Odd Man Out??? - Hunter Waived; Young Stays

[Bohemian]

The problem is that Ainge has no leverage at all in a Young or Hunter deal for a second rounder: teams know they can be had for free in 24 hours.

If there is a trade it would be involving other pieces and that is hard to do at the beginning of the season when teams ignore how good their teams will be.

IMO Young will be waived

[cellar-door]

It's probably early to call either Young or Hunter bad picks. The big problem is how deep our roster is. Most teams wouldn't be considering cutting a late 1st after 1 year or a mid after 2. I mean Bruno 2 years away got his option picked up.
Late 1sts take time to develop sometimes, problem is we don't have the roster space to wait.

[Banks2Pierce]

I really don't understand this premise, especially with Hunter. Hunter was the 28th pick in the draft and was simply buried on the bench behind depth. He has talent.

He sucked in the D League last season. Hunter's issues have little to nothing to do with being buried. Should have realized after his first summer league that he needed to legitimately put on 25 pounds and he didn't put in an effort until way late in the process.

The only one that I thought possibly could have gotten buried by depth in the Stevens era had been Mickey, but he hasn't quite backed that up in anything that's happened from May-now.

[Celts17Pride]

Look at it this way. If Ainge hadn't hit on two second round picks (Jackson and Mickey), we wouldn't be having this Hunter vs Young discussion.

When you have lots of picks you will have multiple players fighting for roster spots. Competition is good.

Well said. Draft picks especially mid to lower 1st round and 2nd rounders are just chances at getting a player. The more chances you have the better the odds of getting a real player. There are winners and losers. Competition weeds them out.

Personally if Ainge could pick up a decent big on the waiver wire I would cut both Young and Hunter.

[Dogen]

This is funny-- one day before the deadline and the OP's poll has 366 replies, with Hunter and Young in a tie for last man on the roster.

[BigTrade92]

This is funny-- one day before the deadline and the OP's poll has 366 replies, with Hunter and Young in a tie for last man on the roster.

Not any more.

[SichtingLives]

Danny will never admit it but at the end of the day he will let this poll dictate his decision

[jfs1000d]

I think extra year of control is meaningless to keep him. He will be out of the roster next year anyway. His extra year of control probably makes him more attractive as a waiver wire pickup. That's why I waive Hunter. I think he doesn't get through waivers.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[jrob23]

i still go with hunter because of 2 more years of control. you never know with guys like this, look at bradley or rozier. hunter has a legit nba skill in 3pt shooting. keep him.

and you can't diss ainge for missing on guys like young and hunter and then not give credit for guys like mickey and jackson who project well above their draft slot. what it really says is that the draft is a crapshoot and people pay far too much attention to where a guy was picked.

it's true that ainge wasn't able to consolidate those late picks so some got wasted but let's be real on a scale where the BKN picks are $1 all those second rounders together aren't worth a nickel. not like there is some huge opportunity lost there.

Back to the original point, Ainge sure got a lot of credit here for collecting nickels, at a time when we could have been chasing $5 bills.

As a guy who was unfailingly supportive of Ainge from mid-2007 to early 2015, and who was far and away the biggest advocate here of the Nets trade, and who could see a mile away that the Nets were going to **** the bed, I'm just glad that the Nets' ineptitude exceeded even my own expectations. In a league where the best team has no less than four(!) different players who are 2-3 times better than anyone on our roster will ever be, we are going to need it.

There have been some miscalculations over the last couple of years, and while I am cool with being a borderline top 5 team or whatever we are, some of this sorta reeks of fool's gold, and much of what hasn't worked was entirely predictable, whether it was big or small.

On the other hand, they have stayed patient, and I am largely good with that. While we may have helped to give ourselves an eventual ceiling, we are still in range of a kill shot someday by virtue of holding onto those Nets picks.

In the end you either do it the way the 76ers did it, or the way we did. We still have a couple of Nets picks coming up, they still have their own and the Lakers in next year's draft. And the Kings unprotected 1rst in 2019 (the year after Cousin's free agency and guarantee that he's gone from that team).

