All Things 2017 Draft

jcappy · Post #1961 » by **jcappy** » Mon May 8, 2017 11:19 pm

His biceps look a little bigger in part because he's flexing them, and also because his arm is forward in the picture plane. And this gets him off the steroids questioning.

Bar Fight · Post #1962 » by **Bar Fight** » Mon May 8, 2017 11:30 pm

SmartWentCrazy wrote:
klemen4 wrote:We are not getting nb.1...No way 3 years in a row the worst team gets first pick.

I expect nb.2 or 3.

Trade the pick if it's not nb.1

The thing about odds is that last years outcome literally doesn't matter. Neither does the year preceding it.

I don't think we get the 1st pick because our luck **** sucks. We probably get 4th overall and then lose Game 7 in devastating fashion the following night.

ConstableGeneva · Post #1963 » by **ConstableGeneva** » Mon May 8, 2017 11:56 pm

Read on Twitter

fallguy · Post #1964 » by **fallguy** » Tue May 9, 2017 12:12 am

BigTrade92 wrote:I'm fully convinced that it's either Fultz or trade the pick for Butler or George.

Cannot envision Ball, Jackson or Tatum in a C's uniform.

I've heard the Celtics really like Ball.

Fidel Sarcasmo · Post #1965 » by **Fidel Sarcasmo** » Tue May 9, 2017 12:21 am

If we don't get the first pick this year. I'll be forever bitter. Don't want anyone but fultz. 2nd pick is first loser

Post #1966 » by **SmartWentCrazy** » Tue May 9, 2017 1:17 am

So Lonzo dropped a rap today:

Watch on YouTube

Not sure how I feel about it, to be honest

Gomes3PC · Post #1967 » by **Gomes3PC** » Tue May 9, 2017 1:19 am

Drafting Lonzo is basically sticking a fire poker in ITs eye. Those two cannot coexist on a court. Fultz and IT can work, and it sounds silly, but the Washington connection helps.

That said, Ainge is ruthless and would not be surprised at all if he took Lonzo anyways.

London2Boston · Post #1968 » by **London2Boston** » Tue May 9, 2017 1:19 am

It's Fultz,Ball or trade it if it drops to third. I'm fine with either option. I can also live with dropping to 2nd, but dropping two spots or further would be a slap.

Gomes3PC · Post #1969 » by **Gomes3PC** » Tue May 9, 2017 1:20 am

I think DA would consider Jackson at 3 but after that it's trade mode

Banks2Pierce · Post #1970 » by **Banks2Pierce** » Tue May 9, 2017 1:56 am

I don't really have anxiety about the lottery for us specifically. 1 or 2 would obviously be nicer, but I don't think 4 would even hurt all that bad for me as long as we don't get jumped by annoying teams(Miami would set me off).

soxfan2003 · Post #1971 » by **soxfan2003** » Tue May 9, 2017 2:33 am

rochrist wrote:
ryaningf wrote:
Fruit Pastilles wrote:How many times has he said he'll play for whoever drafts him though?

Of course he has a preference, everyone does, he's a kid. PP wanted to play in LA too, didn't stop us from drafting him.

Everyone wants to play in LA. That's why they still get meetings with marquee free agents even when everything about their team sucks.

It's tough to investigate one's intuition, but I just don't understand the reticence to Lonzo Ball. He's very fun to watch, plays with joy, and makes his teammates better. Do people have a hangover from Rondo? Or is it all because Lavar is a bozo?

I prefer to win and if possible I prefer to do it with improvisational style/beauty. That's the fan and the player in me talking, but I think it's a useful standard to distinguish good/great from TRANSCENDENT. Even though it's a pretty harsh standard (because winning and style rarely go hand in hand), only the all-time transcendent talents (like Magic or Bird or Lebron) can really manage to do both. I think Lonzo is another one of these types, and I really don't think there's another guy in the draft who comes close.

I really hope he doesn't go to LA. It'd be better for the league and better for him if he didn't.

