Looking Forward: Building around Jayson Tatum

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
11,393
We're talking about this in the Jayson Tatum thread but it's not really about *Jayson Tatum.*

I mentioned Kemba Walker causes some roster construction issues due to his size. He limits what you can do at the SG position and to a lesser extent, how you can build your bench. Out of the current big 5, I think he's actually the worst fit alongside Tatum. I don't think he's a bad fit, just the worst among Smart, Brown and Hayward. I'm not sure if trading him is in the cards but I don't think finding players to build around him is that hard, it just means no Bradley Beal, Damian Lillard or CJ McCollum. Ideally, I'd be looking to trade Kemba Walker and keeping Gordon Hayward. I wouldn't be opposed to moving both either but I prefer Hayward over Walker on a team with Jayson Tatum.

I think Jaylen Brown is the perfect #3 on a team with Tatum and wouldn't be looking to trade him unless it was an offer you couldn't refuse. Like Dallas offering Doncic+filler. I don't know who said it, but Jaylen Brown is an all star level player despite being a garbage man. He plays the role at an elite level.

Hayward is a good fit but we aren't really sure what his future holds and also seems like the most likely guy to trade away. I think any deal with Hayward would see us downgraded at the position (upgrade in shooting) while acquiring other chips.

Deals like Evan Fournier + Mo Bamba for Hayward. Or Otto Porter + Coby White for Hayward. I don't know if those deals are actually available. I could also see the C's and Pacers making a deal work around Myles Turner and Gordon Hayward. I think Myles Turner would be a perfect fit alongside Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown. That would be deadly defensively.

Marcus Smart fits on pretty much any team if he's hitting 34-36% of his 3 pointers.

Other guys don't really matter much as they are role players but ideally the team would have a big who can space the floor more than the current trio. That's another reason I really like Myles Turner. Mostly I like Myles Turner due to the defensive implications though.


So here's the question, looking forward, how would you build the team around Jayson Tatum?
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
6,312
Kiev, Ukraine
We're talking about this in the Jayson Tatum thread but it's not really about *Jayson Tatum.*

I mentioned Kemba Walker causes some roster construction issues due to his size. He limits what you can do at the SG position and to a lesser extent, how you can build your bench. Out of the current big 5, I think he's actually the worst fit alongside Tatum. I don't think he's a bad fit, just the worst among Smart, Brown and Hayward. I'm not sure if trading him is in the cards but I don't think finding players to build around him is that hard, it just means no Bradley Beal, Damian Lillard or CJ McCollum. Ideally, I'd be looking to trade Kemba Walker and keeping Gordon Hayward. I wouldn't be opposed to moving both either but I prefer Hayward over Walker on a team with Jayson Tatum.

I think Jaylen Brown is the perfect #3 on a team with Tatum and wouldn't be looking to trade him unless it was an offer you couldn't refuse. Like Dallas offering Doncic+filler. I don't know who said it, but Jaylen Brown is an all star level player despite being a garbage man. He plays the role at an elite level.

Hayward is a good fit but we aren't really sure what his future holds and also seems like the most likely guy to trade away. I think any deal with Hayward would see us downgraded at the position (upgrade in shooting) while acquiring other chips.

Deals like Evan Fournier + Mo Bamba for Hayward. Or Otto Porter + Coby White for Hayward. I don't know if those deals are actually available. I could also see the C's and Pacers making a deal work around Myles Turner and Gordon Hayward. I think Myles Turner would be a perfect fit alongside Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown. That would be deadly defensively.

Marcus Smart fits on pretty much any team if he's hitting 34-36% of his 3 pointers.

Other guys don't really matter much as they are role players but ideally the team would have a big who can space the floor more than the current trio. That's another reason I really like Myles Turner. Mostly I like Myles Turner due to the defensive implications though.


So here's the question, looking forward, how would you build the team around Jayson Tatum?
I'd start with Jaylen Brown being off the table in almost any deal. Between his age and contract and skillset, I don't see a trade.

The next step is gauging the market this spring/summer for Hayward and Kemba. This doesn't mean trading them necessarily: you need to figure out how they're valued. Best options in descending order of goodness, maybe not feasibility:

1. Trade Kemba. As you said, it's easier fit-wise to acquire other pieces at that point, or take advantage if someone like Edwards develops. A trade with someone like Orlando makes a lot of sense--the concern of course, would be that you'd never be able to sign an FA again after that. Other potential destinations...maybe Phoenix, if they think Booker+Kemba isn't way too small/soft? New Orleans could work if they want to add offensive pop. The Pop's Dotage version of San Antonio seems to have a limitless appetite for vets. Utah always needs offense, and has Gobert, but they already pushed in for Conley. It only takes one though.
If a deal is out there, then I'd re-sign Hayward, hoping for a slight hometown discount in the 4/110 type range, although that may be low.

