Your preferred Celtic target at #3

Your choice (sorry trade is not among the choices, since that obviously depends on the trade target)

  • Bender

    Votes: 56 46.7%
  • Hield

    Votes: 12 10.0%
  • Dunn

    Votes: 21 17.5%
  • Murray

    Votes: 15 12.5%
  • Brown

    Votes: 5 4.2%
  • Chriss

    Votes: 11 9.2%

  • Total voters
    120
  • Poll closed .

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Everyone who wants us to trade for Okafor. His only major strength is post scoring, so if we traded the third pick in the draft for him we would need to put the ball in his hands to get a fair return.
Oh. Well, I'm not sure I agree that having a post scorer means you have to take the ball out of your point guard's hands. Pretty sure the opposite's true, really.

But I'm not a huge proponent of acquiring Okafor, unless the price is such that he basically just becomes a cheaper Sullinger replacement with some more upside.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Everyone who wants us to trade for Okafor. His only major strength is post scoring, so if we traded the third pick in the draft for him we would need to put the ball in his hands to get a fair return.
Having a low-post scorer does not mean running the offense through them.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
Didn't Bender workout for Celtics yesterday? Anything on that?
Kyle Draper says workout was good. http://hoopshype.com/storyline/draft-workouts/. So does Bender.

There's a story on the internet (unsubstantiated as far as I can tell) that has Tim Welsh saying that Bender was "awful" in front of the Cs brass the first time.

BTW, although I'm still on bender, thought I'd post this tweet from Adam Himmelsbach: "Jaylen Brown said he did the Celtics' 3-point drill at his workout and made 76/100. (Sharpshooter Jamal Murray made 79)."

 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Everyone who wants us to trade for Okafor. His only major strength is post scoring, so if we traded the third pick in the draft for him we would need to put the ball in his hands to get a fair return.
No not everyone wants the offense to run through Okafor although as the most efficient offensive center in the league most of last season I don't see how this really is a bad thing. It's the #3 pick in the draft......it isn't sitting at #1 with LeBron coming out. You are overvaluing our pick here. The value is in acquiring a Sullinger replacement/upgrade who is on a team friendly deal for 3 years.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
No not everyone wants the offense to run through Okafor although as the most efficient offensive center in the league most of last season I don't see how this really is a bad thing. It's the #3 pick in the draft......it isn't sitting at #1 with LeBron coming out. You are overvaluing our pick here. The value is in acquiring a Sullinger replacement/upgrade who is on a team friendly deal for 3 years.
I'm sure there is some statistical definition by which this is true, but can you enlighten me what that is?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I'm sure there is some statistical definition by which this is true, but can you enlighten me what that is?
His eFG% was #1 in the league from January through the end of his season in March once Ish Smith became an upgrade at the PG position. He is 20-years old and his offense wasn't on putbacks that artificially increases shooting percentages.....yet he still scored better than DeAndre and others who do.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,463
So the Eric Van definition where you exclude the worst 60% of the sample based on dubious reasons.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Having a low-post scorer does not mean running the offense through them.
1) I agree that simply scoring out of the post does not require the ball to be run through a big man. Grabbing a pass and immediately going up for a dunk, for example. But you don't acquire Okafor to do that: Fab Melo can get his team easy dunks when he has nobody near him.

Post moves require the ball to be in the hands of a big man as he works for positioning when he is being well defended by another big. You're right that I have a vendetta against post play, but that's because I hate all isolation basketball rather than Okafor particularly.

2) If post players do not need plays run specifically for them, then why do so many big men like Dwight complain about offenses being based on the pick and roll?

Anyway I don't want to derail this thread, so I won't post on this topic again.

I would draft Bender at #3.
 
Last edited:

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I don't believe that's correct regardless. Over the 24 games Okafor played after they acquired Smith, he had a .582 eFG%. DeAndre Jordan had a .703 eFG% for the whole season, and a .677 eFG% during that same 24 game stretch.

A .582 eFG% would rank tied for 12th over the full season among guys with at least 20 minutes per game.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I don't believe that's correct regardless. Over the 24 games Okafor played after they acquired Smith, he had a .582 eFG%. DeAndre Jordan had a .703 eFG% for the whole season, and a .677 eFG% during that same 24 game stretch.

