The Cost Of Moving Up

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/basketball/celtics/ben-rohrbach/2015/06/12/celtics-draft-preview-cost-trading




CELTICS DRAFT PREVIEW: COST OF TRADING UP
Fri, 06/12/2015 - 10:39am

by Ben Rohrbach




Draft day is always wild when Danny Ainge is involved.



Danny Ainge isn’t afraid to make a deal. He didn’t earn the nickname “The Wolf of Causeway Street” for nothing. (And, yes, I gave him that nickname, and, no, I don’t care if nobody else calls him that.)

Since the end of the 2012-13 NBA season, Ainge has made roughly 7,352,958 trades, and the draft has become the millionaire’s version of a swap meet the past several seasons, featuring an average of 12 draft-day deals over the past five years (including 15 in each of the past two seasons). So, it’s safe to assume the Celtics president of basketball operations will be working the phones on June 25.

A recent report by longtime Milwaukee Bucks beat reporter Gery Woelfel indicated the Celtics are actively shopping their 16th and 28th picks to move into the lottery, supporting an earlier Comcast claim that the C’s are “very open” to moving up for the likes of Willie Cauley-Stein -- a projected top-10 selection later this month -- which is sort of like saying I’m “very open” to the idea of free pizza.

But what would it take to move into the lottery? Often times, it’s a whole lot more than you’d want to give up, if history is any indication. We took a look at the last time a team traded into the lottery for each of the top 14 picks and what the Celtics would have to give up to match such an offer.


No. 1

1986: In a trade that may be responsible for setting the 76ers back going on three decades now, Philadelphia dealt the No. 1 overall pick (Brad Daugherty) to the Cavaliers for Roy Hinson and cash.

2015: Hinson was a 24-year-old forward (6-foot-9, 210 pounds) who was coming off a season in which he averaged 19.6 points and 7.8 rebounds in 34.6 minutes per game for Cleveland, and he played a grand total of 105 games for the Sixers before they dumped him on New Jersey a year later. Somehow I don’t picture Flip Saunders dealing his No. 1 pick for Jared Sullinger and cash.

As a general rule, teams require a top-five pick to even think about moving into the top four, as was the case in 1993, when the Warriors traded the No. 3 pick (Anfernee Hardaway) and three future first-rounders (Todd Fuller, Vince Carter and Mike Miller) for the No. 1 overall selection (Chris Webber). For the most part, GMs have wised up to the importance of a high lottery pick.


No. 2

2001: One year removed from Elton Brand’s Rookie of the Year campaign, the Bulls dealt the former No. 1 overall pick to the Clippers for the No. 2 pick (Tyson Chandler) and Brian Skinner.

2015: Second-team All-Rookie selection Marcus Smart is the closest thing the Celtics have to Brand, but he’s not going to get it done for (most likely) Jahlil Okafor. Throw in James Young, and the C’s are closer to Portland’s 2006 package of the No. 4 pick (Tyrus Thomas) and young Russian big man Viktor Khryapa for Chicago’s No. 2 pick (LaMarcus Aldridge) and a future second-rounder -- but even that isn’t enough to convince the Lakers to part with a talent equally as promising as Aldridge.


No. 3

2001: The Grizzlies swapped a productive Shareef Abdur-Rahim and the No. 27 pick (Jamaal Tinsley) with the Hawks for the No. 3 pick (Pau Gasol), Lorenzen Wright and Brevin Knight.

2015: Noticing a trend yet? The five previously mentioned players selected in the top three (Daugherty, Webber, Chandler, Aldridge and Gasol) have all gone on to make at least one All-NBA roster. The five players traded for those picks combined for one All-NBA bid (Brand in 2005-06). General managers aren’t as dumb as they used to be. Besides, the Celtics don’t even have anyone to deal as good as Abdur-Rahim, who earned his only All-Star nod the season after he was traded.


No. 4

1972: The Suns dealt Otto “Say No” Moore to the Rockets for the No. 4 pick (Corky Calhoun).

2015: Do you remember ol’ Otto and the last Corky ever to play in the NBA? Neither do I. That’s how long it’s been since a team traded into the lottery for the fourth overall pick. In 1998, the Warriors made the mistake of dealing their No. 5 pick (Vince Carter) and cash to the Raptors for the right to draft Antawn Jamison at No. 4, but need I remind you the Celtics don’t have a top-five pick? They do have the No. 6 pick from last year's draft (Smart), and that might help get the conversation started.


No. 5

2007: Ainge was on the other end of this deal, sending the fifth pick (Jeff Green) along with Wally Szczerbiak, Delonte West and a 2008 second-round pick (Trent Plaisted) to Seattle for Ray Allen and the No. 35 pick (Glen Davis) in a deal that helped deliver the last championship to Boston.