2. S&T Hayward. This is tricky, because Hayward probably won't do it if it's to an Orlando-type destination, and Pritchard and Ainge seem to have no love lost between them.

3. Re-sign Hayward at a discount. At this point, you're just rolling the Hayward/Kemba trade out into the future, while going with a team that's already shown it's good.

4. Hayward won't give a substantial discount, and walks for nothing (one of the contenders dumps salary to Detroit and clears room, for example.) This really isn't the end of the world imo: they'd have the full mid-level and could get someone there while also creating a tradeable contract.

Longer term, I have to think more about exactly what types of players you want on a team where Tatum is a star.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
7,873
Right now the Celtics, if fully healthy (haha) have:

1. A burgeoning top-10 player in Jayson Tatum, who's just 21 years old.
2. A totally legit all-star PG in Kemba, under contract for three more years at between 34-37 million each year.
3. A rising star in Jaylen Brown, who, as the #3 option (sometimes #4 option) is averaging more than 20 points a game and defends all over.
4. A former all-star in Gordon Hayward, who, as the #3 option (or #4 depending) is shooting better than 50% from the floor.
5. An elite defensive player in Marcus Smart, under contract for several more years at reasonable money.
6. An undersized center who happens to be blossoming before our very eyes in Daniel Theis, who has become a legit NBA player.

They also have more draft picks and a few guys that I'd still call "prospects", like Langford and Waters and Edwards and Grant W and Robert W.

They're already one of the NBA's best teams. I feel like the roles are shaking out, allowing Tatum to be the alpha, but Kemba absolutely can take over if needed. Four guys who can all score 30+ any given night. Lots of versatile pieces.

Long story short, the Celtics are building the team around Tatum...pretty much as I'd hope they would. I feel like they're in good shape in terms of player salaries, roster construction, front office, star power, and players coming through the pipeline.

Not a perfect team, not the BEST team, not the best PLAYER, but still...this is kind of how I would hope they'd build this team.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I agree with BaseballJones right down the line. I would add that these next 2-3 months will tell a lot about what is needed.

Ironically, Tatum and Brown (and Smart) have the most playoff experience of the top 6. Let's see how Walker and Hayward do should the C's make it deep into the playoffs.

And more broadly, let's see how Brad manages all these pieces should they make another deep run.

Interesting if you compare most fans' feelings about the team around March 1 of the last two years vs June 1 of each year. Two years ago, (I think) most people didn't have super high expectations, and then the team exceeded them on every level. Conversely, a year ago, people expected a lot, and came away wildly disappointed.

So I would guess that people's answers to the OP might be wildly different in 3 months.
 

CreightonGubanich

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,104
north shore, MA
I agree that I'm not convinced the team needs to shake up its top five players. I'm trying to think of trades that would maximize Tatum as a foundational superstar, and I'm having a hard time doing it. Really, the ideal would be to package some combination of their current assets to land an Anthony Davis type: a plus defensive big who can switch 1-5, protect the rim, play at the five in small lineups, and score well enough to be the second option on offense. You'd then probably want a secondary playmaker at the guard spot, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be someone as good offensively as Kemba.

But, obviously, Anthony Davis isn't available. Personally, I want no part of Towns; I think a team built around Jayson Tatum has to be constructed as a good defensive team that can still play small with Tatum at the four, and Towns obliterates that. He's a good player, I just hate his fit on a Jayson Tatum-led team. I also like Miles Turner, and I like his fit on this team, I just don't think the pieces match up to acquire him. If you can somehow turn Hayward into Turner, and replace Hayward's shooting elsewhere, that's an attractive option.

The Celtics' path to title contention all along, since they lost out on Davis and signed Kemba, was always for Jayson Tatum to become a superstar, top-10 player. I think Ainge has always known that if Kemba's your best player, you're not winning a title. I think the current roster construction was a bet on Tatum making exactly the leap he's making. The rest of the roster is made up of guys I'd want to pair with Tatum if they played elsewhere:

Kemba is perfectly cast as a slightly overqualified secondary offensive option (like Kyrie when he played with LeBron, but in a much more democratic offensive system). His physical limitations are real, but he's not an IT4-level liability, and the rest of the roster is constructed well to hide those limitations.

