"WCIHAoTDP?" - 2016 Draft Thread P.2

[Andrew McCeltic]

Actually it included the this years Nets pick. That is way way to much to move up 6 spots. If MJ didn't fall in love with Kaminsky then we would be roasting DA atm.

Do you have proof of this? Ainge included the 2016 Nets pick? That would have been one of the worst trades in history if true. MJ would also look like a complete moron for turning that down.

The Nets pick was never on the table - point blank, never.

Danny's actually said the 2016 pick is likely to be more valuable than '17 and '18..

What I still wonder is how our roster construction would've changed if we'd been able to get Winslow.

[JBroderick]

Buddy Hield or Ingram and I'm happy, maybe Bender but I haven't done much research I've only heard good things, but to me Simmons is not the way to go if you're the Celtics, he's going to be a project and won't help us in any aspect for a couple years, he can't shoot and that's what we lacked most in the playoffs, his game needs a lot of work I don't think he's anywhere close to NBA ready and that's not to say he won't be good but his ceiling is Lamar Odom imo I don't think he'll be the superstar everyone is overhyping him up to be

[Bar Fight]

Simmons is an incredible player.

Ingram is a better shooter which on face value translates well to what Boston and most of the leagues wants to be doing, but Simmons can have a Lebron like effect on games except on defence (which he can add).

Passing on Simmons for Ingram won't be a sin, but it will be a huge mistake IMO.

Then why did he do nothing as his team got completely **** smashed by Texas A&M, effectively eliminating them from having a chance at the tournament. And why did he shy away from the ball when Buddy Hield led a 20 point comeback against his team in a crucial game of the season? Lebron was never that passive offensively. Contrast that with Ingram who demanded the ball in crunch time in the tournament, doing his best to carry his team to victory. And Ingram is a full year younger. Not to mention Simmons shot has shown no promise whatsoever, and it's a shooting league now.

[Edug27]

Simmons is an incredible player.

Ingram is a better shooter which on face value translates well to what Boston and most of the leagues wants to be doing, but Simmons can have a Lebron like effect on games except on defence (which he can add).

Passing on Simmons for Ingram won't be a sin, but it will be a huge mistake IMO.

Then why did he do nothing as his team got completely **** smashed by Texas A&M, effectively eliminating them from having a chance at the tournament. And why did he shy away from the ball when Buddy Hield led a 20 point comeback against his team in a crucial game of the season? Lebron was never that passive offensively. Contrast that with Ingram who demanded the ball in crunch time in the tournament, doing his best to carry his team to victory. And Ingram is a full year younger. Not to mention Simmons shot has shown no promise whatsoever, and it's a shooting league now.

Simmons isn't Lebron. That's a given. But he'll affect a game in ways that'll remind you of Lebron. His size and skill set is similar to that of Lebron. He's not the scorer Lebron is, not the shooter Lebron is, and definitely doesn't show the fire that Lebron does. Early in Lebrons career people questioned a lot of things about his game. Especially his "clutch gene" and how passive he was in the big moments. You see Simmons skill set and every GM has to ask themselves "how good can he be and how good can we develop him".

Same could be said about Ingram. He'll remind many of KD. Very similar skill set. But he's not KD. He's not where KD was coming out of Texas.

[jfs1000d]

I think we are trading the pick unless it is top 2. But, I think we should at least bring in one first rounder. I want shooters. Stretch 4s and spot up 3-point shooters on the wing. I would go for those guys who can shoot who have low ceilngs. Matt Bonner types.

[JBroderick]

I think we are trading the pick unless it is top 2. But, I think we should at least bring in one first rounder. I want shooters. Stretch 4s and spot up 3-point shooters on the wing. I would go for those guys who can shoot who have low ceilngs. Matt Bonner types.

Teletovic will be out there, he's part of my wish list

[SmartWentCrazy]

Simmons is an incredible player.

Ingram is a better shooter which on face value translates well to what Boston and most of the leagues wants to be doing, but Simmons can have a Lebron like effect on games except on defence (which he can add).

Passing on Simmons for Ingram won't be a sin, but it will be a huge mistake IMO.

