2018 Pick Watch (Philly, LAL 1 or 6-30, etc)

[the_process]

Put me in the camp of thinking the Sixers should want to keep the Laker pick @ 6-10 and then hope the Kings improve to the late lottery next year.

[PhilasFinest]

Put me in the camp of thinking the Sixers should want to keep the Laker pick @ 6-10 and then hoping the Kings improve to the late lottery next year.

Yea I’m with you on this.

[smittybanton]

2019 Draft is considerably weaker than this upcoming one and the previous two. It's an Oladipo #2 type draft. Besides Zion Williamson (who is not a franchise player), not a lot of star power. Romeo Langford is wonderful. Cameron Reddish is very good. Love me some Dashon Bazley. But not only are these guys probably not game changers, the only big man among them for Boston would be Bol Bol, who I believe is quite overrated. None of this year's top ten hs seniors are over 6'10, and they'd be hard pressed to put forth another surprise like Trae Young.

Our (BC's) saving grace is that the Lakers just lost six in a row against likely playoff teams. Their last ten games were against CLE (2) GS (2) HOU (2) Minnesota, Portland, Memphis, Clippers. Talent-wise, they probably should've only beaten Memphis or Clippers, but probably not both (1-9). The reality, they beat Houston (1-9). This slide was due.

The Lakes have no reason to tank, since they don't have their own pick and all the max free agents this summer (lbj, paul, pg13, cousins) are currently on playoff teams. While the Lakers are trying to make a move for a great fit like Nerlens Noel, other teams like Orlando should be sell mode come February.

If I'm the Magic, I neeeeeed Trae Young to replace Elfrid Payton. The Mavericks neeeeeed Ayton or Bamba. The Hawks start Ilyasova and Plumlee. They need another big besides John Collins. Memphis should keep Michael Conley sidelined all season, as Luka Doncic would be perfect inbetween he and Marc Gasol.

The Kings' young crew still desperately needs a forward of either Doncic or Porter's caliber. However, their situation is interesting, since there is also Mikal and Miles Bridges. They could possibly keep those vets, win some games, and get a dope young three. Considering their sensible fa signings this year, DeAaron Fox and the emergence of Willie Cauley Stein, I think the Kings picking between 7-12 in 2019 is the most likely scenario. If they're #5 now, there's nothing to indicate they'll be worse off next year.

I predict (hope) the bottom five teams in '18 will be: ATL (Ayton), ORL (Young), DAL (Bagley/Bamba), MEM (Doncic) & SAC (Porter).

[PLO]

Put me in the camp of thinking the Sixers should want to keep the Laker pick @ 6-10 and then hoping the Kings improve to the late lottery next year.

Yea I’m with you on this.

I'm of the same view after being the opposite earlier in the year, can understand the cap thing though, but another angle is you want your players roughly synchronized in terms of age to have a long window of contention. Getting a player in a year earlier, fit him into the system, does that a lot better if you think we'll be contending in three years time.

Mikal Bridges is pretty much the perfect piece for us - complimentary 3 and D guy whose defensive potential upside is something like Kawhi. We don't need any more "centerpiece" type players especially given the cap situation we'll face down the road. If we got the 6th pick via the Lakers he would be absolutely ideal for our roster.

[PLO]

I will be a bit peeved if we could have done Tatum this past year and Trae Young next year with the Lakers pick and only have Fultz to show for it.

Just think about that offensive potential.

To me that's going the cart before the horse - I see Tatum as a complimentary piece, a very good complimentary piece, but complimentary all the same. You pick someone like that up after you've got the pillars of your roster in place. Now I know you don't rate Fultz as the best player from the last draft but the reasoning behind trading up to get him is solid - he's a primary initiator type that fits the mould of a number one guy in a draft. He's exactly the type of player we needed, and the Celtics didn't need after the Kyrie trade, and he was to many the number one guy in the draft overall.

