More cold water - Dunc'd On offseason grade

[greece66]

Oh no, two journalists didn't like our offseason

[CelticsJG]

Win now & win later are not mutually exclusive. We did moves that improved our short term while worsen our long term.

To got Gordon Hayward, we lost two key players:

Avery Bradley - best perimeter defender and sadly our best rebounder.

KellyO - He was inconsistent and pain in the ass but his presence on the court was huge for his. His ability to play stretch 5 was invaluable.


As of this moment, the PHI trade is bad trade. We essentially gave the up the #1 pick for the #3 pick and some pick that could fall in the range of #2-14. Right now it is too much variance to say we got equal value. 

Us taking Fultz gives us long term pg security. For some there are concerns with maxing IT2. Is his game going to age well? Will the hip injury be an issue long term? Will his defense be a problem when things matters?

With Tatum we lose that security and now committing IT2. Sure Smart/Rozier can make the leap but until they prove otherwise IT2 our guy.

To them and many others Fultz is the best prospect. Sure Tatum can be better in the long run but as now Fultz better.

Their trades talk around PG and Butler was straight speculation. I have no answer for that one.

[gouki88]

Win now & win later are not mutually exclusive. We did moves that improved our short term while worsen our long term.

To got Gordon Hayward, we lost two key players:

Avery Bradley - best perimeter defender and sadly our best rebounder.

KellyO - He was inconsistent and pain in the ass but his presence on the court was huge for his. His ability to play stretch 5 was invaluable.


As of this moment, the PHI trade is bad trade. We essentially gave the up the #1 pick for the #3 pick and some pick that could fall in the range of #2-14. Right now it is too much variance to say we got equal value. 

Us taking Fultz gives us long term pg security. For some there are concerns with maxing IT2. Is his game going to age well? Will the hip injury be an issue long term? Will his defense be a problem when things matters?

With Tatum we lose that security and now committing IT2. Sure Smart/Rozier can make the leap but until they prove otherwise IT2 our guy.

To them and many others Fultz is the best prospect. Sure Tatum can be better in the long run but as now Fultz better.

Their trades talk around PG and Butler was straight speculation. I have no answer for that one.

I don't know how you can cite the loss of KO but not talk about how we added players like Morris (who is superior to KO) and Baynes. That doesn't make sense.

You're also assuming that we would've picked Fultz at #1, which DA has basically said we would not have done. Tatum was our guy all along. You also say that Fultz is currently better, which is based on... What exactly? Summer League?

We got better in the short term AND the long term. We got the guy we wanted in the draft, we got another potential top 5 pick, and we got the best free agent available. That's a win on every front.

[tazzmaniac]

Win now & win later are not mutually exclusive. We did moves that improved our short term while worsen our long term.

To got Gordon Hayward, we lost two key players:

Avery Bradley - best perimeter defender and sadly our best rebounder.

KellyO - He was inconsistent and pain in the ass but his presence on the court was huge for his. His ability to play stretch 5 was invaluable.


As of this moment, the PHI trade is bad trade. We essentially gave the up the #1 pick for the #3 pick and some pick that could fall in the range of #2-14. Right now it is too much variance to say we got equal value. 

Us taking Fultz gives us long term pg security. For some there are concerns with maxing IT2. Is his game going to age well? Will the hip injury be an issue long term? Will his defense be a problem when things matters?

With Tatum we lose that security and now committing IT2. Sure Smart/Rozier can make the leap but until they prove otherwise IT2 our guy.

To them and many others Fultz is the best prospect. Sure Tatum can be better in the long run but as now Fultz better.

Their trades talk around PG and Butler was straight speculation. I have no answer for that one.

I don't know how you can cite the loss of KO but not talk about how we added players like Morris (who is superior to KO) and Baynes. That doesn't make sense.

You're also assuming that we would've picked Fultz at #1, which DA has basically said we would not have done. Tatum was our guy all along. You also say that Fultz is currently better, which is based on... What exactly? Summer League?

We got better in the short term AND the long term. We got the guy we wanted in the draft, we got another potential top 5 pick, and we got the best free agent available. That's a win on every front.

We got the guy Ainge wanted.  Almost all of the analysts had Fultz as the clear #1 prospect.  Clearly Duncan and Leroux fall into this camp.  They also don't think Tatum was the best prospect available at #3.  And finally they think the Lakers and Kings are going to be better than expected and that we won't get a top 3 pick with it.  If they turn out to be correct, we definitely won't be better in the long term.  Furthermore as they said, taking Tatum basically commits us to pay big bucks to IT. 

As for the short-term Hayward isn't that much better than Bradley.  Morris is a pretty good addition but I don't particularly like Baynes as our starting C.  To be better (in the playoffs, don't care about regular season) in the short-term, we're going to need some of the younger players to step up. 

