Quote from: boscel33 on December 23, 2025, 02:54:13 PM

Quote from: Roy H. on December 23, 2025, 02:15:49 PM

I don't know.  He's a long way away.

Should have taken Kalkbrenner or Raynaud.

Should have taken Kyle Filipowski!  I don't mind the Williams pick, it was in the second.  Kyle and Hugo would have been some good young blood on this team.

Interestingly, Filipowski was taken 32nd overall in 2024.  We had #30 that year, and #32 in 2025, when both Kalkbrenner and Raynaud were on the board.

Stats this season:

Filipowski: 9.5 points, 6.4 rebounds, 0.5 blocks
Kalkbrenner: 8.7 points, 6.4 rebounds, 1.8 blocks
Raynaud: 10.0 points, 5.8 rebounds, 0.5 blocks

well if we're going to play the woulda/coulda/shoulda draft let's look at 2016
#3 - JB - arguably would go #1 in a redraft
#16 - Yabu --> Should have grabbed Siakam who went 27
#23 - Zizic --> Should have grabbed Dejounte Murray who went 29
#31 - Devonte Davis who was traded but should have taken and kept Zubac who went at 32
#35 - Rade Zagorac who never played for us but should have taken Malcolm Brogdon who went at 36
#45 - Demetrius Jackson - Should have taken Georges Niang who went at 50
#51 - Ben Bentil -- of all the picks we could have traded or stashed someone, this was the one.
#58 - Abdel Nader actually played for us
If we grabbed Siakam, Murray, Zubac and Brogdon to go the JB, that's a playoff team that would be making deep runs nevermind adding Tatum the next draft.

Quote from: Moranis on December 23, 2025, 12:33:32 PM

Quote from: slamtheking on December 23, 2025, 12:05:32 PM

Quote from: BitterJim on December 23, 2025, 11:19:41 AM

Quote from: Moranis on December 23, 2025, 10:30:29 AM

Drafts are not equal so I'm not a fan of any proposal which eliminates a team from winning multiple years.  And you often need multiple high level picks to truly complete.  Now I can see the merit of eliminating some protection tiers, but otherwise this is mostly just the haves trying to keep the have nots from becoming the haves. 

Also, 10 years ago or so I actually analyzed the top pick in the lottery era to illustrate the shear difference in draft quality. I looked at the #1 pick only and broke then down by near consensus #1 to more open and then rated the picks on how good they were. It might be worth doing again, but a good illustration is the 2000 draft.  Kenyon Martin was a near consensus #1 pick that year. He also ended up being the best player in that draft.  So a homerun for the Nets i e  their choice was basically made and it hit, yet Kenyon Martin wasn't a franchise player and was never going to be the best player on a title team.  Now imagine the Nets are restricted from high picks for several years because they got Martin.  Or worse, you get the 1st pick in 2001 where there isn't  a consensus #1 and Kwame Brown is the 1st pick and the best player is a guy from Spain that went 3rd (Pau) and the 2nd best player is a Frenchman that went 28th (Parker).  Not all drafts are 2003 with Lebron or even 2004 with Dwight i.e. where there is a consensus #1 that ends up as the best player in the draft and is a franchise player.  Or like 2003 after LeBron with Anthony, Bosh, and Wade all being top 5 picks (and all better than Kenyon Martin). 

Because of the shear difference in draft quality I don't think they should restrict teams from drafting high in multiple drafts.  Just too much variance and that will put an even greater focus on tanking in the presumed right seasons i.e. a draft like 2003.

It would be interesting to introduce the consecutive lottery limits while adding the option for teams that won the lottery to refuse their spot (i.e. if you win the lottery in a weak draft, you have the option to keep your previous spot, but remain eligible for next year's lottery). That would prevent some instances of a bad team losing out on a strong draft just because they won in a weak draft, but also would really encourage that team to tank the next year to make it worth it.

