The Plan For the #1, er, #3 Overall Pick?

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
It can't be Jackson otherwise you'd just take him #1 and be done with it. He's heavily in play at #2 to LA or in a trade with Phoenix, per reports. You don't move down for a 50/50 chance at the guy you really want. That makes no sense.
 

finnVT

superspreadsheeter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2002
2,153
I have to say, if Ainge is being truthful, then let's at least be glad they added a real asset, rather than just taking Jackson/Tatum #1. We probably have all had our moments of getting frustrated with BB thinking "why not just move down and take (whoever) later?", so I'll just be grateful for that.
 

boca

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
509
Ainge quoted as saying the player they plan to take at #3 is the player they would have taken at #1
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
And all of those times watching they were seeing Tatum shoot college 3's. If he's showing he is going to be a good NBA 3-pt shooter than that's another positive.
Great, another 150 or so 3-pointers would probably have impacted their opinion then. It's just a dumb tweet by Franschilla -- which he did purposely so that it would get copy/pasted on message boards.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
It's all reading tea leaves, of course, but that statement makes me think even more than they are planning on taking someone like Isaac or Smith since it's much less likely they will be picked second. Or, it's Tatum and they are just convinced Lakers aren't interested. Jackson seems unlikely in light of that comment because I don't think it's inconceivable LA takes Jackson at 2.

Edited to add: Or a trade is already in place with the Bulls and he knows the Bulls want someone other than the Fultz/Ball/Jackson trio.
LA could still trade the pick...anyone could go #2. He may think he's getting who he wants at #3, but there's no guarantee.

Unless he's going way outside the box and taking Isaac or something. Which...ugh.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
Well, you're still wrong then. They dropped two slots and picked up the potential of another 2-10 pick in the next two years. There is good value there, and great value if Fultz and Jackson/Tatum are a wash.

Keep in mind, even if the 76ers/Lakers/Sac have the worst record in the NBA, they only have a 25% chance of the #1 pick. Nobody really expects any of those 3 teams to have the worst record. It seems pretty clear that the Sixers didn't want to become the Nets -- and have the embarassment of watching someone else get their #1 pick -- it was probably a deal-breaker, and Danny made the unemotional decision to play the overwhelmingly odds that it won't be the #1 pick in either year.
I get that. I just said it would have been nice to have the chance to gain the number #1 pick in the future. I don't think that is an incorrect statement; what team wouldn't want the first pick.
I agree with you that the number one pick protection was probably a deal breaker for Philly, and Danny made the smart move of allowing the protection as the odds say the pick won't be number one in either year and he has someone in mind for the current draft that should be there at #3 (gaining an extra lottery pick in the future).
If Danny is right on his player evaluation, I agree the deal could be another home run in terms of value if the guy he takes is close to Fultz.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
BOTh top 1 protection, 2018, and both picks 2019, that's what's annoying me. But hey, once GSW falls apart, we will be ready to compete in the 2019-2020 season with 26358136581 first round picks.
We added ONE draft pick in the deal.

If you grant that Ainge, for whatever reasons, didn't like Fultz (relatively speaking) would you have preferred he:

1--Drafted Fultz anyway because the internet wanted him to? (And, full disclosure, so did I)
2--Drafted Tatum/Jackson at #1 because that's who his braintrust thinks would be better
3--Trade down and get Tatum/Jackson anyway AND pick up an asset

In his eyes he's getting the best player in the draft AND another potential high lottery pick.
 

AimingForYoko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
25,403
CT
The trade seems like good value as the Celts were not sold on Fultz (from everything that is coming out now), but I still believe they traded the #1 pick (in a draft where they didn't like the consensus #1) for an additional lottery pick in the future that can't be #1.
I am just saying that it would have been nice to not have the #1 pick on the 2019 picks. Philly should have been willing to roll the dice to get their guy in Fultz.
I will say, if Danny doesn't care about the future protections bc those picks are all but gone, then that will make more sense to me (and I'll feel better)

If the pick is going to Chicago or somewhere else, then it not being #1 hardly has a negative impact on the C's.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
Would be interesting to play the odds on the Lakers' record next year.

If they are the 3rd worst team in the league again next year (a distinct possibility, barring a George or other star trade), there's an 80.4% chance that the Celtics get next year's pick.

