Bill Simmons suspects the Celtics don't like this bad draft. Okafor was target.

[Evantime34]

How do people think an Okofor/Sully or Okofor/KO pairing would work in the front court long term? Both KO and Sully (up to maybe 18ft) can help stretch the floor to give Okofor room down low. Defensively I would really worry with both pairings, and the Okofor/Sully pairing would be especially slow.

I would see Okafor as a Sully replacement. Okafor-KO would be great

The thing is Sully is a RFA and I can't see Ainge letting him walk for nothing in return.

I think an ideal big partner for Okofor is a rebounding athletic defensive stretch 4.  Not too many of those around though. Lol maybe Serge Ibaka.

I think Okafor improves his pick & roll as well as his position defense as he develops. I agree that a shooting athletic 4 is a good fit for Okafor, but I think as Okafor develops, the need for a shot blocking 4 to play next to him will diminish.

He's so young and has all the physical tools to get better, he just needs to be in an evironment that can help him grow. I feel like every season he spends in Philly will lower his value (relative to what it could be on a different team)

[LarBrd33]

I am very curios what the "other pieces" may have been on the rumored target.



I don't like the idea of Smart or Bradley included.

I heard that we offered the Brooklyn pick and Bradley, Philly thought about it and eventually asked for the Brooklyn pick, Olynyk and Smart.

I'm glad we didn't do that, because I think Okafor can be had for much less once Embiid comes back, Saric comes over and they draft another big in the upcoming draft.

That's interesting. Where did you hear that?   Bradley and the Brooklyn 1st for Okafor would make a ton of sense as our offer.  Boston would see that as a risk, because removing Bradley and adding a player of Okafor's stengths and weaknesses would be a considerable challenge for Stevens to deal with.   Risk for philly because Bradley will never be a star and the pick could bust.

But it also makes sense because removing Bradley's contract puts us in even greater position to add two max contracts this summer while still potentially bringing back someone like sully. 

[LarBrd33]

LarBrd33-

And if you listened to that podcast you also heard the cadence of his voice which was very much comes across as a knowing, "oh yeah, it was most definitely Okafor".   

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say these things? Surprised you didn't talk about his breathing pattern changed, his heart rate was elevated, or that he articulated the name "Okafor" differently than he ever has. At this point, why not?

Actually there is a Okafor Truther website out there that hacked Bill Simmons' Apple Watch and stated that the Galvanic Skin Response looks like he was definitely holding something back there at the 18:05 mark during the podcast.

Listen to the podcast though.   It's a knowing whisper.   He speaks in hushed tones when admitting the Celtics offered the pick for Okafor.  I was 99% believing this rumor, but the knowing whisper pushed me up to 100%. 

I will say this thread knocked me back down to 95%.  I can't discount the possibility that ainge desperately shopped the Brooklyn pick at the deadline trying to get Melo or Kevin love or Gordon Hayward and all the while telling teams "other teams are interested in the pick... This is your last chance !" ... And then when every team called his bluff and refused to trade for the pick, Danny went to the radio station and leaked info to bulpett making up a rumor that we almost got Okafor for the pick.   That's unlikely, but plausible enough that it gave me a seed of doubt.  I'll need to analyze Danny's cadence if he ever addresses the Okafor report publicly.  Will it be bullish and bold?  Knowing whisper?  Teenage valley girl?  Shocked Mormon?  Like my mother always told me:  "Consider the Cadence to Conquer the Conundrum".

[mmmmm]

at this point Id say its basically fact that Okafor was the target.

Regardless of who was first to report it, essentially every publication has reported it at this point, nobody from the Celtics has disputed it and nobody has reported an alternative.  It was Okafor. 

The only reason some people don't believe it is because it's more fun to believe in some alternative conspiracy theory.   I think that's a giant waste of time.  Instead of sitting here pretending like it was Jimmy Butler, why can't we just focus on the reality of the offer and what that means in relation to our future?   Will we still be able to make a compelling offer for a Philly big this summer?  Should we be concerned about the quality of this draft?  Would Okafor have flourished here?  There's plenty to explore with this story beyond the "maybe Ainge was actually referring to LeBron and just paid Bulpett to report a smokescreen" tinhattery.

