Poll: Sully+Bradley three firsts for the #6 pick.

[Celtics18]

Even more recent , would you have given up 16, 27, and a future late 1st for Giannis knowing what we know now about the players from that draft class?

Too many people fall into the mentality of the draft projections and expert big boards. Just because experts say there is a top 2 or top 3 in a draft doesnt mean they are right. Often enough they are not. There are many, many examples of guys projected, and taken, in the top 3 that sucked, and players projected and taken in the 4-10 range that were superstars. The bottom line is , the expert projections are just guesses, and I trust Ainge's scouting and evaluation more than NBAdraft.net and Draftexpress.

I totally agree with this statement.  People get so wrapped up in the mock draft boards that they start to believe they represent some kind of firm, objective standard for which players are the "most talented" and who will fare better as NBA players.

All it takes is a little studying of previous drafts to see that this is not the case.  While the draft isn't a complete crap shoot, it's much closer to being a roll of the dice than it is to being an exact science. 

I've always maintained that what a franchise does with a player--how he is developed, how he fits the organization, how he gets along with the coaches--and how hard that player works, how lucky he gets to find the right situation, how healthy he stays, what opportunities present themselves, etc . . . are all more important than where a player was drafted.

These are things that can't be known when Chad Ford presents his Big Board. 

[loco_91]

Yikes, I'm really high on guys who will likely be available (Winslow, WCS) but nonetheless this is an overpay. Sully AND Bradley? You're gutting our young core and giving away 3 1sts. Winslow, WCS, Hezonja etc. are great prospects but none of them project to be franchise players.

I'd probably do 16, 28 and either Sully or Bradley.

[SHAQATTACK]

Done

Gim me dat 6

[Yoki_IsTheName]

That puts us in range of Porzingis, Winslow, Stanley Johnson and Hezonja and we get rid of Bradley's contract?

Where do I sign up?

[cometboy]

While I agree this is a lot to give up for the uncertainty of a yet unproven college player, even a 6 pick, there are a couple of other ways to look at it:

First, would you rather have 1 star player, or 5 role players?

Second, it's misleading to talk about previous 6-picks unless you include ALL lower picks as well. You cannot guarantee that Danny will make the right choice, but you also cannot penalize Danny for the poor choices of other GMs. Include Dirk, Paul, Curry, Drummand, Klay, Kawhi, etc. in this comparison.

Would you make this trade if it were for Drummand? Curry?

In a New York minute - the key is if you think there will be a game changer available at 6 - that's the real debate.

CB

So you won't to trade four players for a 5% chance of hitting the new Curry.  Sounds reasonable 

Who said the number 6 pick could materialize into the new Steph Curry?

Giving up three 1st rounders for the number 6 pick in my opinion is ridiculous.

That's the type of package you give up for a Durant of AD, not the no 6 pick.

Was anyone willing to give us 2 players and 3 picks for Marcus Smart, last season?

Well, it depends on how strongly Ainge feels that he can get an all-star caliber player at 6.

Stephen Curry was picked 7th

Andre Drummond 9th

Dirk Nowitzki 9th

Paul Pierce 10th

Dwayne Wade 5th

There are plenty of examples of players drafted in that range who became not only all-star caliber, but franchise players on championship teams.

Also, it depends A LOT on what 1st rounders you are giving up. #16., 27, and the Dallas  1st are all poor picks that would never get you a player like Cousins or Gasol or Love

This is cherry picking data.
By the same logic, lots of good players were selected in the second round.
So, let's trade our #16 for a second rounder...

By your logic, the past 15 years of data says it's better to have the 4th pick (Bosh, Paul, Westbrook) or the 5th pick (Wade, Love, Cousins) rather than the 2nd pick (Durant, Aldridge). Those are the only stars I see at those picks. Maybe that's why we don't do well in the lottery. We're aiming too high!!!

haha

CB

[PhoSita]

Even more recent , would you have given up 16, 27, and a future late 1st for Giannis knowing what we know now about the players from that draft class?

