Markelle Fultz Discussion

[CoreyGallagher]

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.

I understand why the discussion is what it has been and while I do believe that there has been too much iteration, what annoys me is reading opinions declared as facts, either way. That's not specific to this thread, but being that opinion is all that can be discussed here without new news or info, what I ask is to understand that's all it is - opinion.

[Kolkmania]

I think there are two things people tend to forget/undervalue. (1) Fit and (2) basketball value relative to their salary.

(1) With Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons as core players at the 4 and 5, our draft choices become more limited. We need players who can stretch the floor and have the mobility to defend at the perimeter. The top of the 2018 draft has some high upside, but the number of perimeter players is very limited. Mo Bamba, DeAndre Ayton, Marvin Bagley, Miles Bridges, Robert Williams, Wendell Carter, Nick Richardson and even Jarred Vanderbilt and Kevin Knox won't fit next to Embiid and Simmons.
So yeah, having a top 10 Lakers pick is valuable, but not as valuable as it is for other teams because of fit issues and I don't think that any of these prospects has a clear advantage over Embiid or Simmons. Luka Doncic and Collin Sexton are good fits, while Michael Porter might work due to his ability to stretch the floor (while he's also a 4, just like Simmons). The former and latter are probably not available with the Lakers pick and Sexton is a clear step down from Fultz imo.
Having a core of hopefully three max contract worthy players, who are a perfect fit in theory is insanely valuable.

(2) Another thing to keep in mind that 1 + 1 is not necessarily 2 in terms of basketball value.

3. Fultz must be better than the accumulation of Tatum AND whoever the Celtics get with our pick AND

For the sake of clarity let's use BPM as an indicator of a player's value and I'll try to explain why I disagree with the above statement.
In a dream outcome Fultz ends up at the best player of the draft, roughly a +4 BPM player. However, Jayson Tatum and let's say DeAndre Ayton end up fine as well, both +3 BPM players. Now a simple calculation would be that the combination of Tatum and Ayton is more valuable than Fultz, which is true, but not from a quality/salary standpoint.
The cap limitations in the NBA prevent truly great players from having a contract that is fair in comparison with their relative value on the court. This results in situations where LeBron James earns just a fraction more than perennial all-stars, that's why a truly great player is infinitely more valuable than a top ~25 player with a max contract.
With Embiid and Simmons as potential max caliber players, we don't have the room for multiple ~25% cap players.

Keeping both points in mind I think that Bryan Colangelo made the right decision, however this DOES NOT mean we "win" the trade. The Celtics are on a different timeline and want to win now while accumulating additional possibilities of drafting a future franchise player. Having two potentially top 5 picks increases the odds of drafting one. So from their perspective it makes sense as well.

[Simmons25]

This has been done ad nauseum. The odds are Fultz would have been gone before we had our pick at 3, because Danny Ainge f'd it up. The first thing he did after trading for the #3 pick was get on a plane to get Josh Jackson who he wanted. Jackson burnt him 30,000 feet up in the air and Ainge was stuffed because he knew now neither Fultz or Ball were going to be there at 3 for him to pick up.

If Ainge was half the great GM he tells everyone he is in hindsight, he would have sussed out Josh Jackson before doing the trade... realised Jackson wanted no piece of Boston and then he would have stayed at the #1 pick and most likely picked Fultz or Ball instead.

So fate in the end would have decided that we had to do the trade to get Fultz. No way was Ainge picking Tatum at #1.

[HotelVitale]

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

This is just an inaccurate statement.

Ugh. I'm not even particularly opposed to the trade and like Fultz, but let's not turn the board into a parody of itself. Trading two top-3 picks is always going to be high risk, and the odds of two picks in that zone turning into a great player are better than the odds of Fultz becoming one. So yes, betting on Fultz is a significant gamble. Just basic facts, not acknowledging them is only going to produce sensitive homer stuff, walling up around your guy like he's part of your family or something.

I understand why the discussion is what it has been and while I do believe that there has been too much iteration, what annoys me is reading opinions declared as facts, either way. That's not specific to this thread, but being that opinion is all that can be discussed here without new news or info, what I ask is to understand that's all it is - opinion.

I feel you on that. My least favorite thing about realgm is that there's zero accountability: people will shout other posters down and genuinely think they're ignorant or trolls when they don't agree with some assumption or prediction that's obviously shaky-- and then they'll pretend they never said anything or just disappear when that thing doesn't happen. I can live with that with my family and partner or whatever--that stuff's not supposed to make sense--but I'm trying to think about ball as a distraction and I'm not really into shouting matches where anyone on the outside can tell neither person has the obvious right answer.

