him but would certainly have been for New Orleans if he didn't work out for anyone else. You mostly see promises with the more volatile picks who have a wide range of where they will be drafted. Take a player like Thon Maker for example and say his draft range is 20-40 but the team at say 25 loves him and he's their guy. By offering a promise at 25 to shut down workouts so nobody else can get a first hand look to select him prior to 25 they gain an advantage (how much so is debatable) and if Maker accepts he takes that risk off the table of being drafted as low as 40.
The last promise that I recall the Celtics making was to Orien Greene at #53 which included a guaranteed two-year contract (unheard of for a pick this low). There was a good chance that he would go undrafted so a guaranteed deal was clearly a benefit to Greene while the Celtics prevented anyone else from taking a 2nd round flier on a guy who may impress during workouts. This was an example of a win-win at the time.......but ooooops, Ainge didn't expect Amir Johnson to slip outside the 30's and after the 40's were completed with Amir still on the board Ainge was scrambling to acquire another pick to nab Johnson. Unable to do so, he took Green at 53 while Amir went to the Pistons at 56. Ainge has certainly insulated himself from a similar problem this year with a lack of 2nd rounders LOL.
Why can't a team reneg on a promise? PR reasons? If you feel that bad... Trade a couple future seconds for the last pick in the draft and take him there
They can, a promise is not enforceable, but agents will remember it next time the team tries to get a player to shut down his workouts.
I think it would be horrendous to make this pick based on year one need---this time is not filling in a gap to win now, they are looking to add a star (really, two) to be a contender. You get that with BPA and filling in around through trades/acquisitions not through trying to fill a slot.
I'd be really upset (and shocked) if I heard Ainge say "we think he will help the most in 2016-17, even though he isn't the best player available"
I doubt he'd ever say it, even if he thought it. Ainge's message discipline is usually quite strong.
BPA has a lot of variables, not to mention a lot of guesswork: highest ultimate ceiling at career peak? best performance during the rookie contract? Is anybody here prepared to make a clear call on which of Bender, Brown, Chriss, Hield, Murray or Dunn is the BPA at #3? From what I'm reading, the consensus seems to be that there is no clearcut BPA, so the guesswork looms larger for this pick than a generic pick.
These Celtics will peak soon, so if Bender is a three-year project with the highest ultimate career ceiling, while Brown is a two-year project with a lower ceiling because his jumper is haphazard – but who could bring Crowder-level defense right away – then this would be the year to draft Brown over Bender.
I certainly don't want the Celtics to draft one of Murray-Dunn-Hield unless they have deals already sealed. None of them is a difference-maker at either guard spot, and rookie minutes will be hard to come by.
Rookies so rarely provide immediate improvement anyway, especially raw freshmen. The premise itself is faulty.
Where these Celtics peak is irrelevant. The team will be very different within two years.
Where these Celtics peak is irrelevant. The team will be very different within two years.
Chad FordESPN Senior Writer
Spoke to several teams that had Cal forward Jaylen Brown in for draft workouts. All 3 said his performance was stellar. Shot the ball really well. Was in great shape. After a shaky freshman season, he may be rising in the draft. He has elite physical tools. Celtics seriously considering him at 3.
Spoke to several teams that had Cal forward Jaylen Brown in for draft workouts. All 3 said his performance was stellar. Shot the ball really well. Was in great shape. After a shaky freshman season, he may be rising in the draft. He has elite physical tools. Celtics seriously considering him at 3.
That is true of any of the guys we're talking about...that is part of why it is very poor strategy to pick a guy with the goal of having him help next year. It simply isn't how NBA teams do, or should, think about the top of the draft.
Don't you dare insult Kedrick Brown! That ankle injury his rookie season de-railed a HOF career.
I think it should be a 3 man race: Bender, Brown, Chriss. I'd really prefer one of the first two, but I understand the allure of Chriss' ceiling.
It is true of the guards, but Bender/Brown would get opportunities to deepen the front-court rotation, and if Olynyk/Crowder goes down, the understudy will get plenty of chances.
Let's hope that some other team bids high on Ainge's #3 auction. If there's serious competition for Dunn as the most NBA-ready point guard, the value of having #3 could be rising.
The Celtics have something on the order of $60 mil in cap space---they hardly need to use this pick to extend the bench. And there's no chance they are going to.
Last update is close to $53M. I'm assuming that means renouncing everyone. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/16292985/nba-salary-cap-now-projected-hit-94-million
Your point certain to stand tho.
If Chad Ford reporting that the Lakers could send Russell for a top six pick why hasn't Danny called and closed the dead already?
Jamal Murray projects very similarly to how D'Angelo Russell projected a year ago. Wouldn't you rather keep the pick and roll the dice on the guy who hasn't already had a disappointing rookie season and failed to endear himself to his teammates?
