2017 Trade & Free Agency Ideas & Discussion

[MathiasPW]

You almost make it sound like we shouldn't draft anyone because we are already set to contend in a few years. We are far from that.

There will be competition for playing time. It's good if handled in a "do it for the team" mentality.

We don't have yet that star that must be pleased in any manner.

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

You almost make it sound like we shouldn't draft anyone because we are already set to contend in a few years. We are far from that.

There will be competition for playing time. It's good if handled in a "do it for the team" mentality.

We don't have yet that star that must be pleased in any manner.

I'm talking about chemistry, "family", player development. These aren't a bunch of well-paid vets being pushed out the door. These are your guys. You can screw some players some of the time but not all players all of the time. That's how you end up with a revolving door of undeveloped talent. We shouldn't want that.

And besides, we're talking about players whose ceilings are barely higher than current players, whose floors are lower than the quality of current players. You push Ulis aside for Fox, well, what if Fox isn't as good as Ulis? Same question, Tatum and Warren. I just don't think it makes any sense to duplicate when the difference in talent level isn't that great.

[darealjuice]

Wait, so your entire argument is based around having quality players like TJ and Ulis at positions that Jayson Tatum and De'Aaron Fox would cover, so we don't need them... then you close it out by saying we should take Monk, who plays the same position as our best prospect, because maybe Booker would be okay with it since he's the alpha...? Can't say I understand that line of thinking.

I just don't see why you dismiss guys at the top of this draft so easily. You trusted in our players to develop when they weren't as highly touted as these guys, so why balk at a higher talent level that can still be developed? I mean you'd have a really hard time convincing me that Tatum isn't clearly the better all-around player when compared to TJ's freshman year, so who's to say he won't end up better in 3.5 years when he's TJ's age now? I prefer Ulis' game to Fox right now for sure, but it's tough to deny that Fox has a better physical profile to be a lead guard in the NBA and Ulis is like 2 years older than him. TJ wouldn't be cut out of the rotation if we drafted a SF either, he'd still very likely be the starter to open the season and he spends some time playing PF as well so there's plenty of time for a rookie on the wing. If we drafted a PG, I would imagine Bledsoe is on his way out after rumors that Rich Paul told us to trade him if we do, and I'd think we'd like the rookie and Ulis battle it out through camp to decide on who's the starter.

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Wait, so your entire argument is based around having quality players like TJ and Ulis at positions that Jayson Tatum and De'Aaron Fox would cover, so we don't need them... then you close it out by saying we should take Monk, who plays the same position as our best prospect, because maybe Booker would be okay with it since he's the alpha...? Can't say I understand that line of thinking.

I literally just wrote an entire essay about this. Fox or DSJ keeps Ulis off the floor. Tatum keeps Warren off the floor. Isaac is basically a lesser Bender. Monk keeps no one off the floor. You can put him in a rotation with the rest of these guys. And while his primary position is SG, he defends PGs and can defend SGs, though not as well. He plays off the ball, unlike DSJ or Fox, and we already have two ballhandlers as part of our core. We have a non-shooter in Ulis, so you prefer another shooter as part of the rotation.

All I'm saying is, we should draft someone who can fit in a rotation with the rest of our core. I've identified those players. Anyone else you draft is just shoving a core player out the door, IMO.

And one last thing. I've heard, well, we lose a bunch, so no one's safe. But I say, we're not losing for a lack of talent; we're losing because of youth. The goal is to keep these guys together long-term. You can't do that if you're just recycling guys. Stick with it; add to it. Monk, Ntilikina, Collins.

[darealjuice]

Wait, so your entire argument is based around having quality players like TJ and Ulis at positions that Jayson Tatum and De'Aaron Fox would cover, so we don't need them... then you close it out by saying we should take Monk, who plays the same position as our best prospect, because maybe Booker would be okay with it since he's the alpha...? Can't say I understand that line of thinking.

I literally just wrote an entire essay about this. Fox or DSJ keeps Ulis off the floor. Tatum keeps Warren off the floor. Isaac is basically a lesser Bender. Monk keeps no one off the floor. You can put him in a rotation with the rest of these guys.

