Why Josh Jackson Should Go #1 to Celtics

I agree with you that Jackson might very well the best player for us to pick.

I really like Jacksons' defense and his mindset on both ends of the floor reminds me of Smart. Though I feel Jackson will be a better overall player in the NBA ( and not quite the hound dog defender Smart is).

I kinda wish Danny would have had the #2 pick, so taking Jackson would be a no brainer.

thinking about Jackson with Jaylen, Smart and Rozier on the floor together makes me smile.

Jackson could still be obtainable even if we used the number one on Fultz. 

 We have a lot of other picks waiting around up there in the future,  something could be worked out.

Matty wrote:Jackson could still be obtainable even if we used the number one on Fultz. 

 We have a lot of other picks waiting around up there in the future,  something could be worked out.

Celts are going after Gordon Hayward in free-agency.

I don't think the Celts need 3 SFs that can be a starter.

Having Jaylen Brown and Hayward is enough.

fierce wrote:

Matty wrote:Jackson could still be obtainable even if we used the number one on Fultz. 

 We have a lot of other picks waiting around up there in the future,  something could be worked out.

Celts are going after Gordon Hayward in free-agency.

I don't think the Celts need 3 SFs that can be a starter.

Having Jaylen Brown and Hayward is enough.

fierce,

Change is a'comin'.  If we take Fultz then why do we need IT and Bradley and Smart and Rozier, much less the minutes Jaylen Brown has played at 2?  If we take Jackson then why would we need Hayward and Crowder and Brown (Green would be the easy and obvious cut)?  Same with Tatum.  Even if we don't go after Hayward, or he decides to stay in Utah, adding another 1,2 or 3 to our team is overkill.  Our back court and wings are pretty loaded, adding to either means changes.

Enjoy these next 4-14 games because the chances of seeing most of this team back next year isn't good.


bob


.

bobheckler wrote:

fierce wrote:

Matty wrote:Jackson could still be obtainable even if we used the number one on Fultz. 

 We have a lot of other picks waiting around up there in the future,  something could be worked out.

Celts are going after Gordon Hayward in free-agency.

I don't think the Celts need 3 SFs that can be a starter.

Having Jaylen Brown and Hayward is enough.

fierce,

Change is a'comin'.  If we take Fultz then why do we need IT and Bradley and Smart and Rozier, much less the minutes Jaylen Brown has played at 2?  If we take Jackson then why would we need Hayward and Crowder and Brown (Green would be the easy and obvious cut)?  Same with Tatum.  Even if we don't go after Hayward, or he decides to stay in Utah, adding another 1,2 or 3 to our team is overkill.  Our back court and wings are pretty loaded, adding to either means changes.

Enjoy these next 4-14 games because the chances of seeing most of this team back next year isn't good.


bob


.

Smart will remain the 6th man.

Crowder, Bradley, and Rozier need to go.

If Celts can't get Hayward then go after Gallinari.

Bradley is too small to be a starting SG.
That's why Fultz over Josh Jackson.

Celtics are fine at the SF spot with Jaylen Brown.
Brown has star potential.
Josh Jackson will be redundant.

Crowder - not starter material, that's why Celts need an upgrade at the starting SF spot

Bradley - too small to be a starting SG, Fultz is an upgrade

Rozier - does not deserve to be a 3rd string PG with the Celts, he's better off with another team

Oh yeah, Crowder's not starting material. He only anchored the #1 seed in the East that is now in the Eastern Conference Finals. And Rozier isn't worthy of being our 3rd string PG. He's only been our most impactful bench player in the playoffs.

And yeah, let's trade our best value contracts just for the sake of it, because Fultz is an inch taller than Avery Bradley, and Gallinari is like Crowder but costs twice as much, without the durability, defense, and ability to defend LeBron James.

Rmbone wrote:Oh yeah, Crowder's not starting material. He only anchored the #1 seed in the East that is now in the Eastern Conference Finals. And Rozier isn't worthy of being our 3rd string PG. He's only been our most impactful bench player in the playoffs.

And yeah, let's trade our best value contracts just for the sake of it, because Fultz is an inch taller than Avery Bradley, and Gallinari is like Crowder but costs twice as much, without the durability, defense, and ability to defend LeBron James.

Anchored the #1 seed?

I seriously doubt that.

