Celtics Draft Pick Watch 2016

smastroyin · Feb 1, 2016

The biggest weakness of the power ranking system is that you can't hold that many players in hopes you have found (e.g.) a second round gem, because you can only give so many of these guys runs. So while it's true in aggregate each slot has a certain value, I think after the third or fourth pick for one team, the value goes down quite a bit.

I'm sure Danny Ainge is not going to draft 8 players on draft day, I guess is what I'm saying. So he has to figure out how to address that. And at the end of the day, part of the power ranking value will disappear because he will have to deal some of those picks. And of course, movement up or down from #3 will affect the value quite a bit.

However, the idea that Ben Simmons is the only player in the draft worth anything is a little much.

chilidawg · Feb 1, 2016

With the 2nd round picks, at very least you keep them through summer leagues and training camp, something of an extended audition. With at least a few of these guys going on to be contributors it's worth having a few darts to throw.

You can also draft and stash with them.

Eddie Jurak · Feb 1, 2016

I'm wondering if we will see Danny move a few picks for future assets. It is certainly true that no team gains a lot of value by drafting 8 players.

nighthob · Feb 1, 2016

Probably what you will see is the excess #2s sold for cash. It's the late #1s that will probably be moved for heavily protected future picks.

As for Simmons, I'm not in the least worried about his athletic ability to play the 3 since in the modern NBA he's going to be playing the 4 and he's more than athletic enough to do it.

BigSoxFan · Feb 1, 2016

Wouldn't it make more sense to just stash a bunch of Euros in the hope that somebody pans out in the next couple of years?

Cellar-Door · Feb 1, 2016

BigSoxFan said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to just stash a bunch of Euros in the hope that somebody pans out in the next couple of years?

Yeah, or do what they did this year with Thornton and send a college guy off to play overseas somewhere.

TheDeuce222 · Feb 1, 2016

BigSoxFan said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to just stash a bunch of Euros in the hope that somebody pans out in the next couple of years?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Repeating my stance from earlier. This will be a banner year for int'l draft prospects. I could see 10 guys going first round. Maybe more...</p>— Jonathan Givony (@DraftExpress) <a href="">January 27, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

It's highly likely they take at least one if not two-four European prospects this year. There are several interesting guys that could be a fit for the Celtics as wings with good outside shooting - Zipser, Luwawu, Korkmaz, and several others.

sox311 · Feb 1, 2016

I too, hope that Danny selects players to stash, such as Zhou Qi, if he cannot rid us of the picks for value that would match up with the current roster. There is zero point to use those picks on players to fill out summer league rosters when there are hundreds of players to pick from the NBDL for those spots. Phil Pressy is playing in Boise right now, he’ll play with us next summer if needed I am sure. There is not room for more than one or two players drafted this year on the roster, they just don’t fit. And if they do, they do it at the expense of others not being developed or outright sold or sent away for pennies on the dollar. Young, Rozier, Mickey, Hunter simply will not fit with more of the same.

I’m not saying that Simmons is the only thing of value in this draft. But if a ranking has a team without the overall number one pick as the top spot there is no reason to go any further considering it. 3, 20, and 21 doesn’t add up to being equal or greater than the number 1 overall. And by “projecting the value of picks based on who was selected in that position in the past” is beyond absurd.

That can’t even factor in that many players were taken where they were because another team had a deal in place for the team holding the pick to select them and were adding value to a future pick or something else to have that selection made for them. They may not have been selected at that pick had the other team not seen the value the other team did in them. So the number is irrelevant in a study of future performance.

The “Trust the process” of the Sixers depends on teams passing the player who will turn into the true super star they are looking for. It is a crap shoot of talent assessment and player development not at what number they are selected.

If Kawai Leonard had stayed with the Pacers would he be the player he is today? Would the value of where he was drafted be the same or would it be different based on his development with the Spurs rather than the Pacers?

Jed Zeppelin · Feb 1, 2016

TheDeuce222 said:
It's highly likely they take at least one if not two-four European prospects this year. There are several interesting guys that could be a fit for the Celtics as wings with good outside shooting - Zipser, Luwawu, Korkmaz, and several others.

If ever there were a draft to show an inclination toward drafting and stashing Euros, this is it, if only for the sheer number of picks. I think Semih Erden is the only one in over a decade of drafting.

BigSoxFan · Feb 1, 2016

I could also see Ainge packaging some of the early 2nds in an attempt to move up a couple spots if a guy he likes falls to the late teens (assuming Bos/Dal pick around 20). I think the 50s picks will almost surely be eurostashes.

