Celtics trade rumors - Deadline 2/18, 3 PM

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
I would have to imagine that a Horford trade would involve one of the Nets picks. He's a rental but there will be competition for his services.

Players-wise, David Lee would be the ballast going the other way. Maybe something else could be worked out but few players outside of Horford and Millsap would see significant minutes on the Celtics (which shows how good those two guys are, IMHO).
I think there's a chance we could outbid anyone without giving up the Brooklyn picks. The problem is that Atlanta is pretty good and may well decide to make a run for the conference finals and deal with Horford leaving this summer. They still have Millsap and are only trading Teague b/c they think Schroeder can take over without much of a dropoff, so it's not like they are holding a fire sale.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,333
A Brooklyn pick for a rental is so far beyond what anybody else can and will offer, it would be colossally stupid with zero guarantee of the player resigning.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I think there is a big chicken/egg thing with Olynyk's defense right now because honestly, these guys haven't been playing a lot of good defense the past couple of weeks.
 

GreyisGone

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,283
The problem with a guy like Olynyk is we seem to be conflating Stevens' ability to maximize his limited strengths and minimize his large weaknesses with him actually being a good player.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
I'm with Bowiac on Bradley, I'm really surprised with the love he is getting. I look at him, and the rest of our back-court for that matter, through a different lens. Instead of looking at what they are doing, I think about what they would be doing with a lesser coach because I think Steven's amazing coaching is what makes it work and we are quickly taking that for granted.

In the backcourt, Stevens has to start the game with a significantly undersized Thomas alongside an undersized, for the 2 anyway, Bradley. Its one thing to go small, but its another thing to have players who are small on the court, and I'm convinced that being forced to play Bradley, Turner and Smart for big minutes would cripple most teams because Stevens covers up so many of the warts/untraditional nature of these guys. If we look at the bigs on the team, the biggest holes that I see are that we have Amir Johnson and Sully starting and whichever of those guys we think of as the C is very undersized. Kelly rolls in off the bench, and sure he has some warts, but as a 6th man thats a great role for him.

If we move Bradley in the deal for Horford, we gain a traditional C who probably allows Amir to play at his more natural 4 position, and I think takes minutes away from Sully. It creates a hole at SG, but I'd argue its easier to find a SG than a C, and really any backcourt position is easier to fill than a front court one. If Kelly is moved in that deal, his TS% of 56% (compared to a league average of 54%) is probably replaced by Sully's 47% and I think Sully is really more offensively skilled than defensively so those numbers are really brutal to look at.

Now, with all these holes I just pointed at on the roster, Stevens has them on pace for 48 wins which seems a big unlucky considered the expected pythag expects them to have 52 wins at season's end. Which is why I'd really suggest we be a little more critical of what these guys are doing here.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,622
I'm confused as to why we would trade anything of real value to rent Horford. I must be missing something here. Has Horford made overtones that he would sign here?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
I'm confused as to why we would trade anything of real value to rent Horford. I must be missing something here. Has Horford made overtones that he would sign here?
Well, I suspect there would be some backdoor communication should such a trade go down. And wouldn't trading for him mean that re-signing with Boston would get him the most money?
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
The premise is that with him, the Celts have a better chance to go further this year, and that maybe he decides he likes his prospects with the Celts. I think.

That said, I wouldn't move anything of value for a one half year rental who doesn't seem to be enough to make them a serious title contender. Instead, I'd ride this crew out and try to bring in a true alpha player in the off season.
 

TheRooster

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,483
I have soured a bit on Olynyk but I still think he's more valuable than Bradley. What is easier to find, undersized 2s with generally average skills or 7 footers who can make threes at a top10/top20 rate? Olynyk may improve another 20%-40% while Bradley is at the "he is what he is" stage. There are certainly a couple of teams (Cleveland) who'd rather have AB, but I think those are in the minority.