Celts are better if they had Hayward or George or Butler at the SF spot.

George, Hayward, and Butler are all-stars.
So if you say Crowder is better than those 3 and the Celts are better off with Crowder then that's just your opinion.

I did not say Rozier is just a 3rd string PG.
Rozier can be a starter for another NBA.
That's why Rozier needs to go because staying with the Celts is not in his best interest.

Avery Bradley is only 6-2.
Markelle Fultz is 6-4 with a 6-10 wingspan.
So it's not true that Fultz is only 1 inch taller than Bradley.

Rmbone

Every time the Celts had multiple star players, Celts always won a championship.

The NBA is a star driven league.

Celts had no star players in the 1990s, after Bird retired, and Celts also had no championship in the 1990s.

This current Celtics team will not win a championship relying on Thomas to score a lot and hoping Crowder and Bradley will make a lot of 3-pointers.

For the record, I never agreed to trading 3 out of 4 among Bradley, Smart, Crowder, and Brown plus the 2017 Nets pick for Paul George.

Clearly Ainge wanted Paul George because he knows the Celts need another scorer.

fierce wrote:

Rmbone wrote:Oh yeah, Crowder's not starting material. He only anchored the #1 seed in the East that is now in the Eastern Conference Finals. And Rozier isn't worthy of being our 3rd string PG. He's only been our most impactful bench player in the playoffs.

And yeah, let's trade our best value contracts just for the sake of it, because Fultz is an inch taller than Avery Bradley, and Gallinari is like Crowder but costs twice as much, without the durability, defense, and ability to defend LeBron James.

Anchored the #1 seed?

I seriously doubt that.

Celts are better if they had Hayward or George or Butler at the SF spot.

George, Hayward, and Butler are all-stars.
So if you say Crowder is better than those 3 and the Celts are better off with Crowder then that's just your opinion.

I did not say Rozier is just a 3rd string PG.
Rozier can be a starter for another NBA.
That's why Rozier needs to go because staying with the Celts is not in his best interest.

Avery Bradley is only 6-2.
Markelle Fultz is 6-4 with a 6-10 wingspan.
So it's not true that Fultz is only 1 inch taller than Bradley.

All Star is an offensive award, but defense wins championships. Where are George, Hayward and Butler right now? Only Butler made a bigger overall impact this year than Jae. Hayward was a big negative in the first round of the playoffs, despite averaging over 22 points in the series. His defense is atrocious, and he needs the ball in his hands to score.
Check out the advanced stats for small forwards: http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/WINS/position/5

Check out the +/- per game numbers for the Celtics. Jae by far the highest, because he makes a big impact on both ends of the court. That's what I call a team anchor. As good as IT was on offense he was almost as bad on defense. That leads to a much less impressive overall impact, even if nobody notices the worst-in-league impact, and declares him an MVP candidate.
http://stats.nba.com/players/traditional/#!?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612738

The biggest reason IT had so many clutch 4th quarter shots is because his defense was so lousy that we couldn't but teams away. We were barely better in the 4th quarter with Isaiah on the court, rather than sitting on the bench.

That's why Isaiah's advanced stats rate him as only about the 10th most productive PG in the NBA, rather than the top 3 or top 5 people believe. http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/WINS/position/1

Look who the worst defender in the NBA is, or 468th best if you prefer: http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/12/sort/DRPM

Now look at the Celtics' +/- numbers in the playoffs:http://stats.nba.com/players/traditional/#!?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=-1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Playoffs&TeamID=1610612738

Do you really think the Celtics would be playing better with Fultz on the court than they do with any of our top guys on the floor? Fultz couldn't even get through a cupcake college season without shutting it down because his knee was a little sore.

Josh Jackson might not get a lot of stupid media attention, just like Kawhi Leonard doesn't get as much media attention as James Harden or Russell Westbrook, two "superstars" sitting on their ass right now.

Rmbone

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree because there's no way Jae Crowder is better than Paul George, Jimmy Butler, or Gordon Hayward.

Also, Harden and Westbrook were in the finals in 2012.
That was when OKC had multiple star players in KD, Westbrook, and Harden.

Defense wins championships is only half true.
Offense always trumps defense.

Of course you need good defense to win, but defense alone will not win you a championship.

fierce wrote:Rmbone

Every time the Celts had multiple star players, Celts always won a championship.

