A Different Take on DA's Drafting of Tatum

[moiso]

I think Tatum was looked at completely differently from Giannis.  As konkmv says, even the guys from Greece didn’t think he’d be special.  He was a high risk prospect while Tatum looked like just about the safest pick in the whole draft.  Milwaukee seems to have gotten lucky since their philosophy has been pretty much just draft guys with the longest arms.  Giannis fell into their lap based on Milwaukee’s “process.”

[Ogaju]

the thing is sometimes the 'experts' overthink these things. Giannis was not a secret. Heck, Danny traveled miles to see him play. Experts saw what he was doing. The videos showed what he was doing. The experts just did not think he could do it against Americans. Boy, where they wrong!!!

[Ogaju]

Ogaju, What about Tatum's game reminds you of Giannis?

His length, his ability to get to the basket with those long long arms, and the hope that he may still have a couple of inches of growth left.

[mmmmm]

Watching closeups of Tatum cup the ball on drives with his long, gangly arms surprised me with just how long he is. Then, I heard (somewhere?) that the Celtics don't think he is done growing. All of this got me thinking ...

What if Danny Ainge's drafting of Jayson Tatum over Josh Jackson and Markelle Fultz, and to a lesser extent Smith, Fox, Isaac, Monk, and Markannen, was a critique of his previous drafts? What if this (and 2016) was a sign of Ainge's growth as a GM?

Most recognize that the greatest drafting mistake of the past 5 years (hindsight is 20/20) was Ainge not being willing to pull the trigger on Giannis. Instead, Ainge played it safe with a smart, efficient big from Gonzaga. There were reports leading up to the draft that Ainge really liked him, even comparing him to Scottie Pippen, but in the end, he couldn't pull the trigger.

2017 included several skilled (albeit lacking in some way) bigs, including Isaac and Markanen at the top of the draft. 2016 included Bender and Poeltl.

On the other side of things, he has always been attracted to competitive, tough-nosed guards/wings (maybe he sees himself in them?), from Allen to Rondo to West to Rozier to Smart. These guys are "his" kinds of picks. 2017's draft include Fox, Smith, Jackson, and Monk who all fit that type in different ways. 2016's draft included Dunn, Hield, and Murray who fit that build in different ways.

We know the story. Instead of picking his usual picks (competitive guards), and instead of selecting the "skilled" big man, Ainge went with the wing with the most size both years. One year, it was Jaylen Brown, who measured 6'7'' with a 7'1'' wingspan. The next year was Tatum, who measured 6'8.5'' with a 6'11'' wingspan.

My different take (even if it was not intentional) is that Ainge didn't want to miss out on the next great wing either year. He saw a bit of Giannis in both Brown and Tatum, and regardless of what any scouts or fans thought, he thought they both had the highest upside at the most important position in modern basketball.

Brown is probably done growing (rumors had it that he put on 1'' his rookie year). Tatum could cap out around 6'10''. Both guys can drive. Both guys can handle the ball. Both guys can shoot. Both guys use their length to be disruptive on defense.

Maybe Ainge regretted passing on Giannis, and saw a little bit of the upside of Giannis in Tatum. Maybe Ainge regretted drafting Olynyk, and therefore did not value Bender, Poeltl, Markannen, or Isaac as highly as others. Althouth Ainge likes competitive guards, maybe he has been slightly disappointed with Smart, particularly because he is going against so many good guards in the modern NBA. Maybe he thought their value has dropped due to market saturation; therefore, maybe he did not value Fultz, Fox, Murray, Smith, Monk, or Jackson as highly as he did before.

Maybe he learned. Maybe he grew as a GM. Maybe that's why he selected tall, lanky, competitive, smart, skilled wings.

Maybe ...

I believe I have made this point more than once in the past, so count me as a believer. I believe that Ainge drafted Tatum hoping that he will be the next Giannis and that he largely regrets not pulling the trigger on Giannis.

That is just crazy. Tatum is nothing like Giannis. If you are going to compare him to someone he fits better with higher basketball IQ Carmelo Anthony. 14 teams passed on Giannis in 2013. Ainge is over it. The idea that he drafted Tatum because he regrets not taking Giannis is just silly. That is what fans worry about. He picked Tatum cause he had questions about Fultz and knew Tatum was probably the best player in the draft and he could trade down and get him.

Don't try and overthink things.

I think it is even more simple than you put it.  It isn't necessarily about whether he had 'questions about Fultz'.

The simple answer is that he view the value & potential in Tatum PLUS the LAL18/SAC19 pick to be greater than Fultz.   

He could still have viewed Fultz as a potential all-NBA super-star.  But if he views Tatum and that pick as more valuable combined, he pulls the trigger.   It's that simple.

(Oh, and the small bit of salary cap help that trade caused probably was important as well, since we needed every bit of it.)

[Surferdad]

Watching closeups of Tatum cup the ball on drives with his long, gangly arms surprised me with just how long he is. Then, I heard (somewhere?) that the Celtics don't think he is done growing. All of this got me thinking ...

What if Danny Ainge's drafting of Jayson Tatum over Josh Jackson and Markelle Fultz, and to a lesser extent Smith, Fox, Isaac, Monk, and Markannen, was a critique of his previous drafts? What if this (and 2016) was a sign of Ainge's growth as a GM?

Most recognize that the greatest drafting mistake of the past 5 years (hindsight is 20/20) was Ainge not being willing to pull the trigger on Giannis. Instead, Ainge played it safe with a smart, efficient big from Gonzaga. There were reports leading up to the draft that Ainge really liked him, even comparing him to Scottie Pippen, but in the end, he couldn't pull the trigger.

2017 included several skilled (albeit lacking in some way) bigs, including Isaac and Markanen at the top of the draft. 2016 included Bender and Poeltl.

On the other side of things, he has always been attracted to competitive, tough-nosed guards/wings (maybe he sees himself in them?), from Allen to Rondo to West to Rozier to Smart. These guys are "his" kinds of picks. 2017's draft include Fox, Smith, Jackson, and Monk who all fit that type in different ways. 2016's draft included Dunn, Hield, and Murray who fit that build in different ways.

We know the story. Instead of picking his usual picks (competitive guards), and instead of selecting the "skilled" big man, Ainge went with the wing with the most size both years. One year, it was Jaylen Brown, who measured 6'7'' with a 7'1'' wingspan. The next year was Tatum, who measured 6'8.5'' with a 6'11'' wingspan.

My different take (even if it was not intentional) is that Ainge didn't want to miss out on the next great wing either year. He saw a bit of Giannis in both Brown and Tatum, and regardless of what any scouts or fans thought, he thought they both had the highest upside at the most important position in modern basketball.

Brown is probably done growing (rumors had it that he put on 1'' his rookie year). Tatum could cap out around 6'10''. Both guys can drive. Both guys can handle the ball. Both guys can shoot. Both guys use their length to be disruptive on defense.

Maybe Ainge regretted passing on Giannis, and saw a little bit of the upside of Giannis in Tatum. Maybe Ainge regretted drafting Olynyk, and therefore did not value Bender, Poeltl, Markannen, or Isaac as highly as others. Althouth Ainge likes competitive guards, maybe he has been slightly disappointed with Smart, particularly because he is going against so many good guards in the modern NBA. Maybe he thought their value has dropped due to market saturation; therefore, maybe he did not value Fultz, Fox, Murray, Smith, Monk, or Jackson as highly as he did before.

Maybe he learned. Maybe he grew as a GM. Maybe that's why he selected tall, lanky, competitive, smart, skilled wings.

Maybe ...

I believe I have made this point more than once in the past, so count me as a believer. I believe that Ainge drafted Tatum hoping that he will be the next Giannis and that he largely regrets not pulling the trigger on Giannis.

That is just crazy. Tatum is nothing like Giannis. If you are going to compare him to someone he fits better with higher basketball IQ Carmelo Anthony. 14 teams passed on Giannis in 2013. Ainge is over it. The idea that he drafted Tatum because he regrets not taking Giannis is just silly. That is what fans worry about. He picked Tatum cause he had questions about Fultz and knew Tatum was probably the best player in the draft and he could trade down and get him.

Don't try and overthink things.

I think it is even more simple than you put it.  It isn't necessarily about whether he had 'questions about Fultz'.

The simple answer is that he view the value & potential in Tatum PLUS the LAL18/SAC19 pick to be greater than Fultz.   

He could still have viewed Fultz as a potential all-NBA super-star.  But if he views Tatum and that pick as more valuable combined, he pulls the trigger.   It's that simple.

(Oh, and the small bit of salary cap help that trade caused probably was important as well, since we needed every bit of it.)

Oh yes it is.  Ainge does not always go with the "value proposition".  If he didn't have concerns about Fultz (which implies he was perceived as "better" than Tatum), he would have taken Fultz.  His underlying principle is getting "special" players, not getting the most value.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I think some of you guys might misinterpret what I'm saying here.

This is an angle or a way of looking at his drafting.

Its possible its right, but that is not necessarily the point.

I know the normal way of looking at the situation is that he honestly thought there was not much difference between the top 3-5 guys, and he thought he could get value (draft pick) while also picking the guy he preferred. I know that we also had a lot of guards, which made Ball and Fultz more unlikely.

Its an angle. I have no inside information. Its not a rumor. Its not alternative facts. Its looking at a sculpture from a different angle, or in different lights, or with a different understanding of what the sculpture may be, in order to understand it more and appreciate it. Its modern art.

As an angle, it was an intriguing idea to me. In that light it was exciting to see Ainge grow. With that view, I got more excited about the potential of Tatum. From that perspective, I have an increasing amount of trust in the Celtics' decision-making.

Of course it also may be completely false in a purely analytical sense, but its not like fans have inside information anyway. I'll never know if this view is actually wrong, because I'll never talk to Ainge to figure it out. Most of what we do as fans is conjecture. Most of what we know is "news" from "professionals" who have no information either.

I make no claims that it is truthful, because I cannot, because I have no information. However, I do think it is intriguing.

Danny's GMing is a piece of art that, from this angle, looks better than it did before.

I'm gonna point out that I said this again. None of us have any idea. Even if Ainge did come right out and say it, we've seen enough of his GMing to know that that statement could be posturing for another move later.

Was it Fultz's mindset? Injury? Herky-jerky movement? Was it pure value? Did her really like Tatum? Etc.

The point of this post was never to say, "this is what actually happened," but rather, "imagine the possibility that this was the reasoning." DA's decision is intriguing for a lot of reasons in that light.

[mmmmm]

I think the only real similarity between Tatum as a prospect and Giannis as a prospect is the potential for serious length in post-draft growth.

Giannis was incredibly raw (and still has weak shot mechanics) but had phenomenal physicals (height, wingspan, huge hands, great leaping and excellent ball-handling for his size).  He had huge upside potential, but also huge risk (What if his body didn't fill out?  What if his shot didn't develop?)

Tatum had good physicals, but was far, far more polished in his skill set.   Tatum has been playing at the highest levels of basketball available to him at each age since he was 14.   Danny has almost certainly been scouting him since his mid-teens.

Tatum, if anything, was a 'safe' pick more akin to Olynyk than Giannis.  He's a forward with scoring skills that looked very developed and highly likely to translate.

On the other hand, it's also clear that Tatum has far more up-side than Olynyk had.  He's younger and seemingly still growing.  And he seems to be more of an 'alpha' in his mentality.

The end-point of what Tatum becomes could be similar to Giannis:  Freakishly long, roughly 6' 10" forwards with a variety of scoring skills that are mismatch nightmares and defensive versatility.   But they were very different as prospects and will take different paths to get there.

[rollie mass]

We all know what Danny was willing to pay for Winslow and what he got in Brown
What Danny saw in Tatum was a Paul Pierce/ Carmelo type of player.He saw a frame that was tailor made for NBA .Wide shoulders and a very good wingspan.Tatum had work ethics and was high character.
Fultz didn't play out his season,didn't shoot well in try outs .Doesn't have the chip Danny likes in a guard
We didn't need another 19 year old point guard at the time and Tatum was best available talent for Boston Celtics needs.And so much further advanced.

[nickagneta]

I think the only real similarity between Tatum as a prospect and Giannis as a prospect is the potential for serious length in post-draft growth.

Giannis was incredibly raw (and still has weak shot mechanics) but had phenomenal physicals (height, wingspan, huge hands, great leaping and excellent ball-handling for his size).  He had huge upside potential, but also huge risk (What if his body didn't fill out?  What if his shot didn't develop?)

Tatum had good physicals, but was far, far more polished in his skill set.   Tatum has been playing at the highest levels of basketball available to him at each age since he was 14.   Danny has almost certainly been scouting him since his mid-teens.

Tatum, if anything, was a 'safe' pick more akin to Olynyk than Giannis.  He's a forward with scoring skills that looked very developed and highly likely to translate.

On the other hand, it's also clear that Tatum has far more up-side than Olynyk had.  He's younger and seemingly still growing.  And he seems to be more of an 'alpha' in his mentality.

The end-point of what Tatum becomes could be similar to Giannis:  Freakishly long, roughly 6' 10" forwards with a variety of scoring skills that are mismatch nightmares and defensive versatility.   But they were very different as prospects and will take different paths to get there.

Excellent post. TP.

[Alleyoopster]

Watching closeups of Tatum cup the ball on drives with his long, gangly arms surprised me with just how long he is. Then, I heard (somewhere?) that the Celtics don't think he is done growing. All of this got me thinking ...

What if Danny Ainge's drafting of Jayson Tatum over Josh Jackson and Markelle Fultz, and to a lesser extent Smith, Fox, Isaac, Monk, and Markannen, was a critique of his previous drafts? What if this (and 2016) was a sign of Ainge's growth as a GM?

Most recognize that the greatest drafting mistake of the past 5 years (hindsight is 20/20) was Ainge not being willing to pull the trigger on Giannis. Instead, Ainge played it safe with a smart, efficient big from Gonzaga. There were reports leading up to the draft that Ainge really liked him, even comparing him to Scottie Pippen, but in the end, he couldn't pull the trigger.

2017 included several skilled (albeit lacking in some way) bigs, including Isaac and Markanen at the top of the draft. 2016 included Bender and Poeltl.

On the other side of things, he has always been attracted to competitive, tough-nosed guards/wings (maybe he sees himself in them?), from Allen to Rondo to West to Rozier to Smart. These guys are "his" kinds of picks. 2017's draft include Fox, Smith, Jackson, and Monk who all fit that type in different ways. 2016's draft included Dunn, Hield, and Murray who fit that build in different ways.

We know the story. Instead of picking his usual picks (competitive guards), and instead of selecting the "skilled" big man, Ainge went with the wing with the most size both years. One year, it was Jaylen Brown, who measured 6'7'' with a 7'1'' wingspan. The next year was Tatum, who measured 6'8.5'' with a 6'11'' wingspan.

My different take (even if it was not intentional) is that Ainge didn't want to miss out on the next great wing either year. He saw a bit of Giannis in both Brown and Tatum, and regardless of what any scouts or fans thought, he thought they both had the highest upside at the most important position in modern basketball.

Brown is probably done growing (rumors had it that he put on 1'' his rookie year). Tatum could cap out around 6'10''. Both guys can drive. Both guys can handle the ball. Both guys can shoot. Both guys use their length to be disruptive on defense.

Maybe Ainge regretted passing on Giannis, and saw a little bit of the upside of Giannis in Tatum. Maybe Ainge regretted drafting Olynyk, and therefore did not value Bender, Poeltl, Markannen, or Isaac as highly as others. Althouth Ainge likes competitive guards, maybe he has been slightly disappointed with Smart, particularly because he is going against so many good guards in the modern NBA. Maybe he thought their value has dropped due to market saturation; therefore, maybe he did not value Fultz, Fox, Murray, Smith, Monk, or Jackson as highly as he did before.

Maybe he learned. Maybe he grew as a GM. Maybe that's why he selected tall, lanky, competitive, smart, skilled wings.

Maybe ...

Have to say Danny did a lot of improvement in areas we've complaining about for years. 1. the   team had too many short guards, 2. lacked good rebounding forwards/centers and 3. had a variety of mediocre shooting players. It used to upset me in that the best shooters were almost always sent packing or left due to free agency.
 
He made some great moves this summer....passing on Fultz was a brilliant move. I was so upset when we didn't draft him. Actually, bought tickets to the Barclays' Center 2017 draft expecting to see Fultz get picked. Then, came the trade... In hindsight it was a great decision. 

I'm not sure if Gordon Hayward's name has popped up in this thread, but that would be more of what the OP mentioned in his post. Gordon has height, is a good defender and can shoot. All Tatum-like attributes. If it weren't for the injury this would have been another grand slam move. 

Glad you included the word 'maybe'. Because Danny isn't infallible. Not sold on Yabusele and the trading away of the early second round picks from last year. Ended up we passed on Malcolm Brogdon. Then again, so didn't every other NBA GM in the first round.   

[Monkhouse]

Have to say Danny did a lot of improvement in areas we've complaining about for years. 1. the   team had too many short guards, 2. lacked good rebounding forwards/centers and 3. had a variety of mediocre shooting players. It used to upset me in that the best shooters were almost always sent packing or left due to free agency.
 
He made some great moves this summer....passing on Fultz was a brilliant move. I was so upset when we didn't draft him. Actually, bought tickets to the Barclays' Center 2017 draft expecting to see Fultz get picked. Then, came the trade... In hindsight it was a great decision. 

I'm not sure if Gordon Hayward's name has popped up in this thread, but that would be more of what the OP mentioned in his post. Gordon has height, is a good defender and can shoot. All Tatum-like attributes. If it weren't for the injury this would have been another grand slam move. 

Glad you included the word 'maybe'. Because Danny isn't infallible. Not sold on Yabusele and the trading away of the early second round picks from last year. Ended up we passed on Malcolm Brogdon. Then again, so didn't every other NBA GM in the first round.

We passed on Brogdon, same reason we passed on Fultz. Too many guards, and not to mention there were questions about his ability to play in a faster pace due to UVA offensive/defensive schemes.

He is also the same age as Kyrie Irving, so there's that.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

If our shooters last season were mediocre I'm scared to think what we are this season. I can see you saying mediocre as scorers but not one of the guys who got real playing time were poor-mediocre shooters except for the players that are still here, Smart and Brown (I don't remember Rozier's stats but generally it's thought that he won't be bad)! Kyrie is a better shooter than IT4 (usually) but aside from that, Tatum's hot start and Baynes, pretty much all the players from last season were much better shooters. That is one of the reasons we had an excellent offense last season, one of the top.


I sure hope our guys reach their highest potential but at this point only Tatum and Baynes are really lighting it up in a small sample size.


We are just going to find different ways to get ours this season (we're doing that) because shooting isn't this group's thing (yet). CBS has this, eventually the offense will be better when we figure out how to get around our shooting and hopefully some of the kids will grow and shoot much better. We will have to keep up our high level defense for certain though.

[kozlodoev]

the thing is sometimes the 'experts' overthink these things. Giannis was not a secret. Heck, Danny traveled miles to see him play. Experts saw what he was doing. The videos showed what he was doing. The experts just did not think he could do it against Americans. Boy, where they wrong!!!

It also doesn't hurt that he grew a quarter of a foot or so, which is far from a given even for players his age. Meh.

[mrb617]

I think if Danny wanted to go for a Giannis type of pick, he would have certainly drafted Isaac. Isaac was the high risk high reward pick, the 6/11 forward with a KD, Giannis ceiling. Tatum is a safe pick, like KO was. I love your angle though. I love Tatum pick, but man did I want Isaac draft night, I am excited to see what he turns into.

[smokeablount]

I think if Danny wanted to go for a Giannis type of pick, he would have certainly drafted Isaac. Isaac was the high risk high reward pick, the 6/11 forward with a KD, Giannis ceiling. Tatum is a safe pick, like KO was. I love your angle though. I love Tatum pick, but man did I want Isaac draft night, I am excited to see what he turns into.

You think Jonathan Isaac, who had I think 5 points in his team’s tournament loss to an 11 seed, is the KD prospect?

And the guy who averaged 22 points and led his team to the ACC title is like Kelly Olynik?

That’s a pretty scorching hot take.