2020 NBA Draft Thread

[themoneyteam2]

Xavier Tillman is an interesting prospect for me. I think he can bring some of the Horford skill set. He's 6'8" with a 7'1" wingspan compared to 6'9" with a 7'1" wingspan for Horford. Like Horford, he's a good secondary playmaker and can keep the ball moving within the offensive scheme. Sets good screens, fundamentally sounds. I like his defensive potential to switch and hold down paint. The jump shot shows potential to be effective.

I think Horford would be the high end of his upside. I think he could settle in as a Daniel Theis fit too. Maybe with a little more size. It's not a super flashy pick but I could definitely see him fitting into our rotation. We all hope Rob Williams pans out but the injury history is somewhat concerning. Kanter seems unlikely to be here past next year. Theis is a FA after next year. Next year is his age 28 season so if he's re-signed you're talking his age 29 and potentially 30 seasons (can see 2 years for him, can't see 3). He's had knee issues so wouldn't be the worst thing to add another big to the pipeline as a contingency plan.

Hard pass on Tillman. He's a less athletic and worse shooting Grant Williams. Lack of explosiveness is really concerning to me. Rumors are he's going back to MSU anyways. I'd be fine with picking him in 2nd round but his game just isn't a great fit for modern NBA in my opinion and he doesn't offer much defensive versatility. Great rebounder and screen setter though. I think he's safely behind This, Kanter, Timelord, and Grant in rotation and wouldn't play so at that point I'd rather take someone with bigger upside since any rookie we pick there in late 1st round won't get minutes next year anyways.

I think he's a fine player but would personally rather have the Celtics pick someone with more upside and I would hate picking Tillman in the 1st round. I just don't see him being a first round guy to be frank.

[hugepatsfan]

Xavier Tillman is an interesting prospect for me. I think he can bring some of the Horford skill set. He's 6'8" with a 7'1" wingspan compared to 6'9" with a 7'1" wingspan for Horford. Like Horford, he's a good secondary playmaker and can keep the ball moving within the offensive scheme. Sets good screens, fundamentally sounds. I like his defensive potential to switch and hold down paint. The jump shot shows potential to be effective.

I think Horford would be the high end of his upside. I think he could settle in as a Daniel Theis fit too. Maybe with a little more size. It's not a super flashy pick but I could definitely see him fitting into our rotation. We all hope Rob Williams pans out but the injury history is somewhat concerning. Kanter seems unlikely to be here past next year. Theis is a FA after next year. Next year is his age 28 season so if he's re-signed you're talking his age 29 and potentially 30 seasons (can see 2 years for him, can't see 3). He's had knee issues so wouldn't be the worst thing to add another big to the pipeline as a contingency plan.

Hard pass on Tillman. He's a less athletic and worse shooting Grant Williams. Lack of explosiveness is really concerning to me. Rumors are he's going back to MSU anyways. I'd be fine with picking him in 2nd round but his game just isn't a great fit for modern NBA in my opinion and he doesn't offer much defensive versatility. Great rebounder and screen setter though. I think he's safely behind This, Kanter, Timelord, and Grant in rotation and wouldn't play so at that point I'd rather take someone with bigger upside since any rookie we pick there in late 1st round won't get minutes next year anyways.

I think he's a fine player but would personally rather have the Celtics pick someone with more upside and I would hate picking Tillman in the 1st round. I just don't see him being a first round guy to be frank.

Totally on board with upside at #17. At #26 and #30 Not as clear cut for me. If a guy in that range has upside he usually has downside too otherwise his upside would have gotten him drafted higher. We're already in a roster and financial crunch. Those 1st round picks come with guaranteed deals. I think you have to factor that in.

I think Grant is a legit comparison from an upside and overall talent comparison. Difference is I think Grant is an undersized 4 while Tillman is an undersized 5. So they fill different roles. I don't view Grant as a legit option at the 5. You mentioned Theis/Kanter/Timelord as well. I can't see Kanter here beyond next season once his deal expires. Theis will hit FA next year at 29 years old. If he gets full MLE offers ($10M) I don't know that it's a guarantee we match on him. Timelord has shown some flashes but hasn't done it over a full season or even significant minutes. I wouldn't say we're "set" at the 5 by any means and think we might very well have a need for 10-15 minutes/night AT LEAST going forward. It'd be nice if Timelord takes a leap and Theis comes reasonably priced and each plays 20+ minutes and that's it. But it's far from certainty.