Here is the likelihood of the pick conveying depending on the Lakers' draft seeding:

#1 - 75%
#2 - 80.1%
#3 - 80.4%
#4 - 72.7%
#5 - 46.5%

And then quite marginal after that point...
Now add in the BRK pick to the chances and things get real bonkers
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,567
We added ONE draft pick in the deal.

If you grant that Ainge, for whatever reasons, didn't like Fultz (relatively speaking) would you have preferred he:

1--Drafted Fultz anyway because the internet wanted him to? (And, full disclosure, so did I)
2--Drafted Tatum/Jackson at #1 because that's who his braintrust thinks would be better
3--Trade down and get Tatum/Jackson anyway AND pick up an asset

In his eyes he's getting the best player in the draft AND another potential high lottery pick.
Yes we added one pick but don't know which one of the three, and none of them can be #1 in our hands.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
LA could still trade the pick...anyone could go #2. He may think he's getting who he wants at #3, but there's no guarantee.

Unless he's going way outside the box and taking Isaac or something. Which...ugh.
He said that the guy we might take at 3 is who we might have taken at 1.
Plenty of reports that they have a 4 player top tier, so he probably is saying that they were planning on going with 1 of 2 players, neither of whom was Fultz. And now IF they keep the pick they'll still be choosing between those two.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
I will say, if Danny doesn't care about the future protections bc those picks are all but gone, then that will make more sense to me (and I'll feel better)

If the pick is going to Chicago or somewhere else, then it not being #1 hardly has a negative impact on the C's.
That is a very good point. If he is trading the picks, he probably wouldn't care about the protections as much.
If he is trading all these future picks, I hope he is getting a superstar.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
My current hypothesis is that if Ainge traded down because he likes someone else in the draft almost as much as Fultz, that someone is most likely to be Isaac. Ball or Jackson don't make much sense, since the Celtics haven't worked them out. Hard to imagine Danny saying taking someone first overall without a workout. Also hard to imagine Danny taking someone with as little projection as Tatum that high.

This is also wishcasting. I'm coming around to Isaac being great. He's going to be very good defensively barring injury. He doesn't have much of an offensive game yet, but he can shoot it, and the FT% makes me think he's going to improve further still there. Isaac is also a growth spurt guy, growing 7 inches and changing from a guard to a big. Gives him a nice baseline of ball skills to improve with. The only thing missing with Isaac for me is passing upside, which isn't a minor issue, but that's also why he's not going first overall.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Yes we added one pick but don't know which one of the three, and none of them can be #1 in our hands.
All what will be free, assuming Ainge isn't lying about who he will pick. The Celtics have to bear some risk in this trade given Fultz isn't in the "generational talent" category.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
I hope the next trade is with SAC - #3 and #37 for #5 and #10.

Assuming SAC takes Fox and PHX takes whoever's left from Ball/Jackson, BOS takes Tatum at #5.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
the Celtics should start a second franchise in order to be able to play all those guys.
 

Kull

wannabe merloni
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
1,689
El Paso, TX
The question I have is this: Whether the Celtics take Jackson or Tatum, how will that impact their pursuit of Hayward? Jackson/Tatum, Brown, and Hayward give them three wing players and there aren't three wing positions on the court. Unless they just go with a point guard (IT, Bradley), three wings, and a big.
That's an interesting point. Is it possible that Ainge sees Tatum (probably more than Jackson) as a "Hayward-equivalent", and by drafting him they don't have to worry about the scorched earth moves needed to free up cap space for Hayward? Perhaps in combination with a trade of the LAL/Sac pick for Butler (along with players or another 1st such as the Memphis pick.)
 

MillarTime

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
1,338
It can't be Jackson otherwise you'd just take him #1 and be done with it. He's heavily in play at #2 to LA or in a trade with Phoenix, per reports. You don't move down for a 50/50 chance at the guy you really want. That makes no sense.
It's Tatum or perhaps wildcard like Isaac or Smith.
 

Boston Brawler

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2011
9,757
We added ONE draft pick in the deal.

