Trade Ideas Thread

[hugepatsfan]

Unlikely is wildly overselling it. He's 30 and having his best season of his career potentially. He's getting like 25 million or more. Horford last year was worse, older and got way more than that even. The problem with trading Hayward to open up an MLE slot is that you don't have a clear idea of who this mythical MLE player is and whether he would sign in Boston regardless.

Yeah, that's why I don't prefer the A Gordon route. He requires a shooter at the 5 which we don't have and will be hard to get. My current favorite idea is this team which I still don't think is as good as the resign Hayward route (which, again, I think is what happens):

Kemba, Smart, Brown, Tatum, Theis
Langford, Snell, G Williams, Kanter,
Edwards, R Williams
#7: Okongwu or Hayes. Maybe Toppin.
#26, #30
Exception

Do the Dallas trade, then send THJ, 14, 18, Poirier to DET for #7 & Snell.


Exception:
If Hayes, then Harkless or Milsap or Jeff Green. Maybe Favors, Giles? Neither can shoot though.
If Okongwu, Wanamaker or don't use it and sign Waters instead.
You don't even need the full MLE on those guys. So, you have room to make trades at the deadline and take back salary.

I'm guessing you'll say the trade up is an overpay/stupid idea, and I might even agree. But I like the 2 guys I listed at 7. Snell is a good 3 & D wing. He's overpaid, but we'd be fine taking him on for his last year. You count on improvement from Langford, Grant. You count on #7 contributing. You don't have much time to play anyone else anyways. But you most likely get some more (s)wings at 26 & 30 and maybe one pops. Overall, that's a young, loaded team that can stay together for a while around Tatum.

I don't think any of us have come up with a plan that we definitively say is THE one that is 50x better than resigning Hayward. But, it's fun to play around with.

I don’t think there is any plan to come up with that makes the 20-21 Celtics better than just keeping Hayward. It’s just that keeping him long term is going to be super expensive. So if Wyc won’t sign off on that I think we should take the hit in 20-21 to just to minimize the huge hit it’d be in the future years just to lose him for nothing.

If Ainge gets sign off from Wyc on keeping Hayward beyond next year, whether that’s an extension tacked on to his current deal, an opt out for new long term deal, or just playing out the year and being able to make a realistic and competitive offer next year... if keeping Hayward is feasible then that’s it. Nothing to discuss, IMO. But if it’s not, then you gotta consider trades. Not just make one to make one but think long and hard on it.

[Curmudgeon]

[quote="hugepatsfan"]
I don’t think there is any plan to come up with that makes the 20-21 Celtics better than just keeping Hayward./quote]

His skills aren't the issue. He can't stay healthy, which makes him a risk for an extension, even at below market rates.
I thin the 20-21 Celtics are better by adding a scorer to the second unit and continuing to develop G. Williams, R. Williams and Langford.

[djFan71]

I don’t think there is any plan to come up with that makes the 20-21 Celtics better than just keeping Hayward. It’s just that keeping him long term is going to be super expensive. So if Wyc won’t sign off on that I think we should take the hit in 20-21 to just to minimize the huge hit it’d be in the future years just to lose him for nothing.

If Ainge gets sign off from Wyc on keeping Hayward beyond next year, whether that’s an extension tacked on to his current deal, an opt out for new long term deal, or just playing out the year and being able to make a realistic and competitive offer next year... if keeping Hayward is feasible then that’s it. Nothing to discuss, IMO. But if it’s not, then you gotta consider trades. Not just make one to make one but think long and hard on it.

The other reasons to do is if you a) don't think this team nucleus with Hayward is enough to get you a title, or b) don't think he'll stay healthy enough to allow it. I'm on the fence about those honestly. I think we have a definite contention window with a healthy, aggressive Hayward. But, I'm not sure we're the favorites. And I don't know that we can rely on getting that Hayward for those 3 years.

So, do you look to do a mini-retool around Tatum with younger guys that can grow into a contender alongside him? Maybe you're not as good in 2021. Or, maybe #7 is a stud from day 1 and you are better? Maybe not til 2022, 2023. Or ever. I don't think you can say, but that's why it's fun to play with these ideas for me.

