If Still Available @ 6, Should Danny pick Embiid?

Heck, I even congratulate the Lakers when they win the championship, and lord knows they're from the land of La La.

Sam

Bob Cooney @BobCooney76
Follow
Source says Sixers are very much interested in grabbing Embiid at No. 3 should he fall to them.
11:34 AM - 22 Jun 2014 New Jersey, USA, United States




bob



.

bobheckler wrote:


Bob Cooney @BobCooney76
Follow
Source says Sixers are very much interested in grabbing Embiid at No. 3 should he fall to them.
11:34 AM - 22 Jun 2014 New Jersey, USA, United States




bob



.

Sounds like a ploy to generate trade interest at the spot. Sixers pick lost a ton of value when Embiid got hurt. Interest from the C's or Lakers to move up could implicitly mean Embiid's ok to draft. But more than that, the value in the group beyond Wiggins and Parker could give the Sixers a comparable player at 6 or 7 that they could have had at 3. Gives them a chance to bank another asset while getting the player or similar player a few spots down to what they would have got.

Very astute Kyle, except the 76'ers themselves are rarely astute. They may actually want to draft a player who will sit out a year like the player they drafted last year.

But the player they had sit out a year is a very similar player to the one they'd draft to sit out a year. I don't think they'd want to reinvest at the same position like that. Exum or Smart or Randle would make a lot of sense for the Sixers.

Yes...any GM with a brain would say that. But we're dealing with Philly!

I don't see anyone who's enough of a sure bet for the Celtics to pony up a player and a pick or a couple of picks to move up.

Sam

beat wrote:NYCelt,



Is your not so little guy playing summer ball? (baseball)

Beat,

Yes, and having quite a season too.  He just made our district's 10U state tournament team.  We're hopeful it won't cause us to start our annual trip to The Cape late but the team looks good.  Besides the state team he's playing on a 10U travel team and a Little League team as well.  You know how it works…I've gotten calls from the managers each time and have been asked to coach on all three.  The state tourney team is a real bear; practice every day from 3:30 to 5:00, somehow I try and fit work in there too!

Sorry to have missed you, Marcus and gyso recently.  The tryout was actually early the next morning.

Regards

Well, Embiid is looking to be in even worse shape than originally thought.  Still any takers if he falls to 6?  Not me.

As for the draft being a crap shoot, please note that San Antonio and OKC, two teams that appear to be in it to contend for the long haul, not just a few years, were built with a combination of good drafting, wise trades and the occasional signing.  I think saying or implying that the draft is an inferior component in building a team is terribly short sighted. I'd say it's an imperfect but important part of the process.

Although I must admit the Celtics have built through some great trades and free agent signings in the past..guys like Jim Loscutoff, Tom Heinsohn, KC Jones, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, Jo Jo White, Dave Cowens, Paul Westphal, Cedric Maxwell, some guy named Bird, Kevin McHale, a baseball player named Danny Ainge, Reggie Lewis, Paul Pierce…

Oh, wait…what's that?  Those are guys we drafted?  Darn crapshoot.  Yeah, let's trade all the picks!   C'mon now; really?

NYCelt wrote:Well, Embiid is looking to be in even worse shape than originally thought.  Still any takers if he falls to 6?  Not me.

As for the draft being a crap shoot, please note that San Antonio and OKC, two teams that appear to be in it to contend for the long haul, not just a few years, were built with a combination of good drafting, wise trades and the occasional signing.  I think saying or implying that the draft is an inferior component in building a team is terribly short sighted. I'd say it's an imperfect but important part of the process.

Although I must admit the Celtics have built through some great trades and free agent signings in the past..guys like Jim Loscutoff, Tom Heinsohn, KC Jones, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, Jo Jo White, Dave Cowens, Paul Westphal, Cedric Maxwell, some guy named Bird, Kevin McHale, a baseball player named Danny Ainge, Reggie Lewis, Paul Pierce…

Oh, wait…what's that?  Those are guys we drafted?  Darn crapshoot.  Yeah, let's trade all the picks!   C'mon now; really?

NYCelt

You certainly have elevated the value of the draft. Those are a lot of great draft picks

Dboss

NYCelt wrote:Well, Embiid is looking to be in even worse shape than originally thought.  Still any takers if he falls to 6?  Not me.