HomeRunBaker · Feb 1, 2016

TheDeuce222 said:
It's highly likely they take at least one if not two-four European prospects this year. There are several interesting guys that could be a fit for the Celtics as wings with good outside shooting - Zipser, Luwawu, Korkmaz, and several others.

I'm curious why you would feel this is highly likely when Ainge hasn't stashed a single Euro during his tenure with the Celtics while only using a late 2bd rounder on Semih Erden who he quickly dismissed. I don't expect us to go this route at all since this isn't Danny's M.O......he likes those already developed 22-year olds who can maybe step in and play right away in these spots.

the moops · Feb 1, 2016

HomeRunBaker said:
I'm curious why you would feel this is highly likely when Ainge hasn't stashed a single Euro during his tenure with the Celtics while only using a late 2bd rounder on Semih Erden who he quickly dismissed. I don't expect us to go this route at all since this isn't Danny's M.O......he likes those already developed 22-year olds who can maybe step in and play right away in these spots.

Well, Danny has never had 8 draft picks in one year, so I am not sure his MO is really going to be all that predicative. I think it is decent speculation, that if he keeps a majority of the picks, he will need to do something creative like stash a few overseas.

TheDeuce222 · Feb 1, 2016

HomeRunBaker said:
I'm curious why you would feel this is highly likely when Ainge hasn't stashed a single Euro during his tenure with the Celtics while only using a late 2bd rounder on Semih Erden who he quickly dismissed. I don't expect us to go this route at all since this isn't Danny's M.O......he likes those already developed 22-year olds who can maybe step in and play right away in these spots.

First - because of the number of picks and the need to do so this year. Similar to how Belichick had never drafted a Defensive End in the first round until there was an excellent one sitting there in 2012 in Chandler Jones, I think Ainge will absolutely draft Europeans, or Americans like Thornton who agree to be drafted and stashed, if and when the opportunity arises (he did the same thing with Colton Iverson too).

I also highly disagree with your theory that he prefers already developed 22-year olds who can potentially play right away later in the draft. That sure doesn't explain Gerald Green, or Fab Melo, or Al Jefferson, or James Young (over Gary Harris and Rodney Hood). I think Ainge has shown that he is willing to try any kind of prospect - he's looking to maximize talent. Perhaps in the Garnett years he was predisposed to trying to find players that would help right away. Obviously a number of those guys didn't work out (Giddens, Johnson, etc.). Overall, I think his record suggests he can and will take a draft and stash guy if the value is right. We will see in five months.

Sprowl · Feb 1, 2016

BigSoxFan said:
I could also see Ainge packaging some of the early 2nds in an attempt to move up a couple spots if a guy he likes falls to the late teens (assuming Bos/Dal pick around 20). I think the 50s picks will almost surely be eurostashes.

Eurostash is a Great Internet Word. I expect that there will be lots of opportunities to use it over the next five months.

nighthob · Feb 1, 2016

TheDeuce222 said:
I also highly disagree with your theory that he prefers already developed 22-year olds who can potentially play right away later in the draft. That sure doesn't explain Gerald Green, or Fab Melo, or Al Jefferson, or James Young (over Gary Harris and Rodney Hood). I think Ainge has shown that he is willing to try any kind of prospect - he's looking to maximize talent. Perhaps in the Garnett years he was predisposed to trying to find players that would help right away. Obviously a number of those guys didn't work out (Giddens, Johnson, etc.). Overall, I think his record suggests he can and will take a draft and stash guy if the value is right. We will see in five months.

Jefferson, Green, and Young weren't late round choices, they were all mid firsts. Melo is an exception, but I think that may have been as much due to the fact that Ainge had just drafted his guarantee guy in Sullinger. Aside from that it's been mostly upperclassmen.

Grin&MartyBarret · Feb 1, 2016

How many underclassmen are sitting there late in the first round? Generally speaking, underclassmen are far less likely to be there that late as few will enter the draft without a promise, and promises late in the first are a risky proposition. After pick 20 last year, only 8 underclassmen were selected. In 2014, there were 6. In 2013, there were 4.

In other words, once you draw an arbitrary distinction between "mid-round" and "late-round," your conclusion becomes self fulfilling. And if you don't draw that distinction, it becomes a lot harder to support the notion that Ainge likes a "type" of player--especially when you factor in the sorts of players available in the late first, where an inordinate number of his selections have fallen.

nighthob · Feb 1, 2016

I mean aside from the fact that HRB was drawing that "arbitrary line" in his initial claim. I'm not sure when picks 15, 16, and 18 became the end of a set of 30 rather than, definitionally, the middle, but now you're basically redefining someone else's terms to assert that they're wrong about what even you concede that they're not by pointing out a prime reason why Ainge tends to select safer upperclassmen in the roulette wheel section of the draft.

