The Experts had it all Wrong

by **dboss** Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:42 pm

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/18750650/zach-lowe-boston-celtics-trade-deadline-nba

Once again all the chatter by all the experts was wrong. It seems every Tom, Dick and Jerk-off thinks they know what is best for the Celtics but Danny said NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Danny is once again proving to be as unpredictable as an early Spring day in Boston.

I suppose we can lament about the things that might have been and bemoan the potholes but in the end the Celtics are in complete and absolute control over their destiny to secure an 18# banner. All those so called elite players (Cousins, Butler, Paul, Rerun, etc. etc) were less than enticing to Danny because Danny's vision transcends what might seem obvious to many.

The Celtics have NEVER had the #1 pick in any NBA draft. The notion that it's value could be compromised was never a reality in Danny's mind. He fully appreciates what he has. After all we are not some tank team like the Sixers and other perennial losers. Those team spend more time in the lottery than out of it. Those teams have enjoyed the pleasure of drafting # 1 numerous times. And still they are nobody.

Thanks Danny for keeping the powder dry. Thanks for giving us Celtics fans a front row seat at the 2017 lottery where history awaits. Thanks for putting together a great group of players that fit so well together and understanding that this team is most assuredly a reflection of the sum of their parts. Thanks for not letting all the noise around you influence your decision making.

Lastly thanks for not being afraid to embrace the chance to get the # 1 pick.

dboss

by **swish** Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:28 pm

Could it be that the value of the top 4 picks in the present generation no longer match up well with an elite proven veteran. There was a time when General Managers were evaluating the talent level of 22 and 23 year olds with 4 years of college under their belt - rather than 19 and 20 year olds only a year or 2 removed from high school. For me the numbers that I have run, indicate that even top 4 picks, especialyl the number 2,3 and 4 picks are high risk investments in the future when compared to the reliability of the established elite player. So it just may be possible that Danny's 2 Net picks for the next 2 years could be greatly deflated in actual value on the trade market. After the order of the draft is determined later in the year we should have a clearer picture of their true value.

swish

by **gyso** Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:33 pm

Trust the Process™

by **bobheckler** Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:09 pm

gyso wrote:Trust the Process™

Gyso,

Tell that to Philly fans, who just saw the reward for an entire season of hideous losing get traded to Dallas for a bag of spare balls.

I agree with Swish. Jaylen Brown will someday be a helluva player but he isn't now because he is only 1 1/2 years out of High School, and he is extremely mature physically and emotionally for his age.

In my opinion the NBA needs to change the CBA to require 2 years out of High School. It is better for their skills development, it is better for their physical development as their bones and soft tissues grow in 45 game seasons and not grueling 82+ game seasons against bigger, stronger men, it is better for their emotional and professional maturity development (e.g. James Young). It would also be good for the NCAA, since could keep a budding NBA draftee for another year without it negatively impacting his professional prospects. Drafting one-and-doners dilutes the league's talent pool. Furthermore, since it requires a few years of seasoning for them to become legit NBA players, by the time they get there they will only be a year or two away from a new, much more expensive contract. So the fans and the ownership only get a couple of years of true value from them on their 4-5 year rookie contract.

I do not understand the NBAPA's resistance to raising the age. By delaying the entry of rookies it extends the careers of role players and journeymen because they won't be getting squeezed off the roster by a kid with a guaranteed contract but without comparable skills.

Unfortunately, just as we see GMs being unable from stopping themselves from throwing ridiculous contracts at good players who think they are great ones, I believe it will require legal action, in the manner of a new CBA, to stop that. GMs won't/can't stop offering stupid contracts and they can't/won't stop drafting man-childs.

bob

.

by **jrleftfoot** Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:10 pm

bobheckler wrote:
gyso wrote:Trust the Process™

Gyso,

Tell that to Philly fans, who just saw the reward for an entire season of hideous losing get traded to Dallas for a bag of spare balls.

I agree with Swish. Jaylen Brown will someday be a helluva player but he isn't now because he is only 1 1/2 years out of High School, and he is extremely mature physically and emotionally for his age.

In my opinion the NBA needs to change the CBA to require 2 years out of High School. It is better for their skills development, it is better for their physical development as their bones and soft tissues grow in 45 game seasons and not grueling 82+ game seasons against bigger, stronger men, it is better for their emotional and professional maturity development (e.g. James Young). It would also be good for the NCAA, since could keep a budding NBA draftee for another year without it negatively impacting his professional prospects. Drafting one-and-doners dilutes the league's talent pool. Furthermore, since it requires a few years of seasoning for them to become legit NBA players, by the time they get there they will only be a year or two away from a new, much more expensive contract. So the fans and the ownership only get a couple of years of true value from them on their 4-5 year rookie contract.

