Your preferred Celtic target at #3

Your choice (sorry trade is not among the choices, since that obviously depends on the trade target)

  • Bender

    Votes: 56 46.7%
  • Hield

    Votes: 12 10.0%
  • Dunn

    Votes: 21 17.5%
  • Murray

    Votes: 15 12.5%
  • Brown

    Votes: 5 4.2%
  • Chriss

    Votes: 11 9.2%

  • Total voters
    120
  • Poll closed .

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Where is the massive improvement?
His FT% are basically the same his whole career, as for 3pt% he only took 14 3s as a Freshman which makes it basically useless.
He took only 14 because he couldn't shoot at all as a freshman. It was worse than watching Marcus Smart jacking them up when he was forced to shoot and teams left him wide open except he'd either pass up the open shot or penetrate into the lane. Over the course of 24 months he developed into a guy who could shoot a good volume of contested NBA 3-pointers again the shot clock out of iso and double teams while still maintaining a pct in the high 30's.

To say this dramatic improvement in a player over 24 months is useless is kinda silly. It's literally a completely different player due to his improvement shooting the basketball from distance.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
He took only 14 because he couldn't shoot at all as a freshman. It was worse than watching Marcus Smart jacking them up when he was forced to shoot and teams left him wide open except he'd either pass up the open shot or penetrate into the lane. Over the course of 24 months he developed into a guy who could shoot a good volume of contested NBA 3-pointers again the shot clock out of iso and double teams while still maintaining a pct in the high 30's.

To say this dramatic improvement in a player over 24 months is useless is kinda silly. It's literally a completely different player due to his improvement shooting the basketball from distance.
If he had made one more 3 as a freshman he'd have shot better than he did as a Junior.
I think any assessment of him as massively improving as a shooter is baseless, especially when taking into account his FT%.
It's also pointless in terms of projecting his future.
His Junior and Senior seasons are very similar to each other, and are likely a good indicator of his skills and given his age and experience I see no reason to think he has any likelihood of becoming a significantly better player.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,948
If he had made one more 3 as a freshman he'd have shot better than he did as a Junior.
I think any assessment of him as massively improving as a shooter is baseless, especially when taking into account his FT%.
It's also pointless in terms of projecting his future.
His Junior and Senior seasons are very similar to each other, and are likely a good indicator of his skills and given his age and experience I see no reason to think he has any likelihood of becoming a significantly better player.
You mean any assessment is baseless, ONLY when taking into account FT%, right? Bowiac says he's seeing no "signs of improvement" based solely on the same metric, but he also admits that he's never seen the guy play a minute of basketball. I think HRB is trying to say that there is more to the story than just free throw percentages and/or three point percentages. I think you would admit that a guy shooting 30% from 3 point land with nobody defending him is likely much worse a shooter than a guy shooting 30% who is constantly double teamed and has hands in his face, no? And that's just one example. Not every percentage has equal value, and when we're talking about a sample size that is as relatively small as Dunn's, I think folks need to look a little deeper than just the numbers to determine if he has actually improved. Watching him play would be a pretty good first step.

But then you go a step further, and say that based on these percentages (if you've cited anything else as a reason for this belief, let me know), you literally have no reason to think he can get significantly better? Really? In his age 24 season, there was an NBA player that shot 13% on 3 pointers on 52 attempts. After a couple of up and down seasons, he shot 37% as a 26 year old on 245 attempts, and then 27% as a 28 year old on 100 attempts, and at ages 32 and 33, he shot 42% and 37% on 260 and 297 attempts, respectively.

There is another guy who shot 31.9% and 31.5% at ages 22 and 23 (both over 300 attempts), and had an eerily similar to Dunn, range from the FT line at 69%-71%. At age 28 and 29, his 3 point shooting had gone up to 40.6% and 37.9% (again, over 250 attempts each year), and his FT shooting had gone up to 75% both years.

