Trade Ideas Thread

[keevsnick1]

Good to know we have the ownership groups personal financial advisors posting on realgm so we all know their thoughts on spending before this year is even over

Sent from my moto g(7) using RealGM mobile app

If you're not into baseless speculation then you've come to the wrong place.

[Parliament10]

cold day in hell when Danny drops assets to save money without a signing in mind. i mean, even bradley got us morris. He's not going to trade his golden late round money controlled first round picks and players on near min contracts for worse picks. None of those make sense and make me realize why trade threads on the boston forum are the worst of just about any forum. Either we are trading wannamake for chirs paul or trading hayward for drummond.

Pre-COVID reports were that we wanted to re-sign Hayward past his option year. Before COVID hit, the tax line was projected to be $139M. Now people are saying the NBA might borrow future cap space to hold it steady to this year at $132.5M. That means

1) Getting under the tax in '20-21 becomes much harder and would require the type of money saving moves I noted above.
2) If they borrow money from future years to keep the tax line steady vs a big drop then those future years will have a lower luxury tax line than anticipated so you'd be paying more tax.

Based on COVID, Wyc and the ownership group are already losing lots of money. And with those luxury tax ramifications, re-signing Hayward will probably be about $100M more expensive than anticipated due to extra luxury tax payments. That's because previously it would project to be no tax in '20-21, tax in '21-22 and tax again in '22-23. Now it projects to be tax in '20-21, tax in '21-22, repeater tax in '22-23. And the tax lines themselves will all be lower in future years so it's even more tax than anticipated previously. NBA luxury tax is pretty heavy to begin with and the repeater rates are brutal.

I'm just anticipating that adding an extra $100M to the total cost of Hayward (salary + luxury tax) is going to make Wyc more hesitant. That's a lot of extra money to spend on what would already be an expensive cost for your #4 player. Based on the new CBA, the luxury tax implications of re-signing Gordon Hayward long term will cost Wyc probably over $100M in luxury tax. That's in addition to whatever he signs for. I find it very plausible that he tells Ainge he doesn't want to spend up to $200M on Hayward over the next 3-4 years. So in that event, what do you think would be a more difficult pill for Ainge to swallow...

1) Let a top ~40 player in the game walk for nothing after this season because he has to avoid the tax and triggering repeater rates

2) Moving down from pick 26 to 38 and 30 to 44 like I had in my post so he can keep that top 40 player and make the money work.

Just looking at it realistically from a financial side of things I don't see how Wyc signs off on keeping Hayward as things stand right now. So if I gotta move some 12th-15th men and slide down some late 1sts to the second I think that's a small cost to keep a top 40 player.

I don't really think hayward is walking away this offseason for the simple reason that there just isnt going to be that many, if any, teams with the correct amount of "good team looking for a final piece" and "actually has money." So maybe he opts outt to sign a longer term deal with the C's, but I wouldn't be comfortable extending him and his sore foot two more post prime years at 28/per year.

I think there's a decent chance he opts in and then ends up getting traded, maybe for something like a starting defensive anchor at center and a 3+D wing. There's just diminishing returns to paying a 4th option 30 million a year going forward.

As for the roster crunch you could see a draft and stash euro, you could flip a first this year into a future first, you could even see a move up.

While the tax situation is an issue any solution that gets the C's under the tax likely means they have a horrible bench, and I'd bet the C's consider themselves enough of a contender that they'd like to improve the bench going into next year.

Hayward = Turner & Lamb, seems to work.

Hayward is only a 4th Option, on the Celtics. He could be a higher option on another team.

[hugepatsfan]

cold day in hell when Danny drops assets to save money without a signing in mind. i mean, even bradley got us morris. He's not going to trade his golden late round money controlled first round picks and players on near min contracts for worse picks. None of those make sense and make me realize why trade threads on the boston forum are the worst of just about any forum. Either we are trading wannamake for chirs paul or trading hayward for drummond.

