Would you trade the entire draft to move from #3 to #2

[Moranis]

Boston has 9 players under contract next year, two more with team options, and 2 or 3 of its own free agents I assume it would want back (depending on price of course) in Sullinger, Turner, and Zeller.  Let's say Boston brings back 2 of the free agents and plans on using Johnson and Jerekbo to acquire 1 player in a salary dump type situation.  That puts the roster at 12 before the draft picks and any other free agent signings (for this purpose the 2 free agents brought back will be signed after using cap space).  If Boston signs no other free agents then the 3 1st rounders will fill out the roster and none of the 2nd rounders will make the team.  But I think it is unlikely that Boston does nothing in free agency, which means there is no way Boston can have all of its draft picks on the roster.  Now sure there may be a player or two drafted that stay in Europe, but eventually said players will need to come over. 

The reality is Boston is going to almost certainly trade some of the picks.  I assume Boston will first look to trade picks for established players, but that would also require established players because a team like Chicago isn't going to trade Butler for only draft picks, it will want someone like Bradley and/or Crowder back, plus draft picks (including 3 for the sake of this discussion).  Is that a better trade then moving up for Ingram or Simmons?  That is the question and in that there is no easy answer, but assuming that no trade for an established star is made, I think Boston absolutely will look at moving up to 2 using 3, Dallas, and whatever else it takes.  The real problem with this is, is I can't see a team that could be in 2 that is set at wing and weaker down low, thus none of them would trade Ingram for Bender (plus other stuff). 

[Roy H.]

I voted yes, but immediately felt the Vikings trading all those picks for Hershel Walker.

How did that turn out?

and Ditka trading all his pick for the RB with dreadlocks.

Different sports. A late first and second rounders have relatively little value in the NBA. Not so in the NFL.

bad trade, you don't compile those assets and then waste them on Ingram.

How is drafting Ingram a waste?

[mef730]

The reality is Boston is going to almost certainly trade some of the picks.  I assume Boston will first look to trade picks for established players, but that would also require established players because a team like Chicago isn't going to trade Butler for only draft picks, it will want someone like Bradley and/or Crowder back, plus draft picks (including 3 for the sake of this discussion).  Is that a better trade then moving up for Ingram or Simmons?  That is the question and in that there is no easy answer, but assuming that no trade for an established star is made, I think Boston absolutely will look at moving up to 2 using 3, Dallas, and whatever else it takes.  The real problem with this is, is I can't see a team that could be in 2 that is set at wing and weaker down low, thus none of them would trade Ingram for Bender (plus other stuff).

You bring up a good point for which I haven't seen a thorough answer yet: With eight draft picks, how do we get value for them? In other words, it's not a secret that we must trade some, simply for roster space. Thus, it's going to be hard to get other teams to pay full value for them, knowing that we are a forced seller. True, we would get value for #3 regardless of how many other picks we have, but that's our one good bargaining chip: If we trade it, it has to be one of the last (or last) to go. Once you get outside of the lottery, value will fall that much faster. We then have seven picks, at #15 or worse (as things stand today). Do you combine #31 and #35 to the Clippers for #25?

I voted "no" on the original question, but I do have some serious concerns about how much value we can extract from eight picks when, as far as we're concerned, supply is greater than demand.

Mike

[chambers]

The only way anyteam would ever agree to this is if somehow the Mavs pick landed at #8.
Even then it would be very rare. Maybe a 5% chance with a moron GM.

Would you trade Simmons or Ingram for the #3 and some junk?

[Donoghus]

The only way anyteam would ever agree to this is if somehow the Mavs pick landed at #8.
Even then it would be very rare. Maybe a 5% chance with a moron GM.

Would you trade Simmons or Ingram for the #3 and some junk?

You'd have to throw in someone like Bradley to the mix.  A team isn't going to do that straight up for draft picks unless they have that moron GM you speak of.

[guava_wrench]

No, you take Bender with the 3rd pick and take chances with the others. Stats show that multiple picks have a better chance of producing a star. Noone knows for sure if Ingram and Simmons will turn out to be worthy of 1 and 2 or if it'll be like Parker or Oladipo, good players but not franchise changing

Stats show you only get 15 roster spots and you can only suit of 12 guys per game.