The NBA is a star driven league.

Celts had no star players in the 1990s, after Bird retired, and Celts also had no championship in the 1990s.

This current Celtics team will not win a championship relying on Thomas to score a lot and hoping Crowder and Bradley will make a lot of 3-pointers.

For the record, I never agreed to trading 3 out of 4 among Bradley, Smart, Crowder, and Brown plus the 2017 Nets pick for Paul George.

Clearly Ainge wanted Paul George because he knows the Celts need another scorer.

Fierce, your thinking is too simplistic, though commonplace. NBA media is more star-driven than the NBA itself. Almost every single NBA championship depended on outstanding depth, and clutch play from little-known role players. The big names get all the credit, but it's guys like Horry, Cassell, Paxon, Kerr, or Perkins that put a team over the top.

Like I said, your definition of "star" is a flashy scorer. If you watched the video up top, you'd see that it's usually not the flashy scorer who ends up winning NBA Finals MVP. It's the two-way, hyper-competitive, high motor, do-it-all player who wins Finals MVP. That's exactly the type of STAR that Josh Jackson is.

I agree we probably can't win a championship relying too much on Avery Bradley, but Josh Jackson would be a much more impactful shooting guard than Fultz. Just like the Celtics were actually better this season with rookie Jalen Brown starting, rather than Bradley starting. The Celtics were +1.7 in games that Jaylen started, and +1.4 in the games that Bradley started.

Fultz's star potential is at point guard, at shooting guard he's just another empty stats guy like Booker or LaVine. Jackson is the NBA Finals MVP prototype.

fierce wrote:Rmbone

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree because there's no way Jae Crowder is better than Paul George, Jimmy Butler, or Gordon Hayward.

Also, Harden and Westbrook were in the finals in 2012.
That was when OKC had multiple star players in KD, Westbrook, and Harden.

Defense wins championships is only half true.
Offense always trumps defense.

Of course you need good defense to win, but defense alone will not win you a championship.

I already said Jimmy Butler was more impactful than Crowder this season. Paul George's defense dropped off a cliff, and Crowder's 40% 3 point shooting and willingness to pass the ball around made him almost as effective on offense as George.

Crowder just doesn't have the reputation those guys have, because those guys are better at scoring off the dribble on high volume. It looks pretty, and it gets all star votes, but it doesn't make somebody a more valuable player than a quiet 3 and D stud like Crowder.

Rmbone wrote:

fierce wrote:Rmbone

Every time the Celts had multiple star players, Celts always won a championship.

The NBA is a star driven league.

Celts had no star players in the 1990s, after Bird retired, and Celts also had no championship in the 1990s.

This current Celtics team will not win a championship relying on Thomas to score a lot and hoping Crowder and Bradley will make a lot of 3-pointers.

For the record, I never agreed to trading 3 out of 4 among Bradley, Smart, Crowder, and Brown plus the 2017 Nets pick for Paul George.

Clearly Ainge wanted Paul George because he knows the Celts need another scorer.

Fierce, your thinking is too simplistic, though commonplace. NBA media is more star-driven than the NBA itself. Almost every single NBA championship depended on outstanding depth, and clutch play from little-known role players. The big names get all the credit, but it's guys like Horry, Cassell, Paxon, Kerr, or Perkins that put a team over the top.

Like I said, your definition of "star" is a flashy scorer. If you watched the video up top, you'd see that it's usually not the flashy scorer who ends up winning NBA Finals MVP. It's the two-way, hyper-competitive, high motor, do-it-all player who wins Finals MVP. That's exactly the type of STAR that Josh Jackson is.

I agree we probably can't win a championship relying too much on Avery Bradley, but Josh Jackson would be a much more impactful shooting guard than Fultz. Just like the Celtics were actually better this season with rookie Jalen Brown starting, rather than Bradley starting. The Celtics were +1.7 in games that Jaylen started, and +1.4 in the games that Bradley started.

Fultz's star potential is at point guard, at shooting guard he's just another empty stats guy like Booker or LaVine. Jackson is the NBA Finals MVP prototype.

Fultz will take over the PG spot once IT gets old.

The Josh Jackson debate will be decided in 5 weeks.
I don't disagree with you regarding the talent of Josh Jackson.
No doubt Jackson has star potential.
But I don't think Ainge and the Celtics will pick Jackson.
All I'm saying is I believe the Celts will not pick Jackson.
Let's just revisit this issue on draft night.