Tough to throw out and player as a target just devoid of context. Depends on who's on the board, who they expect/hope to re-sign off the current roster not just now but down the line, etc. I can see Tillman being a nice pick for us at #26 or #30 though with the right set of circumstances.

[themoneyteam2]

Xavier Tillman is an interesting prospect for me. I think he can bring some of the Horford skill set. He's 6'8" with a 7'1" wingspan compared to 6'9" with a 7'1" wingspan for Horford. Like Horford, he's a good secondary playmaker and can keep the ball moving within the offensive scheme. Sets good screens, fundamentally sounds. I like his defensive potential to switch and hold down paint. The jump shot shows potential to be effective.

I think Horford would be the high end of his upside. I think he could settle in as a Daniel Theis fit too. Maybe with a little more size. It's not a super flashy pick but I could definitely see him fitting into our rotation. We all hope Rob Williams pans out but the injury history is somewhat concerning. Kanter seems unlikely to be here past next year. Theis is a FA after next year. Next year is his age 28 season so if he's re-signed you're talking his age 29 and potentially 30 seasons (can see 2 years for him, can't see 3). He's had knee issues so wouldn't be the worst thing to add another big to the pipeline as a contingency plan.

Hard pass on Tillman. He's a less athletic and worse shooting Grant Williams. Lack of explosiveness is really concerning to me. Rumors are he's going back to MSU anyways. I'd be fine with picking him in 2nd round but his game just isn't a great fit for modern NBA in my opinion and he doesn't offer much defensive versatility. Great rebounder and screen setter though. I think he's safely behind This, Kanter, Timelord, and Grant in rotation and wouldn't play so at that point I'd rather take someone with bigger upside since any rookie we pick there in late 1st round won't get minutes next year anyways.

I think he's a fine player but would personally rather have the Celtics pick someone with more upside and I would hate picking Tillman in the 1st round. I just don't see him being a first round guy to be frank.

Totally on board with upside at #17. At #26 and #30 Not as clear cut for me. If a guy in that range has upside he usually has downside too otherwise his upside would have gotten him drafted higher. We're already in a roster and financial crunch. Those 1st round picks come with guaranteed deals. I think you have to factor that in.

I think Grant is a legit comparison from an upside and overall talent comparison. Difference is I think Grant is an undersized 4 while Tillman is an undersized 5. So they fill different roles. I don't view Grant as a legit option at the 5. You mentioned Theis/Kanter/Timelord as well. I can't see Kanter here beyond next season once his deal expires. Theis will hit FA next year at 29 years old. If he gets full MLE offers ($10M) I don't know that it's a guarantee we match on him. Timelord has shown some flashes but hasn't done it over a full season or even significant minutes. I wouldn't say we're "set" at the 5 by any means and think we might very well have a need for 10-15 minutes/night AT LEAST going forward. It'd be nice if Timelord takes a leap and Theis comes reasonably priced and each plays 20+ minutes and that's it. But it's far from certainty.

Tough to throw out and player as a target just devoid of context. Depends on who's on the board, who they expect/hope to re-sign off the current roster not just now but down the line, etc. I can see Tillman being a nice pick for us at #26 or #30 though with the right set of circumstances.

Yeah totally fair explanation. I personally just don't think Tillman is a 1st round player but if you believe he is then your reasoning makes 100% sense. I'm just not that high on Tillman as a prospect that's all.

[jmr07019]

A scrimmage doesn't mean much but it's probably a better indicator than summer league. Should have taken a flier on the 7'2' guy who clearly had skills when we had multiple picks and plenty of guards and wings on the roster.

Watch on YouTube

[Homerclease]

Let's say we could get into the top 5.

Who do you guys like?

Wiseman. By miles.

[reload141]

A scrimmage doesn't mean much but it's probably a better indicator than summer league. Should have taken a flier on the 7'2' guy who clearly had skills when we had multiple picks and plenty of guards and wings on the roster.

Watch on YouTube

His injuries scare me so much...had a great game today no doubt but we won't really know if we missed on him for a long time

[Parliament10]

A scrimmage doesn't mean much but it's probably a better indicator than summer league. Should have taken a flier on the 7'2' guy who clearly had skills when we had multiple picks and plenty of guards and wings on the roster.