2015: The Celtics don't have a future Hall of Famer to trade, and the Magic aren't looking to add veteran stars around Paul Pierce as Ainge was in 2007, so prying this pick from the Magic is a tall order. The most attractive asset Ainge has to offer a young team on the rise with its future backcourt already in place is next year's unprotected Nets pick, and Ainge still would have to sweeten that pot.


No. 6

2013: The 76ers traded All-Star point guard Jrue Holiday and the No. 42 pick (Pierre Jackson) to the Pelicans for the No. 6 pick (Nerlens Noel) and a top-five protected 2014 first-rounder (Elfrid Payton).

2015: The Sixers ultimately sent Payton to the Magic for the No. 12 selection in 2014 (Dario Saric) and a couple of still-outstanding future picks, so Philadelphia’s grade for this deal is yet to be determined. Regardless, Philly probably won’t be regretting this trade the way the Bucks have been since 1998, when Milwaukee sent Nos. 9 (Dirk Nowitzki) and 19 (Pat Garrity) to the Mavericks for the sixth pick (Robert Traylor). But would Ainge really be willing to send Smart and a top-five protected pick next season to the Kings for the right to draft whoever slides to sixth this year?


No. 7

2004: The Bulls traded a conditional future first-rounder (Nate Robinson), the No. 31 pick (Jackson Vroman) and cash to the Suns for No. 7 (Luol Deng).

2015: This is one of the worst draft-day deals of the past quarter-century, and while the Nuggets have made some questionable moves in recent years, it's hard to imagine Denver parting with the seventh pick for an offer as cheap as a late first-rounder and early second-rounder. I'm not even sure Ainge would send the 28th and 33rd pick for No. 7 out of fear he'd be committing highway robbery.


No. 8

2007: The Warriors traded Jason Richardson and the No. 36 pick (Jermareo Davidson) to the Bobcats for the No. 8 pick (Brandan Wright).

2015: Keep in mind, Richardson was a productive player for a Golden State team that was coming off a Western Conference semifinals appearance, so his inclusion in this trade was significant -- arguably the equivalent of the C’s parting with Isaiah Thomas for Detroit's No. 8 pick this summer.


No. 9

2000: The Bucks traded the No. 15 pick (Jason Collier) and a future first-rounder (Jeryl Sasser) to the Rockets for the No. 9 pick (Joel Przybilla).

2015: This is where the Celtics can really start thinking about packaging picks to move into the lottery, although Nos. 16 and 28 isn’t quite what Houston ultimately received for the ninth pick (Nos. 15 and 22). Likewise, in 2013, Minnesota received Nos. 14 (Shabazz Muhammad) and 21 (Gorgui Deng) from the Jazz in exchange for the ninth pick (Trey Burke) in a deal Utah would rather have back. Ainge does also have pick No. 33 to throw into the mix, and that could get a deal done.


No. 10

2000: The Clippers traded a future first-round pick (Marcus Williams) to the Magic for the No. 10 pick (Keyon Dooling), Corey Maggette, Derek Strong and cash.

2015: At the time, Orlando must have been banking on the Clippers being the Clippers for the foreseeable future -- generally a safe bet when Elgin Baylor was still running basketball operations -- but this was a horrible deal in hindsight for a number of reasons: a) the pick didn’t pay off for another six years, b) L.A. made the playoffs for the first time in nine years that season, c) Maggette was a productive player on that team and d) Baylor somehow won 2006 Executive of the Year. This would be like Pat Riley swapping the Heat’s No. 10 pick with Ainge for Brooklyn’s 2018 first-round pick, only for Billy King to win Executive of the Year during an unlikely Nets resurgence.


No. 11

2014: The Bulls sent Nos. 16 (Jusuf Nurkic) and 19 (Gary Harris) as well as a 2015 second-rounder to the Nuggets for No. 11 (Doug McDermott) and Anthony Randolph, who was later dealt to and waived by the Magic.

2015: This is the equivalent of giving up three swings at the bat for one chance at a better pitch. Then again, it’s not like Ainge, who has four picks in this year’s draft, is really interested in adding that many rookies to the training camp roster, so by all means he should go after a guy he believes to be a home run. But Ainge hasn’t had too many homers on the baseball field or in the basketball front office. There’s also still a chance both Nurkic and Harris will be better pros than McDermott, so it’s important to tread lightly when making a two- or three-for-one deal to move up just five spots.


No. 12

1990: The Heat traded Nos. 15 (Dave Jamerson) and 30 (Carl Herrera) to the Rockets for No. 12 (Alec Kessler).