Why would somebody from the Celtics dispute it?  Why would they bother?  Why would they care who people think the target was?  Usually they only dispute reports of one of their current players being shopped, to avoid hurting the player's feelings and to keep that player's reputation in tact.

Valid point.  No point in Boston disputing it.  It would be Philly denying the rumors.  That hasn't happened either though, because everyone (including Okafor) knows at least one of those bigs is a sitting duck and it's been known Boston has had interest in Okafor or Noel since pre-draft.  It shouldn't have surprised anyone that we offered the Brooklyn 1st for one of them.

From: http://thesixersense.com/2016/02/19/sam-hinkie-reveals-positives-of-trade-deadline/

"Hinkie implied that the Sixers did take other calls, but they were not “particularly close” on finalizing any deals with other teams."

Either Danny or Hinkie are lying about how close the deal was, or they are both telling the truth and Danny's potential deal wasn't with Philly.

[Moranis]

at this point Id say its basically fact that Okafor was the target.

Regardless of who was first to report it, essentially every publication has reported it at this point, nobody from the Celtics has disputed it and nobody has reported an alternative.  It was Okafor. 

The only reason some people don't believe it is because it's more fun to believe in some alternative conspiracy theory.   I think that's a giant waste of time.  Instead of sitting here pretending like it was Jimmy Butler, why can't we just focus on the reality of the offer and what that means in relation to our future?   Will we still be able to make a compelling offer for a Philly big this summer?  Should we be concerned about the quality of this draft?  Would Okafor have flourished here?  There's plenty to explore with this story beyond the "maybe Ainge was actually referring to LeBron and just paid Bulpett to report a smokescreen" tinhattery.

Why would somebody from the Celtics dispute it?  Why would they bother?  Why would they care who people think the target was?  Usually they only dispute reports of one of their current players being shopped, to avoid hurting the player's feelings and to keep that player's reputation in tact.

Valid point.  No point in Boston disputing it.  It would be Philly denying the rumors.  That hasn't happened either though, because everyone (including Okafor) knows at least one of those bigs is a sitting duck and it's been known Boston has had interest in Okafor or Noel since pre-draft.  It shouldn't have surprised anyone that we offered the Brooklyn 1st for one of them.

From: http://thesixersense.com/2016/02/19/sam-hinkie-reveals-positives-of-trade-deadline/

"Hinkie implied that the Sixers did take other calls, but they were not “particularly close” on finalizing any deals with other teams."

Either Danny or Hinkie are lying about how close the deal was, or they are both telling the truth and Danny's potential deal wasn't with Philly.

That isn't necessarily true.  Both could absolutely be telling the truth.

[mmmmm]

at this point Id say its basically fact that Okafor was the target.

Regardless of who was first to report it, essentially every publication has reported it at this point, nobody from the Celtics has disputed it and nobody has reported an alternative.  It was Okafor. 

The only reason some people don't believe it is because it's more fun to believe in some alternative conspiracy theory.   I think that's a giant waste of time.  Instead of sitting here pretending like it was Jimmy Butler, why can't we just focus on the reality of the offer and what that means in relation to our future?   Will we still be able to make a compelling offer for a Philly big this summer?  Should we be concerned about the quality of this draft?  Would Okafor have flourished here?  There's plenty to explore with this story beyond the "maybe Ainge was actually referring to LeBron and just paid Bulpett to report a smokescreen" tinhattery.

Why would somebody from the Celtics dispute it?  Why would they bother?  Why would they care who people think the target was?  Usually they only dispute reports of one of their current players being shopped, to avoid hurting the player's feelings and to keep that player's reputation in tact.

Valid point.  No point in Boston disputing it.  It would be Philly denying the rumors.  That hasn't happened either though, because everyone (including Okafor) knows at least one of those bigs is a sitting duck and it's been known Boston has had interest in Okafor or Noel since pre-draft.  It shouldn't have surprised anyone that we offered the Brooklyn 1st for one of them.

