Boston early offseason in review (HW/bondom34/dbrandon/Slava/165bows)

[nowyouknow]

How many teams had better offseasons?

That's not what this is about though. IMO the Celtics had maybe the 2nd best offseason? Not sure who could argue higher than them/KD. Not going to waste time thinking about it. But this is more about how they did compared to how they could have done, without factoring that in of course they had an A+ offseason

I'm with most here, I didn't like the draft. I'd love to see them somehow get in on the Phoenix trade. That seems like it would have matched the win now-and-later. I understand Boston not "pushing all in" but a outbidding Phoenix in consolidation draft trade, using assets that you can't maximize as is, would have worked..

And I'm with the mob that doesn't like Brown and will have to eat crow over it if necessary. I'd rather have Dunn or Bender. Or maybe even Murray. But for the Celtics specifically, I would have traded. And in your opinion, those that didn't watch much college ball but form their opinions off of highlights-scoutingvideos/DX are more suspect than you referencing high school and summer league?

I also am not sure how Evan Turner was a reclamation project but I guess that's just perspective.

On Turner: anytime a #2 pick signs a 2 year/7 million dollar contract it's pretty safe to say it's a reclamation (after being traded for 2nd round picks no less).

The facts so far regarding Brown are that he was a top 5 recruit out of HS and then a #3 draft pick in the NBA. He looked strong in SL and clearly fits the mold of where the NBA is trending toward defensive versatility and positionless basketball.

The mock drafts had Brown pegged from 3-8 (a range where there was a lot of debate about BPA). I guess people have their preferences but I watched a great amount of Murray, Dunn and Bender and I would say that Brown blows Bender and Murray out of the water as an overall prospect. Between Dunn and Brown, I could see a slight edge to Dunn but he is also 3 years older and plays the same position as Rozier, Smart, and Thomas.

As far as drafting to make a trade? No deals for stars were struck so it's pretty suspect to suggest Ainge missed out on a deal that didn't actually happen.

In regards to perspective when grading the offseason, it seems pretty silly to only give out one A grade for the entire league. Signing a top 2 FA pretty much solidifies your offseason in the A range in my opinion. The Celtics also made a slew of picks and maintained roster flexibility to offer a max deal next year.

Sort of hard to grade the Celtics against an arbitrary ideal of what could've been. And like I've said, mock drafts are far from definitive. Rozier is a perfect example from last year as he was reportedly on both Houston and Chicago's radar as well.

[RexRyan]

I went A-. Extending Stevens is awesome for them, he really is a stud coach. How those pieces have all fit together over the last two years has been amazing. Adding Horford is great, and still having plenty of space for next year is great too. Good stuff.

[165bows]

The definition of a reach is literally a guy drafted several spots higher than he was projected. Whether you think his talent merits the draft spot is irrelevant to that definition.

That's exactly the issue with the reach thing, that it is largely semantical. I actually disagree with the definition, a guy is a reach if he was drafted too high relative to his talent level not to pre-draft opinion of him.

Say eg Anthony Bennett turned out to be the next Charles Barkley. Was he a reach? No he was a good draft pick who was improperly evaluated by the media and fans.

So IMO it's totally fine to call someone a reach based on the prevailing opinions of the time, with the understanding that that's what it is, an opinion. Whether he is a reach or not is ultimately determined by the player's outcome.

[Andre Roberstan]

The definition of a reach is literally a guy drafted several spots higher than he was projected. Whether you think his talent merits the draft spot is irrelevant to that definition.

That's exactly the issue with the reach thing, that it is largely semantical. I actually disagree with the definition, a guy is a reach if he was drafted too high relative to his talent level not to pre-draft opinion of him.

Say eg Anthony Bennett turned out to be the next Charles Barkley. Was he a reach? No he was a good draft pick who was improperly evaluated by the media and fans.

