Celtics trade grades?

[nickagneta]

I was a B at the time and still a B.

Same here.  I voted "B".  I'm not sure if that was a straight B, a B- or a B+.  Right now I'd say B+.  Maybe that should be an A-, though. 

Pluses:  White and Theis are good players and good fits for our team.  They make sense for the team right now and in the future.  White brings an element that has been missing since Horford in terms of an unselfish player who moves the ball seamlessly.  With the team shooting better overall, White's deficiencies aren't as big of a deal.  We're giving up, at worst, the #23 pick this year.

Minuses:  The pick swap still seems irresponsible.  White's contract concerns me a bit.

It looks like pick #26, which is much better than it was at the time of the trade.

Yeah, but that isn't the pick that is the real concern.

Who cares about the swap. It's years from now. The chance the pick is really bad is minimal and the team can always trade that pick swap for an asset beforehand and it won't affect anything. Much ado about nothing IMHO.

[Moranis]

I was a B at the time and still a B.

Same here.  I voted "B".  I'm not sure if that was a straight B, a B- or a B+.  Right now I'd say B+.  Maybe that should be an A-, though. 

Pluses:  White and Theis are good players and good fits for our team.  They make sense for the team right now and in the future.  White brings an element that has been missing since Horford in terms of an unselfish player who moves the ball seamlessly.  With the team shooting better overall, White's deficiencies aren't as big of a deal.  We're giving up, at worst, the #23 pick this year.

Minuses:  The pick swap still seems irresponsible.  White's contract concerns me a bit.

It looks like pick #26, which is much better than it was at the time of the trade.

Yeah, but that isn't the pick that is the real concern.

Who cares about the swap. It's years from now. The chance the pick is really bad is minimal and the team can always trade that pick swap for an asset beforehand and it won't affect anything. Much ado about nothing IMHO.

I care about the swap obviously.  Those are the kind of trades that can wreck havoc.  I'm sure the Nets were thinking the same thing about the picks they traded to Boston all those years ago.  Now, that was way more, but the swap is so far in the future there isn't a single player on the roster that will be on their current contract when that draft happens (the last contracts expire a full year before that).  If White plays a big role in winning Boston a title, then sure, it is worthwhile, but if Boston loses to Cleveland or Brooklyn in the 1st round or gets run off the court by the Bucks in the 2nd round, then those sorts of things start to matter more. 

[Celtics2021]

I was a B at the time and still a B.

Same here.  I voted "B".  I'm not sure if that was a straight B, a B- or a B+.  Right now I'd say B+.  Maybe that should be an A-, though. 

Pluses:  White and Theis are good players and good fits for our team.  They make sense for the team right now and in the future.  White brings an element that has been missing since Horford in terms of an unselfish player who moves the ball seamlessly.  With the team shooting better overall, White's deficiencies aren't as big of a deal.  We're giving up, at worst, the #23 pick this year.

Minuses:  The pick swap still seems irresponsible.  White's contract concerns me a bit.

It looks like pick #26, which is much better than it was at the time of the trade.

Yeah, but that isn't the pick that is the real concern.

Who cares about the swap. It's years from now. The chance the pick is really bad is minimal and the team can always trade that pick swap for an asset beforehand and it won't affect anything. Much ado about nothing IMHO.

I care about the swap obviously.  Those are the kind of trades that can wreck havoc.  I'm sure the Nets were thinking the same thing about the picks they traded to Boston all those years ago.  Now, that was way more, but the swap is so far in the future there isn't a single player on the roster that will be on their current contract when that draft happens (the last contracts expire a full year before that).  If White plays a big role in winning Boston a title, then sure, it is worthwhile, but if Boston loses to Cleveland or Brooklyn in the 1st round or gets run off the court by the Bucks in the 2nd round, then those sorts of things start to matter more.

You overthink the swap.  There is greater than a 50% chance it will have zero impact, because with no players under contract that long, it’s equally likely that the Celtics or Spurs will have a better record.  Further, if the C’s are a lottery team, there is some chance that they will get the #1 pick and it won’t convey either.  So more likely than not its final value will be nothing.

And if it is worth something, it’s still not likely to be a big shift.  As more teams than not make the playoffs, if the C’s have a worse record than the Spurs they are still likely to be outside the lottery.

In conclusion, most likely the pick won’t swap at all.  Next most likely is that it would be between two playoff teams.  The concern you have about a lottery/non-lottery swap is a very low probability event.  Meanwhile, Derrick White has been as advertised (very good) and is under contract for three more seasons after this.  He was definitely more than a first in the mid-20s.

