Markelle Fultz Discussion

[HotelVitale]

If you're sick of a topic, not sure it helps to rattle off 5-6 posts in a row that say you're tired of it but actually imply a clear position on it that also antagonizes those who disagree with you.

It's the offseason, Fultz just came in a huge high risk/high stakes trade, and we have basically zero other news or info about him to talk about until training camp. Topic's probably not going anywhere for the time being.

[ivysixer2000]

there is nothing Fultz can do to make people change their minds at this point. It is what it is. Get used to the not so subtle shade thrown his way all year.

Yeah he can. He can be a star player or play better than the players drafted behind him.

Depends on what your definition of better is, there are alot of non shooters in the draft and the hope is Fultz is an exception to that. Ball will put up a good stat sheet across the board especially in rebs and assts on that team, except his shot sucks at this level and he can't finish in the lane, 2 issues Fultz doesn't have. Leave him wide open, I have no problem saying Ball will make it, but being guarded, that shot is just broke for the NBA.

Josh, we would be sitting here hoping he shoots better, maybe he will eventually become a good one but average shooters rarely turn into great ones, just good. Tatum is interesting, although not a good fit for us. DSJ is the only one that could be for us, but I seriously doubt we would've picked him at 3.

That said, I would've made the Celtics pick Fultz, and if they did, make the trade later. But thats just me.

[europeanfan]

Except it wasn't a high risk trade, Fultz was ranked as the clear number 1 the whole season by scouts who spends their whole life evaluating talent.

PG picked number 1 also historically never bust.

Just because Random McRandom on realgm thinks Ball or Tatum are better doesn't hold much weight in comparison.

Also stockpilling too many draft picks induce Nerlens situations where you can't use players to their best potential AND can't get fair value on the trade market.

[TTP]

It's only a matter of time before we see Porter dressed in Celtic green going mano y mano against Simmons thanks to that awful Fultz trade.

Pretty sure you have some sort of quota you have to meet per day with throwing shade at the Fultz trade man lol

For me to consider the Fultz trade a win by the Sixers the following must happen.
1. Fultz must be the best player in his draft class AND
2. Fultz must be better than whoever the Celtics get with our pick AND
3. Fultz must be better than the accumulation of Tatum AND whoever the Celtics get with our pick AND
4. Fultz must be at a minimum as good as Kyrie or Lillard

If the Celtics get Porter or Ayton or Bamba or Doncic or Bagley with our pick it must mean Fultz has to be better than for example Bagley and Tatum and that most basketball people who discuss basketball and GMs would not trade Fultz for Bagley and Tatum.

For a normal person who isn't biased, to consider the trade a win, only #2 and #3 would be required.

For an irrational person that wants to keep being obnoxious, they require #1 and #4 to give themselves more leeway to continue being ridiculous going forward.

Honestly #3 isn't even accurate because you'd have to consider the expected value of the future pick at the time of the trade, not where the actual pick lands. If I think that pick is valued somewhere around the 7th pick next year, I'd be judging Fultz against whoever I'd take at #3 this year and #7 next year. I'm not going to adjust that based on where the pick actually lands - to do so would be incredibly results oriented.

Ultimately though, if the person you would take at #3 is neither the best player in this class, nor as good as Kyrie or Lillard, why would Fultz need to be?

[Ericb5]

Pretty sure you have some sort of quota you have to meet per day with throwing shade at the Fultz trade man lol

For me to consider the Fultz trade a win by the Sixers the following must happen.
1. Fultz must be the best player in his draft class AND
2. Fultz must be better than whoever the Celtics get with our pick AND
3. Fultz must be better than the accumulation of Tatum AND whoever the Celtics get with our pick AND
4. Fultz must be at a minimum as good as Kyrie or Lillard

If the Celtics get Porter or Ayton or Bamba or Doncic or Bagley with our pick it must mean Fultz has to be better than for example Bagley and Tatum and that most basketball people who discuss basketball and GMs would not trade Fultz for Bagley and Tatum.

For a normal person who isn't biased, to consider the trade a win, only #2 and #3 would be required.