Russell's A/TO ratio was 1.72 as a freshman, while Murray's was .96. Obviously Murray was mainly playing off the ball, so it's hard to get a sense of how he would've fared as the primary distributor, but I don't really see him running point in the NBA based on what I've seen of him, though some smart basketball people disagree. If I thought Murray projected as nearly the floor general that Russell (still) does, I'd be much more bullish on him even with his terrible defense, because combined with his scoring ability, he'd be a helluva offensive weapon.
Murray didn't play PG at KY because of Ulis, but Murray ran the point for his Canadian national team and I think most believe that he can handle that role offensively in the pros. However, it's unlikely he'll be able to guard PGs in the pros.
I'd be wiling to bet a small amount of money that one - but not all three - of Bender, Chriss, or Brown end up with a better NBA career than Dunn, Hield, or Murray. Good luck figuring this out Danny.
Murrah has a real chance to be the worst defender in NBA history too, so he has that going for him.
I'm glad that we don't have a GM who projects Murray as a full-time 1 at the next level......I'm not sure if any GM's feel differently. He's an ideal combo guard in today's game who plays the 2 with a primary 1 but can execute as a 1 throughout the course of the game.
Murray's defense is much better than he's given credit for here. Yes, the analytics don't like low blocks/steals numbers, but I saw enough of the kid to see he could defend. He played with good effort on D, played with a high basketball IQ and generally played fine on that end of the court.
I don't disagree with this at all. He looks competent at that end of the floor but certainly not matched up against starting 1's which is why he has to be viewed as a 2/combo at this level. Having him paired in the backcourt with another 2 would seem to create a terrible lineup balance.
Last edited:
I disagree entirely, I saw probably 12 or so UK games. Murray got toasted by non-NBA athletes on the first step in every one. Tim Quarterman looked like Kyrie playing against randos in the park when he got that match up. Murray is going to be an exceptionally poor NBA defender.
Edit- to be clear, he isn't a low effort defender, he's a guy who lacks the physical tools to defend, even at the college level.
JX Mazlish has a nice breakdown as part of his article about why he thinks Murray shouldn't go top 10.
http://upsidemotor.com/2016/06/16/case-jamal-murray/
He's just not capable of staying in front of anyone, and it's going to be much worse at the NBA level. The only question is whether he's merely a bad defender or he's basically unplayable against starters.
Last edited:
I would be pretty dissapointed with a Jaylen Brown pick at #3. I can't get past the Jeff Green comps with him.
understand where you are coming from but was Green's ceiling ever has high as Brown's? Green was a pretty developed jumior when he was taken and that draft wasn't great after 1-3.
I'm coming around on Brown the more I see of his tape and analysis from some draft people. He looks like he's going to be able to defend in the Stanley Johnson/D. Carrol/ Crowder mold. He also showed an ability to get his own shot and draw fouls. Now maybe he never develops a consistent shot or better offensive decision making, but if he doesn't he's still got a chance as a rotation defender. If he does that's a Jimmy Butler clone (even if he can't shoot 3s. If he could shoot 3s he's a true star) that potential is pretty rare in this draft, I'd much rather his upside and floor combo than anyone other than Bender (maybe Chriss, but his low floor scares me).
Eh, I don't think that's a fair or accurate comparison. Green was more of a distributor in college and had/has an old man game (Uncle Jeff)
Brown is much more athletic, has better measurables and is more decisive off of the dribble.
Kevin O'Connor described Brown as having a floor of Jae Crowder. Said if it were up to him he'd go with Brown or Bender at #3.
What are Brown's better measurables? He's two inches shorter than Green was at his pre-draft measurements (granted Green was two years older), Brown's wingspan is two inches less and Green had less body fat.
With the orange flags surrounding Brown and the other potential picks, I still think Danny goes with the versatile 7-footer who can shoot, pass, run the floor and defend the pick and roll already at 18, even with Bender's other question marks, but I wouldn't be shocked if it's Brown.
I really like the athleticism of Brown, but I can't get over the fact that the team needs outside shooting desperately. Either Murray or Hield would be tough to pass up.
Green led Georgetown in scoring and FGA in his final two seasons at Georgetown.....as a freshman he was a close second in scoring and 1.5 FGA/g from leading in that category as well. I would hardly call his game an old mans game as he's a highlight dunk waiting to happen in the open floor.
I think the comp is fair at the same stage of their career......the problem for Green is that he never reached his full potential while the hopes are that Brown does.
The problem with those guys is that shooting is largely all they bring to the table (from what we've seen at least). Neither are terribly athletic, play defense, or facilitate for others (Murray may be able to but we did not see that last year). So at the end of the day what is their ceiling...particularly Hield? At #3 I think you have to swing for the fences and not take your current need into consideration. I'd be fine with Dunn, Brown, Bender and I guess Criss.
Green played before we had possession stats for college, but he averaged 3.4 assists per game as a college freshman vs. Brown's 2.9. That's not really such a big gap as to make me think he was a much bigger distributor.
