Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Wicks & Rowe: The place to discuss far fetched rebuilding ideas.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1222 replies to this topic

#451 Jed Zeppelin


  • SoSH Member


  • 16,075 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 06:52 PM

No, I really did mean Horford. (See Hawks contracts here).


I think what G&MB is asking is why would the Hawks want to trade their young, consistent, very good big man who is signed to a very reasonable contract? And they aren't really shedding salary in that deal since Pierce is more expensive than Smith and signed for an extra year, while Rondo's contract is one year shorter but basically matches up with Horford's.

#452 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3,579 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 07:02 PM

I think what G&MB is asking is why would the Hawks want to trade their young, consistent, very good big man who is signed to a very reasonable contract? And they aren't really shedding salary in that deal since Pierce is more expensive than Smith and signed for an extra year, while Rondo's contract is one year shorter but basically matches up with Horford's.


Yeah, the reason I assumed Dolomite meant Johnson was just because his is really the only contract I see Atlanta being desperate to get out from under. Also, because he said that the Celtics would end up with the best player in the deal in Smith, when in my mind Horford is a level above Smith but you could make an argument that Smith's a better player than Johnson at this point.

edit: and for what it's worth, both deals work in the trade machine.

Edited by Grin&MartyBarret, 23 February 2012 - 07:06 PM.


#453 nighthob

  • 3,007 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 10:07 PM

That story sounds great until we get into the details. I forget if Kenny was in the last or 2nd to last year of his deal, but it was close to being over. Meanwhile, Vinny had multiple years left on his deal, so while the Celts took back slightly less salary in the trade, if the goal of the deal was to cut salary there were many, many other less risky options that Wallace could have pursued to do so. IIRC Baker had something like 4 yrs and $56M left on his deal when we traded for him, and he was basically toast, and oh yeah had that drinking problem.


But Baker made less than the players Boston traded for him, which put the Celtics under the luxury tax line two CBAs ago when the rebate difference was much larger. If I recall aright Gaston & Co. collected an $8-$10 million rebate check that year as a result of the deal. They didn't care about Baker's outyears because they were intending on selling the team and the albatross years would be someone else's responsibility.

#454 JohnnyTheBone

  • 4,219 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 11:44 PM

The most unforgivable sin committed by Wallace was using the #11 pick that year. He compounded the error, of course, by selecting the execrable Kedrick Brown, but the real mistake was using it in the first place.

Bear with me, as I'm doing this from memory. That #11 was a protected pick the C's got from Denver in a trade, and Boston had the option of rolling that pick over into future drafts. I believe the year he used it, it was top-10 protected. Had he rolled it over to the following season, it was only top-5 protected. The year after that it was top-3 protected, and then after that it was not protected at all. With the C's already owning two first round picks that year, it was absolutely inexcusable to exercise the option on the Denver pick at that time.

Fat Fuck Wallace just wanted to cash it in while he was still clinging to the GM role, instead of taking the long-range view for the good of the franchise. Denver sucked then, so rolling the pick over into future seasons with increasingly less protection would have netted a much, much better player. If I recall correctly, Carmelo Anthony would have been in play for Boston. Instead, we had to settle for Kedrick freakin' Brown.

#455 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,644 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 11:56 PM

That's not actually Smith's salary (they got him for the 2.5M exception a couple days ago), so there's no way it can work unless the Knicks trade one of their big 3 or a massive combination of parts like Shumpert, Fields, Walker, Smith etc. to go along with Lin. Don't see it happening.


Huh? Smith was a FA pickup. He went to china during the lockout but wasn't good enough to get an opt-out so he had to wait till their season ended. They might have been able to do something bc he signed midseason, but I don't think that matters for trades.

#456 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 21,423 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 12:31 AM

The most unforgivable sin committed by Wallace was using the #11 pick that year. He compounded the error, of course, by selecting the execrable Kedrick Brown, but the real mistake was using it in the first place.

Bear with me, as I'm doing this from memory. That #11 was a protected pick the C's got from Denver in a trade, and Boston had the option of rolling that pick over into future drafts. I believe the year he used it, it was top-10 protected. Had he rolled it over to the following season, it was only top-5 protected. The year after that it was top-3 protected, and then after that it was not protected at all. With the C's already owning two first round picks that year, it was absolutely inexcusable to exercise the option on the Denver pick at that time.

