Jingles wrote:celticfan42487 wrote:Jingles wrote:
Yesterday they had almost no ability or flexibility to bring in another star via trade in a way that made sense. Today they do. And the defense just got better by default, so, yeah, it fits your criteria.
So brining in sub 30 games a year, 35 year old Horford, who the year prior Philly paid a 1rst just to get off their team, and losing the #16 pick means now we've improved our trade package for a star?
The difference between today and yesterday is the owners avoid luxury tax and the Celtics franchise lost the #16 pick.
Not sure how you can mental gymnastics it to mean we just improved our assets for a star but hey good for you.
Do you remember when we traded the 7th pick and Raef for Sebastian freaking Telfair and Theo Ratliff’s Expiring Contract? Same deal. The mental gymnastics are ignoring the context of this move.
So you're saying the follow up move is trading a top 5 pick for an older allstar. Well I look forward to us tanking and getting a top 5 pick next year then.
And trading our young star for a 30 something MVP ala Harden. Aka trading Horford and Jaylen Brown next year for Harden? I'm sure that will work out for us.
I'll take the Occam's Razor approach here because this move is pretty obvious. No luxury tax mandate by owners and it cost us the #16 pick in a deep draft.