Then why did he do nothing as his team got completely **** smashed by Texas A&M, effectively eliminating them from having a chance at the tournament. And why did he shy away from the ball when Buddy Hield led a 20 point comeback against his team in a crucial game of the season? Lebron was never that passive offensively. Contrast that with Ingram who demanded the ball in crunch time in the tournament, doing his best to carry his team to victory. And Ingram is a full year younger. Not to mention Simmons shot has shown no promise whatsoever, and it's a shooting league now.

1) He had **** teammates. Do you think less of Jimmy Butler for missing the playoffs this year? Basketball can be dominated by a single player, but it's a team game.

2) LeBron was reamed many times for his original stint in Cleveland because he would pass to the open man rather than take the shot himself. That reputation existed into Miami. It took YEARS for arguably the most talented player of all time to figure it out. Expecting a college guy to be born that way is ridiculous.

3) Hield never led a 20 point comeback-- it was 14. You increased it by 50%. If you have to make up criticism against a player to knock him, he must be pretty good. I watched that game, Simmons shot 6 for 7. His teammates were bigger black holes than ET and never passed the ball once it was in their hands.

4) Ingram didn't demand the ball really ever, everything ran through Grayson Allen the whole season. He was the second option. I have siblings who watched/went to every game, and they confirmed it. It's a lot easier to function as a #2 option on a talented team than as a #1 on a **** team.

5) Simmons has shown no promise? Let's cut it out with the ridiculous statements. Ingram is the project, not Simmons. Ingram will struggle out of the gate due to his size, not Simmons. Simmons jump shot is weak, for sure, but his set shot is comparable to Ingram (see FT%'s), he's more athletic, can draw contact, and scored at a ~75% clip at the rim. Against teams that parked two big men in the paint.

[Leprechaun18]

Actually it included the this years Nets pick. That is way way to much to move up 6 spots. If MJ didn't fall in love with Kaminsky then we would be roasting DA atm.

Do you have proof of this? Ainge included the 2016 Nets pick? That would have been one of the worst trades in history if true. MJ would also look like a complete moron for turning that down.

The Nets pick was never on the table - point blank, never.

Ok here are some quotes:


"CHARLOTTE - Boston Celtics president of basketball operations Danny Ainge says he offered the Charlotte Hornets too much for the ninth pick in Thursday’s NBA draft and, upon reflection, is relieved the Hornets turned him down.

Ainge said he offered a wealth of draft picks (reportedly as many as four first-rounders) to move up, and woke up Friday morning happy the Hornets rejected the offer. The Hornets instead drafted Wisconsin power forward-center Frank Kaminsky."

Heres a quote from Celticsblog:

e had been told that the offer to the Hornets was significant, involving a bundle of first-round draft picks. As details of the offer have leaked out, we have learned from Grantland's Zach Lowe that the offer may have been even more staggering than initially thought.

"Boston put Charlotte on the other end of a quantity-for-quality pitch," writes Lowe. "The Celtics offered four first-round picks for the chance to move up from No. 16 to No. 9: that 16th pick, No. 15 (acquired in a prearranged contingency deal with the Hawks), one unprotected future Brooklyn pick, and a future first-rounder from either the Grizzlies or Timberwolves, per sources familiar with the talks."

Wow. Now that is a Godfather offer to move up a mere 7 spots. That unprotected Brooklyn pick alone could potentially become a higher pick than the 9th pick Boston was looking to trade up for! You would think offering that tantalizing asset with their own No. 16 pick would have been enough, but apparently not for Charlotte.


This shows you the danger of either DA or our owners being desperate to make trades. Fortunately MJ fell in love with Kaminsky and said no.

[Froob]

So after Ingram and Simmons, how big is the drop off? I was thinking probably trade it if we don't get top 2.

[greenroom31]

So after Ingram and Simmons, how big is the drop off? I was thinking probably trade it if we don't get top 2.

No one ever knows this ****. Look at last year, which was widely considered to be a 3 person draft with a big drop-off. Porzingis went #4 and could be the 2nd best player from the draft. Hezonja at #5 still has barely played. Mudiay dropped to #7 and could end up being the 3rd best.

Look at 2014 -- Wiggins, Parker, Embiid were the top 3. Parker missed a full year, Embiid hasn't played, Wiggins is a stud but may never be a #1 on a team. Then Exum, Gordon, Smart, Randle, Stauskas... shrug.

