Markelle Fultz Discussion II

[MR28]

Imagine Fultz getting shut out in 29 minutes.

[Gsraider]

Fultz was such the unanimous number one pick that Ainge didn’t even want him and would have taken Tatum at number one if he didn’t find a sucker to trade the pick.

You really believe this huh? Regardless of whether you liked Fultz, Tatum, Jackson or whomever, I don't believe this part for even a second. In watching Ainge over the years, there is way I think he takes Tatum at #1, but rather, he would have traded down for less of a bounty with LA or Phoenix and then taken Tatum, where he still would have been available in all likelihood. This is such a stupid, subjective argument because none of it can be proven either way, but having read about a thousand posts of yours that say the same thing over and over again, you are not going to be convinced otherwise. You don't have to be either. You could very well be right. Then again, you could also be wrong. If you recall, many were also reporting that Fultz killed the LA workout and that LA was trying to trade up to #1 to get Fultz. No idea if that was true either, but you can't simply pick and choose the reports that you want to believe simply because you were against trading up for Fultz.

[Unbreakable99]

Yea, we could have had that if we stayed at 3. I'm not disagreeing. I wouldn't have traded up for anyone in this draft.

Our GM is a buffoon. I’m going to cringe if I see Ayton wearing Celtic green. BC did this. That dummy should have stayed at 3. Fultz probably is there at 3 anyway. When Fultz is healthy folks will be out of excuses for reasons why he isn’t as good as Tatum or Fox or DSJ or Ball or others. That’s why I want him to shoot right. Everyone will be out of excuses for this kid and see he the buffoon GM botched this draft.

So you want Fultz to be healthy AND fail so you can say you were right. I mean I guess everyone can root for whatever they want but with that in mind, can you maybe stop posting 30 times a day that you're right until that point?

I want him to succeed and be great. I'm not rooting for him to fail but facts are facts. We will see how it works out.

[Unbreakable99]

Fultz was such the unanimous number one pick that Ainge didn’t even want him and would have taken Tatum at number one if he didn’t find a sucker to trade the pick.

You really believe this huh? Regardless of whether you liked Fultz, Tatum, Jackson or whomever, I don't believe this part for even a second. In watching Ainge over the years, there is way I think he takes Tatum at #1, but rather, he would have traded down for less of a bounty with LA or Phoenix and then taken Tatum, where he still would have been available in all likelihood. This is such a stupid, subjective argument because none of it can be proven either way, but having read about a thousand posts of yours that say the same thing over and over again, you are not going to be convinced otherwise. You don't have to be either. You could very well be right. Then again, you could also be wrong. If you recall, many were also reporting that Fultz killed the LA workout and that LA was trying to trade up to #1 to get Fultz. No idea if that was true either, but you can't simply pick and choose the reports that you want to believe simply because you were against trading up for Fultz.

If Ainge couldn't find a sucker to trade back and stayed at 1 he would take Tatum. Imagine if he drafted Fultz. He may not make the trade for Kyrie. It all worked out for Ainge. He found a sucker AND got a better player AND traded for a better player in Kyrie AND will get a top 5 pick within the next 2 years with the pick dumbo traded to Ainge.

[HotelVitale]

So are you suggesting that instead of staying in top 3, we should have traded down to 5ish to select a stretch-four (i.e. Isaac) or all the way down to 10 to select DSJ ( at 35% chance of becoming really good...have you seen him play this season?) or Mitchell? Who in their right mind passes up a chance on selecting the unanimous #1 prospect to trade all the way down to #10-12 in order to select Mitchell? Can you name a single GM in the history of the NBA who would do something that insane?
Also, there seems to be some revisions going on here...first, it was Ball who had a better chance of being good than Fultz. Now, you dropped his name from your list of prospects you originally said would be as good or better than Fultz, and now it's just Tatum and DSJ. I'm sure once we see a few more games of DSJ his name will be off that list you "junkies" compiled. And for the record, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE was saying Tatum was going to be better than Fultz. Even now, the jury is still out on who the better player will be since the Fultz we saw at Wash hasn't played a single game yet.

Relax, bud, I was trying to give you a loose way of thinking about how lots of informed people were thinking about the draft before it took shape. I for one had Fultz as the top guy for us but it took me until the last week before the draft and I was still hesitant (every other player in my top 5-6 had bigger concerns or serious fit problems). This was a weird draft year and the draft is always less than scientific; if you're incapable of holding any opinion or position between 'I hate this player' and 'back the f off of this player or I'll cut you' then you probably don't want to ask questions about things like this that require subtle answers.

