Minor Change on Fultz Trade Announced

[mef730]

Fans are actually celebrating that the trade got worse?

It's highly unlikely that it got worse, though possible.

But the chance that it got worse is much greater than the chance that they made it better.

(Chances of Sac being #1 pick)>(Chances of Philly being worse than Sac)

Mike

[Roy H.]

Fans are actually celebrating that the trade got worse?

It's highly unlikely that it got worse, though possible.

Right. An unlikely, but possible, chance the trade got worse isn't something to praise Danny for.

Like the trade or not, this new information isn't better for the Celtics. I hope it's all moot, but the possibility of this being monumentally bad value exists.

[fairweatherfan]

So all the negative Nancy's, that hate this trade, are assuming that: Lakers will not be one of the worst 6 teams in the league next year. In '19 Sac will get the 1 pick AND philly will be a playoff team.

Ok that sounds like a lot needs to happen. For all you worry warts.

It's unlikely, but it's a possibility. That possibility makes the trade worse.

There was a possibility that the Kings would have a worse pick than the Sixers in 2019 without the Sixers getting #1. That possibility makes the trade better. Question is probability of respective scenarios x the gain/loss that would occur.

Assuming LA pick doesn't convey:

- massive loss if Sixers make playoffs and Kings get #1, but probability is low.
- smaller loss if Kings get #1 and Sixers are elsewhere in the lotto, which is more likely.
- minor to modest gain if Sixers wind up with a better non-#1 pick than Sacramento, and the probability of that seems higher than both downgrade scenarios.
- tiny probability of a big gain if Kings are not terrible or even somehow make the playoffs and the Sixers get a much higher non-#1 pick. 
- No change if Kings wind up with a higher non-#1 pick than Philly. Seems overwhelmingly most likely scenario, especially when including chances of Lakers pick conveying.

Seems like probability's in our corner overall - the added protection pays out more often than not - but the unlikely "snake eyes" scenario is a really nasty one.

But the reason many of us don't like the trade is because the 3rd or 4th best player in the draft isn't as good as the best player. Top talent wins.

This seems to be conflating best player with best prospect with order drafted.

[gift]

Fans are actually celebrating that the trade got worse?

It's highly unlikely that it got worse, though possible.

Right. An unlikely, but possible, chance the trade got worse isn't something to praise Danny for.

To be fair, the trade didn't get worse. We just learned what the trade really was. I don't think the needle moved much, given that there are safeguards in place on both sides. I think you have to factor in the fact that the Celtics safeguards for getting the better of the SAC/PHI picks (#1 exluded) is much more likely to benefit the deal than Philly's safeguard against losing the #1 pick. I mean, that just rationally has to factor in at a higher rate. The difference in likelihood is significant.

[Casperian]

So all the negative Nancy's, that hate this trade, are assuming that: Lakers will not be one of the worst 6 teams in the league next year. In '19 Sac will get the 1 pick AND philly will be a playoff team.

Ok that sounds like a lot needs to happen. For all you worry warts.

What this means is that this extra pick has no chance of being #1, so if it is #1, Philly gets to add to their current core, and then we can really talk about a potential dynasty.

We just traded down for one protected pick. Good job, good effort.

This. Exactly. The loss of the chance at #1 is huge. We all know how valuable the #1 pick is (or how valuable we thought it was, apparently).

Mike

Ah yes, it was a simpler time...

These days, you can get a #1 for a free lunch at Chipotle, apparently...

[Scintan]

So the trade's worse than previously thought.

Awesome.  Does it also come with a kick in the balls, or is that just metaphorical?

[TheBigTicket23]

I think this trade gets a bit better. Just more chances to land a top 5 player. If this pick turns out to be #2-5 in one of the drafts its a good trade and im satisfied. I do believe DA was not selecting Fultz and he has its reasons (logjam, character etc) and he was going to pick Tatum or JJ.

Best case: #2 pick in 2018 (i dont know how good the 2019 draft will be).
Worst: LA is good next year, SAC is so bad and PHI gets lucky with #1 and PHI is a play off team.

Please remember:
'Brooklyn had the worst record, the most chance at the number 1 pick, and still only had 25% to pick first'

A lot has to go wrong to not end up with at least #3 and a top 6/7 pick (1st protected).

This new twist just gives more options and pingpong balls possibility.

And I just read; whole BOS front office was unanimous a pro for this trade! Gotta trust our front office.

[Casperian]

Best player in the draft turns out to not be #1 picked a lot more than we're conditioned to think.

I'm sorry, I can't follow you there. What does that have to do with anything?

The value of the #1 should still be a lot higher than what we got in return, especially in a good draft.

[Roy H.]

Fans are actually celebrating that the trade got worse?

It's highly unlikely that it got worse, though possible.

Right. An unlikely, but possible, chance the trade got worse isn't something to praise Danny for.

