Sixers Can't Get Top-Five Pick for Jahlil Okafor

[colincb]

http://www.libertyballers.com/2016/6/16/11957196/nba-trade-rumors-jahlil-okafor-top-five-pick-nerlens-noel

===

"Chad Ford's description of Jahlil Okafor's trade value has to be a little disheartening for Sixers fans to hear. Ford hopped on with 97.5 The Fanatic's Joe DeCamara this afternoon, and for those hoping to get the Celtics No. 3 pick and more for the young center, you might have to reevaluate:

I think that the Sixers and I both believed that the most valuable asset they had other than the No. 1 pick was [Jahlil] Okafor. I think that now, several weeks of gauging that interest around the league has led them to the conclusion that he might not be as valuable as they once thought. I think they went into the process asking the question, 'Would we trade for the No. 3 pick, or the No. 4 pick or the No. 5 pick for a guy like Okafor, would that be good value for us?' And I think they've walked out of that scenario saying, 'We don't think we can actually get that for Okafor right now.'

I think that's less an indictment on Okafor than it is a realization that center has become a little bit like a running back in the NFL... Especially the sort of player Okafor is, which is a back to the basket, below the rim, not particularly athletic, not going to stretch the floor, doesn't necessarily play defense big man. That just doesn't fit the schemes that most NBA coaches are after, including I think the 76ers. So I think there was a major miscalculation on the part of Sam Hinkie when he selected him at [three].
...
[Nerlens] Noel might actually end up having more trade value because he does some things in the modern NBA, his ability to defend multiple positions, his shot-blocking, his ability to finish on the break, that make him perhaps a more attractive option right now. They're exploring that as well, but it's not easy to necessarily move either of those guys right now and get the sort of value that Philadelphia wants, which I think what they want is a top five or six pick in this draft, or a young point guard, or a young two guard that can really shoot the basketball to pair on the floor with Ben Simmons.

Regardless of where you stand in the Okafor vs. Noel battle royale, this isn't exactly encouraging news. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt this close to draft time -- and rival executives with an interest in scooping up one of the Sixers bigs could have Ford's ear -- but if true, this will likely kill any dreams of trading back into this draft. I would probably make a deal for the third pick on its own because of how detrimental I think the logjam in the paint is, but not being able to get even a top-five pick ends the conversation before it begins for me."

[EvilEmpire]

This was already posted with 28 replies to it. It was 5 posts below your post, so I see why it was so hard to find. 

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=85222.0

[LarBrd33]

Chad Ford has been pretty funny this week. 

I like his ridiculous idea that we'd get Julius Randle + D'Angelo Russell for the #3 pick.  I suspect Danny Ainge might have hacked his account.

[Celtics4ever]

Trade our number one for us next year?   Do the Butler trade and roll the dice on KD

[max215]

Chad Ford has been pretty funny this week. 

I like his ridiculous idea that we'd get Julius Randle + D'Angelo Russell for the #3 pick.  I suspect Danny Ainge might have hacked his account.

That trade was absurd, but this is significantly more believable and seems more like a report than speculation to me.

[Eja117]

Not buying this. If this is the case it's only because the picks are going to get other players

[Eddie20]

Chad Ford has been pretty funny this week. 

I like his ridiculous idea that we'd get Julius Randle + D'Angelo Russell for the #3 pick.  I suspect Danny Ainge might have hacked his account.

Classic LB...dismiss reports that don't support his narrative (see above), but fully endorse those that do (Nurkic for the #3).

[Sketch5]

I was saying last draft after they took Okafor that they might have a hard time moving one of their bigs, and serves them right for being greedy. They thought they could take all the bigs and people would pay top dollar for them, knowing that they can't play them all. And now the league has gone small they're getting caught with there big man pants down.

Instead of Embiid they should have taken Exum,Smart,Gordon or Randle. And drafting Saric may not have been the best move either.

