Why I expect that we will move down in the draft

[Boris Badenov]

As a general matter I think we are going to move the pick, but to move a few spots down.

Here's why: there are a slew of teams in the 4-10 range. Similarly the set of players in that 3-8 range is pretty "flat." One team probably loves Dunn, another Bender, another Murray, another Brown, etc.

Any one of these teams will fear that their binkie will be gone by when they pick. So what guarantees them their guy? Only our #3 pick. The top 2 are set.

What this means is that all we need is one team to REALLY want someone. You have 5-6 teams, and 5-6 players, and all you need is one GM who's willing to make a major overpay to get his guy. (Think about our offer for Winslow last year).

The odds that such a GM will exist are very, very high given all the permutations.

Therefore I think the odds that we end up moving that pick, in exchange for a lower pick and other extremely useful assets (like later lottery picks in Denver's case, or a valuable player perhaps in Milwaukee's case, etc.).

We made that offer last year to move up, and now we will be facing a slew of such offers this year. I will not be surprised at all if Danny finds himself facing an offer he can't refuse.

[wdleehi]

But why?


Celtics have plenty of picks and young players.  They don't need the extra assets.

Celtics should either trade the pick for established players that will help them (all-star level)

or draft the best player on their list.

[PhoSita]

But why?


Celtics have plenty of picks and young players.  They don't need the extra assets.

Celtics should either trade the pick for established players that will help them (all-star level)

or draft the best player on their list.

Exactly my thoughts on the subject.

[Boris Badenov]

But why?


Celtics have plenty of picks and young players.  They don't need the extra assets.

Celtics should either trade the pick for established players that will help them (all-star level)

or draft the best player on their list.

Exactly my thoughts on the subject.

Because it'd be a great deal, that's why. Having lots of picks doesn't mean we should reject a deal that includes a ton of value because that value comes in picks.

For one, if that trade would give us an even bigger "war chest" for pursuing a star player later, we'd be silly to turn it down.

You can't look at things in isolation. It's still about getting greater value for lesser value.

[Rakulp]

But why?


Celtics have plenty of picks and young players.  They don't need the extra assets.

Celtics should either trade the pick for established players that will help them (all-star level)

or draft the best player on their list.

You can never have enough assets because you never know when you will need them to make a blockbuster move.

If Boston doesn't want (fill in name of player) but (fill in name of other team) does very badly, then I can see a move slightly backwards to pick up a player that betters the team while still getting the person we want with our top pick.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the Celtics think tank

Rak

[Boris Badenov]

But why?


Celtics have plenty of picks and young players.  They don't need the extra assets.

Celtics should either trade the pick for established players that will help them (all-star level)

or draft the best player on their list.

You can never have enough assets because you never know when you will need them to make a blockbuster move.

If Boston doesn't want (fill in name of player) but (fill in name of other team) does very badly, then I can see a move slightly backwards to pick up a player that betters the team while still getting the person we want with our top pick.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the Celtics think tank

Rak

Exactly.

[mef730]

As a general matter I think we are going to move the pick, but to move a few spots down.

Here's why: there are a slew of teams in the 4-10 range. Similarly the set of players in that 3-8 range is pretty "flat." One team probably loves Dunn, another Bender, another Murray, another Brown, etc.

Any one of these teams will fear that their binkie will be gone by when they pick. So what guarantees them their guy? Only our #3 pick. The top 2 are set.

What this means is that all we need is one team to REALLY want someone. You have 5-6 teams, and 5-6 players, and all you need is one GM who's willing to make a major overpay to get his guy. (Think about our offer for Winslow last year).

The odds that such a GM will exist are very, very high given all the permutations.

Therefore I think the odds that we end up moving that pick, in exchange for a lower pick and other extremely useful assets (like later lottery picks in Denver's case, or a valuable player perhaps in Milwaukee's case, etc.).

We made that offer last year to move up, and now we will be facing a slew of such offers this year. I will not be surprised at all if Danny finds himself facing an offer he can't refuse.

I keep saying to myself, "all we need is one GM..." because I think we're going to have trouble getting top value for our #3 otherwise.

Mike

[LarBrd33]

Trading down would make some sense.  3 is a tough position to be in.

[hwangjini_1]

Trading down would make some sense.  3 is a tough position to be in.

rather, #3 is a great position to be in, but if ainge can parley that into something even better, so be it.

something such as trading #3 to sacramento for #8, or WCS might make sense depending upon what else they put into the trade. they are known to lust after heild.

it would be great to switch with phoenix at #4 if ainge doesnt want bender, because phoenix definitely does want to draft him. boston gets #4, drafts the player they want AND gets another asset.

[droopdog7]

So you're presuming that other teams have a binkie but discounting the idea that the Celts may have one too?

People always slanting things to favor the celtics.  If 3-8 is flat, then people aren't moving up.  If it isn't flat, then we aren't moving down.  Can't alter reality to serve our purpose.

[greece66]

Trading down would make some sense.  3 is a tough position to be in.

rather, #3 is a great position to be in, but if ainge can parley that into something even better, so be it.

something such as trading #3 to sacramento for #8, or WCS might make sense depending upon what else they put into the trade. they are known to lust after heild.

it would be great to switch with phoenix at #4 if ainge doesnt want bender, because phoenix definitely does want to draft him. boston gets #4, drafts the player they want AND gets another asset.

[Ilikesports17]

So you're presuming that other teams have a binkie but discounting the idea that the Celts may have one too?

People always slanting things to favor the celtics.  If 3-8 is flat, then people aren't moving up.  If it isn't flat, then we are moving down.  Can't alter reality to serve our purpose.

If we have a binkie Ainge will take that guy at 3. If anyone in the 4-8 range has one, Ainge is in a position of dealing power especially with his rep as a BPA guy.

If a team wants Dunn they cant be sure Ainge wont scoop him at 3 just because he has drafted each of the past 2 drafts Kris Dunns in Smart and Rozier.

[Ilikesports17]

Trading down would make some sense.  3 is a tough position to be in.

rather, #3 is a great position to be in, but if ainge can parley that into something even better, so be it.

something such as trading #3 to sacramento for #8, or WCS might make sense depending upon what else they put into the trade. they are known to lust after heild.

it would be great to switch with phoenix at #4 if ainge doesnt want bender, because phoenix definitely does want to draft him. boston gets #4, drafts the player they want AND gets another asset.

I think that is something Boston will be trying to say a lot in attempt to force pheonix to give something up to get him.

[Tr1boy]

Yes. Trade down for sabonis

[jambr380]

I'm all for value and we only have one pick in next year's draft, so it would be nice to pick up another lottery pick this year and next from any number of teams drafting up until 10 or so.

I would wait until draft night, though - if there is any chance that Philly/LAL takes Dunn, we need to be ready to pounce on Ingram (or Simmons). Our pick will be a LOT more valuable at that point.