Instead of Fultz what about Tatum and Monk?

[Casperian]

Neither Monk nor Tatum are close to the level of prospect that Fultz is. Fultz is one of the best guard prospects since 2010 - neither of the other guys are even close to that sort of potential.
The time for trading for quantity has passed, it's now time for Boston to pick one of the most highly touted prospects in years.

It's not about quantity, it's about value, and should it turn out that our plan is to kick the can down the road  for a few more years, we should think long and hard about trading down to pick up some additional high quality assets, immediate gratification crowd be [dang]ed.

Fultz is an amazing prospect, but I don't think the gap between him and some of the lower ranked prospects is as big as people make it out to be.

I've only taken this angle considering there's no actual viable way outlined in the OP or any posts since as to how we would somehow trade #1 for two picks between #3-#6. However I do disagree, I do believe Fultz to be far and away the best prospect this year.

Relative to all the other point guards in the league? More so than, say Jackson, compared to all the other SF in the league?

We're talking about an 18yo PG prospect, the by far most stacked position in the NBA, and every year there are more good PGs coming into the league. It's reasonable to get excited about his potential, but unless you believe he'll turn into a top 5 player in the league, I'm not sure how smart of a team-building move picking him #1 really is.

[gouki88]

Neither Monk nor Tatum are close to the level of prospect that Fultz is. Fultz is one of the best guard prospects since 2010 - neither of the other guys are even close to that sort of potential.
The time for trading for quantity has passed, it's now time for Boston to pick one of the most highly touted prospects in years.

It's not about quantity, it's about value, and should it turn out that our plan is to kick the can down the road  for a few more years, we should think long and hard about trading down to pick up some additional high quality assets, immediate gratification crowd be [dang]ed.

Fultz is an amazing prospect, but I don't think the gap between him and some of the lower ranked prospects is as big as people make it out to be.

I've only taken this angle considering there's no actual viable way outlined in the OP or any posts since as to how we would somehow trade #1 for two picks between #3-#6. However I do disagree, I do believe Fultz to be far and away the best prospect this year.

Relative to all the other point guards in the league? More so than, say Jackson, compared to all the other SF in the league?

We're talking about an 18yo PG prospect, the by far most stacked position in the NBA, and every year there are more good PGs coming into the league. It's reasonable to get excited about his potential, but unless you believe he'll turn into a top 5 player in the league, I'm not sure how smart of a team-building move picking him #1 really is.

Considering he has the potential (key word) to be a Harden-esque player - aka a top 5 player in the league, then yeah I think picking him at #1 is justified. I don't see any of the other players in this draft being able to be a top 5 player in their positions except maybe Ball and Jackson, but both would be at the lesser end of the spectrum.

[clevelandceltic]

Anthony Davis won 8 games his Senior year in HS. 8. I dont recall anyone saying this guy is a loser and shouldnt go to Kentucky because he only won 8 games in HS. In fact Im sure not many people even know that he won so few games his Senior year.

Point being you have to look at the circumstances in which the kid played. The kid has incredible skill. You cant take that away from him.

[Tr1boy]

Anthony Davis won 8 games his Senior year in HS. 8. I dont recall anyone saying this guy is a loser and shouldnt go to Kentucky because he only won 8 games in HS. In fact Im sure not many people even know that he won so few games his Senior year.

Point being you have to look at the circumstances in which the kid played. The kid has incredible skill. You cant take that away from him.

Wasnt davis like 6'5 in hs?

[ETNCeltics]

Fultz is vastly superior to either of them as prospects. Would be a moronic trade.

[Tr1boy]

Fultz is vastly superior to either of them as prospects. Would be a moronic trade.

So what you saying is... Is like comparing Lebron to Carmelo

Fultz is so clutch, a winner. He scored 39 against Ball when they met?

[mahcus smaht]

Fultz is vastly superior to either of them as prospects. Would be a moronic trade.