Watch on YouTube

His injuries scare me so much...had a great game today no doubt but we won't really know if we missed on him for a long time

He's got a lot of dexterity for a guy his height. Though, he does look pretty fragile.

[bucknersrevenge]

A scrimmage doesn't mean much but it's probably a better indicator than summer league. Should have taken a flier on the 7'2' guy who clearly had skills when we had multiple picks and plenty of guards and wings on the roster.

Watch on YouTube

His injuries scare me so much...had a great game today no doubt but we won't really know if we missed on him for a long time

He's got a lot of dexterity for a guy his height. Though, he does look pretty fragile.

19 or not, he looks anorexic out there. I'm not comfortable that he's ever going to be able to add weight to that frame or that he will hold up over an 82 game schedule the way he looks. And again, Washington's a bad team...and that's when they have Beal and Bertans. The squad that Bol Bol just put up 16/10 on was putrid. That was barely a G-league team out there.

[jmr07019]

I see all the negatives with Bol Bol too but I still would liked to roll the dice on a prospect with high upside. Grant, Carson and Tremont all have low ceilings. If there was ever a year we could have afforded to take a gamble on someone it was last year with 4 picks and a not a lot of minutes for incoming rookies.

[bucknersrevenge]

I see all the negatives with Bol Bol too but I still would liked to roll the dice on a prospect with high upside. Grant, Carson and Tremont all have low ceilings. If there was ever a year we could have afforded to take a gamble on someone it was last year with 4 picks and a not a lot of minutes for incoming rookies.

I think Tacko has Gobert level upside. That's pretty high to me. Hitting it big with a longshot is overrated. There's enough foundation with this team which still hasn't even hit it's prime that it doesn't even matter if we do. Sure if we have draft picks burning a hole in our pocket and have to use one, you take the best talent available with the highest upside. But don't forget, Brad and Danny look for specific types of players that fit the needs of their system to give them the best chance of being contributor. It's not just to willy nilly pick the best longshot regardless. It's become more clear over the last few years that they have developed a science about the kinds of players they draft; what attributes and skills matter to them in particular. Be it a ballhandler, a wing, a swing, or a big If you pay attention to how they've been building this team, they don't pay lip service to longshots for the sake of being longshots. Bol Bol never had a chance of being the kind of big Brad would be interested in

[threrf23]

Aside from injury concerns, I don't really view Bol as a longshot. Without injury, he would have seemed awfully comparable to Porzingis. His skill level is evidence enough that he has taken his craft rather seriously to date. To me that partially overcomes any concerns regarding his passion for the game.

[jmr07019]

I see all the negatives with Bol Bol too but I still would liked to roll the dice on a prospect with high upside. Grant, Carson and Tremont all have low ceilings. If there was ever a year we could have afforded to take a gamble on someone it was last year with 4 picks and a not a lot of minutes for incoming rookies.

I think Tacko has Gobert level upside. That's pretty high to me. Hitting it big with a longshot is overrated. There's enough foundation with this team which still hasn't even hit it's prime that it doesn't even matter if we do. Sure if we have draft picks burning a hole in our pocket and have to use one, you take the best talent available with the highest upside. But don't forget, Brad and Danny look for specific types of players that fit the needs of their system to give them the best chance of being contributor. It's not just to willy nilly pick the best longshot regardless. It's become more clear over the last few years that they have developed a science about the kinds of players they draft; what attributes and skills matter to them in particular. Be it a ballhandler, a wing, a swing, or a big If you pay attention to how they've been building this team, they don't pay lip service to longshots for the sake of being longshots. Bol Bol never had a chance of being the kind of big Brad would be interested in

Bol Bol isn't the ideal system fit but neither are Grant or Carsen. Bol Bol if everything pans out is a starting level center. Grant and Carsen both look like career bench players due to lack of size.

Brad is looking for shooting, passing and the ability to switch from his big man aka a unicorn. You are not going to get that without committing serious assets and I don't see the Celtics having the cap space or draft assets to make it happen. We are either going to need to loosen up the requirements or accept using the MLE on the best center available year after year. I'm glad we drafted Rob Williams as it seems like Brad was at least willing to give up shooting at the center position but we need to continue investing in big man position. Tatum, Brown and Smart give us a rock solid foundation on the perimeter. We need some talent at the big man spot.