As for the draft being a crap shoot, please note that San Antonio and OKC, two teams that appear to be in it to contend for the long haul, not just a few years, were built with a combination of good drafting, wise trades and the occasional signing.  I think saying or implying that the draft is an inferior component in building a team is terribly short sighted.  I'd say it's an imperfect but important part of the process.

Although I must admit the Celtics have built through some great trades and free agent signings in the past..guys like Jim Loscutoff, Tom Heinsohn, KC Jones, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, Jo Jo White, Dave Cowens, Paul Westphal, Cedric Maxwell, some guy named Bird, Kevin McHale, a baseball player named Danny Ainge, Reggie Lewis, Paul Pierce…

Oh, wait…what's that?  Those are guys we drafted?  Darn crapshoot.  Yeah, let's trade all the picks!   C'mon now; really?

NYCelt,

I think OKC was built far different from SA.
OKC had 3 top 4 picks in three years.
Very few teams have that chance to pick that high that often, make the right picks and get a little bit lucky.

Picks in the late lottery and later are often a crapshoot.

NYCelt,

Red certainly did make a lot of great draft picks.  You mentioned 14 of them.  How about the following 20—all of whom were Red's first picks in a given year?

Ernie Barrett
Bob Stauffer
Ben Swain
John Richter
Gary Phillips
Bill Green
Ollie Johnson
Mal Graham
Clarence Glover
Steve Downing
Glen McDonald (triple OT heroics when fresh off the bench don't count)
Tom Boswell
Norm Cook
Wayne Kreklow
Charles Brdley
Darren Tillis
Michael Young
Sam Vincent
Michael Smith
Acie Earl (one career game doesn't count)

In my calculations, I gave Eric Montross, Len Bias, Greg Kite, Mel Counts, and Charlie Share the benefit of the doubt as to being what I called "solid contributors" (not necessarily all-stars but "solid contributors."

I went back to 1950 and looked up the records through 1997.  I'm not absolutely sure when Red was sort of shunted into the background as far as picks are concerned.  (Ironically, from 1991 through 1997, the Celtics had the best hit rate of all-time, selecting a "solid contributor" with their first pick in 5 out of 7 years.

The majority of guys you listed were around when there were only 8 teams in the draft.  That meant Red could not pick lower then #8, #16, #24, #32, and every 8th pick thereafter until he wished not to select any more.  (Yup, unlimited rounds, when it was not uncommon for the number of rounds to go into double figures.

Nonetheless, from Red's first year with the Celtics throughout the years of the Tyranny, Red selected (with his first draft pick) "solid contributors" in 10 of 20 drafts.  And Red bypassed future all-stars in all 10 of the cases in which he didn't draft a "solid contributor."

From 1970 through 1990, Red selected (with his first draft pick) "solid contributors" in 10 of 21 drafts.  And Red bypassed future all-stars in 7 of the 10 cases in which he didn't draft a "solid contributor."

As I mentioned above, from 1991 through 1997, Red selected (with his first draft pick) "solid contributors" in 5 of 7 drafts.  And Red bypassed future all-stars in both cases in which he didn't draft a "solid contributor."

Looking at 1950-1990, when Red was arguably in his "drafting prime," He misfired on 21 of 41 first picks.  And, in 17 of those 21 "misfired" drafts, he bypassed at least future all-star (and multiple future all-stars on several occasions).

If we look at 1950-1997, the seven years of the 90s paint a little rosier picture, with Red failing to pick a "solid contributor" with his first pick in 23 of 48 drafts, or roughly half.  And, on the 23 occasions when he misfired, he bypassed at least one future all-star in 19 (or 83%) of the cases.

For someone I believe to have been the best judge ever of basketball talent, a roughly 50% "hit rate" and a roughly 83% "all star bypass" rate suggest—in absolutely no uncertain terms—the fact that the draft is, at least once you get out of the lottery, a crap shoot.  Heck, in the early years, Red was essentially in the lottery every season, and he didn't bat more than .500.