Pre-COVID reports were that we wanted to re-sign Hayward past his option year. Before COVID hit, the tax line was projected to be $139M. Now people are saying the NBA might borrow future cap space to hold it steady to this year at $132.5M. That means

1) Getting under the tax in '20-21 becomes much harder and would require the type of money saving moves I noted above.
2) If they borrow money from future years to keep the tax line steady vs a big drop then those future years will have a lower luxury tax line than anticipated so you'd be paying more tax.

Based on COVID, Wyc and the ownership group are already losing lots of money. And with those luxury tax ramifications, re-signing Hayward will probably be about $100M more expensive than anticipated due to extra luxury tax payments. That's because previously it would project to be no tax in '20-21, tax in '21-22 and tax again in '22-23. Now it projects to be tax in '20-21, tax in '21-22, repeater tax in '22-23. And the tax lines themselves will all be lower in future years so it's even more tax than anticipated previously. NBA luxury tax is pretty heavy to begin with and the repeater rates are brutal.

I'm just anticipating that adding an extra $100M to the total cost of Hayward (salary + luxury tax) is going to make Wyc more hesitant. That's a lot of extra money to spend on what would already be an expensive cost for your #4 player. Based on the new CBA, the luxury tax implications of re-signing Gordon Hayward long term will cost Wyc probably over $100M in luxury tax. That's in addition to whatever he signs for. I find it very plausible that he tells Ainge he doesn't want to spend up to $200M on Hayward over the next 3-4 years. So in that event, what do you think would be a more difficult pill for Ainge to swallow...

1) Let a top ~40 player in the game walk for nothing after this season because he has to avoid the tax and triggering repeater rates

2) Moving down from pick 26 to 38 and 30 to 44 like I had in my post so he can keep that top 40 player and make the money work.

Just looking at it realistically from a financial side of things I don't see how Wyc signs off on keeping Hayward as things stand right now. So if I gotta move some 12th-15th men and slide down some late 1sts to the second I think that's a small cost to keep a top 40 player.

I don't really think hayward is walking away this offseason for the simple reason that there just isnt going to be that many, if any, teams with the correct amount of "good team looking for a final piece" and "actually has money." So maybe he opts outt to sign a longer term deal with the C's, but I wouldn't be comfortable extending him and his sore foot two more post prime years at 28/per year.

I think there's a decent chance he opts in and then ends up getting traded, maybe for something like a starting defensive anchor at center and a 3+D wing. There's just diminishing returns to paying a 4th option 30 million a year going forward.

As for the roster crunch you could see a draft and stash euro, you could flip a first this year into a future first, you could even see a move up.

While the tax situation is an issue any solution that gets the C's under the tax likely means they have a horrible bench, and I'd bet the C's consider themselves enough of a contender that they'd like to improve the bench going into next year.

I should clarify, I don't mean losing Hayward this offseason, I mean losing him next year after he plays out the option.

Right now we projected to be a luxury tax team in '20-21 with Hayward on his option. Looking ahead to next offseason going into the '21-22, projecting a max extension for Tatum and considering the draft picks we own this year and next, we're at about $130M heading into FA. That's with Hayward and Theis both entering free agency and needing new deals if we want to keep them. The '21-22 tax line before COVID was projected to be $151M, and that's expected to drop if they borrow money from future years to reduce the impact in '20-21, as has been reported by some (not set in stone though). So keeping Hayward and staying below the tax isn't really an option. You can probably re-sign Theis and use the MLE (or a piece of it) on a Hayward replacement.

If we were to re-sign Hayward we'd be a tax team again in '21-22 after being over in '20-21. And then with all of Hayward/Walker/Brown/Tatum and hopefully Smart re-signed, we'd be a tax team again in '22-23. That triggers massive repeater tax penalties which is what I'm nervous Wyc won't sign off on.

If Wyc tells Ainge he won't sign off on that, which is a hypothetical but I'm just posting ideas for it as a possibility because it's a realistic scenario, we can avoid the repeater tax with the moves I made. If you just avoid it for one more year by making those tough calls this offseason, you don't have to worry about it at all. You can keep Hayward long term, re-sign Theis, use your MLE each year. It doesn't matter. You avoid the tax for one more year and we'll never have to pay repeater rates in the near-term because before they would kick in Kemba's deal would expire.