I've said my piece.

Maybe you should read my whole post instead of stopping half way?

Yeah I read your essay and addressed your points, but you're just repeating them instead of countering what I said. Sure Tatum and Fox can keep Ulis and TJ off the floor (which I also addressed with TJ also spending time at PF this year and Bledsoe being traded to open minutes, and you completely ignored in favor of spinning your record again), but how does Monk not keep Booker off the floor (and vice-versa)? Book plays 35+ minutes a game the rest of his career with maybe 20% of his time at SF, so that leaves 20 minutes a game at SG for Monk for the next 7 to 9 years? That's the route you'd rather go than potentially upgrading a position's talent level because we have TJ and Ulis already? What about the fact that we have Booker already, who's more promising than Monk, TJ, or Ulis?

[Mulhollanddrive]

Unless you're an All-Star or likely to be, you don't influence top 5 draft picks.

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Wait, so your entire argument is based around having quality players like TJ and Ulis at positions that Jayson Tatum and De'Aaron Fox would cover, so we don't need them... then you close it out by saying we should take Monk, who plays the same position as our best prospect, because maybe Booker would be okay with it since he's the alpha...? Can't say I understand that line of thinking.

I literally just wrote an entire essay about this. Fox or DSJ keeps Ulis off the floor. Tatum keeps Warren off the floor. Isaac is basically a lesser Bender. Monk keeps no one off the floor. You can put him in a rotation with the rest of these guys.

I've said my piece.

Maybe you should read my whole post instead of stopping half way?

Yeah I read your essay and addressed your points, but you're just repeating them instead of countering what I said. Sure Tatum and Fox can keep Ulis and TJ off the floor (which I also addressed with TJ also spending time at PF this year and Bledsoe being traded to open minutes, and you completely ignored in favor of spinning your record again), but how does Monk not keep Booker off the floor (and vice-versa)? Book plays 35+ minutes a game the rest of his career with maybe 20% of his time at SF, so that leaves 20 minutes a game at SG for Monk for the next 7 to 9 years? That's the route you'd rather go than potentially upgrading a position's talent level because we have TJ and Ulis already? What about the fact that we have Booker already, who's more promising than Monk, TJ, or Ulis?

Ulis-Monk-Warren-Bender-Williams
Ulis-Monk-Booker-Chriss-Bender
Monk-Booker-Bender-Chriss-Williams

That's how.

[darealjuice]

Ulis-Monk-Warren-Bender-Williams
Ulis-Monk-Booker-Chriss-Bender
Monk-Booker-Bender-Chriss-Williams

That's how.

That's how you have one of the smallest and worst defensive teams in the league? Yeah I agree.

[WeekapaugGroove]

Another reason I like Isaac is the how much fun it would be it worked out. The thought of him Chriss, and Bender all on the court together is pretty cool. You would have 3 long and athletic dudes who can all run the floor and shoot 3's. Defensively that would be so much length, rim protection, and switching ability. You would essentially be able to play a small ball style with three very big dudes on the court. I love that Isaac is a good rebounder because that covers Bender and Chriss weakness. I get that a big bruising C would be tough for these three to handle so you would need to keep a traditional c for the rotation but this isn't the 90's NBA anymore where you have to worry about that too much.

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Ulis-Monk-Warren-Bender-Williams
Ulis-Monk-Booker-Chriss-Bender
Monk-Booker-Bender-Chriss-Williams

That's how.

That's how you have one of the smallest and worst defensive teams in the league? Yeah I agree.

Cool. I advise a less vitriolic/aggressive style in the future. You're a valuable member of the board. No reason to create animosity here. Cheers, DRJ.

[Frank Lee]

Isaac is a crap shoot based on physical qualities with some measurable skill. I dont think he'd see 15 minutes a game and he is too bean pole-ish to play C. Put me down for Collins if we are drafting a guy who we'd run at PF/C. IF we go guard, then its Monk or Fox. Monk would not require a Bledsoe trade, at least until his camp starts squawking. Fox, on the other hand is a Bledsoe replacement. Jackson could be that versatile wing spelling both Booker and TJ. But I doubt he will be available.

