Hard to Believe Ainge will Make any Move Soon Trade Thread

[yeleven11]

I agree with you to an extent. Having three serviceable centers is actually kind of non-ideal. You don't want good players racking up DNPs. Ideally Thompson would be a better player, Timelord would be exactly as he is, and Theis would be a worse player. You kind of want your third stringer to be happy (and therefore non-disruptive) as a third stringer.

But it's being made out in some corners to be this fatal roster construction flaw that's seriously damaging our competitiveness. It's not. It's not nearly as big a deal as is being said, and it's about to be even less big a deal. If we have an opportunity to address it, we will, but no need to force something through right now at any cost.

And, if we fail to address it, and take that personnel grouping to the playoffs, it won't be the thing that makes or breaks us, either.

We're not a title favorite, so our margin for error is smaller, so in that sense those construction flaws on the margins do matter. You lose playoff games and series due to a bad 4-5 minute stretch with the wrong lineup out there. It's a flaw that should be fixed to maximize this group's chances. And that's before we get into the need for Robert to see more minutes and to maximize Theis's expiring contract into a piece that actually fits better on the roster. It doesnt have to be anything major but a Theis for a backup wing is a very logical and needed move. I never said we're in a doomsday scenario because of that but it is an issue and it should be fixed.

Sure, but you can't just magically fix an issue the exact moment you want to, just because you want to. Unless you're a top, clear-cut title favorite, every team has "issues" they would like to fix. Trades take work, and timing. If we get the opportunity to resolve the Center logjam in a way that improves the team, we will. Until then, as "issues" go, this is not a very big one.

Just doing the rough math the rotation is gonna look something like this:
Kemba (30) Pritchard (18)
Smart (34) ???
Brown (36) ???
Tatum (36) Grant/Semi (12)
3 Centers (48 minutes)

Even if we're being optimistic about Langford's return and lets say he plays 15 minutes at the backup 2, theres still another 12-15mins that needs to be filled at the backup wing spot. If we dont fill that spot we're gonna see the Teague-Pritchard lineups again which is horrible defensively.

Teague will not get zeroed out on minutes. And Grant and Semi will play more than 12mpg cumulatively. I don't know [i]exactly[i] what the rotation is going to look like, but those two things I can guarantee you.

That's my exact point and what I dislike about the roster construction. We shouldnt be playing Teague and Pritchard together and we shouldnt be playing Grant or Semi really any minutes at the 3. You're describing exactly what I think is a problem with the rotation.

[SMTBSI]

We're not a title favorite, so our margin for error is smaller, so in that sense those construction flaws on the margins do matter. You lose playoff games and series due to a bad 4-5 minute stretch with the wrong lineup out there. It's a flaw that should be fixed to maximize this group's chances. And that's before we get into the need for Robert to see more minutes and to maximize Theis's expiring contract into a piece that actually fits better on the roster. It doesnt have to be anything major but a Theis for a backup wing is a very logical and needed move. I never said we're in a doomsday scenario because of that but it is an issue and it should be fixed.

Sure, but you can't just magically fix an issue the exact moment you want to, just because you want to. Unless you're a top, clear-cut title favorite, every team has "issues" they would like to fix. Trades take work, and timing. If we get the opportunity to resolve the Center logjam in a way that improves the team, we will. Until then, as "issues" go, this is not a very big one.

Just doing the rough math the rotation is gonna look something like this:
Kemba (30) Pritchard (18)
Smart (34) ???
Brown (36) ???
Tatum (36) Grant/Semi (12)
3 Centers (48 minutes)

Even if we're being optimistic about Langford's return and lets say he plays 15 minutes at the backup 2, theres still another 12-15mins that needs to be filled at the backup wing spot. If we dont fill that spot we're gonna see the Teague-Pritchard lineups again which is horrible defensively.

Teague will not get zeroed out on minutes. And Grant and Semi will play more than 12mpg cumulatively. I don't know [i]exactly[i] what the rotation is going to look like, but those two things I can guarantee you.

That's my exact point and what I dislike about the roster construction. We shouldnt be playing Teague and Pritchard together and we shouldnt be playing Grant or Semi really any minutes at the 3. You're describing exactly what I think is a problem with the rotation.

In my opinion, you seem to be thinking you can optimize a team's construction far more precisely than is ever actually possible in real life. The perfect, absolutely optimal roster when everyone is healthy is always suboptimal when you have injuries. And you always are working some injuries.

If you have enough guard depth to cover you when you have injuries, then you're going to have a logjam when everyone's healthy. If you have enough Center depth to cover you when you have injuries, then you're going to have a logjam when everyone's healthy. Unless you have a roster of perfectly, robotically non-egocentric players, who will go from big minutes to chained DNPs with a smile on their face. This is not possible in real life.