Grin&MartyBarret · Feb 1, 2016

HomeRunBaker said:
Adding someone mid-to-late first like a LeVert, Hield, Diallo, Newman, or Onuaku that turns into a real good player while having multiple shots at this guy is great value. Unfortunately Danny rarely hits on these guys since Tony Allen really.

[/QUOTE]

nighthob said:
I mean aside from the fact that HRB was drawing that "arbitrary line" in his initial claim. I'm not sure when picks 15, 16, and 18 became the end of a set of 30 rather than, definitionally, the middle, but now you're basically redefining someone else's terms to assert that they're wrong about what even you concede that they're not by pointing out a prime reason why Ainge tends to select safer upperclassmen in the roulette wheel section of the draft.

What am I redefining, exactly? HRB said "adding somebody mid-to-late. . .Unfortunately Danny rarely hits on these guys since Tony Allen."

Since then, a bunch of people have pointed out Ainge draft picks that fell in the mid-to-late first round that a) by any reasonable definition are a "hit", and b) don't really fit the narrative about Ainge preferring the "safe pick." It wasn't until pressed that he changed that to only include "late first round picks," which is why I pointed out that for the most part everybody drafts upperclassmen late in the first. So is HRB right about how Ainge drafts late in the first? Sure. But it's not a particularly useful observation.

HomeRunBaker · Feb 2, 2016

TheDeuce222 said:
I think Ainge will absolutely draft Europeans, or Americans like Thornton who agree to be drafted and stashed, if and when the opportunity arises (he did the same thing with Colton Iverson too).

I'm not sure how the drafting of Thornton and Iverson have to do with selecting European players since these were 4-year American college players.

The thing is the only Americans willing to agree to an oversea stash pre-draft are those who know they won't be selected later in the 2nd round and have a chance to make an NBA roster. They are essentially UFA disguised as 2nd round Ameristashes "somewhat" similar to OKC drafting Josh Huestis in the 1st round a couple years ago with the agreement he wouldn't sign an NBA contract. Technically, Huestis was a 1st round pick.....but he really wasn't. He was a late 2nd rounder who had an agent savvy enough to make this verbal arrangement. Thornton and Iverson (and Huestis) get the benefit of having that draft slot on their resume which is HUGE in securing future deals overseas.

So yes, we "could" arrange to draft Americans who would otherwise go undrafted. The question was whether Ainge would suddenly stash Euros which he's had plenty of opportunities to do recently (rather than stashing a couple Americans who would otherwise have gone undrafted) when holding multiple 2nd round pick.

Devizier · Feb 2, 2016

Sprowl said:
Eurostash is a Great Internet Word. I expect that there will be lots of opportunities to use it over the next five months.

smastroyin · Feb 3, 2016

Reports out of LA are that Byron Scott's job is at stake, and after beating the Wolves (who I have finally given up on, jerks) they are now only 2 games ahead of the Nets. Meanwhile, the divebombing Wolves are only two games behind the Nets.

Going forward of course, the Lakers have a lot more incentive to tank (they lose their pick if it is not top 3) than the Nets, and probably Scott is just cannon fodder anyway. The Lakers also have two games in hand.

Just to reiterate things like the sky being blue, it really sucks the Celtics couldn't sweep the Nets. Right now there is all of a half game difference between the 3 seed and 6 seed in the East. So those two losses may play a crucial part in determining the Celtics seeding. I know there is a ways to go.

smastroyin · Feb 3, 2016

I think he is safe for this year, it's the later years.

smastroyin · Feb 3, 2016

Also, on the value thing, I realize not everyone likes the same advanced stats, but, just for posterity, in the 2004-2013 drafts (too soon for 14 and 15), here are, by Win Shares, the top 2, with their draft position, and the ranking of the top overall pick. Win Shares aren't perfect, I know, and I'm only giving ordinal ranks.