Here are some facts that you might not know if you weren't following the draft closely: there were plenty of people who were very critical of Fultz, and there were plenty of people who thought that Jackson, Tatum, Ball, DSJ, and sometimes Isaac were in the conversation for the top of the draft board. Even on the relatively small Sixers draft board here, there were a lot of discussions (before we knew anything about the Fultz trade) about how and why players like Tatum and Mitchell were underrated and deserved our attention at #3, or at least merited us thinking about trades. The concerns were basically that Fultz played at slower than full NBA speed in college, he didn't show up big in big games against longer and stronger competition, and there were some concerns that his shooting #s were overrated by SSS; he was obviously really slick and skilled and sorta dazzling in college but I've been watching draft prospects for a long time and I was very uncertain about how much he could translate the way he played and how quickly. (Take a look at say college Harden--a guy who has similar good size but meh athleticism--to see the point about speed and pace of play.) Most #1 picks have enough physical tools that they'll be dominant at some things right away (think of Simmons this year), and Fultz doesn't have that at all. Obviously the jury's still out on him and I'm hopeful he can stick together his skills--he's good at driving and using space, good at shooting of the dribble, good at passing, and he's big for a PG--but that's not what we're talking about.

Also I dropped Ball in a quick edit of my post because I realized he would've been gone at #3 regardless of the trade, and my point was that a number of people taken #3-10 don't have a hugely smaller chance of succeeding than Fultz. Again, if you want to play some gotcha one-up games, go somewhere else with it.

[Gsraider]

I want him to succeed and be great. I'm not rooting for him to fail but facts are facts. We will see how it works out.

We will see how it works out and like with all draft picks, we will see how it pans out over the course of years, not weeks. So, you may want to follow your own advice with the use of "facts are facts." What facts are there? The fact that Ainge said he would have taken Tatum at #1? Really? Can you find me another truthful statement that Ainge has made that led you to believe he was being straight up here? The fact that we are about two weeks into the season? The fact that something was wrong with Fultz, whether physical, mental or both? The fact that of the guys in the mix that Philly might have taken, only Tatum has really been consistently solid. Jackson, Fox, and Smith have been solid, but inconsistent. Shocking too being that they're rookies.

The only thing that would have killed me from what I have seen thus far is if the front runner for ROY of the year this year was a guy they passed on, but thankfully he's a Sixer. For everyone else, it's waaaaaaayyyy too early.

[HotelVitale]

When Fultz shows why he's the best player in the draft the rodents will just say it's Simmons and Embiid making him look good. Not sure why people are still taking some of these posters seriously...I mean dude included Ball lol. Fultz with one arm is as good as Ball with two.

Nah, man, if that happens then you take your hat off to Fultz for improving and achieving his potential. If anyone in the top 10 has a great development they could be the best player in this draft--I believe Fultz has the best chance to do that but it's not better than two top-5 picks (which is what we gave up to get him).

The whole pt of the Hinkie strategy was that you have to accept that the draft is unpredictable and you're not going to get it right every time. That's the philosophy allowed us to strike out on Noel and Okafor and also hit it big with Simmons and Embiid. I feel like I'm a pretty decent amateur scout and I've been totally wrong a lot, and so has every GM in the league (including all the ones you think are great drafters). Fultz is a really good prospect but he's not a sure thing dominant guy like Blake Griffin or Wall or other #1s, and it's not a great calculation to give up two top-5 picks to get one guy who has roughly one top-3 value. Hard to see why this trade wasn't poorly reasoned and an unnecessary reversal of the process philosophy that's been awesome so far.

It may still work out--and I really really hope it does--but that doesn't mean you can't have a brain and some independent thought and critique it.

The fact that Ainge said he would have taken Tatum at #1? Really? For everyone else, it's waaaaaaayyyy too early.

I for one hate that theory--I think it's safe to assume Ainge probably would've taken Fultz at #1 or else traded the pick elsewhere, or that the Lakers might've taken Fultz or something else. I also hate arguments based on speculation since they by definition can't go anywhere (also hate arguments based on wild theories of how we could have made out like bandits if a bunch of unlikely things happened--what exactly is the point of repeating that it would've been awesome if something awesome happened?). My critique of the trade is just cost/benefit, don't see how (Fultz) vs (#3 pick + other likely top 5 pick) have equal chances of success. As a serious Sixers fan, my fingers are crossed that Fultz puts it together, the Lakers pick falls to #6, and the Kings make a quick leap--all of that could still happen, and I would still think my analysis of the trade was right.

