# #6



## Rick2583 (Mar 17, 2014)

I was hoping we could have moved up some to get that much needed center (Embrid) but my guess is if not traded we'll up taking either Randle or Gordon. But I still like this kid McDermott.

And what the hell is it with the Cavs? This is now 3 of the last 4 years they end up with the 1st pick.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Assuming the top 5 go as planned (Embiid, Wiggins, Exum, Parker, and Randle in some order), the Celtics will be making their decision between Marcus Smart, Noah Vonleh, Aaron Gordon, and the mystery man Dario Saric. It's not really an issue of fit at this point with the Celtics. They are still in the beginning stages of a longterm rebuild, after all. 

I would go BPA. For my money, that's Marcus Smart. He has the fewest weaknesses in his game among that group. Get his shot cleaned up a touch and he could turn out to be a Baron Davis in the paint (physical and rugged), mixed with Mookie Blaylock on defense (quick-footed and smart), and Ty Lawson on the perimeter (quick and streaky - but with impressive scoring punch at times).


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

My vote would be to either take the double-double kid Vonleh, or Saric.

Out of the likely available guys @RollWithEm listed, I would say Saric is the best bet (or at least my personal favorite). He might end up being a SF or a PF, and can do a little bit of everything. I really think his game would fit well with a coach like Brad Stevens.

Vonleh would be another quality option because he's already got an NBA body, seems to be a good hustle player, and I believe is the 2nd youngest player in the draft so you would hope he has a higher ceiling.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

I also like Vonleh and Saric. The guy I'm least comfortable with in that group is Aaron Gordon. I've always seen him as more Michael Kidd Gilchrist than Blake Griffin.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

RollWithEm said:


> Assuming the top 5 go as planned (Embiid, Wiggins, Exum, Parker, and Randle in some order), the Celtics will be making their decision between Marcus Smart, Noah Vonleh, Aaron Gordon, and the mystery man Dario Saric. It's not really an issue of fit at this point with the Celtics. They are still in the beginning stages of a longterm rebuild, after all.


Unless Utah trades out of/ down in the draft (possible), I'd be very surprised if Randle wound up going to them. They look pretty invested in Kanter and Favors but badly need backcourt help. I think it's almost a lock that they take Smart at 5 if they keep their pick, but I also wouldn't be surprised to see them work a deal with a team that has extra firsts (Charlotte might be a good candidate at #s 9 and 24) so they can trade down to a range where taking one of the shooting guards in this draft becomes more palatable while picking up an extra selection for their trouble. 

As far as the Celtics go, if Milwaukee takes Exum at 2 and leaves Orlando choosing between Parker, who isn't an ideal fit for them, or reaching for Smart, I wounder how much you would have to add to the 6th pick to jump up in the draft and get Jabari. Would they be willing to gamble on being able to keep Rondo, or maybe even use him as bait to chase Carmelo, and do something like Rondo, 6, and 17 for picks 4 and 12?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Unless Utah trades out of/ down in the draft (possible), I'd be very surprised if Randle wound up going to them. They look pretty invested in Kanter and Favors but badly need backcourt help. I think it's almost a lock that they take Smart at 5 if they keep their pick


I would say that Trey Burke's spot in the line-up is significantly more secure moving forward that either Favors or Kanter. No chance I see them taking a PG that high.


----------



## Rick2583 (Mar 17, 2014)

I'm guessing that us picking a PG depends a lot on what happens with Rondo.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Why would Bucks take Exum 2nd?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Bogg said:


> if Milwaukee takes Exum at 2


That scenario screams smoke screen to me.


----------



## Rick2583 (Mar 17, 2014)

Here's the update....

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2014/


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

RollWithEm said:


> I would say that Trey Burke's spot in the line-up is significantly more secure moving forward that either Favors or Kanter. No chance I see them taking a PG that high.


Well, they just gave Derrick Favors a big extension so he's not getting benched, and Kanter just turned 22 and averaged about 12 and 8 in bench minutes last year, so I doubt he's going anywhere either. What they really need is another perimeter player. Like I said, assuming Exum/Parker/Wiggins are all off the board that's a team that should trade down to the 8-12 range where there's plenty of good swingman prospects and pick up an extra selection for their trouble. Someone like James Young makes a lot more sense for them than Smart or one of the bigs.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

BlakeJesus said:


> Why would Bucks take Exum 2nd?


Bucks need help everywhere, Brandon Knight is more of a scorer than a playmaker, and they're rumored to like him a lot. If Embiid goes first as expected I would just take Wiggins and throw an absurd amount of length and athleticism at people with the Wiggins/Giannis perimeter duo, but Exum isn't out of the question.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

BlakeJesus said:


> Why would Bucks take Exum 2nd?


Because Brandon Knight is a terrible offensive QB and not big enough to guard the SG spot.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Exum is also primarily a scorer by all accounts, so I do not see the fit there. 

The pick is going to be Wiggins, Embid, or Parker. No reason to gamble on Exum at the 2 slot.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

BlakeJesus said:


> Exum is also primarily a scorer by all accounts, so I do not see the fit there.
> 
> The pick is going to be Wiggins, Embid, or Parker. No reason to gamble on Exum at the 2 slot.