Fat Fuck Wallace just wanted to cash it in while he was still clinging to the GM role, instead of taking the long-range view for the good of the franchise. Denver sucked then, so rolling the pick over into future seasons with increasingly less protection would have netted a much, much better player. If I recall correctly, Carmelo Anthony would have been in play for Boston. Instead, we had to settle for Kedrick freakin' Brown.


Exactly. Exercising the Denver pick at #11 was craven short-termism, throwing away the greater value in search of a quick score. It was a plausible decision for Wallace, who probably reasoned correctly that he would lose his job before the long-term value could be realized. For him, it made sense to roll the dice against the odds, but it sucked for the Celtics and their fans.

Kedrick Brown was Gerald Green with more bulk. He could jump, he could shoot, and he was brain-dead on the basketball court.

#457 BigSoxFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,088 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 12:38 AM

Making the pick was bad but he compounded the problem by picking Kedrick, a SF, when he had just drafted Joe Johnson and already had a 24 year-old SF named Paul Pierce on the roster. Just a completely moronic decision.

#458 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5,920 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 12:41 AM

I think what G&MB is asking is why would the Hawks want to trade their young, consistent, very good big man who is signed to a very reasonable contract? And they aren't really shedding salary in that deal since Pierce is more expensive than Smith and signed for an extra year, while Rondo's contract is one year shorter but basically matches up with Horford's.


I stand corrected. In that case my salary argument goes out the window. But Horford is still basically out for the season, so maybe the Hawks would be willing to part with him on those grounds. (Again, I'm trying to convince myself that's logical).

#459 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3,579 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 01:20 PM

Okay, so in the interest of far fetched ideas. . .

Minnesota is currently a game out of the 8 seed in the West. Kevin Love's opt out clause effectively has them on the clock to put a competitive team together, and it's going to be difficult to attract free agents to Minnesota. Currently, they get absolutely no production out of the 3. They could substantially improve their team by upgrading at the 3 and simultaneously send Kevin Love the message that they're trying to put a team around him. With that in mind:

Boston gets: Michael Beasley, Derrick Williams, and Anthony Tolliver
Minnesota gets: Paul Pierce

For Boston, there are two major advantages. First, Beasley and Tolliver both expire this season, which would mean that in addition to Garnett and Allen's contracts coming off the books, you also get an additional 11 million dollars off the books. Second, you get a young lottery pick in Derrick Williams to develop. Essentially, Boston gets to start over with a lottery pick and a clean cap.

For Minnesota, you get a major upgrade at the 3, the benefit of convincing your franchise player that you're trying, and though you have to give up the #2 overall pick less than a year into his career, Derrick Williams simply doesn't fit there because he can't play the 3 effectively. Minnesota then goes forward with a starting five of Rubio, Ellington/Wes Johnson, Pierce, Love, and Pekovic. And you have JJ Barea, Anthony Randolph, Martell Webster, and Darko coming off the bench.

Unlikely, of course.

#460 ElcaballitoMVP

  • 2,147 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 02:30 PM

Okay, so in the interest of far fetched ideas. . .
Boston gets: Michael Beasley, Derrick Williams, and Anthony Tolliver
Minnesota gets: Paul Pierce
Unlikely, of course.


I'm sure Pierce would hate being dealt to Minnesotta, but I'd do that deal. Beasley is also a RFA this summer, so even if he doesn't fit into the C's long term plans, Danny could use him in a S&T to bring something else back. Williams would be a nice fit with Rondo and the uptempo team Danny seems to want to build. It would be nice if we could find a way to get them to add a 2013 first round pick in there (they have their own and one from Memphis), but that's probably getting too greedy.

I'd follow that deal up with one of the following deals:

Ray to Utah for Devin Harris and the GS 2012 #1 draft pick (currently #11 and is Top 7 protected). We add a $9M contract in Harris, but his value is extremely low right now and Danny could look to move him in the offseason since he'll be an expiring contract next year if he doesn't want him around. At the very worst, we have a backup PG behind Rondo and a top 10-12 pick in the draft.

Ray (can also add Dooling to the deal) to Indiana for Hansbrough and IND 2012 #1 pick (currently #25). Gives us a cheap PF off the bench who can score, rebound and defend the pick and roll. He's not great by any means, but would add some depth and energy to the front court. The draft pick isn't great but due to the depth of talent in this draft, maybe DA could find a rotation player that late (and I'd consider doing the deal for a 2013 pick instead if DA felt Indy would come back down to earth a bit next year).

