Boston Early Offseason in Review (HW/Slava/bondom34/Mamba4goat)

[Gant]

C+

Hayward is a big get. But Bradley loss nearly negates that.

I love Bradley but the Celtics had a better record in the 27 games he missed: 19-8, .704 winning %; vs. 34-21, .618 winning % when he played.

They're so deep at off-guard/wing.

[Falstaff]

C+

Hayward is a big get. But Bradley loss nearly negates that.

Throw in the Fultz mistake and the fact that neither rebounding or rim protection has been addressed (the actual weaknesses) and I think it's a failure of an offseason given the level.of assets Boston own.

Not committed either to now, or the future. Just deferred yet again.

Just checking: before the offseason, you had Bradley and Hayward as roughly equivalent players, right? Or is that only the analysis now that they're on new teams?

[bondom34]

And while we're on Fultz, cause I didn't really see this addressed in the topic (unless I missed it)

The Philly trade was another that I didn't love but didn't hate. I'll say this first: I don't buy Ainge would have taken Tatum first overall. Not for a second. And he did pick up an extra asset, but one that may be a bit less valuable after the Lakers got a couple guys where they might not be quite bad enough to get that pick (though I do think they'll still be pretty bad and bottom 5 seems rather possible too). If I'm being honest I'd have just taken Fultz, but that will be seen in the future.

So here was you from 2016 on the draft:

I'm going to be honest, I didn't love the draft. I think Brown was a worse prospect than at least Dunn, and they should have either taken and kept Dunn or traded him. Also, they're getting to a point where they're just having to take guys with the sole purpose of stashing them. Yabusele looked good in summer league, other than that I don't know if there's a difference maker anywhere here and they had to trade 2 picks for a future pick just to get rid of one

So you feel just the year before Danny reached on Brown instead of taking Dunn (as did most of the panel) but don't believe he would reach the next season? I'm curious how you came to that conclusion. There's been enough pushback on whether Fultz should have been a consensus #1 pick, and as we all know, the league is brimming with players who can score 25 points and not win a damn thing.

There's been no pushback on Fultz. And I didn't say Tatum was a reach, but I didn't care for the trade.

Sorry, but the offseason wasn't maximized, and was a B.

[Tai]

And while we're on Fultz, cause I didn't really see this addressed in the topic (unless I missed it)

The Philly trade was another that I didn't love but didn't hate. I'll say this first: I don't buy Ainge would have taken Tatum first overall. Not for a second. And he did pick up an extra asset, but one that may be a bit less valuable after the Lakers got a couple guys where they might not be quite bad enough to get that pick (though I do think they'll still be pretty bad and bottom 5 seems rather possible too). If I'm being honest I'd have just taken Fultz, but that will be seen in the future.

So here was you from 2016 on the draft:

I'm going to be honest, I didn't love the draft. I think Brown was a worse prospect than at least Dunn, and they should have either taken and kept Dunn or traded him. Also, they're getting to a point where they're just having to take guys with the sole purpose of stashing them. Yabusele looked good in summer league, other than that I don't know if there's a difference maker anywhere here and they had to trade 2 picks for a future pick just to get rid of one

So you feel just the year before Danny reached on Brown instead of taking Dunn (as did most of the panel) but don't believe he would reach the next season? I'm curious how you came to that conclusion. There's been enough pushback on whether Fultz should have been a consensus #1 pick, and as we all know, the league is brimming with players who can score 25 points and not win a damn thing.

There's been no pushback on Fultz. And I didn't say Tatum was a reach, but I didn't care for the trade.

Sorry, but the offseason wasn't maximized, and was a B.

I asked why you thought Danny wouldn't draft Tatum #1. I already said I wish the Celtics were able to pull off that trade for Paul George, so I think we agree the off-season wasn't maximized like it should/could have been. But I found it strange that after you starkly insisted Danny reached last season, you claim Danny wouldn't go off-script (since you say Tatum wasn't a reach) a 2nd straight year if the trade didn't happen. Were you referring to him going Josh Jackson instead but Jackson basically gave Danny the middle finger?

[jpengland]

C+

Hayward is a big get. But Bradley loss nearly negates that.

Throw in the Fultz mistake and the fact that neither rebounding or rim protection has been addressed (the actual weaknesses) and I think it's a failure of an offseason given the level.of assets Boston own.

Not committed either to now, or the future. Just deferred yet again.

Just checking: before the offseason, you had Bradley and Hayward as roughly equivalent players, right? Or is that only the analysis now that they're on new teams?

Nope.

Hayward is a better player (although I am also a huge fan of Bradley and have been for a while).

But Bradley's D, plus his offensive ability is a huge bonus for the Celtics. Hayward is a fantastic player, but comes into a crowded SF picture and will be second n offense behind Thomas. He helps take the load off Thomas somewhat but, again, doesn't help the rim protection or rebounding issues that were the main issues for Boston last year.

In a vacuum, getting Hayward is fantastic. And losing Bradley can be lived with. But given the scope of assets that Boston had, to come out of this with the same weaknesses, a loss of Bradley and trading down from Fultz whilst further deferring assets (trading down to get a future pick) is not a good offseason IMO.

Boston are no closer to a championship, are committed to maxing Thomas (or else losing for nothing) and haven't picked up the guy with the biggest star potential even after landing number one.

