The David Lee Thread

[Captain_Caveman]

In every situation that is true that is what you want to ignore. 3 for 1 trades are extremely difficult in season especially when the beginning of the conversation is a guy who can't play. This has gone beyond the obvious with you and you know the league better than this. It is much easier to deal one contract attached to a player that can play than some combo of contracts that require additional roster spots and likely involve sucky players. If you asked 100 people that follow the NBA who they would rather have 99 would say Lee at 15 mil over Wallace at 10 mil and you know who the 1 is pretty well.

For the 3rd time, name one trade.

Name one I just told you there are 35 trades that you could not make with a one to one swap of Gerald Wallace that you can with Lee, essentially everyone that makes over 15 mil a season.

And I replied that all of those contracts could already have been matched just by throwing in another expiring. There's really no value add there. Wallace's contract has a much wider range of deals that it can be used in than Lee's does. It's really not until you get to Melo *and* Calderon, or Cousins *and* Gay where Lee's deal starts to help (and really not even then).

[Captain_Caveman]

You are spot on with this post. Especially when calling out Captain_Caveman (Buzz on the Warriorsworld forum) on his supposive belief in Golden State..He spent the entire year telling all of us how the Warriors have the 10th most talented roster in the NBA and how our ceiling is 54 wins and a 2nd round exit..It gets even worse..Listen to this one..He posted late last summer that the warriors fans who believe in the roster, as is, were awful fans..Now here on the realgm Boston board, he talks like he's some kind of expert on the GSW's..That he's got insight that other Celtic posters don't have..

The Caveman does this all the time..Luckily for us, these days he's too embarrasseed to post about the warriors on Warriorsworld..That's why he's here so much this summer torchering you all with his know-it-all attitude..Good Luck guys!

I definitely did not believe in your ability to win a title this year, although you are overstating here. You had four decades of bad luck that got paid back with interest this year. After a couple of years of them doing the exact kinds of moves I had been calling for them to do, I thought they were still a big man away. Truth is, they should have been. Probably would have cost you vs a healthy Griz, and definitely would have cost them vs a healthy Cavs. You got lucky and that's cool, enjoy it. We got lucky with the 2001 Pats, you don't see us denying it.

But as long as you are here, tell em how you wanted to build a team around Monta, Biedrins, Anthony Randolph and Brandan Wright. Remember when Randolph was the "next KG"? Tell them how I said to ditch those losers and build around Curry, who none of you guys even wanted to extend at $11m a year, like I called for them to do. Tell them how you didn't want fire Jackson and replace him with Thibs or Kerr, like I said they should.

The main board over there is a dumpster fire, and it's the reason all the good posters are in the other forum making fun of you clowns and posting all the good stuff that you are never going to hear about lol.

[sully00]

For the 3rd time, name one trade.

Name one I just told you there are 35 trades that you could not make with a one to one swap of Gerald Wallace that you can with Lee, essentially everyone that makes over 15 mil a season.

And I replied that all of those contracts could already have been matched just by throwing in another expiring. There's really no value add there. Wallace's contract has a much wider range of deals that it can be used in than Lee's does. It's really not until you get to Melo *and* Calderon, or Cousins *and* Gay where Lee's deal starts to help (and really not even then).

But you can't just throw in another contract in the middle of the season you have to account for roster spots. Lee might cost another team a little bit more money in a short trade but most teams are under the lux tax so they can make the same deal. Boston can trade Lee for a 10 mil player too.

But a perfect example could be if IND decides it wants to move Paul George. They have a full roster and what they want is an expiring deal and Dannys' raft of picks but they can't take on a 2 for 1 and they want a guy who can play not just a corpse.

[Captain_Caveman]

Name one I just told you there are 35 trades that you could not make with a one to one swap of Gerald Wallace that you can with Lee, essentially everyone that makes over 15 mil a season.

And I replied that all of those contracts could already have been matched just by throwing in another expiring. There's really no value add there. Wallace's contract has a much wider range of deals that it can be used in than Lee's does. It's really not until you get to Melo *and* Calderon, or Cousins *and* Gay where Lee's deal starts to help (and really not even then).

But you can't just throw in another contract in the middle of the season you have to account for roster spots. Lee might cost another team a little bit more money in a short trade but most teams are under the lux tax so they can make the same deal. Boston can trade Lee for a 10 mil player too.

But a perfect example could be if IND decides it wants to move Paul George. They have a full roster and what they want is an expiring deal and Dannys' raft of picks but they can't take on a 2 for 1 and they want a guy who can play not just a corpse.

Wallace doesn't even play, though. Really has little impact on our actual rotation. We just go pull a 15th man out of the d-league to ride pine. My guess is that any trade for either Lee or Wallace wouldn't have been by a team in "win now" mode, like the Pacers with a hypothetical Paul George deal.

