I wouldn't give up the 3 for Hayward because they can just sign him outright in a year. He can be a free agent In a year. He's fantastic. Hoping he wants to play for Stevens no matter what
Summary of significant proposed trades (these are either/or, not all trades)Bold prediction: The Boston Celtics will be trading one or more draft picks this year. That seems certain.
I think I would do #1. The rest of them are very "meh" and don't move the needle much for me. Although Ainge is and apparently has been for a while a very big fan of TyrekeNew Kevin Pelton insider article:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/16405919/six-boston-celtics-trades-make-sense-2016-nba-draft
Summary of significant proposed trades (these are either/or, not all trades)
1. BOS trades #3 and RJ Hunter to PHI for Jahlil Okafor and Robert Covington
2. BOS trades #16 to NOP for Tyreke Evans or trades #23 to LAL for Lou Williams
3. BOS trades #31 and #51 to MIL for Greg Monroe
4. BOS sells some of its 2nd rounders to POR for future picks and/or cash
I don't mean to editorialize Russillo here but I am pretty sure he means that Boston isn't offering anyone from their roster that GM's want. I am sure that GM's would want IT, Bradley, Crowder and Smart. Just can't believe that none of these players have valueSobering tweet of the morning.
Ryan Russillo: "Not saying it's impossible but sentiment around the league is that Boston doesn't have anyone on roster that other GM's really want."
Who exactly is Russillo arguing against here or claiming to be? Is there a single rational person who thought that the Celtics would get a big name player without moving the 3rd pick?Russillo has been claiming that the picks are the only thing the Celtics can move for a big-name player. I'm guessing he's saying that players from the roster aren't going to net a big-name player unless they throw in this year's or next year's Nets picks.
He wasn't arguing with anyone. He was stating a fact and claimed to have been talking to several insiders that said next years nets pick is the most valuable asset the Celtics have.Who exactly is Russillo arguing against here or claiming to be? Is there a single rational person who thought that the Celtics would get a big name player without moving the 3rd pick?
He wasn't arguing with anyone. He was stating a fact and claimed to have been talking to several insiders that said next years nets pick is the most valuable asset the Celtics have.
Really torn on this one. Hayward would no doubt be an excellent add... BUT he is a UFA next year so theoretically you'd have a shot at him next year without giving up any assets (other than signing him to a max deal). On the other hand, if you get him now it puts you in the driver's seat for singing him long term.Brian Geltzeiler @hoopscritic 5m5 minutes agoMillburn, NJ
League sources tell http://hoopscritic.com that the Boston Celtics are pushing hard for Hayward and the Jazz are not biting right now
Brian Geltzeiler @hoopscritic 4m4 minutes agoMillburn, NJ
The Jazz are putting a steep price tag on Hayward. It remains to be seen if Boston will pay it but Brad Stevens wants Hayward...
I would say that the Celtics would have a big advantage in signing Hayward long-term by having Brad Stevens as coach. Not to mention they have a ton of cap space to sign him to a max deal.Really torn on this one. Hayward would no doubt be an excellent add... BUT he is a UFA next year so theoretically you'd have a shot at him next year without giving up any assets (other than signing him to a max deal). On the other hand, if you get him now it puts you in the driver's seat for singing him long term.
They need somebody better than Hayward to be a championship contender, but he's a really nice piece to start with. 20 ppg, 5 rpg, 4 apg with Utah last year. while shooting 35% from 3 pt range and 82% from the line. Over the past 2 seasons he's shot many more 3's than earlier in his career (jumped from 280 attempts in 13-14 to 410 this year) The Celtics desperately need a wing scorer and he fills that need.I like Hayward as an upgrade to this roster, but what's his ceiling? Is it the #3 on a legit contender? Can he and IT be the #2-3 or do they still need to find 2 guys better than Hayward?
Exactly. Not saying the player is right but adding him now gives you an big advantage on signing him long term no doubt.If the C's wait until FA to go after Hayward, they can only offer a 4 year deal (or have to give something up then to do a sign and trade to get him his 5th year). If they trade for him now, they can increase it to 5. The cost is what they give up now vs. what they'd have to give in the sign and trade. The benefit is the added year of Hayward on the roster for the rebuild.
I get that, but basically you are saying that 1) he rather stay in Utah than test FA (assuming Boston is a top choice to leave to), and 2) that giving up assets for one year (when it will not help the C's become a contender in the East) in hopes that the extra year is the difference between him staying or leaving after this year is worth it.If the C's wait until FA to go after Hayward, they can only offer a 4 year deal (or have to give something up then to do a sign and trade to get him his 5th year). If they trade for him now, they can increase it to 5. The cost is what they give up now vs. what they'd have to give in the sign and trade. The benefit is the added year of Hayward on the roster for the rebuild.