[Bill Lumbergh]

I think we are trading the pick unless it is top 2. But, I think we should at least bring in one first rounder. I want shooters. Stretch 4s and spot up 3-point shooters on the wing. I would go for those guys who can shoot who have low ceilngs. Matt Bonner types.

Teletovic will be out there, he's part of my wish list

Crazy Brooklyn just let him walk, too, which was great for our pick. Things really fell our way with that pick.

Minutes after word came that the Brooklyn Nets had rescinded their qualifying offer to Mirza Teletovic, enabling him to become an unrestricted free agent, he did. He signed a one-year, $5.5 million deal with Phoenix.

[Bar Fight]

Simmons is an incredible player.

Ingram is a better shooter which on face value translates well to what Boston and most of the leagues wants to be doing, but Simmons can have a Lebron like effect on games except on defence (which he can add).

Passing on Simmons for Ingram won't be a sin, but it will be a huge mistake IMO.

Then why did he do nothing as his team got completely **** smashed by Texas A&M, effectively eliminating them from having a chance at the tournament. And why did he shy away from the ball when Buddy Hield led a 20 point comeback against his team in a crucial game of the season? Lebron was never that passive offensively. Contrast that with Ingram who demanded the ball in crunch time in the tournament, doing his best to carry his team to victory. And Ingram is a full year younger. Not to mention Simmons shot has shown no promise whatsoever, and it's a shooting league now.

1) He had **** teammates. Do you think less of Jimmy Butler for missing the playoffs this year? Basketball can be dominated by a single player, but it's a team game.

2) LeBron was reamed many times for his original stint in Cleveland because he would pass to the open man rather than take the shot himself. That reputation existed into Miami. It took YEARS for arguably the most talented player of all time to figure it out. Expecting a college guy to be born that way is ridiculous.

3) Hield never led a 20 point comeback-- it was 14. You increased it by 50%. If you have to make up criticism against a player to knock him, he must be pretty good. I watched that game, Simmons shot 6 for 7. His teammates were bigger black holes than ET and never passed the ball once it was in their hands.

4) Ingram didn't demand the ball really ever, everything ran through Grayson Allen the whole season. He was the second option. I have siblings who watched/went to every game, and they confirmed it. It's a lot easier to function as a #2 option on a talented team than as a #1 on a **** team.

5) Simmons has shown no promise? Let's cut it out with the ridiculous statements. Ingram is the project, not Simmons. Ingram will struggle out of the gate due to his size, not Simmons. Simmons jump shot is weak, for sure, but his set shot is comparable to Ingram (see FT%'s), he's more athletic, can draw contact, and scored at a ~75% clip at the rim. Against teams that parked two big men in the paint.

1) That's such a myth. Usually said by people who didn't watch them play at all. Hornsby, Blakeney, and Quaterman were all very good college players. Teams with much less talent than that made the tournament. Were they Kentucky? Obviously **** not, but they had more than enough talent to GET to the tournament. Especially considering they supposedley had a "generational talent"/next Lebron on their team.

2) I'm sorry, Lebron was never as passive as Simmons was. He was scrutinized for passing up shots in crunch time every now and then. Simmons literally barely shoots, period. It's not even a close comparison. Simmons looks flat out disinterested for much of games, and he certainly shows NO urgency to make a play for his team in crucial moments.

3) 20, 14, doesn't make a difference. Simmons wanted no part of the ball as his team was falling apart. You can blame his teammates and coaching all you want. I watched the game. He didn't call for it at any point. That's on him. If you're a star/the next Lebron, you get the **** ball when your team is being embarrassed.

4) He absolutely did. In the tournament. He led Duke in shot attempts, and was pretty damn efficient. Grayson Allen was nowhere to be found against Oregon, when the season was on the line. Ingram took 20 shots on high efficiency and led his team in scoring. And he took every shot in crunch time.

5) Where did I say Simmons has shown no promise? You literally must not have read that sentence, or are modifying it to present your strawman argument. Exact quote:

Not to mention Simmons shot has shown no promise whatsoever, and it's a shooting league now.