[sully00]

And I replied that all of those contracts could already have been matched just by throwing in another expiring. There's really no value add there. Wallace's contract has a much wider range of deals that it can be used in than Lee's does. It's really not until you get to Melo *and* Calderon, or Cousins *and* Gay where Lee's deal starts to help (and really not even then).

But you can't just throw in another contract in the middle of the season you have to account for roster spots. Lee might cost another team a little bit more money in a short trade but most teams are under the lux tax so they can make the same deal. Boston can trade Lee for a 10 mil player too.

But a perfect example could be if IND decides it wants to move Paul George. They have a full roster and what they want is an expiring deal and Dannys' raft of picks but they can't take on a 2 for 1 and they want a guy who can play not just a corpse.

Wallace doesn't even play, though. Really has little impact on our actual rotation. We just go pull a 15th man out of the d-league to ride pine. My guess is that any trade for either Lee or Wallace wouldn't have been by a team in "win now" mode, like the Pacers with a hypothetical Paul George deal.

It isn't about Ainge dealing away a guy it is about another team being able to add your throw in contract. The Pacers dealing George clearly isn't a win now move. If your team that has 15 guaranteed deals then you can't make 3 for 1 trades you have to involve other players and other teams. It isn't a huge deal just a part of the flexibility.

[Parliament10]

Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch . . .


Celtics Officially Acquire David Lee From Warriors For Gerald Wallace, Chris Babb
by Zack Cox on Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:31PM

http://nesn.com/2015/07/celtics-officially-acquire-david-lee-from-warriors-for-gerald-wallace-chris-babb/

Edit:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/warriors/status/625703771939565568[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/NESN/status/625706031931330560[/tweet]

[Captain_Caveman]

But you can't just throw in another contract in the middle of the season you have to account for roster spots. Lee might cost another team a little bit more money in a short trade but most teams are under the lux tax so they can make the same deal. Boston can trade Lee for a 10 mil player too.

But a perfect example could be if IND decides it wants to move Paul George. They have a full roster and what they want is an expiring deal and Dannys' raft of picks but they can't take on a 2 for 1 and they want a guy who can play not just a corpse.

Wallace doesn't even play, though. Really has little impact on our actual rotation. We just go pull a 15th man out of the d-league to ride pine. My guess is that any trade for either Lee or Wallace wouldn't have been by a team in "win now" mode, like the Pacers with a hypothetical Paul George deal.

It isn't about Ainge dealing away a guy it is about another team being able to add your throw in contract. The Pacers dealing George clearly isn't a win now move. If your team that has 15 guaranteed deals then you can't make 3 for 1 trades you have to involve other players and other teams. It isn't a huge deal just a part of the flexibility.

aka a tanking Pacers team would have to waive their 15th man in order to make room for a Wallace/Jerebko/picks for George deal.

[sam_I_am]

Indiana isn't trading George. But if Danny and Brad want Melo or Love, Lee's contract can get it done and Wallace's couldn't.

[ParticleMan]

Welcome David Lee!

[Berkcelt]

There probably aren't a lot of situation's where Lee's bigger contract is a significant positive, but it's not like it's a negative either compared to Wallace's. If you're willing to write off Jerebko, Amir, and/or Turner +Wallace as insignificant in a big money deal, what small money deal can't they accomplish with those three guys minus Wallace? I don't see much of an opportunity cost there.

[Captain_Caveman]

Indiana isn't trading George. But if Danny and Brad want Melo or Love, Lee's contract can get it done and Wallace's couldn't.

Wallace/Turner/picks for Love, and Wallace/Jerebko/Turner/picks for Melo worked just fine.

Former would have even saved the Cavs some money.

[Parliament10]

Indiana isn't trading George. But if Danny and Brad want Melo or Love, Lee's contract can get it done and Wallace's couldn't.

Wallace/Turner/picks for Love, and Wallace/Jerebko/Turner/picks for Melo worked just fine.

Former would have even saved the Cavs some money.

You're still on that Wallace thing?

He's gone, Man. Give it a rest.

[Captain_Caveman]

There probably aren't a lot of situation's where Lee's bigger contract is a significant positive, but it's not like it's a negative either compared to Wallace's. If you're willing to write off Jerebko, Amir, and/or Turner +Wallace as insignificant in a big money deal, what small money deal can't they accomplish with those three guys minus Wallace? I don't see much of an opportunity cost there.

I'm rebutting to the oft-repeated claim that Lee's contract is actually a better trade asset than Wallace's. It's not. Never mind not being a good player himself, the contract itself is harder for others to absorb. Not that anyone wants to hear it, but the opportunity cost here is a loss of cap room, and really, the lower 1st round pick we got in order to try to accelerate development and make a run this summer.

