Author Topic: The Big Bane Fallacy  (Read 5082 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

The Big Bane Fallacy
« on: January 26, 2022, 09:42:29 PM »

Offline Ed Monix

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2040
  • Tommy Points: 213
  • Signature move: Punch to the jejunum
Dear Celtics fans,

I love you, but please let the "they should have kept Desmond Bane" stuff go.

He was drafted for Memphis in a pre-arranged trade. Boston never "had" him. Had they kept the pick, we have no idea if the Celtics would have drafted Bane.

Keith Smith
(CelticsBlog)
5' 10" former point guard

Career highlight: 1973-74 championship, Boston Celtics

Career lowlight: traded for a washing machine

Re: The Big Bane Fallacy
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2022, 10:02:50 PM »

Offline footey

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16039
  • Tommy Points: 1837
Dear Celtics fans,

I love you, but please let the "they should have kept Desmond Bane" stuff go.

He was drafted for Memphis in a pre-arranged trade. Boston never "had" him. Had they kept the pick, we have no idea if the Celtics would have drafted Bane.

Keith Smith
(CelticsBlog)

We had the 30th pick. He was drafted with the 30th pick. We could have drafted him.

Re: The Big Bane Fallacy
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2022, 10:05:43 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8986
  • Tommy Points: 583
There's no fallacy.  Celtics had the #30 pick and Bane was available.  Bane could have been a Celtic.  Nothing forced Ainge to trade the pick.  If Ainge had kept the pick and chosen someone else, it would still have been a poor draft decision.     

Re: The Big Bane Fallacy
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2022, 10:06:12 PM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 45920
  • Tommy Points: 3340
BBBAAAAANNNNNNNEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

I would've taken him with the 14th pick and said so before the draft. He was ready to go!!!


WWWWHHHHHYYYYYYYYY???????

Re: The Big Bane Fallacy
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2022, 10:07:10 PM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 45920
  • Tommy Points: 3340
The real Bane Fallacy is that you can have too many shooters, you can't.

Re: The Big Bane Fallacy
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2022, 10:37:43 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 62688
  • Tommy Points: -25472
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
It was a silly trade.  We didn’t even trade the #30 to dump Kanter, as Portland took him into a trade exception for no draft pick compensation.   We just didn’t want another rookie.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: The Big Bane Fallacy
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2022, 10:45:43 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8986
  • Tommy Points: 583
It was a silly trade.  We didn’t even trade the #30 to dump Kanter, as Portland took him into a trade exception for no draft pick compensation.   We just didn’t want another rookie.
Exactly.  And it isn't like we didn't have deadwood on the roster. 

Re: The Big Bane Fallacy
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2022, 10:59:04 PM »

Offline Celtics2021

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7940
  • Tommy Points: 1033
It was a silly trade.  We didn’t even trade the #30 to dump Kanter, as Portland took him into a trade exception for no draft pick compensation.   We just didn’t want another rookie.

Yes, it was a terrible trade.  If we needed to dump salary and have one fewer younger players, I’d be shocked if someone wouldn’t have taken pick #47 to take Carsen Edwards off our hands.  Then we could have kept Enes, not signed Thompson, and been under the tax when we traded for Fournier, thus meaning we wouldn’t have had to dump Theis for nothing.

Maybe we wouldn’t have taken Bane.  I was hoping for Tillman myself, but it doesn’t really matter.  It’s not like the prior year when we trade from 24 to get a future first to move Aaron Baynes — at least there we cleared max cap room.  This time it was just to get a more expensive backup center who no one got along with.

Re: The Big Bane Fallacy
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2022, 05:08:05 AM »

Online RodyTur10

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2824
  • Tommy Points: 298
  • Always offline from 9pm till 3am
TP, Celtics2021.

All these moves where we gave up value/assets for non-basketball reasons. Like when we drafted Yabusele and Zizic just because we wanted to stash first round picks. Kanter and Theis are great examples where we made trades that had nothing to do with improving the team.

Re: The Big Bane Fallacy
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2022, 08:06:57 AM »

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13751
  • Tommy Points: 2061
  • Sometimes there's no sane reason for optimism
It was a silly trade.  We didn’t even trade the #30 to dump Kanter, as Portland took him into a trade exception for no draft pick compensation.   We just didn’t want another rookie.

