Spin Move wrote:I hate this, Kemba would have been easy to trade as an expiring in the offseason. Yes it saves 30 million if we cut horford next year but we paid to move a contract of a guy who put up 20 5 and 4 after the all star break last year.
Oklahoma City will let him score a ton and absolutly trade him for positive value when he is an expiring. This is such a short cited move to save a little luxary tax money and leaves us with fewer assest to attract a real third star.
I HATE this trade. Brad Stevens just got taken advantage of by Same Presti.
Brown is solid he is worth a late 1st but we couldnt even get OKC to send back one of the later low ist round picks? Bad deal
I wouldn’t be so sure $38 mil will be that easy to move for value unless they are still in asset mode and repeat the cycle of taking picks stapled to another bad contract—an option not available to Boston. It’s a lot of money. I suspect there is a decent chance he is simply bought out at some point.
There is also the issue of that contract blocking our ability to acquire someone BEFORE Kemba is expiring. This summer and the deadline represent two player movement opportunities where we’d be agonizing over having that anchor on the roster.
I also don’t think we should care what OKC does with him. If they let him run wild, fine, but there was no way Boston would let him do that in an attempt to accrue value while trying to stay competitive. The teams are in totally different situations with regards to the best way to bring in talent. Ours demands being flexible with mid-range contracts and wait for a star to break loose who wants to play with Tatum. When that happens, it doesn’t matter that we can’t offer a middling 1st rounder. History shows that pick volume gets it done and pick quality often doesn’t matter.
I also happen to think this puts us in better position to reshape the team identity in a way they couldn’t with Kemba demanding minutes and such a huge chunk of the cap.