Ultimately, the answer is probably going back to the previous lottery odds, plus limits on protections (and maybe make some limits around how you finished the year before, like teams that made the playoffs in 2025 couldn't put top 5 protections on their 2026/2027 picks, but could do lottery protection, and could do top 5 protection on later picks). Or the wheel, but that has always felt a bit like a solution in search of a problem.

the weakness or strength of a particular draft class shouldn't matter.  Team that gets the top pick is still in a better position than every other team and there's no telling how that player will turn out. 

one way to address the protections teams put on their picks is to eliminate that as an option for all teams so that picks convey regardless (which will likely put a kibosh on those second rounders protected 1-55 that are included in a number of deals just to send something out in a trade) or make it so that if protections are retained, they cannot continue protected for a number of years to where they hit a point where they don't convey or convert to second rounders.  If a team protects a pick 1-14 for a future year, they cannot put further protections on it for following years.

of course the strength of the draft matters.

The simple reality is most teams in the lottery are simply bad teams.  No amount of changes is going to change that fact. They need more talent and restricting them from getting more talent is going to destroy any semblance of parity because those teams are never going to get better.

and who's to say whether a particular draft is good or bad?  there's always sure-fire players that end up busts and players that teams take a flyer on that turn out to be great. 

teams should get periodic cracks at the top pick, not a constant, yearly attempt to cash-in.  Philly's unashamed 'process' is a prime example of a team being a league disgrace for years trying to cash in and it still not paying off because the players they pick all had/have flaws even though a number of them were considered great, if not generational, talents.

No one says anything about the draft quality but putting your head in the sand and pretending all drafts are the same doesn't make sense either.  Year to year the players at the top are of significantly different quality.  Any system that doesn't account for that is inherently flawed.

I've heard the Sixers stuff before it is mostly garbage.  The Thunder have tanked worse than the Sixers twice in the last 20 seasons and no one seems to care about that.  But the Sixers are also a good example that not all drafts are created equal.  All those high picks and they ended up no further than the 2nd round (they also only had the 1st pick once and then traded up for a second one). Though that was mostly from terrible moves after the tank job as much as anything. 

I don't know.  He's a long way away.

Should have taken Kalkbrenner or Raynaud.

Quote from: ozgod on December 23, 2025, 12:52:44 AM

Quote from: Alleyoopster on December 23, 2025, 12:02:27 AM

I noticed in a few games this year that opposing teams are isolating their taller, good shooting forwards against our smaller Celtic forwards. Sometimes it feels they are taking uncontested layups from 10 feet away because of the height differences.

When this happens, might it be a good idea for Joe to consider inserting a taller, defensive minded Amari into lineup? I realize he's not ready for prime time because of his lack of rebounding awareness. Anyone agree or disagree with trying out this strategy?

You're assuming he will be able to fulfill the task you expect of him at an NBA level. Personally, I think he needs a year in the G-league at least, before he's ready to be put in an NBA game and be expected to contribute. I could be wrong, but I've not seen anything that would suggest otherwise.

agreed.

Williams is "2 years away from being 2 years away".  He's shown nothing in the few minutes he's gotten that he'd contribute anything meaningful to the team this season.

I disagree that he is two years away from being two years away.  But he is not ready, and the Celtics did not expect him to be, as they signed him to a 2-way.

I didn't think this team was gonna be that good honestly. Like deep down I still thought play-in team because the bottom of the East is extra hideous, but that the team was very limited especially with a thin frontcourt.

But man. Jaylen has been sensational this year even as the #1 option, but more importantly Queta, Walsh and Hugo have made amazing strides this season and are contributing at a high level. Queta in particular has played like a starter and Hugo/Walsh have given them great minutes and some games have even won them almost on their own with crucial plays.

Crazy thing too is, White and PP haven't really played that well if you look at their seasons as a whole. If they pick it up and become even more consistent, that's great. Hauser's had good games but not as much, but again if he can find his shot a bit more consistently that's great help

They've also managed to figure it out even when Queta doesn't play or sits, but another center has to be the priority for Brad at the deadline.