Makes more sense to not bring back hayward. Or trade kemba.
I would trade kemba and was firmly on the "we dont really need kemba" bandwagon prior the season.
And kemba would snatch a great pick in the draft or at the least a huge front court and depth improvement.
And you’ll never get a top free agent again
That's a nonsense statement based on no evidence at all.
Have a team that wins, offer a player a lot of money and you will have them, its as simple as that.
No. Connections lead To players. Relationships lead to players. We got kemba bc Jeff Schwartz was pierces long time agent who also is kemba’s agent and he has a great relationship with ainge. we had no shot at AD bc rich Paul would never let him come to Boston. Got Hayward bc of his relationship with stevens.
You sign a top free agent and sell him on your organization and coming to Boston to play in a big market for a competitive, rich organization and then ship his ass to basketball Siberia (Minnesota) within 12 months you piss off the player and the agent. Asinine.
Captain_Caveman wrote:The problem with trading any of our top guys is that it would be hard to do so in a way that actually improves the team. We'd be lucky to get equal value for Hayward, Kemba, or Smart, and are not going to get a better player trading Tatum or Jaylen. Maybe if one of these non-Nets picks had panned out, but alas.
The great tragedy of the current iteration of this team is that we'll probably never get to see them with an idealized rotation. I actually feel our top 6 could be pretty darned competitive, if only they were backed up by a stronger 7-9. If Wanamaker, Kanter, and Grami Ojelliams could all get upgraded, I'd be wiling to take my shot with that team.
Walker / Smart / [quality vet combo guard] Brown Hayward Tatum / [quality 9th man] Theis / [quality C #2]
We need to go deep enough this year to start attracting some damned ring chasers.
Captain_Caveman wrote:The problem with trading any of our top guys is that it would be hard to do so in a way that actually improves the team. We'd be lucky to get equal value for Hayward, Kemba, or Smart, and are not going to get a better player trading Tatum or Jaylen. Maybe if one of these non-Nets picks had panned out, but alas.
The great tragedy of the current iteration of this team is that we'll probably never get to see them with an idealized rotation. I actually feel our top 6 could be pretty darned competitive, if only they were backed up by a stronger 7-9. If Wanamaker, Kanter, and Grami Ojelliams could all get upgraded, I'd be wiling to take my shot with that team.
Walker / Smart / [quality vet combo guard] Brown Hayward Tatum / [quality 9th man] Theis / [quality C #2]
We need to go deep enough this year to start attracting some damned ring chasers.
I think those upgrades are readily attainable. You're talking about bench players. Backing up that top 6 you mentioned we have 1st round picks in Rob Williams, Romeo Langford, Grant Williams. We have 3 more 1st rounders this year and all of our future picks. We have exceptions available to us each year. Whether through internal development of draft picks, trades of those players/picks for guys on other teams or FA signings, I think we should be able to get the right mix of bench players.
My only concern is that we might have to be cost cutting next this offseason. I think in order to keep that top 6 in tact it's very possible that Wyc will mandate staying under the tax next year ('20-21 season) so we don't have any repeater rates down the line, as I've been saying.
But that wouldn't blow up the whole plan. You roll it out next year with that top 6 backed by the same questionable/young bench. Maybe you get that internal development to where it's enough, maybe you don't. But then because you avoided the tax, you can go as far over as you want for the '21-22 and '22-23 seasons without having to ever pay tax. Sign any MLE or vet min player you want. Trade young players/picks for proven guys and take on salary.
Realistically, I look at '21-22 and '22-23 as our best chances to win with this core. Unless Wyc is willing to go bonkers with his checkbook, then it can include next year as well. But barring that, I think it's those last 2 years where we'll have the financial flexibility to really get those proper bench pieces.
I think those upgrades are readily attainable. You're talking about bench players. Backing up that top 6 you mentioned we have 1st round picks in Rob Williams, Romeo Langford, Grant Williams. We have 3 more 1st rounders this year and all of our future picks. We have exceptions available to us each year. Whether through internal development of draft picks, trades of those players/picks for guys on other teams or FA signings, I think we should be able to get the right mix of bench players.
