Best scenario for Simmons. Celtics winning lottery.

[manl_lui]

I firmly believe the League has no interest in making the Celtics better---they sell out every game anyway--and have won tons of rings---so don't expect any help on lottery night---5th pick for sure...Lakers will get No. 1.... Phoenix No. 2....Minny No. 3....Philly No. 4

I firmly believe the opposite. 

#1 - The draft isn't fixed.  So there's that.

#2 - One could argue that in 2008 the league had a rooting interest in a Lakers/Celtics finals.  What transpired that season was a perfect storm leading to big-time dollars. 

Celtics have a top 5 fan base nationally in terms of size.  It's one of the premiere franchises in the league.  The league would very pleased to have a Celtic team playing deep into the playoffs.

I have to say, the old LarBrd was really good; but the new LarBrd is really something else.

I don't know, I somehow see the lottery is rigged. If any thing, the Patrick Ewing draft video had me convinced the NBA rigs the draft.

[CoachBo]

How is Boston getting the number one pick the best scenario for Simmons?

If Boston gets the number one pick they're taking Ingram. Ingram is going to be a better pro than Simmons. It's just so painfully obvious when you watch each player actually play.

Cosign. TP.

It is quite obvious.

[86MaxwellSmart]

To go back to the "rigged" discussion (too long to quote), I just wanted to say that I've seen all the behind the scenes stuff, but I honestly had never thought of a weighted ball scenario.

You see---This is the thing I was getting at. Why do they go through this charade of bringing in this Locked Box with New Ping Pong Balls-?....What was wrong with the balls they used in the practice drawing-?...it maybe nothing, but if you wanted or needed to keep certain teams from winning, you could easily do it by bringing in these new balls--and having one or two of them weigh more than the others (the balls get blown upwards with air to be drawn)....The number combinations they assign to teams are in numerical order (they should be random)....I highly doubt they do it--but it's possible.

[mmmmm]

Nonsense, the Man is a walking triple double, If you Like the Greek Freak you will love this kid even more. You can't stop him from getting to the hoop, he doesn't even need a jumpshot to control the game, and if the jumper develops he's a top 5 player in the league.

Ben Simmons: zero career triple doubles.

So ... maybe we should instead take Kyle Collinsworth as our top pick!

[walker834]

Simmons is probably the most sure thing this draft.  He fits the profile of a guy who is going to be good in todays nba.  He's had a year of college and we've seen him against college level competition. Physically he is there.  He plays with good focus for an nba prospect.  There are no sure things though.  But he is probably the closest thing to it.  Bird was taken 6th overall though because of q uestions whether he would play right away or not though.  Guys like Paul George slid because of character concerns.  Simmons has the same questions himself. I don't see him sliding very far.  He deserves to go #1 imo. I don't see him as a bust at all.  I just hope the Celtics make the right pick regardless.

[gift]

The only conclusion I can come to is that Ingram's potential is somehow lowering Simmons' potential and ability.

I have a theory that most people who don't want Simmons are overvaluing the unknown of other draftees rather than correctly valuing Simmons as a draftee.

I get it if you think Ingram will be better (or some other player). But it seems Simmons gets more scrutiny than other players in this draft (and more than top picks from recent previous years).

I think if you match Simmons up against known quantities he doesn't get criticized quite so much. For instance, I think Ben Simmons will be better than Andrew Wiggins. I think Wiggins was a legit top end talent in his draft, but a still a flawed player. My theory is that significantly more people would agree with me that Simmons will be better than Wiggins, or D'Angelo Russell, or Jabari Parker than would agree that Simmons should be taken before Brandon Ingram (I have probably wrecked my chances of proving my theory by explicitly stating this though).

Simmons incredibly gets compared to Oscar freakin' Robinson and Magic seriously?!?! Johnson. Why not compare Simmons to recent and current draftees? The bar is so high because his floor his so low. On the other hand, Ingram does have the potential to be better but not nearly the expectations. His unknown starts to become an appealing alternative to a guy who already can't live up to insane expectations (as well as being a more "savvy" choice).