Keeping Hayward is the conservative, obvious route, and quite likely the right one. But it puts a limit on other ways you can improve the team, and we could (could) tap out as really good but not good enough.

[djFan71]

Another follow on from the DAL version with CHI instead of DET would be:

#4, Thad Young, Hutchinson for #14, #18, Edwards, Poirier. Not sure CHI bites, though.

[SMTBSI]

How many birds can we kill with one stone?

I like the basis of the Hayward for Hardaway + #18 trade. But is ducking the tax worth the downgrade? Tough sell.
What if we could accomplish some additional objectives at the same time?

- DAL would love to get rid of Powell in that trade, or so I've read on T&T.
- We would love to roll our #26 and #30 into the future.

What if we pay upfront to reroute Powell to a rebuilding team, and DAL compensates us in the future for that?
Main problem is they've already traded many of their picks away.


BOS out: Hayward / #26 / #30 / #47
BOS in: Hardaway Jr / #18 / '22 DAL 1st swap / DAL '21 2nd / DAL '22 2nd / '23 ??? 2nd

DAL out: Hardaway Jr / Powell / #18 / '22 DAL 1st swap / '21 DAL 2nd / '22 DAL 2nd
DAL in: Hayward / #30

??? out: '23 ??? 2nd
??? in: Powell / #26 / #47


BOS turns #26 / #30 / #47 into #18, a swap in '22, and 2nds in each of '21, '22 and '23.
BOS downgrades from Hayward to Hardaway Jr. but ducks the tax.


Having some future picks back in the coffers will help keep us flexible as we move into Tatum's timeline.


(I'm notoriously bad at balancing trades, so please make constructive criticism first rather than just lighting me up.)

[djFan71]

How many birds can we kill with one stone?

I like the basis of the Hayward for Hardaway + #18 trade. But is ducking the tax worth the downgrade? Tough sell.
What if we could accomplish some additional objectives at the same time?

- DAL would love to get rid of Powell in that trade, or so I've read on T&T.
- We would love to roll our #26 and #30 into the future.

What if we pay upfront to reroute Powell to a rebuilding team, and DAL compensates us in the future for that?
Main problem is they've already traded many of their picks away.


BOS out: Hayward / #26 / #30 / #47
BOS in: Hardaway Jr / #18 / '22 DAL 1st swap / DAL '21 2nd / DAL '22 2nd / '23 ??? 2nd

DAL out: Hardaway Jr / Powell / #18 / '22 DAL 1st swap / '21 DAL 2nd / '22 DAL 2nd
DAL in: Hayward / #30

??? out: '23 ??? 2nd
??? in: Powell / #26 / #47


BOS turns #26 / #30 / #47 into #18, a swap in '22, and 2nds in each of '21, '22 and '23.
BOS downgrades from Hayward to Hardaway Jr. but ducks the tax.


Having some future picks back in the coffers will help keep us flexible as we move into Tatum's timeline.


(I'm notoriously bad at balancing trades, so please make constructive criticism first rather than just lighting me up.)

I'm not sure you got much extra out of them beside #18 already in there and a couple 2nds. Their 22 pick will most likely be in the 20s, so a swap may not be many positions up, if up at all. Not worth adding our extra picks to pay someone to take Powell, imo. Like you said, their lack of 1sts kinda screws things up.

The original deal had ATL taking Wright instead of Powell. We could also swing them #18 instead of keeping it, and get their 21 lotto-protected first. Then fall back to theirs/OKC in 22 both lotto protected, take the better that falls post-lotto. That basically pushes #18 our a year or 2 without losing much, if any, value.

OR, if you go really crazy give ATL Wright, #14, #18 for #6 this year.

Tough part is would Hayward & THJ agree. They would have to opt in (and possible extend, waive kickers, etc) by draft day to make this happen. Well before their actual opt-in date, so they effectively have veto power.

[Parliament10]

BOS Out: Hayward, #14, #30, (Keep: #26, #47)
BOS In--: Turner, Lamb, #2

GS Out: Wiggins, #2, (Keep: #48, #51)
GS In--: Hayward, #14

IND Out: Turner, Lamb, (Keep: #54)
IND In--: Wiggins, #30

[WeLikeOurGuys]

Probably been discussed already but

Brown, Romeo and Grant, all 3 picks
For
Embiid.

