Draft day musing on Danny Ainge

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
My view of Ainge as a GM has nosedived in the last week, but even I don't think he's stubborn enough to let Brown be a holdup in a Porzingis deal.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
You like Fultz that much? Or just didn't like what he got?
I don't like what he got. I have no particular views on Fultz, other than that consensus #1 picks do exceptionally well, and consensus #1 guards are almost can't miss. From my limited vantage point, it seems to me like Danny believes his own bullshit too much, and decided that Tatum (or whowever) is basically as good as Fultz, so it's free value for him. That seems like hubris to me.

I'm not plugged into the Celtics in any material way, so I could be wrong in a 100 different ways here, but that's my best guess.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
You like Fultz that much? Or just didn't like what he got?
I can't imagine having a negative view of Ainge. He started in 2003 with one real piece (Pierce) and built a championship team within 4 years. When that was done, he tore it down and built another team that was in the conference finals within 4 years, again without any lottery studs and only one big name signing (and they were a near 50 win team before Al Horford), while at the same time accumulating a treasure chest of draft picks that is the envy of the league. I don't know what more one could ask of him. He's more than earned the benefit of the doubt.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I can't imagine having a negative view of Ainge. He started in 2003 with one real piece already and built a championship team within 4 years. When that was done, he tore it down and built another team that was in the conference finals within 4 years, again without any lottery studs and only one big name signing (and they were a near 50 win team before Al Horford), while at the same time accumulating a treasure chest of draft picks that is the envy of the league. I don't know what more one could ask of him. He's more than earned the benefit of the doubt.
We can break this out, but I don't have a negative view of Ainge. I just had a very positive view last week, and now that's much lower in light of what I think was a serious mistake that I don't think he's earned the benefit of the doubt on. I'm not calling on him to be fired or anything. I just no longer view him as positively.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
I can't imagine having a negative view of Ainge. He started in 2003 with one real piece already and built a championship team within 4 years. When that was done, he tore it down and built another team that was in the conference finals within 4 years, again without any lottery studs and only one big name signing (and they were a near 50 win team before Al Horford), while at the same time accumulating a treasure chest of draft picks that is the envy of the league. I don't know what more one could ask of him. He's more than earned the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, all anyone has to do is look at the roster in 2013-2014 and what we have now. Could Ainge have squeezed a little more value for #1? Maybe, we'll never know. But his overall body of work has been nothing short of awesome.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
I can't imagine having a negative view of Ainge. He started in 2003 with one real piece already and built a championship team within 4 years. When that was done, he tore it down and built another team that was in the conference finals within 4 years, again without any lottery studs and only one big name signing (and they were a near 50 win team before Al Horford), while at the same time accumulating a treasure chest of draft picks that is the envy of the league. I don't know what more one could ask of him. He's more than earned the benefit of the doubt.
He'd have probably 3-4 championships had KG not blown a tire, too.

Let's speculate the pick they traded for has an expected value as the 5th pick. Is there anyone who wouldn't trade Fultz for 3 and 5 in this draft? I'd take 2 of Jackson/Tatum/Isaac/Fox over Fultz in a heartbeat.

Bow, didn't you cite to Brown as the 109th best player in college last year or something like that? Has that not given him some leeway in your eyes?
Phil would be crazy to trade with the rival Celtics.
What?
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
I can't imagine having a negative view of Ainge. He started in 2003 with one real piece already and built a championship team within 4 years. When that was done, he tore it down and built another team that was in the conference finals within 4 years, again without any lottery studs and only one big name signing (and they were a near 50 win team before Al Horford), while at the same time accumulating a treasure chest of draft picks that is the envy of the league. I don't know what more one could ask of him. He's more than earned the benefit of the doubt.
I think Ainge deserves a ton of credit. That said, I have serious concerns that he's getting a bit cute when it comes to the actual use of the assets he's gathering. Eventually you need to acquire a transcendent player, and Smart/Brown/Tatum are unlikely to become that, and there are no guarantees at all with either the Brooklyn or Sacramento picks.

