Danny Ainge Missed Again - Terry Rozier

[LarBrd33]

It was a crap shoot at that point.  Let's not retroactively pretend like there was some can't miss prospect there.  We tried trading 6 picks to move up from #16 to #9 and we couldn't.   The guys we took #16 and #28 were basically interchangeable.  Nobody wouldn't have thought anything of it had RJ Hunter gone #16 and Rozier gone #28.   We were rolling the dice regardless of who was there.   Keeping both picks was probably Plan Z.   We couldn't find a taker for them.

[Evantime34]

You can not judge rookies this early into their first season.

I liked Portis, but I'm not convinced he's going to be better than any of the young bigs we have.

[ThePoeticWolf]

Drafting Rozier was always a strange move, not because of the talent he may or may not have, but because there's really no clear path to playing time for him on this team.  Why draft a guy if he's just gonna spend a year or two in the D-League?

The same could be said if we had taken Portis

It wouldn't be said the same for Portis.  We hadn't traded for Lee, I believe signed Johnson.  While Rozier we already at the point guard had Smart and Thomas, at the shooting guard we had Bradley, Turner, Young, and Crowder like Turner who plays 2 and 3.  Portis is a power forward/center who could have played right away.  Specially with not signing Johnson who we over paid to just get a free agent, and Lee who right now is showing wasn't any different then Wallace, besides a couple good minutes.  Couple meaning 20 over this stretch of a season.

[Bucketgetter]

Remember that if we took Portis, we probably would not have taken Mickey. They play the same position, and we already have so many 4s that Mickey can't crack the rotation. We would have had Portis, Sully, Lee, Mickey, Jerekbo, KO, and Amir who all play the 4. Thats 7 guys at 1 position! I personally love Mickey, and you're basically comparing Rozier/Mickey to Portis/(whoever was left at 33). The next pg to be taken was Andrew Harrison. Probably the next best player available after Mickey was Anthony Brown. So would you rather have Rozier/Mickey or Portis/Brown?

[hwangjini_1]

final point, it is generally agreed that nba teams should draft the bpa, not based upon immediate need. what maybe a team need at the time of the draft can change in a year or two. meaning drafting upon need leaves the team with a lesser player and no pressing need in his position. the preferred strategy is to pick the bpa. sorting out any log jams becomes a good problem to have.

This is fine and good, but you still need to develop guys.  Developing them means at some point putting them into your NBA rotation. 

It's one thing to draft the BPA even though there's an incumbent starter you like at that spot. 

It's another to draft the BPA even though there's no spot in the rotation for them, period, and there are at least three guys in the rotation now who figure to be here for at least a couple more seasons.

i am not sure what you advocating outside of "draft a player you think has lesser talent" so as to avoid a "talent jam." if so, i respect your argument but disagree. a team's immediate needs change and sometimes quickly.

rozier's talents could make him the 3rd guard on the celtics quickly should a trade sent any of smart, AB, or IT to different pastures. indeed, conceivably it might allow the celtics to make such trade since rozier in waiting in the wings.

also, most rookies dont have an immediate impact on their team, especially those chosen in the mid first round. in the 2-3 years it often takes for them to mature as players, a team's needs may have changed.

to me, having a load of young talent at one position is a good problem to have.

[PhoSita]

i am not sure what you advocating outside of "draft a player you think has lesser talent" so as to avoid a "talent jam." if so, i respect your argument but disagree. a team's immediate needs change and sometimes quickly.

I think you should typically draft the best player available.  However, unless a guy is a project with major upside -- which does not apply to 21 year old Terry Rozier -- you don't draft a guy if there's no clear path to him getting any significant playing time in his first couple of seasons. 

Rozier might be 23 or 24 with only a couple years left on his rookie deal before he even gets into this rotation.  For that kind of value I think you can just look for role players in the 2nd round or among undrafted guys, like Phil Pressey.

[ThePoeticWolf]

Remember that if we took Portis, we probably would not have taken Mickey. They play the same position, and we already have so many 4s that Mickey can't crack the rotation. We would have had Portis, Sully, Lee, Mickey, Jerekbo, KO, and Amir who all play the 4. Thats 7 guys at 1 position! I personally love Mickey, and you're basically comparing Rozier/Mickey to Portis/(whoever was left at 33). The next pg to be taken was Andrew Harrison. Probably the next best player available after Mickey was Anthony Brown. So would you rather have Rozier/Mickey or Portis/Brown?

No we wouldn't have all those players you listed.  We hadn't traded for Lee and we hadn't signed Johnson. 

So our bigs would have been Sully, KO, Jerekbo (even though more an oversized small), Zeller.

Bobby Portis is a natural power forward but with the small ball NBA he'd play center as well for us. 

So we could have still drafted Portis and Mickey and Hunter.  So yes I'll take Portis a starting power forward for us in the future and could be center over Rozier.

[SCeltic34]

Wasn't there a rumor that Chicago was looking for a PG and had their sights on Rozier?  Not sure how true this was, but maybe this is why Danny "reached" for him.

I think in time Rozier will be a serviceable 2-way player.  Calling him a bust not even halfway through his rookie season is a bit of an overstatement.