All the tape I've seen of him (which is admittedly not a ton) shows him to be a solid offensive QB. Call him a lead guard if you like, but those that have seen a lot of him don't really have any questions about him running an offense. 

And, at the end of the day, Brandon Knight can't and if you have a guy that can run the offense out of the 2 allowing you to start Knight at the 1 you're a lot better off than bringing Knight off the bench to get a scrubby playmaker on the floor with the starters because no one else can do the job.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Milwaukee is taking Wiggins if he doesn't go #1 . If he does, they will take Parker. I'm damn near sure of that.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

I like Exum, he could be very good, I just can't see Milwaukee picking him 2nd given who else would be available.

In the Bucks board I said they should consider Exum if they picked 4th, but that would not seem wise at 2.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Take Smart or trade it.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Rondo-Bradley-Smart, the worst shooting backcourt in the NBA.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

BlakeJesus said:


> I like Exum, he could be very good, I just can't see Milwaukee picking him 2nd given who else would be available.
> 
> In the Bucks board I said they should consider Exum if they picked 4th, but that would not seem wise at 2.


I'm not saying they _should_ take Exum, but it's not that far-fetched that they could decide that they like Brandon Knight enough to keep him around and that Exum is a comparable prospect to anyone else out there (supposedly Ainge has him at the top of his draft board, but I don't know if that's true). They have a vary obvious need for a real point guard.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

BlakeJesus said:


> I like Exum, he could be very good, I just can't see Milwaukee picking him 2nd given who else would be available.
> 
> In the Bucks board I said they should consider Exum if they picked 4th, but that would not seem wise at 2.


Boston, LA, and Orlando all reportedly have him #1 . And Milwaukee is another team that's reportedly had him at the top of theirs. Wiggins is possibly Paul George good, but Exum has similar upside. Parker has length issues and less than ideal athleticism/conditioning and Embiid has the back issues. So I'm not seeing some weird world where the rest of these guys are in another stratosphere.



BlakeJesus said:


> Rondo-Bradley-Smart, the worst shooting backcourt in the NBA.


If they draft Smart Rondo's gone. Bradley is a fine shooter so long as he doesn't have to run an offense. But, honestly, I think he's played his last game as a Celtic. Unless, by some miracle, Ainge gets his hands on Exum, because then Bradley can defend the PG spot while playing off the ball.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

E.H. Munro said:


> Boston, LA, and Orlando all reportedly have him #1 . And Milwaukee is another team that's reportedly had him at the top of theirs. Wiggins is possibly Paul George good, but Exum has similar upside. Parker has length issues and less than ideal athleticism/conditioning and Embiid has the back issues. So I'm not seeing some weird world where the rest of these guys are in another stratosphere.


How do we have any idea about what Exum's upside is? Because he has strong measurable and played well against Australian high schoolers? 

As I've stated, I believe in Exum, but I can't see how you can justify having him any higher than 4th on your board.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

BlakeJesus said:


> As I've stated, I believe in Exum, but I can't see how you can justify having him any higher than 4th on your board.


....and yet several teams do. Where he should be and where he might go are two different discussions. If I was Milwaukee I'd absolutely just draft Wiggins, throw out 6'8" and 6'11" swingmen that are athletic freaks with huge wingspans, and tell the rest of the league to have fun trying to score the ball for the next decade. But they might not, the Bucks have done all sorts of weird things. Taking one of the top-four guys in the top four wouldn't be all that surprising for them.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Bogg said:


> ....and yet several teams do. Where he should be and where he might go are two different discussions. If I was Milwaukee I'd absolutely just draft Wiggins, throw out 6'8" and 6'11" swingmen that are athletic freaks with huge wingspans, and tell the rest of the league to have fun trying to score the ball for the next decade. But they might not, the Bucks have done all sorts of weird things. Taking one of the top-four guys in the top four wouldn't be all that surprising for them.


Yet several teams "reportedly" do, it is absolutely an important distinction to make. 

I 100% agree that Wiggins is the no-brainer choice if he is there at 2, but I also think he should be the 1st pick, so there has to be a Plan B for Milwaukee.

Exum at 6 to the Celtics would seem to be a good fit, though.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

There is a non-zero chance that Exum does indeed go into freefall, but it's not much over zero. The one guy that could is Parker given his lack of length, athleticism, and reports that he's gained weight since the end of the college season. He's the one of the Big Four that could get Pierced.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

E.H. Munro said:


> There is a non-zero chance that Exum does indeed go into freefall, but it's not much over zero. The one guy that could is Parker given his lack of length, athleticism, and reports that he's gained weight since the end of the college season. He's the one of the Big Four that could get Pierced.


What do you mean by freefall? I do not think 6 would be a major freefall for Exum (though I would take him higher).

But what is this about Parker and a lack of length? He has consistently measured out at 6'8 in shoes with a 6'11 or better wingspan.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

BlakeJesus said:


> But what is this about Parker and a lack of length? He has consistently measured out at 6'8 in shoes with a 6'11 or better wingspan.