So IMO it's totally fine to call someone a reach based on the prevailing opinions of the time, with the understanding that that's what it is, an opinion. Whether he is a reach or not is ultimately determined by the player's outcome.

Yeah, I think the issue is that HW and I (and others) have a completely different definition of it than you guys.

[165bows]

The definition of a reach is literally a guy drafted several spots higher than he was projected. Whether you think his talent merits the draft spot is irrelevant to that definition.

That's exactly the issue with the reach thing, that it is largely semantical. I actually disagree with the definition, a guy is a reach if he was drafted too high relative to his talent level not to pre-draft opinion of him.

Say eg Anthony Bennett turned out to be the next Charles Barkley. Was he a reach? No he was a good draft pick who was improperly evaluated by the media and fans.

So IMO it's totally fine to call someone a reach based on the prevailing opinions of the time, with the understanding that that's what it is, an opinion. Whether he is a reach or not is ultimately determined by the player's outcome.

Yeah, I think the issue is that HW and I (and others) have a completely different definition of it than you guys.

I can't speak for anyone else but that's how I look at it. For me there is a bit too much 'group think' in the NBA mocks as is. I really like guys that can create their own lists based on their own evaluations, like what Dean Demakis has put out or a good handful of the statistical oriented predictions.

Frankly that Ford displayed such bad journalistic ethics and is still working is an insult to fans. Guy should be canned IMO and go back to teaching with his tail between his legs. Shameful that he is still putting stuff out there.

[HartfordWhalers]

The definition of a reach is literally a guy drafted several spots higher than he was projected. Whether you think his talent merits the draft spot is irrelevant to that definition.

That's exactly the issue with the reach thing, that it is largely semantical. I actually disagree with the definition, a guy is a reach if he was drafted too high relative to his talent level not to pre-draft opinion of him.

Say eg Anthony Bennett turned out to be the next Charles Barkley. Was he a reach? No he was a good draft pick who was improperly evaluated by the media and fans.

So IMO it's totally fine to call someone a reach based on the prevailing opinions of the time, with the understanding that that's what it is, an opinion. Whether he is a reach or not is ultimately determined by the player's outcome.

Yeah, I think the issue is that HW and I (and others) have a completely different definition of it than you guys.

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with hindsight -- hasn't achieved equal to where he was picked is a bust, and it is true that you cannot say that a guy is a bust definitively for years.

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with foresight -- who looks picked well before he should have is a reach. And you obviously can say that at draft time. That said, whatever word you like, you obviously can address whether a guy was picked well before he was expected to by experts who are evaluating his potential as a pro. I've seen people trying to dispute that notion (not the term) and that is obviously intellectually bankrupt (and ironic if they also then praise other picks at this same informational juncture)>

[HartfordWhalers]

That's exactly the issue with the reach thing, that it is largely semantical. I actually disagree with the definition, a guy is a reach if he was drafted too high relative to his talent level not to pre-draft opinion of him.

Say eg Anthony Bennett turned out to be the next Charles Barkley. Was he a reach? No he was a good draft pick who was improperly evaluated by the media and fans.

So IMO it's totally fine to call someone a reach based on the prevailing opinions of the time, with the understanding that that's what it is, an opinion. Whether he is a reach or not is ultimately determined by the player's outcome.

Yeah, I think the issue is that HW and I (and others) have a completely different definition of it than you guys.

I can't speak for anyone else but that's how I look at it. For me there is a bit too much 'group think' in the NBA mocks as is. I really like guys that can create their own lists based on their own evaluations, like what Dean Demakis has put out or a good handful of the statistical oriented predictions.

Frankly that Ford displayed such bad journalistic ethics and is still working is an insult to fans. Guy should be canned IMO and go back to teaching with his tail between his legs. Shameful that he is still putting stuff out there.

Here was my post on Brown in particular on the Celtics board:

Jaylen had dropped to 8th in both Chad Ford and Dx's last mock before the draft.
He was 5th on Dx's big board and 6th on Ford's.