We won't know till about 2022 who went about it in the right way. And a lot depends on if we can trade for a Boogie, Blake Griffin type player before they can trade for a CP3, Westbrook, John Wall, Jimmy Butler type with those 3 fantastic picks upcoming and the stock loaded frontcourt they have. Or just sign them in free agency.

Despite us being the 50 win team today, I'd still rather pick the 76ers for winning a ship between the two franchises in the next 10 years. Alas... the picks have to be picked, and the players have to not bust. So we'll see.

It's a tough call tbh. I might lean towards their future over ours although barely. They have a legit star center (Embid) and Point Forward (Simmons), stretch 4 (Saric), another young center who might be very good or used as trade bait (Okafor) two probable top picks in next year's loaded draft, and some assets they can trade for picks. Their path to greatness considering their assets now and odds of adding to them in next few drafts have them set up for a decade if done correctly.

The Celtics are obviously set up for more immediate success. But when the dust clears, when the Warriors inevitably lose a player or two and Lebron gets older and other teams have a real legit chance to vie for a championship say...by 2020, what's our roster going to look like? What's the Sixers roster look like? Who's will be better? I wish I could say the Celtics but despite picking Brown and Zizic, Ainge had a chance to also draft a few other special players and instead got Yabusele, Jackson, Nader, Bentl. I think that's a huge missed opportunity. There were plenty of extremely high upside players they could have drafted instead so he kinda blew it imo. It's possible Yabu and Jackson are decent contributors but I'm not convinced. By the time Brown, Zizic, both BK picks (if we even keep them) have matured into stars or even very good players, Horford will be old and we'll lose a few of our current inexpensive players to FA. That's why this draft was so important. That's why I felt he picked up all those assets, so he could use the picks or trade them. But amassing all of them only matters if you do something with them and I think he might have failed. I honestly feel like he tried to trade most if not all of the picks and couldn't convince anyone to do it. I feel that took him by surprise and he wasn't ready to deal with the alternative.

The Young and Hunter picks were in poor drafts for the most part and it's hard to fault them too much especially Hunter. My issue with his drafting was the years we needed better depth when we had the big 3 and Rondo, and this last draft. When we needed it most, he failed.

[Leprechaun18]

I favor keeping RJ Hunter. I think both players are NBA players. RJ has a better understanding of the game IMO.

[chakdaddy]

Look at it this way. If Ainge hadn't hit on two second round picks (Jackson and Mickey), we wouldn't be having this Hunter vs Young discussion.

When you have lots of picks you will have multiple players fighting for roster spots. Competition is good.

Well said. Draft picks especially mid to lower 1st round and 2nd rounders are just chances at getting a player. The more chances you have the better the odds of getting a real player. There are winners and losers. Competition weeds them out.

Personally if Ainge could pick up a decent big on the waiver wire I would cut both Young and Hunter.

I'd say all those guys - Young, Hunter, Mickey, Jackson, Yabusele, even Rozier will all be part of the churn and expendable. None of them is a hit yet...the jury will come in on them one or two at a time starting with Young or Hunter.

[jbeachboy]

i think james young makes roster, he has more ability and skill while hunter is mainly a shooter.

[sully00]

Like we need another 2nd round draft pick. If Ainge can manage to get them claimed off of waivers I might waive them both. In the end this is a great problem to have. Who would have thought when this team drafted James Young that he wouldn't survive his rookie deal because the roster got too competitive.

[Banks2Pierce]

i think james young makes roster, he has more ability and skill while hunter is mainly a shooter.

It's basically the opposite.

I'm guessing someone trades for one tomorrow.

[Avalanche]

Who else is looking forward to our 2025 top 55 protected second rounder?

[brackdan70]

Who else is looking forward to our 2025 top 55 protected second rounder?

My sources are telling that will be a 90 player draft.

[SMTBSI]

Look at it this way. If Ainge hadn't hit on two second round picks (Jackson and Mickey), we wouldn't be having this Hunter vs Young discussion.