Ray to Chicago for Kyle Korver, Ronnie Brewer and either CHI 2012 #1 (currently #27) or CHA 2012 #1 (which has so much protection on it we probably wouldn't see it for another 3-4 years). Depends on what DA wants: A late pick in this years deep draft or slow play it to get a potential top 5-10 pick 3/4 years from now. I'd slow play it and take the CHA pick. Korver and Brewer have 1 year remaining after this one and could either be sent off to other teams to acquire additional assets or kept around to add depth to the bench. I'd love to expand this deal so we could get Omer Asik back, but he seems to be a pretty valuable big man off their bench.

I'm not sure we'll be able to get a big return for Ray. He's most valuable to teams looking for that last piece (like Chicago) but I don't think we're getting a really good pick for him unless we take on a contract a team doesn't want (like Harris in UTA).

#461 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2,900 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 02:36 PM

Whatever the long term plan is (and I doubt if Ainge has a specific plan other than to be opportunistic), JO and Wilcox are hobbling and they need another big body now. They are getting killed on the glass every night.


They only need a big body now if they're trying to win this year.

#462 Brickowski

  • PipPip
  • 3,755 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 02:37 PM

Exactly. Exercising the Denver pick at #11 was craven short-termism, throwing away the greater value in search of a quick score. It was a plausible decision for Wallace, who probably reasoned correctly that he would lose his job before the long-term value could be realized. For him, it made sense to roll the dice against the odds, but it sucked for the Celtics and their fans.

Kedrick Brown was Gerald Green with more bulk. He could jump, he could shoot, and he was brain-dead on the basketball court.


This is all true and was discussed extensively at the time, on Real Gm and elsewhere. My guess is that Wallace was under orders to produce a playoff team. That's why they used all three picks and why they made the ridiculous midseason trade for Rogers and Delk. Obie wanted veterans. And that team did, in fact, get to the EC finals (due in part to the strong defense played by Kedrick Brown in the Philadelphia series).

Rebuilding is a difficult process, and rebuilding "on the fly" is ten times more difficult. The attempt failed. Maybe the most valid criticism of Wallace is that he didn't have the balls to stand up to ownership, although Kedrick Brown was unquestionably a lousy pick.

Edited by Brickowski, 24 February 2012 - 05:31 PM.


#463 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,741 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 02:39 PM

Okay, so in the interest of far fetched ideas. . .

Boston gets: Michael Beasley, Derrick Williams, and Anthony Tolliver
Minnesota gets: Paul Pierce


At first glance that made me want to puke, but I do like the idea of starting to rebuild with a guy like Williams. Beasley gives us flexibility to either just let go or do a sign and trade and get something decent in return, but that might be the most difficult part if someone wanted to give Beasley a $8M+ deal. But even if we just moved Pierces salary and netted Williams that sounds good to me.

But as a followup we would have to trade Ray before the deadline, or at the same time as this deal, because this would essentially show that we were throwing in the towel. And if we trade Ray we cant take back any bad salary long term deals and need to get some young assets [in terms of players or picks] to help rebuild. I would suggest the same for KG, but I dont see anyway we can move $21M in salary and dont get back some crap contracts in return, it might just be best to let that contract expire.

Then in the offseason we would have to move Rondo, I really believe once he is playing with some less talented and young teammates his numbers will decrease and his value will diminish, so we might as well sell high.

But if we did all that, we could be going into next year with less than $25Mish on the books [assuming we dont salary dump Rondo], plenty of room to add max guys if that made sense and some young assets to develop. If thats not the definition of starting with a clean slate to rebuild I dont know what is.

#464 Brickowski

  • PipPip
  • 3,755 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 03:07 PM

They only need a big body now if they're trying to win this year.


Yes, it would probably be better in the long run to stick Stiemsma and some other D-leaguer in there and keep losing.

#465 ElcaballitoMVP

  • 2,147 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 03:58 PM

At first glance that made me want to puke, but I do like the idea of starting to rebuild with a guy like Williams. Beasley gives us flexibility to either just let go or do a sign and trade and get something decent in return, but that might be the most difficult part if someone wanted to give Beasley a $8M+ deal. But even if we just moved Pierces salary and netted Williams that sounds good to me.

But as a followup we would have to trade Ray before the deadline, or at the same time as this deal, because this would essentially show that we were throwing in the towel. And if we trade Ray we cant take back any bad salary long term deals and need to get some young assets [in terms of players or picks] to help rebuild. I would suggest the same for KG, but I dont see anyway we can move $21M in salary and dont get back some crap contracts in return, it might just be best to let that contract expire.