Brown is a borderline all-star who doesn't need the ball, a guy who projects to be able to grow into a more significant role on the ball if given the opportunity. He can defend any wing position, and score effectively off the catch, attacking closeouts, and in transition.

Hayward functions as a tertiary playmaker to prop up bench units, and a somewhat redundant option on offense, but he's good enough without the ball that he fits even if it's not maximizing his talents. The problem comes if and when Hayward ceases to be a plus defender across all three wing positions (and it may be already happening). If he becomes the weak link defensively, or the Celtics decide they're actually better off with Smart in that spot, they should try to flip him for someone else - maybe a more traditional three-and-D wing who forfeits some of Hayward's playmaking ability, but slots better into a traditional spot up role.

Smart should be the sixth man and backup point guard on this team. If he shoots in the high-30's from three, he can play anywhere.

Theis/Williams/Kanter - they all offer something different, but the constant is you don't need to put the ball in their hands on the offensive end. With all the other guys dominating the ball, defense should be the priority for this position. Turner's an improvement over them all, but how much so, and at what cost?
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
3,827
I really like Kemba, but he's the part that of the mix that is a little less than ideal because of his size. He's been a better defender than I expected coming in, but he's still not in the caliber of Tatum, Brown, or Hayward. Ideally, you'd like to have someone at his position that's a little taller and longer, who can handle being switched on to bigger players when it happens - and the way the NBA is evolving, looks to happen a lot. The other thing with Kemba is that he is considerably older than the core of the Celtics (and this season has been a bit injury prone, but before this year never was).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
11,393
I said it in OP but a problem with Kemba is that most "offense off the bench" players are shorter players. We wanted Carsen Edwards to fill the role this year. We wanted Rozier to fill the role last year. The "Vinnie Johnson" role. You really can't play those players alongside Kemba. You may have 2 really good shooters in Kemba and Player X, but you can only play one at a time. It seriously limits the value of Player X.

We'd all love Lou Williams coming off our bench but how exactly would that work? If Kemba was 6'3 or 6'4, it wouldn't be an issue. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that most offense off the bench comes from the guard position though.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,387
I'd start with Jaylen Brown being off the table in almost any deal. Between his age and contract and skillset, I don't see a trade.

The next step is gauging the market this spring/summer for Hayward and Kemba. This doesn't mean trading them necessarily: you need to figure out how they're valued. Best options in descending order of goodness, maybe not feasibility:

1. Trade Kemba. As you said, it's easier fit-wise to acquire other pieces at that point, or take advantage if someone like Edwards develops. A trade with someone like Orlando makes a lot of sense--the concern of course, would be that you'd never be able to sign an FA again after that. Other potential destinations...maybe Phoenix, if they think Booker+Kemba isn't way too small/soft? New Orleans could work if they want to add offensive pop. The Pop's Dotage version of San Antonio seems to have a limitless appetite for vets. Utah always needs offense, and has Gobert, but they already pushed in for Conley. It only takes one though.
If a deal is out there, then I'd re-sign Hayward, hoping for a slight hometown discount in the 4/110 type range, although that may be low.

2. S&T Hayward. This is tricky, because Hayward probably won't do it if it's to an Orlando-type destination, and Pritchard and Ainge seem to have no love lost between them.

3. Re-sign Hayward at a discount. At this point, you're just rolling the Hayward/Kemba trade out into the future, while going with a team that's already shown it's good.

4. Hayward won't give a substantial discount, and walks for nothing (one of the contenders dumps salary to Detroit and clears room, for example.) This really isn't the end of the world imo: they'd have the full mid-level and could get someone there while also creating a tradeable contract.

Longer term, I have to think more about exactly what types of players you want on a team where Tatum is a star.
Hayward lives near Kawhi in a town north of San Diego, so if he's going anywhere it's LA or San Francisco. And I can see any of those three teams being a destination for him. The Clippers would need to be very creative to make it work, but their management is pretty creative. The Lakers have an easier path as they have salaries to match up in trade, but not a lot of practical return outside Danny Green.

As I've said, the Warriors is Boston's best case scenario, and I can see them being very aggressive after the Mr. DARcy deal. With a future Minnesota #1 in hand to help them transition, I can see them trying to work out a CP3 to Houston style scenario for Hayward because, frankly, you're better off surrendering any top four pick this year than any lottery pick in '21 or '22, and they have Wiggins to serve as trade ballast.

