Bear Down Wildcats

Does any other team have worse luck than they do? Hoping Jackson falls to 4.

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2017/" target="_blank

I think Philly goes Fox so if that happens I'm cool

Main Event wrote:http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2017/

I think Philly goes Fox so if that happens I'm cool

I'm fine with that, but don't they have the delusion of playing Simmons at the 1?

ChooChooCat wrote:Does any other team have worse luck than they do? Hoping Jackson falls to 4.

No. It's been quantified. Going back to 1968 when the Lord God threw a chewed-up corn cob through the roof of Veteran's Memorial Colosseum, to the coin toss that netted Neal Walk instead of Lew Alcindor, to me not having time even to get to 1969 in this post, no other team has worse luck than the Phoenix Suns.

The Suns are, as far as I know, by far the most successful franchise in pro sports history without a title. And I doubt they get one anytime remotely soon.

Im not even sure they are the best to never have won in the NBA, much less all of pro sports.

Because the NBA is stupid. What other league uses a lottery as opposed to your record to determine where you draft. They think that makes it more interesting?

Bring back Jerry and the suns will be good again. Sarver blows

Suns best winning percentage for a team without a championship: (article is 3 years old)


https://www.besttickets.com/blog/winner ... ro-sports/

MrBug708 wrote:Im not even sure they are the best to never have won in the NBA, much less all of pro sports.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ss_records" target="_blank

4th all time in win percentage in the NBA. Swinggggg and a miss by MrBug.

Considering that this upcoming season is the Suns 50th, I'd say they're easily the best NBA franchise and quite possibly best pro franchise to never win a title.

Well clearly they are the 4th best franchise of all time

Your constant need to make everything personal is pretty tiresome. I get it that it's your act on this board but you're probably better off just putting me on ignore. It'll fare better for you in the long run.

ASUHATER! wrote:The Suns are, as far as I know, by far the most successful franchise in pro sports history without a title. And I doubt they get one anytime remotely soon.

The Buffalo Bills and the Minnesota Vikings say 'Hi'.

Definitely not with the bills. Outside of that few years stretch with the super bowl losses, they've been pretty bad. 23rd in win percentage.

Yeah the Bills had a fantastic run, but nowhere near the consistency that the Suns had prior to the Sarver takeover of course. I'm pretty sure they have an all time losing record. The Vikings and the Suns actually have the same overall win percentage, so good call there.

The Bills and the Vikings have both been to the Super Bowl FOUR TIMES without a win. The Bills did it four years on the trot - that's pretty damn consistent.

I know their regular season winning percentage is lower than the Suns, but the Suns have never been to the NBA finals.

RichardCranium wrote:The Bills and the Vikings have both been to the Super Bowl FOUR TIMES without a win. The Bills did it four years on the trot - that's pretty damn consistent.

I know their regular season winning percentage is lower than the Suns, but the Suns have never been to the NBA finals.

1976 and 1993 say 'Hi'.

They damn sure were in the 93 finals. Crushed my little 7 year old heart.

scumdevils86 wrote:They damn sure were in the 93 finals. Crushed my little 7 year old heart.

I kicked a hole in the Sheetrock wall of our basement with that scrub player John Paxson but that three in game six to take the lead with a few minutes to go.

Fuck me, getting pissed just thinking about it all over again.

UAEebs86 wrote:

RichardCranium wrote:The Bills and the Vikings have both been to the Super Bowl FOUR TIMES without a win. The Bills did it four years on the trot - that's pretty damn consistent.

I know their regular season winning percentage is lower than the Suns, but the Suns have never been to the NBA finals.

1976 and 1993 say 'Hi'.

Yeah man you could've at least googled that before you posted it.

On a side note, JMark, I saw you on the other site saying the Suns are leaning towards Isaac if Jackson isn't available. If that's accurate I will never support this team until McDonough is shitcanned and Sarver sells the team. That'd be an astronomical joke.