[cksdayoff]

I'd take Ayton over Fultz and Tatum... and since our GM uses DX to do his college scouting, while he scours Europe, the Celtics have a chance to get him and have Tatum as a bonus.

Yea, we could have had that if we stayed at 3. I'm not disagreeing. I wouldn't have traded up for anyone in this draft.

Our GM is a buffoon. I’m going to cringe if I see Ayton wearing Celtic green. BC did this. That dummy should have stayed at 3. Fultz probably is there at 3 anyway. When Fultz is healthy folks will be out of excuses for reasons why he isn’t as good as Tatum or Fox or DSJ or Ball or others. That’s why I want him to shoot right. Everyone will be out of excuses for this kid and see he the buffoon GM botched this draft.

you're a joke

[Gsraider]

If Ainge couldn't find a sucker to trade back and stayed at 1 he would take Tatum. Imagine if he drafted Fultz. He may not make the trade for Kyrie. It all worked out for Ainge. He found a sucker AND got a better player AND traded for a better player in Kyrie AND will get a top 5 pick within the next 2 years with the pick dumbo traded to Ainge.

You have absolutely no idea, yet you are making it fact. Do you honestly believe what any GM says around the trade deadline or draft time, let alone Ainge? Personally, and like you, I'm guessing, I don't think Ainge would have taken Fultz #1 either, but not because he wasn't the top prospect, but because of the logjam he had in the backcourt. He was not going to create a situation like Hinkie did at center. Just the same, I don't think Ainge was ever going to pick at #1. You call Philly a sucker, but how do you explain the rumor (that you are ignoring) that LA was trying to trade up a spot to take Fultz? Why is that any less valid?

The fact that you are already calling Tatum a better player is mind boggling. He could wind up in the end, but even if Fultz was playing and averaging 30 ppg, it would be foolish to call him a better player than Tatum only a handful of games into the season. We'll also see if the pick he gets is in the top 5 or do you know that already too?

[BullyKing]

Our GM is a buffoon. I’m going to cringe if I see Ayton wearing Celtic green. BC did this. That dummy should have stayed at 3. Fultz probably is there at 3 anyway. When Fultz is healthy folks will be out of excuses for reasons why he isn’t as good as Tatum or Fox or DSJ or Ball or others. That’s why I want him to shoot right. Everyone will be out of excuses for this kid and see he the buffoon GM botched this draft.

So you want Fultz to be healthy AND fail so you can say you were right. I mean I guess everyone can root for whatever they want but with that in mind, can you maybe stop posting 30 times a day that you're right until that point?

I want him to succeed and be great. I'm not rooting for him to fail but facts are facts. We will see how it works out.

That's great and I truly do appreciate your basketball knowledge. But "facts are not facts" because there are no facts right now and that's the problem - you're treating your opinion as a fact. I just wish you could table the was the Fultz trade a horrible trade or the worst trade in NBA history debate until Fultz comes back and we see how he's performing.

[BullyKing]

Yea, we could have had that if we stayed at 3. I'm not disagreeing. I wouldn't have traded up for anyone in this draft.

Our GM is a buffoon. I’m going to cringe if I see Ayton wearing Celtic green. BC did this. That dummy should have stayed at 3. Fultz probably is there at 3 anyway. When Fultz is healthy folks will be out of excuses for reasons why he isn’t as good as Tatum or Fox or DSJ or Ball or others. That’s why I want him to shoot right. Everyone will be out of excuses for this kid and see he the buffoon GM botched this draft.

you're a joke

This is not acceptable. Don't post like this again.

[Negrodamus]

I don't know why I keep clicking on this thread. I already know what to expect.

[Unbreakable99]

If Ainge couldn't find a sucker to trade back and stayed at 1 he would take Tatum. Imagine if he drafted Fultz. He may not make the trade for Kyrie. It all worked out for Ainge. He found a sucker AND got a better player AND traded for a better player in Kyrie AND will get a top 5 pick within the next 2 years with the pick dumbo traded to Ainge.

You have absolutely no idea, yet you are making it fact. Do you honestly believe what any GM says around the trade deadline or draft time, let alone Ainge? Personally, and like you, I'm guessing, I don't think Ainge would have taken Fultz #1 either, but not because he wasn't the top prospect, but because of the logjam he had in the backcourt. He was not going to create a situation like Hinkie did at center. Just the same, I don't think Ainge was ever going to pick at #1. You call Philly a sucker, but how do you explain the rumor (that you are ignoring) that LA was trying to trade up a spot to take Fultz? Why is that any less valid?

