Dallas - Boston - GSW - Sacramento - Utah - Brooklyn

[Godaddycurse]

Dallas trade: Martin, Gafford
Dallas receive: Monk, TJD, 2030 GSW 2nd

Boston trade: Simons, Hauser, 2026 most favourable of POR/NOP 2nd, 2027 more favourable of BOS/ORL 2nd
Boston receive: Gafford, Martin

GSW trade: Kuminga (S&T), TJD, 2030 2nd
GSW receive: Hauser, Love, 2027 2nd worse (CLE/MINN/LAL/UTAH) 1st

Sacramento trade: Monk, Saric, 2030 LP 1st (becomes worse of 2031 SAS/SAC 1st), 2026 CHA 2nd
Sacramento receive: Kuminga (S&T), Highsmith

Utah trade: Anderson, Love, Niang, 2027 2nd worse 1st (CLE/MINN/LAL/UTAH)
Utah receive: Simons, Saric (into exception), 2030 SAC LP 1st (becomes worse of 2031 SAS/SAC 1st), 2026 CHA 2nd

Brooklyn trade: Highsmith
Brooklyn receive: Anderson, Niang, 2026 most favourable of POR/NOP 2nd, 2027 more favourable of BOS/ORL 2nd

Why for Boston: duck the tax, add a starting C
Why for Dallas: upgrade scoring/playmaking and get a replacement cheap 3rd C
Why for GSW: add shooting/front court depth and a pick
Why for Sacramento: get kuminga as desired and another 3/D wing
Why for Utah: get a slightly higher variance pick and an early 2nd for taking on bit more (expiring) money. also get more roster spot(s)
Why for Brooklyn: get some assets for remaining capspace
Why for Kuminga: freedom

add more 2nd(s) as needed

[babyjax13]

I don't hate it because it moves our pick, but I really don't want another score first combo guard on the roster and would just rather sit tight with a 2027 pick. It also should not be the second best, it should be the worst of (a) the second best between UTA/CLE/MIN 1st, and (b) the LAL 1st (if conveyed). I would not commit the second best of those picks considering that if Minnesota loses Edwards for part of a season we could be looking at swapping a lottery pick for a lottery protected first.

[Godaddycurse]

I don't hate it because it moves our pick, but I really don't want another score first combo guard on the roster and would just rather sit tight with a 2027 pick. It also should not be the second best, it should be the worst of (a) the second best between UTA/CLE/MIN 1st, and (b) the LAL 1st (if conveyed). I would not commit the second best of those picks considering that if Minnesota loses Edwards for part of a season we could be looking at swapping a lottery pick for a lottery protected first.

I said best? My bad j meant 2nd worst. Op said 2nd worse...

[babyjax13]

I don't hate it because it moves our pick, but I really don't want another score first combo guard on the roster and would just rather sit tight with a 2027 pick. It also should not be the second best, it should be the worst of (a) the second best between UTA/CLE/MIN 1st, and (b) the LAL 1st (if conveyed). I would not commit the second best of those picks considering that if Minnesota loses Edwards for part of a season we could be looking at swapping a lottery pick for a lottery protected first.

I said best? My bad j meant 2nd worst. Op said 2nd worse...

Ah, I must have read it wrong. In that case, it is one where if we did it I would get it, though I don't love adding Simons and would personally just prefer to keep the pick.

I feel like Golden State should be keeping TJD here, and I am not sure he is needed for Dallas to consider?

[Godaddycurse]

I don't hate it because it moves our pick, but I really don't want another score first combo guard on the roster and would just rather sit tight with a 2027 pick. It also should not be the second best, it should be the worst of (a) the second best between UTA/CLE/MIN 1st, and (b) the LAL 1st (if conveyed). I would not commit the second best of those picks considering that if Minnesota loses Edwards for part of a season we could be looking at swapping a lottery pick for a lottery protected first.

I said best? My bad j meant 2nd worst. Op said 2nd worse...

Ah, I must have read it wrong. In that case, it is one where if we did it I would get it, though I don't love adding Simons and would personally just prefer to keep the pick.

I feel like Golden State should be keeping TJD here, and I am not sure he is needed for Dallas to consider?

GSW will have a C rotation of Horford/Post/Love and I think they soured on TJD last year. Dallas could use C insurance w/o Gafford, given lively and AD's fragility.

[giberish]

I said best? My bad j meant 2nd worst. Op said 2nd worse...