ChooChooCat wrote:

UAEebs86 wrote:

RichardCranium wrote:The Bills and the Vikings have both been to the Super Bowl FOUR TIMES without a win. The Bills did it four years on the trot - that's pretty damn consistent.

I know their regular season winning percentage is lower than the Suns, but the Suns have never been to the NBA finals.

1976 and 1993 say 'Hi'.

Yeah man you could've at least googled that before you posted it.

On a side note, JMark, I saw you on the other site saying the Suns are leaning towards Isaac if Jackson isn't available. If that's accurate I will never support this team until McDonough is shitcanned and Sarver sells the team. That'd be an astronomical joke.

I'm not enthused, either, but if no Jackson, and they don't like upside of Tatum, what to do?

I'd take Fox, trade Bledsoe to a team in top-10 like Knicks, and select best prospect available.

I figure if you take Fox at four after Fultz, Ball, Jackson, Sacramento will reach for Smith to secure the needed PG at 5, and if you sit at 8, you'll get one of Lauri, Tatum, Isaac. Probably Tatum or Lauri, as I've heard Isaac is linked to Timberwolves.

It's a shitty situation if Jackson isn't there. Tatum is an OK consolation price, but he brings little defense, mediocre athleticism, and a black hole style to offense. You already have that with Booker, though Booker is better at getting his teammates involved, he's still a pure scorer first of all.

Lauri doesn't exactly make sense, but he and Booker would be a killer pic/roll pairing.

JMarkJohns wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

UAEebs86 wrote:

RichardCranium wrote:The Bills and the Vikings have both been to the Super Bowl FOUR TIMES without a win. The Bills did it four years on the trot - that's pretty damn consistent.

I know their regular season winning percentage is lower than the Suns, but the Suns have never been to the NBA finals.

1976 and 1993 say 'Hi'.

Yeah man you could've at least googled that before you posted it.

On a side note, JMark, I saw you on the other site saying the Suns are leaning towards Isaac if Jackson isn't available. If that's accurate I will never support this team until McDonough is shitcanned and Sarver sells the team. That'd be an astronomical joke.

I'm not enthused, either, but if no Jackson, and they don't like upside of Tatum, what to do?

I'd take Fox, trade Bledsoe to a team in top-10 like Knicks, and select best prospect available.

I figure if you take Fox at four after Fultz, Ball, Jackson, Sacramento will reach for Smith to secure the needed PG at 5, and if you sit at 8, you'll get one of Lauri, Tatum, Isaac. Probably Tatum or Lauri, as I've heard Isaac is linked to Timberwolves.

It's a shitty situation if Jackson isn't there. Tatum is an OK consolation price, but he brings little defense, mediocre athleticism, and a black hole style to offense. You already have that with Booker, though Booker is better at getting his teammates involved, he's still a pure scorer first of all.

Lauri doesn't exactly make sense, but he and Booker would be a killer pic/roll pairing.

Good points all around, I'm just far from enthused with a 3 and D guy at the #4 pick. I get what you're saying about Tatum, but I still think his ceiling is higher than Warren's lack of defense and all. I'd take Fox regardless if I could trade the Knicks or someone similar for another top 10 pick. Take Fox and if you can't figure it out draft night then figure it out later is my take. I'm certainly not advocating for Lauri either, he's certainly a back end of top 10 guy.

ChooChooCat wrote:

JMarkJohns wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

UAEebs86 wrote:

RichardCranium wrote:The Bills and the Vikings have both been to the Super Bowl FOUR TIMES without a win. The Bills did it four years on the trot - that's pretty damn consistent.

I know their regular season winning percentage is lower than the Suns, but the Suns have never been to the NBA finals.

1976 and 1993 say 'Hi'.

Yeah man you could've at least googled that before you posted it.

On a side note, JMark, I saw you on the other site saying the Suns are leaning towards Isaac if Jackson isn't available. If that's accurate I will never support this team until McDonough is shitcanned and Sarver sells the team. That'd be an astronomical joke.