Obviously, the first guy on that list is Michael Jordan and the 2nd is Lebron. Both of whom were pretty dreadful shooting the ball early in their careers, but by the time they were in their late 20's, had become pretty damn good. I just don't know how you look at a college kid (regardless of age) and claim he's hit his ceiling, or that you have no reason to believe he can't improve, based on nothing more than looking at his shooting percentages without any other context at all. Of course he can. Guys do it all the time, including some of the all time greats of the game.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
You mean any assessment is baseless, ONLY when taking into account FT%, right? Bowiac says he's seeing no "signs of improvement" based solely on the same metric, but he also admits that he's never seen the guy play a minute of basketball. I think HRB is trying to say that there is more to the story than just free throw percentages and/or three point percentages. I think you would admit that a guy shooting 30% from 3 point land with nobody defending him is likely much worse a shooter than a guy shooting 30% who is constantly double teamed and has hands in his face, no? And that's just one example. Not every percentage has equal value, and when we're talking about a sample size that is as relatively small as Dunn's, I think folks need to look a little deeper than just the numbers to determine if he has actually improved. Watching him play would be a pretty good first step.

But then you go a step further, and say that based on these percentages (if you've cited anything else as a reason for this belief, let me know), you literally have no reason to think he can get significantly better? Really? In his age 24 season, there was an NBA player that shot 13% on 3 pointers on 52 attempts. After a couple of up and down seasons, he shot 37% as a 26 year old on 245 attempts, and then 27% as a 28 year old on 100 attempts, and at ages 32 and 33, he shot 42% and 37% on 260 and 297 attempts, respectively.

There is another guy who shot 31.9% and 31.5% at ages 22 and 23 (both over 300 attempts), and had an eerily similar to Dunn, range from the FT line at 69%-71%. At age 28 and 29, his 3 point shooting had gone up to 40.6% and 37.9% (again, over 250 attempts each year), and his FT shooting had gone up to 75% both years.

Obviously, the first guy on that list is Michael Jordan and the 2nd is Lebron. Both of whom were pretty dreadful shooting the ball early in their careers, but by the time they were in their late 20's, had become pretty damn good. I just don't know how you look at a college kid (regardless of age) and claim he's hit his ceiling, or that you have no reason to believe he can't improve, based on nothing more than looking at his shooting percentages without any other context at all. Of course he can. Guys do it all the time, including some of the all time greats of the game.
Not precisely what I was saying, I was saying that there is nothing in his history that makes me think he will improve significantly, in part because his shooting percentages have been essentially static. Now.. could he improve dramatically ... sure, people have, but that is usually the exception rather than the rule.

Looking at your example of Jordan, he was actually in limited attempts a good 3pt shooter in college, and his FT% increased every year in college. As a pro he had a bizarrely bad % on limited to moderate attempts early in his career before moving to bad, then one good year, back to bad then 3 good years and terrible thereafter. Despite the one good year at 26 and the nice 29-33 stretch he was overall a very poor 3pt shooter for his career, despite his underlying very good and consistent FT shooting.

Lebron is a weird example to use, he shot 35% as a 19 year old and bounced around 32-35% for a while before the 36, 40, 38 run followed by a tail off. I would consider that fairly normal variation on the whole with maybe a certain element of improvement.

I guess on the whole what I am saying isn't that there is no chance Dunn turns into an excellent 3 pt shooter, but that I don't see anything in his performance that indicates it is likely that he will. He fixed his stroke by all accounts going into his junior year, he then performed almost precisely the same the next two year, and the performance tends to indicate a likelihood that he'll be a decent but unspectacular shooter in the NBA, with maybe more downside than upside given his FT struggles.