[Murta]

Cs have 31, 35, 45, 51 and 58 in the second round, I surely hope Danny trades up in mid-1st. Would giving up all that be fair value for 17 Memphis has? There isn't much drop-off between 10 and 25, so mid-1st is the region where you'd want to have multiple picks.

Mid-1st is completely unlike recent years when you could only drool over players selected 4-5 spots higher and feel sorry for yourself. This year, it offers good talent and there's a decent chance of finding a future building block like Hibbert and Ibaka in 2008, Holiday and Lawson in 2009 or Leonard (pipe dream, of course) and Vučević in 2011.

My current targets would be Valentine, Zubac, Sabonis, Žižić, Beasley and Corneile. First 3 for #16 and last 3 for #23. Korkmaz and Maker are also intriguing options, though both are higher risk, unsure if reward is high enough for my blood.

You could also easily end up with 3 bench players while other teams get the standouts, but that's the risk.

Why Memphis? They're a team completely voided of young talent that needs to take multiple shots at young players.

[greenroom31]

Cs have 31, 35, 45, 51 and 58 in the second round, I surely hope Danny trades up in mid-1st. Would giving up all that be fair value for 17 Memphis has? There isn't much drop-off between 10 and 25, so mid-1st is the region where you'd want to have multiple picks.

Mid-1st is completely unlike recent years when you could only drool over players selected 4-5 spots higher and feel sorry for yourself. This year, it offers good talent and there's a decent chance of finding a future building block like Hibbert and Ibaka in 2008, Holiday and Lawson in 2009 or Leonard (pipe dream, of course) and Vučević in 2011.

My current targets would be Valentine, Zubac, Sabonis, Žižić, Beasley and Corneile. First 3 for #16 and last 3 for #23. Korkmaz and Maker are also intriguing options, though both are higher risk, unsure if reward is high enough for my blood.

You could also easily end up with 3 bench players while other teams get the standouts, but that's the risk.

Why Memphis? They're a team completely voided of young talent that needs to take multiple shots at young players.

I hope we take some foreign guy who we can stash overseas with one of the picks (#35? sure why not) and then trade #16, #31, #45, #51 and #58 to move up to #13. And then we should trade #13 for someone who can help the goddam team in the near term

[Edug27]

1) That's such a myth. Usually said by people who didn't watch them play at all. Hornsby, Blakeney, and Quaterman were all very good college players. Teams with much less talent than that made the tournament. Were they Kentucky? Obviously **** not, but they had more than enough talent to GET to the tournament. Especially considering they supposedley had a "generational talent"/next Lebron on their team.

2) I'm sorry, Lebron was never as passive as Simmons was. He was scrutinized for passing up shots in crunch time every now and then. Simmons literally barely shoots, period. It's not even a close comparison. Simmons looks flat out disinterested for much of games, and he certainly shows NO urgency to make a play for his team in crucial moments.

3) 20, 14, doesn't make a difference. Simmons wanted no part of the ball as his team was falling apart. You can blame his teammates and coaching all you want. I watched the game. He didn't call for it at any point. That's on him. If you're a star/the next Lebron, you get the **** ball when your team is being embarrassed.

4) He absolutely did. In the tournament. He led Duke in shot attempts, and was pretty damn efficient. Grayson Allen was nowhere to be found against Oregon, when the season was on the line. Ingram took 20 shots on high efficiency and led his team in scoring. And he took every shot in crunch time.

5) Where did I say Simmons has shown no promise? You literally must not have read that sentence, or are modifying it to present your strawman argument. Exact quote:

Not to mention Simmons shot has shown no promise whatsoever, and it's a shooting league now.

1.) Oh I watched a ton of games. Those players you just named are all scrubs. The coach is a scrub. Not sure how one can think otherwise. But other players have still won games in college playing with a group of scrubs. Especially with a relatively soft schedule. So its not really an excuse.

2.) Agree. Simmons is not a natural scorer. But he can score. Lebron is a dominate scorer. Always was. He's out to get buckets. Just so happens he's also a really good passer as well. Simmons is pass first.

3.) Disagree. He was really the only player battling in some of those losses. There were a lot of seniors on that team and you do wish Simmons took more control regardless of that fact. He sort of had that 'dont want to step on toes' look to him. But with that said, he did take a large amount of shots and free throw attempts. It's not like he was out there looking like James Young. You just wish he went to a school like Duke or Kentucky. He might not be a 20/14 player, but he'd be playing with players and coaches with a better IQ and system, thus making him look better as well.

