Trade Ideas Thread

[djFan71]

Do you think our core with Gordon wins titles?

[hugepatsfan]

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.

Little reason to doubt he'll pay the tax like he's done before. We've long heard that they want to keep Gordon Hayward which would mean tax. They wanted to keep Horford/Kyrie which would have been tax. But everyone has limits and there's a big difference for us being over the tax next year vs not. Not to that individual season but the cumulative tax down the line with repeater implications. Before COVID there was an easy plan to avoid it and keep everyone. Now it's harder so it could be possible that we have to shift gears for a year to make the long term picture work.

If we do make moves to dip below the tax. I would expect it to be a 1 year thing. I think it'd be pretty much spend as much as Ainge wants after that since Kemba's deal would expire before we ever even got to repeater rates.

[jmr07019]

Do you think our core with Gordon wins titles?

I'm a little worried about health:
- Kemba's knee moving forward
- Gordon is cursed
- Smart plays with so much heart and is always putting his body on the line. I don't want him to play differently but he generally misses some time every year
- Theis having to bang with Embiid, Gasol, Giannis in consecutive series is also a big ask

Seems like we are always gonna be saying "I wish everyone was healthy"

I think titleS (plural being key) won't happen without a new addition to the core but we could get 1. Tatum and Brown have both taken leaps forward from March to bubble play and I expect those 2 to continue to grind and improve.

[Jaqua92]

I wonder if there is a way to trade for Embiid.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[hugepatsfan]

Do you think our core with Gordon wins titles?

Honestly, depends on the development of Brown/Tatum. Go back to the 80s since Magic and pretty much every team that's won a title has 2-3 of the all time great players. I'm talking a top 20-30 guy and another 1-2 backing him up. If Tatum/Brown can be that, we will be a strong competitor for one. If not, we won't be. I think it all really hinges on that.

Realistically, if I had to bet, I'd say we don't win a title with this core just because that's a pretty lofty standard. Tatum in particular shows flashes of it, but that's just an insanely high level to ask anyone to reach. That's what I'm so adamant about preserving max cap space that offseason Kemba expires because it's an avenue to really get more top of the roster talent in that discussion.

Even if we dealt off Kemba/Hayward it's not like we'd ever be able to get super high picks or high ceiling young guys considering their age. It's not like with Tatum/Brown we're going to be in the lottery ourselves. I realistically just don't see any plausible path besides just keeping this core together and hoping to break through. But just make sure you're taking reasonable steps to keep open flexibility.

[djFan71]

I'm a little worried about health:
- Kemba's knee moving forward
- Gordon is cursed
- Smart plays with so much heart and is always putting his body on the line. I don't want him to play differently but he generally misses some time every year
- Theis having to bang with Embiid, Gasol, Giannis in consecutive series is also a big ask

Seems like we are always gonna be saying "I wish everyone was healthy"

I think titleS (plural being key) won't happen without a new addition to the core but we could get 1. Tatum and Brown have both taken leaps forward from March to bubble play and I expect those 2 to continue to grind and improve.

Honestly, depends on the development of Brown/Tatum. Go back to the 80s since Magic and pretty much every team that's won a title has 2-3 of the all time great players. I'm talking a top 20-30 guy and another 1-2 backing him up. If Tatum/Brown can be that, we will be a strong competitor for one. If not, we won't be. I think it all really hinges on that.

Realistically, if I had to bet, I'd say we don't win a title with this core just because that's a pretty lofty standard. Tatum in particular shows flashes of it, but that's just an insanely high level to ask anyone to reach. That's what I'm so adamant about preserving max cap space that offseason Kemba expires because it's an avenue to really get more top of the roster talent in that discussion.

Even if we dealt off Kemba/Hayward it's not like we'd ever be able to get super high picks or high ceiling young guys considering their age. It's not like with Tatum/Brown we're going to be in the lottery ourselves. I realistically just don't see any plausible path besides just keeping this core together and hoping to break through. But just make sure you're taking reasonable steps to keep open flexibility.

Yep, health is a big concern, and allocation of assets. Is 4 maxes in 2021-22 better than 3 maxes and 2 more solid contributors backing up the Jays (calling JB max for ease) and Kemba and Smart? I think we all agree it's mainly going to be the Jays that determine our title chances. You already have Kemba alongside them for at least a few years. Is Gordon really the best use of $ alongside them after that?

Mainly I'm posing that question to Curm and others who think the deals are solely financially motivated.

