Minor Change on Fultz Trade Announced

[nickagneta]

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.

Not true. You got picks now. Picks don't play basketball, players do. You really can't judge this trade until you know what you gave up and you know what you are receiving in players. Fultz could be a major bust. Or he could be special. Same can be said about the Celtics picks. You just don't yet know what you gave up and what you received in return. If the Cs didn't view Fultz as being as good as Baal or Tatum or Jackson, why not trade down get your player and another asset. Time will tell just how good a move this will be.

And in the Pierce-KG trade we knew what we gave up, one year of adequate basketball from two aging stars for a bust and 3 very high first rounders that could be with the team for a decade or more.

[gift]

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.

I wrote up a whole post and lost it, but I'll try to throw out the one point I think you might not be considering (my other points you probably just disagree with).

Remember that a #1 pick only has value for a relatively brief window of time (early May to late June). After that, the player that is selected determines his value, not where he was picked. A number one pick is very unlikely to be moved within the one month window described (it's unusual what the Celtics just did, and if it turns out to be a bad move like many are saying, it's even less likely to occur in the near future).

What has value for years (even if it turns out to be a negative value) is the player that is actually selected. I wanted to point out that it is more common than I believe many are considering that the player selected will have more value relative to current perceptions of where the pick will eventually be made. That alone does not make this a good or bad deal, but it should also factor in to the equation.

[Modified to note that I am mostly talking about the value of the protected pick from PHI/SAC. I'm not really commenting on the value of the 2017 #1 pick. I entered the discussion when people were disappointed with the protections on that pick.]

[Scintan]

Not true. You got picks now. Picks don't play basketball, players do. You really can't judge this trade until you know what you gave up and you know what you are receiving in players.

Yes, true.  It's not in question.  The trade is straight picks. 

You're trying to argue that what is subsequently done with the picks is an actual part of the trade.  That's simply not valid.

[Casperian]

Not true. You got picks now. Picks don't play basketball, players do. You really can't judge this trade until you know what you gave up and you know what you are receiving in players. Fultz could be a major bust. Or he could be special. Same can be said about the Celtics picks. You just don't yet know what you gave up and what you received in return. If the Cs didn't view Fultz as being as good as Baal or Tatum or Jackson, why not trade down get your player and another asset. Time will tell just how good a move this will be.

I wrote up a whole post and lost it, but I'll try to throw out the one point I think you might not be considering (my other points you probably just disagree with).

Remember that a #1 pick only has value for a relatively brief window of time (early May to late June). After that, the player that is selected determines his value, not where he was picked. A number one pick is very unlikely to be moved within the one month window described (it's unusual what the Celtics just did, and if it turns out to be a bad move like many are saying, it's even less likely to occur in the near future).

What has value for years (even if it turns out to be a negative value) is the player that is actually selected. I wanted to point out that it is more common than I believe many are considering that the player selected will have more value relative to current perceptions of where the pick will eventually be made. That alone does not make this a good or bad deal, but it should also factor in to the equation.

Again, you're both falling for the same logical fallacy. The draft hasn't happened, yet. What we traded was picks for picks. It's completely irrelevant how these picks turn out for the discussion at hand.

Put simply, you are justifying this trade with "what ifs", while we talk about "what is".

Yes, true.  It's not in question.  The trade is straight picks. 

You're trying to argue that what is subsequently done with the picks is an actual part of the trade.  That's simply not valid.

Exactly, anything else is conjecture. Of course, if you need to justify this abomination of a trade for yourself, you take refuge in the "endless possibilities" these picks potentially provide.

Understandable on a human level, but simply not correct.

Reminds me of this gem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKZJdaiJF84

[fairweatherfan]

Not true. You got picks now. Picks don't play basketball, players do. You really can't judge this trade until you know what you gave up and you know what you are receiving in players.

We also don't know WHICH pick we got, which seems kinda important. Personal biases about the trade are gonna drastically distort whether you picture something closer to the best- or worst-case scenario happening just in terms of that, let alone what we actually do with it.

Anyway, an old quote of Danny's kept running through my mind when the trade started getting discussed - something like "picks constantly gain value until the instant they're used". It really seems to inform his philosophy on this rebuild. And while it's a bit too simple for me, I can't say I disagree - the potential of future picks always seems to be more alluring than the reality of the human, imperfect players you get with them, which is why Danny seems to like them as trade chips and is consistently willing to push the ball forward to future drafts.

