RealGM

How far up in the draft could the Celtics get by trading Hauser, 28, 32?

Early 20s in a vacuum, IMO. But it also depends on team needs.

#42 and a tpe from the kings to absorb his salary

longfellow44 wrote:#42 and a tpe from the kings to absorb his salary

Lol. His contract is FAR from negative value where you'd pay to get rid of him.

Myth wrote:Early 20s in a vacuum, IMO. But it also depends on team needs.

I was hoping 15-18 range.

vct33 wrote:

Myth wrote:Early 20s in a vacuum, IMO. But it also depends on team needs.

I was hoping 15-18 range.

I looked at those teams though and OKC doesn't need him, Memphis has other plans with their space, Minny can't take on the money and wants to save the pick for KD, Washington doesn't need him.

First team I could get to was Miami if they want to use one of those Boston picks to dump the gtd portion of Robinson while replacing him, but I've suggested something similar and their posters here haven't been interested.

Are the C's taking back money in this scenario or is it for the highest pick and to take Hauser completely off the books?

I think 16/17 is a possibility depending on what both Memphis and Minnesota's do in terms of bigger reshuffling of their rosters.

I don't think you can get into the lottery. The teams picking at the back-end of the lotto would most likely want the higher upside option than breaking it down for pieces. If there was a team in the 11-15 range that was poised to make a jump next season I could see them valuing the consistent floor veteran to rolling the dice on the draft pick but they're all rebuilding teams and then OKC who need to consolidate their talent not add another mouth to feed.

I like Hauser for the Spurs and I'd be open to moving back a bit (say, in the 18-22 range) but 28 is too far, it's jjust another tier of prospects entirely.

vct33 wrote:

longfellow44 wrote:#42 and a tpe from the kings to absorb his salary

Lol. His contract is FAR from negative value where you'd pay to get rid of him.

Hauser is a solid bench wing making solid bench wing money. You might not have to pay to get rid of him (although you might, since most teams would prefer flexibility over a long-term commitment to a bench piece), but he doesn't hold a ton of excess value.

longfellow44 wrote:#42 and a tpe from the kings to absorb his salary

Hauser is a positive asset.
If you are saying Hauser for 42 straight up then that’s probably close to fair deal.

Hauser alone is probably worth a late first/early second. Depending on team needs you might be able to move up to late teens/early 20s.

vct33 wrote:

Myth wrote:Early 20s in a vacuum, IMO. But it also depends on team needs.

I was hoping 15-18 range.

Yeah I don’t think you can get that high.
Pritchard and 28 though….you could get into that range.

22 from the Hawks seems the fit to me. They could use a shooter, got plenty of TPEs and the value is about right. I think Hauser and 28. Probably don’t need to include 32.

vct33 wrote:

Myth wrote:Early 20s in a vacuum, IMO. But it also depends on team needs.

I was hoping 15-18 range.

LOL no.

brackdan70 wrote:22 from the Hawks seems the fit to me. They could use a shooter, got plenty of TPEs and the value is about right. I think Hauser and 28. Probably don’t need to include 32.

They'd probably prefer the #32 because of the lack of guaranteed salary.

raleigh wrote:

brackdan70 wrote:22 from the Hawks seems the fit to me. They could use a shooter, got plenty of TPEs and the value is about right. I think Hauser and 28. Probably don’t need to include 32.

They'd probably prefer the #32 because of the lack of guaranteed salary.

Perhaps.

gswhoops wrote:

vct33 wrote:

longfellow44 wrote:#42 and a tpe from the kings to absorb his salary

Lol. His contract is FAR from negative value where you'd pay to get rid of him.

Hauser is a solid bench wing making solid bench wing money. You might not have to pay to get rid of him (although you might, since most teams would prefer flexibility over a long-term commitment to a bench piece), but he doesn't hold a ton of excess value.

As someone who watches a lot of Cavs and all the Celtics games, I feel like Hauser is 90% Max Strus making 70% of Strus' money. I think he can be a top 7 rotation guy on the right team.

gswhoops wrote:

vct33 wrote:

longfellow44 wrote:#42 and a tpe from the kings to absorb his salary

Lol. His contract is FAR from negative value where you'd pay to get rid of him.

Hauser is a solid bench wing making solid bench wing money. You might not have to pay to get rid of him (although you might, since most teams would prefer flexibility over a long-term commitment to a bench piece), but he doesn't hold a ton of excess value.

While I agree he's a bench piece, he's truly one of the best volume shooters in the league and you really don't "sacrifice" on defense with him. Not saying he's Bruce Bowen out there but he's a legitimately decent defender and a legit 6'8" wing. You say "solid bench wing money" but I'd say he's actually a bit below because I'd put "solid bench wing money" at the MLE which is about $5M/year higher than Hauser makes. Elite shooter who's solid on defense I think is probably the most in demand/valued archetype when you talk about MLE players/bench piece types other than maybe stretch 5 who can play defense too (though unless age/injury risk those guys would get more than MLE so not truly one to one comparison).

I definitely think there are some teams who would look at him against their cap sheet and say that a $10M/year bench wing pushes us into a tax bracket we don't want to be in at some point once we re-sign guys. Those teams won't be interested, like you say. But I think that's kind of irrelevant to his trade value since there's such a volume of teams where that isn't the case and with how teams can use MLE in trades now there's not a scarcity of teams to take him without giving money back.

vct33 wrote:

gswhoops wrote:

vct33 wrote:

Lol. His contract is FAR from negative value where you'd pay to get rid of him.

Hauser is a solid bench wing making solid bench wing money. You might not have to pay to get rid of him (although you might, since most teams would prefer flexibility over a long-term commitment to a bench piece), but he doesn't hold a ton of excess value.

As someone who watches a lot of Cavs and all the Celtics games, I feel like Hauser is 90% Max Strus making 70% of Strus' money. I think he can be a top 7 rotation guy on the right team.

I'd say he's better than Strus. Hauser shot 41.6% from 3 last year which was a career low. Strus shot 41.0% one year but is a career 36.8% shooter. Strus is a bit better than league average on volume shooting. Hauser is one of the handful of best pure shooters in the game. There's levels to it. And Hauser is less attackable defensively really just by virtue of being 6'8" rather than 6'5". Not that Strus is small for a 2-guard, but it can cause some lineup issues if you play other guard (like how CLE plays him at SF with Garland/Mitchell).

Strus has more juice creating for himself with the ball in his hands, but I consider any position where he's asked to be creating with the ball in his hands to be an undesirable outcome so I value that less than Hauser being better at the things I want them to be doing.

Provided they could pass along one of those two picks, possibly packaging one with a player to get a future 1st the Bulls would consider Coby White and #45 but not for sure

Hauser is an excellent contributor for a championship level team with 2 superstars. and maybe 3 more stars. He gets a lot of wide open shots as the defense focuses on the big BOS scorers. I'm not one to believe that if he played 50% more minutes his production would rise by the same 50% for the Bulls who are not in those situations. He could fit in with the Bulls at the 3 with Giddey, Ball and Huerter maybe Tre Jones controlling the ball. His upside is a long moderate salary and a high BB IQ who doesn't feel the need to show off.