Interesting. I don't see him as anything close to that kind of player. He's going to have a certain amount of trouble getting that shot of his off when he's playing with the big boys. He doesn't seem especially quick. He's a great passer, but we've already had the great passing PG who can't shoot.

The game has changed a bit but look at Billups who succeed in large part because of his 3 point shot. He wasn't as tall as Ball nor was he lightning quick or as gifted of a passer and he wasn't a legit lob target like Ball but still pretty darn great after he put it all together. Ball will never match Billups as a pure shooter in all likelihood but if Ball is very good from 3, he may be nearly as efficient of a scorr since he should have an edge over Billups in finishing at the rim because of his height advantage.

Rondo best year at Kentucky TS% 55% and 30.3% from 3.
Ball only year at UCLA TS% 67.3% and 41.2% from 3 while taking 5.4 per game....

I do agree with the notion that the college game hurts a Rondo type of player with elite quickness more than a Ball type of player since Rondo couldn't shoot the 3 ball well. And I do agree that Ball must have had better spacing on his team than Rondo at UK but some of that was obviously the difference in 3 point shooting between the two players.

The big difference is Ball is entering the NBA as someone that can shoot at the most important distance and has a great shot selection.

Ball does have question legit marks about his shooting form and I feel comfortable heavily discounting the possibility he will ever score much more than 20 PPG without reworking his shot which is hard to do. I won't deny that and his free throw average wasn't impressive for a freshman but tough to say someone can't shoot when they hit over 40% of their 3's with many of them from what I saw at least were from legit NBA distance and also have a super high TS% as a freshman.

31to6 · Post #1972 » by **31to6** » Tue May 9, 2017 2:48 am

I don't get the automatic 'if it's not #1 or 2 we trade it' declarations. Jackson, Fox, and Tatum are right up there (or better than) Ball, in my eyes, and for all we know any DA love for Fultz could be a smokescreen because the guy doesn't always compete like we like.

I have no doubt Danny will be considering possible deals, regardless of where the pick lands, right up through (maybe after) draft night -- to be slapping cut-offs on this seems premature. Workouts, interviews, everyone getting on board the Jackson and/or Fox bandwagons -- this thing's far from set in stone.

Ben-N1ce · Post #1973 » by **Ben-N1ce** » Tue May 9, 2017 2:51 am

It's Fultz or Jackson. Ainge ain't taking Ball.

Post #1974 » by **djFan71** » Tue May 9, 2017 4:38 am

LarryBirdsFingr wrote:
165bows wrote:
LarryBirdsFingr wrote:holy crap.

Trying not to get my hopes up but how funny would it be if the Celtics got two legit top-tier studs in the draft the next two years?

I full expect to be disappointed but man, gotta like the odds.

After Sully 6-pack pictures, I can no longer trust instagram. 7 times bitten...

Asian Celtic · Post #1975 » by **Asian Celtic** » Tue May 9, 2017 5:13 am

I am either a weirdo or in the minority that I Like Ball as much as Fultz but like tatum more than Jackson.

Post #1976 » by **SmartWentCrazy** » Tue May 9, 2017 10:05 am

Rexperez wrote:I am either a weirdo or in the minority that I Like Ball as much as Fultz but like tatum more than Jackson.

No, you're just normal. All of these guys are ranked very close to each other and anyone who's followed the draft knows the talent difference between them is large marginal. It's why clinching a top 4 pick was so important.

Ball/Jackson/Fultz are all clearly in the first tier. Tatum is very divisive, with some having him as high as two and others as low as 8. I personally see the former and have him slightly above Jackson as well.

You have a very reasonable big board, IMO.

Post #1977 » by **SmartWentCrazy** » Tue May 9, 2017 11:40 am

Not that fit is a factor when drafting this high, but you couldn't design a better fit at the 2 next to Lonzo Ball than Avery Bradley. Spaces the floor and saves Lonzo from going against elite athletes at PG.

