Celtics Plan, Summer 2021

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
3,380
Somerville, MA
Wouldn’t the Celtics package for any big name be Marcus, Timelord, Neismith, Langford, and picks? They can’t pay everyone anyway. I’m not saying that gets it done but you aren’t getting anything good for Kemba and trading Jaylen is just shuffling deck chairs.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,200
Yeah, you can't just skip LeVert/Oladipo part of it especially since Houston both leading up to and at time of deal focused on need for a veteran proven "semi-star" type. That it didn't work out well doesn't change that every indication is Houston really did care about that part of the deal when it was made
Houston dumped LaVert for an expiring deal, because they literally didn't want the contract. And dumped that expiring deal for a non-lottery first (in what projects to be a mediocre draft) and the right to swap a second round pick in that same draft. You're basically saying "You can't ignore the free ketchup packets that come with your McDonalds Happy Meal!". I can. Because the odds that the late 22 first amounts to anything are roughly the same as my odds of winning the Powerball lottery tonight. The value is that maybe the Nets suck in the 25-27 time frame.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,731
New York City
Houston dumped LaVert for an expiring deal, because they literally didn't want the contract. And dumped that expiring deal for a non-lottery first (in what projects to be a mediocre draft) and the right to swap a second round pick in that same draft. You're basically saying "You can't ignore the free ketchup packets that come with your McDonalds Happy Meal!". I can. Because the odds that the late 22 first amounts to anything are roughly the same as my odds of winning the Powerball lottery tonight. The value is that maybe the Nets suck in the 25-27 time frame.
It's apples to oranges because Houston was forced to trade Harden - he made very clear that he had no desire to play for the Rockets anymore and his teammates more or less hated him. Beal hasn't done that and there isn't really any indication that he'd have any issue with playing for Washington for one more year and then assessing his options. Nor is there really any indication that Washington wants to trade Beal - they were much improved this year and don't seem to be preparing for a total teardown. I suspect that Washington still hopes that they can assemble enough pieces in the next year that they can convince Beal to stay or, at minimum, opt in to the last year of his deal.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,200
Did you miss the part where I asked to see a list of stars traded for Kemba + 16 and you responded with a name in James Harden?
Beal is literally an expiring deal at this point. If he goes on the market you're not going to find a lot of teams willing to send out a large return for the hope that he'll sign with them next summer. It's much different from the Harden situation as his contract had two years to run at the time and teams were willing to make better deals. And the Rockets still ended up with three pennies on the dollar.
 

Fishy1

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
3,716
I would love to see this list
James Harden fetched a lot more than a 2 year 73 million dollar injured point guard and the #16 pick. Come on now
It's not fair of you to continue to give these rude, tossed off responses when I gave a list of similar deals just up the page: Irving, Conley, and Kyrie, and you can add Westbrook, Kawhi Leonard, and several others to the list of superstar reputations on expirings who went for dross or a little better than dross plus a pick. San Antonio got Derozan back in that deal for Kawhi, but he's never been the kind of guy you want to pay the money he's getting: I think if anything taking on Derozan's deal was the move of a team that knew it was heading for a rebuild.

Guys like Westbrook, Harden and Davis have commanded so much in the past not because of their inherent value but because the team in question wanted so desperately to win now: everyone knew where they wanted to go or knew that the team in question was looking desperately to upgrade. If the situation develops to the point where Beal is telegraphing his desire to go to Boston, then the deal could develop into albatross territory. But the clock is ticking for the Wizards in the meantime, not the Celtics.

I tried explicitly to frame Kemba plus sixteen as an opening bargaining position with the Wizards. I'd expect it to go up from there, but the Wizards are the one who have to look at the ticking clock.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,200
It's apples to oranges because Houston was forced to trade Harden - he made very clear that he had no desire to play for the Rockets anymore and his teammates more or less hated him. Beal hasn't done that and there isn't really any indication that he'd have any issue with playing for Washington for one more year and then assessing his options. Nor is there really any indication that Washington wants to trade Beal - they were much improved this year and don't seem to be preparing for a total teardown. I suspect that Washington still hopes that they can assemble enough pieces in the next year that they can convince Beal to stay or, at minimum, opt in to the last year of his deal.
What does any of that have to do with the reality that no one is going to give Washington a Davis style return for the right to watch Beal walk next summer? Washington may elect to roll the dice on re-signing Beal, given how badly they've mismanaged things there it might even be the best course of action. But they're still not getting much beyond filler and some late firsts for him if they try to trade him.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,200
I understand, but why bring up Harden as a comp then?
I brought it up because he was literally traded for hope. Houston got nothing of tangible value unless the Nets implode in a few years. And given that they're fucked by the Westbrook trade they could conceivably rebuilding for the next decade if the Nets are managed well.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
3,003
Saint Paul, MN
I brought it up because he was literally traded for hope. Houston got nothing of tangible value unless the Nets implode in a few years. And given that they're fucked by the Westbrook trade they could conceivably rebuilding for the next decade if the Nets are managed well.
HOU most assuredly fucked it up, mainly by just giving away LeVert. BRK gave up a ton to get Harden though
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,200
No, they really didn't. To paraphrase Mike Gorman they gave up bacon bits.

