Let's talk about trade value

[droopdog7]

Obviously fans around here are placing much too much value on our assets.  I mean, having first round picks is cool but for the most part, they will not get you nearly as much back as people think.  A mid-first round pick isn't worth very much in most cases.  A late first round pick is worth virtually nothing.  Put it this way; how many James Young's or Terry Rozier's would it take to get you a top five pick in a typical year.  The answer is more than we have in picks.  These picks, until we have a rough idea of where they will fall have little value.

And guys like Sully (who I think we should just let walk after the year) and Oly have about the same value as a mid-first round pick (which I already explained). 

So bottom line is this; it is going to take a long time and some luck for DA to turn his assets into success.  He'll have to draft guys and hope to strike gold with a few.  He'll have to be opportunistic and insert himself into trades to get little upgrades that eventually will add up.  Getting into the top five yesterday was a pipe dream given our assets. 

[Forza Juventus]

Everybody on our team has a ceiling of worst starter on a top team besides Isaiah and Smart and maybe James Young. Hopefully the Brooklyn picks are as good as we think they are. I also hope the Dallas one and the well in the future Memphis one are good. I hope I'm wrong. I hope Sully or Olynyk or Rozier, etc end up being great but I don't think so.

We all bought into the hype. We bought what the Celtics were selling. In the end it is clear that are young players are overrated by us. This draft proved Ainge is doing a bootleg version of what Philly is doing. Drafting best available and not worrying about fit or need. The difference is most of our players are average prospects.

[Csfan1984]

But this is the issue on the tank debate. Pro tankers have wanted to be bad to acquire picks that have legit value. You then draft a star or trade for one. Pro playoff supporters were selling trade ups, draft steals and FA. Well C's did not trade up. None of the players can be defined as steals either. Now we have FA. 3 strikes and the Pro playoff debate group is toast.

[Scintan]

But this is the issue on the tank debate. Pro tankers have wanted to be bad to acquire picks that have legit value. You then draft a star or trade for one. Pro playoff supporters were selling trade ups, draft steals and FA. Well C's did not trade up. None of the players can be defined as steals either. Now we have FA. 3 strikes and the Pro playoff debate group is toast.

People who oppose tanking can look to the last couple of times the Celtics tried that route and came up empty.  If you're going the tanking route, you have to be willing to be Philly, if you really expect it to work out for you.  You can't just plan on one year's tanking to get you Tim Duncan.

[Forza Juventus]

I'm not necessarily pro tanking or against it, I just wish our roster made more sense. When drafting ok prospects at least take a equal one that fits a need.

[Csfan1984]

But this is the issue on the tank debate. Pro tankers have wanted to be bad to acquire picks that have legit value. You then draft a star or trade for one. Pro playoff supporters were selling trade ups, draft steals and FA. Well C's did not trade up. None of the players can be defined as steals either. Now we have FA. 3 strikes and the Pro playoff debate group is toast.

People who oppose tanking can look to the last couple of times the Celtics tried that route and came up empty.  If you're going the tanking route, you have to be willing to be Philly, if you really expect it to work out for you.  You can't just plan on one year's tanking to get you Tim Duncan.

Actually you can. Spurs are the perfect example though luck is also involved. Take Cavs example as well in getting one generational player or game changing player. This 2016 draft is legit. If C's strike out in FA they must commit to THIS draft. Don't waste another opportunity.

[sofutomygaha]

Put it this way; how many James Young's or Terry Rozier's would it take to get you a top five pick in a typical year.  The answer is more than we have in picks.  These picks, until we have a rough idea of where they will fall have little value.

It's a question of opportunity. It's also not clear that our Brooklyn picks are middle picks. They are unprotected, and while it seems today as though having a high lottery pick is a choice made only by the willing, it hasn't always been that way and it's not obvious that it will continue to be.

As I've pointed out in other topics, the price for Chris Paul, Carmelo Anthony, and Shaq was ONE unprotected pick from a weak team, a bunch of seconds and contracts, and ~3 solid non-all-star players. The price for Garnett was a boatload of good, young, non-all-stars along with a #6 and a #28.

None of those superstar deals would be out of our price range today.

[Scintan]

But this is the issue on the tank debate. Pro tankers have wanted to be bad to acquire picks that have legit value. You then draft a star or trade for one. Pro playoff supporters were selling trade ups, draft steals and FA. Well C's did not trade up. None of the players can be defined as steals either. Now we have FA. 3 strikes and the Pro playoff debate group is toast.

People who oppose tanking can look to the last couple of times the Celtics tried that route and came up empty.  If you're going the tanking route, you have to be willing to be Philly, if you really expect it to work out for you.  You can't just plan on one year's tanking to get you Tim Duncan.

Actually you can. Spurs are the perfect example though luck is also involved. Take Cavs example as well in getting one generational player or game changing player. This 2016 draft is legit. If C's strike out in FA they must commit to THIS draft. Don't waste another opportunity.

The Spurs draft is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  Boston was, far and away, the team in the best position to get Duncan.  They didn't get him.  You can't plan on the tanking system for just one year because, even if you have the worst team in the league, you've still got to deal with the fickle fortunes of a lottery.  Cleveland picked #1 overall 3 years out of 4, yet was not the worst team in the NBA for any of those years.

