Free Agent/Trade/Waiver Thread, 2025-26

[Hal14]

Some championship teams have a "top level big". Some don't. It's not a necessity.

I guess it depends on the definition of "top level big," but with the exception of our '24 championship team (and possibly OKC to be determined), literally every NBA champion for at least the past 25+ years has had a big man who played in an all star game +/- 9 months from winning a championship.

And even our '24 team at least had KP who affected the game like a top level big in stretches (and he has played in at least one all star game).

Eh, I don't know about that.

Bucks in 2021 had Lopez, a good role play but a role player nonetheless. I don't really consider Giannis to be a "big"..more of a forward.

Raptors in 2019. Gasol's last AS appearance was 2 yrs before that..he was a good role player but just a role player.

Celtics in 2008..that was less than 25 yrs ago. Perk was not a top level big and I don't really consider KG to be a "big". He was more of a forward..as was Draymond so there goes all 4 of those Warriors championship teams. Same with Dirk in 2011, more of a forward than a big.

I consider "big" to be someone who is more of a 5. If we're gonna count all of these guys who are 4's as bigs, then we gotta count Tatum because he's a 4.

Chris Bosh was also a 4..those Heat teams had Joel Anthony at center.

The Cavs in 2015, Love was more of a 4 IIRC, with Thompson playing the 5 a lot. And even Love more of a role player on that Cabs title team.

IMO to win a title, you need a superstar (top 8 player in league), a secondary star (top 25 or so player in league), a good 3rd option who can get you a consistent 16-18 PPG, it doesn't necessarily matter which position those guys play - as long as you have those boxes checked..then you need 5 other guys who are solid role players.

That's basically it.

You need talent. You need shooting. You need a decent amount of depth. You need good vets. You need a decent big but not necessarily a "top level big".

[31to6]

Some championship teams have a "top level big". Some don't. It's not a necessity.

I guess it depends on the definition of "top level big," but with the exception of our '24 championship team (and possibly OKC to be determined), literally every NBA champion for at least the past 25+ years has had a big man who played in an all star game +/- 9 months from winning a championship.

And even our '24 team at least had KP who affected the game like a top level big in stretches (and he has played in at least one all star game).

Sounds like you're including PFs and Cs in this.
As long as JT returns to All Star form and is our 4 going forward we meet those criteria.

But presumably we're talking about the starting center, and championship-winning centers from the last decade include:
Kevon Looney (22 GSW)
Brook Lopez (21 Bucks)
Washed Marc Gasol (19 Raps)
JaVale McGee (18 Warriors)
Zaza Pachulia (17 Warriors)
Tristan Thompson (16 Cavs)
Andrew Bogut (15 GSW)

Going back further, we have Bosh, Pau, Duncan, Shaq -- it gets much more star studded.

But if Hal's point was that a fully developed Queta (or similar) could be 'good enough' for Jays + Derrick in their prime to win it all, it wouldn't be unprecedented -- or even that unusual, based on recent history?

[31to6]

Not meaning to reignite discussion here, but my idle Simons thought of the day was 'keep him.' See how it goes. Let his $27M come off the books, and if he learns to play some defense and wants to come back for like half that -- cool. If it doesn't work out, then we've lost a large salary slot that I would ideally appropriate to a big -- but the only way to do that is via trade and if no one wants to trade us a good center for a combo guard then I guess we can't be mad at them.

[Bad-Thoma]

Not meaning to reignite discussion here, but my idle Simons thought of the day was 'keep him.' See how it goes. Let his $27M come off the books, and if he learns to play some defense and wants to come back for like half that -- cool. If it doesn't work out, then we've lost a large salary slot that I would ideally appropriate to a big -- but the only way to do that is via trade and if no one wants to trade us a good center for a combo guard then I guess we can't be mad at them.

It's either a win/win or a lose/lose. Or maybe a meh/meh. Definitely one of those.

Seriously though, if the worst thing that happens is he plays this season and Brad can't find a taker his money (Jrue's money) comes off the books and that's not the end of the world. What's more likely to happen IMO is he'll get traded for a meh return that won't amount to much more than him coming off the books but will give us a little more flexibility, like a long shot prospect and an exception or something. So definitely a win/win... or a lose/lose... or something.

