Lowe - Excerpt from Hornets article on Celtics' draft day offer

[LooseCannon]

Usually I think of Zach Lowe as a very reliable source, but I'm not convinced this story is at all true.  For the Hornets to turn down four First round picks so they could draft Kaminski at 9 when he likely would have been available at 16 would be beyond incompetence.  On the other hand trading 4 first round picks to draft a small forward who can't shoot would be equally incompetent.  If Danny actually offered this trade the leprechaun was looking out for all of us when he squashed it.  Marcus Smart was a better college player than Winslow at a more important position and no one would have advocated trading 4 first rounders to draft Smart.

Charlotte has an established track record of being incompetent, so it is very believable that they turned down a deal.  I think there are also some dissenters in the front office who would benefit from having it known that they weren't idiots for the sake of future employment, so there should be people willing to talk to Lowe.

[obnoxiousmime]

- who was the other lottery pick he's made other than Smart?  I could be going senile but I can't remember him making another lotto pick

Olynyk was picked thirteenth (by Dallas, I believe) and traded for.  He was a lottery pick. 

wow, talk about stretching to make your point.  trading up to #13 is your idea of questioning Danny's ability to make a good pick in the lottery? 

whether you like Smart and KO, they're definitely NBA caliber players.  KO has been better than a fair number of players selected before him.  Wiggins is the only player taken before Smart that outplayed him last year.

I like Smart and Olynyk a lot.  I think you misunderstood my point. 

My point is that those who are disappointed that we didn't tank for a lottery pick last year and don't look like we are primed to do so this year, would likely be disappointed in whoever we got in the lottery if we did tank for a high pick anyway. 

Then, it just becomes a rinse and repeat process.  History has shown that repeated tanking very rarely leads to building a championship caliber team.

Yes, but all methods of building a championship team very rarely lead to success (if success is only defined by winning at least one title). That's because there are 30 teams and only one can win every year. If you don't have one of a handful of once-in-a-generation players you just have to build the best team you can and hope to win in an off year. Or use that success to attract even better talent to come over in trades or free agency (like what the Spurs did with Aldridge).

The 08 Celtics would not have been possible if we hadn't tanked the year before. The Allen trade only happens because we were bad enough to get the 5th pick. And Garnett only comes because Allen was added. If that bumbling 07 team had managed to win a few extra games and our pick was in the teens, the trade doesn't happen and we are probably tanking another year, probably focusing on dealing an unhappy Pierce and going forward with a Rondo future.

[max215]

My point is that those who are disappointed that we didn't tank for a lottery pick last year and don't look like we are primed to do so this year, would likely be disappointed in whoever we got in the lottery if we did tank for a high pick anyway. 

This sounds like fatalism to justify your own position, honestly.

Personally, I'm not disappointed by Smart or Olynyk.

I wish we had ended up with Jabari or Wiggins last year, but it is what it is.  I felt good about the pick then and I don't regret it now.  I think Smart can be a building block, albeit not a primary one.  That's OK.  You can't expect to necessarily get a franchise player at #6 in any given year.

Olynyk was a lottery pick, sure, but he was a late lottery pick in a draft that was deep on role players and very shallow on starting quality players.  I regret that Ainge chose Olynyk ahead of higher upside guys taken after him, but the pick was defensible.


My attitude has been that the draft is a very important part of the rebuild, but it's also far from a sure thing.  That's why it's important to have multiple opportunities to select in the top 10, and vitally important to make the most of those picks when you get them.

I wasn't around these parts during the 2013 Draft, so would anyone mind informing me as to what the general reaction was to Danny taking KO over Giannis? Giannis is honestly one of my favorite players in the league, so I don't look back fondly on that decision.

[Rondo9]

My point is that those who are disappointed that we didn't tank for a lottery pick last year and don't look like we are primed to do so this year, would likely be disappointed in whoever we got in the lottery if we did tank for a high pick anyway. 

This sounds like fatalism to justify your own position, honestly.

Personally, I'm not disappointed by Smart or Olynyk.

I wish we had ended up with Jabari or Wiggins last year, but it is what it is.  I felt good about the pick then and I don't regret it now.  I think Smart can be a building block, albeit not a primary one.  That's OK.  You can't expect to necessarily get a franchise player at #6 in any given year.

That number six was a lottery pick. You think Smart is just a role player?