My only concern is that we might have to be cost cutting next this offseason. I think in order to keep that top 6 in tact it's very possible that Wyc will mandate staying under the tax next year ('20-21 season) so we don't have any repeater rates down the line, as I've been saying.
But that wouldn't blow up the whole plan. You roll it out next year with that top 6 backed by the same questionable/young bench. Maybe you get that internal development to where it's enough, maybe you don't. But then because you avoided the tax, you can go as far over as you want for the '21-22 and '22-23 seasons without having to ever pay tax. Sign any MLE or vet min player you want. Trade young players/picks for proven guys and take on salary.
Realistically, I look at '21-22 and '22-23 as our best chances to win with this core. Unless Wyc is willing to go bonkers with his checkbook, then it can include next year as well. But barring that, I think it's those last 2 years where we'll have the financial flexibility to really get those proper bench pieces.
How do you have us avoiding the tax next year without losing any of the top 6? Together they take up 120mil of a projected 132mil tax threshold (let me know if that number is out-of-date, haven't check in a while). Even with a renegotiated Hayward, I haven't been able to make the numbers work.
I think those upgrades are readily attainable. You're talking about bench players. Backing up that top 6 you mentioned we have 1st round picks in Rob Williams, Romeo Langford, Grant Williams. We have 3 more 1st rounders this year and all of our future picks. We have exceptions available to us each year. Whether through internal development of draft picks, trades of those players/picks for guys on other teams or FA signings, I think we should be able to get the right mix of bench players.
My only concern is that we might have to be cost cutting next this offseason. I think in order to keep that top 6 in tact it's very possible that Wyc will mandate staying under the tax next year ('20-21 season) so we don't have any repeater rates down the line, as I've been saying.
But that wouldn't blow up the whole plan. You roll it out next year with that top 6 backed by the same questionable/young bench. Maybe you get that internal development to where it's enough, maybe you don't. But then because you avoided the tax, you can go as far over as you want for the '21-22 and '22-23 seasons without having to ever pay tax. Sign any MLE or vet min player you want. Trade young players/picks for proven guys and take on salary.
Realistically, I look at '21-22 and '22-23 as our best chances to win with this core. Unless Wyc is willing to go bonkers with his checkbook, then it can include next year as well. But barring that, I think it's those last 2 years where we'll have the financial flexibility to really get those proper bench pieces.
How do you have us avoiding the tax next year without losing any of the top 6? Together they take up 120mil of a projected 132mil tax threshold (let me know if that number is out-of-date, haven't check in a while). Even with a renegotiated Hayward, I haven't been able to make the numbers work.
Here is a plan I posted for this before:
Spoiler:
Apparently the salary cap and luxury tax line are expected to be at $109M and $132.5M. Basically flat to this year. That means rookie scale and vet min deals stay the same as this past year vs going up. Here's my plan to get below the tax with some trades.
1) Hayward opts out and signs a 3 year, $90.72M deal. That adds two years at just over $28M/year to his current 1 year deal, but lowers his '20-21 salary from $34.2M to $28M.
2) Waive Jevonte Green's non-guaranteed deal and decline team option on Semi.
3) Trade #30 and Enes Kanter to POR for #44. They eat salary for us via trade exception, we move down 14 draft slots.
4) Trade #26, Carsen Edwards, Vincent Poirier to the Knicks for #38. Another salary dump deal for moving down.
5) Draft at #17, #38, #44 for the NBA roster. Draft at #46 for a 2-way player.
6) Sign Tremont Waters and Tacko Fall NBA deals.
7) Sign Mason Plumlee and DJ Augustine to vet minimum deals.
This gives us the following 11 man rotation:
Walker / Augustine Brown / Smart / Langford Hayward Tatum / G Williams Theis / Plumlee / R Williams
In spots 12-15 we have Waters, Fall, #17 and #38. On two-way deals we have #44 and #46.