Forget any particular deal - esp the LAL one (which I thought I couched enough to convey it was just playing around, but apparently not). I'm really just addressing the idea that the only reason for a Hayward deal is to duck the tax. To me, it's not the only reason, or even the primary one. It's a side benefit if you end up under the tax, but not the main point. The main reason is to reconfigure the roster to grow to a title team.

If you think we win a title as is with Hayward as a key piece in the next 3-4 years, don't trade him.

I tend to think keeping Hayward limits us to puncher's chance at a title during his tenure. I'd rather retool and have some roster flexibility to give us a better chance at a title. Am I'm not expecting any one trade of Hayward to get us there. Or even make us "better" on it's own. But, make a move to enable the next moves to get there. Sometimes you gotta take a step back to go 2 steps forward, etc.

[hugepatsfan]

I'm a little worried about health:
- Kemba's knee moving forward
- Gordon is cursed
- Smart plays with so much heart and is always putting his body on the line. I don't want him to play differently but he generally misses some time every year
- Theis having to bang with Embiid, Gasol, Giannis in consecutive series is also a big ask

Seems like we are always gonna be saying "I wish everyone was healthy"

I think titleS (plural being key) won't happen without a new addition to the core but we could get 1. Tatum and Brown have both taken leaps forward from March to bubble play and I expect those 2 to continue to grind and improve.

Honestly, depends on the development of Brown/Tatum. Go back to the 80s since Magic and pretty much every team that's won a title has 2-3 of the all time great players. I'm talking a top 20-30 guy and another 1-2 backing him up. If Tatum/Brown can be that, we will be a strong competitor for one. If not, we won't be. I think it all really hinges on that.

Realistically, if I had to bet, I'd say we don't win a title with this core just because that's a pretty lofty standard. Tatum in particular shows flashes of it, but that's just an insanely high level to ask anyone to reach. That's what I'm so adamant about preserving max cap space that offseason Kemba expires because it's an avenue to really get more top of the roster talent in that discussion.

Even if we dealt off Kemba/Hayward it's not like we'd ever be able to get super high picks or high ceiling young guys considering their age. It's not like with Tatum/Brown we're going to be in the lottery ourselves. I realistically just don't see any plausible path besides just keeping this core together and hoping to break through. But just make sure you're taking reasonable steps to keep open flexibility.

Yep, health is a big concern, and allocation of assets. Is 4 maxes in 2021-22 better than 3 maxes and 2 more solid contributors backing up the Jays (calling JB max for ease) and Kemba and Smart? I think we all agree it's mainly going to be the Jays that determine our title chances. You already have Kemba alongside them for at least a few years. Is Gordon really the best use of $ alongside them after that?

Mainly I'm posing that question to Curm and others who think the deals are solely financially motivated.

Forget any particular deal - esp the LAL one (which I thought I couched enough to convey it was just playing around, but apparently not). I'm really just addressing the idea that the only reason for a Hayward deal is to duck the tax. To me, it's not the only reason, or even the primary one. It's a side benefit if you end up under the tax, but not the main point. The main reason is to reconfigure the roster to grow to a title team.

If you think we win a title as is with Hayward as a key piece in the next 3-4 years, don't trade him.

I tend to think keeping Hayward limits us to puncher's chance at a title during his tenure. I'd rather retool and have some roster flexibility to give us a better chance at a title. Am I'm not expecting any one trade of Hayward to get us there. Or even make us "better" on it's own. But, make a move to enable the next moves to get there. Sometimes you gotta take a step back to go 2 steps forward, etc.

I don't think moving Hayward gives us really any more flexibility to retool. It just makes us worse in the meantime and takes away from the "puncher's chance" we currently have. It's not like we'd get a high pick for Hayward. It's not like we'd get a budding young star. All I see us getting a trade for him would be breaking him down into a few role players. That makes the rotations prettier on paper but come playoff time when all the top guys are playing 35-40 minutes/game and the bench guys have minutes cut, we'd just end up worse.

I imagine your theory is that those role players on lesser contracts would be easier to facilitate trades with. But remember that Hayward on his next deal will be smaller and not quite the tough-to-work-with piece. If guys like Langford, Rob, Grant, the picks this year and in the future become valuable trade chips then I don't think we'll struggle to make the numbers work in any deal. Hayward on a multi-year deal with a $25-30M salary will be pretty easy to use in trades. Even if it has to be a 3 team deal so some other team gets him for a couple of those lower salaries. Don't think we'd create any significant extra flexibility trading Hayward and breaking him down to role players.

