2018 NBA offseason thread

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
On the contrary, I literally think it's impossible to make the case the Rockets think he can contribute. If you're arguing that some other team might think so, sure...that's possible. But as to Houston I think we know for sure they don't think he can contribute and while they surely wanted to dump his contract, that's primarily because they didn't want to have to play him.

1. He played 95 total minutes in 11 playoff games, missing 6 comletely. He only played 29 total minutes in a 7 game series last year. That means, without any quesion they did not think he could contribute last year as he was used essentially just in garbage time. I hope you do not dispute this point---if so, it's hopeless.
2. This offseason, the Rockets lost two wings (Ariza and PJ Tucker) who combined played 62 minutes a game. They were so sure Anderson couldn't contribute in those minutes that they a) signed the corpse of Carmelo and b) signed the even colder corpse of Joe Johnson rather than plan to play Anderson more. That's a pretty sure sign they don't think he can play.
3. Then, they traded Anderson

How exactly do you look at that and say there's even a mere scintilla of doubt about whether the Rockets thought Anderson could contribute?
Phx and hou have totally different goals, though. Anderson can’t sniff the floor in the playoffs. With shorter rotations and game-to-game strategical shifts, his weaknesses are exacerbated. But phx doesn’t, and shouldn’t, prioritize that. He can give 20 great offensive minutes a night. A lineup of ayton-ryno-Ariza-bridges-booker will be killer on the offensive end (and passable defensively against the right lineups). Phx hasn’t had an offensive lineup that capable since the dragic era. Anderson can possibly help them win 40 games, which is a huge improvement for a team that’s been barely nba level over the last few years.

He won’t help them win a championship, but he’s a killer at what he does. I’m very much looking forward to late night league pass watching four out lineups with booker playing point. The suns won’t be playoff bound but they’ll at least be competitive night to night with these additions.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
And who would offer more than the minimum, and why would he get out of bed for it? He has to climb over piles of money to get to the front door of his house. Him playing in the NBA next year would be a bigger surprise than Marcus Smart leading the league in 3pt %.
There is about a zero percent chance that Deng DOESN'T end up in camp later this month imo. He was awful in a dysfunctional situation with no role two years ago and was shut down last season. There are several contenders who would love to have him on a cheap deal as a 10th-11th man who understands the NBA game. I have Minnesota as the favorite with all of his connections on the team/staff out there.

Same with the Deng buyout, where he leaves $7.5M on the table in exchange for a chance to actually play somewhere (since the Lakers weren't going to play him). I don't get this either. First, who would sign him even at $7.5M? Second, why would he agree to a buyout at all when he could just sit patiently on the bench and collect his full paycheck to do nothing?

Nobody is signing Deng at $7.5m. He could either rot in LA where his career would essentially be over or compete for backup minutes on a contender while having opportunity to revitalize his career. Usually we criticize guys here for NOT going this route......doing it to those for non-monetary reasons is different around here but certainly understandable considering his unique circumstance.

As a 14-year veteran his minimum salary will be $2.4m this season but the team will be reimbursed by the league just over $1.5m of that per their vet minimum reimbursement sliding scale.
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,215
Seems like we may have different definitions of "contribute." To me, playing 1725 minutes (7th most on the team, right behind CP3 and ahead of Mbah a Moute) and putting up 13 pts / 7 reb per 36 on .592 true shooting is contributing — to a 65-win regular season that earned them the #1 seed and home court throughout the playoffs. The fact that d'Antoni ran an ultra-conservative "seven players or less" rotation against the Warriors (one that may have contributed to the CP3 injury and/or the dead-legged 0-27 spell from 3 in Game 7) doesn't totally negate Anderson's regular season contributions. Most teams cut down to a 7-8-man core rotation in the playoffs, eliminating all but the best and least exploitable players, but it's still very useful to have 12-13 playable guys throughout the season to keep everyone rested and healthy while maximizing wins and seeding position.

Obviously Morey and co. didn't see Anderson as a replacement for LMaM or Ariza (fwiw, they didn't lose Tucker). He's a backup stretch 4-5, not a wing. But he's still pretty young (30), and they might well have seen him as a "replacement" for his own ~1500 regular season minutes and 100-200 playoff minutes, had they not been able to grab Melo to provide roughly similar production (on probably similar unplayability vs. GS) on a cheap vet min pricetag, saving themselves a big luxury hit in the process.