So, you patch it together. You play 5mpg of two guards to keep your 3rd string PG happy. You play 5mpg of two bigs to keep your 3rd string C happy. You play Semi at the 3 a couple minutes here and there, over the histrionics of the fanbase. (And, you can always quit doing them come crunch time in the playoffs, if you really need to.)

These small little concessions are not big deals. If the only way you're going to be happy is to completely remove them - all of them, in all circumstances and health situations - you're never going to be happy.


edit: and, on raw minute calculations, it's mostly Tatum who should be getting bumped up to the 3 here and there, not Grant or Semi.

[Half-Full]

I think my top, realistic acquisition is Nance. On a great contract, highly switchable defensively and makes smart plays with the ball in his hands.

He’s everything Stevens wants Theis to be.

I would love to have Nance, but is Cleveland looking to move him? If not, what would it take to convince them? Certainly not Carsen Edwards and a second round pick. I'm not even going to try to get into how the financial/cap situations of each team play into it (too esoteric for me). Perhaps there is an angle there. If some creative mind can come up with a reasonable trade proposal, and a rationale for why each team would go for it, I'd be on board.

Id guess so. Only so much room with Allen, Drummond and Love on the team.

It would cost actual assets to get him. But I think he’s worth it.

I imagine the most likely to be moved is Drummond. He will be a free agent next year. Might as well move him for whatever measly assets they can get. They might also try to move Love if they can get back value. I don't see that they would want to move Nance. At this point Nance is better than either Drummond or Love, all things considered.

[yeleven11]

Sure, but you can't just magically fix an issue the exact moment you want to, just because you want to. Unless you're a top, clear-cut title favorite, every team has "issues" they would like to fix. Trades take work, and timing. If we get the opportunity to resolve the Center logjam in a way that improves the team, we will. Until then, as "issues" go, this is not a very big one.


Teague will not get zeroed out on minutes. And Grant and Semi will play more than 12mpg cumulatively. I don't know [i]exactly[i] what the rotation is going to look like, but those two things I can guarantee you.

That's my exact point and what I dislike about the roster construction. We shouldnt be playing Teague and Pritchard together and we shouldnt be playing Grant or Semi really any minutes at the 3. You're describing exactly what I think is a problem with the rotation.

In my opinion, you seem to be thinking you can optimze a team's construction far more precisely than is ever actually possible in real life. The perfect, absolutely optimal roster when everyone is healthy is always suboptimal when you have injuries. And you always are working some injuries.

If you have enough guard depth to cover you when you have injuries, then you're going to have a logjam when everyone's healthy. If you have enough Center depth to cover you when you have injuries, then you're going to have a logjam when everyone's healthy. Unless you have a roster of perfectly, robotically non-egocentric players, who will go from big minutes to chained DNPs with a smile on their face. This is not possible in real life.

So, you patch it together. You play 5mpg of two guards to keep your 3rd string PG happy. You play 5mpg of two bigs to keep your 3rd string C happy. You play Semi at the 3 a couple minutes here and there, over the histrionics of the fanbase. (And, you can always quit doing them come crunch time in the playoffs, if you really need to.)

These small little concessions are not big deals. If the only way you're going to be happy is to completely remove them - all of them, in all circumstances and health situations - you're never going to be happy.


edit: and, on raw minute calculations, it's mostly Tatum who should be getting bumped up to the 3 here and there, not Grant or Semi.

Huh? I never said we need a perfect roster. All I said was that trading a big for a backup wing is a logical move to make and one that is very possible. It's not some massive blockbuster that is impossible to make. It's literally one small trade. I disagree with the notion that you need to play suboptimal lineups for 5 mins to keep your 3rd string guard and 3rd string big happy. You should just bring in 3rd stringers that you dont need to appease even if theyre a bit less talented than the ones you have. They're 3rd stringers after all. If you're in a position where you have to play your 3rd stringers a lot because of injuries, the season is in jeopardy anyways. There's really not a lot of real upside in being 3 deep at a position when you have other flaws on the roster that can be fixed by trading one of the bigs.

And I never said this had to happen right at this moment, or that this is such a big flaw. All I said was that a big should be traded for a wing. I was just disagreeing with people arguing that having those 3 bigs on the roster was necessary, which just isnt true. If youre scared of injuries, then you should be 3 deep at every position, which is just not a possibility.

[Theocy]

Does oladipo play any defense? Would he be any improvement playing the 2? Is there anything else we can salvage from rockets if he was a target?

[Bleeding Green]

His body language is so poor. Reminds me of Tim Duncan and Kawhi Leonard.

He has little in common with those guys in terms of his mental makeup. Have you heard any of his interviews recently? Dude sounds ready to retire. And of course his on/off stats are good. Have you seen the rest of his team?