IDK what McDo will have up his sleeve, but I'd think it would be a shrewd move to snag an extra lotto pick to pair up with #4. Rookie deals are the way to go at the moment, and putting off paying Bled, Len and perhaps TJ may make good cap sense. No doubt Booker will be going to the bank as soon as he is able. Then Chris and Bender follow. Also, landing a productive second rounder, and inking him for 2-3 years cheap like with Ulis sure makes the cap go further.

Therefore,its time to move Bled and be over with it. His price is right. Perhaps sitting him was a two-fold smoker, and the real intent was keeping him healthy for draft day possibilities.

[bwgood77]

I wish we could get Fox and Issac. Somebody need Bled in the range that Fox may go?

I imagine he'll go to Philly or Sacramento. I can't see Philly doing it but if they want a scoring 1 that is ready to get that team competing now, he could. But then again he could draft Jackson and try to sign Lowry or Holiday in free agency. Holiday may remember his best days were in Philly.

They could draft Jackson and go after those two point guards and Reddick or even KCP in free agency and be ready to go.

[bwgood77]

Read on Twitter

On another interview he said exactly those five players too and that he wants them to interact with the prospects to see the chemistry and fit.

Yes. He has also said that Devin wants to be part of the process and Ryan sees that as a good thing and wants prospects to hang out with his core. If Ulis (PG), Devin (SG), TJ (SF), Marquese (PF) and Bender (?) are your guys, who fits? One of them would have to be moved to the bench. I have expressed my thoughts on this a bit - I don't think grabbing another PG works, because Ulis has earned the time - whomever we draft would probably be worse than Ulis for at least a year or two, and you couldn't play Fox or DSJ next to Ulis... it just doesn't work. (Plus, FWIW, I'd take Duval over this year's PG crop, based on what little I've seen). You take Tatum and you're telling TJ he's destined for the bench - right when you're trying to extend him. You're also telling Dragan that he has to play center, despite the fact that it's pretty clear (to me, at least) that he is not a center.

In terms of fit, a lot of that analysis hinges upon Dragan. I think that you could have him supplant TJ in the starting line-up in time without ruffling any feathers, in large part because it's not so utterly predictable than TJ would be benched, as it would be with Tatum, but also because Dragan is multipositional and can play alongside any or all of these guys, and furthermore because Dragan could be used as a super sixth for several years, if that's the best path forward.

If you're going guard, I think you need someone who can play next to either Devin or Ulis. Devin can play small ball 3 or big ball 1, so a shooting guard is not out of the realm of possibility, IMO. If you got a 2/3, that could work also. But a 3/4 would not, because those spots are so completely covered that any time taken by a draftee would be time taken from a core guy. A center would work, since none of our core players imagines himself to be a center.

One problem here is that anyone you draft at 4, everyone will expect to be a starter one day - most importantly, the draftee himself. Certain guys it'll be easier to put on the bench for a while, but others (Jackson, Tatum, DSJ) I don't think could be. So it's delicate.

This thought process, in my mind eliminates pure SFs (Tatum), tweener forwards (Isaac) and pure PGs (Fox, DSJ). Of the top 10 guys, that leaves just Monk, Collins and Ntilikina. But then, Ryan also said that the area where we needed the most improvement was defense. Monk is not a defensive force, but he is also what we wished BK would be - a shooter who works primarily off the ball. Collins has those impressive BP40 numbers, and Ntilikina has those elite defensive tools.

I don't think we should start looking at guys who are ranked lower just because we are afraid our players might not get playing time if we get someone who is TOO good at a spot. If that's the case, why not start looking at guys projected in the 20s for our 4th overall pick, because we wouldn't risk getting someone so good that it would push DJJ out of the rotation or something.

I think when you have one and done guys, you can't expect them to be immediate starters on day one. I mean Jaylen Brown and Dragan Bender were 3/4 last year.

Anyway, who starts and who doesn't isn't that big of a deal when you run a clear 7-8 guy rotation. Bender has the highest upside of anyone on our team based on length, size, skills, agility, bbiq, being a 2 way player, etc. But he may not start for awhile and is still probably younger than just about anyone in this draft class. I don't think Tatum starts on day 1 if we take him and I don't think Isaac starts for a couple years if we took him. Any of the point guards either. I don't even think Fultz will immediately start in Boston.

