RealGM

Considering the article is 5 best fits for trading Paul Pierce I can assume that Boston's interests are what are important to the writer, but it was his #1 trade idea.

The points are basically that Pierce would give the Hawks a star and someone willing to be the man and face of the team while Josh gives Boston a high risk/high reward player that a real coach might actually get the most out of him (better shot selection, consistent effort).

Personally I'm against getting 8 years older in the deal. It's just too much. Also if I'm dealing Josh I'm checking out teams out West first so that if he does put it all together he doesn't spend the next 5 years ending the Hawks season. My other argument against is that Pierce is a SF which was where I saw Joe playing the last 3-4 years of his huge contract. Unless the team is amnesty clausing Marvin next year we'd have an ill-fitting lineup with a lot tied up at the wings.

I'm against, but what do you think about it?

I will pass on any trade other than Garnett + Allen + a 1st rounder for Joe and Josh. We give away too much youth unless we are getting Rondo from them

The Hawks shouldn't even entertain Smith for Pierce straight up; Smith has been an all-star this year while Pierce has been just OK this season. Pierce is a player I really like and a player I have serious respect for but right now Smith is better than Pierce and he's 8 years younger. If Sund does Pierce for Smoove straight up he should be fired right on the spot. Also if we did do this deal we would be a mess defensively . But on a different note, as for our amnesty clause I believe we should amnesty Joe in 2-3 years instead of Marvin; if we were going to amnesty Marvin we would've done so by now. But those are just my 2 cents.

Typical ESPN garbage. They lower the bar on a continuous basis.

Disgustingly bad for the Hawks.

Josh for Pierce......... nope!

on a side note: can't GMs just let guys like Pierce and KG ride off into the sun set with some dignity? let them live out their contract, and if they want to keep playing, let them sign smaller contracts. Pierce needs to be shown some respect and allowed to retired as a Celtic.

Give BOS $3 million more capspace AND Dwight Howard's best friend? I wonder where the author is headed with this idea ...

Yeah, great deal for the Hawks. We get a fading star who will only shine for briefer and briefer moments. We also get to pay him for 3 years.

baseline33 wrote:Josh for Pierce......... nope!

on a side note: can't GMs just let guys like Pierce and KG ride off into the sun set with some dignity? let them live out their contract, and if they want to keep playing, let them sign smaller contracts. Pierce needs to be shown some respect and allowed to retired as a Celtic.

Garnett likely will just expire and then it's his choice if he retires or not. Paul Pierce has 3 years left on his deal and would love to retire as a Celtic. The problem with being respectful is it could lead to years of slow rebuilding (just good enough not to get impact picks, but not good enough to compete for anything of substance). Remember Red Auerbach was true to his stars at the end of the 80s and it took a long time to recover. In all fairness, the deaths of Len Bias and Reggie Lewis definitely impacted the Celtics plans.

Yeah that will be a very stupid trade for the hawks. If we get rid of josh we need a five in return. And to rid ourselves of marvin williams contract.

How about this trade? http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=7agaw72

It's KG + Ray Allen + Dooling for Josh + Marvin + Hinrich.

Would we have to add a 1st as well?

How about this trade?
It's KG + Ray Allen + Dooling for Horford + Marvin + Hinrich.

Would you have to add a 1st as well?

There is no trade with the Celtics that I would want to entertain. The lineups don't match up. Garnett and Allen are expiring so that means they'd be a salary dump. Pierce would be an asset, but would likely be very unhappy to be dealt. If the cost is Josh the hole created in lineup is bigger than the fix. We're not in a position to deal a big without getting a big back as part of the deal. The only move that makes sense for us would be Marvin/Kirk/1st rounder for Pierce, but Boston would laugh at that offer. Although if we added another future 1st round pick to the mix would they still laugh?

evildallas wrote:There is no trade with the Celtics that I would want to entertain. The lineups don't match up. Garnett and Allen are expiring so that means they'd be a salary dump. Pierce would be an asset, but would likely be very unhappy to be dealt. If the cost is Josh the hole created in lineup is bigger than the fix. We're not in a position to deal a big without getting a big back as part of the deal. The only move that makes sense for us would be Marvin/Kirk/1st rounder for Pierce, but Boston would laugh at that offer. Although if we added another future 1st round pick to the mix would they still laugh?

We're not gonna give away 2 first rounders for an aging Pierce.