CELTICS and the NBA

860_rhody · Unread post by **860_rhody** » 8 years ago

Unbelievable shot! They look like one of the elite teams in the league.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 8 years ago

Awesome.

Dan's boy JR Smith cost Cleveland the game with that idiotic foul on Turner.

The best thing about the Celts right now is they could have a home playoff series AND a top-3 pick. That doesn't happen a lot. And because Brooklyn doesn't have a pick this year, we could end up with another top-3 pick next year.

Brad Stevens is the truth.

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 8 years ago

TruePoint wrote:Awesome.

Dan's boy JR Smith cost Cleveland the game with that idiotic foul on Turner.

The best thing about the Celts right now is they could have a home playoff series AND a top-3 pick. That doesn't happen a lot. And because Brooklyn doesn't have a pick this year, we could end up with another top-3 pick next year.

Brad Stevens is the truth.

The league is now saying that wasn't a foul on Turner. Anyway, they're playing well. Now a little luck with the ping pong balls and we're back in business.

860_rhody · Unread post by **860_rhody** » 8 years ago

^^That made me laugh. What about the refs coddling LeBron his whole career, NBA?

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 8 years ago

Kevin Love possibly to the Celtics. What do you think? It depends on what they have to give up. I really don't want to trade those Nets picks.

UCH21377 · Unread post by **UCH21377** » 8 years ago

Hold out. Love seems injury prone; not sure he puts them over the top.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 8 years ago

We have more draft picks than roster spots available, so I don't mind moving a pick or two for a veteran - especially a guy like Dwight Howard who you don't have to carry going forward. But I wouldn't give up a Nets pick for anyone. Love is not enough of a difference maker and Boogie Cousins has too much potential to undermine everything they've built so far. The plan is working so well I wouldn't deviate too far from it. They aren't going to win the championship this year.

UCH21377 · Unread post by **UCH21377** » 8 years ago

Olidapo is on the block. Not sure he's a fit but big upside.

Ramulous · Unread post by **Ramulous** » 8 years ago

I'm not sure that I am digging Dan Ainge's drafting so far.....

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 8 years ago

Ramulous wrote:I'm not sure that I am digging Dan Ainge's drafting so far.....

It's pretty good as compared to the rest of the league. He hasn't hit on every pick, but pretty much no one does, and he's generally gotten really good value for where they've picked (mostly near the back end of the lottery).

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 8 years ago

Re: A Love trade, I would do it for -a- Brooklyn pick, and a player or two, but not this year's pick. The 10 to 25 percent chance of getting Simmons, who looks to be a generational talent, is worth more than Love to me. I think acquiring Love would be the first step in repeating the Garnett-Allen-Pierce magic, since it would show the Celtics are serious about being a championship contender. However, it's not clear who that third guy would be, and that's being generous and calling Thomas or Marcus Smart the second guy. Most of the other star players allegedly on the trading block are other PFs - Blake Griffin, Cousins - that you couldn't pair with Love anyway.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 8 years ago

SG, that's kinda what I was thinking.
If you have to trade a Brooklyn pick, I'd shoot for at least 2017, but would be more than willing to give up at least 2 mid-1sts this year, Olynyk, maybe another young kid (but not key piece).
I think I'd do that trade in a heartbeat.
Love doesn't take this team to Championship caliber, but a team with ____-Love-Smart/Crowder/Thomas has the feelings of one that can at least compete for a Championship.
Hopefully the 2016 Brooklyn hits and maybe becomes your "star," and now you are talking a run for 5-8 years.
Even if Simmons or Ingram is a star, it'll probably take them at least 3 or 4 years to consistently hit that caliber of play.
I think rolling the dice on pick + Crowder + Smart/Thomas is a silly way to play it, don't think you will ever maximize your assets.
Think we all agree the odds of getting a FA at this point is little.