From: http://thesixersense.com/2016/02/19/sam-hinkie-reveals-positives-of-trade-deadline/

"Hinkie implied that the Sixers did take other calls, but they were not “particularly close” on finalizing any deals with other teams."

Either Danny or Hinkie are lying about how close the deal was, or they are both telling the truth and Danny's potential deal wasn't with Philly.

That isn't necessarily true.  Both could absolutely be telling the truth.

From: http://thesixersense.com/2016/02/20/did-the-philadelphia-76ers-almost-trade-okafor-for-david-lee/   (as well as many other articles easily found)

'Ainge went into a bit more detail about what nearly went down on deadline day. The team president said, “it was very close. It was something we had been deliberating on for two days straight. The other team was doing that. And we were wrapping ourselves around a big package to do a deal. And at the very last minute, they just said they did not want to do it. They just backed out.”'

[mef730]

at this point Id say its basically fact that Okafor was the target.

Regardless of who was first to report it, essentially every publication has reported it at this point, nobody from the Celtics has disputed it and nobody has reported an alternative.  It was Okafor. 

The only reason some people don't believe it is because it's more fun to believe in some alternative conspiracy theory.   I think that's a giant waste of time.  Instead of sitting here pretending like it was Jimmy Butler, why can't we just focus on the reality of the offer and what that means in relation to our future?   Will we still be able to make a compelling offer for a Philly big this summer?  Should we be concerned about the quality of this draft?  Would Okafor have flourished here?  There's plenty to explore with this story beyond the "maybe Ainge was actually referring to LeBron and just paid Bulpett to report a smokescreen" tinhattery.

Why would somebody from the Celtics dispute it?  Why would they bother?  Why would they care who people think the target was?  Usually they only dispute reports of one of their current players being shopped, to avoid hurting the player's feelings and to keep that player's reputation in tact.

Valid point.  No point in Boston disputing it.  It would be Philly denying the rumors.  That hasn't happened either though, because everyone (including Okafor) knows at least one of those bigs is a sitting duck and it's been known Boston has had interest in Okafor or Noel since pre-draft.  It shouldn't have surprised anyone that we offered the Brooklyn 1st for one of them.

From: http://thesixersense.com/2016/02/19/sam-hinkie-reveals-positives-of-trade-deadline/

"Hinkie implied that the Sixers did take other calls, but they were not “particularly close” on finalizing any deals with other teams."

Either Danny or Hinkie are lying about how close the deal was, or they are both telling the truth and Danny's potential deal wasn't with Philly.

Possible that DA and Hinkie have a different definition of "particularly close."  Whatever benefits their position.

There's no reason to believe Bulpett made it up, but there's enough reason to think Ainge made it up and told it to an unknowing Bulpett. "Enough" qualifies as justification for bringing it up as a point of discussion in a non-scientific/academic forum.

There's really no need to continue lecturing about how the target definitely wasn't Jimmy Butler. I agree, any theory that a) claims Butler to have been the target as fact and b) cites RealGM as proof depends heavily on faith... which is exactly what I said.

FWIW, if there even was a nearly completed blockbuster at the deadine (I'm skeptical), and that deal was for Butler (skeptical, but not a whole lot more so than I am about the Okafor rumor), the Bulls would be very upset if Danny let it leak that the Bulls almost dealt their best player, who is locked up to a great deal and under 30 years old.

I think you and I are on the same page. I'm also highly skeptical of a big deal at the deadline. But Ainge needs something to prop up the value of a pick when he has three in the first round of a not-particularly-deep draft.

Mike

[LarBrd33]

at this point Id say its basically fact that Okafor was the target.

Regardless of who was first to report it, essentially every publication has reported it at this point, nobody from the Celtics has disputed it and nobody has reported an alternative.  It was Okafor. 

The only reason some people don't believe it is because it's more fun to believe in some alternative conspiracy theory.   I think that's a giant waste of time.  Instead of sitting here pretending like it was Jimmy Butler, why can't we just focus on the reality of the offer and what that means in relation to our future?   Will we still be able to make a compelling offer for a Philly big this summer?  Should we be concerned about the quality of this draft?  Would Okafor have flourished here?  There's plenty to explore with this story beyond the "maybe Ainge was actually referring to LeBron and just paid Bulpett to report a smokescreen" tinhattery.