You can have all of the lottery luck in the world -- think Cleveland landing 3(!) number one overall picks and two #4 overall picks, and even if they nail all of those picks, they're basically a middling playoff team (at best) right now without, you know, LeBron James.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
I think Ainge deserves a ton of credit. That said, I have serious concerns that he's getting a bit cute when it comes to the actual use of the assets he's gathering. Eventually you need to acquire a transcendent player, and Smart/Brown/Tatum are unlikely to become that, and there are no guarantees at all with either the Brooklyn or Sacramento picks.

You can have all of the lottery luck in the world -- think Cleveland landing 3(!) number one overall picks and two #4 overall picks, and even if they nail all of those picks, they're basically a middling playoff team (at best) right now without, you know, LeBron James.
Sure, but you gotta consider the context, too. There's one of the greatest superteams in NBA history right now, so waiting it out for the right moment is key. I don't think we're there yet, and I also wouldn't put KP in that category.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
I think Ainge deserves a ton of credit. That said, I have serious concerns that he's getting a bit cute when it comes to the actual use of the assets he's gathering. Eventually you need to acquire a transcendent player, and Smart/Brown/Tatum are unlikely to become that, and there are no guarantees at all with either the Brooklyn or Sacramento picks.

You can have all of the lottery luck in the world -- think Cleveland landing 3(!) number one overall picks and two #4 overall picks, and even if they nail all of those picks, they're basically a middling playoff team (at best) right now without, you know, LeBron James.
But Fultz is not LeBron James, nor will he be. He might be Kyrie Irving, one of those guys who, in your words, is good enough to create a middling playoff team (at best).

I don't know if the difference between Fultz and Tatum/Jackson is big, small, or zero. But I think Ainge understands asset management (and acts accordingly) as well as any GM in the league, and we know form his previous statements that he also understands that this team needs quality, not quantity. So I have to assume that Ainge (along with the rest of the front office) sees no separation in the top 4, so he's exploiting the fact that Philly disagrees with him. And I don't think he could have gotten more. Philly knew what Ainge was up to; if the Cs were making this deal, it meant they didn't care much about the difference from 1 to 3. So the Philly/Sacto pick was more than enough since the C's were ending up with the guy they want (or close) anyway.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
I made this point after the trade was made, but regardless of Danny's body of work, the downside risk on the #1 for #3 trade is so bad that it could potentially cost him his job. There's a very real chance that Fultz becomes a superstar, #3 does not and the extra pick is nothing more than a Rozier/James Young mid-first type. If that's the case he'll have potentially blown his chance at assembling a contender and created another one (Philly) in the process and that would, fairly or unfairly, destroy all the goodwill he's built up. He better hope he's right.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
I think Ainge deserves a ton of credit. That said, I have serious concerns that he's getting a bit cute when it comes to the actual use of the assets he's gathering. Eventually you need to acquire a transcendent player, and Smart/Brown/Tatum are unlikely to become that, and there are no guarantees at all with either the Brooklyn or Sacramento picks.

You can have all of the lottery luck in the world -- think Cleveland landing 3(!) number one overall picks and two #4 overall picks, and even if they nail all of those picks, they're basically a middling playoff team (at best) right now without, you know, LeBron James.
Agreed on all counts here G&MB. If Ainge's goal is to kick the can down the road more, then yes keep picking. But he's already signed Horford so having a max deal on the books but waiting until GS/CLE are completely deal doesn't make much sense Ainge's dream when he started acquiring all these picks would be to use some of the picks acquire a star player while keeping financial flexibility. If Porzingis is truly available, this accomplishes that.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,539
I think Ainge deserves a ton of credit. That said, I have serious concerns that he's getting a bit cute when it comes to the actual use of the assets he's gathering. Eventually you need to acquire a transcendent player, and Smart/Brown/Tatum are unlikely to become that, and there are no guarantees at all with either the Brooklyn or Sacramento picks.

You can have all of the lottery luck in the world -- think Cleveland landing 3(!) number one overall picks and two #4 overall picks, and even if they nail all of those picks, they're basically a middling playoff team (at best) right now without, you know, LeBron James.
I disagree. If these are quality drafts and we nail all the picks, we should be a very good, Championship quality team. The Warriors did just fine building through the draft and making smart FA choices. Even without Durant they're the best team in the NBA. It doesn't seem like any of these drafts are total busts on the 2013 level, but I guess it's possible.