Post #1978 » by **165bows** » Tue May 9, 2017 11:44 am

soxfan2003 wrote:
rochrist wrote:
ryaningf wrote:
Everyone wants to play in LA. That's why they still get meetings with marquee free agents even when everything about their team sucks.

It's tough to investigate one's intuition, but I just don't understand the reticence to Lonzo Ball. He's very fun to watch, plays with joy, and makes his teammates better. Do people have a hangover from Rondo? Or is it all because Lavar is a bozo?

I prefer to win and if possible I prefer to do it with improvisational style/beauty. That's the fan and the player in me talking, but I think it's a useful standard to distinguish good/great from TRANSCENDENT. Even though it's a pretty harsh standard (because winning and style rarely go hand in hand), only the all-time transcendent talents (like Magic or Bird or Lebron) can really manage to do both. I think Lonzo is another one of these types, and I really don't think there's another guy in the draft who comes close.

I really hope he doesn't go to LA. It'd be better for the league and better for him if he didn't.

Interesting. I don't see him as anything close to that kind of player. He's going to have a certain amount of trouble getting that shot of his off when he's playing with the big boys. He doesn't seem especially quick. He's a great passer, but we've already had the great passing PG who can't shoot.

The game has changed a bit but look at Billups who succeed in large part because of his 3 point shot. He wasn't as tall as Ball nor was he lightning quick or as gifted of a passer and he wasn't a legit lob target like Ball but still pretty darn great after he put it all together. Ball will never match Billups as a pure shooter in all likelihood but if Ball is very good from 3, he may be nearly as efficient of a scorr since he should have an edge over Billups in finishing at the rim because of his height advantage.

Rondo best year at Kentucky TS% 55% and 30.3% from 3.
Ball only year at UCLA TS% 67.3% and 41.2% from 3 while taking 5.4 per game....

I do agree with the notion that the college game hurts a Rondo type of player with elite quickness more than a Ball type of player since Rondo couldn't shoot the 3 ball well. And I do agree that Ball must have had better spacing on his team than Rondo at UK but some of that was obviously the difference in 3 point shooting between the two players.

The big difference is Ball is entering the NBA as someone that can shoot at the most important distance and has a great shot selection.

Ball does have question legit marks about his shooting form and I feel comfortable heavily discounting the possibility he will ever score much more than 20 PPG without reworking his shot which is hard to do. I won't deny that and his free throw average wasn't impressive for a freshman but tough to say someone can't shoot when they hit over 40% of their 3's with many of them from what I saw at least were from legit NBA distance and also have a super high TS% as a freshman.

Physically, Ball isn't much like Nash but Nash never averaged 20 ppg either. Even on fast paced teams. But Nash was a great playmaker and an extremely efficient shooter his entire career, similar to Ball's college production.

This is a bit random but Ball may be a mash-up of Billups and Nash.

Afam · Post #1979 » by **Afam** » Tue May 9, 2017 12:45 pm

The Celtics will be picking 1 or to 2 come May 16. The reason you have the lottery is help the bad teams out/teams that missed the playoffs. Why even bother having the lottery if bad teams are not even guaranteed a top 3 selection.

This is where the NFL has it right though. Just award the team with the worst pick the top pick, and be done with it. No need bringing the luck factor into it. With that said i believe the Nets pick is going to be 1 or 2. I don't see it being 4 at all.

fallguy · Post #1980 » by **fallguy** » Tue May 9, 2017 1:51 pm

Afam wrote:The Celtics will be picking 1 or to 2 come May 16. The reason you have the lottery is help the bad teams out/teams that missed the playoffs. Why even bother having the lottery if bad teams are not even guaranteed a top 3 selection.

This is where the NFL has it right though. Just award the team with the worst pick the top pick, and be done with it. No need bringing the luck factor into it. With that said i believe the Nets pick is going to be 1 or 2. I don't see it being 4 at all.

You realize it's just math, right? There's about a 35% chance we land the 4th pick.