I'm fine with Ingram, but I'd personally take Simmons and I find a lot of the criticism to be quite a reach.

[walker834]

I think Ingram is being overhyped if anything.  I could be wrong.  But I don't see superstar top 5 in the nba level talent with Ingram at all. I think he is an all star caliber scorer though potentially.  He  doesn't do enough outside of that be considered a top level talent.  Neither does Hield.  Steph Curry was a top level talent and prospect that teams overlooked because of everything he did besides his shooting.   Scouts overlooked him. I didn't. So was Paul George.  He was more like a Pierce type prospect though teams overlooked.  Ingram to me is not on those guys levels.

Wiggins and Parker were supreme talents because of their athleticism and scoring ability. Ingram is more like them but not as good. I more felt Parker was a better healthier Grant Hill though and Wiggins was a poor mans Dominique. I keep saying Ingram is like a poor mans  George Gervin for that reason. He doesn't do enough as far as the in between stuff.  Parker was like Grant Hill in that he could do a lot but was not a great shooter with range. He was a poor mans carmelo that way.   

Comparisons are comparisons though.  I don't like doing that. These are nba all time greats, but I do for a reason.  I'm not usually wrong on guys like this either.  Every so often there is a royce white out there but there were circumstances why he couldn't play in the nba.  None of these guys are that right now.

Hield as a system player could be better than Ray Allen.  He is that good a shooter.  But even still Ray was a 3rd wheel on our championship team. I think how Hield plays he is different than Ray and could be a top guy but he's an enigma that way. I feel like we are different as a team where he could be a leader for us.  The nba is different now too.  Stevens could also do wonders with him.  He's got a little Pierce to him that way but he's undersized.

Hield plays with enough of an edge though that  it kind of trumps his deficiencies elsewhere. He fits us that way. He plays different than Ray.  Ray was a 3rd wheel on a championship. Ray was a great shooter who quietly did  other things though.  Hield I think plays like a guy who wouldn't be that.

Ingram and Hield are going to be good I feel.  When looking at the top top guys though they have warts because you really have to make sure you are picking the right guy.   Simmons and Bender to me are those superstar level talents but they have warts.

[mmmmm]

I firmly believe the League has no interest in making the Celtics better---they sell out every game anyway--and have won tons of rings---so don't expect any help on lottery night---5th pick for sure...Lakers will get No. 1.... Phoenix No. 2....Minny No. 3....Philly No. 4

I firmly believe the opposite. 

#1 - The draft isn't fixed.  So there's that.

#2 - One could argue that in 2008 the league had a rooting interest in a Lakers/Celtics finals.  What transpired that season was a perfect storm leading to big-time dollars. 

Celtics have a top 5 fan base nationally in terms of size.  It's one of the premiere franchises in the league.  The league would very pleased to have a Celtic team playing deep into the playoffs.

I don't know, man. I generally try to stay away from conspiracy theories, but the Cavs winning the lottery two years in a row - the second time from the ninth position - setting it up perfectly for Lebron to come back and form a superteam in Cleveland is a little too much coincidence for me.

Jpotter, anytime someone says they are open to the conspiracy theory of the lotto being rigged, I have to ask if they have seen any of the behind-the-scenes videos.

2013 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKI-fToATpQ

2014 - http://www.nba.com/video/channels/draft/2014/05/20/052014-draft-lottery-behind-the-scenes.nba/

2015 - http://www.nba.com/video/channels/draft/2015/05/19/2015-draft-lottery-drawing.nba/

Just curious if you watched all of those, read about the process, and still think there's a chance it's fixed.   The only way it's fixed is if every team (which all have their own bottom-lines and could see their franchise value sky rocket if they land a star) is willingly part of it, and the media that are let into the room every year go along with it as well.

