The Plan For the #1, er, #3 Overall Pick?

[DJnVa]

Butler's peak is NOW when LBJ and Warriors are going nuts.

Many would rather take a chance on Fultz's peak in, say, 3-6 years, when LBJ is done (or at least closer) WHILE ALSO BEING ONE OF LAST 4 TEAMS PLAYING. To me, adding Butler keeps us in the last 4 teams. Adding Fultz does the same, with the benefit of possibly moving beyond that in 5 years, when Butler is no longer a top 10 or 20 guy.

 

[heavyde050]

Butler's peak is NOW when LBJ and Warriors are going nuts.

Many would rather take a chance on Fultz's peak in, say, 3-6 years, when LBJ is done (or at least closer) WHILE ALSO BEING ONE OF LAST 4 TEAMS PLAYING. To me, adding Butler keeps us in the last 4 teams. Adding Fultz does the same, with the benefit of possibly moving beyond that in 5 years, when Butler is no longer a top 10 or 20 guy.

Great post. Fultz is the answer.

 

[heavyde050]

Westbrook is certainly "transcendent" in a lot of senses of the word. But if I'm selling off assets for a player to build a team around — which is sort of the topic here — I'd probably put him last, or at best #6 above Kyrie. I just think it's hard to build a great team around a 6'-3" hyper-ball-dominant PG who isn't a great shooter or a good defender. Kyrie at least checks the "great shooter" box, which gives you some versatility in terms of playing him off ball, or in a motion offense.

Also, if we're talking real world: I'd also be extremely wary of a high-mileage 28.5 year-old whose best quality is his freak athleticism.

As you guys have pointed out, many of the names mentioned here are total pie-in-the-sky, but if I'm ranking those seven in terms of who I'd want to build a team around (and throwing in Jimmy Butler):

1. Antetokounmpo
2. Towns
3. Davis
4. George
5. Butler
6. Harden
7. (tie) Irving/Westbrook

If one was to build a team around Jimmy Butler - they would end up with the crappy Bulls. And FWIW, Westbrook led a team with arguably less talent than the Bulls just as far in the playoffs in a much tougher conference.
I mean Westbrook led the Thunder to 47 wins in the Western Conference. Jimmy Butler only won 41 games in the East and he had Wade and Rondo.
I get that Westbrook may not be the best guy to build around, but I just don't see how Butler would be the choice to build with over Westbrook.
Butler was definitely a top 10 player this past year, but Westbrook may be the MVP of the season.

 

[heavyde050]

Let us know when Butler is enough to close the gap to Lebron and/or the Warriors.

Winner.

 

[heavyde050]

OK I can't read this stuff any more.
You don't trade Fultz for Butler because you need an impact player??? Fultz has a best case of being a top 10 player and you wouldn't trade him for a top 10 player? When you're a team with the best record in the East you want to be patient and hope brown and Fultz and whoever next year work out. By which time horford will be done and everyone else will be expensive.
It's bizarre.

I do agree pick fultz or trade for an elite guy, but no one better than Butler is as available. George yes but value reduced by vocal Lakers chatter and only one year. And Butler > George imo anyway.

BTW I will never remotely understand why the Celtics weren't in on Noel given the price. He's exactly what they need for f all and an option to resign.

Anyhow carry on

I think Fultz's best case is easily equal to Butler. I agree with your point that Butler is damn near a top 10 player now and he is much closer to his peak, but he also may never get any better. I get the 2-way value of Butler, but there is definitely a realistic chance that over the next two years Fultz could be a better overall scorer than Butler. He is also about 8 years younger.
I just don't think Butler is good enough to get the Celts pass the Cavs. LBJ would own Butler whenever he wanted.