To be fair, the trade didn't get worse. We just learned what the trade really was. I don't think the needle moved much, given that there are safeguards in place on both sides. I think you have to factor in the fact that the Celtics safeguards for getting the better of the SAC/PHI picks (#1 exluded) is much more likely to benefit the deal than Philly's safeguard against losing the #1 pick. I mean, that just rationally has to factor in at a higher rate. The difference in likelihood is significant.

I think it's substantially more likely that the Kings pick is #1 than the Sixers are worse than the Kings.

[Kuberski33]

So all the negative Nancy's, that hate this trade, are assuming that: Lakers will not be one of the worst 6 teams in the league next year. In '19 Sac will get the 1 pick AND philly will be a playoff team.

Ok that sounds like a lot needs to happen. For all you worry warts.

It's unlikely, but it's a possibility. That possibility makes the trade worse.

But the reason many of us don't like the trade is because the 3rd or 4th best player in the draft isn't as good as the best player. Top talent wins.

Ainge & Co obviously disagree with you Roy.  There was a tweet late last night from one of the 'connected' types saying that some in the organization weren't exactly blown away by Fultz' workout.  But time is obviously going to tell.

[Scintan]

I think you have to factor in the fact that the Celtics safeguards for getting the better of the SAC/PHI picks (#1 exluded) is much more likely to benefit the deal than Philly's safeguard against losing the #1 pick.

I'm not sure where you get that notion.  Philly won just 4 fewer games this season, and they are on the rise (9,18,10,28 wins) after seemingly bottoming out, as long as Embid can stay somewhat healthy.  Sacramento is floundering, at best, and is more likely about to start declining, as they go with a rebuild.

And, now, what was thought to be at least a potential 25% chance at the #1 spot has now turned out to be a 0% chance.

[nickagneta]

So many ready to judge this trade and rejudge it after learning of the extra protection. I say we wait until we finally have players here and view how good they are as compared to Fultz.

If both picks crap out and Fultz becomes a star: bad trade
If one pick craps out, and the other becomes a star but Fultz a superstar: bad trade.
If one pick craps out and the other pick and Fultz become comparable stars: even trade.

Just about every other scenario points to this trade being a good trade for the Celtics. And if these pucks are used to bring in a star, that may be a home run.

Fact is we won't know about this trade results for quite some time, much like the Pierce-KG trade looked bad at first but in retrospect was a brilliant move by Ainge.

[Darío SpanishFan]

Fans are actually celebrating that the trade got worse?

It's highly unlikely that it got worse, though possible.

Right. An unlikely, but possible, chance the trade got worse isn't something to praise Danny for.

Like the trade or not, this new information isn't better for the Celtics. I hope it's all moot, but the possibility of this being monumentally bad value exists.

As many have said, I also disagree. Looking at probablities, it's better this way.

We don't know if the Sixers will be better than the Kings and it depends on many things (drafting, free agents, injuries, etc). However, winning the lottery is a very limited possibility if we look just at numbers.

[Casperian]

So all the negative Nancy's, that hate this trade, are assuming that: Lakers will not be one of the worst 6 teams in the league next year. In '19 Sac will get the 1 pick AND philly will be a playoff team.

Ok that sounds like a lot needs to happen. For all you worry warts.

It's unlikely, but it's a possibility. That possibility makes the trade worse.

But the reason many of us don't like the trade is because the 3rd or 4th best player in the draft isn't as good as the best player. Top talent wins.

Ainge & Co obviously disagree with you Roy.  There was a tweet late last night from one of the 'connected' types saying that some in the organization weren't exactly blown away by Fultz' workout.  But time is obviously going to tell.

Except, it doesn't matter how highly we value the #1, what matters is how highly everyone else values it.

Fact is we won't know about this trade results for quite some time, much like the Pierce-KG trade looked bad at first but in retrospect was a brilliant move by Ainge.

Logical fallacy, we know exactly what we got in return, we can judge this trade right now.

[Kuberski33]

So many ready to judge this trade and rejudge it after learning of the extra protection. I say we wait until we finally have players here and view how good they are as compared to Fultz.

If both picks crap out and Fultz becomes a star: bad trade
If one pick craps out, and the other becomes a star but Fultz a superstar: bad trade.
If one pick craps out and the other pick and Fultz become comparable stars: even trade.

Just about every other scenario points to this trade being a good trade for the Celtics. And if these pucks are used to bring in a star, that may be a home run.

Fact is we won't know about this trade results for quite some time, much like the Pierce-KG trade looked bad at first but in retrospect was a brilliant move by Ainge.

I can't help but think of the McHale/Parrish trade.  Joe Barry Carroll was the consensus #1 pick by everyone.  Parish was an underperforming center with GS and McHale was considered a decent prospect by not in Carroll's class.  That became an era defining trade. Carroll eventually earned the nickname Joe Barely Cares.