Stop hoarding TP(E) - the what should the Celtics do with the TPE thread

What should the Celtics do with their TPE

  • Use it before the current season starts

    Votes: 6 4.6%
  • See what is available around the NBA trade deadline and level up for the playoffs

    Votes: 55 42.3%
  • Save it for next summer's free agent bonanza

    Votes: 69 53.1%

  • Total voters
    130

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
I personally do think Hield would be an amazing fit, but someone like Lankford would have to show a ton of development to be able to get in the game valuewise for a trade. I guess you could do future 1sts, but the league is going to value those super-low given that the Celtics have at least 5 more years of Tatum.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
I personally do think Hield would be an amazing fit, but someone like Lankford would have to show a ton of development to be able to get in the game valuewise for a trade. I guess you could do future 1sts, but the league is going to value those super-low given that the Celtics have at least 5 more years of Tatum.
I would bet dollars to donuts that if Hield is coming to Boston, that Nesmith is going to Sac. The hope here is that Nesmith clicks and makes a Hield trade obsolete.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
SAC isn't trading Hield, also... if he was making a stink about not getting enough looks in SAC, he'd be miserable as the 6th man in BOS.

We're probably holding until midseason to see if we develop an obvious need through injury or performance, or if someone really interesting becomes available.

My guess is we end up with a small addition for the playoff run (Rose, Bjelica, etc.) or nothing at all, and the big move is in the offseason... which makes it almost impossible to project given how much a full season will change players' value and team decision making.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
I don't think Gordon is perceived as *that* good around the league, although he's on a nice (declining) contract. Hield would be more expensive imo because he's such a good fit on a contender.
Orlando turned down the Covington offer (two first round picks) for Gordon so any offer would have to start there.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
Orlando turned down the Covington offer (two first round picks) for Gordon so any offer would have to start there.
Yeah, I probably wouldn't do it at that point. The Celtics won't have the young guys playing time crunch a few years from now, and as mentioned, Gordon is hard to fit in.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
Orlando turned down the Covington offer (two first round picks) for Gordon so any offer would have to start there.
I think Celtics would be in on him only in the scenario Orlando really struggles this year and moves towards change. I don't think he's worth that offer, and particularly not to Boston.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
Bernadoni has some guys he think should be on the watchlist for TPE, basically guys who fit the TPE, make some sense for the Celtics, and whose teams may be looking to move them by mid-season or earlier
View: https://twitter.com/dangercart/status/1333437981064130564


Murray is one I hadn't considered but man that would be a fun guard rotation. And, it gives you a lot of Kemba options long-term if you have Smart/Murray locked up for a combined lower price.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Bernadoni has some guys he think should be on the watchlist for TPE, basically guys who fit the TPE, make some sense for the Celtics, and whose teams may be looking to move them by mid-season or earlier
View: https://twitter.com/dangercart/status/1333437981064130564


Murray is one I hadn't considered but man that would be a fun guard rotation. And, it gives you a lot of Kemba options long-term if you have Smart/Murray locked up for a combined lower price.
I gotta be honest, most of this list consists of guys I dont think do much to move the needle for us. Gordon may the only one I think may, but even he is only meh for me
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
I gotta be honest, most of this list consists of guys I dont think do much to move the needle for us. Gordon may the only one I think may, but even he is only meh for me
I think Murray is a pretty big add, he'd be our 5th best player and he has basically an entire Marcus Smart contract left.

On the whole though... that's what you are likely to get out of the TPE, 1 or 2 players who upgrade the bench over a year period. There aren't generally a lot of guys available right now who move the needle and make under $21M. After the season maybe there will be more, but honestly the odds that the TPE gets used on a player better than Murray or Gordon are pretty slim.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
Bernadoni has some guys he think should be on the watchlist for TPE, basically guys who fit the TPE, make some sense for the Celtics, and whose teams may be looking to move them by mid-season or earlier
View: https://twitter.com/dangercart/status/1333437981064130564


Murray is one I hadn't considered but man that would be a fun guard rotation. And, it gives you a lot of Kemba options long-term if you have Smart/Murray locked up for a combined lower price.
What's the rationale for the Spurs to deal Murray? His contract is reasonable and he's just 24 years-old. Not a star and isn't likely to ever be one but this is a good player with an elite NBA skill.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
What's the rationale for the Spurs to deal Murray? His contract is reasonable and he's just 24 years-old. Not a star and isn't likely to ever be one but this is a good player with an elite NBA skill.
View: https://twitter.com/dangercart/status/1333440186047483904