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 8 years ago

rjsuperfly66 wrote:SG, that's kinda what I was thinking.
If you have to trade a Brooklyn pick, I'd shoot for at least 2017, but would be more than willing to give up at least 2 mid-1sts this year, Olynyk, maybe another young kid (but not key piece).
I think I'd do that trade in a heartbeat.
Love doesn't take this team to Championship caliber, but a team with ____-Love-Smart/Crowder/Thomas has the feelings of one that can at least compete for a Championship.
Hopefully the 2016 Brooklyn hits and maybe becomes your "star," and now you are talking a run for 5-8 years.
Even if Simmons or Ingram is a star, it'll probably take them at least 3 or 4 years to consistently hit that caliber of play.
I think rolling the dice on pick + Crowder + Smart/Thomas is a silly way to play it, don't think you will ever maximize your assets.
Think we all agree the odds of getting a FA at this point is little.

It's also going to be tough because the cap skyrockets this coming year, and the next, before projecting to go down. So, there's a chance some guys will get signed to long-term deals that look especially bad by 2019. (Then again, the "winner's curse" is usually in strong effect when it comes to NBA free agency; only MLB is worse.) Pretty much every NBA team is going to have a little to a lot of cap space as well, and the marquee players are probably Al Horford and Dwight Howard. (Durant is expected to just sign a one-year deal with Oklahoma City, unless things go really sour.)

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 8 years ago

I've done a little bit of research in the past few weeks...
In 1990, the lottery went to a weighted system.
Since then, there have been 42 players drafted 1-3 who have retired.
Of those 42, 20 of them never made one all-star game, and only 10 of them made more than 4.
The most "elite" of retired players were 3. Jason Kidd 2. Gary Payton 1. Shaq.
If you look at the list of guys in totality, there are maybe 4 guys who on a good day could be a #1 on a true title contender - Duncan, Lebron, Shaq, and Durant.
There are a few incompletes, Anthony Davis seems like he could be the guy but doesn't have consistent results, other incompletes Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker, Jahlil Okafor, Karl Anthony Towns, and D'Angelo Russell.
If you were aggressive and say that there have been 10 "superstars" drafted 1-3 since 1990, that would give you a little less than a 6% chance of landing a stud in the draft this year, assuming the Brooklyn pick is Top 3.
Assuming you have a 50/50 chance at landing a guy who can be an all-star, and less than 10% chance of landing a guy who can be a stud, I think that's why I'm all for moving these picks.
It's fun to wait on the ping pong balls, but how often do they actually hit?

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 8 years ago

At least at the top of the lottery you have a chance to get an elite player if one exists in your draft. One might not. It is still on you to identify the right guy - I don't know how you account for bad personnel decisions by other teams two decades ago in terms of quantifying your odds of landing an elite player in the top 3.

Unless you can move the pick for an elite player, I'd rather take the chance of getting one in the draft, because collecting a bunch of pretty good players is only going to improve you incrementally. It isn't going to make you a championship team. And I don't buy that anyone is giving you a truly elite player for the Nets pick or any other pick, barring really unusual circumstances.

Seawrightspostgame · Unread post by **Seawrightspostgame** » 8 years ago

Banking on a top pick to elevate a team is the laziest strategy in all of sports.

The kid almost always don't work out. The teams never wait for the kid to mature. Look at Chauncey Billups.

Also, rarely do players in the NBA do anything markedly better than they did it as a prospect. There are exceptions but usually NBA players do what they did coming in just better. So, those top picks that draft on potential are not always that valuable because they are swinging for the fences and often missing.

