Maybe we'll trade down instead

[drogbagarnett]

Anderson and Upshaw.
Trade down for Anderson and Trade up for Upshaw.
Deal with Houston is perfect in this scenario.
#16 and #45 for #18 and #32.
We end up with #18, #28, #32 and #33.
Package #28 + #33 and one of our future "early" 2nd round pick to get in the early 20s (where I hope Upshaw will still be...)
Select Christmas with #32.
We end up with Anderson at #18, Upshaw (early 20s) and Christmas at #32.

And with 1 FA and 1 big trade (Rondo TPE or Wallace & 1st)  this could be an up and coming team :

Smart       Thomas     Pressey
Bradley     Anderson  Turner
Middleton Crowder    Young
Olynyk      Jerebko     Christmas
Monroe     Zeller        Upshaw

Let's move down from #16 and up from #28 using some of next year 2nd rounders if needed.

Take 2 solid role players in Anderson (best 3&D in the draft I think) and Christmas (Hoping Christmas defense is solid and can build on his mid range Jumper).
And swing for a star potential in Upshaw if he can get more muscles and develop a 3 point shot like in his workout video..)

[hwangjini_1]

Of all the multiple options Danny will pursue, I think trading down is the least likely, due to the math of too many picks already.  Danny is looking to unload picks for players or higher picks.  I think we miss out on trading up from 16 but trade up from 28.  Danny is going to use assets and go after Luol Deng if the Timberwolves draft a Center with their first pick.  I'd say it would cost us Olynyk/Sullinger plus a first round pick.

You mean Gorgui Dieng.

maybe not. after all, in the nba these days they are moving more towards stretch 5s. 

[PhoSita]

I agree with Granath.

Trading down makes no sense for the Celtics.

Trading picks for established players, sure.

Trading picks to move up and have fewer, better picks, sure.


This isn't the NFL.  Trading down can make sense, but not so much for a team that already has way too much OK depth and not enough high level talent. 

I understand that LarBrd33 made this post mostly because this fits right in with his role -- saying, "Hey, what if the less exciting, disappointing thing happens, guys?  Somebody has to be disappointed, why not us?"

Still, this is a reach.  #28 and #34 is not equal to #16, even in a draft with a soft middle like this one.

[Who]

Trading down makes perfect sense if the talent available at Celtics pick is no better than the talent available a few picks lower -- which appears to be the case to my eyes.

Standing pat appears to me to be the worst possible option right now.

Trade up (if possible) or trade down (if too expensive to trade up).

[Evantime34]

I agree with Granath.

Trading down makes no sense for the Celtics.

Trading picks for established players, sure.

Trading picks to move up and have fewer, better picks, sure.


This isn't the NFL.  Trading down can make sense, but not so much for a team that already has way too much OK depth and not enough high level talent. 

I understand that LarBrd33 made this post mostly because this fits right in with his role -- saying, "Hey, what if the less exciting, disappointing thing happens, guys?  Somebody has to be disappointed, why not us?"

Still, this is a reach.  #28 and #34 is not equal to #16, even in a draft with a soft middle like this one.

Pretty much agree. However, I can see a situation in which we trade down, if it is combined with another trade.

For example we like Justin Anderson with our first pick but know we can get him later. We then trade back, pickup and extra asset, move that asset with some of our later picks for an established player.

Or like the 16th pick for the 20th pick and another player.

[PhoSita]

Trading down makes perfect sense if the talent available at Celtics pick is no better than the talent available a few picks lower -- which appears to be the case to my eyes.

Standing pat appears to me to be the worst possible option right now.

Trade up (if possible) or trade down (if too expensive to trade up).

Unless Ainge trades away large portions of the currently existing roster, simply having roster space and time to develop players that that the Celtics draft is going to be a challenge.

Adding another second rounder in exchange for moving down to the late teens / early 20s just doesn't seem all that useful, in that context.

I don't love this draft where the Celts are going to be picking, but I still think I'd rather take the best possible prospect at 16 -- say Portis, Hunter, Looney, whoever -- than move down to the 20s and take a couple of guys who are still decent prospects, but probably top out as bench guys (e.g. Montrezl Harrell and Rondae Hollis-Jefferson).

[Who]

Trading down makes perfect sense if the talent available at Celtics pick is no better than the talent available a few picks lower -- which appears to be the case to my eyes.

Standing pat appears to me to be the worst possible option right now.

Trade up (if possible) or trade down (if too expensive to trade up).

Unless Ainge trades away large portions of the currently existing roster, simply having roster space and time to develop players that that the Celtics draft is going to be a challenge.

Adding another second rounder in exchange for moving down to the late teens / early 20s just doesn't seem all that useful, in that context.

I don't love this draft where the Celts are going to be picking, but I still think I'd rather take the best possible prospect at 16 -- say Portis, Hunter, Looney, whoever -- than move down to the 20s and take a couple of guys who are still decent prospects, but probably top out as bench guys (e.g. Montrezl Harrell and Rondae Hollis-Jefferson).

You can use the extra asset you pick to add into subsequent trade.

There is value there.

[PhoSita]

Meh.  The Celtics have that kind of value coming out their ears.

I'm just not convinced it's all that helpful for making the one kind of move that will actually make a difference for the Celtics at this point in the rebuild -- acquiring high level talent.

Even if it's only a slightly better chance, I'd rather just take the best swing at finding a real quality player at 16 instead of moving back and adding more "value."

[mef730]

Anderson and Upshaw.
Trade down for Anderson and Trade up for Upshaw.
Deal with Houston is perfect in this scenario.
#16 and #45 for #18 and #32.
We end up with #18, #28, #32 and #33.
Package #28 + #33 and one of our future "early" 2nd round pick to get in the early 20s (where I hope Upshaw will still be...)
Select Christmas with #32.
We end up with Anderson at #18, Upshaw (early 20s) and Christmas at #32.

TP because I just spent more time than I should have trying to work out trades and this is almost exactly what I came up with:

#16 for #18 and #32
Some mix of seconds plus the #28 for #24 or 25. 
Pick Anderson and Upshaw.

Clearly great minds thing alike.

Mike