That was his reasoning, which makes some sense. If they decide to tear down, Murray is the player who gets you picks, and while his contract isn't bad, it isn't particularly good, and it's the one position where they have a lot of young cheap talent.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
View: https://twitter.com/dangercart/status/1333440186047483904


That was his reasoning, which makes some sense. If they decide to tear down, Murray is the player who gets you picks, and while his contract isn't bad, it isn't particularly good, and it's the one position where they have a lot of young cheap talent.
None of those other guys are primary ball handlers though so feels like they'd have a hole there but if you are tearing it down, you don't really care about that too much. If Murray were actually made available, I would absolutely poke around. Problem is I'm not sure what we could offer to entice the Spurs.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
None of those other guys are primary ball handlers though so feels like they'd have a hole there but if you are tearing it down, you don't really care about that too much. If Murray were actually made available, I would absolutely poke around. Problem is I'm not sure what we could offer to entice the Spurs.
Langford or Nesmith and 1sts is my guess.

However, I don't think SA is going to tear it down. If they were they;d have made more of an effort to dump DeRozan and/or Aldridge this offseason.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
Langford or Nesmith and 1sts is my guess.
Yeah, that's pretty much it unless Time Lord makes a big jump (I don't expect this). Maybe GWill would interest a team like SA that puts a premium on basketball smarts. Langford doesn't seem like a great fit given Vassell, LWalker, etc. Murray will never be a great shooter but he's making strides on that front and his defense is pretty awesome. He and Smart would be a killer on-the-ball combo.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
I hope the Celts give a lot of time to some of the younger players (this year and last years crowded draft class and TL) and see what they have or can have, rather than give minutes to another vet, at least now. If they think they're a vet away near the trade dead-line then reassess.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Honestly I expect Boston to do two things, one, eat a bad salary for draft picks for teams that think they’re in the Giannis chase or, when the calendar year flips, for teams that think they’re in the chase for Durant after he ditches the Nets.

The other thing I’m expecting them to do is sort through other teams’ draft disappointments, players of ability that just haven’t, for whatever reason, worked out for them. Guys like Jonathan Isaac, Mo Bamba, Kevin Knox, and possibly Cam Reddish as he’s suddenly been demoted to 10th-12th man down in Atlanta. And the Hawks might have more F depth coming in when they finally move Collins. Being able to quietly move those guys out of town for a first to recoup value is going to be attractive to GMs.

I will say, however, that it looks like Milwaukee’s Jrueverpay may be freezing the trade market slightly as GMs seem to be waaaaaay overvaluing their slightly above average players in trade talks (witness Indiana’s refusal to part with Oladipo in the Hayward trade talks even though Hayward would literally reduce VO to mere bench depth).
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
I mentioned this in the other thread, but I keep thinking about why the Hayward contract is structured so unusually.

Instead of the standard raised paying him 27.9M, 29.3M, 30.7M, and 32.1M he got 28.5M, 29.9M, 30.1M, and 31.5M

Why structure it with such a tiny change there? They might save an extra 120 grand in year one and two if the BRI doesn't hit the mark and they get to keep the extra escrow money. Did they really fight over 240K over a 120M dollar contract? Or, was that structure done at the request of Boston?

As I said in the other post, there is only one guy in the league that fits into a 28.5M TPE, but not a 27.9M TPE, and that's Otto Porter.

As he's on one of the few teams that seems to know they're rebuilding, and in the last year of his deal, could he be moved?

For the Celtics to acquire Porter, and get under the 138M apron that they're hard capped at, they'd have to move Langford and Rob Williams(this assumes Teague is at the minimum and Javonte released) and they'd just slide under the apron but leave them at 13 players.

But if they moved Langford and Theis, they'd have room to sign two veteran minimums for the last two spots, say a veteran center like Dedmon to take Theis spot and a veteran shooter like Allen Crabbe to take Javontes spot.