2004: Howard (1), Iguodola (9)::::Howard (1)
2005: Paul (4), D. Williams (3)::::Bogut (5)
2006: Aldridge (2), Millsap (47)::::Bagnani (11)
2007: Durant (2), M. Gasol (48)::::Oden (25)
2008: Westbrook (4), Love (5)::::Rose (12)
2009: Harden (3), Curry (7)::::Griffin (3)
2010: Monroe (7), George (10)::::Wall (4)
2011: Leonard (15), Butler (30)::::Irving (4)
2012: Davis (1), Lilliad (6):::

avis (1)
2013: Plumlee (22), Gobert (27)::::Bennett (27)

Now, I get it, every draft year isn't equal. Some of these years the 5th best player from the draft is better than the top player from other drafts, etc. Regardless, in only 2 of these 10 years was the number 1 overall the best player in the draft. Meanwhile, number 1 picks were top 5 players from the draft 6 times. Much of this is prone to change as WS is a counting stat and most of these guys are still active, but my point is, sometimes even consensus number 1's don't pan out as well in the NBA. This is why you have the idea that the value of picks isn't on the exponential scale that we sometimes assume.

smastroyin · Feb 3, 2016

Also, apologies for dominating the thread, I am in huge work stress mode and thinking about this stuff gives me some relief, in stead of pursuing a trade with the Nuggets, maybe the Celtics should consider paying the Nugs entire European scouting team twice what they make now to come to the Celtics, at least for the next two drafts. That would certainly improve their Eurostashing.

ishmael · Feb 3, 2016

smastroyin said:
2004: Howard (1), Iguodola (9)::::Howard (1)
2005: Paul (4), D. Williams (3)::::Bogut (5)
2006: Aldridge (2), Millsap (47)::::Bagnani (11)
2007: Durant (2), M. Gasol (48)::::Oden (25)
2008: Westbrook (4), Love (5)::::Rose (12)
2009: Harden (3), Curry (7)::::Griffin (3)
2010: Monroe (7), George (10)::::Wall (4)
2011: Leonard (15), Butler (30)::::Irving (4)
2012: Davis (1), Lilliad (6):::avis (1)
2013: Plumlee (22), Gobert (27)::::Bennett (27)

Great list. Interesting to note that the guys who were drafted late, but became big-time producers, did take a bit longer to start contributing (usually coming on strong at the end of year 2 or by year 3). This despite the fact that they played professionally in Europe (Gasol, Gobert) or were 3/4 year college guys (Millsap, Butler).

For the number 1 picks, I see two busts (Bennett in a terrible draft and Bargnani), two injury flameouts (Oden, Rose), and a fifth guy (Bogut) who has had injury issues, but arguably did not deserve to go #1. The rest of the guys are solid all-stars/all-NBA players.

NoXInNixon · Feb 3, 2016

smastroyin said:
Also, on the value thing, I realize not everyone likes the same advanced stats, but, just for posterity, in the 2004-2013 drafts (too soon for 14 and 15), here are, by Win Shares, the top 2, with their draft position, and the ranking of the top overall pick. Win Shares aren't perfect, I know, and I'm only giving ordinal ranks.

2004: Howard (1), Iguodola (9)::::Howard (1)
2005: Paul (4), D. Williams (3)::::Bogut (5)
2006: Aldridge (2), Millsap (47)::::Bagnani (11)
2007: Durant (2), M. Gasol (48)::::Oden (25)
2008: Westbrook (4), Love (5)::::Rose (12)
2009: Harden (3), Curry (7)::::Griffin (3)
2010: Monroe (7), George (10)::::Wall (4)
2011: Leonard (15), Butler (30)::::Irving (4)
2012: Davis (1), Lilliad (6):::avis (1)
2013: Plumlee (22), Gobert (27)::::Bennett (27)

Now, I get it, every draft year isn't equal. Some of these years the 5th best player from the draft is better than the top player from other drafts, etc. Regardless, in only 2 of these 10 years was the number 1 overall the best player in the draft. Meanwhile, number 1 picks were top 5 players from the draft 6 times. Much of this is prone to change as WS is a counting stat and most of these guys are still active, but my point is, sometimes even consensus number 1's don't pan out as well in the NBA. This is why you have the idea that the value of picks isn't on the exponential scale that we sometimes assume.

Two of those "failed" #1's were due to injury. And I have to see anyone who can predict injuries. Most of the rest of those #1's were never really hyped as true game-changing #1 picks. There aren't a lot of non-injury busts among #1 picks that are hyped as future MVPs upon entering the league. If a guy is expected to be dominant, he usually becomes dominant. And there are two dominant-hype guys in this draft. The Celtics getting either of them would be huge.

smastroyin · Feb 3, 2016

You guys are super awesome at missing the point.

