Grading the 2019 Celtics Draft

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
2,404
I thought this might be an interesting thread, what with a week and a half before the 2020 draft.

How I approached this: I considered a grade of "B" as "expected value for draft position." I resisted giving "incomplete" as a grade, as it would be too easy to do, considering we haven't seen all that much of any of them (Grant has spent the most time on an NBA court).

Romeo Langford, #14: C
This may seem low, but I'm growing skeptical Langford can stay healthy. His injuries aren't minor either: he's had torn ligaments twice (thumb, wrist). His three-point shot may look better than Lonzo's, but not by much. His defense is encouraging, with long arms and an ability to stick close; he can bother shots even when someone appears to beat him on the drive. He seems to have a really good court sense. People could argue his grade should be "incomplete," and his outcomes are quite wide, but my major concern right now is durability. Who we could've had instead: Clarke, Thybulle.

Grant Williams, #22, B
I think Grant was solid value, but his natural limitations are noticeable in the NBA. He's just a little shorter, a little slower, and a little less athletic than the typical NBA player at his position. However, it's impressive how smart he is, and unselfish, and how well he's recognized and adapted to his limitations. And he's built like a bull. I think he's going to figure out how to get his offense inside; we saw flashes of that, though mostly he seemed content to take set-and-shoot three pointers. He seems like someone who could be a sixth man of the year type. A bit of a tendency to commit dumb fouls; he had this rap in college too. You could argue he's a B+, based on recency bias (playoffs).

Carsen Edwards, #33, C
Edwards' future really depends on that three-point shot. He was 31.6% from three in Boston last year, which just isn't nearly good enough. Even more disappointing, he played in about 13 games in Maine, and took about 120 three-pointers, and made only 27.7%, which is even worse, in a league where you get a cleaner look at the basket. If he's not the microwave scorer he was touted to be, and he can't run an offense, he's not going to be of much use, being only 5' 11". However, since he was picked #33, expectations aren't too high.

Tremont Waters, #51, A-
This is the position where I really think Ainge got value. Waters is small (5' 10"), but unlike Edwards has elite quickness, so he can knock the ball free when whoever he's guarding brings it down low. He was G League player of the year, had a slightly better than 2 to 1 ratio of assists to turnovers, and shot 35.4% from three. At the draft combine, he was one of the fastest in the sprint and had a 40-inch vertical leap. Unfortunately in the NBA he shot only 17% from three, but he was a 78% free-throw shooter in the G League, so mid-30s from three-point range seems like a reasonable projection. It'll take a little time to adjust to the NBA, but I like him a lot as a backup point guard.

Overall draft: B or B-
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,358
Given the fact that there is speculation the Celtics may have to staple a pick to get rid of Edwards, I think a "C" is pretty generous. Unfortunately, he showed almost nothing of the lightning that he displayed in the summer league which got him a guaranteed deal. Maybe he's a guy that eventually finds his place in the NBA, but there's also a pretty decent chance he washes out sooner rather than later.

The thing that really surprised me about Williams was that he seemed to have almost no low post game. I would have thought there would be situations where he gets switched on to a smaller player and would be able to generate some of his own offense, but that never seemed to happen. To be a productive player he's going to have to do more than catch and shoot threes.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,384
I don’t think Romeo and Edwards can have the same grade. Romeo showed that he could crack Stevens’ rotation as a rookie. Injuries and shooting are areas of concern but he looks the part of a quality bench piece with upside to be more. Edwards looks like a guy who belongs in Europe.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
2,242
Cultural hub of the universe
I'd agree that Edwards deserves less than a C, I'd go D. Great value from Williams at 22, I'd go A-.

The whole grade on this draft will depend on Langford's progression. He certainly showed flashes, but he's got to stay healthy and improve. C is fair for now, but I'm bullish on his future.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
9,302
I'd go C, maybe C+. Edwards as a C grade is fine with me, he was a second round pick, I think expectations were perhaps a little too high there.

Brandon Clarke is the one guy in retrospect I would have liked with our cluster of 1st round capital. Or somehow sneaking up a couple picks to get Herro.

Not a ton of other big value out there. Bol Bol still has some unicorn upside potential I guess. Personally I don't have high hopes for Langford, but he still is young and at least has a chance to be good. Williams should hang on as a rotation bench guy I think, not unreasonable for a mid to late first rounder.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
6,942
Edwards has to get an F, especially after he looked great in summer league and then looked great again in the preseason, and then even had one game early in the year where he lit it up, and then nothing the rest of the year.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
I liked what I saw from Langford; I agree that exploring a trade-up for Herro looks good in retrospect and simply don't know what they looked at and what was possible.