A .582 eFG% would rank tied for 12th over the full season among guys with at least 20 minutes per game.
You are correct in that it wasn't eFG%. I posted the correct stat months ago probably in the Sixers thread. Gonna be gone rest of day I'll dig tonight.

My point remains however. Kids who enter the league at 19 and immediately score against men without even fully developing a face up game yet have something good going for them.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Jeff Goodman on ESPN's draft preview show says his sources tell him if Celtics keep the pick it will be either Kris Dunn or Jaylen Brown.
Chad Ford just wrote that Brown's upside is a better scoring Justice Winslow. Is that the consensus? Doesn't seem worth #3 when he doesn't seem to have a huge chance to reach it. But it would provide a common link to the reported interest (real or imagined) given Ainges attempts for Winslow last year.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,100
Chad Ford just wrote that Brown's upside is a better scoring Justice Winslow. Is that the consensus? Doesn't seem worth #3 when he doesn't seem to have a huge chance to reach it. But it would provide a common link to the reported interest (real or imagined) given Ainges attempts for Winslow last year.
Justice Winslow is 20 years old, has been in the league for one year and is obviously far from a finished product, so what does it even mean to use him as a comparison?
 
Last edited:

jmm57

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,485
I would think it's as simple as the Celtics are widely reported to have made a huge offer to move up for Winslow in last year's draft, and that Brown is in the same mold but with more upside as a scorer.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
Chad Ford just wrote that Brown's upside is a better scoring Justice Winslow. Is that the consensus? Doesn't seem worth #3 when he doesn't seem to have a huge chance to reach it. But it would provide a common link to the reported interest (real or imagined) given Ainges attempts for Winslow last year.
There's some discussion of the comparison, and, as you mention, how it may relate to Ainge's interest in Brown, starting on page 8 of this thread.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,463
I think Winslow with scoring is just a way to give people a feel for his possible defensive impact even as a rookie.
An interesting note is that Brown allegedly was the only guy of the top group who was willing to do competitive workouts with teams. That can be dangerous for players, but his seeming rise may be tied to it, you can really impress if you're willing to go man up with another good prospect or a current pro and succeed.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
Chad Ford just wrote that Brown's upside is a better scoring Justice Winslow. Is that the consensus? Doesn't seem worth #3 when he doesn't seem to have a huge chance to reach it. But it would provide a common link to the reported interest (real or imagined) given Ainges attempts for Winslow last year.
Brown's upside is one of the top 5 wings in the NBA. His chance of making it? Better than mine, I'm sure. Anything more than that is really anyone's guess.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,291
An interesting note is that Brown allegedly was the only guy of the top group who was willing to do competitive workouts with teams. That can be dangerous for players, but his seeming rise may be tied to it, you can really impress if you're willing to go man up with another good prospect or a current pro and succeed.
IIRC, this sort of thing is part of why Ainge drafted Rozier. Killed at workouts while a bunch of the top guys supposedly didn't want to work out against him.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,299
deep inside Guido territory
I'd be really, really concerned if they pick Brown. He was really, really bad in his last 5 games in college. 9 for 42 from the field including 3-17 against Utah and 3-10 against Arizona State. Only a 43% shooter for the year. I just don't think he's worth the #3 pick. I'd much rather have a player like Dunn or Hield rather than Brown. If we're going total upside at the pick then go with Bender.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
They may be reasons not to take Brown, but a 5 game sample shouldn't really be one of them.
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,932
I'd be really, really concerned if they pick Brown. He was really, really bad in his last 5 games in college. 9 for 42 from the field including 3-17 against Utah and 3-10 against Arizona State. Only a 43% shooter for the year. I just don't think he's worth the #3 pick. I'd much rather have a player like Dunn or Hield rather than Brown. If we're going total upside at the pick then go with Bender.
I actually watched a number of those games, including his conference and NCAA tournaments and Brown basically had to be their entire offense. It really wasn't fair, esp for a guy with a limited offensive game. Defenses packed the lane and he couldn't do anything on his own, and to make matters worse, their starting PG broke his hand and sat out the NCAA's. Brown is much better than those numbers.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,463
I'd probably have Brown either 2nd or 3rd behind Bender and maybe Dunn. I think he can defend at the NBA level, maybe extremely well, and I'd like to see his offense when he had a real system and PG. There's an extent where I'd rather bet on a great athlete developing skill refinement over a guy who has 1 skill but may not be an NBA athlete. Though part of that is just how weak the top is after Bender. I'm not sure Murray is in the NBA when his rookie deal ends, Hield looks like a 1 talent guy in a talent that doesn't always translate, Chriss is rawer than Ty Thomas, it's just a mess up there.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
They may be reasons not to take Brown, but a 5 game sample shouldn't really be one of them.
Against different defensive rules than he'll be playing against utilizing different offensive sets against these defenses while having proper spacing at the next level. Plenty of reasons to discount most of a 19-year olds season based on results much less over 5 games.
 