Regarding Horford, one assumes they won't blindly acquire him without confirming he's be amenable to re-signing here. And haven't numerous guys said something to the effect of, "I never realized how good playing for the Celtics is until I got here"? Seems wise to give him a taste if he is a FA target.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I wasn't trying to get into a whole Olynyk thing (though I do think he's a good player - being a good defender while shooting 41% from three as a C isn't trivial). Moreso, my point was that Bradley is very dispensable given his skillset. Bradley's become a good shooter, making pretty well covered shots in a lot of cases, but his defense just isn't up to his reputation. He just doesn't have the size to be a plus defender against 2s, and doesn't have the ball handling skills and passing vision to play PG on offense. He's pretty helpful for this incarnation of the Celtics, since they need the offense he provides, but he's not a building block piece for me. He's a guy whose offensive skillset becomes less valuable once (if?) they add an actual go-to scorer, without becoming a better defender to match.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
I guess we are just watching different players. I watched the corpse of Richard Jefferson blow by him 3 straight possessions on Friday night and chase him down from behind for a clean block, but Kelly did get a questionable foul call on the play.

Against the Bucks he turned Greg Monroe into a Wilt Chamberlin, and tonight he again got abused by multiple players going to the hoop. He cant slide his feet to cut off driving lanes at all, and its not just vs athletic wings. Its against any player who can remotely put it on the deck.

Take the green shades off. The guy isnt very good. And id love to know what he does well on offense except make wide open 3PTs at home (48/34 home road splits)
Obviously we're not going to change the way you "see" the game, but the fact remains that the Cs are generally better with him on the floor than they are with him off. Here's another summary of the stats you don't want to look at: http://www.celticshub.com/2016/01/26/the-renaissance-of-kelly-olynyk/.

Here is what Olynyk does really well. (1) We all agree he makes 3Ps at a historic rate for a 7-footer. That is really important for the way the Cs want to play the game. And because KO and Turner are usually playing together, Turner is often the beneficiary of having one less big in the paint. (2) He is good at help defense and he makes his rotations quickly. The defensive stats show that he's been a net positive on the defensive end and without looking at it more closely, I'm going to guess that he's really effective when he plays the 5. (3) He's a good ballhandler and passer, particularly for his size.

Here's what he doesn't do very well: (1) He's not a great mid-range shooter. Yet. I still think he has room to grow into this but look at his shot chart. Maybe all of those pump-fakes and passes are a good idea at this point not a detriment. (2) He's not a great post defender. (3) He's not going to slow wings down on the perimeter - but then again, he's 7 feet.

As someone pointed out, KO probably would have been a scrub 20 years ago. But you do realize how important the 3P shot has become, don't you? In today's NBA, KO is valuable now and could become even more valuable.
 

The Mort Report

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 5, 2007
6,904
Concord
Here's one reason: flexibility. The inherited Bird rights allow you to go over cap to re-sign him. This is important because 1) nobody is entirely clear how new cap space will be used, 2) it allows the Cs to potentially get some other guys (via trade) over the offseason and still have Horford at his price, and 3) FOs get to choose summertime deal sequence.

This all depends on what ransom Atlanta demands, but it may be worth the added flexibility. If DA taught us any one thing, it's that he highly valued maximizing cap flexibility at all times.
I was only able to do a quick internet search since I'm traveling, but I was under the impression that bird rights can't be applied to mid season acquisitions. I have no exact instance to point at, and I could be wrong but I feel like this has come up recently.

Also PP I guess I should have been a little more specific, if we can get Al for ours or the Mavs 1st and David Lee as the only real assets sure, I was more amazed the Brooklyn picks were even being discussed seriously
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
The only situation where Bird rights don't transfer are in the case of sign & trades and players that accept the one year Qualifying Offer coming off their rookie deal to hit unrestricted free agency. You can still execute sign & trade deals, but now they're capped at the maximum a player could receive switching teams in free agency (EDIT: it doesn't technically terminate Bird rights but it effectively does, the only case where this makes a difference is if the sign & trade involved a contract with an opt out after year one, then Bird rights would come into play after the opt out). And players on fifth year termination deals (like Greg Monroe last year) have to approve any deal their team makes as the Bird rights terminate with the trade.
 