Since our lineup has so much versatility at the top, assuming Knight is gone, we are extremely thin at guard. And if you think Ulis plays a major role there is no way we should draft Monk.

The worst thing is, as great as this draft is supposed to be, I can't get terribly excited about any of these guys. Now if we were drafting 8th, I'd probably be really excited at a chance for DS Jr or possibly Ntilikina.

Still with I knew more about Ntilikina because he might make the most sense...he's raw, has the length to play great defense, and if he reaches expectations he could be perfect in our backcourt rotation or the perfect type of starter next to Booker. With the court vision that is great but the length for great defense, nice size at 6'5, the ability to hit over 40% from 3, that would be nice.

[bwgood77]

I literally just wrote an entire essay about this. Fox or DSJ keeps Ulis off the floor. Tatum keeps Warren off the floor. Isaac is basically a lesser Bender. Monk keeps no one off the floor. You can put him in a rotation with the rest of these guys.

I've said my piece.

Maybe you should read my whole post instead of stopping half way?

Yeah I read your essay and addressed your points, but you're just repeating them instead of countering what I said. Sure Tatum and Fox can keep Ulis and TJ off the floor (which I also addressed with TJ also spending time at PF this year and Bledsoe being traded to open minutes, and you completely ignored in favor of spinning your record again), but how does Monk not keep Booker off the floor (and vice-versa)? Book plays 35+ minutes a game the rest of his career with maybe 20% of his time at SF, so that leaves 20 minutes a game at SG for Monk for the next 7 to 9 years? That's the route you'd rather go than potentially upgrading a position's talent level because we have TJ and Ulis already? What about the fact that we have Booker already, who's more promising than Monk, TJ, or Ulis?

Ulis-Monk-Warren-Bender-Williams
Ulis-Monk-Booker-Chriss-Bender
Monk-Booker-Bender-Chriss-Williams

That's how.

Man if we choose Monk I'll vomit.

[LukasBMW]

Monk could become Brandon Knight 2.0 - PASS

I'd take Fox in a heartbeat at #4 and trade Bledsoe for the best possible pick 5-9 and hope Jackson (not likely), Tatum (possible), or Issac (possible) fall.

Fox reminds me of a bigger Ulis. He must have watched film of Ulis given how he plays. He's smart. He's got a great motor. And he's got a great smile (no homo). But seriously, at the draft, Fox was the only one smiling. Everyone else was nervous or did not seem happy to be there.

[LukasBMW]

Teams who might trade for Bledsoe

#5 Kings
#6 Magic
#7 Wolves

If we take Fox at #4, then Fultz, Fox, Ball will all be gone by 5.

That means the only PG prospects are Monk, Smith, and Ntilikina.

The Wolves may be VERY motivated given that the Kings and Magic may both take PG's.

One of Jackson, Issac, or Tatum could easily fall to 7. In addition, the Wolves need a vet PG. It just makes too much sense.

[bwgood77]

Teams who might trade for Bledsoe

#5 Kings
#6 Magic
#7 Wolves

If we take Fox at #4, then Fultz, Fox, Ball will all be gone by 5.

That means the only PG prospects are Monk, Smith, and Ntilikina.

The Wolves may be VERY motivated given that the Kings and Magic may both take PG's.

One of Jackson, Issac, or Tatum could easily fall to 7. In addition, the Wolves need a vet PG. It just makes too much sense.

I doubt it. Maybe Sacramento's 10th pick if they take Isaac or Tatum at 5 and all the point guards are gone at 10. Fox seems like the perfect PG next to Hield though in Sacramento. If I were them I'd take Fox. The have a bunch of bigs already..if they wanted to add a sharpshooting big they can get Collins or Markkanen at 10.

In performing a real mock offseason the best Bledsoe offer I have gotten so far is #13, Mudiay and Barton. Which is interesting depending on who is there at 13. If Mudiay could back up Ulis and then later Mudiay finally breaks through that would be nice. I took Tatum at #4 but kind of regret it. Though I have a feeling no matter who I took I would kind of regret it.