[ETNCeltics]

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.

Not true. You got picks now. Picks don't play basketball, players do. You really can't judge this trade until you know what you gave up and you know what you are receiving in players. Fultz could be a major bust. Or he could be special. Same can be said about the Celtics picks. You just don't yet know what you gave up and what you received in return. If the Cs didn't view Fultz as being as good as Baal or Tatum or Jackson, why not trade down get your player and another asset. Time will tell just how good a move this will be.

And in the Pierce-KG trade we knew what we gave up, one year of adequate basketball from two aging stars for a bust and 3 very high first rounders that could be with the team for a decade or more.

No, it's not just who the pick turns into, it's also opportunity cost. If the extra pick from Philly isn't a high lottery pick, we lost this deal. If it turns into a mid or late 1st rounder, then we could've got that pick with some asset that wasn't a #1 overall.

For example, say the conditional pick from Philly might turn into a late-1st rounder. That makes this a bad trade. Just because we were able to draft a guy with that pick who turns into, say, the next Jimmy Butler, doesn't improve the trade. You still made a bad trade, and didn't get near enough back for #1. Having the LAL pick protected is bad enough, having them both protected is ridiculous. Not only do we miss out, danny ainge has opened the door to Philly get yet 2 more #1 overall picks, in addition to the 2 they already have.

In any event, today's news made this trade worse. I'm puzzled as to how people think this trade got better, when it definitively got worse.

[RockinRyA]

Fans are actually celebrating that the trade got worse?

It works two ways. On one hand it prevents us from getting the no. 1 pick and might end up with a non lottery pick, but on the other hand, if Sacramento doesnt suck and the Sixers do, we still get a good pick.

[nickagneta]

Not true. You got picks now. Picks don't play basketball, players do. You really can't judge this trade until you know what you gave up and you know what you are receiving in players. Fultz could be a major bust. Or he could be special. Same can be said about the Celtics picks. You just don't yet know what you gave up and what you received in return. If the Cs didn't view Fultz as being as good as Baal or Tatum or Jackson, why not trade down get your player and another asset. Time will tell just how good a move this will be.

I wrote up a whole post and lost it, but I'll try to throw out the one point I think you might not be considering (my other points you probably just disagree with).

Remember that a #1 pick only has value for a relatively brief window of time (early May to late June). After that, the player that is selected determines his value, not where he was picked. A number one pick is very unlikely to be moved within the one month window described (it's unusual what the Celtics just did, and if it turns out to be a bad move like many are saying, it's even less likely to occur in the near future).

What has value for years (even if it turns out to be a negative value) is the player that is actually selected. I wanted to point out that it is more common than I believe many are considering that the player selected will have more value relative to current perceptions of where the pick will eventually be made. That alone does not make this a good or bad deal, but it should also factor in to the equation.

Again, you're both falling for the same logical fallacy. The draft hasn't happened, yet. What we traded was picks for picks. It's completely irrelevant how these picks turn out for the discussion at hand.

Put simply, you are justifying this trade with "what ifs", while we talk about "what is".

Yes, true.  It's not in question.  The trade is straight picks. 

You're trying to argue that what is subsequently done with the picks is an actual part of the trade.  That's simply not valid.

Exactly, anything else is conjecture. Of course, if you need to justify this abomination of a trade for yourself, you take refuge in the "endless possibilities" these picks potentially provide.

Understandable on a human level, but simply not correct.

Reminds me of this gem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKZJdaiJF84

So you can only judge this trade in the here and now and judge it as abominable? You can't decide to put off judgment until after the players are picked, have performed and see who received the better player or players? For all we know if the trade never happened Ainge could have picked the same player as the player he eventually picks at three.

Judge the trade all you want in the here and now. I will wait until actual players have played to judge it.

[Scintan]

We also don't know WHICH pick we got, which seems kinda important.

That's not actually correct.  We know what they got.  You're welcome to go break down the actual percentage chance for each theoretical outcome based upon that, if you wish.