Even if we had the Lakers pick outright Trae Young is not guaranteed - the Lakers have no reason to tank this year and the season has a long way to go yet. There are a number of teams who will be very motivated to tank from here on out, especially given this is the last draft with the more generous odds for finishing bottom of the barrel. I think Young is locked in a top 5 pick, potentially top 3 - I think a lot of FO's will be looking at him and thinking "he's our Steph Curry" (to me I think he's better than Curry at the same stage and I think a lot of scouts will come to the same view, if they haven't already). Any team that has the number one pick will have to have a serious conversation about taking Young there, even with the Doncics, Aytons etc available so there is no guarantee we'd even have a shot at him if we had the full rights to the Lakers pick.

[HankTheTank]

I’ve heard the argument “we can’t use all these picks anyway,” or “we’ve got our 3 core pieces now we just need to complete the roster.” Who is to say Fultz is a centerpiece, or Embiid can never stay healthy, or the guy you draft in 2019 is actually better than Simmons?

If you have too many stars to afford, there are plenty of things you can do. For instance, trade one for a king’s ransom and keep stockpiling assets.

[smittybanton]

I’ve heard the argument “we can’t use all these picks anyway,” or “we’ve got our 3 core pieces now we just need to complete the roster.” Who is to say Fultz is a centerpiece, or Embiid can never stay healthy, or the guy you draft in 2019 is actually better than Simmons?

If you have too many stars to afford, there are plenty of things you can do. For instance, trade one for a king’s ransom and keep stockpiling assets.

Amen. The best player on our last playoff team was the sixth man on Golden State's championship and runnerup squads...and then they still went all out for KD...and then they still spent $$$ for Patrick McCaw and Jordan Bell....

[PLO]

I’ve heard the argument “we can’t use all these picks anyway,” or “we’ve got our 3 core pieces now we just need to complete the roster.” Who is to say Fultz is a centerpiece, or Embiid can never stay healthy, or the guy you draft in 2019 is actually better than Simmons?

If you have too many stars to afford, there are plenty of things you can do. For instance, trade one for a king’s ransom and keep stockpiling assets.

Literally we can't use all the picks we have, literally.

And whose to say any draft pick is a centrepiece? Like whose to say any pick in the future will work out? That argument works both ways.

At some stage you have to plant your flag in the ground and say "this is it, this is our roster, this is what we are going forward with". You have to trust your scouting that Fultz is the guy you've scouted him to be as compared to someone who is in high school who you have very little information on. Organisationally you can't be in a continual flux of rebuilding and flipping picks for central pieces of your roster.

A lot of you seem to think that Danny Ainge is some sort of genius for getting Tatum and a part share of the Lakers/Kings picks from us, but at the same time he gave away the Nets pick to get Kyrie. Can you not see the hypocrisy of criticizing Colagnelo's trade to get Fultz but also praising Ainge while he did basically the same thing to get Kyrie? I accept Kyrie's an established entity in the NBA but basically they're the same thing: a GM saying "this is what we are going forward and I'm prepared to give up future draft picks to be what we are."

[HankTheTank]

I’ve heard the argument “we can’t use all these picks anyway,” or “we’ve got our 3 core pieces now we just need to complete the roster.” Who is to say Fultz is a centerpiece, or Embiid can never stay healthy, or the guy you draft in 2019 is actually better than Simmons?

If you have too many stars to afford, there are plenty of things you can do. For instance, trade one for a king’s ransom and keep stockpiling assets.

Literally we can't use all the picks we have, literally.

And whose to say any draft pick is a centrepiece? Like whose to say any pick in the future will work out? That argument works both ways.

At some stage you have to plant your flag in the ground and say "this is it, this is our roster, this is what we are going forward with". You have to trust your scouting that Fultz is the guy you've scouted him to be as compared to someone who is in high school who you have very little information on. Organisationally you can't be in a continual flux of rebuilding and flipping picks for central pieces of your roster.

A lot of you seem to think that Danny Ainge is some sort of genius for getting Tatum and a part share of the Lakers/Kings picks from us, but at the same time he gave away the Nets pick to get Kyrie. Can you not see the hypocrisy of criticizing Colagnelo's trade to get Fultz but also praising Ainge while he did basically the same thing to get Kyrie? I accept Kyrie's an established entity in the NBA but basically they're the same thing: a GM saying "this is what we are going forward and I'm prepared to give up future draft picks to be what we are."

