what is your draft philosophy?

[PhoSita]

I think the "best player available" wisdom holds true, but what constitutes the "best player" is a jumble of factors that will differ from person to person.

For me, I think you have to take floor and ceiling into consideration, and you also have to consider the opportunity that a player you draft will have to actually earn time, develop, and carve out a role on your team.

Generally speaking, I'm more willing to consider prospects with high bust potential in the middle to late 1st round than I am in the lottery.

If you're picking top 10, I think you need to make that pick count.  Can't afford to use it on a completely raw player with no sure-fire NBA level skills, unless the potential reward there is so overwhelming that it's worth it, or all the other prospects in the same range are guaranteed to be no better than role players.

Later on the in the draft, I'm OK with risks because the chances of finding good players there is much lower anyway. 

In the second round, I say take whoever you think has a skillset that could be useful at the NBA level in some context.

[Evantime34]

Best player available.

Its really that simple.

Best player available according to who though? Do you trust the team or is it in your opinion.

It seems like BPA is the consensus but then right after the draft the C's often get killed on this board for not picking the guy people thought was the BPA.

For example, last year I'm sure the C's thought Rozier was the BPA but that pick was met with wide criticism.

I saw your comment and wanted to use it to ask how everyone on here determines bpa.

[max215]

BPA is generally the best policy.

[Tr1boy]

Doesn't matter what mine is. CBS and ainge look for players that are  tough   . number 1
Then (as a whole) strength,  motor, maturity, IQ, skill level

Danny of the past plus rivers (athletes, skills had an edge) . though Danny still liked Tony any Allen and Perkins tough boys. Rondo too

[guava_wrench]

Be opportunistic.

[alldaboston]

Take the guy that has an immediate impact, that can score, that knows how to play basketball. I am not a fan of drafting guys the media would call "gritty, scrappy" etc. If they can score and play good basketball, grit is a nice addition. But grit won't win you championships. At some point you need actual talent. So that's what I'd draft for.

[Ilikesports17]

Take the guy that has an immediate impact, that can score, that knows how to play basketball. I am not a fan of drafting guys the media would call "gritty, scrappy" etc. If they can score and play good basketball, grit is a nice addition. But grit won't win you championships. At some point you need actual talent. So that's what I'd draft for.

didnt like the Smart pick I take it?

[TheSundanceKid]

Take the guy that has an immediate impact, that can score, that knows how to play basketball. I am not a fan of drafting guys the media would call "gritty, scrappy" etc. If they can score and play good basketball, grit is a nice addition. But grit won't win you championships. At some point you need actual talent. So that's what I'd draft for.

didnt like the Smart pick I take it?

lol too true. He isn't the perfect player but noone behind him in that draft is any better. It was the best pick

[SHAQATTACK]

Trade for the Boogie Man 

[alldaboston]

Take the guy that has an immediate impact, that can score, that knows how to play basketball. I am not a fan of drafting guys the media would call "gritty, scrappy" etc. If they can score and play good basketball, grit is a nice addition. But grit won't win you championships. At some point you need actual talent. So that's what I'd draft for.

didnt like the Smart pick I take it?

lol too true. He isn't the perfect player but noone behind him in that draft is any better. It was the best pick

No no. You didn't understand, I really liked the Smart pick. I appreciate defense a lot. But a team can only have so many players like Smart (defensive-based, gritty, scrappy guys who aren't great offensively). at some point, you need guys that will score and be helpful on offense immediately.

i think a good team needs a mix of these type of guys. given our team structure right now (lots of these grit guys), we would be best off drafting for immediate offensive impact.

[arctic 3.0]

Improve

[Cman]

For NBA draft, it depends a bit on where you are picking, but basically BPA.
If you are the Celtics with 7 picks, you don't pick BPA in the 2nd round. You pick BPA *conditional* on that player agreeing to play in Europe (or wherever) for a while.

[moiso]

I don't see how it can be as simple as "best player available" like a lot of people are saying.  The best player available in the last draft was Frank Kaminski.  He was the best player in college basketball.  I'm sure nobody thinks Kaminski should have been the #1 pick.  There are a lot more factors than being the best player available.  That's way too simplistic of a philosophy.

[LooseCannon]

Take the guy that has an immediate impact, that can score, that knows how to play basketball. I am not a fan of drafting guys the media would call "gritty, scrappy" etc. If they can score and play good basketball, grit is a nice addition. But grit won't win you championships. At some point you need actual talent. So that's what I'd draft for.

didnt like the Smart pick I take it?

lol too true. He isn't the perfect player but noone behind him in that draft is any better. It was the best pick

No no. You didn't understand, I really liked the Smart pick. I appreciate defense a lot. But a team can only have so many players like Smart (defensive-based, gritty, scrappy guys who aren't great offensively). at some point, you need guys that will score and be helpful on offense immediately.

i think a good team needs a mix of these type of guys. given our team structure right now (lots of these grit guys), we would be best off drafting for immediate offensive impact.

Getting good offensive players is a fine goal, but the team should avoid guys who give you scoring and nothing else.

[Celtics18]

I go with the "guys I like" philosophy of drafting.  Sometimes you see players that you just fall for their game and/or their personality.  Not everyone is going to become enamored with the same players.  The same is true for NBA GMs and decision makers, I'm sure.

We can go ahead and keep pretending there's some kind of scientific formula, though.