For an irrational person that wants to keep being obnoxious, they require #1 and #4 to give themselves more leeway to continue being ridiculous going forward.

Honestly #3 isn't even accurate because you'd have to consider the expected value of the future pick at the time of the trade, not where the actual pick lands. If I think that pick is valued somewhere around the 7th pick next year, I'd be judging Fultz against whoever I'd take at #3 this year and #7 next year. I'm not going to adjust that based on where the pick actually lands - to do so would be incredibly results oriented.

Ultimately though, if the person you would take at #3 is neither the best player in this class, nor as good as Kyrie or Lillard, why would Fultz need to be?

There are two different arguments here, and people are talking across each other.

There is winning the trade on points, and then there is winning the trade because our team is better because of making it.

It will be very hard to win the trade on points. To win on points, Fultz would have to be better than who we could have selected at 3, plus who we could have selected at the pick that ultimately goes to the Celtics in the next couple of years.

For our team to be better having made the deal versus not making the deal, the bar is lower. If Fultz becomes Damon Lilard then it doesn't matter what Josh Jackson becomes in the future. A PnR scoring guard that can get his own shot deep in the shot clock, and can hit 3's at high volume will make us a better team, and will make our franchise players better individually.

So for me, I just need Fultz to become a Lilard level player. If that happens then he is worth the price even if we lose on points.

Hinkie won all of the deals when he was in asset acquisition mode, but he was setting himself up to overpay for the right player at the right time. If Fultz turns into the right player, then he is worth the deal.

Plus, the Lakers pick has a strong chance of NOT being in the 2-5 range next year, in which case we are talking about the Kings pick the following year. If the Lakers pick hits for the Celtics next year then it will suck obviously, but the chances of that happening are less than 50% right now I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the_process]

I wish I saw Fultz go one on one against Porter with Fultz on offense. Porter roasted Fultz when he had the ball. I wonder if Fultz did anything to Porter.

You see DSJ shaking his head. First thing he did was way overplay Porter's right hand. That's what I would've done. But even though Porter's left is weak, that shot-making ability going both ways is sick.

[as an aside, despite the criticisms dsj gets for defense, i think the video showed that he had the best game plan against porter. dsj thinks the game faster than most others. ball does, as well.]

It's only a matter of time before we see Porter dressed in Celtic green going mano y mano against Simmons thanks to that awful Fultz trade.

I will laugh my sack off if the Celtics use a third straight top 5 pick on a wing. All they are going to do is devalue their players at that position by accumulating too many.

[Unbreakable99]

Pretty sure you have some sort of quota you have to meet per day with throwing shade at the Fultz trade man lol

For me to consider the Fultz trade a win by the Sixers the following must happen.
1. Fultz must be the best player in his draft class AND
2. Fultz must be better than whoever the Celtics get with our pick AND
3. Fultz must be better than the accumulation of Tatum AND whoever the Celtics get with our pick AND
4. Fultz must be at a minimum as good as Kyrie or Lillard

If the Celtics get Porter or Ayton or Bamba or Doncic or Bagley with our pick it must mean Fultz has to be better than for example Bagley and Tatum and that most basketball people who discuss basketball and GMs would not trade Fultz for Bagley and Tatum.

For a normal person who isn't biased, to consider the trade a win, only #2 and #3 would be required.

For an irrational person that wants to keep being obnoxious, they require #1 and #4 to give themselves more leeway to continue being ridiculous going forward.

Honestly #3 isn't even accurate because you'd have to consider the expected value of the future pick at the time of the trade, not where the actual pick lands. If I think that pick is valued somewhere around the 7th pick next year, I'd be judging Fultz against whoever I'd take at #3 this year and #7 next year. I'm not going to adjust that based on where the pick actually lands - to do so would be incredibly results oriented.

Ultimately though, if the person you would take at #3 is neither the best player in this class, nor as good as Kyrie or Lillard, why would Fultz need to be?

