Celtics Plan, Summer 2021

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
Let's dispense with a developing narrative that Lillard has peaked. Certainly, a 31 year old ~6'2" guard is a candidate for a rapid decline however Lillard's best two seasons were this year and last across just about any measure. He is incredibly durable and has shown no signs of breaking down yet.

As with any acquisition, there are risks but the expectation should be that Lillard produces at or near this level for the next year or two. To be clear, that doesn't mean you trade Jaylen Brown for him - I might love Jaylen Brown more than most here - but you absolutely have to consider it. Even if you get two seasons of Dame Lillard as a top 10-15 player before he falls off, that is more than likely better production than Brown will provide over that time.
I proposed Lillard/Covington for Jaylen/Kemba somewhere a few days ago, and I think this largely nails it. Lillard is a much better player than Jaylen and a better player than Jaylen is likely to ever be.

I am on the opposite side of the spectrum on Jaylen currently. I think his reputation significantly outstrips his production right now. But I also think he’s supremely talented, has steadily improved, and that the shift from where he is now to a legitimate top 25 or so player is less about skills/talent and more about just making it all work together for him on the court. I don’t want to bet against him doing that.

For me, a trade like this makes sense if you want to win now. There’s no question for me that Tatum/Lillard is enough at the top when combined with Smart, Fournier, Covington, Timelord, Tristan, and our young pieces. That’s a really really good team on both sides of the ball and would also likely have the cache from our stars to recruit additional ring chasing talent.

I don’t know that I want to do a trade like this. I don’t want to sell the chance that Brown figures it out and he and Tatum can spend their careers as part of the next Celtics dynasty. Trading him for Lillard I think makes us a top 3 team in the league going into next year, but it dramatically shortens our window too.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
If Tatum and Lillard aren't enough at the top of the roster, then Tatum and Brown will never be.
I don't necessarily agree with this at all. Lillard is about to turn 31. Tatum won't even be in his prime until Lillard is 33/34 at the earliest and it's very easy to see a 27/28 year old Brown being better than a 33/34 Lillard.

Plus Lillard+Tatum= impossible to find the cap space for a 3rd star, vs Tatum+Brown= very doable to find the space, Lillard is going to be making almost twice as much.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,948
I think the only way we add a true third star without giving up Brown this off-season is if Beal demands a trade and makes it known that he wants to play in Boston with Tatum. Then you do something wacky like Timelord + PP + Nesmith + Kemba + 1sts and swaps until 2028.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,335
I am skeptical of a Brown for Dame trade vis-a-vis turning us into a contender, in a vacuum.

Theoretically, it is interesting from the standpoint of a splash move that puts players around the league on notice. I’m confident there would be more interest in teaming up with Lillard and Tatum than with Brown and Tatum, and things fall into place easier in situations like that. Would take some cap gymnastics of course.

All that said, I think Tatum has a very high level of cachet around the league on his own, not just in terms of respect for his talent but also as an NBA Superstar (tm) that guys will want to play with. I suspect Jaylen is always going to be seen more as Very Good but not the guy that other players are clamoring to join.

The key of course is making sure that the team-up happens in Boston and not anywhere else. I don’t envy the FO this balancing act. They need to develop recent picks, nail any future ones, and maybe even happen upon some hidden gems like the Nets did.
 
Last edited:

Rustjive

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2009
1,048
I think the only way we add a true third star without giving up Brown this off-season is if Beal demands a trade and makes it known that he wants to play in Boston with Tatum. Then you do something wacky like Timelord + PP + Nesmith + Kemba + 1sts and swaps until 2028.
That's a huge overpay. Refer back to the Harden trade, and Beal has 1 less year of control compared to Harden, a better player. Timelord/PP/Nesmith/Kemba vs LeVert/Kurucs/Exum/MIL's 2022 First, AND our picks are likely to better than BKN's outgoing picks (by virtue of Tatum/Brown/Beal being a worse short-term big 3 than KD/Kyrie/Harden).