[Curmudgeon]

I wonder if there is a way to trade for Embiid.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

He's a worse fit in Boston than he is in Philadelphia. He's too slow for the way we play. And he has a monster contract. And he's hurt almost as much as Hayward. And he doesn't stay in shape. Need I say more?

[hugepatsfan]

I wonder if there is a way to trade for Embiid.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

All for pursuing him as a FA in 3 years if we have cap space like I hope. But a trade probably just isn't feasible IMO.

[fallguy]

Embiid looks like a good bet for a decline in his late 20s. And he's not that great as it is.

[djFan71]

Spoiler:

I'm a little worried about health:
- Kemba's knee moving forward
- Gordon is cursed
- Smart plays with so much heart and is always putting his body on the line. I don't want him to play differently but he generally misses some time every year
- Theis having to bang with Embiid, Gasol, Giannis in consecutive series is also a big ask

Seems like we are always gonna be saying "I wish everyone was healthy"

I think titleS (plural being key) won't happen without a new addition to the core but we could get 1. Tatum and Brown have both taken leaps forward from March to bubble play and I expect those 2 to continue to grind and improve.

Honestly, depends on the development of Brown/Tatum. Go back to the 80s since Magic and pretty much every team that's won a title has 2-3 of the all time great players. I'm talking a top 20-30 guy and another 1-2 backing him up. If Tatum/Brown can be that, we will be a strong competitor for one. If not, we won't be. I think it all really hinges on that.

Realistically, if I had to bet, I'd say we don't win a title with this core just because that's a pretty lofty standard. Tatum in particular shows flashes of it, but that's just an insanely high level to ask anyone to reach. That's what I'm so adamant about preserving max cap space that offseason Kemba expires because it's an avenue to really get more top of the roster talent in that discussion.

Even if we dealt off Kemba/Hayward it's not like we'd ever be able to get super high picks or high ceiling young guys considering their age. It's not like with Tatum/Brown we're going to be in the lottery ourselves. I realistically just don't see any plausible path besides just keeping this core together and hoping to break through. But just make sure you're taking reasonable steps to keep open flexibility.

Yep, health is a big concern, and allocation of assets. Is 4 maxes in 2021-22 better than 3 maxes and 2 more solid contributors backing up the Jays (calling JB max for ease) and Kemba and Smart? I think we all agree it's mainly going to be the Jays that determine our title chances. You already have Kemba alongside them for at least a few years. Is Gordon really the best use of $ alongside them after that?

Mainly I'm posing that question to Curm and others who think the deals are solely financially motivated.

Forget any particular deal - esp the LAL one (which I thought I couched enough to convey it was just playing around, but apparently not). I'm really just addressing the idea that the only reason for a Hayward deal is to duck the tax. To me, it's not the only reason, or even the primary one. It's a side benefit if you end up under the tax, but not the main point. The main reason is to reconfigure the roster to grow to a title team.

If you think we win a title as is with Hayward as a key piece in the next 3-4 years, don't trade him.

I tend to think keeping Hayward limits us to puncher's chance at a title during his tenure. I'd rather retool and have some roster flexibility to give us a better chance at a title. Am I'm not expecting any one trade of Hayward to get us there. Or even make us "better" on it's own. But, make a move to enable the next moves to get there. Sometimes you gotta take a step back to go 2 steps forward, etc.

I don't think moving Hayward gives us really any more flexibility to retool. It just makes us worse in the meantime and takes away from the "puncher's chance" we currently have. It's not like we'd get a high pick for Hayward. It's not like we'd get a budding young star. All I see us getting a trade for him would be breaking him down into a few role players. That makes the rotations prettier on paper but come playoff time when all the top guys are playing 35-40 minutes/game and the bench guys have minutes cut, we'd just end up worse.

I imagine your theory is that those role players on lesser contracts would be easier to facilitate trades with. But remember that Hayward on his next deal will be smaller and not quite the tough-to-work-with piece. If guys like Langford, Rob, Grant, the picks this year and in the future become valuable trade chips then I don't think we'll struggle to make the numbers work in any deal. Hayward on a multi-year deal with a $25-30M salary will be pretty easy to use in trades. Even if it has to be a 3 team deal so some other team gets him for a couple of those lower salaries. Don't think we'd create any significant extra flexibility trading Hayward and breaking him down to role players.

It's not about future trade pieces per se. Just the combo of things, right? If you do Hayward, 14 for Turner, Snell, #7 and can still sign an MLE? That's an upgraded roster right there. That one may not be feasible, but one good rotation player, a pick (or moving a pick to the future) and full taxpayer MLE is. And you have more time to play the guys who are supposed to grow into the future contributors.

