BostonCouchGM wrote:simply not true. There's were plenty of people saying Tatum was the best, albeit by varying degrees with little separation, of a very talented draft class.
Historical revisionism much? Fultz was the consensus #1 and then there were 4-5 guys who were seen as more or less equal, although the Lakers made it clear they were going with Ball at #2 from the start. After Boston traded the #1 pick to Philly for #3 it was first thought Ainge wanted Josh Jackson (the most common #3 early on), and reports saying Tatum was our guy only came out a couple of days later.
BostonCouchGM wrote:There were glaring red flags with both Fultz and Ball and seemingly none for Tatum except that he's a good not elite athlete. And clearly Danny agreed because reports had Tatum #1 on his board.
I wouldn't say Fultz had red flags. There were questions about his shooting but not to the point of calling it a "glaring red flag". He was seen as the prototypical modern NBA guard outside of that. Ball did have red flags obviously, and Tatum was seen as a high floor low ceiling guy who didn't have the physical abilities to be a top 10/20 player, and was probably too in love with the midrange to be an efficient scorer.
BostonCouchGM wrote:Brown isn't in Tatum's league. He neither possesses the upside nor the natural skills to become a star. He'd make a great #4 but unfortunately he'll be getting paid top 3 money starting next season which will keep us from winning a championship.
How many teams have 3 guys better than Jaylen Brown? btw consider the fact that he's averaging 20.2/6.4/2.2 on .596 TS%. Between 2010-11 and 2018-19, there were 5 players who averaged 20/6/2 on >.59 TS% before the end of their rookie contract: Kevin Love, AD, KAT, Giannis and Embiid. This year there are 4 rookie contract players averaging those numbers: Zion, Doncic, Ingram and Jaylen Brown.
And he could improve even more in the future, obviously.
BostonCouchGM wrote:Danny gets too much credit for these trades. These are horribly managed organizations making huge mistakes that any G.M. in Danny's shoes would jump on.
Except the GMs managing those horribly managed organizations I assume.