Our Draft Capital + Tradeable assets ahead of tonights NBA draft

[BitterJim]

This is just amazing in itself:

"Trading back down will mean that the Celtics still have yet to pick in the first round since Brad Stevens took the reins as President of Basketball Ops. Stevens traded out of the first round twice in his first two seasons with the team, moving first-rounders in the 2021 and 2022 NBA Drafts to acquire Al Horford and Derrick White, respectively."

Brad has never made a first-round pick!  Think about that!

Well with two firsts next year, he has his work cut out for him if he wants to avoid making a pick. I sure wouldn't mind getting another White or Horford, though

[Surferdad]

I think he is terrified to draft and keeps trading back.     We must have a guy we wanted around 25 who got picked ahead of us.

Maybe he just doesn’t rate adding one first rounder to a roster when he can add a half dozen picks to his treasury

Late 1st rounders are paid well like any 1st rounder, but generally are lower talent than lottery or high 1st round picks.  I'm happy he didn't commit to a 1st rounder.

[Neurotic Guy]

I can give many argues on this has big chance to be a bad trade :
_ 1 year of Porzingis who will either miss the season or ask a big contract when Brown will catch the supermax against 3 years of Smart on a very good deal
_ we are loaded with big, but 2 of 3 are very injury prone and the 3rd is 37 (not even sure he will give something next POs)
_ hurting the identity of the team (who still was not far with a naive coach) and mentality (do you prefer go to war with Spartmarcus or with Unproven Unicorn)
_ having less playmaking 1 year after having said it was our target
_ take 2 firsts for Smart and don't use the 1st one ...
_ loosing some fans

And still my question : why not a future 1st from the Grizz when you have no intentions in this years draft and loose the 1st value 1 dat after the trade 

It boils down to seeing Smart differently.  To me, he was the preferred guard to trade.  And the return for him balanced the roster and provided 5 new assets. The 4 seconds don’t have huge value, but have some - and the GSW pick has solid value.  KP brings size and skill to the front court.   Losing Smart puts a better player (White) into the starting lineup at the 1. 

Could it turn out bad if KP gets hurt or stays one year?  Sure, but EVERY trade is a gamble - you take a calculated risk.  This one seems worth the risk to me.  Now let’s see what else Brad has up his sleeve.

[Rikibellevie]

I can give many argues on this has big chance to be a bad trade :
_ 1 year of Porzingis who will either miss the season or ask a big contract when Brown will catch the supermax against 3 years of Smart on a very good deal
_ we are loaded with big, but 2 of 3 are very injury prone and the 3rd is 37 (not even sure he will give something next POs)
_ hurting the identity of the team (who still was not far with a naive coach) and mentality (do you prefer go to war with Spartmarcus or with Unproven Unicorn)
_ having less playmaking 1 year after having said it was our target
_ take 2 firsts for Smart and don't use the 1st one ...
_ loosing some fans

And still my question : why not a future 1st from the Grizz when you have no intentions in this years draft and loose the 1st value 1 dat after the trade

Why are you acting like #38 is worth nothing compared to #25, and that all of the future seconds we got are worth nothing? People were acting the exact same way when we traded the #30 pick a couple of years ago because we got 2 seconds instead of a first, even though the first we traded was so late that it's worth about as much as an early second. While a first rounder is much more valuable than a second in a vacuum, these picks aren't in a vacuum because we already know that the first isn't a valuable one

And it's all well and good to say "just get a different pick instead", but why would the Grizzlies want to include a future first instead of a first that they already know is #25?

Also a possibility: Brad liked some guys in the 30s range, and was set on adding one. But we had to trade #35 as part of the KP deal, so he wanted a pick this year in return. He then traded out of the first to maintain the TPMLE, but when #31 came along there were still plenty of people he liked on the board, so why not trade down again? Would you feel better if we had taken Walsh at #25 instead of getting him and 4 future seconds because then he would be a first round pick?

I have no idea if the pick 25 will be less valuable than Walsh, but historicly our mid seconds arn't great and we picked much more usefull in the 20-30's range. Whatever is the point that if Stevens didn't expect anything than this of this draft he should have asked for a future 1st heavily protected to the Grizz. The seconds have near o value in a trade for a star. A protected 1st have some.
-
From the Grizz point, a future top 20 protected 1st pick instead of the 25th wouldn't have been a huge efort to put in the balance to reach a guy, who will form a terrible bad boy defense and even maybe mentor their freak.

Our karma already bite us, I would love to see Marcus win it all,even next year, with a Morant again focus only on his team and one of the best defense since long time.  Time will tell.

[vjcsmoke]

What do you mean by karma?

Trading players is part of the business of the NBA.

Celtics got bullied in the low post in the playoffs.

Now they acquired a skilled 7'2 big man in Porzingis to protect the rim, score in the post, and also space the floor when needed.

Steven A just declared the Celtics favorites to win the title next season.

