Rumors: Boston Celtics might trade 3rd overall pick in 2016 NBA draft for Okafor

[PickNRoll]

In 2002, Ricky Davis averaged 20.6 points per game.

He was a BAD player. I'm sure there many other examples.

I think by BAD you mean "guys with a score-first mentality" or guys who don't play the "Celtic way".  I don't think Davis was "bad".

Basketball is a "Team" sport. In that regard I consider Ricky Davis "Bad". I agree he had a lot of talent and was a high flyer but that's about it in my eyes.

Ricky Davis had the same disease as Starbury and (especially late career) Josh Smith. They were too worried about "getting theirs" and were oblivious about the concept of bettering the overall team.

Of course there were many posts begging Danny to go get Josh Smith a few years ago. From some of the same people who are begging for Okafor. The same folks have not learned the concept of empty stats.

That's not fair to Okafor.  I agree with everything you said, except putting an elite post scorer down on the block can absolutely better the team.  And I can't stand j smith.

[Vermont Green]

I like Okafor.  I would trade the #3 for him.  Much of my reasoning is that there is less risk in Okafor than Bender.  Okafor has a body of work (for better or worse) in high level NCAA and in the NBA.  Bender simply does not and so it is not possible to know as much about Bender as you know about Okafor.  If we did know more about Bender, it would probably reveal both strengths and weaknesses much as we know more about Okafor's weaknesses.

My ceiling comp for Okafor is Andrew Bynum.  Remember this trade?

The Sixers acquired All-Star center Andrew Bynum and guard Jason Richardson as part of a four-team trade involving Denver, the Los Angeles Lakers and Orlando.  The Sixers traded forward Andre Iguodala to the Nuggets while sending forward Maurice Harkless and center Nik Vucevic to the Magic along with a protected first round pick.

Okafor even has the start of bad knees but I found it interesting that Bynum played for the Sixers and now they have Okafor.

My comp for Bender is much more difficult because you don't know much about him.  Based on what I have seen, I am seeing a stronger more athletic Pau Gasol.

Either one of these are great but I prefer more certainty with this valuable pick.  We have other picks we can go for more potential and risk.

[BitterJim]

I like Okafor.  I would trade the #3 for him.  Much of my reasoning is that there is less risk in Okafor than Bender.  Okafor has a body of work (for better or worse) in high level NCAA and in the NBA.  Bender simply does not and so it is not possible to know as much about Bender as you know about Okafor.  If we did know more about Bender, it would probably reveal both strengths and weaknesses much as we know more about Okafor's weaknesses.

My ceiling comp for Okafor is Andrew Bynum.  Remember this trade?

The Sixers acquired All-Star center Andrew Bynum and guard Jason Richardson as part of a four-team trade involving Denver, the Los Angeles Lakers and Orlando.  The Sixers traded forward Andre Iguodala to the Nuggets while sending forward Maurice Harkless and center Nik Vucevic to the Magic along with a protected first round pick.

Okafor even has the start of bad knees but I found it interesting that Bynum played for the Sixers and now they have Okafor.

My comp for Bender is much more difficult because you don't know much about him.  Based on what I have seen, I am seeing a stronger more athletic Pau Gasol.

Either one of these are great but I prefer more certainty with this valuable pick.  We have other picks we can go for more potential and risk.

He was on the 76ers roster, I don't think he actually PLAYED for them though lol

[LarBrd33]

That's about as far as I got.

You aren't understanding my point.  If you don't have players who can shoot or score, one method of scoring might be through creating turnovers and having fast breaks.  Philly's team was garbage, but one thing it had was athletic and explosive d-league talent.   

By suggesting my argument is that "Okafor was so bad on defense he dragged down the offense", I have to assume you aren't understanding what I'm talking about.  Nerlens Noel is an exceptional defensive player.  His defense is actually one of the lone bright spots of that roster.  In-fact, during the 2014-15 season, Philly's defense was #1 in the entire league in minutes Noel played.  Fast-forward a year and Philly is trying to integrate Okafor into a rotation that has no supporting pieces for Okafor's game.  When Okafor is on the floor, Noel was playing out of position and not doing what he does best - creating offense through defense.