So what you saying is... Is like comparing Lebron to Carmelo

Fultz is so clutch, a winner. He scored 39 against Ball when they met?

Triboy...

are you really equating the talent levels of Kentucky and Washington?

[SparzWizard]

How about instead of Fultz...Anthony Davis or maybe Paul George if he agrees to extension.

YUP i am not sacrificing Fultz for Tatum or Monk.

[mahcus smaht]

Also how the hell are we gonna get both these guys?

you need to outline that plan before this discussion continues. Youve already ignored 2 posters calling for an explanation. Will you make it 3?

[Tr1boy]

Also how the hell are we gonna get both these guys?

you need to outline that plan before this discussion continues. Youve already ignored 2 posters calling for an explanation. Will you make it 3?

1st to 76ers for Saric and Tatum

Saric and Rozier for 5th pick + (Kings)

Does this work for you?

[mahcus smaht]

Also how the hell are we gonna get both these guys?

you need to outline that plan before this discussion continues. Youve already ignored 2 posters calling for an explanation. Will you make it 3?

1st to 76ers for Saric and Tatum

Saric and Rozier for 5th pick + (Kings)

Does this work for you?

nope.

Saric isnt worth the #5 pick in this draft and Rozier only has marginal value.

[max215]

Monk scored 754 total points . Made 104 threes at 39 percent

Fultz scored 579 total points. Made 52 threes at 41 percent

Monk was a scoring machine last season.

As much I like Fultz , I think Danny will gravitate towards an athlete like Monk more.

Danny also likes players with size that can handle/pass/create 1 on 1 (Tatum)

These two pickups would be decent insurance if Hayward doesnt sign and no trades result...

Thoughts?

You know you're grasping for straws when you cite raw points. For anyone who was misled by this intentionally misleading statistic, Monk played 13 more games than Fultz.

[Tr1boy]

Also how the hell are we gonna get both these guys?

you need to outline that plan before this discussion continues. Youve already ignored 2 posters calling for an explanation. Will you make it 3?

1st to 76ers for Saric and Tatum

Saric and Rozier for 5th pick + (Kings)

Does this work for you?

nope.

Saric isnt worth the #5 pick in this draft and Rozier only has marginal value.

Disagree... I can see Sac biting. They need to balance out their roster. Two 1sts ...can play with one

[Tr1boy]

Monk scored 754 total points . Made 104 threes at 39 percent

Fultz scored 579 total points. Made 52 threes at 41 percent

Monk was a scoring machine last season.

As much I like Fultz , I think Danny will gravitate towards an athlete like Monk more.

Danny also likes players with size that can handle/pass/create 1 on 1 (Tatum)

These two pickups would be decent insurance if Hayward doesnt sign and no trades result...

Thoughts?

You know you're grasping for straws when you cite raw points. For anyone who was misled by this intentionally misleading statistic, Monk played 13 more games than Fultz.

How was Monk able to play 13 more games? You tell me

[max215]

Monk scored 754 total points . Made 104 threes at 39 percent

Fultz scored 579 total points. Made 52 threes at 41 percent

Monk was a scoring machine last season.

As much I like Fultz , I think Danny will gravitate towards an athlete like Monk more.

Danny also likes players with size that can handle/pass/create 1 on 1 (Tatum)

These two pickups would be decent insurance if Hayward doesnt sign and no trades result...

Thoughts?

You know you're grasping for straws when you cite raw points. For anyone who was misled by this intentionally misleading statistic, Monk played 13 more games than Fultz.

How was Monk able to play 13 more games? You tell me

By not being injured and on a terrible team. I'm guessing that you're suggesting that Monk playing 13 more games somehow supports your narrative that he's even comparable to Fultz, but it's a bit easier to advance in the tournament when your teammates include a top-5 pick and another first-rounder. Frankly, if you actually believe playing 13 more games is a serious credit to Monk, there's no arguing with you.