If WAS still has Beal at the deadline AND he makes it known he only wants BOS the price should be much lower.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Referring back to the recent trades of PG, Davis, Harden and Holiday, the general return has been 3-4 first round picks, pick swaps in the opposing years and 1-2 young studs or above average starters. Contract status and age play a role, but a deal for Lillard or Beal is going to resemble this basic structure.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,215
I proposed Lillard/Covington for Jaylen/Kemba somewhere a few days ago, and I think this largely nails it. Lillard is a much better player than Jaylen and a better player than Jaylen is likely to ever be.

I am on the opposite side of the spectrum on Jaylen currently. I think his reputation significantly outstrips his production right now. But I also think he’s supremely talented, has steadily improved, and that the shift from where he is now to a legitimate top 25 or so player is less about skills/talent and more about just making it all work together for him on the court. I don’t want to bet against him doing that.

For me, a trade like this makes sense if you want to win now. There’s no question for me that Tatum/Lillard is enough at the top when combined with Smart, Fournier, Covington, Timelord, Tristan, and our young pieces. That’s a really really good team on both sides of the ball and would also likely have the cache from our stars to recruit additional ring chasing talent.

I don’t know that I want to do a trade like this. I don’t want to sell the chance that Brown figures it out and he and Tatum can spend their careers as part of the next Celtics dynasty. Trading him for Lillard I think makes us a top 3 team in the league going into next year, but it dramatically shortens our window too.
I am a seller of forward windows in the NBA. Star power essentially renders the tail ends of contracts as a player option (I have traded options and insurance my whole career so no interest entering into the great SoSH option debate) and I think winning now is really the best strategy if you have near enough top end talent. Think about the turnover in rosters every few years. Its a pretty dynamic league for player movement.

Trading Jaylen Brown for the last few years of Dame Lillards peak seems to be a better outcome than one or both of Tatum and Brown forcing trades before their contracts are up. I know others feel differently.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Trading Jaylen Brown for the last few years of Dame Lillards peak seems to be a better outcome than one or both of Tatum and Brown forcing trades before their contracts are up. I know others feel differently.
Sure, if that's an actual outcome. Keeping both is better if Dame goes on a steep decline next year. The deal doesn't really make much sense without Kemba either because the C's couldn't really improve on Tatum and Dame. With Kemba included, depending on what comes back, the C's could possibly be in line to sign a max guy at the end of 21/22. That guy could be as good/better than Jaylen and roughly the same age... so the window wouldn't really close at all. The pieces would just change.

It's also possible it would just be Dame and Tatum until Dame declines and his contract expires... at the same time Tatum's does. Tatum could end up leaving anyway, and Brown would be gone too. So you lose both.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,467
That's a huge overpay. Refer back to the Harden trade, and Beal has 1 less year of control compared to Harden, a better player. Timelord/PP/Nesmith/Kemba vs LeVert/Kurucs/Exum/MIL's 2022 First, AND our picks are likely to better than BKN's outgoing picks (by virtue of Tatum/Brown/Beal being a worse short-term big 3 than KD/Kyrie/Harden).

If WAS still has Beal at the deadline AND he makes it known he only wants BOS the price should be much lower.
Teams don't really parse future picks from playoff teams like that.
And honestly.... Allen is more valuable than TL, LeVert is better than Nesmith, Kemba is a negative, and a future 1st/detrius is better than PP.
So the pupu platter we'd be offerring would be considerably less attractive than the one BKN offerred. Now maybe the Harden vs. Beal drop offsets that, but I'd expect that to be the price.
 

Rustjive

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2009
1,048
Teams don't really parse future picks from playoff teams like that.
And honestly.... Allen is more valuable than TL, LeVert is better than Nesmith, Kemba is a negative, and a future 1st/detrius is better than PP.
So the pupu platter we'd be offerring would be considerably less attractive than the one BKN offerred. Now maybe the Harden vs. Beal drop offsets that, but I'd expect that to be the price.
You're double counting. You can either look at it as what BKN sent out or what HOU took in, but you can't really count both Allen and the extra future 1st. Allen+Prince went for MIL's high-20s 2022 1st so really neither of those are as valuable as you think.
 