My question is would Horry, Cassell, Paxon, Kerr, or Perkins reach the finals without Olajuwon, MJ, or Pierce?

Getting role players is easier compared to getting star players.

The NBA is a business first and a sport second.
When a team like the Nets in 2002 and 2003 made it to the finals, the ratings were so low.
Kidd and Kenyon Martin just don't sell.

With the Cavs and Warriors in the finals the last 2 years, the ratings were high.

It's not being simplistic, it's just being realistic.

You have to look at it from a businessman's point of view.

It's profit first then championships second.

Rmbone wrote:

fierce wrote:Rmbone

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree because there's no way Jae Crowder is better than Paul George, Jimmy Butler, or Gordon Hayward.

Also, Harden and Westbrook were in the finals in 2012.
That was when OKC had multiple star players in KD, Westbrook, and Harden.

Defense wins championships is only half true.
Offense always trumps defense.

Of course you need good defense to win, but defense alone will not win you a championship.

I already said Jimmy Butler was more impactful than Crowder this season. Paul George's defense dropped off a cliff, and Crowder's 40% 3 point shooting and willingness to pass the ball around made him almost as effective on offense as George.

Crowder just doesn't have the reputation those guys have, because those guys are better at scoring off the dribble on high volume. It looks pretty, and it gets all star votes, but it doesn't make somebody a more valuable player than a quiet 3 and D stud like Crowder.

Like I said, that's your opinion.

But here's the thing, I have proof Ainge and the Celts are not content with Crowder.
Ainge wanted Paul George at the trade deadline.
It was confirmed by Ainge himself and said the Pacers were asking for too much.

So if Crowder is as good as you say, why would Ainge want George, Butler, or Hayward?

.[/quote]

Smart will remain the 6th man.

Crowder, Bradley, and Rozier need to go.

If Celts can't get Hayward then go after Gallinari.

Bradley is too small to be a starting SG.
That's why Fultz over Josh Jackson.

Celtics are fine at the SF spot with Jaylen Brown.
Brown has star potential.
Josh Jackson will be redundant.

Crowder - not starter material, that's why Celts need an upgrade at the starting SF spot

Bradley - too small to be a starting SG, Fultz is an upgrade

Rozier - does not deserve to be a 3rd string PG with the Celts, he's better off with another team
[/quote]

one reason Jackson may not be redundant is the ability of he and Jaylen to play the 3 or 2 spots on offense and defense. Along with the fact the consensus is the top 4-5 player in this draft are all SF or Guards.


Crowder can and has played PF in many linups and could continue to get minutes with Jackson (or tatum) being Danny's pick.

I also disagree that Hayward will sign here, Danny only has so much money to spend and another max contract in unlikely, IMO. Utah can and will off more.

as you've noted our team is heavy at guard and solid at SF right now, with the way the draft is looking I see any FA upgrades as being a big man of some type.

and I do NOT like Galinari (though I've read that Danny does........ .

"Getting role players is easier compared to getting star players."

Not when you get rid of an 8 million dollar guy to pay another guy 25 million to make the same impact.

Ask the Clippers or Wizards how easy it is to get role players. When you throw too much money around, you lose the ability to add role players.

And you think Danny is going to draft Fultz just to sit him on the bench behind IT for 5 years, paying IT 25 million a year to do the same job?

And if Hayward or George were here, Isaiah would only be averaging 20 ppg, and everybody else on the team would be frustrated about not getting regular shots. Better to have one ball dominant guy with a bunch of willing passers around him, than two ball dominant guys and everybody else is completely out of rhythm.

We're the #1 seed, in the Eastern Conference Finals. The sports media might be writing us off, but we're about to give Cleveland a serious run for their money, just the way we are.

http://stats.nba.com/teams/traditional/#!?sort=W_PCT&dir=-1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Playoffs


Boston Celtics team shooting, regular season = 45.4%

Boston Celtics team shooting, playoffs-to-date  = 46.5%


Boston Celtics team 3pt shooting, regular season = 35.9%

Boston Celtics 3pt shooting, playoffs-to-date = 37.4%


Boston Celtics fta, regular season = 21.4 per game

Boston Celtics ftas, playoffs-to-date = 23.2 per game.