Boston have done a FANTASTIC job of amassing assets, but you simply have to.maximise that at some point. And right now they continue to split between win now and win future. Whilst acheiving very little.

[jayjaysee]

I'll join the ROI side.

Starting at Fultz.. I don't value that. I don't value LA getting Ball, or any other pick.. I don't even knock Chicago for Lauri or credit Dallas for DSj. We have all been wrong enough.

So I'm starting with the trade back. And I don't like it. Almost everyone, who get paid to have an opinion and us simple fans, have hyped Fultz all year, so downplaying him now that he's not on your/our teams, or because someone shined in SL.. I don't buy it. I do like the insurance they put on the pick.. I do think the 2019 Kings could be better than the 2018 Lakers.. But not very. So most likely just delaying the asset IMO. So I knock the offseason a bit for that..

But the GH signing is all 10s.. No downplaying that.

Morris is good, but on a team with Al and Jae, (Tatum/Brown).. He's aux. He should have been sent to a third team for a future pick. Ideally it could have been a BWright+pick, Alexis+pick, etc.. I understood the trade, but Morris addresses a strength. Which is a waste if you have weaknesses.

Not really a big deal, just a personal taste.

Not getting Paul George/ Butler.. That's the issue to me. So it means the team doesn't have Jae, Morris, or Rozier right now. Or if it had to include Smart, and/or Brown, but involved a third team sending value back to Boston..

And a weak bench behind Horford, George, Gordon, Thomas... Was possible and worth it.

So.. I don't like the offseason because based on the starting point.. It could have been so much better..

But I still wanted to give it the lowest A- possible. Because you shouldn't be able to ruin signing an all-star through his prime.

And I really can't wait to read the 220+ replies on Dallas' big offseason

[bondom34]

And while we're on Fultz, cause I didn't really see this addressed in the topic (unless I missed it)


So here was you from 2016 on the draft:



So you feel just the year before Danny reached on Brown instead of taking Dunn (as did most of the panel) but don't believe he would reach the next season? I'm curious how you came to that conclusion. There's been enough pushback on whether Fultz should have been a consensus #1 pick, and as we all know, the league is brimming with players who can score 25 points and not win a damn thing.

There's been no pushback on Fultz. And I didn't say Tatum was a reach, but I didn't care for the trade.

Sorry, but the offseason wasn't maximized, and was a B.

I asked why you thought Danny wouldn't draft Tatum #1. I already said I wish the Celtics were able to pull off that trade for Paul George, so I think we agree the off-season wasn't maximized like it should/could have been. But I found it strange that after you starkly insisted Danny reached last season, you claim Danny wouldn't go off-script (since you say Tatum wasn't a reach) a 2nd straight year if the trade didn't happen. Were you referring to him going Josh Jackson instead but Jackson basically gave Danny the middle finger?

In that case, I'll ask you why would you draft Tatum 1 and think Ainge wouldn't be saying this anyway? It seems odd that a consensus number 1 pick isn't number 1 on one guy's board, and that's a guy who essentially traded him away.

[Tai]

There's been no pushback on Fultz. And I didn't say Tatum was a reach, but I didn't care for the trade.

Sorry, but the offseason wasn't maximized, and was a B.

I asked why you thought Danny wouldn't draft Tatum #1. I already said I wish the Celtics were able to pull off that trade for Paul George, so I think we agree the off-season wasn't maximized like it should/could have been. But I found it strange that after you starkly insisted Danny reached last season, you claim Danny wouldn't go off-script (since you say Tatum wasn't a reach) a 2nd straight year if the trade didn't happen. Were you referring to him going Josh Jackson instead but Jackson basically gave Danny the middle finger?

In that case, I'll ask you why would you draft Tatum 1 and think Ainge wouldn't be saying this anyway? It seems odd that a consensus number 1 pick isn't number 1 on one guy's board, and that's a guy who essentially traded him away.

Kinda like when he drafted Brown over Dunn? I'm sorry, but is what I'm saying really rocket science to you? You're accusing him of lying about wanting Tatum over Fultz when you know from last year he's willing to reach, and were steadfast Jaylen Brown was a reach when questioned on it.

As far as what's been said about why Tatum over Fultz:

1) As reported, the Celtics saw little difference in at least the top 4 picks, not necessarily that any of them sucked, but that they all were very good, but that none of them stood out. I'm not sure how this doesn't make sense to you: if he really liked Fultz THAT much, why not just take the pick and be done with it? YOU'RE the one suggesting that Danny just do that, but that doesn't mean he actually wanted to.

2) It sounds like Isaiah will more or less be re-signed. Now, to how much money? Who knows. But reality is, if Danny thought the top 4 picks were around the same level, why draft at a position where you feel you're set at, such as at PG? This also eliminates Lonzo Ball too, who didn't want to work out with the C's anyway. In contrast, they're not really set at SF (even if they do have a lot of them, and I'm assuming Hayward is the SG) OR PF (which is why they'll probably be a lotta small ball at the 4).

3) Not as big a deal in and of itself to me, but to your remark that there hasn't been "push back" on Fultz, Tatum won in college, Fultz DID NOT. Neither are known for their defense, but let's not pretend Fultz not being able to win in a weaker conference hasn't been talked about as a concern. Maybe Fultz will be fine, but in addition to all the other factors for the Celtics, it doesn't help his case.