Rustjive

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2009
1,048
Referring back to the recent trades of PG, Davis, Harden and Holiday, the general return has been 3-4 first round picks, pick swaps in the opposing years and 1-2 young studs or above average starters. Contract status and age play a role, but a deal for Lillard or Beal is going to resemble this basic structure.
I agree with this 'basic structure' BUT at the same time the details do matter. The Holiday trade was widely panned as an overpay when it happened. The PG trade was ALSO widely panned as an overpay when it happened. Both of those scenarios, the acquiring team did not have leverage - trading for PG was a pre-requisite for signing Kawhi and getting Jrue was basically a pre-requisite to keeping Giannis. The AD deal is close to the hypothetical Beal scenario but at the same time there's some revisionist history happening because Ingram and Ball both have increased their value in the time since. At the time of the trade Ingram was seen as inconsistent and Lonzo was almost a bust. Having the season they had with LeBron (wow, what a teammate/leader/proven winner) just didn't reflect well on them at all. The Lakers lucking into the 4th pick really makes it hard to compare here.

With that being said, even though I used the Harden trade, it's not the best comp. Harden wasn't demanding only BKN like Beal asking for Boston in our hypothetical, and his skill and contract parameters are both in his favor. Finally, Houston's FO seems pretty incompetent, maybe Washington's will be less so. My point was only that I consider the package proposed similar to Houston's, and it would be too much especially at the trade deadline considering Harden was the better player and wasn't a rental.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,467
You're double counting. You can either look at it as what BKN sent out or what HOU took in, but you can't really count both Allen and the extra future 1st. Allen+Prince went for MIL's high-20s 2022 1st so really neither of those are as valuable as you think.
Right. Forgot that part. I still think the BKN players were considerably more valuable than ours, and Kemba is a negative by all accounts.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Teams don't really parse future picks from playoff teams like that.
And honestly.... Allen is more valuable than TL, LeVert is better than Nesmith, Kemba is a negative, and a future 1st/detrius is better than PP.
Not really, they both have limited value due to pending free agency. The right to overpay a mediocre player isn’t terribly valuable in NBA terms. And neither was LaVert. He hasn’t been healthy, like ever, and isn’t likely to ever put in more than the one full season of play for his career. I mean, yes, Celtics fans were traumatized by the 50 point outburst. But that doesn’t mean that he’s really good.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,467
Not really, they both have limited value due to pending free agency. The right to overpay a mediocre player isn’t terribly valuable in NBA terms. And neither was LaVert. He hasn’t been healthy, like ever, and isn’t likely to ever put in more than the one full season of play for his career. I mean, yes, Celtics fans were traumatized by the 50 point outburst. But that doesn’t mean that he’s really good.
To me it's as basic as this....
Allen had a year left, was pretty good and healthy, TL has a year left is pretty good and is never healthy... I'd rather get to pay a guy I like with no injuries than one who have never come close to a full season.
Caris.. he's a pretty decent player, and his deal is reasonable. Nesmith is a mid-rounder who you hope might become a Caris level player. Kemba should cost a 1st to move on from. That's a big gap. At least a first round pick worth, probably more like 2.