In sum, for the TPE and a late 1st? Of course. But given that he would cost Jaylen plus other assets, I'm out. Towns is a career loser halfway through his career.

STATS THO.

It took garnett 6 or 7 years to play 2 rounds in playoffs. Maybe a bit longer my memory is crap. Michael Jordan was all about numbers at some point with bulls failing to do anything of significance. Hey guess what Pierce was also a just numbers guy until he got help. We have a tendency to review things from an angle that make sense for us. If any player comes to this team and replicates a 20ppg 10rpg + average coupled with brown Tatum and whoever else is left sudently those numbers are winning numbers.

Towns lost 7 family members to covid the past 6 months including his mother. I'm actually surprised he is even willing to play right now. Some things are bigger than bball.yet he is out there. So next time we're about to Broad brush something like this perhaps let's stop and consider what's causing it maybe?

I wonder if the fact that he plays for the worst franchise in NBA history has any bearing on how he is looked at as soft. Probably not. Probably that he plays more minutes than every C in basketball since he was drafted.

[yeleven11]

He has little in common with those guys in terms of his mental makeup. Have you heard any of his interviews recently? Dude sounds ready to retire. And of course his on/off stats are good. Have you seen the rest of his team?

In sum, for the TPE and a late 1st? Of course. But given that he would cost Jaylen plus other assets, I'm out. Towns is a career loser halfway through his career.

STATS THO.

It took garnett 6 or 7 years to play 2 rounds in playoffs. Maybe a bit longer my memory is crap. Michael Jordan was all about numbers at some point with bulls failing to do anything of significance. Hey guess what Pierce was also a just numbers guy until he got help. We have a tendency to review things from an angle that make sense for us. If any player comes to this team and replicates a 20ppg 10rpg + average coupled with brown Tatum and whoever else is left sudently those numbers are winning numbers.

Towns lost 7 family members to covid the past 6 months including his mother. I'm actually surprised he is even willing to play right now. Some things are bigger than bball.yet he is out there. So next time we're about to Broad brush something like this perhaps let's stop and consider what's causing it maybe?

I wonder if the fact that he plays for the worst franchise in NBA history has any bearing on how he is looked at as soft. Probably not. Probably that he plays more minutes than every C in basketball since he was drafted.

People just dont watch enough basketball and just go off narratives that they see on the media lol. I bet most people on this forum arent making a point to catch all those Timberwolves games.

[SMTBSI]

That's my exact point and what I dislike about the roster construction. We shouldnt be playing Teague and Pritchard together and we shouldnt be playing Grant or Semi really any minutes at the 3. You're describing exactly what I think is a problem with the rotation.

In my opinion, you seem to be thinking you can optimze a team's construction far more precisely than is ever actually possible in real life. The perfect, absolutely optimal roster when everyone is healthy is always suboptimal when you have injuries. And you always are working some injuries.

If you have enough guard depth to cover you when you have injuries, then you're going to have a logjam when everyone's healthy. If you have enough Center depth to cover you when you have injuries, then you're going to have a logjam when everyone's healthy. Unless you have a roster of perfectly, robotically non-egocentric players, who will go from big minutes to chained DNPs with a smile on their face. This is not possible in real life.

So, you patch it together. You play 5mpg of two guards to keep your 3rd string PG happy. You play 5mpg of two bigs to keep your 3rd string C happy. You play Semi at the 3 a couple minutes here and there, over the histrionics of the fanbase. (And, you can always quit doing them come crunch time in the playoffs, if you really need to.)

These small little concessions are not big deals. If the only way you're going to be happy is to completely remove them - all of them, in all circumstances and health situations - you're never going to be happy.


edit: and, on raw minute calculations, it's mostly Tatum who should be getting bumped up to the 3 here and there, not Grant or Semi.

Huh? I never said we need a perfect roster. All I said was that trading a big for a backup wing is a logical move to make and one that is very possible. It's not some massive blockbuster that is impossible to make. It's literally one small trade.

In none of my posts in this chain have I contested that. Go back and reread them. I even said that the TT/Theis/Timelord personnel grouping is non-optimal. And that if we get a chance to address it, good. All I've done is stake the position that it's not nearly a big of an issue as it's being made out to be. If we get a chance to resolve it, we will, and if we don't, it's not fatal to our competitiveness.

Question: Do you think that I'm arguing that if we get a chance to resolve it in a way that improves the team, we shouldn't? Based on your replies to me, it seems like that's what you think I'm arguing.

I disagree with the notion that you need to play suboptimal lineups for 5 mins to keep your 3rd string guard and 3rd string big happy. You should just bring in 3rd stringers that you dont need to appease even if theyre a bit less talented than the ones you have. They're 3rd stringers after all. If you're in a position where you have to play your 3rd stringers a lot because of injuries, the season is in jeopardy anyways.

