Minor Change on Fultz Trade Announced

[fairweatherfan]

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.

Yes shallow pedantry is fun, but I'm obviously talking about what # draft pick we got in which draft, which we don't know.

I mentioned the reason why this is important in the next sentence that you cut out - when there's an array of outcomes with fuzzy probabilities, personal biases will play a major role in how one interprets that array.

[Darío SpanishFan]

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.

Yes shallow pedantry is fun, but I'm obviously talking about what # draft pick we got in which draft, which we don't know.

Such trades are very usual. In fact, we are owed Clippers and Grizzlies pick in the same situation.

[kraidstar]

That is a nice little bonus indeed. I doubt Philly will be a deep lotto team by that stage, but a chance is still a chance.

If Embiid doesn't pan out you are talking about really really young guys like Simmons and Fultz for the time being. If they are successfully able to get more veterans that changes things. However, it seems like they are trying to get someone like KCP to grow along with their youth.

I was assuming the best for Embiid. I also believe that Fultz, Simmons and Saric will gel really nicely.

But hopefully they collapse 

Might take them a few years to get good, look at the Wolves, who still aren't there. And aside from Embiid, who is medically the least reliable of the bunch - there are defensive questions about the rest of their top players.

[nickagneta]

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.

But that absurd example isn't in play here and football isn't relavent because its a completely different draft paradigm. We are talking about the 1st and 3rd picks in a draft many consider having the top 3-4 players being equal in talent and value. For that reason you really can't tell just how much value each pick/player has until after they play. Prime example, the last time the Celtics traded a number one pick, 1 for three and a player. In the here and now that was a bad trade. But Red valued McHale as better than Carroll and after they played it goes down as one of Red's major heists.

[kraidstar]

That #1 protection does worry me a bit.

Sacto is gonna be BAD the next couple years.

COuld easily see them bottom out while Philly becomes a playoff team.


Good news is even if acto finishes with the worst record they only have a 25% chance of getting #1. But I wish Danny had worked something out so it was unprotected.

[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.

Yes shallow pedantry is fun, but I'm obviously talking about what # draft pick we got in which draft, which we don't know.

I mentioned the reason why this is important in the next sentence that you cut out - when there's an array of outcomes with fuzzy probabilities, personal biases will play a major role in how one interprets that array.

I'm sorry if accuracy offends you, but that's for you to look at.  And, regardless of the number of outcomes, personal biases play a major role in most trade evaluations.  If this had been as simple as #1 for #2 and another pick, people would still be evaluating the trade within the framework of their personal biases.

We already know what the Celtics got in return for the #1 pick. The deal is done, and it's there to be analyzed and evaluated.

[Scintan]

But that absurd example isn't in play here and football isn't relavent because its a completely different draft paradigm. We are talking about the 1st and 3rd picks in a draft many consider having the top 3-4 players being equal in talent and value. For that reason you really can't tell just how much value each pick/player has until after they play. Prime example, the last time the Celtics traded a number one pick, 1 for three and a player. In the here and now that was a bad trade. But Red valued McHale as better than Carroll and after they played it goes down as one of Red's major heists.

Yes, that absurd example is in play here, by your own words. Draft picks aren't success promises.  They are success possibilities.  And the paradigm is not completely different, either. 

And while it's amusing as hell to watch people reaching all the way back to the 80's in order to justify this trade, doing so ignores the difference between an existing player (Parrish) and a draft pick.

[Atzar]

I accept the protections on the Lakers pick.  It makes sense:  we give up the chance at the #1 in exchange for protection from the Lakers being better than expected next year, either through growth or a splash acquisition. 

But that 2019 breakdown is risky.  We get the better of the picks, unless that pick is #1.  It looks like Danny tried to set up a similar type of downside protection as the 2018 pick, but there's a scenario in which the Kings win the lottery, which leaves us with a Philly pick in the 20-25 range. 

It's all completely out of our hands now.  Trading the #1 for two #3s is a good move.  Trading the #1 for a #3 and #20 is a bad move.  Whether this move is good, decent, or bad depends entirely on the misfortunes of other teams and the whimsy of the lottery.  I don't like the lack of control. 

[fairweatherfan]

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.

Yes shallow pedantry is fun, but I'm obviously talking about what # draft pick we got in which draft, which we don't know.

