Is Stevens going to start the rookies in April?

[Celtics18]

good news, Utah won today against the Magic (by 1 point!) and we move closer to the bottom as they move up.

The teams to watch out for really are just LA, Utah and Sac. i think the "best" the C's can hope for at this point is the 4th worst record.

Ever since the off-season, when DA "unveiled" this roster that featured an injured Rondo, a rookie coach and a bunch of spare parts in the rotation, I've been a pro-tanker. Even if he never went out and said it, this looked like a year in which DA was willing to give up for a brighter future.

Now, it's a given that nothing is guaranteed in this league (a pick could be a bust in the same that guys like KO or Sully could potentially stop improving or they've already reached their ceiling, or like how Rondo could bolt in FA and leave us with nothing) but logically, a higher pick will put us at a better position to rebuild, and i trust DA's decision making once he has the assets. That's all people can really do anyway: Put themselves in the best position to succeed.

If the best we can hope for is "4th worst" then I'm not going to lose to much sleep if we end up somewhere between 6th to 14th worst. 

After Wiggins and Parker (and possibly Embiid), I don't think there's that much clear cut talent separation between the next guys.  I think, for example, that one or more of the likes of TJ Warren, Jusuf Nurkic, Willie Cauley-Stein, Dario Saric, Noah Vonleh, Gary Harris, Nik Stauskas, and/or Adreian Payne have a chance to be as good or better pros as Marcus Smart, Julius Randle, Dante Exum, and/or Aaron Gordon.

that's your assessment (I think Exum will be terrific) and that's if you're simply looking to use the pick on a rookie. it's probable that DA trades the 4th pick in a package, which would net more value than say, the 14th pick.

if we landed the 14th pick in 07, i doubt we would've gotten Ray Allen.

That's your assessment:

Don't get me wrong here on Exum, but I've long suspected that more than half the hype on him stems from the fact that nobody has ever seen him play (outside of that one World Hoops Summit game--where he played really well).  So, not having seen him, nobody has been able to tear his game apart like they have with everybody else.  It's more fun to imagine that he's the Penny Hardaway of the Outback than that he's a poor man's version of Michael Carter-Williams.

We'll see.  I'm rooting for him.

Our own assessments of the rookies are our own. My take on Exum could easily be wrong in the same way that it could easily be right.

However, my point stands that there's actually a significant difference between holding pick #14 and say, pick #4, particularly in trade value. Teams who want to move up will trade something good to get #4. Meanwhile, there will likely be significantly lesser offers to acquire the #14 pick.

Again, though, what we can get in trade value for the 4th pick vs. the 14th pick is purely speculation on your part.  If it turns out that most GMs start to believe that there's a lot of depth in this draft, but not that much separation in talent and potential between picks 4 and 14, then the difference in trade value between those picks won't be as significant as you seem to believe it will be. 

Also, you haven't acknowledged the premise that there could actually be some positives for the future involved in closing out the season on a strong note:

1.  It could raise trade value of players already on the roster.

2.  It could help develop chemistry and confidence going into next year for the players who stick around.

3.  It could help make the Celtics a more attractive destination for free free agents or soon-to-be free agents. 

[Smokeeye123]

Again, though, what we can get in trade value for the 4th pick vs. the 14th pick is purely speculation on your part.  If it turns out that most GMs start to believe that there's a lot of depth in this draft, but not that much separation in talent and potential between picks 4 and 14, then the difference in trade value between those picks won't be as significant as you seem to believe it will be. 

Also, you haven't acknowledged the premise that there could actually be some positives for the future involved in closing out the season on a strong note:

1.  It could raise trade value of players already on the roster.

2.  It could help develop chemistry and confidence going into next year for the players who stick around.

3.  It could help make the Celtics a more attractive destination for free free agents or soon-to-be free agents. 

lol, seriously? More players will want to come here if we win a couple more games in April? I'm sure Lance Stephenson is refreshing the nba scoreboard frantically every week to see if we've beaten teams like the Pistons or not so it can help him decide to come here.

And how is the assumption that the 4th pick is much more valuable than the 14th speculation? Unless you've been on Neptune the last 50 years you have to know that's not true. Do you think we could of traded for Ray Allen with the 14th pick as opposed to the 5th? Not a chance.