[colincb]

I was a B at the time and still a B.

Same here.  I voted "B".  I'm not sure if that was a straight B, a B- or a B+.  Right now I'd say B+.  Maybe that should be an A-, though. 

Pluses:  White and Theis are good players and good fits for our team.  They make sense for the team right now and in the future.  White brings an element that has been missing since Horford in terms of an unselfish player who moves the ball seamlessly.  With the team shooting better overall, White's deficiencies aren't as big of a deal.  We're giving up, at worst, the #23 pick this year.

Minuses:  The pick swap still seems irresponsible.  White's contract concerns me a bit.

It looks like pick #26, which is much better than it was at the time of the trade.

Yeah, but that isn't the pick that is the real concern.

Who cares about the swap. It's years from now. The chance the pick is really bad is minimal and the team can always trade that pick swap for an asset beforehand and it won't affect anything. Much ado about nothing IMHO.

I care about the swap obviously.  Those are the kind of trades that can wreck havoc.  I'm sure the Nets were thinking the same thing about the picks they traded to Boston all those years ago.  Now, that was way more, but the swap is so far in the future there isn't a single player on the roster that will be on their current contract when that draft happens (the last contracts expire a full year before that).  If White plays a big role in winning Boston a title, then sure, it is worthwhile, but if Boston loses to Cleveland or Brooklyn in the 1st round or gets run off the court by the Bucks in the 2nd round, then those sorts of things start to matter more.

I don't think the PP/KG Nets trade is a reasonable comparison. It has to go down as one of the dumbest trades of all time, made by the immortal Billy King, and it looked crazy from the start. Pierce was going to be 36 and played one year for BKN, and KG was going to be 37 and played a year and a half. The two superstars were close to toast and had led the Cs team to a 41-40 record.

At +4.0, Derrick White has the 2nd highest RAPTOR score on the team after Tatum and is ranked at 42nd best in the NBA, is under a reasonable contract for three more years, and is 27. After his rookie year, when he played sparingly, White's RAPTOR scores have been 3.4, 3.7, and 4.6, and his rankings have been 27th, 32nd, and 18th.

[nickagneta]

I was a B at the time and still a B.

Same here.  I voted "B".  I'm not sure if that was a straight B, a B- or a B+.  Right now I'd say B+.  Maybe that should be an A-, though. 

Pluses:  White and Theis are good players and good fits for our team.  They make sense for the team right now and in the future.  White brings an element that has been missing since Horford in terms of an unselfish player who moves the ball seamlessly.  With the team shooting better overall, White's deficiencies aren't as big of a deal.  We're giving up, at worst, the #23 pick this year.

Minuses:  The pick swap still seems irresponsible.  White's contract concerns me a bit.

It looks like pick #26, which is much better than it was at the time of the trade.

Yeah, but that isn't the pick that is the real concern.

Who cares about the swap. It's years from now. The chance the pick is really bad is minimal and the team can always trade that pick swap for an asset beforehand and it won't affect anything. Much ado about nothing IMHO.

I care about the swap obviously.  Those are the kind of trades that can wreck havoc.  I'm sure the Nets were thinking the same thing about the picks they traded to Boston all those years ago.  Now, that was way more, but the swap is so far in the future there isn't a single player on the roster that will be on their current contract when that draft happens (the last contracts expire a full year before that).  If White plays a big role in winning Boston a title, then sure, it is worthwhile, but if Boston loses to Cleveland or Brooklyn in the 1st round or gets run off the court by the Bucks in the 2nd round, then those sorts of things start to matter more.

I don't think the PP/KG Nets trade is a reasonable comparison. It has to go down as one of the dumbest trades of all time, made by the immortal Billy King, and it looked crazy from the start. Pierce was going to be 36 and played one year for BKN, and KG was going to be 37 and played a year and a half. The two superstars were close to toast and had led the Cs team to a 41-40 record.

At +4.0, Derrick White has the 2nd highest RAPTOR score on the team after Tatum and is ranked at 42nd best in the NBA, is under a reasonable contract for three more years, and is 27. After his rookie year, when he played sparingly, White's RAPTOR scores have been 3.4, 3.7, and 4.6, and his rankings have been 27th, 32nd, and 18th.

It's also not a fair comparison because the Nets gave up 3 picks and a pick swap between picks. So the Nets had to live with that pick swap because they traded the picks around the swap so couldn't trade the swap for something due to the Stepien rule.

Boston has tons of time to move that swapped pick to render this entire hand wringing over it completely moot.

[Roy H.]

I was a B at the time and still a B.