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 8 years ago

rjsuperfly66 wrote:I've done a little bit of research in the past few weeks...
In 1990, the lottery went to a weighted system.
Since then, there have been 42 players drafted 1-3 who have retired.
Of those 42, 20 of them never made one all-star game, and only 10 of them made more than 4.
The most "elite" of retired players were 3. Jason Kidd 2. Gary Payton 1. Shaq.
If you look at the list of guys in totality, there are maybe 4 guys who on a good day could be a #1 on a true title contender - Duncan, Lebron, Shaq, and Durant.
There are a few incompletes, Anthony Davis seems like he could be the guy but doesn't have consistent results, other incompletes Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker, Jahlil Okafor, Karl Anthony Towns, and D'Angelo Russell.
If you were aggressive and say that there have been 10 "superstars" drafted 1-3 since 1990, that would give you a little less than a 6% chance of landing a stud in the draft this year, assuming the Brooklyn pick is Top 3.
Assuming you have a 50/50 chance at landing a guy who can be an all-star, and less than 10% chance of landing a guy who can be a stud, I think that's why I'm all for moving these picks.
It's fun to wait on the ping pong balls, but how often do they actually hit?

I think you're underestimating the value of the picks, because how many NBA players are all stars, period? Roughly 450 players in the NBA, and only about 25 will earn all-star distinction - about 1-in-18, or 5.5 percent. About 50 percent of picks #1 to #3 becoming an all-star at least once is pretty significant (even if they only make one, it suggests they're probably at least a decent regular), and it's around 20 to 25 percent that you get a guy who is an all-star 4+ times. That's huge. I also imagine the percentage improves if you take out teams with clearly incompetent management (Kings, Cavs somewhat, Charlotte, Minnesota) who have wasted multiple lottery picks on guys who were clearly bad picks at the time.

The draft can definitely be a bit of a crapshoot, since you're always going to have health situations like Greg Oden, and guys not developing like Anthony Bennett, and other unforeseen circumstances. There's tons of volatility in players ages 17 to 25. However, building a team by free agency or trades is even tougher. The former, the Lakers and Heat built teams via free agency, kind of, but even then they still drafted / had the asset to trade for draft rights to Kobe and Wade. The latter, the Celtics pulled off the trade for the big 3, which other teams have failed to replicate, and they used that emulation attempt to their benefit to rip off Brooklyn. The best teams currently in the NBA - Warriors and Spurs - were built mostly through the draft with supplemental free agents (Iggy, Aldridge, Bogut, role players).

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 8 years ago

Seawrightspostgame wrote:Banking on a top pick to elevate a team is the laziest strategy in all of sports.

The kid almost always don't work out. The teams never wait for the kid to mature. Look at Chauncey Billups.

Also, rarely do players in the NBA do anything markedly better than they did it as a prospect. There are exceptions but usually NBA players do what they did coming in just better. So, those top picks that draft on potential are not always that valuable because they are swinging for the fences and often missing.

The alternative is to draft college upperclassmen though, and their skills don't always translate perfectly either. Guys like Dick Vitale screamed holy hell when Evan Turner and Okafor went #2 instead of first overall, and both topped out as OK regulars at best. The guys taken in front of them were John Wall and Dwight Howard.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 8 years ago

SGreenwell wrote:
rjsuperfly66 wrote:I've done a little bit of research in the past few weeks...
In 1990, the lottery went to a weighted system.
Since then, there have been 42 players drafted 1-3 who have retired.
Of those 42, 20 of them never made one all-star game, and only 10 of them made more than 4.
The most "elite" of retired players were 3. Jason Kidd 2. Gary Payton 1. Shaq.
If you look at the list of guys in totality, there are maybe 4 guys who on a good day could be a #1 on a true title contender - Duncan, Lebron, Shaq, and Durant.
There are a few incompletes, Anthony Davis seems like he could be the guy but doesn't have consistent results, other incompletes Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker, Jahlil Okafor, Karl Anthony Towns, and D'Angelo Russell.
If you were aggressive and say that there have been 10 "superstars" drafted 1-3 since 1990, that would give you a little less than a 6% chance of landing a stud in the draft this year, assuming the Brooklyn pick is Top 3.
Assuming you have a 50/50 chance at landing a guy who can be an all-star, and less than 10% chance of landing a guy who can be a stud, I think that's why I'm all for moving these picks.
It's fun to wait on the ping pong balls, but how often do they actually hit?
I think you're underestimating the value of the picks, because how many NBA players are all stars, period? Roughly 450 players in the NBA, and only about 25 will earn all-star distinction - about 1-in-18, or 5.5 percent. About 50 percent of picks #1 to #3 becoming an all-star at least once is pretty significant (even if they only make one, it suggests they're probably at least a decent regular), and it's around 20 to 25 percent that you get a guy who is an all-star 4+ times. That's huge. I also imagine the percentage improves if you take out teams with clearly incompetent management (Kings, Cavs somewhat, Charlotte, Minnesota) who have wasted multiple lottery picks on guys who were clearly bad picks at the time.