Nonsense. Every team blends in 3rd stringers over the course of the season. Especially at PG and C. At the 2-4, you have a lot more flexibility - you can shift players around among those positions, and move your 1s and 5s down or up to spot fill. But, you really want 48mpg of competent PG and C play. So, any time one of your top PGs or Cs go down, you're going to see some third string action. It doesn't mean the season is in jeopardy if those players are projected to come back. (This is another example of issues being blown totally out of proportion.)

But you missed my main point. Of course nobody wants to have to rely on third stringers. Of course nobody wants to have to play politics to keep players happy. But that's not real life. You cannot ever actually optimize a roster so perfectly that you don't have the make these kinds of calculations. It's flatly not possible. There are always much, much bigger priorities than these tiny trimmings around the margin. The team that can perfectly optimize all these tiny little trimmings... I have yet to see it.

There's really not a lot of real upside in being 3 deep at a position when you have other flaws on the roster that can be fixed by trading one of the bigs.

And if we get the chance to do so, in a way that improves the team and is a justifiable value proposition, we will.

And I never said this had to happen right at this moment, or that this is such a big flaw. All I said was that a big should be traded for a wing.

And I never contested that. (I have slightly different ideas about how to go about it, but I haven't staked that position in this thread.)

I was just disagreeing with people arguing that having those 3 bigs on the roster was necessary, which just isnt true.

I'm not one of those posters. I've never expressed that opinion in this thread.

[yeleven11]

In my opinion, you seem to be thinking you can optimze a team's construction far more precisely than is ever actually possible in real life. The perfect, absolutely optimal roster when everyone is healthy is always suboptimal when you have injuries. And you always are working some injuries.

If you have enough guard depth to cover you when you have injuries, then you're going to have a logjam when everyone's healthy. If you have enough Center depth to cover you when you have injuries, then you're going to have a logjam when everyone's healthy. Unless you have a roster of perfectly, robotically non-egocentric players, who will go from big minutes to chained DNPs with a smile on their face. This is not possible in real life.

So, you patch it together. You play 5mpg of two guards to keep your 3rd string PG happy. You play 5mpg of two bigs to keep your 3rd string C happy. You play Semi at the 3 a couple minutes here and there, over the histrionics of the fanbase. (And, you can always quit doing them come crunch time in the playoffs, if you really need to.)

These small little concessions are not big deals. If the only way you're going to be happy is to completely remove them - all of them, in all circumstances and health situations - you're never going to be happy.


edit: and, on raw minute calculations, it's mostly Tatum who should be getting bumped up to the 3 here and there, not Grant or Semi.

Huh? I never said we need a perfect roster. All I said was that trading a big for a backup wing is a logical move to make and one that is very possible. It's not some massive blockbuster that is impossible to make. It's literally one small trade.

In none of my posts in this chain have I contested that. Go back and reread them. I even said that the TT/Theis/Timelord personnel grouping is non-optimal. And that if we get a chance to address it, good. All I've done is stake the position that it's not nearly a big of an issue as it's being made out to be. If we get a chance to resolve it, we will, and if we don't, it's not fatal to our competitiveness.

Question: Do you think that I'm arguing that if we get a chance to resolve it in a way that improves the team, we shouldn't? Based on your replies to me, it seems like that's what you think I'm arguing.

I disagree with the notion that you need to play suboptimal lineups for 5 mins to keep your 3rd string guard and 3rd string big happy. You should just bring in 3rd stringers that you dont need to appease even if theyre a bit less talented than the ones you have. They're 3rd stringers after all. If you're in a position where you have to play your 3rd stringers a lot because of injuries, the season is in jeopardy anyways.

Nonsense. Every team blends in 3rd stringers over the course of the season. Especially at PG and C. At the 2-4, you have a lot more flexibility - you can shift players around among those positions, and move your 1s and 5s down or up to spot fill. But, you really want 48mpg of competent PG and C play. So, any time one of your top PGs or Cs go down, you're going to see some third string action. It doesn't mean the season is in jeopardy if those players are projected to come back. (This is another example of issues being blown totally out of proportion.)

But you missed my main point. Of course nobody wants to have to rely on third stringers. Of course nobody wants to have to play politics to keep players happy. But that's not real life. You cannot ever actually optimize a roster so perfectly that you don't have the make these kinds of calculations. It's flatly not possible. There are always much, much bigger priorities than these tiny trimmings around the margin. The team that can perfectly optimize all these tiny little trimmings... I have yet to see it.

There's really not a lot of real upside in being 3 deep at a position when you have other flaws on the roster that can be fixed by trading one of the bigs.

And if we get the chance to do so, in a way that improves the team and is a justifiable value proposition, we will.