[Eddie20]

Win now & win later are not mutually exclusive. We did moves that improved our short term while worsen our long term.

To got Gordon Hayward, we lost two key players:

Avery Bradley - best perimeter defender and sadly our best rebounder.

KellyO - He was inconsistent and pain in the ass but his presence on the court was huge for his. His ability to play stretch 5 was invaluable.


As of this moment, the PHI trade is bad trade. We essentially gave the up the #1 pick for the #3 pick and some pick that could fall in the range of #2-14. Right now it is too much variance to say we got equal value. 

Us taking Fultz gives us long term pg security. For some there are concerns with maxing IT2. Is his game going to age well? Will the hip injury be an issue long term? Will his defense be a problem when things matters?

With Tatum we lose that security and now committing IT2. Sure Smart/Rozier can make the leap but until they prove otherwise IT2 our guy.

To them and many others Fultz is the best prospect. Sure Tatum can be better in the long run but as now Fultz better.

Their trades talk around PG and Butler was straight speculation. I have no answer for that one.

I don't know how you can cite the loss of KO but not talk about how we added players like Morris (who is superior to KO) and Baynes. That doesn't make sense.

You're also assuming that we would've picked Fultz at #1, which DA has basically said we would not have done. Tatum was our guy all along. You also say that Fultz is currently better, which is based on... What exactly? Summer League?

We got better in the short term AND the long term. We got the guy we wanted in the draft, we got another potential top 5 pick, and we got the best free agent available. That's a win on every front.

We got the guy Ainge wanted.  Almost all of the analysts had Fultz as the clear #1 prospect.  Clearly Duncan and Leroux fall into this camp.  They also don't think Tatum was the best prospect available at #3.  And finally they think the Lakers and Kings are going to be better than expected and that we won't get a top 3 pick with it.  If they turn out to be correct, we definitely won't be better in the long term.  Furthermore as they said, taking Tatum basically commits us to pay big bucks to IT. 

As for the short-term Hayward isn't that much better than Bradley. Morris is a pretty good addition but I don't particularly like Baynes as our starting C.  To be better (in the playoffs, don't care about regular season) in the short-term, we're going to need some of the younger players to step up.

It's almost as though you haven't ever seen Hayward play. Offensively, Hayward is superior in every facet of the game. Better shooter, better ballhandler, better passer, and better finisher. Plus, you can run offense through him and he has 1 on 1 scoring ability that will be crucial in crunch time. Defensively, Hayward is not the on-ball defender Bradley is (no one is), but he does have more switching versatility. Hayward is a pretty good defender. He combines great lateral quickness, with sound heady play. You'll rarely see him out of position and is also a good help defender.


This is Hayward vs Indy. A lot of times going 1 on 1 against George.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6qcSUYAz8I

[Celtics4ever]

Almost all of the analysts had Fultz as the clear #1 prospect.  Clearly Duncan and Leroux fall into this camp.  They also don't think Tatum was the best prospect available at #3.

I wonder if Summer League changed any minds, I doubt it.   But to me, it proved that Ainge was right.   Tatum wore down but he was efficient and showed true killer instinct. 

To got Gordon Hayward, we lost two key players:

Avery Bradley - best perimeter defender and sadly our best rebounder.

KellyO - He was inconsistent and pain in the ass but his presence on the court was huge for his. His ability to play stretch 5 was invaluable.

Gordon is better than AB.  KO only played well every other game and the other games he was a stinker.   I think Baynes will have more defensive presence.   I think that Theis may surpise but we will miss KO floor spreading.  But folks need to quit acting like we lost an allstar in KO.( I don't consider your statement of that ilk as it is a balanced assessment)

Seriously, these shows are wrong more often than they are right.   Also, there is significant anti-Celtic bias.

[loco_91]

Haters gonna hate. It's as though the #1 pick just appeared out of thin air, or as if C's fans had to suffer through a 20-win season to earn it. On the contrary: Danny swindled that pick, so he can do what he wants with it.

[Jvalin]

Calling it "one protected lotto pick" ignores the fact that most of the protections (ie 6-30 protection and right to swap) are in our favor

Are they? What if the Lakers land #6 next year and the Kings land #7 (or worse) in 2019? How are the protections in our favor in that case?

Because it gives you another shot at a top pick. It's the same reason that anyone here would (well, should) take a pick with the 7th best lottery odds over a guaranteed #7 pick.  Yes, there's the minuscule chance that it drops to a slightly weaker pick #8, #9, or #10, but that's by far outweighed by the chance that it jumps to the way more valuable #1, #2, or #3 picks.

Come on man! We both know what I meant. What if the Lakers 2018 pick ends up at #6 and the Kings 2019 pick ends up at #7 (or worse)? How are the protections in our favor in that case?

