Your preferred Celtic target at #3

[nighthob]

It seems really odd that a team that gets the 3rd pick in any sport is screwed. Is there really so little talent flooding into the league that picking 3rd is almost useless to many people?

Screwed is too strong a word, his model predicts that the first two guys will be all stars, but that there are no guarantees thereafter and not much of a gap between three and twelve or so, which is this draft in a nutshell. My preferred target at #3 is Murray, simply because it's become a perimeter league and he's the sort of guard that scores from everywhere on the floor. But before that I would certainly consider dealing it for an extra lottery pick next year if they can't land Jimmy Butler or another all star in trade.

 

[67YAZ]

I mostly land in the category of thinking it's just totally irrelevant noise, with little actually signalling value (i.e., Singler or the Morii), but this is also a real possibility. Or maybe they do want to keep him. I don't know, but that's why I don't take this stuff seriously. I suspect it largely functions as a sort "tofu", where it just reinforces whatever other opinions one already had. This kind of tea leaf reading can sometimes have value, but I can't parse it at least.

The Bulls are in turmoil right now. They fired Thibs to bring in Foreman's guy, Hoiberg. Hoiberg manages to miss the playoffs, has every player on the roster either regress or plateau, and watches his veterans complain about his coaching in public. The local beat writers are speculating that Foreman's recent about face on Butler - from "all options are open" to face of the franchise - is due to Reinsdorf telling his executives to cut the crap and embrace the guy who the Bulls just signed long term. Just speculation, but it points up that people close to the organization can't make heads or tails of what is going on. Maybe Foreman and Hoiberg still have enough authority to swing a Butler trade, but I find it more likely that they have been told to make the playoffs with Butler next season or else.

On another note, Dunn has the look of a guy who is going #3, whether it's to the Celtics or another team dealing with the Celtics. He plays a premium position, he can contribute now, he has demonstrated the ability to improve his game year over year, and most importantly, he's got elite size and athleticism. Every year, it's the physical abilities that trend upward in the draft. Some team will fall in love with Dunn and take him at #3.

 

[NoXInNixon]

Screwed is too strong a word, his model predicts that the first two guys will be all stars, but that there are no guarantees thereafter and not much of a gap between three and twelve or so, which is this draft in a nutshell. My preferred target at #3 is Murray, simply because it's become a perimeter league and he's the sort of guard that scores from everywhere on the floor. But before that I would certainly consider dealing it for an extra lottery pick next year if they can't land Jimmy Butler or another all star in trade.

I don't have much faith in models. I'll bet anyone $100 for the Jimmy Fund that someone taken #3 or higher will have more value pre-free agency than Simmons or Ingram. Except we'd have to wait 6 years to square it up. Danny has a good track record of drafting players who end up being better than slot. If he gets the actual best player available at #3, Celtics fans will be very, very happy.

 

[DJnVa]

I know there will end up being good NBA players drafted #3 or later. My question is more big picture. How can it be that a draft of all eligible college and world players and a team gets the 3rd choice of all of these players and it's considered a crapshoot.

It's like once you get to pick #3 the expected return is "possible role player if he develops".

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

I don't have much faith in models. I'll bet anyone $100 for the Jimmy Fund that someone taken #3 or higher will have more value pre-free agency than Simmons or Ingram. Except we'd have to wait 6 years to square it up. Danny has a good track record of drafting players who end up being better than slot. If he gets the actual best player available at #3, Celtics fans will be very, very happy.

I think people are generally feeling a little too down about our prospects, coming from a place of impatience after this summer was sort of unofficially labeled as The Important Summer 2.0. Ainge isn't perfect but I still like his chess game. I'm prepared for a gut reaction that tells me I hate what happens with the #3 pick, only to have it proven as a smart play in the long-run.

I disliked the Telfair trade immensely (though to be fair much of that was a general dislike for the series of events that required Ainge to make that deal) and it ended up being, what, a top 3 most important Celtics transaction of this generation? Was a bit lukewarm on the Allen trade as well. Both were home run decisions made with lotto picks in a muddled range of talent in pretty weak drafts--'06 was laughably bad and '07 sucked after the top 4. I feel pretty good about Ainge's chances of finding the right move in a complex situation.

 

[zenter]

I know there will end up being good NBA players drafted #3 or later. My question is more big picture. How can it be that a draft of all eligible college and world players and a team gets the 3rd choice of all of these players and it's considered a crapshoot.