If you’re referring to lottery picks... You can use the picks, you just can’t lock them all up long term if they hit. So, you can have them on a rookie deal and trade them at the optimal time if you wish. I don’t think anyone is saying you can use -and keep-5 2nd rounders.

I see nothing wrong with trading a lottery pick for an established “star” like Irving. Would anyone have complained if BC traded last years pick for Jimmy Butler or Paul George? Maybe, but at least it would make sense.

I DO have a problem with throwing in hard earned assets like BC did in the Fultz trade for a player they likely would’ve had at 3 anyway, and a player I don’t feel was worth trading up for in the first place.

Lottery picks should be treasured. Some GM’s get that, some don’t.

[Ericb5]

I would rather take our chances retaining the pick and hoping Sacramento makes a jump in 2019, or crashes and gets #1 overall.

I'm not excited about the prospect of Boston having a pick in the 2-5 in a draft filled with rim protectors when that's their biggest need.

Boston’s biggest need is a franchise player, and I don’t see any of those this year. At least no obvious ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PhilasFinest]

I would rather take our chances retaining the pick and hoping Sacramento makes a jump in 2019, or crashes and gets #1 overall.

I'm not excited about the prospect of Boston having a pick in the 2-5 in a draft filled with rim protectors when that's their biggest need.

Boston’s biggest need is a franchise player, and I don’t see any of those this year. At least no obvious ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What?

Boston has Kyrie Irving. I think there set up just fine.

[ProcessDoctor]

I would rather take our chances retaining the pick and hoping Sacramento makes a jump in 2019, or crashes and gets #1 overall.

I'm not excited about the prospect of Boston having a pick in the 2-5 in a draft filled with rim protectors when that's their biggest need.

Boston’s biggest need is a franchise player, and I don’t see any of those this year. At least no obvious ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kyrie? If you feel comfortable adding a formidable center to a core of Kyrie, Hayward, Tatum, and Horford be my guest. I am just not comfortable with that at all.

[PLO]

I’ve heard the argument “we can’t use all these picks anyway,” or “we’ve got our 3 core pieces now we just need to complete the roster.” Who is to say Fultz is a centerpiece, or Embiid can never stay healthy, or the guy you draft in 2019 is actually better than Simmons?

If you have too many stars to afford, there are plenty of things you can do. For instance, trade one for a king’s ransom and keep stockpiling assets.

Literally we can't use all the picks we have, literally.

And whose to say any draft pick is a centrepiece? Like whose to say any pick in the future will work out? That argument works both ways.

At some stage you have to plant your flag in the ground and say "this is it, this is our roster, this is what we are going forward with". You have to trust your scouting that Fultz is the guy you've scouted him to be as compared to someone who is in high school who you have very little information on. Organisationally you can't be in a continual flux of rebuilding and flipping picks for central pieces of your roster.

A lot of you seem to think that Danny Ainge is some sort of genius for getting Tatum and a part share of the Lakers/Kings picks from us, but at the same time he gave away the Nets pick to get Kyrie. Can you not see the hypocrisy of criticizing Colagnelo's trade to get Fultz but also praising Ainge while he did basically the same thing to get Kyrie? I accept Kyrie's an established entity in the NBA but basically they're the same thing: a GM saying "this is what we are going forward and I'm prepared to give up future draft picks to be what we are."

If you’re referring to lottery picks... You can use the picks, you just can’t lock them all up long term if they hit. So, you can have them on a rookie deal and trade them at the optimal time if you wish. I don’t think anyone is saying you can use -and keep-5 2nd rounders.

I see nothing wrong with trading a lottery pick for an established “star” like Irving. Would anyone have complained if BC traded last years pick for Jimmy Butler or Paul George? Maybe, but at least it would make sense.

I DO have a problem with throwing in hard earned assets like BC did in the Fultz trade for a player they likely would’ve had at 3 anyway, and a player I don’t feel was worth trading up for in the first place.

Lottery picks should be treasured. Some GM’s get that, some don’t.

It's no given Fultz is available at three - and like I said exchanging a protected draft pick for what many scouts think is a centerpiece player in Fultz isn't treasuring picks I don't know what is.

