Celtics trade Josh Richardson, Romeo Langford and a 1st round pick to Spurs for Derrick White

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
32,041
Not piling on, but I will push back on the notion that the Celtics had anything to do with the lack of development of Langford or the others you noted. It's fair to be frustrated at some of these misses, but some were just never going to be NBA players no matter what (Edwards, Waters, Fall, Young).
Not to relitigate anything but I'm pretty sure DA was trying to build a cost-controlled bench to match with his superstars (two or three) but the problem is that young players rarely can contribute at the NBA unless they are really really good. So if Romeo or Edward or Waters are ever going to be NBA players (and they may not be), it may take a couple more years. Which is not on the same timeframe as the Jays.

White, however, is on the same time frame as the Jays.

The other thing is that to develop young players, they mostly have to be given minutes in environments where they are able to make mistakes. BOS is not like that. Romeo may never be healthy to be a legit NBA contributor but the fact that he stood in the corner on offense and watched a lot of ISO ball for two years wasn't going to develop him.
 

jmcc5400

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
5,587
Not to relitigate anything but I'm pretty sure DA was trying to build a cost-controlled bench to match with his superstars (two or three) but the problem is that young players rarely can contribute at the NBA unless they are really really good. So if Romeo or Edward or Waters are ever going to be NBA players (and they may not be), it may take a couple more years. Which is not on the same timeframe as the Jays.

White, however, is on the same time frame as the Jays.

The other thing is that to develop young players, they mostly have to be given minutes in environments where they are able to make mistakes. BOS is not like that. Romeo may never be healthy to be a legit NBA contributor but the fact that he stood in the corner on offense and watched a lot of ISO ball for two years wasn't going to develop him.
Jumping way ahead, but next year I think there will be plenty of developmental minutes available because this iteration of the C's is going to be blowing a lot of teams out.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,911
Melrose, MA
The pick swap is only really bad if the Celtics crater and miss the playoffs in that year. Things can happen fast in the NBA, but that seems very unlikely, both because the team look set up to compete for the longer term and because even in bad scenarios, Brad will not be without cards to play and he has shown some ability to do that.

The more likely 'loss' outcome - a potential incremental loss where the C's give up pick 14 for pick 23 or something - is not really worthy worrying over.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
The pick swap is only really bad if the Celtics crater and miss the playoffs in that year. Things can happen fast in the NBA, but that seems very unlikely, both because the team look set up to compete for the longer term and because even in bad scenarios, Brad will not be without cards to play and he has shown some ability to do that.

The more likely 'loss' outcome - a potential incremental loss where the C's give up pick 14 for pick 23 or something - is not really worthy worrying over.
Or (knock on wood), an out for the year Hayward like injury to a core player.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,008
South Dartmouth, MA
Not to relitigate anything but I'm pretty sure DA was trying to build a cost-controlled bench to match with his superstars (two or three) but the problem is that young players rarely can contribute at the NBA unless they are really really good. So if Romeo or Edward or Waters are ever going to be NBA players (and they may not be), it may take a couple more years. Which is not on the same timeframe as the Jays.

White, however, is on the same time frame as the Jays.