[PhoSita]

I wasn't around these parts during the 2013 Draft, so would anyone mind informing me as to what the general reaction was to Danny taking KO over Giannis? Giannis is honestly one of my favorite players in the league, so I don't look back fondly on that decision.

From what I recall, a good number of people were stumping for Giannis or Dieng, and a few for Schroder (though not too many due to Rondo being around).  The Celts moving up to select Olynyk was a bit of a surprise.

I remember being dubious of Giannis, thinking he could end up as another Austin Daye / Anthony Randolph, and feeling a little bit excited because of how productive Kelly was in college.  I remember thinking, though, that Dieng could have addressed the needs of the team better and that it would've been nice to end up with a player with the kind of upside that Giannis had.

[Celtics18]

My point is that those who are disappointed that we didn't tank for a lottery pick last year and don't look like we are primed to do so this year, would likely be disappointed in whoever we got in the lottery if we did tank for a high pick anyway. 

This sounds like fatalism to justify your own position, honestly.

Personally, I'm not disappointed by Smart or Olynyk.

I wish we had ended up with Jabari or Wiggins last year, but it is what it is.  I felt good about the pick then and I don't regret it now.  I think Smart can be a building block, albeit not a primary one.  That's OK.  You can't expect to necessarily get a franchise player at #6 in any given year.

Olynyk was a lottery pick, sure, but he was a late lottery pick in a draft that was deep on role players and very shallow on starting quality players.  I regret that Ainge chose Olynyk ahead of higher upside guys taken after him, but the pick was defensible.


My attitude has been that the draft is a very important part of the rebuild, but it's also far from a sure thing.  That's why it's important to have multiple opportunities to select in the top 10, and vitally important to make the most of those picks when you get them.

Yet history shows that teams that are perennial contenders rarely use multiple top ten picks to build their teams.

It goes without saying that bad teams are the ones who consistently get high picks.  It simply hasn't proven to be a fruitful strategy to continue to be bad to pick your way back to the top.

Look at the champions of the current millennium:

The Spurs, the Lakers, the Heat, the Celtics, the Mavericks, the Pistons, and the Warriors.

Those teams have for the most part made good use of their opportunities to pick high in the draft, but none of them have repeatedly found themselves in the bottom ten in the league for more than two consecutive years as a strategy to build their championship squads.

It seems to me that the cynical, yet extremely popular among many fans and pundits, race to the bottom to rebuild strategy is a fruitless one. 

I wish that the fans and pundits who continually and loudly tout this strategy as the best way to rebuild a franchise into a contender would see that it hasn't proven to pay off very often.

Maybe then less GMs would take such cynical approaches to rebuilding and actually attempt to build teams that are worth watching. 

[max215]

I wasn't around these parts during the 2013 Draft, so would anyone mind informing me as to what the general reaction was to Danny taking KO over Giannis? Giannis is honestly one of my favorite players in the league, so I don't look back fondly on that decision.

From what I recall, a good number of people were stumping for Giannis or Dieng, and a few for Schroder (though not too many due to Rondo being around).  The Celts moving up to select Olynyk was a bit of a surprise.

I remember being dubious of Giannis, thinking he could end up as another Austin Daye / Anthony Randolph, and feeling a little bit excited because of how productive Kelly was in college.  I remember thinking, though, that Dieng could have addressed the needs of the team better and that it would've been nice to end up with a player with the kind of upside that Giannis had.

Thanks, TP.

[Celtics18]

My point is that those who are disappointed that we didn't tank for a lottery pick last year and don't look like we are primed to do so this year, would likely be disappointed in whoever we got in the lottery if we did tank for a high pick anyway. 

This sounds like fatalism to justify your own position, honestly.

Personally, I'm not disappointed by Smart or Olynyk.

I wish we had ended up with Jabari or Wiggins last year, but it is what it is.  I felt good about the pick then and I don't regret it now.  I think Smart can be a building block, albeit not a primary one.  That's OK.  You can't expect to necessarily get a franchise player at #6 in any given year.

Olynyk was a lottery pick, sure, but he was a late lottery pick in a draft that was deep on role players and very shallow on starting quality players.  I regret that Ainge chose Olynyk ahead of higher upside guys taken after him, but the pick was defensible.


My attitude has been that the draft is a very important part of the rebuild, but it's also far from a sure thing.  That's why it's important to have multiple opportunities to select in the top 10, and vitally important to make the most of those picks when you get them.

I wasn't around these parts during the 2013 Draft, so would anyone mind informing me as to what the general reaction was to Danny taking KO over Giannis? Giannis is honestly one of my favorite players in the league, so I don't look back fondly on that decision.

I was pulling for Steven Adams or Plumlee or Dieng.  I wanted a guy who could develop into a true defensive center.

Once we picked Olynyk, I jumped on the bandwagon, though.  I was intrigued by Giannis, but thought he was too much of a long shot. 

[max215]

My point is that those who are disappointed that we didn't tank for a lottery pick last year and don't look like we are primed to do so this year, would likely be disappointed in whoever we got in the lottery if we did tank for a high pick anyway. 

This sounds like fatalism to justify your own position, honestly.

Personally, I'm not disappointed by Smart or Olynyk.

I wish we had ended up with Jabari or Wiggins last year, but it is what it is.  I felt good about the pick then and I don't regret it now.  I think Smart can be a building block, albeit not a primary one.  That's OK.  You can't expect to necessarily get a franchise player at #6 in any given year.

Olynyk was a lottery pick, sure, but he was a late lottery pick in a draft that was deep on role players and very shallow on starting quality players.  I regret that Ainge chose Olynyk ahead of higher upside guys taken after him, but the pick was defensible.


My attitude has been that the draft is a very important part of the rebuild, but it's also far from a sure thing.  That's why it's important to have multiple opportunities to select in the top 10, and vitally important to make the most of those picks when you get them.

I wasn't around these parts during the 2013 Draft, so would anyone mind informing me as to what the general reaction was to Danny taking KO over Giannis? Giannis is honestly one of my favorite players in the league, so I don't look back fondly on that decision.

I was pulling for Steven Adams or Plumlee or Dieng.  I wanted a guy who could develop into a true defensive center.

Once we picked Olynyk, I jumped on the bandwagon, though.  I was intrigued by Giannis, but thought he was too much of a long shot.

Interesting, thanks and a TP.

[Rondo9]

You know reading the article, I still don't understand why people kept feeling that the Cavs were in chill mode, because every game was pretty close.

[DarkAzcura]

You know reading the article, I still don't understand why people kept feeling that the Cavs were in chill mode, because every game was pretty close.

They weren't in chill mode. They were able to fight back every comeback the Celtics had in them, but their Big 3 averaged 40-43 MPG. Like you said, that's not chill mode. The Celtics completely wore down Irving and Love.

[slamtheking]

- who was the other lottery pick he's made other than Smart?  I could be going senile but I can't remember him making another lotto pick

Olynyk was picked thirteenth (by Dallas, I believe) and traded for.  He was a lottery pick. 

wow, talk about stretching to make your point.  trading up to #13 is your idea of questioning Danny's ability to make a good pick in the lottery? 

whether you like Smart and KO, they're definitely NBA caliber players.  KO has been better than a fair number of players selected before him.  Wiggins is the only player taken before Smart that outplayed him last year.

I like Smart and Olynyk a lot.  I think you misunderstood my point. 

My point is that those who are disappointed that we didn't tank for a lottery pick last year and don't look like we are primed to do so this year, would likely be disappointed in whoever we got in the lottery if we did tank for a high pick anyway. 

Then, it just becomes a rinse and repeat process.  History has shown that repeated tanking very rarely leads to building a championship caliber team. 

ah, got it.  I misunderstood your point.  based on your clarification, I'd agree with you

[chambers]

My point is that those who are disappointed that we didn't tank for a lottery pick last year and don't look like we are primed to do so this year, would likely be disappointed in whoever we got in the lottery if we did tank for a high pick anyway. 

This sounds like fatalism to justify your own position, honestly.

Personally, I'm not disappointed by Smart or Olynyk.

I wish we had ended up with Jabari or Wiggins last year, but it is what it is.  I felt good about the pick then and I don't regret it now.  I think Smart can be a building block, albeit not a primary one.  That's OK.  You can't expect to necessarily get a franchise player at #6 in any given year.

Olynyk was a lottery pick, sure, but he was a late lottery pick in a draft that was deep on role players and very shallow on starting quality players.  I regret that Ainge chose Olynyk ahead of higher upside guys taken after him, but the pick was defensible.


My attitude has been that the draft is a very important part of the rebuild, but it's also far from a sure thing.  That's why it's important to have multiple opportunities to select in the top 10, and vitally important to make the most of those picks when you get them.

Yet history shows that teams that are perennial contenders rarely use multiple top ten picks to build their teams.