I'd say it's extremely unlikely unless you're willing to essentially say the entire sport is fixed.  And once you're willing to make that leap, it's just a tiny baby-step towards believing the NBA gifted the Celtics KG and gifted the Lakers Pau, then rigged the entire playoffs so the two teams would clash in the Finals back in 2008.  Either go all-in on the conspiracy theories or accept that they aren't very plausible.

All I'm saying is it Can be rigged---because they assign teams sequential combinations (not random)--and they SWITCH the balls-after the test drawing...If the league wanted to rig it--all they have to do is have one or two balls weigh more--in the Secured Box they bring in....Not probable---but Possible....Teams would have no idea what's going on--so of course they're not involved...if they got rid of the Sequential order of assigned numbers--nobody could rig it.

I'm just curious... if they had one or two balls weigh more so that they'd always come up right away, wouldn't that make every single drawing come up with the same results?  They'd just sit there for hours as the first two numbers popped up over and over again and the same team won the lotto, right?

Doesn't seem practical.

NOT saying the league could determine who Wins---but they could determine who DOESN'T Win (perceived tanking,etc)----The balls get blown UPWARDS---so weighted balls (with the correct air pressure in the machine)...might not get drawn---(example,2007--ALL Celtics number combinations had either #1 or #2 in them)---Why weren't the combinations Random-?-and not like the way they are---kinda fishy why they Switch the balls (from this supposed secured locked box)---but maybe there's nothing to it....If there was any way possible that the lottery is rigged---THIS is how they do it (but it's probably not rigged)

The balls get blown upwards ... but they don't have to go up very far to get 'selected'. The selector is the cross section of the selection tube extending down to just a few inches above the bottom of the chamber.  Air blows up from the very bottom directly at that tube and every ball that rolls to be bottom has a chance of going up and into that tube, so long as it can be blow up as high as the tube entrance.   Arguably, a heavier ball might 'nudge out' other balls in rolling back down to the bottom center and so get more shots at being lifted into the tube.    So it might have the opposite effect than what you want.

If you wanted to 'cheat' to keep a ball from going into the tube you would probably do better to instead do something to make them not fly straight, such as asymmetrically weighting them or scuffing them on one side.  That would make the ball tend to veer away from straight up when it hits the air jet and thus more likely to miss the tube (which is in the center).  The problem with this is that anybody who is inclined to think that cheating is going on could analyze the motion of the balls in these videos and confirm if any of them are heavier, lighter or asymmetrically treated based on their motion.   Given the high stakes involved, I would be shocked if this could be gotten away with since the videos exist and are public.

Making a ball slightly too large would prevent selection but would run the risk of getting stuck in the tube -- pretty apparent folks would scream bloody murder.

Keep in mind also that a team isn't being selected based on any one particular ball, but rather a sequence of ball numbers, and every team has a set of ball number sequences that they can match, so you could only really skew against a particular team if you knew that they had number sequences that had a much heavier weight of one or two ball numbers than any other team.

Basically, the lottery process seems convoluted, but it's actually structured to make it very non-deterministic to 'cheat' it.

[mmmmm]

The only conclusion I can come to is that Ingram's potential is somehow lowering Simmons' potential and ability.

I have a theory that most people who don't want Simmons are overvaluing the unknown of other draftees rather than correctly valuing Simmons as a draftee.

I get it if you think Ingram will be better (or some other player). But it seems Simmons gets more scrutiny than other players in this draft (and more than top picks from recent previous years).

I think if you match Simmons up against known quantities he doesn't get criticized quite so much. For instance, I think Ben Simmons will be better than Andrew Wiggins. I think Wiggins was a legit top end talent in his draft, but a still a flawed player. My theory is that significantly more people would agree with me that Simmons will be better than Wiggins, or D'Angelo Russell, or Jabari Parker than would agree that Simmons should be taken before Brandon Ingram (I have probably wrecked my chances of proving my theory by explicitly stating this though).