[bondom34]

I asked why you thought Danny wouldn't draft Tatum #1. I already said I wish the Celtics were able to pull off that trade for Paul George, so I think we agree the off-season wasn't maximized like it should/could have been. But I found it strange that after you starkly insisted Danny reached last season, you claim Danny wouldn't go off-script (since you say Tatum wasn't a reach) a 2nd straight year if the trade didn't happen. Were you referring to him going Josh Jackson instead but Jackson basically gave Danny the middle finger?

In that case, I'll ask you why would you draft Tatum 1 and think Ainge wouldn't be saying this anyway? It seems odd that a consensus number 1 pick isn't number 1 on one guy's board, and that's a guy who essentially traded him away.

Kinda like when he drafted Brown over Dunn? I'm sorry, but is what I'm saying really rocket science to you? You're accusing him of lying about wanting Tatum over Fultz when you know from last year he's willing to reach, and were steadfast Jaylen Brown was a reach when questioned on it.

As far as what's been said about why Tatum over Fultz:

1) As reported, the Celtics saw little difference in at least the top 4 picks, not necessarily that any of them sucked, but that they all were very good, but that none of them stood out. I'm not sure how this doesn't make sense to you: if he really liked Fultz THAT much, why not just take the pick and be done with it? YOU'RE the one suggesting that Danny just do that, but that doesn't mean he actually wanted to.

2) It sounds like Isaiah will more or less be re-signed. Now, to how much money? Who knows. But reality is, if Danny thought the top 4 picks were around the same level, why draft at a position where you feel you're set at, such as at PG? This also eliminates Lonzo Ball too, who didn't want to work out with the C's anyway. In contrast, they're not really set at SF (even if they do have a lot of them, and I'm assuming Hayward is the SG) OR PF (which is why they'll probably be a lotta small ball at the 4).

3) Not as big a deal in and of itself to me, but to your remark that there hasn't been "push back" on Fultz, Tatum won in college, Fultz DID NOT. Neither are known for their defense, but let's not pretend Fultz not being able to win in a weaker conference hasn't been talked about as a concern. Maybe Fultz will be fine, but in addition to all the other factors for the Celtics, it doesn't help his case.

So this doesn't read as a CYA move? Because it does to most everyone not related to the Celtics, which is why I read it as such.

Everyone: Fultz is number 1.

Ainge trades number 1.

Everyone: Fultz is number 1.

Ainge: We had Tatum there all along.


Nah, don't buy it. That's not rocket science, it's common sense. Brown has zero to do with it.

[Tai]

In that case, I'll ask you why would you draft Tatum 1 and think Ainge wouldn't be saying this anyway? It seems odd that a consensus number 1 pick isn't number 1 on one guy's board, and that's a guy who essentially traded him away.

Kinda like when he drafted Brown over Dunn? I'm sorry, but is what I'm saying really rocket science to you? You're accusing him of lying about wanting Tatum over Fultz when you know from last year he's willing to reach, and were steadfast Jaylen Brown was a reach when questioned on it.

As far as what's been said about why Tatum over Fultz:

1) As reported, the Celtics saw little difference in at least the top 4 picks, not necessarily that any of them sucked, but that they all were very good, but that none of them stood out. I'm not sure how this doesn't make sense to you: if he really liked Fultz THAT much, why not just take the pick and be done with it? YOU'RE the one suggesting that Danny just do that, but that doesn't mean he actually wanted to.

2) It sounds like Isaiah will more or less be re-signed. Now, to how much money? Who knows. But reality is, if Danny thought the top 4 picks were around the same level, why draft at a position where you feel you're set at, such as at PG? This also eliminates Lonzo Ball too, who didn't want to work out with the C's anyway. In contrast, they're not really set at SF (even if they do have a lot of them, and I'm assuming Hayward is the SG) OR PF (which is why they'll probably be a lotta small ball at the 4).

3) Not as big a deal in and of itself to me, but to your remark that there hasn't been "push back" on Fultz, Tatum won in college, Fultz DID NOT. Neither are known for their defense, but let's not pretend Fultz not being able to win in a weaker conference hasn't been talked about as a concern. Maybe Fultz will be fine, but in addition to all the other factors for the Celtics, it doesn't help his case.

So this doesn't read as a COA move? Because it does to most everyone not related to the Celtics, which is why I read it as such.

Everyone: Fultz is number 1.

Ainge trades number 1.

Everyone: Fultz is number 1.

Ainge: We had Tatum there all along.


Nah, don't buy it. That's not rocket science, it's common sense. Brown has zero to do with it.

See this is what i mean. If YOU think Fultz was #1, fair enough. THIS post seems to boil down to "but but everyone else had Fultz #1, why didn't Danny????" In THAT vein, I thought last year showed that's not how it works, when Danny took him at #3 and people in last year's topic were like:

Everyone: Brown is number 6-7, what the heck Danny?

I'll put it to you this way; if Danny had traded the #3 pick down to said #6-7 spot to get an extra pick or so, drafted Brown then, and said "We woulda taken him at the 3rd spot", it sounds like you're saying you wouldn't believe him then either. Cause what's the difference?