I was a Bol Bol advocate in the draft thread and continue to believe people overweight certainty and short-term injuries in the draft, so I'll continue to say he was a better bet than Edwards from an asset perspective. Porter Jr is the most recent example of where those risks of health led teams to suboptimize (though a higher pick than Edwards or Bol Bol). Put a different way, in the second round by far the greatest risk is that the guy isn't an NBA player talent-wise. Injury, head case, etc. are almost always lesser risks in the 3-4 year view than talent so you should pick based on talent and not worry a lot about the rest---most of these guys either won't make it at all or wont' be worth much over replacement value so you might as well try for a 'win'
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
1,724
Edwards has to get an F, especially after he looked great in summer league and then looked great again in the preseason, and then even had one game early in the year where he lit it up, and then nothing the rest of the year.
I would give Edwards no better than a D, but it's not as if he had a lot of opportunities to impress in the regular season. His body of work in the NBA isn't particularly big.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
6,942
I would give Edwards no better than a D, but it's not as if he had a lot of opportunities to impress in the regular season. His body of work in the NBA isn't particularly big.
Because when he played he couldn't make shots, and when they sent him to the D league to play much worse competition he still couldn't make shots.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,358
I think Waters showed better touch from deep in the D-league that Edwards, and that's pretty much his signature skill.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
9,302
Edwards has to get an F, especially after he looked great in summer league and then looked great again in the preseason, and then even had one game early in the year where he lit it up, and then nothing the rest of the year.
For grading purposes, I don't understand the idea of giving any 2nd round pick an F. Most of these are not good and end up out of the league.

Year 1 for Edwards was bad, no doubt about it. Perhaps expectations were too high, but at this point he's just another 2nd rounder. I'm not desperate to swap Edwards for any of the guys taken after him to be honest.

Romeo has a higher likelihood of getting an F from me than Carsen.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,168
Edwards should be a B.
Go look at the rookie years of the last 10 #33 overall picks. He's definitely not the worst, he's average, maybe a bit better in that group. Even the #33 picks that worked out decently (Joe Harris, Kyle Singler) were really bad as rookies.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,355
Santa Monica
Anything less than an "A" for Granite is heresy after watching his progress post 3mth break. The guy puts in the work.

There isn't a player I'd take over him after he was picked. He's a full 2yrs younger than everybody's favorite Brandon Clarke.

Some see his ceiling as PJ Tucker, I see Draymond Green.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
I don't fault Boston too badly for the Langford/Herro thing because I don't think they actually had much of a shot to trade up. If you look at the picks in front of theirs teams were either trading up and not down (Atlanta and Minnesota) or not trading at all because their guys wouldn't have lasted until #14 (Washington and Charlotte). The two guys on the board that I would have preferred over Langford (Doumbouya and Okeke) didn't really have an impact last year (Doumbouya is really raw and Okeke had the knee injury). Honestly I would have been happier had they traded the pick for a future #1.

As for the rest of it they created the space to sign Walker, which looks bad in retrospect thanks to covid19. Ironically their best option at PG might have been Terry Rozier. But, no one expects the Spanish flu!!!

Grant Williams is a solid A, he’s solid rotation big, you can’t ask for a lot more than that from #22. As for the second rounders, anything you get from a second rounder is gravy. I would have preferred Terrence Davis at #51, but whatever.
 

Lazy vs Crazy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
3,602
Edwards is going to be that guy who does nothing in Boston but then has a productive career around the NBA. I'd give that pick a C. Move it to a C- now that his contract is now negative value.

Waters will probably never do anything of note, due to size, but considering where he was picked he gets a B.

I think Romeo will be very good, he can run the pick and roll. B+ due to injury concerns.

I'll give Grant a C- because I don't like the trade and would rather have Thybulle than Grant and Edwards. In a vacuum, trade aside, he's a solid B. I think keeping the pick and drafting a player with an elite skill would have been better.

Missing Bol Bol was the worst part.