4.) The offense definitely ran through Grayson Allen. Allen was about as heavily featured in an offense as you'll get. Ingram stepped it up in a couple tournament games, but Allen was the focal point all season. No point in debating this. One thing I like about Ingram though, is that when he hits acouple shots and gets into a rhythm, he's super aggressive the next couple times down the floor looking for his shot.

5.) Agree. Although, the NBA is currently being dominated by a guy who shot 25% from 3 in college at just over 2 attempts a game. While thats still much better than Simmons has showed, the point is that you can improve your shooting over time. Unless its Rondo type broke, and that's up for debate I guess. I'm sure teams will bring Simmons in and ask him to shoot from all areas of the court and determine what level of broken it actually is.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Then why did he do nothing as his team got completely **** smashed by Texas A&M, effectively eliminating them from having a chance at the tournament. And why did he shy away from the ball when Buddy Hield led a 20 point comeback against his team in a crucial game of the season? Lebron was never that passive offensively. Contrast that with Ingram who demanded the ball in crunch time in the tournament, doing his best to carry his team to victory. And Ingram is a full year younger. Not to mention Simmons shot has shown no promise whatsoever, and it's a shooting league now.

1) He had **** teammates. Do you think less of Jimmy Butler for missing the playoffs this year? Basketball can be dominated by a single player, but it's a team game.

2) LeBron was reamed many times for his original stint in Cleveland because he would pass to the open man rather than take the shot himself. That reputation existed into Miami. It took YEARS for arguably the most talented player of all time to figure it out. Expecting a college guy to be born that way is ridiculous.

3) Hield never led a 20 point comeback-- it was 14. You increased it by 50%. If you have to make up criticism against a player to knock him, he must be pretty good. I watched that game, Simmons shot 6 for 7. His teammates were bigger black holes than ET and never passed the ball once it was in their hands.

4) Ingram didn't demand the ball really ever, everything ran through Grayson Allen the whole season. He was the second option. I have siblings who watched/went to every game, and they confirmed it. It's a lot easier to function as a #2 option on a talented team than as a #1 on a **** team.

5) Simmons has shown no promise? Let's cut it out with the ridiculous statements. Ingram is the project, not Simmons. Ingram will struggle out of the gate due to his size, not Simmons. Simmons jump shot is weak, for sure, but his set shot is comparable to Ingram (see FT%'s), he's more athletic, can draw contact, and scored at a ~75% clip at the rim. Against teams that parked two big men in the paint.

1) That's such a myth. Usually said by people who didn't watch them play at all. Hornsby, Blakeney, and Quaterman were all very good college players. Teams with much less talent than that made the tournament. Were they Kentucky? Obviously **** not, but they had more than enough talent to GET to the tournament. Especially considering they supposedley had a "generational talent"/next Lebron on their team.

2) I'm sorry, Lebron was never as passive as Simmons was. He was scrutinized for passing up shots in crunch time every now and then. Simmons literally barely shoots, period. It's not even a close comparison. Simmons looks flat out disinterested for much of games, and he certainly shows NO urgency to make a play for his team in crucial moments.

3) 20, 14, doesn't make a difference. Simmons wanted no part of the ball as his team was falling apart. You can blame his teammates and coaching all you want. I watched the game. He didn't call for it at any point. That's on him. If you're a star/the next Lebron, you get the **** ball when your team is being embarrassed.

4) He absolutely did. In the tournament. He led Duke in shot attempts, and was pretty damn efficient. Grayson Allen was nowhere to be found against Oregon, when the season was on the line. Ingram took 20 shots on high efficiency and led his team in scoring. And he took every shot in crunch time.

5) Where did I say Simmons has shown no promise? You literally must not have read that sentence, or are modifying it to present your strawman argument. Exact quote:

Not to mention Simmons shot has shown no promise whatsoever, and it's a shooting league now.

First, missed the word shot re: Simmons promise. My apologies there. Not trying to put words in your mouth.

I watched Simmons play ~15 games this year, and I can say unequivocally his teammates were ball hogs, froze Simmons out, and tried to leverage their new TV time for a chance at the NBA. They sucked. Hard.