EDIT: Seriously, look at LaVert's injury history. The guy's had one healthy season in his career and I suspect that when he finally retires that will still be his only healthy season.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,731
New York City
What does any of that have to do with the reality that no one is going to give Washington a Davis style return for the right to watch Beal walk next summer? Washington may elect to roll the dice on re-signing Beal, given how badly they've mismanaged things there it might even be the best course of action. But they're still not getting much beyond filler and some late firsts for him if they try to trade him.
Because I don't think Washington's decision of "trade Beal/don't trade Beal" is binary. They are not going to just wake up one day and decide they need to trade Beal at all costs unless Beal pulls a Harden (or unless they start the season terribly and do an Orlando-style deadline sell-off, but this thread is focusing on what the Celtics can do this offseason, not at next season's trade deadline).

I don't disagree with you that teams on the other side of a potential trade will be wary of overpaying for a rental - my point is just that unless a team is willing to overpay, I doubt Washington trades him at all, at least in this offseason.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,200
Because I don't think Washington's decision of "trade Beal/don't trade Beal" is binary. They are not going to just wake up one day and decide they need to trade Beal at all costs unless Beal pulls a Harden (or unless they start the season terribly and do an Orlando-style deadline sell-off, but this thread is focusing on what the Celtics can do this offseason, not at next season's trade deadline).

I don't disagree with you that teams on the other side of a potential trade will be wary of overpaying for a rental - my point is just that unless a team is willing to overpay, I doubt Washington trades him at all, at least in this offseason.
The question was "Why would Washington trade Beal for filler and firsts?" The answer is "Because that's his worth given the reality that he's a pending free agent."

Boston would very likely give the Wizards the maximum number of firsts on draft night (four if they make the selection for the Wizards at #16, then firsts in 22, 24, and 26) because they have Tatum and would probably feel secure about their odds of re-signing him. No one else is going to give them more than filler and a first or two.

Like I said, they might decide that they're better off gambling that he wont walk on them, and it's probably the best choice given how badly they botched things.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,200
Jarret Allen, Caris Levert, and every first round pick until 2027 is substantial.
A roleplayer, a part time roleplayer making $17.5 million per year, and some very low first round picks is the opposite of substantial. Unless the Nets implode. That is literally all Houston got, the hope that the Nets implode.
 

Fishy1

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
3,716
Because I don't think Washington's decision of "trade Beal/don't trade Beal" is binary. They are not going to just wake up one day and decide they need to trade Beal at all costs unless Beal pulls a Harden (or unless they start the season terribly and do an Orlando-style deadline sell-off, but this thread is focusing on what the Celtics can do this offseason, not at next season's trade deadline).

I don't disagree with you that teams on the other side of a potential trade will be wary of overpaying for a rental - my point is just that unless a team is willing to overpay, I doubt Washington trades him at all, at least in this offseason.
I actually think the Wizards would be smart to move him now, because they'll get much less for him at the trade deadline that they would if they traded him now. I hope they see the writing on the wall after they got burned by John Wall, but then again, they just gave up a pick for the right to watch Westbrook decline. So I agree, they probably don't trade him at first, but for different reasons, namely that the Wizards are a bad organization.

It is the smart move, though. The Wizards need to reset. They need to get out from the Westbrook contract as soon as possible before it goes completely underwater, and they need to trade Beal before it becomes clear he's going to have to walk to ever play competitive basketball again.

Jarret Allen, Caris Levert, and every first round pick until 2027 is substantial.
I agree that it is, but you're ignoring the facts that don't serve you: James Harden was still under contract for almost two years, is the better player by quite a margin, and was screaming to get out of town. Beal is not even half the passer that Harden is, is signed for just one more year, and is doing anything but screaming to get out of town. You have to account for the screaming, quality of player, and length of deal. That extra year is a huge difference.

