Using expirings now versus at deadline

[wigglestrue]

Looks like Ray ain't moving. But if the front office wanted to, we could probably get a good veteran right now for our other expirings: Scalabrine, TA, and now House. Together, they can be exchanged for a salary of a little over 11 million. Throw in Pruitt and/or Giddens, the returning salary could be 12.3 million or more. Add a pick like our 2011 1st, we could maybe get a fringe All-Star.

Ainge said he thinks he can pick up bargains for the minimum, well, let's see him do that. Those bargains will mostly exist this summer and fall, not at the trade deadline, so we couldn't sub in minimum bargains for our expirings at the deadline. Also, waiting until the deadline gives the incoming player a measly two months to blend in, trading the expirings now allows for an entire year of added chemistry. The only downside is that certain teams will be a little more desperate to clear cap space at the trade deadline, but then again we won't be the only team with expirings at that time. Well also, we very well might have different needs in February than now.

In no order, here are some (realistic or not) possibilities if we went for that kind of deal now, some costing more and some costing less: Jamal Crawford (yuck), Jason Terry (quite unlikely), Rip Hamilton or Tayshaun Prince, Stephen Jackson or Corey Maggette, Shane Battier, Troy Murphy or Dunleavy or Ford or Tinsley or Foster (varying degrees of value), Baron Davis, Zach Randolph, Tyson Chandler or Posey, Nick Collison, Samuel Dalembert, Barbosa or Jason Richardson (would require all of the above expirings plus Pruitt), Calderon (totally unlikely and unnecessary), Jamison (unlikely).

Now, will the pool of players on non-expiring contracts playing for non-contending teams become better closer to the trade deadline? Not really. The pool will be about the same, the only difference would be the minute chance that for some of the better options, instead of also giving up a 2011 1st we might only need to send the expirings. Is that worth the chemistry disadvantage of waiting 'til February and the risk of other contenders with expirings snatching up the best options in the meantime?

Or is there another reason for not doing a trade like that? Perhaps people mistakenly think we shouldn't take on overpaid contracts because we have some mythical shot at the big names in 2010. Well, we don't. Any other reason?

[exculpatory]

Hi Wigs

What you say makes sense to me, but what do I know? LOL. You include some very interesting possibilities, and I agree that we have little chance at the bumper crop 1 year from now.

Also, do you think Danny would be interested in a middle aged man who can still shoot well, but who has a bad back and damaged knee due to athletic excursions in my youth? He could get me very cheap - only a couple hundred grand. LOL.

Hope things are well with you.

Ex

[Jammer]

Wigglestrue:



I've been saying this for too long.

Teams do this all the time.

Part of it, sometimes, is being convincing. That the deal truly makes sense.

There are a number of teams out there in need of SG's who can defend, off the bench,
or PG's off the bench, who can defend.

Tony, Giddens, Pruitt have value.

I don't buy the sign free agent argument that ChakDaddy presents,
because those outcasts can't play NBA D anywhere close to Tony, Giddens or Pruitt.

I also disagree with a lot of posters on this board. On a team that has offense, but
needs some D off the bench, those 3 Celtics would fit right in.

The Celtics have D, when KG is around (when he wasn't we saw what a sieve the
vaunted D really was),
but the Celtics need offense off the bench since they are limited to
3 offensive starters (KG, Ray, Paul) plus Eddie and Leon (no more) off the bench.

The Celtics need offense off the bench, and a center who can defend.
The Celtics have too many guys whose specialty is Defense on the bench.

That is why I was so upset in August 2007,
when the Celtics didn't give Posey a 3 year contract for the full mid-level.
They would have a contract to trade now. They were too smart for their own good.

[Scalamental]

I know this depends on who we get, but I'd prefer if we'd kept house. It's well documented that we don't need scal and tony to win.

[vct33]

I still say Ray Allen for Jason Richardson & Leandro Barbosa would be an absolute homerun. I'd love to find a way to make that happen. Then we could trade Scal and TA (any of those other guys) in another trade or even in multiple trades.

Something like this:

R Allen for J Rich & Barbosa

Scals for Yi Jianlian

TA for Kyle Lowery

I don't know for sure that Yi or Lowery are on the market. I'm just throwing those out as ideas.

[campybatman]

I say, move the aforementioned players now. Why wait until just before the deadline if you're going to move them anyways? It's best to acquire whichever players you're trying to acquire in the off-season so they or he can get acclimated with the system and his teammates early on. Still, the question is, which player or players can be had with Scalabrine, Tony and House as your bait? I don't think you can include Pruitt. I think Ainge won't pickup the option come next month. Because I doubt he can do enough during the summer to change Ainge's mind that may already be leaning toward this decision now. But, you never know, though. But teams can simply wait on him to possibly be let go.

My suggestion is for Ainge to pitch an offer first to Portland. There's a team that could be looking to maneuver salaries to help toward signing their top players to extensions.

[GreenMachine]

Those bargains will mostly exist this summer and fall, not at the trade deadline, so we couldn't sub in minimum bargains for our expirings at the deadline.

Now, will the pool of players on non-expiring contracts playing for non-contending teams become better closer to the trade deadline? Not really.

I am not sure these statements are true. Every year there is a team or two who start the year thinking they have a shot, someone gets hurt or they just stink up the court, and the owners decide to unload salary. It happens every year.

What I do agree with is the next statement. Even if we can get a slightly better player at the deadline, maybe we would be better off with the lesser player, but for the full year.

[/quote]Also, waiting until the deadline gives the incoming player a measly two months to blend in, trading the expirings now allows for an entire year of added chemistry. [/quote]

I am not sure when it will happen, but I am quite sure DA will turn these contracts into a valuable player.

[CelticFaninLBC]

If they're willing to give Wallace 3 years, then make an offer for Posey with the expirings..

[wigglestrue]

Those bargains will mostly exist this summer and fall, not at the trade deadline, so we couldn't sub in minimum bargains for our expirings at the deadline.

Now, will the pool of players on non-expiring contracts playing for non-contending teams become better closer to the trade deadline? Not really.

I am not sure these statements are true. Every year there is a team or two who start the year thinking they have a shot, someone gets hurt or they just stink up the court, and the owners decide to unload salary. It happens every year.

Right, but the options above are just about it. No matter which contender surprisingly tanks.