Problem: Lottery picks for #3 seed Celtics

[BitterJim]

The Net's picks we are getting along with our competitive team presents a peculiar problem for this team. Are we in win mode now (which means we do not have playing time for Rookies) or are we building for the future (which requires heavy playing time for our rookies). It is really a perplexing and complex issue for the front office and coaching staff.

So Bloggers, the multiple Nets' picks, blessing? Yes. But does it not create a conundrum for the front office on a strategy going forward? Win now versus Build for future.

False premise based on the idea that our young guys don't get minutes, because the team is too good.  They don't get minutes, because they aren't good enough to get minutes.

Presumably the player we get with the 2017 Brooklyn pick will be good enough to get major minutes right away.   Marcus Smart was good enough for minutes right away.  Jaylen isn't.  Partially because Smart was an NBA-ready prospect with star potential from what was thought to be a great draft...  and Jaylen is a very raw prospect from a weak draft.  Luckily 2017 is supposed to be awesome up top so we'll probably get someone who can make an impact right away.  Sounds like even if the pick falls in the 5-8 range, we're getting a better prospect than Jaylen.

LB- I agree with a lot of what you write, except for when you start labelling our prospects. Why do you assume that a 22 yr old and a 20 yr old are anything close to what they will be in their prime (ages 26-32)? I think it is a key flaw in your logic. Weak draft? Are you Mel Kiper? I don't think we can judge these things until years after.

Is immediate impact the goal from selecting a 19 year old? I always thought that the draft process was more painful than FA acquisitions because of the wait.

When did he do that in his post?

As for calling it a weak draft, he's referring to how prospects are generally viewed for the draft.  2014 had a lot of highly regarded prospects, so it was considered strong.  2016, not so much, so it's considered weaker.  That doesn't mean that they won't exceed their expectations, but Smart and Brown aren't viewed as elite prospects.  They could become elite players, like Giannis or Kawhi Leonard have (neither was considered at great prospect at draft time), but that doesn't change the fact that they are not elite prospects

2016 wasn't remotely considered a weak class -- it was considered to be somewhat lacking in potential superstar talent (although that's because there was one of those players instead of 2-3) , but one of the deepest in terms of producing potential rotation players.  2013 was weak.  2016 was not perceived that way, at all.

I agree, it's not a weak draft, but it definitely looks like a weaker draft than 2014 (at least so far)

[celticsclay]

I've been saying for awhile that at some point in the near future, Boston is absolutely going to need to make a decision on what direction it wants to go.  I believe that decision point is this summer.  If it continues along in the current direction it will quickly enter the land of mediocrity with no way to get out.

Let's say for the sake of argument this is how it goes for the Celts in the next year or so:

Jimmy Butler trade talk resurfaces around the time of the draft, but the Celts remain unwilling to meet the asking price, which is Smart, Crowder or Bradley plus both of the remaining BRK picks.

They draft one of the point guards at the top of the draft -- Fultz, Ball, or Smith.  They use the T-Wolves 2nd rounder on a draft-and-stash guy.

They let Jerebko, Amir, Zeller, Green go in free agency.

They explore signing Paul Millsap or Serge Ibaka in free agency, but they end up getting max deals, which is too rich for how the Celts value them.  Blake Griffin re-signs with the Clips.

The Celts sign Taj Gibson and Andrew Bogut to short-term deals (1+1).

They re-sign Kelly Olynyk to a four year deal.

Yabu and Zizic sign with the team.

Before the start of the season, the Celts extend Marcus Smart on a reasonable deal.

This is the roster the Celts enter next season with:

Thomas / *Fultz* / Jackson
Bradley / Smart / Rozier
Crowder / Brown / Yabu
Gibson / Olynyk / Mickey
Horford / Bogut / Zizic


Where is the danger of "entering the land of mediocrity with no way out" here?

You've got 3 guys taken in the top 10 of the draft between 2014 and 2017 on that bench, plus a lottery pick from 2013. 

Guys like Gibson and Bogut can fill spots in the big rotation for the short-term without tying up the cap sheet in the long run. 

Maybe that team goes far in the playoffs, maybe not.  But they're not locked into anything long term.



The following summer, the Celts can make a decision about whether to re-sign Thomas and Bradley.