Too many people fall into the mentality of the draft projections and expert big boards. Just because experts say there is a top 2 or top 3 in a draft doesnt mean they are right. Often enough they are not. There are many, many examples of guys projected, and taken, in the top 3 that sucked, and players projected and taken in the 4-10 range that were superstars. The bottom line is , the expert projections are just guesses, and I trust Ainge's scouting and evaluation more than NBAdraft.net and Draftexpress.

I totally agree with this statement.  People get so wrapped up in the mock draft boards that they start to believe they represent some kind of firm, objective standard for which players are the "most talented" and who will fare better as NBA players.

All it takes is a little studying of previous drafts to see that this is not the case.  While the draft isn't a complete crap shoot, it's much closer to being a roll of the dice than it is to being an exact science. 

I've always maintained that what a franchise does with a player--how he is developed, how he fits the organization, how he gets along with the coaches--and how hard that player works, how lucky he gets to find the right situation, how healthy he stays, what opportunities present themselves, etc . . . are all more important than where a player was drafted.

These are things that can't be known when Chad Ford presents his Big Board.

The franchise that a player goes to can make a huge difference.  I really believe that.

Where the franchise drafts determines who they get to select, and that matters, too.

Danny Ainge reportedly really liked Tyreke Evans and Harrison Barnes in those draft years.  What might the Celtics have done with those players?  Might they have turned into stars?  I'm sure there are plenty of similar examples.

I trust Danny, but I always like my GM to have the best assets available.  Higher draft picks are objectively better assets.

[Ilikesports17]

Even more recent , would you have given up 16, 27, and a future late 1st for Giannis knowing what we know now about the players from that draft class?

Too many people fall into the mentality of the draft projections and expert big boards. Just because experts say there is a top 2 or top 3 in a draft doesnt mean they are right. Often enough they are not. There are many, many examples of guys projected, and taken, in the top 3 that sucked, and players projected and taken in the 4-10 range that were superstars. The bottom line is , the expert projections are just guesses, and I trust Ainge's scouting and evaluation more than NBAdraft.net and Draftexpress.

I totally agree with this statement.  People get so wrapped up in the mock draft boards that they start to believe they represent some kind of firm, objective standard for which players are the "most talented" and who will fare better as NBA players.

All it takes is a little studying of previous drafts to see that this is not the case.  While the draft isn't a complete crap shoot, it's much closer to being a roll of the dice than it is to being an exact science. 

I've always maintained that what a franchise does with a player--how he is developed, how he fits the organization, how he gets along with the coaches--and how hard that player works, how lucky he gets to find the right situation, how healthy he stays, what opportunities present themselves, etc . . . are all more important than where a player was drafted.

These are things that can't be known when Chad Ford presents his Big Board.

The franchise that a player goes to can make a huge difference.  I really believe that.

Where the franchise drafts determines who they get to select, and that matters, too.

Danny Ainge reportedly really liked Tyreke Evans and Harrison Barnes in those draft years.  What might the Celtics have done with those players?  Might they have turned into stars?  I'm sure there are plenty of similar examples.

I trust Danny, but I always like my GM to have the best assets available.  Higher draft picks are objectively better assets.

For me the above reasons highlight why i think you areundervaluing high picks. Where you go is really important, but there are only so many guys with star talent. I mean GA was obviously a guy who could be a star, but he was so risky people passed on him.

Harrison Barnes and Tyreke Evans are similar. They both had the talent to be stars and whether it was through their own fault or their situation they failed to reach that level.

Tyler Zeller on the other hand, will never be a star.

Higher in the draft, there are higher ceiling guys. I mean at 16 RHJ, Lyles, Upshaw could all maybe be stars but so much has to go right for that to happen.

at 6 Winslow, Porzingis, Hezonja etc are so much more likely to become stars in the right position.

Thats why I think that give Danny and Brad the opportunity to get someone with that ceiling and they will make sure Boston is the place where they can hit that ceiling.

[Future Celtics Owner]

I can't even read this . What a joke.

[CelticsFanFromNYC]

No way Danny Gives up all that for a player who hasn't even stepped on the NBA HArdwood.

Sully and AB 's potential isnt extremely high  BUT none the less TOO HIGH to trade fro all that especially if the pi cn turn out a Bust.