[threrf23]

Bucks in 2021 had Lopez, a good role play but a role player nonetheless. I don't really consider Giannis to be a "big"..more of a forward.

He was a perennial DPOY candidate credited with playing PF as his primary position, he was not a Center but I would consider him to be a "big."

Raptors in 2019. Gasol's last AS appearance was 2 yrs before that..he was a good role player but just a role player.

Siakam

Celtics in 2008..that was less than 25 yrs ago. Perk was not a top level big and I don't really consider KG to be a "big". He was more of a forward..as was Draymond so there goes all 4 of those Warriors championship teams. Same with Dirk in 2011, more of a forward than a big.

To each his own. In any event both KG & Dray would have been considered elite front court defensive players, I would consider them to be "bigs." Dirk I'll give you, although PF was clearly his primary position, so technically I think he classifies. If he doesn't, then I'm not entirely sure Jokic should. That Mavs team did also have Ty Chandler who has made at least one all star team.

I consider "big" to be someone who is more of a 5. If we're gonna count all of these guys who are 4's as bigs, then we gotta count Tatum because he's a 4.

I mean, I wouldn't consider Tatum to be a PF even where he technically lines up at PF. But if he is a PF, and the word "big" is redefined, it saves the theory and there is no exception (except maybe OKC).

[bucknersrevenge]

Paint touches. It opens everything up.

Puts the defense in rotation.

Creates advantages.

You don't just jack up 3's. You take open 3's which are generated after the defense collapses from a paint touch.

Read on Twitter

Besides the Jays, we don't have anyone else who can get paint touches. Simons gives us 3 guys who can get paint touches.

still with this nonsense.


Know who else gives paint touches? A **** post up.

This is an interesting point. How many post up options do we have on this roster?

[bucknersrevenge]

Not meaning to reignite discussion here, but my idle Simons thought of the day was 'keep him.' See how it goes. Let his $27M come off the books, and if he learns to play some defense and wants to come back for like half that -- cool. If it doesn't work out, then we've lost a large salary slot that I would ideally appropriate to a big -- but the only way to do that is via trade and if no one wants to trade us a good center for a combo guard then I guess we can't be mad at them.

It's either a win/win or a lose/lose. Or maybe a meh/meh. Definitely one of those.

Seriously though, if the worst thing that happens is he plays this season and Brad can't find a taker his money (Jrue's money) comes off the books and that's not the end of the world. What's more likely to happen IMO is he'll get traded for a meh return that won't amount to much more than him coming off the books but will give us a little more flexibility, like a long shot prospect and an exception or something. So definitely a win/win... or a lose/lose... or something.

We'll know Brad is serious about moving Simons if he attaches draft comp or a sweetener like Hauser to make it happen. To this point, he has balked at doing so. You don't think that if Brad REALLY wanted to move him that the deal wouldn't be done already? It's easy. Throw in a FRP, and he's probably gone right now. But at this point, I don't think even Brad knows what he's going to do with Simons yet. Now that he has accomplished his main goal regarding salary reduction, he has every option at his disposal, and I don't for a second think he has ruled out keeping Simons if he plays well. Brad always says, "I never like to put limits on our players," and that applies here, too. Simons could absolutely force his hand to keep him, and it's as realistic as the option to trade him. Brad plays chess. Sees the game several moves in advance. Has counters for every option. Rarely pigeon-holes himself into one move.

Someone made this point earlier. Brad could've gotten us under the apron without the Jrue trade. Jrue only makes 2M more than Simons. Even after we lost the 2 2nd rounders, Brad didn't scrap the deal, EVEN knowing that if he kept Jrue it would be easier to trade him now and later if he wanted to. EVEN knowing that it would be harder to move Simons right after due to his play and his deal. Is the argument then that Brad F'd up? Somehow missed the market that had been pretty obvious for at least a year? No chance that Brad and Joe, and his entire scouting department, couldn't have seen yet another depreciated asset (in the summer of depreciated asset acquisition, mind you) that might look better in our system? I gotta believe Brad's rolling the dice here and he hasn't committed one way or the other on Simons and is gonna let him determine his fate.

[BostoNZ]

Paint touches. It opens everything up.

Puts the defense in rotation.