Also, let's be real, Kris Dunn isn't Jordan or Lebron, and pulling two of the best players and most gifted athletes in NBA history isn't going to give you much of a quality comparison.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,948
I only pulled Lebron and Jordan because they are just easy to remember examples of guys who early in their careers weren't known as shooters, but really honed that part of their game. I'm not saying Dunn will be anything close to either guy, I was just trying to make the point that there are plenty of examples of guys who weren't great shooters in their early 20's becoming above average shooters later in their careers. I'm sure if we look around a bit, we'll find plenty of guys who improved dramatically from the outside and the free throw line during that age period.

I will say that Dunn's upside is Russell Westbrook though. I really think he is that good, and if he just continues to shoot 30% from the 3 point arc at the pro level, he'll be as good as Westbrook is by that metric. He's got the size of Westbrook, is as good, if not better on the defensive end at this stage of his career, and has the ability to improve in other areas to make this comparison not that far off. I also think folks really, really need to understand just how bad some of the guys playing around Dunn were. Until Bentil showed up as legitimate scorer this year, Dunn was essentially playing by himself on offense, and defenses knew it. When he stops being the singular focus of opposing defenses, I think that will only increase his ability to make plays and his confidence, and as everyone knows, confidence is a huge aspect of outside shooting. It was a lack of confidence that resulted in him barely taking any 3's as a freshman, even though there was virtually no other better option on the floor with him, and he was never in danger of being benched or anything like that.

If he's not at least an All Star in the NBA at some point in his career, I'll be very, very surprised. He's got enough talent on one hand to reach that level. Whether it happens or not is anyone's guess, but given this draft class, I think teams will be extremely dejected a few years from now if they passed on him. He's one of only a few guys who can step in right now and play at the NBA level, never mind succeed, and I truly believe his floor is extremely high, and his ceiling is even higher.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I'm sure if we look around a bit, we'll find plenty of guys who improved dramatically from the outside and the free throw line during that age period.
The fact that a few guys exist is great (Jason Kidd, Bruce Bowen). I'd be surprised if were that many however, since there's a reason NBA draft models value free throw shooting so much as a predictor of three point shooting. It's because it's an effective measure. Neither Jordan nor LeBron are examples: Jordan was an 85% free throw shooter from the minute he got to the league. LeBron has been a 74% guy (bouncing around a bit, but not much). Neither is Westbrook (80% FT% immediately).

The two comps I've seen here by his fans are Wall and Westbrook. Elsewhere, I've seen Derek Rose. It seems like the case a lot of people are making for Dunn is based around the idea that he's truly an A+ athlete, even in a sport and position filled with spectacular athletes.

If you think Dunn really is among the 7 best athletes in the NBA or something, then sure, he's probably worth the gamble, as the draft models can't really know that. That's not something I can speak to. My instinct is to be skeptical, and wonder why he wasn't more highly recruited, and wasn't a big NBA prospect after his freshman year if he's really on that level.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,095
If you think Dunn really is among the 7 best athletes in the NBA or something, then sure, he's probably worth the gamble, as the draft models can't really know that. That's not something I can speak to. My instinct is to be skeptical, and wonder why he wasn't more highly recruited, and wasn't a big NBA prospect after his freshman year if he's really on that level.
Dunn was the 23rd ranked player in his HS class (per ESPN), turned down offers from Kansas, Georgetown, UConn, and Louisville to play for Ed Cooley at PC. His freshman and sophomore years were hampered by injury, which is why he didn't emerge as a draft prospect until last year.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,495
My instinct is to be skeptical, and wonder why he wasn't more highly recruited, and wasn't a big NBA prospect after his freshman year if he's really on that level.
I don't know much about Dunn, but I was interested in your statement that he wasn't more highly recruited because he was a five-star recruit and a McD's AA. From this story - http://friarbasketball.com/2015/10/30/the-divergent-paths-of-dunn-and-ledo/ - apparently Dunn sort of committed to Cooley as a junior before he "blew up" and then stuck with Providence when he could have "gone anywhere else in the country" (like UConn or Louisville, which were mentioned).