Then in the offseason we would have to move Rondo, I really believe once he is playing with some less talented and young teammates his numbers will decrease and his value will diminish, so we might as well sell high.

But if we did all that, we could be going into next year with less than $25Mish on the books [assuming we dont salary dump Rondo], plenty of room to add max guys if that made sense and some young assets to develop. If thats not the definition of starting with a clean slate to rebuild I dont know what is.


I agree completely (which is why I posted up above with a few Ray trade options). If you decide to go full rebuild, you try to trade Ray and KG for whatever you can get for them without hurting the long term flexibility of the club. I think the team could get a late first rounder or a future 1st for Ray from the right playoff bound team. I agree that it will be difficult to move KG to get anything worthwhile in return. He's probably going to be a guy they either let walk after the season or resign at a much lower figure.

Trading Pierce is the tricky part. They could move him now to ensure they have the most cap space possible in the offseason but they risk not getting a great return for him. If you deal Pierce, you have to get a promising young player (which is why I liked the proposed MIN deal) while not taking back any big long term contracts. Trading Pierce only makes sense if it adds to your flexibility this offseason, IMO. I don't know if MIN is ready to go all in on a deal like this and give up on Williams so quickly, but I do like him if we're moving PP.

As for trading Rondo, I could see them making a move before the deadline, but it would have to be a no-brainer (I'm thinking something along the lines of Millsap, Harris, Hayward and GS 2012 1st for Rondo, Ray and Wilcox). Otherwise, you keep him around because he's a top young PG on a great contract and there should be additional teams intersted in him in the offseason.

#466 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2,900 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 04:20 PM

Yes, it would probably be better in the long run to stick Stiemsma and some other D-leaguer in there and keep losing.


The team is obviously at a crossroads and needs to decide if they can be competative over the next three years. It's my opinion that if you can't convince Dwight Howard to sign him then you're not going to be. Plan A should be to do everything you can to get him here. Plan A is likely to fail. Plan B should be to rebuild, and you have to get bad before you can get good. Trading for a big man that's going to help this team is going to limit long term flexibility. Who should we trade away that's going to upgrade our team right now? Our first next year? Ray Allen and take back a big contract that's going to limit our flexibility? I don't think these are the answers.

What they should do right now is be willing to trade Rondo or Pierce to any team willing to overpay. Given the landscape of the NBA right now I don't think this is likely but should be explored. They should be willing to trade Ray or KG for anything at all that helps with long term rebuilding that does not take up cap space. They aren't winning anything this year.

#467 nighthob

  • 3,007 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 04:41 PM

The team is obviously at a crossroads and needs to decide if they can be competative over the next three years. It's my opinion that if you can't convince Dwight Howard to sign him then you're not going to be. Plan A should be to do everything you can to get him here. Plan A is likely to fail. Plan B should be to rebuild, and you have to get bad before you can get good. Trading for a big man that's going to help this team is going to limit long term flexibility. Who should we trade away that's going to upgrade our team right now? Our first next year? Ray Allen and take back a big contract that's going to limit our flexibility? I don't think these are the answers.

What they should do right now is be willing to trade Rondo or Pierce to any team willing to overpay. Given the landscape of the NBA right now I don't think this is likely but should be explored. They should be willing to trade Ray or KG for anything at all that helps with long term rebuilding that does not take up cap space. They aren't winning anything this year.


You can't treat vet stars like crap if you have any hopes of landing a free agent. So the Pierce trade scenarios are a non-starter. What they have to move is Rondo & filler. And they should look to do that to lower next year's payroll and accumulate trade assets for the sign & trade season this summer.

#468 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2,900 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 04:57 PM

You can't treat vet stars like crap if you have any hopes of landing a free agent. So the Pierce trade scenarios are a non-starter. What they have to move is Rondo & filler. And they should look to do that to lower next year's payroll and accumulate trade assets for the sign & trade season this summer.


The only scenario I'd see moving Pierce is to a contender who also has a valuable young piece to give us in return, and I don't think it's going to happen, but I don't agree at all that this would be treating Pierce like crap. I think he'd welcome a trade to a top team that has a chance to win a title.

#469 jmcc5400

  • 1,862 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 05:00 PM

And that team did, in fact, get to the EC finals (due in part to the strong defense played by Kedrick Brown in the Philadelphia series).


Are you thinking of Erick Strickland? Brown did not play any meaningful playoff minutes with the Celtics.