I'd be almost surprised(only because I know there is at least one dumb GM out there) if they get an over pay for one of their bigs. I wont be surprised if they get hosed on the deal.

[Moranis]

Might just be teams that are willing to move a pick in the 3 to 5 range might actually want to see how the draft plays out before being willing to commit to Okafor (like Phoenix might really want Bender or Boston might be waiting to see if Ingram falls to them), might be exploring other options like Jimmy Butler who is clearly better than Okafor (see both Boston and Minnesota), or might just not want Okafor because he doesn't fit well with their team (Phoenix, Minnesota).  That is why I don't put much stock in this report.  Not that I think it is made up, just that I think the teams in the top 5 have other reasons for not being excited to move their pick RIGHT NOW for Okafor.

[Future Celtics Owner]

I would love this trade:

Marcus Smart
4
Jahlil Okafor

Especially with reports, and my crystal ball, that LAL really want Buddy Hield in their back-court. I do not know if they plan on attracting/signing Westbrook or keeping Russell. But Hield next to either Russell or Westbrook would be real nasty.
The thing is if Hield can attract STAR FA's, because of his 3-point shooting/stretching the floor, over the next2 off-seasons AND he

[LarBrd33]

Chad Ford has been pretty funny this week. 

I like his ridiculous idea that we'd get Julius Randle + D'Angelo Russell for the #3 pick.  I suspect Danny Ainge might have hacked his account.

Classic LB...dismiss reports that don't support his narrative (see above), but fully endorse those that do (Nurkic for the #3).

Saying I "endorsed" ESPN's trade idea is typical of you.  You always assume every idea I share represents my personal opinion.  I relayed what was said in Ford's article and asked if anyone would actually move #3 for Nurkic.  I personally wouldn't.  But it's interesting that they said the #3 was equal value for Nurkic.

But really, who cares at this point.  We're less than a week away from the draft.  Traditionally, there's a ton of nonsense noise from the media heading into the draft.   Ainge is one of Ford's biggest sources.  So take it for what it's worth. 

But yes, it was in a Ford insider article that they suggested Nurkic for #3.  He also suggested that the Pelicans trade #6 + additional assets for Okafor.  He's now claiming that Nerlens NOel has more trade value than Okafor, so he's essentially saying Noel is worth a top 5 pick. 

Pick your poison, Ed.  From seeing your posts in the past, it seems you might actually hate Noel more than you hate Okafor.  You gonna celebrate Ford saying Okafor is only worth #6?  Or are you going pout because Ford is saying NOel is worth a top 5 picK?

Or are you going to make the wise move here... and just hold off on any pre-mature bragging until draft day.  Who knows what ends up happening, but if Boston does indeed end up moving #3 for Okafor, as many have predicted, you'll look a little silly for having dismissed such any idea only a few days earlier.

Furthermore, does it really make a lick of difference when there is no consensus players in the 3-8 range?  Brad Stevens himself said Boston had narrowed their options down to 8 guys.   So who cares if Okafor is only worth #6 and Noel is only worth #3.    All the names in that range seem interchangeable at this point.  If Bender goes 3 or 8, would you be surprised?  If Hield goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  If Brown goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  If Murray goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  How about Dunn?  How about Chriss? 

If there was a consensus option at #3, this kind of thing would be more interesting, but Okafor is widely seen as better than every player available in the 3-8 range.  So if they only get #3 for NOel and only get #6 for Okafor, doesn't it more just matter who they end up with?  The entire idea that one pick has dramatically more trade value than another seems asinine at this point.

Whatever.  I'm pumped for the draft.

[celticsclay]

I don't really find this that surprising. If Okafor had the rookie season he just had twenty years ago I think he would be in play for a top 2 pick in that era. However, with the advancements that have been made in advanced stats and the direction the NBA has moved in (look at the finals big men rotation) the flaws in his game are much more high profile than they once would have been.