Overall B-.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
Thybulle is the G version of Grant. With a narrower game. They had more needs at the F spot, and Grant does a whole lot more.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,355
Santa Monica
Rookies have to find their way around the team, especially with the Celtics, since so many spots were spoken for. By the end of the season, GW figured out a way to add value. His 17 playoff games against the best competition, in high leverage situations, have me even more optimistic. His level of intelligence is not found in many 21yr olds. He's the type of player (like Smart) that will do the little things/dirty work, and be a positive whenever on the floor. His counting numbers will never wow you, but with the Jay Crew ascending guys like GW are necessary complementary pieces.

I like Thybulle also, so no reason to go bad on him, other than he is 2yrs older than Grant.

Bol Bol isn't a bad lottery ticket. Denver has done a tremendous job in the draft over the last half dozen years.
 

tbrown_01923

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2006
544
I am fairly bullish on what I have seen from Langford. I think his D and his transition game are enough to make him a rotation wing (#8/9 off the bench). I would consider settinig some boundaries on the grades

A: proven they belong
B: not proven that they belong, but some indications they do
C: not proven that they don't belong, but some indications they do not
D: signs they do not belong

Langford, I might have in the B range (maybe B- or B) because I saw a rotational player in there. The NBA isn't full of starters drafted in the 12-16 range and the expectation with Langford shouldn't be that of a starter on a team with championship aspirations. Maybe he gets there but more likely he plugs in defensively and gets a few cheap buckets every game.

WIlliams, again in the B range (maybe B or B+) because there are still some quesitons about both sides of his game (given his early shooting woes, and lack of "tools" on defense).

Carsen, probably a C- because he needs to be able to shoot and we didn't witness that in either league. It was going to take some time, but I anticipated a little bit of comptenece from 3.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
13,319
Somewhere
I think draft grades should be based on, like, raw expected value. If you draft Giannis, you get an A. If you draft Lebron, you get an A. If you draft Ryan Gomes, you get like a C+. He’s better than you’d expect but he was still a marginal player.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
Yes, that's the case I made last year during the draft about Bol Bol. And in past about MPJ Jr. And the reason you have to think about Poky at 26 or 31 if there (which I think is unlikely)

It certainly varies by team composition, and there can be value to a well-priced rotation piece especially if you are a capped-out contender who can win now....but generally, you're better off trying for a big win in the draft especially after about the 10th pick. Denver gets this and has reaped the benefit of understanding 'replacement value' frankly much better than Celtics have.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
9,302
I think draft grades should be based on, like, raw expected value. If you draft Giannis, you get an A. If you draft Lebron, you get an A. If you draft Ryan Gomes, you get like a C+. He’s better than you’d expect but he was still a marginal player.
When I think about grading a draft or a draft pick, I think of it as a way to evaluate the front office's decision. Perhaps I'm in the minority, I don't know. Certainly in the end you just want to get the best players and a player's value is more important to the future of the team than if you made a good decision and got a rotation player in the second round.

In these types of discussions, I very much do take into account draft position and who was taken after that player. For that reason I wouldn't give a 2nd rounder like Edwards a D or an F. If a team only had 1 late second round pick and got a Ryan Gomes type player, I would also grade their draft much better than a C+.

If we just grade it on player value, it's sort of a different discussion to me. Of course teams picking in the top 5 are usually going to get the best "grades".
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
I agree to a degree. I think the other aspect to consider is the asset value. So, if we think about Michael Porter Jr he is an example of a guy who didn't do much but who is now a significant asset. He may well crap out---injuries, lack of defense, who knows. But you can trade him now for more value than you used to get him (imo) and that is a piece of this puzzle that is sometimes missed.

Bol Bol did nothing on the court last year. But his asset value now I think pretty clearly exceeds Edwards. That may just be irrational optimism about "ptotential" and I don't want to describe that he's any massive asset now anyway, but it illustrates the other lens that guys like Ryan Gomes tend not to fare well in.
 

tbrown_01923

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2006
544
@PedroKsBambino - I think I agree with you. But how do you build more objectivity into assessing whether a player has increased in appeal around the league minus actual on the court performance?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,168
I agree to a degree. I think the other aspect to consider is the asset value. So, if we think about Michael Porter Jr he is an example of a guy who didn't do much but who is now a significant asset. He may well crap out---injuries, lack of defense, who knows. But you can trade him now for more value than you used to get him (imo) and that is a piece of this puzzle that is sometimes missed.