Getting LeBron would be awesome, but there hasn't been another LeBron since he came out. Even AD and KAT are clearly not the same generational talent that can carry their teams deep in the playoffs with the pupu platters of shit that LeBron had early in his career.
 
Last edited:

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
If I have one bitch about Ainge is that he gave away the possibility of landing the #1s in the Philly/LA/SAC Fultz trade. I could see giving up the '18 LA option, but not both. That irked me. And I kope it doesn't bite us in the ass.

Other than than that, it seems he has the eye and has done the due diligence to make the call re Fultz v the field. He may be wrong but I trust his methodology. The guy is thorough..

And I can't blame him for not drafting "LeBron" but he has assembled enough high draft choices to put him in an enviable position to do so if he is there..
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Bow, didn't you cite to Brown as the 109th best player in college last year or something like that? Has that not given him some leeway in your eyes?
That was Kevin Pelton's ranking. I expressed skepticism at such a low ranking, but yes, I was pretty irate with the Jaylen Brown pick. I think I stated I had Brown 10th on my board. I was heavily agitating for Dragan Bender in particular.

To be honest, no - Danny has not earned leeway on that basis yet. Jaylen had a pretty "meh" year. He showed flashes, but he also showed a lot of weaknesses. Brown is at best a "TBD" for me right now. I think he's in the class of a throw-in assets in a deal to get Porzingis or Butler for instance.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
I made this point after the trade was made, but regardless of Danny's body of work, the downside risk on the #1 for #3 trade is so bad that it could potentially cost him his job. There's a very real chance that Fultz becomes a superstar, #3 does not and the extra pick is nothing more than a Rozier/James Young mid-first type. If that's the case he'll have potentially blown his chance at assembling a contender and created another one (Philly) in the process and that would, fairly or unfairly, destroy all the goodwill he's built up. He better hope he's right.
Sure, everything could go wrong. But the opposite could happen too. If he kept Fultz and he turned into noting while Tatum became Paul Pierce, should he be fired for that too? Because the difference in likelihood of those two outcomes isn't all that high.

I'll be mad if this doesn't end well, but the process is sound, so no matter the outcome, he should keep his job.
 
Last edited:

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
1,302
I made this point after the trade was made, but regardless of Danny's body of work, the downside risk on the #1 for #3 trade is so bad that it could potentially cost him his job.
According to Ainge, there was consensus in the room that Fultz would not be their pick at #1 and that the player they are targeting will still be available to them at #3 after the Lakers conceivably take Ball. It doesn't sound like Ainge went rogue and decided to stake his job security on the move.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
That was Kevin Pelton's ranking. I expressed skepticism at such a low ranking, but yes, I was pretty irate with the Jaylen Brown pick. I think I stated I had Brown 10th on my board. I was heavily agitating for Dragan Bender in particular.

To be honest, no - Danny has not earned leeway on that basis yet. Jaylen had a pretty "meh" year. He showed flashes, but he also showed a lot of weaknesses. Brown is at best a "TBD" for me right now. I think he's in the class of a throw-in assets in a deal to get Porzingis or Butler for instance.
I'm not trying to be cute, but of the 9 players you had ahead of Brown, how many would you still take ahead of him? The rookie class this year was fairly weak.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I'll be mad if this doesn't end will, but the process is sound, so no matter the outcome, he should keep his job.
I disagree that the process was sound. But I agree he should keep his job regardless of outcome. One bad process mistake isn't fireable when he's built up a lot of good history.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
We do not have nearly enough data to do any legitimate adjustment of Ainge's performance based on a trade premised on ability to play in the NBA of guys who have not yet played a minute in the league. The guy has been GM 14 years---this is not WEEI.

To be clear, that's true in both directions---whether one dislikes or likes him.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Sure, everything could go wrong. But the opposite could happen too. If he kept Fultz and he turned into noting while Tatum became Paul Pierce, should he be fired for that too? Because the difference in likelihood of those two outcomes isn't all that high.

