Boston early offseason in review (HW/bondom34/dbrandon/Slava/165bows)

[nowyouknow]

I'm with most here, I didn't like the draft. I'd love to see them somehow get in on the Phoenix trade. That seems like it would have matched the win now-and-later. I understand Boston not "pushing all in" but a outbidding Phoenix in consolidation draft trade, using assets that you can't maximize as is, would have worked..

I also am not sure how Evan Turner was a reclamation project but I guess that's just perspective.

On Turner: anytime a #2 pick signs a 2 year/7 million dollar contract it's pretty safe to say it's a reclamation (after being traded for 2nd round picks no less).

The facts so far regarding Brown are that he was a top 5 recruit out of HS and then a #3 draft pick in the NBA. He looked strong in SL and clearly fits the mold of where the NBA is trending toward defensive versatility and positionless basketball.

The mock drafts had Brown pegged from 3-8 (a range where there was a lot of debate about BPA). I guess people have their preferences but I watched a great amount of Murray, Dunn and Bender and I would say that Brown blows Bender and Murray out of the water as an overall prospect. Between Dunn and Brown, I could see a slight edge to Dunn but he is also 3 years older and plays the same position as Rozier, Smart, and Thomas.

As far as drafting to make a trade? No deals for stars were struck so it's pretty suspect to suggest Ainge missed out on a deal that didn't actually happen.

Sort of hard to grade the Celtics against an arbitrary ideal of what could've been. And like I've said, mock drafts are far from definitive. Rozier is a perfect example from last year as he was reportedly on both Houston and Chicago's radar as well.

I guess, I just still don't think Turner is a good player, he's still the same guy he was in Philly. Portland grossly overpaying him doesn't change my opinion of him. I don't consider Mozgov a good center because the Lakers paid him like one. Nor do I think Belli is worth pick 22 just because Charlotte wanted a shooter and not a kid. Nor do I think Barnes is worth a max. Even once I let the new salary cap settle, these deals and others feel nasty. And Boston was better when he was on the bench?

And a star trade didn't happen.. But there were a lot of rumors. I didn't follow them closely enough to know if Ainge backed out of Butler or if Chicago did. The reported 3/Noel+ (Noel isn't a star I know) trade seemed like an overpay by Philly, I can understand why Boston didn't want a bunch of spare parts. But I think he could have traded those spare parts in a follow up deal to consolidate assets and been fine? Or just trade the later picks for future picks and roll the assets over.

But I didn't suggest Ainge had to trade for a star, so I didn't really need to respond to that. I actually said "I understand Boston not pushing all in" which kind of goes with the idea of understanding them not rushing for a star trade.

I did suggest Ainge offer 16+23 in place of 13+28 and use some of his filler to replace the value of Bogdanovic in that trade. Maybe one of 2nd's. Maybe Hunter. Maybe Memphis first. Wide range of assets to show I have no idea how much value Bogdanovic held in that trade. But Boston has so many spare parts, that they could have lived with the overpay to add a quality big man prospect in Chriss (or Sabonis who I like more, or Maker/Poeltl who I like less)

That trade did happen, so I can say I think Boston would have done well to be push Phoenix out of it.

Your argument;

Sort of hard to grade the Celtics against an arbitrary ideal of what could've been

Is kind of the point behind these offseason grades. What could have been. Philly doesn't get credit for drafting Simmons. Cleveland doesn't get credit for having Lebron James. Milwaukee doesn't get knocked for Midds getting hurt, Dallas doesn't get knocked for having no future.... What teams did with what options they had, not what teams have.

Boston could have traded up in the draft with Sac, even if it was an overpay.. Boston could have traded 16 for a future first. Or Boston could have traded 23 and one of the young guys that aren't going to be in the rotation for a future first. Boston could have seen if Bogut was interested in Boston over Dallas and not brought back Zeller. Boston could have easily beat OKC's offer for Joffrey and enjoyed his small cap hold next summer. Etc?

My post is already long enough but that's all. I still think Boston had a really good offseason thanks to Horford, but they definitely didn't make the most of the assets they had in front of them at the end of the season. Sorry if you disagree.