If you're so adamant that Danny's not telling the truth on something that at least in theory made sense with trading down to draft Tatum since that's who he really wanted, then what else don't you believe him on? Do you think he also didn't really want Paul George? It just seems like a leap of logic over, what? Cause you didn't like the deal? It just doesn't seem like a fit in a supposed official review, UNLESS you can prove it beyond your own feelings.

[Mystical Apples]

The biggest knock was trading out of Tier 1 altogether (Ball, Fultz). And I had Tatum 8th so I see 2 issues: sub-dividing the #1 pick and then using a high Tier 2 pick for a low Tier 2 prospect.

Of course that's an opinion -- time will tell on Tatum but overall I believe Ainge reduced Boston's chances of maximizing #1.

[bondom34]

Kinda like when he drafted Brown over Dunn? I'm sorry, but is what I'm saying really rocket science to you?You're accusing him of lying about wanting Tatum over Fultz when you know from last year he's willing to reach, and were steadfast Jaylen Brown was a reach when questioned on it.

As far as what's been said about why Tatum over Fultz:

1) As reported, the Celtics saw little difference in at least the top 4 picks, not necessarily that any of them sucked, but that they all were very good, but that none of them stood out. I'm not sure how this doesn't make sense to you: if he really liked Fultz THAT much, why not just take the pick and be done with it? YOU'RE the one suggesting that Danny just do that, but that doesn't mean he actually wanted to.

2) It sounds like Isaiah will more or less be re-signed. Now, to how much money? Who knows. But reality is, if Danny thought the top 4 picks were around the same level, why draft at a position where you feel you're set at, such as at PG? This also eliminates Lonzo Ball too, who didn't want to work out with the C's anyway. In contrast, they're not really set at SF (even if they do have a lot of them, and I'm assuming Hayward is the SG) OR PF (which is why they'll probably be a lotta small ball at the 4).

3) Not as big a deal in and of itself to me, but to your remark that there hasn't been "push back" on Fultz, Tatum won in college, Fultz DID NOT. Neither are known for their defense, but let's not pretend Fultz not being able to win in a weaker conference hasn't been talked about as a concern. Maybe Fultz will be fine, but in addition to all the other factors for the Celtics, it doesn't help his case.

So this doesn't read as a COA move? Because it does to most everyone not related to the Celtics, which is why I read it as such.

Everyone: Fultz is number 1.

Ainge trades number 1.

Everyone: Fultz is number 1.

Ainge: We had Tatum there all along.


Nah, don't buy it. That's not rocket science, it's common sense. Brown has zero to do with it.

See this is what i mean. If YOU think Fultz was #1, fair enough. THIS post seems to boil down to "but but everyone else had Fultz #1, why didn't Danny????" In THAT vein, I thought last year showed that's not how it works, when Danny took him at #3 and people in last year's topic were like:

Everyone: Brown is number 6-7, what the heck Danny?

I'll put it to you this way; if Danny had traded the #3 pick down to said #6-7 spot to get an extra pick or so, drafted Brown then, and said "We woulda taken him at the 3rd spot", it sounds like you're saying you wouldn't believe him then either. Cause what's the difference?

If you're so adamant that Danny's not telling the truth on something that at least in theory made sense with trading down to draft Tatum since that's who he really wanted, then what else don't you believe him on? Do you think he also didn't really want Paul George? It just seems like a leap of logic over, what? Cause you didn't like the deal? It just doesn't seem like a fit in a supposed official review, UNLESS you can prove it beyond your own feelings.

I'm literally not saying what I think. Im saying what the near unanimous consensus was by everyone until Boston trader the pick and suddenly t was "Ainge knows"

Sent from my LG-K212 using RealGM mobile app

Edit: Spelling and this. Here's a poll straight from the Celtics forum of who should be number one, and Tatum isn't even on it.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1515514&p=51827518&hilit=poll+number+one#p51827518

If you think Ainge is just smarter than the rest of the planet, OK. I don't, and I don't buy whatever he's selling. I said at the time of the trade I didn't love it, and now I like it less because LA looks a little better than previously.

[Tai]

So this doesn't read as a COA move? Because it does to most everyone not related to the Celtics, which is why I read it as such.

Everyone: Fultz is number 1.

Ainge trades number 1.

Everyone: Fultz is number 1.

Ainge: We had Tatum there all along.


Nah, don't buy it. That's not rocket science, it's common sense. Brown has zero to do with it.

See this is what i mean. If YOU think Fultz was #1, fair enough. THIS post seems to boil down to "but but everyone else had Fultz #1, why didn't Danny????" In THAT vein, I thought last year showed that's not how it works, when Danny took him at #3 and people in last year's topic were like:

Everyone: Brown is number 6-7, what the heck Danny?

I'll put it to you this way; if Danny had traded the #3 pick down to said #6-7 spot to get an extra pick or so, drafted Brown then, and said "We woulda taken him at the 3rd spot", it sounds like you're saying you wouldn't believe him then either. Cause what's the difference?

If you're so adamant that Danny's not telling the truth on something that at least in theory made sense with trading down to draft Tatum since that's who he really wanted, then what else don't you believe him on? Do you think he also didn't really want Paul George? It just seems like a leap of logic over, what? Cause you didn't like the deal? It just doesn't seem like a fit in a supposed official review, UNLESS you can prove it beyond your own feelings.