I'm all aboard the stay patient train and punting to next offseason if that's what had to be done. Problem is, they should have thought of that 6 months ago.

[Captain_Caveman]

Indiana isn't trading George. But if Danny and Brad want Melo or Love, Lee's contract can get it done and Wallace's couldn't.

Wallace/Turner/picks for Love, and Wallace/Jerebko/Turner/picks for Melo worked just fine.

Former would have even saved the Cavs some money.

You're still on that Wallace thing?

He's gone, Man. Give it a rest.

He made a false statement and called it fact. I corrected him. No biggie.

[sully00]

Wallace/Turner/picks for Love, and Wallace/Jerebko/Turner/picks for Melo worked just fine.

Former would have even saved the Cavs some money.

You're still on that Wallace thing?

He's gone, Man. Give it a rest.

He made a false statement and called it fact. I corrected him. No biggie.

No you didn't, you simply proved the opposite of what you are saying. You whole premise is that Lee's deal adds no more flexibility than Wallace. But in your solution Boston has to include in a trade their starting SF from a year ago and or FA they just resigned now they don't case closed.

[Gomes3PC]

You're still on that Wallace thing?

He's gone, Man. Give it a rest.

He made a false statement and called it fact. I corrected him. No biggie.

No you didn't, you simply proved the opposite of what you are saying. You whole premise is that Lee's deal adds no more flexibility than Wallace. But in your solution Boston has to include in a trade their starting SF from a year ago and or FA they just resigned now they don't case closed.

This. It is also harder to do 3-for-1 or 4-for-2 deals, as the team taking back the extra players almost certainly doesn't have the room for them. There's also the minor detail that Lee can actually help a team rather than just take up cap space like Wallace.

[Captain_Caveman]

You're still on that Wallace thing?

He's gone, Man. Give it a rest.

He made a false statement and called it fact. I corrected him. No biggie.

No you didn't, you simply proved the opposite of what you are saying. You whole premise is that Lee's deal adds no more flexibility than Wallace. But in your solution Boston has to include in a trade their starting SF from a year ago and or FA they just resigned now they don't case closed.

Turner has no place here regardless of what happens, and assuming a trade for a SF like Melo or George, who cares about Turner and Jerebko? Ditto for Amir in a Cousins deal.

Again, there are very few deals where Lee makes any sort of difference. I asked you three times to name one the one you gave me was Paul George, who we could have *easily* traded for using Wallace's contract as a base. Who cares if Indy waived their 15th man when they are throwing in the towel on their team? Not them.

[Parliament10]

Not every Truth need be Spoken.
IJS

[Captain_Caveman]

He made a false statement and called it fact. I corrected him. No biggie.

No you didn't, you simply proved the opposite of what you are saying. You whole premise is that Lee's deal adds no more flexibility than Wallace. But in your solution Boston has to include in a trade their starting SF from a year ago and or FA they just resigned now they don't case closed.

This. It is also harder to do 3-for-1 or 4-for-2 deals, as the team taking back the extra players almost certainly doesn't have the room for them. There's also the minor detail that Lee can actually help a team rather than just take up cap space like Wallace.

I think it would more likely be a 2-for-1 or a 3-for-2, but even so, if the other team is trading their star away for picks or prospects (the only thing we can provide), they are giving up on their season, and it is *completely* irrelevant if they would have to waive their 14th/15th men to make the trade go through.

Lee's deal might help if the return was Melo plus Calderon, Cousins plus Gay, or George plus Monta, but that's really the only context. Anything below $25m we could have gotten to easily enough.

[Gomes3PC]

No you didn't, you simply proved the opposite of what you are saying. You whole premise is that Lee's deal adds no more flexibility than Wallace. But in your solution Boston has to include in a trade their starting SF from a year ago and or FA they just resigned now they don't case closed.

This. It is also harder to do 3-for-1 or 4-for-2 deals, as the team taking back the extra players almost certainly doesn't have the room for them. There's also the minor detail that Lee can actually help a team rather than just take up cap space like Wallace.

I think it would more likely be a 2-for-1 or a 3-for-2, but even so, if the other team is trading their star away for picks or prospects (the only thing we can provide), they are giving up on their season, and it is *completely* irrelevant if they would have to waive their 14th/15th men to make the trade go through.

Lee's deal might help if the return was Melo plus Calderon, Cousins plus Gay, or George plus Monta, but that's really the only context. Anything below $25m we could have gotten to easily enough.

I agree that the trade flexibility thing is overblown. To me, they got a marginal increase in trade value and a significant increase in on-court value (granted from awful to just subpar), and all it cost them was $5M. Given they were right at the cap pre-Lee trade, it didn't really cost them any flexibility; they would've been at or over the cap either way once Amir agreed to his deal.