What should The Celtics do with the #1 pick ?...

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

from Ringer article on where Lowry could go: (below is section on CP3)

First off: Chris Paul is not signing with San Antonio, so put that out of your mind. Paul is going to get $200 million from the Clippers and he is going to fulfill his apparent destiny of being this generation’s John Stockton, and there are worse things to be. The next-best option would be Lowry.

Yeah, that seems to be the narrative.

I never actually believed he would leave for the Spurs.

I just think he SHOULD.

 

[CitySushi]

100% the Celtics should trade it. Their Championship window is small right now with their core players being on really reasonable contracts. They can add a max player this off-season, then trade the #1 pick to get another star. Holy crap their team could be great next year.

 

[The Q]

Then they should trade Thomas, they can't have a 5'9'' and 6'3'' backcourt and both are best at PG. Jimmy Butler at SG and Fultz at PG would be a hell of a combo.

They absolutely should sell high on Thomas.

 

[The Q]

DOc is not going back to Orlando.

That has already been debunked.

As for Blake, it doesn't work that way for a multitude of reasons.

I'll just give you the two biggest from articles on the web:

• Teams more than $4 million above the luxury tax cannot receive players in a sign and trade deal. If a team acquires a player in a sign and trade deal, then the team cannot go $4 million or more above the luxury tax for the remainder of the salary cap year. There were previously no restrictions.

Sign And Trade (new rules)
I have seen a number of people suggest we should sign and trade Blake Griffin to Indiana for Paul George.

That's not going to happen, because of the new CBA rules, and that should be cleared up so we can discuss more realistic scenarios.

See because the new CBA counts the old salary for the team trading a player out for a sign and trade, but new salary for the team accepting that player, matching salaries is difficult if you're signing them for a lot more than the new team would be able to pay them in free agency. There are benefits to doing it with teams over the cap, but realistically a sign and trade no longer results in a player getting paid a lot more by you doing it as a trade as opposed to them doing it straight-out in free agency.

There's little incentive for Griffin to agree to a move to a George-less Indiana. There's no real advantage for a free agent in that sign-and-trade scenario. We don't really offer him much additional by trying to do it as a sign and trade, and he's under zero obligation to do it as a sign and trade.

Now that's really just this Summer. That doesn't mean we cannot just sign BG and then trade him later, like at the trade deadline, for someone like Paul George. I am more referring to this Summer. I just don't see it happening.

Sign And Trade (new rules) | Clipper Talk

I absolutely hate these rules.

But the owners were short sighted.

I love watching them to get lit up and lose star players for nothing now.

 

[BallsOfFurry]

100% the Celtics should trade it. Their Championship window is small right now with their core players being on really reasonable contracts. They can add a max player this off-season, then trade the #1 pick to get another star. Holy crap their team could be great next year.

They can look short term, or long term, they are in the enviable position to go either way at a high level.
Given their HC's young age, their best option might be to keep adding young players.
If they can add Pozingis or Butler, they might accomplish both long and short term success.