The draft can definitely be a bit of a crapshoot, since you're always going to have health situations like Greg Oden, and guys not developing like Anthony Bennett, and other unforeseen circumstances. There's tons of volatility in players ages 17 to 25. However, building a team by free agency or trades is even tougher. The former, the Lakers and Heat built teams via free agency, kind of, but even then they still drafted / had the asset to trade for draft rights to Kobe and Wade. The latter, the Celtics pulled off the trade for the big 3, which other teams have failed to replicate, and they used that emulation attempt to their benefit to rip off Brooklyn. The best teams currently in the NBA - Warriors and Spurs - were built mostly through the draft with supplemental free agents (Iggy, Aldridge, Bogut, role players).

I guess the point SG, is that many people think that getting a Top 3 pick can lock you in to a potential superstar, by that I mean a #1 on your team. The point with that was if you hold all of these assets for someone like a Ben Simmons, what is your guarantee? Is there a higher chance he's an All-Star caliber player then someone drafted 8th or 12th? Absolutely. But can he be a stud? Can he be a legit Top 1 or 2 on your team, and if he can, how long will it take him to get there? It's very far from a sure thing. The C's don't need a solid starter or role player, then need a guy or two who can be a potential star. Guys like Kevin Love or DeMarcus Cousins, I wouldn't send the house, but if they cleaned out this years picks and a mid-level player or two, I would have been happy with it, since both of those guys would be able to at least be a solid 2, all-star caliber for you, without having to deal with the Russian Roulette which is the NBA draft.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 8 years ago

Between Love and Cousins, I like Cousins much more as a player and he carries with him the very real potential to make your team worse rather than better. Love has never won anything, he is a soft basketball player and a soft human being. I'd rather take the shot that I can get Ben Simmons or Dragan Bender and hope one of them turns into a generational player than guarantee that I top out with what I have now + Kevin Love, or turn a likable mediocre team into an unlikable mediocre team by acquiring Cousins.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 8 years ago

TruePoint wrote:Between Love and Cousins, I like Cousins much more as a player and he carries with him the very real potential to make your team worse rather than better. Love has never won anything, he is a soft basketball player and a soft human being. I'd rather take the shot that I can get Ben Simmons or Dragan Bender and hope one of them turns into a generational player than guarantee that I top out with what I have now + Kevin Love, or turn a likable mediocre team into an unlikable mediocre team by acquiring Cousins.

Well I agree TP, Love + the current core is not enough, which is why I wouldn't empty the assets for him. If you only had to give up 1 Brooklyn pick, the 2 mid-rounders from this year, and say at the time David Lee's contract, along with Olynyk and Amir Johnson/Sullinger, I would do that in a heartbeat. Even if they required someone like Jae Crowder, I would probably do that too. I'm not tearing apart my core for Kevin Love (2+ Brooklyn picks, Smart, or Thomas), and I don't think Love gets them drastically further than they would make it this year, but I do believe ___ + Love + Thomas/Smart is a lot closer to Championship level than ___ + Crowder + Thomas/Smart.

There is just so much that needs to fall in place with this pick for it to do what you need it to do.