Overall I'm thrilled to have Ainge and Stevens running the show I think they do a great job but they're not beyond criticism.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Let's say we could get into the top 5.

Who do you guys like?

Guys I really like as fits on this team:

LaMelo Ball— has wing height, a very good handle and unbelievable passing vision. Shot isnt good but, from what I can tell, a lot of it is due to a lack of strength in the legs that should be curable. Defensively, he’s shown good instincts with lazy effort that causes the ‘poor defender’ label. After seeing Stevens routinely fix poor college defenders when they get here, I’m not worried about his defense at all. Think he fits in perfectly in the short term with Kemba/Brown/Tatum and the longterm with Smart/Brown/Tatum.

Obi Toppin— Offensively, theres little doubt that he’d be a good fit. He’s shown great touch inside the arc, has solid FT indicators and should be able to stretch his game to 3. He can pass and has solid vision for a PF. Awesome athlete, too. Defensively, he’s poor. He’s pretty top heavy and has trouble sinking his hips. I think Stevens could turn him into a slightly below average defender due to his athleticism— with his diverse offensive skill, that makes him tantalizing to me.

Guys I like in general, but dont think they’d develop right here:

Anthony Edwards— he has some real solid indicators— great touch at the rim, ability to create for himself, good vision— but I think he needs some time where he’s able to play through mistakes and Boston isnt the right fit. I think his defense would be fixed here, but I dont trust that his offense would come far enough along to justify the asset usage. Think that, on a losing team, he could turn into one hell of a player, sorta like Devin Booker.

James Wiseman— going more off intuition from his answers to interviews, but he seems like a guy who will want an outsized role for what his skill set demands. Were not in a position to reward that and I think itll hurt his effort to properly develop here. Huge potential, but dont see it actualizing in Boston.

Guys I’m okay with but wouldnt want to spend a top 5 pick on:

Hayes, Haliburton, Avdija, Okongwu

[bucknersrevenge]

I see all the negatives with Bol Bol too but I still would liked to roll the dice on a prospect with high upside. Grant, Carson and Tremont all have low ceilings. If there was ever a year we could have afforded to take a gamble on someone it was last year with 4 picks and a not a lot of minutes for incoming rookies.

I think Tacko has Gobert level upside. That's pretty high to me. Hitting it big with a longshot is overrated. There's enough foundation with this team which still hasn't even hit it's prime that it doesn't even matter if we do. Sure if we have draft picks burning a hole in our pocket and have to use one, you take the best talent available with the highest upside. But don't forget, Brad and Danny look for specific types of players that fit the needs of their system to give them the best chance of being contributor. It's not just to willy nilly pick the best longshot regardless. It's become more clear over the last few years that they have developed a science about the kinds of players they draft; what attributes and skills matter to them in particular. Be it a ballhandler, a wing, a swing, or a big If you pay attention to how they've been building this team, they don't pay lip service to longshots for the sake of being longshots. Bol Bol never had a chance of being the kind of big Brad would be interested in

Bol Bol isn't the ideal system fit but neither are Grant or Carsen. Bol Bol if everything pans out is a starting level center. Grant and Carsen both look like career bench players due to lack of size.

Brad is looking for shooting, passing and the ability to switch from his big man aka a unicorn. You are not going to get that without committing serious assets and I don't see the Celtics having the cap space or draft assets to make it happen. We are either going to need to loosen up the requirements or accept using the MLE on the best center available year after year. I'm glad we drafted Rob Williams as it seems like Brad was at least willing to give up shooting at the center position but we need to continue investing in big man position. Tatum, Brown and Smart give us a rock solid foundation on the perimeter. We need some talent at the big man spot.

Overall I'm thrilled to have Ainge and Stevens running the show I think they do a great job but they're not beyond criticism.