The other thing is that to develop young players, they mostly have to be given minutes in environments where they are able to make mistakes. BOS is not like that. Romeo may never be healthy to be a legit NBA contributor but the fact that he stood in the corner on offense and watched a lot of ISO ball for two years wasn't going to develop him.
To your bolded point, I was listening to an NBA podcast sometime last week (honestly I can't remember which one, there have been a lot) and someone was discussing Jordan Poole's rise to stardom. Whoever it was talked about how Poole was one of the worst rotational players in basketball at the start of his rookie year, and even got sent to G-League at one point. But because they were basically tanking the season he got what is likely needed most amongst the bulk of draft picks, minutes. I'll save everyone all the horrific numbers but all his rookie year splits are here, but for a small sample here are his O-Rating/D-Rating stats his first 3 months:
78/119 in 4 games avg 23 mpg
84/120 in 16 games avg 27 mpg
53/112 in 9 games avg 12 mpg
And then he got more consistent minutes once he returned from the G-Leauge. That's not the kind of leeway Boston was giving to Langford, even once he was healthier the second half of his rookie season. So much of this is situational, it's so hard to quantify. If you swapped Langford and Poole, I am confident saying Poole would be nowhere near the player he is today (given all of Langford's health issues, I'm not going to pretend that he would be rising to Poole status in Golden State, of course).
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
21,151
Santa Monica
White is 24-6 with the Celtics. He’s a stabilizer with the second unit, and can step in for either Smart, Brown, or Tatum with the starters. He’s a good playmaker when Tatum hockey assists him off the double team with the second unit, either driving the lane for a short shot, or kicking to PP or Grant for a three. Defensively, he’s Smart-lite. I love everything about the White acquisition, despite his shaky shooting from deep.
2 of those 6 losses were scheduled losses (Mil/Tor)

Jeez it just donned on me that the Celtics only have 4 real losses since Jan 29
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,326
There were alot of roster spots dedicated to players with low likelihood of making an impact - and they didn't. on the plus side they didn't fill the roster out with vetrans driving us into the tax that also wouldn't have made a differnce.
That’s the back end of nearly all rosters……low salary guys who are there to fill slots and play in emergencies. Brooklyn and the Bucks have similar structure with the Nets having a few more vet min guys. Veteran contenders are always going to be super too heavy to support their stars while filling out the roster on the cheap. The new CBA and it’s tax penalties created this phenomenon.

it will be intersting if they try and stash a lottery ticket on the very backend of the roster. I am not sure who fills in spots 10, 11, 12 - you certainly don't want to change the chemistry in the locker room.
This is confusing. You are glad that veteran min guys, who are paid slightly more than younger mins, aren’t taking up roster slots for tax purposes but feel we would keep a $4-5m starting salary on the end of the bench who isn’t going to play either. I do agree that we could stash another Begarin-type if he’s found in the 2nd round bc he could maybe contribute in a role on a cheap deal once he gets here. That guy isn’t going to be out 12th man though with our salary structure over the next few years.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,838
2 of those 6 losses were scheduled losses (Mil/Tor)

Jeez it just donned on me that the Celtics only have 4 real losses since Jan 29
Those 4 losses:

A WTF loss to the Pistons where Detroit, behind Bey, dominated the offensive glass 18-2. It was also the second night of a B2B. Smart and Rob Williams didn't play.

Another WTF loss, this time against the Pacers, where the Celtics go their shoes handed to them, again on the 2nd night of a B2B. Tatum didn't play.

A close loss to Luka and the Mavs where the Celtics were done in by shooting woes behind the arc (24.3% from 3)

A tough loss to Jimmy Butler and the Heat. No Rob Williams, and Tatum went 0-5 from 3.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
That’s the back end of nearly all rosters……low salary guys who are there to fill slots and play in emergencies. Brooklyn and the Bucks have similar structure with the Nets having a few more vet min guys. Veteran contenders are always going to be super too heavy to support their stars while filling out the roster on the cheap. The new CBA and it’s tax penalties created this phenomenon.


This is confusing. You are glad that veteran min guys, who are paid slightly more than younger mins, aren’t taking up roster slots for tax purposes but feel we would keep a $4-5m starting salary on the end of the bench who isn’t going to play either. I do agree that we could stash another Begarin-type if he’s found in the 2nd round bc he could maybe contribute in a role on a cheap deal once he gets here. That guy isn’t going to be out 12th man though with our salary structure over the next few years.
huh? The 12th man isn't anything special either. If you can go 9-10 deep, you are doing really well. Of course the players you bring in to fill the 10-12 slots aren't going to change the culture of the team. They will be brought in specifically because they fit a role.