The fact that you are already calling Tatum a better player is mind boggling. He could wind up in the end, but even if Fultz was playing and averaging 30 ppg, it would be foolish to call him a better player than Tatum only a handful of games into the season. We'll also see if the pick he gets is in the top 5 or do you know that already too?

Well Ainge was not going to draft Fultz regardless. We agree. BC let him off the hook. He should have forced Ainge make a pick at one. If Ainge could t find a trading partner I truly believe he was taking Tatum at one.

[Unbreakable99]

I want him to succeed and be great. I'm not rooting for him to fail but facts are facts. We will see how it works out.

We will see how it works out and like with all draft picks, we will see how it pans out over the course of years, not weeks. So, you may want to follow your own advice with the use of "facts are facts." What facts are there? The fact that Ainge said he would have taken Tatum at #1? Really? Can you find me another truthful statement that Ainge has made that led you to believe he was being straight up here? The fact that we are about two weeks into the season? The fact that something was wrong with Fultz, whether physical, mental or both? The fact that of the guys in the mix that Philly might have taken, only Tatum has really been consistently solid. Jackson, Fox, and Smith have been solid, but inconsistent. Shocking too being that they're rookies.

The only thing that would have killed me from what I have seen thus far is if the front runner for ROY of the year this year was a guy they passed on, but thankfully he's a Sixer. For everyone else, it's waaaaaaayyyy too early.

Out of the draft class Tatum and Kuzma and Markennen are the front drummers as best rookies so far. Tatum is the pick we traded so I think based on what you said the trade should kill you. It’s only because of Simmons who was drafted in 2016 is overshadowing them. But out of the 2017 class we did pass on Tatum. We passed on every player not named Fultz. You should be furious with how much BC gave up.

[Gsraider]

Out of the draft class Tatum and Kuzma and Markennen are the front drummers as best rookies so far. Tatum is the pick we traded so I think based on what you said the trade should kill you. It’s only because of Simmons who was drafted in 2016 is overshadowing them. But out of the 2017 class we did pass on Tatum. We passed on every player not named Fultz. You should be furious with how much BC gave up.

First off, I believe that Fultz does have a physical issue that has precluded him from showing what he can do out there so far. Second, I have more patience than my middle school son, so I'm actually prepared to wait an entire month and possibly even a season or two before formulating a final judgement about the players from this class. So, while I may be furious in the end, it's patently absurd to be furious right now. If Fultz does pan out however, your ridiculous amount of premature posts on the subject are going to look pretty absurd.

[Gsraider]

Well Ainge was not going to draft Fultz regardless. We agree. BC let him off the hook. He should have forced Ainge make a pick at one. If Ainge could t find a trading partner I truly believe he was taking Tatum at one.

We somewhat agree. We do not agree that BC let him off the hook. The only "insider" that I take any stock in is Woj, and if you are so inclined, feel free to go back and read his tweets right around the time Philly made the deal. Per Woj, LA was blown away by Fultz' workout and was trying to move up from #2 to take him, but Philly could offer more because they had to. So, we agree that Ainge probably doesn't take Fultz #1 (unlike you, I'm not positive, but I understand the hesitation because of his glut of swingmen; not because he preferred Tatum). However, I don't think for one second that Ainge would have ever stayed at #1 and picked. He trades with LA, Philly or Phoenix first and he would have had zero problem making it happen.

[CoreyGallagher]

Stop attacking posters, address the post if you disagree with it.

Personal attacks are against the rules, also being respectful of other posters is a rule itself.

[the_process]

When Fultz shows why he's the best player in the draft the rodents will just say it's Simmons and Embiid making him look good. Not sure why people are still taking some of these posters seriously...I mean dude included Ball lol. Fultz with one arm is as good as Ball with two.

Nah, man, if that happens then you take your hat off to Fultz for improving and achieving his potential. If anyone in the top 10 has a great development they could be the best player in this draft--I believe Fultz has the best chance to do that but it's not better than two top-5 picks (which is what we gave up to get him).