Take the infamous THJ/18 trade:
- You either keep 18 which is an extra shot we don't get with Hayward, or you combine and move up to top 8 and get Okongwu or Vassell or something. Or you send 18 to ATL and get a future lotto-protected first.
- And you got THJ to play or trade. He's no Hayward, but he's a rotation guy.
- And you can use the full MLE

If we just had Snell (who I'd flip THJ for) & Milsap (or Harkeless or J Green or...) and more time for Romeo next year as opposed to Hayward. That team could be better than the Hayward version. And you have the extra pick as well, regardless of how you utilize it. And those targets are not even full MLE level.

I think the PT thing is something as well. How do you play Romeo and Grant and 14 if Hayward is around? You want them to earn the time, obviously, and you can develop without PT, etc. But, at some point, you want the guys to play as well.

I dunno, I'm not necessarily sold either way. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as moving Hayward is purely financial.

[hugepatsfan]

Spoiler:

Yep, health is a big concern, and allocation of assets. Is 4 maxes in 2021-22 better than 3 maxes and 2 more solid contributors backing up the Jays (calling JB max for ease) and Kemba and Smart? I think we all agree it's mainly going to be the Jays that determine our title chances. You already have Kemba alongside them for at least a few years. Is Gordon really the best use of $ alongside them after that?

Mainly I'm posing that question to Curm and others who think the deals are solely financially motivated.

Forget any particular deal - esp the LAL one (which I thought I couched enough to convey it was just playing around, but apparently not). I'm really just addressing the idea that the only reason for a Hayward deal is to duck the tax. To me, it's not the only reason, or even the primary one. It's a side benefit if you end up under the tax, but not the main point. The main reason is to reconfigure the roster to grow to a title team.

If you think we win a title as is with Hayward as a key piece in the next 3-4 years, don't trade him.

I tend to think keeping Hayward limits us to puncher's chance at a title during his tenure. I'd rather retool and have some roster flexibility to give us a better chance at a title. Am I'm not expecting any one trade of Hayward to get us there. Or even make us "better" on it's own. But, make a move to enable the next moves to get there. Sometimes you gotta take a step back to go 2 steps forward, etc.

I don't think moving Hayward gives us really any more flexibility to retool. It just makes us worse in the meantime and takes away from the "puncher's chance" we currently have. It's not like we'd get a high pick for Hayward. It's not like we'd get a budding young star. All I see us getting a trade for him would be breaking him down into a few role players. That makes the rotations prettier on paper but come playoff time when all the top guys are playing 35-40 minutes/game and the bench guys have minutes cut, we'd just end up worse.

I imagine your theory is that those role players on lesser contracts would be easier to facilitate trades with. But remember that Hayward on his next deal will be smaller and not quite the tough-to-work-with piece. If guys like Langford, Rob, Grant, the picks this year and in the future become valuable trade chips then I don't think we'll struggle to make the numbers work in any deal. Hayward on a multi-year deal with a $25-30M salary will be pretty easy to use in trades. Even if it has to be a 3 team deal so some other team gets him for a couple of those lower salaries. Don't think we'd create any significant extra flexibility trading Hayward and breaking him down to role players.

It's not about future trade pieces per se. Just the combo of things, right? If you do Hayward, 14 for Turner, Snell, #7 and can still sign an MLE? That's an upgraded roster right there. That one may not be feasible, but one good rotation player, a pick (or moving a pick to the future) and full taxpayer MLE is. And you have more time to play the guys who are supposed to grow into the future contributors.

Take the infamous THJ/18 trade:
- You either keep 18 which is an extra shot we don't get with Hayward, or you combine and move up to top 8 and get Okongwu or Vassell or something. Or you send 18 to ATL and get a future lotto-protected first.
- And you got THJ to play or trade. He's no Hayward, but he's a rotation guy.
- And you can use the full MLE

If we just had Snell (who I'd flip THJ for) & Milsap (or Harkeless or J Green or...) and more time for Romeo next year as opposed to Hayward. That team could be better than the Hayward version. And you have the extra pick as well, regardless of how you utilize it. And those targets are not even full MLE level.

I think the PT thing is something as well. How do you play Romeo and Grant and 14 if Hayward is around? You want them to earn the time, obviously, and you can develop without PT, etc. But, at some point, you want the guys to play as well.

I dunno, I'm not necessarily sold either way. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as moving Hayward is purely financial.