I guess I'm confused because the 12th man could easily be some 2nd round pick. He'll also hardly play, especially with Ime as the coach.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Jeez it just donned on me that the Celtics only have 4 real losses since Jan 29
They won 6 straight prior to the trade. IIRC, they were at full health for the first time and it appeared Ime figured out he couldn't play Smart and DS together. White fits the team a lot better than DS so it's whatever but the team was already starting to gel. The team will play as well as Tatum and Brown, really. Still, White offers more looks and allows PP to play more. PP is a piece the C's have been missing for awhile.

They had a pretty easy schedule for awhile and bulldozed through it, but then they had one of the tougher schedules in the league and continued to bulldoze through that. They are probably the best team in the NBA, it's just hard to admit given the previous 1.5 years. Best thing is, barring health, there's no reason they shouldn't be one of the top teams in the NBA for the foreseeable future. What a difference 3 months makes.
 

Beale13

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2006
478
They had a pretty easy schedule for awhile and bulldozed through it, but then they had one of the tougher schedules in the league and continued to bulldoze through that. They are probably the best team in the NBA, it's just hard to admit given the previous 1.5 years. Best thing is, barring health, there's no reason they shouldn't be one of the top teams in the NBA for the foreseeable future. What a difference 3 months makes.
I think this has been apparent for awhile now, but you're dead on about it being hard for some to admit. It's amazing to me how many in sports media have been so achingly slow to reach this realization. A lot of them still aren't there. They just can't get off the standard narratives. Boston media actually might have been the worst, although I think most of them are starting to come around now. I think it was Boston Sports Tonight, after the game 1 win and Cedric Maxwell speculated that the Celts could take the series in 5 games, some moron named Adam Jones openly mocked Maxwell and seriously argued that if the series were to end in 5 it would be more likely that the Nets would win the next 4. I mean, if you're a Boston sports personality who allegedly watches the team every day, how could you not see what was happening with that team, unless your whole schtick is to just be groundlessly negative all the friggin time. I know I shouldn't be surprised, since that is basically the job description for most in the Boston sports media.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I think this has been apparent for awhile now, but you're dead on about it being hard for some to admit. It's amazing to me how many in sports media have been so achingly slow to reach this realization. A lot of them still aren't there. They just can't get off the standard narratives. Boston media actually might have been the worst, although I think most of them are starting to come around now. I think it was Boston Sports Tonight, after the game 1 win and Cedric Maxwell speculated that the Celts could take the series in 5 games, some moron named Adam Jones openly mocked Maxwell and seriously argued that if the series were to end in 5 it would be more likely that the Nets would win the next 4. I mean, if you're a Boston sports personality who allegedly watches the team every day, how could you not see what was happening with that team, unless your whole schtick is to just be groundlessly negative all the friggin time. I know I shouldn't be surprised, since that is basically the job description for most in the Boston sports media.
I saw it and still have a hard time admitting they are the best team in the NBA. For 1.5 years, they were a .500 team. Then Tatum (and to a lesser extent, Brown) leveled up in playmaking. It's just hard to override 140+ games of data with like 30. That's where we are though.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,928
Pretty much nearly everyone on the team right now is playing their best basketball of the season, keep in mind. Just as an example, Grant Williams wasn't hitting 2/3 of his 3 pointers all season long. So, when everyone is playing well, the team looks unbeatable. Let's hope the run continues.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
21,151
Santa Monica
Pretty much nearly everyone on the team right now is playing their best basketball of the season, keep in mind. Just as an example, Grant Williams wasn't hitting 2/3 of his 3 pointers all season long. So, when everyone is playing well, the team looks unbeatable. Let's hope the run continues.
Grant kind of slumped the last month from 3 (other than those 2 Net games), but they probably don't win those 2 games without Grant's 3s

I saw it and still have a hard time admitting they are the best team in the NBA. For 1.5 years, they were a .500 team. Then Tatum (and to a lesser extent, Brown) leveled up in playmaking. It's just hard to override 140+ games of data with like 30. That's where we are though.
IME's system/accountability +
different players (Al, DW, Theis, new Grant) +
less injures/COVID +
JAYLord growth -
Kemba/TT

