Ford: GMs Think Ainge Really Likes Josh Jackson (Insider)

[liam]

LA looks like it's willing to trade that 2nd pick. If Danny wanted to I'm sure he has assets enough to get it and pick Fultz at one and Jackson at two...

[mmmmm]

If we take Josh Jackson and he goes to 10 all star games and anyone else in the top 5 picks becomes a better player then he's a bust (unless he leads us to more rings than them)

Huh? I don't think that is the definition of bust.

Was Olajuwon a bust? If you don't make the best possible decision, it automatically becomes a bad decision? Isn't there a grey area?

I have Fultz and Jackson as 1 and 2 on my board. I think Fultz is a better fit for this team b/c of his offensive capabilities. We have more glue guys than offensive stars.

Perhaps we are arguing semantics. I understand that sometimes in the military in regards to a battle sometimes they say "We lost the battle. We got beat."  Other people say "We failed to achieve our intended objective."

Could we perhaps agree that the objective here with the top pick is to obtain the single best player in this draft and that if we don't it is a failed opportunity to reach that objective? Perhaps some people would feel better about that language rather than using the term "bust." Personally I don't see a huge difference per se.

I think some people see the word bust as "totally useless" and only apply it to Jimmer's and Anthony Bennets. I am from New England and don't give lots of prizes for 2nd best especially when you have the top pick.  I subscribe more to the Ricky Bobby philosophy of achievement. But that's just me.

No.  I don't think we can agree on that definition at all.

I am fairly certain that for the vast majority of people, the definition of a 'bust' is a player who dramatically underperforms his draft slot.

Expecting a pick to always outperform every single player picked later than him is absurdly unrealistic and ignores basic, natural variance. 

Your definition means you have to use the term on probably the vast majority of draft picks and renders the word meaningless.

[Boris Badenov]

News flash: the Cs are working out Dennis Smith. We are taking him #1 because Danny was interested in Chris Paul once and Smith reminds Danny of him.

[BitterJim]

If we take Josh Jackson and he goes to 10 all star games and anyone else in the top 5 picks becomes a better player then he's a bust (unless he leads us to more rings than them)

Huh? I don't think that is the definition of bust.

Was Olajuwon a bust? If you don't make the best possible decision, it automatically becomes a bad decision? Isn't there a grey area?

I have Fultz and Jackson as 1 and 2 on my board. I think Fultz is a better fit for this team b/c of his offensive capabilities. We have more glue guys than offensive stars.

Perhaps we are arguing semantics. I understand that sometimes in the military in regards to a battle sometimes they say "We lost the battle. We got beat."  Other people say "We failed to achieve our intended objective."

Could we perhaps agree that the objective here with the top pick is to obtain the single best player in this draft and that if we don't it is a failed opportunity to reach that objective? Perhaps some people would feel better about that language rather than using the term "bust." Personally I don't see a huge difference per se.

I think some people see the word bust as "totally useless" and only apply it to Jimmer's and Anthony Bennets. I am from New England and don't give lots of prizes for 2nd best especially when you have the top pick.  I subscribe more to the Ricky Bobby philosophy of achievement. But that's just me.

No.  I don't think we can agree on that definition at all.

I am fairly certain that for the vast majority of people, the definition of a 'bust' is a player who dramatically underperforms his draft slot.

Expecting a pick to always outperform every single player picked later than him is absurdly unrealistic and ignores basic, natural variance. 

Your definition means you have to use the term on probably the vast majority of draft picks and renders the word meaningless.

Agreed.  Any definition that labels Hakeem Olajuwon and John Wall as busts is just wrong

[Eja117]

If we take Josh Jackson and he goes to 10 all star games and anyone else in the top 5 picks becomes a better player then he's a bust (unless he leads us to more rings than them)

Huh? I don't think that is the definition of bust.

Was Olajuwon a bust? If you don't make the best possible decision, it automatically becomes a bad decision? Isn't there a grey area?