2015: This is the sweet spot for swapping picks Nos. 16 and 28. Someone like Stanley Johnson, who won a national player of the year award as a senior in high school a year ago, could still be available here -- and he might be worth a two-for-one deal, especially since he fills a need at small forward.


No. 13

2013: Don’t forget Ainge was in the exact same position just two years ago and managed to jump into the lottery, sending the 16th pick (Lucas Nogueira) and a pair of 2014 second-rounders (Cleanthony Early and Russ Smith) to the Mavericks for No. 13 (Kelly Olynyk).

2015: The C’s have as many as 11 second-round picks over the next three years, so Ainge can afford to dump a couple in order to move up a few spots again. Considering his relationship with Phoenix general manager Ryan McDonough, this is a realistic landing spot for the Celtics, particularly if the Suns believe they can get the same guy they would take with the 13th pick a few spots later.


No. 14

1974: The Bulls traded Howard Porter and a 1975 second-round pick (Larry Fogle) to the Knicks for the No. 14 pick (Maurice Lucas).

2015: It’s hard to imagine nobody has traded into the 14th spot in the past 30 years, but the team picking here is more likely to be looking to move up, too, as the Jazz did for Burke two years ago.

If we’ve learned anything from recent history, the Celtics have no chance at trading into the top four. They’d have to part with one or more of their most promising players (Smart and/or Thomas) and picks to move into the 5-8 range. And they’d probably be able to package some combination of their Nos. 16, 28 and 33 picks to work their way into 9-14. There’s also a chance Ainge offers those picks for already established NBA players, but that’s a subject for another day.

Only one thing’s for certain. The Wolf of Causeway Street will be in his element come June 25.



bob
MY NOTE:  One of the better, if not best, columns by Rohrbach.  He actually uses hard examples and research to paint his picture.  It's impossible to predict accurately what will happen, but it's nice to have some history to look at to help sanity check some of the crazier trade ideas that get floated during the pre-draft and pre-trading deadline silly seasons.  I've said before that it might take two deals to get up to WCS, one to get into or close to the top 10 and then another to get to #6 or wherever he ends up going, and this article seems to confirm that.  Trader Danny will be working it, NO doubt about THAT.  It's impossible for him to not try and stir the pot, regardless of the likelihood of success.  He considers it a core duty of his job to know what all his players are worth on the trade block and that means working the phones constantly.  He learned, from Red himself, the need to talk to all of your peers (GMs) almost everyday (that was much easier back in Red's day, of course, there were only 7-8 other GMs to call).  And for what it's worth, Rohrbach, the Gahden isn't on Causeway Street anymore, it's on Legends Way.


.

Actually, by 1990 (when I believe Red was still "The Man," I believe there were 26 other gm's or people in similar positions.  Of course, Red was known for being parsimonious, and the strings between the cans used to wear out something fierce, slowing down the process.  Around the time he was pulling his Bird, Parrish, McHale, Ainge heists, there were roughly 21.

Sam

Great article thanks Bob.

it's good to see some of the past deals all in one spot, it can help "clarify" what  is and isn't probable deal wise.

looks like Danny can move up in the 11-12 range with those two first this year (assuming he has a trade partner of course).

adding a first rounder next season could get us in the 8-10 range by the looks of things.

I said in another thread, I have a feeling Danny may end up targeting Myles Turner instead of Cauley-Stein. The 8-10 range could put him in play if so.

on the other hand a player I would love to see playing for the Celtics would be better than either Turner or WCS, at least in my opinion could , perhaps, maybe, slim chance end up on the trading block?

http://section215.com/2015/06/05/sixers-news-nerlens-noel-edits-out-sixer-jersey-from-camp-advertisement/

Hinkie, Danny has #16 and first and second next year with your name one it right now....hurry!

kdp59 wrote:Great article thanks Bob.

it's good to see some of the past deals all in one spot, it can help "clarify" what  is and isn't probable deal wise.

looks like Danny can move up in the 11-12 range with those two first this year (assuming he has a trade partner of course).

adding a first rounder next season could get us in the 8-10 range by the looks of things.

I said in another thread, I have a feeling Danny may end up targeting Myles Turner instead of Cauley-Stein. The 8-10 range could put him in play if so.

kdp,

I agree. This doesn't mean that Danny, or someone else, can't pull off a jaw-dropper but this column provides some idea of what has been done already. It has been pointed out many times that it takes two to tango, you can't make a trade without a willing trading partner. Now we have an idea of what kind and amount of sugar might have to be added to be added to get us to where we'd like to go.