Even if they do, they would still have Smart, Olynyk, Brown, Rozier, Jackson, Yabu, Zizic, 2017 BRK 1st and 2018 BRK 1st as the next generation of Celts.

At the same time, Thomas, Crowder, Bradley, and Horford should continue to be productive, and will be possible to move for assets if the team decides to shift the focus toward developing the young guys.

I just don't see the urgency to "pick a direction" here.

Nailed it Moranis. People like to throw around phrases like Mediocrity without much thought. If we didn't have IT, Horford, Crowder or Bradley and were in total rebuild the best we would still get this year is whatever the Nets give us. The nets would just get a better swap pick from us possibly screwing us over next year. It literally could not make sense to try and have blown it up this season.

[LarBrd33]

The Net's picks we are getting along with our competitive team presents a peculiar problem for this team. Are we in win mode now (which means we do not have playing time for Rookies) or are we building for the future (which requires heavy playing time for our rookies). It is really a perplexing and complex issue for the front office and coaching staff.

So Bloggers, the multiple Nets' picks, blessing? Yes. But does it not create a conundrum for the front office on a strategy going forward? Win now versus Build for future.

False premise based on the idea that our young guys don't get minutes, because the team is too good.  They don't get minutes, because they aren't good enough to get minutes.

Presumably the player we get with the 2017 Brooklyn pick will be good enough to get major minutes right away.   Marcus Smart was good enough for minutes right away.  Jaylen isn't.  Partially because Smart was an NBA-ready prospect with star potential from what was thought to be a great draft...  and Jaylen is a very raw prospect from a weak draft.  Luckily 2017 is supposed to be awesome up top so we'll probably get someone who can make an impact right away.  Sounds like even if the pick falls in the 5-8 range, we're getting a better prospect than Jaylen.

LB- I agree with a lot of what you write, except for when you start labelling our prospects. Why do you assume that a 22 yr old and a 20 yr old are anything close to what they will be in their prime (ages 26-32)? I think it is a key flaw in your logic. Weak draft? Are you Mel Kiper? I don't think we can judge these things until years after.

Is immediate impact the goal from selecting a 19 year old? I always thought that the draft process was more painful than FA acquisitions because of the wait.

Any player can exceed expectations.  Isaiah Thomas was the last pick in the draft.  But there's a reason why scouts say a prospect like John Wall was better than a prospect like Perry Jones even if both had theoretical "star potential" entering the draft.

This might deserve it's own thread.  There was a post I really liked on Reddit recently that didn't get enough attention.  The guy was trying to find a way for grading prospects based on a system he found for grading Hockey prospects.   Here's the basic idea...

Let's say every prospect has a ceiling that can be defined by the following tiers:

1. Generational talent
2. Elite Talent
3. Perennial All-Star
4. All-Star
5. Fringe All-Star
6. Plus Starter/Elite Role Player
7. Solid Starter/Plus Reserve
8. Rotation
9. Replacement level
10. Roster filler

Makes sense, right?  So here's the part this Reddit user stumbled on that I loved... While these prospects might have similar "ceilings", the thing missing is the likeliness that they were reach that ceiling.  So while John Wall and Perry Jones might have both had tier 3 "Perennial All-Star" potential, there's a reason why we didn't look at Perry Jones as an equal-level prospect to John Wall. 

He suggested that the next level of prospect evaluation is adding a letter grade modifier that speaks to our expectations that the player will actually reach their ceiling:

A – All but guaranteed to reach potential. 100 percent metaphysical certitude that the player will play up to his abilities as noted by his potential rating.

B – Should reach potential, could drop 1 tier – likely to reach potential, but may have a hole or two in his game that will keep him from reaching his full potential.

C – May reach potential, could drop 2 tiers – has shown some flashes, but may ultimately not have what it takes to reach his potential.

D – Unlikely to reach potential, could drop 3 tiers.

F – Not worth drafting/signing

I love this.  When combining both, you can talk about these prospects more clearly.  For instance, I'd say Karl Towns entered the league with "1" (Generational Talent) potential with a "B" multiplier (Should reach potential - may drop 1 tier)... or perhaps you'd call Towns a "2" (elite talent) with "A" multipler (all but guaranteed to reach potential). 

So if you're comparing John Wall and Perry Jones, you might say a prospect like John Wall was a "3" (perennial all-star) potential with a "B" multipler (should reach potential - may drop 1 tier) while calling a prospect like Perry Jones a "3" (perennial all-star potential) with a "D" multipler (unlikely to reach potential - could drop 3 tiers).