#470 nighthob

  • 3,007 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 05:18 PM

The only scenario I'd see moving Pierce is to a contender who also has a valuable young piece to give us in return, and I don't think it's going to happen, but I don't agree at all that this would be treating Pierce like crap. I think he'd welcome a trade to a top team that has a chance to win a title.


You can move Pierce to a contender for sure. Problem is that contenders don't have "great young prospects" to send back. They generally have Jiri-Welsch level talent and draft picks in the 24-30 range to return, which doesn't help you rebuild when you're nuking your roster (superstars aren't lining up to join forces with rookie year Delonte/Tony Allen in a quest to win). That's how you end up on the lottery treadmill for the next decade.

#471 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2,900 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 05:23 PM

You can move Pierce to a contender for sure. Problem is that contenders don't have "great young prospects" to send back. They generally have Jiri-Welsch level talent and draft picks in the 24-30 range to return, which doesn't help you rebuild when you're nuking your roster (superstars aren't lining up to join forces with rookie year Delonte/Tony Allen in a quest to win). That's how you end up on the lottery treadmill for the next decade.


First, I pointed out it was unlikely to happen for the reasons you state. The contenders don't seem to have the right people to make a trade for Pierce work. I'm just saying that's the only way I'd move him. Second, the lottery treadmill does not have to last a decade and imo is better than being a slightly below average team that just barely makes the playoffs for a decade.

#472 Brickowski

  • PipPip
  • 3,755 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 05:37 PM

Are you thinking of Erick Strickland? Brown did not play any meaningful playoff minutes with the Celtics.


You're right. Maybe I was thinking of the next year, against Indiana. In any event, I think we can all agree that Kedrick Brown was an outstanding athlete who knew virtually nothing about basketball and lacked either the motivation, the smarts, or both, to learn.

#473 nighthob

  • 3,007 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 09:06 PM

Second, the lottery treadmill does not have to last a decade and imo is better than being a slightly below average team that just barely makes the playoffs for a decade.


Actually it generally does. I'll need to search my archives for it, but five or six years ago I co-wrote a study of the NBA lottery from the advent of the latest iteration until that date, and the rate of lottery recidivism was impressive (the lottery turnover was under 25% over a 15 year period). Unless you get incredibly lucky and win the lottery in a year when there are actual franchise players to be had. Most teams that win the lotto end up like Toronto, drafting an above average NBA player and running in place.

#474 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2,900 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 11:08 PM

Actually it generally does. I'll need to search my archives for it, but five or six years ago I co-wrote a study of the NBA lottery from the advent of the latest iteration until that date, and the rate of lottery recidivism was impressive (the lottery turnover was under 25% over a 15 year period). Unless you get incredibly lucky and win the lottery in a year when there are actual franchise players to be had. Most teams that win the lotto end up like Toronto, drafting an above average NBA player and running in place.


This is the second time you quoted me pretending I said something I didn't. Of course teams get stuck in the lottery for a long time. I said it's not guaranteed that they do, and that's true. Most of the teams contending for a championship this year started by getting a superstar in the draft, and in Miami's case they also got one in FA. You need to get very lucky to build a contender in the NBA. It's not like football or baseball where good management can overcome other deficits. I don't see a better alternative.

#475 Kutcher Era Youth

  • 128 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 04:23 PM

Okay, my far fetched idea of the day: Rondo for Tyreke Evans.

My reasoning being for the Kings: They get an established PG in a draft where there will probably be two solid 2 guards( Beal, Lamb) available to them in a shaky PG draft. I'm not convinced they see I Thomas as the future at the PG position.

The C's get a quality 2 guard( Evans is playing the 2 lately, and would be in this scenario) and shave about 6 mil off their cap this summer, with the intent of signing both Howard and Williams. I feel like this puts Boston in a better position to sign them this summer than they would be having kept Rondo. NJ can offer DWill, Lopez, Brooks, and a likely 5-8 pick in the draft. The C's can offer also DWill, the admittedly old big three, Evans, and the 14th and 22nd pick( just a guess on the pick position). Not necessarily superior but I think competitive with NJ.


So the proposed lineup would be:
DWill
Evans
Pierce
KG
D12
The Bench:
Ray, JJJ, Bradley, some ring chasers, the two picks, etc.

Even if they made the deal then struck out in FA, they still got Evans for Rondo. So it's not like they just pissed him away.

#476 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,653 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 04:28 PM

So you're barely paying Garnett and Allen in that scenario?

#477 Kutcher Era Youth

  • 128 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 04:40 PM

So you're barely paying Garnett and Allen in that scenario?


