If I am picking top 3, Banchero would be my guy.
In a vacuum, or as best fit for Celtics?
I think he will be the best of the top three guys and it's widely believed Banchero, Holmgren and Smith are the top 3 guys.
As for fit on Celtics, what does it matter? That high in the draft you take the best player and make it work.
Everything else being equal, fit matters a great deal. We have two good wings who struggle to lead this team over .500 because, frankly, they are not a great fit with one another. Kobe and Shaq were a great fit. Pierce, Garnett and Allen were a great fit. Kobe and Gasol were a great fit. Fit matters.
It doesn't when drafting. Even moreso at the top of the draft. You pick the best player and work it out.
Celtics once had Bird and Maxwell, both essentially PFs, then made a trade for a center, Parish, and used their pick to select McHale, a PF/C. And then they worked things out.
Either way, Banchero is a PF, something this team needs.
teams would or should never turn down picking the clearly better player for one at a position of need. And I doubt they ever do (at least not on purpose), as every GM knows he increases his chance of being fired if he keeps missing on talent in the draft.
However, there are endless situations where BPA is not clear and not easily predicted. So what's left? Fit. Intangibles. Hunches, etc...
That’s true to a point, but I think, for example, that the Sixers did themselves nor their picks no favors by taking Noel, Embiid, and Okafor in three consecutive drafts. There was no way those three could ever be compatible, and they got terrible returns on the two they ultimately got rid of.
I find the logic behind draft strategy really interesting. To me the most logical way to rank and draft players is tier based BPA. Meaning you break the draft class into tiers and then factor need/roster fit when deciding between players but never move on to a lower tier when a higher tiered player is available. I have brought this up a few times on this board but the year the Cs drafted Rozier reports came out that that he was the last player available to the Celtics in his tier and the team debated jumping tiers for Justin Anderson because a wing was a better roster fit over another PG.
The Hinkie lead 76ers took this strategy to the absolute extreme with the 2013 (Noel),2014(Embiid), and 2015(Okafor) drafts. In the modern NBA true Center is the only position where redundancy is really a waist no matter the talent level. Had they ended up going with 3 guards 2013 (McCollum) 2014(Smart), and 2015(Russell) or 3 wings the fit wouldn't have been great but all three players could share the court together and develop. This is just isn't possible with 3 traditional centers.
The lack of center versatility also brings up another drafting strategy/facotor that I like, positional value. Unless we are talking blue chip, generational, physical outliers, who have all-star ceilings does it ever make sense to draft non combo guards (sub 6'2 pgs) or traditional centers in the top 20? or for that matter the 1st round? Drafting a likely backup PG or Center when they come at so little cost as FAs just doesn't feel like a good use of an asset. As much as I am a fan of Pritchard he was drafted with a likely backup at a position thats easy to replace while Jaden McDaniels went two picks later and as a 6'9 athletic wing is much harder to find in free agency if he hits 3/4 of his ceiling (not to mention our favorite sore spot Desmond Bane). This same draft also saw Utah draft Azubuike as their backup Center another player who's role can be replicated for cheap in free agency.