But my point is that Fultz woukd have been there at 3 so we would have taken him at 3 and kept our pick. I think Fultz had an 80% chance of being there at 3. The only other team who had assets to move up that far to 1 were the Suns and they were not going to give up all that just to get someone. And Fultz and Booker wouldn't exactly be a great pair. They would be a low budget Lillard/McCollum or at best just be as good as them. I think the Suns just wanted Jackson regardless. The Kings did not want to give up both of their picks to move up. BC should have called his bluff and made Ainge make a decision. It was very obvious Ainge didn't and would not have drafted Fultz at 1.

When you have a GM in that position you don't let them off the hook. You make them make the tough decision. There's no way Ainge would have traded out of the top spot if Simmons or Towns or AD or Kyrie were there at 1. The Lakers were not going to take Fultz over Ball. That is obvious. So we gave up a draft pick for a player who was going to be at 3. We gave up a lot for a player who would have fallen into our laps. And I realize BC wanted to make the team more balanced and wanted more shooting and Fultz provided that over any other player in the draft. I get it. Fultz seems like a good fit for us and seems like his fit and style of play matched with us better than any other player. It was still a lot to give up for a player who was not going first or second. And Fultz isn't better than others like Jackson and Ball and you can argue guys like Isaac and DSJ and Tatum.

To me Fultz was on the same plain as about 4 other players. He was not the best player imo. He was a good fit. Fultz just better make me eat my words. If Tatum is balling then Fultz has to out ball him. If Ball is balling then Fultz has to out ball him. I don't know why so many people assume Fultz was going number one if the Celtics stayed at one. All the signs are there that Ainge was NOT going to draft him.

[TTP]

For me to consider the Fultz trade a win by the Sixers the following must happen.
1. Fultz must be the best player in his draft class AND
2. Fultz must be better than whoever the Celtics get with our pick AND
3. Fultz must be better than the accumulation of Tatum AND whoever the Celtics get with our pick AND
4. Fultz must be at a minimum as good as Kyrie or Lillard

If the Celtics get Porter or Ayton or Bamba or Doncic or Bagley with our pick it must mean Fultz has to be better than for example Bagley and Tatum and that most basketball people who discuss basketball and GMs would not trade Fultz for Bagley and Tatum.

For a normal person who isn't biased, to consider the trade a win, only #2 and #3 would be required.

For an irrational person that wants to keep being obnoxious, they require #1 and #4 to give themselves more leeway to continue being ridiculous going forward.

Honestly #3 isn't even accurate because you'd have to consider the expected value of the future pick at the time of the trade, not where the actual pick lands. If I think that pick is valued somewhere around the 7th pick next year, I'd be judging Fultz against whoever I'd take at #3 this year and #7 next year. I'm not going to adjust that based on where the pick actually lands - to do so would be incredibly results oriented.

Ultimately though, if the person you would take at #3 is neither the best player in this class, nor as good as Kyrie or Lillard, why would Fultz need to be?

But my point is that Fultz woukd have been there at 3 so we would have taken him at 3 and kept our pick. I think Fultz had an 80% chance of being there at 3. The only other team who had assets to move up that far to 1 were the Suns and they were not going to give up all that just to get someone. And Fultz and Booker wouldn't exactly be a great pair. They would be a low budget Lillard/McCollum or at best just be as good as them. I think the Suns just wanted Jackson regardless. The Kings did not want to give up both of their picks to move up. BC should have called his bluff and made Ainge make a decision. It was very obvious Ainge didn't and would not have drafted Fultz at 1.

When you have a GM in that position you don't let them off the hook. You make them make the tough decision. There's no way Ainge would have traded out of the top spot if Simmons or Towns or AD or Kyrie were there at 1. The Lakers were not going to take Fultz over Ball. That is obvious. So we gave up a draft pick for a player who was going to be at 3. We gave up a lot for a player who would have fallen into our laps. And I realize BC wanted to make the team more balanced and wanted more shooting and Fultz provided that over any other player in the draft. I get it. Fultz seems like a good fit for us and seems like his fit and style of play matched with us better than any other player. It was still a lot to give up for a player who was not going first or second. And Fultz isn't better than others like Jackson and Ball and you can argue guys like Isaac and DSJ and Tatum.

