Chad Ford: Upshaw's off-the-court issues more serious than initially thought

[Ilikesports17]

Jeff Green overcame heart problems. I think there are a few other athletes that were able to overcome/deal with the issue

I still think Danny could take the risk on him at 33.  We can burn a pick or two (risky pick, euro draft and stash)

It totally depends on what the heart problem is. Some heart issues are correctable with surgery or treatment, some are not , and are very life threatening, and some issues the doctors really don't know much about, such as Reggie Lewis' issue.

I would select him in the first maybe even before our 28th pick. He has known about the problem and seen doc's that cleared him to play at 2 dif colleges.

But I really hope he slides more now. It would be a gift to get him with our 33rd pick. And it may be the best situation for both parties in the long run if he is selected 33rd.

I love it. Putting that silver lining on getting tossed from 2 schools.

[LGC88]

You are not making a favor to Upshaw if you give him a guarantied contract.
You need to keep him in check to prove his worth. 60 days rehab is not enough, he has to do it for a year at least and prove he has mature and is ready for nba.
If you give him a guarantied contract, there is a chance that his demons take over again.
That would be a huge mistake that will ruin his career. The organisations have a responsibility here. You can't mess around with a kid like that.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

You are not making a favor to Upshaw if you give him a guarantied contract.
You need to keep him in check to prove his worth. 60 days rehab is not enough, he has to do it for a year at least and prove he has mature and is ready for nba.
If you give him a guarantied contract, there is a chance that his demons take over again.
That would be a huge mistake that will ruin his career. The organisations have a responsibility here. You can't mess around with a kid like that.

I don't get this at all.

What's the difference between guaranteed and non guaranteed when he's going to get paid anyway?

I want to be on the record that I'm only using this post for the sake of argument. I believe he can turn his career around. But with that said, even on a non guaranteed contract, he's going to have money, and if that's the cause of him reverting, what's stopping him even if he had 2 less years guaranteed? And if he pans out, and gets paid if he's really going to revert, what's stopping him from doing so with all that money he earned?

The reason you pick in the first is not about guaranteed money, it's about getting him before anyone else those. We're not talking about risking a 4 year/$10 million dollar gamble, he'lo be on a rookie scale contract which in NBA terms is chump change. I get if we're talking "it will kill our cap room" salary, but it doesn't matter if he's on a guaranteed rookie scale or not, if he's going to revert, he will.

[Eddie20]

You are not making a favor to Upshaw if you give him a guarantied contract.
You need to keep him in check to prove his worth. 60 days rehab is not enough, he has to do it for a year at least and prove he has mature and is ready for nba.
If you give him a guarantied contract, there is a chance that his demons take over again.
That would be a huge mistake that will ruin his career. The organisations have a responsibility here. You can't mess around with a kid like that.

I don't get this at all.

What's the difference between guaranteed and non guaranteed when he's going to get paid anyway?

The difference in yearly salary is not much. However, when you draft someone in the 1st rd you're making more of a long term commitment. Another thing is the roster spot. If we take Upshaw at #28 and his issues pops up, then much like we had to do with Fab Melo, we'll have to give something up in order for a team to take him off our hands. Or rather than cutting him outright and just being responsible for paying him whatever the prorated difference is, we'd be responsible for the rest of his rookie contract.

I don't understand the difference in drafting him at 33 as opposed to 28. If someone wants to give him a guaranteed deal, then that's on them. However, in the second round we would only need two teams to pass on him before we take a swing for the fences.

[rollie mass]

i think bill walton and the celts know more than anybody on whats going on-as a poster that has been sober for 30yrs-its a tough call
the money isn't the issue but more so -is he an addict or just an abuser who got on the wrong track
 thats a big difference
 -my wife and kids have never had to deal with a drunk or drug abuser ,many people helped along way-,i couldn't do it alone-

[LGC88]

You are not making a favor to Upshaw if you give him a guarantied contract.
You need to keep him in check to prove his worth. 60 days rehab is not enough, he has to do it for a year at least and prove he has mature and is ready for nba.
If you give him a guarantied contract, there is a chance that his demons take over again.
That would be a huge mistake that will ruin his career. The organisations have a responsibility here. You can't mess around with a kid like that.

I don't get this at all.

What's the difference between guaranteed and non guaranteed when he's going to get paid anyway?

I want to be on the record that I'm only using this post for the sake of argument. I believe he can turn his career around. But with that said, even on a non guaranteed contract, he's going to have money, and if that's the cause of him reverting, what's stopping him even if he had 2 less years guaranteed? And if he pans out, and gets paid if he's really going to revert, what's stopping him from doing so with all that money he earned?