The Thompson signing would make a ton more sense to me if they signed him to be the starter. Maybe they've talked numbers with Theis and feel they can't keep him next year, so they'd move him now rather than lose him?(I would hate losing Theis, I love the guy)

If they could get Porter extended at a much lower number long term, I think I would do it.

Give me a lineup of

Thompson
Tatum
Porter
Jaylen
Kemba

Smart
Teague
GrantWill
Dedmon
RobWill
Nesmith
Crabbe
Semi
Pritchard
Carsen

Almost definitely a longshot, but I can't get past why that tiny adjustment in Haywards contract.

What is very definite, I have too much time on my hands.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,156
It's a shame that Hayward's deal is $150k too low to get Bradley Beal. No idea on the cost to get him, but it would have been a nice story to have him and Tatum together.
 

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
4,346
It's a shame that Hayward's deal is $150k too low to get Bradley Beal. No idea on the cost to get him, but it would have been a nice story to have him and Tatum together.
Beal trade isn't happening, but theoretically would start with Jaylen and some combo of Smart/Langford/Nesmith, so you'd be matched on salaries anyways.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
I mentioned this in the other thread, but I keep thinking about why the Hayward contract is structured so unusually.

Instead of the standard raised paying him 27.9M, 29.3M, 30.7M, and 32.1M he got 28.5M, 29.9M, 30.1M, and 31.5M

Why structure it with such a tiny change there? They might save an extra 120 grand in year one and two if the BRI doesn't hit the mark and they get to keep the extra escrow money. Did they really fight over 240K over a 120M dollar contract? Or, was that structure done at the request of Boston?

As I said in the other post, there is only one guy in the league that fits into a 28.5M TPE, but not a 27.9M TPE, and that's Otto Porter.

As he's on one of the few teams that seems to know they're rebuilding, and in the last year of his deal, could he be moved?

For the Celtics to acquire Porter, and get under the 138M apron that they're hard capped at, they'd have to move Langford and Rob Williams(this assumes Teague is at the minimum and Javonte released) and they'd just slide under the apron but leave them at 13 players.

But if they moved Langford and Theis, they'd have room to sign two veteran minimums for the last two spots, say a veteran center like Dedmon to take Theis spot and a veteran shooter like Allen Crabbe to take Javontes spot.

The Thompson signing would make a ton more sense to me if they signed him to be the starter. Maybe they've talked numbers with Theis and feel they can't keep him next year, so they'd move him now rather than lose him?(I would hate losing Theis, I love the guy)

If they could get Porter extended at a much lower number long term, I think I would do it.

Give me a lineup of

Thompson
Tatum
Porter
Jaylen
Kemba

Smart
Teague
GrantWill
Dedmon
RobWill
Nesmith
Crabbe
Semi
Pritchard
Carsen

Almost definitely a longshot, but I can't get past why that tiny adjustment in Haywards contract.

What is very definite, I have too much time on my hands.
I mean if they're trading players for a dead weight deal, is Chicago pitching in their '21 #1?
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
I mean if they're trading players for a dead weight deal, is Chicago pitching in their '21 #1?
I mean, no, they wouldn't be.

I didn't say that Theis/Langford necessarily would go to Chicago in a deal for Porter. Just said they'd have to be off the books for him to fit.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Because Porter's been injured and pretty useless for a couple of years now, if you're taking on that sort of salary for a guy that will spend most of his time watching in street clothes his previous team needs to be paying you. Especially as you have to lose a really useful guy like Theis for the privilege of paying Porter to get the best season ticket in the house.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
I honestly think the Hayward deal is as simple as he wanted more up front with lower raises and this was the number that worked for CHA cap-wise.

As to Porter....

I see no reason to trade for him. He'd be a rental and I don't think he wins you a title, which would be the only reason to use the full TPE on a rental.

