2017 NBA Offseason Thread

[molson]

Originally Posted by nol

Except anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of game theory would realize that if 15-20 teams are trying to lose, the expected reward of intentionally losing is really low and there'd be much more to gain by cheaply acquiring the good players from those tanking teams.

Yes, there's some threshold number of tanking teams, after which, it's too late to jump in and join them. I'm not sure why we would even want to get close to that point. But even if those mediocre non-playoff teams are trying to win, they're doing it against their self-interest. Even when it's not literal intentionally tanking, I think it's a problem when so many teams are better off if they lose.

The 76ers still own their own first round pick next year. Would it better for them to make a jump and win 40 games, or to regress and win 20? Should the fans root for them to win 40 or 20? Wouldn't it be best for them to just walk off the court with a minute left in every game and go 0-82? (Presumably the commissioner would step in at that point and the league would make changes, but just the fact that that would probably be the best thing for them shows the problems of the current system).

[Atocep]

Not too long ago Portland and Phoenix were shining examples of how to rebuild without tanking.

[Arles]

Here are the Sixers over the last 5 years:
28-54
10-72
18-64
19-63
34-48

The problem with tanking that bad is that you lose chances to get expiring stars with your assets or FAs. There's no way George would commit long term and you have virtually no chance at Hayward, Blake or any in-demand FA. I think Phoenix and Denver are in the same boat - they have some nice players and assets, but have been so bad that no one wants to commit there.

That's why the Boston model is much better than Philly. If Boston just would have banked on their draft picks, they'd be the Kings right now. But, they instead moved picks, players and cap space in FA to get a team with guys like IT4, Crowder and Horford. Plus, they now have a chance at guys like Hayward and Blake because they are relevant. Even with Fultz, the Sixers are an outside shot at making the crappy east playoffs. At some point, you need to entice a legit player to join your team via FA or be willing to trade assets for a star. If you keep dwelling in the 10-30 win range, you won't ever get better unless you draft a Lebron/Durant. Look at Minnesota, they've hit big on multiple picks (KAT, Wiggens, Levine) and still weren't close to making the playoffs.

[Arles]

This is interesting:

Cleveland Cavaliers trying to engage Chicago Bulls in multi-team trade scenarios for Jimmy Butler

The Cleveland Cavaliers are trying to engage the Chicago Bulls in multiteam trade scenarios that would enable the Eastern Conference champions to acquire Bulls All-Star Jimmy Butler, according to league sources.

Sources told ESPN that the Cavaliers, in addition to their reported interest in Indiana's Paul George, are trying to assemble trade packages that would convince the Bulls to part with Butler, 27, who is fresh off the best season of his career.

It's believed that the Cavaliers, by offering All-Star forward Kevin Love, could recruit a third team that would supply the sort of young players and/or draft picks sure to be more appealing to Chicago than the limited trade assets on Cleveland's roster.

The Chicago Tribune reported that the Phoenix Suns, who have the No. 4 pick in Thursday night's draft as well as an available first-rate point guard in Eric Bledsoe, are a potential third-team facilitator in such a scenario.

One league source told ESPN's Dave McMenamin, meanwhile, that the Cavaliers already have been offered George in a multiteam trade scenario that would cost them Love and involve an unnamed third team.

If I were the Suns, I'd be interested in getting love for Bledsoe. Giving up the 4th and Bledsoe would be a bit much. At that point, I'd keep both and take #4 and try to go after Paul Milsap in FA (as they have been rumored to be interested in).

[Arles]

Oh good lord, now there's a rumor that Phil Jackson is bringing in Markkanen for a visit in the event that he trades Porzingis. These poor Knicks fans...

[Arles]

My first triple dola in a while. David Griffin isn't going to be brought back in Cleveland. I wonder if Gilbert felt Griffin was going to do whatever Lebron wanted this last year and mortgage the future for one more chance (before Lebron potentially left this offseason). Otherwise, this move doesn't make any sense.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Arles

Oh good lord, now there's a rumor that Phil Jackson is bringing in Markkanen for a visit in the event that he trades Porzingis. These poor Knicks fans...

It's criminal, short of getting a Brooklyn type deal for him, which we know isn't happening again.

And I say that with a literal meaning. It should actually be illegal. I care about the Knicks about 5% as much as I did back in the day and this still kills me.

[nol]

Originally Posted by molson

The 76ers still own their own first round pick next year. Would it better for them to make a jump and win 40 games, or to regress and win 20? Should the fans root for them to win 40 or 20? Wouldn't it be best for them to just walk off the court with a minute left in every game and go 0-82? (Presumably the commissioner would step in at that point and the league would make changes, but just the fact that that would probably be the best thing for them shows the problems of the current system).

Their best player is good enough that he'd have dragged the rest of the team to 40+ wins and a playoff appearance had he not gotten injured, and on top of that they're adding the 2016 and 2017 #1 picks plus whatever free agents are trying to get on the bandwagon, so what do you think.

Obviously going 0-82 is pointless given the lottery, and if you'd been following the NBA in the slightest you'd know that Philadelphia hasn't even gotten particularly lucky in the lottery (they have moved forward 0 times and back twice, and the Lakers have dodged an 80+ percent chance at giving the Sixers an additional top-5 pick at some point over the last 3 years thanks to lottery luck of their own) and it's the smart moves they've made outside of losing a lot of games that have them in a good position. The Timberwolves have 2 recent #1 picks who have been healthy but won a grand total of 3 more games than the 76ers this year because they have 1 good player outside those two; the 76ers have two former undrafted free agents on minimum salary deals who'd be the 3rd and 6th best players for Minnesota.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Arles

Here are the Sixers over the last 5 years:
28-54
10-72
18-64
19-63
34-48

The problem with tanking that bad is that you lose chances to get expiring stars with your assets or FAs. There's no way George would commit long term and you have virtually no chance at Hayward, Blake or any in-demand FA. I think Phoenix and Denver are in the same boat - they have some nice players and assets, but have been so bad that no one wants to commit there.

Wow, so you're saying there's no difference between winning 10 and 35 games in terms of being able to attract a star player? Who'd have ever thought such a thing? Also the fact that someone can think even three years in that Minnesota "hit big" on Zach LaVine (who has been one of the 5 worst defenders at his position every year he's been in the league and is a player wholly dependent on athleticism who just tore his ACL) is as proof that drafting is, in fact, not something so easy that a 10-year-old can do it.

[molson]

Acquiring a star player wouldn't have been part of "the process" since they were tanking, right?

If they become more appealing for stars shorty it will only be because they're loaded with talent acquired as a result of them losing a lot of games.

If they didn't have a top pick every year and instead drafted 8, 28, 15, 2, and 21 (or whatever) over the last five years, things would be a lot different. Skill in team-building would matter a lot more.

[Arles]

Yes, but at some point you have be a potential playoff team to get good FAs. No top FA is going to join a 35-win Sixers team. But, if they can add legit NBA players via trade and a couple role playing FAs and get to 42-45 wins - you might be able to attract a good FA. You can't just keep "tanking" forever, eventually players you draft will leave and you need to start over again. Philly has already lost Noel and Covington is a FA after this season. Embiid is due a QO next year as well. This is the offseason they need to add a legit vet or two and make a push. Otherwise, guys may start to leave.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yes, but at some point you have be a potential playoff team to get good FAs. No top FA is going to join a 35-win Sixers team. But, if they can add legit NBA players via trade and a couple role playing FAs and get to 42-45 wins - you might be able to attract a good FA. You can't just keep "tanking" forever, eventually players you draft will leave and you need to start over again. Philly has already lost Noel and Covington is a FA after this season. Embiid is due a QO next year as well. This is the offseason they need to add a legit vet or two and make a push. Otherwise, guys may start to leave.

Ya, I guess the key is picking the right season to "break through" and try to do it as quickly as possible, and not get mired in too many of those 30-50 win seasons.

But on the other hand, why don't NBA stars see what fans and the media apparently see regarding the Sixers? If they're building their team so brilliantly, why not be a part of that? Are the Sixers close to contending or we really talking another 4 or 5 years? If they're close, why can't they get stars, if they're 5 years away, is a 10-year rebuilding plan really such a great plan?

[JPhillips]

I'd think three years to a Finals team at minimum, and that assumes some fantastic growth and no injuries.

There's no genius to Hinkie's plan, anyone could do it if the ownership is willing to stomach years of losing. If you stink long enough, you're likely to end up with talent.

[molson]

What's interesting to me when this comes up here is how the harder core NBA fans tend to defend the current system, and the more casual fans tend to want it to change. So I get there's a lot I'm missing not being a huge NBA follower, I just would prefer a purer league structure where you know all the teams are trying to win as much as they can and that there's no great rewards for failing.

I think this is a potential problem in all sports that do this, it's just bigger in the NBA because the rosters are smaller, and the outcome of games and seasons is more predictably related to talent on the roster. You don't have as many teams that come out of nowhere or great teams that collapse. If you have the talent, you win, and to get the talent, it's better to lose.

[Arles]

I think it's easy to be seduced by the tanking ponzi scheme. "If we get just one more star, we will be legit!" All the while some of the players are leaving/traded that were part of the prior ponzi scheme. I think forcing your fans to go through 5-6 crap seasons is a bitter pill. Look at the most recent teams that have done this the "best" (Minnesota, Philly) - they are still a ways away from even making the playoffs. I think Denver, Phoenix and Portland are doing a good job at trying to get assets while also being somewhat watchable. If any of these three managed to trade for or attract a decent FA, they could make the leap. If Minnesota or Philly actually tried to get FAs or trade for vets, they could be in that group too.

[JPhillips]

I'm not sold on Philly at all. I don't know if they can succeed with a C and two players that aren't shooters. The potential for spacing problems on offense is serious.

[Arles]

What I don't understand about the NBA is this idea that if you don't have good odds to win a title, your team is a failure. Look at the NFL or MLB - you can have a good team every year, be competitive and people don't want to "blow it up" after 4-5 seasons. Teams like the Dodgers, Pirates, Blue Jays and Rangers have had some very good teams over the past five years. None have won a title, but it's not like the fans are clamoring for tanking. Same goes for the Cardinals, Chiefs, Eagles and Colts. Yet, in the NBA, if you are a team like Portland, Denver, Atlanta or the Clippers - everyone wants you to tear it down. Winning 43-50 games (but not really having a shot to win) is viewed as this terrible fate. I'd much rather be a Portland or Clippers fan over the past 5 years (watch an entertaining team that never makes the finals) than a Philly fan. And, is Philly that much closer than a team like Portland (who has Lilliard, CJ and Nurkic)?

I'll never understand why NBA fans don't appreciate entertaining basketball that doesn't win a title. The early 2000s Kings teams, the mid 2000s Suns teams, the Clippers and the Rockets have all been fun teams to root for. Yet, because they didn't win the title, they are viewed as failures. I'd much rather have a fun team for 5-6 years that falls short than tank for 5 years, but now have a better probability at a title. Sports are entertainment and having fun teams that makes the playoffs should be valued more than the FMarlins model of 1 title surrounded by tire fires for 5+ years.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

What I don't understand about the NBA is this idea that if you don't have good odds to win a title, your team is a failure. Look at the NFL or MLB - you can have a good team every year, be competitive and people don't want to "blow it up" after 4-5 seasons. Teams like the Dodgers, Pirates, Blue Jays and Rangers have had some very good teams over the past five years. None have won a title, but it's not like the fans are clamoring for tanking. Same goes for the Cardinals, Chiefs, Giants and Colts. Yet, in the NBA, if you are a team like Portland, Denver, Atlanta or the Clippers - everyone wants you to tear it down. Winning 43-50 games (but not really having a shot to win) is viewed as this terrible fate. I'd much rather be a Portland or Clippers fan over the past 5 years (watch an entertaining team that never makes the finals) than a Philly fan. And, is Philly that much closer than a team like Portland (who has Lilliard, CJ and Nurkic)?

I think some of that goes to predictability of NBA games. There's generally a real roadblock at the top. The best teams win. But if you're the Clippers of the NFL or MLB, you're a few lucky breaks or one good acquisition away from being a real championship contender in any given season.

(Edit: Just looking at the preseason odds from the last seasons, there were 15 MLB teams with odds of 25-1 or better to win the championship. In the NBA, there were 6. Team building matters more in the NBA, there's fewer on-court variables once the rosters are set. So if you're outside that 6, some fans are going to be thinking about whether it will ever be possible to get to that 6 without starting over. And you don't HAVE to have a top 3 draft pick to get into that 6, but, it surely helps to have a lot of them.)

But I've also never been a "championship or bust" kind of fan.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Arles

What I don't understand about the NBA is this idea that if you don't have good odds to win a title, your team is a failure. Look at the NFL or MLB - you can have a good team every year, be competitive and people don't want to "blow it up" after 4-5 seasons. Teams like the Dodgers, Pirates, Blue Jays and Rangers have had some very good teams over the past five years. None have won a title, but it's not like the fans are clamoring for tanking. Same goes for the Cardinals, Chiefs, Eagles and Colts. Yet, in the NBA, if you are a team like Portland, Denver, Atlanta or the Clippers - everyone wants you to tear it down. Winning 43-50 games (but not really having a shot to win) is viewed as this terrible fate. I'd much rather be a Portland or Clippers fan over the past 5 years (watch an entertaining team that never makes the finals) than a Philly fan. And, is Philly that much closer than a team like Portland (who has Lilliard, CJ and Nurkic)?

I'll never understand why NBA fans don't appreciate entertaining basketball that doesn't win a title. The early 2000s Kings teams, the mid 2000s Suns teams, the Clippers and the Rockets have all been fun teams to root for. Yet, because they didn't win the title, they are viewed as failures. I'd much rather have a fun team for 5-6 years that falls short than tank for 5 years, but now have a better probability at a title.

Because in the NFL and MLB by just making the playoffs you have a chance at winning a title. In the NBA if you aren't a top 3 seed you're just getting some extra games and really are no different than lottery teams.

The teams you mentioned also all made conference finals and were legitimate contenders. It's teams that are maxing out their roster as a 4 or 5 seed that are the problem. I don't expect my team to win a title very year but building toward a title contender should always be the goal. I'd rather the team I cheer for tank openly than try to pull the wool over fans eyes and get people to games with no plan in place other than a first round playoff exit.

[albionmoonlight]

The NBA would be foolish to do this because it would cost them money, but if it limited the playoffs to the top 4 teams in each conference, it would be better. Those 5-8 seeds would enter the lottery, which would make tanking less appealing.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The NBA would be foolish to do this because it would cost them money, but if it limited the playoffs to the top 4 teams in each conference, it would be better. Those 5-8 seeds would enter the lottery, which would make tanking less appealing.

They don't need to limit playoffs to make those teams eligible for the lottery. I'd be fine with just making it a completely random lottery with all teams participating, even if it meant the cries of rigging every time a good big market team got the #1 pick.

Alternatively, they could have the lottery start from the middle. The two 8th seeds get the best lottery odds, then work outwards so the next best odds go to both the 7th seed and the 9th place team, and so on.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The teams you mentioned also all made conference finals and were legitimate contenders.

Neither the Clippers or TrailBlazers made the conference finals. The Nuggets and Hawks each made one conference final over the last 10 years. All four had very entertaining teams that were fun to watch - but each had maybe one season where they had a legit shot at a title (and none even made the Finals).

It's teams that are maxing out their roster as a 4 or 5 seed that are the problem. I don't expect my team to win a title very year but building toward a title contender should always be the goal. I'd rather the team I cheer for tank openly than try to pull the wool over fans eyes and get people to games with no plan in place other than a first round playoff exit.

So, you'd rather be Philly or Minnesota than Washington or Toronto? IMO, Philly and Minny aren't anywhere closer to a title than the Wizards or Raps - and their on-court play the last five years has been dreadful. There's no guarantee that if you stink for 5 years, you get Durant, Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka. Even then, OKC is the "best case" for getting talent and they ended up without a title. Golden State is the only team you could point to, but they had so many crazy events happen to get where they are now - that there's 0 chance anyone could replicate it.

I think the Dallas/Suns/Portland/Denver/Boston model over the past 10 years is the best way to go. Stay relevant, maybe tank 2-3 years when injuries or the season gets away - but try to bring in good FAs, make good deals and hope you can get a few breaks or key FAs. This Philly/Minnesota "tank, tank and then tank some more" is awful on the fanbase and there's only a small chance you end up winning a title after the dark ages.

[nol]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I guess the key is picking the right season to "break through" and try to do it as quickly as possible, and not get mired in too many of those 30-50 win seasons.

But on the other hand, why don't NBA stars see what fans and the media apparently see regarding the Sixers? If they're building their team so brilliantly, why not be a part of that? Are the Sixers close to contending or we really talking another 4 or 5 years? If they're close, why can't they get stars, if they're 5 years away, is a 10-year rebuilding plan really such a great plan?

JJ Redick is most likely going to leave the 50+ win Clippers for the Sixers this offseason, so enough of that strawman; Kyle Lowry (All-Star this past season) was going to be considering signing with Philadelphia until they just made this trade to get Fultz. Joel Embiid was an All-Star caliber player as a rookie after 2 seasons off and is the kind of star other players will want to play with. If he stays healthy this season, he'd be considered a top 5-10 player in the league.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, you'd rather be Philly or Minnesota than Washington or Toronto?

Washington was basically Philadelphia 5 years ago, except they added mediocre veterans to become mediocre faster and as a result had such a crappy bench this year that they lost the conference semifinals even though their starting 5 (led by the 2010 #1 pick, the 2012 #3 pick, and the 2013 #3 pick) beat the crap out of the Celtics' starting 5.

[molson]

Originally Posted by nol

JJ Redick is most likely going to leave the Clippers for the Sixers, so enough of that strawman. Joel Embiid was an All-Star caliber player as a rookie after 2 seasons off and is the kind of star other players will want to play with.

I was responding to Arles' post saying that no top FA was going to join a 35-win Sixers team, it wasn't my point.

[nol]

The Lakers are trading D'Angelo Russell and Timofey Mozgov to the Nets for the 27th pick and Brook Lopez. That pretty much cements Ball as the #2 selection.

[RainMaker]

Also cements that the Lakers offseason last year was really bad. Had to give up Russell just to unload Mozgov's contract.

[nol]

I was surprised they were able to get that in return for Mozgov's contract since Lopez can play enough that his expiring contract can probably be flipped for a first-rounder at the deadline and the Lakers now will now be able to make room for two max players next summer. I personally feel like the value was approximately equal but it doesn't seem like most other teams like Russell that much (otherwise the Lakers would have just traded him for the 10th pick or something like that) and the Nets probably could have played hardball a little more.

[Neon_Chaos]

Lonzo Ball, welcome to LA.

[stevew]

Wonder if Brooklyn will just waive Mosgov. They can take 7 hits of 6.9M which will just help them get to the salary floor. I also assume there's some sort of offset method if he keeps playing.

[murrayyyyy]

So the Lakers have 3 first round picks and a 22 million dollar expiring contract in Bro-pez.

Seems to be set up pretty well to max PG-13 now.

[Groundhog]

I think that's a pretty good deal for the Nets. Russell needs a change of scenery and it's not like the Nets can rely on draft picks to pick up young prospects.

[nol]

Originally Posted by stevew

Wonder if Brooklyn will just waive Mosgov. They can take 7 hits of 6.9M which will just help them get to the salary floor. I also assume there's some sort of offset method if he keeps playing.

The Nets are gonna be bad for at least 2 more years, so it's not like he's going to be keeping them from signing a superstar in that timeframe. I'd rather just get out of jail in 2020 or whenever than be like Detroit, which has 3 more seasons of paying Josh Smith.

[EagleFan]

What's really worse for the NBA? Teams tanking to try to get a star or seasons and playoffs that are meaningless? Dare I say the latter will just lead to even more of the former.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hawks reportedly unloading Howard (and pick 31) to Hornets for Plumlee, Beleneli, and pick 41

[JonInMiddleGA]

And, per my kid, Howard was on Twitter 2 mins ago talking about the Paul George rumors ... as people said "uh, bruh ... YOU just got traded"

[Groundhog]

I guess that's a fairly accurate assessment of Howard's value to a team these days.

[stevew]

Isn't George a much better fit for the Cavs than Love. And if so, can we pull the trigger already. George is a much better 2 way guy than Love. We have 1 more chance of winning the title. Idgaf where George goes in 18-19

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by molson

I think some of that goes to predictability of NBA games. There's generally a real roadblock at the top. The best teams win. But if you're the Clippers of the NFL or MLB, you're a few lucky breaks or one good acquisition away from being a real championship contender in any given season.

(Edit: Just looking at the preseason odds from the last seasons, there were 15 MLB teams with odds of 25-1 or better to win the championship. In the NBA, there were 6. Team building matters more in the NBA, there's fewer on-court variables once the rosters are set. So if you're outside that 6, some fans are going to be thinking about whether it will ever be possible to get to that 6 without starting over. And you don't HAVE to have a top 3 draft pick to get into that 6, but, it surely helps to have a lot of them.)

But I've also never been a "championship or bust" kind of fan.

And part of this issue is because of the salary cap and a superstars "market value" compared to what a team is paying them.

In a free market league Durant probably doesnt sign with the Warriors and Lebron is making 60+ million per year. Getting these superstars under contract at bargain prices gives them a HUGE advantage. Kind of throws the entire league out of whack where teams believe the only way to rebuild is by drafting that next megastar and holding them ransom for a bargain price.

The cap has done nothing but add more money to the owners pockets. It hasnt made the league any more competitive top to bottom and has actually made it worse.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by stevew

Isn't George a much better fit for the Cavs than Love. And if so, can we pull the trigger already. George is a much better 2 way guy than Love. We have 1 more chance of winning the title. Idgaf where George goes in 18-19

PG >>>> Love overall, but puts a heavy reliance on TT inside, which doesn't fill me with confidence. I half expect Love to revert to a 25-15 guy if he is shipped out (especially to a lottery team), but he definitely isn't that in Cleveland, where (overall) his negatives have magnified exponentially compared to his positives.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

PG >>>> Love overall, but puts a heavy reliance on TT inside, which doesn't fill me with confidence. I half expect Love to revert to a 25-15 guy if he is shipped out (especially to a lottery team), but he definitely isn't that in Cleveland, where (overall) his negatives have magnified exponentially compared to his positives.

Doubt they will trade Kyrie but if they could somehow get George and Butler and mix Butler, James, and George with a point guard like Beverly I like their matchup with Golden State.

[Groundhog]

If I were running the Cavs I'd be open to trading Kyrie for another chance at a title. Butler/James/George would be ridiculous. Offensively it's not Curry/Klay/Durant, but it might be enough when you take into account the other end of the court, depending on which other 2 guys the Cavs are running in the starting 5.

Don't see it happening though.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

And part of this issue is because of the salary cap and a superstars "market value" compared to what a team is paying them.

YES. The nature of basketball (only 5 guys on the court at a time) means that individual superstars already have enormous value. The Max Contract thing only makes that worse.

If the NBA kept everything the same, but eliminated maximum value for individual salaries, it would make a more competitive league.

[nol]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

YES. The nature of basketball (only 5 guys on the court at a time) means that individual superstars already have enormous value. The Max Contract thing only makes that worse.

If the NBA kept everything the same, but eliminated maximum value for individual salaries, it would make a more competitive league.

Of course, but until the NBA (or other pro sports leagues) get rid of ridiculous anti-free market stuff like this and the rookie draft I don't really have anything against teams that are smart enough to take advantage of the existing rules and expose them for how dumb they are.

[JonInMiddleGA]

In the last five years, 4 different teams have won titles
In five year increments before that span
4, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2 (four years, prior to any salary cap)

five year increments & number of champs prior to cap
3, 5, 4, 2, 1, 4, 3

Avg number of champs in cap era per five years? 3.0
Avg number of champ in non-cap era per five years? 3.1

In the end, it seems rather similar.

11, 5, 8, 7, 9, 7 ... that's the total number of games won by losing teams in championship series over the last 20 years, per five year increments

Games won by losing teams, pre-cap era?
9, 9, 8 ... again in five year increments.

In the end, it seems awwwwwfully similar.

[RedKingGold]

After all of the uncertainty the last few weeks over who will be the second, third fourth, etc. overall picks, I feel like the Top 5 is pretty set at this point:

1. Philadelphia - Markell Fultz (Duh).
2. Los Angeles - Lonzo Ball (You could have sold me on Josh Jackson, until the Lakers dealt Russell. I don't think Fox is a good fit for Walton's scheme, and Ball is the perfect kind of player to build around George and/or LBJ).
3. Boston - Jayson Tatum (Celtics have not and will not work out JJ, who is not a good fit with Jaylen Brown and Marcus Smart already on the roster. Tatum fills their biggest need, a second go to scoring option who can create
4. Phoenix - Josh Jackson (Conversely, the Suns have too many guards and bigs, I think they love JJ and pounce on him when he falls to the 4th pick).
5. Sacramento - De'Aaron Fox (Again, too much smoke here that the Kings love him, and he fits in nicely with Buddy).

I think the real intrigue here starts with the 6th pick, where there is new management and the Magic really need everything. I could see them going with Monk or Issac or even Dennis Smith.

[Groundhog]

Boston shouldn't be passing on guys because of who they have, IMO. Not many 2nd tier teams get the chance to add a potential star in the draft without giving up anything, don't screw it up and just pick the best player, period.

[Chief Rum]

I'm actually not big on Tatum. I mean, I think he will be very good. But I don't think his ceiling is as high as many other projected high picks in this draft. If Boston picks Tatum over some others there, and I am correct, then Ainge's sketchy picking history will continue.

I read the other day that no player drafted by the Celtics has gone on to become an All Star since Paul Pierce was drafted in 1996.

[nol]

"durrr tanking is bad because once you do it fans will never care about the team ever again!!1"

The #Sixers' 14,000 season tickets sold for the 2017-18 season are a franchise record and currently the most sold in the #NBA. pic.twitter.com/0IiEreFK63

— Keith Pompey (@PompeyOnSixers) June 21, 2017

The Knicks are looking to become even more of a joke by trading Porzingis for a top-4 pick so they can get Josh Jackson. If I'm Phoenix I'm saying yes to that trade immediately, and I'm not even the biggest Porzingis fan.

[Groundhog]

Both Tatum and Jackson kinda scare me a little, if for no other (illogical) reason than the fact that the 6'8 lean SF archetype tends to go either way... I get the same feeling about them that I used to get about the young skinny Cs like the Warriors used to draft all the time pre-dynasty era.