RealGM

Look at the top of the page (link: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/22 ... mith-Trade ).

Smith to BOS, Pierce to DAL. We got DAL's 1st (and Brandan Wright, Jae Crowder and Dahntay Jones. Yeah, I know). Report said we held out for a 1st from BOS, as well.

A lottery pick from DAL, which Ferry seemed (to me) to want to add the other 3 firsts to move way up in the lottery.

What I like about all the trade reports is that Ferry had a price in mind and held his ground.

The NBA is different from the NFL in that you can rarely use multiple mid 1st rounders to move up substantially. So I'm not sure that line of thinking would have worked. I like Ferry's chances of drafting a contributor with mid 1st rounders but ultimately, Im glad we didnt do this deal. I am glad the Ferry wasnt willing to simply take Pierce for Smoove. I just cant stand PP and it would make me sick to see him or KG in a Hawks uni.

Thatsmydawg16 wrote:I am glad the Ferry wasnt willing to simply take Pierce for Smoove. I just cant stand PP and it would make me sick to see him or KG in a Hawks uni.

Yeah. Hall of Famers stink.

Having a team full of boneheads is definitely better.

Late lotto pick(s), young prospect, no future salary commitments? Sounds exactly like what Ferry was looking for from the beginning but crazy that it fell apart on Boston's end because of that 1st. With Pierce gone, Garnett would of definitely relented on his stance against getting traded to the Clippers and the C's would of surely recouped the pick. Weird that the C's essentially didn't think Josh was worth Pierce and a pick considering that Boston was on his list of trade destinations and Rondo (that other best bud of his, introduced him to his wife, like to get into bar fights together in the offseason) is there. Just can't see the argument that they were worried he'd leave them high and dry.

So trading Josh for draft picks while in the middle of a playoff chase is...not insane?

If one wants to look at things with the same lens that the team still has over 105 million in salary commitments locked up in the future then yes.

If one wants to look at it with common sense and recognize that this team isn't in the middle of the pinnacle of its psuedo-contention but rather in the transition year before it's rebuild then no, that's not insane in the least.

MaceCase wrote:If one wants to look at things with the same lens that the team still has over 105 million in salary commitments locked up in the future then yes.

this isn't technically true, and is an inefficient way of looking at the books.

But I was under the impression that trading Josh while we were in the middle of a playoff run was laughable. regradless of what next year holds.

Someone hammered that point home to me repeatedly in the past.

Jamaaliver wrote:So trading Josh for draft picks while in the middle of a playoff chase is...not insane?

Its exactly insane

Jamaaliver wrote:

MaceCase wrote:If one wants to look at things with the same lens that the team still has over 105 million in salary commitments locked up in the future then yes.

this isn't technically true, and is an inefficient way of looking at the books.

But I was under the impression that trading Josh while we were in the middle of a playoff run was laughable. regradless of what next year holds.

Someone hammered that point home to me repeatedly in the past.

As with everything, the point was lost on you. The premise was very much established that what good does it do to trade Josh for a small pittance of cap savings and the potential for a prospect when you have a 31 year old alone still due over 89 million of future spending (this is technically true and facts are the most efficient way of looking at the books). If you need further education on the matter then I suggest you do some of your post digging, there you'll find over 4 people that explained this to you in detail but alas, continue on in your crusade to make a fool of yourself.

So...it's only a good idea to trade Josh for draft picks if Joe has been traded?

Just want to be sure I understand the difference.

The point always seems to get muddled between us.

Trading josh last year was bad, because we had other good players under contract. But it's good now because we have no (or few) good players under contract?

It has nothing to do with the playoff chase, as was hammered home multiple times?