sox311

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,753
That's what she said.
I'm not sure Murray is in the NBA when his rookie deal ends, Hield looks like a 1 talent guy in a talent that doesn't always translate
The first statement has nothing backing it and is just ridiculous. The guy can shoot and create his own shot. RJ Hunter has a tenth of Murray's skills and will be in the NBA after his rookie deal most likely.

The second statement is as incorrect as it gets. That "1 talent" is the one skill that translates more than any other skill. And that one talent has every pro team licking their chops at the opportunity to get him.

Sorry to post just to point out these ridiculous statements, but really, where did you come up with those ideas?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,463
The first statement has nothing backing it and is just ridiculous. The guy can shoot and create his own shot. RJ Hunter has a tenth of Murray's skills and will be in the NBA after his rookie deal most likely.

The second statement is as incorrect as it gets. That "1 talent" is the one skill that translates more than any other skill. And that one talent has every pro team licking their chops at the opportunity to get him.

Sorry to post just to point out these ridiculous statements, but really, where did you Jcome up with those ideas?
There is definitely a lot of doubt about Murray's ability to create his own shot, and defend, and rebound, and move the ball. Salim Stoudamire could do everything Murray can and was a much better college shooter.... he washed out in 3 years (there are tons of college shooters who flamed out, I'm using Salim because he was one of the best college shooters ever). Hield will stick around the league assuming he can translate his shooting, but it's less of a sure thing than people make it sound. He only has 1 year as an elite shooter, and I'm not sure where you got that 3pt% translates more than any other skill because I've never seen that, usually steals, rebounding and blocks translate, I think someone (HRB?) posted it at some point, but FT% tends to be a better indicator of shooting ability than 3pt% as well.

Listen it's possible that these guys will pan out, but I'm pointing out that both of them have major risk factors, and likely low ceilings because they are so dependent on one or two skills for most of their value.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,219
Somerville, MA
They probably won't keep all the picks. But if they do here is my wish list:

#3 - Dragan Bender
#16 - Timothe Luwawu/Furkan Korkmaz/Brice Johnson
#23 - Brice Johnson/Ante Zizic/Ivica Zubac
#31 - Thon Maker/Zhou Qi/Chinanu Onuaku
#35 - Zhou Qi/Chinanu Onuaku/Ben Bentil