To me Fultz was on the same plain as about 4 other players. He was not the best player imo. He was a good fit. Fultz just better make me eat my words. If Tatum is balling then Fultz has to out ball him. If Ball is balling then Fultz has to out ball him. I don't know why so many people assume Fultz was going number one if the Celtics stayed at one. All the signs are there that Ainge was NOT going to draft him.

Your point is pure speculation and nothing more. I think it's more likely that there's an 80% chance he's gone at 3. Even if you think that both the Celtics and Lakers would have passed on Fultz at 1 and 2 (highly doubtful), the Celtics could have traded with other teams.

Regarding the bolded, the only thing that's obvious to me is that you buy in to "GM speak".

[Mik317]

I cannot believe people are falling for the ole 'we would have taken this guy at 1" ****. Newsflash everyone gets their guy in the draft. Ainge is the king of somehow always being on top of whatever deal he does...by way of hindsight. He wanted Jackson and got played more than likely...and didn't need another guard so Tatum was the best case scenario. There is NO way Ainge would have taken him number one if only because that's awful value for the pick...meaning he was going to trade it to someone who wanted one of the two guards...IN which case means neither Ball or Fultz was going to be there at 3. Is it possible he would have been there? sure..there is always a chance but it wasn't a big one.

now look, again I was team Fox or Jackson for most of the predraft process, and I too worry that we gave up too much...so I get the worry but it starts to reek of rooting for the kid to fail as a self fulfilling prophecy when you are so negative on the kid when **** all has happened to prove it either way. Look bottom line is, if Simmons sucks and Embiid can't last...then it really doesn't matter as neither Ball, Jackson or Fox would help that as much as I like 2 of those guys, none of them are franchise level game changers (IMO neither is Fultz, although his toolset and body gives him a chance as most of his current flaws are awareness and stuff that ideally can be fixed with time and training...whether or not he gets there is the big question of course, but its not a jumper like those 3). Those picks were neat but eventually we start to run out of space for more prospects and need to start thinking forward (not to mention if Fultz is truly ass (which by the way I can't see him being totally bad...flawed as hell but not a total bust IMO) then the FO is probably sacked anyway).

but tldr; Fultz is here; start rooting for him no matter what your predraft thoughts on him were; rooting for him to fail all so you can go "I told you so" is some sucker ****.

[Ericb5]

Said in a brief way, I think drafting Fultz completes our core right away because we know that he is a great compliment.

Drafting Jackson, Tatum or Ball, while all terrific talents, that fit to a certain degree, wouldn't be slam dunk keepers for our core.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Unbreakable99]

I cannot believe people are falling for the ole 'we would have taken this guy at 1" ****. Newsflash everyone gets their guy in the draft. Ainge is the king of somehow always being on top of whatever deal he does...by way of hindsight. He wanted Jackson and got played more than likely...and didn't need another guard so Tatum was the best case scenario. There is NO way Ainge would have taken him number one if only because that's awful value for the pick...meaning he was going to trade it to someone who wanted one of the two guards...IN which case means neither Ball or Fultz was going to be there at 3. Is it possible he would have been there? sure..there is always a chance but it wasn't a big one.

now look, again I was team Fox or Jackson for most of the predraft process, and I too worry that we gave up too much...so I get the worry but it starts to reek of rooting for the kid to fail as a self fulfilling prophecy when you are so negative on the kid when **** all has happened to prove it either way. Look bottom line is, if Simmons sucks and Embiid can't last...then it really doesn't matter as neither Ball, Jackson or Fox would help that as much as I like 2 of those guys, none of them are franchise level game changers (IMO neither is Fultz, although his toolset and body gives him a chance as most of his current flaws are awareness and stuff that ideally can be fixed with time and training...whether or not he gets there is the big question of course, but its not a jumper like those 3). Those picks were neat but eventually we start to run out of space for more prospects and need to start thinking forward (not to mention if Fultz is truly ass (which by the way I can't see him being totally bad...flawed as hell but not a total bust IMO) then the FO is probably sacked anyway).

but tldr; Fultz is here; start rooting for him no matter what your predraft thoughts on him were; rooting for him to fail all so you can go "I told you so" is some sucker ****.