It was the same vs OK. His teammates were selfish, and froze him out. I was floored at the selfishness of those guys-- it's pretty obvious they strongly disliked him. It could be a red flag on Simmons and his maturity, to be honest, but not a strike on his aggressiveness.

[Bar Fight]

1) That's such a myth. Usually said by people who didn't watch them play at all. Hornsby, Blakeney, and Quaterman were all very good college players. Teams with much less talent than that made the tournament. Were they Kentucky? Obviously **** not, but they had more than enough talent to GET to the tournament. Especially considering they supposedley had a "generational talent"/next Lebron on their team.

2) I'm sorry, Lebron was never as passive as Simmons was. He was scrutinized for passing up shots in crunch time every now and then. Simmons literally barely shoots, period. It's not even a close comparison. Simmons looks flat out disinterested for much of games, and he certainly shows NO urgency to make a play for his team in crucial moments.

3) 20, 14, doesn't make a difference. Simmons wanted no part of the ball as his team was falling apart. You can blame his teammates and coaching all you want. I watched the game. He didn't call for it at any point. That's on him. If you're a star/the next Lebron, you get the **** ball when your team is being embarrassed.

4) He absolutely did. In the tournament. He led Duke in shot attempts, and was pretty damn efficient. Grayson Allen was nowhere to be found against Oregon, when the season was on the line. Ingram took 20 shots on high efficiency and led his team in scoring. And he took every shot in crunch time.

5) Where did I say Simmons has shown no promise? You literally must not have read that sentence, or are modifying it to present your strawman argument. Exact quote:

Not to mention Simmons shot has shown no promise whatsoever, and it's a shooting league now.

1.) Oh I watched a ton of games. Those players you just named are all scrubs. The coach is a scrub. Not sure how one can think otherwise. But other players have still won games in college playing with a group of scrubs. Especially with a relatively soft schedule. So its not really an excuse.

2.) Agree. Simmons is not a natural scorer. But he can score. Lebron is a dominate scorer. Always was. He's out to get buckets. Just so happens he's also a really good passer as well. Simmons is pass first.

3.) Disagree. He was really the only player battling in some of those losses. There were a lot of seniors on that team and you do wish Simmons took more control regardless of that fact. He sort of had that 'dont want to step on toes' look to him. But with that said, he did take a large amount of shots and free throw attempts. It's not like he was out there looking like James Young. You just wish he went to a school like Duke or Kentucky. He might not be a 20/14 player, but he'd be playing with players and coaches with a better IQ and system, thus making him look better as well.

4.) The offense definitely ran through Grayson Allen. Allen was about as heavily featured in an offense as you'll get. Ingram stepped it up in a couple tournament games, but Allen was the focal point all season. No point in debating this. One thing I like about Ingram though, is that when he hits acouple shots and gets into a rhythm, he's super aggressive the next couple times down the floor looking for his shot.

5.) Agree. Although, the NBA is currently being dominated by a guy who shot 25% from 3 in college at just over 2 attempts a game. While thats still much better than Simmons has showed, the point is that you can improve your shooting over time. Unless its Rondo type broke, and that's up for debate I guess. I'm sure teams will bring Simmons in and ask him to shoot from all areas of the court and determine what level of broken it actually is.

1. Blakeney was averaging 13 as a freshman guard. Hardly a scrub. Quarterman might be drafted, and Hornsby is an extremely efficient shooter. Your definition of scrub must mean anyone who isn't a McDonald's all American/first team all American. Again, much worse talent has made the tournament, and they did it without the next Lebron.

3. In the OU game specifically, he went long stretches without even touching the ball late in the game. He didn't do much to assert himself in the Texas A&M blowout either (which is what eliminated them). I've seen him flatout dominate when he's aggressive. My issue is that in big games/moments, he didn't even try to.

4. I'm not denying that Grayson Allen was the number 1 option over an 18 year old freshman for most of the season. But when it mattered in the tournament, it was the 18 year old freshman who wanted the ball and took every big shot, while Allen was a no show. Ingram was Duke's best player in the tournament, and it was not particularly close.