If you're going to tank as your strategy, you have to be willing to be hot garbage for years.

[droopdog7]

I'm not necessarily pro tanking or against it, I just wish our roster made more sense. When drafting ok prospects at least take a equal one that fits a need.

At this point, while the team is not a contender, sense doesn't matter a whole lot.  The idea is to try to collect the best players possible regardless of position (i.e., assets). 

As I stated in another thread, half the first round picks every year (I'm guessing) turn into nothing (or almost nothing).  You can't be fiddling around passing over better prospects (in your eyes at least) for worse ones.  You simply have to pick the best players based on your evaluation no matter what.

In terms of the Net picks, we simply do not know until we know.  They might be lottery picks they might not be.  Even within the lottery, they might be top 5 or top after 10?  Again, we do not know.  Put it this way; why would a team give up an actual lottery pick for the mere chance at a lottery pick in the future.

On the Nets picks, I think we would be wise to just wait and see.  In the weak east, they may have to try not to make the playoffs to get us a lottery pick.

[PhoSita]

In a league that values high level talent so much more than depth, the value of role players and middling picks is exponentially lower than that of established players and top 10 picks.

The Celtics are struggling to overcome that reality.  So far, not so good.

[Forza Juventus]

I'm not necessarily pro tanking or against it, I just wish our roster made more sense. When drafting ok prospects at least take a equal one that fits a need.

At this point, while the team is not a contender, sense doesn't matter a whole lot.  The idea is to try to collect the best players possible regardless of position (i.e., assets). 

As I stated in another thread, half the first round picks every year (I'm guessing) turn into nothing (or almost nothing).  You can't be fiddling around passing over better prospects (in your eyes at least) for worse ones.  You simply have to pick the best players based on your evaluation no matter what.

In terms of the Net picks, we simply do not know until we know.  They might be lottery picks they might not be.  Even within the lottery, they might be top 5 or top after 10?  Again, we do not know.  Put it this way; why would a team give up an actual lottery pick for the mere chance at a lottery pick in the future.

On the Nets picks, I think we would be wise to just wait and see.  In the weak east, they may have to try not to make the playoffs to get us a lottery pick.

I understand the logic but I don't think Rozier was best available and even if he was which I don't think he is he wouldn't be significantly best available when Anderson and RHJ were there. I don't have a problem with the 28 and 33 pick but at 45 take a risk and draft Dakari or Alexander, or Upshaw. Don't take some undersized guard you will just stash in Europe.

[Csfan1984]

But this is the issue on the tank debate. Pro tankers have wanted to be bad to acquire picks that have legit value. You then draft a star or trade for one. Pro playoff supporters were selling trade ups, draft steals and FA. Well C's did not trade up. None of the players can be defined as steals either. Now we have FA. 3 strikes and the Pro playoff debate group is toast.

People who oppose tanking can look to the last couple of times the Celtics tried that route and came up empty.  If you're going the tanking route, you have to be willing to be Philly, if you really expect it to work out for you.  You can't just plan on one year's tanking to get you Tim Duncan.

Actually you can. Spurs are the perfect example though luck is also involved. Take Cavs example as well in getting one generational player or game changing player. This 2016 draft is legit. If C's strike out in FA they must commit to THIS draft. Don't waste another opportunity.

The Spurs draft is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  Boston was, far and away, the team in the best position to get Duncan.  They didn't get him.  You can't plan on the tanking system for just one year because, even if you have the worst team in the league, you've still got to deal with the fickle fortunes of a lottery.  Cleveland picked #1 overall 3 years out of 4, yet was not the worst team in the NBA for any of those years.

If you're going to tank as your strategy, you have to be willing to be hot garbage for years.

I would disagree if it was 4 years. 2 or 3 would be right though. C's would have met the quota of 3 years if they had stuck to the plan. Smart, Young in year 1. Winslow, Hunter, Mickey, Thornton year 2, and then 2016 draft maybe snagging Lab or Simmons hell maybe both since they have Brooklyn pick. Point is they still need to tank this year if FA doesn't work.

Smart, Young, Winslow, Simmons, Lab think of that potential they could of had... Let's at least try for Smart, Hunter, Young, Simmons and Lab

[droopdog7]

I'm not necessarily pro tanking or against it, I just wish our roster made more sense. When drafting ok prospects at least take a equal one that fits a need.

At this point, while the team is not a contender, sense doesn't matter a whole lot.  The idea is to try to collect the best players possible regardless of position (i.e., assets). 

As I stated in another thread, half the first round picks every year (I'm guessing) turn into nothing (or almost nothing).  You can't be fiddling around passing over better prospects (in your eyes at least) for worse ones.  You simply have to pick the best players based on your evaluation no matter what.

In terms of the Net picks, we simply do not know until we know.  They might be lottery picks they might not be.  Even within the lottery, they might be top 5 or top after 10?  Again, we do not know.  Put it this way; why would a team give up an actual lottery pick for the mere chance at a lottery pick in the future.