On Turner... The greater point I was making is that he was basically an afterthought signing. A player who pretty much everyone had given up on who revitalized his career in Boston. Say what you want about him, but he played close to starters minutes on a couple of solid Boston teams at close to the minimum and earned his way into a big money deal.

As far as the moves the Phoenix made... The Celtics CLEARLY didn't want to add too many rookies to this team that is already quite young. The stashed players are both guys that fit the Stevens mold.

I do think we basically agree, the Celtics had a really good offseason that could've been better.

But, I see the Celtics as having had a top 3-4 offseason. It's hard to not give that at least an A- in my opinion.

[SMTBSI]

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with hindsight -- hasn't achieved equal to where he was picked is a bust, and it is true that you cannot say that a guy is a bust definitively for years.

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with foresight -- who looks picked well before he should have is a reach. And you obviously can say that at draft time. That said, whatever word you like, you obviously can address whether a guy was picked well before he was expected to by experts who are evaluating his potential as a pro. I've seen people trying to dispute that notion (not the term) and that is obviously intellectually bankrupt (and ironic if they also then praise other picks at this same informational juncture)>

Not really looking to die on this particular hill, but my gut reaction is that I definitely don't agree with your definition of "bust".

You pick a guy first overall, and he goes on to have an unspectacular but solid, respectable 15 career. Obviously you hope to get more than "solid" out of a #1, but was he really a "bust"?

[jayjaysee]

Spoiler:

On Turner... The greater point I was making is that he was basically an afterthought signing. A player who pretty much everyone had given up on who revitalized his career in Boston. Say what you want about him, but he played close to starters minutes on a couple of solid Boston teams at close to the minimum and earned his way into a big money deal.

As far as the moves the Phoenix made... The Celtics CLEARLY didn't want to add too many rookies to this team that is already quite young. The stashed players are both guys that fit the Stevens mold.

I do think we basically agree, the Celtics had a really good offseason that could've been better.

But, I see the Celtics as having had a top 3-4 offseason. It's hard to not give that at least an A- in my opinion.

Yeah, I never offered a rating but if I did it would be in HW's fashion where I'm turn between just valuing adding Horford for Sullinger and giving them an A+ or thinking about the fact that they didn't make the most (imo) of their other opportunities. I think the ratings should vary from B to A- is the fair range because of Horford and staying the same direction Ainge has gone. I like the direction, I don't like not making subtle moves to improve the team on the way (trading kids/picks for future picks, trading the excess kids/picks for short-term help)

And I don't know why you say "CLEARLY"... In a deal where I'm suggesting trading 2-3 rookies for 1. You clearly have your opinion, but the Celtics clearly could have moved up and picked a BETTER prospect that fits Stevens "mold" (one of Poeltl, Sabonis, Maker, Chriss)..

On Turner, I have no idea why Portland paid him the way they did - but I still feel him and Mozgov will share the worst contract in the league rights. Whether he has developed to the point where he can successfully run a second unit or not, doesn't really matter when you are paying him 70 mil. It's an awful contract. But that has nothing to do with this thread or the Celtics offseason. If anything, I add to their offseason for letting him go - because he's not good.

I also think Green has been really bad for two years, so that counts as a reclamation project - but if he is playing Brown is on the bench, right? Or Rozier is on the bench.. So if I was a Celtic fan, I'd hope Green is still awful so Brown/Rozier can split the minutes he'd get.

Spoiler:

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with hindsight -- hasn't achieved equal to where he was picked is a bust, and it is true that you cannot say that a guy is a bust definitively for years.

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with foresight -- who looks picked well before he should have is a reach. And you obviously can say that at draft time. That said, whatever word you like, you obviously can address whether a guy was picked well before he was expected to by experts who are evaluating his potential as a pro. I've seen people trying to dispute that notion (not the term) and that is obviously intellectually bankrupt (and ironic if they also then praise other picks at this same informational juncture)>

Not really looking to die on this particular hill, but my gut reaction is that I definitely don't agree with your definition of "bust".

You pick a guy first overall, and he goes on to have an unspectacular but solid, respectable 15 career. Obviously you hope to get more than "solid" out of a #1, but was he really a "bust"?

Your semantics depend on the player as much as the pick. If a guy hyped like Lebron/AD/Wiggins ended up just being "solid" - bust. Marvin Williams was drafted down at 4th iirc and was considered a bust for his first 8-9 years because of his hype. Derrick Williams is still getting paid to play, so was he not a bust at 2?