And, furthermore, what happens if you misfire in the draft two or three seasons in a row (which happened to Red)?  You resort to free agency (which I'm also not wild about because they often involve guys in decline looking for a last payday) and trades, which (with some exceptions) yield the most evidence of what you can expect out of an incoming player.

I'm not saying the draft is of no value.  Of course it's of value—great value among those who play the crap game successfully.  But, within the context of the overall development (or redevelopment) process, I believe it's about as consistently valuable as Crawford's game was with the Celts.

I have the full rundown on all 48 seasons if you'd like to see it.

Sam

Sam, I resent that fact that you dissed Tom Boswell, one of the great sportswriters ever for the Washington Post and surely a Hall of Famer.

dboss wrote:

NYCelt wrote:Well, Embiid is looking to be in even worse shape than originally thought.  Still any takers if he falls to 6?  Not me.

As for the draft being a crap shoot, please note that San Antonio and OKC, two teams that appear to be in it to contend for the long haul, not just a few years, were built with a combination of good drafting, wise trades and the occasional signing.  I think saying or implying that the draft is an inferior component in building a team is terribly short sighted.  I'd say it's an imperfect but important part of the process.

Although I must admit the Celtics have built through some great trades and free agent signings in the past..guys like Jim Loscutoff, Tom Heinsohn, KC Jones, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, Jo Jo White, Dave Cowens, Paul Westphal, Cedric Maxwell, some guy named Bird, Kevin McHale, a baseball player named Danny Ainge, Reggie Lewis, Paul Pierce…

Oh, wait…what's that?  Those are guys we drafted?  Darn crapshoot.  Yeah, let's trade all the picks!   C'mon now; really?

NYCelt

You certainly have elevated the value of the draft.  Those are a lot of great draft picks

Dboss

NYCelt and dboss,


As Sam pointed out somewhere, Tommy Heinsohn was a "territorial pick", a player whose home was within 50 miles of the team, and that player was picked before the normal first round of the draft (a team could forfeit its first round pick for that player).  That's a big, big edge if you have good local talent that you know will be picked before you get to draft.  That's like the Bobcats being able to leapfrog everybody and draft Jabari Parker because he played at Duke.  Furthermore, with only 8-9 teams in the league, your 2nd round pick was the equivalent of 16-18 in this draft, at worst (e.g., if you picked in the middle of an 8-team league, at 4th, you would have the 4th and 12th picks).  What that means is that every team was likely to have our equivalent of two lottery picks every year.  Philly is considered to be sitting pretty because they have the #3 and #10 picks this year.  That'd be just ahead of middle of the pack back in the '60s and they'd have the chance to maybe have that position and draft there year after year after year.  This is yet another reason why comparing eras is generally not fruitful.  The game time competition was ruthlessly Darwinian back then, in part because each team played each other so much they knew each other cold but also because, with a smaller league, the cream of each draft were making each and every club each and every year.  The 1960 draft went for 21 rounds!  How many of the players that were drafted below, say, the 3rd round (the equivalent of our 25th pick and down) do you think made those teams?  Darwin is a bitch. There are reasons why top draft picks are drafted high and usually have nice, long NBA careers while players who aren't drafted high usually don't.

McHale was the #3 pick.  Larry Bird was the #6 pick (and he was picked as a junior and hadn't declared.  That is no longer allowed).  Dave Cowens was a #4 pick.  Jo Jo was a #9 pick but had a two year military commitment, which Red was able to get shortened, and that probably caused him to drop in the draft to 9.  Maxwell was a #12, Westphal a #10, Pierce was a #10, Danny Ainge was a 2nd rounder, #31, but I don't consider Danny to be a great ball player either.  He also dropped that far because he had already been playing baseball for years and had dropped from GM's radar.  How often is that going to happen?  If MJ had decided to go straight into baseball, would he have been the #3 pick anyway?  I doubt it.  Lewis was a #22 pick.  My point?  Every single one of those players named, with the exception of Reggie and a player that showed that he preferred a career in another sport, was a lottery pick and at least one, Pierce, was projected as a top 3 player and everybody was stunned when he dropped to 10.