I do not understand the NBAPA's resistance to raising the age. By delaying the entry of rookies it extends the careers of role players and journeymen because they won't be getting squeezed off the roster by a kid with a guaranteed contract but without comparable skills.

Unfortunately, just as we see GMs being unable from stopping themselves from throwing ridiculous contracts at good players who think they are great ones, I believe it will require legal action, in the manner of a new CBA, to stop that. GMs won't/can't stop offering stupid contracts and they can't/won't stop drafting man-childs.

Bob, I don`t get your point about journeymen players. There would still be 60 draft choices , they would just be older and arguably more likely to displace veterans.18 and 19 year old rookie free agents are few and far between. Am I missing something? As for the NCAA, I don`t care what is good for them and their plantation mentality. A lot of these kids need money now , not next year . An injury in college where they play to support the sometimes astronomical salaries of the coaches and to warm the cockles of rabid alumni, and it could be over for them. As for GMs, if they can`t help themselves from making foolish decisions, that`s their problem.

by **dboss** Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:35 pm

I would blame the GM's because these kids cannot draft themselves. Even players coming out after 3_or 4 years still need to develop. If a GM drafts a kid and he is playing well by year three it is still a valuable pick and because the kid is early 20's that team Has more than an equitable return over an extended period of time.

The rules were already changed to require an age limit. Specifying 2 years out of high school does not seem fair (think about other sports)

There is a D-League option for player development that more than serves the need to groom these young players.

There are veteran jorneyman on every team. The age of a player coming into the league has no impact on the availability of veteran roster spots. If a player can contribute then he should have a market.

Every year rookies are coming into the league. Every year veterans are retiring or getting cut. Back in the day a kid like Brown would have sat on the bench for 2 years before even getting a sniff of playing time.

So I certainly do not agree that a 2 year out of Highschool requirement is a good idea.

dboss

by **dboss** Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:39 pm

jrleftfoot wrote:
bobheckler wrote:
gyso wrote:Trust the Process™

Gyso,

Tell that to Philly fans, who just saw the reward for an entire season of hideous losing get traded to Dallas for a bag of spare balls.

I agree with Swish. Jaylen Brown will someday be a helluva player but he isn't now because he is only 1 1/2 years out of High School, and he is extremely mature physically and emotionally for his age.

In my opinion the NBA needs to change the CBA to require 2 years out of High School. It is better for their skills development, it is better for their physical development as their bones and soft tissues grow in 45 game seasons and not grueling 82+ game seasons against bigger, stronger men, it is better for their emotional and professional maturity development (e.g. James Young). It would also be good for the NCAA, since could keep a budding NBA draftee for another year without it negatively impacting his professional prospects. Drafting one-and-doners dilutes the league's talent pool. Furthermore, since it requires a few years of seasoning for them to become legit NBA players, by the time they get there they will only be a year or two away from a new, much more expensive contract. So the fans and the ownership only get a couple of years of true value from them on their 4-5 year rookie contract.

I do not understand the NBAPA's resistance to raising the age. By delaying the entry of rookies it extends the careers of role players and journeymen because they won't be getting squeezed off the roster by a kid with a guaranteed contract but without comparable skills.

Unfortunately, just as we see GMs being unable from stopping themselves from throwing ridiculous contracts at good players who think they are great ones, I believe it will require legal action, in the manner of a new CBA, to stop that. GMs won't/can't stop offering stupid contracts and they can't/won't stop drafting man-childs.

Bob, I don`t get your point about journeymen players. There would still be 60 draft choices , they would just be older and arguably more likely to displace veterans.18 and 19 year old rookie free agents are few and far between. Am I missing something? As for the NCAA, I don`t care what is good for them and their plantation mentality. A lot of these kids need money now , not next year . An injury in college where they play to support the sometimes astronomical salaries of the coaches and to warm the cockles of rabid alumni, and it could be over for them. As for GMs, if they can`t help themselves from making foolish decisions, that`s their problem

jrleftfoot

Obviously I agree with you.

dboss

by **gyso** Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:06 am

jrleftfoot,

I think you pretty much captured my feelings about the NCAA in your post. The one and done approach is a farce. If they can get a moronic GM to pay for their "skills" right out of high school, so be it.