In practical terms the three best players this year are a center, one of the Ball brothers, and a guy that's already giving off that Wiggins Stank. So if they could use that pick to turn Wiggins into a real running mate for Steph, Klay, & Dray, you can always draft your next generation centerpiece in '21 or '22 while integrating them onto a contender.

As for Boston, the more I watch of Patrick Williams the more I see a guy that could be an elite 3&D guy, I think he'd be an ideal fourth wing aside Tatum/Brown/Langford. Similarly I still like Achiuwa's physicals (he's basically the same size as Horford with much better athleticism, albeit far less skilled) and think that he might be able to complement Theis at the 4/5. Especially if Boston's coaching staff can help him learn to hit treys.
 
Last edited:

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
3,827
As I've said, the Warriors is Boston's best case scenario, and I can see them being very aggressive after the Mr. DARcy deal. With a future Minnesota #1 in hand to help them transition, I can see them trying to work out a CP3 to Houston style scenario for Hayward because, frankly, you're better off surrendering any top four pick this year than any lottery pick in '21 or '22, and they have Wiggins to serve as trade ballast.

In practical terms the three best players this year are a center, one of the Ball brothers, and a guy that's already giving off that Wiggins Stank. So if they could use that pick to turn Wiggins into a real running mate for Steph, Klay, & Dray, you can always draft your next generation centerpiece in '21 or '22 while integrating them onto a contender.
Are you saying that the Warriors would trade Wiggins and their #1 pick to Boston in exchange for Hayward? Seems like a stiff price to me. Do you think Boston has to send something back (future picks or some other players) to make that work? How would Wiggins fit in on this Celtics team? Does he basically fill Hayward's role (although obviously not as well).
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
6,312
Kiev, Ukraine
Are you saying that the Warriors would trade Wiggins and their #1 pick to Boston in exchange for Hayward? Seems like a stiff price to me. Do you think Boston has to send something back (future picks or some other players) to make that work? How would Wiggins fit in on this Celtics team? Does he basically fill Hayward's role (although obviously not as well).
The stiff price goes the other direction: a top-5 pick in this year’s draft is a shit asset for a team in the luxury tax: you’re paying a big salary slot for a player who’s likely not worth it.

That’s before you start on 3 years of Wiggins...

I’d rather let Hayward walk than do that deal, and it’s not super close.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
7,873
Are you saying that the Warriors would trade Wiggins and their #1 pick to Boston in exchange for Hayward? Seems like a stiff price to me. Do you think Boston has to send something back (future picks or some other players) to make that work? How would Wiggins fit in on this Celtics team? Does he basically fill Hayward's role (although obviously not as well).
With the skill on this Celtics' team, you might be able to get away with the downgrade from Hayward to Wiggins. Hayward is better on both ends of the floor, so make no mistake, this is a downgrade. But Wiggins has proven himself to not be crap. You don't score 22 points a game if you're crap. Slotting him in there as the #4 option behind Tatum, Kemba, and Brown and he probably produces a couple of points fewer than Hayward, while allowing a few more on defense. But the benefit is a likely top-5 pick, maybe the #1 pick overall (luxury tax implications and all). I don't know why GS would do that though, unless they think that Hayward, when the rest of the injured battalion returns, helps put them back over the top (Steph, Klay, Hayward, and Draymond is a pretty damned nice foursome).

So I don't know. I wouldn't immediately reject that trade if I'm Boston though.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
3,827
Hayward, if he opts out, is a free agent. So, he has the power to go wherever he wants (potentially with the Celtics getting nothing back). If him going to Golden State means the Celtics get Wiseman, that seems like a pretty decent consolation prize. It's not Zion, of course. But, it's at least something to get excited about.

As for Wiggins, he costs money - but not my money :) Or to put it another way, it's not like the Celtics would be able to sign someone else of substance. So, what you lose is the ability to sign a mid-level exception, is that correct? So in my view:

Wiseman + Wiggins > Mid-level exception player
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,387
Are you saying that the Warriors would trade Wiggins and their #1 pick to Boston in exchange for Hayward? Seems like a stiff price to me. Do you think Boston has to send something back (future picks or some other players) to make that work? How would Wiggins fit in on this Celtics team? Does he basically fill Hayward's role (although obviously not as well).
Wiggins is negative value, and even a lottery pick in a roleplayer draft has limited value. Boston would honestly be praying that the Knicks struck out in free agency and were desperate enough to take the contract to sell their fan.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,387
Wiseman + Wiggins > Mid-level exception player
If it happened that Golden State got a top three pick and made the deal outlined, Boston would be more likely to trade down for a future first and try to pick off someone that fit their Tatumcentric future.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
1,618
What is Hayward worth today? The injuries combined with a weak FA class make it hard for me to get a sense of what his market might be. If he chooses to become a FA, what contract should the Celtics offer be?
 