And his statistical profile was horrific:
Stats big board rank: 121
Pelton's combined board: 33

When you look more broadly at something like:
http://www.tothemean.com/tools/draft-models/#/2016/dv2/all

He can fall anywhere between 12 in the simple consensus all the way down to 18th in the advanced consensus. And no one there ranks him over 5th. There had slowly accumulated a massive amount of skepticism about Brown before the draft, enough that despite being in the same general tier, Dunn or Murray (or Bender) would have been viewed as less of a surprise pick at #3.

And while it is great to cite that Brown was the 3rd highest prospect in something like RCSI before college http://www.draftexpress.com/RSCI/2015/, it is worth tempering with that Skal was 2nd and went 28th, and Cheick Diallo was 5th ranked for instance.

The tothemean link includes Dean Demakis board in its lists for instance, so you can see there that he had:
Jaylen Brown -- 10th
Yabusele -- 34th.

[bondom34]

If we're saying he wasn't a reach, when most mocks had him after his slot, and most fans at the time felt it was a poor pick/reach, I'm not really sure what defines a reach. The Celtics board itself wasn't happy with the pick largely when it was made, and wanted Dunn and/or a trade.

[nowyouknow]

If we're saying he wasn't a reach, when most mocks had him after his slot, and most fans at the time felt it was a poor pick/reach, I'm not really sure what defines a reach. The Celtics board itself wasn't happy with the pick largely when it was made, and wanted Dunn and/or a trade.

Well I think the idea here is that calling it a "reach" based on mock drafts and fan opinion is one thing.

But you can't actually know if that consensus opinion is an educated one at this juncture.

Further, the mocks and fan opinions may not reflect the opinions of people inside the league.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that Murray, Bender, Chriss, or Hield are better NBA prospects than Jaylen Brown.

Dunn I can see the case for... But looking at the Celtics roster, it's pretty obvious why they chose Brown over Dunn. Comparable upside but at a position of far greater need.

[bondom34]

If we're saying he wasn't a reach, when most mocks had him after his slot, and most fans at the time felt it was a poor pick/reach, I'm not really sure what defines a reach. The Celtics board itself wasn't happy with the pick largely when it was made, and wanted Dunn and/or a trade.

Well I think the idea here is that calling it a "reach" based on mock drafts and fan opinion is one thing.

But you can't actually know if that consensus opinion is an educated one at this juncture.

Further, the mocks and fan opinions may not reflect the opinions of people inside the league.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that Murray, Bender, Chriss, or Hield are better NBA prospects than Jaylen Brown.

Dunn I can see the case for... But looking at the Celtics roster, it's pretty obvious why they chose Brown over Dunn. Comparable upside but at a position of far greater need.

So essentially the case is that nobody knows anything. We've done this one before.

[nowyouknow]

If we're saying he wasn't a reach, when most mocks had him after his slot, and most fans at the time felt it was a poor pick/reach, I'm not really sure what defines a reach. The Celtics board itself wasn't happy with the pick largely when it was made, and wanted Dunn and/or a trade.

Well I think the idea here is that calling it a "reach" based on mock drafts and fan opinion is one thing.

But you can't actually know if that consensus opinion is an educated one at this juncture.

Further, the mocks and fan opinions may not reflect the opinions of people inside the league.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that Murray, Bender, Chriss, or Hield are better NBA prospects than Jaylen Brown.

Dunn I can see the case for... But looking at the Celtics roster, it's pretty obvious why they chose Brown over Dunn. Comparable upside but at a position of far greater need.

So essentially the case is that nobody knows anything. We've done this one before.

At this point, you're correct. You don't really know whether or not it's a reach.

It's fine that you hold that opinion. But acting like this is some written in stone fact before any of these kids have played a single minute of NBA ball is arrogant.

Let's just say that it's "yet to be determined."