It goes without saying that bad teams are the ones who consistently get high picks.  It simply hasn't proven to be a fruitful strategy to continue to be bad to pick your way back to the top.

Look at the champions of the current millennium:

The Spurs, the Lakers, the Heat, the Celtics, the Mavericks, the Pistons, and the Warriors.

Those teams have for the most part made good use of their opportunities to pick high in the draft, but none of them have repeatedly found themselves in the bottom ten in the league for more than two consecutive years as a strategy to build their championship squads.

It seems to me that the cynical, yet extremely popular among many fans and pundits, race to the bottom to rebuild strategy is a fruitless one. 

I wish that the fans and pundits who continually and loudly tout this strategy as the best way to rebuild a franchise into a contender would see that it hasn't proven to pay off very often.

Maybe then less GMs would take such cynical approaches to rebuilding and actually attempt to build teams that are worth watching.

All those franchises managed to get NBA MVP level players (or extremely close) with their top 10 picks. Yes, they got top 10 NBA players with those top 10 picks. The Lakers and Pistons are the extreme exception to this 'championship rule' over the past what..50 years? Will we ever see a talent like Kobe go at #13 in the modern NBA of international scouting?

So how do we get our first franchise player?
It's a double edged sword.
For all the grief that Celtics fans love to give teams like Philly or Minny, they would appear to have a much higher percentage chance of garnering a top 10 NBA player on their squads. Heck, the Wolves and 76ers have a decent chance at having multiple top 10 players from the ability to acquire top 5 & 10 picks.

At the end of the day, it's the top 10 picks that win championships. This is proven. You can argue all you want and pick out the rare cases where some team had a late first rounder turn into an NBA superstar or DPOY and lead them to a title, but the fact remains.

If you want an NBA championship, chances are you have to acquire a top 10 player via the NBA draft- and then build around him.
Some teams can trade for a top 10 pick, others can tank and acquire that pick themselves.

Of all the the contenders in the West:
The Thunder, Clippers, Rockets, Warriors, Memphis, Spurs- they ALL have a player drafted in the top 10, who is a top 10 NBA player. Only the Rockets and Memphis have built their team around that top 10 player without picking him themselves. And even then, Memphis picked Mike Conley at #4 who is instrumental to their success and the third best player on their team.

In fact Memphis is the only championship contender in the West to build their team around players who weren't picked in the top 10. And even then they have a top 10 pick in Mike Conley as their 3rd championship piece.
And the Rockets are the only championship contender in the West without their own top 10 pick playing.


The most important factor in all of this is getting lucky.
You can either draft a top 10 player yourself with extreme luck, or you can get extremely lucky and grab a top 10 player via trade by getting extremely lucky.
Great GM's like Ainge and Morey have the ability to position themselves and prepare to 'get lucky' better than other GM's, but at the end of the day, if there are no top 10 players on the market, or another team has more appealing assets than you, you're relying on luck just as much as the draft lottery.

That's the oxy-moronic component of this argument.
It's like arguing which lucky charm you should use before buying a lottery ticket.

[slamtheking]

My point is that those who are disappointed that we didn't tank for a lottery pick last year and don't look like we are primed to do so this year, would likely be disappointed in whoever we got in the lottery if we did tank for a high pick anyway. 

This sounds like fatalism to justify your own position, honestly.

Personally, I'm not disappointed by Smart or Olynyk.

I wish we had ended up with Jabari or Wiggins last year, but it is what it is.  I felt good about the pick then and I don't regret it now.  I think Smart can be a building block, albeit not a primary one.  That's OK.  You can't expect to necessarily get a franchise player at #6 in any given year.

Olynyk was a lottery pick, sure, but he was a late lottery pick in a draft that was deep on role players and very shallow on starting quality players.  I regret that Ainge chose Olynyk ahead of higher upside guys taken after him, but the pick was defensible.


My attitude has been that the draft is a very important part of the rebuild, but it's also far from a sure thing.  That's why it's important to have multiple opportunities to select in the top 10, and vitally important to make the most of those picks when you get them.

I wasn't around these parts during the 2013 Draft, so would anyone mind informing me as to what the general reaction was to Danny taking KO over Giannis? Giannis is honestly one of my favorite players in the league, so I don't look back fondly on that decision.

I was pulling for Steven Adams or Plumlee or Dieng.  I wanted a guy who could develop into a true defensive center.

Once we picked Olynyk, I jumped on the bandwagon, though.  I was intrigued by Giannis, but thought he was too much of a long shot.