Creates advantages.

You don't just jack up 3's. You take open 3's which are generated after the defense collapses from a paint touch.

Read on Twitter

Besides the Jays, we don't have anyone else who can get paint touches. Simons gives us 3 guys who can get paint touches.

still with this nonsense.


Know who else gives paint touches? A **** post up.

This is an interesting point. How many post up options do we have on this roster?

Mazzulla ball 2.0: The Josh Minott post up revolution

[Larry_Russell]

Paint touches. It opens everything up.

Puts the defense in rotation.

Creates advantages.

You don't just jack up 3's. You take open 3's which are generated after the defense collapses from a paint touch.

Read on Twitter

Besides the Jays, we don't have anyone else who can get paint touches. Simons gives us 3 guys who can get paint touches.

still with this nonsense.


Know who else gives paint touches? A **** post up.

This is an interesting point. How many post up options do we have on this roster?

None, which is another flaw eith the rosters construction

We had Horf, KP and ideally tatum posting up

[Fierce1]

Post-ups are very easy to defend since the illegal defense was abolished.

What's more important now is a big who can catch lobs and finish strong on drop passes inside the paint.

OKC and Indy really don't post their bigs.

KP is a traditional post-up big and sometimes it resulted in the Celtic offense slowing down and 4 players watching KP operate.

GSW won 4 chips without a true post-up option.

[Bad-Thoma]

Not meaning to reignite discussion here, but my idle Simons thought of the day was 'keep him.' See how it goes. Let his $27M come off the books, and if he learns to play some defense and wants to come back for like half that -- cool. If it doesn't work out, then we've lost a large salary slot that I would ideally appropriate to a big -- but the only way to do that is via trade and if no one wants to trade us a good center for a combo guard then I guess we can't be mad at them.

It's either a win/win or a lose/lose. Or maybe a meh/meh. Definitely one of those.

Seriously though, if the worst thing that happens is he plays this season and Brad can't find a taker his money (Jrue's money) comes off the books and that's not the end of the world. What's more likely to happen IMO is he'll get traded for a meh return that won't amount to much more than him coming off the books but will give us a little more flexibility, like a long shot prospect and an exception or something. So definitely a win/win... or a lose/lose... or something.

We'll know Brad is serious about moving Simons if he attaches draft comp or a sweetener like Hauser to make it happen. To this point, he has balked at doing so. You don't think that if Brad REALLY wanted to move him that the deal wouldn't be done already? It's easy. Throw in a FRP, and he's probably gone right now. But at this point, I don't think even Brad knows what he's going to do with Simons yet. Now that he has accomplished his main goal regarding salary reduction, he has every option at his disposal, and I don't for a second think he has ruled out keeping Simons if he plays well. Brad always says, "I never like to put limits on our players," and that applies here, too. Simons could absolutely force his hand to keep him, and it's as realistic as the option to trade him. Brad plays chess. Sees the game several moves in advance. Has counters for every option. Rarely pigeon-holes himself into one move.

Someone made this point earlier. Brad could've gotten us under the apron without the Jrue trade. Jrue only makes 2M more than Simons. Even after we lost the 2 2nd rounders, Brad didn't scrap the deal, EVEN knowing that if he kept Jrue it would be easier to trade him now and later if he wanted to. EVEN knowing that it would be harder to move Simons right after due to his play and his deal. Is the argument then that Brad F'd up? Somehow missed the market that had been pretty obvious for at least a year? No chance that Brad and Joe, and his entire scouting department, couldn't have seen yet another depreciated asset (in the summer of depreciated asset acquisition, mind you) that might look better in our system? I gotta believe Brad's rolling the dice here and he hasn't committed one way or the other on Simons and is gonna let him determine his fate.

So I guess it's a win/win/win or a lose/lose/lose.

You're not wrong on any of that. I can't see any way Brad would add assets to dump Simons for the same reasons you mentioned and the fact that he doesn't need to as Simons is an expiring. I do question Simons ability to defend at a high enough rate to fit in long term but I'd love to see it, maybe being in a different system with a different coach will bring it out. I do think that's what the trade was about, creating flexibility vs Jrue's longer and slightly larger contract and his age in 26-27 when theoretically Tatum is back for the full season. The flexibility to trade a young scorer on an expiring, the flexibility to combine his expiring money with other assets to get a player with a higher cap number, the flexibility to see if the young scorer can grow into a role more conducive to winning, and the flexibility of letting him walk if none of those things happen. Jrue's age and length of contract was definitely not going to offer much flexibility going forward.