I'll be mad if this doesn't end well, but the process is sound, so no matter the outcome, he should keep his job.
Here's the thing: Fultz is the consensus number 1 pick in the draft. So not only are they going against consensus, but the return they got, at least based on expected value and the historical premium paid for number 1 picks, is somewhat light. So what I am saying is Ainge has to be right because he took a gamble that is way outside the box. Let me also stress I don't think that's a fire-able offense even on the extreme downside, but that the amount of risk he's introduced into this process could be detrimental to the good standing he currently has.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Ainge took Brown when most people - fans, pundits - thought he should take someone else (Bender, Dunn). We know he's independent in his evaluations, whereas I (and most of us) are know-little fans with no basis for making truly independent and knowledgeable decisions.

And knowing this, how would we have felt if Ainge stayed at #1 and took Jackson or Tatum instead of Fultz - which seems possible, if not pretty damn likely, based on what they've told us? And how would we have felt if we then learned that Ainge could have traded back to 3 and picked up a potentially high lottery first next year or the year after, and then taken Jackson/Tatum, but turned the trade down? I'm thinking "bad" or "pissed off" are the answers to those questions.

So you/we can disagree with the decision-making, and think that Fultz was/is too good a prospect to pass on, but you have to acknowledge that Ainge has more info than you/us and that he might very well have taken someone else anyway at #1, despite your/our position on the matter! Getting that extra pick, under these circumstances, should at least assuage any concerns that Ainge doesn't understand the concepts of "value" and "leverage."
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
Back to Porzingis, what Zen master message is Jackson trying to send Kristaps by dangling him in trade talks? "Play ball by attending my exit interview or I will deal you to a better situation than the Knicks shitshow?"

It makes no sense. The Knicks need a lot of help and they really only have one really valuable asset in Porzingis.

I don't think Jackson will move him for the packages some of us were discussing last night but if someone gives up a few starters and high picks, I bet he absolutely does a deal.

Jackson is one of the few NBA execs that can even consider dealing away a player like Porzingis.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Ultimately he may end up being very similar to Hinkie in the draft, really. Very good at acquiring assets, but the actual picks don't really contribute as much as you'd like. I have defended Danny's draft record before but that's only in terms of not really missing too often compared to his draft spot. He also hasn't shown any remarkable acuity to pick out draftees, and honestly I don't have a huge amount of faith in them to be identifying Kevin McHale ahead of Joe Barry Carroll.

I like Ainge a lot, I like what he is building with Stevens, but I'm not sold on the amateur evaluation, compared to the rest of the NBA. Obviously, compared to a bunch of guys on the internet, they are way better. That's one reason, even though I'm not convinced Porzingis is going to be a perennial All-NBA type, it might be better to trade the picks for him.
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
Here's the thing: Fultz is the consensus number 1 pick in the draft. So not only are they going against consensus, but the return they got, at least based on expected value and the historical premium paid for number 1 picks, is somewhat light. So what I am saying is Ainge has to be right because he took a gamble that is way outside the box. Let me also stress I don't think that's a fire-able offense even on the extreme downside, but that the amount of risk he's introduced into this process could be detrimental to the good standing he currently has.
Ultimately this is primarily a bet on his player evaluation----if he's right about the guy he picks being about as good as Fultz then he reduced risk in the deal by adding two assets instead of one. But if he's wrong on the eval, it could be a big miss.