And if I can step in, which I already did .. When looking for an opposite to "reach" I wouldn't go with "bust" I'd go with "steal".. If we can't call one a reach, we can't call one a steal. So all we can say about draft picks is "he plays the right position and is young"...

[nowyouknow]

No, we do know it was a reach. We don't know if it was a bust.

A reach is a pick which is taken before it was projected. That was Brown. A bust is one who is picked and doesn't perform to expectation of that pick. That is to be determined.

Arrogance is saying that we don't know where these picks were projected when we actually have a multitude of sources for that information.

Nope.

According to mock drafts, it was a reach.

However, since you do not know whether or not Phoenix, Minnesota, etc. valued Brown at 4 or 5 it is impossible to say it was a reach for a fact.

Mock drafts are educated opinions. Acting as if they 100% reflect the realities inside the organizations is pure folly.

I also reject the definition of "reach" as exclusively a pre-draft term. If Brown is a good pro, but Bender/Murray/Dunn are better, is Brown a "bust" or a "reach"?

If Brown is better than Murray, Dunn, is he still a "reach"? Based on your definitions, that would mean that if Brown has a great career he was an overachiever, even though he was drafted third.

Semantics for the win.

Actually you've just proven yourself wrong.

A reach is a pick taken above projection.

Mock drafts are projections by experts.

Common sense ftw. Well done.

And yes, by that definition Brown is still a reach, he was just a good pick. For example at the time, Russell Westbrook was a reach. He also was a good pick.

Unless you have evidence that Phoenix, Minnesota, etc. would NOT have selected Brown, you have no way of proving Brown was a reach.

And, really, Westbrook was a reach? I think that proves how tenuous this language is. Drafting a 6'4" athletic freak of a PG 5th is a reach?

Agree to disagree.

[Ferulci]

Good offseason from Boston but it leaves a bitter taste. In my opinion they should have go all-in on the market to get their superstar and clear the logjam. They should have been what's necessary to get Butler or Wall (if the disgruntled rumors are true) or with "cant refuse offer". But of course we dont know the details.
Asides from that Hortford signing is excellent, I like Brown (even though I dont know how Boston will manage him) and they were right to let Turner go.
So It's a B for me that could get to A when we look in hindsight.

[bondom34]

Unless you have evidence that Phoenix, Minnesota, etc. would NOT have selected Brown, you have no way of proving Brown was a reach.

And, really, Westbrook was a reach? I think that proves how tenuous this language is. Drafting a 6'4" athletic freak of a PG 5th is a reach?

Agree to disagree.

No, he was a reach because he was projected well after where he was taken. And its irrelevant who would have taken Brown later in the draft, since Boston reached to pick him by taking him at 3, ahead of where he was projected.

[patman52]

I only care if the guy can play, not where he was projected to go. I don't even get what that means, are you supposed to be happy that you get a guy at 16 where the general consensus of some amateur talent evaluators had him at 8 but the guys that get paid millions to do it for a living passed on him 8 times?

The celtics were a 48 win team that got Horford, Jalen Brown, and extended one of the best young coaches in the game.How many teams improved them selves more than that? What diff does it make for a effective off season if brown was drafted at 3 or 8 or 16?

[Andre Roberstan]

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with hindsight -- hasn't achieved equal to where he was picked is a bust, and it is true that you cannot say that a guy is a bust definitively for years.

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with foresight -- who looks picked well before he should have is a reach. And you obviously can say that at draft time. That said, whatever word you like, you obviously can address whether a guy was picked well before he was expected to by experts who are evaluating his potential as a pro. I've seen people trying to dispute that notion (not the term) and that is obviously intellectually bankrupt (and ironic if they also then praise other picks at this same informational juncture)>

Not really looking to die on this particular hill, but my gut reaction is that I definitely don't agree with your definition of "bust".

You pick a guy first overall, and he goes on to have an unspectacular but solid, respectable 15 career. Obviously you hope to get more than "solid" out of a #1, but was he really a "bust"?

Kwame Brown is generally considered a bust and had a solid journeyman career.