I have that coming in at $132,449,558 of salary. So about $50K under the tax.
Here's the breakdown of what each salary would be:
Yabusele (Dead Money) 1,039,080 Jackson (Dead Money) 92,857 1) Kemba Walker 34,379,100 2) Gordon Hayward 28,000,000 3) Jaylen Brown 23,883,929 4) Marcus Smart 13,446,428 5) Jayson Tatum 9,897,120 6) Daniel Theis 5,000,000 7) Romeo Langford 3,631,200 8) #17 Pick 2,964,840 9) Grant Williams 2,498,760 10) Robert Williams 2,029,920 11) DJ Augustine 1,445,697 * 12) Mason Plumlee 1,445,697 * 13) Tremont Waters 898,310 ** 14) Tacko Fall 898,310 ** 15) #38 pick 898,310 **
* Vet min deals count against the luxury tax as the 2nd year minimum regardless of how much the player actually gets paid ** Rookie minimum deal
That was when I thought we'd have #17 but MEM is tanking so that pick might be higher. That would add salary so maybe another trade down would be needed. Or maybe you can just lower Hayward's salary.
The tough part here for me was keeping Hayward at 3 years. That set us up to have max cap space 3 years from now when he and Kemba would expire together. Push comes to shove, if you added a 4th year onto Hayward at over $30M I think that seals the deal and in the process you'd be able to shave a little more off of his '20-21 salary.
hugepatsfan wrote:Here is a plan I posted for this before:
Spoiler:
Apparently the salary cap and luxury tax line are expected to be at $109M and $132.5M. Basically flat to this year. That means rookie scale and vet min deals stay the same as this past year vs going up. Here's my plan to get below the tax with some trades.
1) Hayward opts out and signs a 3 year, $90.72M deal. That adds two years at just over $28M/year to his current 1 year deal, but lowers his '20-21 salary from $34.2M to $28M.
2) Waive Jevonte Green's non-guaranteed deal and decline team option on Semi.
3) Trade #30 and Enes Kanter to POR for #44. They eat salary for us via trade exception, we move down 14 draft slots.
4) Trade #26, Carsen Edwards, Vincent Poirier to the Knicks for #38. Another salary dump deal for moving down.
5) Draft at #17, #38, #44 for the NBA roster. Draft at #46 for a 2-way player.
6) Sign Tremont Waters and Tacko Fall NBA deals.
7) Sign Mason Plumlee and DJ Augustine to vet minimum deals.
This gives us the following 11 man rotation:
Walker / Augustine Brown / Smart / Langford Hayward Tatum / G Williams Theis / Plumlee / R Williams
In spots 12-15 we have Waters, Fall, #17 and #38. On two-way deals we have #44 and #46.
I have that coming in at $132,449,558 of salary. So about $50K under the tax.
Here's the breakdown of what each salary would be:
Yabusele (Dead Money) 1,039,080 Jackson (Dead Money) 92,857 1) Kemba Walker 34,379,100 2) Gordon Hayward 28,000,000 3) Jaylen Brown 23,883,929 4) Marcus Smart 13,446,428 5) Jayson Tatum 9,897,120 6) Daniel Theis 5,000,000 7) Romeo Langford 3,631,200 8) #17 Pick 2,964,840 9) Grant Williams 2,498,760 10) Robert Williams 2,029,920 11) DJ Augustine 1,445,697 * 12) Mason Plumlee 1,445,697 * 13) Tremont Waters 898,310 ** 14) Tacko Fall 898,310 ** 15) #38 pick 898,310 **
* Vet min deals count against the luxury tax as the 2nd year minimum regardless of how much the player actually gets paid ** Rookie minimum deal
That was when I thought we'd have #17 but MEM is tanking so that pick might be higher. That would add salary so maybe another trade down would be needed. Or maybe you can just lower Hayward's salary.