Edit- the general point is the same though, the price on a max guy who is still in his prime is going to be 3 picks, probably 2-3 swaps and some lotto tickets, especially if you're dumping Kemba in the deal. If you do it with Smart, TL, etc... probably can't match, but if you could it might reduce the price by a swap or two.
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Except that Allen really isn’t good. He’s an averagish player on both sides of the ball. And as he was a pending free agent he was about to get expensive. In trade value players like that just aren’t. LaVert is a part time player, in six years he’s managed to pass the 60 game mark once and the 50 game mark once. Those would be his first two seasons. Again, he’s just not that valuable in absolute terms.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,467
Except that Allen really isn’t good. He’s an averagish player on both sides of the ball. And as he was a pending free agent he was about to get expensive. In trade value players like that just aren’t. LaVert is a part time player, in six years he’s managed to pass the 60 game mark once and the 50 game mark once. Those would be his first two seasons. Again, he’s just not that valuable in absolute terms.
I think you are mistaking my point.... neither is that good... both are better than the comparable Celtics options. TL has little trade value he's in the same contract situation, but without the benefit of actually putting up full seasons of competence, same with Nesmith, PP, etc, maybe someone loved Nesmith in the draft, but likely he's seen as not much. Kemba is a negative asset.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Unlike Allen TimeLord at least has the possibility of above average performance. But I actually pointed out that due to pending free agency he isn’t terribly valuable. Langford is basically LaVert. A guy that looks like he should be good except that he’s always frigging injured. Unlike LaVert, though, Langford is inexpensive. Nesmith is mostly a complete unknown at this point. But he at least has possible upside.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
1,302
Referring back to the recent trades of PG, Davis, Harden and Holiday, the general return has been 3-4 first round picks, pick swaps in the opposing years and 1-2 young studs or above average starters.
The PG trade was ALSO widely panned as an overpay when it happened. Both of those scenarios, the acquiring team did not have leverage - trading for PG was a pre-requisite for signing Kawhi and getting Jrue was basically a pre-requisite to keeping Giannis.
As a thought exercise, if the Clips get swept, Kawhi leaves, and Ballmer orders a rebuild, would anyone consider flipping Walker and a slew of replacement assets for a devalued PG and his cap-choking contract?
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
As a thought exercise, if the Clips get swept, Kawhi leaves, and Ballmer orders a rebuild, would anyone consider flipping Walker and a slew of replacement assets for a devalued PG and his cap-choking contract?
This is a joke, right? There isn’t much I wouldn’t add value wise if there was any chance of turning Kemba into George.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
As a thought exercise, if the Clips get swept, Kawhi leaves, and Ballmer orders a rebuild, would anyone consider flipping Walker and a slew of replacement assets for a devalued PG and his cap-choking contract?
Clippers dont control their own draft pick for the next 5 years, they aren't going to order a rebuild even if Kawhi leaves because they can't
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,467
Unlike Allen TimeLord at least has the possibility of above average performance. But I actually pointed out that due to pending free agency he isn’t terribly valuable. Langford is basically LaVert. A guy that looks like he should be good except that he’s always frigging injured. Unlike LaVert, though, Langford is inexpensive. Nesmith is mostly a complete unknown at this point. But he at least has possible upside.
Yeah.... those are all ridiculous evaluations of those players.

Allen put up some very similar numbers in 19-20 at age 21 to what TL did last year at 23, except he actually was able to both play most of the games and play 26MPG consistently. Allen is a significantly positive defensive player at a younger age than TL, and given how much more consistent he is, there is no way you would rather pay TL than him.

LeVert is someone I'm not that high on, but he's miles beyond Langford. He's a legit NBA guard who has played 260 games, and shown he can score in the NBA. Langford who I really like, has barely played and showed very little in the way of offensive game so far.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
As a thought exercise, if the Clips get swept, Kawhi leaves, and Ballmer orders a rebuild, would anyone consider flipping Walker and a slew of replacement assets for a devalued PG and his cap-choking contract?
Paul George isn’t getting traded unless they get back another top 15-20 player. They have no incentive at all to start rebuilding.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,220
Somerville, MA
The trade market probably needs to wait to see what GS does before we can make any trades because GS can offer any team the most for a star and any star would want to go there.

I wonder if a Wiseman/Towns trade happens we can squeeze in as a third team and swap Kemba for Wiggins. I assume Minnesota wants no part of Wiggins.

SOSH favorite Delon Wright also fits in the remaining TPE.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
As a thought exercise, if the Clips get swept, Kawhi leaves, and Ballmer orders a rebuild, would anyone consider flipping Walker and a slew of replacement assets for a devalued PG and his cap-choking contract?
Aim higher, get Pierce to recruit Kawhi for Boston. Even if he leaves after the year's over, you're off Kemba.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Yeah.... those are all ridiculous evaluations of those players.

Allen put up some very similar numbers in 19-20 at age 21 to what TL did last year at 23, except he actually was able to both play most of the games and play 26MPG consistently. Allen is a significantly positive defensive player at a younger age than TL, and given how much more consistent he is, there is no way you would rather pay TL than him.
Repeat after me, mediocre big men about to go to free agency aren't terribly valuable because they tend to get overpaid. Allen is going to sign a Capellaesque contract this summer and the fans in Cleveland are going to get frustrated when he continues to be mediocre only really fucking expensive. The right to pay mediocre players big money just isn't very valuable in trade terms. Which is why I keep saying that Williams isn't terribly valuable. Now if the Celtics could sign him to an extension at Marcus money, he'd probably have value in the summer of '22. But now? Not much.