Much is made of Sam Presti's drafting prowess, but he got Durant at 2, Harden at 3 and Westbrook at 4 and has Perk's replacement, Steven Adams, at 12.  Sefelosha was #13.  Sure, they did a good job taking Ibaka in the 20s, but who else do they have that wasn't a lottery pick? And they had to suck for years, YEARS, to earn them.  You think the Celtics winning 25 games last year was bad? In 2006-2007 (after which they drafted Durant) they only won 31 games. 2007-2008 (with Durant and Jeff Green as rookies) they won 20 games. 2008-2009 (Westbrook as a rookie) they won 23 games. It wasn't until 2009-2010, with #3 pick James Harden and three other first rounders no lower than #5, that OKC finally broke out and won 50 and even then Jeff Green (a high lottery pick @ #5) was considered a disappointment. That's living through a bunch of really shitty years in a row to go 3-4 on very high draft picks. To paraphrase Moses Malone "Me and four guys from this board could have picked Durant, Harden and Westbrook".  I mean, really, how hard was that?

The moral is:  Lottery picks are less of a crap shoot than non-lottery picks, that's why they're picked sooner, and you usually have to suck to get those picks and that's no fun.  For every Rondo, Bradley and Ibaka there are at least five comparable picks that end up learning a foreign language or needing a day job that offers the flexibility that allows them to be able to go on a long bus ride to play a road game.

San Antonio has done a good job of drafting.  Of course, it didn't hurt getting the #1 picks in both 1987 draft (David Robinson) and the #1 pick in the 1997 draft (Tim Duncan).  Yeah, #1 picks are generally higher-reward, lower-risk selections.  Ok, I'll say that, #1 picks are usually not crap shoots.  On the other hand, over the past 20 years there have been that have been six disappointing #1s (Joe Smith, Olawakandi, Kwame Brown, Bargnani, Oden, Anthony Bennett).  Six out of 20.  That's a 30% failure rate even with the best shot at talent you can get and that doesn't even include players that were good players but not future HOFers (Kenyon Martin, Andrew Bogut, Elton Brand, Yao Ming).  If you throw them into the mix, then it drops to 50/50 and that's not so hot when you're getting the pick of the litter.  Tony Parker was a great pick at #28, no two ways about it, not just because of his play but because, as an owner of a french basketball team, he also has a European scouting team in place year-round and that has brought players under other GM's radar screen to the attention of the Spurs front office.  Ginobili, another great, great pick at 57.  A lot of the Spurs success comes from stability.  They've had the same coach, using the same system, since 1996.  All his players know is his system.  There is a definite advantage to having chemistry and rhythm that has been developed over the course of a decade, rippled only by the addition of a player or two each year.  Red had that too.  We also have to consider that very, very few teams draft as many international players as the Spurs.  Maybe that's what sets them apart and perhaps better?

Drafting well, I think most people would agree, comes with drafting high.  In more unusual cases it is because they know exactly what to look for because they know what their system needs.  Phil Jackson had the triangle, he knew exactly what kind of players he needed to make it work.  Pop has his system and he fills those holes too.  Very few teams, very few, keep coaches around as long as those two at LAL and SAS.  One of the reasons why we were able to get back up on the horse so quickly after Red and Russ faded away is because we had Tommy at the helm from 69-76, he gave us continuity of system.


bob



.

Continuity. Where have I heard that before? Another reason not to break up the team and trade Rondo.

sam wrote:NYCelt,

Red certainly did make a lot of great draft picks.  You mentioned 14 of them.  How about the following 20—all of whom were Red's first picks in a given year?

Ernie Barrett
Bob Stauffer
Ben Swain
John Richter
Gary Phillips
Bill Green
Ollie Johnson
Mal Graham
Clarence Glover
Steve Downing
Glen McDonald (triple OT heroics when fresh off the bench don't count)
Tom Boswell
Norm Cook
Wayne Kreklow
Charles Brdley
Darren Tillis
Michael Young
Sam Vincent
Michael Smith
Acie Earl (one career game doesn't count)

In my calculations, I gave Eric Montross, Len Bias, Greg Kite, Mel Counts, and Charlie Share the benefit of the doubt as to being what I called "solid contributors" (not necessarily all-stars but "solid contributors."