It's like once you get to pick #3 the expected return is "possible role player if he develops".

I agree that #3 is a fantastic asset for a playoff team and people might be underestimating its value.

That said, my gut tells me that most recent drafts are two-headed beasts, and occasionally there's one universal "right" pick. After those two slots, everyone is a bigger question mark.

There are a few ways to flip this q around so we can analyze:
- How many of the current top-20 players were drafted top-2?
- What's the value of a #3 vs #2? (538 did an estimated value for each pick slot a couple years ago. Looks like the drop from 3-5 has the same value as the drop from 2-3)
- How many of the last 10 #1, #2, and #3 picks are considered stars or superstars?
- What is the standard deviation for value at each pick slot? We can learn how much variability there is here

With the Cs specific circumstances, Dunn (possible BPA) poses a depth chart problem that would only be solved with a complementary move (ie, trading Smart or Rozier). Bender doesn't pose depth chart issues.

 

[nighthob]

I don't have much faith in models. I'll bet anyone $100 for the Jimmy Fund that someone taken #3 or higher will have more value pre-free agency than Simmons or Ingram. Except we'd have to wait 6 years to square it up. Danny has a good track record of drafting players who end up being better than slot. If he gets the actual best player available at #3, Celtics fans will be very, very happy.

Yeah, I'm not defending his statistical model, just pointing out that it's not really telling us anything new and that it isn't really saying that Boston's screwed. I agree that there are going to be all stars taken after one or two, and I'm one of the few guys that actually likes this draft pool as it doesn't feature last year's big plunge after 20 or so. This one's a lot like 2001 in that there are going to be a lot of guys that stick from this year, regardless of whether or not they're all stars.

But the reason why I'd trade down from #3 this year for an extra lottery pick next year is that the 2017 pool is like 2015 in being pretty top heavy.

 

[DJnVa]

Which potential 2017 lottery team wants Hield or Dunn or Bender enough to trade up a few slots for him?

 

[Carmine Hose]

Here's the draft slots of the members of last year's All-NBA teams:

First Team

1, 1, 48, 3, 7

Second Team

2, 3, 5, 4, 4

Third Team

1, 1, 35, 11, 1

If you throw out the two second rounders, the average draft position is 3.4. Only including top 10 picks, and the average is 2.75. They seem to be in the wheelhouse at #3.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Which potential 2017 lottery team wants Hield or Dunn or Bender enough to trade up a few slots for him?

. . .that can't just draft him with their own pick. Minnesota could use a point guard, but one of either Dunn or Murray will be there for them at 5. Depending where Rondo ends up, maybe the Kings? Milwaukee could use a PG, but isn't likely to be a lottery team next year, and further, I suspect they'd prefer a better shooter than Dunn at PG given how much time Gainnis will spend with the ball in his hands. Utah could use a point guard, but again, isn't likely a lottery pick. The Knicks need a point guard, too. And could very well be back in the lottery next year. But I'm not sure either Murray or Dunn fit what Jackson looks for in a PG. I'm not sure the market to move up for Dunn/Murray is all that high, really.

 

[ALiveH]

The Cs should just see if they can pick up another asset by trading down to the mid-lottery & then take BPA there (who has just about as good a chance of being as good as whoever is taken #3).

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

The Cs should just see if they can pick up another asset by trading down to the mid-lottery & then take BPA there (who has just about as good a chance of being as good as whoever is taken #3).

I disagree. They have too many current assets as it is. You can only expect to draft and stash so many guys. Assuming they can't trade #3, then (1) take who they think is BPA there, and (2) ID a guy they like in 8-12 range and use their other assets to move up for that player. Maybe keep a mid-Rd 2 pick to draft and stash someone.

At some point you have to trust your own ability to judge talent. I'm sure Ainge is confident that he can ID a couple guys at #3 who he expects to be better than guys who'd be available at, say, #8-10.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Agreed. Try for a trade and if that doesn't happen, pick whoever you like between Bender and Dunn. Dunn would be my pick but I'd be ok with taking a chance on Bender's potential given how shitty our frontcourt is. Murray, Hield, and Brown just don't do it for me.

 

[Scoops Bolling]

I'd be perfectly happy with either Bender or Murray. Both are pretty clear boom/bust guys, but the boom on both (Bender as a switching big who can also defend the rim while stretching the floor on offense, Murray as the offensive weapon this team desperately needs) is a clear win in terms of team needs and the direction the league is moving (as opposed to the whole "trade for Okafor and pretend he isn't a dinosaur a decade late for the game").