[bondom34]

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with hindsight -- hasn't achieved equal to where he was picked is a bust, and it is true that you cannot say that a guy is a bust definitively for years.

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with foresight -- who looks picked well before he should have is a reach. And you obviously can say that at draft time. That said, whatever word you like, you obviously can address whether a guy was picked well before he was expected to by experts who are evaluating his potential as a pro. I've seen people trying to dispute that notion (not the term) and that is obviously intellectually bankrupt (and ironic if they also then praise other picks at this same informational juncture)>

Not really looking to die on this particular hill, but my gut reaction is that I definitely don't agree with your definition of "bust".

You pick a guy first overall, and he goes on to have an unspectacular but solid, respectable 15 career. Obviously you hope to get more than "solid" out of a #1, but was he really a "bust"?

Kwame Brown is generally considered a bust and had a solid journeyman career.

I think he's talking more in the range of Bogut or Nick Collison.

[nowyouknow]

Unless you have evidence that Phoenix, Minnesota, etc. would NOT have selected Brown, you have no way of proving Brown was a reach.

And, really, Westbrook was a reach? I think that proves how tenuous this language is. Drafting a 6'4" athletic freak of a PG 5th is a reach?

Agree to disagree.

No, he was a reach because he was projected well after where he was taken. And its irrelevant who would have taken Brown later in the draft, since Boston reached to pick him by taking him at 3, ahead of where he was projected.

Meh, he was a reach according to the opinions of mock drafters.

He only truly was a reach if the actual GM's behind Ainge had Brown rated that much lower. Because you don't possess that knowledge you're basically guessing (which is what mock drafters are doing, in essence).

Reach = drafting a player well before when he otherwise would've been selected

If Brown would've been drafted 4th or 5th... It's really hard to call him a reach @3.

We don't know where he would've been drafted had Ainge not selected him. You can take the guesses of mock drafters as gospel here... But these guys have been quite wrong before.

[bondom34]

Unless you have evidence that Phoenix, Minnesota, etc. would NOT have selected Brown, you have no way of proving Brown was a reach.

And, really, Westbrook was a reach? I think that proves how tenuous this language is. Drafting a 6'4" athletic freak of a PG 5th is a reach?

Agree to disagree.

No, he was a reach because he was projected well after where he was taken. And its irrelevant who would have taken Brown later in the draft, since Boston reached to pick him by taking him at 3, ahead of where he was projected.

Meh, he was a reach according to the opinions of mock drafters.

He only truly was a reach if the actual GM's behind Ainge had Brown rated that much lower. Because you don't possess that knowledge you're basically guessing (which is what mock drafters are doing, in essence).

Reach = drafting a player well before when he otherwise would've been selected

If Brown would've been drafted 4th or 5th... It's really hard to call him a reach @3.

We don't know where he would've been drafted had Ainge not selected him. You can take the guesses of mock drafters as gospel here... But these guys have been quite wrong before.

No, he was a reach. By projections. He was a reach, its pretty simple. You changing the definition to fit what you'd like doesn't change that when clearly everyone else has the same definition, and it isn't what yours is.

[SMTBSI]

Not really looking to die on this particular hill, but my gut reaction is that I definitely don't agree with your definition of "bust".

You pick a guy first overall, and he goes on to have an unspectacular but solid, respectable 15 career. Obviously you hope to get more than "solid" out of a #1, but was he really a "bust"?

Kwame Brown is generally considered a bust and had a solid journeyman career.

I think he's talking more in the range of Bogut or Nick Collison.

Or, even just some hypothetical #1 who achieved "decent-to-above-average starter" level but not much more. So, yeah, Bogut is a good example.

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with hindsight -- hasn't achieved equal to where he was picked is a bust,

But the point also applies to a guy who was picked in any other range. Say a guy goes #6, and went on to be a quality role-player but not a clear-cut starter. Take Marcus Smart for example. Picked 6th, if he goes on to be a slightly improved Tony Allen for a bunch of years, was that a "bust", or just a bit of a disappointment?

I just feel like this definition would have us classifying a whole lot of decent players as "busts".

[DocRI]

No, he was a reach because he was projected well after where he was taken. And its irrelevant who would have taken Brown later in the draft, since Boston reached to pick him by taking him at 3, ahead of where he was projected.