So, the premise that fg% goes down in the playoffs is not necessarily true, nor is the idea that the refs swallow their whistles and don't call fouls like they do during the regular season.  If you look at GSW, San Antonio and Cleveland's numbers, they hold up as well.  Team offense should still generate good looks and good shots.  

Boston Celtics assists, regular season = 25.2
Boston Celtics assists, playoffs-to-date = 27.3

The extra pass, better ball movement has improved our fg% in the playoffs.

Do one-one-one players shoot worse in the playoffs?  Curry is shooting 61.5% in the playoffs, Durant 60%, LeBron 55.7%, IT 44.1%.  IT shot 46.3% during the regular season, so he's off a bit.

You need go-to guys.  You need a guy who, when the chips are down and you need, absolutely need, points they will get them for you.  Did Kobe have a lot of stinker games, where he shot 8-28 or such?  Yes, but if the game was close, if it was just a couple of possessions difference either way, you wanted the ball in his hands.  Everybody can't be a complementary player unless you have depth in skill sets in your starters.  IT and Horford are both good ball distributors.  I don't have the stats, but I'll bet our assists/possession goes up when Marcus Smart is on the floor with IT and Horford because Smart can play half court point pretty well.  If Marcus Smart could shoot he'd be the perfect player.

I think that is even more true in this more offensively-oriented NBA.  Forget a moment about the Porzingis/Bender/Maker/Freak fascination du jour, shooters are shooters.



bob


.

bobheckler wrote:http://stats.nba.com/teams/traditional/#!?sort=W_PCT&dir=-1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Playoffs


Boston Celtics team shooting, regular season = 45.4%

Boston Celtics team shooting, playoffs-to-date  = 46.5%


Boston Celtics team 3pt shooting, regular season = 35.9%

Boston Celtics 3pt shooting, playoffs-to-date = 37.4%


Boston Celtics fta, regular season = 21.4 per game

Boston Celtics ftas, playoffs-to-date = 23.2 per game.


So, the premise that fg% goes down in the playoffs is not necessarily true, nor is the idea that the refs swallow their whistles and don't call fouls like they do during the regular season.  If you look at GSW, San Antonio and Cleveland's numbers, they hold up as well.  Team offense should still generate good looks and good shots.  

Boston Celtics assists, regular season = 25.2
Boston Celtics assists, playoffs-to-date = 27.3

The extra pass, better ball movement has improved our fg% in the playoffs.

Do one-one-one players shoot worse in the playoffs?  Curry is shooting 61.5% in the playoffs, Durant 60%, LeBron 55.7%, IT 44.1%.  IT shot 46.3% during the regular season, so he's off a bit.

You need go-to guys.  You need a guy who, when the chips are down and you need, absolutely need, points they will get them for you.  Did Kobe have a lot of stinker games, where he shot 8-28 or such?  Yes, but if the game was close, if it was just a couple of possessions difference either way, you wanted the ball in his hands.  Everybody can't be a complementary player unless you have depth in skill sets in your starters.  IT and Horford are both good ball distributors.  I don't have the stats, but I'll bet our assists/possession goes up when Marcus Smart is on the floor with IT and Horford because Smart can play half court point pretty well.  If Marcus Smart could shoot he'd be the perfect player.

I think that is even more true in this more offensively-oriented NBA.  Forget a moment about the Porzingis/Bender/Maker/Freak fascination du jour, shooters are shooters.



bob


.

My premise was about 3 point fg% of star shooters. For their careers, Bird, Ray, Reggie, Steph, and Klay all shoot lower 3 pt % in the playoffs than regular season.

OK now to throw something else to wall in this thread......


what would everyone think IF Danny TRADES the top pick?