The tough part here for me was keeping Hayward at 3 years. That set us up to have max cap space 3 years from now when he and Kemba would expire together. Push comes to shove, if you added a 4th year onto Hayward at over $30M I think that seals the deal and in the process you'd be able to shave a little more off of his '20-21 salary.
I don't see getting the likes of Plumlee or Augustin for the vet min. I also don't see Ainge giving away value and flexibility in this sort of way. Doesn't match what I perceive his MO to be. In reality we need a lot more than 50k of wiggle room. There are too many things that go on in the course of a season that add a few bucks here and there - two-way callups, unlikely bonuses, small partial guarantees for training camp invites, etc. Semi almost certainly stays due to familiarity with the system and only being a couple 100k more expensive than the vet min. These sorts of calculations where you just have no wiggle room at all rarely happen in real life, from my observations. They just require you to give away value and flexibility in so many small ways, none of which are individually too punitive, but add up.
A team's payroll for purposes of tax calculation is determined on the last day of the regular season. I find it much more likely we enter the season over the tax, and position ourselves to be players at the trade deadline, in which case the play is to maximize all asset value, not give value away, and to hang on to useful matching salaries such as Kanter. I still consider it a real possibility that the team could be substantially reshaped in a couple of different ways, which are probably beyond the scope of this conversation. But the point is I think it's the wrong place and time to give away value in order to try to thread the needle like this.
Just my opinion, obviously. Good work on making a scenario that works.
hugepatsfan wrote:Here is a plan I posted for this before:
Spoiler:
Apparently the salary cap and luxury tax line are expected to be at $109M and $132.5M. Basically flat to this year. That means rookie scale and vet min deals stay the same as this past year vs going up. Here's my plan to get below the tax with some trades.
1) Hayward opts out and signs a 3 year, $90.72M deal. That adds two years at just over $28M/year to his current 1 year deal, but lowers his '20-21 salary from $34.2M to $28M.
2) Waive Jevonte Green's non-guaranteed deal and decline team option on Semi.
3) Trade #30 and Enes Kanter to POR for #44. They eat salary for us via trade exception, we move down 14 draft slots.
4) Trade #26, Carsen Edwards, Vincent Poirier to the Knicks for #38. Another salary dump deal for moving down.
5) Draft at #17, #38, #44 for the NBA roster. Draft at #46 for a 2-way player.
6) Sign Tremont Waters and Tacko Fall NBA deals.
7) Sign Mason Plumlee and DJ Augustine to vet minimum deals.
This gives us the following 11 man rotation:
Walker / Augustine Brown / Smart / Langford Hayward Tatum / G Williams Theis / Plumlee / R Williams
In spots 12-15 we have Waters, Fall, #17 and #38. On two-way deals we have #44 and #46.
I have that coming in at $132,449,558 of salary. So about $50K under the tax.
Here's the breakdown of what each salary would be:
Yabusele (Dead Money) 1,039,080 Jackson (Dead Money) 92,857 1) Kemba Walker 34,379,100 2) Gordon Hayward 28,000,000 3) Jaylen Brown 23,883,929 4) Marcus Smart 13,446,428 5) Jayson Tatum 9,897,120 6) Daniel Theis 5,000,000 7) Romeo Langford 3,631,200 8) #17 Pick 2,964,840 9) Grant Williams 2,498,760 10) Robert Williams 2,029,920 11) DJ Augustine 1,445,697 * 12) Mason Plumlee 1,445,697 * 13) Tremont Waters 898,310 ** 14) Tacko Fall 898,310 ** 15) #38 pick 898,310 **
* Vet min deals count against the luxury tax as the 2nd year minimum regardless of how much the player actually gets paid ** Rookie minimum deal
That was when I thought we'd have #17 but MEM is tanking so that pick might be higher. That would add salary so maybe another trade down would be needed. Or maybe you can just lower Hayward's salary.