NOT EXCLUDING MYSELF. Everyone is super thirsty for "Fireworks".. I wouldnt be suprised ifall we did was trade up 3 or 4 spots. We have wayyyy to may trade assets to throw it on a 6th pick. Im prtty sure we couldve moved up like that last year with the Nets picks..

IMO. Id give up Sully + Young and a 1st if i could get Winslow but no more

[hpantazo]

I think the bottom line is, we have a lot of assets, and we need to use them somehow to get a couple of stars. Having a team of Bradleys, KO's , and James Youngs isn't going to do it for us.

I think Ainge's preference will be to combine our assets for guys like Cousins, but if that doesn't work he will combine assets to trade up if there is a player he thinks can be an all-star. Not doing that would be a bad idea, as 16, 28, 33, the Mavs future pick and other future picks are going to go to waste if we add more guys like James Young, Tyler Zeller,  and Olynyk with them. We have enough players like that as it is.

[Future Celtics Owner]

I think the bottom line is, we have a lot of assets, and we need to use them somehow to get a couple of stars. Having a team of Bradleys, KO's , and James Youngs isn't going to do it for us.

I think Ainge's preference will be to combine our assets for guys like Cousins, but if that doesn't work he will combine assets to trade up if there is a player he thinks can be an all-star. Not doing that would be a bad idea, as 16, 28, 33, the Mavs future pick and other future picks are going to go to waste if we add more guys like James Young, Tyler Zeller,  and Olynyk with them. We have enough players like that as it is.

I disagree with you about James young. But agree with everything else.

[Celtics18]

Even more recent , would you have given up 16, 27, and a future late 1st for Giannis knowing what we know now about the players from that draft class?

Too many people fall into the mentality of the draft projections and expert big boards. Just because experts say there is a top 2 or top 3 in a draft doesnt mean they are right. Often enough they are not. There are many, many examples of guys projected, and taken, in the top 3 that sucked, and players projected and taken in the 4-10 range that were superstars. The bottom line is , the expert projections are just guesses, and I trust Ainge's scouting and evaluation more than NBAdraft.net and Draftexpress.

I totally agree with this statement.  People get so wrapped up in the mock draft boards that they start to believe they represent some kind of firm, objective standard for which players are the "most talented" and who will fare better as NBA players.

All it takes is a little studying of previous drafts to see that this is not the case.  While the draft isn't a complete crap shoot, it's much closer to being a roll of the dice than it is to being an exact science. 

I've always maintained that what a franchise does with a player--how he is developed, how he fits the organization, how he gets along with the coaches--and how hard that player works, how lucky he gets to find the right situation, how healthy he stays, what opportunities present themselves, etc . . . are all more important than where a player was drafted.

These are things that can't be known when Chad Ford presents his Big Board.

The franchise that a player goes to can make a huge difference.  I really believe that.

Where the franchise drafts determines who they get to select, and that matters, too.

Danny Ainge reportedly really liked Tyreke Evans and Harrison Barnes in those draft years.  What might the Celtics have done with those players?  Might they have turned into stars?  I'm sure there are plenty of similar examples.

I trust Danny, but I always like my GM to have the best assets available.  Higher draft picks are objectively better assets.

Sure.  That last part is true, I guess.  But, a draft pick isn't necessarily a better asset than a player who has proven he can be productive on the NBA level.

If you're saying would you trade the sixteenth pick for the eight pick (or even the fifteenth pick) straight up, then of course you would.  Once you start throwing in actual good NBA players, then it's a much different story. 

I don't feel confident, for example, that the sixth pick in this draft will necessarily end up being more productive than Jared Sullinger and Avery Bradley combined.

I don't know why anyone else would have that expectation unless it's because they get blinded by the excitement that accompanies the draft every year. 

[hpantazo]

Even more recent , would you have given up 16, 27, and a future late 1st for Giannis knowing what we know now about the players from that draft class?