Totally respect the willingness to criticize and that's fine. I think however, it's just as important as you make your critique, to understand WHY they make the decisions they're making, rightly or wrongly. What their thought process might be. The big man for Brad is the most important spot in his system. They have the most responsibility at both ends in many cases, especially on defense. Brad likes shooting in prospects but he believes STRONGLY in the ability of his staff to turn mediocre shooters into good shooters. Physically, he prefers guys with NBA ready strength, or those close to it (we see that in all the rookies from this last year). He prefers agile, athletic guys for his switching schemes. He likes wingspan and is okay with smaller bigs if they have the wingspan to guard up. He DEFINITELY prefers bigs that demonstrate a high level of IQ. Thinking the game, being a student of the game is EXTREMELY important because Brad wants the Center to QB the defense and offense at times. High IQ bigs become better offensive players in Boston because they can read defenses and make the right pass from the arc (Olynyk, Al, Grant in due time). He needs them to be vocal. To understand who needs to be where.

Tacko is a unicorn in terms size and length but he is also a super smart kid which makes teaching him a reasonable gamble. Rob is super young but he has the requisite athleticism, wingspan and defensive IQ (He was SEC DPOY as both freshman and sophomore which is crazy). So there's perfectly understandable reasons why Rob was selected. Rob was kind of an anomaly for as young as he was to be selected by Danny but save maturity and experience, he fit so many of the other things Brad likes. But in most cases, Brad does like older players at the big spot and he's more than comfortable using MLE money on older bigs because they have the maturity, the experience, and the temperament to handle the myriad of responsibilities required of the position.

Grant and Carsen fit what Brad likes to do here a hell of a lot more than Bol Bol. And they have the requisite attributes that Brad likes. I hope Bol Bol works out in Denver but he wouldn't have a prayer here in Boston. Boston plays a thinking up-tempo offense and a physical brand of defense. Bol Bol has too many body concerns, injury concerns. Too young, too inexperienced and doesn't currently have the requisite IQ to QB a defense.

The idea that we need a superstar at the big spot is honestly an outdated and lazy assertion. Our system is set for most of the scoring to come from the quicker players on the floor. Our ideal big is a younger Al Horford. A lunchpail, reliable guy, not a star. A guy who does the dirty work the job requires of him. Again, I'm not here to denigrate anyone's preferences and feel free to be critical of Danny and Brad's choices. But I think it's important to expose the pattern in the choices they make in order to have a more robust conversation aboiut whether their overall process is effective.

[jmr07019]

Spoiler:

I think Tacko has Gobert level upside. That's pretty high to me. Hitting it big with a longshot is overrated. There's enough foundation with this team which still hasn't even hit it's prime that it doesn't even matter if we do. Sure if we have draft picks burning a hole in our pocket and have to use one, you take the best talent available with the highest upside. But don't forget, Brad and Danny look for specific types of players that fit the needs of their system to give them the best chance of being contributor. It's not just to willy nilly pick the best longshot regardless. It's become more clear over the last few years that they have developed a science about the kinds of players they draft; what attributes and skills matter to them in particular. Be it a ballhandler, a wing, a swing, or a big If you pay attention to how they've been building this team, they don't pay lip service to longshots for the sake of being longshots. Bol Bol never had a chance of being the kind of big Brad would be interested in

Bol Bol isn't the ideal system fit but neither are Grant or Carsen. Bol Bol if everything pans out is a starting level center. Grant and Carsen both look like career bench players due to lack of size.

Brad is looking for shooting, passing and the ability to switch from his big man aka a unicorn. You are not going to get that without committing serious assets and I don't see the Celtics having the cap space or draft assets to make it happen. We are either going to need to loosen up the requirements or accept using the MLE on the best center available year after year. I'm glad we drafted Rob Williams as it seems like Brad was at least willing to give up shooting at the center position but we need to continue investing in big man position. Tatum, Brown and Smart give us a rock solid foundation on the perimeter. We need some talent at the big man spot.

Overall I'm thrilled to have Ainge and Stevens running the show I think they do a great job but they're not beyond criticism.

Totally respect the willingness to criticize and that's fine. I think however, it's just as important as you make your critique, to understand WHY they make the decisions they're making, rightly or wrongly. What their thought process might be. The big man for Brad is the most important spot in his system. They have the most responsibility at both ends in many cases, especially on defense. Brad likes shooting in prospects but he believes STRONGLY in the ability of his staff to turn mediocre shooters into good shooters. Physically, he prefers guys with NBA ready strength, or those close to it (we see that in all the rookies from this last year). He prefers agile, athletic guys for his switching schemes. He likes wingspan and is okay with smaller bigs if they have the wingspan to guard up. He DEFINITELY prefers bigs that demonstrate a high level of IQ. Thinking the game, being a student of the game is EXTREMELY important because Brad wants the Center to QB the defense and offense at times. High IQ bigs become better offensive players in Boston because they can read defenses and make the right pass from the arc (Olynyk, Al, Grant in due time). He needs them to be vocal. To understand who needs to be where.