Who would have traded up to one? No other team was trading up. That's being very optimistic. And I do think Ainge would have drafted Tatum first. Why do people think Ainge was forced to draft Fultz? Ainge didn't like him that much. He didn't have to take him. He wouldn't have taken him. No other team was trading up to one. Fultz was going to be there at 3.

[JojoSlimbiid]

[Sixerscan]

Ok this is more annoying than the Okafor stuff now. Congrats.

[smittybanton]

For me to consider the Fultz trade a win by the Sixers the following must happen.
1. Fultz must be the best player in his draft class AND
2. Fultz must be better than whoever the Celtics get with our pick AND
3. Fultz must be better than the accumulation of Tatum AND whoever the Celtics get with our pick AND
4. Fultz must be at a minimum as good as Kyrie or Lillard

If the Celtics get Porter or Ayton or Bamba or Doncic or Bagley with our pick it must mean Fultz has to be better than for example Bagley and Tatum and that most basketball people who discuss basketball and GMs would not trade Fultz for Bagley and Tatum.

For a normal person who isn't biased, to consider the trade a win, only #2 and #3 would be required.

For an irrational person that wants to keep being obnoxious, they require #1 and #4 to give themselves more leeway to continue being ridiculous going forward.

Honestly #3 isn't even accurate because you'd have to consider the expected value of the future pick at the time of the trade, not where the actual pick lands. If I think that pick is valued somewhere around the 7th pick next year, I'd be judging Fultz against whoever I'd take at #3 this year and #7 next year. I'm not going to adjust that based on where the pick actually lands - to do so would be incredibly results oriented.

Ultimately though, if the person you would take at #3 is neither the best player in this class, nor as good as Kyrie or Lillard, why would Fultz need to be?

But my point is that Fultz woukd have been there at 3 so we would have taken him at 3 and kept our pick. I think Fultz had an 80% chance of being there at 3. The only other team who had assets to move up that far to 1 were the Suns and they were not going to give up all that just to get someone. And Fultz and Booker wouldn't exactly be a great pair. They would be a low budget Lillard/McCollum or at best just be as good as them. I think the Suns just wanted Jackson regardless. The Kings did not want to give up both of their picks to move up. BC should have called his bluff and made Ainge make a decision. It was very obvious Ainge didn't and would not have drafted Fultz at 1.

When you have a GM in that position you don't let them off the hook. You make them make the tough decision. There's no way Ainge would have traded out of the top spot if Simmons or Towns or AD or Kyrie were there at 1. The Lakers were not going to take Fultz over Ball. That is obvious. So we gave up a draft pick for a player who was going to be at 3. We gave up a lot for a player who would have fallen into our laps. And I realize BC wanted to make the team more balanced and wanted more shooting and Fultz provided that over any other player in the draft. I get it. Fultz seems like a good fit for us and seems like his fit and style of play matched with us better than any other player. It was still a lot to give up for a player who was not going first or second. And Fultz isn't better than others like Jackson and Ball and you can argue guys like Isaac and DSJ and Tatum.

To me Fultz was on the same plain as about 4 other players. He was not the best player imo. He was a good fit. Fultz just better make me eat my words. If Tatum is balling then Fultz has to out ball him. If Ball is balling then Fultz has to out ball him. I don't know why so many people assume Fultz was going number one if the Celtics stayed at one. All the signs are there that Ainge was NOT going to draft him.

I agree with everything you've said. I mean everything. Squandered value.

Yet, I've come to terms with it, because of the 100% fit with our guys, the 20% chance we wouldn't have gotten him at 3, the Sixers more than any other team had to consider DSJ's knees, the price was historically small compared to other moves from #3 to #1, and I actually think the Lakers could possibly squeak out that #6 pick for us.