[gift]

Not true. You got picks now. Picks don't play basketball, players do. You really can't judge this trade until you know what you gave up and you know what you are receiving in players. Fultz could be a major bust. Or he could be special. Same can be said about the Celtics picks. You just don't yet know what you gave up and what you received in return. If the Cs didn't view Fultz as being as good as Baal or Tatum or Jackson, why not trade down get your player and another asset. Time will tell just how good a move this will be.

I wrote up a whole post and lost it, but I'll try to throw out the one point I think you might not be considering (my other points you probably just disagree with).

Remember that a #1 pick only has value for a relatively brief window of time (early May to late June). After that, the player that is selected determines his value, not where he was picked. A number one pick is very unlikely to be moved within the one month window described (it's unusual what the Celtics just did, and if it turns out to be a bad move like many are saying, it's even less likely to occur in the near future).

What has value for years (even if it turns out to be a negative value) is the player that is actually selected. I wanted to point out that it is more common than I believe many are considering that the player selected will have more value relative to current perceptions of where the pick will eventually be made. That alone does not make this a good or bad deal, but it should also factor in to the equation.

Again, you're both falling for the same logical fallacy. The draft hasn't happened, yet. What we traded was picks for picks. It's completely irrelevant how these picks turn out for the discussion at hand.

Put simply, you are justifying this trade with "what ifs", while we talk about "what is".

Yes, true.  It's not in question.  The trade is straight picks. 

You're trying to argue that what is subsequently done with the picks is an actual part of the trade.  That's simply not valid.

Exactly, anything else is conjecture. Of course, if you need to justify this abomination of a trade for yourself, you take refuge in the "endless possibilities" these picks potentially provide.

Understandable on a human level, but simply not correct.

Reminds me of this gem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKZJdaiJF84

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you just talking about the fact that you think the Celtics #1 this year should have netted more value? I don't have a strong opinion on that.

I'm referring to the protection on the pick from PHI/SAC and arguing it is not a bad protection given what protections the Celtics got (picking the better of the PHI/SAC picks in 2019 (#1 excluded) if it's not the LAL 2018 pick. It's much more likely that protection benefits the Celtics than that the protection PHI put on the #1 is ever needed.

My comments about the #1 not being the best anyway refer to the future value of that pick. You can't entirely separate that pick from it's likelihood and you can't entirely separate the value of a pick from the player selected, given that the window of time that the #1 pick has any value is short and extremely unlikely to be used before it becomes an actual player.

I think it may be a different argument than the one you think I am making. My apologies if I'm not being clear.

[Dchuck]

Everyone who thinks this makes the trade better, answer this one question.

Is the trade better with more or no/less protections?

[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.

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.

I'm willing to put money on Philly being better, and will give you 4:1 odds. PM me your wager,

[Scintan]

So you can only judge this trade in the here and now and judge it as abplayers.? You can't decide to put off judgment until after the players are pucked, have performed and see who received the better player or players? For all we know if the trade never happened Ainge could have picked the same player as the player he eventually picks at three.

Judge the trade all you want in the here and now. I will wait until actual players have played to judge it.

Wait all you want.  You won't actually be judging the trade. 

Let me give you an example of how absurd your position is, by creating a hypothetical from another sport.

Team A's GM gets blotto on Monday and agrees to trade his team's #1 overall pick to Team B, in return for Team B's 5th and 6th round picks.  Now, every sane human being, with any understanding of football's draft, would tell you that Team B just made out like a bandit.

You, however, would wait, and you'd insist that Team A won the actual trade, as opposed to the trade outcome, if they used that 5th round pick to draft Richard Sherman and the 6h round pick to draft Tom Brady, while Team B screwed up by drafting Jamarcus Russell.

And that's just crazy talk.

[Surferdad]

Everyone who thinks this makes the trade better, answer this one question.

Is the trade better with more or no/less protections?

It all depends in which protections you re talking about.  The 1-2 protection protects the Sixers.  The 6 and higher protection protects the Celtics.

[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.

I'm willing to put money on Philly being better, and will give you 4:1 odds. PM me your wager,

I'm frightened    Don't like betting, and I know this is the most probable scenario, but numbers tell we are so safe to get a "good" pick with these new protections. Getting the first selection is quite improbable, we know it well because a month ago we were all with the draft simulations.

I understand your point, but the trade is "safer" now, although we can't get the top prize.