Embiid at #6
- Thread starter DJnVa
- Start date
If the C's take McDermott while Embiid is on the board, I fear for Billy Joel's safety,radsoxfan said:
Generally I would take Embiid assuming Wiggins, Parker, and Gordon are off the board (also possibly Exum but don't really have any way of evaluating him). If Embiid is a bust, that just means the rebuilding process is a year longer. That being said, obviously medical input would be key here.
p.s. second part of question could be whether you would trade Embiid (assuming he is available) for Love. I would not unless I got medical information to the contrary.
p.s. second part of question could be whether you would trade Embiid (assuming he is available) for Love. I would not unless I got medical information to the contrary.
The best case scenario for the Celtics is that Embiid comes back healthy, and he turns into the franchise center on both ends of the floor that he was expected to be heading into the draft before he got hurt. With today's medical practices, I don't think that is TOO much of a stretch.
The worst case scenario is Embiid never gets back to 100%, and the Celtics suck again and we end up in the lottery with a high pick. Although it would suck to whiff on this pick, I'm really not that concerned about it. As a fan, I don't really expect the Celtics to be title contenders anytime soon, so another year or two isn't really going to kill me.
With all that said, the risk/reward factor is telling me that the Celtics should 100% draft Embiid if he is there at six.
The worst case scenario is Embiid never gets back to 100%, and the Celtics suck again and we end up in the lottery with a high pick. Although it would suck to whiff on this pick, I'm really not that concerned about it. As a fan, I don't really expect the Celtics to be title contenders anytime soon, so another year or two isn't really going to kill me.
With all that said, the risk/reward factor is telling me that the Celtics should 100% draft Embiid if he is there at six.
Without a blockbuster trade drafting Embiid, or any player at 6, is going to pretty much ensure we suck again next year. There's nobody who is going to step in as a rookie here to be a franchise-changing impact player in Year One.Kliq said:
bowiac said:
This. I don't think we're going to see the short game work out again. Embiid is the first step towards rebuilding a contender. Hopefully Rondo sticks around, too.
Adrian Wojnarowski made an interesting point on Dan Patrick this morning. He said that Embiid may have a little bit of control over his draft spot. If the medicals, post surgery, come back very good, his agent Arn Tellem will send those to the franchise he's looking to go to. For instance, if he wants no part of Orlando, Utah, or Boston but likes the idea of playing for the Lakers, Tellem will call Kupchak and say, "Hey, the surgery went really well. Here are the medicals and feel free to call the doctors". But he won't disclose that same info to other teams.
bowiac said:
See I think this is the more interesting question. I think there is no way 5 teams pass on the potential of Embiid, but I could see the first two picks going Parker and Wiggins. So what would you as a Celtic fan be willing to have the team give up to move to 3, 4, or 5 to take the risk and pick him? 17 for sure, and perhaps one of the young bigs.
bowiac said:
If it were just 6+17 (and maybe something like the PHI '15 pick), I'd have no problem moving up to get him.
deanx0 said:
This is where I draw the line. There's absolutely no way I give up a Sully or Olynyk to trade up for a big man with a bad back and bad feet. And I love the idea of taking him at 6. I'm just not giving up a proven NBA caliber player on a rookie contract, in addition to 2 1st round picks for a guy who could be injured throughout his career. Taking him at 3-6 is a risk due to the medicals as it is. No need to throw Sully/KO into the equation.
Picking him here scares the hell. Given his size and relatively few years playing basketball (less wear and tear??), the fact that he has had a back injury (stress fracture) and a foot injury gives the appearance of a pick that may never give any significant contribution to this team. Can the Celtics afford to completely miss here if Love is not coming? Maybe my concerns are unfounded, but........
....your concerns are founded tooth. I have the same concerns about Embiid. You don't "have" to take Embiid here. If you have serious questions about his long-term health then don't pick him. I'd rather have to rely on Gordon's flaws getting better because at least his flaws are on the court. Embiid, if healthy, could be a monster. But, if he can't get on the floor, what good is it to have him? After Parker/Wiggins/Exum I think there are serious questions on every other player in this draft.drtooth said:
Your concerns about Embiid's future are well founded, IMO, but there's not much difference in future title equity between picking a solid NBA regular and whiffing on the pick completely so Id roll the dice unless they have a real negative view on Embiid's medicals or a real strong view that one of the other players available is close to a sure fire all star.