I gotta say I'm not really an expert in capology. My understanding was they'd have Pierce, Evans, JJJ, Bradley committed to like 25-26 mil combined, and the cap being roughly 54 mil, leaving them space to sign DI2 and DWill. Then resign Allen and KG after that. I thought they had Bird rights or whatever it's called. No?

Edited by Kutcher Era Youth, 25 February 2012 - 04:41 PM.


#478 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,653 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 04:45 PM

Pretty sure you'd have to renounce their rights to clear the space for Howard and Williams.

#479 Brickowski

  • PipPip
  • 3,755 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 05:33 PM

Pretty sure you'd have to renounce their rights to clear the space for Howard and Williams.


Yes...but under the old CBA, you could renounce a player and then resign him--if you had the cap space (or for the minimum). And if you used your cap space to sign the player for one year only, you got your Bird rights back at the end of the year. Also, if you renounced players in order to present an offer sheet to a restricted free agent and the offer sheet was matched, you could "unrenounce" the player (but only if you are still under the cap at the end of the day). Finally, you could still sign-and-trade a renounced player.

I have no idea if this general framework is still accurate under the new CBA.

Of course the Celtics will renounce Garnett and Allen if they haven't traded them first. That's 30M in cap holds, and with Pierce and Rondo still on the books, they wouldn't have enough cap room to sign a max salary player if they did not.

Edited by Brickowski, 25 February 2012 - 05:34 PM.


#480 mcpickl

  • 2,105 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 04:07 PM

Yes...but under the old CBA, you could renounce a player and then resign him--if you had the cap space (or for the minimum). And if you used your cap space to sign the player for one year only, you got your Bird rights back at the end of the year. Also, if you renounced players in order to present an offer sheet to a restricted free agent and the offer sheet was matched, you could "unrenounce" the player (but only if you are still under the cap at the end of the day). Finally, you could still sign-and-trade a renounced player.

I have no idea if this general framework is still accurate under the new CBA.

Of course the Celtics will renounce Garnett and Allen if they haven't traded them first. That's 30M in cap holds, and with Pierce and Rondo still on the books, they wouldn't have enough cap room to sign a max salary player if they did not.


This is correct. But in the scenario presented above, he has Howard and DWill signing here, using up all the cap space.

So to create the dream lineup he theorized, not only would Howard and DWill have to agree to sign with Boston, Allen and KG would also have to accept playing for the minimum.

I'd be stunned if any of those things happened, much less all four.

#481 Brickowski

  • PipPip
  • 3,755 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 04:32 PM

I believe the plan would be to renounce everyone not under contract, then sign-and-trade. Again, I'm not sure what's doable under the new CBA.

I will be very suprised if Howard is not either traded or resigned by the Magic before the deadline. If he resigns, Van Gundy will possibly be fired. I see the chance of Howard coming here as virtually nil.

Edited by Brickowski, 26 February 2012 - 04:36 PM.


#482 mcpickl

  • 2,105 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:04 PM

I believe the plan would be to renounce everyone not under contract, then sign-and-trade. Again, I'm not sure what's doable under the new CBA.

I will be very suprised if Howard is not either traded or resigned by the Magic before the deadline. If he resigns, Van Gundy will possibly be fired. I see the chance of Howard coming here as virtually nil.


It's the same thing. If you renounce KG & Ray, then sign and trade for Howard and DWill rather than sign them outright, they still hog up all your cap space.

Once you renounce guys, think of them as unrestricted free agents that were on other teams. You don't have any rights to go over the cap to sign them. You'd have to fit all four guys under the cap. Can't happen. KG and Ray aren't playing for the minimum/

#483 Brickowski

  • PipPip
  • 3,755 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:12 PM

Yes, if you sign both Howard and DWill for the max. But that's a wildly unlikely scenario. Suppose the Celtics only sign Howard? Or only sign DWill?

#484 mcpickl

  • 2,105 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:50 PM

Yes, if you sign both Howard and DWill for the max. But that's a wildly unlikely scenario. Suppose the Celtics only sign Howard? Or only sign DWill?


Then it would be possible, though still unlikely, to fit KG and/or Ray under the cap. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about this specific scenario above, which lists this lineup.

So the proposed lineup would be:
DWill
Evans
Pierce
KG
D12
The Bench:
Ray, JJJ, Bradley, some ring chasers, the two picks, etc.