Having him and a healthy Bradley would help you in the playoffs though. Obviously they still have to add, but the Atlanta series taught us that they really need wing scoring. It will open up Thomas and Bradley to get good looks as well. There isn't going to be a player available to the Celtics that would vault them into Cleveland's territory so slowly adding pieces might have to be the way to go. If they can get Hayward signed long-term, it's a no-brainer.I get that, but basically you are saying that 1) he rather stay in Utah than test FA (assuming Boston is a top choice to leave to), and 2) that giving up assets for one year (when it will not help the C's become a contender in the East) in hopes that the extra year is the difference between him staying or leaving after this year is worth it.
ehhhh. now if you think getting him WILL entice a real aall-star player to come, then great. But geting hime might add a few wins in the regular season and not matter one iota come playoff time
While is generally the case this is the one unique situation where missing out on Hayward this summer is a godsend with the Stevens connection next summer in not having to give up an asset. I'm not placing any of the "everyone wants to play for Brad" crap that's been written by some in the past only recognizing the real connection here in the unique Haywood situation.Exactly. Not saying the player is right but adding him now gives you an big advantage on signing him long term no doubt.
Hayward is also not so great, imo, that you have to get him NOW given this connection. I love him as a big upgrade over Turner, but if you think there's a ~30% chance you'll have an inside track to signing him for nothing but cap space next summer, then it's worth holding on to the assets it would require to overpay for him today.While is generally the case this is the one unique situation where missing out on Hayward this summer is a godsend with the Stevens connection next summer in not having to give up an asset. I'm not placing any of the "everyone wants to play for Brad" crap that's been written by some in the past only recognizing the real connection here in the unique Haywood situation.
If traded to Boston, he could sign for 5 years.A four-year max next summer versus a five-year max is tens of millions of dollars. I know Hayward played for Stevens, but does like him THAT much?
But only if he's traded there now and stays next summer. There are people suggesting to wait until free agency and that means Hayward would have to give up loads of money. If he and his agent are smart, they'll work a trade to Boston long before it comes to that.If traded to Boston, he could sign for 5 years.
Do you feel Utah will pay a 5-year Max to retain him? I am sure they could but that feels like a big spend. Maybe not though under the new reality.A four-year max next summer versus a five-year max is tens of millions of dollars. I know Hayward played for Stevens, but does like him THAT much?
I think Philly would do this, given their desire to get Dunn, and sign a bunch of free agents to make themselves decent. But this is also the kind of trade you don't see in the NBA.Any chance Philly trades an unprotected 2017 pick for #3? They seem to really want Dunn. This would allow them to do that and still move a big for something else (2017 pick or player to help now). I think they'll still stink next year so I would do it from a Cs POV.
I think there is little doubt that he is a 5 year max playerDo you feel Utah will pay a 5-year Max to retain him? I am sure they could but that feels like a big spend. Maybe not though under the new reality.
It's not really. The "tens of millions" is really just the fifth year because the four year earnings are pretty much the same thanks to the last CBA. But Boston can counter that with a third year opt out.A four-year max next summer versus a five-year max is tens of millions of dollars. I know Hayward played for Stevens, but does like him THAT much?
There is a disconnect between what fans think a "max" player should be and what executives might be willing to pay for talent. There seems to be a general feeling from fans that you have to be an All-NBA talent to warrant a max contract, but I've heard that teams budget with the idea of two max slots at any given time. In that sense, you're talking 60 max level contracts floating around. Is Hayward one of the 60 best players in the league? Without a doubt.Do you feel Utah will pay a 5-year Max to retain him? I am sure they could but that feels like a big spend. Maybe not though under the new reality.
Not to me it wouldn't. I'd maybe consider giving up 16 for him.Here is a possible trade target for the Celtics.
According to ESPN, the Sixers have included Embiid as a possible trade chip for a top draft pick. If ainge and the medical crew believe Embiid's health is good, it would be tempting.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nba/rumors/post/_/id/38231/nba-rumor-central-76ers-actively-shopping-jahlil-okafor-nerlens-noel-others
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q91 - sign-and-trade may only be 3 or 4 years.If the C's wait until FA to go after Hayward, they can only offer a 4 year deal (or have to give something up then to do a sign and trade to get him his 5th year).
Does this mean that Smart isn't worth the 3rd pick? Is he? that is a good question. I have sort of been under the impression that he is.Not to me it wouldn't. I'd maybe consider giving up 16 for him.
If the Cs think the third pick is worth more than Noel/Okafor, which seems to be the case, how do we bridge that gap? Can we maybe do the deal for Smart, or even Smart + 23, instead of the pick?
I was viewing Smart as not a true PG, which would still compel Philly to draft Dunn.I think the draw of #3 for Philly is to get Dunn because they need a PG. if you give them Smart I don't think they're as urgent to get up there, unless they want someone like Heild to pair with him, no?
Not enough. They're taking Simmons.If Philly loves Dunn so much, I'd inquire how much extra it would take to swap for the #1.
OK, fair. Then how do the Celtics fill that gap next year?I was viewing Smart as not a true PG, which would still compel Philly to draft Dunn.
Rajon Rondo! HahaOK, fair. Then how do the Celtics fill that gap next year?
Seriously, though, the trio of Thomas, Rozier and Bradley should cut it. #16 or #23 could also add guard depth.OK, fair. Then how do the Celtics fill that gap next year?