Im literally not saying whati rhink. Im sayong what the near unanimous cindendus was by everyone until boston trader the picj abd suddenly t was "Ainge knows"

Sent from my LG-K212 using RealGM mobile app

"Ainge knows" what? If it's Tatum is better...again, Danny saw a bigger need at SF (admittedly a different argument, but please don't pretend it's insignificant), so even if he thought Fultz was even SLIGHTLY better, with Isaiah at PG, it still probably meant Danny felt it made more sense to get Tatum anyhoo, but since he knew where Fultz was rated per "unanimous consensus", Danny probably knew he could trade down to a team (Sixers) that would want him and get another pick while taking the guy he wanted.

Again, if you DISAGREE with this mentality by Danny? Fine. Basically saying "I don't believe Danny"?? Again, prove he's lying. Cause getting Fultz and assuming he'll pan out makes it very likely Isaiah eventually has to be traded, which is very bold to assume today unless you dislike Isaiah.

And I think this is important to say; I'd much MUCH rather you dock Danny tomorrow (really next year's review) for Tatum struggling in some way next season while Fultz flourishes, then claim today Danny's a liar. Cause if Tatum works out well, and maybe even Fultz doesn't, will you give Danny proper credit or call him lucky his gamble worked, if even? Cause right now, you''re saying you don't even buy the gamble.......

Edit: Spelling and this. Here's a poll straight from the Celtics forum of who should be number one, and Tatum isn't even on it.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1515514&p=51827518&hilit=poll+number+one#p51827518

If you think Ainge is just smarter than the rest of the planet, OK. I don't, and I don't buy whatever he's selling. I said at the time of the trade I didn't love it, and now I like it less because LA looks a little better than previously.

What the ****? The poll was from January, before the freaking conference tournies started. I can't tell you why Tatum wasn't as highly touted back then, but my May if you take that poll, people probably would have voted Tatum too; I won't pretend the Celtics board didn't drop a "what the ****" when the trade outta the #1 pick happened, but people knew who Tatum was by then. That doesn't help either of us.

One thing I forgot to mention is that Ball is a PG too (though very good as well); if the Celtics didn't want Fultz, why would they take the next guy at the same position? SO REALLY, it was Fultz or Tatum. Again, fine if you disagree. But, you don't buy Danny really wanted Tatum? Again, what else don't you buy?

[bondom34]

See this is what i mean. If YOU think Fultz was #1, fair enough. THIS post seems to boil down to "but but everyone else had Fultz #1, why didn't Danny????" In THAT vein, I thought last year showed that's not how it works, when Danny took him at #3 and people in last year's topic were like:

Everyone: Brown is number 6-7, what the heck Danny?

I'll put it to you this way; if Danny had traded the #3 pick down to said #6-7 spot to get an extra pick or so, drafted Brown then, and said "We woulda taken him at the 3rd spot", it sounds like you're saying you wouldn't believe him then either. Cause what's the difference?

If you're so adamant that Danny's not telling the truth on something that at least in theory made sense with trading down to draft Tatum since that's who he really wanted, then what else don't you believe him on? Do you think he also didn't really want Paul George? It just seems like a leap of logic over, what? Cause you didn't like the deal? It just doesn't seem like a fit in a supposed official review, UNLESS you can prove it beyond your own feelings.

Im literally not saying whati rhink. Im sayong what the near unanimous cindendus was by everyone until boston trader the picj abd suddenly t was "Ainge knows"

Sent from my LG-K212 using RealGM mobile app

"Ainge knows" what? If it's Tatum is better...again, Danny saw a bigger need at SF (admittedly a different argument, but please don't pretend it's insignificant), so even if he thought Fultz was even SLIGHTLY better, with Isaiah at PG, it still probably meant Danny felt it made more sense to get Tatum anyhoo, but since he knew where Fultz was rated per "unanimous consensus", Danny probably knew he could trade down to a team (Sixers) that would want him and get another pick while taking the guy he wanted.

Again, if you DISAGREE with this mentality by Danny? Fine. Basically saying "I don't believe Danny"?? Again, prove he's lying. Cause getting Fultz and assuming he'll pan out makes it very likely Isaiah eventually has to be traded, which is very bold to assume today unless you dislike Isaiah.

And I think it's the important to say; I'd much MUCH rather you dock Danny tomorrow (really next year's review) for Tatum struggling in some way next season while Fultz flourishes, then claim today Danny's a liar. Cause if Tatum works out well, and maybe even Fultz doesn't, will you give Danny proper credit or call him lucky his gamble worked, if even? Cause right now, you''re saying you don't even buy the gamble.......

Edit: Spelling and this. Here's a poll straight from the Celtics forum of who should be number one, and Tatum isn't even on it.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1515514&p=51827518&hilit=poll+number+one#p51827518

If you think Ainge is just smarter than the rest of the planet, OK. I don't, and I don't buy whatever he's selling. I said at the time of the trade I didn't love it, and now I like it less because LA looks a little better than previously.

What the ****? The poll was from January, before the freaking conference tournies started. I can't tell you why Tatum wasn't as highly touted back then, but my May if you take that poll, people probably would have voted Tatum too; I won't pretend the Celtics board didn't drop a "what the ****" when the trade outta the #1 pick happened, but people knew who Tatum was by then. That doesn't help either of us.