 

[Kliq]

If one was to build a team around Jimmy Butler - they would end up with the crappy Bulls. And FWIW, Westbrook led a team with arguably less talent than the Bulls just as far in the playoffs in a much tougher conference.
I mean Westbrook led the Thunder to 47 wins in the Western Conference. Jimmy Butler only won 41 games in the East and he had Wade and Rondo.
I get that Westbrook may not be the best guy to build around, but I just don't see how Butler would be the choice to build with over Westbrook.
Butler was definitely a top 10 player this past year, but Westbrook may be the MVP of the season.

SNR really doesn't like Westbrook. He might reply to this and say he doesn't but a bunch of snarky posts in the regular season thread about Westbrook stat-padding would disagree.

 

[heavyde050]

SNR really doesn't like Westbrook. He might reply to this and say he doesn't but a bunch of snarky posts in the regular season thread about Westbrook stat-padding would disagree.

Thanks for the info

 

[chilidawg]

I think Fultz's best case is easily equal to Butler. I agree with your point that Butler is damn near a top 10 player now and he is much closer to his peak, but he also may never get any better. I get the 2-way value of Butler, but there is definitely a realistic chance that over the next two years Fultz could be a better overall scorer than Butler. He is also about 8 years younger.
I just don't think Butler is good enough to get the Celts pass the Cavs. LBJ would own Butler whenever he wanted.

FWIW, Bulls were 4-0 against the Cavs this year.

 

[LondonSox]

So if there is no point trying to beat LeBron why not trade IT4 and Crowder etc?

If your guys point is what's the point right now, why have valuable short term assets

 

[heavyde050]

FWIW, Bulls were 4-0 against the Cavs this year.

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure LBJ only played in three of those games.

 

[LondonSox]

I am a prospect humper, I know this. But I am currently arguing for the value of the current superstar. That is crazy. I'm always on the other side. Just in case it wasn't clear.
A major flaw of mine is looking at potential above all else, and even I am like Woah slow down.
The odds of any player being a top 10 player at any point is low. Even 1-1, with a few exceptions like LeBron.
You are really good now but lack stars, well two way stars anyway. Really good. It's crazy to me to say well let's see if we get lucky for now but maybe in a while we can be Champs for an era.
If you are so confident sell things today that aren't in that time line. And make it even better.
If you're thinking you can compete now, go for it. We are not talking about a end of career player here. A guy like Butler is very much a Chris sale. Prime. Affordable. Injury aside a drop-off near term seems unlikely.

Anyway as I say you are going to be good now and then anyway so it's all very nice to debate how it gets better lol. Enjoy it. Maybe you end up having it both ways anyway.

 

[nighthob]

Because this way their high lottery selections get to break in on a winning veteran team? And that as rookies they get the experience of playing high leverage minutes in game 7s of playoff series rather than focusing on Yelp reviews of which restaurants serve the best chicken fingers and Shirley Temples?

 

[heavyde050]

So if there is no point trying to beat LeBron why not trade IT4 and Crowder etc?

If your guys point is what's the point right now, why have valuable short term assets

Honest question - should the Sixers go after Butler (if he is as good as everyone says he is - it may allow the Sixers to leap frog the Celtics).
I mean the Sixers could trade #3 this year, the Lakers pick, a future first and Saric.

 

[BigSoxFan]

So if there is no point trying to beat LeBron why not trade IT4 and Crowder etc?

If your guys point is what's the point right now, why have valuable short term assets

Because the Celtics have the ability to compete and build for the post-LeBron period. Trading #1 pick for a 28 year-old (before next season) just doesn't make a lot of sense.

The only way that pick is moving is if Ainge can land a unicorn like Porzingis.

 

[heavyde050]

I am a prospect humper, I know this. But I am currently arguing for the value of the current superstar. That is crazy. I'm always on the other side. Just in case it wasn't clear.
A major flaw of mine is looking at potential above all else, and even I am like Woah slow down.
The odds of any player being a top 10 player at any point is low. Even 1-1, with a few exceptions like LeBron.
You are really good now but lack stars, well two way stars anyway. Really good. It's crazy to me to say well let's see if we get lucky for now but maybe in a while we can be Champs for an era.
If you are so confident sell things today that aren't in that time line. And make it even better.
If you're thinking you can compete now, go for it. We are not talking about a end of career player here. A guy like Butler is very much a Chris sale. Prime. Affordable. Injury aside a drop-off near term seems unlikely.

