Celtics Title Town

Is there a good reason to trade up in the draft? If all the experts are right and there is only one gamechanger, Anthony Davis, and he is going to New Orleans, should two picks be given up for one? History says probably not.

Since 1970, when the Celts have picked 1-9 they have gotten Cowens, Bird, and McHale, all pretty impressive. They have also gotten Len Bias, Antoine Walker, Ron Mercer, Chauncy Billups, Randy Foye, and Jeff Green. Except for the unfortunate death of Bias, not bad.

When they have picked 10-19, players such as Paul Westphal, Cedric Maxwell, Dee Brown, Paul Pierce, Joe Johnson, Al Jefferson, Gerald Green, and Avery Bradley are found. Not all of them stayed on the parquet, but were/ are still productive elsewhere.

What about when they pick 20-29, where they would be this year? In this group you would find Greg Kite, Sam Vincent, Reggie Lewis, Brian Shaw, Dee Brown, Rick Fox, Jon Barry, Delonte West, Tony Allen, and JR Giddens (actually a number 30). None became superstars, but were/ are pretty good role players.

There were a number of misses as well to be sure, but there were as many at 1-9 as any other place in the draft. 27 "winners" out of 40 first round chances is a pretty good scouting staff. (I didn't include Johnson or Moore in 2011 since they haven't played enough to judge.)

With only five players under contract, a need at basically every position, one of the deepest draft classes in years, and the Celtic's ability to find gems that others leave, should they not go for quantity by keeping both picks? I can understand that you might not want a fourth of the team to be rookies (since they didn't get to play I am including Johnson and Moore). The other choice is a bunch of free agents at a time when this year's group is considered fairly weak. Plus the picks have trade value as well. Several of the names above were put together to bring KG to Boston.

Is the next Pierce in this class? If not, I say keep the two picks. History is on the Celtics side.