Meh, he was a reach according to the opinions of mock drafters.

He only truly was a reach if the actual GM's behind Ainge had Brown rated that much lower. Because you don't possess that knowledge you're basically guessing (which is what mock drafters are doing, in essence).

Reach = drafting a player well before when he otherwise would've been selected

If Brown would've been drafted 4th or 5th... It's really hard to call him a reach @3.

We don't know where he would've been drafted had Ainge not selected him. You can take the guesses of mock drafters as gospel here... But these guys have been quite wrong before.

No, he was a reach. By projections. He was a reach, its pretty simple. You changing the definition to fit what you'd like doesn't change that when clearly everyone else has the same definition, and it isn't what yours is.

Actually, as I posted earlier, I have a different definition — I said a "reach" was taking someone projected the next tier down. And generally, the consensus pre-draft was that the second tier of this year's draft, behind Simmons and Ingram, was (in some order): Dunn, Brown, Murray, Bender, Chriss and Hield. I don't think you can call taking any of those guys at #3 as being a reach since they were similarly ranked, but that's far different from making a WRONG pick. Again, Darko was NOT a reach at #2 over Carmelo, Bosh, and Wade, as that's where he was projected, but dear god, it was one of the most WRONG draft picks in NBA history! Along those same lines, Wade actually WAS a reach at #5 (he was projected in the lower lottery) and that was one of the most RIGHT picks in NBA history (full credit to Riley). Which is exactly what happened with Westbrook going #4 to OKC as well.

So a hypothetical question for all, and sorry in advance if this is derailing — would you have personally considered it a reach if the Sixers had taken Ingram over Simmons? There were certainly rumors / speculation of that and Simmons wasn't a LeBron / Davis / Shaq-level #1 prospect where taking literally anyone else would've been considered a reach. If PHI had decided that Ingram fit better with their other young talent and took the consensus #2 pick who was also considered an elite prospect, would they have gotten tagged for "reaching?"

[bondom34]

Meh, he was a reach according to the opinions of mock drafters.

He only truly was a reach if the actual GM's behind Ainge had Brown rated that much lower. Because you don't possess that knowledge you're basically guessing (which is what mock drafters are doing, in essence).

Reach = drafting a player well before when he otherwise would've been selected

If Brown would've been drafted 4th or 5th... It's really hard to call him a reach @3.

We don't know where he would've been drafted had Ainge not selected him. You can take the guesses of mock drafters as gospel here... But these guys have been quite wrong before.

No, he was a reach. By projections. He was a reach, its pretty simple. You changing the definition to fit what you'd like doesn't change that when clearly everyone else has the same definition, and it isn't what yours is.

Actually, as I posted earlier, I have a different definition — I said a "reach" was taking someone projected the next tier down. And generally, the consensus pre-draft was that the second tier of this year's draft, behind Simmons and Ingram, was (in some order): Dunn, Brown, Murray, Bender, Chriss and Hield. I don't think you can call taking any of those guys at #3 as being a reach since they were similarly ranked, but that's far different from making a WRONG pick. Again, Darko was NOT a reach at #2 over Carmelo, Bosh, and Wade, as that's where he was projected, but dear god, it was one of the most WRONG draft picks in NBA history! Along those same lines, Wade actually WAS a reach at #5 (he was projected in the lower lottery) and that was one of the most RIGHT picks in NBA history (full credit to Riley). Which is exactly what happened with Westbrook going #4 to OKC as well.

So a hypothetical question for all, and sorry in advance if this is derailing — would you have personally considered it a reach if the Sixers had taken Ingram over Simmons? There were certainly rumors / speculation of that and Simmons wasn't a LeBron / Davis / Shaq-level #1 prospect where taking literally anyone else would've been considered a reach. If PHI had decided that Ingram fit better with their other young talent and took the consensus #2 pick who was also considered an elite prospect, would they have gotten tagged for "reaching?"

Honestly (and I preferred Ingram), probably. They'd have been under much more scrutiny.

[HartfordWhalers]

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with hindsight -- hasn't achieved equal to where he was picked is a bust, and it is true that you cannot say that a guy is a bust definitively for years.