[165bows]

That's exactly the issue with the reach thing, that it is largely semantical. I actually disagree with the definition, a guy is a reach if he was drafted too high relative to his talent level not to pre-draft opinion of him.

Say eg Anthony Bennett turned out to be the next Charles Barkley. Was he a reach? No he was a good draft pick who was improperly evaluated by the media and fans.

So IMO it's totally fine to call someone a reach based on the prevailing opinions of the time, with the understanding that that's what it is, an opinion. Whether he is a reach or not is ultimately determined by the player's outcome.

Yeah, I think the issue is that HW and I (and others) have a completely different definition of it than you guys.

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with hindsight -- hasn't achieved equal to where he was picked is a bust, and it is true that you cannot say that a guy is a bust definitively for years.

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with foresight -- who looks picked well before he should have is a reach. And you obviously can say that at draft time. That said, whatever word you like, you obviously can address whether a guy was picked well before he was expected to by experts who are evaluating his potential as a pro. I've seen people trying to dispute that notion (not the term) and that is obviously intellectually bankrupt (and ironic if they also then praise other picks at this same informational juncture)>

That first paragraph rather enforces the semantical nature of it IMO, as we can use that as a working definition but it is also riddled with counter-examples that make it invalid in creating actual strict definitions.

The issue I have with this topic is it is also inconsistent to criticize a pick for being a reach solely on it's own 'reach-iness' merits, as plenty of reaches are lauded as smart picks and across the board people are selective in how they apply whether a reach is truly a negative or not. In other words, no one uniformly hates all picks considered reaches.

So obviously I have no issue with people judging picks at the time and saying whether they like a pick or not. But there is a difference between 'I don't like a pick and it's a reach', and 'I don't like that pick because it is a reach,' which at its extreme looks like Mel Kiper setting a value and simply evaluating things on his own internal value. It is an internal loop.

Without substantiation, it is just not a heavy weight criticism to me, since by and large all serious fans understand the various opinions before the draft, and the relative landing spots of the players as the actual draft takes place. In other words, it goes without saying to some extent, and again no one is uniform in how they approach valuing a reach to begin with.

Brown is a good case in point, as he spent 18 months vacillating among #'s 1-6 on the DX mock before finally settling in at #'s 7-8 for a single month period prior to the draft.

[bondom34]

Well I think the idea here is that calling it a "reach" based on mock drafts and fan opinion is one thing.

But you can't actually know if that consensus opinion is an educated one at this juncture.

Further, the mocks and fan opinions may not reflect the opinions of people inside the league.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that Murray, Bender, Chriss, or Hield are better NBA prospects than Jaylen Brown.

Dunn I can see the case for... But looking at the Celtics roster, it's pretty obvious why they chose Brown over Dunn. Comparable upside but at a position of far greater need.

So essentially the case is that nobody knows anything. We've done this one before.

At this point, you're correct. You don't really know whether or not it's a reach.

It's fine that you hold that opinion. But acting like this is some written in stone fact before any of these kids have played a single minute of NBA ball is arrogant.

Let's just say that it's "yet to be determined."

No, we do know it was a reach. We don't know if it was a bust.

A reach is a pick which is taken before it was projected. That was Brown. A bust is one who is picked and doesn't perform to expectation of that pick. That is to be determined.

Arrogance is saying that we don't know where these picks were projected when we actually have a multitude of sources for that information.

[HartfordWhalers]

Yeah, I think the issue is that HW and I (and others) have a completely different definition of it than you guys.

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with hindsight -- hasn't achieved equal to where he was picked is a bust, and it is true that you cannot say that a guy is a bust definitively for years.

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with foresight -- who looks picked well before he should have is a reach. And you obviously can say that at draft time. That said, whatever word you like, you obviously can address whether a guy was picked well before he was expected to by experts who are evaluating his potential as a pro. I've seen people trying to dispute that notion (not the term) and that is obviously intellectually bankrupt (and ironic if they also then praise other picks at this same informational juncture)>

That first paragraph rather enforces the semantical nature of it IMO, as we can use that as a working definition but it is also riddled with counter-examples that make it invalid in creating actual strict definitions.