Lazy vs Crazy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
3,176
What is Hayward worth today? The injuries combined with a weak FA class make it hard for me to get a sense of what his market might be. If he chooses to become a FA, what contract should the Celtics offer be?
I was listening to the Nate Duncan podcast because I hate myself and they rated him on the same level as Danny Green in their small forwards rankings which blew my mind. If that’s the general consensus on him, he will be a steal.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
2,989
Imaginationland
I was listening to the Nate Duncan podcast because I hate myself and they rated him on the same level as Danny Green in their small forwards rankings which blew my mind. If that’s the general consensus on him, he will be a steal.
That does seem kind of nuts. I could buy the argument that they are in the same league considering health and salary (Green has played 15 more games and is less than half as expensive), but on the court it's not even an argument. Green is a good role player, Hayward (when healthy) has been a borderline all star.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,387
What is Hayward worth today? The injuries combined with a weak FA class make it hard for me to get a sense of what his market might be. If he chooses to become a FA, what contract should the Celtics offer be?
It’s the weak free agent class that’s going to be the impetus for his opting out. Small freak injuries aside this year, he’s still a borderline all star, and contenders like Golden State and the LAs are going to be hunting for a third option type player to add to their roster. Not a lot of those guys on the market this summer.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,405
Saint Paul, MN
Personally, I want no part of Towns; I think a team built around Jayson Tatum has to be constructed as a good defensive team that can still play small with Tatum at the four, and Towns obliterates that. He's a good player, I just hate his fit on a Jayson Tatum-led team
I am curiosu why Towns as your center doesn't fit with Tatum at the 4? Obviously Towns has some defensive issues - and maybe that is where you are going with it. But offensively - oh boy. A Towns/Tatum frontcourt would be exceptionally devastating.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
6,312
Kiev, Ukraine
...
We'd all love Lou Williams coming off our bench but how exactly would that work? If Kemba was 6'3 or 6'4, it wouldn't be an issue. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that most offense off the bench comes from the guard position though.
It depends on what you mean by offense. If you mean "can generate his own shot without being really highly paid", yeah, then you're looking at short dudes, because there are fundamental offensive advantages to being shorter/quicker, and you're not paying for defense.

If you mean "can hit 3s and attack some closeouts while not being super highly paid", that opens things up a lot, and there are a lot more taller guys who can also play with Kemba. (You hit on Fournier and McDermott in rapid initial spitballing yesterday.)

Imo the whole value of what Tatum is becoming is that you can shift your roster composition from perimeter playmakers+shooters to just shooters. (This is at the margin--you can't play 4 statues out there, but you can play guys who tilt in that direction). It also gives more flexibility to have 1 non-shooting guy out there who plays well in space--this is what Houston does well with Westbrook now.
 

CreightonGubanich

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,104
north shore, MA
I am curiosu why Towns as your center doesn't fit with Tatum at the 4? Obviously Towns has some defensive issues - and maybe that is where you are going with it. But offensively - oh boy. A Towns/Tatum frontcourt would be exceptionally devastating.
I think Jayson Tatum is a foundational defensive player - you can build your defense around his ability to switch any pick and roll, and be a disruptive force as a weak side help defender who can still recover on closeouts. He shuts off an entire side of the floor defensively, while being a good on-ball defender as well. When you have a guy like that, you have the ability to be a juggernaut of a defensive team.

Towns just breaks all of that. He can't really guard anyone, but to the extent he plays defense, he's only guarding traditional fives. Many teams don't even play a center anymore, and having Towns out on the perimeter guarding, say, PJ Tucker or Anthony Davis is a recipe for disaster. He'll be targeted in the pick and roll on any switch. He can't, or doesn't, really offer much in terms of rim protection or shot blocking.

And offensively, he's really good - he can shoot threes off the dribble like a guard, and he can get his shot from anywhere inside the three point line. But he's also kind of a ball stopper. He doesn't make the right reads quick enough when he's doubled. He'll get a ton of points really efficiently, and that's valuable, but he gives most of it back on the other end. He's like the center version of prime Isaiah Thomas. Pair that with his constant complaining (I'm not at all convinced he'd be content as the second option next to Tatum) and I'm out on him as a fit on this particular team.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
6,312
Kiev, Ukraine
I think Jayson Tatum is a foundational defensive player - you can build your defense around his ability to switch any pick and roll, and be a disruptive force as a weak side help defender who can still recover on closeouts. He shuts off an entire side of the floor defensively, while being a good on-ball defender as well. When you have a guy like that, you have the ability to be a juggernaut of a defensive team.