And the mental stuff about players developing chemistry is silly, losing 2-3 extra games doesn't mean that much from a chemistry perspective, but from a drafting perspective it could improve our position by 3 or 4 places.

[Celtics18]

Again, though, what we can get in trade value for the 4th pick vs. the 14th pick is purely speculation on your part.  If it turns out that most GMs start to believe that there's a lot of depth in this draft, but not that much separation in talent and potential between picks 4 and 14, then the difference in trade value between those picks won't be as significant as you seem to believe it will be. 

Also, you haven't acknowledged the premise that there could actually be some positives for the future involved in closing out the season on a strong note:

1.  It could raise trade value of players already on the roster.

2.  It could help develop chemistry and confidence going into next year for the players who stick around.

3.  It could help make the Celtics a more attractive destination for free free agents or soon-to-be free agents. 

1. lol, seriously? More players will want to come here if we win a couple more games in April? I'm sure Lance Stephenson is refreshing the nba scoreboard frantically every week to see if we've beaten teams like the Pistons or not so it can help him decide to come here.

2. And how is the assumption that the 4th pick is much more valuable than the 14th speculation? Unless you've been on Neptune the last 50 years you have to know that's not true. Do you think we could of traded for Ray Allen with the 14th pick as opposed to the 5th? Not a chance.

3. And the mental stuff about players developing chemistry is silly, losing 2-3 extra games doesn't mean that much from a chemistry perspective, but from a drafting perspective it could improve our position by 3 or 4 places.

1.  It's not so much a couple of wins in April that will matter, but it's more the matter of being a team that can show that they are headed in a positive direction.

2.  It is speculation.  You've said nothing to show definitively that you know what the respective values of this year's draft prospects will be come draft night. 

3.  Again, it's not so much about the final record at this point, but more about building some chemistry and cohesion together going into next year.  I guess I put more weight into that kind of stuff than many around here.  I do think that if these guys can play some good basketball down the stretch here that it could help carry over some confidence going into next season. 

I'll take what we get on draft night, but I don't see anything out there that makes me want to see my Celtics throwing games to up their chances at a higher spot in the draft.

I'm not going to try to tell anyone not to root for losses.  You're entitled to your own way of being a fan.  However, I'm going to stick to my guns and continue to root for the Boston Celtics to win every basketball game in which they play. 

I refuse to buy into the propaganda that winning a few more games represents some kind of irreparable sacrifice of the future. 
 

[guava_wrench]

First, Sully is not a rookie.

Second, Rondo and Bradley will start together so long as they are healthy.

Third, there is no way Green does not start unless he is hurt.

So the (pretty obvious) answer is that Pressey may get chances to start during back to backs since Rondo will miss one and Olynyk may get start chances. Vitor could have had chances if he was healthy. The reality is that most of those rookies are irrelevant. It is far more important to build chemistry among Rondo, Green and Bradley than to see if Babb or Johnson could be good at the end of the bench.

[guava_wrench]

Again, though, what we can get in trade value for the 4th pick vs. the 14th pick is purely speculation on your part.  If it turns out that most GMs start to believe that there's a lot of depth in this draft, but not that much separation in talent and potential between picks 4 and 14, then the difference in trade value between those picks won't be as significant as you seem to believe it will be. 

Also, you haven't acknowledged the premise that there could actually be some positives for the future involved in closing out the season on a strong note:

1.  It could raise trade value of players already on the roster.

2.  It could help develop chemistry and confidence going into next year for the players who stick around.

3.  It could help make the Celtics a more attractive destination for free free agents or soon-to-be free agents. 

1. lol, seriously? More players will want to come here if we win a couple more games in April? I'm sure Lance Stephenson is refreshing the nba scoreboard frantically every week to see if we've beaten teams like the Pistons or not so it can help him decide to come here.

2. And how is the assumption that the 4th pick is much more valuable than the 14th speculation? Unless you've been on Neptune the last 50 years you have to know that's not true. Do you think we could of traded for Ray Allen with the 14th pick as opposed to the 5th? Not a chance.

3. And the mental stuff about players developing chemistry is silly, losing 2-3 extra games doesn't mean that much from a chemistry perspective, but from a drafting perspective it could improve our position by 3 or 4 places.

1.  It's not so much a couple of wins in April that will matter, but it's more the matter of being a team that can show that they are headed in a positive direction.