Because of this post, I went hunting for wingspans on this draft class. Marcus Smart and Noah Vonleh have amazing wingspans. Wow.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

RollWithEm said:


> Because of this post, I went hunting for wingspans on this draft class. Marcus Smart and Noah Vonleh have amazing wingspans. Wow.


Check out Kyle Anderson!


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

What should the Celtics be looking for at number 17?

Depends on who they take with 6 you would imagine, but the possible talent on the board would be Tyler Ennis/Kyle Anderson/Zach LaVine/TJ Warren.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

BlakeJesus said:


> What should the Celtics be looking for at number 17?
> 
> Depends on who they take with 6 you would imagine, but the possible talent on the board would be Tyler Ennis/Kyle Anderson/Zach LaVine/TJ Warren.


I'm hoping that somebody in that 9-14 range drops a bit, in particular Stauskas, Harris, or Young. Not really interested in Kyle Anderson because I don't know how you can trot him out there with Sullinger and Olynyk.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

BlakeJesus said:


> What do you mean by freefall? I do not think 6 would be a major freefall for Exum (though I would take him higher).
> 
> But what is this about Parker and a lack of length? He has consistently measured out at 6'8 in shoes with a 6'11 or better wingspan.


Two problems, one, the measurements only come from the FoS basketball camps and when given the chance for an official measuring he refused (never a good sign) and two, wingspan is only part of the story as it's affected by your girth. Standing reach is actually a much more important number and, again, no one knows because Parker refused measurement. Combine that with the lack of athleticism and the questions about his commitment to conditioning and you have a guy that can drop.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Wiggins, Parker, and Embid all chose to skip the measurements....you may be seeing what you want to see.

They are already tops of the class, there is really nothing to be gained by going to the combine. That applies to all three of them in my opinion.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

BlakeJesus said:


> Wiggins, Parker, and Embid all chose to skip the measurements....you may be seeing what you want to see.
> 
> They are already tops of the class, there is really nothing to be gained by going to the combine. That applies to all three of them in my opinion.


No one has any idea why Wiggins skipped them, unless it was because the other two skipped. Or maybe Bill Duffy owed a favour to Rich Paul or Arn Tellum. We _know_ why Embiid skipped, he didn't want people getting a closer look at the back. 

In every draft guys skip the measurements. Generally speaking it's the guys that don't want to be measured for height/length because they know the numbers won't be pretty. Thus I was encouraged when Vonleh went because there was a real fear prior that his height was fool's gold (due to it being a function of a neck the length of my left leg). Occasionally it's the guys that are injured. But in Parker's case it's definitely because he was dodging the measuring and athletic testing.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Obviously I'd be thrilled if there were _two_ teams above us stupid enough to take someone other than Wiggins/Parker/Embiid/Exum, but I don't see how they talk themselves into doing so. Exum outclasses Smart as a prospect IMO, although I think Smart will be very good. I've said a few times that I think Vonleh and Gordon are busts in the making (tweener forward + "athleticism" + "upside" + nothing else = bust). Who else is there besides Randle?


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

If Minny wants to do a total rebuild, you guys have one of the best offers for Love. 

Would Love want to go to Boston? At first I didn't think you would be competitive enough, but I didn't realize you had cap space in addition to the trade x. That would allow you to take on Lin, which would surely be the asking price for getting the rim protector in Asik that you would need.

So if you can manage to get Asik, then adding Love to that team would certainly make it very competitive. 

Assuming Minny wants to tear it down, and that you can get Asik I would have to consider you guys a strong candidate.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> If Minny wants to do a total rebuild, you guys have one of the best offers for Love.
> 
> Would Love want to go to Boston? At first I didn't think you would be competitive enough, but I didn't realize you had cap space in addition to the trade x. That would allow you to take on Lin, which would surely be the asking price for getting the rim protector in Asik that you would need.
> 
> ...


Boston could also offer to clear Milwaukee's cap sheet by buying low on Sanders and Mayo, hoping they get their head on straight and their waist under control, respectively, and try to bring Pierce back home. Rondo-Mayo-Pierce-Love-Sanders could get to the conference finals if everything breaks right.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Bogg said:


> Boston could also offer to clear Milwaukee's cap sheet by buying low on Sanders and Mayo, hoping they get their head on straight and their waist under control, respectively, and try to bring Pierce back home. Rondo-Mayo-Pierce-Love-Sanders could get to the conference finals if everything breaks right.


Sanders and Mayo for 6? Done.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

roux said:


> Sanders and Mayo for 6? Done.


Sanders, Mayo, and #2 for whatever/#6? You've got a deal.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

E.H. Munro said:


> Sanders, Mayo, and #2 for whatever/#6? You've got a deal.


What a horrible deal for Milwaukee.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

BlakeJesus said:


> What a horrible deal for Milwaukee.


I'm just assuming that's what he meant since the Bucks will need to spend to rid themselves of Mayo.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Yea, it'd be more like the 17 (or some other non-premier future first) for Sanders under Pierce's TPE and just non-guaranteed contracts for Mayo. If Boston already had Kevin Love in hand I'd think about something along those lines.


----------