I realize Celtics fans still have Tim Duncan PTSD but Ben simmons ain't Tim Duncan. And historically other spots in the draft generate value. The implication made in this thread is that the number one has an exponentially higher value than any other pick. It's wrong it's stupid and it didn't stand up to even cursory analysis.

I'm not saying number 1 picks are bad.

E5 Yaz · Feb 3, 2016

smastroyin said:
You guys are super awesome at missing the point.

I realize Celtics fans still have Tim Duncan PTSD but Ben simmons ain't Tim Duncan. And historically other spots in the draft generate value. The implication made in this thread is that the number one has an exponentially higher value than any other pick. It's wrong it's stupid and it didn't stand up to even cursory analysis.

I'm not saying number 1 picks are bad.

What are you trying to say?

Cesar Crespo · Feb 4, 2016

I guess he's trying to say if we don't get a top 2 pick, we can always get lucky and find the next Leonard or Butler.

Jed Zeppelin · Feb 4, 2016

Last night was pretty great. C's win, Nets lose, Mavs lose, Wolves upset LAC the night after giving LAL a win, and the Jazz win.

I'm not counting on it or anything but with Portland and Utah playing well, the Mavs are far from secure in a playoff spot. Two games each against those two teams loom large. They host the Spurs tomorrow and head to Memphis the next night, decent change to continue this stretch of mediocre play.

amfox1 · Feb 4, 2016

Thursday tankathon report:
http://www.tankathon.com/

Boston's picks:
3,
19 (up 2),
23 (down 3, Boston now in the #4 spot),
31,
35 (down 1),
49,
50 (up 1),
57

chilidawg · Feb 4, 2016

I love the way both Brooklyn and Dallas are playing right now, working out as well as I could have hoped. I had hopes the Minny 1st pick might deliver, but that's looking remote.

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat · Feb 4, 2016

I'm afraid it's going to be hard to keep Phoenix out of the bottom 3. In most games, they aren't even competitive.

BigSoxFan · Feb 4, 2016

Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
I'm afraid it's going to be hard to keep Phoenix out of the bottom 3. In most games, they aren't even competitive.

Yup. But at least #5 position looks to be our absolute worst case scenario, which is pretty nice.

HomeRunBaker · Feb 4, 2016

Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
I'm afraid it's going to be hard to keep Phoenix out of the bottom 3. In most games, they aren't even competitive.

The Nets aren't trying to tank, they don't have to, they just stink and really really miss Jack going 1-9 in their last 10. It's hard to lose ground when you lose nearly every game no matter how bad the other teams are.

Captaincoop · Feb 4, 2016

Don't look now, but the Mavs finally have some teams in their rearview mirror.

Devizier · Feb 4, 2016

Kubatko (over at basketball-reference) did an expected value analysis of draft picks several years back. He didn't include variance, which I assume is pretty significant, but it's worth examining. The values in the chart are the expected win shares (using the since discontinued basketball-reference formula) in a player's first four years:

+------+------+
| Pick | EV |
+------+------+
| 1 | 26.5 |
| 2 | 22.1 |
| 3 | 19.6 |
| 4 | 17.8 |
| 5 | 16.4 |
| 6 | 15.2 |
| 7 | 14.2 |
| 8 | 13.4 |
| 9 | 12.7 |
| 10 | 12.0 |
| 11 | 11.4 |
| 12 | 10.8 |
| 13 | 10.3 |
| 14 | 9.9 |
| 15 | 9.4 |
| 16 | 9.0 |
| 17 | 8.7 |
| 18 | 8.3 |
| 19 | 8.0 |
| 20 | 7.6 |
| 21 | 7.3 |
| 22 | 7.0 |
| 23 | 6.7 |
| 24 | 6.5 |
| 25 | 6.2 |
| 26 | 6.0 |
| 27 | 5.7 |
| 28 | 5.5 |
| 29 | 5.3 |
| 30 | 5.1 |
| 31 | 4.9 |
| 32 | 4.7 |
| 33 | 4.5 |
| 34 | 4.3 |
| 35 | 4.1 |
| 36 | 3.9 |
| 37 | 3.8 |
| 38 | 3.6 |
| 39 | 3.4 |
| 40 | 3.3 |
| 41 | 3.1 |
| 42 | 3.0 |
| 43 | 2.8 |
| 44 | 2.7 |
| 45 | 2.5 |
| 46 | 2.4 |
| 47 | 2.2 |
| 48 | 2.1 |
| 49 | 2.0 |
| 50 | 1.9 |
| 51 | 1.7 |
| 52 | 1.6 |
| 53 | 1.5 |
| 54 | 1.4 |
| 55 | 1.3 |
| 56 | 1.1 |
| 57 | 1.0 |
| 58 | 0.9 |
| 59 | 0.8 |
| 60 | 0.7 |
+------+------+

Jed Zeppelin · Feb 5, 2016

Lakers win again. One W behind Brooklyn. It would be too perfect for Kobe to bid farewell by fucking up the Lakers' future by leading them to too many wins down the stretch.