I'll get this $hitstorm started

Danny trades #1 pick and A. Bradley to Utah for R. Gobert, R. Hood and the #24 pick.

we take on an additional $10M in salary on (Gobert is signed for 4 More years now). leaving us plenty of room to resign Kelly or match any offer. Utah has moeny to resign Hayward AND get the top pick in this years draft for the point guard they need to team with Hayward and Bradley.

our roster next year is:

Gobert
Horford
Zeller
Zizic
Kelly
Yabusele
Crowder
Jaylen
Hood
Smart
Thomas
Rozier
T. Ferguson- #24 pick

players on the bubble:
D. Jackson
J. Mickey
Nader

Danny could also drop Zeller before his salary become guaranteed and use the money for another mid level vet player who may fit better, without moving into tax territory.

another mock draft with a surprise at the top.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/2017-nba-mock-draft-after-winning-top-pick-celtics-go-with-dukes-jayson-tatum/

Rmbone wrote:

bobheckler wrote:http://stats.nba.com/teams/traditional/#!?sort=W_PCT&dir=-1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Playoffs


Boston Celtics team shooting, regular season = 45.4%

Boston Celtics team shooting, playoffs-to-date  = 46.5%


Boston Celtics team 3pt shooting, regular season = 35.9%

Boston Celtics 3pt shooting, playoffs-to-date = 37.4%


Boston Celtics fta, regular season = 21.4 per game

Boston Celtics ftas, playoffs-to-date = 23.2 per game.


So, the premise that fg% goes down in the playoffs is not necessarily true, nor is the idea that the refs swallow their whistles and don't call fouls like they do during the regular season.  If you look at GSW, San Antonio and Cleveland's numbers, they hold up as well.  Team offense should still generate good looks and good shots.  

Boston Celtics assists, regular season = 25.2
Boston Celtics assists, playoffs-to-date = 27.3

The extra pass, better ball movement has improved our fg% in the playoffs.

Do one-one-one players shoot worse in the playoffs?  Curry is shooting 61.5% in the playoffs, Durant 60%, LeBron 55.7%, IT 44.1%.  IT shot 46.3% during the regular season, so he's off a bit.

You need go-to guys.  You need a guy who, when the chips are down and you need, absolutely need, points they will get them for you.  Did Kobe have a lot of stinker games, where he shot 8-28 or such?  Yes, but if the game was close, if it was just a couple of possessions difference either way, you wanted the ball in his hands.  Everybody can't be a complementary player unless you have depth in skill sets in your starters.  IT and Horford are both good ball distributors.  I don't have the stats, but I'll bet our assists/possession goes up when Marcus Smart is on the floor with IT and Horford because Smart can play half court point pretty well.  If Marcus Smart could shoot he'd be the perfect player.

I think that is even more true in this more offensively-oriented NBA.  Forget a moment about the Porzingis/Bender/Maker/Freak fascination du jour, shooters are shooters.



bob


.

My premise was about 3 point fg% of star shooters. For their careers, Bird, Ray, Reggie, Steph, and Klay all shoot lower 3 pt % in the playoffs than regular season.

Rmbone,

But does their 3pt shooting decline greater than, equal to or less than other 3pt shooters? If they are an elite shooter hitting 40% during the year and drop, say, to 38% in the playoffs how does that compare to a 35% shooter regular season? Does the inferior, mediocre shooter drop off more? It's not just about 3pt fg% dropping, it's who drops more (or contrariwise, if 3pt fg% went UP during the playoffs then the question would be do elite 3pt shooters' fg% increase more than mediocre 3pt fg shooters). They aren't playing in a vacuum or on NBA 2k, they are playing against other players who are feeling the same pressure. Who feels more pressure taking a 3pt shot, an average shooter or an assassin?

Then there are the players who love pressure. Marcus Smart, for one. Has to be the worst shooter in the league except for when the game is on the line and in the playoffs. A 28.3% 3pt fg shooter regular season is 38.8% playoffs-to-date. Same with Rozier. 31.8% regular season, 44% playoffs. Horford, 35.5% regular season, 58.3% playoffs. This is why I'm tracking players' playoff stats. Who steps up?


bob


.

I doubt the Celtics would take Jackson with the number one pick. Since Fultz seems to be the guy everyone wants, if the Celtics want to go that way (not saying they should...), they would be better off trading the number one to either the Lakers or Philly. For some reason I see the Lakers taking Lonzo, so we could conceivably give Philly our 1st pick for their 3rd and some other assets - that way we would still get Jackson and accumulate additional assets. This would be the Belichick move. Please note that I am not recommending this course of action, just saying that if you want Jackson, that would be the way to go. I have to do more research before saying Jackson would be a better pick than Fultz, who seems to have no weakness other than coming off as a little melo. Also, I think I'd rather draft a league mvp than a finals mvp - you gotta get to the finals first, and finals mvp is kind of quirky (please don't tell me Iggy was more valuable to that team than Steph). Finally, the analysis of 2-pt vs 3-pt shooters getting the finals mvp is not fair. the 3 pt "revolution" is only a few years old, so it is not surprising that 2-pt shooters dominated the finals mvp in the past.

kdp59 wrote:OK now to throw something else to wall in this thread......


what would everyone think IF Danny TRADES the top pick?