Why would somebody from the Celtics dispute it?  Why would they bother?  Why would they care who people think the target was?  Usually they only dispute reports of one of their current players being shopped, to avoid hurting the player's feelings and to keep that player's reputation in tact.

Valid point.  No point in Boston disputing it.  It would be Philly denying the rumors.  That hasn't happened either though, because everyone (including Okafor) knows at least one of those bigs is a sitting duck and it's been known Boston has had interest in Okafor or Noel since pre-draft.  It shouldn't have surprised anyone that we offered the Brooklyn 1st for one of them.

From: http://thesixersense.com/2016/02/19/sam-hinkie-reveals-positives-of-trade-deadline/

"Hinkie implied that the Sixers did take other calls, but they were not “particularly close” on finalizing any deals with other teams."

Either Danny or Hinkie are lying about how close the deal was, or they are both telling the truth and Danny's potential deal wasn't with Philly.

That isn't necessarily true.  Both could absolutely be telling the truth.

From: http://thesixersense.com/2016/02/20/did-the-philadelphia-76ers-almost-trade-okafor-for-david-lee/   (as well as many other articles easily found)

'Ainge went into a bit more detail about what nearly went down on deadline day. The team president said, “it was very close. It was something we had been deliberating on for two days straight. The other team was doing that. And we were wrapping ourselves around a big package to do a deal. And at the very last minute, they just said they did not want to do it. They just backed out.”'

Good article.  They make the conclusion that Boston offered David Lee and the Brooklyn 1st for Okafor and suggest it was a deal Hinkie would have made had he been running the show by himself.   Had a feeling this was totally in the wheelhouse for the "Colangelo usurped Hinkie's power!" narrative.   Thanks. 

I agree with their assessment of why Philly ultimately said no: 

Overall, though, it would have been a bad trade for the Sixers, especially with the uncertainty of the draft lottery. They would have lost what could be a cornerstone to the future of their franchise and get a pick that is not guaranteed to be good — but does vastly help their chances at getting Ben Simmons and Brandon Ingram — in what’s been called a two-player draft.

It’s not clear if the Sixers really were on board with this trade, but whether they were or not, Okafor will be with the team until the end of the season since he was not ultimately dealt at the deadline. I believe this is the right move. The team needs to ensure that Joel Embiid can play, and play at a high level, before the team considers moving Nerlens Noel or Jahlil Okafor.

Spot on.  Will be interesting to see if we still have the assets to entice Philly into negotiations this Summer when they inevitably move one of those star big man prospects.

[mmmmm]

at this point Id say its basically fact that Okafor was the target.

Regardless of who was first to report it, essentially every publication has reported it at this point, nobody from the Celtics has disputed it and nobody has reported an alternative.  It was Okafor. 

The only reason some people don't believe it is because it's more fun to believe in some alternative conspiracy theory.   I think that's a giant waste of time.  Instead of sitting here pretending like it was Jimmy Butler, why can't we just focus on the reality of the offer and what that means in relation to our future?   Will we still be able to make a compelling offer for a Philly big this summer?  Should we be concerned about the quality of this draft?  Would Okafor have flourished here?  There's plenty to explore with this story beyond the "maybe Ainge was actually referring to LeBron and just paid Bulpett to report a smokescreen" tinhattery.

Why would somebody from the Celtics dispute it?  Why would they bother?  Why would they care who people think the target was?  Usually they only dispute reports of one of their current players being shopped, to avoid hurting the player's feelings and to keep that player's reputation in tact.

Valid point.  No point in Boston disputing it.  It would be Philly denying the rumors.  That hasn't happened either though, because everyone (including Okafor) knows at least one of those bigs is a sitting duck and it's been known Boston has had interest in Okafor or Noel since pre-draft.  It shouldn't have surprised anyone that we offered the Brooklyn 1st for one of them.