And we got two future 2nds out of the trade - adequate compensation for the #30 pick (which is one pick away from being a 2nd itself). Imo, the Bane fallacy is that we traded a 1st to dump Kanter. I see this misconception everywhere. C21 did a nice job above outlining how easy it would be to have kept #30 had Ainge wanted to add another guaranteed 1st round contract to the roster.

Would I like to have Bane? Sure. But we didn't take him - time to move on.

Re: The Big Bane Fallacy
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2022, 08:28:29 AM »

Offline boscel33

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2836
  • Tommy Points: 173
It was a silly trade.  We didn’t even trade the #30 to dump Kanter, as Portland took him into a trade exception for no draft pick compensation.   We just didn’t want another rookie.

And we got two future 2nds out of the trade - adequate compensation for the #30 pick (which is one pick away from being a 2nd itself). Imo, the Bane fallacy is that we traded a 1st to dump Kanter. I see this misconception everywhere. C21 did a nice job above outlining how easy it would be to have kept #30 had Ainge wanted to add another guaranteed 1st round contract to the roster.

Would I like to have Bane? Sure. But we didn't take him - time to move on.

I think the question that can't be answered is, even if the C's sat tight and drafted at 30, was Bane on their radar?  My answer to that, is maybe, but they probably would have gone big here since they had just drafted a SG at 14, a PG at 26, I still think they look at Carey.
"There's sharks and minnows in this world. If you don't know which you are, you ain't a shark."

Re: The Big Bane Fallacy
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2022, 08:37:26 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
It was a silly trade.  We didn’t even trade the #30 to dump Kanter, as Portland took him into a trade exception for no draft pick compensation.   We just didn’t want another rookie.

And we got two future 2nds out of the trade - adequate compensation for the #30 pick (which is one pick away from being a 2nd itself). Imo, the Bane fallacy is that we traded a 1st to dump Kanter. I see this misconception everywhere. C21 did a nice job above outlining how easy it would be to have kept #30 had Ainge wanted to add another guaranteed 1st round contract to the roster.

Would I like to have Bane? Sure. But we didn't take him - time to move on.

Exactly. Yes, it's a fallacy. Memphis got Bane the same way we got Rondo. The pick was traded and we selected Bane for Memphis and Phoenix selected Rondo for Boston.

In both cases there was zero pre-draft rumors that Boston wanted Bane or Phoenix wanted Rondo. Both teams instead of drafting those players could have selected someone else if they kept the pick.

It's all just a silly fallacy we should have "kept" Bane. It's just another draft miss like:

2016 where the team missed out on Siakam and Dejonte Murray or
2015 with Randle or Lavine or
2013 with Giannis or
2012 with Draymond and Middleton.

You can second guess the draft in hindsight all you want. It doesn't change anything. Move on.

Re: The Big Bane Fallacy
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2022, 09:09:17 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 62688
  • Tommy Points: -25472
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Quote
You can second guess the draft in hindsight all you want. It doesn't change anything. Move on.

Not going to happen, nick.  We're still second-guessing the 2001 draft.  Hell, some people still second guess the 1989 draft.  Celtics fans don't move on.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: The Big Bane Fallacy
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2022, 09:13:23 AM »

Offline todd_days_41

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1463
  • Tommy Points: 1074
  • B2B 2022 and 2023 Trade Deadline Guru
Quote
You can second guess the draft in hindsight all you want. It doesn't change anything. Move on.

Not going to happen, nick.  We're still second-guessing the 2001 draft.  Hell, some people still second guess the 1989 draft.  Celtics fans don't move on.

.... yeah talking about the present with a team stapled to .500 isn't all that fun. Talking about the past and the future is the yin and yang of hope and frustration as a fan.


Re: The Big Bane Fallacy
« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2022, 09:21:37 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Quote
You can second guess the draft in hindsight all you want. It doesn't change anything. Move on.

Not going to happen, nick.  We're still second-guessing the 2001 draft.  Hell, some people still second guess the 1989 draft.  Celtics fans don't move on.
Yeah, I know. But, doesn't hurt to try.