The tough part here for me was keeping Hayward at 3 years. That set us up to have max cap space 3 years from now when he and Kemba would expire together. Push comes to shove, if you added a 4th year onto Hayward at over $30M I think that seals the deal and in the process you'd be able to shave a little more off of his '20-21 salary.
I don't see getting the likes of Plumlee or Augustin for the vet min. I also don't see Ainge giving away value and flexibility in this sort of way. Doesn't match what I perceive his MO to be. In reality we need a lot more than 50k of wiggle room. There are too many things that go on in the course of a season that add a few bucks here and there - two-way callups, unlikely bonuses, small partial guarantees for training camp invites, etc. Semi almost certainly stays due to familiarity with the system and only being a couple 100k more expensive than the vet min. These sorts of calculations where you just have no wiggle room at all rarely happen in real life, from my observations. They just require you to give away value and flexibility in so many small ways, none of which are individually too punitive, but add up.
A team's payroll for purposes of tax calculation is determined on the last day of the regular season. I find it much more likely we enter the season over the tax, and position ourselves to be players at the trade deadline, in which case the play is to maximize all asset value, not give value away. I still consider it a real possibility that the team could be substantially reshaped in a couple of different ways, which are probably beyond the scope of this conversation. But the point is I think it's the wrong place and time to give away value in order to try to thread the needle like this.
Just my opinion, obviously. Good work on making a scenario that works.
Two-way deals don't count against the salary cap, as far as I know. I'm not sure Augustine or Plumlee get more than the vet min but you might be right. Lots of teams will face similar tax crunches as us due to COVID so I'm thinking lots more guys will be forced into vet min deals but we'll see.
I hate the idea of giving up picks and flexibility. I'm sure Ainge would as well. I just think if it comes down it, keeping Hayward is more valuable than late 1sts and/or bringing partial guarantees to camp. All that stuff is peanuts to an elephant for me. You mentioned our top 6 of Tatum/Brown/Kemba/Hayward/Smart/Theis and then I think Rob Williams, Romeo Langford, Grant Williams and the MEM pick are all worth keeping for development. Everything else is roster fodder for me. I have zero reservation dumping any of it if that's what it takes to make the financials of the top of our roster work. That's not to say I want to but it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make if staying under the tax is the difference between keeping Hayward or not.
hugepatsfan wrote:Two-way deals don't count against the salary cap, as far as I know. I'm not sure Augustine or Plumlee get more than the vet min but you might be right. Lots of teams will face similar tax crunches as us due to COVID so I'm thinking lots more guys will be forced into vet min deals but we'll see.
I hate the idea of giving up picks and flexibility. I'm sure Ainge would as well. I just think if it comes down it, keeping Hayward is more valuable than late 1sts and/or bringing partial guarantees to camp. All that stuff is peanuts to an elephant for me. You mentioned our top 6 of Tatum/Brown/Kemba/Hayward/Smart/Theis and then I think Rob Williams, Romeo Langford, Grant Williams and the MEM pick are all worth keeping for development. Everything else is roster fodder for me. I have zero reservation dumping any of it if that's what it takes to make the financials of the top of our roster work. That's not to say I want to but it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make if staying under the tax is the difference between keeping Hayward or not.
Looks like you're right about two-ways. For some reason I thought the pro-rated portion only for the days they are active with the parent club counted against the cap, but I can't find anything to back that up.
I'm with you 100% on being willing to part with any and all of the flotsam in service of the bigger picture. My point was that while ducking the tax is part of the bigger picture, so is the trade deadline season. I'm loth to give away matchable salary and value in picks/youth because it materially damages one of our primary avenues for improvement, not because I care about the flotsam itself. (For example, I actually see us resigning Wanamaker on a 1/5 to serve the same kind of trade ballast role as Zeller/Jerebko back in the day.)
Positioning yourself strongly for the deadline closes some avenues for ducking the tax, but not all. Executing a plan like you propose guarantees ducking the tax, but closes options at the deadline. I'm not sure we make that tradeoff. And to even make it requires a lot of things to go right - finding the right trading partners, getting the right FAs, Hayward playing ball on the renegotiation, etc. It's just a very high complexity plan that appears to me to close more paths than it opens.