First bold: Turner makes $18M. Snell makes $12M. The #7 pick makes about $2M more than #14. That's $32M which is basicially flat to Hayward. So we'd only have the same taxpayers MLE we'd have with Hayward. So the MLE part isn't really a part of the comparison, But I would definitely make this trade if it's available. As you say though, it's probably aggressive.

On your second part... I just think you're massively underrated the talent downgrade. Snell is like maybe 2/5ths of the player Hayward is. Milsap/Harkless/Green are nice but they don't make up the difference. I also think Snell and that full MLE guy would between them combine for just as much, if not more, playing time than Hayward so don't see it opening up minutes.

I don't think the issue for Romeo's playing time is Hayward. Semi Ojeleye and Brad Wanamaker combined for 34 minutes per game this year. Neither of them are that good as players. It's hard for me to rationalize that we need to move Hayward to free up time for Romeo when there's Brad Wanamaker's minutes right there for the taking. Grant Williams' would be taking Semi's 15 minutes/game if he was worthy of playing 30 minutes. I'm not really a fan of giving those guy the minutes of guys from the top of our rotation when they haven't even shown worthy of taking minutes from the guys on the backend.

[djFan71]

Spoiler:

I don't think moving Hayward gives us really any more flexibility to retool. It just makes us worse in the meantime and takes away from the "puncher's chance" we currently have. It's not like we'd get a high pick for Hayward. It's not like we'd get a budding young star. All I see us getting a trade for him would be breaking him down into a few role players. That makes the rotations prettier on paper but come playoff time when all the top guys are playing 35-40 minutes/game and the bench guys have minutes cut, we'd just end up worse.

I imagine your theory is that those role players on lesser contracts would be easier to facilitate trades with. But remember that Hayward on his next deal will be smaller and not quite the tough-to-work-with piece. If guys like Langford, Rob, Grant, the picks this year and in the future become valuable trade chips then I don't think we'll struggle to make the numbers work in any deal. Hayward on a multi-year deal with a $25-30M salary will be pretty easy to use in trades. Even if it has to be a 3 team deal so some other team gets him for a couple of those lower salaries. Don't think we'd create any significant extra flexibility trading Hayward and breaking him down to role players.

It's not about future trade pieces per se. Just the combo of things, right? If you do Hayward, 14 for Turner, Snell, #7 and can still sign an MLE? That's an upgraded roster right there. That one may not be feasible, but one good rotation player, a pick (or moving a pick to the future) and full taxpayer MLE is. And you have more time to play the guys who are supposed to grow into the future contributors.

Take the infamous THJ/18 trade:
- You either keep 18 which is an extra shot we don't get with Hayward, or you combine and move up to top 8 and get Okongwu or Vassell or something. Or you send 18 to ATL and get a future lotto-protected first.
- And you got THJ to play or trade. He's no Hayward, but he's a rotation guy.
- And you can use the full MLE

If we just had Snell (who I'd flip THJ for) & Milsap (or Harkeless or J Green or...) and more time for Romeo next year as opposed to Hayward. That team could be better than the Hayward version. And you have the extra pick as well, regardless of how you utilize it. And those targets are not even full MLE level.

I think the PT thing is something as well. How do you play Romeo and Grant and 14 if Hayward is around? You want them to earn the time, obviously, and you can develop without PT, etc. But, at some point, you want the guys to play as well.

I dunno, I'm not necessarily sold either way. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as moving Hayward is purely financial.

First bold: Turner makes $18M. Snell makes $12M. The #7 pick makes about $2M more than #14. That's $32M which is basicially flat to Hayward. So we'd only have the same taxpayers MLE we'd have with Hayward. So the MLE part isn't really a part of the comparison, But I would definitely make this trade if it's available. As you say though, it's probably aggressive.

On your second part... I just think you're massively underrated the talent downgrade. Snell is like maybe 2/5ths of the player Hayward is. Milsap/Harkless/Green are nice but they don't make up the difference.

I don't think the issue for Romeo's playing time is Hayward. Semi Ojeleye and Brad Wanamaker combined for 34 minutes per game this year. Neither of them are that good as players. It's hard for me to rationalize that we need to move Hayward to free up time for Romeo when there's Brad Wanamaker's minutes right there for the taking. Grant Williams' would be taking Semi's 15 minutes/game if he was worthy of playing 30 minutes. I'm not really a fan of giving those guy the minutes of guys from the top of our rotation when they haven't even shown worthy of taking minutes from the guys on the backend.

lol, you weren't supposed to catch that part on the Turner/Snell/MLE one.... I noticed it after I submitted but didn't bother to fix.