This retrospective Rivals article has him ranked #16 but said that he was probably ranked too low.

Scout had him #23.

He was considered the pre-season #1 player in the country by some publications before this year.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
The fact that a few guys exist is great (Jason Kidd, Bruce Bowen). I'd be surprised if were that many however, since there's a reason NBA draft models value free throw shooting so much as a predictor of three point shooting. It's because it's an effective measure. Neither Jordan nor LeBron are examples: Jordan was an 85% free throw shooter from the minute he got to the league. LeBron has been a 74% guy (bouncing around a bit, but not much). Neither is Westbrook (80% FT% immediately).

The two comps I've seen here by his fans are Wall and Westbrook. Elsewhere, I've seen Derek Rose. It seems like the case a lot of people are making for Dunn is based around the idea that he's truly an A+ athlete, even in a sport and position filled with spectacular athletes.

If you think Dunn really is among the 7 best athletes in the NBA or something, then sure, he's probably worth the gamble, as the draft models can't really know that. That's not something I can speak to. My instinct is to be skeptical, and wonder why he wasn't more highly recruited, and wasn't a big NBA prospect after his freshman year if he's really on that level.
By my eye, Dunn is clearly a tier behind Wall athletically, nevermind Westbrook. And at age 21, Wall and Westbrook were putting up 16 points and 8 assists per 36 in the NBA while shooting 80% from the line. While I think Dunn can be on par with them as a distributor, for him to approach either of their value, he'd have to become a significantly better shooter and and prove himself a lock-down defender. He has the tools for the latter, but as you point out, the odds are against the former.

That said, I think his chances of becoming a good shooter are at least as good as the chances that Jamal Murray ever becomes a serviceable defender (or capable point guard, though it seems conventional wisdom disagrees with me here), or that Buddy Hield becomes an average ball handler. If I'm looking for a SG with questionable defense, I'd take the upside of Korkmaz over either of those guys. But I'd rather go with the agile 7-foot 18 year-old who can shoot and pass.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I don't know much about Dunn, but I was interested in your statement that he wasn't more highly recruited because he was a five-star recruit and a McD's AA. From this story - http://friarbasketball.com/2015/10/30/the-divergent-paths-of-dunn-and-ledo/ - apparently Dunn sort of committed to Cooley as a junior before he "blew up" and then stuck with Providence when he could have "gone anywhere else in the country" (like UConn or Louisville, which were mentioned).
By highly recruited, I'm talking about like John Wall, who was ranked in the top 2 on every index. Rose was ranked in the top 3. Westbrook was not as highly ranked, but was a high lottery prospect almost immediately after stepping onto a court at UCLA. Rivals saying Dunn was underrated after the fact isn't really telling us much, since that's true of every player who blows up outside of Kentucky.

None of this is dispositive. Every circumstance is different. But I'm not a scout, and I don't have a good eye for athleticism regardless, so I need to rely on such proxies. I'm not observant enough to know the difference between an ordinary NBA athlete and a top tier one based on watching some NCAA highlight videos. Like I said, if your eyes are telling you the guy is that level of athlete, then great.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,542
South Boston
By my eye, Dunn is clearly a tier behind Wall athletically, nevermind Westbrook. And at age 21, Wall and Westbrook were putting up 16 points and 8 assists per 36 in the NBA while shooting 80% from the line. While I think Dunn can be on par with them as a distributor, for him to approach either of their value, he'd have to become a significantly better shooter and and prove himself a lock-down defender. He has the tools for the latter, but as you point out, the odds are against the former.