The reason the Jeff Green comp worries me is that he was another athletic wing, seemingly with all the tools to be at least a great defender, but who had pretty questionable basketball awareness and so never developed into that kind of player. I know there's a narrative out there that defense is mostly a question of athleticism and effort, so Brown should project well there. But I also believe basketball IQ is a real thing, and I also think steals numbers are probably as good a proxy as we have for that for wings. Maybe Brown's steals numbers are badly misleading due to Cal's defensive scheme, but given many scouts also question his basketball IQ, my instinct is to take those numbers at face value.
I have no doubt he looks great in a gym, and everyone agrees he's super smart off the court, so he interviews great I'm sure, but his numbers all-around are just incredibly weak for a guy being talked about as the #3 pick. Players develop, and schemes matter, but I just don't take it as a given that he's even going to be a good NBA defender. That's leaving aside the issues with his offensive game.
Put in simplistic terms: unless I'm missing someone, Brown would be the worst player from a NCAA stats POV taken with a top 3 pick since the one-and-done era. Taking him is really putting a lot of faith into the stats being wildly misleading. And maybe they are, but that's not something I want the Celtics to find out.
The reason the Jeff Green comp worries me is that he was another athletic wing, seemingly with all the tools to be at least a great defender, but who had pretty questionable basketball awareness and so never developed into that kind of player. I know there's a narrative out there that defense is mostly a question of athleticism and effort, so Brown should project well there. But I also believe basketball IQ is a real thing, and I also think steals numbers are probably as good a proxy as we have for that for wings. Maybe Brown's steals numbers are badly misleading due to Cal's defensive scheme, but given many scouts also question his basketball IQ, my instinct is to take those numbers at face value.
I have no doubt he looks great in a gym, and everyone agrees he's super smart off the court, so he interviews great I'm sure, but his numbers all-around are just incredibly weak for a guy being talked about as the #3 pick. Players develop, and schemes matter, but I just don't take it as a given that he's even going to be a good NBA defender. That's leaving aside the issues with his offensive game.
Put in simplistic terms: unless I'm missing someone, Brown would be the worst player from a NCAA stats POV taken with a top 3 pick since the one-and-done era. Taking him is really putting a lot of faith into the stats being wildly misleading. And maybe they are, but that's not something I want the Celtics to find out.
Last edited:
Can Brown dribble with both hands? Green's weakness off the dribble, despite his quickness, stride and reach, was that he could only go to his right.
Kidd-Gilchrist went #2 in 2012 and had similarly unimpressive stats (12/7/1 per game). Of course, I'm sure some of that was due to the loaded team he was on. Not a perfect comp but similar given their age, athletic ability, and size. I don't think I'd be excited about getting a MKG with this pick.
Hield's reported 40 inch vertical in his LA workout would indicate to me he has the athleticism to expand his game beyond pure shooting.
We literally dont know if Bender can do ANY of those things let alone all of them.
His game doesn't utilize this ability though. Matt Connaughton had a 43" vertical last year which doesn't do a thing for a spot-up shooter who doesn't have an explosive first step.
Well we know it as well as we know any of the other guys can do things. There's projection in all of this. The idea that Bender is some mystery is silly, he's been seen by evaluators since he was 15.
Another datapoint on the stats side, in Pelton's WARP model he ranks Jaylen Brown as the 101st best prospect. Granted it has Zhou Qi and Bender as 1 and 2, but I agree with all the points you made and am hoping Brown isn't the pick.
While I understand this complaint, it is worth noting that these same arguments caused Steph Curry to fall to the seventh pick. He was a shooter rather than a distributor, a bad defender, merely a good athlete rather than a great one, etc.
Shooting is the single most important skill in basketball by a wide margin.
I usually try and avoid just quoting the "all-in-one" numbers for these purposes since they don't give much context (even though I think they're pretty good), but if you look at BPM, you'll see Kidd-Gilchrist's numbers are actually pretty strong in a lot of ways. His BPM was 9.1 compared to Brown's 3.1 (zero is average). BPM isn't perfect (no stat is obviously), but it's useful in that it's adjusted for strength of schedule. It's still box-score based of course, and playing on Kentucky vs. Cal is a world of difference of course. It's a credit to BPM I think that it recognized MKG was a good player in spite of only okay points/rebounds.
Using the #3 to pick the athletic but poor-stats Jaylen Brown seems comparable to paying $72.5M to an athletic but poor-stats Rusney Castillo.
On the other hand trading #16, 23 and miscellaneous to move up take Brown in the 10-12 range would be intriguing.
On the other hand trading #16, 23 and miscellaneous to move up take Brown in the 10-12 range would be intriguing.
There's pretty much no chance either Brown is there in the 10-12 range.
Can't argue with the Steph example but you are citing an "all time" great player/shooter. There are many, many great shooters that have topped out as solid rotational players or much less. Not saying that will be the case with Hield or Murray but that would be my fear if we take either of them.