Ah, I must have read it wrong. In that case, it is one where if we did it I would get it, though I don't love adding Simons and would personally just prefer to keep the pick.

I feel like Golden State should be keeping TJD here, and I am not sure he is needed for Dallas to consider?

GSW will have a C rotation of Horford/Post/Love and I think they soured on TJD last year. Dallas could use C insurance w/o Gafford, given lively and AD's fragility.

Well if GS did this deal then they wouldn't have Horford, which is a problem. You'd have to take out Love to GS at which point it could work if JK signs for ~$23.5M (or at least ~$28M of TJD isn't included).

Of course this leaves GS very thin at PF or PF/C options. Just Butler/Green/Horford/Post/Santos with Butler playing significant SF minutes and Butler/Green/Horford all very (NBA) old and likely to miss games.

[redslastlaugh]

Just from the Boston side, this construction is a hard pass. Celtics can't stomach Martin's $10 million per year for three full years. Celts budget wiggle room is so tight with Tatum, Brown, and White combining for around $150 million per year, taking on that much for Caleb Martin just won't work. Gafford also is fine starting center, but he's not the preferable shooting archetype.

Should Celts/Mavs want to build a trade around Daniel Gafford, probably the window would be after Celts 2026 season ends, then Simons walks off into free agency and Celts can take Gafford into Porzingis TPE and send back draft capital to Dallas.

The Caleb Martin for Sam Hauser leg of the trade, is a no go

Boston trade: Simons, Hauser, 2026 most favourable of POR/NOP 2nd, 2027 more favourable of BOS/ORL 2nd
Boston receive: Gafford, Martin

Why for Boston: duck the tax, add a starting C

[Godaddycurse]

Ah, I must have read it wrong. In that case, it is one where if we did it I would get it, though I don't love adding Simons and would personally just prefer to keep the pick.

I feel like Golden State should be keeping TJD here, and I am not sure he is needed for Dallas to consider?

GSW will have a C rotation of Horford/Post/Love and I think they soured on TJD last year. Dallas could use C insurance w/o Gafford, given lively and AD's fragility.

Well if GS did this deal then they wouldn't have Horford, which is a problem. You'd have to take out Love to GS at which point it could work if JK signs for ~$23.5M (or at least ~$28M of TJD isn't included).

Of course this leaves GS very thin at PF or PF/C options. Just Butler/Green/Horford/Post/Santos with Butler playing significant SF minutes and Butler/Green/Horford all very (NBA) old and likely to miss games.

Why is that? If kuminga signs for ~24M then he and tjd would be more outgoing than incoming i believe. Or add in Santos if needed. Hauser and love makes 14.2M combined.

[Godaddycurse]

The Caleb Martin for Sam Hauser leg of the trade, is a no go

I think boston owes a 1st instead of seconds if they take out hauser for martin swap

[giberish]

GSW will have a C rotation of Horford/Post/Love and I think they soured on TJD last year. Dallas could use C insurance w/o Gafford, given lively and AD's fragility.

Well if GS did this deal then they wouldn't have Horford, which is a problem. You'd have to take out Love to GS at which point it could work if JK signs for ~$23.5M (or at least ~$28M of TJD isn't included).

Of course this leaves GS very thin at PF or PF/C options. Just Butler/Green/Horford/Post/Santos with Butler playing significant SF minutes and Butler/Green/Horford all very (NBA) old and likely to miss games.

Why is that? If kuminga signs for ~24M then he and tjd would be more outgoing than incoming i believe. Or add in Santos if needed. Hauser and love makes 14.2M combined.

oops, got Hauser and Kispert confused.

I still don't like the post depth here. I have severe doubts on Love being a credible on-court option.

[brackdan70]

Just from the Boston side, this construction is a hard pass. Celtics can't stomach Martin's $10 million per year for three full years. Celts budget wiggle room is so tight with Tatum, Brown, and White combining for around $150 million per year, taking on that much for Caleb Martin just won't work. Gafford also is fine starting center, but he's not the preferable shooting archetype.

Should Celts/Mavs want to build a trade around Daniel Gafford, probably the window would be after Celts 2026 season ends, then Simons walks off into free agency and Celts can take Gafford into Porzingis TPE and send back draft capital to Dallas.