I'll get this $hitstorm started

Danny trades #1 pick and A. Bradley  to Utah for R. Gobert, R. Hood and the #24 pick.

we take on an additional $10M in salary on (Gobert is signed for 4 More years now). leaving us plenty of room to resign Kelly or match any offer. Utah has moeny to resign Hayward AND get the top pick in this years draft for the point guard they need to team with Hayward and Bradley.

our roster next year is:

Gobert
Horford
Zeller
Zizic
Kelly
Yabusele
Crowder
Jaylen
Hood
Smart
Thomas
Rozier
T. Ferguson- #24 pick

players on the bubble:
D. Jackson
J. Mickey
Nader

Danny could also drop Zeller before his salary become guaranteed and use the money for another mid level vet player who may fit better, without moving into tax territory.

No way. We would be getting fleeced. If we trade this pick, it has to be for a superstar, not just a star/allstar. If we could get Anthony Davis, maybe, but that would require this year's number one pick, Brooklyn's next year, and probably more...

Shamrock1000 wrote:I doubt the Celtics would take Jackson with the number one pick. Since Fultz seems to be the guy everyone wants, if the Celtics want to go that way (not saying they should...), they would be better off trading the number one to either the Lakers or Philly. For some reason I see the Lakers taking Lonzo, so we could conceivably give Philly our 1st pick for their 3rd and some other assets - that way we would still get Jackson and accumulate additional assets. This would be the Belichick move. Please note that I am not recommending this course of action, just saying that if you want Jackson, that would be the way to go. I have to do more research before saying Jackson would be a better pick than Fultz, who seems to have no weakness other than coming off as a little melo. Also, I think I'd rather draft a league mvp than a finals mvp - you gotta get to the finals first, and finals mvp is kind of quirky (please don't tell me Iggy was more valuable to that team than Steph). Finally, the analysis of 2-pt vs 3-pt shooters getting the finals mvp is not fair. the 3 pt "revolution" is only a few years old, so it is not surprising that 2-pt shooters dominated the finals mvp in the past.

Shamrock you touched on many key points that I was thinking about

I think that if you campaign for a player you should at least disclose  their weaknesses.  So here is my take on the Fultz/Jackson discussion.

The 3pt shot is here to stay and any suggestions that it is not all that important is not based in reality. This should be considered in the context of who the Boston Celtics are and how do they play offense.  Even the casual observer could not overlook how many 3 point shots the Celtics take each game.  This playoffs the Celtics are putting up 34.9 3 pt attempts out of 83.3 FGA.  That is 42% of all FG's taken.  How long have we talked about the need to improve our 3 pt shooting?

There are many reasons NOT TO draft Jackson over Fultz

For a SF Jackson's wingspan is less than impressive.  As a matter of fact Fultz has the same wingspan as Jackson 6'9.75"

Jackson has a strange twitch on his jump shot where he holds the ball low, raises it up, twitches and then release the ball.

Jackson has a slight frame and there are questions about his ability to add strength which will be needed if you project him to play PF in a small lineup

Jackson is poor shooting off the pick and roll or in isolation 28%

Jackson is poor shooting the ball off the dribble 20%

Jackson is redundant since the Celtics used the 3rd pick in the draft last year to draft SF Jaylen Brown.  The Celtics also have Jae Crowder at SF under a team friendly contract.  The Celtics are in need of a reliable scorer off the bench and if that scorer can play two positions it would be even better.  Fultz is the perfect combo guard.

Jackson is a solid defender and averaged 1.7 steals and 1.1 blocks last season while Fultz averaged 1.6 steals and 1.2 blocks per game.

Jackson does not have a great handle.

Jackson is a horrible free throw shooter.

Considering that Fultz has a complete skill set (must work on his FT %) and Jackson does not it clear to most knowledgeable basketball fans that Fultz is the clear choice for the # 1 pick.  If I team was looking to add a high end SF,  Jason Tatum would also be a consideration.

dboss