The whole thing is a wildly unlikely scenario. But it's what we're referring to, and it's impossible/

Edited by mcpickl, 27 February 2012 - 11:01 PM.


#485 Kutcher Era Youth

  • 128 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:20 PM

Shoot. And we also don't have much flexibility with the MLE either, correct? Oh well, the spirit of the proposal was more about getting a quality player who plays a position that wouldn't be redundant with Pierce,DWill ,Howard, and also shaving money off the payroll. Trade Ray for a late first rd pick I guess.

#486 Brickowski

  • PipPip
  • 3,755 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:00 PM

Garnett, Allen and both Boston first rounders for Howard and Hedo. Is Orlando really going to do any better? Reports are that the Magic have no interest in Bynum, so why not clear their cap completely?

LOL, that deal leaves the Celtics with Pierce, Rondo and 4 players from the 2009-2010 Orland Magic as the first six guys in their rotation.

#487 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3,579 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:07 PM

Garnett, Allen and both Boston first rounders for Howard and Hedo. Is Orlando really going to do any better? Reports are that the Magic have no interest in Bynum, so why not clear their cap completely?

LOL, that deal leaves the Celtics with Pierce, Rondo and 4 players from the 2009-2010 Orland Magic as the first six guys in their rotation.


Isn't the answer to that pretty obviously yes? Pretty confident that New Jersey will offer Lopez, Brooks, and their first rounder which will be in the lottery. Orlando would have to be pretty dumb to turn that down for two middle of the first round draft picks.

#488 Brickowski

  • PipPip
  • 3,755 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 03:17 PM

Well, I wouldn't want Lopez. He doesn't rebound. But yes, the Magic can do better.

Edited by Brickowski, 27 February 2012 - 03:18 PM.


#489 A Bartlett Giamatti

  • 2,049 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 04:53 PM

Isn't the answer to that pretty obviously yes? Pretty confident that New Jersey will offer Lopez, Brooks, and their first rounder which will be in the lottery. Orlando would have to be pretty dumb to turn that down for two middle of the first round draft picks.

NJ can't offer their pick this year without getting another one, having given up last year's to Utah for D-Will (became Enes Kanter).

OE: Actually, just checked out a mock draft and I had missed that they are listed as having another pick. But since its somewhat conditional, can they deal their current (guaranteed) pick?

Edited by A Bartlett Giamatti, 27 February 2012 - 04:55 PM.


#490 Brickowski

  • PipPip
  • 3,755 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:41 PM

I believe the Nets can trade one of the two picks, but not both. The Houston pick is lotto protected forever, but unless the Rockets go into the tank, NJ will probably be able to use it this year.

#491 ElcaballitoMVP

  • 2,147 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:55 PM

NJ can't offer their pick this year without getting another one, having given up last year's to Utah for D-Will (became Enes Kanter).

OE: Actually, just checked out a mock draft and I had missed that they are listed as having another pick. But since its somewhat conditional, can they deal their current (guaranteed) pick?


Trading last year's pick doesn't matter. That rule only applies to future drafts. If a team doesn't posses a 2012 1st round pick this year, they can't trade their 2013 1st round pick (like Dallas) unless they trade for another 1st round pick in either '12 or '13 first. Same rule would apply if a team doesn't have their 2013 1st round pick, they wouldn't be able to trade their 2012 1st round pick (like Memphis). Since NJ still has their own 2013 1st round pick, they can offer up their 2012 pick (and vice versa).

A team could theoretically trade their 1st round pick every year if they time it correctly. You just can't trade out of the 1st round in 2 consecutive drafts that haven't happened yet. It's called the Ted Stepian rule (former owner of the Cavs who made it a practice of trading 1st round picks for mediocre vets). The article I linked to shows how the Knicks were planning on getting around the rule in order to put a deal together when they were trying to trade for Melo.

#492 nighthob

  • 3,007 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:57 PM

NJ can't offer their pick this year without getting another one, having given up last year's to Utah for D-Will (became Enes Kanter).


You can't trade two in a row at the time of the trade, so they can deal this year's pick to Orlando.

#493 mcpickl

  • 2,105 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 06:11 PM

Shoot. And we also don't have much flexibility with the MLE either, correct? Oh well, the spirit of the proposal was more about getting a quality player who plays a position that wouldn't be redundant with Pierce,DWill ,Howard, and also shaving money off the payroll. Trade Ray for a late first rd pick I guess.


Nope. Once you go under the cap, you don't have an MLE to use at all. Only teams that are over the cap have exceptions.