Anyway, my main quibble was with your claim that "Knight is the only good/really useful player in this deal." Nothing about Knight's recent production in the NBA is remotely good (per Pelton, "his minus-5.3 rating in ESPN's real plus-minus [in 2016-17] was fifth-worst among all rated players"); and for him to be more useful than Anderson, we'd have to see him play effectively enough behind CP3, Harden, Gordon and MCW to get more than the 1725 minutes + 150 playoff minutes Anderson got last year. That's possible — I'd guess they're pencilling him ahead of MCW, if his iffy knee is good to go — but I don't think we can assume it. Personally, I'd guess he's just as likely to be shipped somewhere else before the playoffs as he is to be a regular playoff rotation player for them.
I consistently get my defense first Houston guys mixed up when moving quickly...my bad on that part.

I think it’s kind of weak goalpost shifting above. Just so we’re clear, do you think Houston viewed Anderson as a contributor the day they dealt him? I certainly do not

As for Knight vs Anderson, I’m comfortable betting on Knight there and think the deal itself shows the league values them similarly. These are all flawed assets, and Knight is no sure thing—but he has some role for a decent team I believe. For me, he’s a hedge against Paul’s health and need for rest, but sure—he could be flipped too. Thing is, the bar for being better than one of the worst contracts in league who couldn’t get off the bench in the playoffs is quite low, which is the point. Houston seems to have decided Anderson isn’t helpful
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,850
NYC
Just so we’re clear, do you think Houston viewed Anderson as a contributor the day they dealt him? I certainly do not.
I agree that once they acquired Melo he became problematic — you can only carry so many slow, defensively inept stretch 4s. Maybe he gets cut down to 800-1000 minutes or so, and at that point, again, it depends on your definition of “contribute.”

Had Melo not been available on a vet min deal, I could easily have seen them finding Anderson useful enough to live with the sunk cost of the bloated contract. Think Jonas Jerebko or prime Channing Frye (or prime Ryan Anderson, lol), all of whom have been quite useful to their teams.

Agree to disagree on Anderson vs. Knight independent of context (and when you say “the only good player in the deal” it sounds like you mean independent of context). To me, 6’-3” defensively inept, low-efficiency chuckers like Knight are a dime a dozen, especially ones who have never really shown the ability to run an NBA-level offense (career 4.9 assists / 3.1 turnovers per 36). Give me the efficient 6’-10” guy who rebounds a little and shoots lights out from 3, even with the serious defensive issues; and I’ll take my chances finding a comparable or better version of Brandon Knight for a minimum contract on the unsigned/buyout scrap heap or in the G-league.
 
Last edited:

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,696
And who would offer more than the minimum, and why would he get out of bed for it? He has to climb over piles of money to get to the front door of his house. Him playing in the NBA next year would be a bigger surprise than Marcus Smart leading the league in 3pt %.
No one will offer him more than the minimum, but that doesn't mean he won't play.

One, you have to give a guy credit for giving up $7.5 because he believes in himself -- no idea if he's correct to do so, but hat tip for the willingness.

Two, the Lakers (Magic, in this case) really played a hardball game here -- when injuries hit last year Deng would seem to have been better than some of the D League guys they called up for a few games, but they basically said you won't play in L.A., and if you want a buy-out you'll have to give up some money (which, by the way, combined with the timing of their stretch gives them precisely enough money to sign KD).

Three, it's a near certainty that Deng will at least be given a try-out by someone. That he believes he can actually make a team doesn't mean it's true that he will, but I'm guessing a reasonable chance he has enough left to be a bench player at the vet minimum.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,221
Good post Tony C. And in a shocking development...


For mobile users (if that is still a thing):

@JonKrawczynski
Sep 1
More Jon Krawczynski Retweeted Gill S. Strand
Reported earlier in the summer that Wolves would have interest in Deng and/or Noah should they become available. That hasn’t changed.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,215
I agree that once they acquired Melo he became problematic — you can only carry so many slow, defensively inept stretch 4s. Maybe he gets cut down to 800-1000 minutes or so, and at that point, again, it depends on your definition of “contribute.”

Had Melo not been available on a vet min deal, I could easily have seen them finding Anderson useful enough to live with the sunk cost of the bloated contract. Think Jonas Jerebko or prime Channing Frye (or prime Ryan Anderson, lol), all of whom have been quite useful to their teams.