SmartWentCrazy wrote: To correct my mistype— they used to live there. I believe Robyn would stay during the season in SD for extended stretches as well when they were in Utah. FWIW, they did move here full time, but I’d more than understand the desire to move back lol.
MagicBagley18 wrote: And you’ll never get a top free agent again
That's a nonsense statement based on no evidence at all.
Have a team that wins, offer a player a lot of money and you will have them, its as simple as that.
No. Connections lead To players. Relationships lead to players. We got kemba bc Jeff Schwartz was pierces long time agent who also is kemba’s agent and he has a great relationship with ainge. we had no shot at AD bc rich Paul would never let him come to Boston. Got Hayward bc of his relationship with stevens.
You sign a top free agent and sell him on your organization and coming to Boston to play in a big market for a competitive, rich organization and then ship his ass to basketball Siberia (Minnesota) within 12 months you piss off the player and the agent. Asinine.
Your whole post did nothing to give a reason to not trade a player a year into their contract.
There is no proof kemba signed here because of pierce sharing his agent. In fact thee was only a couple teams offering him money. 2 notables was us and the knicks.
Knicks suck and boston was very competetive and making playoffs with a very good team. Easy choice. Pierce or no pierce.
Hayward might have come because of the relatiknship with brad. Very possible that was a part ofbit, but guess what, team and coaches all have other relationships with players as well.
Minny gets a vet star to pair with their young duo, Boston gets an expiring bench toughguy vet and a franchise center. Celtics now have a 5 man core of:
PG: Smart SG: Brown SF: Tatum PF: Hayward C: Wiseman
Primary depth after assuming all possible contracts are left to expire, etc:
pg: Edwards, Waters sg: Langford sf: James Johnson pf: Grant Williams C: Theis, Poirier, Timelord
Picks and MLE to fill out depth.
I have yet to see any kind of comment from you that is not borderline trolling. So you went from **** all over Hayward during all season to now suggesting trading Walker for an unproven limited big and keeping Hayward.
Well none of that is true at all.
I feel hayward is redundant yes, and i feel that if you keep hayward, then financially you have to drop someone else, cannot have 4 players making north of 25 mill on a team. Most logical aftet hayward is kemba. So I proposed a possible cost cutting trade..........in the trade thread.
100proof wrote: That's a nonsense statement based on no evidence at all.
Have a team that wins, offer a player a lot of money and you will have them, its as simple as that.
What max free agent will sign with you knowing he can be dumped to **** ass Minnesota at any point
Any player at any time can be dumped to minny or nyc, or anywhere for that matter.
Its the job.
Signing a contract does not prevent a trade.
Besides, a winning environment will always bring players.
Oh yeah Utah, Indiana, Portland are really hot beds for free agents...I’m sure San Antonio post kawhi will be competing with LA and south beach also...Dallas blew up a team after a ring to get superstars- it’s ab way more than just those things u mention
100proof wrote: That's a nonsense statement based on no evidence at all.
Have a team that wins, offer a player a lot of money and you will have them, its as simple as that.
No. Connections lead To players. Relationships lead to players. We got kemba bc Jeff Schwartz was pierces long time agent who also is kemba’s agent and he has a great relationship with ainge. we had no shot at AD bc rich Paul would never let him come to Boston. Got Hayward bc of his relationship with stevens.
You sign a top free agent and sell him on your organization and coming to Boston to play in a big market for a competitive, rich organization and then ship his ass to basketball Siberia (Minnesota) within 12 months you piss off the player and the agent. Asinine.
Your whole post did nothing to give a reason to not trade a player a year into their contract.
There is no proof kemba signed here because of pierce sharing his agent. In fact thee was only a couple teams offering him money. 2 notables was us and the knicks.
Knicks suck and boston was very competetive and making playoffs with a very good team. Easy choice. Pierce or no pierce.
