Keep Simons draft a bruiser

[NHHillbilly]

I think Celtics should keep Anfernee Simons. A microwave shooter who can also drive to the basket is too valuable to trade for a mediocre center. Simons is a championship caliber shooter.
Celtics will pick the top prospect available with their draft pick, but sometimes they do pick for a need. Maybe they should pick the best rebounding power forward regardless of any other talent. Paul Silas was a champ. Dennis Rodman was a champ. With all the shooting they already have, they should be able to afford a rebounding and D instead of the 3 and D player. In the bottom 15 of the draft are some names with stats that would fit the bill of a strong rebounder who weigh 230 - 250 lbs and seem to have a little more hops than Garza.

JT Toppin Texas Tech 11.5 reb/game
Flory Bidunga Kansas 10.7 reb/game
Morez Johnson Jr. Michigan 10.7 reb/game
Patrick Ngongba Duke 9.8 reb/game
Chris Cenac Jr Houston 11.4 reb/game

What do you think? The trade prospects for center and power forward are almost as boring as bottom half of the round draft picks.

[Jiri Welsch]

In my opinion, keeping Simons is only viable if he signs a team-friendly deal longer term.

If they have a sense that he would be willing to re-sign to something much smaller than his current $27 million per year, then maybe it's worth considering. But if that's not possible, they might be better served using him as a trade piece.

The other point of your post -- namely drafting a big regardless of what else is available -- is something I'm fine with. More than likely they'll be picking around 20-25 anyway. History tells us it's a crapshoot at that point.

[slamtheking]

In my opinion, keeping Simons is only viable if he signs a team-friendly deal longer term.

If they have a sense that he would be willing to re-sign to something much smaller than his current $27 million per year, then maybe it's worth considering. But if that's not possible, they might be better served using him as a trade piece.

The other point of your post -- namely drafting a big regardless of what else is available -- is something I'm fine with. More than likely they'll be picking around 20-25 anyway. History tells us it's a crapshoot at that point.

always draft BPA.  biggest blown draft picks are the ones made based on need (whether it's position or ability to stash overseas).  you can always play talent or trade it for what you need later

[Jiri Welsch]

In my opinion, keeping Simons is only viable if he signs a team-friendly deal longer term.

If they have a sense that he would be willing to re-sign to something much smaller than his current $27 million per year, then maybe it's worth considering. But if that's not possible, they might be better served using him as a trade piece.

The other point of your post -- namely drafting a big regardless of what else is available -- is something I'm fine with. More than likely they'll be picking around 20-25 anyway. History tells us it's a crapshoot at that point.

always draft BPA.  biggest blown draft picks are the ones made based on need (whether it's position or ability to stash overseas).  you can always play talent or trade it for what you need later

Ehh, I think there's more nuance than that. A lot of player success can be attributed to the team they're drafted to (and opportunities present) rather than some innate and inevitable ability to "make it" or "not make it."

I don't think drafting a big (among a few possible good options) means a team is necessarily engaging in drafting malpractice.

[slamtheking]

In my opinion, keeping Simons is only viable if he signs a team-friendly deal longer term.

If they have a sense that he would be willing to re-sign to something much smaller than his current $27 million per year, then maybe it's worth considering. But if that's not possible, they might be better served using him as a trade piece.

The other point of your post -- namely drafting a big regardless of what else is available -- is something I'm fine with. More than likely they'll be picking around 20-25 anyway. History tells us it's a crapshoot at that point.

always draft BPA.  biggest blown draft picks are the ones made based on need (whether it's position or ability to stash overseas).  you can always play talent or trade it for what you need later

Ehh, I think there's more nuance than that. A lot of player success can be attributed to the team they're drafted to (and opportunities present) rather than some innate and inevitable ability to "make it" or "not make it."

I don't think drafting a big (among a few possible good options) means a team is necessarily engaging in drafting malpractice.

if there's players available of comparable rating when a team picks but one better fits a position of need, then it makes sense to take that player

[Jiri Welsch]

In my opinion, keeping Simons is only viable if he signs a team-friendly deal longer term.

If they have a sense that he would be willing to re-sign to something much smaller than his current $27 million per year, then maybe it's worth considering. But if that's not possible, they might be better served using him as a trade piece.

The other point of your post -- namely drafting a big regardless of what else is available -- is something I'm fine with. More than likely they'll be picking around 20-25 anyway. History tells us it's a crapshoot at that point.

always draft BPA.  biggest blown draft picks are the ones made based on need (whether it's position or ability to stash overseas).  you can always play talent or trade it for what you need later

Ehh, I think there's more nuance than that. A lot of player success can be attributed to the team they're drafted to (and opportunities present) rather than some innate and inevitable ability to "make it" or "not make it."

I don't think drafting a big (among a few possible good options) means a team is necessarily engaging in drafting malpractice.

if there's players available of comparable rating when a team picks but one better fits a position of need, then it makes sense to take that player

'

Yeah I guess that's my point. If they're picking in the mid-20s in this year's draft, I think that range means there isn't a clear cut "best player"

[slamtheking]

In my opinion, keeping Simons is only viable if he signs a team-friendly deal longer term.

If they have a sense that he would be willing to re-sign to something much smaller than his current $27 million per year, then maybe it's worth considering. But if that's not possible, they might be better served using him as a trade piece.

