Yeah, to me this seems all about getting Butler. Before this deal, we "only" had next year's BRK pick to convey. Now we have an extra pick and it seems Ainge doesn't think Fultz is worlds ahead of Tatum/Jackson anyway.
Ainge doesn't need the 3rd pick in is hands to ask around and see what he could get for it. The whole league knows he might end up with the 3rd pick on draft night.
Opposite. Pick conveys to Celts if it's 2-5. If not it becomes the 2019 Sac pick (w/ no protections I believe).
Pretty sure that's backwards. It's protected unless it's 2-5, so either they get 2-5 or SAC 2019.
edit: I would add, from a larger perspective of immediate need, rebounding and defending was a major issue for the team. Adding a "medium big" is a bigger fit. I had thought Danny would leave that for 2018, but perhaps with Tatum, he sees a bigger need being filled. You generally take the best available, but if Fultz vs. Tatum is closer, then you fit need.
But if you think your guy is there at 3 and you think he is better than the consensus one you get paid a premium lotto pick for the right to slide back? I mean, idk. Lots of scouts and experts think Jackson is the future superstar in this draft. OConnor loves Tatums fit for the Cs (i do too, he can walk in and take all of Amir Johnsons minutes right away).
Actually, isn't it the Celtics get it only if it's 2-5, if not it flips to SAC pick? It has top and bottom protection.
This would be a very odd outcome, since the delta in value between 1 and 7+ is so huge. The reported 'opposite' protection (Celts get 2-5 or Sacto) has much steadier value and thus seems much more likely. That way, both teams have a sense what the value exchange is
That was my understanding as well. Some of the reporting has probably been wrong. If in fact Philly gets it if 2-5, then the deal becomes considerably worse, although I don't think Ainge and Stevens were intending to draft Fultz anyway.
It did get worse than what was reported. We were expecting both picks and got 1.
We're making one of the easy parts of this difficult:
This came in answer to my question about cap implications of trading #3 for Butler. So quite possibly we aren't going to see the next shoe fall until after the draft AND after signing Hayward. Could even be that a Chicago deal is contingent on the Hayward signing, and failing that, Danny just rolls with the picks.
No one is saying that Fultz is going to bust and in fact, there's a good bet that he's a multiple all-star. But as I mentioned upthread, if he's Kyrie Irving or even John Wall, what does that get the Cs? Yes, GSW won a title with Curry, Thompson, and Green but it's typically the LBJ's, KD's, Leonard's and guys like them that dominate the NBA landscape.
One problem is people start judging these deals based on their favorite report (since early reports are all over the map) and then are disappointed when the actual deal might be less than that.
Why are we assuming the pick is "likely" top 5? Odds are against LA finishing 2-5 next year and then we're left playing the guessing game on Sacramento in 2019, who will be adding the #5 and #10 picks in 2017 and probably another good lotto pick in 2018. Last year, they finished with the 8th worst record. They're always on the short list of teams that should suck out loud but that 2019 pick is just as likely to be 6-10 as it is 1-5.
Didn't Philly do a trade like this before where they got a 1st round pick that they would only receive if it was 1-3? I think they came very close to receiving that pick or they might have even received it. Londonsox?
I think this is the discussion to which you referred: http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/2017-nba-draft-thread.16589/page-16#post-2243993.
If he makes the trade before draft night it is pretty clear he knows who LA is taking, he isn't taking the pick, or he doesn't care if Josh Jackson is still there at 3 because he likes other players just as much. Maybe he really does flip 3 to Sacramento for 5 and 10.
See above. If Ainge does flip the 3rd pick for 5 and 10, that probably makes the Kings worse long term. It also means even more trades would be on the way because there is no way the Celtics would be giving 4 rookies and JB burn next year unless they are going to shock the world and blow it up. I doubt he is keeping any of the picks he acquires outside of who he picks 3rd or possibly 5th. If he picks 5th, I think he may trade the 10th pick unless Collins is there or someone else drops.
