Celtics Draft 2025 (picks 46 and 57)

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Seems generous.

Boston Celtics: C+

Round 1: Hugo Gonzalez (No. 28)
Round 2: Amari Williams(No. 46), Max Shulga (No. 57)

Gonzalez would have made more sense for Boston as a stash pick who would come over later in his development. Instead, Brad Stevens indicated the Celtics plan to bring him to the NBA next season.

On the broadcast, Gonzalez was compared to Denver Nuggets wing Christian Braun. One key difference: Braun, though not thought of as a shooter, hit 38% of his 3s in college. Gonzalez shot 27% at Real Madrid.

Williams is an intriguing prospect with multiple strengths as a rebounder, rim protector and facilitator at the elbow. However, he shot just 54% career on 2s, very poor for a center who doesn't stretch the floor. Shulga, the last of Boston's three picks, projected best in my model because of his 39% career 3-point shooting.

If the 57th pick projected best in that model, then the model may need thrown out. He just looks like a regular non-athletic scoring guard to me.

[Who]

I think the focus on having "zero bigs" on the team right now and not drafting a big in the early 2nd to fill that hole are misguided. The reason being that whoever we picked there is unlikely to be able to help the team next season anyway.

Very few 2nd round big men are good enough to provide immediate help especially non-athletic / low athletic bigs. You get a few athletic hustle bigs who can do it. But very few plodders. They need time to learn how best to maximize their size / minimize their lack of speed against NBA talent. That takes a few years.

So guys like Ryan Kalkbrenner or Maxime Raynaud, we would have been drafting them with the goal of them becoming rotation caliber players in years 2-3-4. As being a long term replacement for Kornet.

Not an immediate replacement. We can't depend on them to be an immediate replacement. They are end of the bench bodies who are 3rd-4th string players as rookie centers.

Now, wanting them because you thought they were the best available talent and a better option than trading down for weaker picks - fair enough. But in terms of filling the depth chart and expecting them to provide useful minutes next year - nope.

[Birdman]

I?m a UK fan & watch every game he played in?he?s a great passer and can rebound but not a scorer..he?s definitely a project & hope he makes it

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I think the focus on having "zero bigs" on the team right now and not drafting a big in the early 2nd to fill that hole are misguided. The reason being that whoever we picked there is unlikely to be able to help the team next season anyway.

Very few 2nd round big men are good enough to provide immediate help especially non-athletic / low athletic bigs. You get a few athletic hustle bigs who can do it. But very few plodders. They need time to learn how best to maximize their size / minimize their lack of speed against NBA talent. That takes a few years.

So guys like Ryan Kalkbrenner or Maxime Raynaud, we would have been drafting them with the goal of them becoming rotation caliber players in years 2-3-4. As being a long term replacement for Kornet.

Not an immediate replacement. We can't depend on them to be an immediate replacement. They are end of the bench bodies who are 3rd-4th string players as rookie centers.

Now, wanting them because you thought they were the best available talent and a better option than trading down for weaker picks - fair enough. But in terms of filling the depth chart and expecting them to provide useful minutes next year - nope.

I agree with you here. The flip side of this is that you normally trade or sign (or resign) the bigs you want to be in your rotation, unless you have a top 10 pick.

If we are able to resign Kornet and Horford, we are probably ok with our big rotation. I wouldn't say that we have a good big rotation, but we are ok.

I'd love to see us trade for or sign another big that is a professional and can give us good minutes.

[slamtheking]

I think the focus on having "zero bigs" on the team right now and not drafting a big in the early 2nd to fill that hole are misguided. The reason being that whoever we picked there is unlikely to be able to help the team next season anyway.

Very few 2nd round big men are good enough to provide immediate help especially non-athletic / low athletic bigs. You get a few athletic hustle bigs who can do it. But very few plodders. They need time to learn how best to maximize their size / minimize their lack of speed against NBA talent. That takes a few years.

So guys like Ryan Kalkbrenner or Maxime Raynaud, we would have been drafting them with the goal of them becoming rotation caliber players in years 2-3-4. As being a long term replacement for Kornet.

Not an immediate replacement. We can't depend on them to be an immediate replacement. They are end of the bench bodies who are 3rd-4th string players as rookie centers.

Now, wanting them because you thought they were the best available talent and a better option than trading down for weaker picks - fair enough. But in terms of filling the depth chart and expecting them to provide useful minutes next year - nope.

no disagreement with what you're saying but either of those players or Penda who was actually taken with that pick looked like they had potential to develop into a rotational player in time and possibly eat some minutes in "break the glass" situation. 

The team isn't doing much this coming season but that's no reason to just throw the pick away on 2 other players that'll be lucky if they're good enough for Maine

[slamtheking]

I think the focus on having "zero bigs" on the team right now and not drafting a big in the early 2nd to fill that hole are misguided. The reason being that whoever we picked there is unlikely to be able to help the team next season anyway.

Very few 2nd round big men are good enough to provide immediate help especially non-athletic / low athletic bigs. You get a few athletic hustle bigs who can do it. But very few plodders. They need time to learn how best to maximize their size / minimize their lack of speed against NBA talent. That takes a few years.

So guys like Ryan Kalkbrenner or Maxime Raynaud, we would have been drafting them with the goal of them becoming rotation caliber players in years 2-3-4. As being a long term replacement for Kornet.

Not an immediate replacement. We can't depend on them to be an immediate replacement. They are end of the bench bodies who are 3rd-4th string players as rookie centers.

Now, wanting them because you thought they were the best available talent and a better option than trading down for weaker picks - fair enough. But in terms of filling the depth chart and expecting them to provide useful minutes next year - nope.

I agree with you here. The flip side of this is that you normally trade or sign (or resign) the bigs you want to be in your rotation, unless you have a top 10 pick.

If we are able to resign Kornet and Horford, we are probably ok with our big rotation. I wouldn't say that we have a good big rotation, but we are ok.

I'd love to see us trade for or sign another big that is a professional and can give us good minutes.

tbh, I don't see Al resigning for other than a 2 year deal so he can take one last run at a title with what should be a recovered Tatum.  question is, will he still have any gas in the tank at that point.

[Jiri Welsch]

In addition to what Who is saying, there is the fact that picking at #32 means the Celtics would have likely had to pay that person a salary at the top of the Second Round Exception.

The Celtics are clearly viewing this season as a cost-cutting season, so the minute they lost out on a potential higher-end talent like Fleming they prioritized future cap and roster flexibility.

[Celtics4ever]

I am relieved we got a big to develop.  Amari, has elite passing skills, and length.  I read one comparison that his game resembles Aron Baynes but he has no three at this point.  If he can develop a jumper it would help immensely but this needs done before he turns 25, I feel given his age.

Low cost assets with cost control for a few years.

I do not feel or think Brad is done as we have to cut more salary to sign Al.  Could Simmons be flipped for a big?

[hwangjini_1]

I am relieved we got a big to develop.  Amari, has elite passing skills, and length.  I read one comparison that his game resembles Aron Baynes but he has no three at this point.  If he can develop a jumper it would help immensely but this needs done before he turns 25, I feel given his age.

Low cost assets with cost control for a few years.

I do not feel or think Brad is done as we have to cut more salary to sign Al.  Could Simmons be flipped for a big?

over on SoSH they have nicknamed him "Temu Timelord". 

[No Nickname]

I think the focus on having "zero bigs" on the team right now and not drafting a big in the early 2nd to fill that hole are misguided. The reason being that whoever we picked there is unlikely to be able to help the team next season anyway.

Very few 2nd round big men are good enough to provide immediate help especially non-athletic / low athletic bigs. You get a few athletic hustle bigs who can do it. But very few plodders. They need time to learn how best to maximize their size / minimize their lack of speed against NBA talent. That takes a few years.

So guys like Ryan Kalkbrenner or Maxime Raynaud, we would have been drafting them with the goal of them becoming rotation caliber players in years 2-3-4. As being a long term replacement for Kornet.

Not an immediate replacement. We can't depend on them to be an immediate replacement. They are end of the bench bodies who are 3rd-4th string players as rookie centers.

Now, wanting them because you thought they were the best available talent and a better option than trading down for weaker picks - fair enough. But in terms of filling the depth chart and expecting them to provide useful minutes next year - nope.

I'm not sure I agree.  Quentin Post compares to both of the bigs we were looking at with 32.  He was getting impactful minutes late in the season for a Western playoff team.

Raynaud or Kalkbrenner could have spent a full year in the C's system, spending time in Maine too, and then in 2026-27 when Tatum hopefully is rounding back into top form they could be a good young big to be the 9th man off the bench.

In no way would they have derailed any plans for next year's team.  We have a glut of non-centers "in development" right now.  And we may lose Horford and Kornet. 

Getting someone as intriguing at Raynaud or Kalkbrenner (who reminds me of Plumlee) with #32 would have been the smart move.  Williams looks atrocious. 

[Kuberski33]

Seems generous.

Boston Celtics: C+

Round 1: Hugo Gonzalez (No. 28)
Round 2: Amari Williams(No. 46), Max Shulga (No. 57)

Gonzalez would have made more sense for Boston as a stash pick who would come over later in his development. Instead, Brad Stevens indicated the Celtics plan to bring him to the NBA next season.

On the broadcast, Gonzalez was compared to Denver Nuggets wing Christian Braun. One key difference: Braun, though not thought of as a shooter, hit 38% of his 3s in college. Gonzalez shot 27% at Real Madrid.

Williams is an intriguing prospect with multiple strengths as a rebounder, rim protector and facilitator at the elbow. However, he shot just 54% career on 2s, very poor for a center who doesn't stretch the floor. Shulga, the last of Boston's three picks, projected best in my model because of his 39% career 3-point shooting.

Here's the thing with drafts - the GM's who get paid big bucks whiff on picks all the time. How much credibility do these alleged pundits have?  If they were that good at projecting where these guys are going to be in 3 or 4 years, they'd be on some team's payroll.  I would take any draft evaluation with a grain of salt.