The Mort Report

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 5, 2007
6,904
Concord
The only situation where Bird rights don't transfer are in the case of sign & trades and players that accept the one year Qualifying Offer coming off their rookie deal to hit unrestricted free agency. You can still execute sign & trade deals, but now they're capped at the maximum a player could receive switching teams in free agency (EDIT: it doesn't technically terminate Bird rights but it effectively does, the only case where this makes a difference is if the sign & trade involved a contract with an opt out after year one, then Bird rights would come into play after the opt out). And players on fifth year termination deals (like Greg Monroe last year) have to approve any deal their team makes as the Bird rights terminate with the trade.
Thanks for that, I miss the days of my youth when sports involved just a beer, no brains.

I would imagine then if bird rights transfer that ups Atlanta's asking price a bit past what people are suggesting here
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
Remember with Bradley that these are young, talented players and sometimes they do improve---he is today what a good chunk of this board thought he never would be 18 months ago. And, I don't know that anyone is suggesting he's got a quantum leap forward in him going forward, either.

While he is not at all likely to become an impact player, let's remember teams never have each of their top 6-8 guys all being impact guys. The real question is whether some other team values his skillset a lot, because he's certainly tradeable if someone thinks he's going to be a star, or if the Celtics have a star they can acquire at the 2 (seems quite unlikely) But at his salary, I wouldn't be eager to dump him either...he's a useful player (with limits) and he plays just fine within their scheme.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Seriously. Go back and look at the first couple of pages of the "Do the Celtics have any Players who are Very Good" thread.

On the first page alone posters predicted that Bradley would be out of the league in 2 years, Olynyk was called "the worst defensive center in the NBA", and James Young was compared to Ray Allen. Things change with young players in the NBA very, very quickly.
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
Thanks for that, I miss the days of my youth when sports involved just a beer, no brains.

I would imagine then if bird rights transfer that ups Atlanta's asking price a bit past what people are suggesting here
It could. This is where the uncertainty about how new cap space will truly be used is to Ainge's advantage. He could easily (and honestly) argue that all the new cap space means Horford's Bird rights are worth next to nothing since nearly every team can offer him the max. Essentially, the value of Horford's Bird rights is an open question.
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
Harford didn't help his trade value by making comments about how some cities would be better for his business and marketing opportunities than ATL. Makes teams like Boston think he has a good idea where he wants to be.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
Horford's trade value to the Cs is entirely contingent on the ability to re-sign him. I don't think anyone expects him to put this team into championship contention as a rental this year, especially as a mid-year acquisition & having to get chemistry right. Maybe he takes the team from a 2nd round exit to ECF exit this year (just my guess) & that is not worth giving up real assets for. But, as a longer-term piece he gets us one step closer & probably one very good player away from being a real contender.

If Ainge honestly can't get a good read on the probability of re-signing Horford, but thinks there's a decent chance, then by all means give up a pupu platter of non- long-term pieces, like Lee, Turner, Zeller, Hunter, Young, Mickey, Rozier and/or multiple non-Brooklyn picks.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
The Houston Rockets have started contacting teams about trading eight-time All-Star Dwight Howard, league sources told The Vertical.

Howard, 30, plans to exercise an opt-out in his contract this summer to become an unrestricted free agent, and uncertainty surrounding the commitment both sides are willing to make has pushed Houston general manager Daryl Morey toward seeking potential trades on the market, league sources said.

The NBA’s trade deadline is Feb. 18.

The Rockets are working with Howard’s agent, Dan Fegan, on possible destinations, league executives told The Vertical.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--rockets-contacting-teams-about-trading-dwight-howard-191621017.html
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
I'd say OK with the caveat "So long as we have McHale on staff to be the Dwight Whisperer". If nothing else a two way sign & trade this summer with Dwight going home and Horford coming here would be fun.
 

