Hayward Undecided

Post #321 » by **sully00** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 2:00 am

Getting the #1 pick has kind of taken the wind out of this for me. You get to the point that there is only one basketball. Obviously you sign Hayward you can move Brown or Crowder but I think the focus has to be spending the money at the 4/5. Gallo is a no he just isn't good enough on the glass to be messing around with need a rebounder.

Curmudgeon · Post #322 » by **Curmudgeon** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 2:24 am

Agree with your analysis Sully. Dare I say it? Maybe it's time to revisit a deal for Boogie. Z-bo on a 2 year deal is another option.

Valid · Post #323 » by **Valid** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 2:29 am

Curmudgeon wrote:Agree with your analysis Sully. Dare I say it? Maybe it's time to revisit a deal for Boogie. Z-bo on a 2 year deal is another option.

The Pelicans just traded for Cousins three months ago. They aren't moving him.

Curmudgeon · Post #324 » by **Curmudgeon** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 2:31 am

Valid wrote:
Curmudgeon wrote:Agree with your analysis Sully. Dare I say it? Maybe it's time to revisit a deal for Boogie. Z-bo on a 2 year deal is another option.

The Pelicans just traded for Cousins three months ago. They aren't moving him.

Every team has its price.

Homerclease · Post #325 » by **Homerclease** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 2:32 am

sully00 wrote:Getting the #1 pick has kind of taken the wind out of this for me. You get to the point that there is only one basketball. Obviously you sign Hayward you can move Brown or Crowder but I think the focus has to be spending the money at the 4/5. Gallo is a no he just isn't good enough on the glass to be messing around with need a rebounder.

There is always one basketball, don't understand the point. There was one basketball whether we're picking first or 30th. The only two teams remaining happen to be the only two teams in the league that have 3 guys on their squad that can hang 30 on you every night. If you can't score and make the other team work on defense you have no chance. None.

VeryMuchWoke · Post #326 » by **VeryMuchWoke** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 2:34 am

Andrew McCeltic wrote:Gallo isn't perfect, obviously. But as a plan D or E, sign me up. Otherwise we're paying 45 million to IT/Bradley and the cap space disappears anyway.

Helps we have the BKN picks and draftees - but the biggest risk right now is that we pay everyone and end up like Toronto or LAC - salary locked to a competitive but not great team, with no way to get better.

I disagree. He's not worth the cap space. I'd rather take on dead salary for a '17 (or future) draft pick.

celtxman · Post #327 » by **celtxman** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 2:35 am

sully00 wrote:Getting the #1 pick has kind of taken the wind out of this for me. You get to the point that there is only one basketball. Obviously you sign Hayward you can move Brown or Crowder but I think the focus has to be spending the money at the 4/5. Gallo is a no he just isn't good enough on the glass to be messing around with need a rebounder.

I agree in theory, I just can't figure out how to do it. How do you get a true big man? Is Griffin really the answer - his injuries are scary to invest in. IF AD was really available most of us would take the plunge - give up a lot - and hope he stays healthy. Personally, Demarcus Cousins actions and personality are as bad as it gets - and yet I wonder if the Celtics missed a real opportunity by passing on him. I am totally in favor of pursuing Jokic with the #1 pick which it appears most people disagree with.
It is one thing to "want" to spend the money in an area. Maybe you take that cap money to Griffin and roll the dice. But I certainly love the idea of getting Hayward for no assets and I wouldn't pass the opportunity to. Is it possible to obtain a decent rebounder like Chandler and team him with Zizic as a Plan B?

Curmudgeon · Post #328 » by **Curmudgeon** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 2:37 am

Tyson Chandler has always been on my radar screen, but apparently not on the Ainge radar screen.

Post #329 » by **165bows** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 2:40 am

If you can get a top-25 player for nothing but money, it's a no-brainer. Especially since he shouldn't decline over the life of the contract.

Curmudgeon · Post #330 » by **Curmudgeon** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 2:45 am

165bows wrote:If you can get a top-25 player for nothing but money, it's a no-brainer. Especially since he shouldn't decline over the life of the contract.

Which top 25 player are you talking about?

Post #331 » by **165bows** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 2:47 am

Curmudgeon wrote:
165bows wrote:If you can get a top-25 player for nothing but money, it's a no-brainer. Especially since he shouldn't decline over the life of the contract.

Which top 25 player are you talking about?

All of them.

Curmudgeon · Post #332 » by **Curmudgeon** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 3:17 am

165bows wrote:
Curmudgeon wrote:
165bows wrote:If you can get a top-25 player for nothing but money, it's a no-brainer. Especially since he shouldn't decline over the life of the contract.

Which top 25 player are you talking about?

All of them.

So if Hayward says no, what's your plan B?

Let me add that Hayward isn't necessarily a top 25 player, although he's close.

brackdan70 · Post #333 » by **brackdan70** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 3:26 am

iTalkToTheLord wrote:
brackdan70 wrote:Porter is an easy max RFA. pretty silly to think otherwise. I would be surprised if Wiz didn't match any offer.
as a 23 year old he really put up special numbers. TS% 0.628, BPM 3.9, Ortg 129, Drtg 108, 3pt% 0.434, TRB% 11.1 (very good for a wing)

Porter will be 24-28 (his prime) for his next contract. the above numbers compare positively to our favorite FA target....and his Max would start at 25.25 million. Would be amazing if we could get Porter but IMO he is not obtainable.