So you can say they have similar ceilings, but one is seen as far more likely to reach that ceiling.   That's how you can have someone say Brandon Ingram is a superior prospect to Jaylen Brown despite both having theoretical star potential.  Ingram is thought to be more likely to reach his ceiling.

Does that make sense?   Obviously, players can exceed expectations or disappoint, but if we're talking about how prospects are seen pre-draft, there's a reason why some are drafted ahead of others and looking at prospects in this manner might help.   

So playing along with the above...  I'd say that currently Jaylen is an 8 (rotation) who has 4 potential (all-star) with a C multiplier (May reach potential, could drop 2 tiers). Though you could talk me into him having 3 potential (perennial all-star) with a D multiplier (unlikely to reach potential, could drop 3 tiers).

I'd say when Marcus joined the league I saw him as between a 7/8 (plus reserve) with 3 (Perennial all-star) potential with a B multiplier (should reach potential)...

But now that we are in season 3 of Marcus Smart, I'd say he's still a 7/8 (plus reserve), but I now see his ceiling as a 4 (all-star) with somewhere between a C (may reach potential) and D (unlikely to reach potential) multiplier.

Rozier I see as an 8 (rotation) with a 6 potential (plus starter/elite role player) with a C multiplier (may reach potential).

We still don't know enough about this 2017 draft, but it sounds like we might be looking at players up top who are ALREADY 7's (Solider starters) with "3" (Perennial all-star) potential with decent modifiers.   I don't personally watch College ball.  I leave it up to the draftniks of the board to make their more educated analysis.

But the bottom line is that outside of Simmons, 2016 was labelled a weak draft.  So far, it's living up to that billing.  If you eliminate the 2014 draftees, we're looking someone like 24 year old Malcolm Brogdon (a 2nd round pick) being the frontrunner for ROY.  Nobody from this draft is making much of an impact - Jaylen included.  Long term, maybe he develops into a great player, but right now he's one of several players proving draftniks were right when they called this draft mediocre.  These are the same draftniks that are calling this 2017 draft outstanding... so presumably whoever we end up with will have a better chance at rotation/starter minutes out of the gate.

[slamtheking]

The Net's picks we are getting along with our competitive team presents a peculiar problem for this team. Are we in win mode now (which means we do not have playing time for Rookies) or are we building for the future (which requires heavy playing time for our rookies). It is really a perplexing and complex issue for the front office and coaching staff.

So Bloggers, the multiple Nets' picks, blessing? Yes. But does it not create a conundrum for the front office on a strategy going forward? Win now versus Build for future.

this is a false assumption.  good teams with high picks have the luxury of bringing players along at a slower pace and not requiring them to produce immediately.  the idea is that it leads to better development of the player to fit with the team's structure.  I fail to see how adding top prospects to a  good team could possibly be a bad thing

only a false assumption if you do not want to answer the question. The question is .... are we building for future or win now team. We may be a good team, but we are not a championship team. Case in point. SA Spurs, their last championship team had the luxury of bringing along players like Leonard and Mills because they had established stars like Duncan Ginobilli and Parker. We are neither here or there, and that is my point. We are somewhere in the middle, and very soon we need to chart a course.

I did answer the question.  you don't need to give heavy minutes to young players on a "win now" team.  The young players will get court time as they improve.  it's not like there's a lot of veterans in their way right now --  only IT and Horford are significantly better than the youth we have.  (I still consider AB part of the youth). 

Ideally, in 2 years, Smart, Rozier, Brown, Zizic, Yabu, Nets '17 and Nets '18 (and maybe C's '18) are all looking like real go-getters and we've retained AB on a new contract as well as keeping Horford as a solid vet to guide the team.  Not sure IT will still be here at that point (figuring he probably will since he's the de facto face of the franchise) due to his anticipated contractual needs and his effectiveness limited to ball-dominant scoring.  The rest are disposable right now - KO, Crowder, JJ, Amir, Young, Jackson, Mickey, Green -- and figure to be replaced by the incoming draft picks and hopefully a really good FA or 2.   Not expecting much in the way of a trade.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Yeah, it's a real problem when a young #3 seed team that is still rising in production and competitiveness also has 2 top five picks the next two years. That's a real problem.