[LarBrd33]

I don't really find this that surprising. If Okafor had the rookie season he just had twenty years ago I think he would be in play for a top 2 pick in that era. However, with the advancements that have been made in advanced stats and the direction the NBA has moved in (look at the finals big men rotation) the flaws in his game are much more high profile than they once would have been.

That seems to be the narrative everyone's going with.  I don't yet buy the idea that big men are dead.  I just think it's a lack of quality big men.  There aren't a lot of dominant low post guys worth building a system around.  I think that has more to do with it than anything.

I actually think there's a chance here at some point there's going to be a conventional big man who will show up and just eat the league alive.  I'm not saying that will be Okafor.  But at some point some 7'2 300+ pound monster with skill is going to show up and they are going to try sticking a 6'8 230 pound "center" like Draymond Green on him.  Good luck to em.

Isn't the "New NBA" that everyone envisions just a throwback to the NBA in the 1950s before the human giants showed up and started stomping on jump-shooting white guys?

It's also just kind of funny, because no team has had more consistent success over the past 20 years than the San Antonio Spurs and they are successful, in large part, because Tim Duncan is a conventional 7 foot 250 pound big man who even in his twilight was able to make a difference for that team.   Granted, Duncan was an exceptional defender which isn't how anyone would describe OKafor, but i'm more commenting on the idea that conventional bigs are seen as obsolete. 

[celticsclay]

I don't really find this that surprising. If Okafor had the rookie season he just had twenty years ago I think he would be in play for a top 2 pick in that era. However, with the advancements that have been made in advanced stats and the direction the NBA has moved in (look at the finals big men rotation) the flaws in his game are much more high profile than they once would have been.

That seems to be the narrative everyone's going with.  I don't yet buy the idea that big men are dead.  I just think it's a lack of quality big men.  There aren't a lot of dominant low post guys worth building a system around.  I think that has more to do with it than anything.

I actually think there's a chance here at some point there's going to be a conventional big man who will show up and just eat the league alive.  I'm not saying that will be Okafor.  But at some point some 7'2 300+ pound monster is going to show up and they are going to try sticking a 6'8 230 pound "center" like Draymond Green on him.  Good luck to em.

Is the issue just that if you are a slow moving monster the other team can really neutralize you with a stretch 5 and switches? I don't think 20-25 years ago when Ewing, Shaq, Zo, Akeem etc were all operating down low that there were so many stretch 4 and stretch 5's that could be used to neutralize them on the opposite end. Only real stretch 5 that jumps to mine is Perkins and he seemed to have a pretty slow lock and load style release.

[celticsclay]

I don't really find this that surprising. If Okafor had the rookie season he just had twenty years ago I think he would be in play for a top 2 pick in that era. However, with the advancements that have been made in advanced stats and the direction the NBA has moved in (look at the finals big men rotation) the flaws in his game are much more high profile than they once would have been.

That seems to be the narrative everyone's going with.  I don't yet buy the idea that big men are dead.  I just think it's a lack of quality big men.  There aren't a lot of dominant low post guys worth building a system around.  I think that has more to do with it than anything.

I actually think there's a chance here at some point there's going to be a conventional big man who will show up and just eat the league alive.  I'm not saying that will be Okafor.  But at some point some 7'2 300+ pound monster with skill is going to show up and they are going to try sticking a 6'8 230 pound "center" like Draymond Green on him.  Good luck to em.

Isn't the "New NBA" that everyone envisions just a throwback to the NBA in the 1950s before the human giants showed up and started stomping on jump-shooting white guys?

It's also just kind of funny, because no team has had more consistent success over the past 20 years than the San Antonio Spurs and they are successful, in large part, because Tim Duncan is a conventional 7 foot 250 pound big man who even in his twilight was able to make a difference for that team.   Granted, Duncan was an exceptional defender which isn't how anyone would describe OKafor, but i'm more commenting on the idea that conventional bigs are seen as obsolete.

To be fair Duncan really has been more of an elite role player the last 3-4 years than a superstar. Who was the last team to win a title where their center was clearly their best player?