Agree to disagree on Anderson vs. Knight independent of context (and when you say “the only good player in the deal” it sounds like you mean independent of context). To me, 6’-3” defensively inept, low-efficiency chuckers like Knight are a dime a dozen, especially ones who have never really shown the ability to run an NBA-level offense (career 4.9 assists / 3.1 turnovers per 36). Give me the efficient 6’-10” guy who rebounds a little and shoots lights out from 3, even with the serious defensive issues; and I’ll take my chances finding a comparable or better version of Brandon Knight for a minimum contract on the unsigned/buyout scrap heap or in the G-league.
Obviously, Houston didn't see it at all as you did as he's been rumored to be available with assets attached for a long, long time now (and as I noted, Houston has treated him as a negative as well). That's what the actual NBA thinks of Ryan Anderson at this point, right or wrong...
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,850
NYC
Obviously, Houston didn't see it at all as you did as he's been rumored to be available with assets attached for a long, long time now (and as I noted, Houston has treated him as a negative as well). That's what the actual NBA thinks of Ryan Anderson at this point, right or wrong...
That’s what the actual NBA (rightly, imo) thinks of him on his bloated contract. It’s also what the actual NBA thinks of Brandon Knight on his bloated contract — hence the deal. I thought the Suns got the better of the talent swap, while the Rockets got better salary flexibility, so a pretty fair (or meh) deal all around.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,681
From Houston’s standpoint Knight fills an actual need (4th G for the inevitable CP3 injury), while Ryno does not (he’s strictly a backup C these days). Michael Carter-Williams is flat out bad at offense and should not see the floor except in emergency situations (as in three other Gs get injured and there are only two warm bodies left).

Admittedly Ryno does help Phoenix’s clubhouse by being a vet presence. From the Suns’ perspective adding adults to the nursery school has utility. It’s just not something the Rockets needed.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,215
From Houston’s standpoint Knight fills an actual need (4th G for the inevitable CP3 injury), while Ryno does not (he’s strictly a backup C these days). Michael Carter-Williams is flat out bad at offense and should not see the floor except in emergency situations (as in three other Gs get injured and there are only two warm bodies left).

Admittedly Ryno does help Phoenix’s clubhouse by being a vet presence. From the Suns’ perspective adding adults to the nursery school has utility. It’s just not something the Rockets needed.
Exactly. Roles and skills matter, theoretical capability (or RPM totals) have a place but are only a part of a larger picture. And Knight, unlike Anderson, actually has skills that fit a role one for the teams involved has right now.

I'm not sure either way about Anderson as a clubhouse guy---you could be right there, though I imagine the motivators for the deal were salary flexibilty and adding a player who fits for Houston, and adding Melton for Phoenix.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,850
NYC
Exactly. Roles and skills matter, theoretical capability (or RPM totals) have a place but are only a part of a larger picture. And Knight, unlike Anderson, actually has skills that fit a role one for the teams involved has right now.
Clearly, but again — sorry to belabor the point, but NBA September is so boring! — your original claim was "Knight is the only good/really useful player in this deal." I can agree with the more useful part — in the context of the Rockets. By omitting that from your original claim, it sounded like you meant in a vacuum, for any team. Setting aside the $$$, I think there are plenty of teams (significantly more than half, imo) for whom Anderson would be the better and more useful of the two players, including the Suns.

To throw out another example: when building their bench this offseason, the Warriors clearly saw more use for a defensively-limited stretch 4-5 like Anderson than a chucker combo-guard like Knight — hence the signing of Jonas Jerebko, a cost-friendly clone of Anderson. Meanwhile, a ton of Knight-types remain unsigned or in Europe: Jamal Crawford, Jordan Crawford, Brandon Jennings, Jarrett Jack, Jameer Nelson, Tyler Ulis, Ian Clark, Shane Larkin, Ramon Sessions, Malcolm Delaney, e.g. YMMV on how many of those dudes project to more useful (or less useless) than Knight, but I think at least a few of them will be, especially with Knight coming off an ACL injury. Absent the impetus to dump a bad contract, I think most GMs (including Morey) would much sooner take a flier on one of those guys than commit actual cap space, or even a mini-MLE, to Brandon Knight.