Kawhi is a better comp: all-world player with just one year left on his deal who wants out of town. Spurs got Derozan's shitty contract, Potl, and Keldon Johnson for him. And they had to ship out the Pop's favorite player to yell at.

Like, notice that the Nets didn't have to send Kyrie to the Rockets for Harden. So neither would we Jaylen.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,200
I mean Jarrett Allen was/is a pending free agent, so it was entirely rational of Houston to not value the right to overpay him very highly. Because he's just OK. In other words, he wasn't a golden asset.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
35,631
Its impossible to say what will happen but @Fishy1 seems right - the key for any Beal package is how much of the process is being driven by the player versus the organization. And the Wizards should be actively shopping him right now before he puts them in a really bad spot. That said, I expect many teams to be in on him so if Beal has a strong preference, the Wizards could still find a team where they aren't getting completely hosed in a value sense.

Even if Beal wants to play with Tatum, would he say no to a Warriors trade? Maybe, maybe not...
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,200
Its impossible to say what will happen but @Fishy1 seems right - the key for any Beal package is how much of the process is being driven by the player versus the organization. And the Wizards should be actively shopping him right now before he puts them in a really bad spot. That said, I expect many teams to be in on him so if Beal has a strong preference, the Wizards could still find a team where they aren't getting completely hosed in a value sense.

Even if Beal wants to play with Tatum, would he say no to a Warriors trade? Maybe, maybe not...
If the Warriors end up with two firsts on draft night they'd be the one team I could see making the gamble given that they have to include Wiggins to make the numbeers work.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,356
HOU most assuredly fucked it up, mainly by just giving away LeVert. BRK gave up a ton to get Harden though
Brooklyn and Philadelphia both offered a ton. Houston, for whatever reason, decided they didn’t want any of it, preferring the immediate tank route.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,200
Brooklyn and Philadelphia both offered a ton. Houston, for whatever reason, decided they didn’t want any of it, preferring the immediate tank route.
We really don't know what Philly offered. We do know what Brooklyn offered, and it wasn't a ton even if you added the weights of all the players involved. I mean, seriously guys, Lavert has played about 2/3 of the possible games in his career. That's a part time roleplayer. And he was the crowning jewel of the talent return. And the tank route was high risk given that Houston has a real chance of losing their first this year. And next year's draft is depleted at the top due to the defections of Kuminga and Barnes.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,364
BRK gave up a ton in the sense that all your future picks is a ton.
if you give 3 picks and 3 swaps it opens up a conversation on most players. Allen and LeVert were interesting young guys, but the picks are what opened that door, and if the Celtics offerred that many picks... teams would listen on guys, might not deal them, but if they had a guy forcing his way out, 3 picks, 3 swaps and Smart/Nesmith probably is in the discussion
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
44,227

jmcc5400

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,951
Which team do you think would say no to a Kemba-Westbrook deal? Westbrook is better, but significantly more expensive (RWB is owed $91.3 million over the next two years, while Kemba is owed $73.7 million). Maybe the Wizards know they aren't going anywhere and would prefer to get out from under that financial commitment if the Celtics stapled a heavily protected first round pick to Kemba.

I know Westbrook has his detractors (to put it mildly), but he undeniably has a motor, swagger and a mean streak that I think this Celtics team could use. It's the one underwater contract out there that kind of intrigues me. I'd much rather overpay Westbrook for two years than worry about getting out from under Porzingis's contract for three.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
25,407
Given the lux tax implications I am not sure Celtics do that---Westbrook's ball dominance and lack of jumper is a pretty poor fit, well worse than Kemba's. Though, I agree with you the swagger and confidence are positives for me in terms of fit/needs. I guess if you put TT in the deal the $ work better for Celtics; however, that's pretty unappealing to Wiz unless they can send TT elsewhere as he really doesn't fit there.

I am also not sure Washington does on the talent/performance side---unless Beal dislikes playing with Westbrook (certainly possible).
 