LeVert is someone I'm not that high on, but he's miles beyond Langford. He's a legit NBA guard who has played 260 games, and shown he can score in the NBA. Langford who I really like, has barely played and showed very little in the way of offensive game so far.
He's "miles beyond Langford" a handful of games a year. He plays between 40-50 games a year. And makes $17.5 million. Again, not terribly valuable as he's going to make roughly $53 million for about 1.5 seasons of basketball. Romeo can give you that little for rookie scale money.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
He's "miles beyond Langford" a handful of games a year. He plays between 40-50 games a year. And makes $17.5 million. Again, not terribly valuable as he's going to make roughly $53 million for about 1.5 seasons of basketball. Romeo can give you that little for rookie scale money.
Langford has played 61 games of not good basketball in 2 years, there is 0 reason to think he can give you the same thing that Levert can or even remotely close to it. Also, Levert didn't have a single injury this year, and the seasons were also both shorter than a typical year, so it's disingenuous to say he plays 40-50 games a year.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,127
Santa Monica
Repeat after me, mediocre big men about to go to free agency aren't terribly valuable because they tend to get overpaid.
this is a FACT, needs to be bolded and scotched taped to a half dozen posters screens

how many BIGs were just bought out this season and added at a vet minimum? It's the one position you can skimp on and add depth after the trade deadline.

SOSH favorite Delon Wright also fits in the remaining TPE.
they should offer TT+ a 2nd for Delon Wright
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,702
Saint Paul, MN
Langford has played 61 games of not good basketball in 2 years, there is 0 reason to think he can give you the same thing that Levert can or even remotely close to it.
This. At this point I would feel more comfortable getting 60 games a year from LaVert than 40 games a year of Langford
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,408
around the way
We tend to overvalue guys sometimes based on their top end. If Caris played his best game on a semi-regular basis, those who love him would be right. His best game is awesome. But he can't. Romeo hyperbole aside, someone is going to give LeVert big money to play infrequently and inconsistently. You need to judge guys based in their whole resume, not some fantastic 50pt game from two years ago.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,467
this is a FACT, needs to be bolded and scotched taped to a half dozen posters screens

how many BIGs were just bought out this season and added at a vet minimum? It's the one position you can skimp on and add depth after the trade deadline.
Sure... now here's the question... if you had your choice and were deciding who to pay... do you want a good defensive center who is 22 years old plays 26 MPG and never misses games or an intermittently very good defensive 24 year old center who is sometimes good on offense, but breaks down if he plays more than 15MPG and has never played more than 52 games in a year (and that is by far his most games).

Allen may not be that valuable, but if it's in comparison to TL? If you want to pay a big, the younger, healthier one is the one you want. The only thing worse than signing an above average big and getting solid but unspectacular production out of him is signing a limited minutes, oft-injured big on hope and getting half a season out of him every year.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
We tend to overvalue guys sometimes based on their top end. If Caris played his best game on a semi-regular basis, those who love him would be right. His best game is awesome. But he can't. Romeo hyperbole aside, someone is going to give LeVert big money to play infrequently and inconsistently. You need to judge guys based in their whole resume, not some fantastic 50pt game from two years ago.

It's funny because we don't do this with Kemba.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
We tend to overvalue guys sometimes based on their top end. If Caris played his best game on a semi-regular basis, those who love him would be right. His best game is awesome. But he can't. Romeo hyperbole aside, someone is going to give LeVert big money to play infrequently and inconsistently. You need to judge guys based in their whole resume, not some fantastic 50pt game from two years ago.
No one has to pay him big money for his best game now though, he's under contract for 2 years at a pretty reasonable contract for what you'd expect him to provide
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,127
Santa Monica
Sure... now here's the question... if you had your choice and were deciding who to pay... do you want a good defensive center who is 22 years old plays 26 MPG and never misses games or an intermittently very good defensive 24 year old center who is sometimes good on offense, but breaks down if he plays more than 15MPG and has never played more than 52 games in a year (and that is by far his most games).

Allen may not be that valuable, but if it's in comparison to TL? If you want to pay a big, the younger, healthier one is the one you want. The only thing worse than signing an above average big and getting solid but unspectacular production out of him is signing a limited minutes, oft-injured big on hope and getting half a season out of him every year.
Yea, I understand your position. I was generally talking about BIGs.