Ina scenario where avoiding repeater tax rates is the financial reality Ainge has to deal with, I'd rather he do it in a plan like I proposed earlier. Because yeah, those trades all suck to make, but we're talking late picks and back of the roster guys. I'd rather have to be financially motivated there than at the top of the roster with guys like Hayward, Theis.

Hopefully it's a non issue and Wyc will sign off on repeater tax if that's what it takes. I just think that the best version of this team is with Hayward on it. Or even if it's just re-signing him to move him for a different high level piece down the road (don't think he has much trade value on his current 1 year deal but on a longer term deal I think teams would give comparable value). I just look at it from the financial perspective and see it as extremely plausible that it might be an issue so that was a plan to alleviate in a way that I think reduced the impact on our competitiveness over the next few years.

[Fencer reregistered]

Between players and draft picks we have 17 players under contract for next year (this year's 15 man roster - Brad Wanamaker + 3 draft picks = 17). If you're saying Tacko and Waters are NBA guys then we're at 19. Which 4 would you shed?

I know that wasn't addressed to me, but guys I'm not committed to keeping include Green, Semi, Carsen, Poirier, and any particular draft pick. What's more, that leaves a roster with approximate position groupings of:

Bigs: Theis, Enes, Time Lord, Grant, Tacko

Natural SFs: Tatum, Hayward, Brown

Guards: Kemba, Smart, Waters, Langford

That's reasonable balance, given the versatility of the natural SFs, Smart and perhaps also Langford, so there's no desperate need to fill any particular positional slot.

[hugepatsfan]

Between players and draft picks we have 17 players under contract for next year (this year's 15 man roster - Brad Wanamaker + 3 draft picks = 17). If you're saying Tacko and Waters are NBA guys then we're at 19. Which 4 would you shed?

I know that wasn't addressed to me, but guys I'm not committed to keeping include Green, Semi, Carsen, Poirier, and any particular draft pick. What's more, that leaves a roster with approximate position groupings of:

Bigs: Theis, Enes, Time Lord, Grant, Tacko

Natural SFs: Tatum, Hayward, Brown

Guards: Kemba, Smart, Waters, Langford

That's reasonable balance, given the versatility of the natural SFs, Smart and perhaps also Langford, so there's no desperate need to fill any particular positional slot.

I'd group them into tiers like this:

1) Tatum / Brown / Kemba / Hayward / Smart. These 5 are guys I don't want to move on from.

2) Theis. I made him his own category because he's not as good as the group above but I also don't want to move on from him. Just wouldn't make sense.

3) Kanter / Ojeleye. I think both of these guys are serviceable bench pieces for 15-20 minutes/night. Nothing more though. I'm fine keeping either but if I have to dump one or both to make the financials of keeping tier 1 together work then whatever. If we think of Wanamaker as a roster consideration, even though he's an RFA, he falls here as well.

4) Grant / Rob / Langford / #17. These are 3 young players and one hypothetical draft pick are who I see real potential in. I see long-term rotation player ability here and would be against moving them in most deals that are realistically doable (meaning yes, I'd move them for an all start but that's not realistic).

5) Carsen / Poirier / Green / #26 / #30 / Waters / Fall. All of these players/picks fall in the same category for me. Total lottery tickets. I'm fine with any single one of them on the roster but don't view any of them as high upside pieces and any of them are fighting an uphill climb to ever be long term rotation pieces. Again, I'd rather keep than lose them, but if I need to lose a few to make veteran FA additions and/or preserve the financial feasibility of tier 1 core then I accept that as cost of doing business.

[bucknersrevenge]

Between players and draft picks we have 17 players under contract for next year (this year's 15 man roster - Brad Wanamaker + 3 draft picks = 17). If you're saying Tacko and Waters are NBA guys then we're at 19. Which 4 would you shed?

I know that wasn't addressed to me, but guys I'm not committed to keeping include Green, Semi, Carsen, Poirier, and any particular draft pick. What's more, that leaves a roster with approximate position groupings of:

Bigs: Theis, Enes, Time Lord, Grant, Tacko

Natural SFs: Tatum, Hayward, Brown

Guards: Kemba, Smart, Waters, Langford

That's reasonable balance, given the versatility of the natural SFs, Smart and perhaps also Langford, so there's no desperate need to fill any particular positional slot.

