RealGM

The Wall of Shame

Andrew McCeltic (136)
Curmudgeon (62)
Captain_Caveman (59)
CrowderKeg (54)
Green89 (48)
OFWGKTA (44)
Homerclease (43)
Slartibartfast (40)
dei1c3 (40)
165bows (38)
Edug27 (38)
reload141 (36)
SMTBSI (35)
ddb (35)
Banks2Pierce (34)
cl2117 (31)
Writebloc (31)
Ed Pinkney (29)
skywalker33 (27)
Celts17Pride (27)

I think the point of any trade should be to keep our top 6 players (it, ab, crowder, horford, smart, kelly)

And try to get a superstar with rozier, brown, brk 17, brk 18, Mem 19.

That's one hell of trade chips to have.

klemen4 wrote:I think the point of any trade should be to keep our top 6 players (it, ab, crowder, horford, smart, kelly)

And try to get a superstar with rozier, brown, brk 17, brk 18, Mem 19.

That's one hell of trade chips to have.

Yes, that would be nice.

However:

-- Paying all 6 of those guys AND the incoming superstar won't be totally easy, even with ownership's willingness to spend.

-- Kelly's strengths are in areas of weakness for the team -- shooting, big men. Even so, I'd have no objections to seeing him get traded away in connection with an upgrade.

-- If Smart (or Avery) is traded instead of Brown, that could work better for roster balance.

Selected quotes from Bulpett's article yesterday:

It is a given that the Celtics will look quite different than they do at present should they ever reach the level they seek.

From all indications speaking to team sources around the league, Danny Ainge is still after the major trades the C’s president of basketball operations knows are needed.

But while you know changes have to be coming, it might be helpful to begin preparing yourself to part with one or more players to whom you’re growing attached these days.

The roster as currently constituted doesn’t blend as well as the Celts would probably like, but that’s mainly a product of generally drafting the best player available without regard to role.

The best case scenario for the Celtics as they take the floor these next several weeks is for the team to play well enough collectively that it enhances the value of the players individually.

So what is the hierarchy of likely traded players here? The team is too small in the back court (the article discusses the Spurs trade of George Hill for K. Leonard, motivated by the inability to play Parker/Hill/Ginobili together consistently), referencing the following:

Their backcourt rotation features the abundantly talented — but small — Isaiah Thomas (5-foot-9), Avery Bradley (6-2) and Terry Rozier (6-2), and while Marcus Smart (6-4) is doing a much better job running an offense, he’s often being called upon to guard small forwards and even power forwards.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics/2016/11/bulpett_reaching_next_level_no_small_feat_for_celtics

Is Bradley/Olynyk for Aaron Gordon/Jodie Meeks crazy in this light? Would save the team ~11M of cap space next year, including KO's cap hold. They would then be free to pursue a max FA next summer.

Smitty what do you think of this?

Ainge is looking to make a big trade? The sun rises every morning? Brilliant reporting.

165bows wrote:Is Bradley/Olynyk for Aaron Gordon/Jodie Meeks crazy in this light? Would save the team ~11M of cap space next year, including KO's cap hold. They would then be free to pursue a max FA next summer.

Smitty what do you think of this?

Bradley is Core; I don't see us trading him, unless it's for something off the charts.
Olynyk is Extended Core; I could see us trading him more so.

Though I think that we want to keep the chemistry that has evolved here. It's like an invisible 6th-man.
Any trading of the Overall Core would require an adjustment period.

165bows wrote:Selected quotes from Bulpett's article yesterday:

It is a given that the Celtics will look quite different than they do at present should they ever reach the level they seek.

From all indications speaking to team sources around the league, Danny Ainge is still after the major trades the C’s president of basketball operations knows are needed.

But while you know changes have to be coming, it might be helpful to begin preparing yourself to part with one or more players to whom you’re growing attached these days.

The roster as currently constituted doesn’t blend as well as the Celts would probably like, but that’s mainly a product of generally drafting the best player available without regard to role.

The best case scenario for the Celtics as they take the floor these next several weeks is for the team to play well enough collectively that it enhances the value of the players individually.

So what is the hierarchy of likely traded players here? The team is too small in the back court (the article discusses the Spurs trade of George Hill for K. Leonard, motivated by the inability to play Parker/Hill/Ginobili together consistently), referencing the following:

Their backcourt rotation features the abundantly talented — but small — Isaiah Thomas (5-foot-9), Avery Bradley (6-2) and Terry Rozier (6-2), and while Marcus Smart (6-4) is doing a much better job running an offense, he’s often being called upon to guard small forwards and even power forwards.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics/2016/11/bulpett_reaching_next_level_no_small_feat_for_celtics

It seems like Danny feels a trade happening, and is using Bulpett to prepare us for it. I tend to think it's AB or IT going out.