A guy like Rose probably helps more, doesn;t cost any more and leaves you plenty of TPE to get a longer term addition in the offseason.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
The version of Otto Porter who signed that deal would fit perfectly (at lower money) with the Jays, but, as noted, that dude hasn’t existed for awhile now.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,156
So many of these options just seem so meh. Given the cost to acquire the players, and the cost to acquire the TPE to begin with - I almost feel like taking on bad salary for picks seems more exciting.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
The version of Otto Porter who signed that deal would fit perfectly (at lower money) with the Jays, but, as noted, that dude hasn’t existed for awhile now.
Don't get me wrong, I would definitely make the Langford, Theis, and $20+ million in cash for a 2021 lottery pick. That's totally worth it. I just wouldn't give up that package for the Shattered Shards of Otto Porter™.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,996
Don't get me wrong, I would definitely make the Langford, Theis, and $20+ million in cash for a 2021 lottery pick. That's totally worth it. I just wouldn't give up that package for the Shattered Shards of Otto Porter™.
yup
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
Because Porter's been injured and pretty useless for a couple of years now, if you're taking on that sort of salary for a guy that will spend most of his time watching in street clothes his previous team needs to be paying you. Especially as you have to lose a really useful guy like Theis for the privilege of paying Porter to get the best season ticket in the house.
Yeah man, he's been banged up the last two years with not major injuries, following seasons of 74, 75, 80 and 77 games played.

As for useless, whooo boy, a wing who can give me 13.5 PTS 5 REB 2 AST 1.5 Stl on 46/40/79 shooting is useless?

Your bar for a useful player must be mighty high.

Shatter Shards? Give me a break.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
I honestly think the Hayward deal is as simple as he wanted more up front with lower raises and this was the number that worked for CHA cap-wise.

As to Porter....

I see no reason to trade for him. He'd be a rental and I don't think he wins you a title, which would be the only reason to use the full TPE on a rental.

A guy like Rose probably helps more, doesn;t cost any more and leaves you plenty of TPE to get a longer term addition in the offseason.
I wouldn't trade for him as a rental either.

As I mentioned, I'd do it if I could get Porter extended at a much lower number.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
A lot of stuff will happen over the next year. Optionality is king.
Yeah, Giannis will theoretically hit the market next summer and Durant the one after that, so having that TPE to accommodate the teams that think they're in the chase is very handy.

Yeah man, he's been banged up the last two years with not major injuries, following seasons of 74, 75, 80 and 77 games played.

Your bar for a useful player must be mighty high.
Yes, it's a lot higher than spending $28 million on Otto Porter to be a twelfth man.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
What would you like me to tell you? Porter was never very good, has been injured for a couple of years, is getting paid a ton of money, and requires trading a better player for the right to eat the salary. And, to be brutally frank, is going to be bench depth on the rare occasions that he's healthy. He's fine to squander a TPE on if someone's paying you eat the contract.

In the real world he's been a replacement level defender for a few years now. He's just not good enough to justify giving up assets for, and literally requires Boston to give up assets (Langford and Theis) to get.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
I wouldn't trade for him as a rental either.

As I mentioned, I'd do it if I could get Porter extended at a much lower number.
What do you want to extend him for that he'd agree to though?

What is 3 years of Porter worth (especially since you now are blowing past the cap and not re-setting the repeater)?

I mean, he's overpaid by a ton the first year, and since you'll be in the tax for the next two of the extension..... even 8M is overpaid for the extend years, and he isn't doing that. His agent is going to want at least 10M if not more.

He just doesn;t make much sense.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,204
The debate over Porter's valuable is reasonable. I am still trying to figure out what sport the degens from upcountry are watching that leads them to conclude the Celtics need more back to the basket bigs as the last piece. Its like they stopped watching the NBA 10 years ago.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,271
Honestly I expect Boston to do two things, one, eat a bad salary for draft picks for teams that think they’re in the Giannis chase or, when the calendar year flips, for teams that think they’re in the chase for Durant after he ditches the Nets.

The other thing I’m expecting them to do is sort through other teams’ draft disappointments, players of ability that just haven’t, for whatever reason, worked out for them. Guys like Jonathan Isaac, Mo Bamba, Kevin Knox, and possibly Cam Reddish as he’s suddenly been demoted to 10th-12th man down in Atlanta. And the Hawks might have more F depth coming in when they finally move Collins. Being able to quietly move those guys out of town for a first to recoup value is going to be attractive to GMs.