And I never said this had to happen right at this moment, or that this is such a big flaw. All I said was that a big should be traded for a wing.

And I never contested that. (I have slightly different ideas about how to go about it, but I haven't staked that position in this thread.)

I was just disagreeing with people arguing that having those 3 bigs on the roster was necessary, which just isnt true.

I'm not one of those posters. I've never expressed that opinion in this thread.

I didnt say YOU said that. I was actually talking to someone else (ddb) who said he was fine with three bigs and YOU jumped in and started arguing with me LOL.

[Taget]

Don't wanna rain on the Nets parade but the Celtics are beating them in the playoffs if they do meet this season. Not basing that prediction on anything other than the fact that I'm a Celtics fan.

As a wise man once said.

Watch on YouTube

[MagicBagley18]

His body language is so poor. Reminds me of Tim Duncan and Kawhi Leonard.

He has little in common with those guys in terms of his mental makeup. Have you heard any of his interviews recently? Dude sounds ready to retire. And of course his on/off stats are good. Have you seen the rest of his team?

In sum, for the TPE and a late 1st? Of course. But given that he would cost Jaylen plus other assets, I'm out. Towns is a career loser halfway through his career.

STATS THO.

It took garnett 6 or 7 years to play 2 rounds in playoffs. Maybe a bit longer my memory is crap. Michael Jordan was all about numbers at some point with bulls failing to do anything of significance. Hey guess what Pierce was also a just numbers guy until he got help. We have a tendency to review things from an angle that make sense for us. If any player comes to this team and replicates a 20ppg 10rpg + average coupled with brown Tatum and whoever else is left sudently those numbers are winning numbers.

Towns lost 7 family members to covid the past 6 months including his mother. I'm actually surprised he is even willing to play right now. Some things are bigger than bball.yet he is out there. So next time we're about to Broad brush something like this perhaps let's stop and consider what's causing it maybe?

No one is saying what he’s gone through off the court or going through now isn’t an emotional toll and really sad and extremely challenging. I can only imagine- prayers to him and his family but KAT playing soft, uninspired, emotionless has gone on for years not just the last 12 months.

So this isn’t about what causing it “now” he’s in year 6 and supposed to be a generational talent. Please, he’s a big boy when people criticize him it’s for his on court demeanor and basketball related stuff.

Since people gave me & others so much **** for the harden stuff and said don’t ever ever ever compare kg to harden let’s never ever compare kg and KAT. Lol.

[Theocy]

He has little in common with those guys in terms of his mental makeup. Have you heard any of his interviews recently? Dude sounds ready to retire. And of course his on/off stats are good. Have you seen the rest of his team?

In sum, for the TPE and a late 1st? Of course. But given that he would cost Jaylen plus other assets, I'm out. Towns is a career loser halfway through his career.

STATS THO.

It took garnett 6 or 7 years to play 2 rounds in playoffs. Maybe a bit longer my memory is crap. Michael Jordan was all about numbers at some point with bulls failing to do anything of significance. Hey guess what Pierce was also a just numbers guy until he got help. We have a tendency to review things from an angle that make sense for us. If any player comes to this team and replicates a 20ppg 10rpg + average coupled with brown Tatum and whoever else is left sudently those numbers are winning numbers.

Towns lost 7 family members to covid the past 6 months including his mother. I'm actually surprised he is even willing to play right now. Some things are bigger than bball.yet he is out there. So next time we're about to Broad brush something like this perhaps let's stop and consider what's causing it maybe?

No one is saying what he’s gone through off the court or going through now isn’t an emotional toll and really sad and extremely challenging. I can only imagine- prayers to him and his family but KAT playing soft, uninspired, emotionless has gone on for years not just the last 12 months.

So this isn’t about what causing it “now” he’s in year 6 and supposed to be a generational talent. Please, he’s a big boy when people criticize him it’s for his on court demeanor and basketball related stuff.

Since people gave me & others so much **** for the harden stuff and said don’t ever ever ever compare kg to harden let’s never ever compare kg and KAT. Lol.

I don't think he's a generational talent to be honest. And wouldn't compare him the freak of nature that is garnett. I just think he is a serviceable big. Serviceable enough to have his max contract. Can he lead a team to a title challenge? (not saying title). Not by himself. Centers in this time rarely do. But just diminishing his talent completely I don't get either to be honest. Wolves are terrible they have been terrible for ages. With him on the floor they ain't the worst team in the league though. Would I send brown over? I'd struggle to accept that. Would I make everyone other than Brown and Tatum available to get him? Probably. Williams, Theis, neysmith Langford, damn even Kemba maybe. Every day and twice on a Sunday. Think of a what such a young core could do if they played together for 3 years.