I'm not enthused, either, but if no Jackson, and they don't like upside of Tatum, what to do?

I'd take Fox, trade Bledsoe to a team in top-10 like Knicks, and select best prospect available.

I figure if you take Fox at four after Fultz, Ball, Jackson, Sacramento will reach for Smith to secure the needed PG at 5, and if you sit at 8, you'll get one of Lauri, Tatum, Isaac. Probably Tatum or Lauri, as I've heard Isaac is linked to Timberwolves.

It's a shitty situation if Jackson isn't there. Tatum is an OK consolation price, but he brings little defense, mediocre athleticism, and a black hole style to offense. You already have that with Booker, though Booker is better at getting his teammates involved, he's still a pure scorer first of all.

Lauri doesn't exactly make sense, but he and Booker would be a killer pic/roll pairing.

Good points all around, I'm just far from enthused with a 3 and D guy at the #4 pick. I get what you're saying about Tatum, but I still think his ceiling is higher than Warren's lack of defense and all. I'd take Fox regardless if I could trade the Knicks or someone similar for another top 10 pick. Take Fox and if you can't figure it out draft night then figure it out later is my take. I'm certainly not advocating for Lauri either, he's certainly a back end of top 10 guy.

To me, the top three, the best upsided players are:

Fox
Monk
Isaac

But there's a big gap from the Kentucky guards to Isaac, mainly because of facilitation. If Isaac showed any ability to create off the dribble, he may be viewed as a Giannis lite. But as it stands, the best comp is maybe a lankier Trevor Ariza. Which could be killer since Ariza's main issue was motor and Isaac seems to play hard. But if your drafting a 4-5-6-7 option at #4 you're not drafting right. Fox has an elite NBA skill, slashing, and Monk has two borderline elite NBA skills in shooting, and passing. Not sure Fox ever fixes jumper to maximize potential, not sure Monk has handle to maximize potential, but both are further along.

At worst with Fox you have a speedy, downhill, put pressure on defense early Tony Parker. And with Monk, at worst you have Eric Gordon.

What's the at-worst for Isaac? More athletic Mbah A Moute? Maybe Al Aminu?

I just dont see it with Monk either (im hesitant on Isaac). I think he could turn into a really good role player, but without his creation improving I dont think he ever gets to Eric Gordon status. Not to mention ive seen his measurements all over the place (6'3" wingspan up to 6'7"). I worry as he doesnt have very good size in general (small frame, narrow hips, listed at 197) and also dont see the elite passing tools. I think he could utilize his passing better if he can create off the bounce more, primarily in PNR, but im not sold on it.

Again, I need to watch these guys more leading up to the draft, and perhaps my takes change a bit. Ive seen Monk much more than Isaac, but I wasnt enamored with either.

The one thing ill say about Monk is that you cant take scoring for granted. That dude can fill it up, so even marginal improvement in his handles, ect, would go a long way.

TucsonClip wrote:I just dont see it with Monk either (im hesitant on Isaac). I think he could turn into a really good role player, but without his creation improving I dont think he ever gets to Eric Gordon status. Not to mention ive seen his measurements all over the place (6'3" wingspan up to 6'7"). I worry as he doesnt have very good size in general (small frame, narrow hips, listed at 197) and also dont see the elite passing tools. I think he could utilize his passing better if he can create off the bounce more, primarily in PNR, but im not sold on it.

Again, I need to watch these guys more leading up to the draft, and perhaps my takes change a bit. Ive seen Monk much more than Isaac, but I wasnt enamored with either.

The one thing ill say about Monk is that you cant take scoring for granted. That dude can fill it up, so even marginal improvement in his handles, ect, would go a long way.

I love Monk's upside. I understand all the caveats, but that guy has the "it" factor I am looking for in a pace/space system. Better than average vision, passing, and near elite shooting/scoring. Handle is only thing that separates him from being a very good prospect. And Handle, while a lot of feel, is able to be learned. He has the "feel" for the rest of the offense, so I think it happens.

