2025 Offseason Trade and Free Agency Thread (The Fun Never Stops Edition)

[Fierce1]

Still talking JB trade?

[phincsfan]

Read on Twitter

Celtics not interested in Ayton...

He's just as available as Porzingis was with the C's.

Let the Lakers have him.

[phincsfan]

Luka will opt in next year and sign whatever max the Lakers can give him and Joker will play his last two seasons in Denver, opt out in 27' and sign a deal with LA.

[cloverleaf]

Read on Twitter

Celtics not interested in Ayton...

He's just as available as Porzingis was with the C's.

Let the Lakers have him.

Ah, no. He was overpaid and is going to clear waivers to be picked up by some team for significantly less, without having to send anything back as in a trade.

[WeLikeOurGuys]

If you're trading Simons just to bring back Al and Luke, then what's the actual plan? I love Horford — he's probably one of my favorite Celtics ever — and Luke is a great teammate and a dependable backup big. But given where the Celtics are right now, is bringing back two aging role players at the expense of a young, high-upside scorer really the right move?

Essentially, we’d be running it back without Jrue and KP. That might be fine if Horford or Kornet had any real upside left, but they don’t — they're solid, not game-changers. So what's the long-term value here?

It all depends on what you can get for Simons. But if they end up flipping him in a pure salary dump just to re-sign Luke and Al, I’ll be really disappointed.

[Fierce1]

If you want to trade Simons to bring back Al and Luke, then what's the plan? I really like Horford — he's probably one of my favorite Celtics ever — and Luke is a solid teammate and a dependable backup big. But given where the Celtics are right now, is bringing back Horford and Kornet instead of keeping Simons really the right move?

Essentially, we’d be running it back minus Jrue and KP. That might make sense if Horford or Luke had some upside left, but they don’t. So what’s the actual long-term value here?

Bingo!

[165bows]

If you want to trade Simons to bring back Al and Luke, then what's the plan? I really like Horford — he's probably one of my favorite Celtics ever — and Luke is a solid teammate and a dependable backup big. But given where the Celtics are right now, is bringing back Horford and Kornet instead of keeping Simons really the right move?

Essentially, we’d be running it back minus Jrue and KP. That might make sense if Horford or Luke had some upside left, but they don’t. So what’s the actual long-term value here?

Getting under the tax so it's easier to get over the tax later.

[GoCeltics123]

If you're trading Simons just to bring back Al and Luke, then what's the actual plan? I love Horford — he's probably one of my favorite Celtics ever — and Luke is a great teammate and a dependable backup big. But given where the Celtics are right now, is bringing back two aging role players at the expense of a young, high-upside scorer really the right move?

Essentially, we’d be running it back without Jrue and KP. That might be fine if Horford or Kornet had any real upside left, but they don’t — they're solid, not game-changers. So what's the long-term value here?

It all depends on what you can get for Simons. But if they end up flipping him in a pure salary dump just to re-sign Luke and Al, I’ll be really disappointed.

Because you'll have a center

Right now our starting center is Queta. We are so cooked if he's our starter. Like just trade Derrick and Jaylen and tank at that point

[Fierce1]

Just trade Hauser and use that money to sign Luke.

Niang and Baylor are enough shooters.

[Fierce1]

Maybe Amari Williams will be better than Queta.

Celtics have until February deadline to get a Center.

It does not need to be right now.

[WeLikeOurGuys]

If you're trading Simons just to bring back Al and Luke, then what's the actual plan? I love Horford — he's probably one of my favorite Celtics ever — and Luke is a great teammate and a dependable backup big. But given where the Celtics are right now, is bringing back two aging role players at the expense of a young, high-upside scorer really the right move?

Essentially, we’d be running it back without Jrue and KP. That might be fine if Horford or Kornet had any real upside left, but they don’t — they're solid, not game-changers. So what's the long-term value here?

It all depends on what you can get for Simons. But if they end up flipping him in a pure salary dump just to re-sign Luke and Al, I’ll be really disappointed.

Because you'll have a center

Right now our starting center is Queta. We are so cooked if he's our starter. Like just trade Derrick and Jaylen and tank at that point

I could see your point if the centers were actually good — but they’re mediocre at best. Honestly, I’d rather roll with Neemias Queta for a full season than pay Luke Kornet $13 million a year and give up Simons in the process.

Losing a young scorer with upside to overpay Al and Luke makes no sense.