[SMTBSI]

Spoiler:

Huh? I never said we need a perfect roster. All I said was that trading a big for a backup wing is a logical move to make and one that is very possible. It's not some massive blockbuster that is impossible to make. It's literally one small trade.

In none of my posts in this chain have I contested that. Go back and reread them. I even said that the TT/Theis/Timelord personnel grouping is non-optimal. And that if we get a chance to address it, good. All I've done is stake the position that it's not nearly a big of an issue as it's being made out to be. If we get a chance to resolve it, we will, and if we don't, it's not fatal to our competitiveness.

Question: Do you think that I'm arguing that if we get a chance to resolve it in a way that improves the team, we shouldn't? Based on your replies to me, it seems like that's what you think I'm arguing.

I disagree with the notion that you need to play suboptimal lineups for 5 mins to keep your 3rd string guard and 3rd string big happy. You should just bring in 3rd stringers that you dont need to appease even if theyre a bit less talented than the ones you have. They're 3rd stringers after all. If you're in a position where you have to play your 3rd stringers a lot because of injuries, the season is in jeopardy anyways.

Nonsense. Every team blends in 3rd stringers over the course of the season. Especially at PG and C. At the 2-4, you have a lot more flexibility - you can shift players around among those positions, and move your 1s and 5s down or up to spot fill. But, you really want 48mpg of competent PG and C play. So, any time one of your top PGs or Cs go down, you're going to see some third string action. It doesn't mean the season is in jeopardy if those players are projected to come back. (This is another example of issues being blown totally out of proportion.)

But you missed my main point. Of course nobody wants to have to rely on third stringers. Of course nobody wants to have to play politics to keep players happy. But that's not real life. You cannot ever actually optimize a roster so perfectly that you don't have the make these kinds of calculations. It's flatly not possible. There are always much, much bigger priorities than these tiny trimmings around the margin. The team that can perfectly optimize all these tiny little trimmings... I have yet to see it.

There's really not a lot of real upside in being 3 deep at a position when you have other flaws on the roster that can be fixed by trading one of the bigs.

And if we get the chance to do so, in a way that improves the team and is a justifiable value proposition, we will.

And I never said this had to happen right at this moment, or that this is such a big flaw. All I said was that a big should be traded for a wing.

And I never contested that. (I have slightly different ideas about how to go about it, but I haven't staked that position in this thread.)

I was just disagreeing with people arguing that having those 3 bigs on the roster was necessary, which just isnt true.

I'm not one of those posters. I've never expressed that opinion in this thread.

I didnt say YOU said that. I was actually talking to someone else (ddb) who said he was fine with three bigs and YOU jumped in and started arguing with me LOL.

Could you do me a favor and go back and reread this entire chain from my first post? I could be wrong, but I really have the impression you think I've been saying things I haven't been saying. I'm a very literal person. I try very hard to say what I mean. If you think I'm implying something, I'm usually not.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=88023675#p88023675

If you perceive the tone of that post as being overly argumentative, could you tell me why, so that I can do better in the future?

From my perspective, I jumped into a conversation in progress to express my opinion on the subject being discussed: that our Center personnel grouping is non-optimal, but not nearly as pressing of an issue as some are saying. That seemed to be close enough to the centerline of the conversation to me, at the time.

But I stand by the positions I staked in the meantime:

- I, too, would like to see us spin some of our value at center for value elsewhere, but I'm not in a huge rush to do it. I don't view it as the drag on the team some are characterizing it as. We weathered it just fine with Kemba out, and matters will be even better with him back. If we get a chance to do it in a way that improves the team, and is a good value proposition, I hope we will. If no such move becomes available, I will be happy to roll with slightly non-optimal depth at the C position.

- It's not as easy as fans think it is to just go out and make a trade that both improves the team and is a neutral or positive value proposition. If it was, you'd make several per season, and shore up all your weaknesses every season. And so would everyone else. It doesn't work that way. You can't just force it just because you want it. Which is why there's no point in overstressing about minor issues like this one.

[Darth Celtic]

I’ll get yelled at, but I’d trade Jaylen/Smart for Towns in a heartbeat.

I still think we end up with Beal, because I have to be consistent.

Sucks to be on a different team from you, but no way in hell I touch KAT. Dude is straight empty calories.

He’s also 100% headed to NY lol

Agreeing on everything is pretty boring anyways.

I disagree

[Feed Your Head]

Sucks to be on a different team from you, but no way in hell I touch KAT. Dude is straight empty calories.

He’s also 100% headed to NY lol

Agreeing on everything is pretty boring anyways.

I disagree

I agree

[SMTBSI]

Sucks to be on a different team from you, but no way in hell I touch KAT. Dude is straight empty calories.
He’s also 100% headed to NY lol

Agreeing on everything is pretty boring anyways.