[greece66]

@Larbrd33

>There was a post I really liked on Reddit recently that didn't get enough attention.

If you are sure that a player will (not) reach his potential, I don't think >potential is the right word to use. With hindsight, many ppl will say that they were sure that X will be a superstar on draft day, but the reality is it's a hit and miss process even at the top of the draft.

I also do not feel comfortable about the classification of that reddit user (generational talent, elite talent etc). In many drafts you will have a one digit number of players falling in the first 5 cats, and many if not most, falling in the last 4. This cat system is very focused at the top talents, bypassing the fact that most draft players are not seen as All-Star calibre talents.

@Celtics18

You might be right about the 2013 draft, but LarBrd33's original statement was about how the draft was perceived at the time.

>what was thought to be a great draft...

I love LarBrd33 and appreciate his comments, but he often inserts bait material in otherwise uncontroversial comments. The result being volatile discussions.

[pearljammer10]

We are in the best position in the league besides GSW and Cleveland in my eyes. We have a competitive team that has the tools to win now and have two more lotto picks over the next two years to add to Brown and the rest of our asset ammo. We can continue to win, not worry about tanking, and wait til a big fish player comes available to make that win-now trade.

A lot are talking about "we need to make a decision one way or the other." Who is available right now that is going to turn us in to a win now contender? No one. Continue to be patient, keep building team chemistry and pile those assets to strike when it makes sense. If that player doesnt become available then we have three consecutive high lotto picks to ride into the future with after the Cavs break up.

We are really in a best case win win scenario.

[Moranis]

I've been saying for awhile that at some point in the near future, Boston is absolutely going to need to make a decision on what direction it wants to go.  I believe that decision point is this summer.  If it continues along in the current direction it will quickly enter the land of mediocrity with no way to get out.

Let's say for the sake of argument this is how it goes for the Celts in the next year or so:

Jimmy Butler trade talk resurfaces around the time of the draft, but the Celts remain unwilling to meet the asking price, which is Smart, Crowder or Bradley plus both of the remaining BRK picks.

They draft one of the point guards at the top of the draft -- Fultz, Ball, or Smith.  They use the T-Wolves 2nd rounder on a draft-and-stash guy.

They let Jerebko, Amir, Zeller, Green go in free agency.

They explore signing Paul Millsap or Serge Ibaka in free agency, but they end up getting max deals, which is too rich for how the Celts value them.  Blake Griffin re-signs with the Clips.

The Celts sign Taj Gibson and Andrew Bogut to short-term deals (1+1).

They re-sign Kelly Olynyk to a four year deal.

Yabu and Zizic sign with the team.

Before the start of the season, the Celts extend Marcus Smart on a reasonable deal.

This is the roster the Celts enter next season with:

Thomas / *Fultz* / Jackson
Bradley / Smart / Rozier
Crowder / Brown / Yabu
Gibson / Olynyk / Mickey
Horford / Bogut / Zizic


Where is the danger of "entering the land of mediocrity with no way out" here?

You've got 3 guys taken in the top 10 of the draft between 2014 and 2017 on that bench, plus a lottery pick from 2013. 

Guys like Gibson and Bogut can fill spots in the big rotation for the short-term without tying up the cap sheet in the long run. 

Maybe that team goes far in the playoffs, maybe not.  But they're not locked into anything long term.



The following summer, the Celts can make a decision about whether to re-sign Thomas and Bradley.

Even if they do, they would still have Smart, Olynyk, Brown, Rozier, Jackson, Yabu, Zizic, 2017 BRK 1st and 2018 BRK 1st as the next generation of Celts.

At the same time, Thomas, Crowder, Bradley, and Horford should continue to be productive, and will be possible to move for assets if the team decides to shift the focus toward developing the young guys.

I just don't see the urgency to "pick a direction" here.

Nailed it Moranis. People like to throw around phrases like Mediocrity without much thought. If we didn't have IT, Horford, Crowder or Bradley and were in total rebuild the best we would still get this year is whatever the Nets give us. The nets would just get a better swap pick from us possibly screwing us over next year. It literally could not make sense to try and have blown it up this season.

I've never suggested Boston should have blown it up this season, though I didn't see the point in the Horford signing and would have rather spent that money elsewhere.  But with Horford signed, it clearly signals Boston is trying to build a contender, which means at least one of the future Nets picks will get traded (perhaps not till this summer).