I will say, however, that it looks like Milwaukee’s Jrueverpay may be freezing the trade market slightly as GMs seem to be waaaaaay overvaluing their slightly above average players in trade talks (witness Indiana’s refusal to part with Oladipo in the Hayward trade talks even though Hayward would literally reduce VO to mere bench depth).
Out of the names that you mentioned I think the only one that would actually be available is Mo Bamba and I’m not sure the Celtics would be willing to part with any 1st round picks.
All intel out of Orlando is that they love Jonathan Isaac and trading him right after he had a serious injury is the definition of selling low.
If Knox became available, I’d imagine it would be after getting minutes and having proved he’s not a very good player.

I don’t see what the Celtics could offer the Hawks that would make them trade Reddish. ATL wants to win now but Boston doesn’t have any proven players close to Reddish’s level to intrigue the Hawks. I highly doubt that they’d trade the 10th pick overall from a year ago for a pick that would probably be in the mid 20s in 2021.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
One of Reddish or Hunter will be watching games this year. Yes, sometimes GMs even sig guys they don’t want to second contracts just to justify the draft pick. But they also move them on before people realize just how bad they are.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
One of Reddish or Hunter will be watching games this year. Yes, sometimes GMs even sig guys they don’t want to second contracts just to justify the draft pick. But they also move them on before people realize just how bad they are.
I don't buy that at all.
There are a ton of minutes last year that went to:
Parker, Jones, Carter, Crabbe and even Goodwin that will be reduced to offset the Gallo and Bogdan minutes.
Plus I think Huerter and Bembry are at higher risk of losing minutes than Reddish and Hunter.
The Hawks have plenty of 2-4 minutes to make sure those guys get minutes. The Bigs is where there is more of a minutes crunch.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,156
How Celtics can replace Gordon Hayward with massive $28.5 million trade exception his sign-and-trade created

A nice article. Some highlights:

"Boston currently has around $117.1 million committed in salaries next season, giving it almost $21.8 million below the apron to work with, and around $15.5 million below the tax line."

"The workaround there is a simple one: sending out extra salary. The Celtics can't expand their trade exception, but they can shave hard-cap and luxury tax room by including other players in such a deal. "

"Aaron Gordon rumors are nothing new, but Orlando's present state makes a trade likelier than ever. Without Jonathan Isaac and after losing DJ Augustin, the Magic appear destined for the lottery this season. Gordon has only two seasons remaining on his contract. The final season has a $1.7 million salary decline, which would be helpful for Boston in paying the tax next season, but at only $18.1 million in salary for this season, the Celtics could easily fit him under the 2020-21 tax by sending two cheaper players to the Magic."

"The Raptors need to move Norman Powell if they plan to open up max cap space to offer Giannis Antetokounmpo next offseason, assuming he opts into the final year of his deal. "

"Eventually, the Spurs are going to have to settle on which of their young guards are actually long-term rotation pieces and which are expendable. Derrick White, Lonnie Walker and Keldon Johnson are all still on rookie deals. DeJounte Murray is not, and if Boston believes his jump shot will continue to improve, the Spurs might be open to off-loading their one somewhat expensive young piece."

"Imagine a scenario in which the Mavericks need to clear cap space for a star-level addition. They'd likely be amenable to receiving draft compensation for Josh Richardson in a sign-and-trade rather than renouncing him outright, assuming he opts out of the final year on his deal. "
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,204
Aaron Gordon...why is he such an obvious fit in Boston? What has the league missed on a 25 year old, six year veteran who has athleticism but seems to have comfortably settled into replacement level production. The guy is owed 35mm over the next two years. At half that amount he may be interesting but still not a screaming buy.

That said, if there is a case to be made other than the typical change of scenery argument let's hear it.

Would people really prefer trading assets for the opportunity to watch Gordon take minutes from the younger players? The Cs don't have to use the TPE and Gordon seems like a poor alternative to committing to rolling with the kids to me. What am I missing?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Nothing? Most people here would pass on him from what I've read. There's like 1 or 2 posters who seem very high on him.

He fits the bill though (youngish, 15-20 mil contract). I'm guessing the LaVine rumors will be next.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,617
If we get Gordon (we won’t) we will put Smart, Brown, Tatum, Gordon, Thompson on the court and we will sweep one of those joke ass LA teams in the finals.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
Murray is the only intriguing potentially realistic target I see right now. Contract is manageable, he has some upside to tap into, and his defense is very good. He also gives you Kemba/Smart insurance.
 