Same here.  I voted "B".  I'm not sure if that was a straight B, a B- or a B+.  Right now I'd say B+.  Maybe that should be an A-, though. 

Pluses:  White and Theis are good players and good fits for our team.  They make sense for the team right now and in the future.  White brings an element that has been missing since Horford in terms of an unselfish player who moves the ball seamlessly.  With the team shooting better overall, White's deficiencies aren't as big of a deal.  We're giving up, at worst, the #23 pick this year.

Minuses:  The pick swap still seems irresponsible.  White's contract concerns me a bit.

It looks like pick #26, which is much better than it was at the time of the trade.

I think Dallas is at #26.  We landed at a three-way tie for #23, #24, #25.  Draft order doesn't follow the same tiebreakers as playoff seeding, so they'll decide that through "coin flips" at a later date.

[Vermont Green]

I agree that people seem to be far more concerned about a possible swap in 2028.  So even if you take that out of it assuming that the swap doesn't happen or that it is inconsequential, that leaves us giving up say pick 24 (it could be 23-25), Langford and Richardson for White.

So do people feel the deal is good unless we end up in the lottery in 2028 and have to give a highly valuable pick to the Spurs?

There is no doubt that the swap is a "free" roll of the dice for the Spurs.  It could, not likely, but could turn out to be of some value down the road but costs them nothing.  I think it is more likely that the Celtics are still good and that the Spurs are bad as Popovich is likely retired by then

I just don't see the "I like the trade but I can't believe we agreed to the swap" point of view.  The Celtics are optimistic that they will still be better than the Spurs for a long time.  They are probably right.

[sgrogan]

I think the trades were better in the aggregate than individually.
 
Shrode + Freedom + Brunor< Theis
We wanted some value for Shroder.
Theis provided injury insurance for Al and RWIII. If everyone was healthy he could provide "load management" minutes that Freedom couldn't.
Next year Thies provides some insurance for Al's contract situation.
B-

Richardson + Langford + 1st +swap = White
The swap seems to be in contention.
White make up for Shroder's penetration and distribution. He's on par with Richardson defensively.
I'm not crazy about Richarson/Brown + Pritchard. Much more comfortable with Smart/White + Pritchard.
Next year Smart/White seem to be similar in terms of contract and role.
C+

Combine the trades and I think its B+,
Better fit and insurance this year.
Insurance and flexibility going forward.

[Atzar]

Always liked the White trade.  I have some misgivings about the future swap but it's just the worst-case doomsday scenario that has people sweating it a bit.  The reality is that the swap's expected value is actually quite low, and it's probably more likely to have no value at all than it is to seriously hurt us. 

I was meh on the Theis trade.  I've come around some.  Part of my issue with this trade was my mistaken belief that Schroder had value as a cost-effective mercenary bench scorer.  He didn't.  Nobody wanted him.  He got us a player Houston wanted to get rid of in the first place. 

As for Theis himself, he's been useful, particularly in light of Rob's injury.  That said, I'm probably lower on him than a lot of this board.  He's shooting and finishing at rates significantly beyond his career best in terms of eFG%, and I'm somewhat wary of that heading into the playoffs.  I can't decide if I think he's due to crash back to Earth at some point, or if his improved efficiency is simply a result of the very high-quality shots our creators are generating for him (and I need to give him some credit here too - he's very good at playing off of our guys, rolling with timing and finding empty spaces in the opposing defense).  And while I view him as a good team defender who is usually in the right place, I do think he's vulnerable and foul-prone when teams attack him individually.  In the likely event that we see Brooklyn in the first round, he may be a weakness that the iso-heavy Nets can exploit.  Still, he's a solid bench piece, and while he's perhaps overexposed as a starter with Rob out, he's a substantial upgrade over what Freedom would have been.

[Big333223]

There's a lot of talk these days about "fit" and I think we're seeing why. White's raw numbers haven't been as good as Schroder's numbers were with the C's but the team plays much better on both offense and defense with White.

And take a look at Pritchard's numbers before and after the deadline: In 12mpg: 4.8ppg while shooting 38/37, and then in 17mpg 8.6ppg while shooting 48/46. Given the size and pg skills of Smart and White, being able to let a sharpshooter like Pritchard loose is great for the bench.

[Who]

I have some misgivings about the future swap but it's just the worst-case doomsday scenario that has people sweating it a bit.  The reality is that the swap's expected value is actually quite low, and it's probably more likely to have no value at all than it is to seriously hurt us. 

Expected value is a great phrase / description.

That is all I want to talk about here - expected value - nothing else. The idea of expected value.