Rusty13

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
5,351
What would Howard mean to this Celtics team, knowing he'll be a FA at the end of the year? I can't imagine Danny's giving up real assets for a rental.
Secures a bid to the ECF and maybe a chance beyond; gives a very young team some valuable deep playoff experience; and possibly makes C's more attractive to other FA's in the offseason.

However, I agree I would not give up high assets for him. Sounds like the Rockets might be desperate.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
Horford is just a much better player than Howard at this stage of their careers.

I think everyone agrees with that. But if Al costs a Brooklyn pick while we can get Dwight for our own pick and/or the Dallas one, give me Dwight.
 

mikeot

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2006
8,148
Either would be huge addition to the lineup, in every sense of the word ... but it's Al who's being touted as a conference playoff game-changer.
 
As a Hawks fan, this thread has become pretty surreal...you guys know you have to give something of value to get something of value, right? Trading for Horford means you get a half-season rental of arguably the NBA's best center - see above - plus his Bird rights and the box seat to sign him to a long-term deal. (Plus, the Celtics could benefit from a sign-and-trade deal in the offseason if Horford doesn't want to re-sign in Boston, right?) Sure, Horford may not re-sign in Boston, although Ainge can do due diligence on that possibility before pulling the trigger. But is each Brooklyn pick really that much more of a sure thing than Horford re-signing?

Unless Boston dangles a Brooklyn pick or some combination of value commensurate with a Brooklyn pick, the Hawks hang up the phone pretty quickly. End of story.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,622
As a Hawks fan, this thread has become pretty surreal...you guys know you have to give something of value to get something of value, right? Trading for Horford means you get a half-season rental of arguably the NBA's best center - see above - plus his Bird rights and the box seat to sign him to a long-term deal. (Plus, the Celtics could benefit from a sign-and-trade deal in the offseason if Horford doesn't want to re-sign in Boston, right?) Sure, Horford may not re-sign in Boston, although Ainge can do due diligence on that possibility before pulling the trigger. But is each Brooklyn pick really that much more of a sure thing than Horford re-signing?

Unless Boston dangles a Brooklyn pick or some combination of value commensurate with a Brooklyn pick, the Hawks hang up the phone pretty quickly. End of story.
Well, bye.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Unless Boston dangles a Brooklyn pick or some combination of value commensurate with a Brooklyn pick, the Hawks hang up the phone pretty quickly. End of story.
I think this is basically understood, which is why there's discussion of Dwight. We all agree the Celtics probably don't want to give up what the Hawks would need for Horford.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
It could. This is where the uncertainty about how new cap space will truly be used is to Ainge's advantage. He could easily (and honestly) argue that all the new cap space means Horford's Bird rights are worth next to nothing since nearly every team can offer him the max. Essentially, the value of Horford's Bird rights is an open question.
Having Bird rights on a player allows you to offer him a 5 year deal with 7.5% raises. Without Bird rights, most you can offer is a 4 year deal with 4.5% raises.

Assuming a cap of 90M for next season.
For Horford, max you can offer him without Bird rights this summer is 4/115
With Bird rights, it's 5/155

Bird rights are worth much more than nothing.
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
Having Bird rights on a player allows you to offer him a 5 year deal with 7.5% raises. Without Bird rights, most you can offer is a 4 year deal with 4.5% raises.

Assuming a cap of 90M for next season.
For Horford, max you can offer him without Bird rights this summer is 4/115
With Bird rights, it's 5/155

Bird rights are worth much more than nothing.
To Horford, sure, assuming he is worth all of those benefits. He seems to be on the cusp.