Anyway as I say you are going to be good now and then anyway so it's all very nice to debate how it gets better lol. Enjoy it. Maybe you end up having it both ways anyway.

Chris Sale is better at pitching than Jimmy Butler could ever dream of being at basketball.
Sale is much closer to LBJ or Curry than Butler.

Edit - the Celtics trading for Butler would really help the Sixers as it would set the Celtics up to go for it all now (they wouldn't win) and it would allow the Sixers to dominate them for the next 10 years after the Celts window closes.
By drafting Fultz and continue to rebuild and compete the Celts could be building a dynasty much better than the current core plus Butler.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

So if there is no point trying to beat LeBron why not trade IT4 and Crowder etc?

If your guys point is what's the point right now, why have valuable short term assets

Because there's value in winning postseason games, getting real seasoning for young guys like Brown, and building a long-term culture of winning that other players will want to be a part of.

And if you trade everything for prospects you might end up praying that an entire four year tank project will be salvaged by two big men with foot problems. An outright tank creates razor thin margins for success. To be fair, the Celtics had a uniquely good hand fall in their laps with the Brooklyn trade, and it's playing out better than any traditional tank+rebuild strategy in recent memory.

 

[heavyde050]

Because there's value in winning postseason games, getting real seasoning for young guys like Brown, and building a long-term culture of winning that other players will want to be a part of.

And if you trade everything for prospects you might end up praying that an entire four year tank project will be salvaged by two big men with foot problems. An outright tank creates razor thin margins for success. To be fair, the Celtics had a uniquely good hand fall in their laps with the Brooklyn trade, and it's playing out better than any traditional tank+rebuild strategy in recent memory.

Really good summary

 

[SoFloSoxFan]

I've been reading this forum for years, so I am just wondering about this. The argument has seemed to be, for years now, that to be a championship caliber team it takes elite talent, and that the worst place to be is right in the middle, not competitive and not drafting at the top. The Celtics were stuck in that region for a few years. Now the Celtics have had a #6, #3 and #1 pick in the last four years, with the chance for another high pick next year, and the argument seems to be that drafted players take too long to develop and we should trade the #1 pick.

This seems bizarre to me.

 

[Boston Brawler]

FWIW, PP was on ESPN saying he believes we are trading the pick for a Butler/Hayward/George. He said the Celts have a five year window right now.

I didn't expect that.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

How does Fultz compare to Porzingis in terms of value?

 

[Devizier]

Because there's value in winning postseason games

I think about it this way; it's fun as hell to watch this team competing in the playoffs. But imagine how much more fun it is for the players (Rony Seikaly excepted, of course).

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

If it were Butler for Fultz straight-up, that would be one thing. CHI wants more for Butler than Fultz and probably more than Fultz and Brown. As DA said after last year's draft, why trade for Butler when we might have approximately the same guy in a couple of years, Plus at least one other player just as good Plus other assets.

Because there's value in winning postseason games, getting real seasoning for young guys like Brown, and building a long-term culture of winning that other players will want to be a part of.

And if you trade everything for prospects you might end up praying that an entire four year tank project will be salvaged by two big men with foot problems. An outright tank creates razor thin margins for success. To be fair, the Celtics had a uniquely good hand fall in their laps with the Brooklyn trade, and it's playing out better than any traditional tank+rebuild strategy in recent memory.

Or you could have a team that's drafted 7, 2, 2, and 2 and still wondering if the team's going to make it out of the lottery next year while figuring out what to do about upcoming extensions.

 

[benhogan]

Because there's value in winning postseason games, getting real seasoning for young guys like Brown, and building a long-term culture of winning that other players will want to be a part of.