Towns just breaks all of that. He can't really guard anyone, but to the extent he plays defense, he's only guarding traditional fives. Many teams don't even play a center anymore, and having Towns out on the perimeter guarding, say, PJ Tucker or Anthony Davis is a recipe for disaster. He'll be targeted in the pick and roll on any switch. He can't, or doesn't, really offer much in terms of rim protection or shot blocking.

And offensively, he's really good - he can shoot threes off the dribble like a guard, and he can get his shot from anywhere inside the three point line. But he's also kind of a ball stopper. He doesn't make the right reads quick enough when he's doubled. He'll get a ton of points really efficiently, and that's valuable, but he gives most of it back on the other end. He's like the center version of prime Isaiah Thomas. Pair that with his constant complaining (I'm not at all convinced he'd be content as the second option next to Tatum) and I'm out on him as a fit on this particular team.
I basically agree with all this. If you drafted Towns onto a Tatum team, or had the ability to acquire him in FA just for money, that's one thing. But when you factor in the opportunity cost of what he'll get for the Wolves if he ever hits the trade market (and that won't be for a few years), I don't think he's great value. This isn't an AD or Kawhi situation where a team is adding a gamechanger on both ends who fits seamlessly.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
3,827
If it happened that Golden State got a top three pick and made the deal outlined, Boston would be more likely to trade down for a future first and try to pick off someone that fit their Tatumcentric future.
You don't think anyone at the top would fit their Tatumcentric future? I feel like the team has plenty of role players. What I'm looking for is another star-quality player that would still be complementary to Tatum.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
6,312
Kiev, Ukraine
You don't think anyone at the top would fit their Tatumcentric future? I feel like the team has plenty of role players. What I'm looking for is another star-quality player that would still be complementary to Tatum.
This draft is a decent one to be looking for a roleplayer, and an really, really bad one to be looking for a star.

Hayward and Wiggins will make similar money over the next 3 years (with a 4th then for Hayward.). I’d rather have Hayward+current picks to find role players than Wiggins and a highly-paid crack at a role player, which is why I don’t really see the point of doing a deal with GS.

There’s a not-bad chance that Grant and Romeo are better than Wiggins next year straight up, salary considerations aside (and oh, are they ever not aside.)
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,387
You don't think anyone at the top would fit their Tatumcentric future? I feel like the team has plenty of role players. What I'm looking for is another star-quality player that would still be complementary to Tatum.
The "star-quality" players are a center, a Ball brother, and a guy that's giving off a stink of entitlement. There's huge bust potential with all three. There are some guys that profile as elite roleplayers, on the other hand, that come with much less bust potential. If you can add one of the latter category while picking up an extra pick in one (or two) of the 21-24 drafts, it's a great deal.

For example, Precious Achiuwa is certainly capable of being a modern NBA C (his camp measurements a couple of years ago were basically identical to Horford's). If he were to hit his 99% projection he'd be a star, but he looks like he can at least hit Theis' level. Patrick Williams super-sunny projection would be Jaylen Brown, but he looks like he's at least capable of being an elite 3&D guy a la Covington. Those are valuable guys to have on a roster.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,387
This draft is a decent one to be looking for a roleplayer, and an really, really bad one to be looking for a star.

Hayward and Wiggins will make similar money over the next 3 years (with a 4th then for Hayward.). I’d rather have Hayward+current picks to find role players than Wiggins and a highly-paid crack at a role player, which is why I don’t really see the point of doing a deal with GS.

There’s a not-bad chance that Grant and Romeo are better than Wiggins next year straight up, salary considerations aside (and oh, are they ever not aside.)
In theory I kinda/sorta agree with you. But, there are ways of ameliorating the risk. If the Warriors picked up a top three pick there are going to be teams like Chicago, Charlotte, et al later in the lottery that are going to be willing to pay to move up in the draft order. There are always the Knicks, who will have cap space this summer, that a draft night deal can be worked out with.

If the Warriors end up getting cockblocked, you can always demand the Minnesota #1 to compensate for the Wiggins deal and just move Wiggins to the Knicks this summer after FAs refuse to sign there (even a return of Ntilikina and a future first helps reload the asset basket going forward).