They have hit on all of them at the right time. I didn't see the turnaround happening so quickly but definitely thought this would be happening next season+++
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Pretty much nearly everyone on the team right now is playing their best basketball of the season, keep in mind. Just as an example, Grant Williams wasn't hitting 2/3 of his 3 pointers all season long. So, when everyone is playing well, the team looks unbeatable. Let's hope the run continues.
A bunch of them are playing the best basketball of their lives over the last 30ish games. When so many guys are doing it, it's probably not luck. They are being put in a position to succeed. Plus, they all just fit really well together. In a perfect world, maybe Smart was a slightly better 3 point shooter but the team is really well built.

The team on the court now is probably closer to a 60 win team than the 51 win team they were this season. There's really no debate that Tatum is in the first tier of players now and Jaylen Brown is one of the better Robins in the league. I think he's somewhat a 1 trick pony but far less so than earlier this season and earlier in his career. Plus, he's really good at that one trick (Scoring effeciently). He did average 4.1 apg over the last 41 in the regular season, so he's not the blockhole he once was. Smart and Williams are defense first, which works out well with Tatum and Brown taking so many shots. Horford too, really. They all offer something on offense too, though. Even TL offers offensive rebounding, vertical spacing, passing.

Then off the bench, you have DW as the defensive stopper/play maker, Grant as the switchable big who can hit 3s and PP as the volume 3 point shooter. They don't really lack anything now. Maybe a pure PG but they don't need one. Hopefully they can find a younger version of Al for the long term. I'd love Jalen Smith but I don't see it happening. I think PP and GW are gone after their rookie deals too but they should be replaceable. This team is set up pretty well for awhile though. They should be clicking on all cylinders, it's a well built engine.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Grant kind of slumped the last month from 3 (other than those 2 Net games), but they probably don't win those 2 games without Grant's 3s


IME's system/accountability +
different players (Al, DW, Theis, new Grant) +
less injures/COVID +
JAYLord growth -
Kemba/TT

They have hit on all of them at the right time. I didn't see the turnaround happening so quickly but definitely thought this would be happening next season+++
Yeah, GW actually finished 2nd in 3 point % (on the team) due to a cold stretch at the end of the season and PP going on fire.

I saw a turnaround happening next season, but I also thought it would involve a few big moves in the offseason.

I don't know who said it, and it's probably not PC anymore, but this team has just the perfect amount of cheifs and indians. Totally different than the Marcus Morris/Terry Rozier team.
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
21,151
Santa Monica
Yeah, GW actually finished 2nd in 3 point % due to a cold stretch at the end of the season and PP going on fire.

I saw a turnaround happening next season, but I also thought it would involve a few big moves in the offseason.

I don't know who said it, and it's probably not PC anymore, but this team has just the perfect amount of cheifs and indians. Totally different than the Marcus Morris/Terry Rozier team.
The fact that every key player is signed through next season and beyond probably helps team play.

Rozier and MaMo (both key players in an EC Game 7 finalist) needed points & minutes to get paid, team goals be damned. Danny, once he suspected Kyrie was out, should have been decisive at the 2019 trade deadline (not that I called that). He hedged and it blew up in their face which led to reactionary moves.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,607
Good point on on the extreme tail outcome because that's where humans tend to focus.

Let's put it bluntly - would people be ok with the prospect of missing out on the 2028 version of Tatum/Luka/Morant for multiple shots to win a championship over the next few years?
Well, sure. But is that really the calculation?

How much have the odds changed on the Celtics having multiple shots to win a championship over the next few years changed by having Derrick White over Josh Richardson and the 25th pick this year?

Has it improved the odds? I'd say yes. By enough to justify the prospect of missing out on the 2028 version of Tatum/Luka/Morant? I'd say no.

I've said before, I'd never allow for the possibility of losing a top 4 pick for a player at the Derrick White level. Even if you think the chances of that swap hitting were somewhat remote. If the swap were top 4 protected? Absolutely. Even if it were in the next few years when I know I have Tatum under contract, maybe I'd stretch if I thought I couldn't win without White. But so far off that you have zero guys under contract? Wouldn't do it.