[Smart2Nesmith43]

still with this nonsense.


Know who else gives paint touches? A **** post up.

This is an interesting point. How many post up options do we have on this roster?

None, which is another flaw eith the rosters construction

We had Horf, KP and ideally tatum posting up

Horford had 44 post ups last year. For context Jrue Holiday had 38. Saying Horford posting up was a significant part of the Celtics offense is just not based on reality. You know who posted up a lot ? Jaylen Brown, 152 times at 1.06PPP, which is both higher volume an efficiency than Jayson Tatum (142 times at 1.05PPP) and any one else on the roster apart from Porzinigis.

[phincsfan]

If Neems can develop into what Hartenstein's become I'd be happy.

He was underwhelming in the finals, but I would bet he'll be better next time around.

Hartenstein has consistently improved each season with increased minutes.

[Larry_Russell]

This is an interesting point. How many post up options do we have on this roster?

None, which is another flaw eith the rosters construction

We had Horf, KP and ideally tatum posting up

Horford had 44 post ups last year. For context Jrue Holiday had 38. Saying Horford posting up was a significant part of the Celtics offense is just not based on reality. You know who posted up a lot ? Jaylen Brown, 152 times at 1.06PPP, which is both higher volume an efficiency than Jayson Tatum (142 times at 1.05PPP) and any one else on the roster apart from Porzinigis.

I didn't say he was a significant part of the offense.

I did say that having a threat of a post up increases paint touches, which is what is needed to shift a defense.

KP and/or Horford catching the ball at the top-ish of the Key forces a defender to collapse, which forces a team to rotate which can open up a 3point as much as someone driving the ball and kicking it out.

[Dogen]

Not meaning to reignite discussion here, but my idle Simons thought of the day was 'keep him.' See how it goes. Let his $27M come off the books, and if he learns to play some defense and wants to come back for like half that -- cool. If it doesn't work out, then we've lost a large salary slot that I would ideally appropriate to a big -- but the only way to do that is via trade and if no one wants to trade us a good center for a combo guard then I guess we can't be mad at them.

It's either a win/win or a lose/lose. Or maybe a meh/meh. Definitely one of those.

Seriously though, if the worst thing that happens is he plays this season and Brad can't find a taker his money (Jrue's money) comes off the books and that's not the end of the world. What's more likely to happen IMO is he'll get traded for a meh return that won't amount to much more than him coming off the books but will give us a little more flexibility, like a long shot prospect and an exception or something. So definitely a win/win... or a lose/lose... or something.

Bad-Thomas, that's what we're here for, to "ignite discussion". And in the dog days of August, the Simons status is about all we got in terms of debatable topics -- will he be traded, and when, and will he start, will he play defense, etc.

The team brass has bigger fish to fry with new ownership and all. I agree with you both, it's fine to go into the season with Simons, see what we have in him. Does he want to play D and increase his skill and value? Is he ok with a 6th man role? If a good deal comes up in September where he is moveable for a better contract, fine. If he plays well, but a deal comes up by the deadline, that's fine. If he plays through the season and comes off the books, that's not such a bad outcome. If he plays through the season, he's happy with his role, and the Celtics want to keep him, he could sign for a friendly deal and become a valuable spark plug off the bench -- the kind of player the Celtics have needed at an affordable contract.

So I assume Brad is willing to play the long game here. The main basketball related argument I've heard against Simons, aside from the defense, is that he'll be just good enough to lower our draft odds, but as I'd prefer to remain competitive. A re-signed Simons at a good contact would likely be more valuable in 2026-27 than any rookie outside the top of the lottery anyway.

[celtxman]

Not meaning to reignite discussion here, but my idle Simons thought of the day was 'keep him.' See how it goes. Let his $27M come off the books, and if he learns to play some defense and wants to come back for like half that -- cool. If it doesn't work out, then we've lost a large salary slot that I would ideally appropriate to a big -- but the only way to do that is via trade and if no one wants to trade us a good center for a combo guard then I guess we can't be mad at them.