Buster Olney the Lonely

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2006
4,517
Atlanta, GA
I don't buy that at all.
There are a ton of minutes last year that went to:
Parker, Jones, Carter, Crabbe and even Goodwin that will be reduced to offset the Gallo and Bogdan minutes.
Plus I think Huerter and Bembry are at higher risk of losing minutes than Reddish and Hunter.
The Hawks have plenty of 2-4 minutes to make sure those guys get minutes. The Bigs is where there is more of a minutes crunch.
Bembry signed with Toronto so there are actually more minutes available for Reddish.

I’m with you—Cam isn’t going anywhere. He got off to a rough start but played much better after December. And Gallinari isn’t exactly an iron man. Add in the fact that he was the difference between Luka and Trae—Schlenk isn’t giving up on him yet. Certainly not after one season.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
Bembry signed with Toronto so there are actually more minutes available for Reddish.

I’m with you—Cam isn’t going anywhere. He got off to a rough start but played much better after December. And Gallinari isn’t exactly an iron man. Add in the fact that he was the difference between Luka and Trae—Schlenk isn’t giving up on him yet. Certainly not after one season.
Ah I missed Bembry. In that case there are definitely plenty of minutes to go around
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,204
If we get Gordon (we won’t) we will put Smart, Brown, Tatum, Gordon, Thompson on the court and we will sweep one of those joke ass LA teams in the finals.
This lineup would likely struggle to beat any of the non LA contenders in the West. Thompson is a worse player than Theis and Gordon can't really score. Also, by some metrics, Thompson is one of the worst in the league at defending PnRs and Gordon is just ok. The LA teams and others would almost certainly try to take turns torturing those dudes.

I am here for the fantasy though.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
What would you like me to tell you? Porter was never very good, has been injured for a couple of years, is getting paid a ton of money, and requires trading a better player for the right to eat the salary.
He never was max player good, but he was on a very nice trajectory. Age 23 shot 43% from three, age 24 shot 44%. He played good, if not real good defense. Was switchable onto point guards to power forwards and would not get embarassed. If he didn't get hurt, he was looking at another nice payday next year
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
He never was max player good, but he was on a very nice trajectory. Age 23 shot 43% from three, age 24 shot 44%. He played good, if not real good defense. Was switchable onto point guards to power forwards and would not get embarassed. If he didn't get hurt, he was looking at another nice payday next year
Yup. I read some of the comments here---"Porter was never good" and "Gordon wouldn't help" and really wonder if people watched the playoffs. This team had a depth issue with Hayward, and a significant one without him. I share the hope others have for Romeo, Grant, Nesmith etc to fill that gap but the fact today is they are short on proven guys. If you say "I see how Porter would help, but I don't think it's worth it" I get it. Or "I'd rather bet on the young guys for a while" I get it. But a bunch of people are conflating "do I like this option" with "is the player potentially useful" in a way that is leading to a lot of pretty homer-iffic comments about proven but still imperfect guys on other teams.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,403
around the way
Yup. I read some of the comments here---"Porter was never good" and "Gordon wouldn't help" and really wonder if people watched the playoffs. This team had a depth issue with Hayward, and a significant one without him. I share the hope others have for Romeo, Grant, Nesmith etc to fill that gap but the fact today is they are short on proven guys. If you say "I see how Porter would help, but I don't think it's worth it" I get it. Or "I'd rather bet on the young guys for a while" I get it. But a bunch of people are conflating "do I like this option" with "is the player potentially useful" in a way that is leading to a lot of pretty homer-iffic comments about proven but still imperfect guys on other teams.
Great point.

Two factors are involved imo. 1. Some people are far more focused on a guy's PPG and 3pt than others and largely disregard offensive efficiency and/or defense (especially defense). 2. Some people are focused on beefing up the depth/glue pieces on this year's team with less regard for next year and the year after.

You're right. Nobody is going to argue that dumping Green and adding Porter or Gordon hurts this year's team. That would be stupid. But moves don't happen in a vacuum. Moves potentially preclude other moves later. They also steal developmental minutes. And there are style fit issues and, to a lesser extent, cultural fit. These things all matter.

So I'd say that a good debate on the pros and cons of a guy like Porter or Gordon is in order, rather than "wtf is the matter with you, Porter is great/junk".