From: http://thesixersense.com/2016/02/19/sam-hinkie-reveals-positives-of-trade-deadline/

"Hinkie implied that the Sixers did take other calls, but they were not “particularly close” on finalizing any deals with other teams."

Either Danny or Hinkie are lying about how close the deal was, or they are both telling the truth and Danny's potential deal wasn't with Philly.

That isn't necessarily true.  Both could absolutely be telling the truth.

From: http://thesixersense.com/2016/02/20/did-the-philadelphia-76ers-almost-trade-okafor-for-david-lee/   (as well as many other articles easily found)

'Ainge went into a bit more detail about what nearly went down on deadline day. The team president said, “it was very close. It was something we had been deliberating on for two days straight. The other team was doing that. And we were wrapping ourselves around a big package to do a deal. And at the very last minute, they just said they did not want to do it. They just backed out.”'

Good article.  They make the conclusion that Boston offered David Lee and the Brooklyn 1st for Okafor and suggest it was a deal Hinkie would have made had he been running the show by himself.   Had a feeling this was totally in the wheelhouse for the "Colangelo usurped Hinkie's power!" narrative.   Thanks. 

There is no conclusion made in that article.  There is only speculation.   Most of it rather dubiously constructed.

And offer of just the pick and David Lee for Okafor makes no sense for Philly to even had dwelled on for 5 minutes, let alone for two days.   It also would be overkill from a salary matching perspective from Boston's viewpoint and pointless excess salary to take on from Philly's viewpoint.   If there ever WAS a deal on the table, I doubt seriously that it resembled what that author proposed.

Nice deflection to dance around the real point of my use of the quote.

Who is lying?  Hinkie or Danny?   Or neither (meaning Danny's deal was with someone else)?

[indeedproceed]

LarBrd33-

And if you listened to that podcast you also heard the cadence of his voice which was very much comes across as a knowing, "oh yeah, it was most definitely Okafor".   

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say these things? Surprised you didn't talk about his breathing pattern changed, his heart rate was elevated, or that he articulated the name "Okafor" differently than he ever has. At this point, why not?

Actually there is a Okafor Truther website out there that hacked Bill Simmons' Apple Watch and stated that the Galvanic Skin Response looks like he was definitely holding something back there at the 18:05 mark during the podcast.

Listen to the podcast though.   It's a knowing whisper.   He speaks in hushed tones when admitting the Celtics offered the pick for Okafor.  I was 99% believing this rumor, but the knowing whisper pushed me up to 100%. 

I think it was probably Okafor, I'm saying I listened to the podcast and nothing Bill said made it sound like he had actual sources. When he knows something because he talked to someone connected, he says so.

It doesn't mean Okafor wasn't the guy, Im just saying Bill Simmons mentioning it like he did isn't another confirmed source or anything.

Also, FTR, I'd be totally cool with moving the Brooklyn pick for Okafor, it's a great deal.

[mmmmm]

at this point Id say its basically fact that Okafor was the target.

Regardless of who was first to report it, essentially every publication has reported it at this point, nobody from the Celtics has disputed it and nobody has reported an alternative.  It was Okafor. 

The only reason some people don't believe it is because it's more fun to believe in some alternative conspiracy theory.   I think that's a giant waste of time.  Instead of sitting here pretending like it was Jimmy Butler, why can't we just focus on the reality of the offer and what that means in relation to our future?   Will we still be able to make a compelling offer for a Philly big this summer?  Should we be concerned about the quality of this draft?  Would Okafor have flourished here?  There's plenty to explore with this story beyond the "maybe Ainge was actually referring to LeBron and just paid Bulpett to report a smokescreen" tinhattery.

Why would somebody from the Celtics dispute it?  Why would they bother?  Why would they care who people think the target was?  Usually they only dispute reports of one of their current players being shopped, to avoid hurting the player's feelings and to keep that player's reputation in tact.