That said if they actually win a title with White contributing, then it doesn't matter what happens later. The banner hangs forever.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,911
Melrose, MA
Has it improved the odds? I'd say yes. By enough to justify the prospect of missing out on the 2028 version of Tatum/Luka/Morant? I'd say no.
So you are judging the deal by the absolute worse case scenario, regardless of its probability?
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
50,675
Realizing the tail risk of missing out on a generational talent is definitely possible, albeit unlikely. That said, I kind of agree that the White deal will ultimately be judged depending on whether the Cs win a championship while he is here. Banners do fly forever and a lack of banners by then will almost certainly cause some handwringing about the pick swap

As a side note I may well be watching hoops in another dimension by 2028 but if we are all still here, the Cs draft thread should be a doozy. Stay frosty Dopes!
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,911
Melrose, MA
Realizing the tail risk of missing out on a generational talent is definitely possible, albeit unlikely. That said, I kind of agree that the White deal will ultimately be judged depending on whether the Cs win a championship while he is here. Banners do fly forever and a lack of banners by then will almost certainly cause some handwringing about the pick swap

As a side note I may well be watching hoops in another dimension by 2028 but if we are all still here, the Cs draft thread should be a doozy. Stay frosty Dopes!
It's unlikely you miss a generational talent becase the pick is top 1 protected nand there just aren't that many of those, less than 1 per year..

Since 2003, so starting with Lebron, how many drafted players would you really rather have then Jayson Tatum? I'm thinking that number is under 10, including Lebron.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
20,040
Somewhere
Worrying about the chance of missing some great talent would mean that you never trade draft picks, ever. But protections for picks are a relatively recent phenomenon and tons of picks have been traded for stars or even high level role players like White with few adverse consequences. It’s not like we’re talking about a Nets-esque trade here.
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,243
I wonder if instead of a first swap, Stevens had sent a 2028 second round pick to SA in this deal, would people be complaining that we could be missing the chance at picking up a Draymond Green or a Jokic. Because the probability of that is about equal to that of losing a high lottery pick in the swap. Which is to say, remote.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,607
So you are judging the deal by the absolute worse case scenario, regardless of its probability?
No. I'm not wholly judging the deal by the absolute worse case scenario, but I'm factoring the absolute worst case scenario into my judgment. I feel most folks here aren't figuring it in at all. Whether through overestimating the chances the Celtics will still be good at that point, or just not caring about a swap that far out.

I just disagree with most peoples judgment on the probability of that swap hitting big for San Antonio.

Felt like I explained that in my post.

If the swap were next year, when I know I have this entire core under contract, that's a whole lot different probability than a future pick in 2028, when I have zero guarantee a single player on this roster will be here.



I wonder if instead of a first swap, Stevens had sent a 2028 second round pick to SA in this deal, would people be complaining that we could be missing the chance at picking up a Draymond Green or a Jokic. Because the probability of that is about equal to that of losing a high lottery pick in the swap. Which is to say, remote.
No.

People wouldn't be complaining about a 2028 second round pick.

C'mon man
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,326
What do you mean by scheduled losses? I've never heard that phrase before.
He meant “schedule loss” which is a commonly used phrase when you’re on your 5th road game in 7-8 days that you aren’t expected to win or in the case of Toronto when we didn’t send most of our starters to Canada.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
6,432
Cultural hub of the universe
As a side note I may well be watching hoops in another dimension by 2028 but if we are all still here, the Cs draft thread should be a doozy. Stay frosty Dopes!
I look forward to the Spurs getting the swap, 13 for the 14, and the ensuing draft thread debate rehashing the Langford and Nesmith debacles.

Of course the most likely outcome is that the Celtics are rolling through year 6 of their dynasty and the swap is a complete non issue. :D
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
21,151
Santa Monica
What do you mean by scheduled losses? I've never heard that phrase before.
The Celtics/IME looked at the end of the season schedule, road back-to-backs, and decided to load manage some key players for 2 games.