Bol Bol did nothing on the court last year. But his asset value now I think pretty clearly exceeds Edwards. That may just be irrational optimism about "ptotential" and I don't want to describe that he's any massive asset now anyway, but it illustrates the other lens that guys like Ryan Gomes tend not to fare well in.
I'm not sure I get this, or at least wrt the players mentioned. MPJ was drafted 14th because of injury, he missed a full year. This year though he had very good on-court performance by just about any metric. Yet... would he really bring back more than a lottery 1st? I'm not so sure
Bol Bol... what do we think he'd bring back? A 1st? I'm not sold on that yet.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
9,302
I agree to a degree. I think the other aspect to consider is the asset value.
100% agree asset value, upside, etc. all play into the draft decision and hindsight evaluation. I am not sold on Bol Bol by any means, but I agree I'd swap Edwards for him if given the chance right now.

But my overall point is that in these discussions, I am evaluating the front office decision making, not simply overall value of the players. That seems like a different discussion, at least to me.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
356
When I think about grading a draft or a draft pick, I think of it as a way to evaluate the front office's decision. Perhaps I'm in the minority, I don't know. Certainly in the end you just want to get the best players and a player's value is more important to the future of the team than if you made a good decision and got a rotation player in the second round.

So when I see these types of discussion, I very much do take into account draft position and who was taken after that player. For that reason I wouldn't give a 2nd rounder like Edwards a D or an F. If a team only had 1 late second round pick and got a Ryan Gomes type player, I would also grade their draft much better than a C+.

If we just grade it on player value, it's sort of a different discussion to me. Of course teams picking in the top 5 are usually going to get the best grades.
Agree. There is a distinction between grading a pick and grading a prospect. Grant Williams is clearly an A as a pick. How many guys drafted in the 20's earn meaningful playoff minutes their rookie year? In 2019, there was one - him. In 2018, there was one - Shamet. In 2017, there was one OG - (though in fairness Jarrett Allen, Kuzma and Josh Hart were also picked in that range). In 2016 had one, Dejaunte Murray. Siakam did not play much for Toronto and while Levert got plenty of minutes Brooklyn was atrocious.

As to second rounders, they are not all created equal. The first five or so picks off the second are valuable. So I do not have a problem giving the Edwards pick a C or C- at the moment.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
9,302
As to second rounders, they are not all created equal. The first five or so picks off the second are valuable. So I do not have a problem giving the Edwards pick a C or C- at the moment.
Yeah I agree there, 33 is a lot different than 53. I don't think you can give Edwards any better than a C at this point.

Also, not all drafts are created equal for each team. The move to trade out of #1 and take Tatum at #3 is an A any way you look at it. To compare it to pre-med grades, this is like an A in Organic Chemistry. It's a make or break decision that will determine the fate of the team for years to come.

Grabbing Ryan Gomes might be like a B+ in a pottery class. Solid performance by the FO, but who really cares.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
I'm not sure I get this, or at least wrt the players mentioned. MPJ was drafted 14th because of injury, he missed a full year. This year though he had very good on-court performance by just about any metric. Yet... would he really bring back more than a lottery 1st? I'm not so sure
Bol Bol... what do we think he'd bring back? A 1st? I'm not sold on that yet.
YMMV, but for example Zach Lowe has said the only potentially available player he believes Denver would trade him for is Bradley Beal. That's a lot more valuable than the 14th pick. I think NBA teams think in the way Lowe descibed, which values star upside far more than 'solid contributor'

I have no idea if Bol Bol can play or not. But as an asset play he might be worth a first now and wasn't last year, where as Carson has negative contract value. So even NOT playing for a year can keep alive 'upside' real or imagined.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,561
Maine
"potential" has its place.

But I think criticizing someone like Edwards who spent their age 22 season getting experience and doing badly, while also maintaining your optimism for a 22yo player who was hurt and didnt get on the court is disingenuous. At the end of the day both players showed nothing.
An argument could be made that "But Player X COULD come back next year and be decent.....he hasnt shown that he sucks yet".
But a counter argument could be that "Edwards gained some valuable experience playing and sucking. Something that Player X hasnt gotten yet".


As far as Edwards I am not ready to write him off yet. Look at how Grant Williams shooting improved. That from a guy who was not known as a shooter, and who basically stunk up the joint his first 33 attempts.

To think that Edwards wont improve his 3 is folly.

Now the true difference is whether Edwards will improve enough IN OTHER AREAS to get the playing time to adapt to the NBA and begin taking and making 3s. Grant was able to get on the floor based on those other abilities , and earned the right to flounder long enough to improve an unexpected skill.

Sometimes you have to be able to suck for awhile before you can improve.....like Grant did. But you also need to be able to bring something to the table.