And if you trade everything for prospects you might end up praying that an entire four year tank project will be salvaged by two big men with foot problems. An outright tank creates razor thin margins for success. To be fair, the Celtics had a uniquely good hand fall in their laps with the Brooklyn trade, and it's playing out better than any traditional tank+rebuild strategy in recent memory.

Good summation.

I'd also ADD, that you want to stay as competitive as possible because this group has a chance of winning it all next year. Heck they still have a chance (albeit a small one) of winning it in 2017. Were we a better team then the Cavs, Spurs, Warriors this season, probably not. But did we close the gap by quite a bit from 2016, absolutely. Are we a better team then the Spurs right now (without Leonard), I'd say yes. Injuries happen, stars burn out (see Harden) in the playoffs. If Lebron gets injured, we're beating them. If Kyrie and Love go out, our odds increase. It also goes for the Warriors, Durant goes down and one of Draymond, Curry, Klay gets banged up we're beating them also.

Stranger things have happened (the Super Bowl a few months ago), Black Swans occur more then people realize and statistics tell us.

You can't count on other teams losing their stars to immediate injuries, but you can count on older stars declining as they age. Keeping the #1 pick, retaining our young core players, trying to add a star via Free Agency, staying competitive and letting Brad mold this team, while Lebron/Durant age, will only increase our odds for many years.

Stay away from Butler and George, unless Danny can pull off a heist similar to the Pelicans/Kings/Boogie deal.

 

[the moops]

If it were Butler for Fultz straight-up, that would be one thing. CHI wants more for Butler than Fultz and probably more than Fultz and Brown.

If CHI wants more than salary filler in addition to Fultz for Butler, they will have Butler on their team next year. If they want more than Fultz and Brown then they are absolutely insane and every GM should publicly shame them for being fools.

 

[Reardon's Beard]

Not as up on the prospects as many here but from what I do know it would seem you draft Fultz barring a trade for a top 10 player and assets. And I don't mean Butler or George.

My question: how does Fultz look on D? Seen quite a few scoring highlights but that's only half the game.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Not as up on the prospects as many here but from what I do know it would seem you draft Fultz barring a trade for a top 10 player and assets. And I don't mean Butler or George.

My question: how does Fultz look on D? Seen quite a few scoring highlights but that's only half the game.

From what I've seen, he has the tools but needs to show more effort and refinement. And obviously he'll need to learn NBA defensive rotations. I don't think he'll ever be elite in this department but I see real potential for an above-average defender. Also impossible to use his U-Dub footage since his teammates were so awful.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I don't think we know what (if anything) beyond the number one pick it might take for Chicago to trade Butler---the lottery has happened since they last discussed and confirming the top pick significantly increases its value relative to 'somewhere in the top 4'

Rumors are that Celts wanted to protect the pick around the trade deadline (presumanbly, at least for number one slot, and perhaps two as well). So, both teams would seem to view the 1 slot as materially more valuable than 'somewhere in top 4' as you'd expect they would

 

[I am an Idiot]

Not as up on the prospects as many here but from what I do know it would seem you draft Fultz barring a trade for a top 10 player and assets. And I don't mean Butler or George.

My question: how does Fultz look on D? Seen quite a few scoring highlights but that's only half the game.

His fundamentals are there, and he is a good man defender. The problem with evaluating him is that UW had absolutely putrid team defense, which has the byproduct of pulling down an individual's defense as well.

He's not Avery Bradley, but he's not IT. Still has work to do but his length and speed, along with a stronger-built body type, will allow him to defend 1s and 2s well.

 

[joe dokes]

Because there's value in winning postseason games, getting real seasoning for young guys like Brown, and building a long-term culture of winning that other players will want to be a part of.

And if you trade everything for prospects you might end up praying that an entire four year tank project will be salvaged by two big men with foot problems. An outright tank creates razor thin margins for success. To be fair, the Celtics had a uniquely good hand fall in their laps with the Brooklyn trade, and it's playing out better than any traditional tank+rebuild strategy in recent memory.