5. Assume you're talking about Kawhi? Either way, those are rare cases. Yeah, I assume he'll improve his shooting (there's nowhere to go but up), but you don't go from a non-shooter to a great shooter very often. Especially when Simmons doesn't even attempt jumpers in games.

[JBroderick]

So after Ingram and Simmons, how big is the drop off? I was thinking probably trade it if we don't get top 2.

Nah don't believe the hype, there will be better players than both of them drafted later

[Banks2Pierce]

So after Ingram and Simmons, how big is the drop off? I was thinking probably trade it if we don't get top 2.

I think the question is Bender as there's no clear consensus on him yet. There definitely is a perceived drop off, though. Which would mean a lot for trade value.

[Bar Fight]

1) He had **** teammates. Do you think less of Jimmy Butler for missing the playoffs this year? Basketball can be dominated by a single player, but it's a team game.

2) LeBron was reamed many times for his original stint in Cleveland because he would pass to the open man rather than take the shot himself. That reputation existed into Miami. It took YEARS for arguably the most talented player of all time to figure it out. Expecting a college guy to be born that way is ridiculous.

3) Hield never led a 20 point comeback-- it was 14. You increased it by 50%. If you have to make up criticism against a player to knock him, he must be pretty good. I watched that game, Simmons shot 6 for 7. His teammates were bigger black holes than ET and never passed the ball once it was in their hands.

4) Ingram didn't demand the ball really ever, everything ran through Grayson Allen the whole season. He was the second option. I have siblings who watched/went to every game, and they confirmed it. It's a lot easier to function as a #2 option on a talented team than as a #1 on a **** team.

5) Simmons has shown no promise? Let's cut it out with the ridiculous statements. Ingram is the project, not Simmons. Ingram will struggle out of the gate due to his size, not Simmons. Simmons jump shot is weak, for sure, but his set shot is comparable to Ingram (see FT%'s), he's more athletic, can draw contact, and scored at a ~75% clip at the rim. Against teams that parked two big men in the paint.

1) That's such a myth. Usually said by people who didn't watch them play at all. Hornsby, Blakeney, and Quaterman were all very good college players. Teams with much less talent than that made the tournament. Were they Kentucky? Obviously **** not, but they had more than enough talent to GET to the tournament. Especially considering they supposedley had a "generational talent"/next Lebron on their team.

2) I'm sorry, Lebron was never as passive as Simmons was. He was scrutinized for passing up shots in crunch time every now and then. Simmons literally barely shoots, period. It's not even a close comparison. Simmons looks flat out disinterested for much of games, and he certainly shows NO urgency to make a play for his team in crucial moments.

3) 20, 14, doesn't make a difference. Simmons wanted no part of the ball as his team was falling apart. You can blame his teammates and coaching all you want. I watched the game. He didn't call for it at any point. That's on him. If you're a star/the next Lebron, you get the **** ball when your team is being embarrassed.

4) He absolutely did. In the tournament. He led Duke in shot attempts, and was pretty damn efficient. Grayson Allen was nowhere to be found against Oregon, when the season was on the line. Ingram took 20 shots on high efficiency and led his team in scoring. And he took every shot in crunch time.

5) Where did I say Simmons has shown no promise? You literally must not have read that sentence, or are modifying it to present your strawman argument. Exact quote:

Not to mention Simmons shot has shown no promise whatsoever, and it's a shooting league now.

First, missed the word shot re: Simmons promise. My apologies there. Not trying to put words in your mouth.

I watched Simmons play ~15 games this year, and I can say unequivocally his teammates were ball hogs, froze Simmons out, and tried to leverage their new TV time for a chance at the NBA. They sucked. Hard.

It was the same vs OK. His teammates were selfish, and froze him out. I was floored at the selfishness of those guys-- it's pretty obvious they strongly disliked him. It could be a red flag on Simmons and his maturity, to be honest, but not a strike on his aggressiveness.

Whether they were selfish or not (I really doubt they hated the kid, if anything his talent could've made things easier on them), most stars/alpha mentalities demand the ball in those situations. Simmons seemed perfectly okay without touching it, which is outrageous if he's being touted as the next Lebron. I just don't think the guy is aggressive enough offensively. He's a great all around player, but his lack of assertiveness, coupled with his awful shooting makes me really skeptical about his star potential.