I don't see the 'karma' of this move.  We moved on from Smart who was a good player for us, but that trade balanced the team and made it stronger in terms of talent and matchups for the playoffs.

[boscel33]

I can give many argues on this has big chance to be a bad trade :
_ 1 year of Porzingis who will either miss the season or ask a big contract when Brown will catch the supermax against 3 years of Smart on a very good deal
_ we are loaded with big, but 2 of 3 are very injury prone and the 3rd is 37 (not even sure he will give something next POs)
_ hurting the identity of the team (who still was not far with a naive coach) and mentality (do you prefer go to war with Spartmarcus or with Unproven Unicorn)
_ having less playmaking 1 year after having said it was our target
_ take 2 firsts for Smart and don't use the 1st one ...
_ loosing some fans

And still my question : why not a future 1st from the Grizz when you have no intentions in this years draft and loose the 1st value 1 dat after the trade

Why are you acting like #38 is worth nothing compared to #25, and that all of the future seconds we got are worth nothing? People were acting the exact same way when we traded the #30 pick a couple of years ago because we got 2 seconds instead of a first, even though the first we traded was so late that it's worth about as much as an early second. While a first rounder is much more valuable than a second in a vacuum, these picks aren't in a vacuum because we already know that the first isn't a valuable one

And it's all well and good to say "just get a different pick instead", but why would the Grizzlies want to include a future first instead of a first that they already know is #25?

Also a possibility: Brad liked some guys in the 30s range, and was set on adding one. But we had to trade #35 as part of the KP deal, so he wanted a pick this year in return. He then traded out of the first to maintain the TPMLE, but when #31 came along there were still plenty of people he liked on the board, so why not trade down again? Would you feel better if we had taken Walsh at #25 instead of getting him and 4 future seconds because then he would be a first round pick?

I have no idea if the pick 25 will be less valuable than Walsh, but historicly our mid seconds arn't great and we picked much more usefull in the 20-30's range. Whatever is the point that if Stevens didn't expect anything than this of this draft he should have asked for a future 1st heavily protected to the Grizz. The seconds have near o value in a trade for a star. A protected 1st have some.
-
From the Grizz point, a future top 20 protected 1st pick instead of the 25th wouldn't have been a huge efort to put in the balance to reach a guy, who will form a terrible bad boy defense and even maybe mentor their freak.

Our karma already bite us, I would love to see Marcus win it all,even next year, with a Morant again focus only on his team and one of the best defense since long time.  Time will tell.

What if one of the mid seconds was comparable to Scoot?   This is from a JD thread:

OP:

"Contemplating JD's role next season sent me down a rabbit hole...

all stats per 36 stats this past season in the g-league

Its probably obvious but player A is Scoot and player B is JD.

Player A 19ppg 7.6ast 4.1TO 27% on 3.1 3PA 76% from FT 7.6rb 19 years old

Player B 14.4ppg 10ast 3.3TO 31% on 2.8 3PA 73% from FT 4.8rb 20 years old"

My response:

"Why can't they be considered the same level of prospect?

Scoot was a 5-star prospect out of GA, #2 PG in the class, #13 overall.
Davison was a 5-star recruit out of AL and the #3 PG in the class, #17 overall."

JD was just as good of a prospect coming out as Scoot.  He played one year in college, got drafted, and played in the G-League with Scoot and compared pretty darn well to him.

[Moranis]

I can give many argues on this has big chance to be a bad trade :
_ 1 year of Porzingis who will either miss the season or ask a big contract when Brown will catch the supermax against 3 years of Smart on a very good deal
_ we are loaded with big, but 2 of 3 are very injury prone and the 3rd is 37 (not even sure he will give something next POs)
_ hurting the identity of the team (who still was not far with a naive coach) and mentality (do you prefer go to war with Spartmarcus or with Unproven Unicorn)
_ having less playmaking 1 year after having said it was our target
_ take 2 firsts for Smart and don't use the 1st one ...
_ loosing some fans

And still my question : why not a future 1st from the Grizz when you have no intentions in this years draft and loose the 1st value 1 dat after the trade

Why are you acting like #38 is worth nothing compared to #25, and that all of the future seconds we got are worth nothing? People were acting the exact same way when we traded the #30 pick a couple of years ago because we got 2 seconds instead of a first, even though the first we traded was so late that it's worth about as much as an early second. While a first rounder is much more valuable than a second in a vacuum, these picks aren't in a vacuum because we already know that the first isn't a valuable one

And it's all well and good to say "just get a different pick instead", but why would the Grizzlies want to include a future first instead of a first that they already know is #25?

Also a possibility: Brad liked some guys in the 30s range, and was set on adding one. But we had to trade #35 as part of the KP deal, so he wanted a pick this year in return. He then traded out of the first to maintain the TPMLE, but when #31 came along there were still plenty of people he liked on the board, so why not trade down again? Would you feel better if we had taken Walsh at #25 instead of getting him and 4 future seconds because then he would be a first round pick?