If you're unfamiliar with the concept of creating offense through defense, you might want to read up on the 1960s Celtics.   Bill Russell wasn't a great offensive player.  Do you think Boston's offense was better or worse with Russell off the court? 

Anyways... this is getting boring.  People don't get it with Okafor.  It's fine.  Ainge does.  That's all that matters.  Hopefully Ainge can get him.

Still waiting for someone to look up the on court/off court rookie stats for guys like Anthony Davis as a rookie.  If it was 5+ points better without him, does that mean the #1 factor in the stat was that they were bad with Davis on the court?  heh.

You're right. I'm not understanding your point because you fail to make one besides "he's awesome" and "throw out every statistic besides 17ppg because of various illogical reasons but don't throw out that one". That seems to be your entire point and typical of your style you'll repeat it ad nauseam despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. 

It's remarkable how delusional you can be at (ahem, most) times. "Ainge does"? Are you Danny Ainge? Are you the priest in his confessional? Do you have some sort of psychic connection with him? Is he whispering trade ideas along with sweet nothings on your pillow? No? Too bad. Then just like virtually everyone else here you have no idea whatsoever what Ainge thinks. Except the one or two folks on this board who are in the Celtics front office. Which ain't you, despite however much you think you may deserve it. Ainge may love Okafor. Ainge may loathe Okafor. Until there's a bonafide trade offer on the table, we don't have any real clue what Ainge thinks about Okafor.

If you're still waiting for someone to compare Anthony Davis to Okafor? Go to http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/davisan02.html and http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/okafoja01.html. Do your own research (for once). Here's a hint: it's not going to help your argument trying to compare Davis to Okafor.   

It's like shooting fish in a barrel....

You aren't getting it.  Okafor is a fantastic prospect and had a respectable rookie season.  People are quoting advanced stats out of context that they don't understand to somehow paint the picture that Okafor is terrible and will remain terrible.  It's nonsense.  These are the same advanced stats that would make Anthony Davis and DeMarcus cousins look terrible as rookies.   It is what it is.  Context matters.

Ainge has been trying to get Okafor for a year now.  Philly has continued to turn down his offers, but Ainge will keep trying.  If you don't like it, I guess your best hope is that Simmons/INgram slips or someone makes a better offer than a package built around the #3 pick, because it seems it still has a distinct possibility of happening if Philly decides to finally sell low on Okafor.

It's actually a great thing that these advanced stats exist, though...  because without them there's little hope we'd get a prospect on Okafor's level for a package built around the 3rd pick in this draft.  Keep quoting these stats.  Create a mass e-mail and forward it to the Philly brass.  Maybe we can con them out of Okafor.

[Granath]

You aren't getting it.  Okafor is a fantastic prospect and had a respectable rookie season.  People are quoting advanced stats out of context that they don't understand to somehow paint the picture that Okafor is terrible and will remain terrible.  It's nonsense.  These are the same advanced stats that would make Anthony Davis and DeMarcus cousins look terrible as rookies.   It is what it is.  Context matters.

No, you aren't getting it. As usual you throw little butt nuggets out there without ever verifying whether they're true.

Player A - Win Shares 6.1, BPM 2.3, VORP 2.0. And you call that terrible?
Player B - Win Shares 1.9, BPM -1.4, VORP 0.4
Player C - Win Shares 1.2, BPM -4.1, VORP -0.8

Care to guess who each player is?

Do you know how many players in the NBA posted a worse +/- last year who had at least 1,000 minutes of playing time? 11 players. Rashard Vaughn. Ty Lawson. JaKarr Sampson. Nick Young. Archie Goodwin. Kevin Martin. Emmanuel Mudiay. Shabazz  Muhammad. PJ Harrison. Marco Belinelli. Omer Asik. That's like the All-Bad NBA team. That's some pretty rarefied company there.