The issue I have with this topic is it is also inconsistent to criticize a pick for being a reach solely on it's own 'reach-iness' merits, as plenty of reaches are lauded as smart picks and across the board people are selective in how they apply whether a reach is truly a negative or not. In other words, no one uniformly hates all picks considered reaches.

So obviously I have no issue with people judging picks at the time and saying whether they like a pick or not. But there is a difference between 'I don't like a pick and it's a reach', and 'I don't like that pick because it is a reach,' which at its extreme looks like Mel Kiper setting a value and simply evaluating things on his own internal value. It is an internal loop.

Without substantiation, it is just not a heavy weight criticism to me, since by and large all serious fans understand the various opinions before the draft, and the relative landing spots of the players as the actual draft takes place. In other words, it goes without saying to some extent, and again no one is uniform in how they approach valuing a reach to begin with.

Brown is a good case in point, as he spent 18 months vacillating among #'s 1-6 on the DX mock before finally settling in at #'s 7-8 for a single month period prior to the draft.

That some reaches turn out to be smart doesn't in any way change the definition, I have no idea what you are going for there.

As for the weight of saying a guy is a reach, I think it can have some significant weight depending upon the number of people who feel the prospect did not deserve to be picked where he was and the reasons why they feel that way.

For Brown, I know I explained why I disliked him as a pick and didn't just crutch it with just saying some mocks disliked him:

If the Celtics wanted the most long term upside, I think they should have gone for Murray or Bender. If the Celtics wanted win now production, Dunn. Jaylen Brown gives athleticism, but that alone does not make a guy a great prospect. Even if you think statistical models are getting overrated nowadays, the fact that Brown looked horrific in pretty much all of them has to give you pause. I hated this pick.

[Mystical Apples]

If we're saying he wasn't a reach, when most mocks had him after his slot, and most fans at the time felt it was a poor pick/reach, I'm not really sure what defines a reach. The Celtics board itself wasn't happy with the pick largely when it was made, and wanted Dunn and/or a trade.

Well I think the idea here is that calling it a "reach" based on mock drafts and fan opinion is one thing.

But you can't actually know if that consensus opinion is an educated one at this juncture.

Further, the mocks and fan opinions may not reflect the opinions of people inside the league.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that Murray, Bender, Chriss, or Hield are better NBA prospects than Jaylen Brown.

Dunn I can see the case for... But looking at the Celtics roster, it's pretty obvious why they chose Brown over Dunn. Comparable upside but at a position of far greater need.

Well, it's 2 separate issues confounded by the operating definition of "consensus" mock drafts. Consensus draft boards are incredibly useful but only when the individual components are compiled independently. Personally, I read Draft Express primarily at the exclusion of others but when it comes to "consensus" grades I'd consider all publicly available scouting grades a single entity. As in, a valuable input but 1 input nonetheless.

And yeah, FO's have access to private information but we're talking about 1-5% around the fringes and mostly about medical records. Scouts + models have shown to be reliable compared to relatively meaningless draft combine #upside measurements people clinged to a decade ago.

Ainge continues to be an incredibly effective negotiator (people skills) but his drafting has gotten relatively worse as teams move away from scout-driven FO's. Brown and Horford are Exhibits A1 and A2.

[Golabki]

If we're saying he wasn't a reach, when most mocks had him after his slot, and most fans at the time felt it was a poor pick/reach, I'm not really sure what defines a reach. The Celtics board itself wasn't happy with the pick largely when it was made, and wanted Dunn and/or a trade.

I think it's fair to say he was a reach, but a lot of people would have said he'd go between 3 and 8... probably 5 or 6. So sure... that's a bit of reach, but it's not like people were projecting him in the teens or that there was a clear consensus at #3. In fact the general consensus was that there was no good pick at #3.