The odds of winning games against MIL/TOR, on the road, without Tatum/Horford/TL goes down massively. So they ended up with 6 losses since Jan 31 instead of possibly 4. Then @lexrageorge took it a step further.

There is also this ridiculous fact:
By finishing 51-31 after sitting under .500 (20-21) at the halfway point of the season, the Celtics have clinched the best record in league history for a team with a losing mark through 41 games.

Those 4 losses:

A WTF loss to the Pistons where Detroit, behind Bey, dominated the offensive glass 18-2. It was also the second night of a B2B. Smart and Rob Williams didn't play.

Another WTF loss, this time against the Pacers, where the Celtics go their shoes handed to them, again on the 2nd night of a B2B. Tatum didn't play.

A close loss to Luka and the Mavs where the Celtics were done in by shooting woes behind the arc (24.3% from 3)

A tough loss to Jimmy Butler and the Heat. No Rob Williams, and Tatum went 0-5 from 3.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
50,675
I look forward to the Spurs getting the swap, 13 for the 14, and the ensuing draft thread debate rehashing the Langford and Nesmith debacles.

Of course the most likely outcome is that the Celtics are rolling through year 6 of their dynasty and the swap is a complete non issue. :D
Sign me up for your most likely outcome!

That said, does anyone doubt that we will still be discussing, at least in passing, the actual Langford and Nesmith debacles, let alone the 13 for 14 scenario? That needs to happen too.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,825
I look forward to the Spurs getting the swap, 13 for the 14, and the ensuing draft thread debate rehashing the Langford and Nesmith debacles. As San Antonio passes over a super athletic player from Greece to draft a short armed center from Gonzaga.
Fixed that for you.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
21,151
Santa Monica
Well, sure. But is that really the calculation?

How much have the odds changed on the Celtics having multiple shots to win a championship over the next few years changed by having Derrick White over Josh Richardson and the 25th pick this year?

Has it improved the odds? I'd say yes. By enough to justify the prospect of missing out on the 2028 version of Tatum/Luka/Morant? I'd say no.

I've said before, I'd never allow for the possibility of losing a top 4 pick for a player at the Derrick White level. Even if you think the chances of that swap hitting were somewhat remote. If the swap were top 4 protected? Absolutely. Even if it were in the next few years when I know I have Tatum under contract, maybe I'd stretch if I thought I couldn't win without White. But so far off that you have zero guys under contract? Wouldn't do it.

That said if they actually win a title with White contributing, then it doesn't matter what happens later. The banner hangs forever.
FWIW...Brad was a little more upset with giving up the 2028 pick swap than the 2022 1st (go to 11:10)

I like Derrick White's upside/fit for the next 4 seasons, so love the deal. Really feel JAYLord will be "generational talents" that will need to be surrounded by high-end role players (esp. a ball-handler). So I'd expect Brad to be aggressive, by moving first-rounders/assets, over the next half-decade to build around them

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oieVBfB-v1A
 
Last edited:

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,010
But so far off that you have zero guys under contract? Wouldn't do it.
Six years is indeed an incredibly long time in NBA terms. Imagine being a Celtics fan in 2007 (24-58 record) and being told by a visitor from the future that in the next 6 seasons, the team would win 66 games and a title and then still wind up back at 25 wins by 2013 - !

That's the glass-half-empty perspective: the chances of the 2028 pick being a high one is greater than many are admitting here. On the other hand, IMO the franchise's recent track record with drafting is leading people to overestimate the chances that a high draft pick turns into a generational player. There's a lot of Kedrick Browns in the top half of the draft— our recent experience has just helped us forget it.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,911
Melrose, MA
No. I'm not wholly judging the deal by the absolute worse case scenario, but I'm factoring the absolute worst case scenario into my judgment. I feel most folks here aren't figuring it in at all. Whether through overestimating the chances the Celtics will still be good at that point, or just not caring about a swap that far out.