Kemba
Smart
Hayward
Tatum
Embiid

[100proof]

Probably been discussed already but

Brown, Romeo and Grant, all 3 picks
For
Embiid.

Kemba
Smart
Hayward
Tatum
Embiid

Nope and HEll no

[hugepatsfan]

IND fired their coach and reportedly want D'Antoni. His system being brought in would seem to increase the chance they deal one of those bigs. I actually think Turner would make more sense as the one big in a D'Antoni system, but him being brought in (or even just their general interest in that play style) would seem to increase the chances that they're open to a Turner deal. They also have a history of preferring win now vets to rebuilding packages which would make Hayward an option, as we've all discussed. Particularly if he agreed to tack extension years onto the end of his deal.

BOS gets: Turner, Lamb
IND gets: Hayward

I think that could have some legs if they get D'Antoni. Because he'd almost certainly prefer a Hayward/Warren/Sabonis front court to Warren/Sabonis/Turner. Turner is the type of 3&D center I really do think could improve us over what Hayward brings. He's got a DPOY type skill set.

[djFan71]

IND fired their coach and reportedly want D'Antoni. His system being brought in would seem to increase the chance they deal one of those bigs. I actually think Turner would make more sense as the one big in a D'Antoni system, but him being brought in (or even just their general interest in that play style) would seem to increase the chances that they're open to a Turner deal. They also have a history of preferring win now vets to rebuilding packages which would make Hayward an option, as we've all discussed. Particularly if he agreed to tack extension years onto the end of his deal.

BOS gets: Turner, Lamb
IND gets: Hayward

I think that could have some legs if they get D'Antoni. Because he'd almost certainly prefer a Hayward/Warren/Sabonis front court to Warren/Sabonis/Turner. Turner is the type of 3&D center I really do think could improve us over what Hayward brings. He's got a DPOY type skill set.

Like you said, Turner is the better fit - better 3 pt shooter, D. I wonder if they'd trade Sabonis instead.
And, if so, would you still want to do the deal as Sabonis/Lamb? I haven't watched him enough to really know how to value him. Sounds like great O, crap D in a nutshell, but not sure how true that is.

[hugepatsfan]

IND fired their coach and reportedly want D'Antoni. His system being brought in would seem to increase the chance they deal one of those bigs. I actually think Turner would make more sense as the one big in a D'Antoni system, but him being brought in (or even just their general interest in that play style) would seem to increase the chances that they're open to a Turner deal. They also have a history of preferring win now vets to rebuilding packages which would make Hayward an option, as we've all discussed. Particularly if he agreed to tack extension years onto the end of his deal.

BOS gets: Turner, Lamb
IND gets: Hayward

I think that could have some legs if they get D'Antoni. Because he'd almost certainly prefer a Hayward/Warren/Sabonis front court to Warren/Sabonis/Turner. Turner is the type of 3&D center I really do think could improve us over what Hayward brings. He's got a DPOY type skill set.

Like you said, Turner is the better fit - better 3 pt shooter, D. I wonder if they'd trade Sabonis instead.
And, if so, would you still want to do the deal as Sabonis/Lamb? I haven't watched him enough to really know how to value him. Sounds like great O, crap D in a nutshell, but not sure how true that is.

Sabonis is a shot maker. That's the most in demand skill in the NBA. I think they could get a younger player than Hayward for him. Defense isn't worth as much a premium so Hayward could work value wise there but I don't see it for Sabonis.

On our end I wouldn't do it anyway. I'd rather stick with the perimeter based offense.

[djFan71]

IND fired their coach and reportedly want D'Antoni. His system being brought in would seem to increase the chance they deal one of those bigs. I actually think Turner would make more sense as the one big in a D'Antoni system, but him being brought in (or even just their general interest in that play style) would seem to increase the chances that they're open to a Turner deal. They also have a history of preferring win now vets to rebuilding packages which would make Hayward an option, as we've all discussed. Particularly if he agreed to tack extension years onto the end of his deal.

BOS gets: Turner, Lamb
IND gets: Hayward

I think that could have some legs if they get D'Antoni. Because he'd almost certainly prefer a Hayward/Warren/Sabonis front court to Warren/Sabonis/Turner. Turner is the type of 3&D center I really do think could improve us over what Hayward brings. He's got a DPOY type skill set.