2.  It is speculation.  You've said nothing to show definitively that you know what the respective values of this year's draft prospects will be come draft night. 

3.  Again, it's not so much about the final record at this point, but more about building some chemistry and cohesion together going into next year.  I guess I put more weight into that kind of stuff than many around here.  I do think that if these guys can play some good basketball down the stretch here that it could help carry over some confidence going into next season. 

I'll take what we get on draft night, but I don't see anything out there that makes me want to see my Celtics throwing games to up their chances at a higher spot in the draft.

I'm not going to try to tell anyone not to root for losses.  You're entitled to your own way of being a fan.  However, I'm going to stick to my guns and continue to root for the Boston Celtics to win every basketball game in which they play. 

I refuse to buy into the propaganda that winning a few more games represents some kind of irreparable sacrifice of the future.

1. The only way this team is heading in a positive direction is if it gets more talent and if key players perform. Wins don't mean much when you lack talent. Significant players developing (like AB, Sully or Green) does.

2. Your 'speculation' claim is out of touch with reality. The 4th pick ALWAYS has much more value than the 14th. The real issue is who will be willing to give up something we value for the pick. He doesn't have to know what the value of the pick will be on draft night to assert with extreme confidence that if say Parker, Wiggins and Exum or Embiid go 1-2-3, the value of being able to choose from everyone else in the draft would be worth much more than being able to choose from who is left at 14th.

It is reasonable to want the team to focus on developing chemistry these last few weeks. On the other hand, you should just stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the value of the other approach. While I think starting the rookies (apart from Olynyk and maybe Pressey when Rondo is off) is silly and pointless, it is laughable to claim that there isn't a vast difference between the value of the 4th pick and the 14th pick in *any* draft since there will always be teams that covet guys that will go long before the 14th pick.

Why is it pointless to worry about the marginal rookies? Because they probably won't be here next season. How many of our late season marginal player pickups who got team options for a second year ended up remaining with the team and having even a marginal impact? Terrence Williams? Shavlik Randolph? DJ White? Sean Williams? Ryan Hollins? The main value in these guys is typically the fact that you can trade them to match salaries and then the other team can cut them at no cost.

[Celtics18]

Wins don't mean much when you lack talent.[/b] Significant players developing (like AB, Sully or Green) does.

2. Your 'speculation' claim is out of touch with reality. The 4th pick ALWAYS has much more value than the 14th. The real issue is who will be willing to give up something we value for the pick. He doesn't have to know what the value of the pick will be on draft night to assert with extreme confidence that if say Parker, Wiggins and Exum or Embiid go 1-2-3, the value of being able to choose from everyone else in the draft would be worth much more than being able to choose from who is left at 14th.

It is reasonable to want the team to focus on developing chemistry these last few weeks. On the other hand, you should just stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the value of the other approach. While I think starting the rookies (apart from Olynyk and maybe Pressey when Rondo is off) is silly and pointless, it is laughable to claim that there isn't a vast difference between the value of the 4th pick and the 14th pick in *any* draft since there will always be teams that covet guys that will go long before the 14th pick.

Why is it pointless to worry about the marginal rookies? Because they probably won't be here next season. How many of our late season marginal player pickups who got team options for a second year ended up remaining with the team and having even a marginal impact? Terrence Williams? Shavlik Randolph? DJ White? Sean Williams? Ryan Hollins? The main value in these guys is typically the fact that you can trade them to match salaries and then the other team can cut them at no cost.

But, we don't lack talent.  We already have a star player in place in Rondo, some promising youngsters in Bradley, Sullinger, and Olynyk, and a very talented--albeit at times frustrating--small forward in Jeff Green.

I'm not refusing to acknowledge the arguments in favor of the "tanking" approach;  I'm presenting the other side of the argument. 

I'm not against getting minutes for the younger guys like Bradley, Olynyk, and Sullinger, but I don't think that playing those guys significant minutes represents tanking.  Those are among our best players.  Of course they are going to get minutes. 

[guava_wrench]

But, we don't lack talent.  We already have a star player in place in Rondo, some promising youngsters in Bradley, Sullinger, and Olynyk, and a very talented--albeit at times frustrating--small forward in Jeff Green.

Is this meant to be ironic? Your team lacks talent if the best you can say is that you have some 'promising youngsters'. That is [dang]ing with faint praise. All you are saying is that we have guys who could be parts of NBA rotations. We aren't even talking all-star caliber yet. That means we lack talent. We are Rondo and a bunch of guys.