It's either a win/win or a lose/lose. Or maybe a meh/meh. Definitely one of those.

Seriously though, if the worst thing that happens is he plays this season and Brad can't find a taker his money (Jrue's money) comes off the books and that's not the end of the world. What's more likely to happen IMO is he'll get traded for a meh return that won't amount to much more than him coming off the books but will give us a little more flexibility, like a long shot prospect and an exception or something. So definitely a win/win... or a lose/lose... or something.

Yes, this is similar to what I just posted. If you have the mentality that you HAD to cut payroll., than this was a great trade even if they get a meh return for Simons.

[bucknersrevenge]

still with this nonsense.


Know who else gives paint touches? A **** post up.

This is an interesting point. How many post up options do we have on this roster?

None, which is another flaw eith the rosters construction

We had Horf, KP and ideally tatum posting up

Sooo....we get paint touches how again?

[Larry_Russell]

This is an interesting point. How many post up options do we have on this roster?

None, which is another flaw eith the rosters construction

We had Horf, KP and ideally tatum posting up

Sooo....we get paint touches how again?

Better team.

[31to6]

Not meaning to reignite discussion here, but my idle Simons thought of the day was 'keep him.' See how it goes. Let his $27M come off the books, and if he learns to play some defense and wants to come back for like half that -- cool. If it doesn't work out, then we've lost a large salary slot that I would ideally appropriate to a big -- but the only way to do that is via trade and if no one wants to trade us a good center for a combo guard then I guess we can't be mad at them.

It's either a win/win or a lose/lose. Or maybe a meh/meh. Definitely one of those.

Seriously though, if the worst thing that happens is he plays this season and Brad can't find a taker his money (Jrue's money) comes off the books and that's not the end of the world. What's more likely to happen IMO is he'll get traded for a meh return that won't amount to much more than him coming off the books but will give us a little more flexibility, like a long shot prospect and an exception or something. So definitely a win/win... or a lose/lose... or something.

Bad-Thomas, that's what we're here for, to "ignite discussion". And in the dog days of August, the Simons status is about all we got in terms of debatable topics -- will he be traded, and when, and will he start, will he play defense, etc.

The team brass has bigger fish to fry with new ownership and all. I agree with you both, it's fine to go into the season with Simons, see what we have in him. Does he want to play D and increase his skill and value? Is he ok with a 6th man role? If a good deal comes up in September where he is moveable for a better contract, fine. If he plays well, but a deal comes up by the deadline, that's fine. If he plays through the season and comes off the books, that's not such a bad outcome. If he plays through the season, he's happy with his role, and the Celtics want to keep him, he could sign for a friendly deal and become a valuable spark plug off the bench -- the kind of player the Celtics have needed at an affordable contract.

So I assume Brad is willing to play the long game here. The main basketball related argument I've heard against Simons, aside from the defense, is that he'll be just good enough to lower our draft odds, but as I'd prefer to remain competitive. A re-signed Simons at a good contact would likely be more valuable in 2026-27 than any rookie outside the top of the lottery anyway.

'twas I who said I wasn't looking to reignite discussion, because there'd been about 4 pages of Simons takes not long prior, and I perhaps felt bashful about not managing to build off of what anyone had said there. But we all know how it goes here: you might write the most compelling argument ever on page 47, and by page 48 it's all being discussed anew again. So it is here with Simons.

All Simons has to do is learn to/start playing defense. If he does, keep him. If not, he's the latest Ricky Davis/Todd Day/Wally Szerbiak (not going to look up how to spell it I know there were at least half a dozen more consonants in there:)

But wait! Pritchard winning 6th man of the year while being paid $6.7M in the first year of 4/$30 is a valuable spark plug off the bench on an affordable contract. I demand satisfaction good sir;)

[Celts17Pride]

All Simons has to do is learn to/start playing defense.

Not that easy. Pritchard 195 lbs, Simons 180 lbs. Simons doesn't have the build to stop anyone. IT 2.0

Simons has been in the league 7 years, you think all during that time he hasn't said "I need to pick up my defense"? It's not that Simons doesn't want to, he is physical incapable of stopping anyone.