To me the last sentence is key. This particular rebuild is not like others. Or to the extent that it ever was, like in Stevens' first year, it isn't any longer. See who the superstars are in a year or two, after adding two high first-rounders, or at least after seeing how one of them plays. A "uniquely" good hand probably requires unique reactions from the front office.

 

[DJnVa]

FWIW, PP was on ESPN saying he believes we are trading the pick for a Butler/Hayward/George. He said the Celts have a five year window right now.

I didn't expect that.

Is PP Paul Pierce here? If so, I love the guy, but he likely doesn't have much insight into what's going on.

And, trading for Hayward? Huh?

 

[Clears Cleaver]

here's the thing I struggle with: The C's have three guards they like in IT, AB and MS and have Rozier as a nice developing player. Brown is their three of the future obviously. And Horford is the 4 or 5. The wekness is clearly rebounding and defending Lebron or a big three like Butler or George etc. Drafting Fultz basically replaces minutes for Rozier and Smart and is not enough of an incremental improvement to move the needle to NBA champion. In fact, it means that unless LBJ gets hurt, they won't win the east for three more years, by that time th sixers may be better than them, too.

so, is the window now, or are you playing for 2020-2024 (when IT will not be as effective and on max deal, AB making BIG $$ and Horford will be overpriced and less effective)?

I think if Danny loves fultz there are a lot more pieces that move. go from acquiring assets to actually putting out a winning team

 

[nighthob]

Bradley is almost certainly gone as Boston won't be spending $20+ million on a 6'2" shooting guard. They're going to let whoever acquires him do that.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

here's the thing I struggle with: The C's have three guards they like in IT, AB and MS and have Rozier as a nice developing player. Brown is their three of the future obviously. And Horford is the 4 or 5. The wekness is clearly rebounding and defending Lebron or a big three like Butler or George etc. Drafting Fultz basically replaces minutes for Rozier and Smart and is not enough of an incremental improvement to move the needle to NBA champion. In fact, it means that unless LBJ gets hurt, they won't win the east for three more years, by that time th sixers may be better than them, too.

so, is the window now, or are you playing for 2020-2024 (when IT will not be as effective and on max deal, AB making BIG $$ and Horford will be overpriced and less effective)?

I think if Danny loves fultz there are a lot more pieces that move. go from acquiring assets to actually putting out a winning team

The guys on the current team are all solid contributors in their roles. But IT is the only star and he has his limitations. If Fultz is seen as a potential star, and the BPA in this draft, then you move other guys around to fit him in.

I also like him on the C's because, as a guy with the tools and skills to play with the ball or off the ball, he doesn't force them, he can work with IT or without him. IT, Smart, Fultz could be a pretty strong 3-guard rotation.

 

[heavyde050]

Trading for Butler or George instead of drafting Fultz may also not win them the East for the next three years and may allow the Sixers to be better than them also.
In three years, IT will definitely have slowed down, Horford will have as well, AB may be gone regardless of draft/trade #1 pick, and Smart still might not be able to shoot.
There are a lot of variables here.
I really think they should keep the pick unless an amazing offer is there. This current team is a blast to watch and I have enjoyed this season immensely.
I still think there success is at least equally attributable to awesome coaching and tremendous chemistry as compared to raw talent.

 

[DJnVa]

http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/NBA/2017/05/17/Future-top-NBA-pick-Markelle-Fultz-made-fun-of-LeBron-James-hairline/3811495065938/

Markelle Fultz is expected to be the No. 1 pick in the NBA Draft, but he might have to answer for a video he posted in high school.

Fultz posted a video on Twitter in 2013, dissing Cleveland Cavaliers superstar LeBron James. The former University of Washington star tells James to shut up in the Vine video's caption.

"Man, shut up LeBron," an unidentified man says in the video, talking about James speaking during a postgame interview. "Can't even see your hairline fool. You gonna be bald in the next 24 hours. The next game, you gonna be bald. Shut up."