My position is that a pick that far out has no expected value. You cannot reasonably predict a value upon that draft pick. I am fine with putting a value on this year's pick, next year's pick, two years time ... things start getting dicey 4 years out. 5 years out is complete darkness. You know nothing [edit: not quite nothing, whatever is next to nothing].

The number of teams in this league that are completely different to whom they were 5 years earlier is massive. Even talented teams, young teams, teams who were considered teams of the future, who within 5 years time end up being completely different to origin. To what fans expected of them; of where they expected their team to be. 

NBA teams change so much in such a short space of time. Average lifespan for a team is about 3-4 years. Giving a pick 5 years away is giving up an unknown value = not an expected value, an unknown value.

I am fine with giving up that unknown value if you are getting back a major bounty - a star talent. You take those risks in order to get those major difference makers. You swing for the fences because the return is so great.

You don't take those risks for a solid starter. For players like that you want to be able to put an expected value on what is going out because what is coming back is not great enough to swing wildly at the fences and hope for the best.

[sgrogan]

I have some misgivings about the future swap but it's just the worst-case doomsday scenario that has people sweating it a bit.  The reality is that the swap's expected value is actually quite low, and it's probably more likely to have no value at all than it is to seriously hurt us. 

Expected value is a great phrase / description.

That is all I want to talk about here - expected value - nothing else. The idea of expected value.

My position is that a pick that far out has no expected value. You cannot reasonably predict a value upon that draft pick. I am fine with putting a value on this year's pick, next year's pick, two years time ... things start getting dicey 4 years out. 5 years out is complete darkness. You know nothing [edit: not quite nothing, whatever is next to nothing].

The number of teams in this league that are completely different to whom they were 5 years earlier is massive. Even talented teams, young teams, teams who were considered teams of the future, who within 5 years time end up being completely different to origin. To what fans expected of them; of where they expected their team to be. 

NBA teams change so much in such a short space of time. Average lifespan for a team is about 3-4 years. Giving a pick 5 years away is giving up an unknown value = not an expected value, an unknown value.

I am fine with giving up that unknown value if you are getting back a major bounty - a star talent. You take those risks in order to get those major difference makers. You swing for the fences because the return is so great.

You don't take those risks for a solid starter. For players like that you want to be able to put an expected value on what is going out because what is coming back is not great enough to swing wildly at the fences and hope for the best.

Is the expected value for a random pick a solid starter?

[Who]

I have some misgivings about the future swap but it's just the worst-case doomsday scenario that has people sweating it a bit.  The reality is that the swap's expected value is actually quite low, and it's probably more likely to have no value at all than it is to seriously hurt us. 

Expected value is a great phrase / description.

That is all I want to talk about here - expected value - nothing else. The idea of expected value.

My position is that a pick that far out has no expected value. You cannot reasonably predict a value upon that draft pick. I am fine with putting a value on this year's pick, next year's pick, two years time ... things start getting dicey 4 years out. 5 years out is complete darkness. You know nothing [edit: not quite nothing, whatever is next to nothing].

The number of teams in this league that are completely different to whom they were 5 years earlier is massive. Even talented teams, young teams, teams who were considered teams of the future, who within 5 years time end up being completely different to origin. To what fans expected of them; of where they expected their team to be. 

NBA teams change so much in such a short space of time. Average lifespan for a team is about 3-4 years. Giving a pick 5 years away is giving up an unknown value = not an expected value, an unknown value.

I am fine with giving up that unknown value if you are getting back a major bounty - a star talent. You take those risks in order to get those major difference makers. You swing for the fences because the return is so great.

You don't take those risks for a solid starter. For players like that you want to be able to put an expected value on what is going out because what is coming back is not great enough to swing wildly at the fences and hope for the best.

Is the expected value for a random pick a solid starter?

It can be anything.

Superstar, all-star, above average starter, solid starter, borderline starter to high end bench player, average bench player, below average bench player, bust.

So is the question is the average outcome of all these possibilities worth a solid starter? Yes.

Next question, is this a good basis for making & evaluating this decision? Is the average of "anything" a worthwhile marker? How worthwhile?

I say it is too wide a range of values with too little capacity to predict within which range it is likely to fall to offer good predictive value.

[Vermont Green]

I have some misgivings about the future swap but it's just the worst-case doomsday scenario that has people sweating it a bit.  The reality is that the swap's expected value is actually quite low, and it's probably more likely to have no value at all than it is to seriously hurt us. 

Expected value is a great phrase / description.

That is all I want to talk about here - expected value - nothing else. The idea of expected value.