1) Brooklyn has no need to tank the season, they aren't going to waste away games at the end of the year.
2) You need to hope they remain in good lottery standing, they're already in a tie for 3/4, the max they probably fall to is 5, their ceiling is probably the 3.
3) You need to hope the ping pong balls drop your way and somehow you get a top 3 pick.
4) You need to wait 3-4 years to really see what you have with that player.
5) There's a 50/50 chance he's even an All-Star caliber player, and a much lesser chance that he is the stud you actually need to win a championship.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 8 years ago

OK, but in the alternative scenario where you acquire Love and trade a Brooklyn pick, how do you acquire _____ to go along with Love and Thomas and Smart and whatever else you deem the core of this team to be? Because that is my hangup. I think the Brooklyn picks represent your best chance to do that - a Love-type player can be added as the final piece. Are the Brooklyn picks surefire guarantees of a hall of famer? Nope, but they are probably your best chance to acquire one.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 8 years ago

Well I think that is where some of the risk is ... You probably have to swing the other 2 Brooklyn picks, another 1st or two, plus probably 1 of Smart/Thomas to come close to getting a deal done for a guy you think can be the centerpiece, and it may have been be for someone who you only have control of for one season, and basically have to audition for him that he has the chance to be the centerpiece on a championship caliber team and that you can now offer him more $$ in FA. At least you know what you are getting in terms of performance in these situations. A lot of people talk about Houston and how they went for it and F'd it all up. Well, they traded minimal for Harden. And they had a great season last year bringing in Howard. And if they traded Howard, they couldn't make up the money lost, but probably could have gotten at least 1 or 2 1sts and a prospect or two. But was bringing Howard destructive, outside of the fact that they might not make the playoffs this year? Would things have been much different without him?

For all we know, this years Brooklyn pick ends up being Jakob Poeltl, and next year the Nets turn it around maybe are a low-lottery pick because we know that's not hard to do in the East, and in 2018 they are a high-teens pick with a 6-8 seed in the Eastern Conference. That's a worst case scenario, of course. The Nets have nothing to lose trying to make big moves or playing to win at this point. You have no control over them losing other than praying that they do it. We are really praying that they keep losing, the ping pong balls all bounce the C's way, and they get three straight Top 3 picks which would give them about a 1/3 chance of landing a stud. That's a lot of if's though.

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 8 years ago

rjsuperfly66 wrote:Well I think that is where some of the risk is ... You probably have to swing the other 2 Brooklyn picks, another 1st or two, plus probably 1 of Smart/Thomas to come close to getting a deal done for a guy you think can be the centerpiece, and it may have been be for someone who you only have control of for one season, and basically have to audition for him that he has the chance to be the centerpiece on a championship caliber team and that you can now offer him more $$ in FA. At least you know what you are getting in terms of performance in these situations. A lot of people talk about Houston and how they went for it and F'd it all up. Well, they traded minimal for Harden. And they had a great season last year bringing in Howard. And if they traded Howard, they couldn't make up the money lost, but probably could have gotten at least 1 or 2 1sts and a prospect or two. But was bringing Howard destructive, outside of the fact that they might not make the playoffs this year? Would things have been much different without him?

For all we know, this years Brooklyn pick ends up being Jakob Poeltl, and next year the Nets turn it around maybe are a low-lottery pick because we know that's not hard to do in the East, and in 2018 they are a high-teens pick with a 6-8 seed in the Eastern Conference. That's a worst case scenario, of course. The Nets have nothing to lose trying to make big moves or playing to win at this point. You have no control over them losing other than praying that they do it. We are really praying that they keep losing, the ping pong balls all bounce the C's way, and they get three straight Top 3 picks which would give them about a 1/3 chance of landing a stud. That's a lot of if's though.