Semi, Carsen, and Rob Williams are the three guys who could be affected the most by their performance during the restart and playoffs. Good performances could potentially solidify them into next year's rotation while unimpactful performances could lead the team to move them in favor of other options.

Semi: If he can hit that perimeter shot and maybe drive some closeouts like in that CLE game and of course, play reasonable defense against guys like Giannis then I think we opt him in after the season. If not, we can either opt out for the spot or trade him to a team that either wants him or wants the ability to opt him out. Longterm, it's possible that Grant and Langford eventually approximate everything he can give us so I'm not sure he's here beyond next year regardless. He's even less necessary if either or both those two are productive, regardless of whether he is or not.

Carsen: It's simple. He has to be a shotmaker. He can be league average on defense and be a guy who gives effort there and make the right pass when appropriate and all but for him, it all comes down to can you rely on him to hit shots when it matters? If after the last few days of hype, if he puts up goose eggs in the restart then he could be a trade candidate if pressed roster space though I still feel regardless that he'd get at least one more season to make good. Waters is certainly the more complete player but that also makes him more tradeable as well while Carsen's ability to bomb away and move without the ball is incredibly valuable in Stevens' read and react egalitarian offense.

TimeLord: I feel like it will come down to either him or Kanter next season. Williams is the guy they want but he has to take the job with reliable production. If not, he could certainly get moved. You keep Kanter for his option year and go with Tacko and Poirier backing up. Everyone else I feel their fate is already set.

[Parliament10]

Between players and draft picks we have 17 players under contract for next year (this year's 15 man roster - Brad Wanamaker + 3 draft picks = 17). If you're saying Tacko and Waters are NBA guys then we're at 19. Which 4 would you shed?

I know that wasn't addressed to me, but guys I'm not committed to keeping include Green, Semi, Carsen, Poirier, and any particular draft pick. What's more, that leaves a roster with approximate position groupings of:

Bigs: Theis, Enes, Time Lord, Grant, Tacko

Natural SFs: Tatum, Hayward, Brown

Guards: Kemba, Smart, Waters, Langford

That's reasonable balance, given the versatility of the natural SFs, Smart and perhaps also Langford, so there's no desperate need to fill any particular positional slot.

Semi, Carsen, and Rob Williams are the three guys who could be affected the most by their performance during the restart and playoffs. Good performances could potentially solidify them into next year's rotation while unimpactful performances could lead the team to move them in favor of other options.

Semi: If he can hit that perimeter shot and maybe drive some closeouts like in that CLE game and of course, play reasonable defense against guys like Giannis then I think we opt him in after the season. If not, we can either opt out for the spot or trade him to a team that either wants him or wants the ability to opt him out. Longterm, it's possible that Grant and Langford eventually approximate everything he can give us so I'm not sure he's here beyond next year regardless. He's even less necessary if either or both those two are productive, regardless of whether he is or not.

Carsen: It's simple. He has to be a shotmaker. He can be league average on defense and be a guy who gives effort there and make the right pass when appropriate and all but for him, it all comes down to can you rely on him to hit shots when it matters? If after the last few days of hype, if he puts up goose eggs in the restart then he could be a trade candidate if pressed roster space though I still feel regardless that he'd get at least one more season to make good. Waters is certainly the more complete player but that also makes him more tradeable as well while Carsen's ability to bomb away and move without the ball is incredibly valuable in Stevens' read and react egalitarian offense.

TimeLord: I feel like it will come down to either him or Kanter next season. Williams is the guy they want but he has to take the job with reliable production. If not, he could certainly get moved. You keep Kanter for his option year and go with Tacko and Poirier backing up. Everyone else I feel their fate is already set.

I think that Tremont Waters also, could further solidify his position on the NBA Roster next season.
These players baiscally have these 3 Scrimmages, and then the Final 8 Seeding Games.

After that, the Rotation goes down to 8+, for the Playoffs.