 

[mauf]

Which potential 2017 lottery team wants Hield or Dunn or Bender enough to trade up a few slots for him?

None, unless you count getting a top-3 protected pick from someone like New Orleans or (less likely) Minnesota who might fall just short of the playoffs next season.

Unless they can turn the pick into a guy like Butler, or package it with other assets for a guy like Cousins, they're likely to keep the pick.

 

[southshoresoxfan]

More likely to have a taker on 16 and 23 for 13 type move than 3 back to 6-8 range IMO

 

[BigSoxFan]

More likely to have a taker on 16 and 23 for 13 type move than 3 back to 6-8 range IMO

Agree with this but I hope we don't make a trade like that unless there's a surprise slider. There isn't much difference between 13 and 16 so I'd get 2 chances of the same caliber player vs. 1.

 

[RetractableRoof]

Agree with this but I hope we don't make a trade like that unless there's a surprise slider. There isn't much difference between 13 and 16 so I'd get 2 chances of the same caliber player vs. 1.

But do you have roster slots or playing time to figure out which is the player you are hoping for?

 

[Auger34]

But do you have roster slots or playing time to figure out which is the player you are hoping for?

If Poetl falls to the 11-13 range then I see Danny trading 16 and 23 to move up and take him

 

[smastroyin]

What about trading two this year for one next year? Like 16 and 23 to someone you expect in the 12-20 range next year? Anyone that might bite?

Obviously all the second round picks need to be turned into something as well. Maybe this is the year Danny finally embraces Eurostashing.

 

[BigSoxFan]

But do you have roster slots or playing time to figure out which is the player you are hoping for?

The Celtics have tons of FAs and potential roster slots. Not really concerned with that. If those picks are frontcourt players, chances are they will get a look sooner rather than later. If they go backcourt, say a Wade Baldwin, then there will likely be a little bit of a logjam.

 

[Auger34]

What about trading two this year for one next year? Like 16 and 23 to someone you expect in the 12-20 range next year? Anyone that might bite?

Obviously all the second round picks need to be turned into something as well. Maybe this is the year Danny finally embraces Eurostashing.

If possible this would be the best idea. Next year's draft is supposed to be loaded and you can take advantage of GM's trying to save their jobs by adding another piece for this year.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

What about trading two this year for one next year? Like 16 and 23 to someone you expect in the 12-20 range next year? Anyone that might bite?...

The idea is good, but I don't see why Ainge would want to give up 16 and 23 just to wait another year to draft a guy at, say, #18 or 20. That seems to be selling the picks at a sizable discount. I think he'd need to be trading with a team "likely" to finish with a top 10 pick. And that's going to be hard to gauge before free agency is done.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

What about trading two this year for one next year? Like 16 and 23 to someone you expect in the 12-20 range next year? Anyone that might bite?

that seems WAY too high a price to pay. 16 alone should be worth a 12-20 next year.

 

[Cellar-Door]

that seems WAY too high a price to pay. 16 alone should be worth a 12-20 next year.

I agree. If they don't want to roster 16 and/or 23 they should spend them on the Korkmaz/Luwauwu/Zizic/Zubac/QI/Hernangomez/Cornelie types and stash them for a year.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

What about trading two this year for one next year? Like 16 and 23 to someone you expect in the 12-20 range next year? Anyone that might bite?

While this years draft isn't top heavy it is one of the deepest draft filled with NBA players as I've seen in awhile. Those picks we have past 3 carry more value this summer than in others one would think.

Obviously all the second round picks need to be turned into something as well. Maybe this is the year Danny finally embraces Eurostashing.

This isn't a game Danny has played in the past but this would be an ideal year to stash 2-3 Eurobigs over there. So many of them have been undervalued in the past on draft night.

 

[nighthob]

While this years draft isn't top heavy it is one of the deepest draft filled with NBA players as I've seen in awhile. Those picks we have past 3 carry more value this summer than in others one would think.

My guess is that barring injury this draft has 45-50 guys that are going to stick in this league. I think that the teams without #1s are going to be receptive about trading future firsts for those 20-35 picks Boston has.

 

[BigSoxFan]

My guess is that barring injury this draft has 45-50 guys that are going to stick in this league. I think that the teams without #1s are going to be receptive about trading future firsts for those 20-35 picks Boston has.