I do not think him varying from the consensus player eval means much, since the public evals may or may not even match what other teams do, and even to degree they do it still isn't Ainge's job to beat 'the house' it is his job to make the right pick.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I'm not trying to be cute, but of the 9 players you had ahead of Brown, how many would you still take ahead of him? The rookie class this year was fairly weak.
No, that's totally fair. I don't think Brown is some kind of huge win for Ainge, but I agree my extreme Bender optimism was wrong, so I'll eat crow there. I'd probably have Brown like 5th in a redraft now, behind Simmons, Ingram, Chriss, and Maker. I think I preferred Chriss to Brown at the time, but not Maker, but I'm really going off memory. I don't publish my own draft projections or anything, so it's not something I can refer to.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
This discussion should probably be split out since I keep getting false hope that there has been movement in the Porzingis discussions :(
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I like Ainge a lot, I like what he is building with Stevens, but I'm not sold on the amateur evaluation, compared to the rest of the NBA. Obviously, compared to a bunch of guys on the internet, they are way better.
This is exactly where I'm at. I think Ainge does everything very well, except perhaps amateur evaluation. To the extent he traded out because of his own amateur evaluation, I think that's a mistake. It has very little to do with my views on Fultz vs. Tatum in particular, and more that I don't have much reason to think that Danny is better than the pack at this particular thing.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
I don't like what he got. I have no particular views on Fultz, other than that consensus #1 picks do exceptionally well, and consensus #1 guards are almost can't miss.
I'm with you on this. The return for the #1 was too small. Should have been more patient to get more (and more unconditional) assets.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
No, that's totally fair. I don't think Brown is some kind of huge win for Ainge, but I agree my extreme Bender optimism was wrong, so I'll eat crow there. I'd probably have Brown like 5th in a redraft now, behind Simmons, Ingram, Chriss, and Maker. I think I preferred Chriss to Brown at the time, but not Maker, but I'm really going off memory. I don't publish my own draft projections or anything, so it's not something I can refer to.
In your re-draft I'd bet you'd trade the #3 pick for something in 2018.

Trading that early with PHI made me think he needed the extra pick for some other deal, but so far it's not playing out that way.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
Actually if you believe in the concept of portfolio management he reduced risk by trading Fultz for 2 high picks.
I have no idea what portfolio management refers to, but I agree that he reduced risk (less complete bust potential), but at some potential cost of high end upside. Just how much that upside cost is is debatable, and in my opinion, in this case it's not that much. But I was never that impressed with Fultz from the start.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Actually if you believe in the concept of portfolio management he reduced risk by trading Fultz for 2 high picks.
Depends on what you mean by portfolio management. The decline in expected value from the first pick through the lottery is more logarithmic than straight-line, so it's unlikely that two picks return the same value as #1, especially in this case where one of the pieces being acquired is unknown.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
Depends on what you mean by portfolio management. The decline in expected value from the first pick through the lottery is more logarithmic than straight-line, so it's unlikely that two picks return the same value as #1, especially in this case where one of the pieces being acquired is unknown.
That's fair and true looking forward---but really, Ainge (or any GM) is judged looking backwards at what they built/how the team performed so ultimately how well he assessed the actual dropoff in talent this year is going to be the key, not the historical average.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
Depends on what you mean by portfolio management. The decline in expected value from the first pick through the lottery is more logarithmic than straight-line, so it's unlikely that two picks return the same value as #1, especially in this case where one of the pieces being acquired is unknown.
If Ainge valued the first four players in this draft as roughly having the same value, he reduced risk and increased value through diversification, by adding an asset.

And as best as I can tell, the value of all these future pieces are unknown.
 
Last edited:

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
No, that's totally fair. I don't think Brown is some kind of huge win for Ainge, but I agree my extreme Bender optimism was wrong, so I'll eat crow there.
I think you are being much too hard on yourself. Bender was starting to play quite well before he got hurt last year, and besides, everyone knew he was at least two years away. You should put the crow in the freezer. You can thaw it out next Summer if Bender continues to disappoint.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,622
Depends on what you mean by portfolio management. The decline in expected value from the first pick through the lottery is more logarithmic than straight-line, so it's unlikely that two picks return the same value as #1, especially in this case where one of the pieces being acquire is unknown.
That's a general statement but the GM has more information. Does everyone really think that Ainge didn't do his due diligence? If Ainge couldn't get more for the 1, then that was the market value for the 1 this year. This is simply the reveal of Ainge not thinking that much of Fultz (or Ball).
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
To the extent he traded out because of his own amateur evaluation, I think that's a mistake.
So are you saying that even if Danny and his scouting team were convinced that Fultz was no better (or worse) than Jackson/Tatum/etc. they should have simply said "screw our own opinion, seems like most other people think Fultz is better"? If they would do that what's the point of having scouts at all? I can't imagine any franchise values the supposed "consensus" over their own evaluations. If they think they suck at evaluations, the answer is to change the approach, get better scouts, etc., not simply defer to the consensus.
 

Sausage in Section 17

Poker Champ
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,087
Here's the thing: Fultz is the consensus number 1 pick in the draft. .......QUOTE]

QUOTE].[/
Except the consensus of the Celts front office was he was not the #1 pick. If we're to believe what we hear, they weren't going to take him. So consensus except from the one team who actually gets to decide. It's easy to say the consensus of the league was that Fultz # 1, when none of those teams had any chance of getting him. What they might or would have done had they held the pick is not knowable.

If Ainge and the Celts arrived at the evaluation that there was equal value between these players, then the move they made is a no-brainer. As someone else said, their resources are the envy of the league. We don't yet know what player those resources will bring, but it's likely to be one that comes with even more bona fides or upside than a number 1 pick
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
So are you saying that even if Danny and his scouting team were convinced that Fultz was no better (or worse) than Jackson/Tatum/etc. they should have simply said "screw our own opinion, seems like most other people think Fultz is better"? If they would do that what's the point of having scouts at all? I can't imagine any franchise values the supposed "consensus" over their own evaluations. If they think they suck at evaluations, the answer is to change the approach, get better scouts, etc., not simply defer to the consensus.
There's a couple things going on here. To the extent it's accurate that Fultz is viewed by "the scouting consensus" as a tier above any other prospect, then yes, I think Danny should probably have more humility about both his own scouting eye, and the ability of his scouts to beat the consensus. At the top end of the draft, I'm skeptical that anyone is going to be much smarter than the consensus, and that includes Danny.

Alternatively, it's possible that the public scouting reports we've seen are all wrong, and actual team scouts really do think Fultz, Tatum, Ball and Jackson are all approximately equally good. In that case, I'm fine trading down, but I don't get the sense that's what happened. It seems the Celtics had an off-consensus view, and made a bet based around that. I think that's fine with a lot of things - amateur scouting just isn't one of them.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,193
San Francisco
I think it's a mistake to view the draft as being isolated from the rest of the team context. In particular, we know or at least strongly believe Ainge is going to make a run at a big time free agent this offseason (Hayward, Griffin, Millsap). Given that, we also know that the salary difference between the #1 and #3 picks in the draft is enough to change the max contract calculus from one where Ainge has to trade someone with zero leverage to create cap space to one where he does not.

I am not arguing that this consideration makes the trade worth it - trading Terry Rozier for nothing, for example, in order to make cap space, would not in my opinion be worth the difference between Fultz and Josh Jackson. But it is a factor to consider.

This fits with Danny's behavior for years - he is constantly angling to hit the home run, which occasionally in the short term can make his moves head scratchers. If you forget the larger context. See the Theo Ratliff trade cerca 2006. You see the same forest for trees blindness when some people criticized the Horford signing, forgetting that was as part of a larger play to lure KD.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
I think Ainge deserves a ton of credit. That said, I have serious concerns that he's getting a bit cute when it comes to the actual use of the assets he's gathering. Eventually you need to acquire a transcendent player, and Smart/Brown/Tatum are unlikely to become that, and there are no guarantees at all with either the Brooklyn or Sacramento picks.
It seems you and I either have widely divergent views on what a "transcendent player" is or you're holding him to a standard that's pretty damn difficult to attain.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Think about this

Cleveland from 2011 to 2014 had:
2011 #1 - Irving
2011 #4 - Thompson
2012 #4 - Waiters
2013 #1 - Bennett turned into Love
2014 #1 - Wiggins turned into Love

Golden State from 2009 to 2012 had:
2009 #7 - Curry
2010 #6 - Udoh (with Ellis (picked 40th) and Kwame Brown) turned into Bogut and Stephen Jackson
2011 #11 - Thompson
2012 #7 - Barnes (and #35 Green)

The Cavs drafts you can't really argue with, right? It's a decent looking hit rate. But to really build through the draft you need an exceptional hit rate. I'm not sure Danny is exceptional.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I bet it's the former.
With a few exceptions, every team that has made the finals in the past 25 years has had at least one 5+ VORP player on the roster. And the exceptions had guys with 5+ VORP seasons in their past or coming up (e.g., Dirk in 2011 didn't qualify, but had numerous such seasons in the past, or the 2010 Celtics had three guys with 5+ VORP seasons in the past). Almost every player with multiple 5+ VORP seasons is in the HOF. That looks like a reasonable approximation for the kind of "transcendent player" a team needs to win a title (nobody on the Celtics has qualified since 2008).

With that in mind, here's part of why I'm not a big fan of the value they got:



This is a draft value chart with a very steep cutoff (the 5+ VORP standard). The #1 pick is about twice as likely to yield a 5+ VORP season as the #2 pick for instance, and the Celtics aren't even getting that here.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Bennett was a terrible pick, but in that draft who's the difference maker for Cleveland, outside of Giannis. And if you say Giannis you're making my point - you have to consistently hit the top couple of players in the draft.

There's nothing wrong with the Waiters pick. He looks like your run of the mill #4 pick that didn't work out. Mocks had him a little lower, I guess, maybe 6-8?
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Except the consensus of the Celts front office was he was not the #1 pick. If we're to believe what we hear, they weren't going to take him. So consensus except from the one team who actually gets to decide. It's easy to say the consensus of the league was that Fultz # 1, when none of those teams had any chance of getting him. What they might or would have done had they held the pick is not knowable.

If Ainge and the Celts arrived at the evaluation that there was equal value between these players, then the move they made is a no-brainer. As someone else said, their resources are the envy of the league. We don't yet know what player those resources will bring, but it's likely to be one that comes with even more bona fides or upside than a number 1 pick
We are talking about two different things here. Yes, the Celtics should take the player that they have rated most highly on their board. That's why they have a front office and scouts. However, it's a huge bet on their part moving away from consensus because you are now saying that you are smarter than 29 other GMs and that you've successfully identified the best player in the draft even though he is not considered by your peers to be one of the best two players in the draft. As has been shown there is a huge chasm in expected value between picks 1 and 3. If the Celtics nail the pick, kudos to them. If they don't, the post-hoc analysis is going to show that they made a huge blunder.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
There's a couple things going on here. To the extent it's accurate that Fultz is viewed by "the scouting consensus" as a tier above any other prospect, then yes, I think Danny should probably have more humility about both his own scouting eye, and the ability of his scouts to beat the consensus. At the top end of the draft, I'm skeptical that anyone is going to be much smarter than the consensus, and that includes Danny.

Alternatively, it's possible that the public scouting reports we've seen are all wrong, and actual team scouts really do think Fultz, Tatum, Ball and Jackson are all approximately equally good. In that case, I'm fine trading down, but I don't get the sense that's what happened. It seems the Celtics had an off-consensus view, and made a bet based around that. I think that's fine with a lot of things - amateur scouting just isn't one of them.
It is strange to me that you have used "hubris" and "humility" with response to Ainge's drafting abilities. None of us are in the room with respect to knowing how the Celtics actually come to these decisions -- is the implication that Ainge makes that call himself, regardless of what the rest of his player personnel and scouting staff says? (This may be, but do we know this?). Or, just because he doesn't follow Chad Ford's mock drafts and goes against "consensus", he is doing it purely to be different?

Can't it just be that the evaluate players differently than you and have missed on some picks without it being some sort of character flaw of Ainge?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
The juxtaposition of a discussion about Anthony Bennett and a second discussion about the assumption any number one pick is 2x likely to yield a superstar is interesting and instructive. While on average the number one pick is uniquely valuable, it is demonstrably not the case that every year that is true.

Whether this year is a "5 VORP" year or a "Anthony Bennett" year is an unknown, and while we can debate how relevant historical percentages are to deciding which we are closer to (this year is clearly not either the Lebron or Bennett extreme) we do know that this year's pick is not an average of multiple years---it's an assessment of a small set of individual players. People misunderstand how averages across a sample map to individual decisions all the time, and this is looking like another of those.