If you grant that Ainge, for whatever reasons, didn't like Fultz (relatively speaking) would you have preferred he:

1--Drafted Fultz anyway because the internet wanted him to? (And, full disclosure, so did I)
2--Drafted Tatum/Jackson at #1 because that's who his braintrust thinks would be better
3--Trade down and get Tatum/Jackson anyway AND pick up an asset

In his eyes he's getting the best player in the draft AND another potential high lottery pick.
This. If Ainge took anyone but Fultz at #1, people here would go crazy. He's confident he'll get who they want at 3, so this makes sense.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
I hope the next trade is with SAC - #3 and #37 for #5 and #10.

Assuming SAC takes Fox and PHX takes whoever's left from Ball/Jackson, BOS takes Tatum at #5.
If they've locked in on Tatum, I'd hate to make one trade too many and lose him ... although I grant that it sounds tempting
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
My current hypothesis is that if Ainge traded down because he likes someone else in the draft almost as much as Fultz, that someone is most likely to be Isaac. Ball or Jackson don't make much sense, since the Celtics haven't worked them out. Hard to imagine Danny saying taking someone first overall without a workout. Also hard to imagine Danny taking someone with as little projection as Tatum that high.

This is also wishcasting. I'm coming around to Isaac being great. He's going to be very good defensively barring injury. He doesn't have much of an offensive game yet, but he can shoot it, and the FT% makes me think he's going to improve further still there. Isaac is also a growth spurt guy, growing 7 inches and changing from a guard to a big. Gives him a nice baseline of ball skills to improve with. The only thing missing with Isaac for me is passing upside, which isn't a minor issue, but that's also why he's not going first overall.
While I think I would like to agree with you - after all Isaac does address if not solve a bunch of the Cs problems from the git go, particularly in terms of shot-blocking - it would be a master case of misdirection if (i) the Cs have repeatedly let it be known that they had a top 4 list that didn't include Isaac but secretly had him #2 and (ii) worked really hard to get work-outs with Jackson and Tatum post-trade but not Isaac.

I think the Cs are trying to decide between Tatum and Jackson and because they all have their strengths and weaknesses, they think it's so close among those two and Fultz that it's worth the extra pick.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
It would never happen but imagine if they traded down to 5 and 10, traded the 5 for Butler and drafted Collins at 10? That would be one hell of a haul for a 1st pick. Ray Allen went for a 5th... I think they are signing Hayward now independent of any trade, too.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
Well the mood in here has certainly improved in the last several hours. I'll take a toke of that, whatever it is.
 

Pxer

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2007
1,704
Maine
Blake Griffin used to eat at the same Subway as I did in Norman OK. He always reminded me of Biff from Back to the Future. Pass.
best take yet!

And all of those times watching they were seeing Tatum shoot college 3's. If he's showing he is going to be a good NBA 3-pt shooter than that's another positive.
I'm pretty sure most wing types have hit 15 straight NBA 3s in non-game situations with a decent amount of regularity coming out of school.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
While I think I would like to agree with you - after all Isaac does address if not solve a bunch of the Cs problems from the git go, particularly in terms of shot-blocking - it would be a master case of misdirection if (i) the Cs have repeatedly let it be known that they had a top 4 list that didn't include Isaac but secretly had him #2 and (ii) worked really hard to get work-outs with Jackson and Tatum post-trade but not Isaac
They'd already worked out Isaac, so that's not quite as key for me. But I think I missed them letting it be known they had a top 4 without Isaac. Is this via like Kevin O'Connor, or it is through someone reputable? I agree that would be damning for my theory (hope).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Pit them against SAC. Of course, the Lakers make too much sense for a trade with Phoenix ... since LAL likely know that the C's aren't taking Ball
But if they want Ball, they wouldn't trade with Phoenix unless they are sure Phoenix takes Jackson. And if Phoenix does take Jackson, what if Sacramento trades up to draft Ball?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
But if they want Ball, they wouldn't trade with Phoenix unless they are sure Phoenix takes Jackson. And if Phoenix does take Jackson, what if Sacramento trades up to draft Ball?
Excellent point.

It's getting confusing
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
From Michael Eaves: Cs didn't like Fultz's workout. "The most glaring critique was that he was not as explosive as they expected/hoped. Afterwards, team felt as if he was NOT the best prospect."

 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,567
CelticsLife.com‏ @CelticsLife 38s39 seconds ago
ESPN's Chad Ford is reporting that PHX is looking to trade up w/ either LAL or BOS to draft either Ball or Jackson.
If there's a second move like this one and they get Collins with 10 and either Isaac or Tatum With 5, then I'll come around immensely on the first move.