Either way, I was talking about an assessment of the value of said rights to a team when any team can offer even 4/115 (which is usually not the case) in free agency. The core value of Bird rights to teams is over-cap offers, which only matters if you're close to or over cap.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
As a Hawks fan, this thread has become pretty surreal...you guys know you have to give something of value to get something of value, right? Trading for Horford means you get a half-season rental of arguably the NBA's best center - see above - plus his Bird rights and the box seat to sign him to a long-term deal. (Plus, the Celtics could benefit from a sign-and-trade deal in the offseason if Horford doesn't want to re-sign in Boston, right?) Sure, Horford may not re-sign in Boston, although Ainge can do due diligence on that possibility before pulling the trigger. But is each Brooklyn pick really that much more of a sure thing than Horford re-signing?

Unless Boston dangles a Brooklyn pick or some combination of value commensurate with a Brooklyn pick, the Hawks hang up the phone pretty quickly. End of story.
The thing is, Atlanta is going to want 85-90 cents on the dollar for Horford which is what a package based around a Brooklyn pick is, and a team like Boston would be crazy to pay it given the strong chance he goes elsewhere (between taxes and/or endorsement boosts the extra year and higher raise cap probably isn't a huge concern vs. market) and the small likelihood he makes them an actual contender this year.
I think Horford ends up not getting moved, very few teams make sense to move value and the ones that do don't have the pieces to make a trade. For a team like Boston that even with Horford is a title long-shot, the downside is too big to move a premier piece.
 

dhellers

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2005
4,209
Silver Spring, Maryland
As a Hawks fan, this thread has become pretty surreal...you guys know you have to give something of value to get something of value, right? Trading for Horford means you get a half-season rental of arguably the NBA's best center - see above - plus his Bird rights and the box seat to sign him to a long-term deal. (Plus, the Celtics could benefit from a sign-and-trade deal in the offseason if Horford doesn't want to re-sign in Boston, right?) Sure, Horford may not re-sign in Boston, although Ainge can do due diligence on that possibility before pulling the trigger. But is each Brooklyn pick really that much more of a sure thing than Horford re-signing?

Unless Boston dangles a Brooklyn pick or some combination of value commensurate with a Brooklyn pick, the Hawks hang up the phone pretty quickly. End of story.
All the Brooklyn picks will be #1s. And all #1s will be all stars, at least. So why would we trade a pick for a current all star?
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I tend to agree with Conig (in that the Hawks aren't that motivated to swap Horford for picks that are 20+) but also with everyone else (that noone else is motivated to give them anything better), and I think it means that the chance of Horford being traded are not that great.

The C's with Horford are probably a bit better than the Hawks are now, but all the reasons that Atlanta might want to trade him seem to be the same that would mean Boston shouldn't want to trade significant assets for him (playoff chances, cost to re-sign, etc.). But it's hard to find a team that would be motivated.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,303
I think this is basically understood, which is why there's discussion of Dwight. We all agree the Celtics probably don't want to give up what the Hawks would need for Horford.
I think there is a very, very small chance that Ainge gives up any Brooklyn picks for someone that's going to be a FA. The trade offer that I have seen most discussed (ESPN, Twitter, etc) is Olynyk and the BOS+DAL #1 picks for Horford.
It seems like the Hawks know that he is going to leave and know that with him they can't make it very far. With how much the cap and contracts are about to skyrocket, the most valuable pieces are draft picks (because of the rookie scale) and players under contract. I don't think the market is going to be as strong as some may think for Horford or Howard.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I would jump at Olynyk deal, and I've made quite clear my love of Olynyk here. I don't expect the Hawks would do that however.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
The Celtics are known as one of the more active and aggressive teams at the trade deadline and in free agency. And with their treasure chest of assets and their future salary flexibility, they are one of the few teams that would be in position to close most deals.

As such, it is no surprise that whenever stars from other teams are said to be available, the Celtics generally appear on a short list of potential suitors. It is not that they necessarily want these players; it is that they have enough to give up for them if they did.