Not to oversimplify things, but the NBA is a superstar league. If you don't think anyone left available has superstar potential, and Embiid is there, you have to take him. It may fizzle into nothing, but at least you've given the franchise a chance to get back to championship caliber. If Love is off the table, draft Embiid, trade Rondo, Tankapalooza II, Electric Boogerloo. I like Rondo, and think he'd work fine in rebuild mode, but I think he's getting overpaid by someone other than Boston anyway, so off with his head. I'd be suprised if Danny doesn't have some sort of scenario where Rondo is traded Thursday.
Ed Hillel said:
I'm with ya and I assume Danny is too. Say GS puts together a package for Love, I see this as option B on draft night. Trade Rondo for another top 12 pick (SAC at 8? Maybe ORL at 12 if they don't go PG at 4) and continue to the rebuild. Let Embiid take a half season off, limit his minutes, and keep him healthy.
If they're going for broke with Embiid, assuming Love doesn't happen, then draft Saric at 17 and get ready for the 2015 lottery. I imagine Rondo would be traded in that scenario, too. More draft picks! YAY
I'd roll the dice on Embiid at #6 in a heartbeat but my guess is that its all going to be moot as he'll be gone by then. Would Orlando really pass on Embiid at #4? They have Vucevic, nearing the end of his deal, and nothing else inside.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Chad Ford has been wrong plenty of times, but the fact that he currently has Embiid at #6 would make it at the very least, a reasonable option.
When you combine the risk of drafting a pretty raw prospect to begin with, then you add the medical red flags, it wouldn't shock me if all teams in the top 5 pass on Embiid if they really like someone else on their board.
The other important question is, how much do teams like the Exum, Vonleh, Gordon, Randle, Smart group? If Philly, Orlando, and Utah like one of them enough (and that player is available), I could seem Embiid sliding to the Celtics.
Rondo to Sacramento for #8 and McLemore? We come out of this draft with Embiid and Saric for the future while landing my guy Payton to replace Rondo at #8 coupled with last years 2nd pick.dylanmarsh said:
The other interesting note in Ford's new mock is:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft/mock/?season=2014&version=10&source=Chad-Ford-Mock-Draft
First I've seen that there's even more there (if, in fact, there actually is!). I'm in the "Embiid at 6" camp, and also acknowledge that the medical decision is one you have to trust your own experts on...if they pass, I can't really criticize them for doing so since I have no idea what medical advice they will get.
As for the point that Tellum can control where he shares info, I think that is very true...and also risky and thus likely limited in application. If you only share with the Lakers (in that example) you still don't know that they'll take him, and you've risked a big slide. I suspect the most likely use would be to 'veto' a single team by not sharing with just one or maybe two teams. If you want to send a signal to (say) Utah it's powerful to not share with them but to share with all others.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft/mock/?season=2014&version=10&source=Chad-Ford-Mock-Draft
First I've seen that there's even more there (if, in fact, there actually is!). I'm in the "Embiid at 6" camp, and also acknowledge that the medical decision is one you have to trust your own experts on...if they pass, I can't really criticize them for doing so since I have no idea what medical advice they will get.
As for the point that Tellum can control where he shares info, I think that is very true...and also risky and thus likely limited in application. If you only share with the Lakers (in that example) you still don't know that they'll take him, and you've risked a big slide. I suspect the most likely use would be to 'veto' a single team by not sharing with just one or maybe two teams. If you want to send a signal to (say) Utah it's powerful to not share with them but to share with all others.
Assuming there are real medical concerns, which seems highly likely, I'd pass. Danny got pillored for not drafting Brandon Roy and he ended up being right. The pounding an NBA player, especially a seven footer, takes should not be taken lightly.
+1TheRooster said:
Back problems and foot problems make me want to pass at #6.
I know he won't be there at #17, but I would take a flyer on him there. </captain obvious>
Not taking Embid at six is idiotic unless you have a strong reason to believe--like 80% that he will never be a solid player due to injury. The chance that this guy might be a legitimate big time big man is absolutely worth the risk at 6, particularly given the risk that anyone else you pick will be a bust.
I wouldn't pick him 1 or 2 in this draft--not with Parker and Wiggins there, but I'd probably take him at 3 and certainly at 4 or 5.
Of course, I really like Centers.
I wouldn't pick him 1 or 2 in this draft--not with Parker and Wiggins there, but I'd probably take him at 3 and certainly at 4 or 5.
Of course, I really like Centers.
I think the SoSH consensus is right on.
Basically all players in the draft, particularly once you start moving away from the #1 pick, have very high probabilities of being useless. A tiny proportion also come with the possibility high reward. and it's often hard to spot who those are (obviously). It would probably be dumb to draft him over Wiggins or Parker, but otherwise?