A number of the "anti-trade" (I'm not saying you in particular) posters haven't got over the "we could have had the best player in the draft!" in Josh Jackson and over time as Tatum has been playing as good as Jackson has been bad have changed their reasons for being anti-trade. Some of these people even thought we should have traded up to get Lonzo Ball at one. Basically they're just anti-trade with reasons that will flip in the wind without any attempt to understand what in reality was a good decision based on solid logic that helps the organization going forward. These people have as much insight into organizational basketball culture as they do into scouting future NBA talent - ie none.

[Negrodamus]

I will be a bit peeved if we could have done Tatum this past year and Trae Young next year with the Lakers pick and only have Fultz to show for it.

Just think about that offensive potential.

To me that's going the cart before the horse - I see Tatum as a complimentary piece, a very good complimentary piece, but complimentary all the same. You pick someone like that up after you've got the pillars of your roster in place. Now I know you don't rate Fultz as the best player from the last draft but the reasoning behind trading up to get him is solid - he's a primary initiator type that fits the mould of a number one guy in a draft. He's exactly the type of player we needed, and the Celtics didn't need after the Kyrie trade, and he was to many the number one guy in the draft overall.

Even if we had the Lakers pick outright Trae Young is not guaranteed - the Lakers have no reason to tank this year and the season has a long way to go yet. There are a number of teams who will be very motivated to tank from here on out, especially given this is the last draft with the more generous odds for finishing bottom of the barrel. I think Young is locked in a top 5 pick, potentially top 3 - I think a lot of FO's will be looking at him and thinking "he's our Steph Curry" (to me I think he's better than Curry at the same stage and I think a lot of scouts will come to the same view, if they haven't already). Any team that has the number one pick will have to have a serious conversation about taking Young there, even with the Doncics, Aytons etc available so there is no guarantee we'd even have a shot at him if we had the full rights to the Lakers pick.

He’s the complimentary piece we need. Good two way player that can create for himself or off the ball. We have the stars in Embiid and Simmons, we need more Tatum. Giving up a top five pick (looking more and more by the day like it will be) is tough to reconcile for Washington Fultz in my opinion. He was damn good, but physically, he’s not off the charts. His teams resume isn’t great either.

Young may be top 3, but that would require a team to pass on one of Doncic, Ayton, Bamba, Bagley. Lakers, so far, looks like a bottom 5 team. I could settle on any of those guys if they were passed on if Young was taken ahead. Or there’s more trade opportunities for teams that need a versatile big if we can’t get Young or Doncic. I think it’s short sighted to settle on the “unanimous player in this draft” to forfeit unbelievable opportunities in future drafts.

[51X3RF4N]

Happy New Year! Just did a tankathon mock, and Lakers pick went to #1, Sixers pick to #2. This is still a possibility!!

Doncic and Bagley were the picks.

Embiid/Bagley/Cov/Doncic/Simmons with Fultz off the bench??

[Eyeamok]

You have to love the ESPN headlines.

After Feasting on the Nets Pick, Boston fans turn their attention to the Lakers Pick (or something to that effect)

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/21929519/nba-celtics-looking-forward-lakers-pick-2018.

[Ericb5]

I would rather take our chances retaining the pick and hoping Sacramento makes a jump in 2019, or crashes and gets #1 overall.

I'm not excited about the prospect of Boston having a pick in the 2-5 in a draft filled with rim protectors when that's their biggest need.

Boston’s biggest need is a franchise player, and I don’t see any of those this year. At least no obvious ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What?

Boston has Kyrie Irving. I think there set up just fine.

Kyrie Irving isn’t a franchise player. He never has been, and he never will be. He is an electric scoring guard, but he isn’t going to drag a team to a title. He doesn’t make anyone better.

If the Celtics are going to contend they are going to need a better best player. Otherwise they are just trying to do what the Pistons did in 04, which is really really hard to do. Not impossible, but nearly unprecedented.

I think that they are still blocked in the East this year by Cleveland, and the Bucks and the Sixers can both pass them next year with the right moves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PhilasFinest]

Boston’s biggest need is a franchise player, and I don’t see any of those this year. At least no obvious ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What?

Boston has Kyrie Irving. I think there set up just fine.

Kyrie Irving isn’t a franchise player. He never has been, and he never will be. He is an electric scoring guard, but he isn’t going to drag a team to a title. He doesn’t make anyone better.