I think Edwards can and will get on the floor. I think he can and will improve the 3pt shot. I am just not sure which will happen first, and not sure if that will (or should) happen here.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,168
YMMV, but for example Zach Lowe has said the only potentially available player he believes Denver would trade him for is Bradley Beal. That's a lot more valuable than the 14th pick. I think NBA teams think in the way Lowe descibed, which values star upside far more than 'solid contributor'

I have no idea if Bol Bol can play or not. But as an asset play he might be worth a first now and wasn't last year, where as Carson has negative contract value. So even NOT playing for a year can keep alive 'upside' real or imagined.
See I think there is a difference there though... what Denver would trade him for vs. what other teams would trade for him. Is he really more valuable than a lottery pick in that scenario? I mean, sure they would move him in a deal for Beal, but it isn't gonna be straight up, and we don't know if WAS values MPJ any higher than they would a lottery pick.

I don't think Bol gets you a 1st yet, people are making the "twitter loves a tall guy" mistake. I get your general thought process that taking swings on injury concerns might make it more likely you get a better asset, but I don't think picking out 1 player in Bol really supports it. Edwards isn't good yet, but he was a 2nd rounder, most of them are on the quick track out of the league.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
See I think there is a difference there though... what Denver would trade him for vs. what other teams would trade for him. Is he really more valuable than a lottery pick in that scenario? I mean, sure they would move him in a deal for Beal, but it isn't gonna be straight up, and we don't know if WAS values MPJ any higher than they would a lottery pick.

I don't think Bol gets you a 1st yet, people are making the "twitter loves a tall guy" mistake. I get your general thought process that taking swings on injury concerns might make it more likely you get a better asset, but I don't think picking out 1 player in Bol really supports it. Edwards isn't good yet, but he was a 2nd rounder, most of them are on the quick track out of the league.
I think you should listen to the podcast, the distinction you suggest was not at all his point. I get you feel differently---I trust Lowe.

We just view value differently, which is fine.
 

EL Jeffe

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2006
893
I'd give Romeo a D+ at this point. For one, he's suffered through a rash of injuries the past two years. Whether that's's a fluke or a trend remains to be seen, but it's definitely hampering his development and his valuation (his 32 game output vs. his $3.6m/year contract). Secondly, he looks entirely fungible at this point. He's defended well in stretches, but he can't shoot (at this moment in time) and he's not a facilitator. SSS to be sure, but 35%/18/5%/72% are what they are. The HS pedigree leaves room for hope, but there's very little to be excited about at this point. Even in his seven games in Maine, he didn't do much (10.6 / 2.7 / 1.4). I'm not sure what sort of 2nd Year Leap we can expect either, as a rehabs from his latest surgery. That'll only further negatively impact his development and valuation. Like Nighthob said, there weren't exactly a bunch of good options sitting there, but the early returns on Romeo aren't good.

Grant, on the other hand, looks like a genuinely valuable piece (assuming the 3pt shooting volume continues to expand and becomes more consistent).
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,358
Where's all this stuff about Bol Bol coming from? I know he played some in the bubble (and almost not at all before that), but it hardly seems like he's some sort of phenom at this point.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Edwards and Waters won’t be useful NBA players. That’s par for the course for 2nd-round picks, especially where Waters was drafted. If we’re grading on a B curve, I’d give Waters a B, and Edwards an F because the whole appeal of that pick was that he supposedly had an unusually high floor for a guy who didn’t get picked in the 1st round — it was a mistake not to gamble on someone with more upside. It’s not Edwards’s fault that Danny threw guaranteed money at him, so I’m treating that as a separate mistake from the decision to draft him.

If Grant Williams isn’t an A grade, I’m not sure who is. The goal with the 22nd pick is to get a rotation player who can generate some surplus value during the term of his rookie contract; GWill is way ahead of the curve for playing meaningful minutes on a good team as a rookie.