The other point of your post -- namely drafting a big regardless of what else is available -- is something I'm fine with. More than likely they'll be picking around 20-25 anyway. History tells us it's a crapshoot at that point.

always draft BPA.  biggest blown draft picks are the ones made based on need (whether it's position or ability to stash overseas).  you can always play talent or trade it for what you need later

Ehh, I think there's more nuance than that. A lot of player success can be attributed to the team they're drafted to (and opportunities present) rather than some innate and inevitable ability to "make it" or "not make it."

I don't think drafting a big (among a few possible good options) means a team is necessarily engaging in drafting malpractice.

if there's players available of comparable rating when a team picks but one better fits a position of need, then it makes sense to take that player

'

Yeah I guess that's my point. If they're picking in the mid-20s in this year's draft, I think that range means there isn't a clear cut "best player"

not necessarily.  say the C's are picking 23 which is where I think they are coming into tonight.  there may be 3-4 guys considered relatively equal as prospects but none of them are centers.  say the centers left are considered to be more longshot-ish where there's another 3-4 players considered better prospects than them.  in no way would I expect the team to reach for a center with that pick.  take the player that looks to be more of a sure thing. 

[No Nickname]

In my opinion, keeping Simons is only viable if he signs a team-friendly deal longer term.

If they have a sense that he would be willing to re-sign to something much smaller than his current $27 million per year, then maybe it's worth considering.

I wonder if he'd be open to a four-year, $84MM type of deal ($21MM/yr). 

It's less than his current average, but gives him some security. 

Or maybe he wants to try and raise his value by playing for a championship contender like the Cs?

So a two-year, player option on the second year, $49MM deal ($24.5MM/yr)?

[Goldstar88]

In my opinion, keeping Simons is only viable if he signs a team-friendly deal longer term.

If they have a sense that he would be willing to re-sign to something much smaller than his current $27 million per year, then maybe it's worth considering.

I wonder if he'd be open to a four-year, $84MM type of deal ($21MM/yr). 

It's less than his current average, but gives him some security. 

Or maybe he wants to try and raise his value by playing for a championship contender like the Cs?

So a two-year, player option on the second year, $49MM deal ($24.5MM/yr)?

No way I?d pay that much for Simons. He?s a decent microwave scorer, but that?s about it. Pritchard is making $7M this year and Hauser is at $10M. You can?t give Simons that kind of money.

[Neurotic Guy]

In my opinion, keeping Simons is only viable if he signs a team-friendly deal longer term.

If they have a sense that he would be willing to re-sign to something much smaller than his current $27 million per year, then maybe it's worth considering.

I wonder if he'd be open to a four-year, $84MM type of deal ($21MM/yr). 

It's less than his current average, but gives him some security. 

Or maybe he wants to try and raise his value by playing for a championship contender like the Cs?

So a two-year, player option on the second year, $49MM deal ($24.5MM/yr)?

No way I?d pay that much for Simons. He?s a decent microwave scorer, but that?s about it. Pritchard is making $7M this year and Hauser is at $10M. You can?t give Simons that kind of money.

I think that?s what you?ll have to pay Pritchard.  More valuable than Simons.

[obnoxiousmime]

In my opinion, keeping Simons is only viable if he signs a team-friendly deal longer term.

If they have a sense that he would be willing to re-sign to something much smaller than his current $27 million per year, then maybe it's worth considering.

I wonder if he'd be open to a four-year, $84MM type of deal ($21MM/yr). 

It's less than his current average, but gives him some security. 

Or maybe he wants to try and raise his value by playing for a championship contender like the Cs?

So a two-year, player option on the second year, $49MM deal ($24.5MM/yr)?

No way I?d pay that much for Simons. He?s a decent microwave scorer, but that?s about it. Pritchard is making $7M this year and Hauser is at $10M. You can?t give Simons that kind of money.

I think that?s what you?ll have to pay Pritchard.  More valuable than Simons.

Yeah, this is what I'd be concerned about with re-signing Simons. Pritchard is a professional and wouldn't publicly say anything, but it'd be natural to be a little miffed that they have similar roles (I am assuming eventually Pritchard will go back to the bench on the next "contending" version of the team) but one is making possibly close to double what he is currently.

The only reason Pritch signed for so little is because the year he was up for extension was Joe's first when he jerked his minutes around and he had a down year. This is also the year that Pritch was so unhappy he asked for a trade.

While Simons has been good and you can never have too many shooters, that money could be better allocated elsewhere so the roster is balanced again between guards/wings/bigs. Thinking ahead, you also do have to consider how you'll be paying Queta in the 2027 offseason (and Garza, Walsh as well).

[Larry for 3]

In my opinion, keeping Simons is only viable if he signs a team-friendly deal longer term.

If they have a sense that he would be willing to re-sign to something much smaller than his current $27 million per year, then maybe it's worth considering.

I wonder if he'd be open to a four-year, $84MM type of deal ($21MM/yr). 

It's less than his current average, but gives him some security. 

Or maybe he wants to try and raise his value by playing for a championship contender like the Cs?

So a two-year, player option on the second year, $49MM deal ($24.5MM/yr)?

No way I?d pay that much for Simons. He?s a decent microwave scorer, but that?s about it. Pritchard is making $7M this year and Hauser is at $10M. You can?t give Simons that kind of money.

Exactly. Paying Simons that kind of money is something the Kings or the Bulls would do. In this apron era no way you pay that. Everybody shoots 3 now unfortunately. You can find another guy for cheap to do the same thing.

[Neurotic Guy]

WT