(Sidenote: I sometimes daydream about a reliability score next to your and-1s (since those actually measure more the warmth of your takes and the volume of your insults on the GB). Something that tracks the commitments or stances you make in posts and sees how accurate they are. But then I realize how unbearable some folks would be who happen to guess right on the first 10 things and carry themselves like they're the Warren Buffet of the NBA.)

[LordCovington33]

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

This is just an inaccurate statement.

Ugh. I'm not even particularly opposed to the trade and like Fultz, but let's not turn the board into a parody of itself. Trading two top-3 picks is always going to be high risk, and the odds of two picks in that zone turning into a great player are better than the odds of Fultz becoming one. So yes, betting on Fultz is a significant gamble. Just basic facts, not acknowledging them is only going to produce sensitive homer stuff, walling up around your guy like he's part of your family or something.

I understand why the discussion is what it has been and while I do believe that there has been too much iteration, what annoys me is reading opinions declared as facts, either way. That's not specific to this thread, but being that opinion is all that can be discussed here without new news or info, what I ask is to understand that's all it is - opinion.

I feel you on that. My least favorite thing about realgm is that there's zero accountability: people will shout other posters down and genuinely think they're ignorant or trolls when they don't agree with some assumption or prediction that's obviously shaky-- and then they'll pretend they never said anything or just disappear when that thing doesn't happen. I can live with that with my family and partner or whatever--that stuff's not supposed to make sense--but I'm trying to think about ball as a distraction and I'm not really into shouting matches where anyone on the outside can tell neither person has the obvious right answer.

(Sidenote: I sometimes daydream about a reliability score next to your and-1s (since those actually measure more the warmth of your takes and the volume of your insults on the GB). Something that tracks the commitments or stances you make in posts and sees how accurate they are. But then I realize how unbearable some folks would be who happen to guess right on the first 10 things and carry themselves like they're the Warren Buffet of the NBA.)

Two top 3 picks? A week before the trade was made, Vegas had the Lakers tied for sixth last. You might think it will go top 3, but this is just another example of opinion declared as fact to strengthen your own argument.

[Sixerscan]

There's literally no scenario going into the lottery where that pick will have even a 40% chance of conveying to Boston in the top 3.

[TTP]

Yeah I don't think the expected value of that pick is even top 5 next year, and it's further devalued when incorporating time value of money from conveying as the Kings pick a good percentage of the time.

[smittybanton]

This has been done ad nauseum. The odds are Fultz would have been gone before we had our pick at 3, because Danny Ainge f'd it up. The first thing he did after trading for the #3 pick was get on a plane to get Josh Jackson who he wanted. Jackson burnt him 30,000 feet up in the air and Ainge was stuffed because he knew now neither Fultz or Ball were going to be there at 3 for him to pick up.

If Ainge was half the great GM he tells everyone he is in hindsight, he would have sussed out Josh Jackson before doing the trade... realised Jackson wanted no piece of Boston and then he would have stayed at the #1 pick and most likely picked Fultz or Ball instead.

So fate in the end would have decided that we had to do the trade to get Fultz. No way was Ainge picking Tatum at #1.

I think Ainge's #1 target was getting #5 and #10 from Sacramento. The one player that fit their needs was Jonathan Isaac, then they also could've gone big at #10. I totally agree with Unbreakable that Boston was in a horrible position where none of the top four fit their needs. Next year is the draft for them. Chocked full of bigs. And I'm not happy we put them in a position to get two of the best. Still, I've come to terms with it.

[HotelVitale]

Two top 3 picks? A week before the trade was made, Vegas had the Lakers tied for sixth last. You might think it will go top 3, but this is just another example of opinion declared as fact to strengthen your own argument.

I haven't even told you my opinion here. The statement you're criticizing said 'this was a huge, famous, high risk trade so obviously it's of interest to many fans.' If you're attacking that like you're defending your mother from vikings, you might want to check where you're coming from.

The top 3 estimate was based on where we thought the pick would be as of draft night. But the pick is risky no matter where it falls--if it falls to 6 or 7 then we're giving up a Kings pick unprotected in '19, which most would estimate at top 5 but, sure, it could always be later. We're still very likely giving up a top pick, and we're currently risking that this pick won't be a special player. And there's also a chance that the pick is top-2 (another part of the risk).

I'm not trying to be all wise old head here but it's just basic maturity to see that there are two sides in a trade, you're rarely going to fleece other reasonably intelligent people, and there's going to be risk in most trades--especially those involving unpredictable and high-boom/bust elements like draft picks and prospects. The actual trade was Fultz for the choice of JJ/Tatum/Isaac/DSJ plus a LAL/Kings pick; if you think there's no chance we lose that trade then you're not really talking here.

