Change of Address for Kevin Love - How About Causeway Street?

[Brickowski]

Basically you are suggesting to think of the 2014 draft as the 2004 draft, a slow collection of assets. 
 
How many years in the league do you think you need before you can win a title and how old would the young stars you would want in 2015 be?  Ultimately our goals are very similar use assets to get young star.  I think in 2015 the star you might want might just be Love.  Or do you just fundamentally do not believe he is a guy you want to build around?  Thats probably the most important question.

I would expect to do better than in 2004. It was a weaker draft, and the highest pick Ainge had in 2004 was #15. Plus, he blew the 2003 draft by taking Marcus Banks (Perkins turned out to be useful, but not until 2 years later). Also, going into 2004, the Celtics did not have any young players as good as Sullinger and Olynyk.

Don't get me wrong, I think Love is a very good offensive player and rebounder. I don't hate him. But he can't anchor a defense. Maybe I'd view him as the next piece after I got my defensive anchor. Depends on the price.

I still think the biggest question mark is Rondo. Either he's part of the problem or part of the solution, and I don't know which. Pierce turned out to be part of the solution, but that doesn't mean history will repeat itself. What I do know is that Ainge can't let Rondo leave in free agency for nothing.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Basically you are suggesting to think of the 2014 draft as the 2004 draft, a slow collection of assets. 
 
How many years in the league do you think you need before you can win a title and how old would the young stars you would want in 2015 be?  Ultimately our goals are very similar use assets to get young star.  I think in 2015 the star you might want might just be Love.  Or do you just fundamentally do not believe he is a guy you want to build around?  Thats probably the most important question.

Brick doesn't.
 
I don't either. I actually agree with most of what Brick thinks on this.
I don't want to trade what it takes for Love and build around him. Mostly because I think a team built on a perimeter oriented PF who can't score and a PG who can't shoot outside 18 feet is not going anywhere. That is the current MInny team with less cap space to work with.
I would go BPA at 6 and 17, and see what I can get for Rondo (Nash's expiring and 7 maybe?)
 
I'm assuming we don't get our C of the future this year, but if we get an above average player at any other position, going into 2015 there is a really good class of unrestricted Cs. (Lopez, Lopez, Aldridge, Gasol, Hibbert Asik,(a few have player options or ETOs, but I expect most if not all to be on the market).
There is also a pretty strong RFA market. and other UFA like Henderson and Afflalo.
 
Additionally, the future picks and young guys we draft are just as valuable in trade next year as now, and there could be some interesting players available.
I think if you don't believe Love can be the best player on a championship team he isn't worth it, and the flexibility to trade the same assets later is a better choice.

 

[wutang112878]

Brick doesn't.
 
I don't either. I actually agree with most of what Brick thinks on this.
I don't want to trade what it takes for Love and build around him. Mostly because I think a team built on a perimeter oriented PF who can't score and a PG who can't shoot outside 18 feet is not going anywhere. That is the current MInny team with less cap space to work with.
I would go BPA at 6 and 17, and see what I can get for Rondo (Nash's expiring and 7 maybe?)
 
I'm assuming we don't get our C of the future this year, but if we get an above average player at any other position, going into 2015 there is a really good class of unrestricted Cs. (Lopez, Lopez, Aldridge, Gasol, Hibbert Asik,(a few have player options or ETOs, but I expect most if not all to be on the market).
There is also a pretty strong RFA market. and other UFA like Henderson and Afflalo.
 
Additionally, the future picks and young guys we draft are just as valuable in trade next year as now, and there could be some interesting players available.
I think if you don't believe Love can be the best player on a championship team he isn't worth it, and the flexibility to trade the same assets later is a better choice.

 
Even if you dont want him as your centerpiece, I dont think I can agree with this.  25 year old bigs who are very good, regardless of what type of warts they have, just arent that common.  This isnt the flooded PG market, where I really wouldnt be committed to keeping Rondo and Love together, this is a market where assets are hard to come by.  You can always flip Love again, or you can use him to recruit another musketeer.
 
Lets make it a simple math problem and assuming four 25 cent players are worth a dollar and players are worth 1 to 100 pennies:
How many pennies is Love?
At 6 what are the expected pennies for that pick?
At 17 ...?
 
