Your preferred Celtic target at #3
- Thread starter In my lifetime
- Start date
Pretty much what I think about Buddy too.
Also he has the same feeling I do about Richardson- undraftable.
I think you misread - he says Buddy "lacks the quickness to guard PG’s and the size to guard SF’s."
Celtics worked out Jaylen Brown yesterday: DA says it was "very good" even "excellent."
Somewhat interesting mostly puff piece on Brown from Mark Spears here: https://theundefeated.com/features/jaylen-brown-the-2016-nba-drafts-renaissance-man/ Brown says all the right things, including the part about wanting to be a great defender.
Given how hot-to-trot DA was for Winslow, it seems to me that unless someone else (Bender) wows him, Brown would be the "default" choice for DA.
Somewhat interesting mostly puff piece on Brown from Mark Spears here: https://theundefeated.com/features/jaylen-brown-the-2016-nba-drafts-renaissance-man/ Brown says all the right things, including the part about wanting to be a great defender.
Given how hot-to-trot DA was for Winslow, it seems to me that unless someone else (Bender) wows him, Brown would be the "default" choice for DA.
I don't follow the Winslow -> Brown connection. They're pretty different players.
Perhaps Danny thought Winslow was a steal at #9; it doesn't follow that he would've coveted him at #3, even if you think they're similar players.
If I'm going to read anything into Danny making a big fuss over Brown, it's that he wants other GMs to believe he's serious about trading down if the right offer presents itself.
If I'm going to read anything into Danny making a big fuss over Brown, it's that he wants other GMs to believe he's serious about trading down if the right offer presents itself.
Re: Winslow, I've never believed that story about all the picks, including one of the Brooklyns, offered to Charlotte last year. Had to be some protections involved or something. Just too crazy that Boston would offer it, and Charlotte would decline.
Honestly, that doesn't seem so nuts to me. Winslow was legitimately in play to be a top 3-4 pick, and at the time, it wasn't widely known how bad Brooklyn was going to be. If Ainge thought Winslow was a future star (a defensible opinion I believe), then giving up a mystery Brooklyn pick (2018 perhaps) doesn't seem so nuts.
The Winslow story I can find that I believe is the NESN one which was 6 picks 4 potential 1st. I assume that meant 16, 28, MIN “1st" and a future 1st either their own or one Brooklyn. Plus 2 2nds. That was a high price but not totally insane if they really thought Winslow was a potential star.
If the offer was 16 and a boatload of late 1st and 2nd round picks, I can believe that. But everyone knew last year that Brooklyn was an old team in decline that wouldn't be particularly attractive to free agents, I have a hard time thinking that Charlotte would turn down a package that included one of those picks, and then turn and use the pick on a relatively low upside guy like Frank Kaminsky.
Yes, I have been drooling for these Brooklyn picks to coincide with the beginning of the Nets expected demise. There is no chance IMO that Ainge was ever going to include moving ANY future Brooklyn picks or the future Memphis pick as their value potentially is in a franchise changing player like will be available each of the next two summers in Giles/Jackson and Ayton......especially the 2018 draft with Ayton. Any multiple 1st picks for Winslow could not pass the smell test that it included a Nets pick.
The only unexpected bit was Deron breaking down both physically and mentally and forcing his way out, leading to the wonderful Jack/Larkin/Sloan trio and the impending overpay for Lin, Jennings, or Rondo.
Between now and the 23rd I expect at least 10 separate articles in which Ainge talks up each player in the top 10, and just as many in which he discusses hypothetical deals that he has discussed that may or may not hypothetically be on the hypothetical table. Right up until the moment he trades the pick for someone that nobody had thought of this whole time (call it the Allen maneuver).
I expect Ainge to try and move this pick I was only saying that he never was moving a pick PRIOR to knowing where it lands in the lottery. I'd even argue a part of the Nets demise that could also have been predicted was Deron's failing health as he's become less and less durable over the years. We are still in the sweetest of sweet spots over these next two seasons with these Nets picks and the high impact potential top-top tier superstars entering the league in these drafts.