For PT, yeah, it's not just Hayward, but Semi/Brad did not combine for 34 mpg spread across 82 games. Semi had lots of DNPs so you can't just add them together. But, that's quibbling. Hayward gone = lots more time for Romeo. Give him full on starter minutes and see what ya got. Let Grant, 14 take Wanamaker/Semi minutes. Let 26,30,Edwards,RWIII fight for the scraps.

As we've both said, I think it's very likely a Hayward 3 yr resign, hope Romeo/Grant/14 push for more minutes and go from there. But, it may not get us a title, and the alternative would be another pick, more PT for all the picks we do have, reset the repeater tax and a couple vets to fill in the gaps in the meantime.

The rest of this playoffs will help a lot actually. How are we without Gordon? So far seems fine with the main offense coming from Jays/Kemba. Will that still work against TOR/MIL? Would a couple of vets to soak up the remaining bench minutes have helped? Will Romeo / Grant give you any flashes? Not that you can base everything off it, but it's a good window into what next year could be like with a trade.

Ironically, when he got hurt, it tempered my expectations pretty hard. I thought we'd walk thru a Simmons-less PHI and TOR with Gordon and give MIL all they could. Now I think we have a pretty good fight on our hands next round.

[hugepatsfan]

I feel like in a healthy playoff rotation, you're only going to have 8 players playing big minutes. I'd say on our team we have most of that:

Kemba / Smart
Brown
Hayward
Tatum
Theis

That's 6 guys that I think are capable of being your every game, heavy minute guys. Theis more on the 25-30 scale than 35-40 like the other guys but still. Between all the young guys on the roster, all of our picks and mid level/vet min signings I just really think we should be able to add another 2 guys capable of big minutes.

If we didn't have Smart and/or Theis the I could see the deal Hayward (dime) for a couple smaller pieces (nickel). I just don't think that's needed. Having someone at top of the roster like that instead of a role player #4 option is a huge asset and we shouldn't be in a rush to remove that advantage we have.

[djFan71]

I feel like in a healthy playoff rotation, you're only going to have 8 players playing big minutes. I'd say on our team we have most of that:

Kemba / Smart
Brown
Hayward
Tatum
Theis

That's 6 guys that I think are capable of being your every game, heavy minute guys. Theis more on the 25-30 scale than 35-40 like the other guys but still. Between all the young guys on the roster, all of our picks and mid level/vet min signings I just really think we should be able to add another 2 guys capable of big minutes.

If we didn't have Smart and/or Theis the I could see the deal Hayward (dime) for a couple smaller pieces (nickel). I just don't think that's needed. Having someone at top of the roster like that instead of a role player #4 option is a huge asset and we shouldn't be in a rush to remove that advantage we have.

Yeah, no rush. And I should probably put it in my sig at this point, but I don't think he gets traded. I just like exploring options and don't think keeping him is the only path. It's going to be super hard to get another player of his caliber. You're basically hoping a draft pick hits. Which you can do while keeping him. I get that. And most of my trades try to get us a high pick in order to try to increase those odds. But, even still, what are the chances Okongwu or Vassell or Hayes or whoever reach Gordon's level - pretty low.

The only other thought, is timeframe alignment. Is Hayward still going to be as good in 2-3 years when Tatum is really, really in his prime? Cuz that's our only title hope is that Tatum continues on his path and becomes top 5. Do you want 32 year old Gordon alongside him in the 2022 playoffs, or someone who's not as good in 20-21, but could be better than him by then? What about 2023 playoffs? Then Gordon walks and you hope to sign someone else in FA with him & Kemba both leaving.

And, yeah, you stay good with Gordon and grow that next guy right alongside him & Kemba, then see where you are in 3 years. It's probably the right path. It's just pretty boring for fake GMs.

[Darthlukey]

I wonder if there is a way to trade for Embiid.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I was thinking the opposite. Making a move for Simmons, even though he doesnt shoot which doesnt fit CBS system. From a pure fit perspective (not including overall talent or value or trade peripherals), does philly trade simmons for Jaylen? Naturally this trade would never happen, but in a vacuum, does Jaylen instead of Simmons make Philly better?

[hugepatsfan]

I feel like in a healthy playoff rotation, you're only going to have 8 players playing big minutes. I'd say on our team we have most of that:

Kemba / Smart
Brown
Hayward
Tatum
Theis

That's 6 guys that I think are capable of being your every game, heavy minute guys. Theis more on the 25-30 scale than 35-40 like the other guys but still. Between all the young guys on the roster, all of our picks and mid level/vet min signings I just really think we should be able to add another 2 guys capable of big minutes.