That said, I think his chances of becoming a good shooter are at least as good as the chances that Jamal Murray ever becomes a serviceable defender (or capable point guard, though it seems conventional wisdom disagrees with me here), or that Buddy Hield becomes an average ball handler. If I'm looking for a SG with questionable defense, I'd take the upside of Korkmaz over either of those guys. But I'd rather go with the agile 7-foot 18 year-old who can shoot and pass.
In what world is Korkmaz a 7-footer?
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,542
South Boston
By highly recruited, I'm talking about like John Wall, who was ranked in the top 2 on every index. Rose was ranked in the top 3. Westbrook was not as highly ranked, but was a high lottery prospect almost immediately after stepping onto a court at UCLA.b Rivals saying Dunn was underrated after the fact isn't really telling us much, since that's true of every player who blows up outside of Kentucky.

None of this is dispositive. Every circumstance is different. But I'm not a scout, and I don't have a good eye for athleticism regardless, so I need to rely on such proxies. I'm not observant enough to know the difference between an ordinary NBA athlete and a top tier one based on watching some NCAA highlight videos. Like I said, if your eyes are telling you the guy is that level of athlete, then great.
I mean, if you think that averaging less than 4 points a game and only starting one game makes you an immediate lottery prospect you are right. Westbrook spent his freshman year not really playing that much.

Dunn could have played at just about any college in the country.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,841
So, what do we make of Kupchak's comment that he doesn't think there's a big difference between the #2 and #3 and that if you look at the Lakers roster an argument could be made that they need frontcourt help.

There's no chance they go anywhere except Simmons of Ingram right?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
So, what do we make of Kupchak's comment that he doesn't think there's a big difference between the #2 and #3 and that if you look at the Lakers roster an argument could be made that they need frontcourt help.

There's no chance they go anywhere except Simmons of Ingram right?
The Lakers are in a sweet spot as could add a top-2 rookie along with an All-Star wing in DeRozan who is likely a lock to return to the place he still calls home.......or move it for a young veteran starter while still having space to go after a big like Whiteside/Biyombo.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
So, what do we make of Kupchak's comment that he doesn't think there's a big difference between the #2 and #3 and that if you look at the Lakers roster an argument could be made that they need frontcourt help.

There's no chance they go anywhere except Simmons of Ingram right?
I think it's a smokescreen, but I do think that as the draft gets closer we'll start hearing more about Bender moving up and people saying it might be a top 3. He was getting press as on par with Simmons for the 1 spot before the college season, then Simmons had a great season, Ingram emerged and as most people expected Bender got limited minutes in Europe. The underlying skills didn't go away, I'd guess for the NBA scouts there is less of a gap between the top 2 and Bender (maybe Dunn for some teams) than the media thinks.
I'd guess Simmons/Ingram go 1/2 if only because GMs who go with the public perception are less likely to get fired, but I wouldn't be shocked if there are a handful of teams who have someone other than Simmons/Ingram in their top 2.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,495
So, what do we make of Kupchak's comment that he doesn't think there's a big difference between the #2 and #3 and that if you look at the Lakers roster an argument could be made that they need frontcourt help.

There's no chance they go anywhere except Simmons of Ingram right?
Well, there's always a chance. For instance, Pelton and Ford think Bender might be the second best player in the draft. See: http://www.lakersnation.com/lakers-could-select-dragan-bender-with-second-overall-draft-pick/2016/05/23/ Also, Kupchak went to scout Bender in person in March.

BTW, Tim Welch thinks Bender is "can't miss."
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
Would you trade #3 and Nets2017 for #2?
No, I wouldn't. Even though there seems to be a high likelihood that both Simmons and Ingram will be stars - if draft reports, etc. are to be believed - there's no sure thing. Unless Danny has insight into how transcendent one of those players will be I'd rather take the chance of having potentially 2 high shots at getting a star rather than putting all the eggs in one basket.

Of course, there's also a chance of getting 2 stars with the 2 picks. Teams going far in the playoffs have multiple stars and we're in a decent position to join that tier.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
Would you trade #3 and Nets2017 for #2?
No, but I think Bender is as good or better a prospect of the top 2. If you're someone who thinks the dropoff is huge maybe, but I don't buy that the difference between 2 and 3 is a high lottery pick.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
So, what do we make of Kupchak's comment that he doesn't think there's a big difference between the #2 and #3 and that if you look at the Lakers roster an argument could be made that they need frontcourt help.