jmcc5400

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,951
The luxury tax implications and the talent disparity are both reasons that I think the Celtics would probably have to add more. Probably something along the lines of Thompson (ballast), one of Pritch/Nesmith/Langford (ballast/talent) and, I would imagine, a protected pick. It would be a lot, and god knows Westbrook has some warts and is getting up there in years.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,731
New York City
I actually think the Wizards would be smart to move him now, because they'll get much less for him at the trade deadline that they would if they traded him now. I hope they see the writing on the wall after they got burned by John Wall, but then again, they just gave up a pick for the right to watch Westbrook decline. So I agree, they probably don't trade him at first, but for different reasons, namely that the Wizards are a bad organization.
Yeah to be clear I completely agree that they should trade Beal this offseason. They should be looking to trade Westbrook too, if any team were willing to give up anything of even moderate value for him. They need a full reset and it's always better to get those over with sooner rather than later. I'm just skeptical that they actually will.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,364
Can’t he waive his trade kicker? That’s a pretty big deal.
Yep.
Also, hypothetically he could agree to a re-negotiate/extend if he were desperate.
If I'm reading it correctly, he could essentially replace the option year with 2 years at $20-21M
I think there's little to no chance he would, but hypothetically it looks possible under the CBA.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
327
@nighthob do you have any evidence that Houston didn't value Lavert? I was under the impression that they mistakenly had a positive value for Oladipo and had a misguided view that he'd be someone they could sign long-term, not flip for practically nothing at the deadline. At the time of the Harden trade, I think they had ridiculous plans (maybe demanded from ownership) to continue to try to compete.

So rather than seeing Lavert as peanuts, they viewed him as an asset they could flip for a "star" they liked better.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,731
New York City
Yes he can waive it but it really isn’t a deterrent to the acquiring team since it is the Celtics who would be responsible for paying him the bonus.
It could be helpful for salary matching purposes because his trade kicker counts as part of his salary for the team acquiring him but not for the team trading him (the Celtics). Not a huge deal but could be relevant if the Celtics only have a single potential trade partner and they are having trouble matching up salaries.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,364
@nighthob do you have any evidence that Houston didn't value Lavert? I was under the impression that they mistakenly had a positive value for Oladipo and had a misguided view that he'd be someone they could sign long-term, not flip for practically nothing at the deadline. At the time of the Harden trade, I think they had ridiculous plans (maybe demanded from ownership) to continue to try to compete.

So rather than seeing Lavert as peanuts, they viewed him as an asset they could flip for a "star" they liked better.
I think it looked like they thought that either:
1. Oladipo would sign at a reasonable long term deal
or
2. They could flip Oladipo for real value at the deadline.

instead he asked for way more than they were willing to pay, and nobody wanted to give anything up for him at the deadline

So really it was a combination of misreading his value around the league, and underestimating his willingness to test the market.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,797
Can we get Westbrook and Beal while ditching Kemba and giving up some picks? Is that even possible before I even bother thinking if it is a good idea?
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
327
I think it looked like they thought that either:
1. Oladipo would sign at a reasonable long term deal
or
2. They could flip Oladipo for real value at the deadline.

instead he asked for way more than they were willing to pay, and nobody wanted to give anything up for him at the deadline

So really it was a combination of misreading his value around the league, and underestimating his willingness to test the market.
Yeah, that's what I thought, which means that Houston did value Lavert as a positive value asset that they were flipping for Oladipo, who would do one of the two things above (hypothetically). It did not seem like a "garbage for garbage" deal at the time as has been asserted. Looking back, I think you would, as Houston, way prefer having Lavert on his short contract than trading Oladipo for the scraps they ended up getting.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
20,805
The salaries can work without Jaylen. Kemba/Marcus/Thompson/Neismith/Langford/Timelord works.
Wow that’s a pretty crappy return with redundancy at the 5 now that Gafford has emerged. Sure they will have better offers without taking up half of their roster spots.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
11,519
Santa Monica
Once Wyc/Pags (and their PE buddies) create a SPAC to take Pure Sweat public, they can appoint Drew Hanlen, Director of Player Development.

Then we'll have a list of young All-Stars forcing their way to Boston;)

The downside is we'll need to re-up Semi.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,200
@nighthob do you have any evidence that Houston didn't value Lavert?
That they unloaded him on the Pacers for a guy with an injury history longer than the Hundred Years War? Which is about all you can expect given LaVert's injury history.

I was under the impression that they mistakenly had a positive value for Oladipo and had a misguided view that he'd be someone they could sign long-term. ...

So rather than seeing Lavert as peanuts, they viewed him as an asset they could flip for a "star" they liked better.
Seriously, in the last three years Oladipo has played about a full season of basketball. And given that his injuries are all in the right knee no one saw Oladipo as anything but a distressed asset. There was the prayer that he could get healthy and give you 75% of what he once was, but the trade was Houston's desperate gambit to get something for Harden because there is a real chance that the picks turn into nothing.

Now Oladipo turned into nothing too. Which isn't a big loss because his performances against Boston aside, LaVert is only going to give the Pacers 50 games or so a year of uneven play. As SRN is so fond of saying, availability is an ability and neither Oladipo nor LaVert have it.