For context, teams with no first rounders this year are:

Nets (obviously can't trade)
Cavs
Mavs
Houston
Heat
Knicks
Thunder
Blazers
Wizards

 

[nighthob]

Honestly I still like Winslow and I would be open to Ainge trying to work out a larger deal for him.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

From the "It won't hurt to try department"......heard today that New Orleans guaranteed Dunn the 6-slot if he would shut down workouts. He would be lethal in Gentry's offense with Brow.

Apparently this is the season where promises are being thrown around rampantly. So far we only know of Sabonis and Dejounte Murray as potential promise guys who didn't attend the combine. We'll know soon enough for certain if they shut down all workouts leading up to the draft.

 

[mauf]

I thought Minny would pick Dunn at #5, leaving Hield for the Pelicans.

But what do I know?

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Add another vote for Dunn here. If he can turn into a slightly above average outside shooter, he has, IMO, the potential to be a top 5 PG in the NBA. Particularly when you factor in the other half of the floor. The kid is a tenacious defender, I believe led the nation in steals this year. He's the real deal with the ball in his hands, and while he played for a "big time" program, he basically spent the last four years playing in an offense with maybe, one other guy besides himself who could score, in a rotation that ran about 6-7 deep, at best. He's a leader, great character guy, etc. He's going to be the guy in this draft that if we don't take him, we'll look back a few years from now and say "damn, can't believe we passed on him."

And yeah, I'm biased as a Friar alum, but I'm thrilled that we even have a chance to get him.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

I thought Minny would pick Dunn at #5, leaving Hield for the Pelicans.

But what do I know?

Dunn is too similar to Rubio, whom they'd then have to trade (esp. since LaVine can also play some PG). Wolves need outside shooting. They could really use a stretch 4 to pair with Towns. Also a better rim protector than Dieng.

 

[bowiac]

Nobody is concerned that Dunn was a pretty consistent 69% free throw shooter, every year in college? This is not the sign of a guy improving his shooting. It seems to me we already have a tenacious defender with size at the PG position who could be a star if he learned to shoot.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

I'm not super high on Dunn, personally. Haven't watched him a ton, but I'm not sure what he adds that the C's don't have.

 

[Ed Hillel]

I don't like the idea of drafting any PG who isn't going to be elite with the 3rd pick in the draft. Once you get past the 5 or so game-changers, filling the position isn't all that difficult. I'd rather take a chance on a guy like Bender, who has rare size and a skillset far more difficult to replicate, even if he's more likely to flame out and be a complete nothing.

All that aside, I hope they trade the pick for an established player or bump up to the top 2.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Nobody is concerned that Dunn was a pretty consistent 69% free throw shooter, every year in college? This is not the sign of a guy improving his shooting. It seems to me we already have a tenacious defender with size at the PG position who could be a star if he learned to shoot.

There are more than signs in Dunn's case there is a track record of improvement over time both mechanically as well as in the results. His FT inconsistencies were frustrating as a PC fan however the difference between a 69 and a 78% FT shooter in his case is just over a half of a point per game.

When Dunn arrived at PC he was rail thin with inconsistent and flawed mechanics. He only attempted 14 3-pt FGA as a freshman (4-14) playing mostly off the ball. The missed year due to shoulder surgery allowed his frame to fill out along with improved shooting mechanics, 77 attempts at 35%. This past season he took 113 making 37% while increasing his range to beyond the NBA distance. Aside from Dunn's pct uptick the degree of difficulty increased with many forced up against the shot clock and extended zone defenses. it should also be noted that his 3-week illness when Cooley had to run him in and out of the lineup in games he really shouldn't even have been playing hurt his pct as he was shooting them at 41% prior to this stretch.

Having said all that.....he's going to be some teams starting PG in October whether it be Philly, Minnesota, or New Orleans. We already have Isaiah.

 

[bowiac]

While a half point per game is actually pretty salient, I referenced the free throw shooting there in reference to whether his mechanics are really improving. Lots of data showing free throw shooting is about as strong a predictor as three-point shooting of NBA three point shooting. This is also why I'm a bit skeptical of Brandon Ingram's three point shooting for instance.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

While a half point per game is actually pretty salient, I referenced the free throw shooting there in reference to whether his mechanics are really improving. Lots of data showing free throw shooting is about as strong a predictor as three-point shooting of NBA three point shooting. This is also why I'm a bit skeptical of Brandon Ingram's three point shooting for instance.