Too many people fall into the mentality of the draft projections and expert big boards. Just because experts say there is a top 2 or top 3 in a draft doesnt mean they are right. Often enough they are not. There are many, many examples of guys projected, and taken, in the top 3 that sucked, and players projected and taken in the 4-10 range that were superstars. The bottom line is , the expert projections are just guesses, and I trust Ainge's scouting and evaluation more than NBAdraft.net and Draftexpress.

I totally agree with this statement.  People get so wrapped up in the mock draft boards that they start to believe they represent some kind of firm, objective standard for which players are the "most talented" and who will fare better as NBA players.

All it takes is a little studying of previous drafts to see that this is not the case.  While the draft isn't a complete crap shoot, it's much closer to being a roll of the dice than it is to being an exact science. 

I've always maintained that what a franchise does with a player--how he is developed, how he fits the organization, how he gets along with the coaches--and how hard that player works, how lucky he gets to find the right situation, how healthy he stays, what opportunities present themselves, etc . . . are all more important than where a player was drafted.

These are things that can't be known when Chad Ford presents his Big Board.

The franchise that a player goes to can make a huge difference.  I really believe that.

Where the franchise drafts determines who they get to select, and that matters, too.

Danny Ainge reportedly really liked Tyreke Evans and Harrison Barnes in those draft years.  What might the Celtics have done with those players?  Might they have turned into stars?  I'm sure there are plenty of similar examples.

I trust Danny, but I always like my GM to have the best assets available.  Higher draft picks are objectively better assets.

Sure.  That last part is true, I guess.  But, a draft pick isn't necessarily a better asset than a player who has proven he can be productive on the NBA level.

If you're saying would you trade the sixteenth pick for the eight pick (or even the fifteenth pick) straight up, then of course you would.  Once you start throwing in actual good NBA players, then it's a much different story. 

I don't feel confident, for example, that the sixth pick in this draft will necessarily end up being more productive than Jared Sullinger and Avery Bradley combined.

I don't know why anyone else would have that expectation unless it's because they get blinded by the excitement that accompanies the draft every year.

Sure, if you are blindly hoping to grab an all-star at #6 and base your pick on internet websites and draft hype, yeah, you will most likely fail. But, there is very likely at least one all-star in that range, and if you are paid to scout these players like Ainge and his team are, you should be able to identify who that is, and if he is worth trading some assets for.

Bradley was picked 19th, Sullinger 21st. Ainge got great value at those spots, but I'm sure was never envisioning these guys to be part of our championship core. Bradley's 'potential' label is all gone by now, he is what he is, which is ideally a 7th-8th guy on a good team who gets paid too much. Sullinger still has some potential but has weight and attitude issues, and domestic abuse history, and will also be up for a new contract soon. If you can package those two with a mediocre pick to get a player you scouted well and believe will be an all-star, it is a very easy decision.

[hpantazo]

I think the bottom line is, we have a lot of assets, and we need to use them somehow to get a couple of stars. Having a team of Bradleys, KO's , and James Youngs isn't going to do it for us.

I think Ainge's preference will be to combine our assets for guys like Cousins, but if that doesn't work he will combine assets to trade up if there is a player he thinks can be an all-star. Not doing that would be a bad idea, as 16, 28, 33, the Mavs future pick and other future picks are going to go to waste if we add more guys like James Young, Tyler Zeller,  and Olynyk with them. We have enough players like that as it is.

I disagree with you about James young. But agree with everything else.

Fair enough. The particular players named are just examples, and some may have more value to us than others. I hope Young works out for us or at least raises his value next season.

[BudweiserCeltic]

BTW, Sully was #23 in Real Plus/Minus for PF's!!

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM/position/6

Jerebko was 14th.

RPM is a dubious stat and it is even worse when you post something proves the opposite of your intention.


Some other guys ahead of Sully.
                                                GP     MPG  ORPM      DPRM   RPM   WAR
14   Jonas Jerebko   BOS/DET   75   16.4     0.93   1.63     2.56   3.69
18   Lavoy Allen   IND                   63   17.0     0.42   1.62     2.04   2.88
19   James Johnson   TOR           70   19.6     0.33   1.66     1.99   3.66
20   Anthony Tolliver   DET/PHX   76   18.8     2.09   -0.14     1.95   3.80
21   Darrell Arthur   DEN           58   17.0    -2.08   3.92     1.84   2.64
22   Amir Johnson   TOR           75   26.4     0.50   1.32     1.82   5.08
23   Jared Sullinger   BOS           58   27.0     1.50   0.16     1.66   3.97

Note who is horrible at DPRM rating of .16.  Jerebko was a quite a few spots better than him.