BC doing BC things. On the one hand, he is the anti-hinkie when it comes to trades. On the other, I have to always remind myself BC has an above average eye for talent. Fultz is a scoring machine. I have no doubt about that.

[Unbreakable99]

For a normal person who isn't biased, to consider the trade a win, only #2 and #3 would be required.

For an irrational person that wants to keep being obnoxious, they require #1 and #4 to give themselves more leeway to continue being ridiculous going forward.

Honestly #3 isn't even accurate because you'd have to consider the expected value of the future pick at the time of the trade, not where the actual pick lands. If I think that pick is valued somewhere around the 7th pick next year, I'd be judging Fultz against whoever I'd take at #3 this year and #7 next year. I'm not going to adjust that based on where the pick actually lands - to do so would be incredibly results oriented.

Ultimately though, if the person you would take at #3 is neither the best player in this class, nor as good as Kyrie or Lillard, why would Fultz need to be?

But my point is that Fultz woukd have been there at 3 so we would have taken him at 3 and kept our pick. I think Fultz had an 80% chance of being there at 3. The only other team who had assets to move up that far to 1 were the Suns and they were not going to give up all that just to get someone. And Fultz and Booker wouldn't exactly be a great pair. They would be a low budget Lillard/McCollum or at best just be as good as them. I think the Suns just wanted Jackson regardless. The Kings did not want to give up both of their picks to move up. BC should have called his bluff and made Ainge make a decision. It was very obvious Ainge didn't and would not have drafted Fultz at 1.

When you have a GM in that position you don't let them off the hook. You make them make the tough decision. There's no way Ainge would have traded out of the top spot if Simmons or Towns or AD or Kyrie were there at 1. The Lakers were not going to take Fultz over Ball. That is obvious. So we gave up a draft pick for a player who was going to be at 3. We gave up a lot for a player who would have fallen into our laps. And I realize BC wanted to make the team more balanced and wanted more shooting and Fultz provided that over any other player in the draft. I get it. Fultz seems like a good fit for us and seems like his fit and style of play matched with us better than any other player. It was still a lot to give up for a player who was not going first or second. And Fultz isn't better than others like Jackson and Ball and you can argue guys like Isaac and DSJ and Tatum.

To me Fultz was on the same plain as about 4 other players. He was not the best player imo. He was a good fit. Fultz just better make me eat my words. If Tatum is balling then Fultz has to out ball him. If Ball is balling then Fultz has to out ball him. I don't know why so many people assume Fultz was going number one if the Celtics stayed at one. All the signs are there that Ainge was NOT going to draft him.

I agree with everything you've said. I mean everything. Squandered value.

Yet, I've come to terms with it, because of the 100% fit with our guys, the 20% chance we wouldn't have gotten him at 3, the Sixers more than any other team had to consider DSJ's knees, the price was historically small compared to other moves from #3 to #1, and I actually think the Lakers could possibly squeak out that #6 pick for us.

BC doing BC things. On the one hand, he is the anti-hinkie when it comes to trades. On the other, I have to always remind myself BC has an above average eye for talent. Fultz is a scoring machine. I have no doubt about that.

We'll see. I'm rooting for Fultz. He definitely will get his shots. I don't think he will be as submissive to Embiid and Simmons's as some may think. Fultz wants and loves to shoot. He better have that Mamba mentality then because I'm sure there will be a game or games when we have the ball with the chance to win and Fultz takes the shot and Embiid may have wanted it.

[HotelVitale]

Except 1) it wasn't an high risk trade, Fultz was ranked as the clear number 1 the whole season by scouts who spends their whole life evaluating talent. 2) PG picked number 1 also historically never bust. Just because Random McRandom on realgm thinks Ball or Tatum are better doesn't hold much weight in comparison. 3) Also stockpilling too many draft picks induce Nerlens situations where you can't use players to their best potential AND can't get fair value on the trade market.

I'm not a Fultz hater and had him #1 on my board but this is all thoroughly faulty reasoning.