[BitterJim]

Remember that if we took Portis, we probably would not have taken Mickey. They play the same position, and we already have so many 4s that Mickey can't crack the rotation. We would have had Portis, Sully, Lee, Mickey, Jerekbo, KO, and Amir who all play the 4. Thats 7 guys at 1 position! I personally love Mickey, and you're basically comparing Rozier/Mickey to Portis/(whoever was left at 33). The next pg to be taken was Andrew Harrison. Probably the next best player available after Mickey was Anthony Brown. So would you rather have Rozier/Mickey or Portis/Brown?

No we wouldn't have all those players you listed.  We hadn't traded for Lee and we hadn't signed Johnson. 

So our bigs would have been Sully, KO, Jerekbo (even though more an oversized small), Zeller.

Bobby Portis is a natural power forward but with the small ball NBA he'd play center as well for us. 

So we could have still drafted Portis and Mickey and Hunter.  So yes I'll take Portis a starting power forward for us in the future and could be center over Rozier.

I doubt taking Portis AR 16 would have stopped Ainge from getting Lee and Amir

[Bucketgetter]

Remember that if we took Portis, we probably would not have taken Mickey. They play the same position, and we already have so many 4s that Mickey can't crack the rotation. We would have had Portis, Sully, Lee, Mickey, Jerekbo, KO, and Amir who all play the 4. Thats 7 guys at 1 position! I personally love Mickey, and you're basically comparing Rozier/Mickey to Portis/(whoever was left at 33). The next pg to be taken was Andrew Harrison. Probably the next best player available after Mickey was Anthony Brown. So would you rather have Rozier/Mickey or Portis/Brown?

No we wouldn't have all those players you listed.  We hadn't traded for Lee and we hadn't signed Johnson. 

So our bigs would have been Sully, KO, Jerekbo (even though more an oversized small), Zeller.

Bobby Portis is a natural power forward but with the small ball NBA he'd play center as well for us. 

So we could have still drafted Portis and Mickey and Hunter.  So yes I'll take Portis a starting power forward for us in the future and could be center over Rozier.

No, he's not a center. He is not a great post defender, and doesn't block many shot as well. Strictly power forward. Ainge also wouldn't have drafted 2 very similar players and it's not even a position of need for us.

[spikelovetheCelts]

Remember that if we took Portis, we probably would not have taken Mickey. They play the same position, and we already have so many 4s that Mickey can't crack the rotation. We would have had Portis, Sully, Lee, Mickey, Jerekbo, KO, and Amir who all play the 4. Thats 7 guys at 1 position! I personally love Mickey, and you're basically comparing Rozier/Mickey to Portis/(whoever was left at 33). The next pg to be taken was Andrew Harrison. Probably the next best player available after Mickey was Anthony Brown. So would you rather have Rozier/Mickey or Portis/Brown?

No we wouldn't have all those players you listed.  We hadn't traded for Lee and we hadn't signed Johnson. 

So our bigs would have been Sully, KO, Jerekbo (even though more an oversized small), Zeller.

Bobby Portis is a natural power forward but with the small ball NBA he'd play center as well for us. 

So we could have still drafted Portis and Mickey and Hunter.  So yes I'll take Portis a starting power forward for us in the future and could be center over Rozier.

Can Portis get his own shot. NO. If we trade  IT and Let Turner walk. We have no true ball Handler on this team. Rozier was the best one and we have him. Portis may be an upgrade one day to Sully but at this moment I Take Sully. Sully plays a good smalll 5 too. KO is a perfect Small ball 5. I watched the Claws and Rozier can get to the rack better than maybe 5 people in the NBA at the moment. Plus he can guard tooDA nailed it. PF like Portis are very common at 20 in the Draft. I think Mickey will better in the long run.

[BitterJim]

Drafting Rozier was always a strange move, not because of the talent he may or may not have, but because there's really no clear path to playing time for him on this team.  Why draft a guy if he's just gonna spend a year or two in the D-League?

The same could be said if we had taken Portis

It wouldn't be said the same for Portis.  We hadn't traded for Lee, I believe signed Johnson.  While Rozier we already at the point guard had Smart and Thomas, at the shooting guard we had Bradley, Turner, Young, and Crowder like Turner who plays 2 and 3.  Portis is a power forward/center who could have played right away.  Specially with not signing Johnson who we over paid to just get a free agent, and Lee who right now is showing wasn't any different then Wallace, besides a couple good minutes.  Couple meaning 20 over this stretch of a season.

So this entire thread is based on you thinking that Danny wouldn't have done the Lee and Amir deals if we had taken Portis?

[Chris22]

I like Rozier. I wish he was backing up the point.

[ssspence]

I thought Portis was the smarter pick. Rozier is a riskier, long term play on a team with guard depth, so he wasn't gonna play anyway (which will make him challenging to develop). If that's the case, why not take Portis?

Yes, the front court is deep, so it'll take him a while to get a crack too. But he's just a better basketball player than Rozier -- was his last year in college as well.

I'd rather have Portis than Sullinger. They coulda just moved Jared after taking Bobby.

Look at it this way -- Portis, Hunter and Mickey would have been one outstanding draft.

[Csfan1984]

Rozier looks like a bigger boom or bust player but without getting PT we won't know. And I was on the Portis bandwagon all year and through the draft. I still believe in Portis and was dissapointed when we took Rozier. I do think  DA wants/ed to trade IT but ownership has blocked him.