Like you said, Turner is the better fit - better 3 pt shooter, D. I wonder if they'd trade Sabonis instead.
And, if so, would you still want to do the deal as Sabonis/Lamb? I haven't watched him enough to really know how to value him. Sounds like great O, crap D in a nutshell, but not sure how true that is.

Sabonis is a shot maker. That's the most in demand skill in the NBA. I think they could get a younger player than Hayward for him. Defense isn't worth as much a premium so Hayward could work value wise there but I don't see it for Sabonis.

On our end I wouldn't do it anyway. I'd rather stick with the perimeter based offense.

Thanks, yeah, that was kinda my thought from our end - not as interested.

[djFan71]

If you did that Turner trade, then expand to include SAC: Barnes, 2020 2nd (35) for Lamb, Kanter, Poirier, 30

They save $, slight pick upgrade and Lamb/Kanter are solid. We get:

Kemba, Brown, Tatum, Barnes, Turner
Smart, Romeo, Grant, Theis
Edwards, RWill
14, 26

2 spots left for 2nd rounders, Semi, Green, Waters, vet min, whatevs.

We'd be well into tax, $143M for those 13, but I like that team quite a bit.
I do have a little of the "is Turner even as good as Theis" worry, but figure Brad can integrate him in nicely. And teams can't just drop 12' off Turner on D in the playoffs.

[hugepatsfan]

If you did that Turner trade, then expand to include SAC: Barnes, 2020 2nd (35) for Lamb, Kanter, Poirier, 30

They save $, slight pick upgrade and Lamb/Kanter are solid. We get:

Kemba, Brown, Tatum, Barnes, Turner
Smart, Romeo, Grant, Theis
Edwards, RWill
14, 26

2 spots left for 2nd rounders, Semi, Green, Waters, vet min, whatevs.

We'd be well into tax, $143M for those 13, but I like that team quite a bit.
I do have a little of the "is Turner even as good as Theis" worry, but figure Brad can integrate him in nicely. And teams can't just drop 12' off Turner on D in the playoffs.

$143M for '2020 but then next year Tatum's new deal kicks in and adds like $20M from his current number. And everyone gets players raises. Then the next year Smart needs a new deal. Can't see anyway that's feasible but sign me up if it is!

[djFan71]

If you did that Turner trade, then expand to include SAC: Barnes, 2020 2nd (35) for Lamb, Kanter, Poirier, 30

They save $, slight pick upgrade and Lamb/Kanter are solid. We get:

Kemba, Brown, Tatum, Barnes, Turner
Smart, Romeo, Grant, Theis
Edwards, RWill
14, 26

2 spots left for 2nd rounders, Semi, Green, Waters, vet min, whatevs.

We'd be well into tax, $143M for those 13, but I like that team quite a bit.
I do have a little of the "is Turner even as good as Theis" worry, but figure Brad can integrate him in nicely. And teams can't just drop 12' off Turner on D in the playoffs.

$143M for '2020 but then next year Tatum's new deal kicks in and adds like $20M from his current number. And everyone gets players raises. Then the next year Smart needs a new deal. Can't see anyway that's feasible but sign me up if it is!

Yeah, definitely. You gotta pay tax to win a title, but I'm not sure if that much would be palatable or not.

Snell is another good option for Lamb, Kanter, Poirier, 30. Much cheaper, and only 1 year left. You're under the cap at 13 players too. ($131.4M). But I think you need 14 nowadays, not positive. Would really need to know the exact # but you could maneuver if need be.

[Resistance]

If you did that Turner trade, then expand to include SAC: Barnes, 2020 2nd (35) for Lamb, Kanter, Poirier, 30

They save $, slight pick upgrade and Lamb/Kanter are solid. We get:

Kemba, Brown, Tatum, Barnes, Turner
Smart, Romeo, Grant, Theis
Edwards, RWill
14, 26

2 spots left for 2nd rounders, Semi, Green, Waters, vet min, whatevs.

We'd be well into tax, $143M for those 13, but I like that team quite a bit.
I do have a little of the "is Turner even as good as Theis" worry, but figure Brad can integrate him in nicely. And teams can't just drop 12' off Turner on D in the playoffs.