#11/12 + future pick (which gets us to #8-10) + Bradley for #6? Two different deals (or one more difficult one that rolls it all together) boiling down to two (one a lottery pick this year) picks plus a young player named to the All-Defense team multiple times = WCS.


bob



.

I know this is a Celtics forum, but since I don't chat on Lakers forums (I know, hard to understand), I wanted to throw out a non Celtics trade proposal. 
Let's say the set back that Embiid had is at least significant enough to miss significant time or need surgery again. Their only reliable big man is Noel. They need another big plus a pg since they traded carter-Williams. With the #3 pick, they can draft either either a big (Okafor, Porzingis) or a pg (Russell or Mudiay). 
What if they can get 2 for 1 player?
Who says no to this trade proposal? 
Randle, Clarkson and the #27 pick to Philly for the #3 pick. 
Randle looks great this offseason. 
Thoughts?

TJ,

When you say "a 2 for 1 player," do you mean picking both 2nd and third—basically in return for Randle?  I'd usually be against trading one potential difference-maker for another difference-maker (unless the trade corrects a roster imbalance); but trading one potential difference-maker for two potential  difference-makers could be worth the risk.

And I'm glad you're not reluctant to pose any trade you wish, whether or not it involves the Celtics.  Frankly, I'm hoping the Lakers will make similar progress in the West to the progress I'm hoping the Celts will make in the East because, the sooner they're playing one another in the finals, the better I'll like it.  The championship difference stands at only one, and I want the Celtics to have their own opportunities to influence the ongoing tally. 

Sam

sam wrote:TJ,

When you say "a 2 for 1 player," do you mean picking both 2nd and third—basically in return for Randle?  I'd usually be against trading one potential difference-maker for another difference-maker (unless the trade corrects a roster imbalance); but trading one potential difference-maker for two potential  difference-makers could be worth the risk.

And I'm glad you're not reluctant to pose any trade you wish, whether or not it involves the Celtics.  Frankly, I'm hoping the Lakers will make similar progress in the West to the progress I'm hoping the Celts will make in the East because, the sooner they're playing one another in the finals, the better I'll like it.  The championship difference stands at only one, and I want the Celtics to have their own opportunities to influence the ongoing tally. 

Sam

Sam,

I mean giving up two players (Randle and Clarkson) plus the #27 pick this year for the #3 pick.
Is this fantasy, of course. There's reasons why both teams should and should not make this trade.
The problem with Philly is that they will have a hard time convincing a top tier free agent to sign with them.
I would expect the Lakers could sign a free agent easier than Philly can, so trading Randle and Clarkson is probably worth the #3 pick knowing they could sign another point guard.

TJ,

I was nearly convulsed with laughter about your remark, "I would expect the Lakers could sign a free agent easier than Philly can...."  Ya think?  It was W.C. Fields who once said, "I spent a week in Philly one night."

You and I need to form a vaudeville act.  You get the big red nose, and I get the floppy shoes.

Sam

Hello, all. It seems the topic here - the cost of moving up - is at odds with the prevailing wisdom: the draft is a crap shoot. If it's a crap shoot, who cares when we pick? But IMO it isn't a crap shoot and I'd rather be picking second than 16th, landing a premier big man. Still excited though, and if he is okay physically, I hope we take a flyer on Upshaw. I've tried to learn more about his troubles, to no avail. It would be amazing to land a good center at 16 or 28.
Back on topic, only Cowens, in my memory, seemed to suggest the Celtics would not be better off winning close games against less hungry teams, thereby depressing their draft position. I think Cowens was right. Draft position is no guarantee of success, but it is important. We've quantified it here: the best talent usually goes early in the draft, and your chances of success decrease with every rival who picks before you do.
Think of it like a dance - 30 guys get to ask 30 girls to dance, according to a pecking order. Would you rather go first or second, or 29th and 30th?
Does this mean I espouse t--king to improve our draft position, so we could earn (by NBA standards) a lofty draft position by resting our starters and pacing ourselves? I think that needs to be debated, but more I think the draft needs immediate reform so losing is not such clear path to winning. Hawk

Think of it like a dance - 30 guys get to ask 30 girls to dance, according to a pecking order. Would you rather go first or second, or 29th and 30th?

I guess it depends on if you just want a dance or want to get lucky later in the evening!