Romeo is what we thought he was — a wing with the kind of athleticism that’s seldom available at #13 but one obvious hole in his game (shooting) that will completely derail him if it’s not fixed. I’d give Romeo an incomplete; if forced to give a letter grade, I’d give him a B, as a guy who has both considerable upside and serious question marks is par for the course when you take a high-upside 19 year old late in the lottery.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
I'd give Romeo a D+ at this point. For one, he's suffered through a rash of injuries the past two years. Whether that's's a fluke or a trend remains to be seen, but it's definitely hampering his development and his valuation (his 32 game output vs. his $3.6m/year contract). Secondly, he looks entirely fungible at this point. He's defended well in stretches, but he can't shoot (at this moment in time) and he's not a facilitator. SSS to be sure, but 35%/18/5%/72% are what they are. The HS pedigree leaves room for hope, but there's very little to be excited about at this point. Even in his seven games in Maine, he didn't do much (10.6 / 2.7 / 1.4). I'm not sure what sort of 2nd Year Leap we can expect either, as a rehabs from his latest surgery. That'll only further negatively impact his development and valuation. Like Nighthob said, there weren't exactly a bunch of good options sitting there, but the early returns on Romeo aren't good.
Yeah, I was disappointed at the time when they made the pick and didn't swap it for a #1 in one of the double drafts. I mean trading up for Herro sounds good until you look at all the teams that weren't trading down (Atlanta was focused on Reddish, there's no way that they gamble he makes it to #14, same for Washington and Charlotte, they had their guys in sight) or were trading up (Atlanta again to get De'Andre Hunter and Minnesota) and there was just no way Boston is able to make the move.

Romeo does look like a rotation player, but between the injury luck and the broken jumper I doubt that he's ever anything more than that.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,168
Edwards and Waters won’t be useful NBA players. That’s par for the course for 2nd-round picks, especially where Waters was drafted. If we’re grading on a B curve, I’d give Waters a B, and Edwards an F because the whole appeal of that pick was that he supposedly had an unusually high floor for a guy who didn’t get picked in the 1st round — it was a mistake not to gamble on someone with more upside. It’s not Edwards’s fault that Danny threw guaranteed money at him, so I’m treating that as a separate mistake from the decision to draft him.
Was that his appeal? To me his appeal was that his ceiling was high. Other than Bol Bol, who after him has a better ceiling?

Edwards to me was a pick made on the idea of..... he's risky due to size, but if he can shoot/score like he did in college you have a Lou Williams type bench gunner. A role many still think the Celtics need. He probably won't work out, and his deal made it so they want to get off him quicker, but that is more a post-pick issue.

Yeah looking back at the thread for him, it was pretty reasonable. Some people were excited but the general consensus was,..,. maybe he can score off the bench and it's a steal, maybe he washes out.

I will say, if we don't need the roster/cap space I'd like to see him get another year. Looking back, Lou Williams (his obvious ceiling comp) was even worse as a rookie than Carsen. i think undersized gunners may be a position that takes time to learn the difference between NBA and NCAA defense.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
Yeah, the smurfs of the NBA take time to catch up to the speed, and Edwards isn't going to be any different in that regard. And the covid19 pandemic has clearly hurt the development cycle for marginal prospects like him. I was moderately bullish on him on draft night and haven't moved off that spot yet. I'm willing to wait and see if all the training he did in the time off bears fruit in the new season.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
20,767
Now the true difference is whether Edwards will improve enough IN OTHER AREAS to get the playing time to adapt to the NBA and begin taking and making 3s.
Edwards is not like Grant. Edwards will play or not play on whether he can hit the 3 consistently. If he can, the other parts of his game will fall into place.

Assuming he's not moved, I have no doubt that he's going to come back and shoot better. How much better is the real question. I do have a hard time believing that he won't be able to shoot consistently in the NBA at some point in his career. After all, he was regularly taking NBA jumpers in college. I think they need to do with him what the Heat did with Duncan Robinson - make him run laps every time he turns down a 3.

He's defended well in stretches, but he can't shoot (at this moment in time) and he's not a facilitator. SSS to be sure, but 35%/18/5%/72% are what they are. The HS pedigree leaves room for hope, but there's very little to be excited about at this point. Even in his seven games in Maine, he didn't do much (10.6 / 2.7 / 1.4). I'm not sure what sort of 2nd Year Leap we can expect either, as a rehabs from his latest surgery.
No one is going to dispute that Romeo can't shoot but as for the rest - well, he has huge upside as a PnR facilitator (whether or not he's going to get the chance to do that in BOS is certainly in doubt given how many people they have to do that). He's also said to be one of the best - if not best - on-ball defender on the Cs. And I saw one game of his at Maine in person and it was pretty clear from that game (against the DE 76ers) that he was just better - both at basketball and athletically - than the other G Leaguers.

I don't know how much opportunity Romeo gets on the Cs and certainly his health is a huge question mark. But Romeo to me was an upside gamble that people keep saying DA should take. I certainly hope he pans out.