If the Celtics are going to contend they are going to need a better best player. Otherwise they are just trying to do what the Pistons did in 04, which is really really hard to do. Not impossible, but nearly unprecedented.

I think that they are still blocked in the East this year by Cleveland, and the Bucks and the Sixers can both pass them next year with the right moves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry I disagree. I am a Sixers fan and can't stand Boston, but If Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons are so freely labeled around here as "franchise players".....well then Kyrie Irving should be too.

He came into the league at just 19 years old, battled some injuries and also had a terrible team around him in Cleveland prior to LeBron arriving....once LeBron arrived, he still played a high usage role and helped them win a title and tons of games.He's now 25 years old and the #1 option on the Celtics, who are amongst the better teams in the league sitting at 30-10.

Kyrie Irving is a max level, franchise player, capable of being a key part of a championship team. He already won a title as 1 of the teams best players.

If your gauging "franchise players" simply by the ability to "drag a team to a championship", well then there aren't many in the league...because you need multiple to win a title in todays NBA. I guess KD, Westbrook, Harden etc aren't franchise players either cause they haven't drug there teams to a title?

So if in 6 seasons, Ben Simmons is a ROTY, 1st team All Rookie,4x All-Star, made an All-NBA team, Won an All-Star game MVP and won an NBA Title he might not be viewed as a "franchise player?"

[HankTheTank]

Literally we can't use all the picks we have, literally.

And whose to say any draft pick is a centrepiece? Like whose to say any pick in the future will work out? That argument works both ways.

At some stage you have to plant your flag in the ground and say "this is it, this is our roster, this is what we are going forward with". You have to trust your scouting that Fultz is the guy you've scouted him to be as compared to someone who is in high school who you have very little information on. Organisationally you can't be in a continual flux of rebuilding and flipping picks for central pieces of your roster.

A lot of you seem to think that Danny Ainge is some sort of genius for getting Tatum and a part share of the Lakers/Kings picks from us, but at the same time he gave away the Nets pick to get Kyrie. Can you not see the hypocrisy of criticizing Colagnelo's trade to get Fultz but also praising Ainge while he did basically the same thing to get Kyrie? I accept Kyrie's an established entity in the NBA but basically they're the same thing: a GM saying "this is what we are going forward and I'm prepared to give up future draft picks to be what we are."

If you’re referring to lottery picks... You can use the picks, you just can’t lock them all up long term if they hit. So, you can have them on a rookie deal and trade them at the optimal time if you wish. I don’t think anyone is saying you can use -and keep-5 2nd rounders.

I see nothing wrong with trading a lottery pick for an established “star” like Irving. Would anyone have complained if BC traded last years pick for Jimmy Butler or Paul George? Maybe, but at least it would make sense.

I DO have a problem with throwing in hard earned assets like BC did in the Fultz trade for a player they likely would’ve had at 3 anyway, and a player I don’t feel was worth trading up for in the first place.

Lottery picks should be treasured. Some GM’s get that, some don’t.

It's no given Fultz is available at three - and like I said exchanging a protected draft pick for what many scouts think is a centerpiece player in Fultz isn't treasuring picks I don't know what is.

A number of the "anti-trade" (I'm not saying you in particular) posters haven't got over the "we could have had the best player in the draft!" in Josh Jackson and over time as Tatum has been playing as good as Jackson has been bad have changed their reasons for being anti-trade. Some of these people even thought we should have traded up to get Lonzo Ball at one. Basically they're just anti-trade with reasons that will flip in the wind without any attempt to understand what in reality was a good decision based on solid logic that helps the organization going forward. These people have as much insight into organizational basketball culture as they do into scouting future NBA talent - ie none.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, and realize it is at this point, but imo the only way Fultz wouldn’t have been there at 3 was if another team traded to #1. Boston wanted Tatum, and Ball was ticketed to LA.

I wanted Jackson with our pick, but did not want to trade assets to move up for anyone. I thought Jackson’s athleticism and defensive potential separated him from Tatum. Ainge appears to have made the right call.

[Skates]

I just played the lotto simulator on Tankathon and we hit on the first pick with the Laker pick, problem solved (-: