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.
You like Fultz that much? Or just didn't like what he got?My view of Ainge as a GM has nosedived in the last week,
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.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.You like Fultz that much? Or just didn't like what he got?
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.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.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.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.
What?Phil would be crazy to trade with the rival Celtics.
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.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.
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.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 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.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.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.
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.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?
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 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.
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.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.
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.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 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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
In your re-draft I'd bet you'd trade the #3 pick for something in 2018.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.
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.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.Actually if you believe in the concept of portfolio management he reduced risk by trading Fultz for 2 high picks.
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.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.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.
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.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.
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).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.
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.To the extent he traded out because of his own amateur evaluation, I think that's a mistake.
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.Here's the thing: Fultz is the consensus number 1 pick in the draft. .......QUOTE]
QUOTE].[/
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.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.
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.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.
I bet it's the former.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.
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).I bet it's the former.
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.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
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?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.