I just disagree with most peoples judgment on the probability of that swap hitting big for San Antonio.
What do you think the probability is? And how are you defining "hitting big"?

Or, to come at it from another direction, where do you draw the line in terms of too high a price to pay?
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
32,041
FWIW...Brad was a little more upset with giving up the 2028 pick swap than the 2022 1st (go to 11:10)

I like Derrick White's upside/fit for the next 4 seasons, so love the deal. Really feel JAYLord will be "generational talents" that will need to be surrounded by high-end role players (esp. a ball-handler). So I'd expect Brad to be aggressive, by moving first-rounders/assets, over the next half-decade to build around them
Thanks for posting.

Churning a roster every year to keep in contention is pretty difficult. Look how hard it is for the LAL. So DA knew he had two superstars and horded picks because he didn't want to have to go sign multiple vets to one-year deals anymore - he was hoping to develop young, cost-controlled role players. It kind of worked but kind of didn't.

POBOBS had a chance to add a guy with a decent contract, a great fit, and still some upside (particularly if he can get his shot working again) for the next three years. What did SAS really get out of it? The pick swap. I mean I like RL as a player but even if he pops next year, he's a RFA (IIRC) and SAS might not keep him. And this year's first didn't turn out to be much.

White has been above-average for the Cs so far. He can get better. Because of this, I think the trade was a no-brainer.
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,243
No. I'm not wholly judging the deal by the absolute worse case scenario, but I'm factoring the absolute worst case scenario into my judgment. I feel most folks here aren't figuring it in at all. Whether through overestimating the chances the Celtics will still be good at that point, or just not caring about a swap that far out.

I just disagree with most peoples judgment on the probability of that swap hitting big for San Antonio.

Felt like I explained that in my post.

If the swap were next year, when I know I have this entire core under contract, that's a whole lot different probability than a future pick in 2028, when I have zero guarantee a single player on this roster will be here.





No.

People wouldn't be complaining about a 2028 second round pick.

C'mon man
Exactly. So they shouldn’t be complaining about a 2028 pick swap. Especially one where we simply don’t have enough information to evaluate it.
But I have a simple solution. We should petition Brad to trade the pick. That way, some other teams fans can have anxiety attacks about our record in 2028.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,876
Imaginationland
I really would be curious to know how valuable a 1st round pick (6 years in the future) subject to a pick swap really is, when compared to a 1st round pick (also 6 years in the future) with no such conditions.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
21,151
Santa Monica
I really would be curious to know how valuable a 1st round pick (6 years in the future) subject to a pick swap really is, when compared to a 1st round pick (also 6 years in the future) with no such conditions.
using a back-of-the-envelope calculation, I'd say a 2028 pick swap is HALF as valuable as a 2028 1st with no conditions (other than #1 protected).

It's a coin toss the Spurs are better than the Celtics 6 seasons from now, which will trigger the swap.

Just note, I'm positive on the Spurs youngsters and cap situation ATM, which suits the Celtics IMO. They don't have any transformational talent and should be average enough to be fighting for playin games in the WC for a few years in the future. I'd be more concerned if they were doing a Philly Process or OKC pick/contract collection program.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
50,675
I really would be curious to know how valuable a 1st round pick (6 years in the future) subject to a pick swap really is, when compared to a 1st round pick (also 6 years in the future) with no such conditions.
There are to attempts to use information publicly available to value this transaction upthread - feel free to rip my try to shreds. I may have missed something.

If I had to guess, these picks are all probably valued similarly across the league (denominated in some form of wins vs. replacement) so the specific pick/pick-swap trade value isn't an issue in isolation. Its simply whether the deal can get done with or without those sweeteners.

That said, this is pure conjecture based on how other markets work.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,911
Melrose, MA
using a back-of-the-envelope calculation, I'd say a 2028 pick swap is HALF as valuable as a 2028 1st with no conditions (other than #1 protected).