Despite escalating buzz with next Thursday’s trade deadline approaching, though, the Celtics are taking a cautious, measured approach. According to league sources, Boston is reluctant to mortgage its future in exchange for players who could become free agents at season’s end. The Celtics are content to move forward without making a trade, and they will be careful not to get caught up in an unnecessary bidding war.

“This team is not in it for the short term,” one league source said.

The Celtics have been linked to Rockets center Dwight Howard and Hawks forward Al Horford, both of whom could be available on the trade market. But sources said the Celtics are unlikely to acquire either player before Thursday’s deadline.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2016/02/12/sources-say-howard-horford-moves-unlikely-for-celtics/2KwyCSVTNL9pReIJNqzviM/story.html
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
More from that article.

The Celtics currently have almost no interest in trading for Howard, 30, a talented center with a history of back issues and a questionable work ethic. He can opt out of his contract at season’s end, and even if he wanted to re-sign with Boston, the team would have reservations about offering a long-term deal. Also, Howard is not viewed as a player who would help attract another top free agent to Boston this summer.
The Celtics do think highly of Horford, sources said. They admire him as a player and believe he could be a good fit in Boston. But there are a few major hurdles that are likely to keep the Celtics from completing a deal for him if he is available.

Primarily, he will be a free agent at season’s end. Horford, 29, declined to sign an extension with the Hawks this summer. He is making $12 million in the final year of his contract and could be set to receive a maximum deal of five years, $146 million from Atlanta next year.

Horford is not viewed as a transcendent talent who would put a team like the Celtics over the top this season. And sources said the Celtics would be reluctant to trade an impact player or a valuable draft pick for Horford not knowing whether he would even re-sign with them this summer.

A more likely course of action would be for the Celtics to pursue Horford during free agency, and if the pursuit falls flat, they would not have relinquished assets in the process. Of course, if Atlanta ultimately decides to clean house next week and the asking price for Horford somehow plummets, he could potentially reemerge as an option for Boston. But right now that prospect is unlikely.
Last year the Celtics were in a kind of hunting and gathering phase, as they cobbled together assets and young, improving players to build a new core. But now that core has been established ahead of schedule, as Boston enters the All-Star break at 32-23 and in third place in the Eastern Conference.

The Celtics will be careful not to disturb team chemistry with minor moves, as they turn their focus toward the pursuit of a transcendent talent. But it remains to be seen if such a player will even become available at the deadline.
League sources said that the Kings have made it clear All-Star forward DeMarcus Cousins is not on the market. The Nuggets have also indicated that forward Danilo Gallinari is not on the block, and he has had a history of knee issues and is not seen as a transcendent star anyway.

Teams have been inquiring about the Celtics’ first-round draft pick that they will receive from the Brooklyn Nets in June—it figures to be a top-five selection—but there is an understanding that it would come at a cost. As of late Thursday night, a league source said, the Celtics had not engaged in any trade talks of real substance. A report on Thursday linked the Celtics to Timberwolves guard Shabazz Muhammad, but one source said that Boston was not interested in acquiring the 23-year-old before the deadline.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2016/02/12/sources-say-howard-horford-moves-unlikely-for-celtics/2KwyCSVTNL9pReIJNqzviM/story.html
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
This is kind of an odd position to be in – where you have a young roster as deep as this one but are completely blocked from seriously contending for a title. Like many here, I don't want to see any of these guys moved or assets traded away as a fan for something that may not work out, but I wonder what the alternatives are.

As of now, our chances for seriously contending for a title are pretty much zero. With Horford, you have one of two, maybe three pieces you need, and something you can use to entice one of those two other players to Boston. Perhaps the acquisition of a player like him only increases our chances of contending for a title by 5 or 10%. But isn't that better than a guaranteed zero? Or am I missing that there is some transcendental talent that we might be able to get with one of the Brooklyn picks?
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
Or am I missing that there is some transcendental talent that we might be able to get with one of the Brooklyn picks?
Well, we know who the 2016 draft class is right now, and I don't believe "transcendental talent" has been said of any of them. As for the 2018 draft class? Maybe. We have no sense of ceilings yet on these HSers.