Not proclaiming myself a draft expert these days - not enough time in the day - but I've seen more than one comparison on the web. So why do you think they are so different? I mean Winslow may have been statistically superior to Brown in a lot of categories - shooting percentage, usage/assists, steals, rebounds, etc. - but without having watched either of them at all, they seem to be similar types of players.
Honestly curious, not being snarky. This is a fascinating draft to think about.
Winslow has a much broader game than Brown, he's just a shaky shooter, which is the one thing that Brown and Winslow have in common. Brown might improve all-around, but he's closer to being Shawn Marion Lite than someone like Winslow who can handle, pass, rebound, and score.
I've seen the comparison as well, but I think it's mainly due to size and athleticism. Winslow shot 42% from college three, and had much better A/TO ratio and steal ratio, which are generally thought of as a decent proxies for court awareness. Brown's poor numbers in these areas generally jibe with the scouting reports on him- he has a poor BBIQ (odd, perhaps, for a guy who seems genuinely bright off the court) and he coasts through games way too often. I was reading a scouting report on him recently (that I can't seem to find now) and the scout had attended a high school game of his- playoff game at that, IIRC- and basically said that for a guy who stood out so prominently before the game, he was virtually invisible after the tip off. He apparently finished the game with no assists and his team lost. For a ball dominant blue-chip high schooler, that's not a good sign. He may well improve his shooting, but the court awareness concerns trouble more. I dunno, maybe he's the prodigy that elevates his game to the level of challenge, but he just hasn't shown a lot as far as feel for the game. He's big and athletic enough justify a gamble, but I think there's significant bust potential for a guy with such an impressive physical profile.
Others have covered it, and I'm no draft expert myself, but from what I can tell, they're similar in that they're both athletic wings. By different players, I mean that Winslow was dramatically more "NBA ready" than Brown is. Winslow was a guy who was expected to step onto an NBA court and be a positive (albeit limited) contributor from day 1, just from his polish on defense. Brown on the other hand seems like more of a raw athleticism pick (not dissimilar to Chriss), who has a ways to go on both ends of the court, but might have more upside (or at least more size) than Winslow.
I suppose they both to hopefully develop into 3-and-D wings, but that's true of half the players coming out of the draft these days. If we think Ainge's love of Winslow betrays a "type" however, I would think that type would be good defenders with questionable offensive games (like Smart).
It's a weird draft, and we haven't seen Ainge make many high picks before, but I would be surprised if Brown was actually especially high on Ainge's board.
Not only Smart......but the drafting of Bradley and Rozier, the draft promise to Orien Greene so he would shut down workouts, and the acquisition of Crowder would also fall under this category. This is certainly one type of niche player that Ainge targets who have higher ceilings should their offensive games develop......it's unfortunate that we drafted JuJuan Johnson with Jimmy Butler on the board in '11 as Butler fit that prototype.
Kevin Pelton says that injury-prone foul machine Jusuf Nurkic would be a reasonable return for the #3 pick. I do like his potential, but no, not for the third pick. He also says they couldn't get Nikola Jokic without another piece, he's probably right about that.
Chad Ford suggests IT3, Jerebko, #3 for Butler. Seems a bit steep to me, Butler minus Thomas minus #3 pick doesn't really make us any better IMO.
http://espn.go.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/16011822/should-boston-celtics-trade-no-3-draft-pick-nba
Chad Ford suggests IT3, Jerebko, #3 for Butler. Seems a bit steep to me, Butler minus Thomas minus #3 pick doesn't really make us any better IMO.
http://espn.go.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/16011822/should-boston-celtics-trade-no-3-draft-pick-nba
HRB mentioned the Denver bigs as potential trade targets in another thread. Jokic would ideal, but I'd be pretty happy with Nurkic too, as long as the injuries aren't considered long term.
Patrick McCaw fits this mold. I like him well enough, but I do get a bit of an Orien v2.0 vibe from him.
Man, I don't like that at all in a vacuum--if it's some kind of precursor to bringing KD or someone in, then sure. But just IT and #3 for Butler? I'm not in favor of that.