There's no chance they go anywhere except Simmons of Ingram right?
I'll be shocked if the Lakers choice isn't Cousins. And it would be the most Sacramento thing ever for the Kings to draft Dunn at #2.
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
I'll be shocked if the Lakers choice isn't Cousins.
With Walton in the mix and Durant likely an OKC lifer, I believe Kupchak's would more likely be tipped toward Paul George. Russell, George, DeRozan, and Randle? That's a a lot of length with the capability to play Warriors-style ball.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I will say that Dunn's upside is Russell Westbrook though. I really think he is that good, and if he just continues to shoot 30% from the 3 point arc at the pro level, he'll be as good as Westbrook is by that metric. He's got the size of Westbrook, is as good, if not better on the defensive end at this stage of his career, and has the ability to improve in other areas to make this comparison not that far off. I also think folks really, really need to understand just how bad some of the guys playing around Dunn were. Until Bentil showed up as legitimate scorer this year, Dunn was essentially playing by himself on offense, and defenses knew it. When he stops being the singular focus of opposing defenses, I think that will only increase his ability to make plays and his confidence, and as everyone knows, confidence is a huge aspect of outside shooting. It was a lack of confidence that resulted in him barely taking any 3's as a freshman, even though there was virtually no other better option on the floor with him, and he was never in danger of being benched or anything like that.
Russell Westbrook averaged 21.9 PPG and 8.2 APG for the Thunder in 2010-11, when he was four months older than Kris Dunn was this past season.

Also, there wasn't a huge difference between Dunn's junior and senior seasons, either in terms of individual stats or team performance. That doesn't exactly scream "projectability." There's a good reason why he's considered a high-floor, low-ceiling guy compared to the other players in the 3-4-5-6-7 discussion.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Well, there's always a chance. For instance, Pelton and Ford think Bender might be the second best player in the draft. See: http://www.lakersnation.com/lakers-could-select-dragan-bender-with-second-overall-draft-pick/2016/05/23/ Also, Kupchak went to scout Bender in person in March.

BTW, Tim Welch thinks Bender is "can't miss."
I don't agree with the "can't miss" part, but I do think based on what I've read about Bender, he deserves to be in the conversation with Ingram. That's mostly because I'm a bit lower on Ingram than the consensus seems to be.

Obviously the "fog" around Bender is bigger than most prospects, but I wouldn't be floored if the Lakers took him #2.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
Obviously the "fog" around Bender is bigger than most prospects, but I wouldn't be floored if the Lakers took him #2.
I would be surprised only that, if they prefer Bender to Ingram, they should be able to wrangle an asset (#16, #23, Jarebko or Johnson) from Boston to switch spots.

The question then becomes, if Boston has the #2 pick, what do they do with it? Do they take Ingram to keep him or do they trade him (either before, during or after the draft) for a veteran star? One would think that an Ingram+ for Butler trade becomes possible.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
Regarding Dunn, Mudiay (two years younger) and Elfrid Payton (a month older) seem like more reasonable comps for big, athletic PGs with questionable jump shots, though I think Dunn's better distributor than either of them. Looking at the list of point guards 25 and under, there are less than I would've initially thought I'd prefer over Dunn over the next five years- Wall, Lilliard, Kyrie, Rubio, Kemba Walker, D'Angelo Russell, Oladipo, Bledsoe... then there are guys I'd have to think about more- Payton, Mudiay, Smart, Schroder, Lavine, Holiday, and Reggie Jackson. But that's about it. Not the glut of young talent I expected at the position.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,291
I would be surprised only that, if they prefer Bender to Ingram, they should be able to wrangle an asset (#16, #23, Jarebko or Johnson) from Boston to switch spots.