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with foresight -- who looks picked well before he should have is a reach. And you obviously can say that at draft time. That said, whatever word you like, you obviously can address whether a guy was picked well before he was expected to by experts who are evaluating his potential as a pro. I've seen people trying to dispute that notion (not the term) and that is obviously intellectually bankrupt (and ironic if they also then praise other picks at this same informational juncture)>

Not really looking to die on this particular hill, but my gut reaction is that I definitely don't agree with your definition of "bust".

You pick a guy first overall, and he goes on to have an unspectacular but solid, respectable 15 career. Obviously you hope to get more than "solid" out of a #1, but was he really a "bust"?

Entirely agreed.

Bust definitely has a threshold before it is triggered, with some subpar picks not qualifying as busts.

Similarly a reach needs to hit a threshold versus just a guy mocked 20 taken 16. Jaylon might be on that line depending upon how much you care about all the draft models that had him closer to outside the lottery entirely than in the running for 3.

Yabusele seens far less debatable.

[bondom34]

So don't believe rumors or mocks. Well heck I guess don't bother reading anything then.

[165bows]

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with hindsight -- hasn't achieved equal to where he was picked is a bust, and it is true that you cannot say that a guy is a bust definitively for years.

The term for a guy who -- when evaluated with foresight -- who looks picked well before he should have is a reach. And you obviously can say that at draft time. That said, whatever word you like, you obviously can address whether a guy was picked well before he was expected to by experts who are evaluating his potential as a pro. I've seen people trying to dispute that notion (not the term) and that is obviously intellectually bankrupt (and ironic if they also then praise other picks at this same informational juncture)>

That first paragraph rather enforces the semantical nature of it IMO, as we can use that as a working definition but it is also riddled with counter-examples that make it invalid in creating actual strict definitions.

The issue I have with this topic is it is also inconsistent to criticize a pick for being a reach solely on it's own 'reach-iness' merits, as plenty of reaches are lauded as smart picks and across the board people are selective in how they apply whether a reach is truly a negative or not. In other words, no one uniformly hates all picks considered reaches.

So obviously I have no issue with people judging picks at the time and saying whether they like a pick or not. But there is a difference between 'I don't like a pick and it's a reach', and 'I don't like that pick because it is a reach,' which at its extreme looks like Mel Kiper setting a value and simply evaluating things on his own internal value. It is an internal loop.

Without substantiation, it is just not a heavy weight criticism to me, since by and large all serious fans understand the various opinions before the draft, and the relative landing spots of the players as the actual draft takes place. In other words, it goes without saying to some extent, and again no one is uniform in how they approach valuing a reach to begin with.

Brown is a good case in point, as he spent 18 months vacillating among #'s 1-6 on the DX mock before finally settling in at #'s 7-8 for a single month period prior to the draft.

That some reaches turn out to be smart doesn't in any way change the definition, I have no idea what you are going for there.

I think that's the point, everyone is operating with a little different definition of the concepts. While they are minor points, I definitely don't agree with all the ones I've seen here.

At any rate my main point is the value judgement rather than the definition, and I think in the area Boston fans probably tune it out a bit more as an important factor. Ie, there are guys like Mel Kiper setting draft value then giving out draft grades based on their own set value in some weird endless loop. Meanwhile it gets easier to assess their expert status as less and less important over time when retrospectively it didn't mean much beyond what people thought at the time.

That's why I cite a guy like Dean D, who while he has been negative on the C's draft 2 years running, at least brings concrete and highly specific and tangible points to the table. I'll take that all day over media guys with bigger exposure that bring a lot less to the table.

[DocRI]

No, he was a reach. By projections. He was a reach, its pretty simple. You changing the definition to fit what you'd like doesn't change that when clearly everyone else has the same definition, and it isn't what yours is.

Actually, as I posted earlier, I have a different definition — I said a "reach" was taking someone projected the next tier down. And generally, the consensus pre-draft was that the second tier of this year's draft, behind Simmons and Ingram, was (in some order): Dunn, Brown, Murray, Bender, Chriss and Hield. I don't think you can call taking any of those guys at #3 as being a reach since they were similarly ranked, but that's far different from making a WRONG pick. Again, Darko was NOT a reach at #2 over Carmelo, Bosh, and Wade, as that's where he was projected, but dear god, it was one of the most WRONG draft picks in NBA history! Along those same lines, Wade actually WAS a reach at #5 (he was projected in the lower lottery) and that was one of the most RIGHT picks in NBA history (full credit to Riley). Which is exactly what happened with Westbrook going #4 to OKC as well.