Using the Oden/Durant analogy, even it retrospect, it wasn't dumb drafting Oden is isolation. Taking a chance with an uber-talented, risky big-guy like Oden isn't dumb; it's taking him over an even more uber-talented and less risky Durant.
For the Celtics at #6, that's not a possibility.
Basically all players in the draft, particularly once you start moving away from the #1 pick, have very high probabilities of being useless. A tiny proportion also come with the possibility high reward. and it's often hard to spot who those are (obviously). It would probably be dumb to draft him over Wiggins or Parker, but otherwise?
Using the Oden/Durant analogy, even it retrospect, it wasn't dumb drafting Oden is isolation. Taking a chance with an uber-talented, risky big-guy like Oden isn't dumb; it's taking him over an even more uber-talented and less risky Durant.
For the Celtics at #6, that's not a possibility.
radsoxfan said:
This is where the Celtics may be better equipped to assume the risk than the top 5 teams. Very stable front office, a coach who is presumably here for the long haul, and a shit-ton of future picks to potentially soften the blow if Embiid doesn't work out. It's not impossible to imagine 3-4-5 sitting there thinking "we really can't screw this up" and going with guys they like less but feel safer about.
Ford was on the BS Report, and suggested Embiid's blood work was positive for hepatitis, and Simmons mentioned "bone density issues" on top of that. The way they described it, teams were willing to overlook the minor stuff for his talent, but once there were two major issues as well, then the minor issues made it seem like a snowball effect.PedroKsBambino said:
Be bold. History favors the bold.
A "safer" pick wont likely be a difference maker in any event.
My order of priority is: Love, one of the players they will never get (Wiggins/Parker), and Embiid.
Like on ping pong ball night, I suspect that I'll get nothing I want and be forced to like it.
A "safer" pick wont likely be a difference maker in any event.
My order of priority is: Love, one of the players they will never get (Wiggins/Parker), and Embiid.
Like on ping pong ball night, I suspect that I'll get nothing I want and be forced to like it.
They have already "whiffed" on this pick by landing the #6 selection. You have to take Embiid because the other options are only good enough to make you mediocre.
jose melendez said:
Maybe I missed something, but I thought Ford mentioned that there could be some blood work issues and then talked about how some African players in the past had tested positive for hepatitis. Perhaps even that isn't appropriate to share, but unless I misheard him, I don't think Ford said that Embiid actually tested positive for hepatitis.
FWIW, I wouldn't change my opinion of Embiid's draft stock regardless of any hepatitis diagnosis.
He was slightly coy about it. After Simmons brought up the "bone density" issues, Ford replied: "I think there's some blood work issues as well, it's not uncommon for athletes who grew up in Africa to test positive for hepatitis."jose melendez said:
I'm not sure where I fall on the broader issue of Embiid's privacy rights however. I don't think he's got much of a right to privacy with respect to his health as a professional athlete.
We heard the same thing, but I took it as Ford just playing coy. Why bring up the blood work issues and the hepatitis unless he was saying it was an issue?radsoxfan said:
Maybe I misunderstood it though.
bowiac said:
Well the navicular fracture, or really any other musculoskeletal injury is going to get out in the public. No real way to avoid that.
I admit sometimes it's a blurry line, but I don't know why you think athletes automatically lose their right to privacy with all medical issues (if thats what you were implying). Should the media find out and be able to publicize someones herpes infection, erectile dysfunction, learning disability, etc?
Btw, DWade's herpes is already out there...
at this rate we just need one character rumor to push Embiid down to us at #17. but, seriously I would still take him at #6 based on what i know (danny knows much more than us, so i trust he'll do the right thing).
at this rate we just need one character rumor to push Embiid down to us at #17. but, seriously I would still take him at #6 based on what i know (danny knows much more than us, so i trust he'll do the right thing).
I think a learning disability is probably fair game, sure. I'm not a doctor, but I was the impression hepatitis could also carry with it some stuff could impact his level of play as well. Generally anything that may realistically impact his on the field performance is "fair game" from a media reporting POV (which doesn't get into HIPAA of course, but that's a different standard). This is getting a bit afield for this forum however. I understand that other people have stricter beliefs as to privacy rights in this area than I do. I'm just explaining why I don't hold it against Ford for reporting (or insinuating I guess, which is obviously shadier if he's not going off anything other than that Cameroon is in Africa).radsoxfan said:
Your mileage may vary.
It's the Celtics. After Bias and Reggie, who would be surprised if they got a player with Ebola?