Should the Celtics trade their #1 pick (from Brooklyn) for Blake Griffin?

It takes a lot more than an unproven #1 pick to land a proven multi-time, all-star at the peak of their game.

More Money wrote:

It takes a lot more than an unproven #1 pick to land a proven multi-time, all-star at the peak of their game.

But that number one pick could end up being the next Blake Griffin

It depends on whether the Celtics have someone on the team who needs to be punched.

#1 pick + Bradley + Crowder; just to make the contract values work.

Golden Gloves Forward wrote:

It depends on whether the Celtics have someone on the team who needs to be punched.

An equipment boy is not a player on the floor.

He'll be on the floor after Griffin finishes with him.

griffin is owed 20M in 2016-17 and 21M 2017-18 then free agent

the #1 overall pick will get a max contract of about $5M for year 1,2,3 with 25% option year 4, and qualifying offer year 5

so would you rather have griffin for 2 years at 40M

or

the #1 overall, or lesser pick, for 4 years for about 21M

this is a no-brainer, you take the pick and avoid the trade for Griffin

Dwight Howard is owed 23M for 2016-17 and then free agent

so it would be even worse to get him for 1 year and he is old to boot

Yes, they should trade the pick for Griffin.

Take Griffin! The value of that pick is that it COULD yield a future star player; Griffin IS a star player, and one who has just entered his prime

Griffin has an opt out in his contract after next season, and either the NBA or the players union can opt out of the CBA after next season as well (which I'm sure the union will), which probably opens the way to larger max contracts. The Celtics would for sure be better with him the rest of this year and next (if they flipped him before the trade deadline), but you have to be pretty confident he will want to stay to make that deal.

Griffin is a human pogo stick player, dunking machine, completing dependent on vertical leap. Watch how long those players last.

He scores 67% of his points from under 10 feet..

he also turns it over at 2.5 per game for a guy who hardly ever has the ball.

Draft on. Lay off this highlight film. Plus he makes no one better.

He scores 67% of his points off of assists , which means he creates very little on his own and without a Chris Paul he would have no game.

It is amazing to me, that more teams do not easily see the model, versatile players, ball movement and spacing and three point shooting is the order of the day.

Trialswatcher wrote:

Griffin is a human pogo stick player, dunking machine, completing dependent on vertical leap. Watch how long those players last.

He scores 67% of his points from under 10 feet..

he also turns it over at 2.5 per game for a guy who hardly ever has the ball.

Draft on. Lay off this highlight film. Plus he makes no one better.

He scores 67% of his points off of assists , which means he creates very little on his own and without a Chris Paul he would have no game.

It is amazing to me, that more teams do not easily see the model, versatile players, ball movement and spacing and three point shooting is the order of the day.

WOW, you should be hired as an NBA coach right away. They make million$$$ per year.

Trialswatcher wrote:

Griffin is a human pogo stick player, dunking machine, completing dependent on vertical leap. Watch how long those players last.

He scores 67% of his points from under 10 feet..

he also turns it over at 2.5 per game for a guy who hardly ever has the ball.

Draft on. Lay off this highlight film. Plus he makes no one better.

He scores 67% of his points off of assists , which means he creates very little on his own and without a Chris Paul he would have no game.

It is amazing to me, that more teams do not easily see the model, versatile players, ball movement and spacing and three point shooting is the order of the day.

Where are those numbers from? Are they from this season or from his career as a whole. His game has developed quite a bit over the couple years..

This years draft is going to be horrible. Simmons and ingram could both pan out, but beyond those two, it is barren of talent.

Indeed and all of it is accurate..NOT a Griffin fan..as you can see.

Thank you for the sarcasm.

And you probably have ten years or less of relevant knowledge, not 45.

Career Numbers, TO's are consistent, he is getting a little further from the basket, and less dunks.

Ingram is incredibly weak and a horrific man and even zone defender.

Great tools, but would and will get crushed in NBA game as is. he has missed at least three very close range to layup baskets late in game , he is no where near the finished product that Simmons is.

Trialswatcher wrote:

Career Numbers, TO's are consistent, he is getting a little further from the basket, and less dunks.

Ingram is incredibly weak and a horrific man and even zone defender.

Great tools, but would and will get crushed in NBA game as is. he has missed at least three very close range to layup baskets late in game , he is no where near the finished product that Simmons is.

He is also extremely young. Kid just turned 18. Simmons (and most freshman) are over a year older. Skal Labassiere is pushing 20 if I am not mistaken.

Kevin Durant couldn't bench 185 even one time when he came into the nba.

I am not an overly huge fan of griffin but he has developed a pretty solid midrange game and they run way more of the offense through him compared to a few years ago. He has definitely developed a lot skillwise compared to when he got by on freak athleticism.

Irony is that it was Doc River's involvement in shipping Garnett and Pierce to Brooklyn that set them up for this pick.

What involvement was that?

Saying "oh" when Ainge told him what Ainge had just done