Not to troll here, but I don't even know what you're arguing about at this point. As far as I know, there wasn't even a deal for an all-star for the Celtics to make. They went hard after the Charlotte pick in the 2015 draft to try to get Justice Winslow (allegedly it was 4-for-1) and they've been mentioned as interested in Cousins, Horford and Love, but it's unclear how serious any of their teams were about trading them before the deadline. It's fine to talk hypotheticals when it comes to team building, but it's also unclear whether a player the caliber of James Harden has been on the block in the past year. The last guy like that to get dealt was Love, who was traded for the #1 pick.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 8 years ago

I thought Charlotte was dumb for not taking that C's trade from last year, but if you deem a draft to be weak, why do you want a bunch of lower picks for one higher one? Where they screwed up is that they probably could have gotten 4 more picks and still landed their guy.

Seawrightspostgame · Unread post by **Seawrightspostgame** » 8 years ago

SGreenwell wrote:
Seawrightspostgame wrote:Banking on a top pick to elevate a team is the laziest strategy in all of sports.

The kid almost always don't work out. The teams never wait for the kid to mature. Look at Chauncey Billups.

Also, rarely do players in the NBA do anything markedly better than they did it as a prospect. There are exceptions but usually NBA players do what they did coming in just better. So, those top picks that draft on potential are not always that valuable because they are swinging for the fences and often missing.
The alternative is to draft college upperclassmen though, and their skills don't always translate perfectly either. Guys like Dick Vitale screamed holy hell when Evan Turner and Okafor went #2 instead of first overall, and both topped out as OK regulars at best. The guys taken in front of them were John Wall and Dwight Howard.

Good point.

I prefer the strategy of picking up guys coming off rookie deals that are in their early 20s about to hit their stride along with whatever the draft offers.

IDK if that explains it, IMHO the most important way to create a contender is to grab players that have been given up on by other teams because they were impatient or fired their management and the new guys don't value what they had.

That is where teams can find the most value IMHO. Then throw in a legit coach like Brad Stevens that holds them accountable.

But you do need a focal point... best way to do that is to do it anyway that you can within the 3(trade, FA, Draft).

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 8 years ago

On Dwight Howard: "Sources said that in recent days, the Rockets talked about potential Howard deals with a list of teams including Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Miami and, most recently, Milwaukee. Sources say Houston, however, told several teams that it wasn't prepared to trade Howard without receiving at least one frontline player and a future first-round draft pick in return."

Given the assets the Cs have, doesn't seem like a large ask.

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 8 years ago

I was glad that the time passed and the Celtics didn't move. Sometimes doing nothing is the best strategy
I personally don't care for Love and was dreading that we were going to give too much for him.

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 8 years ago

rjsuperfly66 wrote:On Dwight Howard: "Sources said that in recent days, the Rockets talked about potential Howard deals with a list of teams including Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Miami and, most recently, Milwaukee. Sources say Houston, however, told several teams that it wasn't prepared to trade Howard without receiving at least one frontline player and a future first-round draft pick in return."

Given the assets the Cs have, doesn't seem like a large ask.

He has a player option, and can opt out after the 2015-16 season, which he (and every other major star) is largely expected to do because the cap is going up. So, the Celtics would have been trading all of that for Howard for about 30 regular season games and the playoffs.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 8 years ago

Well, what is the cost? The rumored ask was a 2016 non-Brooklyn pick, David Lee's contract, and someone like Jonas Jerebko or Kelly Olynyk. That seems like basically nothing. Now if they wanted a Brooklyn pick, then I agree it's too much.

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 8 years ago

Okafor's name has come up recently. Do they revisit that before the draft? And what would you give up for him?

Ramulous · Unread post by **Ramulous** » 8 years ago

Why is he on the market? Trade Young, Rozier, Mickey and Hunter for him.....wasted picks in my opinion...

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 8 years ago

Billyboy78 wrote:Okafor's name has come up recently. Do they revisit that before the draft? And what would you give up for him?

The way the NBA is going, I'm somewhat leery about spending a bunch to acquire a center / big man who 1) can't shoot 3s and 2) can't play defense. Like, I'm not entirely sure he's even better than Kelly Olynyk. I think he probably is, because Okafor is on a bad team and presumably Stevens would extract the maximum from him. But I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to give up for him as a result.