BigSoxFan · Feb 5, 2016

Jed Zeppelin said:
Lakers win again. One W behind Brooklyn. It would be too perfect for Kobe to bid farewell by fucking up the Lakers' future by leading them to too many wins down the stretch.

And it would be just like the Lakers to have that happen, fall to the 5th position or something, and still win the lottery.

Lose Remerswaal · Feb 5, 2016

Is there any doubt the league will

moondog80 · Feb 5, 2016

Lose Remerswaal said:
Is there any doubt the league will

The Lakers have been in the lottery three times and never won. I think we can put the conspiracy theories to bed.

smastroyin · Feb 5, 2016

Yes, I never said the number 1 was worth less than other picks or that it is not the best pick.

but, I was responding to the notion that the tankathon formula was a ridiculous POS because it didn't exponentially overvalue the number 1 pick. Even understanding the idea (which I don't necessarily accept) that this is a one player draft, you still find valuable players elsewhere even in drafts where a single player dominates. Even the Shaq draft (the most one sided I could find in quick perusal) had Mourning, PJ Brown, and Robert Horry.

In the very specific notion of "the Celtics have plenty of above average to good players but absolutely need to get a superstar and nothing else matters and the only way to do that is to get the number one pick." then sure, their picks have very little value right now unless they win the lottery.

Now, if you want to say the Tankathon formula is a ridiculous POS because they base it off of PER, then at least I'd know you bothered to read how it is created before saying it's a POS.

Jed Zeppelin · Feb 5, 2016

Tough to look at recent history and say the league is in the bag for the Lakers.

chilidawg · Feb 5, 2016

Does anyone spouting conspiracy theories actually look at, you know, recent history or silly things like facts?

Koufax · Feb 5, 2016

smastroyin said:
Now, if you want to say the Tankathon formula is a ridiculous POS because they base it off of PER, then at least I'd know you bothered to read how it is created before saying it's a POS.

Except that PER is one of 4 measures that they blended together in an attempt to be metric-agnostic. (Not trying to pick a fight, only trying to demonstrate that I read the write-up before posting the Tankathon power rankings).

LondonSox · Feb 5, 2016

If you want a conspiracy theory, the Sixers hiring Coangelo and improving pretty dramatically from awful, to run of the mill bad pretty quickly after the league complained.... A la New Orleans Davis?
I doubt it a bit, as they don't want to help the tankers get their reward, but we shall see. I always expect the Sixers to get hosed (despite never being the worst team in the league by record in the tanking period). But this time they appear to have played nice so maybe.

In my lifetime · Feb 6, 2016

A very big day for the watch:
Nets vs. PHILADELPHIA
Utah vs Phoenix
Chicago vs Minnesota
Dallas vs Memphis

All those games could be competitive. A Net loss and wins at home by Phoenix and Minnesota would be great. I will be happy with 2 out of 3.

chilidawg · Feb 6, 2016

And Dallas continuing to circle the drain on the road against a Memphis team that's playing well. Let's hope last night's drubbing convinces them that they're really not that good.

Jeff Frye · Feb 6, 2016

In my lifetime said:
A very big day for the watch:
Nets vs. PHILADELPHIA
Utah vs Phoenix
Chicago vs Minnesota
Dallas vs Memphis

All those games could be competitive. A Net loss and wins at home by Phoenix and Minnesota would be great. I will be happy with 2 out of 3.

Also Portland vs Houston. Rockets win/Mavs loss and Dallas slips down to the 7 in the west

Celtics Draft Pick Watch 2016

simpering whimperer

Member

canderson-lite

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

bet squelcher

Member

Member

mikey lowell of the sandbox

Member

Member

Member

Member

bet squelcher

Member

simpering whimperer

Member

simpering whimperer

simpering whimperer

simpering whimperer

Member

Member

simpering whimperer

polka king

79

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

has big, douchey shoulders

Member

bet squelcher

Member

Member

Member

Member

Experiencing Furry Panic

heart is two sizes two small

simpering whimperer

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Robert the Deuce

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member