[saltlover]

I've been saying for awhile that at some point in the near future, Boston is absolutely going to need to make a decision on what direction it wants to go.  I believe that decision point is this summer.  If it continues along in the current direction it will quickly enter the land of mediocrity with no way to get out.

Let's say for the sake of argument this is how it goes for the Celts in the next year or so:

Jimmy Butler trade talk resurfaces around the time of the draft, but the Celts remain unwilling to meet the asking price, which is Smart, Crowder or Bradley plus both of the remaining BRK picks.

They draft one of the point guards at the top of the draft -- Fultz, Ball, or Smith.  They use the T-Wolves 2nd rounder on a draft-and-stash guy.

They let Jerebko, Amir, Zeller, Green go in free agency.

They explore signing Paul Millsap or Serge Ibaka in free agency, but they end up getting max deals, which is too rich for how the Celts value them.  Blake Griffin re-signs with the Clips.

The Celts sign Taj Gibson and Andrew Bogut to short-term deals (1+1).

They re-sign Kelly Olynyk to a four year deal.

Yabu and Zizic sign with the team.

Before the start of the season, the Celts extend Marcus Smart on a reasonable deal.

This is the roster the Celts enter next season with:

Thomas / *Fultz* / Jackson
Bradley / Smart / Rozier
Crowder / Brown / Yabu
Gibson / Olynyk / Mickey
Horford / Bogut / Zizic


Where is the danger of "entering the land of mediocrity with no way out" here?

You've got 3 guys taken in the top 10 of the draft between 2014 and 2017 on that bench, plus a lottery pick from 2013. 

Guys like Gibson and Bogut can fill spots in the big rotation for the short-term without tying up the cap sheet in the long run. 

Maybe that team goes far in the playoffs, maybe not.  But they're not locked into anything long term.



The following summer, the Celts can make a decision about whether to re-sign Thomas and Bradley.

Even if they do, they would still have Smart, Olynyk, Brown, Rozier, Jackson, Yabu, Zizic, 2017 BRK 1st and 2018 BRK 1st as the next generation of Celts.

At the same time, Thomas, Crowder, Bradley, and Horford should continue to be productive, and will be possible to move for assets if the team decides to shift the focus toward developing the young guys.

I just don't see the urgency to "pick a direction" here.

Nailed it Moranis. People like to throw around phrases like Mediocrity without much thought. If we didn't have IT, Horford, Crowder or Bradley and were in total rebuild the best we would still get this year is whatever the Nets give us. The nets would just get a better swap pick from us possibly screwing us over next year. It literally could not make sense to try and have blown it up this season.

I've never suggested Boston should have blown it up this season, though I didn't see the point in the Horford signing and would have rather spent that money elsewhere.  But with Horford signed, it clearly signals Boston is trying to build a contender, which means at least one of the future Nets picks will get traded (perhaps not till this summer).

It oughtn't.  Another team needs to be willing to deal a real star, All-NBA type player.  Consider that since going back to when LeBron came in the league, there has been at least one player each year on the All-NBA team who's had four or fewer years of experience.  Now that player isn't always the #1 overall pick, but they're usually a top 10 pick.  The way the Nets are going, it is very likely that such a player will be on the board when the Celtics pick this year.  In other words, a player who can make immediate contributions, and within a couple of seasons make star-level contributions.

Now, is it a guarantee the Celtics will pick this player? No, definitely not.  But you can't trade this year's Nets pick for anyone but a top 20 player.  And if you don't get offered one, you make the pick.  And you don't trade both of those picks for anyone short of Anthony Davis.

[Celtics18]

Larbrd33,

It's a neat system that you described above.  The trouble is that you are still dealing with a large degree of subjectivity when it comes to assigning the numbers and letters.

I love it when drafts and players end up turning the experts' prognostications  on their heads.  It happens more often than many like to admit. 

[green_bballers13]

The Net's picks we are getting along with our competitive team presents a peculiar problem for this team. Are we in win mode now (which means we do not have playing time for Rookies) or are we building for the future (which requires heavy playing time for our rookies). It is really a perplexing and complex issue for the front office and coaching staff.