So far Brad's had a couple of drafts. Walsh is an incomplete (though not looking great), Scheirmann looks like a pretty good pick (though again, it's too early to tell). So the jury is still out. Most guys you take in the 2nd round - like just about every player on the end of an NBA bench or in the G League - has one or two legit NBA skills. Whether they make it or not will depend on how much they improve and develop new skills.

When he was at Butler, Brad was terffic at finding under the radar guys who turned into good college players. As a coach with the C's, he was excellent at developing players - classic example being getting Evan Turner (considered a draft bust) $70 milion from Portland.  I'd say let's hold off evaluating his drafts for the time being and see how these guys develop.

[Roy H.]

I think the focus on having "zero bigs" on the team right now and not drafting a big in the early 2nd to fill that hole are misguided. The reason being that whoever we picked there is unlikely to be able to help the team next season anyway.

Very few 2nd round big men are good enough to provide immediate help especially non-athletic / low athletic bigs. You get a few athletic hustle bigs who can do it. But very few plodders. They need time to learn how best to maximize their size / minimize their lack of speed against NBA talent. That takes a few years.

So guys like Ryan Kalkbrenner or Maxime Raynaud, we would have been drafting them with the goal of them becoming rotation caliber players in years 2-3-4. As being a long term replacement for Kornet.

Not an immediate replacement. We can't depend on them to be an immediate replacement. They are end of the bench bodies who are 3rd-4th string players as rookie centers.

Now, wanting them because you thought they were the best available talent and a better option than trading down for weaker picks - fair enough. But in terms of filling the depth chart and expecting them to provide useful minutes next year - nope.

I'm not sure I agree.  Quentin Post compares to both of the bigs we were looking at with 32.  He was getting impactful minutes late in the season for a Western playoff team.

Raynaud or Kalkbrenner could have spent a full year in the C's system, spending time in Maine too, and then in 2026-27 when Tatum hopefully is rounding back into top form they could be a good young big to be the 9th man off the bench.

In no way would they have derailed any plans for next year's team.  We have a glut of non-centers "in development" right now.  And we may lose Horford and Kornet. 

Getting someone as intriguing at Raynaud or Kalkbrenner (who reminds me of Plumlee) with #32 would have been the smart move.  Williams looks atrocious.

I agree with that.  If we never draft a big man because they won't immediately be ready to contribute, then we're not going to have any big men when our existing players are traded or move on.

How many years have we been talking about how we need a Horford replacement?  At some point, we need to address that issue through draft capital. 

[Celtics4ever]

over on SoSH they have nicknamed him "Temu Timelord

I laughed out loud, TP

[No Nickname]

I think the focus on having "zero bigs" on the team right now and not drafting a big in the early 2nd to fill that hole are misguided. The reason being that whoever we picked there is unlikely to be able to help the team next season anyway.

Very few 2nd round big men are good enough to provide immediate help especially non-athletic / low athletic bigs. You get a few athletic hustle bigs who can do it. But very few plodders. They need time to learn how best to maximize their size / minimize their lack of speed against NBA talent. That takes a few years.

So guys like Ryan Kalkbrenner or Maxime Raynaud, we would have been drafting them with the goal of them becoming rotation caliber players in years 2-3-4. As being a long term replacement for Kornet.

Not an immediate replacement. We can't depend on them to be an immediate replacement. They are end of the bench bodies who are 3rd-4th string players as rookie centers.

Now, wanting them because you thought they were the best available talent and a better option than trading down for weaker picks - fair enough. But in terms of filling the depth chart and expecting them to provide useful minutes next year - nope.

I'm not sure I agree.  Quentin Post compares to both of the bigs we were looking at with 32.  He was getting impactful minutes late in the season for a Western playoff team.

Raynaud or Kalkbrenner could have spent a full year in the C's system, spending time in Maine too, and then in 2026-27 when Tatum hopefully is rounding back into top form they could be a good young big to be the 9th man off the bench.

In no way would they have derailed any plans for next year's team.  We have a glut of non-centers "in development" right now.  And we may lose Horford and Kornet. 

Getting someone as intriguing at Raynaud or Kalkbrenner (who reminds me of Plumlee) with #32 would have been the smart move.  Williams looks atrocious.

I agree with that.  If we never draft a big man because they won't immediately be ready to contribute, then we're not going to have any big men when our existing players are traded or move on.

How many years have we been talking about how we need a Horford replacement?  At some point, we need to address that issue through draft capital.

And how often is it said that home-grown players, through the draft, are much more affordable.

If Brad thinks he can get us another Porzingis-type (by that I mean former/fringe All Star center) through trades, it's gonna cost a lot more than developing a promising one we've drafted.

[Goldstar88]

I am relieved we got a big to develop.  Amari, has elite passing skills, and length.  I read one comparison that his game resembles Aron Baynes but he has no three at this point.  If he can develop a jumper it would help immensely but this needs done before he turns 25, I feel given his age.

Low cost assets with cost control for a few years.

I do not feel or think Brad is done as we have to cut more salary to sign Al.  Could Simmons be flipped for a big?

The C?s already have a big they are developing: Queta. Not sure if this guy has more upside. Guess we will find out.