[LukasBMW]

Teams who might trade for Bledsoe

#5 Kings
#6 Magic
#7 Wolves

If we take Fox at #4, then Fultz, Fox, Ball will all be gone by 5.

That means the only PG prospects are Monk, Smith, and Ntilikina.

The Wolves may be VERY motivated given that the Kings and Magic may both take PG's.

One of Jackson, Issac, or Tatum could easily fall to 7. In addition, the Wolves need a vet PG. It just makes too much sense.

I doubt it. Maybe Sacramento's 10th pick if they take Isaac or Tatum at 5 and all the point guards are gone at 10. Fox seems like the perfect PG next to Hield though in Sacramento. If I were them I'd take Fox. The have a bunch of bigs already..if they wanted to add a sharpshooting big they can get Collins or Markkanen at 10.

In performing a real mock offseason the best Bledsoe offer I have gotten so far is #13, Mudiay and Barton. Which is interesting depending on who is there at 13. If Mudiay could back up Ulis and then later Mudiay finally breaks through that would be nice. I took Tatum at #4 but kind of regret it. Though I have a feeling no matter who I took I would kind of regret it.

The Wolves have KAT at the 4/5 and Wiggins at the 3. They need a true PG and by the time they pick, all the PG's will be gone. W can offer a solution.

[bwgood77]

Teams who might trade for Bledsoe

#5 Kings
#6 Magic
#7 Wolves

If we take Fox at #4, then Fultz, Fox, Ball will all be gone by 5.

That means the only PG prospects are Monk, Smith, and Ntilikina.

The Wolves may be VERY motivated given that the Kings and Magic may both take PG's.

One of Jackson, Issac, or Tatum could easily fall to 7. In addition, the Wolves need a vet PG. It just makes too much sense.

I doubt it. Maybe Sacramento's 10th pick if they take Isaac or Tatum at 5 and all the point guards are gone at 10. Fox seems like the perfect PG next to Hield though in Sacramento. If I were them I'd take Fox. The have a bunch of bigs already..if they wanted to add a sharpshooting big they can get Collins or Markkanen at 10.

In performing a real mock offseason the best Bledsoe offer I have gotten so far is #13, Mudiay and Barton. Which is interesting depending on who is there at 13. If Mudiay could back up Ulis and then later Mudiay finally breaks through that would be nice. I took Tatum at #4 but kind of regret it. Though I have a feeling no matter who I took I would kind of regret it.

The Wolves have KAT at the 4/5 and Wiggins at the 3. They need a true PG and by the time they pick, all the PG's will be gone. W can offer a solution.

A true PG? What do you mean true PG? Like Rubio? Bledsoe might be better in a vacuum, but for that team who have three legit scorers, they need a true passer to get those guys going more than a scorer. Bledsoe is better at a lot of things than Rubio, but one thing he is not better at is passing. Rubio has a better than 3.5-1 ast/to ration..which is insanely good in the nba. Bledsoe has less than a 2-1 ast/to ratio, which is insanely bad for a PG.

Rubio is younger than Bledsoe too.

Plus they just drafted one in Dunn last year at the top of the draft and one in Tyus Jones the year before that. They are pretty set at PG. Dunn hasn't been particularly good, but he's only had a year. Jones has been good. Rubio has still been solid at what he does.

They are projected to take Isaac or Markkanen. If they wanted a PG they can probably just take Smith.

[dremill24]

I don't understand why we're treating the entire roster like they're known commodities. We're acting like Ulis-Booker-Warren-Chriss-Bender is a lineup of 5 future all stars and so its inconceivable that any could be moved to the bench or moved somewhere else. The reality is that there's a very good chance that at least one completely busts, and that 1-2 plateau as nothing more than replacement level players for the bench. Obviously there's a miniscule chance that they all bust or they're all HOFers but realistically it will be something in the middle, so i dont really understand why we're so concerned with a draft pick stepping on someone's toes.

On another note, has Jonathan Simmons played himself to too big of a pay day for us? I've been pining for him for a while now.