Data isn't going to show an improvement in shooting mechanics though. If you pull up you tube clips from Dunn as a HS senior to his past two seasons it doesn't even look like the same player physically and in his shooting mechanics. The actual results on the floor show the improvement as well.....except not at the FT line.

 

[bowiac]

Shouldn't improved mechanics manifest themselves in better results? Or are these just three-point shooting, rather than free-throw mechanics?

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Shouldn't improved mechanics manifest themselves in better results? Or are these just three-point shooting, rather than free-throw mechanics?

I just pointed out numbers which showed the massive improvement from his freshman to senior year.

 

[bowiac]

I just pointed out numbers which showed the massive improvement from his freshman to senior year.

That's why I asked if you mean only three-point shooting. His free-throw mechanics haven't improved? These are totally divorced skillsets?

 

[RG33]

Add another vote for Dunn here. If he can turn into a slightly above average outside shooter, he has, IMO, the potential to be a top 5 PG in the NBA. Particularly when you factor in the other half of the floor. The kid is a tenacious defender, I believe led the nation in steals this year. He's the real deal with the ball in his hands, and while he played for a "big time" program, he basically spent the last four years playing in an offense with maybe, one other guy besides himself who could score, in a rotation that ran about 6-7 deep, at best. He's a leader, great character guy, etc. He's going to be the guy in this draft that if we don't take him, we'll look back a few years from now and say "damn, can't believe we passed on him."

And yeah, I'm biased as a Friar alum, but I'm thrilled that we even have a chance to get him.

Fellow biased alum, but I am hoping they draft Dunn as well. I agree with the above, and just think his game will translate to the NBA well. I have a sneaky suspicion he is the guy Ainge wants, regardless of position.

 

[moondog80]

We're really only talking about two seasons with Dunn, so I'm not sure we should draw any conclusions from his lack of improvement in FT. If he hits just 5 fewer his junior year and 5 more his senior year, we'd say he made some progress from 65.7 to 72.1.

 

[Scoops Bolling]

That's why I asked if you mean only three-point shooting. His free-throw mechanics haven't improved? These are totally divorced skillsets?

You two are talking past one another. HRB was talking about FT shooting, I think you misread him when he said "shooting mechanics" as meaning "3 point shooting mechanics".

 

[bowiac]

You two are talking past one another. HRB was talking about FT shooting, I think you misread him when he said "shooting mechanics" as meaning "3 point shooting mechanics".

If he meant FT shooting, then I don't follow what he meant by the "numbers which showed the massive improvement"? In Dunn's three actual seasons, he shot .690, .686, and .695 from the line. There's no sign of improvement. That's remarkably stable actually.

 

[moondog80]

If he meant FT shooting, then I don't follow what he meant by the "numbers which showed the massive improvement"? In Dunn's three actual seasons, he shot .690, .686, and .695 from the line. There's no sign of improvement. That's remarkably stable actually.

The CIs around those three seasons are (56 -- 79), (61 --75), and (63 -- 75). It's entirely possible that there's improvement there (or regression) that's being hidden by randomness. We can reasonably say he's a below average free throw shooter, but that's about it.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

That's why I asked if you mean only three-point shooting. His free-throw mechanics haven't improved? These are totally divorced skillsets?

Sorry for confusion. I wasn't referring to FT shooting results. While we know there is a correlation between improved FT% and improved future 3-pt shooting % in many cases when the latter displays a marked improvement or is already excellent (as in the case with Ingram) then the lack of improved FT% doesn't tell me anything about their future 3-point% prospects.

Dunn continues to short arm or aim FT's which is frustrating but not related to his 3-point shooting which HAS made a drastic improvement in both mechanics (the eyes) and results (pct along w other factors).

Hope that cleared up my position.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I just pointed out numbers which showed the massive improvement from his freshman to senior year.

Where is the massive improvement?
His FT% are basically the same his whole career, as for 3pt% he only took 14 3s as a Freshman which makes it basically useless.

 

[bowiac]

The CIs around those three seasons are (56 -- 79), (61 --75), and (63 -- 75). It's entirely possible that there's improvement there (or regression) that's being hidden by randomness. We can reasonably say he's a below average free throw shooter, but that's about it.

Samples are obviously not huge for these things. That's why I said "there's no sign of improvement." If it's there, we're not seeing it. As you note, that goes both ways - maybe he's actually gotten worse. Insofar as I'm taking a much older prospect, I want to see a sign of actual improvement, not just staying stable.