So Bloggers, the multiple Nets' picks, blessing? Yes. But does it not create a conundrum for the front office on a strategy going forward? Win now versus Build for future.

False premise based on the idea that our young guys don't get minutes, because the team is too good.  They don't get minutes, because they aren't good enough to get minutes.

Presumably the player we get with the 2017 Brooklyn pick will be good enough to get major minutes right away.   Marcus Smart was good enough for minutes right away.  Jaylen isn't.  Partially because Smart was an NBA-ready prospect with star potential from what was thought to be a great draft...  and Jaylen is a very raw prospect from a weak draft.  Luckily 2017 is supposed to be awesome up top so we'll probably get someone who can make an impact right away.  Sounds like even if the pick falls in the 5-8 range, we're getting a better prospect than Jaylen.

LB- I agree with a lot of what you write, except for when you start labelling our prospects. Why do you assume that a 22 yr old and a 20 yr old are anything close to what they will be in their prime (ages 26-32)? I think it is a key flaw in your logic. Weak draft? Are you Mel Kiper? I don't think we can judge these things until years after.

Is immediate impact the goal from selecting a 19 year old? I always thought that the draft process was more painful than FA acquisitions because of the wait.

Any player can exceed expectations.  Isaiah Thomas was the last pick in the draft.  But there's a reason why scouts say a prospect like John Wall was better than a prospect like Perry Jones even if both had theoretical "star potential" entering the draft.

This might deserve it's own thread.  There was a post I really liked on Reddit recently that didn't get enough attention.  The guy was trying to find a way for grading prospects based on a system he found for grading Hockey prospects.   Here's the basic idea...

Let's say every prospect has a ceiling that can be defined by the following tiers:

1. Generational talent
2. Elite Talent
3. Perennial All-Star
4. All-Star
5. Fringe All-Star
6. Plus Starter/Elite Role Player
7. Solid Starter/Plus Reserve
8. Rotation
9. Replacement level
10. Roster filler

Makes sense, right?  So here's the part this Reddit user stumbled on that I loved... While these prospects might have similar "ceilings", the thing missing is the likeliness that they were reach that ceiling.  So while John Wall and Perry Jones might have both had tier 3 "Perennial All-Star" potential, there's a reason why we didn't look at Perry Jones as an equal-level prospect to John Wall. 

He suggested that the next level of prospect evaluation is adding a letter grade modifier that speaks to our expectations that the player will actually reach their ceiling:

A – All but guaranteed to reach potential. 100 percent metaphysical certitude that the player will play up to his abilities as noted by his potential rating.

B – Should reach potential, could drop 1 tier – likely to reach potential, but may have a hole or two in his game that will keep him from reaching his full potential.

C – May reach potential, could drop 2 tiers – has shown some flashes, but may ultimately not have what it takes to reach his potential.

D – Unlikely to reach potential, could drop 3 tiers.

F – Not worth drafting/signing

I love this.  When combining both, you can talk about these prospects more clearly.  For instance, I'd say Karl Towns entered the league with "1" (Generational Talent) potential with a "B" multiplier (Should reach potential - may drop 1 tier)... or perhaps you'd call Towns a "2" (elite talent) with "A" multipler (all but guaranteed to reach potential). 

So if you're comparing John Wall and Perry Jones, you might say a prospect like John Wall was a "3" (perennial all-star) potential with a "B" multipler (should reach potential - may drop 1 tier) while calling a prospect like Perry Jones a "3" (perennial all-star potential) with a "D" multipler (unlikely to reach potential - could drop 3 tiers).

So you can say they have similar ceilings, but one is seen as far more likely to reach that ceiling.   That's how you can have someone say Brandon Ingram is a superior prospect to Jaylen Brown despite both having theoretical star potential.  Ingram is thought to be more likely to reach his ceiling.

Does that make sense?   Obviously, players can exceed expectations or disappoint, but if we're talking about how prospects are seen pre-draft, there's a reason why some are drafted ahead of others and looking at prospects in this manner might help.   

So playing along with the above...  I'd say that currently Jaylen is an 8 (rotation) who has 4 potential (all-star) with a C multiplier (May reach potential, could drop 2 tiers). Though you could talk me into him having 3 potential (perennial all-star) with a D multiplier (unlikely to reach potential, could drop 3 tiers).