[bucknersrevenge]

I know that wasn't addressed to me, but guys I'm not committed to keeping include Green, Semi, Carsen, Poirier, and any particular draft pick. What's more, that leaves a roster with approximate position groupings of:

Bigs: Theis, Enes, Time Lord, Grant, Tacko

Natural SFs: Tatum, Hayward, Brown

Guards: Kemba, Smart, Waters, Langford

That's reasonable balance, given the versatility of the natural SFs, Smart and perhaps also Langford, so there's no desperate need to fill any particular positional slot.

Semi, Carsen, and Rob Williams are the three guys who could be affected the most by their performance during the restart and playoffs. Good performances could potentially solidify them into next year's rotation while unimpactful performances could lead the team to move them in favor of other options.

Semi: If he can hit that perimeter shot and maybe drive some closeouts like in that CLE game and of course, play reasonable defense against guys like Giannis then I think we opt him in after the season. If not, we can either opt out for the spot or trade him to a team that either wants him or wants the ability to opt him out. Longterm, it's possible that Grant and Langford eventually approximate everything he can give us so I'm not sure he's here beyond next year regardless. He's even less necessary if either or both those two are productive, regardless of whether he is or not.

Carsen: It's simple. He has to be a shotmaker. He can be league average on defense and be a guy who gives effort there and make the right pass when appropriate and all but for him, it all comes down to can you rely on him to hit shots when it matters? If after the last few days of hype, if he puts up goose eggs in the restart then he could be a trade candidate if pressed roster space though I still feel regardless that he'd get at least one more season to make good. Waters is certainly the more complete player but that also makes him more tradeable as well while Carsen's ability to bomb away and move without the ball is incredibly valuable in Stevens' read and react egalitarian offense.

TimeLord: I feel like it will come down to either him or Kanter next season. Williams is the guy they want but he has to take the job with reliable production. If not, he could certainly get moved. You keep Kanter for his option year and go with Tacko and Poirier backing up. Everyone else I feel their fate is already set.

I think that Tremont Waters also, could further solidify his position on the NBA Roster next season.
These players baiscally have these 3 Scrimmages, and then the Final 8 Seeding Games.

After that, the Rotation goes down to 8+, for the Playoffs.

Waters is currently completing concussion protocol which hurts a little. We'll see what happens when he gets back. My feel on him though is that he's too good an asset with his league appeal as a quality backup to not at least sign to a deal so that you can either keep him or at least trade him later. If you're gonna load manage Walker for the rest of his contract, Waters may wind up a decent sub in later.

[bucknersrevenge]

If it didn't work out with Hayward, could he opt out and then do a sign and trade with Indy? Sign at like 4/95 and then trade for Turner and McDermott? How many years are required for a S&T deal now. Sure it hard caps Indy, but they don't have significant FA issues to address anyway so it just might make the talent fit better. Resident capologists, is this possible?

[Curmudgeon]

Hayward cannot be traded without his consent unless he opts in. Plus there are other reasons why sign and trades are rare these days, starting with the base year compensation rules.
https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2019/06/why-nba-sign-and-trades-are-rare-2.html

[bucknersrevenge]

Hayward cannot be traded without his consent unless he opts in. Plus there are other reasons why sign and trades are rare these days, starting with the base year compensation rules.
https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2019/06/why-nba-sign-and-trades-are-rare-2.html

I just skimmed this article as a refresher and remembered everything except the BYC part which clearly I didn't see on my first skim. I forgot about BYC. Thanks for reminding me.

[yahboi617]

Saw this in the main forum and thought i'd bring it here. The basic idea is three-team trade with Chi-town and GSW for Lavine. here's my version
BOS out: Gordon, Theis, Romeo, Grant Williams, Carsen, #17
BOS in: Lavine, Wendell Carter Jr., Cristiano Felicino

CHI in: Wiggins, Carsen, Theis, Romeo, Grant, #17
CHI out: Lavine, Wendell, Cristiano

GSW in: Hayward
GSW out: Wiggins

Why for Bos? Lavine/Brown/Tatum becomes a trio of 20ppg wings under 25 and hopefully, stevens gets Lavine to be at least a good defender. Wendell is a perfect 5 for Boston and they open up roster spots and cap next year for tatum max.