Valid point.  No point in Boston disputing it.  It would be Philly denying the rumors.  That hasn't happened either though, because everyone (including Okafor) knows at least one of those bigs is a sitting duck and it's been known Boston has had interest in Okafor or Noel since pre-draft.  It shouldn't have surprised anyone that we offered the Brooklyn 1st for one of them.

From: http://thesixersense.com/2016/02/19/sam-hinkie-reveals-positives-of-trade-deadline/

"Hinkie implied that the Sixers did take other calls, but they were not “particularly close” on finalizing any deals with other teams."

Either Danny or Hinkie are lying about how close the deal was, or they are both telling the truth and Danny's potential deal wasn't with Philly.

Possible that DA and Hinkie have a different definition of "particularly close."  Whatever benefits their position.

Ah ... so, "different definition" ... euphemism for lying?   Which one has a different definition from:

close
klōs/
adjective
1.
a short distance away or apart in space or time.
"the hotel is close to the sea"
synonyms:   near, adjacent to; More
antonyms:   far, distant
with very little or no space in between; dense.
"cloth with a closer weave"
synonyms:   dense, compact, tight, close-packed, packed, solid; More
narrowly enclosed.
"animals in close confinement"
very near to (being or doing something).
"on a good day the climate in LA is close to perfection"
synonyms:   near, on the verge of, on the brink of, on the point of
"I was close to tears"
(with reference to a competitive situation) won or likely to be won by only a small amount or distance.
"the race will be a close contest"
synonyms:   evenly matched, even, with nothing to choose between them, neck and neck; informaleven-steven
"a very close match"
adverb
adverb: close; comparative adverb: closer
1.
in a position so as to be very near to someone or something; with very little space between.
"they stood close to the door"

[Evantime34]

at this point Id say its basically fact that Okafor was the target.

Regardless of who was first to report it, essentially every publication has reported it at this point, nobody from the Celtics has disputed it and nobody has reported an alternative.  It was Okafor. 

The only reason some people don't believe it is because it's more fun to believe in some alternative conspiracy theory.   I think that's a giant waste of time.  Instead of sitting here pretending like it was Jimmy Butler, why can't we just focus on the reality of the offer and what that means in relation to our future?   Will we still be able to make a compelling offer for a Philly big this summer?  Should we be concerned about the quality of this draft?  Would Okafor have flourished here?  There's plenty to explore with this story beyond the "maybe Ainge was actually referring to LeBron and just paid Bulpett to report a smokescreen" tinhattery.

Why would somebody from the Celtics dispute it?  Why would they bother?  Why would they care who people think the target was?  Usually they only dispute reports of one of their current players being shopped, to avoid hurting the player's feelings and to keep that player's reputation in tact.

Valid point.  No point in Boston disputing it.  It would be Philly denying the rumors.  That hasn't happened either though, because everyone (including Okafor) knows at least one of those bigs is a sitting duck and it's been known Boston has had interest in Okafor or Noel since pre-draft.  It shouldn't have surprised anyone that we offered the Brooklyn 1st for one of them.

From: http://thesixersense.com/2016/02/19/sam-hinkie-reveals-positives-of-trade-deadline/

"Hinkie implied that the Sixers did take other calls, but they were not “particularly close” on finalizing any deals with other teams."

Either Danny or Hinkie are lying about how close the deal was, or they are both telling the truth and Danny's potential deal wasn't with Philly.

Possible that DA and Hinkie have a different definition of "particularly close."  Whatever benefits their position.

Ah ... so, "different definition" ... euphemism for lying?   Which one has a different definition from:

close
klōs/
adjective
1.
a short distance away or apart in space or time.
"the hotel is close to the sea"
synonyms:   near, adjacent to; More
antonyms:   far, distant
with very little or no space in between; dense.
"cloth with a closer weave"
synonyms:   dense, compact, tight, close-packed, packed, solid; More
narrowly enclosed.
"animals in close confinement"
very near to (being or doing something).
"on a good day the climate in LA is close to perfection"
synonyms:   near, on the verge of, on the brink of, on the point of
"I was close to tears"
(with reference to a competitive situation) won or likely to be won by only a small amount or distance.
"the race will be a close contest"
synonyms:   evenly matched, even, with nothing to choose between them, neck and neck; informaleven-steven
"a very close match"
adverb
adverb: close; comparative adverb: closer
1.
in a position so as to be very near to someone or something; with very little space between.
"they stood close to the door"

They can have different definitions of close because close is subjective.