 

[the moops]

Seriously?

 

[smastroyin]

The problem is this, though, because I understand where LondonSox is coming from.

Markelle Fultz's EV is not Steph Curry or even Jimmy Butler, Kyrie Irving, et al. It's significantly lower than that when you price in the chance he flames out. We don't have to look that hard to find number 1 picks that didn't work out. So, in terms of making the most of your assets, a trade of Fultz and salary filler for a guy as good as Butler is going to give you more value far more often than not.

The point you guys are making is that you'd rather take the chance on him being better than those guys at a more opportune time even if you have to accept all of the downside risk, because being closing the gap on the Cavs/Warriors/Spurs has zero value until you pass them.

I think both points of view are valid without having to dismiss how good Jimmy Butler is.

 

[allstonite]

Seems like he's a Celtic already

 

[DJnVa]

Seriously?

No, I don't think it was serious. Just funny.

 

[DJnVa]

The problem is this, though, because I understand where LondonSox is coming from.

Markelle Fultz's EV is not Steph Curry or even Jimmy Butler, Kyrie Irving, et al. It's significantly lower than that when you price in the chance he flames out. We don't have to look that hard to find number 1 picks that didn't work out. So, in terms of making the most of your assets, a trade of Fultz and salary filler for a guy as good as Butler is going to give you more value far more often than not.

The point you guys are making is that you'd rather take the chance on him being better than those guys at a more opportune time even if you have to accept all of the downside risk, because being closing the gap on the Cavs/Warriors/Spurs has zero value until you pass them.

I think both points of view are valid without having to dismiss how good Jimmy Butler is.

Yeah--Butler looked pretty good against us, at times we had no answer. I just fall on the side that says Butler gets this team to exactly where they are now. Yeah, maybe we go from 5-10% chance to beat Cleveland, to a 15-20% chance, but I'd rather take the chance on Fultz. Doesn't move the needle as much now, but there's a CHANCE he does in 3-5 years.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

The problem is this, though, because I understand where LondonSox is coming from.

Markelle Fultz's EV is not Steph Curry or even Jimmy Butler, Kyrie Irving, et al. It's significantly lower than that when you price in the chance he flames out. We don't have to look that hard to find number 1 picks that didn't work out. So, in terms of making the most of your assets, a trade of Fultz and salary filler for a guy as good as Butler is going to give you more value far more often than not.

The point you guys are making is that you'd rather take the chance on him being better than those guys at a more opportune time even if you have to accept all of the downside risk, because being closing the gap on the Cavs/Warriors/Spurs has zero value until you pass them.

I think both points of view are valid without having to dismiss how good Jimmy Butler is.

Whoa! I disagree a ton with this. The legitimate #1 overall NBA picks have historically pretty much "never missed" unless they go down with an injury. Fultz may never be LeBron or Durant but he is a kid without a single glaring hole in his game whose skillset is ideal for todays NBA. The best part is that he is still improving as only 3 years ago he wasn't starting on his HS team and not even on scouts radar which speaks volumes to his work ethic. I see him as a Kyrie type with "maybe" a little less offense but better defense and the ability to play both guard positions.

The Anthony Bennett's, Kwame Brown's and Andrea Bargnani's were never considered "legitimate" #1 overall picks at the time. Without pointing out each individually which I easily could do here is the list of #1 overalls.....it is a who's who of NBA superstars or stars who didn't reach their potential due to injuries which we can't forecast in most cases.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/

 

[heavyde050]

This is where I am too. But I also fall on the side that some posts make it seem like Butler is some kind of super duper star which he isn't.
Just two years ago (before Butler had the best season of his career) I think the number of people thinking Butler was worth the number #1 pick would be much closer to zero.
Trading for Butler now seems like paying a premium for an asset close to peak value.
There is a chance that Butler could keep getting better and make the leap to top 5 player. There is also the chance this past season was the best he will ever be and he will regress a little.
I just think unless Butler has a level we haven't seen, he isn't getting the Celts past the Cavs in the next couple of years.
I also agree that Fultz gives the Celts that chance in 3-5 year.