It's a coin toss the Spurs are better than the Celtics 6 seasons from now, which will trigger the swap.
I'd say that a top 1 protected pick swap is considerably less than half the value of a top 1 protected pick, since the value of the pick going out is offset to some extent by the pick coming back.

Assuming we know nothing about the quality of the teams teams (which might be close to true 6 years out), you are right about the coin flip. There is a 50/50 chance that the Celtics have a higher draft pick than the Spurs, in which case nothing conveys. That's the modal outcome.

Then there are also all of the scenarios where the Celtics are slight better than the Spurs, such that the Spurs will exercise the swap (because why not?) but we are talking about relatively immaterial things like "Celtics give up the #21 pick in eachange for the Spurs #24 pick."

The big risk, of course, is that the Celtics' pick is a high lottery pick but not the #1. In which case getting the Spurs own pick back does little to offset the value being lost.

That event is a big loss but it is low probablity.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
21,151
Santa Monica
Then there are also all of the scenarios where the Celtics are slight better than the Spurs, such that the Spurs will exercise the swap (because why not?) but we are talking about relatively immaterial things like "Celtics give up the #21 pick in eachange for the Spurs #24 pick."

The big risk, of course, is that the Celtics' pick is a high lottery pick but not the #1. In which case getting the Spurs own pick back does little to offset the value being lost.

That event is a big loss but it is low probablity.
good point. agreed (but you mean "the Spurs are slightly better than the Celtics")

so a 2028 pick swap is materially worth less than HALF an outright 2028 draft pick
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
5,124
Saint Paul, MN
There are to attempts to use information publicly available to value this transaction upthread - feel free to rip my try to shreds. I may have missed something.

If I had to guess, these picks are all probably valued similarly across the league (denominated in some form of wins vs. replacement) so the specific pick/pick-swap trade value isn't an issue in isolation. Its simply whether the deal can get done with or without those sweeteners.

That said, this is pure conjecture based on how other markets work.
I don't think this is the case at all. Unless I am missing something.

In the pick swap scenario you lose your own pick in order to get the better pick. In a straight up trade, you get to keep your own pick regardless of whether the other pick is better or worse.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,733
02130
I said this a while ago and I can't believe people are still talking about the 2028 pick, but if the Celtics are in such a position that they need to rebuild in 2028:
  • Things will have gone very wrong, and they will probably be making a bunch of trades and have a totally different collection of picks and players coming back (If something awful happens to Tatum and he is no longer a good player, you're blowing up the team and trading everyone else)
  • It will be a multi-year process so that particular year's draft will be less important, and
  • Most importantly, Brad / Ime will most likely be gone which means THEY BARELY CARE about including a 2028 pick swap. There is no incentive for them to care about this because if they are in the lottery by then and losing that pick really hurts, then someone else will be cleaning up their mess and no future employer is going to fault them for not expecting that to happen.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
The big risk, of course, is that the Celtics' pick is a high lottery pick but not the #1. In which case getting the Spurs own pick back does little to offset the value being lost.
unless the Spurs pick is also a lottery pick. Or they just end up with a better player at 23 than the Spurs did at 2 because of good luck.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
50,675
I don't think this is the case at all. Unless I am missing something.

In the pick swap scenario you lose your own pick in order to get the better pick. In a straight up trade, you get to keep your own pick regardless of whether the other pick is better or worse.
Apologies - I wrote quickly and my language is confusing. What I meant to say is that draft picks, especially for forward drafts may be valued similarly across teams in the sense that there isn't going to be too much disagreement about the value of a pick a few years out. If its R1, P1, it will have a general market value associated with it that most front offices agree upon. This isn't to say that a GM who thinks a forward draft is going to be good might value them more or vice-versa. Its just that as components to the transaction, the value of the pick being traded is not part of the negotiation. Its simply whether both sides agree upon their inclusion. The negotiations around the draft capital have more to do with the specific draft, which pick to agree on and whatever protections need to be included.

Again, this is my conjecture but it seems like this approach is far more efficient than a front office type trying to model up the exact value of a 2028 pick., let alone the value of the pick-swap.