One thing I forgot to mention is that Ball is a PG too (though very good as well); if the Celtics didn't want Fultz, why would they take the next guy at the same position? SO REALLY, it was Fultz or Tatum. Again, fine if you disagree. But, you don't buy Danny really wanted Tatum? Again, what else don't you buy?

So you really don't think that sounds like a full of **** lie? Because it does to every other human who doesn't blindly accept his word as gospel. Fultz was the best player in the draft for Boston until Ainge made the deal.

[Tai]

Im literally not saying whati rhink. Im sayong what the near unanimous cindendus was by everyone until boston trader the picj abd suddenly t was "Ainge knows"

Sent from my LG-K212 using RealGM mobile app

"Ainge knows" what? If it's Tatum is better...again, Danny saw a bigger need at SF (admittedly a different argument, but please don't pretend it's insignificant), so even if he thought Fultz was even SLIGHTLY better, with Isaiah at PG, it still probably meant Danny felt it made more sense to get Tatum anyhoo, but since he knew where Fultz was rated per "unanimous consensus", Danny probably knew he could trade down to a team (Sixers) that would want him and get another pick while taking the guy he wanted.

Again, if you DISAGREE with this mentality by Danny? Fine. Basically saying "I don't believe Danny"?? Again, prove he's lying. Cause getting Fultz and assuming he'll pan out makes it very likely Isaiah eventually has to be traded, which is very bold to assume today unless you dislike Isaiah.

And I think it's the important to say; I'd much MUCH rather you dock Danny tomorrow (really next year's review) for Tatum struggling in some way next season while Fultz flourishes, then claim today Danny's a liar. Cause if Tatum works out well, and maybe even Fultz doesn't, will you give Danny proper credit or call him lucky his gamble worked, if even? Cause right now, you''re saying you don't even buy the gamble.......

Edit: Spelling and this. Here's a poll straight from the Celtics forum of who should be number one, and Tatum isn't even on it.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1515514&p=51827518&hilit=poll+number+one#p51827518

If you think Ainge is just smarter than the rest of the planet, OK. I don't, and I don't buy whatever he's selling. I said at the time of the trade I didn't love it, and now I like it less because LA looks a little better than previously.

What the ****? The poll was from January, before the freaking conference tournies started. I can't tell you why Tatum wasn't as highly touted back then, but my May if you take that poll, people probably would have voted Tatum too; I won't pretend the Celtics board didn't drop a "what the ****" when the trade outta the #1 pick happened, but people knew who Tatum was by then. That doesn't help either of us.

One thing I forgot to mention is that Ball is a PG too (though very good as well); if the Celtics didn't want Fultz, why would they take the next guy at the same position? SO REALLY, it was Fultz or Tatum. Again, fine if you disagree. But, you don't buy Danny really wanted Tatum? Again, what else don't you buy?

So you really don't think that sounds like a full of **** lie? Because it does to every other human who doesn't blindly accept his word as gospel. Fultz was the best player in the draft for Boston until Ainge made the deal.

I see this is a losing battle, and I'm not really sure where to go from here, but I'll say this; I'm pretty confident that you are NOT the majority. THAT I will "blindly accept as gospel", or however you wanna put it. But to answer the question, why wouldn't I believe him? He's paid to make moves like this, not me, AND, like I said, it's not like they need Fultz when they already have Isaiah Thomas at the 1. Me watching Fultz or Tatum in college doesn't make me know if one will pan out better in the league. I saw Greg Oden kill it in college at Ohio State, work himself to a clear #1, and then bust, and Fultz as a prospect couldn't carry Oden's jockstrap. You may remember that year the Celtics were supposed to have the #1 pick but the lottery ****ed them over and suddenly they don't even have a top 4 pick . I don't wanna go down the rabbit hole on whether Danny really would have taken Durant or Oden, tho there's speculation both ways, I'm just glad Oden didn't end up on the Celtics and we can leave that there. But since it seems you're a draft junkie based on your emphasis on Fultz to the point that you don't believe Danny would want someone else, you should appreciate that it wouldn't be the first time a clear consensus #1 didn't pan out.

ANYWAY.....Fultz can PROVE he's the best player in the draft next season, him and Ball, Tatum, Jackson, Issac, Dennis Smith, you name it. Danny or anyone else drafting him #1 DOES NOT MAKE FULTZ THAT today. Part of the reason most argue the Celtics should have traded the Nets pick instead of trying to use other assets to get Butler/George/whomever (and keep in mind I wanted Paul George) is because they're not sure ANYONE IN THIS DRAFT would grow to that caliber of player, even tho most would argue neither are bonafide superstars like Lebron, or Curry. If we're gonna keep it 100% at this point, let's at least have that thrown in there.

As far as I saw, Fultz did good until he was injured in SL, Ball was SL MVP, and Tatum took SL by storm himself along with fellow reach Jaylen Brown. AGAIN, I'm more than willing to admit that Fultz should have been taken if he turns out to have the better year, but that doesn't mean Danny is full of ****. Let that go.

[Tai]

By the way, funny you bother to post something from the Celtics board but not this:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1604180

And from the topic:

Watch on YouTube

Around the 12:03 mark, Tatum says the Celtics said they were always gonna draft him, but the Sixers didn't know that so Danny took advantage, Tatum even mentions the Celtics being able to pay him less money CAUSE they took him #3 instead of #1.