I went back to 1950 and looked up the records through 1997.  I'm not absolutely sure when Red was sort of shunted into the background as far as picks are concerned.  (Ironically, from 1991 through 1997, the Celtics had the best hit rate of all-time, selecting a "solid contributor" with their first pick in 5 out of 7 years.

The majority of guys you listed were around when there were only 8 teams in the draft.  That meant Red could not pick lower then #8, #16, #24, #32, and every 8th pick thereafter until he wished not to select any more.  (Yup, unlimited rounds, when it was not uncommon for the number of rounds to go into double figures.

Nonetheless, from Red's first year with the Celtics throughout the years of the Tyranny, Red selected (with his first draft pick) "solid contributors" in 10 of 20 drafts.  And Red bypassed future all-stars in all 10 of the cases in which he didn't draft a "solid contributor."

From 1970 through 1990, Red selected (with his first draft pick) "solid contributors" in 10 of 21 drafts.  And Red bypassed future all-stars in 7 of the 10 cases in which he didn't draft a "solid contributor."

As I mentioned above, from 1991 through 1997, Red selected (with his first draft pick) "solid contributors" in 5 of 7 drafts.  And Red bypassed future all-stars in both cases in which he didn't draft a "solid contributor."

Looking at 1950-1990, when Red was arguably in his "drafting prime," He misfired on 21 of 41 first picks.  And, in 17 of those 21 "misfired" drafts, he bypassed at least future all-star (and multiple future all-stars on several occasions).

If we look at 1950-1997, the seven years of the 90s paint a little rosier picture, with Red failing to pick a "solid contributor" with his first pick in 23 of 48 drafts, or roughly half.  And, on the 23 occasions when he misfired, he bypassed at least one future all-star in 19 (or 83%) of the cases.

For someone I believe to have been the best judge ever of basketball talent, a roughly 50% "hit rate" and a roughly 83% "all star bypass" rate suggest—in absolutely no uncertain terms—the fact that the draft is, at least once you get out of the lottery, a crap shoot.  Heck, in the early years, Red was essentially in the lottery every season, and he didn't bat more than .500.

And, furthermore, what happens if you misfire in the draft two or three seasons in a row (which happened to Red)?  You resort to free agency (which I'm also not wild about because they often involve guys in decline looking for a last payday) and trades, which (with some exceptions) yield the most evidence of what you can expect out of an incoming player.

I'm not saying the draft is of no value.  Of course it's of value—great value among those who play the crap game successfully.  But, within the context of the overall development (or redevelopment) process, I believe it's about as consistently valuable as Crawford's game was with the Celts.

I have the full rundown on all 48 seasons if you'd like to see it.

Sam

Sam and Bob,

Not a lot of time, as an earlier reply to beat indicated, so I'll consolidate answers.  I appreciate the effort, but can't even begin to set aside the time it would take to go through addressing each point

Obviously more lemons than lemonade, but if you don't make the pick and give it a shot you don't know.  It's like the old salesman's adage that every no gets you one step closer to yes.  I simply can't see and cannot get on board with the opinion that the draft has that little value.  Both well thought out posts as always from either of you, but, getting back to the sales adage, sorry, not buying it.

On Tommy; a territorial pick is still a pick, same risk it doesn't pan out.  You can't cast it aside because the 50 mile rule changed.

For me it's bring on the draft.  You can tell me in a few years if I was right or wrong.

Don't worry, I still think you guys write great and entertaining stuff.  I just think you're both missing the (duck)boat and don't agree with you on this one.

Regards

NYCelt wrote:

sam wrote:NYCelt,

Red certainly did make a lot of great draft picks.  You mentioned 14 of them.  How about the following 20—all of whom were Red's first picks in a given year?

Ernie Barrett
Bob Stauffer
Ben Swain
John Richter
Gary Phillips
Bill Green
Ollie Johnson
Mal Graham
Clarence Glover
Steve Downing
Glen McDonald (triple OT heroics when fresh off the bench don't count)
Tom Boswell
Norm Cook
Wayne Kreklow
Charles Brdley
Darren Tillis
Michael Young
Sam Vincent
Michael Smith
Acie Earl (one career game doesn't count)

In my calculations, I gave Eric Montross, Len Bias, Greg Kite, Mel Counts, and Charlie Share the benefit of the doubt as to being what I called "solid contributors" (not necessarily all-stars but "solid contributors."