I have Fultz and Jackson as 1 and 2 on my board. I think Fultz is a better fit for this team b/c of his offensive capabilities. We have more glue guys than offensive stars.

Perhaps we are arguing semantics. I understand that sometimes in the military in regards to a battle sometimes they say "We lost the battle. We got beat."  Other people say "We failed to achieve our intended objective."

Could we perhaps agree that the objective here with the top pick is to obtain the single best player in this draft and that if we don't it is a failed opportunity to reach that objective? Perhaps some people would feel better about that language rather than using the term "bust." Personally I don't see a huge difference per se.

I think some people see the word bust as "totally useless" and only apply it to Jimmer's and Anthony Bennets. I am from New England and don't give lots of prizes for 2nd best especially when you have the top pick.  I subscribe more to the Ricky Bobby philosophy of achievement. But that's just me.

No.  I don't think we can agree on that definition at all.

I am fairly certain that for the vast majority of people, the definition of a 'bust' is a player who dramatically underperforms his draft slot.

Expecting a pick to always outperform every single player picked later than him is absurdly unrealistic and ignores basic, natural variance. 

Your definition means you have to use the term on probably the vast majority of draft picks and renders the word meaningless.

Can we agree that the objective with this pick (perhaps barring trade) is to get the single best player that yields the singular best results and that this is the entire purpose of having the top pick, as opposed to just getting a good player?

[Tr1boy]

If we take Josh Jackson and he goes to 10 all star games and anyone else in the top 5 picks becomes a better player then he's a bust (unless he leads us to more rings than them)

Huh? I don't think that is the definition of bust.

Was Olajuwon a bust? If you don't make the best possible decision, it automatically becomes a bad decision? Isn't there a grey area?

I have Fultz and Jackson as 1 and 2 on my board. I think Fultz is a better fit for this team b/c of his offensive capabilities. We have more glue guys than offensive stars.

Perhaps we are arguing semantics. I understand that sometimes in the military in regards to a battle sometimes they say "We lost the battle. We got beat."  Other people say "We failed to achieve our intended objective."

Could we perhaps agree that the objective here with the top pick is to obtain the single best player in this draft and that if we don't it is a failed opportunity to reach that objective? Perhaps some people would feel better about that language rather than using the term "bust." Personally I don't see a huge difference per se.

I think some people see the word bust as "totally useless" and only apply it to Jimmer's and Anthony Bennets. I am from New England and don't give lots of prizes for 2nd best especially when you have the top pick.  I subscribe more to the Ricky Bobby philosophy of achievement. But that's just me.

No.  I don't think we can agree on that definition at all.

I am fairly certain that for the vast majority of people, the definition of a 'bust' is a player who dramatically underperforms his draft slot.

Expecting a pick to always outperform every single player picked later than him is absurdly unrealistic and ignores basic, natural variance. 

Your definition means you have to use the term on probably the vast majority of draft picks and renders the word meaningless.

Can we agree that the objective with this pick (perhaps barring trade) is to get the single best player that yields the singular best results and that this is the entire purpose of having the top pick, as opposed to just getting a good player?

What is your definition of such player? Which results to measure?

[Ilikesports17]

If we take Josh Jackson and he goes to 10 all star games and anyone else in the top 5 picks becomes a better player then he's a bust (unless he leads us to more rings than them)

Huh? I don't think that is the definition of bust.

Was Olajuwon a bust? If you don't make the best possible decision, it automatically becomes a bad decision? Isn't there a grey area?

I have Fultz and Jackson as 1 and 2 on my board. I think Fultz is a better fit for this team b/c of his offensive capabilities. We have more glue guys than offensive stars.

Perhaps we are arguing semantics. I understand that sometimes in the military in regards to a battle sometimes they say "We lost the battle. We got beat."  Other people say "We failed to achieve our intended objective."

Could we perhaps agree that the objective here with the top pick is to obtain the single best player in this draft and that if we don't it is a failed opportunity to reach that objective? Perhaps some people would feel better about that language rather than using the term "bust." Personally I don't see a huge difference per se.