If we didn't have Smart and/or Theis the I could see the deal Hayward (dime) for a couple smaller pieces (nickel). I just don't think that's needed. Having someone at top of the roster like that instead of a role player #4 option is a huge asset and we shouldn't be in a rush to remove that advantage we have.

Yeah, no rush. And I should probably put it in my sig at this point, but I don't think he gets traded. I just like exploring options and don't think keeping him is the only path. It's going to be super hard to get another player of his caliber. You're basically hoping a draft pick hits. Which you can do while keeping him. I get that. And most of my trades try to get us a high pick in order to try to increase those odds. But, even still, what are the chances Okongwu or Vassell or Hayes or whoever reach Gordon's level - pretty low.

The only other thought, is timeframe alignment. Is Hayward still going to be as good in 2-3 years when Tatum is really, really in his prime? Cuz that's our only title hope is that Tatum continues on his path and becomes top 5. Do you want 32 year old Gordon alongside him in the 2022 playoffs, or someone who's not as good in 20-21, but could be better than him by then? What about 2023 playoffs? Then Gordon walks and you hope to sign someone else in FA with him & Kemba both leaving.

And, yeah, you stay good with Gordon and grow that next guy right alongside him & Kemba, then see where you are in 3 years. It's probably the right path. It's just pretty boring for fake GMs.

I'd be totally open to this. Problem is I doubt the feasibility of this. I think about it from the standpoint of another team and what their situation would need to be. For a team to give up a player who will be better than Hayward in 2-3 years, they'd probably need to think that Hayward would be pushing them to another level now. Because even factoring in a normal rate of decline "better than Gordon Hayward in 2-3 years" is still a pretty high standard. You're talking about a guy who'd be a fringey all star type so a team is going to value that guy pretty high.

I just find a hard time for the feasibility of such a deal. I don't really see it out there. I think Orlando, Dallas, Memphis, Portland, Indiana, Denver, Miami, Phoenix, Sacramento, Atlanta, New York, Brooklyn all as teams that could be interested. But when I think of things from their side I just don't see it.

I don't want to move him to Miami because they won't send much and he'd help a competitor while preserving cap space. Memphis/Dallas/Denver don't have pieces that'd realistically be on the table that make us better now or add such long term value that it's worth it. Phoenix I don't see paying a good price for Hayward without an extension that I'm not sure he'd sign there. Atlanta and New York would just be salary dumps, not returning real value.

I can see to SAC for Barnes + Bjelica being an option, but Hayward >>>> Barnes and since the deal would keep us over the tax anyway, I think we could get close enough to Bjelica with the MLE to where it wouldn't make up the difference.

I like Gordon + Aminu, but I think we need a real stretch 5 for that to work and it'd be tough to land one. Not a huge Gordon fan, but I do think he could work in a role here. But this is one I'm open to discussing if we can make the right other move.

I would do Hayward for Myles Turner because I think he's a great positional/system fit. I didn't think this would be on the table, but if they land D'Antoni then maybe.

I really, really think Zach Collins in Portland would excel as a 5 here. So I'd be open to that one too.

Ultimately though I find any of those deals tough to swing. But I'm definitely open to tif the right circumstances are there. I just find it tough to make a deal that really fits any of the hypothetical goals we would have in moving him.

[djFan71]

Spoiler:

I feel like in a healthy playoff rotation, you're only going to have 8 players playing big minutes. I'd say on our team we have most of that:

Kemba / Smart
Brown
Hayward
Tatum
Theis

That's 6 guys that I think are capable of being your every game, heavy minute guys. Theis more on the 25-30 scale than 35-40 like the other guys but still. Between all the young guys on the roster, all of our picks and mid level/vet min signings I just really think we should be able to add another 2 guys capable of big minutes.

If we didn't have Smart and/or Theis the I could see the deal Hayward (dime) for a couple smaller pieces (nickel). I just don't think that's needed. Having someone at top of the roster like that instead of a role player #4 option is a huge asset and we shouldn't be in a rush to remove that advantage we have.

Yeah, no rush. And I should probably put it in my sig at this point, but I don't think he gets traded. I just like exploring options and don't think keeping him is the only path. It's going to be super hard to get another player of his caliber. You're basically hoping a draft pick hits. Which you can do while keeping him. I get that. And most of my trades try to get us a high pick in order to try to increase those odds. But, even still, what are the chances Okongwu or Vassell or Hayes or whoever reach Gordon's level - pretty low.