The reason you pick in the first is not about guaranteed money, it's about getting him before anyone else those. We're not talking about risking a 4 year/$10 million dollar gamble, he'lo be on a rookie scale contract which in NBA terms is chump change. I get if we're talking "it will kill our cap room" salary, but it doesn't matter if he's on a guaranteed rookie scale or not, if he's going to revert, he will.

Obviously you didn't read my post properly.
If you want to help this kid, pick him at the 2nd round.
It's not about money for the Celtics. It's about him to behave if he wants his paycheck.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

You are not making a favor to Upshaw if you give him a guarantied contract.
You need to keep him in check to prove his worth. 60 days rehab is not enough, he has to do it for a year at least and prove he has mature and is ready for nba.
If you give him a guarantied contract, there is a chance that his demons take over again.
That would be a huge mistake that will ruin his career. The organisations have a responsibility here. You can't mess around with a kid like that.

I don't get this at all.

What's the difference between guaranteed and non guaranteed when he's going to get paid anyway?

I want to be on the record that I'm only using this post for the sake of argument. I believe he can turn his career around. But with that said, even on a non guaranteed contract, he's going to have money, and if that's the cause of him reverting, what's stopping him even if he had 2 less years guaranteed? And if he pans out, and gets paid if he's really going to revert, what's stopping him from doing so with all that money he earned?

The reason you pick in the first is not about guaranteed money, it's about getting him before anyone else those. We're not talking about risking a 4 year/$10 million dollar gamble, he'lo be on a rookie scale contract which in NBA terms is chump change. I get if we're talking "it will kill our cap room" salary, but it doesn't matter if he's on a guaranteed rookie scale or not, if he's going to revert, he will.

Obviously you didn't read my post properly.
If you want to help this kid, pick him at the 2nd round.
It's not about money for the Celtics. It's about him to behave if he wants his paycheck.

Well, chances ate you won't be able to pick him in the second round. I still think there's too much potential and there are teams needing a Center at the late 1st for him to drop way down the second round.

If it's not about the money, then why not just pick. I'll ask again, what's the difference? He'll still make money, he can still either destroy his life or turn it around, regardless of the contract status. Is the extra year and an extra $500k (not really sure about that, but I think I'm in the ball park) really the difference between him not focusing and focusing? He can still be or be out of the league no matter what the contract status is.

My point is why wait. The length and the guaranteed extra year given to him won't matter. What matters is we can get a high upside taltent in a position that we have a need with. Why wait for other teams to pick him just because you don't want to guarantee the third year.

And we'll put the same amount of work anyways, regardless of where he was picked. It's not like we'll have less amount of effort in keeping him in check if he has guaranteed money. He still, as you said, have to prove his worth, regardless of guaranteed dollars, in order to stay in the league.

We should take him at #16.

[nickagneta]

There's a more than good chance this kid goes undrafted. Really think posters here are:

1. Way overvaluing this kids abilities
2. Putting too much emphasis on his meaningless college stats that came almost exclusively against poor competition
3. Are putting not even attention to the health and behavioral red flags that he has demonstrated.

I am pretty sure that if the Celtics are going to want to take a chance on him, and given they haven't worked him out after interviewing him my guess is they have no interest in him, they will be able to do it as an undrafted free agent.

[footey]

There's a more than good chance this kid goes undrafted. Really think posters here are:

1. Way overvaluing this kids abilities
2. Putting too much emphasis on his meaningless college stats that came almost exclusively against poor competition
3. Are putting not even attention to the health and behavioral red flags that he has demonstrated.

I am pretty sure that if the Celtics are going to want to take a chance on him, and given they haven't worked him out after interviewing him my guess is they have no interest in him, they will be able to do it as an undrafted free agent.

pretty sure he will go somewhere in 2nd round.  too much potential.  the fact that we have multiple picks may make it worth the gamble. especially if we don't package them to trade up.

[PAOBoston]

You are not making a favor to Upshaw if you give him a guarantied contract.
You need to keep him in check to prove his worth. 60 days rehab is not enough, he has to do it for a year at least and prove he has mature and is ready for nba.
If you give him a guarantied contract, there is a chance that his demons take over again.
That would be a huge mistake that will ruin his career. The organisations have a responsibility here. You can't mess around with a kid like that.

I don't get this at all.

What's the difference between guaranteed and non guaranteed when he's going to get paid anyway?

I want to be on the record that I'm only using this post for the sake of argument. I believe he can turn his career around. But with that said, even on a non guaranteed contract, he's going to have money, and if that's the cause of him reverting, what's stopping him even if he had 2 less years guaranteed? And if he pans out, and gets paid if he's really going to revert, what's stopping him from doing so with all that money he earned?

The reason you pick in the first is not about guaranteed money, it's about getting him before anyone else those. We're not talking about risking a 4 year/$10 million dollar gamble, he'lo be on a rookie scale contract which in NBA terms is chump change. I get if we're talking "it will kill our cap room" salary, but it doesn't matter if he's on a guaranteed rookie scale or not, if he's going to revert, he will.