At least many of these "student-athletes" do not take up valuable space in the classrooms. Rolling Eyes

gyso

by **mulcogiseng** Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:56 pm

The best solution is the easiest one to implement. College athletes need to get paid. That provides the incentive to stay that one or two extra years before entering the draft. It would also revitalize college basketball and the growing trend where we have great one and done universities instead of institutions of higher learning.

by **swish** Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:59 pm

Since many professions require certain educational levels of expertise before gaining entry level I would extend that same requirement to the world of professional basketball. Perhaps a requirement that a player serve a minimum of 2 years at a college or professional league - other than an nba affiliated league - before being eligible for the nba draft - Perhaps the international community would relish the chance to act as a breeding ground for some of the USA'S top high school grads that choose to skip the college scene.

swish

by **jrleftfoot** Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:35 pm

I like mulcogiseng`s solution

by **swish** Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:45 pm

jrleftfoot wrote:I like mulcogiseng`s solution

They are paid. Its just that the check goes to the parents in the form of Room, Board and Tuition plus any other fringe benefits that JR may pick up.

swish

by **jrleftfoot** Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:06 pm

swish wrote:
jrleftfoot wrote:I like mulcogiseng`s solution

They are paid. Its just that the check goes to the parents in the form of Room, Board and Tuition plus any other fringe benefits that JR may pick up.

swish

after you , swish...jr

by **NYCelt** Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:06 pm

swish wrote:
jrleftfoot wrote:I like mulcogiseng`s solution

They are paid. Its just that the check goes to the parents in the form of Room, Board and Tuition plus any other fringe benefits that JR may pick up.

swish

Wow! Talk about a point that is completely impossible to argue against!

No way to debate swish here.

by **jrleftfoot** Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:35 pm

NYCelt wrote:
swish wrote:
jrleftfoot wrote:I like mulcogiseng`s solution

They are paid. Its just that the check goes to the parents in the form of Room, Board and Tuition plus any other fringe benefits that JR may pick up.

swish

Wow! Talk about a point that is completely impossible to argue againh These guys aren`t recruited from their middle school days to be student- athletes. The NCAA is a money machine for everyone but the players , who take all the risks so the athletic departments can swim in money and coaches can be paid 7 figures .The only organization more steeped in hypocrisy is the IOC. I`m not debating swish or anyone else about this because it is a matter of perspective. Anybody who thinks it is an equitable system is entitled to their opinion.

by **jrleftfoot** Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:39 pm

I seem to have messed up the format and am too lazy to fix it. Mea culpa. My response was to NYCelt.

by **NYCelt** Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:20 pm

leftfoot,

I think I get the meaning of your (somewhat mashed-up!) post, but forgive me if I'm wrong. If I got it right, you're taking the position the NCAA is reaping the benefits and the risk goes to the kids.

I'm simply saying that risk or no, the student-athlete is getting an incredible deal. They're getting the opportunity for an education and much more. Now I'm not naive enough to think that many of the D1 basketball players ever see the inside of a classroom, or would know what to do in there anyway, but they're getting exposure and a possible future professional career in basketball; NBA or otherwise. You can seldom have success without risk. Considering the chance at making very handsome livings these kids are handed, the risk they assume and override they give the NCAA are well worth it in my book.

As a side point, I do personally know NCAA D1 scholarship players that didn't go pro, have graduated, and use their degrees. Very sweet deal for them.

Yes, the NCAA and hierarchy reap huge rewards, but I think there is plenty in it for the players. With the potential they're handed, I believe they're getting paid more than enough.

No problem on the mashed up response or difference of perspective, I just think Swish nailed it. You should see the responses I've mangled!

Regards

by **jrleftfoot** Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:56 am

NYCelt wrote:leftfoot,

I think I get the meaning of your (somewhat mashed-up!) post, but forgive me if I'm wrong. If I got it right, you're taking the position the NCAA is reaping the benefits and the risk goes to the kids.

I'm simply saying that risk or no, the student-athlete is getting an incredible deal. They're getting the opportunity for an education and much more. Now I'm not naive enough to think that many of the D1 basketball players ever see the inside of a classroom, or would know what to do in there anyway, but they're getting exposure and a possible future professional career in basketball; NBA or otherwise. You can seldom have success without risk. Considering the chance at making very handsome livings these kids are handed, the risk they assume and override they give the NCAA are well worth it in my book.

As a side point, I do personally know NCAA D1 scholarship players that didn't go pro, have graduated, and use their degrees. Very sweet deal for them.

Yes, the NCAA and hierarchy reap huge rewards, but I think there is plenty in it for the players. With the potential they're handed, I believe they're getting paid more than enough.