I think some people see the word bust as "totally useless" and only apply it to Jimmer's and Anthony Bennets. I am from New England and don't give lots of prizes for 2nd best especially when you have the top pick.  I subscribe more to the Ricky Bobby philosophy of achievement. But that's just me.

No.  I don't think we can agree on that definition at all.

I am fairly certain that for the vast majority of people, the definition of a 'bust' is a player who dramatically underperforms his draft slot.

Expecting a pick to always outperform every single player picked later than him is absurdly unrealistic and ignores basic, natural variance. 

Your definition means you have to use the term on probably the vast majority of draft picks and renders the word meaningless.

Can we agree that the objective with this pick (perhaps barring trade) is to get the single best player that yields the singular best results and that this is the entire purpose of having the top pick, as opposed to just getting a good player?

sure. The problem here is that I don't think it leaves enough room between Anthony Bennet and John Wall.

The term must also loses all relevance. A GM can make the correct pick and that player can do everything correct in his perpetuation and work ethic after the draft and still be a "bust" by that metric. So what's the point?

You can use the word if it makes you happy but I don't think that the connotation and implication of the word match the definition here making it unwise in my opinion to define "bust" in that manner.

[Eja117]

If we take Josh Jackson and he goes to 10 all star games and anyone else in the top 5 picks becomes a better player then he's a bust (unless he leads us to more rings than them)

Huh? I don't think that is the definition of bust.

Was Olajuwon a bust? If you don't make the best possible decision, it automatically becomes a bad decision? Isn't there a grey area?

I have Fultz and Jackson as 1 and 2 on my board. I think Fultz is a better fit for this team b/c of his offensive capabilities. We have more glue guys than offensive stars.

Perhaps we are arguing semantics. I understand that sometimes in the military in regards to a battle sometimes they say "We lost the battle. We got beat."  Other people say "We failed to achieve our intended objective."

Could we perhaps agree that the objective here with the top pick is to obtain the single best player in this draft and that if we don't it is a failed opportunity to reach that objective? Perhaps some people would feel better about that language rather than using the term "bust." Personally I don't see a huge difference per se.

I think some people see the word bust as "totally useless" and only apply it to Jimmer's and Anthony Bennets. I am from New England and don't give lots of prizes for 2nd best especially when you have the top pick.  I subscribe more to the Ricky Bobby philosophy of achievement. But that's just me.

No.  I don't think we can agree on that definition at all.

I am fairly certain that for the vast majority of people, the definition of a 'bust' is a player who dramatically underperforms his draft slot.

Expecting a pick to always outperform every single player picked later than him is absurdly unrealistic and ignores basic, natural variance. 

Your definition means you have to use the term on probably the vast majority of draft picks and renders the word meaningless.

Can we agree that the objective with this pick (perhaps barring trade) is to get the single best player that yields the singular best results and that this is the entire purpose of having the top pick, as opposed to just getting a good player?

What is your definition of such player? Which results to measure?

I would look largely at all nba teams, all star teams, and rings (as the best player or major contributor. Or how many teams would trade their best player for this guy?)

[Eja117]

If we take Josh Jackson and he goes to 10 all star games and anyone else in the top 5 picks becomes a better player then he's a bust (unless he leads us to more rings than them)

Huh? I don't think that is the definition of bust.

Was Olajuwon a bust? If you don't make the best possible decision, it automatically becomes a bad decision? Isn't there a grey area?

I have Fultz and Jackson as 1 and 2 on my board. I think Fultz is a better fit for this team b/c of his offensive capabilities. We have more glue guys than offensive stars.

Perhaps we are arguing semantics. I understand that sometimes in the military in regards to a battle sometimes they say "We lost the battle. We got beat."  Other people say "We failed to achieve our intended objective."

Could we perhaps agree that the objective here with the top pick is to obtain the single best player in this draft and that if we don't it is a failed opportunity to reach that objective? Perhaps some people would feel better about that language rather than using the term "bust." Personally I don't see a huge difference per se.