1) Fultz being the best prospect in most peoples' books doesn't mean he's worth a #3 and another top pick (very possibly top 3). No one thought he was far far better than the next 4-5 guys--he's just a slightly safer pick than most of them. He's like a 4.3 as a prospect and other guys were like 3.9-4.1. Being '#1' doesn't give you some kind of magic special quality, it just means you're the top of that particular heap, and in Fultz's case he was resting up at the top with a bunch of other dudes there with him. It's not unreasonable to think that they traded two guys who have roughly the same upside as Fultz to get him (hence it's high risk because we're betting that this one guy will reach his potential instead of taking a similar chance on two guys.)
2) I really hope you don't think things like this matter. Markelle Fultz is an actual and unique human and his success or failure has nothing to do with how good Magic Johnson was 35 years ago, or the fact that teams happened to pick awful players at #1 before Jay Williams and Oladipo went #2.
3) C'mon, man, it's totally ludicrous to invent reasons not to have top-5 picks. Noel played several years playing as many minutes as he could handle and he just wasn't that great during them; he showed he belongs in the league and can do some things but he doesn't look like an all-star guy or even a surefire solid starter as of now, so people didn't want to give up assets for the right to pay him good starter's money. If dudes are actually really good players--and top 5 picks have like a 50% chance of becoming that--we can always retain them, and if that's impractical they'll net a lot lot more than Noel did.

[Ericb5]

But my point is that Fultz woukd have been there at 3 so we would have taken him at 3 and kept our pick. I think Fultz had an 80% chance of being there at 3. The only other team who had assets to move up that far to 1 were the Suns and they were not going to give up all that just to get someone. And Fultz and Booker wouldn't exactly be a great pair. They would be a low budget Lillard/McCollum or at best just be as good as them. I think the Suns just wanted Jackson regardless. The Kings did not want to give up both of their picks to move up. BC should have called his bluff and made Ainge make a decision. It was very obvious Ainge didn't and would not have drafted Fultz at 1.

When you have a GM in that position you don't let them off the hook. You make them make the tough decision. There's no way Ainge would have traded out of the top spot if Simmons or Towns or AD or Kyrie were there at 1. The Lakers were not going to take Fultz over Ball. That is obvious. So we gave up a draft pick for a player who was going to be at 3. We gave up a lot for a player who would have fallen into our laps. And I realize BC wanted to make the team more balanced and wanted more shooting and Fultz provided that over any other player in the draft. I get it. Fultz seems like a good fit for us and seems like his fit and style of play matched with us better than any other player. It was still a lot to give up for a player who was not going first or second. And Fultz isn't better than others like Jackson and Ball and you can argue guys like Isaac and DSJ and Tatum.

To me Fultz was on the same plain as about 4 other players. He was not the best player imo. He was a good fit. Fultz just better make me eat my words. If Tatum is balling then Fultz has to out ball him. If Ball is balling then Fultz has to out ball him. I don't know why so many people assume Fultz was going number one if the Celtics stayed at one. All the signs are there that Ainge was NOT going to draft him.

I agree with everything you've said. I mean everything. Squandered value.

Yet, I've come to terms with it, because of the 100% fit with our guys, the 20% chance we wouldn't have gotten him at 3, the Sixers more than any other team had to consider DSJ's knees, the price was historically small compared to other moves from #3 to #1, and I actually think the Lakers could possibly squeak out that #6 pick for us.

BC doing BC things. On the one hand, he is the anti-hinkie when it comes to trades. On the other, I have to always remind myself BC has an above average eye for talent. Fultz is a scoring machine. I have no doubt about that.

We'll see. I'm rooting for Fultz. He definitely will get his shots. I don't think he will be as submissive to Embiid and Simmons's as some may think. Fultz wants and loves to shoot. He better have that Mamba mentality then because I'm sure there will be a game or games when we have the ball with the chance to win and Fultz takes the shot and Embiid may have wanted it.

He will definitely get his shots, and he should. He doesn't need to be submissive as you said. Maybe not out of the gate, but I expect him to get 15-20 shots a game by the end of the year.