Ainge has been trying to get Okafor for a year now.

Pure speculation. Let's repeat it. Pure speculation. Thanks for playing, please try again. We already covered this. NEXT!

PS - repeating something incessantly doesn't mean it's true.

It's actually a great thing that these advanced stats exist, though...  because without them there's little hope we'd get a prospect on Okafor's level for a package built around the 3rd pick in this draft.  Keep quoting these stats.  Create a mass e-mail and forward it to the Philly brass.  Maybe we can con them out of Okafor.

Oh, I'm sure they're already well aware of these stats. Maybe that's why there are constant rumors about Philly shopping him around the league? Who knows?

Gotta hand it to you Lar, at least you're consistent(ly wrong). Anthony Bennett. Nik Stauskas. I guess Okafor is your new flavor of the month.

[PhoSita]

I think everybody in this argument is trying to prove way too much with stats that mean very little as they were generated within the Bermuda Triangle that is that tanking Sixers team. They played 82 exhibition matches and had a handful of NBA caliber players on the roster.

You really cannot place so much emphasis on stats coming out of that mess, especially plus minus and the like, which are flawed without context even when you're using them in relation to a normal team.

[LarBrd33]

You aren't getting it.  Okafor is a fantastic prospect and had a respectable rookie season.  People are quoting advanced stats out of context that they don't understand to somehow paint the picture that Okafor is terrible and will remain terrible.  It's nonsense.  These are the same advanced stats that would make Anthony Davis and DeMarcus cousins look terrible as rookies.   It is what it is.  Context matters.

No, you aren't getting it. As usual you throw little butt nuggets out there without ever verifying whether they're true.

Player C - Win Shares 1.2, BPM -4.1, VORP -0.8

Do you think it's a coincidence that Nelrens Noel had the highest "win shares" on Philly, the highest "box score plus/minus" on Philly, the highest "value over replacement" on Philly ... and that Philly's "success" (if you can even call it that) happened when Noel was allowed to play his natural center position with Okafor on the bench?

Do you not see the connection there?   If they played their best with Noel at center, doesn't it suggest they'd be at their worst without Noel at center? 

Again, my point is that you have to look at those stats in context.  It has less to do with Okafor being a garbage player and more to do with any semblance of Philly success happening with Noel doing what Noel does best - which Noel could not do while sharing the court with Okafor.   

And again, when we say "success" we're barely talking about success.  Philly sucked either way, because Philly was a garbage roster intentionally.   But one of the only things that semi-worked for them this year was a defense-centric quick lineup built around Noel.   Obviously, they didn't have the players or system in place for Okafor (who is neither quick nor defense-centric) - which doesn't matter, because Okafor was always a sitting duck they never intended to build around.  It's pretty known they drafted Okafor because he was believed to be the best player available and would retain trade value for when they were ready to move him - something that would be proven true if they were able to move him for a package built around the #3 pick.   That's a luxury they might not have had if they had drafted for positional need and taken Mudiay like a lot of fans felt they should have.

[PickNRoll]

You aren't getting it.  Okafor is a fantastic prospect and had a respectable rookie season.  People are quoting advanced stats out of context that they don't understand to somehow paint the picture that Okafor is terrible and will remain terrible.  It's nonsense.  These are the same advanced stats that would make Anthony Davis and DeMarcus cousins look terrible as rookies.   It is what it is.  Context matters.

No, you aren't getting it. As usual you throw little butt nuggets out there without ever verifying whether they're true.

Player C - Win Shares 1.2, BPM -4.1, VORP -0.8

Do you think it's a coincidence that Nelrens Noel had the highest "win shares" on Philly, the highest "box score plus/minus" on Philly, the highest "value over replacement" on Philly ... and that Philly's "success" (if you can even call it that) happened when Noel was allowed to play his natural center position with Okafor on the bench?

Do you not see the connection there?   If they played their best with Noel at center, doesn't it suggest they'd be at their worst without Noel at center? 