So it's settled then. Draft Fox, trade Bledsoe and Knight, eat ice cream.

There you go McDonough, you're welcome.

[wiki][/wiki]

ChooChooCat wrote:

UAEebs86 wrote:

RichardCranium wrote:The Bills and the Vikings have both been to the Super Bowl FOUR TIMES without a win. The Bills did it four years on the trot - that's pretty damn consistent.

I know their regular season winning percentage is lower than the Suns, but the Suns have never been to the NBA finals.

1976 and 1993 say 'Hi'.

Yeah man you could've at least googled that before you posted it.

Huh. I thought I had googled it. Musta been the Rooskies interfering with the innertubes thingy again.

Mea Culpa.

JMarkJohns wrote: I love Monk's upside. I understand all the caveats, but that guy has the "it" factor I am looking for in a pace/space system. Better than average vision, passing, and near elite shooting/scoring. Handle is only thing that separates him from being a very good prospect. And Handle, while a lot of feel, is able to be learned. He has the "feel" for the rest of the offense, so I think it happens.

I think he would benefit by landing on a team who isnt going to rely on him as the #1 or #2 option early. Hopefully that allows him to progress his game a bit at a time and become more comfortable handling the ball at the point of attack.

I guess the 76ers and the Magic would be the best fits? 76ers being #1, but im not buying it at 3. The Magic would allow him to play behind Fournier for a bit, but they still have Ross and Hezonja in there so...

My ideal fit would be with the Hornets moving up to get him. He could slot in really nicely when they need more scoring with the starters, can run as the lead guard with the second unit, plus they have the passing, ball handlers, and defenders to supplement him early on.

Phoenix is one of the luckiest franchises with respect to draft position:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ery-right/

Puerco wrote:Phoenix is one of the luckiest franchises with respect to draft position:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ery-right/

The numbers lie. No team losing two coin flip chances at Kareem and Robinson, and also never securing number 1 overall ever, or who's had shitty luck with acquired picks like the Bulls unprotected 1st in 2005, and the Hawks pick in 2007/2008, and their own either staying out or sliding back recently, could ever be considered lucky.

Cleveland is lucky. They've secured multiple 1s, including one from an acquired 1st.

Chicago is lucky. They've had multiple 1s and top-3s where they moved up, or where acquired picks moved up.

They're lucky on average wrt draft position. They're actually incredibly lucky statistically. What they've made with that luck is a shockingly different story. The 538 stat is also only measuring since 2001 which makes a big difference.

Haha saying the Suns are lucky is hilarious.

The way im reading it is... The Suns have been historically good in the time span measured. However, when they are bad, they are bottom five bad. There is very little middle ground. Same with the Thunder. Not the same as lottery luck, which would be measured as lottery draft position over lottery expected position, which this study does not measure. In that case, the Cavs would be waaaaaaaay up there.

Bit of misinterpretation here, IMO.

TucsonClip wrote:The way im reading it is... The Suns have been historically good in the time span measured. However, when they are bad, they are bottom five bad. There is very little middle ground. Same with the Thunder. Not the same as lottery luck, which would be measured as lottery draft position over lottery expected position, which this study does not measure. In that case, the Cavs would be waaaaaaaay up there.

Bit of misinterpretation here, IMO.

Exactly. No rational person would suggest the Suns have anything but no luck to bad luck with regards to it's owned picks that are lottery eligible.

Sounds like the Sixers and Celts are going to swap picks, which all but guarantees Josh Jackson going in the top 3. That would leave the Suns with the decision of Fox, Tatum, or Isaac.

ChooChooCat wrote:Sounds like the Sixers and Celts are going to swap picks, which all but guarantees Josh Jackson going in the top 3. That would leave the Suns with the decision of Fox, Tatum, or Isaac.

Reportedly the Celtics like Tatum. Think he's different enough from Brown where Jackson is a bit too similar.

But that's if they keep the pick.