So a hypothetical question for all, and sorry in advance if this is derailing — would you have personally considered it a reach if the Sixers had taken Ingram over Simmons? There were certainly rumors / speculation of that and Simmons wasn't a LeBron / Davis / Shaq-level #1 prospect where taking literally anyone else would've been considered a reach. If PHI had decided that Ingram fit better with their other young talent and took the consensus #2 pick who was also considered an elite prospect, would they have gotten tagged for "reaching?"

Honestly (and I preferred Ingram), probably. They'd have been under much more scrutiny.

Okay, more recent hypothetical history — what if Embiid had been healthy in 2014? Would the Cavs (and then the Bucks) have been criticized for reaching with their pick so long as they'd taken any one of Wiggins, Parker or Embiid?

[bondom34]

Actually, as I posted earlier, I have a different definition — I said a "reach" was taking someone projected the next tier down. And generally, the consensus pre-draft was that the second tier of this year's draft, behind Simmons and Ingram, was (in some order): Dunn, Brown, Murray, Bender, Chriss and Hield. I don't think you can call taking any of those guys at #3 as being a reach since they were similarly ranked, but that's far different from making a WRONG pick. Again, Darko was NOT a reach at #2 over Carmelo, Bosh, and Wade, as that's where he was projected, but dear god, it was one of the most WRONG draft picks in NBA history! Along those same lines, Wade actually WAS a reach at #5 (he was projected in the lower lottery) and that was one of the most RIGHT picks in NBA history (full credit to Riley). Which is exactly what happened with Westbrook going #4 to OKC as well.

So a hypothetical question for all, and sorry in advance if this is derailing — would you have personally considered it a reach if the Sixers had taken Ingram over Simmons? There were certainly rumors / speculation of that and Simmons wasn't a LeBron / Davis / Shaq-level #1 prospect where taking literally anyone else would've been considered a reach. If PHI had decided that Ingram fit better with their other young talent and took the consensus #2 pick who was also considered an elite prospect, would they have gotten tagged for "reaching?"

Honestly (and I preferred Ingram), probably. They'd have been under much more scrutiny.

Okay, more recent hypothetical history — what if Embiid had been healthy in 2014? Would the Cavs (and then the Bucks) have been criticized for reaching with their pick so long as they'd taken any one of Wiggins, Parker or Embiid?

I think Parker yes, I don't remember consensus on the other 2 honestly. I know by draft day it was Wiggins by a good margin though.

[Patsfan1081]

I wasn't a big fan of their draft either but I'm going to defend some of it. I wanted Murray with the third pick, I'm not sold on Dunn and a it seems people gloss over the fact he's 22 with more experience than most in this years draft. What would Brown look like if he returned for his soph season? I have no clue but I can remember what this team looked like after Crowder went down and Stevens was forced to guard guys like KD,Dirk, and Millsap with Smart. I'm sure Ainge remembers this also and while I hate even thinking about need in the lottery when you combine upside with Brown's ability to guard bigger SF I don't think he was as big of a reach as many make it out to be. If your drafting in the top three a player has to have at least one elite attribute and I see that with Brown's ability to get to the hoop and the foul line. As for Boston's to stashes, I don't believe anyone who says they know for sure we're any of the Euro kids should have been drafted. I would be a idiot to think mock sites know more than the actual GM/front office that goes over and watches their practices/games. So I don't buy the reach aspect when it comes to the Papas, Zizic, Zubacs..... You could say if they swapped Yaba and Zizic it would have made more sense but yet we said the same for Rozier and Hunter last season and know the org is high on one and not the other. I believe Zizc could be a player, he's got that tuff attitude about him and has a basketball family. He has a skillset that Boston is desperate for at the moment and I'm hopeful hell be with the club next season. He had a decent buyout option agreed upon at draftime, I'm not sure how that works in part for next season though.Yabs play during the summer league was a bit surprising, but it's summer league, should be interesting to see him play for Ming's Sharks as they have some NBA talent/young prospects already with the team, I believe Jimmy F just signed with them.