Using your definition: "a short distance away or apart in space or time." A short distance isn't a specific amount. If two people are 6 feet away from a wall one might consider themselves close to the wall while the other doesn't.

If Ainge thought "hey talks went well, if Hinkie accepts our proposal it's a done deal". While Hinkie could think "talks went OK, but I'm not accepting this deal until I get more". One thinks they are close the other doesn't.

[LarBrd33]

at this point Id say its basically fact that Okafor was the target.

Regardless of who was first to report it, essentially every publication has reported it at this point, nobody from the Celtics has disputed it and nobody has reported an alternative.  It was Okafor. 

The only reason some people don't believe it is because it's more fun to believe in some alternative conspiracy theory.   I think that's a giant waste of time.  Instead of sitting here pretending like it was Jimmy Butler, why can't we just focus on the reality of the offer and what that means in relation to our future?   Will we still be able to make a compelling offer for a Philly big this summer?  Should we be concerned about the quality of this draft?  Would Okafor have flourished here?  There's plenty to explore with this story beyond the "maybe Ainge was actually referring to LeBron and just paid Bulpett to report a smokescreen" tinhattery.

Why would somebody from the Celtics dispute it?  Why would they bother?  Why would they care who people think the target was?  Usually they only dispute reports of one of their current players being shopped, to avoid hurting the player's feelings and to keep that player's reputation in tact.

Valid point.  No point in Boston disputing it.  It would be Philly denying the rumors.  That hasn't happened either though, because everyone (including Okafor) knows at least one of those bigs is a sitting duck and it's been known Boston has had interest in Okafor or Noel since pre-draft.  It shouldn't have surprised anyone that we offered the Brooklyn 1st for one of them.

From: http://thesixersense.com/2016/02/19/sam-hinkie-reveals-positives-of-trade-deadline/

"Hinkie implied that the Sixers did take other calls, but they were not “particularly close” on finalizing any deals with other teams."

Either Danny or Hinkie are lying about how close the deal was, or they are both telling the truth and Danny's potential deal wasn't with Philly.

Possible that DA and Hinkie have a different definition of "particularly close."  Whatever benefits their position.

Ah ... so, "different definition" ... euphemism for lying?   Which one has a different definition from:

close
klōs/
adjective
1.
a short distance away or apart in space or time.
"the hotel is close to the sea"
synonyms:   near, adjacent to; More
antonyms:   far, distant
with very little or no space in between; dense.
"cloth with a closer weave"
synonyms:   dense, compact, tight, close-packed, packed, solid; More
narrowly enclosed.
"animals in close confinement"
very near to (being or doing something).
"on a good day the climate in LA is close to perfection"
synonyms:   near, on the verge of, on the brink of, on the point of
"I was close to tears"
(with reference to a competitive situation) won or likely to be won by only a small amount or distance.
"the race will be a close contest"
synonyms:   evenly matched, even, with nothing to choose between them, neck and neck; informaleven-steven
"a very close match"
adverb
adverb: close; comparative adverb: closer
1.
in a position so as to be very near to someone or something; with very little space between.
"they stood close to the door"

They can have different definitions of close because close is subjective.

Using your definition: "a short distance away or apart in space or time." A short distance isn't a specific amount. If two people are 6 feet away from a wall one might consider themselves close to the wall while the other doesn't.

If Ainge thought "hey talks went well, if Hinkie accepts our proposal it's a done deal". While Hinkie could think "talks went OK, but I'm not accepting this deal until I get more". One thinks they are close the other doesn't.

I'll actually concede the following.   It's possible both sides of this argument are right.