[LloydFree]

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

This annoys you more than the 3 closet cases, over in the Noel thread, taking turns bumping it to make themselves feel good?

[TTP]

The top 3 estimate was based on where we thought the pick would be as of draft night. But the pick is risky no matter where it falls--if it falls to 6 or 7 then we're giving up a Kings pick unprotected in '19, which most would estimate at top 5 but, sure, it could always be later. We're still very likely giving up a top pick, and we're currently risking that this pick won't be a special player. And there's also a chance that the pick is top-2 (another part of the risk).

Do your estimate again. Even on draft night before the Lakers made their FA moves, there's no way that picks averages as a top 3 pick.

I wouldn't estimate the Kings pick at top 5 either.

It's complicated, but you would need to assign a points value to each pick, then estimate the probability that each of those teams lands at various lottery spots, then use the lottery odds to calculate expected value. Neither team has incentive to tank as well so I'd be more conservative with lottery placing.

There's risk when you sell a lottery ticket to a friend that that particular ticket ends up a winner. That doesn't mean that there's no price that you'd be willing to sell it. One just needs to factor in probability and payoffs.

[Sixerscan]

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

This annoys you more than the 3 closet cases, over in the Noel thread, taking turns bumping it to make themselves feel good?

at least that's like once a week rather than literally every day.

Also Noel not being signed yet is relatively newsworthy whereas whereas when it comes to this trade people are saying is stuff that was said 2 months ago.

[eagereyez]

Nah, it's not close imo. Lebron's in contention for best ever, Kobe is optimistically second team.

Depends on what you value, it's entirely subjective.

If you value winning basketball games then it's not subjective.

[LloydFree]

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

This annoys you more than the 3 closet cases, over in the Noel thread, taking turns bumping it to make themselves feel good?

at least that's like once a week rather than literally every day.

Also Noel not being signed yet is relatively newsworthy whereas whereas when it comes to this trade people are saying is stuff that was said 2 months ago.

Well, get ready for a whole lot more rehashing of that trade. Because like it or not, the minute you trade 2 high lottery picks in order to select a player #1, that player has to own that even if it wasn't his fault.

What's funny about this is that some of the same guys that don't want to hear complaining about the Fultz trade from 2 whole months ago (in the Fultz thread of all places) are some of the same guys that still complain about selecting Larry Hughes over Paul Pierce, an event that happened 20 years ago. When is the last time we had a Paul Pierce or Larry Hughes thread? I swear I've read the same old complaints about that event in the last few months.

[LongLiveHinkie]

Nah, it's not close imo. Lebron's in contention for best ever, Kobe is optimistically second team.

Depends on what you value, it's entirely subjective.

If you value winning basketball games then it's not subjective.

Kobe does have 5 rings...

[Sixerscan]

This annoys you more than the 3 closet cases, over in the Noel thread, taking turns bumping it to make themselves feel good?

at least that's like once a week rather than literally every day.

Also Noel not being signed yet is relatively newsworthy whereas whereas when it comes to this trade people are saying is stuff that was said 2 months ago.

Well, get ready for a whole lot more rehashing of that trade. Because like it or not, the minute you trade 2 high lottery picks in order to select a player #1, that player has to own that even if it wasn't his fault.

What's funny about this is that some of the same guys that don't want to hear complaining about the Fultz trade from 2 whole months ago (in the Fultz thread of all places) are some of the same guys that still complain about selecting Larry Hughes over Paul Pierce, an event that happened 20 years ago. When is the last time we had a Paul Pierce or Larry Hughes thread? I swear I've read the same old complaints about that event in the last few months.

If someone complained about the Larry Hughes draft every day for two months it would probably also get annoying.

[HotelVitale]

The top 3 estimate was based on where we thought the pick would be as of draft night. But the pick is risky no matter where it falls--if it falls to 6 or 7 then we're giving up a Kings pick unprotected in '19, which most would estimate at top 5 but, sure, it could always be later. We're still very likely giving up a top pick, and we're currently risking that this pick won't be a special player. And there's also a chance that the pick is top-2 (another part of the risk).

Do your estimate again. Even on draft night before the Lakers made their FA moves, there's no way that picks averages as a top 3 pick. I wouldn't estimate the Kings pick at top 5 either. It's complicated, but you would need to assign a points value to each pick, then estimate the probability that each of those teams lands at various lottery spots, then use the lottery odds to calculate expected value...

I was basing that estimate on different discussions, but it seems like we've got stuck on the semantics of 'risky'--some seem to think it applies only to wild hail marys--and I'm gonna let that go. But yeah you're right about the point value and I was trying to point out (Hinkie-style) that those points will say that it's well within the realm of possibility for this trade to end up very bad for us.