I think some people see the word bust as "totally useless" and only apply it to Jimmer's and Anthony Bennets. I am from New England and don't give lots of prizes for 2nd best especially when you have the top pick.  I subscribe more to the Ricky Bobby philosophy of achievement. But that's just me.

No.  I don't think we can agree on that definition at all.

I am fairly certain that for the vast majority of people, the definition of a 'bust' is a player who dramatically underperforms his draft slot.

Expecting a pick to always outperform every single player picked later than him is absurdly unrealistic and ignores basic, natural variance. 

Your definition means you have to use the term on probably the vast majority of draft picks and renders the word meaningless.

Can we agree that the objective with this pick (perhaps barring trade) is to get the single best player that yields the singular best results and that this is the entire purpose of having the top pick, as opposed to just getting a good player?

sure. The problem here is that I don't think it leaves enough room between Anthony Bennet and John Wall.

The term must also loses all relevance. A GM can make the correct pick and that player can do everything correct in his perpetuation and work ethic after the draft and still be a "bust" by that metric. So what's the point?

You can use the word if it makes you happy but I don't think that the connotation and implication of the word match the definition here making it unwise in my opinion to define "bust" in that manner.

Could you please give me an example of how a GM can make the correct pick and the player do everything correct and still be a bust?

John Wall and Anthony Bennet weren't in the same draft class. Bennet is clearly a bust. John Wall is probably the best player in his draft or at least the top 4, and none of those players have won rings with the teams that drafted them, and of the players that made all star teams in that draft none of them have won rings, and DeMarcus Cousins has hardly been to the playoffs.

[Eja117]

This is the part where I go around defining a bust and bust situations and everyone else sorta says "Nooooo. That's not a bust" and then never offer a definition themselves, presumably because they don't believe it's possible to have a bust as long as the GM and player just try their best or something

[Ilikesports17]

If we take Josh Jackson and he goes to 10 all star games and anyone else in the top 5 picks becomes a better player then he's a bust (unless he leads us to more rings than them)

Huh? I don't think that is the definition of bust.

Was Olajuwon a bust? If you don't make the best possible decision, it automatically becomes a bad decision? Isn't there a grey area?

I have Fultz and Jackson as 1 and 2 on my board. I think Fultz is a better fit for this team b/c of his offensive capabilities. We have more glue guys than offensive stars.

Perhaps we are arguing semantics. I understand that sometimes in the military in regards to a battle sometimes they say "We lost the battle. We got beat."  Other people say "We failed to achieve our intended objective."

Could we perhaps agree that the objective here with the top pick is to obtain the single best player in this draft and that if we don't it is a failed opportunity to reach that objective? Perhaps some people would feel better about that language rather than using the term "bust." Personally I don't see a huge difference per se.

I think some people see the word bust as "totally useless" and only apply it to Jimmer's and Anthony Bennets. I am from New England and don't give lots of prizes for 2nd best especially when you have the top pick.  I subscribe more to the Ricky Bobby philosophy of achievement. But that's just me.

No.  I don't think we can agree on that definition at all.

I am fairly certain that for the vast majority of people, the definition of a 'bust' is a player who dramatically underperforms his draft slot.

Expecting a pick to always outperform every single player picked later than him is absurdly unrealistic and ignores basic, natural variance. 

Your definition means you have to use the term on probably the vast majority of draft picks and renders the word meaningless.

Can we agree that the objective with this pick (perhaps barring trade) is to get the single best player that yields the singular best results and that this is the entire purpose of having the top pick, as opposed to just getting a good player?

sure. The problem here is that I don't think it leaves enough room between Anthony Bennet and John Wall.

The term must also loses all relevance. A GM can make the correct pick and that player can do everything correct in his perpetuation and work ethic after the draft and still be a "bust" by that metric. So what's the point?

You can use the word if it makes you happy but I don't think that the connotation and implication of the word match the definition here making it unwise in my opinion to define "bust" in that manner.