Tacko is a unicorn in terms size and length but he is also a super smart kid which makes teaching him a reasonable gamble. Rob is super young but he has the requisite athleticism, wingspan and defensive IQ (He was SEC DPOY as both freshman and sophomore which is crazy). So there's perfectly understandable reasons why Rob was selected. Rob was kind of an anomaly for as young as he was to be selected by Danny but save maturity and experience, he fit so many of the other things Brad likes. But in most cases, Brad does like older players at the big spot and he's more than comfortable using MLE money on older bigs because they have the maturity, the experience, and the temperament to handle the myriad of responsibilities required of the position.

Grant and Carsen fit what Brad likes to do here a hell of a lot more than Bol Bol. And they have the requisite attributes that Brad likes. I hope Bol Bol works out in Denver but he wouldn't have a prayer here in Boston. Boston plays a thinking up-tempo offense and a physical brand of defense. Bol Bol has too many body concerns, injury concerns. Too young, too inexperienced and doesn't currently have the requisite IQ to QB a defense.

The idea that we need a superstar at the big spot is honestly an outdated and lazy assertion. Our system is set for most of the scoring to come from the quicker players on the floor. Our ideal big is a younger Al Horford. A lunchpail, reliable guy, not a star. A guy who does the dirty work the job requires of him. Again, I'm not here to denigrate anyone's preferences and feel free to be critical of Danny and Brad's choices. But I think it's important to expose the pattern in the choices they make in order to have a more robust conversation about whether their overall process is effective.

My main criticism with Grant and also Carson is the "NBA Ready Body" label. Grant seems too small to deal with centers specifically Giannis and Davis who we will need to or likely need to deal with in order to win the title. Then there is Embiid and Jokic who are in the playoffs for the foreseeable future. I just can't see Grant ever being able to provide reasonable resistance to those guys. Conversely Bol Bol could (in few years) provide resistance to those guys if he hits his potential.

If you view Grant as a wing that changes things considerably but then I question his quickness, shot and skill level for a wing. We're bordering on over analyzing this. It's a late 1st round pick and most of them bust but Bol just seemed like a good gamble. The guy is super skilled for a 7' 2'' dude.

On a more conceptual level I feel like expecting your center to be able to switch onto guards and adequately defend them is a losing idea from the start. While there aren't any elite guards on the Bucks, Lakers or Clips it wasn't long ago when you had to deal with Kyrie and Steph if you wanted to win the title. A prime Horford trying to guard guys like Kyrie, Steph, Dame, Harden, etc. is not a matchup I am comfortable with. If you downsize to a Theis, Draymond type you might not be able to beat teams led by Giannis or maybe even Embiid, Jokic or Davis.

Lastly I feel like the bolded is contradictory. Horford may not have been appreciated by the average fan or Felger and mazz but he was given a max contract to come here and then given a ton of money by the 76ers. I also believe Houston was offering him the max in the offseason we signed him. So GM's clearly place a lot of value on that type of player. I agree we don't need our center to score a lot of points but despite that it appears to me we are going to need to pay our ideal center significant money and/or spend significant assets to acquire him.

[captain green]

Just read teams might be selling there 1st round picks, that screams of an ainge move. So we sell 2 draft one?

[bucknersrevenge]

Spoiler:

Bol Bol isn't the ideal system fit but neither are Grant or Carsen. Bol Bol if everything pans out is a starting level center. Grant and Carsen both look like career bench players due to lack of size.

Brad is looking for shooting, passing and the ability to switch from his big man aka a unicorn. You are not going to get that without committing serious assets and I don't see the Celtics having the cap space or draft assets to make it happen. We are either going to need to loosen up the requirements or accept using the MLE on the best center available year after year. I'm glad we drafted Rob Williams as it seems like Brad was at least willing to give up shooting at the center position but we need to continue investing in big man position. Tatum, Brown and Smart give us a rock solid foundation on the perimeter. We need some talent at the big man spot.