860_rhody · Unread post by **860_rhody** » 8 years ago

Happy that the Celtics didn't make a trade. Howard wasn't going to resign, and Love is seriously overrated. What's the difference between him and Ryan Anderson? I never understood why Danny likes Love so much. Maybe he doesn't think rim protection is important?

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 8 years ago

860_rhody wrote:Happy that the Celtics didn't make a trade. Howard wasn't going to resign, and Love is seriously overrated. What's the difference between him and Ryan Anderson? I never understood why Danny likes Love so much. Maybe he doesn't think rim protection is important?

Agree. I have no love for love. Celtics can and should do much better than him

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 8 years ago

860_rhody wrote:Happy that the Celtics didn't make a trade. Howard wasn't going to resign, and Love is seriously overrated. What's the difference between him and Ryan Anderson? I never understood why Danny likes Love so much. Maybe he doesn't think rim protection is important?

I think Anderson is a "close your eyes" bad defender, whereas Love does avoid fouling and rebounds well. In contrast, Anderson's high for rebounds per game is 7.7, and his per 36 rates aren't incredible either. Anderson is also not much of a passer, with neither his per game or per 36 rate for assists per game edging over 1.5. Also, most people think Anderson will get $20M a year in this off-season, because so many teams are flush with cap money.

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 8 years ago

Wow! Celtics break the GS Warriors 54 game home court win streak tonight!!!

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 8 years ago

Big Celts!

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 8 years ago

Damn, I fell asleep at halftime. Took GS to double overtime at home before losing and beat them on the road, ending a 54 game winning streak. Add a top 5 pick and a top FA and the chase is on for another banner,

SmartyBarrett · Unread post by **SmartyBarrett** » 8 years ago

C's clearly have the guards and (especially) the guard defense to compete with the best teams in the league. They desperately need a rim protector and someone who can score in the paint. Whether they use the draft or a trade or FA to fill it, that's the missing piece IMO.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 8 years ago

The C's management has acknowledged that they need to bring in 2 max guys on several occasions. I think we (or at least myself) figured that would rely heavily on exhausting several assets to get those players via trade. We will know better come July 15, the C's desperately need to land at least 1 max guy. Most seem to think they have a shot at Horford. I'm not a big Horford guy but he would help. Horford alone doesn't make them a championship team, but truly makes them "one piece away."

STC · Unread post by **STC** » 8 years ago

Big night tonight! Trades aside, I just want a top 2 pick so the Celtics can draft either Simmons or Ingram.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 8 years ago

I think it has become more important, given that the 2% chance Durant comes to Boston seems to decrease significantly with each OKC win. Still, I don't think Durant resigns unless Westbrook resigns, and most have Westbrook heading home to LA after next season.

If the C's do want to make huge moves this offseason, trading that pick (or keeping it) will be a vital point of conversation. Aren't the C's do for a miracle in the lottery?

Shaolin Swat · Unread post by **Shaolin Swat** » 8 years ago

rjsuperfly66 wrote:I think it has become more important, given that the 2% chance Durant comes to Boston seems to decrease significantly with each OKC win. Still, I don't think Durant resigns unless Westbrook resigns, and most have Westbrook heading home to LA after next season.

If the C's do want to make huge moves this offseason, trading that pick (or keeping it) will be a vital point of conversation. Aren't the C's do for a miracle in the lottery?

At this point, I would be fairly certain that Durant is staying in OKC for the next year, which leads to an interesting dilemma in how to plan for the future if you're the Celtics.

RJ, out of curiosity, from a PC fan's perspective, what would you rather see - the C's get a top 2 pick or get a pick in the 3-4 range with the option to take Dunn? Obviously from a URI fan's perspective, I'd much rather have the top-2 pick and wind up with Ingram or Simmons (personally, I'd prefer Ingram, as I'm not sold on Simmons being a legit superstar).