 

[MillarTime]

Because there's value in winning postseason games, getting real seasoning for young guys like Brown, and building a long-term culture of winning that other players will want to be a part of.

And if you trade everything for prospects you might end up praying that an entire four year tank project will be salvaged by two big men with foot problems. An outright tank creates razor thin margins for success. To be fair, the Celtics had a uniquely good hand fall in their laps with the Brooklyn trade, and it's playing out better than any traditional tank+rebuild strategy in recent memory.

Not to mention the business value of having a team that has the ability to make deep playoff runs over the next few years.

 

[lovegtm]

Not to mention the business value of having a team that has the ability to make deep playoff runs over the next few years.

And the fact that watching young guys develop is just really damn fun, regardless of whether it hangs a banner immediately.

 

[JCizzle]

Whoa! I disagree a ton with this. The legitimate #1 overall NBA picks have historically pretty much "never missed" unless they go down with an injury. Fultz may never be LeBron or Durant but he is a kid without a single glaring hole in his game whose skillset is ideal for todays NBA. The best part is that he is still improving as only 3 years ago he wasn't starting on his HS team and not even on scouts radar which speaks volumes to his work ethic. I see him as a Kyrie type with "maybe" a little less offense but better defense and the ability to play both guard positions.

The Anthony Bennett's, Kwame Brown's and Andrea Bargnani's were never considered "legitimate" #1 overall picks at the time. Without pointing out each individually which I easily could do here is the list of #1 overalls.....it is a who's who of NBA superstars or stars who didn't reach their potential due to injuries which we can't forecast in most cases.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/

His old AAU coach randomly started talking with me at a bar last night before the game came on and made the same point. Came up the normal route and wasnt really a preordained superstar like some of the other prospects. Dude was, not surprisingly, very high on him as a player and a person.

 

[BaseballJones]

Assume the Warriors will be the juggernaut they currently are for the next 4 years. Their contract situation:

- Curry: contract up after this year, but they have Bird rights and I cannot fathom him going anywhere else. 28 years old, should be great for several more years. His shooting skill should last as he ages.
- Durant: contract up after this year, but has a player option for 2017-18. Probably will sign up with GS again. 28 years old, should be great for several more years.
- Thompson: signed through 2018-19. Not sure what happens after that. Just 26 years old, so will be 28 when his contract is up. Will be interesting to see where he goes at that point. Does GS want to give him another huge contract at that point?
- Green: signed through 2019-20. Just 26 years old. Will be 29 when his contract is up.

The other key guys will likely be gone: Iguodala, Zaza, West, McGee. But they'll likely be replaced by younger role players who will be pretty good. GS's window, as I see it, is the next 4 years.

Cleveland will be great through 2019-20. Their key guys (Love, 28, Irving, 25, Thompson, 26, Smith, 31) are all signed through then, except LeBron, who isn't going anywhere.

So the window likely opens in 2020-21. That's 5 seasons from now. So the Celtics ought to be thinking about accomplishing two things: (1) Being very good until then, and (2) building the team to be great right when that window opens.

That means NOT trading for a guy like Butler or George. If they could pry away Anthony Davis, who is just 24, or Towns, who is 21, sure. But they're not getting those guys.

So you draft Fultz. Hope to get a top 2-3 pick stud in next year's draft. Keep Brown. Try to sign a top level FA now to help IT bridge the gap between now and 2020-21. By the time that year arrives:

- Brown will be 24 and just entering his prime.
- Fultz will be 23 and very much on the ascent.
- Next year's Brooklyn pick probably will be 22 or 23 with a couple of years of NBA experience under his belt.
- Zizic will be 24 and have a few years of NBA experience.
- Yabusele will be 25 and just entering his prime.
- Rozier will be 27 and in his prime.
- Smart will be 27 and in his prime.
- Young (if he is still on the team) will be 25 and hopefully much improved.