The mocks look about 50/50 if one of Luwawu or Korkmaz make it to 16. If both are gone I'd probably just take Brice Johnson. If he's gone too then someone unexpected probably fell. Johnson could be gone by #23. If we take him at #16 and Zizic and Zubac aren't there I think DeAndre' Bembry, Malik Beasley, and Taurean Prince are interesting guys at #23. Reports are that Bembry's stock is rising and he won't make it past 20.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
I would not want to make this decision. Unless you see guys play against each other it is really hard to compare. Even then, how do you assess potential? I like Murray, but that is certainly a biased view since he is a Canadian, and based on 2nd hand reports he did very well against Wiggins, and the basketball Canada people love his attitude effort etc.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,291
Ainge is in a great position at 3. Dunn can absolutely help the Celtics and he's the archetypal Ainge pick. I'm sure he's let it be known to everyone that he is perfectly happy drafting and keeping the player. While obviously keeping the lines open to see who blinks by throwing in the extra piece, be it Saric or a high 2017 first.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Ainge is in a great position at 3. Dunn can absolutely help the Celtics and he's the archetypal Ainge pick. I'm sure he's let it be known to everyone that he is perfectly happy drafting and keeping the player. While obviously keeping the lines open to see who blinks by throwing in the extra piece, be it Saric or a high 2017 first.
That trade value is one reason why I'd like to see them just make the pick and wait to see how things shake out in free agency. If Golden State really did get a commitment from Durant, I imagine that Boston could put together a really good package for Thompson headlined by Lil' Zeke and Smart. And the teams that wanted him on draft night will still want him if that's the route they need to go.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
You keep bringing up the idea of Golden State trading Klay Thompson and I would bet there's a less than 1% chance of that happening. They want to add to their core of Curry, KT and Green, not subtract from it.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
You keep bringing up the idea of Golden State trading Klay Thompson and I would bet there's a less than 1% chance of that happening. They want to add to their core of Curry, KT and Green, not subtract from it.
I think the idea is that they'd give up Thompson to get Durant, which is necessary to fit Durant's salary. Do you disagree that (given the choice) they'd do so?
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
But they don't have to give up Thompson. They have to move either Iggy or Bogut plus one or two from the Livingston/Ezeli/Barnes group.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,219
Somerville, MA
But they don't have to give up Thompson. They have to move either Iggy or Bogut plus one or two from the Livingston/Ezeli/Barnes group.
Barnes and Ezeli are both free agents right? Lots of posts imply they could keep one of those guys if they want. I think that's wrong. If they want Durant keeping either is not an option.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
You keep bringing up the idea of Golden State trading Klay Thompson and I would bet there's a less than 1% chance of that happening. They want to add to their core of Curry, KT and Green, not subtract from it.
Because to add Durant to their current big three requires jettisoning all their depth and praying that no one gets injured. All so that they can turn a guy whose career is presently on a hall of fame path into a 3 & D roleplayer. Which also increases the likelihood that that player grows increasingly frustrated in that role (because three prime years of averaging 12-14 pts per game takes him off the HoF path permanently). See the back half of the Ray Allen era in Boston for an example of what that can do to a locker room. And Allen, unlike Thompson, was at the end of his career, rather than his prime.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
They have about $71M in guaranteed salaries for next season, but that doesn't include cap holds for Barnes and Ezeli or the option on Livingston. There are multiple avenues they could take to get a max cap slot but you'd still have to shed Bogut or Iggy first to make the math work.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
The problem remains that they have a guy that is on a hall of fame career path, to add Durant without moving him they need to end any hopes he has of making the hall. That's not going to be a happy player.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,370
man, I don't get it. if GSW had any kind of rim protection, they win that series easily. Durant is great of course, but its still a horseshoe roster
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Weren't people raving about Durant's rim protection when playing the 4 during the OKC-GS series? He makes the death lineup even deadlier. I don't think it's a home run move for Golden State. It probably makes them worse next year just because of the roster upheaval, but adding him gives you a much higher chance of winning multiple titles in the next four years. It's a deal with risk that you almost have to take.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
The problem remains that they have a guy that is on a hall of fame career path, to add Durant without moving him they need to end any hopes he has of making the hall. That's not going to be a happy player.
Are teams limited to 2 HOF-type players?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Well, the number of FGA is going to be severely limited for someone, and it ain't likely to be Durant or Curry. I mean we saw the stories in the local papers here about the feuding in the Boston clubhouse that came about because Allen was reduced to shooting the occasional three as the totality of his contribution. And he was on the far side of 35 and not smack dab in the middle of his prime.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
Well, the number of FGA is going to be severely limited for someone, and it ain't likely to be Durant or Curry. I mean we saw the stories in the local papers here about the feuding in the Boston clubhouse that came about because Allen was reduced to shooting the occasional three as the totality of his contribution. And he was on the far side of 35 and not smack dab in the middle of his prime.
Do you have any links to this? More curious than anything (the Allen stuff)
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Well, the number of FGA is going to be severely limited for someone, and it ain't likely to be Durant or Curry. I mean we saw the stories in the local papers here about the feuding in the Boston clubhouse that came about because Allen was reduced to shooting the occasional three as the totality of his contribution. And he was on the far side of 35 and not smack dab in the middle of his prime.
I always called Allen's presence in Boston as the most underutilized player we've ever had. We didn't need a player in that role to be an All-Star level player which Allen was when he arrived all we needed was a specialty 3-point weak side shooter which was his role on our team.

Doc never received nearly enough credit for handling that insanely psychotic roster from Rondo, Allen, KG all the way down to Tony Allen and Nate Dog. He'll be a HOF coach for certain but should have been even if it was only based on handling that Boston dynamic.