Would you want MarShon Brooks for a #1? B/C That's What It Will Cost.

[Roy H.]

Both Woj and ESPN are reporting that a Howard-to-Brooklyn deal is close.  One of the interesting things is that the Magic don't seem to want MarShon Brooks, and need to find another team to take him for a 1st rounder.

Would you send out Sean William's non-guaranteed deal plus a #1 for Brooks?

[Fafnir]

Both Woj and ESPN are reporting that a Howard-to-Brooklyn deal is close.  One of the interesting things is that the Magic don't seem to want MarShon Brooks, and need to find another team to take him for a 1st rounder.

Would you send out Sean William's non-guaranteed deal plus a #1 for Brooks?

No I don't think he's ready to contribute much this year to the team and I'd prefer to let Bradley develop longer term. If we didn't have two young guards I want playing heavy minutes I bet I'd be for it.

Additionally with our team the risk of a rash of injuries to put us in the lottery only grows with time. Thus a future pick could be worth a better prospect than Brooks.

[rondohondo]

ehhh

he only shot 43% and 31% from 3's last year .

I would much rather have Lee who is a career 44% Fg, 38.6% 3pt and 83% ft

Brooks is too much of a gunner and not really a defender.

[CFAN38]

I don't know that he can contribute enough defensively. I would rather have the safer bet in Lee.

[jambr380]

If we can't get Lee, then definitely. I know he is only going to be in his 2nd year, but what can we realistically get next year in the draft in the 20s that we can't get with our Charlotte (?) pick in the early 2nd round.

I am not one of those that talked about the Brooks/JJJ deal ad nauseum, but he would be a very capable player in our system going forward.

[Who]

Hmm, first reaction - yes.

Second reaction - no, I want a more reliable defensive SG with legitimate size behind Bradley.

Third reaction - ?? Need to think on that some more. It's definitely an interesting idea.

[ScottHow]

Hmm, first reaction - yes.

Second reaction - no, I want a more reliable defensive SG with legitimate size behind Bradley.

Third reaction - ?? Need to think on that some more. It's definitely an interesting idea.

This.

[mctyson]

Hmm, first reaction - yes.

Second reaction - no, I want a more reliable defensive SG with legitimate size behind Bradley.

Third reaction - ?? Need to think on that some more. It's definitely an interesting idea.

No. You never trade a future first (which could turn into almost anything) for a rookie who himself was a late 1st-round pick and has still yet to prove himself as roster worthy.

[celtsfan84]

Hmm, first reaction - yes.

Second reaction - no, I want a more reliable defensive SG with legitimate size behind Bradley.

Third reaction - ?? Need to think on that some more. It's definitely an interesting idea.

No. You never trade a future first (which could turn into almost anything) for a rookie who himself was a late 1st-round pick and has still yet to prove himself as roster worthy.

Agree with this 100%.  Marshon's slightly above 40% shooting has shown him to be a gunner on a bad team.  He might be more than that, but that is purely speculation and potential.  If I want speculation and potential, I'll keep my pick and draft it.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

Not for one of our first.

For a second and maybe JJJ, E'twaun or 2 seconds, yes.

I like his scoring ability. We could use it. I also thinks he's a capable defender who just hasn't figured it out yet.

[slamtheking]

thought for sure this thread would be flooded with those individuals who've been bemoaning the JJJ for Brooks trade last year thinking that since Brooks scored for NJ (in a  system that rewards gunners and doesn't defend) he must be a better player than JJJ and we should have kept him.

I wouldn't mind picking him up for the Charlotte second rounder next year but not a first rounder (that could very well turn out to be in the mid-teens and bring in an even better player next year).

The kid can score but I'd like to get someone who can score and defend.

[Who]

Hmm, first reaction - yes.

Second reaction - no, I want a more reliable defensive SG with legitimate size behind Bradley.

Third reaction - ?? Need to think on that some more. It's definitely an interesting idea.

No. You never trade a future first (which could turn into almost anything) for a rookie who himself was a late 1st-round pick and has still yet to prove himself as roster worthy.

That is a good policy.

[Fafnir]

thought for sure this thread would be flooded with those individuals who've been bemoaning the JJJ for Brooks trade last year thinking that since Brooks scored for NJ (in a  system that rewards gunners and doesn't defend) he must be a better player than JJJ and we should have kept him.

Its early yet in the day, give them time.

Though I will say that JJJ has yet to show himself to be a NBA player, I think Brooks has shown he can play though his best role and ceiling are still up in the air. I don't bemoan the trade, because its clear if they hadn't offered to trade Danny would have just taken JJJ in that slot, we were never getting him.

[ScottHow]

Hmm, first reaction - yes.

Second reaction - no, I want a more reliable defensive SG with legitimate size behind Bradley.

Third reaction - ?? Need to think on that some more. It's definitely an interesting idea.

No. You never trade a future first (which could turn into almost anything) for a rookie who himself was a late 1st-round pick and has still yet to prove himself as roster worthy.

Would you do it for cha 2nd rounder?

[Who]

Next year's draft is meant to be one of the weaker drafts in recent memory, isn't it?

Does that effect anyone's views on the value of Boston's pick next season?