The Celtics plan had finally come to fruition. They had maintained their status as a balanced and asset-filled 50-win team and had snagged the No. 1 overall pick from Brooklyn. Now they could add the mega star they were lacking and set themselves up to contend for the next 15 years.
NBA draft 2017 grades: Danny Ainge and the Celtics march to the beat of their own drum
It would have been easy to just take Markelle Fultz, but the Celtics traded down for Jayson Tatum. Right or wrong, you have to admire Danny Ainge’s commitment to his process.
David Butler II-USA TODAY Sports
Then Danny Ainge decided to flip the world upside down. No one would have criticized him for taking Markelle Fultz. Sure, his fit with Isaiah Thomas might have been tricky for a few seasons, but Fultz was a star in the making. He was ready to help contribute to an already good team now and take the reins down the road.
Instead, Ainge decided to trade the chance at Fultz for the Sixers’ No. 3 pick, and either the Lakers’ 2018 pick if it falls from two to five or the Kings’ top-one protected 2019 selection. While the trade was defensible from a value perspective, Ainge’s passing on a consensus No. 1 talent that his fan base already started to love more than ruffled some feathers. Was there another move coming?
During draft night, it seemed that way. At first, there was the possibility of acquiring Kristaps Porzingis. Then, focus shifted to the supposedly imminent Paul George trade. Both moves would have made a lot of sense. The Celtics would have ended up acquiring a star they could build around sooner.
But by the end of the night, the Celtics walked away trade-less and, arguably, still star-less.
Ainge stuck to his guns. He reportedly decided that he wasn’t willing to part with the No. 3 pick in a trade for George or Butler, choosing instead to take Duke’s Jayson Tatum at No. 3 and make the usual bevy of second-round selections.
There was no obvious pick at No. 3, but Tatum was still a bit of a surprise. Josh Jackson was seen by many as the superior combo forward, and De’Aaron Fox might have been the highest upside pick left on the board. SB Nation’s Ricky O’Donnell graded Boston’s draft as a C+. ESPN’s Chad Ford gave Boston a B, but admitted that Tatum is “a bit one-dimensional right now.” SB Nation’s Tom Ziller laid it bare when he wrote that “this pick will be graded based almost entirely on how good Josh Jackson becomes.”
Tatum’s fit with the Celtics is also questionable. They already drafted another combo forward in Jaylen Brown last year, and Jae Crowder is one of the most valuable players on their team right now. If the Celtics end up signing Gordon Hayward, who some see as a good comparison for Tatum’s upside, they will have a bevy of combo forwards.
So an NBA GM valued his own future picks over making “win now” moves and is poised to have a collection of talent at one specific position. Hmmmm. That sounds awfully like Sam Hinkie and the Sixers, no? It’s not an analogous situation. The Celtics being a No. 1 seed last year makes the comparison far from perfect. Yet, it is hard to deny the similarities. The biggest common thread is that one GM clearly prioritizes the future over all else and worries much more about his own philosophy than what anyone else is going to say.
Given the current NBA climate, it actually makes a lot of sense for the Celtics to kick the can down the road
Beating the Warriors anytime in the next few years is going to be an impossible task. Not to mention, LeBron James is showing no signs of slowing down his domination of the Eastern Conference.
Assuming that is Ainge’s reasoning for not giving up picks for a more established star like George or Butler, he is still placing a big bet on his own talent evaluation. Fultz won’t be entering his prime for at least five years, and Ainge’s actions suggest that he trusts Tatum and a future likely high-lottery pick to return higher value than Fultz.
If that future pick ends up being someone like Luka Doncic, Michael Porter Jr., or even Marvin Bagley, he might be getting a comparable talent to Fultz. In the more probable scenario where the pick falls a little further in the lottery, Ainge will be gambling that he can draft two mid-tier talents who outweigh Fultz’s individual brilliance.
On a roster already stacked with depth and not star-power, that is a bold gamble to make. Tatum is far from a surefire star. He struggled to score efficiently at the college level and might not be athletic enough to be the scorer his game is built for at the NBA level.
Brad Stevens is as good at getting the most out of his players as any coach in basketball. He will surely put Tatum in position to succeed. But imagine what he could have done with Markelle Fultz?
Ainge is taking a big risk on his own process winning out over conventional wisdom.
See More:
