Danny Ainge: “a handful of teams” have already expressed interest in the #1 pick

[bdm860]

If Ainge wants to replicate the Warriors backcourt and the game has changed to shooting and positionless players, I trade for Booker.

#1, AB to Suns

Criss and Booker to Celtics

IT and Booker would be a deadly backcourt...deadly. Imagine Booker getting all the looks AB got and off Horford pick and rolls. You eventually want to play Criss and Zizic together in a few years.

The Suns can take Ball or Fultz to go with Bledsoe.

That's horrendous,they need to throw in 3 unprotect pick for me to even consider that deal and i will probably say no

Booker will be an All Star next year...mark my words. No one in this draft will be an All Star by year 3.

So basically you are saying this is a good but not deep draft

Do you'll know how hard it is to be an All Star by year 3? I don't see it in this draft. Do you realize that KAT and Wiggins still aren't All Stars?

So are you saying Booker will be better than KAT and Wiggins next year or they'll be All-Stars too?

And the West already has Harden, Curry, Westbrook, and Thompson at the guards with guys like Damian Lillard, CJ McCollum, Mike Conley, and Chris Paul not even making the team.

Booker is going to leapfrog several of those guys and make the All-Star team next year?  It's not much easier in the East with 5 All-Star guards and guys like Beal and Dragic on the outside looking in.

Personally, I'm not convinced yet he's anything more than a chucker on a bad team.  Of the 33 players who avg 20ppg last year, he had the worst TS% of them all at 53.1% (I mean that's not terrible, a couple points below league average, but it's not good).  He posted a career high 36% from 3 this year, good for 71st in the league (again not terrible, but not something to brag about either).  When trying to replicate the Warriors, remember guys like Klay and Steph have never shot below 40% once.  Not sure Booker fits the mold.

No way Booker makes an All-Star team next year.

[CelticsElite]

Hard to see him move the pick unless like others have said, its for davis / towns / Wiggins etc

Not Wiggins

Wiggins that bad? I haven't kept track of him but his stats weren't too bad. And I see he HD the occasional 40 pt game

[Ilikesports17]

has not this board, time and time again, lamented how the celtics have so many "nice players" but lack a true talent/all star? a common comment is how the celtics have "quantity but not quality"?

Ainge himself lamented that not a week ago.

Don't you know that having 3 18 year olds with "unlimited potential" is better than 1 18 year old with "unlimited potential?  Sheesh...   

The question is, just how limited is that unlimited potential?

Mike

I believe the correct term is actually Tremendous Upside Potential (tm).

Yeah the intrigue of a deal like Lakers '18 + #3 for #1 is that you get two chances to strike gold. #1 may give you a 40% chance at a star, but if #3 and Lakers '18 each give you a 25% chance, then you are more likely to get a star with that deal.

[Ilikesports17]

Hard to see him move the pick unless like others have said, its for davis / towns / Wiggins etc

Not Wiggins

Wiggins that bad? I haven't kept track of him but his stats weren't too bad. And I see he HD the occasional 40 pt game

He scores a lot, but he hasnt nearly lived up to his potential. Doesnt defend at all.

[kozlodoev]

has not this board, time and time again, lamented how the celtics have so many "nice players" but lack a true talent/all star? a common comment is how the celtics have "quantity but not quality"?

Ainge himself lamented that not a week ago.

Don't you know that having 3 18 year olds with "unlimited potential" is better than 1 18 year old with "unlimited potential?  Sheesh...   

The question is, just how limited is that unlimited potential?

Mike

I believe the correct term is actually Tremendous Upside Potential (tm).

Yeah the intrigue of a deal like Lakers '18 + #3 for #1 is that you get two chances to strike gold. #1 may give you a 40% chance at a star, but if #3 and Lakers '18 each give you a 25% chance, then you are more likely to get a star with that deal.

Yes, except those numbers are completely arbitrary. I can change them to 50% and 20% respectively, and I'm just as likely to be right as you -- that is, I'm either right or I'm not.

[droopdog7]

has not this board, time and time again, lamented how the celtics have so many "nice players" but lack a true talent/all star? a common comment is how the celtics have "quantity but not quality"?

Ainge himself lamented that not a week ago.

Don't you know that having 3 18 year olds with "unlimited potential" is better than 1 18 year old with "unlimited potential?  Sheesh...   

The question is, just how limited is that unlimited potential?

Mike

I believe the correct term is actually Tremendous Upside Potential (tm).

Yeah the intrigue of a deal like Lakers '18 + #3 for #1 is that you get two chances to strike gold. #1 may give you a 40% chance at a star, but if #3 and Lakers '18 each give you a 25% chance, then you are more likely to get a star with that deal.

Yes, except those numbers are completely arbitrary. I can change them to 50% and 20% respectively, and I'm just as likely to be right as you -- that is, I'm either right or I'm not.

I would bet that the chances of getting a star in Fultz is higher than at #3 this year or some unknown lakers pick next year.

I'm not passing on Fultz unless I get a star now.  Hoping and wishing are for the birds.

[Celtics4ever]

I think Ainge fields all offers.   It would be foolish not too.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

Ainge MUST listen to offers and even show he's entertaining and listening to them. I don't think he's trading the pick (and I wouldn't), but then a team can go crazy and make a godfather offer.

You never know. A responsible FO must be opened to any possible outcome and sholuldn't say "this is untradeable".

I'M GONNA MAKE HIM AN OFFER HE CAN'T REFUSE

[SparzWizard]

And in return, the Celtics receive Anthony Davis.