Could you please give me an example of how a GM can make the correct pick and the player do everything correct and still be a bust?

John Wall and Anthony Bennet weren't in the same draft class. Bennet is clearly a bust. John Wall is probably the best player in his draft or at least the top 4, and none of those players have won rings with the teams that drafted them, and of the players that made all star teams in that draft none of them have won rings, and DeMarcus Cousins has hardly been to the playoffs.

Yeah sure. Kyrie Irving. Elite talent. Best prospect on the board by far. Cleveland takes him. Hes done a really nice job developping, but Kawhi Leonard defied the odds and eventually became the better player.

Thats not Kyrie or Cleveland, or Kawhi's fault. Leonard had a very small chance of becoming as good as he did. It happened. Redo Kawhi's career 10 times, how many does he end up as good as he is today? Im not sure. Impossible to tell. I think its absurd to call Irving a bust because he has largely met expectations.

A bust is a player who severely underperforms expectations AND is performs worse than his peers in the draft.

This means if you have a great player selected first overall who projects as anywhere from a poor mans Lillard to a James Harden with defense, provided he lands anywhere within that range, he is not a bust.

Take the '96 draft. Allen Iverson is a bust under your criteria because Kobe Bryant defied expectations and was able to become one of the greatest players of all time. I think thats bogus because Iverson met and probably exceeded expectations.

I mean are CJ McColum and Steven Adams and Dennis Schoeder busts? no thats absurd. They all met or surpassed expectations.

[Eja117]

If we take Josh Jackson and he goes to 10 all star games and anyone else in the top 5 picks becomes a better player then he's a bust (unless he leads us to more rings than them)

Huh? I don't think that is the definition of bust.

Was Olajuwon a bust? If you don't make the best possible decision, it automatically becomes a bad decision? Isn't there a grey area?

I have Fultz and Jackson as 1 and 2 on my board. I think Fultz is a better fit for this team b/c of his offensive capabilities. We have more glue guys than offensive stars.

Perhaps we are arguing semantics. I understand that sometimes in the military in regards to a battle sometimes they say "We lost the battle. We got beat."  Other people say "We failed to achieve our intended objective."

Could we perhaps agree that the objective here with the top pick is to obtain the single best player in this draft and that if we don't it is a failed opportunity to reach that objective? Perhaps some people would feel better about that language rather than using the term "bust." Personally I don't see a huge difference per se.

I think some people see the word bust as "totally useless" and only apply it to Jimmer's and Anthony Bennets. I am from New England and don't give lots of prizes for 2nd best especially when you have the top pick.  I subscribe more to the Ricky Bobby philosophy of achievement. But that's just me.

No.  I don't think we can agree on that definition at all.

I am fairly certain that for the vast majority of people, the definition of a 'bust' is a player who dramatically underperforms his draft slot.

Expecting a pick to always outperform every single player picked later than him is absurdly unrealistic and ignores basic, natural variance. 

Your definition means you have to use the term on probably the vast majority of draft picks and renders the word meaningless.

Can we agree that the objective with this pick (perhaps barring trade) is to get the single best player that yields the singular best results and that this is the entire purpose of having the top pick, as opposed to just getting a good player?

sure. The problem here is that I don't think it leaves enough room between Anthony Bennet and John Wall.

The term must also loses all relevance. A GM can make the correct pick and that player can do everything correct in his perpetuation and work ethic after the draft and still be a "bust" by that metric. So what's the point?

You can use the word if it makes you happy but I don't think that the connotation and implication of the word match the definition here making it unwise in my opinion to define "bust" in that manner.

Could you please give me an example of how a GM can make the correct pick and the player do everything correct and still be a bust?

John Wall and Anthony Bennet weren't in the same draft class. Bennet is clearly a bust. John Wall is probably the best player in his draft or at least the top 4, and none of those players have won rings with the teams that drafted them, and of the players that made all star teams in that draft none of them have won rings, and DeMarcus Cousins has hardly been to the playoffs.

