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

[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.

[KG Living Legend]

 Another example of the Haul if we kept the picks.

 Dragan Bender
 Valentine
 Stone
 Greyson Allen
 
 

[The One]

 Another example of the Haul if we kept the picks.

 Dragan Bender
 Valentine
 Stone
 Greyson Allen

Can we insert Thon in there somewhere?

[Csfan1984]

I picked yes because I would do all the picks but team's own. Which is pretty close to the whole thing. Would real like to at least keep C's own first.

So 2 for 3, 15, 31, 35, 45, 52, 58

Draft Simmons then Zubac and call it a draft win.

[Ogaju]

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.

[Boris Badenov]

It's not like Ingram's a slouch.  He had a comparable freshman season at Duke to what Durant did at Texas.  And there's always a chance somebody overthinks the #1 pick and Simmons falls to #2.

Agree with the first part of your statement, but Durant had one of the best freshman years ever: 26/11/1 with 1.9spg and 1.9bpg on 47/40/82 shooting.

Ingram just averaged 17/7/2 with 1.3/1.6 on 46/41/68 shooting in a ton of minutes (35mpg). Not even as good as guys like Beasley or Parker. Closer to Harrison Barnes for that matter.

I think Ingram's age and physical tools put him a cut above Barnes, but I think the Durant comp is a reach.

Nonetheless I'd trade all of our picks for him. Haha. He still could turn into a big-time scorer.

[PhoSita]

It's not like Ingram's a slouch.  He had a comparable freshman season at Duke to what Durant did at Texas.  And there's always a chance somebody overthinks the #1 pick and Simmons falls to #2.

Agree with the first part of your statement, but Durant had one of the best freshman years ever: 26/11/1 with 1.9spg and 1.9bpg on 47/40/82 shooting.

Ingram just averaged 17/7/2 with 1.3/1.6 on 46/41/68 shooting in a ton of minutes (35mpg). Not even as good as guys like Beasley or Parker. Closer to Harrison Barnes for that matter.

I think Ingram's age and physical tools put him a cut above Barnes, but I think the Durant comp is a reach.

Nonetheless I'd trade all of our picks for him. Haha. He still could turn into a big-time scorer.

His season wasn't as good as Durants, but there's a whole breakdown on DraftExpress comparing them and making the case they're similar in many respects, even if it's clear Ingram is not the same caliber of prospect.

[#1P4P]

Trading 3 1sts for a player that is 3 years away from developing into an elite player (assuming he develops into one at all) is not the move I would advise unless all of my intel (scouts, player development personnel, etc.) were in agreement about his developing into an elite player. If that occurs, then I'd give it strong consideration.

The 3 1sts alone could be used to entice a team into trading a valuable player. I would rather use the picks to pry Jimmy Butler (an immediate impact player) or another elite player that is closer to their prime than Ingram.

At worst, utilizing those picks to draft several of the top 60 young players in the world would be a solid backup plan, which would give us a shot at one turning into a star and an even better shot at contintuing to be one of the deepest and most talented teams in the league.

[Lucky17]

 Another example of the Haul if we kept the picks.

 Dragan Bender
 Valentine
 Stone
 Greyson Allen

Is that a haul though? A pessimist might call those four a potential Tskitishvili and three career backups.

[max215]

We need quality, not quantity, and Simmons is still a more desirable option than Bender.

[slamtheking]

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

[alldaboston]

Honestly, whatever we do, I hope we don't end up with Bender. He isn't the next Porzingis, or anything close, in my opinion. I call bust. You guys can call me out all day long if I'm wrong, and he's a stud. But right now, I don't want Bender.

[ThePoeticWolf]

I think I'd be more interested in trading Brooklyn's and Dallas's and a couple seconds but keep our pick in the 20's.  Since Chad Ford has us taking Thon Maker and I personally think he'd be a great project. 

[TheSundanceKid]

Honestly, whatever we do, I hope we don't end up with Bender. He isn't the next Porzingis, or anything close, in my opinion. I call bust. You guys can call me out all day long if I'm wrong, and he's a stud. But right now, I don't want Bender.

I won't call you out, the skepticism is valid because we've seen little of him compared to the other prospects and he's not being tested against the same competition so there will be questions over how he will translate.

However I would say that the comparisons to Porzingis are a bit off. They're both European and 7 ft tall. That's about it. Porzingis is a post player who can stretch it out to the 3 point line, but defensively he is a 4/5 and as he develops his frame he'll be a 5.
Bender is a 3/4, has the lateral speed to stick with guys on the perimeter and is a more up tempo player. He likes to get out and run. Being 7 ft tall helps him finish over guys on the fast break. He's reported to have a very high motor and a drive that improves him year on year. At this time I wouldn't say he's as developed as Porzingis but if Bender comes over this offseason he will be a year younger than Porzingis was when he came over.

Furthermore Bender has appeal because he will hopefully be a draft and stash, staying in Europe for another year. This could be important for us with the roster crunch. If no trades materialise we can select the upside of Bender at 3 without using a roster spot, then use the DAL and BOS picks to get NBA ready players that can slot into the rotation if needed.

Also consider the other options. Hield, Murray and Brown. If we take Hield you have to use him from the start because you aren't selecting him for the long term but the now. Would he really dislodge Bradley, Smart or Turner? Take Murray and you are left with a selection nightmare in the backcourt likely selling low on someone to clear the jam. Brown I can get on board with but he's a project that will take up a roster spot next year. That probably means Young and someone else need to be cut/moved.
Going further down to Poeltl, Ellenson and others then we may as well trade back and pick up an extra asset in the process, like a future first.

tl;dr you are right to have concerns over bust potential but the star potential is also there, comp to Porzingis is off

[TheSundanceKid]

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

But how many stars come from the range of the other 1sts Boston will have (DAL, BOS)? What are the stats on those picks?

http://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm has a nice historical reference of what draft picks have turned into in the past. the number 2 pick has a 60% chance at being a star.

To give an example if we average the star odds for some of the ranges our picks could land; 4, 13-16, 21-24. we get 0.6, 0.15, 0.0625 respectively. Then we want to find all the possible outcomes where one of them will be a star. There are 7 outcomes where at least one of the three players becomes a star. We work out the chance of each outcome by multiplying the probabilities, e.g. for the 4th pick to be a star and the other two not = 0.6x0.85x0.9375 = 0.478

Do this for all the outcomes and we get 0.681125 or a 68% chance at a star. so technically the stats support my claim. Of course it's a little flaky because I've chosen a range not specific spots which vary wildly. I didn't include the chance at the 3 spot (which oddly produces more stars than the 2nd) even though that's what the question is...but 85% seems weird so I went for the more normal odds at 4. And of course this draft is called weak and top heavy which could be used against this argument. And finally this assumes my maths is right...!

If I had more time I'd go further and look at including the odds for solid as well because the rating system doesn't account for more than just points rebounds and assists so there will be some misses in there.