The question then becomes, if Boston has the #2 pick, what do they do with it? Do they take Ingram to keep him or do they trade him (either before, during or after the draft) for a veteran star? One would think that an Ingram+ for Butler trade becomes possible.
If Ingram for (insert star player) is possible the Lakers would probably just do that, no?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,091
My dream scenario is that this becomes the sequel of the 2003 draft where Simmons goes #1 just like LeBron, whoever picks #2 takes the 18 year-old sky-is-the-limit Euro big man, and we snatch up the talented scoring wing coming off a successful freshman NCAA campaign for a major D1 program. I guess Dunn would be the DWade in this analogy, a talented upper classmen guard who turns into an elite player.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
With Walton in the mix and Durant likely an OKC lifer, I believe Kupchak's would more likely be tipped toward Paul George. Russell, George, DeRozan, and Randle? That's a a lot of length with the capability to play Warriors-style ball.
I agree that they would prefer Paul George, what I disagree with is his availability in trade. I think Cousins is the easiest get for them.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,495
My dream scenario is that this becomes the sequel of the 2003 draft where Simmons goes #1 just like LeBron, whoever picks #2 takes the 18 year-old sky-is-the-limit Euro big man, and we snatch up the talented scoring wing coming off a successful freshman NCAA campaign for a major D1 program. I guess Dunn would be the DWade in this analogy, a talented upper classmen guard who turns into an elite player.
Wouldn't Ingram be DWade in this scenario?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,091
I think Ingram would be Carmelo.
Correct.

Simmons - LeBron
Bender - Darko
Ingram - Melo
Dunn - Wade

Not perfect analogy but some similarities there. Of course, I don't think there's much of a chance at all of Bender going 2.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
So if the Lakers really want Bender, they do a draft-and-trade with us: Take Ingram at #2, trade to BOS for #3 and #23. BOS then moves Ingram + #16 + a second rounder + an expendable young player (Young? Hunter? Rozier? etc.) for available veteran star (Cousins/Butler/George). Lakers don't have the extra resources to add to Ingram to make that deal.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
So if the Lakers really want Bender, they do a draft-and-trade with us: Take Ingram at #2, trade to BOS for #3 and #23. BOS then moves Ingram + #16 + a second rounder + an expendable young player (Young? Hunter? Rozier? etc.) for available veteran star (Cousins/Butler/George). Lakers don't have the extra resources to add to Ingram to make that deal.
Sure they do. Ingram + Randall. Done. Young is worth nothing. Hunter and Rozier have minimal value. #16 is okay at best.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
So if the Lakers really want Bender, they do a draft-and-trade with us: Take Ingram at #2, trade to BOS for #3 and #23. BOS then moves Ingram + #16 + a second rounder + an expendable young player (Young? Hunter? Rozier? etc.) for available veteran star (Cousins/Butler/George). Lakers don't have the extra resources to add to Ingram to make that deal.
On what planet does this deal make sense for LA?

And I doubt the Kings will do Ingram + flotsam for Cousins -- maybe that makes sense in a keeper fantasy league, but they need to sell tickets.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
The planet where they would take Bender at #2 anyway. Which seems unlikely but I guess is possible.
At a minimum, they would have conversations with Phoenix and drive the price up. Any discussion about moving up begins with the inclusion of one of the Brooklyn picks (not sure if the 2017 swap is tradable).
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,095
At a minimum, they would have conversations with Phoenix and drive the price up. Any discussion about moving up begins with the inclusion of one of the Brooklyn picks (not sure if the 2017 swap is tradable).
But Boston just says "fine, trade with Phoenix, but we're taking Bender at 3 if Simmons and Ingram go 1/2".
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
But Boston just says "fine, trade with Phoenix, but we're taking Bender at 3 if Simmons and Ingram go 1/2".
If the Lakers truly prefer Bender to Ingram (which we're assuming for discussion purposes) it may well be a slight preference that says more about their opinion of Ingram than Bender -- such that they would gladly take a king's ransom from Phoenix (or someone further down) to trade out of the pick. In any event, Danny won't know their thoughts exactly, which is why there's zero chance he would stick to #23 as his final offer, assuming his view of Ingram and Bender is anywhere close to the conventional wisdom.