Hawk
You know that I am also in favor of high draft picks over wins just for the sake of making the playoffs.

swish

True, Swish. I think it's not uncommon to think this way, but who wants to cheer for his team to lose? The problem IMO is a system that too clearly rewards losing and has few standards for what constitutes an honest effort to win. I like to see guys go all out, but when DA's strategy is to trade players for picks, it would be nice to see the picks keep their value. Hawk

Hawk,

Sometimes examples can be exaggerated.  Losing a few close games does not usually mean the difference between winding up with the 1st choice and the 30th choice....or even the 2nd choice and the 16th.  When basketball becomes a matter of getting off by rooting for a slightly higher draft pick (especially when that's not assured by losing a few more games) rather than rooting for a competitive team that tries its hardest to win, that's when it ceases to be an attractive alternative to dance halls as far as I'm concerned.  Perhaps I'm just too old to gravitate to dance halls any longer.  To each his own.

Sam

I believe Danny knows who he is getting for the center position and it is not Cauley Stein.

Thomas is one of Danny's minions doing his biding just like Wade did with The Queen a few years back.

Aldridge I believe is your free agent that will finally cause fireworks as Wyc predicted last summer, only a year late. Look for the Celtics to fill - in the spots after that.

112288

Hawk
The coach should always coach to win and the players should always play to win. However if the team does not have a realistic chance of grabbing the ring, I'm hoping for losses. And I wouldn't be surprised if a general manager or two might not feel the same way.

swish

Thank god their names are not Danny Ainge.

Sam

http://www.celticsblog.com/2015/6/16/8788415/nba-trade-speculation-would-the-hornets-trade-down-with-the-celtics

at #9 Ainge would still likely need more than #16 & 28 to get it done.

I've been locked in on Turner over the past week as the guy Danny may be looking at , IF he trades up.

But 16, 28 this year and first next year is a lot for one 19YO.

maybe our own pick I could swallow, but certainly not the Nets pick next year, as I think there is a real shot that one is a lottery pick.

we'll see how it plays out soon.

kdp59 wrote:at #9 Ainge would still likely need more than #16 & 28 to get it done.

I've been locked in on Turner over the past week as the guy Danny may be looking at , IF he trades up.

But 16, 28 this year and first next year is a lot for one 19YO.

maybe our own pick I could swallow, but certainly not the Nets pick next year, as I think there is a real shot that one is a lottery pick.

we'll see how it plays out soon.

kdp,

If adding next year's Brooklyn pick gets us to #9 and Miles Turner or WCS (might need another trade for that) then why is that worth less than Brooklyn's pick next year?  Do you think Brooklyn's pick next year will be better than this year's #9?  You think Brooklyn's may be a lottery pick?  #9 is definitely a lottery pick.  We don't need to get younger, and we sure as hell don't need all the draft picks Danny has accumulated, we need to get better and older.  If Charlotte's #9 gets us that upgrade I'll take that bird-in-the-hand over Brooklyn's one-in-the-bush next year.


bob


.

Bob,

I do agree with kdp.
#'s 16, 28 and Boston's 1st round pick next year should get Boston the #9 pick this year.
That still kind of sounds like quite a bit.
Unfortunately, draft picks don't seem to have great value when a team is using them to trade up.
I would not give up a potential high lottery pick in Brooklyn's pick when Boston can give up their own.
I do not expect Boston to be in the lottery next year, so they might be trading away a pick in the mid to high teens.

Guys I want to win as much as anybody, I'm still pissed Danny blew our last legit chance to win with the Perk for useless Jeff Green trade in 11 that killed any chance of winning when KG and Pierce only had an all star season or two left in the tank.....but this team was in MAJOR rebuilding mode, this team wasn't ready for the playoffs and now the Lakers in one year can possibly be landing a franchise player and whos our best player?

Ofcourse if Danny didn't get gunshy and had some balls and drafted Rudy Gobert, who would have made Sully a star in the making, we'd have 2 legit building blocks at 4-5, we'd would be in closer to real playoff mode with a real exciting dynamic strong defensive team in search of a young all star type 3 to complete contender status....all we have now is a good defensive backcourt and a few good/decent role players, not a team ready to go to war.

sam wrote:Thank god their names are not Danny Ainge.

Sam

to each his own, I think Danny is an idiot.

cowens/oldschool wrote:

sam wrote:Thank god their names are not Danny Ainge.

Sam

to each his own, I think Danny is an idiot.

cow,

That's because:

A. You have never forgiven him for moving Perk, even now that he has shown that he isn't worth the contract OKC signed him to.
B. You hyper-scrutinize his failures but don't compare them to all the mistakes every other GM in the league commit.
C. You think that the KG trade was a gift by McHale, despite all the evidence that says it was owner Glen Taylor who nudged KG out the door and not McHale, and even then that was possible only after Danny traded for Ray Allen (which had nothing to do with a previous Celtic connection).


bob


.

As Stephen Colbert would say,

"Danny Ainge; Great NBA GM or Greatest NBA GM?"