RealGM

For the past two weeks, Bill Simmons has claimed that the Nets turned down Boston's offer of Pierce for the same deal we gave for Gerald Wallace. The idea has given me pause, and I wanted to get everyone's opinions once and for all on it. Pierce is the superior offensive force, but has a large contract with two years remaining, which eats up some of our cap flexibility. Wallace is younger albeit more injury-prone, and a better overall defender. But with a player option this summer, if he opts out, we will have wasted a lottery pick on 13-game rental. You can say that hindsight is 20/20, but I don't think we've learned anything in the past month about either of these players (or our front office!) that we didn't already know.

I have listed below a short breakdown of both below:

GERALD WALLACE
29yrs old - due $9.5mil in '12-'13 (player option)
-- fearless competitor, dogged defender, adds instant toughness to any lineup
-- capable scorer, yields extra possessions, low usage (needs few touches)
-- plagued by injuries, high-impact career has "impacted" his athleticism-based style


PAUL PIERCE
34yrs old - due $16.8mil in '12-'13, $15.3 in '13-'14
-- 10-time All-Star, NBA Finals MVP, 1st-ballot Hall-of-Famer
-- Elite triple-threat playmaker, can shoot/dribble/drive to beat you
-- Plays huge in the ends of games, you want the ball in his hands

OK, it's time to put it to a vote. Who would YOU have chosen, and why?

Neither.

But Pierce for sure.

Awful.

I feel like Simmons reads RealGM and is making this up to personally torment me.

Faction of people on ND defending the Wallace trade to their death BTW.

They've gone plaid.

Pierce, but I chose Wallace because, well, **** Paul Pierce.

Pierce is better. Wallace is cheaper. I think King still has his sights set on Dwight, and assuming we extend Wallace, you can squeeze a roughly $8mil salary under the cap with Howard & DWill. You can't squeeze in a roughly $16mil salary. You's also have to worry about giving the Celtics (a historic franchise in a big market in your division) the ability afford multiple max FAs in 2012 or 2013.

Crash for sure. .5 as much, and already has made this team much better. Also 4 years younger. Also, crash added a defensive presence and energy that this team severely lacked.

With Lopez out there this team is pretty good IMO. Better than Philly.

i think Wallace is easily the better option. He was definitely more of a risk because he can turn out to be a 13 game rental and is injury prone, But on this team he can have a bigger impact on both ends of the floor and keeps our cap flexibility somewhat intact if we keep him. thats the big IF. i think that Prokhorov did tell him something in their meeting and he will definitely stay with us, hopefully on a lesser salary long term deal.

I think BK already has it worked out with his agent for Wallace to opt out, so we can re-sign him to a new deal this off season.If that's what BK plans to do then Wallace is the better choice since he's 5 years younger and is a good vet player that will have a more cap friendly contract.I still don't believe the Celtics would trade there franchise HOF player to a division rival.Its bs

Pierce... because f*ck Boston. That would have put them out of their misery for the next couple of years instead of this resurgence.

stevieboy wrote:I think BK already has it worked out with his agent for Wallace to opt out, so we can re-sign him to a new deal this off season.If that's what BK plans to do then Wallace is the better choice since he's 5 years younger and is a good vet player that will have a more cap friendly contract.I still don't believe the Celtics would trade there franchise HOF player to a division rival.Its bs

Interesting theory, but if he opted out and we renounced his cap hold and then used all of our capspace, we would only have the "room" exception for him. Wallace should expect a paycut, but is he willing to make only $2.5mil?

I'm surprised that so many people are supporting Crash here. I disagree that dealing for Pierce would have breathed new life into Boston. On the contrary, their post-TDL resurgence is going to be very attractive to FAs this offseason. Look at how the Perkins trade nearly capsized the team. More capspace would not have made them more attractive if they were limping into the playoffs, with a PO'd Rondo leading a listless shell of a former contender. We had a chance to sink the battleship of a division rival, and didn't do it.

Also, I have to believe that Deron would have been more impressed with the Truth. He's just a better player, and as much as we have benefited from Wallace's toughness, we are most sorely lacking in late-game scoring. Finally, IF we wanted to trade him on draft night for Dwight, we could do that; Wallace's contract doesn't allow for that flexibility. I chalk this up as just another in a series of moves that our FO has made that seems destined to backfire; but by hook or crook, if we end up with Dwight and Deron, it'll all be worth it.

MelosSoreWrist wrote:Pierce... because f*ck Boston. That would have put them out of their misery for the next couple of years instead of this resurgence.

Would be really interesting to see if the Knicks under Woodson could beat the resurging Celtics. 2011 Playoff rematch!

stevieboy wrote:I think BK already has it worked out with his agent for Wallace to opt out, so we can re-sign him to a new deal this off season.If that's what BK plans to do then Wallace is the better choice since he's 5 years younger and is a good vet player that will have a more cap friendly contract.I still don't believe the Celtics would trade there franchise HOF player to a division rival.Its bs

You are overly Optimistic and have WAAAAY to much faith in King. Hope he doesn't break you heart

I would take Wallace 10 times out of 10. But it still doesn't justify that stupid trade...

^totally agree