If we don't lack talent, what NBA teams do lack talent? Sure, we are better than any team in the NCAA. We have talent in that sense. But compared to other NBA rosters, we lack talent.

[Celtics18]

But, we don't lack talent.  We already have a star player in place in Rondo, some promising youngsters in Bradley, Sullinger, and Olynyk, and a very talented--albeit at times frustrating--small forward in Jeff Green.

Is this meant to be ironic? Your team lacks talent if the best you can say is that you have some 'promising youngsters'. That is [dang]ing with faint praise. All you are saying is that we have guys who could be parts of NBA rotations. We aren't even talking all-star caliber yet. That means we lack talent. We are Rondo and a bunch of guys.

If we don't lack talent, what NBA teams do lack talent? Sure, we are better than any team in the NCAA. We have talent in that sense. But compared to other NBA rosters, we lack talent.

We have Rondo.  That, in itself, puts us considerably further ahead than many NBA teams who are in rebuilding mode. 

We have a good number of first round draft picks, not just this year but over the course of the next five years.

And, no, we don't have any other players on the team who classify as "stars" right now.  That's why Danny's goal over the next few years will be to develop the players we already have, draft and develop more, and/or find ways to bring someone in who is already established. 

To me, the stance that the only way to accomplish the above is to get a top three pick in this year's draft or all is lost has always been an extremely myopic view of the situation. 

[guava_wrench]

I'm not refusing to acknowledge the arguments in favor of the "tanking" approach;  I'm presenting the other side of the argument. 

No, you are not only 'presenting the other side of the argument' when you are refusing to accept realities like the 4th pick having way more value than the 14th pick.

I am not saying that everything you say fits this mold. There are many reasonable things that you are saying where we are talking about differences of opinions -- which will always exist. But the pick comment is unreasonable.

Since last season, I have been an advocate of making moves for 2 years down the road or more. I was pro-KG/PP trade. I was pro-Crawford trade and pro-Lee trade. But I am also pro-play your best players, so long as they aren't at the end of their careers (Bogans). I was pro-playing Wallace because we are stuck with him 2 more years. I am pro-playing Green, AB, Sully and Rondo together as much as possible since they are our core at the moment and we need to see how good they can be together. I am pro-playing Olynyk since we can continue his rookie deal for 3 more season if he develops in a good way and he has talent. I am pro-playing Hump since he has talent and is still young, and he increases the chances of our core guys developing chemistry since he understands the NBA game.

On the other hand, I am indifferent to wins or losses. If the team wins, I am happy then won because I am a Celtics fan. If the team loses, I am happy we are improving the value of our draft pick since I am invested in the future of the Celtics. All I really want to see in games is improved chemistry between the players that matter long term for the Celtics.

[guava_wrench]

To me, the stance that the only way to accomplish the above is to get a top three pick in this year's draft or all is lost has always been an extremely myopic view of the situation.

Then don't focus on the caricature argument that is far too simplistic. There is no single way. All we can do is analyze possible outcomes and their likelihood.

For example, if we have the worst record in the league, there is a good probability that we will draft someone who will either be the best or second best player on our team by their second season if we kept all our current guys. If someone says that this is the only way to get better, they are talking nonsense. But if anyone says that the pick doesn't increase in value as it becomes earlier in the draft, they are also talking nonsense.

People need to stop trying to disagree with every single point that someone else makes and instead concede the reasonable points but then show why there are counter points that give validity to the other point of view.

I have been strongly for discounting this season while also being strongly against fire sales. There have been a few posters (far from the majority) who wanted to get whatever we could get for Rondo to be a worse team and get better lottery odds. I find this logic misguided because the value of Rondo and our pick this year is mostly likely going to be more than our pick (with a likely worse) and the return in a Rondo trade. It is easy to overestimate the chances of replacing the value that he brings. If people feel sure that Rondo won't return, I can see their desire to trade him. Apart from that, I think some are missing the actual math of improved lottery odds and the expected payoff from the pick. Considering the fact that our record without Rondo is better than our record with Rondo (though he often plays against the better team in back-to-backs), it isn't clear that dumping him for low value will end up in better lottery odds anyway. On the other hand, if we stick with Rondo and he walks as a FA, we are in really bad shape.