Or even better, they keep trading down until they own picks 1-30 in 2019
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
So what can you extract out of PHO to move back one spot? And then once that happens, what can you extract out of SAC to move back another?
:)
Trade the #3 and Boston's own 2018 first rounder to Phoenix for Phoenix' #4 and their 2018 first rounder. That would likely mean moving up maybe 20 spots in the 2018 draft in exchange for Phoenix being guaranteed to get one of the two guys they want (while still receiving a 2018 first rounder). That would mean that the Celtics could possibly have 3 of the top 5 picks in the absolutely loaded 2018 draft (Brooklyn, LAL, Pho). My goodness.

Then with the #4 draft Tatum. If somehow Ball is the only one available (say it goes Phi Fultz, LAL Tatum, Pho Jackson), then trade down again a couple more spots and try to land Isaac and add yet another pick instead.

Well they have the Heat's '18 1st round pick that is top 8 protected.
Oh, Red you were typing that as I was typing my post so.....looks like my idea won't fly.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Miami's 2018 1st round pick with 1-7 protection sounds like a good get to slide back 3 to 4.
Yup. Nighthob brought that up in another thread. I think Danny would do that in a heartbeat if he's fine with either Jackson or Tatum (or Isaac).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Trade the #3 and Boston's own 2018 first rounder to Phoenix for Phoenix' #4 and their 2018 first rounder. That would likely mean moving up maybe 20 spots in the 2018 draft in exchange for Phoenix being guaranteed to get one of the two guys they want (while still receiving a 2018 first rounder). That would mean that the Celtics could possibly have 3 of the top 5 picks in the absolutely loaded 2018 draft (Brooklyn, LAL, Pho). My goodness.

Then with the #4 draft Tatum. If somehow Ball is the only one available (say it goes Phi Fultz, LAL Tatum, Pho Jackson), then trade down again a couple more spots and try to land Isaac and add yet another pick instead.
That is way too much. They would want heavy protection on their own pick. Probably the same as Miami's.
 

Wilco's Last Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 11, 2008
460
Philadelphia, PA
From Michael Eaves: Cs didn't like Fultz's workout. "The most glaring critique was that he was not as explosive as they expected/hoped. Afterwards, team felt as if he was NOT the best prospect."

Assuming this is true - if they're looking for explosiveness out of the top pick, does this signal a preference for Jackson over Tatum? Tatum isn't exactly the most explosive prospect.

Or is it silly to assume that the character trait they were looking for in one prospect is the one they'll require from another who plays a different position?
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
All in all I continue to think this is a fair trade.
Sixers add a guy they like who fits and allows them to get on with team building.
The Celtics weren't sold on the guy everyone else was and got an extra first from it.

It's highly likely this is a high lottery pick next year. But if not then it gets a bit more dicey.
I am surprised ainge went for #1 protection on both.
Sixers are now in a situation where they can plausibly get 4 straight number ones and the cost was a 2019 pick which could be out of the lottery

That's a worst case I'd be deeply unhappy about giving out (unlikely as it is, good lord that would be horrendous)

The worst case for Philly is giving up 2 and 3 in consecutive years to move up. That's a lot but it's not as bad a worst case as the Celtics.

But ainge was not likely to be willing to move a lot lower and who else can offer that sort of upside.

I remain bemused by ainge claiming he's going to get "their guy" as 3. You cannot be sure what the Lakers do. You have to like two guys as more or more than fultz right? Or you're adding another layer of risk.

I mean you expose yourself to
1) Celtics don't get their guy as Lakers take him and you have to settle
2) get nothing of value from Philly due to extreme luck.

I think I would have wanted more protection from those extremes

Sixers aren't exposed to that much, 2-5 or kings. Can't lose the #1 etc.
I like the Lakers plan for the Celtics. I mean that's sweet. Get the Lakers pick if it's elite. If not get a clean pick the year after. I like that Vs getting just the Lakers pick which could be later lottery in theory.

In short I think both sides are happy but given the Celtics situation I am surprised they have the biggest risks.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
I wonder what the (buzzword warning) tipping point is as far as accumulating first-round picks. At some stage, won't potential trading partners glom on to the notion that there's leverage potential in the Celtics' overload of picks?