I went back to 1950 and looked up the records through 1997.  I'm not absolutely sure when Red was sort of shunted into the background as far as picks are concerned.  (Ironically, from 1991 through 1997, the Celtics had the best hit rate of all-time, selecting a "solid contributor" with their first pick in 5 out of 7 years.

The majority of guys you listed were around when there were only 8 teams in the draft.  That meant Red could not pick lower then #8, #16, #24, #32, and every 8th pick thereafter until he wished not to select any more.  (Yup, unlimited rounds, when it was not uncommon for the number of rounds to go into double figures.

Nonetheless, from Red's first year with the Celtics throughout the years of the Tyranny, Red selected (with his first draft pick) "solid contributors" in 10 of 20 drafts.  And Red bypassed future all-stars in all 10 of the cases in which he didn't draft a "solid contributor."

From 1970 through 1990, Red selected (with his first draft pick) "solid contributors" in 10 of 21 drafts.  And Red bypassed future all-stars in 7 of the 10 cases in which he didn't draft a "solid contributor."

As I mentioned above, from 1991 through 1997, Red selected (with his first draft pick) "solid contributors" in 5 of 7 drafts.  And Red bypassed future all-stars in both cases in which he didn't draft a "solid contributor."

Looking at 1950-1990, when Red was arguably in his "drafting prime," He misfired on 21 of 41 first picks.  And, in 17 of those 21 "misfired" drafts, he bypassed at least future all-star (and multiple future all-stars on several occasions).

If we look at 1950-1997, the seven years of the 90s paint a little rosier picture, with Red failing to pick a "solid contributor" with his first pick in 23 of 48 drafts, or roughly half.  And, on the 23 occasions when he misfired, he bypassed at least one future all-star in 19 (or 83%) of the cases.

For someone I believe to have been the best judge ever of basketball talent, a roughly 50% "hit rate" and a roughly 83% "all star bypass" rate suggest—in absolutely no uncertain terms—the fact that the draft is, at least once you get out of the lottery, a crap shoot.  Heck, in the early years, Red was essentially in the lottery every season, and he didn't bat more than .500.

And, furthermore, what happens if you misfire in the draft two or three seasons in a row (which happened to Red)?  You resort to free agency (which I'm also not wild about because they often involve guys in decline looking for a last payday) and trades, which (with some exceptions) yield the most evidence of what you can expect out of an incoming player.

I'm not saying the draft is of no value.  Of course it's of value—great value among those who play the crap game successfully.  But, within the context of the overall development (or redevelopment) process, I believe it's about as consistently valuable as Crawford's game was with the Celts.

I have the full rundown on all 48 seasons if you'd like to see it.

Sam

Sam and Bob,

Not a lot of time, so I'll consolidate answers.

Obviously more lemons than lemonade, but if you don't make the pcik and give it a shot you don't know.  It's like the old salesman's adage that every no gets you one step closer to yes.  I simply can't see and cannot get on board with the opinion that the draft has that little value.  Both well thought out posts as always from either of you, but, getting back to the sales adage, sorry, not buying it.

On Tommy; a territorial pick is still a pick, same risk it doesn't pan out.  You can't cast it aside because the 50 mile rule changed.

Don't worry, I still think you guys write great stuff and entertaining.  I just don't agree with you on this one.

Regards

NYCelt,


Of course we respect your right to disagree.

Now, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the territorial pick thing.  It does matter and it's not "just another pick".  Let's suppose that a perennial college basketball powerhouse, like Duke, were located in Boston.  How good would it be if the Celtics had first shot at every thoroughbred coming out of Mike K's stable no matter what our drafting order was (Kyrie Irving went to Duke, as did Miles Plumlee and Luol Deng)?  If the territorial pick was still in place I'll bet there'd be lots of people calling for a new Kansas City franchise, since they could get first crack at every KU grad.  All the major market franchises would have a big edge (bigger than already) because of all the universities with big-time basketball programs that are in or near those cities vs OKC and Portland and Milwaukee just because, based on sheer numbers, the chances of producing a high pick quality draftee every year goes up.  It's like saying having the best farm club in the league doesn't give you an advantage.  Of course it does and that's what the territorial pick was, it was a built-in local farm system to promote local interest in the pro team.