"No one knows" is a horrible argument. No one "knew" Lebron would be a superstar because you can actually "know" that. You can only say that it is very probable, with a probability near 1.000.

We don't have enough roster spots to develop that many players -- unless you are saying we cut loose Rozier, Mickey, Hunter, etc. Cutting them loose would only prove how little value draft picks can have, providing even stronger support for going with the higher pick.

[guava_wrench]

a gross overpayment to move up one slot in the lottery.  As much as people like Ingram, he's not worth that much more in assets than whoever they get at #3.  Also, if we're giving up that much, I want a top player.  minimum of a multi-time all-star. 

there's no one in this draft I'd go out on a limb and say is a sure thing to be that type of player

If you have so little faith in the players in this draft, how many roster spots are you willing to devote to them?

[Roy H.]

No, you take Bender with the 3rd pick and take chances with the others. Stats show that multiple picks have a better chance of producing a star. Noone knows for sure if Ingram and Simmons will turn out to be worthy of 1 and 2 or if it'll be like Parker or Oladipo, good players but not franchise changing

Bender is ultra-scary. He's getting very few minutes in Europe, and in those few minutes, he hasn't produced at all.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/euro/players/dragan-bender-1.html

[mmmmm]

The only way anyteam would ever agree to this is if somehow the Mavs pick landed at #8.
Even then it would be very rare. Maybe a 5% chance with a moron GM.

Unfortunately, I believe that is now mathematically impossible.

Would you trade Simmons or Ingram for the #3 and some junk?

Nope.

[wdleehi]

There is a clear first tier in the draft at the moment.   If it took all the picks the Celtics have this year to move into that tier, do it.   


If nothing else, the player in that tier is going to have more trade value after if the team wants to go after a star in a trade. 

[mmmmm]

The reality is Boston is going to almost certainly trade some of the picks.  I assume Boston will first look to trade picks for established players, but that would also require established players because a team like Chicago isn't going to trade Butler for only draft picks, it will want someone like Bradley and/or Crowder back, plus draft picks (including 3 for the sake of this discussion).  Is that a better trade then moving up for Ingram or Simmons?  That is the question and in that there is no easy answer, but assuming that no trade for an established star is made, I think Boston absolutely will look at moving up to 2 using 3, Dallas, and whatever else it takes.  The real problem with this is, is I can't see a team that could be in 2 that is set at wing and weaker down low, thus none of them would trade Ingram for Bender (plus other stuff).

You bring up a good point for which I haven't seen a thorough answer yet: With eight draft picks, how do we get value for them? In other words, it's not a secret that we must trade some, simply for roster space. Thus, it's going to be hard to get other teams to pay full value for them, knowing that we are a forced seller. True, we would get value for #3 regardless of how many other picks we have, but that's our one good bargaining chip: If we trade it, it has to be one of the last (or last) to go. Once you get outside of the lottery, value will fall that much faster. We then have seven picks, at #15 or worse (as things stand today). Do you combine #31 and #35 to the Clippers for #25?

I voted "no" on the original question, but I do have some serious concerns about how much value we can extract from eight picks when, as far as we're concerned, supply is greater than demand.

Mike

Yeah, this has been the looming issue for a long time and it's finally about to come to a head.

One possible mitigation may be in that, because we, Denver, Phoenix and Philly together own so many picks (11 in the first round, 18 picks overall), that means that there are at least a few teams that have no first and/or second round pick that may want to trade into this draft.   

So if nothing else, maybe Danny could trade a pick or two forward.  I.E., trade a pick now for a future pick or two.  That would alleviate the roster pressure that is possibly devaluing his overall set of assets.

[mmmmm]

No, you take Bender with the 3rd pick and take chances with the others. Stats show that multiple picks have a better chance of producing a star. Noone knows for sure if Ingram and Simmons will turn out to be worthy of 1 and 2 or if it'll be like Parker or Oladipo, good players but not franchise changing

Bender is ultra-scary. He's getting very few minutes in Europe, and in those few minutes, he hasn't produced at all.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/euro/players/dragan-bender-1.html

I wouldn't read too much into that.   He's only 18 years old - he would be still be in high school here in the states.  He's playing on a team that is dominated by veterans.  Three of the top 5 guys getting minutes are 30, 32 & 32 years old and the other two are both over 25.  The next three guys in their main rotation are all over 28.

