Bench Help or Future Assets?

[jmr07019]

The NBA is a strange place these days. Many trades have more to do with salaries than actual basketball talent. Due to the great FA period of 2010 and the economic state of the league expirings are at an all time high. Theres been a lot of talk of us trading some combination of expirings and/or Davis for bench players. In some crazy scenarios which we as fans can only hope would happen Ray Allen is traded and bought out and comes back to us. While this would allow us to get much more in return the chances of it happening are probably unlikely. However I wanted to get a general feel for what people would rather see returned to us if we made a trade. Not specific trades but would you rather us take on a bad contract and a young player / unprotected lottery pick or try and improve the bench?

My general thought is a bad contract and young player / lotto pick would be better than going strictly for bench help. While there are no shortage of bad contracts in the league some of these guys could still contribute something to our team while others would simply be dead cap space. If Danny can find a guy who is overpaid but still could bring some value to us and get a team to throw in a nice asset to dump the contract we'd really improve our future outlook while marginally improving the bench.

[hairybyrd]

Nice post...The Celts have been playing great basketball the past few weeks w/o Davis and Marquis so I feel as though our bench play won't be a concern at all this season. Trading Ray and maneuvering a pre-established buyout is wishful thinking but, trading TA, Scal and Davis could net the C's a decent return. Making a major move is too big a risk at this point although trading the aforementioned 3 wouldn't affect team chemistry much at all. My hope is that Ainge packages a combo of those 3 for a young wing player and salary rather than add another vet to the bench. Anthony Morrow would be perfect but that, too, is wishful thinking. If the C's make a trade, I hope they add some youth because veterans would certainly want to play with us if we need any help for the playoffs (PJ Brown, Cassell, Marbury and now Lue). Big Baby, after all, is a good young piece but it seems like management is down on him, and for good reason. Getting another young piece to grow beside Rondo and Perk would be the best move IMO.

[Jammer]

I think Danny looks at things a bit differently.

First, he wants to win a championship.

To do that, he addresses his top 10 players, his starters and backups,
which if guys have the ability and legs to cover more positions and minutes,
could be as few as top 8 or 9 on younger, more versatile teams.

His starters are set.
Rasheed is the only big with height, and an INSIDE and OUTSIDE game.
He stays for those reasons.

Sheldon or Davis forces a choice.
One effectively won't be in the rotation against a team like the Lakers.
To some extent it depends on the salaries needed and who a trade partner would accept.

So, Scalabrine and one of Glen Davis or Sheldon Williams is likely available.

Marquis Daniels injury complicates the wing situation.
Tony Allen is without a doubt better than Giddens or Billy Walker, right now,
although Tony is not reliable for top level playoff competition.

Until Daniels returns, Tony is the best available wing player off the bench.

So, Giddens and Walker may both be available.

Eddie House stays put just to have another 3 point shooter for end of game situations,
regardless of whether another guard is brought in.

Lester Hudson has shown nothing, to date, to warrant consideration
as a playoff competent and playoff reliable performer.

So, it comes down to what can:

Scalabrine +
Davis or Williams +
Giddens or Walker +
Lester Hudson +
$3 Million cash +
Future First Rounders and Future 2nd Rounders get.

Fortunately, the Celtics are only one of 3 teams, along with New Orleans and the Nets,
to have 15 guaranteed contracts. Almost every other team has 1 or 2 (some have up to 4)
unguaranteed contracts, that become guaranteed on January 10, 2010.

So, if the Celtics want to be able to dump players, logically they do it before January 10.
Because until that date, other teams can release one or two players, and can do 3 for 1 and
2 for 1 trades with ease.

[GuyClinch]

Danny probably doesn't make any trades IMHO. Davis is BYC and worth more to us the other teams. Sheldon is worthless - as is Giddens Scalabrine.. This team is built to win as is. No changes are needed..

[Al n' Perk No Layups!]

I'm with the OP on this one, I think with teams looking to shed salary at all costs and the depth of the upcoming draft this is a unique opportunity to get a good pick for really cheap. I would try to make a deal with NO for their first, we could take back Posey or Mo Pete in exchange for expirings.

However, there is at least one possible trade scenario to accomplish both. We could deal Scal and TA to NO for Mo Pete and their first. Mo Pete has a trade kicker (I'm assuming it is 15%) which would then boost his salary to 6,670,000. I'm pretty sure that we can then turn around and trade Mo Pete as part of a package if it's done within three days. We could then package Mo Pete and Giddens to the Bulls for Kirk Hinrich and toss in our first round pick if necessary.

We gain a backup (if expensive) PG and a late lotto pick in a loaded draft. NO gets salary relief. Bulls get a late pick, some more cap room (Mo Pete with TK still makes less than Hinrich) and an expiring to use next year.

[JakeTheDean]

Danny probably doesn't make any trades IMHO. Davis is BYC and worth more to us the other teams. Sheldon is worthless - as is Giddens Scalabrine.. This team is built to win as is. No changes are needed..

Sheldon, Giddens and Scal have a combined expiring salary of $5 million, which isn't worthless.

[JakeTheDean]

The NBA is a strange place these days. Many trades have more to do with salaries than actual basketball talent. Due to the great FA period of 2010 and the economic state of the league expirings are at an all time high. Theres been a lot of talk of us trading some combination of expirings and/or Davis for bench players. In some crazy scenarios which we as fans can only hope would happen Ray Allen is traded and bought out and comes back to us. While this would allow us to get much more in return the chances of it happening are probably unlikely. However I wanted to get a general feel for what people would rather see returned to us if we made a trade. Not specific trades but would you rather us take on a bad contract and a young player / unprotected lottery pick or try and improve the bench?

My general thought is a bad contract and young player / lotto pick would be better than going strictly for bench help. While there are no shortage of bad contracts in the league some of these guys could still contribute something to our team while others would simply be dead cap space. If Danny can find a guy who is overpaid but still could bring some value to us and get a team to throw in a nice asset to dump the contract we'd really improve our future outlook while marginally improving the bench.

A couple of big negatives would come out of trading Ray with the idea of bringing him back after a buyout:

-Ray's Bird-rights would be eliminated. Which means, the only way we could retain Allen for the 2011 campaign would be to offer the MLE which he would take but not be happy about.

-The Celtics payroll would not be getting the relief of a $19 million expiration. Which means, the Celtics would have an even steeper luxury tax penalty next season.

- A team isn't going to trade for an expiring with an expiring and assets. So the contract our trading partner rids themselves of will be a bad one, and with salary matching means that one or two players that equal $19 Million will be coming off our bench... That's no good.

The better option would be to combine Scal, TA and Giddens and shop for a player making $8-9 million a year that is also expiring this year. Mike Miller could work, and the Wizards would save $4 million in luxury and salary in a such a deal with the Celtics not having to take on a hindering salary.