The Caleb Martin for Sam Hauser leg of the trade, is a no go

Boston trade: Simons, Hauser, 2026 most favourable of POR/NOP 2nd, 2027 more favourable of BOS/ORL 2nd
Boston receive: Gafford, Martin

Why for Boston: duck the tax, add a starting C

Basically what I came to say.
I like the effort and thought put into this trade though.
If we could remove the Hauser/ Martin aspect then it has more legs.
Gafford value is tricky for me with the long term contract. He is a solid Center, rotation caliber, but lacks floor spacing capabilities. One good second in a great draft and a mediocre second in a weak draft seems high, but I guess some of that value is considered for the 2025 salary differential between Simons and Gafford. I think if Hauser is inlcluded you have to pull out the good 2nd from 2026….and like you said that strains the future flexibility.

[brackdan70]

The Caleb Martin for Sam Hauser leg of the trade, is a no go

I think boston owes a 1st instead of seconds if they take out hauser for martin swap

I find that hard to reconcile. This is value difference between Simons on one year and Gafford on a multi year?
Maybe I am off onGaffords value, but I would hard pass on including a first.

[Godaddycurse]

The Caleb Martin for Sam Hauser leg of the trade, is a no go

I think boston owes a 1st instead of seconds if they take out hauser for martin swap

I find that hard to reconcile. This is value difference between Simons on one year and Gafford on a multi year?
Maybe I am off onGaffords value, but I would hard pass on including a first.

I think gafford maybe able to fetch a late first from someone like charlotte. Simons i dont see anyone paying a first for. Dont even see who would pay seconds and expirings for him

[brackdan70]

I think boston owes a 1st instead of seconds if they take out hauser for martin swap

I find that hard to reconcile. This is value difference between Simons on one year and Gafford on a multi year?
Maybe I am off onGaffords value, but I would hard pass on including a first.

I think gafford maybe able to fetch a late first from someone like charlotte. Simons i dont see anyone paying a first for. Dont even see who would pay seconds and expirings for him

I agree on Simons at this point. He doesn’t have positive value in a trade…he is expiring though.
I disagree on Gafford being worth a first. I could see a team that needs him as the missing piece maybe ponying up a lotto protected 1st I guess, especially if they are trading multi year money. I am not sure he is the missing piece for Boston though. To me he has more value than Hauser, but not a lot.

[Godaddycurse]

I find that hard to reconcile. This is value difference between Simons on one year and Gafford on a multi year?
Maybe I am off onGaffords value, but I would hard pass on including a first.

I think gafford maybe able to fetch a late first from someone like charlotte. Simons i dont see anyone paying a first for. Dont even see who would pay seconds and expirings for him

I agree on Simons at this point. He doesn’t have positive value in a trade…he is expiring though.
I disagree on Gafford being worth a first. I could see a team that needs him as the missing piece maybe ponying up a lotto protected 1st I guess, especially if they are trading multi year money. I am not sure he is the missing piece for Boston though. To me he has more value than Hauser, but not a lot.

Ya I had simons = martin and gafford = hauser + 2nds, or something like that. Might be off a little

[cl2117]

I'll disagree with my fellow C's fans and say I'd do it from their perspective.

I'm higher than most on both Hauser and Gafford and think that's a fair swap. Gafford doesn't fit the 5 out system Mazzulla wants to play, but there's a reason they call KP "the unicorn", floor stretching/rim protecting bigs are hard to find. Gafford isn't an all-star but I think he's good enough to build your frontcourt around if you've got enough talent elsewhere. He can protect the rim, fix some of the C's rebounding woes and is affordable/tradeable even after his new deal kicks in.

Martin/Simons swap is fine. Same amount of money, just different payment plans. Carry Martin through the "gap year" and he'll have 2/20 left on his deal, which would be fine as trade ballast on his own or part of a bigger deal since the C's can aggregate again. I'd quibble on the 2nd round picks but that's the margins.

Can't decide if C's record will be better or worse next year after this deal. They lose a ton of scoring but upgrade what's currently possibly the worst frontcourt in the league. Honestly I'd hope it hurts their record and if that wasn't the FO's belief I'd be less interested.

[gswhoops]

I feel like Golden State should be keeping TJD here, and I am not sure he is needed for Dallas to consider?

Yeah agreed. Love also makes more than TJD so there's no apron issues (from our perspective at least) with just routing Love to Dallas instead.

[xdrta+]

I feel like Golden State should be keeping TJD here, and I am not sure he is needed for Dallas to consider?

Yeah agreed. Love also makes more than TJD so there's no apron issues (from our perspective at least) with just routing Love to Dallas instead.

So, just Kuminga and a second for Hauser and a first? I wouldn't mind that at all. No need for Love, don't really want to challenge the Clippers for oldest team ever.