AB's shoulder is concerning, but it can be fixed. IT''s height and defensive limitations can't. The Smart reference strikes me as a tell. Presumably Danny wants Smart to serve as a DJ: playmaker on offense and backcourt defensive ace. Keeping AB allows you to put AB on the point guard unless it's a Russell Westbrook type. But with IT you still have to scheme around him.

I think Danny sees IT as a sixth man. If IT agreed then all would be set. But as he doesn't, Danny bets that Smart in a proper role, plus defensive improvement, plus the scoring forward IT brings back is enough to come out ahead--even losing IT's offense.

Woo. Finally made a wall of shame.

ArlingtonCeltic wrote:It seems like Danny feels a trade happening, and is using Bulpett to prepare us for it. I tend to think it's AB or IT going out.

AB's shoulder is concerning, but it can be fixed. IT''s height and defensive limitations can't. The Smart reference strikes me as a tell. Presumably Danny wants Smart to serve as a DJ: playmaker on offense and backcourt defensive ace. Keeping AB allows you to put AB on the point guard unless it's a Russell Westbrook type. But with IT you still have to scheme around him.

I think Danny sees IT as a sixth man. If IT agreed then all would be set. But as he doesn't, Danny bets that Smart in a proper role, plus defensive improvement, plus the scoring forward IT brings back is enough to come out ahead--even losing IT's offense.

Is Smart/Rozier/Jackson enough at PG, if IT helps you acquire another high-level big? I'm not convinced. But, getting that second quality big might help more than losing IT hurts. Maybe.

What teams badly need PG play, anyway? I've always assumed IT will be perpetually undervalued due to his size, so it's always the best value play to just keep him.

The question is, what's coming back? I don't see a single major player who is (a) available, and (b) a player I'd really want on the team.

An exception might be John Wall, but I'm not sure how much of an upgrade he would be over IT or AB. Wall is a bigger name, but he's a streaky shooter and doesn't focus on defense. He also does not solve the rebounding problem.

165bows wrote:Is Bradley/Olynyk for Aaron Gordon/Jodie Meeks crazy in this light? Would save the team ~11M of cap space next year, including KO's cap hold. They would then be free to pursue a max FA next summer.

Smitty what do you think of this?

Aaron Gordon will earn about 3.3 million dollar less than Avery Bradley next year. If the Celtics decide to not submit a qualifying offer, Olynyk's cap hold will be gone before the start of free agency right? So why should DA trade him to get rid of his salary?

Curmudgeon wrote:The question is, what's coming back? I don't see a single major player who is (a) available, and (b) a player I'd really want on the team.

An exception might be John Wall, but I'm not sure how much of an upgrade he would be over IT or AB. Wall is a bigger name, but he's a streaky shooter and doesn't focus on defense. He also does not solve the rebounding problem.

This. Takes two to tango and there really isn't anyone out there to be had, everyone is in holding pattern.

Kolkmania wrote:
Aaron Gordon will earn about 3.3 million dollar less than Avery Bradley next year. If the Celtics decide to not submit a qualifying offer, Olynyk's cap hold will be gone before the start of free agency right? So why should DA trade him to get rid of his salary?

Olynyk's cap hold isn't really a risk. The risk is losing him for nothing if we aren't planning on paying him. You can offer him his QO and still pursue max guys. Someone will pay him and remove his hold if one of the max guys agrees with us. How we end up handling Kelly is somewhat tied to whether we want to retain cap flexibility into 2018 as well. I'm still a bit unclear on how holds will end up working for Bradley and IT in the new CBA.

Parliament10 wrote:

165bows wrote:Is Bradley/Olynyk for Aaron Gordon/Jodie Meeks crazy in this light? Would save the team ~11M of cap space next year, including KO's cap hold. They would then be free to pursue a max FA next summer.

Smitty what do you think of this?

Bradley is Core; I don't see us trading him, unless it's for something off the charts.
Olynyk is Extended Core; I could see us trading him more so.

Though I think that we want to keep the chemistry that has evolved here. It's like an invisible 6th-man.
Any trading of the Overall Core would require an adjustment period.