Hayward might have come because of the relatiknship with brad. Very possible that was a part ofbit, but guess what, team and coaches all have other relationships with players as well.
You’re clueless....you treat players like that you don’t even get a chance to sell your winning environment and culture. In a year maybe u can think about trading kemba for a move that upgrades the team and to a place where he gets to still compete- a win win for both sides.
the Celtics still have bad pr for getting rid of IT (which was the right move). You don’t trade guys who commit to your team within 12 months unless it’s a win win for the player and organization or if it’s a terrible fit. Kemba is neither.
100proof wrote: Any player at any time can be dumped to minny or nyc, or anywhere for that matter.
Its the job.
Signing a contract does not prevent a trade.
Besides, a winning environment will always bring players.
Oh yeah Utah, Indiana, Portland are really hot beds for free agents...I’m sure San Antonio post kawhi will be competing with LA and south beach also
Well none of those teams have really had capspace recently.
You just told me cap space could be easily created.....wouldn’t a team easily create cap space for a max player if they were interested and let that team know? Its about way more than just having money and being a good organization.
Agents push players to certain places and if you ruin relationships with them then you’ll never be able to sell your winning environment and money. It’s terrible business
MagicBagley18 wrote: No. Connections lead To players. Relationships lead to players. We got kemba bc Jeff Schwartz was pierces long time agent who also is kemba’s agent and he has a great relationship with ainge. we had no shot at AD bc rich Paul would never let him come to Boston. Got Hayward bc of his relationship with stevens.
You sign a top free agent and sell him on your organization and coming to Boston to play in a big market for a competitive, rich organization and then ship his ass to basketball Siberia (Minnesota) within 12 months you piss off the player and the agent. Asinine.
Your whole post did nothing to give a reason to not trade a player a year into their contract.
There is no proof kemba signed here because of pierce sharing his agent. In fact thee was only a couple teams offering him money. 2 notables was us and the knicks.
Knicks suck and boston was very competetive and making playoffs with a very good team. Easy choice. Pierce or no pierce.
Hayward might have come because of the relatiknship with brad. Very possible that was a part ofbit, but guess what, team and coaches all have other relationships with players as well.
You’re clueless....you treat players like that you don’t even get a chance to sell your winning environment and culture. In a year maybe u can think about trading kemba for a move that upgrades the team and to a place where he gets to still compete- a win win for both sides.
the Celtics still have bad pr for getting rid of IT (which was the right move). You don’t trade guys who commit to your team within 12 months unless it’s a win win for the player and organization or if it’s a terrible fit. Kemba is neither.
Stop Attacking the Person. -- Stick to the Subject. Consider this an Unofficial Warning.
~ Parl
"You have to put the work in. Nothing is given." ~ Jayson Tatum
Your whole post did nothing to give a reason to not trade a player a year into their contract.
There is no proof kemba signed here because of pierce sharing his agent. In fact thee was only a couple teams offering him money. 2 notables was us and the knicks.
Knicks suck and boston was very competetive and making playoffs with a very good team. Easy choice. Pierce or no pierce.
Hayward might have come because of the relatiknship with brad. Very possible that was a part ofbit, but guess what, team and coaches all have other relationships with players as well.
You’re clueless....you treat players like that you don’t even get a chance to sell your winning environment and culture. In a year maybe u can think about trading kemba for a move that upgrades the team and to a place where he gets to still compete- a win win for both sides.
the Celtics still have bad pr for getting rid of IT (which was the right move). You don’t trade guys who commit to your team within 12 months unless it’s a win win for the player and organization or if it’s a terrible fit. Kemba is neither.
Stop Attacking the Person. -- Stick to the Subject. Consider this an Unofficial Warning.
Assuming these picks stay static (14, 27, 30, 47) is that enough to pry say #5 away from Detroit? Detroit are basically starting from scratch, aside from the Griffin contract. Would they be interested in having multiple bites at the cherry vs one shot at someone more elite at the top end?