I'd say when Marcus joined the league I saw him as between a 7/8 (plus reserve) with 3 (Perennial all-star) potential with a B multiplier (should reach potential)...

But now that we are in season 3 of Marcus Smart, I'd say he's still a 7/8 (plus reserve), but I now see his ceiling as a 4 (all-star) with somewhere between a C (may reach potential) and D (unlikely to reach potential) multiplier.

Rozier I see as an 8 (rotation) with a 6 potential (plus starter/elite role player) with a C multiplier (may reach potential).

We still don't know enough about this 2017 draft, but it sounds like we might be looking at players up top who are ALREADY 7's (Solider starters) with "3" (Perennial all-star) potential with decent modifiers.   I don't personally watch College ball.  I leave it up to the draftniks of the board to make their more educated analysis.

But the bottom line is that outside of Simmons, 2016 was labelled a weak draft.  So far, it's living up to that billing.  If you eliminate the 2014 draftees, we're looking someone like 24 year old Malcolm Brogdon (a 2nd round pick) being the frontrunner for ROY.  Nobody from this draft is making much of an impact - Jaylen included.  Long term, maybe he develops into a great player, but right now he's one of several players proving draftniks were right when they called this draft mediocre.  These are the same draftniks that are calling this 2017 draft outstanding... so presumably whoever we end up with will have a better chance at rotation/starter minutes out of the gate.

I love the post LB. Well thought out.

My only difference of opinion is that I do watch college bball (not D3 or obscure games, but like to watch the top 25 when its on), and don't put as much weight with the so-called experts. Call this arrogance. I just don't think there is a consensus when it comes to drafting. Different sport, but I wonder what Belichick thinks of Mel Kiper's ratings. Why should it be any different for the NBA?

You consistently say that Jaylen Brown was in the 3-8 range, but we don't really know, b/c we don't have access to internal scouting discussions. A "draft expert" can postulate that a guy should be this or that, but again, he doesn't know. He only thinks. A better educated version of us.

In my opinion, each team is looking for different traits, and each scouting department may value certain traits over others. I don't think that Danny and Daryl Morey, for instance, value the same traits in basketball players (ie I don't think Danny values James Harden the same way). Danny might have an obscure conversation with a prospect and be immediately turned off. These non quantifiables are impossible to predict.

I was very impressed by Marcus Smart as a college player, and thought JB was ok. I have been less impressed by Smart's NBA offensive game, though I think he's a superior defender/glue guy at age 22. I think JB stands out in the practice gym, but haven't seen enough in-game tape in the NBA to formulate an opinion. I think its wayyy too early to make judgements on both guys.

[tazzmaniac]

Delete - wrong thread

[chambers]

The Net's picks we are getting along with our competitive team presents a peculiar problem for this team. Are we in win mode now (which means we do not have playing time for Rookies) or are we building for the future (which requires heavy playing time for our rookies). It is really a perplexing and complex issue for the front office and coaching staff.

So Bloggers, the multiple Nets' picks, blessing? Yes. But does it not create a conundrum for the front office on a strategy going forward? Win now versus Build for future.

False premise based on the idea that our young guys don't get minutes, because the team is too good.  They don't get minutes, because they aren't good enough to get minutes.

Presumably the player we get with the 2017 Brooklyn pick will be good enough to get major minutes right away.   Marcus Smart was good enough for minutes right away.  Jaylen isn't.  Partially because Smart was an NBA-ready prospect with star potential from what was thought to be a great draft...  and Jaylen is a very raw prospect from a weak draft.  Luckily 2017 is supposed to be awesome up top so we'll probably get someone who can make an impact right away.  Sounds like even if the pick falls in the 5-8 range, we're getting a better prospect than Jaylen.

LB- I agree with a lot of what you write, except for when you start labelling our prospects. Why do you assume that a 22 yr old and a 20 yr old are anything close to what they will be in their prime (ages 26-32)? I think it is a key flaw in your logic. Weak draft? Are you Mel Kiper? I don't think we can judge these things until years after.

Is immediate impact the goal from selecting a 19 year old? I always thought that the draft process was more painful than FA acquisitions because of the wait.

Any player can exceed expectations.  Isaiah Thomas was the last pick in the draft.  But there's a reason why scouts say a prospect like John Wall was better than a prospect like Perry Jones even if both had theoretical "star potential" entering the draft.