He will not be the point guard, and will not have the ball in his hands enough to hog it though, not that I think that he would want to hog it.

I don't see any of the Kyrie Irving selfishness in him, where he would rather be the man on a losing team, than have a lesser role on a winning team. He will surely be given the opportunity to get his own shot down the stretch and late in shot clocks, and that will be a skill that we have lacked recently. He also will get a lot of space on the perimeter to take lots of 3's.

Intangibles wise he seems like a great teammate to me. He can be part of our big 3, which is obviously a big part of our future, and he is going to have the benefit of playing with a dominant center, and a dominant facilitator, who are both great rebounders. This team will rebound, defend, and run, and I predict that he is going to love it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GabeCerebro]

Fultz just came in a huge high risk/high stakes trade

This is just an inaccurate statement.

[Mik317]

Ainge the guy who constantly acts as if he totes was going to pull off a blockbuster deal or totes just so happen to get his guy to fall to him...was totally telling the truth this time.

Is this some of yall first rodeo? Ainge has nothing to gain by saying yeah we thought Fultz was the best guy but we traded down anyway. That hurts Tatum's confidence, probably pisses off a lot of the fanbase and is a fireable offense if Fultz turns out great. EVERYONE just so happens to be super happy after the draft. I am certain, if we didn't make the trade, there would be rumors that whoever we took at 3 was totally our target all along..Fultz or not.

Just because some of you have decided that Fultz wasn't even worth a first rounder or some ****, doesn't change the fact that maybe...just maybe, not everyone agrees with you on that...including a lot of GMs. Ainge made the trade to get more assets and the fact that guard wasn't a position of need (y'know something we should have done in the Okafor draft....but 20/20 and all that) and he maximized having the first pick.. He was fishing for takers and the ONLY reasons anyone would have traded up was to get one of the PGs...as no matter what they were going to go 1 and 2. Chicago traded Jimmy Butler was Zach Lavine and the 6th overall pick. If we balked, they could have been the next option. Magic could have been goaded into trading up a spot. Half of the damn lottery teams needed a PG FFS. I hate Ainge but dude isn't stupid; even if under some circumstance, he thought Tatum was the best player in the draft, there is less than 20% chance he would have just stayed put and took him at 1....because that would be a waste. Collecting assets is his MO. There is a reason he voted for Hinkie as GMOTY.

I cannot believe we are even having this discussion. The length some of you are going to **** on one of our own players before the goddam season even starts. Holy ****. If this is how its going to be I don't know how I am going to make it through the season..As stated above this is already worse than the Noel/Jah ****...and this is worse because many are on the side of players not even on our damn team.

all so you can be smug on the internet. goddam. Look I'm not going to sit here and act like I won't have the gas face every time Fox or Jackson does cool ass ****..but wow guys.

[GabeCerebro]

there is nothing Fultz can do to make people change their minds at this point. It is what it is. Get used to the not so subtle shade thrown his way all year.

Yeah he can. He can be a star player or play better than the players drafted behind him.

Depends on what your definition of better is, there are alot of non shooters in the draft and the hope is Fultz is an exception to that. Ball will put up a good stat sheet across the board especially in rebs and assts on that team, except his shot sucks at this level and he can't finish in the lane, 2 issues Fultz doesn't have. Leave him wide open, I have no problem saying Ball will make it, but being guarded, that shot is just broke for the NBA.

Josh, we would be sitting here hoping he shoots better, maybe he will eventually become a good one but average shooters rarely turn into great ones, just good. Tatum is interesting, although not a good fit for us. DSJ is the only one that could be for us, but I seriously doubt we would've picked him at 3.

That said, I would've made the Celtics pick Fultz, and if they did, make the trade later. But thats just me.

I agree partly. We were in a very unique situation. For one, we needed to account for fit. Like you said, there were a huge amount of non shooters high in this draft. Fultz was the best fit for us in this draft. On the other hand, I 100% would've done the trade over and over. While i'm not confident saying whether I'd think LA would take Fultz over Ball, I wouldn't have taken that risk. Go and get your guy... And that's exactly what we did.