Moderators: bisme37, Darthlukey, canman1971, Shak_Celts, Parliament10, shackles10, snowman, Froob
klemen4 wrote:I think the point of any trade should be to keep our top 6 players (it, ab, crowder, horford, smart, kelly)
And try to get a superstar with rozier, brown, brk 17, brk 18, Mem 19.
That's one hell of trade chips to have.
It is a given that the Celtics will look quite different than they do at present should they ever reach the level they seek.
From all indications speaking to team sources around the league, Danny Ainge is still after the major trades the C’s president of basketball operations knows are needed.
But while you know changes have to be coming, it might be helpful to begin preparing yourself to part with one or more players to whom you’re growing attached these days.
The roster as currently constituted doesn’t blend as well as the Celts would probably like, but that’s mainly a product of generally drafting the best player available without regard to role.
The best case scenario for the Celtics as they take the floor these next several weeks is for the team to play well enough collectively that it enhances the value of the players individually.
Their backcourt rotation features the abundantly talented — but small — Isaiah Thomas (5-foot-9), Avery Bradley (6-2) and Terry Rozier (6-2), and while Marcus Smart (6-4) is doing a much better job running an offense, he’s often being called upon to guard small forwards and even power forwards.
165bows wrote:Is Bradley/Olynyk for Aaron Gordon/Jodie Meeks crazy in this light? Would save the team ~11M of cap space next year, including KO's cap hold. They would then be free to pursue a max FA next summer.
Smitty what do you think of this?
165bows wrote:Selected quotes from Bulpett's article yesterday:It is a given that the Celtics will look quite different than they do at present should they ever reach the level they seek.From all indications speaking to team sources around the league, Danny Ainge is still after the major trades the C’s president of basketball operations knows are needed.But while you know changes have to be coming, it might be helpful to begin preparing yourself to part with one or more players to whom you’re growing attached these days.
The roster as currently constituted doesn’t blend as well as the Celts would probably like, but that’s mainly a product of generally drafting the best player available without regard to role.The best case scenario for the Celtics as they take the floor these next several weeks is for the team to play well enough collectively that it enhances the value of the players individually.
So what is the hierarchy of likely traded players here? The team is too small in the back court (the article discusses the Spurs trade of George Hill for K. Leonard, motivated by the inability to play Parker/Hill/Ginobili together consistently), referencing the following:Their backcourt rotation features the abundantly talented — but small — Isaiah Thomas (5-foot-9), Avery Bradley (6-2) and Terry Rozier (6-2), and while Marcus Smart (6-4) is doing a much better job running an offense, he’s often being called upon to guard small forwards and even power forwards.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics/2016/11/bulpett_reaching_next_level_no_small_feat_for_celtics
ArlingtonCeltic wrote:It seems like Danny feels a trade happening, and is using Bulpett to prepare us for it. I tend to think it's AB or IT going out.
AB's shoulder is concerning, but it can be fixed. IT''s height and defensive limitations can't. The Smart reference strikes me as a tell. Presumably Danny wants Smart to serve as a DJ: playmaker on offense and backcourt defensive ace. Keeping AB allows you to put AB on the point guard unless it's a Russell Westbrook type. But with IT you still have to scheme around him.
I think Danny sees IT as a sixth man. If IT agreed then all would be set. But as he doesn't, Danny bets that Smart in a proper role, plus defensive improvement, plus the scoring forward IT brings back is enough to come out ahead--even losing IT's offense.
165bows wrote:Is Bradley/Olynyk for Aaron Gordon/Jodie Meeks crazy in this light? Would save the team ~11M of cap space next year, including KO's cap hold. They would then be free to pursue a max FA next summer.
Smitty what do you think of this?
Curmudgeon wrote:The question is, what's coming back? I don't see a single major player who is (a) available, and (b) a player I'd really want on the team.
An exception might be John Wall, but I'm not sure how much of an upgrade he would be over IT or AB. Wall is a bigger name, but he's a streaky shooter and doesn't focus on defense. He also does not solve the rebounding problem.
Kolkmania wrote:
Aaron Gordon will earn about 3.3 million dollar less than Avery Bradley next year. If the Celtics decide to not submit a qualifying offer, Olynyk's cap hold will be gone before the start of free agency right? So why should DA trade him to get rid of his salary?
Parliament10 wrote:165bows wrote:Is Bradley/Olynyk for Aaron Gordon/Jodie Meeks crazy in this light? Would save the team ~11M of cap space next year, including KO's cap hold. They would then be free to pursue a max FA next summer.
Smitty what do you think of this?
Bradley is Core; I don't see us trading him, unless it's for something off the charts.
Olynyk is Extended Core; I could see us trading him more so.
Though I think that we want to keep the chemistry that has evolved here. It's like an invisible 6th-man.
Any trading of the Overall Core would require an adjustment period.
ArlingtonCeltic wrote:165bows wrote:Selected quotes from Bulpett's article yesterday:It is a given that the Celtics will look quite different than they do at present should they ever reach the level they seek.From all indications speaking to team sources around the league, Danny Ainge is still after the major trades the C’s president of basketball operations knows are needed.But while you know changes have to be coming, it might be helpful to begin preparing yourself to part with one or more players to whom you’re growing attached these days.
The roster as currently constituted doesn’t blend as well as the Celts would probably like, but that’s mainly a product of generally drafting the best player available without regard to role.The best case scenario for the Celtics as they take the floor these next several weeks is for the team to play well enough collectively that it enhances the value of the players individually.
So what is the hierarchy of likely traded players here? The team is too small in the back court (the article discusses the Spurs trade of George Hill for K. Leonard, motivated by the inability to play Parker/Hill/Ginobili together consistently), referencing the following:Their backcourt rotation features the abundantly talented — but small — Isaiah Thomas (5-foot-9), Avery Bradley (6-2) and Terry Rozier (6-2), and while Marcus Smart (6-4) is doing a much better job running an offense, he’s often being called upon to guard small forwards and even power forwards.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics/2016/11/bulpett_reaching_next_level_no_small_feat_for_celtics
It seems like Danny feels a trade happening, and is using Bulpett to prepare us for it. I tend to think it's AB or IT going out.
AB's shoulder is concerning, but it can be fixed. IT''s height and defensive limitations can't. The Smart reference strikes me as a tell. Presumably Danny wants Smart to serve as a DJ: playmaker on offense and backcourt defensive ace. Keeping AB allows you to put AB on the point guard unless it's a Russell Westbrook type. But with IT you still have to scheme around him.
I think Danny sees IT as a sixth man. If IT agreed then all would be set. But as he doesn't, Danny bets that Smart in a proper role, plus defensive improvement, plus the scoring forward IT brings back is enough to come out ahead--even losing IT's offense.
165bows wrote:Is Bradley/Olynyk for Aaron Gordon/Jodie Meeks crazy in this light? Would save the team ~11M of cap space next year, including KO's cap hold. They would then be free to pursue a max FA next summer.
Smitty what do you think of this?