I mean, if you want to take the stance that the Lakers, Kings, and 76ers are all going to become powerhouses overnight and we'll get an awful pick, be my guest.  But it's far more likely that we end up with a top 5 pick than an awful one.

Well, if I had to guess I'd say that the Lakers pick will not convey and the Kings pick will end up in mid to late lottery territory. The Kings will have tons of cap space next season. Given that there are very few teams around the league with available cap space, it's highly likely that the Kings are gonna sign at least one quality free agent in 2018. Another thing is, we are talking about the Kings : they are always willing to speed up their rebuilding process no matter if they are ready for the next step or not. They have already traded their 2019 pick, so they 'll have all the incentive in the world to make a win now move in the 2018 free agency.

[Rosco917]

If you don't think sports journalists are sports fans too, you should think again. The Celtics are very much a polarizing team. Many, and including Sports Journalists hate the Celtics for some really stupid reasons dating back 20, 30, 40 years.

Remember success breeds contempt. 

[jambr380]

Haters gonna hate. It's as though the #1 pick just appeared out of thin air, or as if C's fans had to suffer through a 20-win season to earn it. On the contrary: Danny swindled that pick, so he can do what he wants with it.

TP - this has always been my take, as well. Obviously I want these high picks to be super successful, but I have heard on more than a few occasions that Danny's future hinges on this trade or how these picks work out, and I think that is ridiculous. It would be a shame if we end up with the next Anthony Bennett, Darko Milicic, and Adam Morrison, but these picks have all been just a huge bonus to what we are already trying to accomplish.

Sure, our future success depends on these picks, but our current team (now with Hayward!) is certainly exciting to watch.

[mmmmm]

First Pelton, now Nate and Danny pop our balloons.

The Celtics got a C minus offseason grade.  They were disappointed with what Danny did.

They don't love Tatum.
They don't love Bradley trade.
They don't love Baynes.

There are even more stinging remarks...when it rains, it pours.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/duncdon

Who in their right mind would love the Sixers trade?

#1 for #3 + one protected lotto pick??

Let's face it, that's terrible value for a #1 pick. Had anyone proposed this trade a couple of months ago, people would believe he is most likely trolling.

As for the Pistons trade, I think it's rather obvious that Bradley is a better player than Marcus Morris (not to mention we gave them a second rounder as well). In a vacuum, Pistons won the trade. Obviously, we had no leverage cause we needed the cap space to sign Hayward, but at the end of the day we should have planned ahead.

You know I think I'll go with the opinion of the GM who's won a championship and put together a hell of a rebuild over a random CB poster.

Danny didn't make the deal because he's not "in [his] right mind", he made the deal because he saw little difference between the #1 and #3 prospects and saw a chance to get a potentially very valuable asset (with very little downside unless you think the Kings and Sixers will be playoff teams in 2 years) in exchange for moving down.  Calling it "one protected lotto pick" ignores the fact that most of the protections (ie 6-30 protection and right to swap) are in our favor

I would clarify, that he didn't necessarily see it as "little distance".   He just had to see it as less difference than the value of the LAL18/SAC19 pick.   And that pick has a LOT of value because while it has no chance of being a #1, it essentially has a boosted probability of being #2-5 in one of the next two drafts, and is tied to the fate of two of the worst teams in the NBA right now.

The bottom-protection it has in '18 was a brilliant move.

[mmmmm]

Oh no, two journalists didn't like our offseason

"journalists" == anybody who can type into a blog or record a mediacast in front of a phone these days.

[mmmmm]

Win now & win later are not mutually exclusive. We did moves that improved our short term while worsen our long term.

To got Gordon Hayward, we lost two key players:

Avery Bradley - best perimeter defender and sadly our best rebounder.

KellyO - He was inconsistent and pain in the ass but his presence on the court was huge for his. His ability to play stretch 5 was invaluable.

Well, sure.  But we also added two guys (Theis, Yabusele) who should also be able to play 'stretch 5' (in addition to Al Horford, who we already had).   Yabusele in particular projects to have a very similar offensive skill set to KO but with more athleticism.   Obviously, he's very young.  We'll need to be patient.

As of this moment, the PHI trade is bad trade. We essentially gave the up the #1 pick for the #3 pick and some pick that could fall in the range of #2-14. Right now it is too much variance to say we got equal value. 

Us taking Fultz gives us long term pg security. For some there are concerns with maxing IT2. Is his game going to age well? Will the hip injury be an issue long term? Will his defense be a problem when things matters?

Perhaps this says more about Danny's view of Thomas' current and long-term health prognosis?   He just might be a little more informed about it than you or I.   Plus, Danny has always been adamant about NOT drafting based on positional needs so I don't think he would put too much weight on that.

To them and many others Fultz is the best prospect. Sure Tatum can be better in the long run but as now Fultz better.