When you have lots of picks you will have multiple players fighting for roster spots. Competition is good.

Curmudgeon, just want to say that you are on fire this offseason. Concise, level perspective in just about every danged post.


In the NBA, quality is optimal over quantity. But, nobody ever said you can't win with non-optimal. It's just... not optimal.

For a variety of reasons, we headed down the path of quantity, in some ways. Some of that quantity is going to flame out; you're not going to be able to buy low and sell high perfectly every single time, and totally maximize the value of every single asset in your coffers. You're just not. No one can. (If you could, you'd guarantee yourself chip after chip, regardless of the build-path you chose.)

You just hope that you do well enough over all of your chances at bat, collectively, to come out on top at the end. So, you do solid on a #19, then bust on a #17, then hit on a 2nd rounder, then tread water on a #6, then nail a #3... what matters is the sum total talent you walk with.

Jury's still out on that - lots of picks and development left to go. My point is just that I fundamentally disagree with the idea that Ainge has "failed" because an "asset" is "getting away" for nothing. And it's not even really an Ainge thing - the premise is broadly applicable.

The goal isn't to avoid all mistakes, it's to make fewer mistakes / have more hits than the other guy.

[Captain_Caveman]

Look at it this way. If Ainge hadn't hit on two second round picks (Jackson and Mickey), we wouldn't be having this Hunter vs Young discussion.

When you have lots of picks you will have multiple players fighting for roster spots. Competition is good.

Curmudgeon, just want to say that you are on fire this offseason. Concise, level perspective in just about every danged post.


In the NBA, quality is optimal over quantity. But, nobody ever said you can't win with non-optimal. It's just... not optimal.

For a variety of reasons, we headed down the path of quantity, in some ways. Some of that quantity is going to flame out; you're not going to be able to buy low and sell high perfectly every single time, and totally maximize the value of every single asset in your coffers. You're just not. No one can. (If you could, you'd guarantee yourself chip after chip, regardless of the build-path you chose.)

You just hope that you do well enough over all of your chances at bat, collectively, to come out on top at the end. So, you do solid on a #19, then bust on a #17, then hit on a 2nd rounder, then tread water on a #6, then nail a #3... what matters is the sum total talent you walk with.

Jury's still out on that - lots of picks and development left to go. My point is just that I fundamentally disagree with the idea that Ainge has "failed" because an "asset" is "getting away" for nothing. And it's not even really an Ainge thing - the premise is broadly applicable.

The goal isn't to avoid all mistakes, it's to make fewer mistakes / have more hits than the other guy.

I fully grasp that in and of themselves, late 1sts and 2nd rounders are more or less the real life kind of lottery picks. If you hit on one out of four, you are doing fine. But you guys are tripping if you don't think the plan was to consolidate as many of them as possible, given that we didn't even have enough spots to roster them, or minutes to play them, or resources to develop them with.

We have clearly failed to do that, and it is both deflating the value of many of our assets, and in some cases costing us them entirely.

[ParticleMan]

there is definitely truth to the statement that ainge did not parlay assets into a big fish the way that many including myself had envisioned. that was probably plan A and it hasn't worked out... so far. i disagree that all such opportunities are gone, in fact with our developnig young core i think such opportunities are likely to increase. but so far it has failed.

fortunately, as always, ainge has multiple plans, he is not relying on plan A to succeed. so instead of trading for some big-name player, he was able to sign horford and almost sign durant thanks to cap space with creative contracts. despite another lottery ball disappointment he was able to draft a guy who looks like he has star potential. and despite having to dump a couple of kids for nothing we are still chock full with rookie-level talent from which we've skimmed the cream.

to me this is the most remarkable thing about ainge as a GM, while everyone else focuses on a single plan or process or whatever, ainge hedges his bets and pushes on multiple fronts, so that even if plan A doesn't pan out the franchise still moves forward. that is a smart businessman.

[ConstableGeneva]

Read on Twitter

Happy birthday, RJ!