I don't care if you claim Danny made Tatum study that off a script before this interview, but saying the part about being cheaper by being drafted 2 picks later? What else do you want? Does Danny just rub you the wrong way?

[bondom34]

"Ainge knows" what? If it's Tatum is better...again, Danny saw a bigger need at SF (admittedly a different argument, but please don't pretend it's insignificant), so even if he thought Fultz was even SLIGHTLY better, with Isaiah at PG, it still probably meant Danny felt it made more sense to get Tatum anyhoo, but since he knew where Fultz was rated per "unanimous consensus", Danny probably knew he could trade down to a team (Sixers) that would want him and get another pick while taking the guy he wanted.

Again, if you DISAGREE with this mentality by Danny? Fine. Basically saying "I don't believe Danny"?? Again, prove he's lying. Cause getting Fultz and assuming he'll pan out makes it very likely Isaiah eventually has to be traded, which is very bold to assume today unless you dislike Isaiah.

And I think it's the important to say; I'd much MUCH rather you dock Danny tomorrow (really next year's review) for Tatum struggling in some way next season while Fultz flourishes, then claim today Danny's a liar. Cause if Tatum works out well, and maybe even Fultz doesn't, will you give Danny proper credit or call him lucky his gamble worked, if even? Cause right now, you''re saying you don't even buy the gamble.......



What the ****? The poll was from January, before the freaking conference tournies started. I can't tell you why Tatum wasn't as highly touted back then, but my May if you take that poll, people probably would have voted Tatum too; I won't pretend the Celtics board didn't drop a "what the ****" when the trade outta the #1 pick happened, but people knew who Tatum was by then. That doesn't help either of us.

One thing I forgot to mention is that Ball is a PG too (though very good as well); if the Celtics didn't want Fultz, why would they take the next guy at the same position? SO REALLY, it was Fultz or Tatum. Again, fine if you disagree. But, you don't buy Danny really wanted Tatum? Again, what else don't you buy?

So you really don't think that sounds like a full of **** lie? Because it does to every other human who doesn't blindly accept his word as gospel. Fultz was the best player in the draft for Boston until Ainge made the deal.

I see this is a losing battle, and I'm not really sure where to go from here, but I'll say this; I'm pretty confident that you are NOT the majority. THAT I will "blindly accept as gospel", or however you wanna put it. But to answer the question, why wouldn't I believe him? He's paid to make moves like this, not me, AND, like I said, it's not like they need Fultz when they already have Isaiah Thomas at the 1. Me watching Fultz or Tatum in college doesn't make me know if one will pan out better in the league. I saw Greg Oden kill it in college at Ohio State, work himself to a clear #1, and then bust, and Fultz as a prospect couldn't carry Oden's jockstrap. You may remember that year the Celtics were supposed to have the #1 pick but the lottery ****ed them over and suddenly they don't even have a top 4 pick . I don't wanna go down the rabbit hole on whether Danny really would have taken Durant or Oden, tho there's speculation both ways, I'm just glad Oden didn't end up on the Celtics and we can leave that there. But since it seems you're a draft junkie based on your emphasis on Fultz to the point that you don't believe Danny would want someone else, you should appreciate that it wouldn't be the first time a clear consensus #1 didn't pan out.

ANYWAY.....Fultz can PROVE he's the best player in the draft next season, him and Ball, Tatum, Jackson, Issac, Dennis Smith, you name it. Danny or anyone else drafting him #1 DOES NOT MAKE FULTZ THAT today. Part of the reason most argue the Celtics should have traded the Nets pick instead of trying to use other assets to get Butler/George/whomever (and keep in mind I wanted Paul George) is because they're not sure ANYONE IN THIS DRAFT would grow to that caliber of player, even tho most would argue neither are bonafide superstars like Lebron, or Curry. If we're gonna keep it 100% at this point, let's at least have that thrown in there.

As far as I saw, Fultz did good until he was injured in SL, Ball was SL MVP, and Tatum took SL by storm himself along with fellow reach Jaylen Brown. AGAIN, I'm more than willing to admit that Fultz should have been

taken if he turns out to have the better year, but that doesn't mean Danny is full of ****. Let that go.

Honest question, when were you sold on Tatum over Fultz? What was the moment. Tell me.

By the way, funny you bother to post something from the Celtics board but not this:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1604180

And from the topic:

Watch on YouTube

Around the 12:03 mark, Tatum says the Celtics said they were always gonna draft him, but the Sixers didn't know that so Danny took advantage, Tatum even mentions the Celtics being able to pay him less money CAUSE they took him #3 instead of #1.

I don't care if you claim Danny made Tatum study that off a script before this interview, but saying the part about being cheaper by being drafted 2 picks later? What else do you want? Does Danny just rub you the wrong way?

As for this, no idea what you're saying about being "cheaper". I never used that word.

And as for "losing battle" do you think there's some agenda or are you just mad because you didn't get straight A's? Because the same grading system is used for everyone, and I think maybe 3 teams had A offseasons, Boston wasn't one. You need to maximize every chance for that, and Boston did not do so. Your basic premise is "well anyone can bust", so sure, Ainge could have traded 1 for 31 and by that standard you'd say "Hey, Fultz might bust but this kid at 31 is a steal!". Unfortunately that's not how you judge the trade.