Avery Bradley, Isaiah Thomas and Marcus Smart are all core guys, but all three will become (restricted) free agents in the summer of 2018. Labeling these guys as non trade-able (unless something off the charts is offered) only makes sense if the Celtics have a realistic shot at winning a championship this year or next year in my opinion, I'm not sure if that's the case with GS and Cleveland. Broadly speaking Danny Ainge has three options:

1. Combining one of these three guys with Brown and picks for an established star, since Jaylen Brown is years away from being a consistent positive contributor and gives a better shot at winning.

2. Try to trade Bradley/Thomas for (a) very high pick(s) to further strengthen the future of the Celtics and lose some quality short term.

3. Stay pat, be a top 4 team in the East until the summer of 2018 and just see what happens.

This draft we will have to make a difficult decision if we don't trade the pick. Draft is loaded with elite PG prospects (Ball,Fultz,Smith,Fox) and wing prospects (Tatum,Jackson,Bridges,Isaac) but only 1 big with injury concerns.

ArlingtonCeltic wrote:

165bows wrote:Selected quotes from Bulpett's article yesterday:

It is a given that the Celtics will look quite different than they do at present should they ever reach the level they seek.

From all indications speaking to team sources around the league, Danny Ainge is still after the major trades the C’s president of basketball operations knows are needed.

But while you know changes have to be coming, it might be helpful to begin preparing yourself to part with one or more players to whom you’re growing attached these days.

The roster as currently constituted doesn’t blend as well as the Celts would probably like, but that’s mainly a product of generally drafting the best player available without regard to role.

The best case scenario for the Celtics as they take the floor these next several weeks is for the team to play well enough collectively that it enhances the value of the players individually.

So what is the hierarchy of likely traded players here? The team is too small in the back court (the article discusses the Spurs trade of George Hill for K. Leonard, motivated by the inability to play Parker/Hill/Ginobili together consistently), referencing the following:

Their backcourt rotation features the abundantly talented — but small — Isaiah Thomas (5-foot-9), Avery Bradley (6-2) and Terry Rozier (6-2), and while Marcus Smart (6-4) is doing a much better job running an offense, he’s often being called upon to guard small forwards and even power forwards.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics/2016/11/bulpett_reaching_next_level_no_small_feat_for_celtics

It seems like Danny feels a trade happening, and is using Bulpett to prepare us for it. I tend to think it's AB or IT going out.

AB's shoulder is concerning, but it can be fixed. IT''s height and defensive limitations can't. The Smart reference strikes me as a tell. Presumably Danny wants Smart to serve as a DJ: playmaker on offense and backcourt defensive ace. Keeping AB allows you to put AB on the point guard unless it's a Russell Westbrook type. But with IT you still have to scheme around him.

I think Danny sees IT as a sixth man. If IT agreed then all would be set. But as he doesn't, Danny bets that Smart in a proper role, plus defensive improvement, plus the scoring forward IT brings back is enough to come out ahead--even losing IT's offense.

Ainge might as well be in love with IT, lol. Really doubt IT is going anywhere. He won't bring back anything close to what his actual value is on the court (IT is basically an offensive superstar at this point). You don't trade 22-25 PPG players when you are trying to contend within the next year or two unless the trade literally blows your socks off..which won't happen. If the Celtics trade IT, they are most likely going for the long term approach, which doesn't line up with any of these reports and the Horford signing.

EDIT: For short term contention, I'm assuming the pieces on the table are Bradley, Smart, Rozier, BKN 17, and Brown. Not that you trade all 4, but I bet those are the pieces Ainge is looking to make center pieces in deals for an allstar or superstar. In my mind, to maximize the short term window with Horford, you have to keep IT and Crowder with Horford. Those are the three you add to (as much as I love Bradley and Smart). Ideally, you'd like to have Smart or Bradley in that group too, but realistically both may have to go in a deal if they want to keep Brown or the BKN 17 pick around. The only reason you keep Brown and/or the BKN 17 pick around over Smart/Bradley is to maintain some idea of a long term window past the short term window. I'd like the Celtics to keep that flexibility if possible.

Orlando loves Gordon. He is not being moved.

165bows wrote:Is Bradley/Olynyk for Aaron Gordon/Jodie Meeks crazy in this light? Would save the team ~11M of cap space next year, including KO's cap hold. They would then be free to pursue a max FA next summer.

Smitty what do you think of this?

It's crazy because it does not move the needle at all. You can argue it makes the Celtics worst.

Ainge is not moving Bradley, Smart or Crowder unless it's part of a package to bring back a stud. Any other trades with these players not bringing back a stud is a waste of time.