That is the next great Celtics team, IMO. From now til then, IT and Hayward and the young guys will keep the Celtics very, very competitive and a joy to watch. Nothing at all wrong with that.

 

[TheRooster]

Quick reminder: if you trade Fultz and Bradley (or Crowder) for Butler or George you haven't really gone "all in" and eliminated the possibility of being ready for the post-LBJ years. You still have Brown, next year's top 5 pick, Smart and the 2 stashed picks.

 

[Sam Ray Not]

SNR really doesn't like Westbrook. He might reply to this and say he doesn't but a bunch of snarky posts in the regular season thread about Westbrook stat-padding would disagree.

Lol, that's "SRN" to you! ("Tony Armas" spelled backwards, for any noobs).

Note to Heavy De: Kliq really likes Westbrook. He might reply to this and say he doesn't, but a bunch of snarky posts in the regular season thread to anyone who dares question his flawlessness would disagree.

I mean, @Kliq: I don't have anything against RW personally, if that's what you're getting at. He's clearly "transcendent" in terms of doing things the last couple of seasons that no NBA player has ever done. But again, assuming we're talking about buiIding a real-world championship contender starting this Summer, I don't think there's anything particularly controversial about what I said: (1) "it's hard to build a great team around a 6'-3" hyper-ball-dominant PG who isn't a great shooter or a good defender" and (2) "I'd be wary of a high-mileage 28.5 year-old whose best quality is his freak athleticism."

(And yes, he is plainly a stat-padder, though I think a good coach could wean him off that).

I'm definitely not going to die on the sword of Butler > Westbrook, though, if that's what we're talking about. Butler rates great by RPM, but I agree with the general consensus that he's just short of LeBron-Kawhi-KD-Curry-level elite; he has suboptimal length (6'-8" wingspan) and three point stroke for a wing; and he's almost 28 as well.

I'll stand by — again, from a team-building perspective — preferring Giannis (22), Towns (21), and Davis (24) over Westbrook. I'd probably take Paul George (a lot longer than Butler, better 3 pt shooter, and almost a year younger), Jokic, Gobert and Embiid (if his health checks out) over Westbrook too.

Are there any Cs fans here who would actually be psyched about selling off the Fultz pick and building around Westbrook?

 

[JCizzle]

So you draft Fultz. Hope to get a top 2-3 pick stud in next year's draft. Keep Brown. Try to sign a top level FA now to help IT bridge the gap between now and 2020-21. By the time that year arrives:

- Brown will be 24 and just entering his prime.
- Fultz will be 23 and very much on the ascent.
- Next year's Brooklyn pick probably will be 22 or 23 with a couple of years of NBA experience under his belt.
- Zizic will be 24 and have a few years of NBA experience.
- Yabusele will be 25 and just entering his prime.
- Rozier will be 27 and in his prime.
- Smart will be 27 and in his prime.
- Young (if he is still on the team) will be 25 and hopefully much improved.

That is the next great Celtics team, IMO. From now til then, IT and Hayward and the young guys will keep the Celtics very, very competitive and a joy to watch. Nothing at all wrong with that.

Good post and analysis of their window compared to GSW/Cle. Very helpful to see it all in one spot. It's shocking how young Young still is - I agree he's not likely to be on the team.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Great post Baseball Jones and it echoes what I've been saying the past few years which appear to be confirmed by Ainge's unwillingness to deal these Brooklyn picks or any asset to add pieces at the deadline as he did in the Pierce/KG years several times. Signing stopgap bigs like Amir and Zeller on team-friendly flexible deals with team options in the 2nd year were his version of Theo Ratliff being in his back pocket should an opportunity to make a splash arise. When it's "go time" we will know it by Ainge's actions.......right now we are building for a 2020's dynasty or at the very least championship contenders.

It seems silly to think of an EC Finalist and 1-seed to be in the middle of rebuilding but that is precisely where we are right now.