Yeah, Jokic is the real deal and would be a huge get. You'd have to give up #3 plus at least someone from the Crowder/Smart range I'm guessing unless you do a barrage of picks plus maybe a Rozier. The problem with Denver as a trading partner is that you either take on Nurkic's durability risk or Denver has to be confident in Nurkic moving forward. Trading in the NBA has to be a clear win-win proposition and most rumored deals never pass the smell test to begin with.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/16011822/should-boston-celtics-trade-no-3-draft-pick-nba
Can anybody get behind the paywall and get what they are saying?
Can anybody get behind the paywall and get what they are saying?
How much greatest shooter of all time once in a generation player does he have in him? Prob not a lot.
According to who? His agent? The best anyone has ever done in the NBA 3 point contest is 79.4% -- Thompson and Curry both went 27/34. Granted, that's under a time constraint, but it's also a much smaller sample. It's also Klay Thompson and Steph Curry. Jamal Murray is described on the ESPN scouting page as merely a "solid 3 point shooter". I need some verification before I believe this.
Yeah, that's completely what I was asking.
Curry wasn't the "greatest shooter of all time" at the same age. I was asking the similarities between their games given that their measurables and stats at the same age are identical.
So hitting 79/100 doesn't look like that big a deal with the proper context. A 2 year old coach specific record? Ok. That's quite the feat there.
You can go on youtube and find videos of guys doing this. There's tape of Nick Stauskas shooting 90% on 70 attempts in rain.
He apparently couldn't do it when he was working out for the Celtics in 2014. Maybe it wasn't raining. Or maybe he was bothered by Smart glaring at him during the workout.
Anyway, it doesn't mean that he's the second coming of basketball Jesus, it does mean he can shoot some.
So the reason nobody can do this in the 3 point contest is the time element? I'm not being snarky, I'm really asking. Because in a world where shooting 80% FT is considered good, it's difficult to think guys could shoot that well from 3.
You ever gone to an NBA game early enough to watch shootaround? 80% is nothing special. The ASW 3-point contest is a different animal.
The rule of thumb I've heard is that you shoot 10 points better from the line in practice than in a game, so your 80% shooter is hitting 90% in practice. So Murray missed twice that many shooting from behind the arc.
Game situational shooting pct doesn't mimic a shootaround with no defender or a time clock. Ex-Celtic Chris Wilcox was a career 55% FT shooter I was with him in a gym when he made 30+ consecutive FT's using perfect form, rotation, and arc. He looked like a 90% FT shooter if you didn't know any better.
79 of 100 three's is still impressive no matter how you slice it.
Different animal, but, I mean, Curry hit 94/100 in a practice last year. Murray hitting 78 is a little impressive, but not insane.
Feel free to file this under Cool Story, Bro:
I used to attend Dave Cowens' basketball camp in the 80's as a kid. I remember one day Greg Kite was in the gym shooting hoops. As a kid in the 80's, I naturally thought Greg Kite sucked and was only a professional basketball player because he was 7' tall. I was shocked when he made shot after shot after shot. That's when it dawned on me just how good NBA players actually are.
At any rate, I continue to believe Murray is the best choice at #3 if they do end up keeping the pick.
I also went to Cowens basketball camp (early 90s) and I remember a guy they brought in to give a talk on shooting. I don't remember his name or playing pedigree, but he did the entire lecture while taking jumpers from all over the court and missed a grand total of one.
I'm still concerned about Murray's capacity to defend, but his attitude is definitely a plus- he seems like a guy who lives for the moment. I wish I'd seen him play more point though, I don't really have a good sense of his ability as a distributor.
I'm still concerned about Murray's capacity to defend, but his attitude is definitely a plus- he seems like a guy who lives for the moment. I wish I'd seen him play more point though, I don't really have a good sense of his ability as a distributor.
I hadn't heard this, but found a cite quickly. YouTube is blocked at work, but there's videos of just random people (not NBA players) doing 90% out there. It's impressive, and we don't know how many times those guys tried before they got a set where they hit 90%, but this is so different than a game that 94% from Curry barely raises an eyebrow.
To add to the Cool Story Bro set, I've seen Dwight Howard shoot practice free throws on a couple occasions. Both times he's been north of 70%.