Simmons incredibly gets compared to Oscar freakin' Robinson and Magic seriously?!?! Johnson. Why not compare Simmons to recent and current draftees? The bar is so high because his floor his so low. On the other hand, Ingram does have the potential to be better but not nearly the expectations. His unknown starts to become an appealing alternative to a guy who already can't live up to insane expectations (as well as being a more "savvy" choice).

I'm fine with Ingram, but I'd personally take Simmons and I find a lot of the criticism to be quite a reach.

TP, gift.  I concur very much with what you've stated here.

[CoachBo]

I find the appraisal by some of you of Simmons' skills to be a huge reach.

[budMovin]

I think Ingram is being overhyped if anything.  I could be wrong.  But I don't see superstar top 5 in the nba level talent with Ingram at all. I think he is an all star caliber scorer though potentially.  He  doesn't do enough outside of that be considered a top level talent.  Neither does Hield.  Steph Curry was a top level talent and prospect that teams overlooked because of everything he did besides his shooting.   Scouts overlooked him. I didn't. So was Paul George.  He was more like a Pierce type prospect though teams overlooked.  Ingram to me is not on those guys levels.

Wiggins and Parker were supreme talents because of their athleticism and scoring ability. Ingram is more like them but not as good. I more felt Parker was a better healthier Grant Hill though and Wiggins was a poor mans Dominique. I keep saying Ingram is like a poor mans  George Gervin for that reason. He doesn't do enough as far as the in between stuff.  Parker was like Grant Hill in that he could do a lot but was not a great shooter with range. He was a poor mans carmelo that way.   

Comparisons are comparisons though.  I don't like doing that. These are nba all time greats, but I do for a reason.  I'm not usually wrong on guys like this either.  Every so often there is a royce white out there but there were circumstances why he couldn't play in the nba.  None of these guys are that right now.

Hield as a system player could be better than Ray Allen.  He is that good a shooter.  But even still Ray was a 3rd wheel on our championship team. I think how Hield plays he is different than Ray and could be a top guy but he's an enigma that way. I feel like we are different as a team where he could be a leader for us.  The nba is different now too.  Stevens could also do wonders with him.  He's got a little Pierce to him that way but he's undersized.

Hield plays with enough of an edge though that  it kind of trumps his deficiencies elsewhere. He fits us that way. He plays different than Ray.  Ray was a 3rd wheel on a championship. Ray was a great shooter who quietly did  other things though.  Hield I think plays like a guy who wouldn't be that.

He is being over-hyped here because he is EXACTLY what we need. We need size, athleticism and shooting. You don't see his combination of the three come around often.

[walker834]

That's the thing is people were hyping up Oden as a can't miss prospect while durant was going #2.  Mychal Thompson was going #1 while Bird went 6th.  I think when judging the top top guys they have warts beacuse you have to make sure you are picking the right guy. Ingram and guys like Hield probably have a better chance of panning out and being at least good in the nba. With the top top guys there is bigger bust factor which is weird.

I dont disagree that Ingram or Hield would fit what we need in ways. We could use scoring. They would give us some of that.

The nba is different now where Stevens could do things and make it happen i feel with a guy like that leading the way maybe. He did it with Hayward although hayward did different things.  He didn't win a title though.

[mmmmm]

 I find it weird how folks on these sorts of boards get 'dug in' on positions such as some of the negative criticisms of not only Simmons, but also of Ingram, Bender, Brown, Heild, Murray & Dunn.

Some posters are relentless in reaching for negatives, seemingly pulled out of nowhere (really, really old scouting reports or videos from a year or more ago, quibbling over length & weight measures taken for 17 & 18 year old kids, third-and-fourth party gossip about 'intangibles, etc., etc.).   It makes you think that they would absolutely hate the idea of that player being on the Celtics.

Ultimately, who we get may not be a matter of choice.

If Danny gets the #2 pick, he's almost certainly going to take whomever of Simmons/Ingram is not taken.