The only other thought, is timeframe alignment. Is Hayward still going to be as good in 2-3 years when Tatum is really, really in his prime? Cuz that's our only title hope is that Tatum continues on his path and becomes top 5. Do you want 32 year old Gordon alongside him in the 2022 playoffs, or someone who's not as good in 20-21, but could be better than him by then? What about 2023 playoffs? Then Gordon walks and you hope to sign someone else in FA with him & Kemba both leaving.

And, yeah, you stay good with Gordon and grow that next guy right alongside him & Kemba, then see where you are in 3 years. It's probably the right path. It's just pretty boring for fake GMs.

I'd be totally open to this. Problem is I doubt the feasibility of this. I think about it from the standpoint of another team and what their situation would need to be. For a team to give up a player who will be better than Hayward in 2-3 years, they'd probably need to think that Hayward would be pushing them to another level now. Because even factoring in a normal rate of decline "better than Gordon Hayward in 2-3 years" is still a pretty high standard. You're talking about a guy who'd be a fringey all star type so a team is going to value that guy pretty high.

I just find a hard time for the feasibility of such a deal. I don't really see it out there. I think Orlando, Dallas, Memphis, Portland, Indiana, Denver, Miami, Phoenix, Sacramento, Atlanta, New York, Brooklyn all as teams that could be interested. But when I think of things from their side I just don't see it.

I don't want to move him to Miami because they won't send much and he'd help a competitor while preserving cap space. Memphis/Dallas/Denver don't have pieces that'd realistically be on the table that make us better now or add such long term value that it's worth it. Phoenix I don't see paying a good price for Hayward without an extension that I'm not sure he'd sign there. Atlanta and New York would just be salary dumps, not returning real value.

I can see to SAC for Barnes + Bjelica being an option, but Hayward >>>> Barnes and since the deal would keep us over the tax anyway, I think we could get close enough to Bjelica with the MLE to where it wouldn't make up the difference.

I like Gordon + Aminu, but I think we need a real stretch 5 for that to work and it'd be tough to land one. Not a huge Gordon fan, but I do think he could work in a role here. But this is one I'm open to discussing if we can make the right other move.

I would do Hayward for Myles Turner because I think he's a great positional/system fit. I didn't think this would be on the table, but if they land D'Antoni then maybe.

I really, really think Zach Collins in Portland would excel as a 5 here. So I'd be open to that one too.

Ultimately though I find any of those deals tough to swing. But I'm definitely open to tif the right circumstances are there. I just find it tough to make a deal that really fits any of the hypothetical goals we would have in moving him.

Totally agree. I think in theory you could get a good trade like that. I've yet to stumble across one that really splits Gordon into 2 pieces that make us better. And, you know it's not for lack of trying...

[hugepatsfan]

My "dream" and ignoring money would be that Indiana gets a coach that would favor the small ball approach. I feel like Hayward + Theis for Turner, Lamb, TJ Leaf would be probably more than fair. They're getting the best player in the deal in Hayward (IMO) and another good cheap role player. We're taking back some overpaif guys.

Then I'd turn around and try to make a deal with Orlando if they're willing to have a mini rebuild. Lamb, #14, '21 Boston 1st, TJ Leaf for Aaron Gordon. Again, I think I'm being very fair.

In the end, for us, it's: Hayward, Theis, #14, '21 1st for Turner, Gordon

Kemba / Smart
Brown / Langford
Tatum / Semi
Gordon / G Williams
Turner / Kanter / R Williams

[zoyathedestroya]

Keep Hayward and draft "better" with the non-lottery picks (or get lucky I guess?). Miami got Duncan Robinson. Toronto got Powell and Anunoby for freaking Greivis Vazquez. Apart from drafting Siakam with a late first. Nuggets have had "luck" with their non-lottery picks too. Draymond became an integral part of a title team as a 2nd rounder. You get my drift.

Imagine if we hit just one instead of getting the following the past 5 drafts (not including last draft):
• Robert Williams - TBD, could turn into a rotation player if he stays healthy
• Semi Ojeleye - easily replaceable
• Kadeem Allen - out of the league (OOTL)
• Jabari Bird - OOTL
• Guerschon Yabusele - OOTL
• Ante Zizic - OOTL
• Demetrius Jackson - OOTL
• Ben Bentil - OOTL
• Abdel Nader - OKC found a use for him; has played 51 total playoff minutes in 3 seasons
• Terry Rozier - this was a good pick, imo; playoff starter in 2018 ECF run
• RJ Hunter - OOTL
• Jordan Mickey - OOTL
• Marcus Thornton - OOTL
• James Young - OOTL