I was going to suggest that it's more like he wants the Kings pick, but will take the Lakers if they end up being bad.
He has a poor vertical off of one foot. He can get up for a rebound, block or oop when he jumps off two, but he can't elevate when driving
Most people weren't expecting that. That's a completely ridiculous haul for moving up 2 slots.
This is a really underrated aspect of this deal. If Danny thinks 1-3 are better than Fultz AND a bunch of high schoolers who'd otherwise have been going to college are now going right into the draft - then the value of this deal has the potential to be very, very high.
Is 3 for 5/10 a real thing or just SoSH speculation? I agree that we are not likely to make that Lakers 2018/Kings 2019 pick so I'm sure Ainge has a pretty good sense of its value on the trade market. My ultimate goal is that Ainge is able to keep #3 while still landing another top guy with the Lakers/Kings and Memphis picks along with some combination of Crowder/Bradley/Smart/Rozier. I'm sure the 2018 Nets pick is only available for a white whale trade.
Maybe in 24 months. But keeping the war chest stocked will have us first in line.
Yeah, there's a scenario where trading down to #5 makes sense. Imagine this: You like four guys, Tatum, Jackson, Fultz, Ball. Then you work out Isaacs and you think: hey, he's pretty close to #4. So he becomes your #5 guy. Meanwhile there are published rumors that Sacramento wants to trade the #5 and #10 for #3. Suppose that's true. You could directly do the #1 for #5 and #10 and parts, but suppose Sacramento doesn't have the parts you want or isn't willing to let them go. You could trade the #1 for the #3, get the picks, then flip the #3 for the #5 and #10. If you planned to do this, you'd want to pull the trigger on that deal the weekend before the draft -- that gives you time to bring in players that you might want to take at #10 -- or even #5.
If you're trying to get an actual NBA star (i.e., a top 15 player), it's not a ridiculous haul, no.
3 for 5 and 10 was floated a bunch when PHI had the pick on the basis of none of the guys at 3 being a great fit for PHI's roster.
The Lakers better take Ball, because it is absolutely tailor-made for some people who are looking for reasons to despise the Lakers now that Kobe and Phil Jackson are gone. I need some fuel for my hate. They're kinda Just Another Team right now, history aside, but that'll all change if it becomes the Ball Family Show down there. (and that alone might dissuade Lebron from signing - but for me, this is mostly about the hate)
Why on earth would he get honest, realistic answers to that question when he doesn't yet hold the 3rd pick? Other GMs are neither stupid nor robots who will fully answer any question put to them. Until Ainge actually owns #3, the cost of giving up information (i.e., what you value and how much) is too high to justify the mere potential of a couple things happening that might result in that scenario becoming relevant.
That info might be useful in evaluating say, the value of the 1st pick vs the 3rd pick in a draft 5 years from now, but by all accounts this particular draft is much deeper at the top than average. The only thing that matters now is the chance of Fultz being a star vs. Jackson (or Tatum), and I don't think anyone would say it's a 10-fold difference. If the difference is marginal (and that's a big if), this trade is robbery. It's a pick with better than 50% chance of top 10 for free.
Agreed on the Boston angle. My guess is Danny only makes a 3 for 5/10 trade (if it's even available) if that is what his trade partner wants. A team like Chicago may prefer 5/10 to 3 and it may make it more likely that Ainge could pocket the Lakers/Kings pick in a potential trade for a vet like Butler.
He would get an honest answer because those teams would actually want the #3 pick, and they know there is a good chance he will have it come draft night. I fail to see how other GMs have anything to lose telling Ainge what they would give up for the #3 pick if he were to acquire it.
Yeah, it's taking some work to keep a lid on my Duke Derangement Syndrome, but I'm getting there.
No one is talking about PHI here (understandably) but there's a big downside for PHI if they miss out on the upper tier of next year's draft and they find out (i) Fultz loses some of his value without the ball in his hands and (ii) Simmons loses a good bit of his without the ball in his hands.