Such trades are very usual. In fact, we are owed Clippers and Grizzlies pick in the same situation.

Definitely, and our expectations about where those picks will fall influence how we feel about those deals. What I'm saying is that those expectations are often inaccurate and biased, especially when emotions are running high, so how we feel about the overall range of possibilities is a very flawed gauge of the deal. I don't quite agree with Nick that it depends on who we pick with them, but that's another can of worms.

[Roy H.]

Can I get links to all of the stories of people criticizing Red for trading #1 for Parish and McHale?

Or Joe Barry Carroll being a consensus #1? He wasn't. McHale was in consideration for #1 all along.

[Ed Hollison]

I haven't read through all the pages of this conversation, so forgive me if someone's already made this point...

Lots of people seem worried about the worst-case scenario, which is that the 2019 pick ends up being the Sixers' first rounder, with the Sixers by that time being a playoff team.

Keep in mind that in order for that to happen, the Lakers have to land the #1 pick next year, and then the Kings would have to land the #1 pick the following year.

Even assuming the Lakers and Kings are the worst teams in the league in those respective years, keep in mind that the worst team in the league still has just 1-in-4 odds of landing #1. That means that the odds of the Lakers and Kings landing #1 in back-to-back years are, at the very best, 1-in-16.

In other words, don't worry about this scenario. I'd be more worried that the Lakers are somehow good enough such that their pick ends up #6 or higher next year, followed by (somehow) Sacramento and Philly both somehow being "good" in 2018-19. But that's pretty improbable too.

[libermaniac]

Can I get links to all of the stories of people criticizing Red for trading #1 for Parish and McHale?

Or Joe Barry Carroll being a consensus #1? He wasn't. McHale was in consideration for #1 all along.

Um, that was before the internet.    My recollection, however, was he was the consensus #1.  But, people didn't pay as much attention to it back then.

[libermaniac]

They way I see it, regardless of the protections and how they pan out, Ainge did not "lose" the trade.  He got something for nothing, assuming the stories that he actually prefers someone else to Fultz are true.  And, I would think that is true if he made the trade.

[Roy H.]

Can I get links to all of the stories of people criticizing Red for trading #1 for Parish and McHale?

Or Joe Barry Carroll being a consensus #1? He wasn't. McHale was in consideration for #1 all along.

Um, that was before the internet.    My recollection, however, was he was the consensus #1.  But, people didn't pay as much attention to it back then.

It's just a false narrative that fans repeat like it's true.

It’s widely believed Carroll was the consensus No. 1 pick of the 1980 Draft—but that’s wrong. The top three picks were seen as a toss-up, and the Celtics, who owned the first pick, had already settled on Minnesota power forward Kevin McHale. Carroll, a center who had led Purdue to the Final Four, didn’t become the No. 1 pick until the eve of the draft.

That night, Carroll’s agent, Bob Woolf, knocked on the door of Carroll’s hotel room to inform him that the Celtics had sent the Golden State Warriors the No. 1 and No. 13 picks in exchange for fifth-year center Robert Parish and the No. 3 pick, with which the Celtics would still draft McHale. The Warriors would make Carroll the top pick.


Read more at http://www.slamonline.com/nba/ballad-joe-barry-carroll/#IPuB4kQxOEZuCcz7.99

[Roy H.]

I haven't read through all the pages of this conversation, so forgive me if someone's already made this point...

Lots of people seem worried about the worst-case scenario, which is that the 2019 pick ends up being the Sixers' first rounder, with the Sixers by that time being a playoff team.

Keep in mind that in order for that to happen, the Lakers have to land the #1 pick next year, and then the Kings would have to land the #1 pick the following year.

Even assuming the Lakers and Kings are the worst teams in the league in those respective years, keep in mind that the worst team in the league still has just 1-in-4 odds of landing #1. That means that the odds of the Lakers and Kings landing #1 in back-to-back years are, at the very best, 1-in-16.

In other words, don't worry about this scenario. I'd be more worried that the Lakers are somehow good enough such that their pick ends up #6 or higher next year, followed by (somehow) Sacramento and Philly both somehow being "good" in 2018-19. But that's pretty improbable too.

LA doesn't need to be #1. #6 or higher means we get the SAC pick, at which point the protection becomes very relevant.