Overall I'm thrilled to have Ainge and Stevens running the show I think they do a great job but they're not beyond criticism.

Totally respect the willingness to criticize and that's fine. I think however, it's just as important as you make your critique, to understand WHY they make the decisions they're making, rightly or wrongly. What their thought process might be. The big man for Brad is the most important spot in his system. They have the most responsibility at both ends in many cases, especially on defense. Brad likes shooting in prospects but he believes STRONGLY in the ability of his staff to turn mediocre shooters into good shooters. Physically, he prefers guys with NBA ready strength, or those close to it (we see that in all the rookies from this last year). He prefers agile, athletic guys for his switching schemes. He likes wingspan and is okay with smaller bigs if they have the wingspan to guard up. He DEFINITELY prefers bigs that demonstrate a high level of IQ. Thinking the game, being a student of the game is EXTREMELY important because Brad wants the Center to QB the defense and offense at times. High IQ bigs become better offensive players in Boston because they can read defenses and make the right pass from the arc (Olynyk, Al, Grant in due time). He needs them to be vocal. To understand who needs to be where.

Tacko is a unicorn in terms size and length but he is also a super smart kid which makes teaching him a reasonable gamble. Rob is super young but he has the requisite athleticism, wingspan and defensive IQ (He was SEC DPOY as both freshman and sophomore which is crazy). So there's perfectly understandable reasons why Rob was selected. Rob was kind of an anomaly for as young as he was to be selected by Danny but save maturity and experience, he fit so many of the other things Brad likes. But in most cases, Brad does like older players at the big spot and he's more than comfortable using MLE money on older bigs because they have the maturity, the experience, and the temperament to handle the myriad of responsibilities required of the position.

Grant and Carsen fit what Brad likes to do here a hell of a lot more than Bol Bol. And they have the requisite attributes that Brad likes. I hope Bol Bol works out in Denver but he wouldn't have a prayer here in Boston. Boston plays a thinking up-tempo offense and a physical brand of defense. Bol Bol has too many body concerns, injury concerns. Too young, too inexperienced and doesn't currently have the requisite IQ to QB a defense.

The idea that we need a superstar at the big spot is honestly an outdated and lazy assertion. Our system is set for most of the scoring to come from the quicker players on the floor. Our ideal big is a younger Al Horford. A lunchpail, reliable guy, not a star. A guy who does the dirty work the job requires of him. Again, I'm not here to denigrate anyone's preferences and feel free to be critical of Danny and Brad's choices. But I think it's important to expose the pattern in the choices they make in order to have a more robust conversation about whether their overall process is effective.

My main criticism with Grant and also Carson is the "NBA Ready Body" label. Grant seems too small to deal with centers specifically Giannis and Davis who we will need to or likely need to deal with in order to win the title. Then there is Embiid and Jokic who are in the playoffs for the foreseeable future. I just can't see Grant ever being able to provide reasonable resistance to those guys. Conversely Bol Bol could (in few years) provide resistance to those guys if he hits his potential.

If you view Grant as a wing that changes things considerably but then I question his quickness, shot and skill level for a wing. We're bordering on over analyzing this. It's a late 1st round pick and most of them bust but Bol just seemed like a good gamble. The guy is super skilled for a 7' 2'' dude.

On a more conceptual level I feel like expecting your center to be able to switch onto guards and adequately defend them is a losing idea from the start. While there aren't any elite guards on the Bucks, Lakers or Clips it wasn't long ago when you had to deal with Kyrie and Steph if you wanted to win the title. A prime Horford trying to guard guys like Kyrie, Steph, Dame, Harden, etc. is not a matchup I am comfortable with. If you downsize to a Theis, Draymond type you might not be able to beat teams led by Giannis or maybe even Embiid, Jokic or Davis.

Lastly I feel like the bolded is contradictory. Horford may not have been appreciated by the average fan or Felger and mazz but he was given a max contract to come here and then given a ton of money by the 76ers. I also believe Houston was offering him the max in the offseason we signed him. So GM's clearly place a lot of value on that type of player. I agree we don't need our center to score a lot of points but despite that it appears to me we are going to need to pay our ideal center significant money and/or spend significant assets to acquire him.

