Why I expect that we will move down in the draft

[Boris Badenov]

So you're presuming that other teams have a binkie but discounting the idea that the Celts may have one too?

No. That's not what I said at all.

[jpotter33]

So something like:

WCS and 8 for KO and 3?

Middleton and 10 for Bradley and 3?

Lavine and 5 for Rozieror Bradley and 3?

I think the Kings one is a decent idea if they like Bender. Could pick up an Ellenson to play at the 4, though I'd prefer Noel to WCS.

[Boris Badenov]

So something like:

WCS and 8 for KO and 3?

Middleton and 10 for Bradley and 3?

Lavine and 5 for Rozieror Bradley and 3?

I think the Kings one is a decent idea if they like Bender. Could pick up an Ellenson to play at the 4, though I'd prefer Noel to WCS.

I could see the Kings liking the idea of a Dunn/Cousins pairing.

I doubt the Kings would be as excited about a project, unless they plan to move Cousins.

[Vegas Green]

So something like:

WCS and 8 for KO and 3?

Middleton and 10 for Bradley and 3?

Lavine and 5 for Rozieror Bradley and 3?

I think the Kings one is a decent idea if they like Bender. Could pick up an Ellenson to play at the 4, though I'd prefer Noel to WCS.

Why are we also giving up a player in these swaps?  If they want to move up then they have to give their pick PLUS a player.  C's shouldn't have to give up anyone.  The above deals are garbage for the C's if they have to throw in Bradley or KO or anyone, well, James Young maybe...

[PhoSita]

So something like:

WCS and 8 for KO and 3?

Middleton and 10 for Bradley and 3?

Lavine and 5 for Rozieror Bradley and 3?

I think the Kings one is a decent idea if they like Bender. Could pick up an Ellenson to play at the 4, though I'd prefer Noel to WCS.

I wouldn't do any of those deals.


WCS and Lavine might not even earn time on our team since operating within a team concept on both ends actually matters.

I like Middleton but I don't think he's enough of a two way player to justify trading Bradley and the 3 for him.  The 10 pick does nothing for me in this draft, you can get a decent enough player at 16.

[PhoSita]

But why?


Celtics have plenty of picks and young players.  They don't need the extra assets.

Celtics should either trade the pick for established players that will help them (all-star level)

or draft the best player on their list.

You can never have enough assets because you never know when you will need them to make a blockbuster move.

If Boston doesn't want (fill in name of player) but (fill in name of other team) does very badly, then I can see a move slightly backwards to pick up a player that betters the team while still getting the person we want with our top pick.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the Celtics think tank

Rak

Exactly.

Unless we want our entire roster next season to be rookie contract guys, yes, you can have too many assets.

[droopdog7]

So you're presuming that other teams have a binkie but discounting the idea that the Celts may have one too?

No. That's not what I said at all.

Here is my take.  The draft from 3-8 is flat.  Nobody is trading up to #3 to grab a guy. 

[mef730]

The only way we move that #3 for full value is if somebody wants it that much more than we do. So if we are going with the binkie theory, the offer to Phoenix, Denver and Sacramento is a pick swap this year at the top, and we get their 2017 pick. I'm willing to throw in #23 or #31 if that's what it takes to get the deal done, but that would require a future second coming to us.

Mike

[Boris Badenov]

So you're presuming that other teams have a binkie but discounting the idea that the Celts may have one too?

No. That's not what I said at all.

Here is my take.  The draft from 3-8 is flat.  Nobody is trading up to #3 to grab a guy.

Right but "there is no consensus #3" is different from "all GMs value the #3-#8 guys equally."

I probably shouldn't have used the word "flat," sorry for the confusion. What I meant to say was that even without a consensus #3 there is probably one sucker GM out there who really values their #3 guy a lot higher than anyone else they think would be available at 6 or wherever.

Sort of like a winners curse phenomenon that Danny can exploit.

[bdm860]

The only way we move that #3 for full value is if somebody wants it that much more than we do. So if we are going with the binkie theory, the offer to Phoenix, Denver and Sacramento is a pick swap this year at the top, and we get their 2017 pick. I'm willing to throw in #23 or #31 if that's what it takes to get the deal done, but that would require a future second coming to us.

Mike

The only team in the top 10 that would offer a pick swap with the C's is the Raptors, maybe New Orleans if they absolutely loved a guy and didn't think he'd be there 3 spots later.

Boston won 48 games this year, I'd have to guess the very early forecast is that they will probably win 50+ games next year, absolute worst case they win around 35-40.

Teams generally only offer pick swaps when they expect to be better than you, or expect to be picking late in the draft.  Lottery teams don't offer to swap picks with playoff teams.

[mef730]

The only way we move that #3 for full value is if somebody wants it that much more than we do. So if we are going with the binkie theory, the offer to Phoenix, Denver and Sacramento is a pick swap this year at the top, and we get their 2017 pick. I'm willing to throw in #23 or #31 if that's what it takes to get the deal done, but that would require a future second coming to us.

Mike

The only team in the top 10 that would offer a pick swap with the C's is the Raptors, maybe New Orleans if they absolutely loved a guy and didn't think he'd be there 3 spots later.

Boston won 48 games this year, I'd have to guess the very early forecast is that they will probably win 50+ games next year, absolute worst case they win around 35-40.

Teams generally only offer pick swaps when they expect to be better than you, or expect to be picking late in the draft.  Lottery teams don't offer to swap picks with playoff teams.

Yup. Thus my belief that the binkie theory doesn't play out and that Murray or Dunn is a Celtic next year.

Mike