On the Nets picks, I think we would be wise to just wait and see.  In the weak east, they may have to try not to make the playoffs to get us a lottery pick.

I understand the logic but I don't think Rozier was best available and even if he was which I don't think he is he wouldn't be significantly best available when Anderson and RHJ were there. I don't have a problem with the 28 and 33 pick but at 45 take a risk and draft Dakari or Alexander, or Upshaw. Don't take some undersized guard you will just stash in Europe.

Obviously, that's another question entirely.  The pick was certainly a surprise but I have no doubt that Danny thought he was the best player available.  Beyond that, as a fan, how can I disagree.  He does the evaluating and has the experience.  I don't.

On a side note, as a fan of an ACC team, Terry Rozier pretty much kicked our rear end this year. 

[Scintan]

But this is the issue on the tank debate. Pro tankers have wanted to be bad to acquire picks that have legit value. You then draft a star or trade for one. Pro playoff supporters were selling trade ups, draft steals and FA. Well C's did not trade up. None of the players can be defined as steals either. Now we have FA. 3 strikes and the Pro playoff debate group is toast.

People who oppose tanking can look to the last couple of times the Celtics tried that route and came up empty.  If you're going the tanking route, you have to be willing to be Philly, if you really expect it to work out for you.  You can't just plan on one year's tanking to get you Tim Duncan.

Actually you can. Spurs are the perfect example though luck is also involved. Take Cavs example as well in getting one generational player or game changing player. This 2016 draft is legit. If C's strike out in FA they must commit to THIS draft. Don't waste another opportunity.

The Spurs draft is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  Boston was, far and away, the team in the best position to get Duncan.  They didn't get him.  You can't plan on the tanking system for just one year because, even if you have the worst team in the league, you've still got to deal with the fickle fortunes of a lottery.  Cleveland picked #1 overall 3 years out of 4, yet was not the worst team in the NBA for any of those years.

If you're going to tank as your strategy, you have to be willing to be hot garbage for years.

I would disagree if it was 4 years. 2 or 3 would be right though. C's would have met the quota of 3 years if they had stuck to the plan. Smart, Young in year 1. Winslow, Hunter, Mickey, Thornton year 2, and then 2016 draft maybe snagging Lab or Simmons hell maybe both since they have Brooklyn pick. Point is they still need to tank this year if FA doesn't work.

Smart, Young, Winslow, Simmons, Lab think of that potential they could of had... Let's at least try for Smart, Hunter, Young, Simmons and Lab

I'd argue that the Celtics would basically have to consider themselves starting from scratch, unless they can pull off a big deal this offseason.  Why?  Let's look at this from a slightly different angle:

The last 3 teams to get to the NBA finals are

Spurs
Cavaliers
Warriors

Looking at those rosters when the players are healthy, how many Celtics players would start for any of those teams?

[Csfan1984]

But this is the issue on the tank debate. Pro tankers have wanted to be bad to acquire picks that have legit value. You then draft a star or trade for one. Pro playoff supporters were selling trade ups, draft steals and FA. Well C's did not trade up. None of the players can be defined as steals either. Now we have FA. 3 strikes and the Pro playoff debate group is toast.

People who oppose tanking can look to the last couple of times the Celtics tried that route and came up empty.  If you're going the tanking route, you have to be willing to be Philly, if you really expect it to work out for you.  You can't just plan on one year's tanking to get you Tim Duncan.

Actually you can. Spurs are the perfect example though luck is also involved. Take Cavs example as well in getting one generational player or game changing player. This 2016 draft is legit. If C's strike out in FA they must commit to THIS draft. Don't waste another opportunity.

The Spurs draft is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  Boston was, far and away, the team in the best position to get Duncan.  They didn't get him.  You can't plan on the tanking system for just one year because, even if you have the worst team in the league, you've still got to deal with the fickle fortunes of a lottery.  Cleveland picked #1 overall 3 years out of 4, yet was not the worst team in the NBA for any of those years.

If you're going to tank as your strategy, you have to be willing to be hot garbage for years.

I would disagree if it was 4 years. 2 or 3 would be right though. C's would have met the quota of 3 years if they had stuck to the plan. Smart, Young in year 1. Winslow, Hunter, Mickey, Thornton year 2, and then 2016 draft maybe snagging Lab or Simmons hell maybe both since they have Brooklyn pick. Point is they still need to tank this year if FA doesn't work.

Smart, Young, Winslow, Simmons, Lab think of that potential they could of had... Let's at least try for Smart, Hunter, Young, Simmons and Lab

I'd argue that the Celtics would basically have to consider themselves starting from scratch, unless they can pull off a big deal this offseason.  Why?  Let's look at this from a slightly different angle:

The last 3 teams to get to the NBA finals are

Spurs
Cavaliers
Warriors

Looking at those rosters when the players are healthy, how many Celtics players would start for any of those teams?

They basically are though the roster has been turned over. The mistake was only in this year not tanking a bit to end up in 8-10 pick range and not dealing one year left guys. It was total FUBAR. We were kidding ourselves that we could trade up. But as I said hopefully the FA thing works out and playoff hopefulls can rejoice but it's doubtful.