[Celtics18]

I'm not refusing to acknowledge the arguments in favor of the "tanking" approach;  I'm presenting the other side of the argument. 

No, you are not only 'presenting the other side of the argument' when you are refusing to accept realities like the 4th pick having way more value than the 14th pick.

I am not saying that everything you say fits this mold. There are many reasonable things that you are saying where we are talking about differences of opinions -- which will always exist. But the pick comment is unreasonable.

Since last season, I have been an advocate of making moves for 2 years down the road or more. I was pro-KG/PP trade. I was pro-Crawford trade and pro-Lee trade. But I am also pro-play your best players, so long as they aren't at the end of their careers (Bogans). I was pro-playing Wallace because we are stuck with him 2 more years. I am pro-playing Green, AB, Sully and Rondo together as much as possible since they are our core at the moment and we need to see how good they can be together. I am pro-playing Olynyk since we can continue his rookie deal for 3 more season if he develops in a good way and he has talent. I am pro-playing Hump since he has talent and is still young, and he increases the chances of our core guys developing chemistry since he understands the NBA game.

On the other hand, I am indifferent to wins or losses. If the team wins, I am happy then won because I am a Celtics fan. If the team loses, I am happy we are improving the value of our draft pick since I am invested in the future of the Celtics. All I really want to see in games is improved chemistry between the players that matter long term for the Celtics.

It sounds like we aren't actually that far off from each other in regards to what we want to see for the rest of the season.

As to the "value of the picks" argument, sure a number 4 pick will inherently have more value than a number 14 pick, but I still maintain that we don't know how much more.  I do think that it's valid to surmise that this draft flattens out talent wise quite a bit after the first two or three picks. 

If NBA gms see that, as well, then there isn't a huge difference between, say, the number four pick and the number fourteen pick.  When we are using terms like "significant" or "way more" value, we aren't really talking about anything concrete to begin with. 

I don't think it's as unreasonable as you do to think that an NBA gm may not be willing to give up much more for the chance at Marcus Smart or Julius Randle than they would for the chance at TJ Warren or Nik Stauskas, for example. 

Many like to think there's some kind of inherent, scientifically derived  value of future NBA players that is generated by the draftniks at DraftExpress and other draft sites.  I've never thought that was the case.  The draft is far from an exact science.  I believe that those who run NBA teams are aware of this fact.  I'm sure they develop their own likes and dislikes that aren't entirely influenced by the mock draft boards. 

[LarBrd33]

I'm not refusing to acknowledge the arguments in favor of the "tanking" approach;  I'm presenting the other side of the argument. 

No, you are not only 'presenting the other side of the argument' when you are refusing to accept realities like the 4th pick having way more value than the 14th pick.

I am not saying that everything you say fits this mold. There are many reasonable things that you are saying where we are talking about differences of opinions -- which will always exist. But the pick comment is unreasonable.

Since last season, I have been an advocate of making moves for 2 years down the road or more. I was pro-KG/PP trade. I was pro-Crawford trade and pro-Lee trade. But I am also pro-play your best players, so long as they aren't at the end of their careers (Bogans). I was pro-playing Wallace because we are stuck with him 2 more years. I am pro-playing Green, AB, Sully and Rondo together as much as possible since they are our core at the moment and we need to see how good they can be together. I am pro-playing Olynyk since we can continue his rookie deal for 3 more season if he develops in a good way and he has talent. I am pro-playing Hump since he has talent and is still young, and he increases the chances of our core guys developing chemistry since he understands the NBA game.

On the other hand, I am indifferent to wins or losses. If the team wins, I am happy then won because I am a Celtics fan. If the team loses, I am happy we are improving the value of our draft pick since I am invested in the future of the Celtics. All I really want to see in games is improved chemistry between the players that matter long term for the Celtics.

It sounds like we aren't actually that far off from each other in regards to what we want to see for the rest of the season.

As to the "value of the picks" argument, sure a number 4 pick will inherently have more value than a number 14 pick, but I still maintain that we don't know how much more.  I do think that it's valid to surmise that this draft flattens out talent wise quite a bit after the first two or three picks. 

If NBA gms see that, as well, then there isn't a huge difference between, say, the number four pick and the number fourteen pick.  When we are using terms like "significant" or "way more" value, we aren't really talking about anything concrete to begin with. 