If you don't make the pick you never know, true, but based upon the analysis there's a pretty solid chance you don't want to know.  It's like investing.  You want to have some risk in your portfolio because if you're right you'll get great returns but you don't want it to be too much because if you're wrong you're broke.  Draft picks are risky, veteran NBA players are less so.  That's why they cost more, you pay to have some of the risk bled out of the decision.  We have Sully, Kelly, Phil, CJ, Babb (last 3 are unguaranteed).  That's 5 our of a maximum of 15.  I wouldn't have that much risk in my portfolio, I'd want more blue chips.  I'd trade the last 3 for a solid, veteran backup PG like Jarrett Jack in a hummingbird's heartbeat.  Sure, Pressey might go on to become the next Ty Lawson, but with Jack I'd know exactly what I'm going to get AND I KNOW he can play in the NBA.  Not maybe, possibly, give him time, if only he was taller/quicker/tougher/stronger/etc...

High lottery picks aren't that much of a crap shoot, I've pointed out repeatedly how Sam Presti's picking of Durant with 2, Harden with 3 and Westbrook with 4 aren't evidence of GM genius to me, but the further down you draft the longer the odds become.

Are you saying that picking 26th is no better or worse than picking 6th?  If so, then what's so great about the lottery or any draft ordering system?  And if not, then how can you not agree that it becomes a crap shoot unless you suck so bad that you're always in the lottery (and even then, look at Charlotte and how well their draft picking has worked out)?

More lemons than lemonade is precisely my point. Indeed.



bob


.

Bob,

You're wearing me out here!  Honestly, how do you have time for this stuff?  As for the "we respect your opinion to disagree" are you speaking for others, or have you decided to refer to yourself in the first person plural?

No, I'm not saying picking 26th is no different than 6.  Where in the world did you get that one?

I'm simply saying the draft is an important component of building or rebuilding a team.  That's it.  I'm saying it's not a total crapshoot, that good scouting can uncover good players.  I've pointed out several great Celtic players that came to the team via the draft.

It will very likely be years until we contend for a title, and I think the draft is one third of how we use that time to uncover good young players that may develop and stick with what's built.

I'm not certain why you're stretching what I'm saying into something more; let me put it into one pure and very simple statement:

I firmly believe that the draft is one important component to the Celtics rebuilding process.

Regards

NYCelt,

I think that the differences in our respective philosophies regarding the draft is that you are obvious a major and very astute fan of college basketball.  Bob Heckler (I believe I can speak for him because he has said this of himself) and I are not.  Sure, we try to gain enough knowledge of college players so we won't be complete zeros when it comes to the draft.  But you eat and breathe it, going to games and becoming personally excited about college players the way that we (and probably you as well) do about the performances of certain pro players.  In short, college basketball is in your blood.

There can be no question that, over the 64 years of the draft, it has enriched the life's blood of most (if not all) NBA teams and has helped to catapult many (if not all) teams to the pinnacle of NBA greatness.  Obviously, the Celtics have been among the beneficiaries as you very correctly pointed out.

I think the problem in our divergent opinions lies in the fact that, on one hand, we have history of drafts as catalysts to team success.  It's not a stretch to offer Mr. Duncan as exhibit A.

On the other hand, our conversation is not really focused on previous or existing success stories.  It's focused on the rebuilding efforts of one team at one point in time.  I'll speak only for myself on this one because I'm not certain how Bob feels, but I think of the draft as (1) offering only one chance a year to influence a team's progress and (2) frequently producing a player who is either a project or needs time to acclimate to the professional ranks.

Trades, on the other hand, can happen frequently during the year.  Trades can be timed to fit existing needs and impact the fortunes of a team literally overnight.  And trades generally necessitate less guesswork than the draft in terms of handicapping personnel.  (I'm deliberately omitting free agency, which I feel too often runs the risk of getting a player who's on the downside of his career but still on the upside of his salary.  And the cap is a major complicating factor in free agency but not in trades.)