Grant has NBA ready strength is more what I mean. That strength is going to allow his body to handle the rigors of a long NBA schedule and that's no small thing. But, from a defensive standpoint on the court Grant can use his strength to hold his position in the post. Something you could never ask Bol to do. He can get under bigger men in a similar way to what Smart does when he defends taller guys in the post. There are a lot of ways to defend the paint beyond shotclocking. I'm not assuming you here but people see Bol's shotblocking in G league and scrimmages and assume it can translate. Sure it's sexy but that doesn't mean that the team is actually defending the paint well. Without having what some might call a dominant shotblocker, the Celtics was among the best teams defending the paint this season and Grant was a part of that not because he's a bigtime rim protector in the traditional sense but because he understands at an advanced level for a rookie what defensive rotations need to be made and when they need to be made.

You're right that we're probably overanalyzing this a little but you can pull up YouTube and see a crapload of defensive plays involving rotating, showing high IQ, and staying with quick guards already that most rookies are incapable of showing at his age. And if we're expecting him as a rookie to try and defend Anthony Davis and Giannis for extended stretches already I'm wondering if our standards aren't a bit high. I expect Grant to be a high level bench swing guy which is perfectly fine. He's gonna be matchup dependent which may mean that he doesn't defend Giannis or Davis primarily. Doesn't mean that he can't rotate and help when needed. Doesn't mean that he can't play spot big minutes against other teams. Be careful or trying to shoehorn Grant into a role he might not be a fit for and then critiquing him for not fitting it. Just because he may not fit the role you think is most glaring doesn't mean he can't be a player that can add value to winning when utilized correctly.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on Bol and that's fine. I don't begrudge you or anything. I just look at Bol and I see a weak, thin, frail looking kid who right now is mostly getting by on physical attributes. That body doesn't look like it could every handle the pounding of an 82 game schedule (I mean forget using him to set picks in this league) and I see no evidence of an IQ to think the game at a higher level right now. Basically, I look at Bol and I don't see a player who beyond a few sexy stats 3's and blocks is going to be a guy that adds value to winning.

Lastly, on the paying a big part, I would certainly expect that we would pay a championship big at least MLE money at some point. And that's fine. That's reasonable. In fact, because of the responsibilities the big has in our system, I think Brad might even prefer it because that means he's getting a more mature, experienced, and skilled player for that role.

[jmr07019]

Good back and forth Buckners. Last thing I'll add is despite my criticisms I don't see Grant that differently than you. Just wish we had taken a guy with a higher ceiling. Go C's.

[themoneyteam2]

Assuming Kanter and Poirier leave after next year and Theis is re-signed, the big men on the roster for the near future are looking like Theis, Timelord, and Grant. Obviously team will pick BPA but I think there's a strong possibility of drafting a forward in this draft.

Precious Achiuwa has really caught my attention. He's remarkably similar to Bam Adebayo coming out of college with better defense, mobility and versatility on defense, but with a raw offensive game. He's a freak athlete and moves like a wing but he's about 30 lbs smaller than Bam. He's ready day 1 to be an impact defender and has absurd switch ability. His ceiling is to be 1st team all defense, or even just what Bam is currently which is arguably the best defender in the league on Giannis. Has elite traits to be an elite rim runner and to develop into a solid offensive contributor. Here are the comparisons:

Precious vs Bam
Height: 6'9" 6'10"
Weight: 225 250
Wingspan: 7'2" 7'3"

PPG: 15.8 13.0
RPG: 10.8 8.0
APG: 1.0 0.8
BPG: 1.9 1.5
TOPG: 2.8 1.7
FG%: 49.3 59.9
3PT%: 32.5 -----
FT% 59.9 65.3
ORtg: 101.3 123.7
DRtg: 82.5 95.8
PER: 23.3 22.0
TS%: 53.4 62.4
eFG%: 51.1 59.9
WS/40: .187 .196
BPM: 5.8 8.2

Here's a really good breakdown with Mike Schmitz:

Watch on YouTube

;t=1894s

Read on Twitter

?s=20

He's just a freak athlete.

[bucknersrevenge]

Good back and forth Buckners. Last thing I'll add is despite my criticisms I don't see Grant that differently than you. Just wish we had taken a guy with a higher ceiling. Go C's.

Definitely. Respect the hell out of your feelings about that. And I get that your point was more about being willing to step out and take a shot (especially when you have multiple picks) than it was any kind of aspersion toward Grant Williams.