RealGM

It's believed that the Pistons, as of Thursday, have Rasho Nesterovic and Chris Wilcox ahead of Drew Gooden as their next free-agent targets, since it appears that they can't assemble an offer sheet rich enough for Glen Davis to keep the Boston Celtics from matching.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... ter-090716

Only Portland left to worry about now IMO, and hopefully a sign and trade could come out of it

I'll take Rudy or Outlaw from Portland.

looks like the Jazz are going to match Millsap's offer sheet. Lets see if they offer Baby a contract now.

They cant go higher than MLE money anyway i dont think.. and really that would be over-paying

where as a 4 mil deal with Baby, plus a throw in (giddens, pruitt etc) for Outlaw could work, with Batum and Webster there looking for more minutes

Avalanche wrote:They cant go higher than MLE money anyway i dont think.. and really that would be over-paying

where as a 4 mil deal with Baby, plus a throw in (giddens, pruitt etc) for Outlaw could work, with Batum and Webster there looking for more minutes

I figured Portland would rather trade Webster instead of Outlaw. Unless the Blazers arent looking to give Outlaw an extension next season.

every time someone mentions this, i ask why portland would want to trade anything for BBD. they can just sign him outright with their MLE, no? they haven't used it. why would they give up a promising young player?

ParticleMan wrote:every time someone mentions this, i ask why portland would want to trade anything for BBD. they can just sign him outright with their MLE, no? they haven't used it. why would they give up a promising young player?

try to clear court time for webster, batun and fernandez... while not paying a redundant player

also picking up BBd for a mil or so less then they would have to otherwise

I don't think we actually could do a sign and trade with Portland. It doesn't look like they have the minimum contracts in a trade. We wouldn't be able to trade Davis anyway in an S&T for Webster or Outlaw unless there were multiple parts of a trade. Likely we would need two of Bayless, Fernandez, and Batum for a trade. I don't believe that Portland would do that.

im not 100% sure how BYC works but it means like 50% of their salary counts doesnt it?

Could we trade a signed BBD for 4 Mil (2 mil trade value) with a guy like Walker, Giddens, Pruitt etc for Outlaw who makes under 4 mil total?

or can we not package davis with anyone?

Avalanche wrote:

ParticleMan wrote:every time someone mentions this, i ask why portland would want to trade anything for BBD. they can just sign him outright with their MLE, no? they haven't used it. why would they give up a promising young player?

try to clear court time for webster, batun and fernandez... while not paying a redundant player

also picking up BBd for a mil or so less then they would have to otherwise

so outlaw would be a salary dump? that's hard to believe. at this point he's better than webster (coming off a season-long injury), batum (unproven), and fernandez (ok, maybe it's a toss up).

i guess no harm in asking, but i think Pritchard would just laugh.

also we'd have to include another player like maybe giddens to make the BYC numbers work (i assume POR is still under the cap).

One more down. One more to go.

Get BBD back!

ParticleMan wrote:

Avalanche wrote:

ParticleMan wrote:every time someone mentions this, i ask why portland would want to trade anything for BBD. they can just sign him outright with their MLE, no? they haven't used it. why would they give up a promising young player?

try to clear court time for webster, batun and fernandez... while not paying a redundant player

also picking up BBd for a mil or so less then they would have to otherwise

so outlaw would be a salary dump? that's hard to believe. at this point he's better than webster (coming off a season-long injury), batum (unproven), and fernandez (ok, maybe it's a toss up).

i guess no harm in asking, but i think Pritchard would just laugh.

also we'd have to include another player like maybe giddens to make the BYC numbers work (i assume POR is still under the cap).

to an extent yeh, but it also saves them from having to over-pay Davis

I dunno, just throwin things out there, i think they do have a few players we should explore in sign and trades though where possible..

I wouldn't mind Martell Webster honestly. I like Outlaw's game but I am quite sure Webster would be easier to get from Portland. He's a 6'8" forward who can shoot and is still young with loads of potential. I would hope the C's would get a lot more back than just MW though.

Ainge would do a sign and trade with Davis if the right fit for this team came to light. If we are going to take back 4 million it would have to be for someone that gives us more than Davis would give us for the 4 million we could sign Davis for.

I'd like to keep BBD unless it's for a S&T that would put us over the top.

Nobody on the Portland board wants BBD.

I've actually floated the idea of Big Baby for outlaw via S&T to a bunch of HOOPSWORLD'S insiders/writers and they all received as not only a fair trade but also one that would make sense for both teams

even jason fleming the guy associated with portland

whatever it is, i hope we S&T Baby. Unless we severely cut down on Perk's minutes, paying Glen 4 mil a year to play 5 minutes a game and be "blowout insurance" is just a horrible way to run a team. This is comming from a big Glen Davis supporter.

s1ickd wrote:whatever it is, i hope we S&T Baby. Unless we severely cut down on Perk's minutes, paying Glen 4 mil a year to play 5 minutes a game and be "blowout insurance" is just a horrible way to run a team. This is coming from a big Glen Davis supporter.

I agree with this guy and I'm new to liking BBD it took me awhile to dig him.

s1ickd wrote:whatever it is, i hope we S&T Baby. Unless we severely cut down on Perk's minutes, paying Glen 4 mil a year to play 5 minutes a game and be "blowout insurance" is just a horrible way to run a team. This is comming from a big Glen Davis supporter.

This was initially my position as well. However, when you look at the injury history of Garnett, Wallace, and Perkins, you start to sing a different tune. Davis would not be so much blowout insurance, but injury insurance. Expensive insurance? Perhaps, but anybody in the insurance industry would verify that the insurance premium goes up as the likelihood of a claim occurring goes up.

Sure, if Garnett, Wallace, and Perkins all play 30 mpg for 82 games next year, there won't be much playing time for that 4th big, and paying Davis $4 million next season for 6 mpg would seem like money down the drain. However, I don't see ANY evidence that suggests that is how next season would play out. We may have the most talented 4/5 rotation in the league between Garnett/Perkins/Wallace, but we have one that is very injury-prone as well. In the past three seasons, none of those three have been able to play a full season (80+ games). In 06-07, they missed a combined 23 games, in 07-08 they missed 21 games, and in 08-09 they missed a whopping 47 games. So the odds of older versions of them all being able to last 82 games is pretty close to zero, imo. To put it another way, there is a total of 7,872 minutes available over 82 games at the 4/5 positions. In the past three seasons, the combination of Garnett, Perkins, and Wallace have been able to play 6,948 (06-07), 6,573 (07-08), and 6,159 (08-09), which would have left enough time left for that fourth big to average over 82 games 11.3 mpg in 06-07, 15.8 mpg in 07-08, and 20.8 mpg in 08-09.

The bottom line is that, while Davis might not be terribly happy being the fourth big initially, I think the Celtics simply cannot afford to not have that fourth big being capable of stepping in and playing heavy minutes at a moments notice. While a Robert Swift or a Mikki Moore might be acceptable 4th bigs when Garnett, Wallace, and Perkins are all in the line-up, the second they are put into that 3rd big role of 20 mpg due to injury, they will be exploited. Whereas we know that Glen Davis can step in and perform acceptably well in that third big role (or even as a starter) when necessary. Given the high probability that that is the role we will need our fourth big to be able to fill, I think $4 million a year seems reasonable.