EDIT: Horford is also not transcendental. Is a guaranteed 30-40 games of a sure-thing-talent like Horford (plus a higher probability of more time) worth a top-3 pick? Maybe...
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
I was discussing this with my dad the other day. In a way, the 2007 Celtics team that only won like 23 games was in some ways in better position to contend for a title than this ~50 win bunch. That team already had a hall of famer, Jefferson, and the #5 pick or whatever it was. Obviously the dominoes fell extremely fortunately in terms of the trades they were able to make, but they went from those 24 wins to 66 and a title the next year.

This team has more overall talent than the 2007 team, but lacks the key pieces to become a contender over night. That being said, if they could get Horford without giving up one of the Brooklyn picks, that would be a huge start to enticing someone else to come to Boston. Then either using the Brooklyn pick on a very good player or trading it for a very good player would bring a second piece. Then maybe you are a true contender.

The potential is there for the Celts to Contend in 2017 or 2018. Hopefully things break well again.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I don't know that I agree that the 2007 team had better key pieces. The key piece they had was Kevin McHale's willingness to give them an 30-year old inner circle hall of famer for Al Jefferson. If Doc was willing to move Chris Paul for Jared Sullinger, the 2018 Nets pick, and the Celtics' own 2018 pick, then I'd say this team was pretty close to being a contender itself...
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Regardless of how things ultimately break, I am still amazed at the position that Danny has put us in since 2012 when our Big 3 run ended with no draft pick assets and Rondo/Bradley/Green being the only young talent on board. At an absolute minimum, we're going to be adding a top 5 pick to a team that is going to win 45-50 games.

Imagine if we actually get some lottery luck and land Simmons or Ingram to this young core, an impact frontcourt FA like Horford, and a couple bench/speculative pieces with our Bos/Dal picks (although I could see one of them being traded for a future pick with declining protection).

That would obviously be a "best case" scenario but it's possible. And then you'd still have Brooklyn's next 2 picks and Memphis' 2019 pick to use as additional trade bait. He won't get the credit he deserves unless we land a star but, man, Ainge has been Auerbachian the past few years.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
The 2007 Celtics also had an expiring $12M contract in Theo Ratliff, which was an important piece in making the salary numbers work. I'm not sure how many other teams had such a contract available, or alternatively the cap space to take on Garnett's $24M salary.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
36,692
where the darn libs live
The funny thing is that the "best case" scenario you describe is pretty much reality. This team is going to win 45-50 games, barring collapse or injury. They're going to get a top 5 pick, barring trading the pick. They have cap space and an attractive situation / coach.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Regardless of how things ultimately break, I am still amazed at the position that Danny has put us in since 2012 when our Big 3 run ended with no draft pick assets and Rondo/Bradley/Green being the only young talent on board. At an absolute minimum, we're going to be adding a top 5 pick to a team that is going to win 45-50 games.

Imagine if we actually get some lottery luck and land Simmons or Ingram to this young core, an impact frontcourt FA like Horford, and a couple bench/speculative pieces with our Bos/Dal picks (although I could see one of them being traded for a future pick with declining protection).

That would obviously be a "best case" scenario but it's possible. And then you'd still have Brooklyn's next 2 picks and Memphis' 2019 pick to use as additional trade bait. He won't get the credit he deserves unless we land a star but, man, Ainge has been Auerbachian the past few years.
Yeah, it's pretty amazing. To turn Pierce and Garnett, at that age, into such a huge haul is basically robbery. Ainge also got an all star point guard for free, turned Rondo into Crowder (I doubt there's a GM in the league that would prefer Rondo to Crowder at this point) and a first. Oh, and the Celtics are going to host a playoff series 3 years later.

Pretty solid rebuild.