Why for Chi? wiggins and lavine are about equal but they get a whole lot of talent for wendell. They get a guy who is very similar to him in grant, a future 2/3 in romeo and a current cheap replacement in Theis so they can compete and develop.

Why for GSW? Hayward plays GSW basketball, finds offense within a team concept, makes the extra pass and plays great defense. He is on the timeline and probably wouldn't mind signing after getting paid 34 mil from them and a deep playoff run

I don't think is a great long term fit, but I love WCJ. Get lavine for a year and a half then flip him for draft picks if he takes away from the offense too much but we could use him as a super-sub off the bench to keep tatum&brown on the floor together.

[captain green]

Saw this in the main forum and thought i'd bring it here. The basic idea is three-team trade with Chi-town and GSW for Lavine. here's my version
BOS out: Gordon, Theis, Romeo, Grant Williams, Carsen, #17
BOS in: Lavine, Wendell Carter Jr., Cristiano Felicino

CHI in: Wiggins, Carsen, Theis, Romeo, Grant, #17
CHI out: Lavine, Wendell, Cristiano

GSW in: Hayward
GSW out: Wiggins

Why for Bos? Lavine/Brown/Tatum becomes a trio of 20ppg wings under 25 and hopefully, stevens gets Lavine to be at least a good defender. Wendell is a perfect 5 for Boston and they open up roster spots and cap next year for tatum max.

Why for Chi? wiggins and lavine are about equal but they get a whole lot of talent for wendell. They get a guy who is very similar to him in grant, a future 2/3 in romeo and a current cheap replacement in Theis so they can compete and develop.

Why for GSW? Hayward plays GSW basketball, finds offense within a team concept, makes the extra pass and plays great defense. He is on the timeline and probably wouldn't mind signing after getting paid 34 mil from them and a deep playoff run

I don't think is a great long term fit, but I love WCJ. Get lavine for a year and a half then flip him for draft picks if he takes away from the offense too much but we could use him as a super-sub off the bench to keep tatum&brown on the floor together.

I like the effort but I don't like the deal. We have alot going out for someone I know won't fit this team in Lavine, I like Wendel but he hasn't shown me enough yet. Chistiano I don't think so. I'd rather keep thies Hayward and Williams and the 17th pick than the intake maybe sub wiggins but even then nah

[bucknersrevenge]

Saw this in the main forum and thought i'd bring it here. The basic idea is three-team trade with Chi-town and GSW for Lavine. here's my version
BOS out: Gordon, Theis, Romeo, Grant Williams, Carsen, #17
BOS in: Lavine, Wendell Carter Jr., Cristiano Felicino

CHI in: Wiggins, Carsen, Theis, Romeo, Grant, #17
CHI out: Lavine, Wendell, Cristiano

GSW in: Hayward
GSW out: Wiggins

Why for Bos? Lavine/Brown/Tatum becomes a trio of 20ppg wings under 25 and hopefully, stevens gets Lavine to be at least a good defender. Wendell is a perfect 5 for Boston and they open up roster spots and cap next year for tatum max.

Why for Chi? wiggins and lavine are about equal but they get a whole lot of talent for wendell. They get a guy who is very similar to him in grant, a future 2/3 in romeo and a current cheap replacement in Theis so they can compete and develop.

Why for GSW? Hayward plays GSW basketball, finds offense within a team concept, makes the extra pass and plays great defense. He is on the timeline and probably wouldn't mind signing after getting paid 34 mil from them and a deep playoff run

I don't think is a great long term fit, but I love WCJ. Get lavine for a year and a half then flip him for draft picks if he takes away from the offense too much but we could use him as a super-sub off the bench to keep tatum&brown on the floor together.

I like the effort but I don't like the deal. We have slot going out for someone I know won't fit this team in Lavine, I like Wendel but he hasn't shown me enough yet. Chistiano I don't think so. I'd rather keep thies Hayward and Williams and the 17th pick than the intake maybe sub wiggins but even then nah

Chicago coughs and then laughs, and then hangs up. This is a ludicrous deal for them.