I have no idea if the pick 25 will be less valuable than Walsh, but historicly our mid seconds arn't great and we picked much more usefull in the 20-30's range. Whatever is the point that if Stevens didn't expect anything than this of this draft he should have asked for a future 1st heavily protected to the Grizz. The seconds have near o value in a trade for a star. A protected 1st have some.
-
From the Grizz point, a future top 20 protected 1st pick instead of the 25th wouldn't have been a huge efort to put in the balance to reach a guy, who will form a terrible bad boy defense and even maybe mentor their freak.

Our karma already bite us, I would love to see Marcus win it all,even next year, with a Morant again focus only on his team and one of the best defense since long time.  Time will tell.

What if one of the mid seconds was comparable to Scoot?   This is from a JD thread:

OP:

"Contemplating JD's role next season sent me down a rabbit hole...

all stats per 36 stats this past season in the g-league

Its probably obvious but player A is Scoot and player B is JD.

Player A 19ppg 7.6ast 4.1TO 27% on 3.1 3PA 76% from FT 7.6rb 19 years old

Player B 14.4ppg 10ast 3.3TO 31% on 2.8 3PA 73% from FT 4.8rb 20 years old"

My response:

"Why can't they be considered the same level of prospect?

Scoot was a 5-star prospect out of GA, #2 PG in the class, #13 overall.
Davison was a 5-star recruit out of AL and the #3 PG in the class, #17 overall."

JD was just as good of a prospect coming out as Scoot.  He played one year in college, got drafted, and played in the G-League with Scoot and compared pretty darn well to him.

because he isn't

[gouki88]

I can give many argues on this has big chance to be a bad trade :
_ 1 year of Porzingis who will either miss the season or ask a big contract when Brown will catch the supermax against 3 years of Smart on a very good deal
_ we are loaded with big, but 2 of 3 are very injury prone and the 3rd is 37 (not even sure he will give something next POs)
_ hurting the identity of the team (who still was not far with a naive coach) and mentality (do you prefer go to war with Spartmarcus or with Unproven Unicorn)
_ having less playmaking 1 year after having said it was our target
_ take 2 firsts for Smart and don't use the 1st one ...
_ loosing some fans

And still my question : why not a future 1st from the Grizz when you have no intentions in this years draft and loose the 1st value 1 dat after the trade

Why are you acting like #38 is worth nothing compared to #25, and that all of the future seconds we got are worth nothing? People were acting the exact same way when we traded the #30 pick a couple of years ago because we got 2 seconds instead of a first, even though the first we traded was so late that it's worth about as much as an early second. While a first rounder is much more valuable than a second in a vacuum, these picks aren't in a vacuum because we already know that the first isn't a valuable one

And it's all well and good to say "just get a different pick instead", but why would the Grizzlies want to include a future first instead of a first that they already know is #25?

Also a possibility: Brad liked some guys in the 30s range, and was set on adding one. But we had to trade #35 as part of the KP deal, so he wanted a pick this year in return. He then traded out of the first to maintain the TPMLE, but when #31 came along there were still plenty of people he liked on the board, so why not trade down again? Would you feel better if we had taken Walsh at #25 instead of getting him and 4 future seconds because then he would be a first round pick?

I have no idea if the pick 25 will be less valuable than Walsh, but historicly our mid seconds arn't great and we picked much more usefull in the 20-30's range. Whatever is the point that if Stevens didn't expect anything than this of this draft he should have asked for a future 1st heavily protected to the Grizz. The seconds have near o value in a trade for a star. A protected 1st have some.
-
From the Grizz point, a future top 20 protected 1st pick instead of the 25th wouldn't have been a huge efort to put in the balance to reach a guy, who will form a terrible bad boy defense and even maybe mentor their freak.

Our karma already bite us, I would love to see Marcus win it all,even next year, with a Morant again focus only on his team and one of the best defense since long time.  Time will tell.

What if one of the mid seconds was comparable to Scoot?   This is from a JD thread:

OP:

"Contemplating JD's role next season sent me down a rabbit hole...

all stats per 36 stats this past season in the g-league

Its probably obvious but player A is Scoot and player B is JD.

Player A 19ppg 7.6ast 4.1TO 27% on 3.1 3PA 76% from FT 7.6rb 19 years old

Player B 14.4ppg 10ast 3.3TO 31% on 2.8 3PA 73% from FT 4.8rb 20 years old"

My response:

"Why can't they be considered the same level of prospect?

Scoot was a 5-star prospect out of GA, #2 PG in the class, #13 overall.
Davison was a 5-star recruit out of AL and the #3 PG in the class, #17 overall."

JD was just as good of a prospect coming out as Scoot.  He played one year in college, got drafted, and played in the G-League with Scoot and compared pretty darn well to him.

I mean, there are plenty of reasons. Many 5-star guys have similar college careers, yet are viewed totally differently. There’s a bit more to evaluation