Interesting, thanks and a TP.

I liked Dieng as well -- much more than KO.  didn't like the swing for the fences pick Giannis.  C's were rebuilding and considering where they were drafting that year, I didn't want to come away with another bust like Fab. 

KO has shown flashes but needs to show consistency this coming year.

[Celtics18]

My point is that those who are disappointed that we didn't tank for a lottery pick last year and don't look like we are primed to do so this year, would likely be disappointed in whoever we got in the lottery if we did tank for a high pick anyway. 

This sounds like fatalism to justify your own position, honestly.

Personally, I'm not disappointed by Smart or Olynyk.

I wish we had ended up with Jabari or Wiggins last year, but it is what it is.  I felt good about the pick then and I don't regret it now.  I think Smart can be a building block, albeit not a primary one.  That's OK.  You can't expect to necessarily get a franchise player at #6 in any given year.

Olynyk was a lottery pick, sure, but he was a late lottery pick in a draft that was deep on role players and very shallow on starting quality players.  I regret that Ainge chose Olynyk ahead of higher upside guys taken after him, but the pick was defensible.


My attitude has been that the draft is a very important part of the rebuild, but it's also far from a sure thing.  That's why it's important to have multiple opportunities to select in the top 10, and vitally important to make the most of those picks when you get them.

Yet history shows that teams that are perennial contenders rarely use multiple top ten picks to build their teams.

It goes without saying that bad teams are the ones who consistently get high picks.  It simply hasn't proven to be a fruitful strategy to continue to be bad to pick your way back to the top.

Look at the champions of the current millennium:

The Spurs, the Lakers, the Heat, the Celtics, the Mavericks, the Pistons, and the Warriors.

Those teams have for the most part made good use of their opportunities to pick high in the draft, but none of them have repeatedly found themselves in the bottom ten in the league for more than two consecutive years as a strategy to build their championship squads.

It seems to me that the cynical, yet extremely popular among many fans and pundits, race to the bottom to rebuild strategy is a fruitless one. 

I wish that the fans and pundits who continually and loudly tout this strategy as the best way to rebuild a franchise into a contender would see that it hasn't proven to pay off very often.

Maybe then less GMs would take such cynical approaches to rebuilding and actually attempt to build teams that are worth watching.

All those franchises managed to get NBA MVP level players (or extremely close) with their top 10 picks. Yes, they got top 10 NBA players with those top 10 picks. The Lakers and Pistons are the extreme exception to this 'championship rule' over the past what..50 years? Will we ever see a talent like Kobe go at #13 in the modern NBA of international scouting?

So how do we get our first franchise player?
It's a double edged sword.
For all the grief that Celtics fans love to give teams like Philly or Minny, they would appear to have a much higher percentage chance of garnering a top 10 NBA player on their squads. Heck, the Wolves and 76ers have a decent chance at having multiple top 10 players from the ability to acquire top 5 & 10 picks.

At the end of the day, it's the top 10 picks that win championships. This is proven. You can argue all you want and pick out the rare cases where some team had a late first rounder turn into an NBA superstar or DPOY and lead them to a title, but the fact remains.

If you want an NBA championship, chances are you have to acquire a top 10 player via the NBA draft.
Some teams can trade for a top 10 pick, others can tank and acquire that pick themselves.

Of all the the contenders in the West:
The Thunder, Clippers, Rockets, Warriors, Memphis, Spurs- they ALL have a player drafted in the top 10, who is a top 10 NBA player. Only the Rockets and Memphis have built their team around that top 10 player without picking him themselves. And even then, Memphis picked Mike Conley at #4 who is instrumental to their success and the third best player on their team.

In fact Memphis is the only championship contender in the West to build their team around players who weren't picked in the top 10. And even then they have a top 10 pick in Mike Conley as their 3rd championship piece.
And the Rockets are the only championship contender in the West without their own top 10 pick playing.

Everyone lands in the top ten at some point, both good teams and bad teams.  The bad teams--including the perpetually bad teams, of course, land there more often.

What history has shown is that the champions and championship contenders aren't the ones who land in the top ten the most often, rather they are the ones who make the most of the opportunities when they get them.

We landed in the top ten last year.  We picked Marcus Smart.  Instead of just aiming to continually land in the top ten until we land that "surefire star," I say it makes more sense to try to build on what we have going forward.

It appears that Danny Ainge agrees.