I don't think it's as unreasonable as you do to think that an NBA gm may not be willing to give up much more for the chance at Marcus Smart or Julius Randle than they would for the chance at TJ Warren or Nik Stauskas, for example. 

Many like to think there's some kind of inherent, scientifically derived  value of future NBA players that is generated by the draftniks at DraftExpress and other draft sites.  I've never thought that was the case.  The draft is far from an exact science.  I believe that those who run NBA teams are aware of this fact.  I'm sure they develop their own likes and dislikes that aren't entirely influenced by the mock draft boards.

If Parker, Embiid and Wiggins all stay in school another year, it probably isn't going to matter much.   #4 pick will be someone like Aaron Gordon.  #14 pick will be someone i've never heard of.

[Smokeeye123]

Outside of Sullinger everyone on our roster is on the chopping block. Even Sully would be moved in a heartbeat if the deal is right. Ainge wants banner 18 and he'd trade Ed Lacerte if he thought it'd push the team over the top.

I understand the viewpoint that the team should try to be competitive and win as many games as they can, I just disagree with it. What's the point of team chemistry when I'm pretty sure a lot of the people that would be building chemistry won't be here next season.  When we tanked in 2006-07 we ended up winning it all the next year. We never would of been able to assemble the big three unless we tanked and got that pick.

The NBA is a superstar driven league. Having young promising players has never won anyone anything. Unless those young players were thrown out the door in exchanged for proven players.

[BballTim]

I'm not refusing to acknowledge the arguments in favor of the "tanking" approach;  I'm presenting the other side of the argument. 

No, you are not only 'presenting the other side of the argument' when you are refusing to accept realities like the 4th pick having way more value than the 14th pick.

I am not saying that everything you say fits this mold. There are many reasonable things that you are saying where we are talking about differences of opinions -- which will always exist. But the pick comment is unreasonable.

Since last season, I have been an advocate of making moves for 2 years down the road or more. I was pro-KG/PP trade. I was pro-Crawford trade and pro-Lee trade. But I am also pro-play your best players, so long as they aren't at the end of their careers (Bogans). I was pro-playing Wallace because we are stuck with him 2 more years. I am pro-playing Green, AB, Sully and Rondo together as much as possible since they are our core at the moment and we need to see how good they can be together. I am pro-playing Olynyk since we can continue his rookie deal for 3 more season if he develops in a good way and he has talent. I am pro-playing Hump since he has talent and is still young, and he increases the chances of our core guys developing chemistry since he understands the NBA game.

On the other hand, I am indifferent to wins or losses. If the team wins, I am happy then won because I am a Celtics fan. If the team loses, I am happy we are improving the value of our draft pick since I am invested in the future of the Celtics. All I really want to see in games is improved chemistry between the players that matter long term for the Celtics.

It sounds like we aren't actually that far off from each other in regards to what we want to see for the rest of the season.

As to the "value of the picks" argument, sure a number 4 pick will inherently have more value than a number 14 pick, but I still maintain that we don't know how much more.  I do think that it's valid to surmise that this draft flattens out talent wise quite a bit after the first two or three picks. 

If NBA gms see that, as well, then there isn't a huge difference between, say, the number four pick and the number fourteen pick.  When we are using terms like "significant" or "way more" value, we aren't really talking about anything concrete to begin with. 

I don't think it's as unreasonable as you do to think that an NBA gm may not be willing to give up much more for the chance at Marcus Smart or Julius Randle than they would for the chance at TJ Warren or Nik Stauskas, for example. 

Many like to think there's some kind of inherent, scientifically derived  value of future NBA players that is generated by the draftniks at DraftExpress and other draft sites.  I've never thought that was the case.  The draft is far from an exact science.  I believe that those who run NBA teams are aware of this fact.  I'm sure they develop their own likes and dislikes that aren't entirely influenced by the mock draft boards.

If Parker, Embiid and Wiggins all stay in school another year, it probably isn't going to matter much.   #4 pick will be someone like Aaron Gordon.  #14 pick will be someone i've never heard of.

  If those three stay in school there will still be at least 4-5 franchise cornerstones coming out.

[Smokeeye123]

...Im as pro tanking as it gets but 4-5 more franchise cornerstones?

Julius Randle is a franchise cornerstone?

It's debatable if even Wiggins/Parker/Embiid are.