This might deserve it's own thread.  There was a post I really liked on Reddit recently that didn't get enough attention.  The guy was trying to find a way for grading prospects based on a system he found for grading Hockey prospects.   Here's the basic idea...

Let's say every prospect has a ceiling that can be defined by the following tiers:

1. Generational talent
2. Elite Talent
3. Perennial All-Star
4. All-Star
5. Fringe All-Star
6. Plus Starter/Elite Role Player
7. Solid Starter/Plus Reserve
8. Rotation
9. Replacement level
10. Roster filler

Makes sense, right?  So here's the part this Reddit user stumbled on that I loved... While these prospects might have similar "ceilings", the thing missing is the likeliness that they were reach that ceiling.  So while John Wall and Perry Jones might have both had tier 3 "Perennial All-Star" potential, there's a reason why we didn't look at Perry Jones as an equal-level prospect to John Wall. 

He suggested that the next level of prospect evaluation is adding a letter grade modifier that speaks to our expectations that the player will actually reach their ceiling:

A – All but guaranteed to reach potential. 100 percent metaphysical certitude that the player will play up to his abilities as noted by his potential rating.

B – Should reach potential, could drop 1 tier – likely to reach potential, but may have a hole or two in his game that will keep him from reaching his full potential.

C – May reach potential, could drop 2 tiers – has shown some flashes, but may ultimately not have what it takes to reach his potential.

D – Unlikely to reach potential, could drop 3 tiers.

F – Not worth drafting/signing

I love this.  When combining both, you can talk about these prospects more clearly.  For instance, I'd say Karl Towns entered the league with "1" (Generational Talent) potential with a "B" multiplier (Should reach potential - may drop 1 tier)... or perhaps you'd call Towns a "2" (elite talent) with "A" multipler (all but guaranteed to reach potential). 

So if you're comparing John Wall and Perry Jones, you might say a prospect like John Wall was a "3" (perennial all-star) potential with a "B" multipler (should reach potential - may drop 1 tier) while calling a prospect like Perry Jones a "3" (perennial all-star potential) with a "D" multipler (unlikely to reach potential - could drop 3 tiers).

So you can say they have similar ceilings, but one is seen as far more likely to reach that ceiling.   That's how you can have someone say Brandon Ingram is a superior prospect to Jaylen Brown despite both having theoretical star potential.  Ingram is thought to be more likely to reach his ceiling.

Does that make sense?   Obviously, players can exceed expectations or disappoint, but if we're talking about how prospects are seen pre-draft, there's a reason why some are drafted ahead of others and looking at prospects in this manner might help.   

So playing along with the above...  I'd say that currently Jaylen is an 8 (rotation) who has 4 potential (all-star) with a C multiplier (May reach potential, could drop 2 tiers). Though you could talk me into him having 3 potential (perennial all-star) with a D multiplier (unlikely to reach potential, could drop 3 tiers).

I'd say when Marcus joined the league I saw him as between a 7/8 (plus reserve) with 3 (Perennial all-star) potential with a B multiplier (should reach potential)...

But now that we are in season 3 of Marcus Smart, I'd say he's still a 7/8 (plus reserve), but I now see his ceiling as a 4 (all-star) with somewhere between a C (may reach potential) and D (unlikely to reach potential) multiplier.

Rozier I see as an 8 (rotation) with a 6 potential (plus starter/elite role player) with a C multiplier (may reach potential).

We still don't know enough about this 2017 draft, but it sounds like we might be looking at players up top who are ALREADY 7's (Solider starters) with "3" (Perennial all-star) potential with decent modifiers.   I don't personally watch College ball.  I leave it up to the draftniks of the board to make their more educated analysis.

But the bottom line is that outside of Simmons, 2016 was labelled a weak draft.  So far, it's living up to that billing.  If you eliminate the 2014 draftees, we're looking someone like 24 year old Malcolm Brogdon (a 2nd round pick) being the frontrunner for ROY.  Nobody from this draft is making much of an impact - Jaylen included.  Long term, maybe he develops into a great player, but right now he's one of several players proving draftniks were right when they called this draft mediocre.  These are the same draftniks that are calling this 2017 draft outstanding... so presumably whoever we end up with will have a better chance at rotation/starter minutes out of the gate.

So you believe that Marcus Smart has All Star potential?
Do my eyes deceive me???!!??