[And honestly, whats with the random emojis, is that the default when you can't make a real argument?

[Tai]

Honest question, when were you sold on Tatum over Fultz? What was the moment. Tell me.

Define "sold". I don't know if Tatum will bust yet, and I already said all the top prospects did well in SL. I dunno if I am, but that's not the point, as I thought was made clear.

As for this, no idea what you're saying about being "cheaper". I never used that word.

I meant because Tatum was taking at #3 instead of #1, he ends up being cheaper for the Celtics.

And as for "losing battle" do you think there's some agenda or are you just mad because you didn't get straight A's? Because the same grading system is used for everyone, and I think maybe 3 teams had A offseasons, Boston wasn't one. You need to maximize every chance for that, and Boston did not do so. Your basic premise is "well anyone can bust", so sure, Ainge could have traded 1 for 31 and by that standard you'd say "Hey, Fultz might bust but this kid at 31 is a steal!". Unfortunately that's not how you judge the trade.

[And honestly, whats with the random emojis, is that the default when you can't make a real argument?

It's called, you claim Danny's a liar, and I'm not sure why you think he is. Your reasoning seems to literally boil down to where the media had Fultz (since you claim it's not juts on your opinion), and Danny bucking that for someone else he liked better. So supposedly now Danny's full of **** for saying that's who he always wanted, when you and the rest of the panel agreed Danny already reached on a pick THE YEAR BEFORE, and my point is, if you can't believe Danny ON THIS, then what exactly have you believed him on?? Again, I guess if Danny traded down last year and took Jaylen Brown, you're saying you wouldn't believe him if he said he would have taken Jaylen Brown anyway if the trade down didn't happen. What kind of ****ing sense does that make?

Quite frankly I don't really care that the Celtics didn't get straight A's; as you can see earlier in the topic I gave them a B+ cause they didn't get Paul George, who the Celtics supposedly offered said Nets pick during the trade deadline for. That said, you decided to ignore my question on whether you believed Danny really wanted Paul George (as in, was willing to offer a fair price for him), but again, now I have a hunch you're with most of the peeps on the General Board who thinks Danny just bull ***** everyone when a deal doesn't happen. Well, if you want credit for thinking you're not being fooled, then clap clap.

[bondom34]

Honest question, when were you sold on Tatum over Fultz? What was the moment. Tell me.

Define "sold". I don't know if Tatum will bust yet, and I already said all the top prospects did well in SL. I dunno if I am, but that's not the point, as I thought was made clear.

As for this, no idea what you're saying about being "cheaper". I never used that word.

I meant because Tatum was taking at #3 instead of #1, he ends up being cheaper for the Celtics.

And as for "losing battle" do you think there's some agenda or are you just mad because you didn't get straight A's? Because the same grading system is used for everyone, and I think maybe 3 teams had A offseasons, Boston wasn't one. You need to maximize every chance for that, and Boston did not do so. Your basic premise is "well anyone can bust", so sure, Ainge could have traded 1 for 31 and by that standard you'd say "Hey, Fultz might bust but this kid at 31 is a steal!". Unfortunately that's not how you judge the trade.

[And honestly, whats with the random emojis, is that the default when you can't make a real argument?

It's called, you claim Danny's a liar, and I'm not sure why you think he is. Your reasoning seems to literally boil down to where the media had Fultz (since you claim it's not juts on your opinion), and Danny bucking that for someone else he liked better. So supposedly now Danny's full of **** for saying that's who he always wanted, when you and the rest of the panel agreed Danny already reached on a pick THE YEAR BEFORE, and my point is, if you can't believe Danny ON THIS, then what exactly have you believed him on?? Again, I guess if Danny traded down last year and took Jaylen Brown, you're saying you wouldn't believe him if he said he would have taken Jaylen Brown anyway if the trade down didn't happen. What kind of ****ing sense does that make?

Quite frankly I don't really care that the Celtics didn't get straight A's; as you can see earlier in the topic I gave them a B+ cause they didn't get Paul George, who the Celtics supposedly offered said Nets pick during the trade deadline for. That said, you decided to ignore my question on whether you believed Danny really wanted Paul George (as in, was willing to offer a fair price for him), but again, now I have a hunch you're with most of the peeps on the General Board who thinks Danny just bull ***** everyone when a deal doesn't happen. Well, if you want credit for thinking you're not being fooled, then clap clap.

My reasoning is pretty simple, when everyone is in agreement on something and suddenly the story changes after the fact, I'm suspicious.

If you want to think Ainge buys that, fine. I still don't, and still don't like the trade. I don't think he's a "liar" but I think he's trying to sell something to look better. And this is irrelevant to Brown, which is entirely a different topic and I have no clue why it's even mentioned in THIS offseason.

And as for "sold" when did you decide Tatum > Fultz. Simple

[patman52]

The consensus #1 pick was fultz, but that was where the consensus ended. A lot of people had the top players all grouped together, some had a #1 fultz and then the rest, some had two at the top and some had three or more. Ainge just thought that Tatum and his game was a better fit than Fultz and his game from what he could determine. Fultz might have been the consensus best player, but when you can get the the best player for your team and a lottery pick to me it is a no brainer. And the early reviews certainly bear that out.