$143M for '2020 but then next year Tatum's new deal kicks in and adds like $20M from his current number. And everyone gets players raises. Then the next year Smart needs a new deal. Can't see anyway that's feasible but sign me up if it is!

Yeah, definitely. You gotta pay tax to win a title, but I'm not sure if that much would be palatable or not.

Snell is another good option for Lamb, Kanter, Poirier, 30. Much cheaper, and only 1 year left. You're under the cap at 13 players too. ($131.4M). But I think you need 14 nowadays, not positive. Would really need to know the exact # but you could maneuver if need be.

79. What roster size limits exist? What is the Inactive List? What is Injured Reserve? Do any other such lists exist?

The composition of the Inactive List can change on a game-by-game basis -- no less than 60 minutes prior to tipoff, the team must present to the official scorer a list of the players who will be active for that game. A player can be inactive for as little as one game. While individual teams are only required to carry a minimum of 14 players (13 active and one inactive, or 12 active and two inactive), the NBA also guarantees a league-wide average of at least 14.5 players per team (not including Two-Way players), however the average must be under 14.5 in two consecutive seasons for a violation to occur. If a violation occurs, then for the remaining seasons under the CBA the requirements for the number of players on teams' Inactive Lists increases by one.

It appears that a team can go down to 13 players/contracts for up to two weeks, but will need to eventually come back up to 14. If a team does the dropdown to 13 too much, then the league will probably start leaning on the team to stop doing that because the Union will be unhappy with the tactic.

[Parliament10]

$143M for '2020 but then next year Tatum's new deal kicks in and adds like $20M from his current number. And everyone gets players raises. Then the next year Smart needs a new deal. Can't see anyway that's feasible but sign me up if it is!

Yeah, definitely. You gotta pay tax to win a title, but I'm not sure if that much would be palatable or not.

Snell is another good option for Lamb, Kanter, Poirier, 30. Much cheaper, and only 1 year left. You're under the cap at 13 players too. ($131.4M). But I think you need 14 nowadays, not positive. Would really need to know the exact # but you could maneuver if need be.

79. What roster size limits exist? What is the Inactive List? What is Injured Reserve? Do any other such lists exist?

The composition of the Inactive List can change on a game-by-game basis -- no less than 60 minutes prior to tipoff, the team must present to the official scorer a list of the players who will be active for that game. A player can be inactive for as little as one game. While individual teams are only required to carry a minimum of 14 players (13 active and one inactive, or 12 active and two inactive), the NBA also guarantees a league-wide average of at least 14.5 players per team (not including Two-Way players), however the average must be under 14.5 in two consecutive seasons for a violation to occur. If a violation occurs, then for the remaining seasons under the CBA the requirements for the number of players on teams' Inactive Lists increases by one.

It appears that a team can go down to 13 players/contracts for up to two weeks, but will need to eventually come back up to 14. If a team does the dropdown to 13 too much, then the league will probably start leaning on the team to stop doing that because the Union will be unhappy with the tactic.

I just want to interject, that you can have up to 17 players, with the 2 x Two-Way Contracts (likely 2nd Rounders).

[djFan71]

Trying to see if injecting into an Oladipo to LAL trade helps us. Best I could come up with is
https://tradenba.com/trades/qzXPJF4tX

BOS: Hayward, Poirier for Green, Kuzma, 2 LAL 2nds. Maybe some 1st round pick swap options in 2025, 2026 with LAL
LAL: Oladipo, Poirier for Green, Kuzma, 2 LAL 2nds, pick swaps
IND: Hayward for Oladipo, Lamb:
ATL: Lamb, 2nd for cap space, fake 2nd.

Lakers are stealing value if Oladipo is healthy. They just are so asset poor it's hard to make anything work.

If we settled for that we'd have Green/Kuz for next year, under the tax, some minor future pick assets. Not my favorite Gordo deal, but it's all I could come up with. Also, before anyone tells me, I understand that the Dipo to LAL "rumor" is just some dude making it up. Internet, and all.

[Curmudgeon]

Well, if the Celtics won't pay luxury tax to win championships, I want to trade Wyc Grousbeck and two future firsts for Steve Ballmer.