Maccabi FOX Tel Aviv has Bender under contract to play with them such that his NBA opt-out isn't for 2 more years and so he's almost certainly going to play through at least next year and possibly even the next since a buy-out of two seasons isn't likely.

So from their perspective, he is simply a development project that they don't HAVE to give immediate minutes to.

Obviously, his lack of minutes makes it more difficult for NBA scouts to assess him, but that's not Maccabi's problem.    But that doesn't mean he doesn't still have the potential that he would be drafted for.

It is definitely an open question whether he will pull out of this draft and wait to declare next year.   If the uncertainty about him seems like it will push his draft slot down, he possibly will do that.

[TheTruth]

A huge big yes on smart and the fifth pick for Jimmy Butler.

[TheSundanceKid]

The reality is Boston is going to almost certainly trade some of the picks.  I assume Boston will first look to trade picks for established players, but that would also require established players because a team like Chicago isn't going to trade Butler for only draft picks, it will want someone like Bradley and/or Crowder back, plus draft picks (including 3 for the sake of this discussion).  Is that a better trade then moving up for Ingram or Simmons?  That is the question and in that there is no easy answer, but assuming that no trade for an established star is made, I think Boston absolutely will look at moving up to 2 using 3, Dallas, and whatever else it takes.  The real problem with this is, is I can't see a team that could be in 2 that is set at wing and weaker down low, thus none of them would trade Ingram for Bender (plus other stuff).

You bring up a good point for which I haven't seen a thorough answer yet: With eight draft picks, how do we get value for them? In other words, it's not a secret that we must trade some, simply for roster space. Thus, it's going to be hard to get other teams to pay full value for them, knowing that we are a forced seller. True, we would get value for #3 regardless of how many other picks we have, but that's our one good bargaining chip: If we trade it, it has to be one of the last (or last) to go. Once you get outside of the lottery, value will fall that much faster. We then have seven picks, at #15 or worse (as things stand today). Do you combine #31 and #35 to the Clippers for #25?

I voted "no" on the original question, but I do have some serious concerns about how much value we can extract from eight picks when, as far as we're concerned, supply is greater than demand.

Mike

I think you said it yourself, the #3 pick will have it's trade value regardless. If we make a trade, it's going to be a big one. In which case I'd expect 2 of the 1st round picks this year to be gone, along with a player or two. Then the 2nd round picks would actually be useful for rounding out the roster. If we end up picking all 8 then I would imagine the picks in the #40s and 50s get sold off, stashed or cut. They aren't the reason I wouldn't do this trade. The 3 first round picks have higher value than moving up one spot.

No, you take Bender with the 3rd pick and take chances with the others. Stats show that multiple picks have a better chance of producing a star. Noone knows for sure if Ingram and Simmons will turn out to be worthy of 1 and 2 or if it'll be like Parker or Oladipo, good players but not franchise changing

Stats show you only get 15 roster spots and you can only suit of 12 guys per game.

"No one knows" is a horrible argument. No one "knew" Lebron would be a superstar because you can actually "know" that. You can only say that it is very probable, with a probability near 1.000.

We don't have enough roster spots to develop that many players -- unless you are saying we cut loose Rozier, Mickey, Hunter, etc. Cutting them loose would only prove how little value draft picks can have, providing even stronger support for going with the higher pick.

I'm not saying cut them loose that would be silly. As I stated above the picks in the #40s and 50s are worthless so let's discount them now. If we picked with them I'd imagine we'd get guys who would play in Australia for a year, or a Colten Iverson type.

So now we're down to 5. That's what the proposal really is. If push came to shove you can find overseas prospects that are good value at all those picks, not that you'd use all the picks on draft and stash. The worst thing to do would be to panic and do exactly what other teams expect to force us to do, that precedent would be bad for Danny.

Also I wouldn't act like it's basically 1.00 that Ingram is going to be a star. Just like anyone coming into the league he has things to work on. But at the start of the year Skal was above him, in 3 years he could be above him again he certainly has the potential. Brown is another who has been highly touted. This isn't a 2 man draft. It is a draft that is harder to predict because the players in it have more growing to do that most draft classes.

[BlackCeltic]

A huge big yes on smart and the fifth pick for Jimmy Butler.

Id switch Smart with Bradley.