[cloverleaf]

Just trade Hauser and use that money to sign Luke.

Niang and Baylor are enough shooters.

Luke's gonna take more than $3M a year. (The Nets are unlikely to help here.)

[Fierce1]

Just trade Hauser and use that money to sign Luke.

Niang and Baylor are enough shooters.

Luke's gonna take more than $3M a year. (The Nets are unlikely to help here.)

Love Luke, but he's not a starting NBA Center.

So if Luke asks for more than 8m per year, let him walk.

[Larry_Russell]

If you're trading Simons just to bring back Al and Luke, then what's the actual plan? I love Horford — he's probably one of my favorite Celtics ever — and Luke is a great teammate and a dependable backup big. But given where the Celtics are right now, is bringing back two aging role players at the expense of a young, high-upside scorer really the right move?

Essentially, we’d be running it back without Jrue and KP. That might be fine if Horford or Kornet had any real upside left, but they don’t — they're solid, not game-changers. So what's the long-term value here?

It all depends on what you can get for Simons. But if they end up flipping him in a pure salary dump just to re-sign Luke and Al, I’ll be really disappointed.

Because you'll have a center

Right now our starting center is Queta. We are so cooked if he's our starter. Like just trade Derrick and Jaylen and tank at that point

Cooked WITH Kornet.

Brad needed to get a center in return of dealing Jrue amd Kristaps...not a grossly undersized guard

[klemen44]

Prichard has only 7 million contract, Hauser 10 million, Lukeis not worth more than those 2 guys.

How much they want to pay a back up center?

Still think the best option is yo trade Niang and use that money for Luke.

Still under 2nd apron.

[chrisab123]

Just trade Hauser and use that money to sign Luke.

Niang and Baylor are enough shooters.

Luke's gonna take more than $3M a year. (The Nets are unlikely to help here.)

Love Luke, but he's not a starting NBA Center.

So if Luke asks for more than 8m per year, let him walk.

We might not agree on much but this we do. Luke might be a starter on someone like Charlotte but he’s not worth more than 8. Let him go and get someone else in here.

[Larry_Russell]

Prichard has only 7 million contract, Hauser 10 million, Lukeis not worth more than those 2 guys.

How much they want to pay a back up center?

Still think the best option is yo trade Niang and use that money for Luke.

Still under 2nd apron.

And who plays power forward?

[chrisab123]

Read on Twitter

Celtics not interested in Ayton...

He's just as available as Porzingis was with the C's.

Let the Lakers have him.

Ah, no. He was overpaid and is going to clear waivers to be picked up by some team for significantly less, without having to send anything back as in a trade.

Yeah there’s a big difference on paying him peanuts vs paying him 30+ million to be unavailable. I’m interested in anything under 10 for Ayton, if not then it’s all good.

I really do believe that the starting center for the Celtics will be someone no one really named yet.

[Larry_Russell]

Simons to Bulls for Coby White and Jalen Smith?

[aim2please]

If you're trading Simons just to bring back Al and Luke, then what's the actual plan? I love Horford — he's probably one of my favorite Celtics ever — and Luke is a great teammate and a dependable backup big. But given where the Celtics are right now, is bringing back two aging role players at the expense of a young, high-upside scorer really the right move?

Essentially, we’d be running it back without Jrue and KP. That might be fine if Horford or Kornet had any real upside left, but they don’t — they're solid, not game-changers. So what's the long-term value here?

It all depends on what you can get for Simons. But if they end up flipping him in a pure salary dump just to re-sign Luke and Al, I’ll be really disappointed.

Because you'll have a center

Right now our starting center is Queta. We are so cooked if he's our starter. Like just trade Derrick and Jaylen and tank at that point

I could see your point if the centers were actually good — but they’re mediocre at best. Honestly, I’d rather roll with Neemias Queta for a full season than pay Luke Kornet $13 million a year and give up Simons in the process.

Losing a young scorer with upside to overpay Al and Luke makes no sense.

Simons, Sexton, Clarkson, Ivey, Scoot Henderson, Poole, Cam Thomas... What do these guys have in common? Their value comes from high volume scoring. They are all bad to terrible defenders that do very little when they're not scoring. Empty stats guys. They're never feature on a good team.

Least valuable archetype in the league. These guys have almost no trade value around the league yet some people think moving Simons is a sin. If they keep him it's because there are no takers. You'd think that fans of a great team would figure out what impacts winning by now.