For the record, I'm fine with the trade--I had Fultz as my #1 (though not by a big margin), the fit's great, and I was very very nervous about Jackson. Having Fultz makes this year more exciting and gives a chance for all three of Simmons/Fultz/Biid to do their thing. At the same time anyone who did the littlest bit of scouting this year knows that it's very possible that Tatum, Ball, DSJ, and Jackson could easily end up the better player. And throwing the extra high pick--which could be very high--makes it a gamble.

[ivysixer2000]

at least that's like once a week rather than literally every day.

Also Noel not being signed yet is relatively newsworthy whereas whereas when it comes to this trade people are saying is stuff that was said 2 months ago.

Well, get ready for a whole lot more rehashing of that trade. Because like it or not, the minute you trade 2 high lottery picks in order to select a player #1, that player has to own that even if it wasn't his fault.

What's funny about this is that some of the same guys that don't want to hear complaining about the Fultz trade from 2 whole months ago (in the Fultz thread of all places) are some of the same guys that still complain about selecting Larry Hughes over Paul Pierce, an event that happened 20 years ago. When is the last time we had a Paul Pierce or Larry Hughes thread? I swear I've read the same old complaints about that event in the last few months.

If someone complained about the Larry Hughes draft every day for two months it would probably also get annoying.

It happened but we have the advantage of hindsight in that Hughes situation now.

All this talk is cause of boredom, nothing else to talk about like an actual game. Course at that point, they will find some stat to prove they were right instead worrying about if we won the game.

[Simmons25]

This has been done ad nauseum. The odds are Fultz would have been gone before we had our pick at 3, because Danny Ainge f'd it up. The first thing he did after trading for the #3 pick was get on a plane to get Josh Jackson who he wanted. Jackson burnt him 30,000 feet up in the air and Ainge was stuffed because he knew now neither Fultz or Ball were going to be there at 3 for him to pick up.

If Ainge was half the great GM he tells everyone he is in hindsight, he would have sussed out Josh Jackson before doing the trade... realised Jackson wanted no piece of Boston and then he would have stayed at the #1 pick and most likely picked Fultz or Ball instead.

So fate in the end would have decided that we had to do the trade to get Fultz. No way was Ainge picking Tatum at #1.

I think Ainge's #1 target was getting #5 and #10 from Sacramento. The one player that fit their needs was Jonathan Isaac, then they also could've gone big at #10. I totally agree with Unbreakable that Boston was in a horrible position where none of the top four fit their needs. Next year is the draft for them. Chocked full of bigs. And I'm not happy we put them in a position to get two of the best. Still, I've come to terms with it.

Yup I agree but if we didn't trade with Boston and it left them going into the draft with the #1 pick who do you honestly believe they would have taken Tatum or Isaac? No way in hell. Isaac was projected at 7!

It would take balls the size of grapefruits for Ainge to have used the #1 pick on Tatum or Isaac when it was basically unanimous that Fultz and Ball were the top 2 with a drop off to 3. He would have had to pick either Fultz or Ball with means the Lakers would have picked whoever was left after Fultz or Ball at 2.

[Unbreakable99]

There are a lot of clueless rookies who don't know how great Simmons is. Last year Simmons didn't get lots of votes either. I love the jealously of other players. Simmons makes others angry so they don't rank him high.

https://www.nba.com/amp/league/2017-18-nba-rookie-survey

Who will be the 2017-18 Kia Rookie of the Year?

1. Dennis Smith Jr., Dallas -- 25.7% 2. Lonzo Ball, L.A. Lakers -- 20.0% 3. Markelle Fultz, Philadelphia -- 17.1% 4. Kyle Kuzma, L.A. Lakers -- 5.7%
Donovan Mitchell, Utah -- 5.7 %
Ben Simmons, Philadelphia -- 5.7% Others receiving votes: Dwayne Bacon, Charlotte; Tony Bradley, Utah; De'Aaron Fox, Sacramento; Josh Jackson, Phoenix; Malik Monk, Charlotte; Jayson Tatum, Boston; Sindarius Thornwell, LA Clippers

Which rookie will have the best career?

1. Lonzo Ball, L.A. Lakers -- 18.4%
Jayson Tatum, Boston -- 18.4% 3. Josh Jackson, Phoenix -- 10.5%
Dennis Smith Jr., Dallas -- 10.5% 5. De'Aaron Fox, Sacramento -- 7.9% 6. Markelle Fultz, Philadelphia -- 5.3%
Harry Giles, Sacramento -- 5.3%
Ben Simmons, Philadelphia -- 5.3%