ryaningf wrote: smart_celtics wrote: ryaningf wrote:
McCaw had a comparable rookie year to Jaylen Brown, as did Luwawu. Korkmaz or Zagorac were possible stash candidates.
Taking Yabu is a defensible move. Trading #31 & #36 for a late first (likely a 2nd, given the protections) is not, especially when the likely ROY was available at those picks and Ainge was reportedly itching to select him.http://www.masslive.com/celtics/index.ssf/2017/03/malcolm_brogdon_boston_celtics.html
Here's my defense of trading #31 & 36 for a future first - We had a roster crunch and no place to put extra rookies, so we traded for a future asset that is more likely to be traded then used. In isolation not the best value trade, but given the circumstances, I think it is quite defensible. Also Clippers don't have much upside above the #23 slot they have this year, so with a little luck we are talking about a late teens pick, which would make the trade a good value.
It was a roster crunch precipitated by the junk that litters the end of the bench....Mickey, Young, Green, Zeller, Jackson and Rozier (who is looking tradeable finally).
The 2016 draft had atypical first round value between picks 10-40. Not sure how this future first will turn out, could be late teens, could be a second rounder if it doesn't convey right away but the depth of the draft will not likely be better than it was in 2016. In essence, it was a 2 for 1 trade that Danny was happy to make because he wasted 1/3 of his roster on guys with little value.
Green - Was brought in to provide veteran bench scoring and helped us win the Chicago series. You could not have an expectation of any 2nd round rookie doing that (even if Brogdan did end up doing that).
Zeller - Veteran back-up big who knows the system and provides replacement level production. Also has a valuable tradeable contract that can be used in the draft.
Rozier - You note that he is showing more value than one would expect from a 2nd round rookie (or even a late first rookie).
Mickey - is trash but seems like the team was expecting him to take a step forward and didn't realize until he came back injured for summer league that he wasn't making that step forward.
Young - is trash but I think at the time they were still holding out hope that they could flip Young or Hunter for something of value. He also knows the system better than a rookie.
Jackson - is one of your second round picks who had a first round grade. I am guessing they didn't trade the later 2nd round pick because the Grizzlies weren't willing to make that deal. Also drafting two 2nd round picks would likely result in just cutting Jackson like Bentil and getting no value for that pick at all.
So I think the argument would be- They should have cut Mickey and Young (along with Hunter) and then carried 3 second round rookies on the roster (along with Jaylen). Unclear if the value of those rookies in a couple years would be better trade bait then a late first round pick (particularly since the trade partner might not like those players.)
TLDR: I can see it either way but its understandable why he might want to convert those current assets into future assets even at a discount given the desire to keep flexibility for a future Butler/PG-type deal.