It just seems strange to me to get all dug in and assertively negative about any of these players when the truth is, most on the board won't have a fraction of the information that Danny should have with which to make an informed choice.

I'm just glad we are certain to get a top 6 pick (and most likely a top 4).  I can see the positive potential in all the possible outcomes of that and I hope that those positives are realized.

[walker834]

I find it weird how folks on these sorts of boards get 'dug in' on positions such as some of the negative criticisms of not only Simmons, but also of Ingram, Bender, Brown, Heild, Murray & Dunn.

Some posters are relentless in reaching for negatives, seemingly pulled out of nowhere (really, really old scouting reports or videos from a year or more ago, quibbling over length & weight measures taken for 17 & 18 year old kids, third-and-fourth party gossip about 'intangibles, etc., etc.).   It makes you think that they would absolutely hate the idea of that player being on the Celtics.

Ultimately, who we get may not be a matter of choice.

If Danny gets the #2 pick, he's almost certainly going to take whomever of Simmons/Ingram is not taken.

It just seems strange to me to get all dug in and assertively negative about any of these players when the truth is, most on the board won't have a fraction of the information that Danny should have with which to make an informed choice.

I'm just glad we are certain to get a top 6 pick (and most likely a top 4).  I can see the positive potential in all the possible outcomes of that and I hope that those positives are realized.

I don't think Ainge is certainly going to take Simmons or Ingram. I think DA will judge a lot of guys fairly and isn't as closeminded as that.  Lets face it the internet hypes up guys and criticizes others and runs with it. that's the issue i have with the internet. Guys like Hield and Bender deserve just as much consideration as Simmons and Ingram but the internet has already annointed those 2 guys for the very reasons you've stated

People said for suer we have to take so and so every year.  Every year Ainge picks someone else. I've had Bradley, Smart, Sully, Perkins etc etc on my boards and as guys we should take. NO offense but the entire internet did not.  What I do is not normal and I know this because every year it's the same.

Everyone said we have to take Greg Oden. "Obviously you take that guy".  "OMG noone in their right mind would think Brad STevens is a better coach than Coach K."  If you can get so and so you have to make that trade etc, etc.  "Bradley sucks". "Trade Pierce".  "obviously you trade pierce for this guy, he's so much better".   This guy sucks and will never make it.  I've listened to it for years.  Trust me on that.

[Roy H.]

I find it weird how folks on these sorts of boards get 'dug in' on positions such as some of the negative criticisms of not only Simmons, but also of Ingram, Bender, Brown, Heild, Murray & Dunn.

Some posters are relentless in reaching for negatives, seemingly pulled out of nowhere (really, really old scouting reports or videos from a year or more ago, quibbling over length & weight measures taken for 17 & 18 year old kids, third-and-fourth party gossip about 'intangibles, etc., etc.).   It makes you think that they would absolutely hate the idea of that player being on the Celtics.

Ultimately, who we get may not be a matter of choice.

If Danny gets the #2 pick, he's almost certainly going to take whomever of Simmons/Ingram is not taken.

It just seems strange to me to get all dug in and assertively negative about any of these players when the truth is, most on the board won't have a fraction of the information that Danny should have with which to make an informed choice.

I'm just glad we are certain to get a top 6 pick (and most likely a top 4).  I can see the positive potential in all the possible outcomes of that and I hope that those positives are realized.

I've noticed something slightly different. I see a ton of over-hyping of prospects, and I've seen a natural backlash to that. How can an objective fan not bristle a bit when a 19 year old with some glaring flaws is being compared to Magic and Oscar?

I doubt any of us would pass on Simmons at #2, but that's separate and apart from thinking he'll be a top-10 player of all-time.

Also, the only quibbling over measurements I remember is when a poster condescending tried to use LSU's biased measurements to shut down Jonathan Givony. When people bring snark and arrogance, I think it's fair to "quibble" about accuracy.