Obviously you didn't read my post properly.
If you want to help this kid, pick him at the 2nd round.
It's not about money for the Celtics. It's about him to behave if he wants his paycheck.

Well, chances ate you won't be able to pick him in the second round. I still think there's too much potential and there are teams needing a Center at the late 1st for him to drop way down the second round.

If it's not about the money, then why not just pick. I'll ask again, what's the difference? He'll still make money, he can still either destroy his life or turn it around, regardless of the contract status. Is the extra year and an extra $500k (not really sure about that, but I think I'm in the ball park) really the difference between him not focusing and focusing? He can still be or be out of the league no matter what the contract status is.

My point is why wait. The length and the guaranteed extra year given to him won't matter. What matters is we can get a high upside taltent in a position that we have a need with. Why wait for other teams to pick him just because you don't want to guarantee the third year.

And we'll put the same amount of work anyways, regardless of where he was picked. It's not like we'll have less amount of effort in keeping him in check if he has guaranteed money. He still, as you said, have to prove his worth, regardless of guaranteed dollars, in order to stay in the league.

We should take him at #16.

I cant believe people are actually seriously considering this guy at 16. No thanks. Maybe as a second rounder or as an undrafted free agent. Also, I think people vastly overrate his abilities. Truth is, he is a massively raw prospect who hasn't played much basketball recently, has been kicked out of 2 universities in 2 years, and has a history of drug abuse. That's the guy people want at 16? Not to mention, he was flagged with some sort of heart issue as well at the combine.

[35Lewis]

I agree with Nick and PAO on this.  I think the allure of finding a diamond in the rough has people blinded by his actual lack of basketball abilities.  The fact that he had off the court issues has people believing that it's the only thing driving him down the draft boards.  I personally think its the only thing keeping him in the conversation because nobody knows what he can be.

Pass, unless he wants to come to camp on a non guaranteed contract with a short leash.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

There's a more than good chance this kid goes undrafted. Really think posters here are:

1. Way overvaluing this kids abilities
2. Putting too much emphasis on his meaningless college stats that came almost exclusively against poor competition
3. Are putting not even attention to the health and behavioral red flags that he has demonstrated.

I am pretty sure that if the Celtics are going to want to take a chance on him, and given they haven't worked him out after interviewing him my guess is they have no interest in him, they will be able to do it as an undrafted free agent.

Chad Ford said himself that outside of the red flags, he's a lottery talent. Now I know Chad Ford isn't perfect, but surely he's credible enough to take seriously.

And that's why I'm pushing  for us to draft him at #16 (assuming his heart is okay, of course). I'm probably one of the few who thinks that...

A.) He can turn his life around and just leave the past behind. Or...
B.) He may not turn his life around, but we didn't invest a big asset to gamble on him.

Rudy Gobert was also raw when he came in. And now he's one of the premier rim protectors in the league. Chad Ford stated that Upshaw has that kind of potential. So is it really overeating bis abilities when one of the trusted draft scouts says he's a lottery level kid outside of the red flags?

[Yoki_IsTheName]

I agree with Nick and PAO on this.  I think the allure of finding a diamond in the rough has people blinded by his actual lack of basketball abilities.  The fact that he had off the court issues has people believing that it's the only thing driving him down the draft boards.  I personally think its the only thing keeping him in the conversation because nobody knows what he can be.

Pass, unless he wants to come to camp on a non guaranteed contract with a short leash.

Well, most draft scouts seem to disagree with you. The ESPN guy thinks he's a lottery pick if not for the red flags.

[Eddie20]

I agree with Nick and PAO on this.  I think the allure of finding a diamond in the rough has people blinded by his actual lack of basketball abilities.  The fact that he had off the court issues has people believing that it's the only thing driving him down the draft boards.  I personally think its the only thing keeping him in the conversation because nobody knows what he can be.

Pass, unless he wants to come to camp on a non guaranteed contract with a short leash.

Well, most draft scouts seem to disagree with you. The ESPN guy thinks he's a lottery pick if not for the red flags.

If it weren't for all the red flags, he'd probably be right there with Lyles and Portis as far as prospects go, but not a top 10 guy. That said, Lyles and Portis are some of our potential targets at #16 minus the issues. So it would make little sense to take Upshaw at #16 when everything is factored in. That's simply not good value, which is why many have a different opinion to yours.

[LooseCannon]

Upshaw's problems were such that Washington coach Lorenzo Romar supported Venoy Overton more than he supported Upshaw.

Upshaw looks like a riskier Sean Williams (another lengthy shot-blocker), with bigger concerns about character and drug use.