Continuing on the Warriors train of thought, with apologies: since the jettisoning of Monta Ellis that kicked off the current era (and the subsequent placeholder signing of Jarrett Jack), Bob Myers has pretty studiously avoided low efficiency, defensively inept chuckers in the Ellis/Knight mold in his roster construction, opting instead to install long, defensively versatile, unselfish point forwards Iguodala and Livingston the de facto backup PGs (with similarly long and defense-minded Patrick McCaw and Jacob Evans being groomed to potentially replace them). Yeah, he's also always had one combo guard who can score at the end of the bench — first Barbosa, then Ian Clark, now Quinn Cook — but those have been bargain bin, minimum contract, #10-15 roster spot guys. And all those guys were/are much better shooters, more efficient scorers, and by all accounts better clubhouse guys than Brandon Knight.

Bigger picture: correct me if I'm wrong, but in a quick scan through the great NBA teams of our lifetimes — these Warriors, Jordan Bulls, LeBron Heat, Big 3 Celtics, Kobe/Shaq Lakers, Magic Lakers, Bird Celtics, e.g. — I can't think of one rotation player who fits the Brandon Knight profile (small, poor D, ball dominant, high volume, low efficiency). Mediocre-to-crappy teams always seem to have a Brandon Knight or two, though.

We'll see soon enough, but my sense remains that Knight's primary "usefulness" was as a means of dumping the Anderson contract, and that as a player he has (or should have) extremely limited-to-zero role on a team with championship aspirations.
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,215
A discussion about Ryan Anderson's lack of value is definitively NOT about whether he'd be useful on the Warriors if they could pay him...and in fact, many NBA questions have nothing to do with your favorite team!
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Clearly, but again — sorry to belabor the point, but NBA September is so boring! — your original claim was "Knight is the only good/really useful player in this deal." I can agree with the more useful part — in the context of the Rockets. By omitting that from your original claim, it sounded like you meant in a vacuum, for any team. Setting aside the $$$, I think there are plenty of teams (significantly more than half, imo) for whom Anderson would be the better and more useful of the two players, including the Suns.

To throw out another example: when building their bench this offseason, the Warriors clearly saw more use for a defensively-limited stretch 4-5 like Anderson than a chucker combo-guard like Knight — hence the signing of Jonas Jerebko, a cost-friendly clone of Anderson. Meanwhile, a ton of Knight-types remain unsigned or in Europe: Jamal Crawford, Jordan Crawford, Brandon Jennings, Jarrett Jack, Jameer Nelson, Tyler Ulis, Ian Clark, Shane Larkin, Ramon Sessions, Malcolm Delaney, e.g. YMMV on how many of those dudes project to more useful (or less useless) than Knight, but I think at least a few of them will be, especially with Knight coming off an ACL injury. Absent the impetus to dump a bad contract, I think most GMs (including Morey) would much sooner take a flier on one of those guys than commit actual cap space, or even a mini-MLE, to Brandon Knight.

Continuing on the Warriors train of thought, with apologies: since the jettisoning of Monta Ellis that kicked off the current era (and the subsequent placeholder signing of Jarrett Jack), Bob Myers has pretty studiously avoided low efficiency, defensively inept chuckers in the Ellis/Knight mold in his roster construction, opting instead to install long, defensively versatile, unselfish point forwards Iguodala and Livingston the de facto backup PGs (with similarly long and defense-minded Patrick McCaw and Jacob Evans being groomed to potentially replace them). Yeah, he's also always had one combo guard who can score at the end of the bench — first Barbosa, then Ian Clark, now Quinn Cook — but those have been bargain bin, minimum contract, #10-15 roster spot guys. And all those guys were/are much better shooters, more efficient scorers, and by all accounts better clubhouse guys than Brandon Knight.

Bigger picture: correct me if I'm wrong, but in a quick scan through the great NBA teams of our lifetimes — these Warriors, Jordan Bulls, LeBron Heat, Big 3 Celtics, Kobe/Shaq Lakers, Magic Lakers, Bird Celtics, e.g. — I can't think of one rotation player who fits the Brandon Knight profile (small, poor D, ball dominant, high volume, low efficiency). Mediocre-to-crappy teams always seem to have a Brandon Knight or two, though.

We'll see soon enough, but my sense remains that Knight's primary "usefulness" was as a means of dumping the Anderson contract, and that as a player he has (or should have) extremely limited-to-zero role on a team with championship aspirations.
The Celtics alone had two different ones during the KG years in post-prime Cassell and Marbury. This is only off top of my head. The Lakers had Tyronn Lue as their 4th guard one of those Shaq years. Having said that I do agree that both teams made the best, even if marginally, on a couple horrible situations. They each benefit from the acquiring player being a better fit but also in the underrated area of simply moving on from a stale player hanging around with zero role on either team but rather bringing in a guy who will now actively compete for some minutes. The latter part alone makes for a better overall culture.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,850
NYC
Haha, I use the Warriors as an example since (obviously) I follow them a lot more closely than other teams. I could go team by team and postulate which be better off with Anderson than with Knight and vice-versa, but I feel pretty confident that more than half should take Anderson. I'd much rather have Anderson than Knight on the Celtics, for example.