If what Evantime says is true, Boston offered the Brooklyn 1st and Bradley for Okafor and Philly countered with Okafor for Brooklyn 1st, Olynyk and Smart - killing the deal.  Let's assume this is accurate and happened.  There were rumors about Ainge going hard after Okafor even before the draft.  We've heard rumors about him targetting one of those bigs all season.   Okafor was being shopped per reports.  Makes total logical sense that we'd offer up the questionable Brooklyn 1st and a decent player for a pretty can't miss known star prospect. 

It's then also possible that another secret special offer with a mystery team was made close to the deadline... something that would be a risk to both teams... something that would include the Brooklyn pick and would be considered a "big package" as Ainge referred to it.  Perhaps that was something like the Brooklyn 1st, Dallas 1st, Avery Bradley, Jae Crowder, and Marcus Smart, for Paul George... perhaps both teams gave it considerable thought... and last minute the Pacers decided against it. 

Then perhaps when Bulpett investigated what this "mystery trade" had been, he heard about the offer we made to Philly (Bradley and the Brooklyn 1st) for Okafor and assumed that was the trade Ainge was talking about.   

There... that's a conspiracy theory that should satisfy both sides. 

[mctyson]

Why do you put so much stock in what Simmons and House say? You've mentioned them before when they said they would trade the pick for Hayward. They're both fans and House is especially awful. Honestly, when has House brought anything remotely close to insight on the podcast?

As far as the Okafor thing goes, Bulpett reported it, the ESPN team covering the televised Celtic game reported it, and now Simmons is confirming it.   It happened.   Either that means the Celtics are high on Okafor or low on the draft.  THere's also plenty of sources calling this draft weak.

They are confirming that the BROOKLYN PICK was offered for Okafor.  That is reasonable, because Okafor would be drafted no lower than #3 in this draft if he was a Sophomore this year.

You are the one insinuating that Danny also offered Marcus Smart.  You are doing that to either (a) incite people or (b) because you are bored.  There is absolutely ZERO CHANCE that Danny Ainge offered the Brooklyn Pick and Marcus Smart for Okafor.

Zero chance.

Zero.

[LarBrd33]

Why do you put so much stock in what Simmons and House say? You've mentioned them before when they said they would trade the pick for Hayward. They're both fans and House is especially awful. Honestly, when has House brought anything remotely close to insight on the podcast?

As far as the Okafor thing goes, Bulpett reported it, the ESPN team covering the televised Celtic game reported it, and now Simmons is confirming it.   It happened.   Either that means the Celtics are high on Okafor or low on the draft.  THere's also plenty of sources calling this draft weak.

They are confirming that the BROOKLYN PICK was offered for Okafor.  That is reasonable, because Okafor would be drafted no lower than #3 in this draft if he was a Sophomore this year.

You are the one insinuating that Danny also offered Marcus Smart.  You are doing that to either (a) incite people or (b) because you are bored.  There is absolutely ZERO CHANCE that Danny Ainge offered the Brooklyn Pick and Marcus Smart for Okafor.

Zero chance.

Zero.

I seriously doubt that was what we offered.  Evantime believes it was the Brooklyn 1st and Avery Bradley.   I just had an offhanded comment saying that additional assets had to have been included like Avery Bradley or Marcus Smart or something.

Someone else suggested it might have been Smart + Brooklyn 1st for Okafor and Saric. 

You might have misread a quote I shared from the Celticsblog article where a Philly blogger said he would not trade Okafor for Smart and the Brooklyn 1st if it ends up outside the top 2.

Quote directly from the Celticsblog article:

I can't imagine they were just offering the Brooklyn pick straight up to begin with. This draft stinks, and I would take Jahlil Okafor over anyone not named Brandon Ingram or Ben Simmons. There's no assurance the Brooklyn pick is gonna be top two. Philadelphia's still waiting to learn about the health of Joel Embiid, so there's no point in moving on from Okafor until you know if he can play or not anyway.

If the Brooklyn pick is top two, then yeah, I make the trade. Personally, not going to be much interested otherwise. Maybe Philly would be interested in the Brooklyn pick, Marcus Smart and other filler, but that doesn't appeal to me.

http://www.celticsblog.com/2016/2/24/11104604/deciphering-the-celtics-deadline-day-jahlil-okafor-talks