Author Topic: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1  (Read 15537 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2017, 02:37:14 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Bollocks. Were they going to take Jackson or Tatum without working them out? I mean, not that long ago it was the norm to work out top prospects multiple times before making a decision.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2017, 02:39:25 PM »

Offline RLewis35

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 446
  • Tommy Points: 20
  • I drink and I know things
Bollocks. Were they going to take Jackson or Tatum without working them out? I mean, not that long ago it was the norm to work out top prospects multiple times before making a decision.

That's why we should all realize the pick is Jonathan Isaac.  Mark it down

Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2017, 02:40:11 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Tough to look at without thinking he's just saying that to alleviate the justifiable concern among the fan base right now.

I mean, maybe, but it seems like he'd've been a lot less likely to do the trade in the first place if he didn't at least similarly value Fultz and the wings that will very likely be there at #3.

Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2017, 02:42:07 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 51987
  • Tommy Points: 3191
Bollocks. Were they going to take Jackson or Tatum without working them out? I mean, not that long ago it was the norm to work out top prospects multiple times before making a decision.

Tatum had already worked out for Boston in LA at the time of the trade, so this criticism isn't really warranted for Tatum.

And Jackson is still apparently refusing to work out for Boston, so if Jackson is in fact their guy, they might indeed take him without working him out.
Recovering Joe Skeptic, but inching towards a relapse.

Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2017, 02:42:07 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
Let me run this through the Danny Ainge Doublespeak/Misdirection Translator

working.....

working.....

"Chicago, you are not going to low-ball us in that Jimmy Butler trade we have been discussing."



Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2017, 02:48:10 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Bollocks. Were they going to take Jackson or Tatum without working them out? I mean, not that long ago it was the norm to work out top prospects multiple times before making a decision.

Tatum had already worked out for Boston in LA at the time of the trade, so this criticism isn't really warranted for Tatum.

And Jackson is still apparently refusing to work out for Boston, so if Jackson is in fact their guy, they might indeed take him without working him out.
I thought I read that Tatum just worked out for us? I guess I misunderstood that part. It makes more sense this way.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2017, 02:48:56 PM »

Offline Darío SpanishFan

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 981
  • Tommy Points: 141
That's what I've been saying since we learned about the possible trade. And we are saving about 1'5 million to get close to have room for Hayward.

Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2017, 02:49:17 PM »

Offline celticinorlando

  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32935
  • Tommy Points: 846
  • Larry Bird for President
There is nothing polished about Isaac's game. He is very very thin and will get eaten up the first few years in the league. He is as about as raw as you can be. Just don't see how he fits into this team besides sitting and watching.

Don't think he becomes a rotation player for a few years.

Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2017, 02:51:39 PM »

Offline number_n9ne

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 937
  • Tommy Points: 126
Bollocks. Were they going to take Jackson or Tatum without working them out? I mean, not that long ago it was the norm to work out top prospects multiple times before making a decision.

Tatum had already worked out for Boston in LA at the time of the trade, so this criticism isn't really warranted for Tatum.

And Jackson is still apparently refusing to work out for Boston, so if Jackson is in fact their guy, they might indeed take him without working him out.
I thought I read that Tatum just worked out for us? I guess I misunderstood that part. It makes more sense this way.

Tatum just worked out for us in Waltham today per ESPN.

Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2017, 02:57:13 PM »

Online hwangjini_1

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18378
  • Tommy Points: 2764
  • bammokja
Bollocks. Were they going to take Jackson or Tatum without working them out? I mean, not that long ago it was the norm to work out top prospects multiple times before making a decision.

Tatum had already worked out for Boston in LA at the time of the trade, so this criticism isn't really warranted for Tatum.

And Jackson is still apparently refusing to work out for Boston, so if Jackson is in fact their guy, they might indeed take him without working him out.
I thought I read that Tatum just worked out for us? I guess I misunderstood that part. It makes more sense this way.
this does get confusing with multiple people reporting things. i hope this doesnt add to the confusion, but i just read that tatum will work out for boston TODAY. he also worked out earlier i believe.

they seem to be serious about him. and with jackson absolutely refusing to have boston watch his work outs, i hope tatum is the pick.

EDIT: #9 just beat me with the news on today's work out. tp for #9.
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2017, 03:01:26 PM »

Offline KingChre

  • Josh Minott
  • Posts: 107
  • Tommy Points: 21
I didn't see the press conference or read the transcript, but I can't believe this is accurate. It's actually impossible for him to know that. He could only pick one player at number 1, so there is no way for him to be sure that player will be available at 3. This is just talk.
Looking at my gucci, and it's about that time...

Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #26 on: June 19, 2017, 03:03:05 PM »

Offline celticinorlando

  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32935
  • Tommy Points: 846
  • Larry Bird for President
More I think about it the less I feel a trade is going to happen. Feels a lot like last year.

Think the move down to three was primarily to save money for a FA...plus the glut the of guards and the fact they did not like Fultz made it easy. Got another lottery pick as a bonus.

Hope they pick Tatum. Want nothing to do with Josh Jackson

Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2017, 03:03:26 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3142
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
The more I think about it the more applicable Fleetwood Mac seems ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5HkuhSEnPQ
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2017, 03:08:22 PM »

Offline manl_lui

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6571
  • Tommy Points: 427
could it be that Tatum was the Celtics #1 pick all along? but everyone seems to be jumping on the Fultz train? Because if so, it made sense to move down because of salary correct? or I am reading too much into it?

Re: Danny: who we take at 3 is who we would've taken at 1
« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2017, 03:17:45 PM »

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
From his press conference announcing the deal.

Well, there you have it. Apparently one of Jackson or Tatum has been their guy all along. He also said this was a unanimous decision from the organization, including Brad. He also said this could lead into another deal, and they've already received calls regarding the 3rd pick, though they're happy with this trade regardless of any other moves.

Hard to argue the logic here. You might disagree with the draft analysis, but if they were going to take Jackson/Tatum anyways, then this is a no-brainer.

I'm guessing the bad Fultz workout sealed the deal for them. I still think it's Tatum.

Link?