For the longest time max contracts were reserved for star players. You can only fit 2-3 max contracts on a team, and generally the goal would be to build a team around 2-3 star players. With recent revisions to the CBA max players can receive an even higher percentage of the cap, so, if anything, fewer players should be worthy of the max. Perception, however, seems to be the opposite.

Do you believe that every decent 3rd or 4th starter is deserving of a max, or do you believe Otto Porter is a future all star? Why?

the way Porter played this year at 23 years old projects as a future all-star... combine stats and exceptional size and length for a wing...yes future all star. also the 0-6 year max is 25% of the cap, so this is quite a bit different than maxing Hayward. (30% of the cap). I believe Porter will get a max offer sheet. Its really not about who deserves what. Its a market and he is the best RFA out there this year.

Curmudgeon · Post #334 » by **Curmudgeon** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 3:34 am

I like Porter too, but his shooting tailed off in the second half of the year and in the playoffs. He's a gamble, like the one Dallas took on Harrison Barnes.

Andrew McCeltic · Post #335 » by **Andrew McCeltic** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 3:41 am

iTalkToTheLord wrote:
Andrew McCeltic wrote:Gallo isn't perfect, obviously. But as a plan D or E, sign me up. Otherwise we're paying 45 million to IT/Bradley and the cap space disappears anyway.

Helps we have the BKN picks and draftees - but the biggest risk right now is that we pay everyone and end up like Toronto or LAC - salary locked to a competitive but not great team, with no way to get better.

I disagree. He's not worth the cap space. I'd rather take on dead salary for a '17 (or future) draft pick.

I'd rather have Melo and the Knicks pick, depending on who's there, than Gallo. Problem, I think, is getting another vet star to make Melo motivated.

smart_celtics · Post #336 » by **smart_celtics** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 3:43 am

brackdan70 wrote:
iTalkToTheLord wrote:
brackdan70 wrote:Porter is an easy max RFA. pretty silly to think otherwise. I would be surprised if Wiz didn't match any offer.
as a 23 year old he really put up special numbers. TS% 0.628, BPM 3.9, Ortg 129, Drtg 108, 3pt% 0.434, TRB% 11.1 (very good for a wing)

Porter will be 24-28 (his prime) for his next contract. the above numbers compare positively to our favorite FA target....and his Max would start at 25.25 million. Would be amazing if we could get Porter but IMO he is not obtainable.

For the longest time max contracts were reserved for star players. You can only fit 2-3 max contracts on a team, and generally the goal would be to build a team around 2-3 star players. With recent revisions to the CBA max players can receive an even higher percentage of the cap, so, if anything, fewer players should be worthy of the max. Perception, however, seems to be the opposite.

Do you believe that every decent 3rd or 4th starter is deserving of a max, or do you believe Otto Porter is a future all star? Why?

the way Porter played this year at 23 years old projects as a future all-star... combine stats and exceptional size and length for a wing...yes future all star. also the 0-6 year max is 25% of the cap, so this is quite a bit different than maxing Hayward. (30% of the cap). I believe Porter will get a max offer sheet. Its really not about who deserves what. Its a market and he is the best RFA out there this year.

I saw some stat about how Porter's opportunities were disproportionately wide open because he played next to Wall and Beal. Honestly he looks like he might just be a slightly better shooter Crowder but a worse defender than Crowder. He certainly showed nothing in our series that indicated to me that he was worth max money to us.

GregB · Post #337 » by **GregB** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 4:07 am

Hayward is the big prize and maybe Griffin. But I think CP3 stays for the max and Griffin does too. Even though I think we need Griffin more. Hayward will end up being a better investment over the life of the contract. Then we can move one of our guards or wings for a Big after Hayward signs.

If we get Hayward this will be huge for IT. He will be able to create his own offense in ISO while also fitting into our system seamlessly.

Between him and Fultz we will have added two elite creators and made our offense more effective and also make it much harder for teams to key on any one guy.

Fencer reregistered · Post #338 » by **Fencer reregistered** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 6:50 am

GregB wrote:Then we can move one of our guards or wings for a Big after Hayward signs.

Salary becomes a challenge at that point. Trading for the guys making 8 figures won't be totally easy. And the cheaper guys one might want -- like Porzingis -- may not be available for reasonable trade packages.

Leprechaun18 · Post #339 » by **Leprechaun18** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 7:49 am

We desperately need another big. This last season we were a poor rebounding team. If we want to sign Hayward we are gonna have to let Amir, JJ, and probably KO go. Then we will only be able to sign leftover bigs with exceptions. I am thinking that J.Brown is gonna improve next season and Markelle could play some SF also. Thus the question is how much improvement are we gonna see by signing G.H.? Is he gonna be that much better than Crowder, JBrown, and Markelle (getting small ball mins) and if it weakens our frontcourt, which was already weak, then our team could be hurt by the signing. Perhaps we should just let JBrown develop and pursue quality bigs to improve our front court. Guys like Dewayne Dedmon.

Leprechaun18 · Post #340 » by **Leprechaun18** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 8:16 am

sully00 wrote:Getting the #1 pick has kind of taken the wind out of this for me. You get to the point that there is only one basketball. Obviously you sign Hayward you can move Brown or Crowder but I think the focus has to be spending the money at the 4/5. Gallo is a no he just isn't good enough on the glass to be messing around with need a rebounder.

I agree.