Of course, all the chatter about the Lakers wanting to take a step forward next season suggests they might have taken Ingram even if they had the #1 pick -- I think Simmons is clearly the best prospect in the draft, but even I think Ingram is likely to make a more immediate impact, especially if he's placed on a team with some other assets.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
So if the Lakers really want Bender, they do a draft-and-trade with us: Take Ingram at #2, trade to BOS for #3 and #23. BOS then moves Ingram + #16 + a second rounder + an expendable young player (Young? Hunter? Rozier? etc.) for available veteran star (Cousins/Butler/George). Lakers don't have the extra resources to add to Ingram to make that deal.
Russell + Ingram is basically better than any offer that Boston can cobble together.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Dean Demakis, who has a pretty good (but recently inactive) draft blog, put a post up about Ingram vs. Simmons, and came down lukewarm on Ingram, and downright down on Simmons:

I cannot say with certainty that he will not be great. He is clearly the most talented player in the draft, and perhaps both statistics and narratives overstate concerns about his NBA future. This is a thinly sliced argument, after all. But if I were an NBA executive immersed in the evaluation process, I *suspect* the conclusions I would arrive at are:

  1. Brandon Ingram is a better prospect than Ben Simmons
  2. I would rather roll the dice on Dragan Bender at #2 overall (to add an even more thinly sliced prospect to the equation!) than gamble on Simmons’ talent overcoming his warts.
I do not believe there is a 3rd prospect who merits consideration about Simmons, but my gut feeling is that he is an underdog to become a clearly positive NBA player. Again, this is all thin analysis from afar and it could be wrong, but it’s my foggy perspective and I am in the mood to share it.
I think this is a bit harsh on Simmons, but he certainly does have a lot of bust potential.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Russell + Ingram is basically better than any offer that Boston can cobble together.
I think that's demonstrably untrue. Russell isn't better than every player Boston has. If EVERYTHING's on the table, then the Celtics have more, better, established players to add to more draft picks. The only advantage LA has is the #2 v #3 pick.

But I wasn't assuming that either LA or Boston would be trading away key pieces, which is why I said "extra resources." Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. LA is a pretty shallow team, talent-wise. Trading away Russell or Randle just opens up another hole to fill.

In any case, this speculation is built on the report that Kupchak might actually prefer Bender at #2. That could be inaccurate or a smokescreen (although who Kupchak would be trying to fake out when he's already sitting at #2 is a bit hazy). But that's LA's incentive in this scenario - to get their preferred guy while maximizing the value of the #2 pick and leveraging the conventional wisdom that says Ingram > Bender. But they can't trade with PHX and be sure of getting Bender, so Ainge would actually have some unique leverage in this scenario, especially since Bender could easily fit with the Celtics.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Nick Anderson missed a bunch of FT's at the end of a playoff game to lose it. Afterwards, his FT shooting went in the tank while his 3 point shooting was fine. Whether that is proof they are different skill sets or not I'm not sure. I think it's more what HRB says, if you already have a 35% 3 point shooter, the fact he shoots 60% from the FT line isn't going to make him a 20% 3 point shooter long term. You already have an established level of production from that range. It may not be the case with Dunn, but in general.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
I think that's demonstrably untrue. Russell isn't better than every player Boston has. If EVERYTHING's on the table, then the Celtics have more, better, established players to add to more draft picks. The only advantage LA has is the #2 v #3 pick.
The point at which Boston can top Russell and Ingram is the point where they've gutted the team, and I'm not sure people like Boogie enough to come play with him.