[Curmudgeon]

Saw this in the main forum and thought i'd bring it here. The basic idea is three-team trade with Chi-town and GSW for Lavine. here's my version
BOS out: Gordon, Theis, Romeo, Grant Williams, Carsen, #17
BOS in: Lavine, Wendell Carter Jr., Cristiano Felicino

CHI in: Wiggins, Carsen, Theis, Romeo, Grant, #17
CHI out: Lavine, Wendell, Cristiano

GSW in: Hayward
GSW out: Wiggins

Why for Bos? Lavine/Brown/Tatum becomes a trio of 20ppg wings under 25 and hopefully, stevens gets Lavine to be at least a good defender. Wendell is a perfect 5 for Boston and they open up roster spots and cap next year for tatum max.

Why for Chi? wiggins and lavine are about equal but they get a whole lot of talent for wendell. They get a guy who is very similar to him in grant, a future 2/3 in romeo and a current cheap replacement in Theis so they can compete and develop.

Why for GSW? Hayward plays GSW basketball, finds offense within a team concept, makes the extra pass and plays great defense. He is on the timeline and probably wouldn't mind signing after getting paid 34 mil from them and a deep playoff run

I don't think is a great long term fit, but I love WCJ. Get lavine for a year and a half then flip him for draft picks if he takes away from the offense too much but we could use him as a super-sub off the bench to keep tatum&brown on the floor together.

I like the effort but I don't like the deal. We have slot going out for someone I know won't fit this team in Lavine, I like Wendel but he hasn't shown me enough yet. Chistiano I don't think so. I'd rather keep thies Hayward and Williams and the 17th pick than the intake maybe sub wiggins but even then nah

Chicago coughs and then laughs, and then hangs up. This is a ludicrous deal for them.

Excuse me? It's the Celtics who hang up. LaVine is an overrated coach killer who loafs on defense.

[Parliament10]

I like the effort but I don't like the deal. We have slot going out for someone I know won't fit this team in Lavine, I like Wendel but he hasn't shown me enough yet. Chistiano I don't think so. I'd rather keep thies Hayward and Williams and the 17th pick than the intake maybe sub wiggins but even then nah

Chicago coughs and then laughs, and then hangs up. This is a ludicrous deal for them.

Excuse me? It's the Celtics who hang up. LaVine is an overrated coach killer who loafs on defense.

BOS out: Gordon, Theis, Romeo, Grant Williams, Carsen, #17

Why would we do that???

Watch on YouTube

[Fencer reregistered]

Hayward cannot be traded without his consent unless he opts in. Plus there are other reasons why sign and trades are rare these days, starting with the base year compensation rules.
https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2019/06/why-nba-sign-and-trades-are-rare-2.html

BYC? Really? You might want to recheck the CBA FAQ on that. It's only relevant to guys getting large raises. In fact, without checking msyelf I'm not sure it applies any more to anybody except guys coming off rookie deals.

[ConstableGeneva]

Gonna start a sports blog site. One of my first articles will be how this trade benefits every team involved. Please venmo me all your money. Thanks.



Will immediately write a retraction after Kemba hits a title-winning pullup three at the buzzer this October.

[bucknersrevenge]

I like the effort but I don't like the deal. We have slot going out for someone I know won't fit this team in Lavine, I like Wendel but he hasn't shown me enough yet. Chistiano I don't think so. I'd rather keep thies Hayward and Williams and the 17th pick than the intake maybe sub wiggins but even then nah

Chicago coughs and then laughs, and then hangs up. This is a ludicrous deal for them.

Excuse me? It's the Celtics who hang up. LaVine is an overrated coach killer who loafs on defense.

Your personal feelings about LaVine aside, Chicago is literally moving their foundational talent for bench guys and 4th best players on the team. Remove your bias and try looking at it from Chicago's end. They invested in LaVine. They'd laugh at the mere mention of a deal like this. Coachkiller or not, LaVine is the most talented player in that exchange.

[BadWolf]

Gonna start a sports blog site. One of my first articles will be how this trade benefits every team involved. Please venmo me all your money. Thanks.



Will immediately write a retraction after Kemba hits a title-winning pullup three at the buzzer this October.

So Kemba for Ja and Bam? Cool.