I didn't like the pick myself, but I think it was a defensible selection given the situation.

[DocRI]

IMHO, I don't think it's fair to call Brown at #3 a reach. This was generally considered a two person draft, and the term "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" was frequently quoted when talking about the guys ranked #3 – #8. I don't think you can call any team who chooses one guy in the same draft tier over another as "reaching." Now, if the Celts had drafted a guy projected in the next tier down at #3 (i.e. Sabonis, Ellenson, Baldwin, etc.)? Or if the Lakers had passed on Ingram for anyone else at #2? Those would've been reaches.

And just to keep this all focused on the Celts, Yabusele at #16 qualifies as a reach since he was generally projected to go much later. But Brown vs. Murray vs. Dunn, etc., when they were all projected to go within five picks of each other? That's just one team's preference over another, and as has been said, that's what'll get proven out as right or wrong over time. A pick can prove out to be drastically wrong and still not be a reach; trust me, as a Pistons fan, I know (Darko)!

[jayjaysee]

I'm with most here, I didn't like the draft. I'd love to see them somehow get in on the Phoenix trade. That seems like it would have matched the win now-and-later. I understand Boston not "pushing all in" but a outbidding Phoenix in consolidation draft trade, using assets that you can't maximize as is, would have worked..

I also am not sure how Evan Turner was a reclamation project but I guess that's just perspective.

On Turner: anytime a #2 pick signs a 2 year/7 million dollar contract it's pretty safe to say it's a reclamation (after being traded for 2nd round picks no less).

The facts so far regarding Brown are that he was a top 5 recruit out of HS and then a #3 draft pick in the NBA. He looked strong in SL and clearly fits the mold of where the NBA is trending toward defensive versatility and positionless basketball.

The mock drafts had Brown pegged from 3-8 (a range where there was a lot of debate about BPA). I guess people have their preferences but I watched a great amount of Murray, Dunn and Bender and I would say that Brown blows Bender and Murray out of the water as an overall prospect. Between Dunn and Brown, I could see a slight edge to Dunn but he is also 3 years older and plays the same position as Rozier, Smart, and Thomas.

As far as drafting to make a trade? No deals for stars were struck so it's pretty suspect to suggest Ainge missed out on a deal that didn't actually happen.

Sort of hard to grade the Celtics against an arbitrary ideal of what could've been. And like I've said, mock drafts are far from definitive. Rozier is a perfect example from last year as he was reportedly on both Houston and Chicago's radar as well.

I guess, I just still don't think Turner is a good player, he's still the same guy he was in Philly. Portland grossly overpaying him doesn't change my opinion of him. I don't consider Mozgov a good center because the Lakers paid him like one. Nor do I think Belli is worth pick 22 just because Charlotte wanted a shooter and not a kid. Nor do I think Barnes is worth a max. Even once I let the new salary cap settle, these deals and others feel nasty. And Boston was better when he was on the bench?

And a star trade didn't happen.. But there were a lot of rumors. I didn't follow them closely enough to know if Ainge backed out of Butler or if Chicago did. The reported 3/Noel+ (Noel isn't a star I know) trade seemed like an overpay by Philly, I can understand why Boston didn't want a bunch of spare parts. But I think he could have traded those spare parts in a follow up deal to consolidate assets and been fine? Or just trade the later picks for future picks and roll the assets over.

But I didn't suggest Ainge had to trade for a star, so I didn't really need to respond to that. I actually said "I understand Boston not pushing all in" which kind of goes with the idea of understanding them not rushing for a star trade.

I did suggest Ainge offer 16+23 in place of 13+28 and use some of his filler to replace the value of Bogdanovic in that trade. Maybe one of 2nd's. Maybe Hunter. Maybe Memphis first. Wide range of assets to show I have no idea how much value Bogdanovic held in that trade. But Boston has so many spare parts, that they could have lived with the overpay to add a quality big man prospect in Chriss (or Sabonis who I like more, or Maker/Poeltl who I like less)

That trade did happen, so I can say I think Boston would have done well to be push Phoenix out of it.