If they trade 3 plus future 1sts and or Brown for Butler or George, then Jackson is likely gone.


I'm almost 100% certain Suns end up with Isaac.

I think they threaten Fox, force Sacramento into swapping 4 for 5 plus assets, then take Isaac.

Heard the other day they're considering trading down.

or trade up. lol

They'll probably give up Bledsoe & Booker to move up two spots. Please sell the team Sarver - you're a disgrace to your alma mater.

JMarkJohns wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:Sounds like the Sixers and Celts are going to swap picks, which all but guarantees Josh Jackson going in the top 3. That would leave the Suns with the decision of Fox, Tatum, or Isaac.

Reportedly the Celtics like Tatum. Think he's different enough from Brown where Jackson is a bit too similar.

But that's if they keep the pick.

If they trade 3 plus future 1sts and or Brown for Butler or George, then Jackson is likely gone.


I'm almost 100% certain Suns end up with Isaac.

I think they threaten Fox, force Sacramento into swapping 4 for 5 plus assets, then take Isaac.

Suns need to take Fox or fuck off forever. You don't pass up on franchise point guard for an athlete that's not named Josh Jackson in this draft. Draft Fox and get lunch money for Bledsoe and Knight.

Seriously if they draft Isaac at the 4th spot then this team is dead to me. I was upset enough about the Dragan pick, I can't live with Isaac following that up. There is seriously zero logic to choose Isaac over Fox, especially when you traded up to get Chriss in last year's draft. NONE.

I know you'll have a ridiculously intelligent retort to that JMark, but I don't want to hear it. NONE!

JMarkJohns wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:Sounds like the Sixers and Celts are going to swap picks, which all but guarantees Josh Jackson going in the top 3. That would leave the Suns with the decision of Fox, Tatum, or Isaac.

Reportedly the Celtics like Tatum. Think he's different enough from Brown where Jackson is a bit too similar.

But that's if they keep the pick.

If they trade 3 plus future 1sts and or Brown for Butler or George, then Jackson is likely gone.


I'm almost 100% certain Suns end up with Isaac.

I think they threaten Fox, force Sacramento into swapping 4 for 5 plus assets, then take Isaac.

What is your take on Ainge's trade? Did Fultz come in and not impress? Concerns over his injury? Is Ainge a much bigger fan of Tatum/Jackson and would have taken them at 1, but he decided to parlay that into another 1st round pick? Was this done because they want to lock up Thomas long term and they feel they should be looking at someone who isnt a 1 or 2?

I figured Ainge and Stevens liked Jackson's (potential) defensive versatility, basically their own Draymond Green. I wasn't happy with the trade and I feel that letting the 76ers getting Fultz means that Philly are the ones who are set up to be huge over the next 4-6 years. I much preferred taking Fultz and I'm not a big fan of essentially building around a guy who is probably the worst defender in the league.

JMarkJohns wrote:

TucsonClip wrote:The way im reading it is... The Suns have been historically good in the time span measured. However, when they are bad, they are bottom five bad. There is very little middle ground. Same with the Thunder. Not the same as lottery luck, which would be measured as lottery draft position over lottery expected position, which this study does not measure. In that case, the Cavs would be waaaaaaaay up there.

Bit of misinterpretation here, IMO.

Exactly. No rational person would suggest the Suns have anything but no luck to bad luck with regards to it's owned picks that are lottery eligible.

The Suns are averaging a top 5-10 finish over that period and they are averaging a pick in the top 5-10 of the draft. That's absurdly lucky. The Cavs aren't far behind, they pick even higher, but they're lower finishers over that time period.

Clip, point taken about lottery luck.

JMJ, there is no denying it: the Suns have picked far higher than their record & finish position should dictate. Maybe they're unlucky with reality vs. what coulda been, but the fact of the matter is that since 2001 they've gotten absurdly high picks. And. They. Have. Done. Nothing. With. Them.