I love the rhythms of the game, the teamwork and chemistry of the game, the aesthetic beauty of the game, the emotions of the game.  When the Celtics went through the 1990s (and then some), I felt dead inside for a prolonged period as far as basketball was concerned.  That experience bred in me a keen desire not to feel dead inside (and, at my age, quite possibly outside as well) again.  Crap shooting aside, I believe the draft is the slowest way to rebuild.  I'm afraid of nodding off permanently (at least figuratively) if this rebuilding bogs down.  I'm also afraid the team will continue to be a lackluster experiment, perhaps making barely perceptible gains, so that good players (Rondo?) won't want to stay or to come to Boston via the draft, free agency, or trade.

Actually, all of life is a crapshoot.  The only entity I know of that is not at risk in one way or another is your company.  If the Celtics keep their picks or trade for other picks, I'll be cheering for anyone wearing the green and white.  I'll just be less likely to get what I'm hoping for within a reasonable time frame.  So be it. I still have all my money (it's in my left pocket), my good looks (I recently fell face first onto the corner of a steel box and my friends are now calling me Frank N. Stein), and my wife and cats (no jokes about them).  And I can only imagine the bond between you and Michael getting a major boost from the excitement of togetherness in watching young guys playing in the infectious environment of college spirit (where he'll undoubtedly be in less than a decade).

Finally, I have to say that, in the process of taking my annual "Draft for Dummies" course, you are the resource in whom I placed the greatest reliance. I know you'll laugh that off and tell what a lousy prognosticator you are, but you really do know your stuff, and I thank you for disseminating it to rubes like me.

Sam

San Antonio drafts well because they scout well, too. They are able to seek out the right players for the system and plug them in.

I think the draft is a crap shoot *most of the time.* But then again, you have years like this, which are few and far between, where you can probably draft into the 20's and still find a quality player. This draft is probably the deepest one since 1996.

I'd agree that drafting is a slow way to build, but it can be potentially better over the long haul, as San Antonio has shown. They've been a good team for the past 15 years. What other team during the same period has been that consistent? Sure, a team can trade for top players and sign high-priced free agents. They are both accelerating their current rebuild and accelerating the onset of the next rebuild. They also have more cap issues when bringing in those players, they probably traded away future 1st round picks, which makes the next rebuild that much more difficult when the time comes.



KJ

San Antonio got lucky with the best PF in history and good enough to be a top 5 center too, Duncan has been the defensive anchor on that team for years, he constantly shutdown the paint vs Heat and made so many great defensive stands and plays that don't even show up on the boxscore. His game is all substance and no flash, he easily makes everyone better just by his oldschool bigman game.

KJ,

Something you said resonated with me.  I don't pretend to be intimate with the drafting policies of the Spurs.  But my guess would be that they draft based on need (or at least based on personnel strategy) rather than the hackneyed "best player available" bromide.  I've never really been a fan of a policy that has an objective of building a fund of talent (regardless of how well they might fit together) rather than building a team.

Sam

Sam,

I could also point out that most NBA players were drafted...

but you might remind me that I liked the JuJuan Johnson pick.

So thanks, but I'll stick with the fact that although I like the draft, you don't want me conducting it!

Regards

k_j_88 wrote:San Antonio drafts well because they scout well, too. They are able to seek out the right players for the system and plug them in.

I think the draft is a crap shoot *most of the time.* But then again, you have years like this, which are few and far between, where you can probably draft into the 20's and still find a quality player. This draft is probably the deepest one since 1996.

I'd agree that drafting is a slow way to build, but it can be potentially better over the long haul, as San Antonio has shown. They've been a good team for the past 15 years. What other team during the same period has been that consistent? Sure, a team can trade for top players and sign high-priced free agents. They are both accelerating their current rebuild and accelerating the onset of the next rebuild. They also have more cap issues when bringing in those players, they probably traded away future 1st round picks, which makes the next rebuild that much more difficult when the time comes.



KJ

KJ,

I couldn't have put the part in bold red better.  I can only add "exactly."

Regards

NYCelt,

Did they actually pick Johnson, or did they trade with the Nets for him?  i also had some hopes for him based on his collegiate defensive credentials.

And another one bites the dust.

Sam