If the C's take McDermott while Embiid is on the board, I fear for Billy Joel's safety,radsoxfan said:Chad Ford's new mock has Embiid going to…. the Celtics at #6. Interesting.
He also has Vonleh at #4 and Gordon at #5, so in that scenario, those 2 wouldn't be options.
Embiid vs. Smart/Randle/McDermott…. I would (very nervously) take Embiid.
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: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.
Yup, and I'd be happy if that's all it took.bowiac said:I would jump at Embiid at #6, and I would trade #17 if necessary to trade up to get him.
bowiac said:I would jump at Embiid at #6, and I would trade #17 if necessary to trade up to get him.
bowiac said:I would jump at Embiid at #6, and I would trade #17 if necessary to trade up to get him.
bowiac said:I would jump at Embiid at #6, and I would trade #17 if necessary to trade up to get him.
deanx0 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.
....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: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........
Ed Hillel said: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 could is traded Thursday.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said: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.
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: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
There are a few caveats. The Celtics, like everyone else, are still gathering medical info. Sources say that the foot and back fractures aren't the only issues with Embiid's physical. There are several other issues that need to be addressed.
+1TheRooster said: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.
Lose Remerswaal said:Holding my breath and crossing my fingers I do
radsoxfan 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.
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: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.
bowiac said: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.
jose melendez said:
If he has hep--it's total BS for that to be out in the public.
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:If he has hep--it's total BS for that to be out in the public.
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 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.
bowiac 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.
Only if it helps them drop down to where the C's are drafting.radsoxfan 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?
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: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?
Lose Remerswaal said:It's the Celtics. After Bias and Reggie, who would be surprised if they got a player with Ebola?
dylanmarsh said:
I thought we established Acie Earl had Ebola?
Let's leave Jeff Green out of this.Lose Remerswaal said:It's the Celtics. After Bias and Reggie, who would be surprised if they got a player with Ebola?