Vegas has the Suns at 500-1 to win the 2018 championship. That's 5 times lower odds than the 76ers. That's also pathetic.

Puerco wrote:

JMarkJohns wrote:

TucsonClip wrote:The way im reading it is... The Suns have been historically good in the time span measured. However, when they are bad, they are bottom five bad. There is very little middle ground. Same with the Thunder. Not the same as lottery luck, which would be measured as lottery draft position over lottery expected position, which this study does not measure. In that case, the Cavs would be waaaaaaaay up there.

Bit of misinterpretation here, IMO.

Exactly. No rational person would suggest the Suns have anything but no luck to bad luck with regards to it's owned picks that are lottery eligible.

The Suns are averaging a top 5-10 finish over that period and they are averaging a pick in the top 5-10 of the draft. That's absurdly lucky. The Cavs aren't far behind, they pick even higher, but they're lower finishers over that time period.

Clip, point taken about lottery luck.

JMJ, there is no denying it: the Suns have picked far higher than their record & finish position should dictate. Maybe they're unlucky with reality vs. what coulda been, but the fact of the matter is that since 2001 they've gotten absurdly high picks. And. They. Have. Done. Nothing. With. Them.

Vegas has the Suns at 500-1 to win the 2018 championship. That's 5 times lower odds than the 76ers. That's also pathetic.

No they haven't. At least not recently. I can't recall a time they didn't pick in expected slot or worse.

Even
When they had chances with other team's 1sts, freaking Lakers make the layoffs in 2013, so second pick is Cavs, not a late end Lottery, and the Hawks, the 5th worst team, jump into protected range to
Secure Horford, then convey a pick in mid-teens the next year. Or getting a unprotected 1st from God awful Chicago for 2006 draft, only Chicago bucks trend and makes playoffs and Phoenix gets mid-20s pick.

If the Suns have moved up, it's been by a single slot, not the "luck" like Orlando in 1993, or Chicago in 2008, or with an acquired, unprotected 1st like Cleveland in 2014, who all went from back end range to #1 overall. They e not had a single #1 overall, while Chicago, Orlando, Cleveland, and a few others have had multiple in the lottery era; most with more Finals/Titles as well.

Suns are not lucky.

They have had some bad seasons which led to top-10 picks. That's not the same as Luck.

I honest to God have no idea how the Suns could Suck for 10 of the 16 years in question, and some how still end up with a top-10 record.

Just as I honest to God have no idea how these numbers equate to a top-5-8 range Lottery pick result.


(4, 13, 28, 14, 18, 27, 13, 13, 13, 5, 30, 14, 15, 29, 17, 22, 9)

Kept Pick Average: 16.7


(4, 13, 14, 5, 13, 14, 29, 9)

Own Pick Average: 12.6


(21, 21, 27, 24, 7)

Traded Pick Average: 20

Even if we only focus on the Lottery picks, a few of which were acquired, it doesn't add up:

(4, 13, 14, 13, 13, 13, 5, 14, 9)

Lottery Pick Average: 10.8

So, those numbers are very weird and very wrong.

rgdeuce wrote:

JMarkJohns wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:Sounds like the Sixers and Celts are going to swap picks, which all but guarantees Josh Jackson going in the top 3. That would leave the Suns with the decision of Fox, Tatum, or Isaac.

Reportedly the Celtics like Tatum. Think he's different enough from Brown where Jackson is a bit too similar.

But that's if they keep the pick.

If they trade 3 plus future 1sts and or Brown for Butler or George, then Jackson is likely gone.


I'm almost 100% certain Suns end up with Isaac.

I think they threaten Fox, force Sacramento into swapping 4 for 5 plus assets, then take Isaac.

What is your take on Ainge's trade? Did Fultz come in and not impress? Concerns over his injury? Is Ainge a much bigger fan of Tatum/Jackson and would have taken them at 1, but he decided to parlay that into another 1st round pick? Was this done because they want to lock up Thomas long term and they feel they should be looking at someone who isnt a 1 or 2?

I figured Ainge and Stevens liked Jackson's (potential) defensive versatility, basically their own Draymond Green. I wasn't happy with the trade and I feel that letting the 76ers getting Fultz means that Philly are the ones who are set up to be huge over the next 4-6 years. I much preferred taking Fultz and I'm not a big fan of essentially building around a guy who is probably the worst defender in the league.

I figure Celts are looking for wings and this tends to make me think they like IT and Smart going forwards. Defensively, Horford, Jackson and Smart are an imposing trifecta. If they think Brown is a long term thing too, that gives them a young core with a ton of length and versatility.

I like Fultz, but if Jackson plays to his potential, they won't regret anything but position in the trade.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

rgdeuce wrote:

JMarkJohns wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:Sounds like the Sixers and Celts are going to swap picks, which all but guarantees Josh Jackson going in the top 3. That would leave the Suns with the decision of Fox, Tatum, or Isaac.

Reportedly the Celtics like Tatum. Think he's different enough from Brown where Jackson is a bit too similar.

But that's if they keep the pick.

If they trade 3 plus future 1sts and or Brown for Butler or George, then Jackson is likely gone.


I'm almost 100% certain Suns end up with Isaac.

I think they threaten Fox, force Sacramento into swapping 4 for 5 plus assets, then take Isaac.

What is your take on Ainge's trade? Did Fultz come in and not impress? Concerns over his injury? Is Ainge a much bigger fan of Tatum/Jackson and would have taken them at 1, but he decided to parlay that into another 1st round pick? Was this done because they want to lock up Thomas long term and they feel they should be looking at someone who isnt a 1 or 2?

I figured Ainge and Stevens liked Jackson's (potential) defensive versatility, basically their own Draymond Green. I wasn't happy with the trade and I feel that letting the 76ers getting Fultz means that Philly are the ones who are set up to be huge over the next 4-6 years. I much preferred taking Fultz and I'm not a big fan of essentially building around a guy who is probably the worst defender in the league.

I figure Celts are looking for wings and this tends to make me think they like IT and Smart going forwards. Defensively, Horford, Jackson and Smart are an imposing trifecta. If they think Brown is a long term thing too, that gives them a young core with a ton of length and versatility.

I like Fultz, but if Jackson plays to his potential, they won't regret anything but position in the trade.

1. I doubt they keep the 1st, as I think they Select Tatum for immediate scoring and offensive upside and package him, Smart and future 1sts for Butler, plus Sign Hayward.

It's a wing League. Gotta have them. Celtics add adults and they still don't have 1. And Brown is so similar to Jackson in ability and limitations, he is the option off the bench for Defense.

If the Celts can get Butler, I'm sure they'd do that. I'm not sure I love Butler, Hayward and IT together, but that has a lot of star power.

If they stay put, I just think Jackson is better than Tatum. If I'm the C's and they're drafting for themselves, a readymade scorer isn't as big a deal, particularly if they can pull Hayward as a FA.

The Knicks want a top 4 pick to draft Josh Jackson and are willing to trade Porzingis for it. If I'm the Suns I do that and if the KNicks want a little more, I'd do that as well. The problem is that the Celtics would probably do it for the #3 and probably another first, if the reports are true.

I can't wait until Jackson is on the board at 4 tonight and the Suns pick Isaac

MrBug708 wrote:The Knicks want a top 4 pick to draft Josh Jackson and are willing to trade Porzingis for it. If I'm the Suns I do that and if the KNicks want a little more, I'd do that as well. The problem is that the Celtics would probably do it for the #3 and probably another first, if the reports are true.

The Knicks are idiots. They need to make Porzingis the face of the franchise.

The Suns should be able to fall into either Jackson or Tatum. Or they can try to move Bledsoe, get in on the PG or Butler sweepstakes and grab Fox.

Edit: or the Suns could drop Bledsoe and a pick for Mudiay. Que?

Suns are shopping Bledsoe and take JJ in the draft