#494 Brickowski

  • PipPip
  • 3,755 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 06:35 PM

Nope. Once you go under the cap, you don't have an MLE to use at all. Only teams that are over the cap have exceptions.


Well, yes and no. The Celtics will be over the cap soon enough. There is an automatic cap hold for exceptions, and to lose them you must renounce them. See Coon's FAQ #20.

#495 mcpickl

  • 2,105 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:50 PM

Well, yes and no. The Celtics will be over the cap soon enough. There is an automatic cap hold for exceptions, and to lose them you must renounce them. See Coon's FAQ #20.


Are we doing this again?

He's talking about his scenario above, where he's going under the cap to sign Howard and DWill. To get under the cap far enough to sign those guys, you have to renounce all your cap holds and exceptions. Talking about that specific scenario.

When you jump in and say well it can be done in a general scenario(although in the example you point out, they're not under the cap, because the holds still put them over),, you're just confusing the point.

Edited by mcpickl, 27 February 2012 - 11:03 PM.


#496 Brickowski

  • PipPip
  • 3,755 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 08:03 AM

I was just clarifying your statement, which was general. I think we are in agreement that the scenario where they sign Howard and DWill is wildly unrealistic--unless they also amnesty Pierce. Then it could in theory be done.

Edited by Brickowski, 28 February 2012 - 08:06 AM.


#497 Brickowski

  • PipPip
  • 3,755 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:45 AM

For reference, let's lay out the Celtics' salary numbers and cap number for 2012-2013 as they exist now. These are from Shamsports, and although I cannot vouch for their accuracy, they look about right. I'm assuming that O'Neal, Wilcox, Dooling, Daniels, etc. will be renounced, so I've only included cap hold numbers for players that in my view the team might want to keep beyond this year.

Pierce 16,790,345
Rondo 11,000,000
Allen 15,000,000 (cap hold) (Goes to zero if the player is renounced, but then he can only be resigned for the minimum)
Garnett 22,309,306 (cap hold) " "
Bass 4,250,000 (player option)
Bradley 1,630,800
Johnson 1,089,240
Stiemsma 1,029,389 (team option)
Moore 762,195
15th pick 1,443,300 (cap hold) (If the 2012 draft were held today, the Celtics would be picking 15th and 24th)
24th pick 963,600 (cap hold)
MLE 5,000,000 (cap hold) (goes to zero if the exception is renounced)
Bi-annual 2,000,000 (cap hold) " "

So lets assume that the cap for 2012-13 is 60 million and look at some scenarios.

1. The Celtics renounce everything that can be renounced except the 2012 first round picks, and (2) amnesty Pierce. Assuming that Bass exercises his option, that leaves $21,139,135 in committed salaries for 2012-2013, and puts the Celtics 39 million under the cap-- enough for Howard and DWill at $18,000,000 apiece (which is 30% of the cap) Of course Howard would be leaving big $$ on the table if he opts out of his current deal with Orlando. Apart from shorter contract length and lower percentage raises, he has a player option for $19,536,300. Obviously in this scenario the team would want to trade Rondo for an 11M player who is not a point guard.

2. Same as the above, but the Celtics do not amnesty Pierce. That leaves $37,929,480 in committed salaries and 22M of cap space-- enough for one max salary player but not two.

Folks can mix and match various scenarios but those are the numbers. Personally I like the idea of amnestying Pierce, renouncing Ray, but trying to sign Garnett to a two-year extension at $10 million a year. That would leave the Celtics 30 million under the cap and would allow the team to get one max player, one pretty good player and maybe sign Jeff Green also.

Edited by Brickowski, 28 February 2012 - 10:14 AM.


#498 A Bartlett Giamatti

  • 2,049 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:01 AM

Is there a set of three words that follows more logically from the three word set of "Amnestied Paul Pierce" than "Los Angeles Clippers"?

#499 BigSoxFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,088 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:05 AM

Is there a set of three words that follows more logically from the three word set of "Amnestied Paul Pierce" than "Los Angeles Clippers"?


Los Angeles Lakers, perhaps? I'm sure LA would rather have Pierce next year than Artest.

#500 ElcaballitoMVP

  • 2,147 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 01:24 PM

What's the reasoning behind amnestying Pierce instead of trading him? I'd rather try to send him to Indiana for nothing more than George Hill's expiring contract and a 1st round draft pick rather than just releasing him and watch him land in LA for nothing. And in the offseason the number of suitors should grow. Using the amnesty clause on Pierce doesn't make sense to me.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users