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 8 years ago

Shaolin Swat wrote:
rjsuperfly66 wrote:I think it has become more important, given that the 2% chance Durant comes to Boston seems to decrease significantly with each OKC win. Still, I don't think Durant resigns unless Westbrook resigns, and most have Westbrook heading home to LA after next season.

If the C's do want to make huge moves this offseason, trading that pick (or keeping it) will be a vital point of conversation. Aren't the C's do for a miracle in the lottery?
At this point, I would be fairly certain that Durant is staying in OKC for the next year, which leads to an interesting dilemma in how to plan for the future if you're the Celtics.

RJ, out of curiosity, from a PC fan's perspective, what would you rather see - the C's get a top 2 pick or get a pick in the 3-4 range with the option to take Dunn? Obviously from a URI fan's perspective, I'd much rather have the top-2 pick and wind up with Ingram or Simmons (personally, I'd prefer Ingram, as I'm not sold on Simmons being a legit superstar).

Not RJ, but... It's hard for me to imagine a scenario in which the Celtics take Dunn without a trade. Sure, BPA, but guard is the one position the Celtics seem set at, between Thomas, Smart, Avery Bradley can play the point in a pinch, etc. You typically don't want to use a Top 6ish pick on someone who would be a back-up for you. (You definitely don't want to reach and grab a center just because you need a center, either, but usually you can find a middle ground between need and BPA.)

I think Simmons and Ingram, in that order, would be my picks. Because Simmons has been the #1 for so long, I think he's lost some luster as his game has been picked apart, but I think he has a better chance of being a Top 10 player than Ingram, whereas Ingram is probably a "safer" pick. Different positions, but it could be similar to that draft when the Magic had the choice between Okafor and Dwight Howard, and chose Howard. (I believe Dickie V. was furious about that, and as usual, his draft analysis was laughably bad...)

EDIT: Couldn't find the clip, but he wrote about it: http://espn.go.com/dickvitale/vcolumn04 ... Watch.html

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 8 years ago

Honestly as a C's fan, I wouldn't want the C's to take Dunn. They already have a guard who can play defense and struggle shooting with Smart, and your 3rd PG Rozier is also a more defense-first guard. They also have a PG that many love in IT, and of course you slide over to the 2, you have Avery Bradley signed for a few more years, and two SG's you've drafted in the first round past few years that are unknowns. Danny Ainge loves to take best available player, but for a team desperate for a 3/4/5, I'd like for them to take Bender (if they don't get a top 2 pick). That's also not to say I don't think Dunn can have a good NBA career, but I think there are better fits out there for him and his future team. Personally, I think he would be a great fit in Minnesota where he could grow into a 3rd or 4th option with them and they could be great for years to come. But there is also the cool story element of the local kid who stays home, helps turn around a down and out program, and then gets drafted by the local pro franchise.

STC · Unread post by **STC** » 8 years ago

Kris Dunn ceiling imo is Rajon Rondo minus the attitude and bullshit. Both have great length, no jump shot and can fill a stat sheet. They can also both look like best player on the floor or totally disappear for stretches.

I list Dunn 6th on the STC Big Board:

1. Ben Simmons
2. Brandon Ingram
3. Jamal Murray
4. Buddy Hield
5. Jaylon Brown
6. Kris Dunn

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 8 years ago

I would not want Dunn with the Celtics either.
We will know the Lottery results in 60 minutes - starts at 8pm tonight
I don't think Smart sticks with the Celtics. Bradley and Thomas stay for sure - great tandem
Will be very interesting to see how the Celtics manage this draft with the abundance of Picks they have

Would love to see the #1 or #1 Ping Pong Ball fall in our favor

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 8 years ago

Draft is fixed. The NBA is trash.

NYGFan_Section208 · Unread post by **NYGFan_Section208** » 8 years ago

TruePoint wrote:Draft is fixed. The NBA is trash.

...said The soccer fan....