Your argument;

Sort of hard to grade the Celtics against an arbitrary ideal of what could've been

Is kind of the point behind these offseason grades. What could have been. Philly doesn't get credit for drafting Simmons. Cleveland doesn't get credit for having Lebron James. Milwaukee doesn't get knocked for Midds getting hurt, Dallas doesn't get knocked for having no future.... What teams did with what options they had, not what teams have.

Boston could have traded up in the draft with Sac, even if it was an overpay.. Boston could have traded 16 for a future first. Or Boston could have traded 23 and one of the young guys that aren't going to be in the rotation for a future first. Boston could have seen if Bogut was interested in Boston over Dallas and not brought back Zeller. Boston could have easily beat OKC's offer for Joffrey and enjoyed his small cap hold next summer. Etc?

My post is already long enough but that's all. I still think Boston had a really good offseason thanks to Horford, but they definitely didn't make the most of the assets they had in front of them at the end of the season. Sorry if you disagree.

[nowyouknow]

So essentially the case is that nobody knows anything. We've done this one before.

At this point, you're correct. You don't really know whether or not it's a reach.

It's fine that you hold that opinion. But acting like this is some written in stone fact before any of these kids have played a single minute of NBA ball is arrogant.

Let's just say that it's "yet to be determined."

No, we do know it was a reach. We don't know if it was a bust.

A reach is a pick which is taken before it was projected. That was Brown. A bust is one who is picked and doesn't perform to expectation of that pick. That is to be determined.

Arrogance is saying that we don't know where these picks were projected when we actually have a multitude of sources for that information.

Nope.

According to mock drafts, it was a reach.

However, since you do not know whether or not Phoenix, Minnesota, etc. valued Brown at 4 or 5 it is impossible to say it was a reach for a fact.

Mock drafts are educated opinions. Acting as if they 100% reflect the realities inside the organizations is pure folly.

I also reject the definition of "reach" as exclusively a pre-draft term. If Brown is a good pro, but Bender/Murray/Dunn are better, is Brown a "bust" or a "reach"?

If Brown is better than Murray, Dunn, is he still a "reach"? Based on your definitions, that would mean that if Brown has a great career he was an overachiever, even though he was drafted third.

Semantics for the win.

[bondom34]

At this point, you're correct. You don't really know whether or not it's a reach.

It's fine that you hold that opinion. But acting like this is some written in stone fact before any of these kids have played a single minute of NBA ball is arrogant.

Let's just say that it's "yet to be determined."

No, we do know it was a reach. We don't know if it was a bust.

A reach is a pick which is taken before it was projected. That was Brown. A bust is one who is picked and doesn't perform to expectation of that pick. That is to be determined.

Arrogance is saying that we don't know where these picks were projected when we actually have a multitude of sources for that information.

Nope.

According to mock drafts, it was a reach.

However, since you do not know whether or not Phoenix, Minnesota, etc. valued Brown at 4 or 5 it is impossible to say it was a reach for a fact.

Mock drafts are educated opinions. Acting as if they 100% reflect the realities inside the organizations is pure folly.

I also reject the definition of "reach" as exclusively a pre-draft term. If Brown is a good pro, but Bender/Murray/Dunn are better, is Brown a "bust" or a "reach"?

If Brown is better than Murray, Dunn, is he still a "reach"? Based on your definitions, that would mean that if Brown has a great career he was an overachiever, even though he was drafted third.

Semantics for the win.

Actually you've just proven yourself wrong.

A reach is a pick taken above projection.

Mock drafts are projections by experts.

Common sense ftw. Well done.

And yes, by that definition Brown is still a reach, he was just a good pick. For example at the time, Russell Westbrook was a reach. He also was a good pick.