My position is that a pick that far out has no expected value. You cannot reasonably predict a value upon that draft pick. I am fine with putting a value on this year's pick, next year's pick, two years time ... things start getting dicey 4 years out. 5 years out is complete darkness. You know nothing [edit: not quite nothing, whatever is next to nothing].

The number of teams in this league that are completely different to whom they were 5 years earlier is massive. Even talented teams, young teams, teams who were considered teams of the future, who within 5 years time end up being completely different to origin. To what fans expected of them; of where they expected their team to be. 

NBA teams change so much in such a short space of time. Average lifespan for a team is about 3-4 years. Giving a pick 5 years away is giving up an unknown value = not an expected value, an unknown value.

I am fine with giving up that unknown value if you are getting back a major bounty - a star talent. You take those risks in order to get those major difference makers. You swing for the fences because the return is so great.

You don't take those risks for a solid starter. For players like that you want to be able to put an expected value on what is going out because what is coming back is not great enough to swing wildly at the fences and hope for the best.

Is the expected value for a random pick a solid starter?

It can be anything.

Superstar, all-star, above average starter, solid starter, borderline starter to high end bench player, average bench player, below average bench player, bust.

So is the question is the average outcome of all these possibilities worth a solid starter? Yes.

Next question, is this a good basis for making & evaluating this decision? Is the average of "anything" a worthwhile marker? How worthwhile?

I say it is too wide a range of values with too little capacity to predict within which range it is likely to fall to offer good predictive value.

You are not accounting for the fact that it is a swap.  Say we end up 15 and SAS 20.  It would be a swap so the "value" of the transaction is the difference in value of the two picks, not the value of the 15th pick that we give up.  This is why the most likely outcome is that the value is inconsequential, meaning the swap doesn't happen at all or the swap doesn't make a discernable difference.

For the value to be a solid starter, I don't even know how that could be the result.  How likely is it that a top 10 pick on its own would be a solid starter?  And how do you subtract from that the value of say pick 20-30 that in the worst case we would end up with (even this is extremely unlikely).  So even in the worst case, the net value isn't a solid starter.

[Roy H.]

I have some misgivings about the future swap but it's just the worst-case doomsday scenario that has people sweating it a bit.  The reality is that the swap's expected value is actually quite low, and it's probably more likely to have no value at all than it is to seriously hurt us. 

Expected value is a great phrase / description.

That is all I want to talk about here - expected value - nothing else. The idea of expected value.

My position is that a pick that far out has no expected value. You cannot reasonably predict a value upon that draft pick. I am fine with putting a value on this year's pick, next year's pick, two years time ... things start getting dicey 4 years out. 5 years out is complete darkness. You know nothing [edit: not quite nothing, whatever is next to nothing].

The number of teams in this league that are completely different to whom they were 5 years earlier is massive. Even talented teams, young teams, teams who were considered teams of the future, who within 5 years time end up being completely different to origin. To what fans expected of them; of where they expected their team to be. 

NBA teams change so much in such a short space of time. Average lifespan for a team is about 3-4 years. Giving a pick 5 years away is giving up an unknown value = not an expected value, an unknown value.

I am fine with giving up that unknown value if you are getting back a major bounty - a star talent. You take those risks in order to get those major difference makers. You swing for the fences because the return is so great.

You don't take those risks for a solid starter. For players like that you want to be able to put an expected value on what is going out because what is coming back is not great enough to swing wildly at the fences and hope for the best.

Is the expected value for a random pick a solid starter?

It can be anything.

Superstar, all-star, above average starter, solid starter, borderline starter to high end bench player, average bench player, below average bench player, bust.

So is the question is the average outcome of all these possibilities worth a solid starter? Yes.

Next question, is this a good basis for making & evaluating this decision? Is the average of "anything" a worthwhile marker? How worthwhile?

I say it is too wide a range of values with too little capacity to predict within which range it is likely to fall to offer good predictive value.

You are not accounting for the fact that it is a swap.  Say we end up 15 and SAS 20.  It would be a swap so the "value" of the transaction is the difference in value of the two picks, not the value of the 15th pick that we give up.  This is why the most likely outcome is that the value is inconsequential, meaning the swap doesn't happen at all or the swap doesn't make a discernable difference.

For the value to be a solid starter, I don't even know how that could be the result.  How likely is it that a top 10 pick on its own would be a solid starter?  And how do you subtract from that the value of say pick 20-30 that in the worst case we would end up with (even this is extremely unlikely).  So even in the worst case, the net value isn't a solid starter.

I’m not sure how you come to your final conclusion.  Worst case is trading the draft rights to Jayson Tatum for the #27 pick in the draft, which we’ve seen happen.  Is that net value a solid starter?