I think you are being ridiculously UNFAIR to Sully in the playoffs!!!  He was NOT expected to play and was coming off an extended injury.  He was trying to play himself back into condition.  He ONLY played 13:38 in game 1, 22:14 in game 2, 16:32 in game 3, and FINALLY 27:53 in game four where he put up 21 and 11 and 1 block!  Meanwhile, Tristan, who allegedly OWNED Sully, had a pitiful 5 points and 3 rebounds and 4 fouls in just under 22 minutes!!

An injury that was largely self-inflicted by him over eating.   Perhaps he should not have came back and messed with the chemistry of the team that was winning a lot without him?

CBS said he was not going to let him compromise our defensive integrity in the paper and this was clearly directed at Sully.   Ainge has served him notice and stated he wants guys who play at both ends of the court.

The probably one of the few who thinks Sully is better than Tristan Thompson.   Thompson is going to get paid this year.   I am not so sure that Sully will  BTW Thompson's  +/- for that series was better than Sully's.  I am not a huge fan of that stat.  Check out this great play by Sully.  How UNFAIR is that.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/25158149/video-jared-sullinger-sets-solid-screen-on-his-own-teammate

I don't think we should be GIVING away Sully to try to get one of the most offensively limited players in the draft in WCS!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never said that at any point.  But rest assured as your RPM shows that Sully is just as limited defensively  as WCS is offensively, perhaps more.    WCS has athletic scores that are equal to DeAndre Jordan, he might do ok.   He also does not a history of conditioning issues.  Personally, I would like something athletes that can play on both ends of the court.  Sully has great hands, is a nice rebounder and nifty in the low post defensively is is horrible, number 53 in DRPM( it is sortable hint) on your list and he tries too often to be something he is not a three point marksmen.

If he gets in shape it will help some but recall that he was bottom five in his combo for vertical leap and lane agility and 3/4 court sprint.

Interestingly enough, the slowest time wasn't by a seven-footer. Technically, Georgetown center Henry Sims, who posted a time of 3.81 seconds, is only 6'11". But perhaps his relatively slow time was the reason that he went undrafted, which was to the surprise of many. Jared Sullinger, who is 6'9", shared this time with Sims.

Another rough time for Jared Sullinger, who posted a time of 12.77 seconds—the worst time by over .4 seconds!

Jared Sullinger looked just awful, but we expected that.

Finite athletic potential that will only marginally be improved by getting in shape.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1243048-nba-draft-2012-weird-draft-combine-results-you-may-not-know-about

Even with the Celtics holding on to the No. 21 pick and Sullinger still being on the board, they too had some concerns about drafting him.
Danny Ainge, Boston’s president of basketball operations, said there was ” a lot” of internal discussions about Sullinger once his medical reports were obtained.
“There were concerns by everybody,” Ainge told CSNNE.com. “But we thought that with Jared, we weighed his talent and his potential and thought that it was definitely something we should roll the dice on.”

http://redsarmy.com/2014/05/13/your-morning-dump-where-the-nba-combine-can-simultaneously-help-and-hurt/

Ainge knew this and rolled the dice.

Don't I think that price is too steep, for DA to do it.   Sully is not as worth much as you think outside of Boston.   Three first for a number 5 is not something I see Ainge doing.

You're aware that only two players in that list ahead of Sully are younger than him, the rest being older right? One of them is Anthony Davis, just in case.

You're also taking his poor defensive show this past season as defining his defensive ability, when it isn't. In fact, it's an aberration.

Anyways, your mind is so warped on your dislike to Sullinger, that you're often, as you're now, factually incorrect in many things you bring up in your analysis.

And I don't know if you know this by now or not, as you bring it up in just about every thread Sully is being discussed... but no one cares about how he did in the Combines... no one.