IMO TL's ceiling is higher than Allen's. The Celtics know he can play, they just need to figure out how to balance his schedule/play.

The C's should offer TL a discounted deal (and his agent should go for it) otherwise let him go to RFA. The Cavs will regret paying Allen $80++MM for 4yrs.
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
No one has to pay him big money for his best game now though, he's under contract for 2 years at a pretty reasonable contract for what you'd expect him to provide
$17.5 million for 2/3 of a season isn’t really reasonable. And that’s pretty much all you’re going to get for your money.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
$17.5 million for 2/3 of a season isn’t really reasonable. And that’s pretty much all you’re going to get for your money.
You expecting him to miss 25 games again next year because while feeling 100% healthy and playing fine they discover another cancerous tumor? Because that's the only reason he missed any games this year.

By the way it was 72 games, not exactly a hard thing to get right, if you're going to knock him for missing time because they found a tumor at least get the percentages right.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
You expecting him to miss 25 games again next year because while feeling 100% healthy and playing fine they discover another cancerous tumor? Because that's the only reason he missed any games this year.
You may want to have a look at his games played. He’s surpassed 50 games twice, his first and second seasons. He managed 70+ games year two. For the last four years, like clockwork, he’s missed a third of the season. The odds of him missing a third of next season are considerably higher than him playing a full one at this point.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
You may want to have a look at his games played. He’s surpassed 50 games twice, his first and second seasons. He managed 70+ games year two. For the last four years, like clockwork, he’s missed a third of the season. The odds of him missing a third of next season are considerably higher than him playing a full one at this point.
Last 3 years, not 4, and again he had zero injuries this past year
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Percentage of regular season games played by LaVert. 69%, 85%, 49%, 60%, 65%. You look at those numbers and see an iron man, I look at those numbers and see a guy that regularly misses a third of his games.

You think the four injured seasons are the small sample size and the one season that he managed to stay healthy is the guideline. I’m pretty sure that he’ll find a way to miss a third of his games next year because historically that’s what he does. As I pointed out upthread he’s literally missed a third of the available games for his career ( he’s played 260 of 393 games).

As SRN is so fond of saying, availability is an ability and neither LaVert nor Langford have it.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
1,302
Yes. He is getting paid like a top 30 player and is a borderline top 10 player. Why is that a problem?
I didn’t say it’s a problem, just a consideration. Adding his contract to Tatum and Brown’s deals would amount to $106+M in the 2023-2024 season when the predicted cap is $119.2M with a $144.9 tax projection.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,702
Saint Paul, MN
I didn’t say it’s a problem, just a consideration. Adding his contract to Tatum and Brown’s deals would amount to $106+M in the 2023-2024 season when the predicted cap is $119.2M with a $144.9 tax projection.
I don't see it as being any consideration. Adding PG to Brown and Tatum makes them immediate co-favorites to make it to the eastern conference finals
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
1,302
I don't see it as being any consideration.
You don’t sign the checks! Wyc might consider how that acquisition (and contract) could limit the organization’s ability or willingness to add / retain / afford other pieces.

Adding PG to Brown and Tatum makes them immediate co-favorites to make it to the eastern conference finals
Does it? What does that mean? Is it enough?
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,408
around the way
No one has to pay him big money for his best game now though, he's under contract for 2 years at a pretty reasonable contract for what you'd expect him to provide
I was sloppy there and thought that he only had one more year left. He's overpaid already.

Would I trade salary matching slop for the chance that he stays on the court, sure. But to get back the original point, neither he or Allen are significant assets. No GM in the league was foaming at the mouth to get their hands on those guys. Brooklyn's distant future picks are way more valuable.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
1,302
If getting PG isn't enough than we may as well trade both Tatum and Brown and try a reboot for we aren't ever going to be addiing someone better than PG to this team
Sadly, “better” alone is not the only consideration when there are salary caps, luxury taxes, and other factors in place. Tatum and Brown on their second contracts at ~$30M per year are different than George on his third contract at ~$40M per year, and their combined expense would limit what Stevens could do and possibly what Wyc would spend elsewhere. I’m just asking whether the notion that the team would be “immediate co-favorites to make it to the eastern conference finals” would be enough to justify the move.