Yeah sure. Kyrie Irving. Elite talent. Best prospect on the board by far. Cleveland takes him. Hes done a really nice job developping, but Kawhi Leonard defied the odds and eventually became the better player.

Thats not Kyrie or Cleveland, or Kawhi's fault. Leonard had a very small chance of becoming as good as he did. It happened. Redo Kawhi's career 10 times, how many does he end up as good as he is today? Im not sure. Impossible to tell. I think its absurd to call Irving a bust because he has largely met expectations.

A bust is a player who severely underperforms expectations AND is performs worse than his peers in the draft.

This means if you have a great player selected first overall who projects as anywhere from a poor mans Lillard to a James Harden with defense, provided he lands anywhere within that range, he is not a bust.

Take the '96 draft. Allen Iverson is a bust under your criteria because Kobe Bryant defied expectations and was able to become one of the greatest players of all time. I think thats bogus because Iverson met and probably exceeded expectations.

I mean are CJ McColum and Steven Adams and Dennis Schoeder busts? no thats absurd. They all met or surpassed expectations.

Kobi and Kawhi are not "peers" of those guys because they were never anywhere near contention for the top pick.  Chad Pennington isn't a draft peer of Tom Brady because they were in the same draft and he isn't a bust because Brady became great. 

I would probably only consider Fultz's peers in this draft to be Ball, Jackson, Tatum, Fox, and Dennis Smith....maybe J Isaac on an outside shot.

I will agree there's a difference between bust and disappointment

[celticinorlando]

Josh Jackson will be a huge bust. Stay away

[hwangjini_1]

Josh Jackson will be a huge bust. Stay away

would you care to provide us all with some reasons? rationales? proof? data? reports? anything to nudge this post beyond being an unsupported assertion?

thank you.

[Casperian]

Can we agree that the objective with this pick (perhaps barring trade) is to get the single best player that yields the singular best results and that this is the entire purpose of having the top pick, as opposed to just getting a good player?

Sure, in a vacuum that's correct. Big Picture, however, that's not necessarily true.

The general objective is to get the best team possible for as long as possible, with "best" being defined as giving you the best shot at a championship. If people believe that three high picks is enough to achieve such a goal, they're rather naive, I'm afraid. The Wizards, for example, had three relatively high draft picks, and hit on all three of them in Wall, Beal and Porter. Do they even remotely look like a championship contender to you?

Moreover, if we want a real contender for years to come, conventional wisdom suggests that you need at least one "transcendental" talent on your roster. At least one of the very best players in the league. So the question becomes: Even if Fultz reaches his potential, will he be one of those rare beasts? Apparently, the Celtics don't believe he will (nor do most NBA scouts), or at least they don't think it's very likely.

So, our intermediate objective is to figure out how we can get one of those super-duper-stars.

Trading for multiple future picks isn't about watering down our assets, or trading a Dollar for 2 dimes, it's about acquiring the assets necessary to potentially trade for such a player if/when he becomes available.

The NBA trade system is usually a pre-currency market with fixed commodities. Basically, you trade chickens for milk, milk for eggs, and eggs for bread, depending on what you need at the moment, just like back in the day. Draft Picks are the closest thing the NBA has to a currency. As soon as the pick turns into a player, his value is not what people project into it (like we all do right now), instead it's a much more narrowly defined, a specific value. Do you rather have the 2013 #1 pick, or Anthony Bennett?

What that means is that if we pick Fultz, we better are committed to him, and even if we consider the possibility of including him in a trade package down the road for, say, Anthony Davis, we have to hope that the Pelicans even want him.

So, considering our main objective (winning championships, duh), the Juggernaut in Oakland, and if we conclude that Fultz isn't on the Lebron/Durant/Davis level, then why commit to him and not kick the can down the road and retain flexibility for when such a player becomes available, all while squeezing as much value as we can out of the projected value of the #1 pick, instead of the "fixed" value the pick has once we make it?