Anyway, we're talking relative suckitude here, not just "Anderson's lack of value." It's obvious that Anderson was/is a strongly negative asset on his current contract; I just think Knight is even more negative on his.

The Celtics alone had two different ones during the KG years in post-prime Cassell and Marbury. This is only off top of my head. The Lakers had Tyronn Lue as their 4th guard one of those Shaq years.
This is true — plus Eddie House! It's debatable how much a part of the core rotation those guys were — Cassell played 264 playoff minutes in their championship run, while House played an Anderson-esque 165 — but yeah, they played a role. Point stands for the Jordan Bulls, Curry Warriors, Kobe/Shaq Lakers, etc. I just think the Knight type of player tends to be pretty overrated relative to impact on winning games, and I'm not sure Knight is even a good version of a Knight type of player.
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,681
On most teams 4th guard isn't a big deal, but having the extra body is sort of necesary when you're relying on CP3. Or even Kyrie Irving.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,850
NYC
On most teams 4th guard isn't a big deal, but having the extra body is sort of necesary when you're relying on CP3. Or even Kyrie Irving.
True — having Rozier is pretty big for the Celtics in that regard. But even if the Cs had lost Rozier, I'd bet Ainge could have found better on the vet-min scrap-heap than post-ACL Brandon Knight. Heck, I'd probably take your and my old friend Jordan Crawford over Knight.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,681
As no one knows what Knight looks like, it's a bit premature to call him washed up. He has spent most of his career playing for bottom-feeders actively looking to lose games, I suspect he might be better than that in Houston.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,215
On most teams 4th guard isn't a big deal, but having the extra body is sort of necesary when you're relying on CP3. Or even Kyrie Irving.
Yup, that has to be part of the calculus here and is part of why I think Knight is useful for them if healthy.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
True — having Rozier is pretty big for the Celtics in that regard. But even if the Cs had lost Rozier, I'd bet Ainge could have found better on the vet-min scrap-heap than post-ACL Brandon Knight. Heck, I'd probably take your and my old friend Jordan Crawford over Knight.
Who out there is better for D'Antoni's iso-guard offense that also matches Anderson's contract? It wasn't as much about finding a potential fit off the bench in his system as it was the pressure faced with moving Anderson who is now going to return to a starting role in Phoenix. This looks like an agent-driven deal that was agreed upon by guaranteeing Anderson the starting 4 in Phoenix in exchange for leaving some money on the table to make it amenable to Houston. The trade wasn't about Brandon Knight....he's simply the flier they got in return who happens to potentially be a good fit for the second unit as well as backcourt insurance.

This board begged for Ainge to find a guy better than a Knight but for years we went without a real backup PG so while Ainge is a god around here, and deservedly so, let's not credit him with one area that had frustrated many for years.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,850
NYC
Who out there is better for D'Antoni's iso-guard offense that also matches Anderson's contract?.
Quite possibly no one. I wasn't arguing that it was an awful deal for Houston's perspective; I was just noting, in my concise and to-the-point way, that Brandon Knight (probably) sucks.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Brandon Knight's 3 point shooting is all over the place during his career. I'd imagine he'd actually offer some value to the Rockets in a 15-20 minute role if he's hitting closer to 38-40% of his 3s than 32-33% of them.

It's not like the Rockets really need a traditional backup PG even if Paul does get injured though.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,681
They really just need an actual NBA guard so that they’re not running Eric Gordon into the ground when CP3 inevitably gets injured. The ability to baby their investment in Paul is a pretty big plus. I do think that Melton is likely the better long term player, but his upside is third guard. Much like Chriss’ upside is third big. Admittedly Melton is more likely to get there.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Read into this as you must.

Anthony Davis fired his longtime agent and signed with Rich Paul, LeBron's agent. Hmmmmm.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,850
NYC
Jumping the gun on the 2019 offseason thread ... I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it'll be the first offseason in NBA history where if you signed only free agents whose first names began with "K," you'd have the best basketball team of all time (if you could fit the salaries, and manage the egos...)