The whole pt of the Hinkie strategy was that you have to accept that the draft is unpredictable and you're not going to get it right every time. That's the philosophy allowed us to strike out on Noel and Okafor and also hit it big with Simmons and Embiid. I feel like I'm a pretty decent amateur scout and I've been totally wrong a lot, and so has every GM in the league (including all the ones you think are great drafters). Fultz is a really good prospect but he's not a sure thing dominant guy like Blake Griffin or Wall or other #1s, and it's not a great calculation to give up two top-5 picks to get one guy who has roughly one top-3 value. Hard to see why this trade wasn't poorly reasoned and an unnecessary reversal of the process philosophy that's been awesome so far.

It may still work out--and I really really hope it does--but that doesn't mean you can't have a brain and some independent thought and critique it.

The fact that Ainge said he would have taken Tatum at #1? Really? For everyone else, it's waaaaaaayyyy too early.

I for one hate that theory--I think it's safe to assume Ainge probably would've taken Fultz at #1 or else traded the pick elsewhere, or that the Lakers might've taken Fultz or something else. I also hate arguments based on speculation since they by definition can't go anywhere (also hate arguments based on wild theories of how we could have made out like bandits if a bunch of unlikely things happened--what exactly is the point of repeating that it would've been awesome if something awesome happened?). My critique of the trade is just cost/benefit, don't see how (Fultz) vs (#3 pick + other likely top 5 pick) have equal chances of success. As a serious Sixers fan, my fingers are crossed that Fultz puts it together, the Lakers pick falls to #6, and the Kings make a quick leap--all of that could still happen, and I would still think my analysis of the trade was right.

The flaw with all that analysis is... it’s far from a sure thing the Celtics are getting another top 5 pick. It’s just as likely they get a 2019 13th overall pick as it is they get a 2018 2nd overall pick.

[Unbreakable99]

When Fultz shows why he's the best player in the draft the rodents will just say it's Simmons and Embiid making him look good. Not sure why people are still taking some of these posters seriously...I mean dude included Ball lol. Fultz with one arm is as good as Ball with two.

Nah, man, if that happens then you take your hat off to Fultz for improving and achieving his potential. If anyone in the top 10 has a great development they could be the best player in this draft--I believe Fultz has the best chance to do that but it's not better than two top-5 picks (which is what we gave up to get him).

The whole pt of the Hinkie strategy was that you have to accept that the draft is unpredictable and you're not going to get it right every time. That's the philosophy allowed us to strike out on Noel and Okafor and also hit it big with Simmons and Embiid. I feel like I'm a pretty decent amateur scout and I've been totally wrong a lot, and so has every GM in the league (including all the ones you think are great drafters). Fultz is a really good prospect but he's not a sure thing dominant guy like Blake Griffin or Wall or other #1s, and it's not a great calculation to give up two top-5 picks to get one guy who has roughly one top-3 value. Hard to see why this trade wasn't poorly reasoned and an unnecessary reversal of the process philosophy that's been awesome so far.

It may still work out--and I really really hope it does--but that doesn't mean you can't have a brain and some independent thought and critique it.

The fact that Ainge said he would have taken Tatum at #1? Really? For everyone else, it's waaaaaaayyyy too early.

I for one hate that theory--I think it's safe to assume Ainge probably would've taken Fultz at #1 or else traded the pick elsewhere, or that the Lakers might've taken Fultz or something else. I also hate arguments based on speculation since they by definition can't go anywhere (also hate arguments based on wild theories of how we could have made out like bandits if a bunch of unlikely things happened--what exactly is the point of repeating that it would've been awesome if something awesome happened?). My critique of the trade is just cost/benefit, don't see how (Fultz) vs (#3 pick + other likely top 5 pick) have equal chances of success. As a serious Sixers fan, my fingers are crossed that Fultz puts it together, the Lakers pick falls to #6, and the Kings make a quick leap--all of that could still happen, and I would still think my analysis of the trade was right.

The flaw with all that analysis is... it’s far from a sure thing the Celtics are getting another top 5 pick. It’s just as likely they get a 2019 13th overall pick as it is they get a 2018 2nd overall pick.

Very doubtful. I think the odds are much higher whenever the Lakers/Kings pick conveys it will be in the top 8.

[CoreyGallagher]

It’s not, there are truly awful teams this season and the Lakers aren’t among them, the Lakers are among a handful of just bad teams. They need to finish ahead of one of those bad teams and some of them will eventually begin tanking.

If the Lakers are even 6th worst they’ll only have a 15% of getting the pick. As soon as they’re not bottom 5 it becomes very unlikely.

Meanwhile, the Kings will likely be getting a top pick and already have some nice prospects, they’re just young. Could very well improve quite a bit.