No problem on the mashed up response or difference of perspective, I just think Swish nailed it. You should see the responses I've mangled!

Regards

NYCelt, your position is reasonable and defensible. I simply don`t agree with it .The rules allow them to leave after one year , and I see no reason to change them. I know guys who have graduated and value their education too.The rules allow that as well. IMO, college athletics are top heavy, like so many of our institutions, and studies have shown that the vast majority of money made from them goes to the athletic department for facilities , salaries and the costs of recruiting. Major programs are often corrupt and coaches who violate rules are given a slap on the hand , if that, and back to business as usual. I`m on the cusp of getting political, so I`ll leave it at that. Respectfully.

by **wideclyde** Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:11 am

Yes, there are many young guys who have gotten their college degrees after playing college sports on athletic scholarships, but there are far more guys who got the same scholarship opportunity and are still far away from earning a degree.

Having gone to college when no players were drafted early, I saw many, many guys in college who were ten miles from graduation even though they were in their third or fourth (or even fifth) year of college.

Now that a young guy can leave college after only one year, you know that even if he got straight A's in that one year that he is still a long way from earning a degree. For the guys that found a way to stay eligible during the first semester to be able to play the second half of the season and then blew off classes in the second semester none of them actually went to college to earn a degree.

It is my opinion that if you go to college to actually get a degree you are likely to get a degree and also that if you go to college (no matter how many years you attend) to get a better shot at professional sports that you are just as unlikely to get a degree.

The opportunity to earn a college degree is a fair price for providing one's athletic talents while earning that degree, but unfortunately, too many guys fail to take advantage.

by **worcester** Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:40 pm

I am very happy that Danny is keeping the Nets picks, hopefully for both years, and I would prefer college players stay in college until they are 20. Why? Bones, tendons, ligaments, and cartilages are still developing, especially in taller players, and the stress of an 82+ game season is not healthy for those body parts.

Are vets a better bet than lottery picks? Probably, but you have to factor in how close to a #1 pick the team is going to get, are there generational players available in the draft, salary cap implications, and other factors. In our present case Danny is making the right moves. Imagine how much the Clippers' GM would like to be in Danny's shoes. Doc is stuck in the not quite championship level of talent status and unable to draft a game changer. Danny is now enjoying the best of both worlds, and it will pay off. That said, Paul George was a #10 pick as was Paul Pierce. Kawai Leonard a # 15 pick, Yiannis was the #15 pick in 2013, just behind Kelly O at # 13. Imagine if we'd drafted the Greek Freak instead of Kelly. Just imagine the team we could put on the floor now. Good scouting is as important as good luck in the draft.

by **dboss** Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:19 pm

worcester wrote:I am very happy that Danny is keeping the Nets picks, hopefully for both years, and I would prefer college players stay in college until they are 20. Why? Bones, tendons, ligaments, and cartilages are still developing, especially in taller players, and the stress of an 82+ game season is not healthy for those body parts.

Are vets a better bet than lottery picks? Probably, but you have to factor in how close to a #1 pick the team is going to get, are there generational players available in the draft, salary cap implications, and other factors. In our present case Danny is making the right moves. Imagine how much the Clippers' GM would like to be in Danny's shoes. Doc is stuck in the not quite championship level of talent status and unable to draft a game changer. Danny is now enjoying the best of both worlds, and it will pay off. That said, Paul George was a #10 pick as was Paul Pierce. Kawai Leonard a # 15 pick, Yiannis was the #15 pick in 2013, just behind Kelly O at # 13. Imagine if we'd drafted the Greek Freak instead of Kelly. Just imagine the team we could put on the floor now. Good scouting is as important as good luck in the draft.

W

You comments certainly suggest that there is talent in the middle of the draft and you did not even mention Butler who was picked last in the first round or for that matter IT who was the very last pick in the 2nd round.

Identifying talent is the key to success. Some GM's are really good at doing that and some are not. One would hope that when you have a shot at a top pick in the first round you make the right pick. I would say that DA has been 50/50 It looks like he makes good selections with guys like Bradley, Smart, Rozier and Brown for example but during that same period he missed with Ja Juan Johnson,Sully, KO, Fab Melo (RIP) and James Young.

Maybe the crap shoot gets a bit less crappy the closer you are to the top.

dboss

by **jrleftfoot** Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:21 pm

Apropos of nothing, I am always surprised that E`tuan Moore is still in the league when I see him in uniform.

by Sponsored content

The Experts had it all Wrong

The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong

Re: The Experts had it all Wrong