Kevin
Kawhi
Kyrie
Klay
Karl-Anthony
Kristaps
Kemba
Khris
Kentavious
Kevon
Kelly (Oubre)
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,681
He isn’t leaving until he signs his DVPE contract. So any move remains a few years off.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,779
Rotten Apple
Hope this guy recovers okay, love watching him...
Phoenix Suns guard Devin Booker having hand surgery, out indefinitely
http://arizonasports.com/story/1658215/devin-booker-injury-hand-surgery-out-indefinitely-suns-phoenix/
Phoenix Suns shooting guard Devin Booker will undergo hand surgery on Monday and is out indefinitely, reports 98.7 FM Arizona’s Sports Station’s John Gambadoro.
Booker will have the surgery in Los Angeles and is likely to miss the start of training camp.
Gambadoro reports Booker will miss at least four weeks.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,336
I suspect that McDonough has and will continue to try to fleece Ainge in some way given the perception that he was owned in the IT deal, followed up by some cheeky remarks whereby he took credit for preventing the Josh Jackson workout and forcing us to, errrr, settle for Tatum.

That said, McDonough is only signed through 2020 and is Mr. Hot Seat, and nobody exploits vulnerable executives quite like Danny Ainge.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,681
I suspect that McDonough has and will continue to try to fleece Ainge in some way given the perception that he was owned in the IT deal, followed up by some cheeky remarks whereby he took credit for preventing the Josh Jackson workout and forcing us to, errrr, settle for Tatum.
I always thought that was hilarious. There was no way that Boston had Marcus Smart's MaxiMe #1 on their draftboard. They were clearly looking at fallback positions if Tatum and Fultz went 1/2. I mean I like JJ and think that he's going to be a really nice player, but Tatum he never was.

That said, McDonough is only signed through 2020 and is Mr. Hot Seat, and nobody exploits vulnerable executives quite like Danny Ainge.
I guess that having Bridges in hand will come in handy now, but they need some serious talent infusion, and they'd better do it quickly so that their brand new centerpiece starts playing games that matter from day one. You don't want Ayton going full frontal Dwight.

So I actually do like them bringing in Anderson and Ariza, because that will help some of the newer players grow up (not sure whether or not they're in time to convince Booker to actually pay attention on D). But adding Rozier would be huge, even if the cost is a future lottery pick.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Luol Deng to Minnesota for one year at the 10+ year vet min of $2.4m of which the league covers over 60% of the deal.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,681
As far as I know he’s bone on bone in both knees. So he’s a worthy addition to the Los Angeles LeBron & the Clown Car in Search of a Circus.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,221
Bynum's body is destroyed and the value of his old peak skill set is marginal at best in today's NBA (especially with the ORB rule changes).

I would rather take a flier on a D-league or street FA wing than a 30yr old big man with no legs and no ability to play on the perimeter even if he was entirely healthy.

20 years ago, I would bet money on him getting another look in the NBA but I would bet against it today.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,676
Is there a difference between Bynum and Greg Oden at this point? Oden would at least be a good teammate.

Has there been a trade for a superstar that has turned out to be as bad for all teams involved as the Howard to LA deal?
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,850
NYC
Agreed with DBMH: even if Bynum knees were miraculously healthy, he picked the absolute worst moment to be a traditional C trying to get back into the league. Would 1986 Bill Walton make it in today's NBA? Bynum's PR guys may need to follow Dwight Howard's lead and drop a few clips of him shooting threes and/or references to Anthony Davis.

Crazy to think that in 2011, I would have given up pretty much anything to get Bynum or Howard, certainly including Thompson and probably even Curry, if you twisted my arm...
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,676
Walton could definitely find a role; if Andrew Bogut could be playing recently, 86 Walton could find a limited role. An expert passing big man with a great IQ that can rebound and block some shots is still valuable.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
Walton could definitely find a role; if Andrew Bogut could be playing recently, 86 Walton could find a limited role. An expert passing big man with a great IQ that can rebound and block some shots is still valuable.
Probably doesn’t need to be mentioned, but we’re also evaluating guys who didn’t have the luxury of growing up in today’s environment. Big men valued a completely different skill set back then. Sure, Walton’s knees would have made an outside game more difficult, but it’s not like he’s be the only one facing that challenge.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,779
Rotten Apple
Walton in today's pick and roll sets would destroy defenses with his passing. He's valuable in any age because he could do so many different things at an elite level.