I disagree

False dichotomy. Fails to fully represent the nuances of the something something god I'm annoying.

[Captain_Caveman]

He has little in common with those guys in terms of his mental makeup. Have you heard any of his interviews recently? Dude sounds ready to retire. And of course his on/off stats are good. Have you seen the rest of his team?

In sum, for the TPE and a late 1st? Of course. But given that he would cost Jaylen plus other assets, I'm out. Towns is a career loser halfway through his career.

STATS THO.

It took garnett 6 or 7 years to play 2 rounds in playoffs. Maybe a bit longer my memory is crap. Michael Jordan was all about numbers at some point with bulls failing to do anything of significance. Hey guess what Pierce was also a just numbers guy until he got help. We have a tendency to review things from an angle that make sense for us. If any player comes to this team and replicates a 20ppg 10rpg + average coupled with brown Tatum and whoever else is left sudently those numbers are winning numbers.

Towns lost 7 family members to covid the past 6 months including his mother. I'm actually surprised he is even willing to play right now. Some things are bigger than bball.yet he is out there. So next time we're about to Broad brush something like this perhaps let's stop and consider what's causing it maybe?

I wonder if the fact that he plays for the worst franchise in NBA history has any bearing on how he is looked at as soft. Probably not. Probably that he plays more minutes than every C in basketball since he was drafted.

He's never not been soft.

But whatever, let's end this. Tell me what your KAT trade is.

[yeleven11]

Spoiler:

In none of my posts in this chain have I contested that. Go back and reread them. I even said that the TT/Theis/Timelord personnel grouping is non-optimal. And that if we get a chance to address it, good. All I've done is stake the position that it's not nearly a big of an issue as it's being made out to be. If we get a chance to resolve it, we will, and if we don't, it's not fatal to our competitiveness.

Question: Do you think that I'm arguing that if we get a chance to resolve it in a way that improves the team, we shouldn't? Based on your replies to me, it seems like that's what you think I'm arguing.


Nonsense. Every team blends in 3rd stringers over the course of the season. Especially at PG and C. At the 2-4, you have a lot more flexibility - you can shift players around among those positions, and move your 1s and 5s down or up to spot fill. But, you really want 48mpg of competent PG and C play. So, any time one of your top PGs or Cs go down, you're going to see some third string action. It doesn't mean the season is in jeopardy if those players are projected to come back. (This is another example of issues being blown totally out of proportion.)

But you missed my main point. Of course nobody wants to have to rely on third stringers. Of course nobody wants to have to play politics to keep players happy. But that's not real life. You cannot ever actually optimize a roster so perfectly that you don't have the make these kinds of calculations. It's flatly not possible. There are always much, much bigger priorities than these tiny trimmings around the margin. The team that can perfectly optimize all these tiny little trimmings... I have yet to see it.

And if we get the chance to do so, in a way that improves the team and is a justifiable value proposition, we will.


And I never contested that. (I have slightly different ideas about how to go about it, but I haven't staked that position in this thread.)

I'm not one of those posters. I've never expressed that opinion in this thread.

I didnt say YOU said that. I was actually talking to someone else (ddb) who said he was fine with three bigs and YOU jumped in and started arguing with me LOL.

Could you do me a favor and go back and reread this entire chain from my first post? I could be wrong, but I really have the impression you think I've been saying things I haven't been saying. I'm a very literal person. I try very hard to say what I mean. If you think I'm implying something, I'm usually not.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=88023675#p88023675

If you perceive the tone of that post as being overly argumentative, could you tell me why, so that I can do better in the future?

From my perspective, I jumped into a conversation in progress to express my opinion on the subject being discussed: that our Center personnel grouping is non-optimal, but not nearly as pressing of an issue as some are saying. That seemed to be close enough to the centerline of the conversation to me, at the time.

But I stand by the positions I staked in the meantime:

- I, too, would like to see us spin some of our value at center for value elsewhere, but I'm not in a huge rush to do it. I don't view it as the drag on the team some are characterizing it as. We weathered it just fine with Kemba out, and matters will be even better with him back. If we get a chance to do it in a way that improves the team, and is a good value proposition, I hope we will. If no such move becomes available, I will be happy to roll with slightly non-optimal depth at the C position.

- It's not as easy as fans think it is to just go out and make a trade that both improves the team and is a neutral or positive value proposition. If it was, you'd make several per season, and shore up all your weaknesses every season. And so would everyone else. It doesn't work that way. You can't just force it just because you want it. Which is why there's no point in overstressing about minor issues like this one.