That's the only thing I express interest in if I'm holding a #1 pick lol.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

And in return, the Celtics receive Anthony Davis.

That's the only thing I express interest in if I'm holding a #1 pick lol.

same here!

[clevelandceltic]

has not this board, time and time again, lamented how the celtics have so many "nice players" but lack a true talent/all star? a common comment is how the celtics have "quantity but not quality"?

Ainge himself lamented that not a week ago.

Don't you know that having 3 18 year olds with "unlimited potential" is better than 1 18 year old with "unlimited potential?  Sheesh...   

The question is, just how limited is that unlimited potential?

Mike

I believe the correct term is actually Tremendous Upside Potential (tm).

Yeah the intrigue of a deal like Lakers '18 + #3 for #1 is that you get two chances to strike gold. #1 may give you a 40% chance at a star, but if #3 and Lakers '18 each give you a 25% chance, then you are more likely to get a star with that deal.

Lets play this out for a min. Where do you see the Nets & Lakers picks respectively and who are the players you are trying to get with those picks that you believe  make sense to pass on Fultz?

[Ilikesports17]

has not this board, time and time again, lamented how the celtics have so many "nice players" but lack a true talent/all star? a common comment is how the celtics have "quantity but not quality"?

Ainge himself lamented that not a week ago.

Don't you know that having 3 18 year olds with "unlimited potential" is better than 1 18 year old with "unlimited potential?  Sheesh...   

The question is, just how limited is that unlimited potential?

Mike

I believe the correct term is actually Tremendous Upside Potential (tm).

Yeah the intrigue of a deal like Lakers '18 + #3 for #1 is that you get two chances to strike gold. #1 may give you a 40% chance at a star, but if #3 and Lakers '18 each give you a 25% chance, then you are more likely to get a star with that deal.

Yes, except those numbers are completely arbitrary. I can change them to 50% and 20% respectively, and I'm just as likely to be right as you -- that is, I'm either right or I'm not.

Oh I just was using those as example values. didn't mean to imply otherwise.

My point is to the people that are saying why trade 1 great asset for 2 really good ones on the grounds that we need a superstar.

Fultz is the best asset in any deal based on draft picks, however you can still create a package more likely to yield a superstar than Markelle Fultz alone.

That's why you can't immediately rule out an offer like #3 and Lakers '18 on the grounds that we need great players as opposed to good ones.

[Ilikesports17]

has not this board, time and time again, lamented how the celtics have so many "nice players" but lack a true talent/all star? a common comment is how the celtics have "quantity but not quality"?

Ainge himself lamented that not a week ago.

Don't you know that having 3 18 year olds with "unlimited potential" is better than 1 18 year old with "unlimited potential?  Sheesh...   

The question is, just how limited is that unlimited potential?

Mike

I believe the correct term is actually Tremendous Upside Potential (tm).

Yeah the intrigue of a deal like Lakers '18 + #3 for #1 is that you get two chances to strike gold. #1 may give you a 40% chance at a star, but if #3 and Lakers '18 each give you a 25% chance, then you are more likely to get a star with that deal.

Lets play this out for a min. Where do you see the Nets & Lakers picks respectively and who are the players you are trying to get with those picks that you believe  make sense to pass on Fultz?

I don't see a realistic package out there that gives us a higher probability of acquiring a super star than just taking Fultz.

[clevelandceltic]

has not this board, time and time again, lamented how the celtics have so many "nice players" but lack a true talent/all star? a common comment is how the celtics have "quantity but not quality"?

Ainge himself lamented that not a week ago.

Don't you know that having 3 18 year olds with "unlimited potential" is better than 1 18 year old with "unlimited potential?  Sheesh...   

The question is, just how limited is that unlimited potential?

Mike

I believe the correct term is actually Tremendous Upside Potential (tm).

Yeah the intrigue of a deal like Lakers '18 + #3 for #1 is that you get two chances to strike gold. #1 may give you a 40% chance at a star, but if #3 and Lakers '18 each give you a 25% chance, then you are more likely to get a star with that deal.

Yes, except those numbers are completely arbitrary. I can change them to 50% and 20% respectively, and I'm just as likely to be right as you -- that is, I'm either right or I'm not.

Oh I just was using those as example values. didn't mean to imply otherwise.

My point is to the people that are saying why trade 1 great asset for 2 really good ones on the grounds that we need a superstar.

Fultz is the best asset in any deal based on draft picks, however you can still create a package more likely to yield a superstar than Markelle Fultz alone.

That's why you can't immediately rule out an offer like #3 and Lakers '18 on the grounds that we need great players as opposed to good ones.

That package doesnt present that a more likely superstar picture for me. I really really really like Tatum but I dont peg him as a star. Good player yes. So my assumption would be that the Lakers and Nets would have to finish with the 2 worst records next year to make this worth my while because the 4 players at the top of next years draft are much better than 5 - 10 right now. I think that's too much of a risk to take and besides if the Nets are that bad you are bound to get one of those guys anyways.

[mctyson]

Ainge MUST listen to offers and even show he's entertaining and listening to them. I don't think he's trading the pick (and I wouldn't), but then a team can go crazy and make a godfather offer.

You never know. A responsible FO must be opened to any possible outcome and sholuldn't say "this is untradeable".

If this was Durant, Davis, Towns...do you still think he would listen to offers?

I dont think Ainge thinks Fultz is a transcendent talent..

Let's wait a second on Towns.  He currently sucks at defense.