Again, my point is that you have to look at those stats in context.  It has less to do with Okafor being a garbage player and more to do with any semblance of Philly success happening with Noel doing what Noel does best - which Noel could not do while sharing the court with Okafor.   

And again, when we say "success" we're barely talking about success.  Philly sucked either way, because Philly was a garbage roster intentionally.   But one of the only things that semi-worked for them this year was a defense-centric quick lineup built around Noel.   Obviously, they didn't have the players or system in place for Okafor (who is neither quick nor defense-centric) - which doesn't matter, because Okafor was always a sitting duck they never intended to build around.  It's pretty known they drafted Okafor because he was believed to be the best player available and would retain trade value for when they were ready to move him - something that would be proven true if they were able to move him for a package built around the #3 pick.   That's a luxury they might not have had if they had drafted for positional need and taken Mudiay like a lot of fans felt they should have.

I actually do think it's coincidence.  First of all, when you win 10 games, win shares is rendered meaningless.  Second, as I stated earlier, any advanced stat analysis of this sixer team is useless.  It's a team engineered to lose.  They had 2 or 3 NBA caliber players -- Okafor, Ish Smith, and probably somebody I'm forgetting.  They literally had no chance to succeed with or without Okafor in any lineup.

The D-league players that they had thrived in one specific situation --  a frantic, hectic up-and-down pace riddled with turnovers and questionable shot selection.  I use the term "thrived" very loosely.  Basically, if an opponent would engage them in a "D-league game", they could sometimes compete with speed, length and forcing turnovers.  Does this work for Okafor?  Nope.  Is he still the best player on the team by a country mile?  Yep.

[mmmmm]

This whole small ball thing is largely a myth.  Small ball wasn't invented yesterday. If you have Mullin, Hardaway and Richmond, you just play them together because they're all d@mn good.  If you have Nash and Barbosa and Raja Bell and you want to push the pace with QRich at the 4 and Amare at 5, go ahead Dantoni.  This doesn't mean big guys are a liability.  There is no rule that says you need to match your opponent when they go small.  Why would you?  You don't have Steph, Klay and Draymond.  It's a personnel decision.  Sometimes you should zig when the league zags.  I'd rather sick the dogs (AB, Smart, Crowder) on them defensively then punish them in the paint with a guy like Okafor.  I think OKC laid a decent blueprint with Adams, Kanter and Ibaka, but strayed for some reason.

Yep.  Shocking news:  The way to win more games is to put your best basketball players on the floor as much as possible.

[PickNRoll]

This whole small ball thing is largely a myth.  Small ball wasn't invented yesterday. If you have Mullin, Hardaway and Richmond, you just play them together because they're all d@mn good.  If you have Nash and Barbosa and Raja Bell and you want to push the pace with QRich at the 4 and Amare at 5, go ahead Dantoni.  This doesn't mean big guys are a liability.  There is no rule that says you need to match your opponent when they go small.  Why would you?  You don't have Steph, Klay and Draymond.  It's a personnel decision.  Sometimes you should zig when the league zags.  I'd rather sick the dogs (AB, Smart, Crowder) on them defensively then punish them in the paint with a guy like Okafor.  I think OKC laid a decent blueprint with Adams, Kanter and Ibaka, but strayed for some reason.

Yep.  Shocking news:  The way to win more games is to put your best basketball players on the floor as much as possible.

Revolutionary.  If you have 2 of the best 3 shooters in history you should play them.  AT THE SAME TIME!  With Iguodala or Barnes, and Draymond.  Kerr is a genius.

[mmmmm]

Ainge has been trying to get Okafor for a year now.

Pure speculation. Let's repeat it. Pure speculation. Thanks for playing, please try again. We already covered this. NEXT!

PS - repeating something incessantly doesn't mean it's true.

LOL - since when has that ever stopped him?

[Croc Hunter]

If NN is on the table I'd rather trade for him than Okafor then go out and find scorers through other avenues.