I personally liked and still like Fultz the best out of this draft and would have probably done the 'safe' thing and just picked him.   But even though I believe Fultz was firmly the consensus #1, I don't see the gap between him and the next few guys as ridiculous.  It's not like this is Tim Duncan, towering over Keith Van Horn and Chauncey Billups.   Fultz is a better prospect, but Tatum is not far behind.

And the value of the the LAL18/SAC19 pick is really huge.   If that turns out to be a top 5 pick in either of the next two drafts then it's a clear win for Danny.  Even if it only ends up as a #14 in '19, it's still a shot worth having taken. 

Heh, maybe we'll end up with Manute's kid or Shaq's kid or Giannis' little brother.   That's looking like "the pedigree draft".  LOL!

[mmmmm]

We got the guy Ainge wanted.  Almost all of the analysts had Fultz as the clear #1 prospect.  Clearly Duncan and Leroux fall into this camp.  They also don't think Tatum was the best prospect available at #3.  And finally they think the Lakers and Kings are going to be better than expected and that we won't get a top 3 pick with it.  If they turn out to be correct, we definitely won't be better in the long term.  Furthermore as they said, taking Tatum basically commits us to pay big bucks to IT. 

1) If they think the Lakers are going to be better, they are probably right.  But the problem is, being 'better' isn't likely to result in any more wins.  Because the Western Conference ALL got better.  Even arguably horrible teams like SAC and PHO actually should be improved over last year.  And everyone else looks dramatically improved -- moreso by good margin than I think LAL improved themselves.   So where are the wins going to come from with which to improve the Laker's record?  They'll have to get them from the bad teams in the East.  But they only get a handful of those and half of those will be on the road.

2) Danny doesn't seem to be too worried about how much he's going to be paying IT.  He's blatantly suggested that fans and media should not worry about it.

As for the short-term Hayward isn't that much better than Bradley.  Morris is a pretty good addition but I don't particularly like Baynes as our starting C.  To be better (in the playoffs, don't care about regular season) in the short-term, we're going to need some of the younger players to step up.

Seriously?   I love Bradley.  And it sucks that he couldn't spend his whole career in green.   And Morris is, imho, a thoroughly mediocre NBA rotation level player.

But to suggest Hayward "isn't that much better than Bradley" is ... nuts.   Hayward is a massively more valuable basketball player than Avery.  Hayward accrued almost as many Win Shares of value (10.4) as Avery has in his entire career (14.4).   Other than maybe on-ball defense of quick guards, there isn't much I can think of on the basketball court that Hayward isn't as good or better at.  And in some very important cases, massively better.

[mmmmm]

Calling it "one protected lotto pick" ignores the fact that most of the protections (ie 6-30 protection and right to swap) are in our favor

Are they? What if the Lakers land #6 next year and the Kings land #7 (or worse) in 2019? How are the protections in our favor in that case?

Because it gives you another shot at a top pick. It's the same reason that anyone here would (well, should) take a pick with the 7th best lottery odds over a guaranteed #7 pick.  Yes, there's the minuscule chance that it drops to a slightly weaker pick #8, #9, or #10, but that's by far outweighed by the chance that it jumps to the way more valuable #1, #2, or #3 picks.

Come on man! We both know what I meant. What if the Lakers 2018 pick ends up at #6 and the Kings 2019 pick ends up at #7 (or worse)? How are the protections in our favor in that case?

That's an "after-the-fact" (What if) evaluation.   It doesn't change the valuation right now.

The point of the protections is to boost the probabilities on slots 2-5 (at the cost of giving up a chance at #1).

The way to think of the pick is to think of it primarily as the Sacramento 2019 pick, top-1 protected.  On top of that, there is a pretty decent chance that it will convey instead as a pick in the 2-5 range in 2018.

I mean, if you want to take the stance that the Lakers, Kings, and 76ers are all going to become powerhouses overnight and we'll get an awful pick, be my guest.  But it's far more likely that we end up with a top 5 pick than an awful one.

Well, if I had to guess I'd say that the Lakers pick will not convey and the Kings pick will end up in mid to late lottery territory. The Kings will have tons of cap space next season. Given that there are very few teams around the league with available cap space, it's highly likely that the Kings are gonna sign at least one quality free agent in 2018. Another thing is, we are talking about the Kings : they are always willing to speed up their rebuilding process no matter if they are ready for the next step or not. They have already traded their 2019 pick, so they 'll have all the incentive in the world to make a win now move in the 2018 free agency.

Now that we are nearing the end of off-season moves, and have a clearer picture of how the teams look, I would not bet large amounts of money on the Lakers getting out of the bottom 5 this year.   They are almost certainly still going to be one of the three worst teams in the West.  And unlike the bad teams in the East, they have to play all the much-improved Western teams 4 or 3 times each.