You didnt do anything wrong chief lol. You and I basically agree on everything. You just stated things that I know are true but presented them as though I disagree with them. I never said the trade needs to be made now but by you reiterating the fact that trades cant be executed anytime, it makes it sound like I said I wanted the trade done now, which I didn't. Essentially, you made points to me as if you were arguing against a point I made when in fact it was just a new point that wasnt even all that related to my original point. I said trade big for a wing and you brought up the fact that you cant just make trades all the time, which I get but you didnt address the actual major point (big for wing trade) I made. So when you bring up new tangential points instead of actually presenting a disagreement with my major point (which you dont actually have a disagreement with), the convo just became about something else.

[Theocy]

It took garnett 6 or 7 years to play 2 rounds in playoffs. Maybe a bit longer my memory is crap. Michael Jordan was all about numbers at some point with bulls failing to do anything of significance. Hey guess what Pierce was also a just numbers guy until he got help. We have a tendency to review things from an angle that make sense for us. If any player comes to this team and replicates a 20ppg 10rpg + average coupled with brown Tatum and whoever else is left sudently those numbers are winning numbers.

Towns lost 7 family members to covid the past 6 months including his mother. I'm actually surprised he is even willing to play right now. Some things are bigger than bball.yet he is out there. So next time we're about to Broad brush something like this perhaps let's stop and consider what's causing it maybe?

I wonder if the fact that he plays for the worst franchise in NBA history has any bearing on how he is looked at as soft. Probably not. Probably that he plays more minutes than every C in basketball since he was drafted.

He's never not been soft.

But whatever, let's end this. Tell me what your KAT trade is.

Curiosity but can he be absorbed in the TPE? Obviously we will need to send back picks and younglings but that cna be accommodated on a separate trade with them?

[SMTBSI]

Spoiler:

I didnt say YOU said that. I was actually talking to someone else (ddb) who said he was fine with three bigs and YOU jumped in and started arguing with me LOL.

Could you do me a favor and go back and reread this entire chain from my first post? I could be wrong, but I really have the impression you think I've been saying things I haven't been saying. I'm a very literal person. I try very hard to say what I mean. If you think I'm implying something, I'm usually not.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=88023675#p88023675

If you perceive the tone of that post as being overly argumentative, could you tell me why, so that I can do better in the future?

From my perspective, I jumped into a conversation in progress to express my opinion on the subject being discussed: that our Center personnel grouping is non-optimal, but not nearly as pressing of an issue as some are saying. That seemed to be close enough to the centerline of the conversation to me, at the time.

But I stand by the positions I staked in the meantime:

- I, too, would like to see us spin some of our value at center for value elsewhere, but I'm not in a huge rush to do it. I don't view it as the drag on the team some are characterizing it as. We weathered it just fine with Kemba out, and matters will be even better with him back. If we get a chance to do it in a way that improves the team, and is a good value proposition, I hope we will. If no such move becomes available, I will be happy to roll with slightly non-optimal depth at the C position.

- It's not as easy as fans think it is to just go out and make a trade that both improves the team and is a neutral or positive value proposition. If it was, you'd make several per season, and shore up all your weaknesses every season. And so would everyone else. It doesn't work that way. You can't just force it just because you want it. Which is why there's no point in overstressing about minor issues like this one.

You didnt do anything wrong chief lol. You and I basically agree on everything. You just stated things that I know are true but presented them as though I disagree with them. I never said the trade needs to be made now but by you reiterating the fact that trades cant be executed anytime, it makes it sound like I said I wanted the trade done now, which I didn't. Essentially, you made points to me as if you were arguing against a point I made when in fact it was just a new point that wasnt even all that related to my original point. I said trade big for a wing and you brought up the fact that you cant just make trades all the time, which I get but you didnt address the actual major point (big for wing trade) I made. So when you bring up new tangential points instead of actually presenting a disagreement with my major point (which you dont actually have a disagreement with), the convo just became about something else.

Okay. I have a really, really different read on what took place there. It read to me almost the exact opposite - me making what I thought were pretty noncontroversial statements and you contesting me on all of them, including things I didn't actually say. But, like you say, we're not far off on the meat of it, so I'll let it die.

BTW, the original posts I replied to didn't contain anything about the big-for-wing trade. I wasn't replying to that at first. That came up later. I had to scroll back several pages halfway through our conversation to find the headwaters of that argument.

but you didnt address the actual major point (big for wing trade) I made.

Am I required to? That wasn't the point at which I entered into the conversation. That's what I've been trying to tell you for the last several posts. It was not ever my intention to contest that point. That's not why/where/when I entered the conversation.

I entered the conversation to express an opinion about how big of an "issue" or "problem" our Center logjam was. I'm allowed to do that. That's why I'm saying you're misreading me.


I made the points I wanted to make. I stand by them. They were not tangential - they were directly material to the posts I actually replied to. I'm not required to address all points that came up earlier in the conversation pages before I joined.