Even if you think Love is a 70 pennies player, and obtaining him reduces the value of our first rounder next year by 10 pennies, with the odds against the #6 and #17 pick I still think we are ahead of the game.
 
 
Edit:
 
This problem makes my point a lot better, its from a recent Silver article that was linked to earlier.  If win shares are your thing, even missing most of his 5th year, Love had 32.7 win shares in his first 5 years.  In expectation terms, he is worthy of being a #1 pick.
 
Now lets sum up the expectations for our other picks: 6 is ~18 win shares, 17 is ~11 and if we add Sully into the deal he currently has 6.6 career win shares so it looks like he is worth maybe a #16 or #17 pick.
 
Forget about players entirely, if you were completely blind before a draft and I said you could have the #1 pick if you gave me the #6, #16 and #17 which pick(s) do you want??
 

 

[CaptainLaddie]

Both. And Howard wasn't the piece they needed either. Morey erred.

We get it.  You hate Howard.
 
Howard and Harden are two of the top 15 or 20 players in the NBA.  Adding him was hardly an error.  Jesus.
 

 

[ALiveH]

Brick's plan is a legitimate strategy.  It's actually probably lower risk, so I like it in that sense, but I'm impatient so I'd rather get there faster if given the option.  Also, I don't think the opportunity to trade for young URFA stars like Love comes along very often & acquiring those players is the hardest part.
 
Related Question: I wonder if NBA GMs systematically overvalue draft picks, i.e., they overvalue their own ability to extract above-average value for their draft slot, sort of how 80% of people think they have above-average intelligence or 99% of professional stock pickers think they're above average among professional stock pickers.  So if that's the case, shouldn't you have lots of opportunities to flip picks for more than their expected value?  And, wouldn't the average GM be better off both in terms of expected value and quick payoff trying to flip picks for players rather than draft and develop them?  On the other hand, Ainge is one of the few guys who really is an above average NBA drafter (IMHO), so maybe the calculus is different in his case and he would be better off keeping the picks & developing them?

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
Even if you dont want him as your centerpiece, I dont think I can agree with this.  25 year old bigs who are very good, regardless of what type of warts they have, just arent that common.  This isnt the flooded PG market, where I really wouldnt be committed to keeping Rondo and Love together, this is a market where assets are hard to come by.  You can always flip Love again, or you can use him to recruit another musketeer.
 
Lets make it a simple math problem and assuming four 25 cent players are worth a dollar and players are worth 1 to 100 pennies:
How many pennies is Love?
At 6 what are the expected pennies for that pick?
At 17 ...?
 
Even if you think Love is a 70 pennies player, and obtaining him reduces the value of our first rounder next year by 10 pennies, with the odds against the #6 and #17 pick I still think we are ahead of the game.
 
 
Edit:
 
This problem makes my point a lot better, its from a recent Silver article that was linked to earlier.  If win shares are your thing, even missing most of his 5th year, Love had 32.7 win shares in his first 5 years.  In expectation terms, he is worthy of being a #1 pick.
 
Now lets sum up the expectations for our other picks: 6 is ~18 win shares, 17 is ~11 and if we add Sully into the deal he currently has 6.6 career win shares so it looks like he is worth maybe a #16 or #17 pick.
 
Forget about players entirely, if you were completely blind before a draft and I said you could have the #1 pick if you gave me the #6, #16 and #17 which pick(s) do you want??
 

The number 6 and number 17 combine to make about 1/4 of what Love will make. In a salary cap league that is massive.
You can build a team where the 6 doesn't need to be as good as Love because for the money Love makes you can have 6, 17, Sullinger, (whoever you get with the other picks you would need to trade) and still have $10M to get another player.
 
Maybe my post wasn't clear above. My problem isn't with Kevin Love's talent vs, drafted talent. It is that I don't think you can win a title giving him 1/3 of the cap, and since to convince him to re-sign you probably need to extend Rondo, the two will make close to 2/3 of the cap themselves.
 
Also that Nate Silver chart is not really useful in predicting what we might get out of our picks. Averaging win shares across 20 drafts and assuming you'll get the average in that spot is dumb. Everyone knew Lebron would be great and he got something like 66 WS his first 5 years. Last year everyone knew there was no legit #1 and we can guess that will be proven out when Bennett doesn't sniff 35WS.
Taking 20 players adding up their win shares and dividing by 20 may get you some rough estimate to the value of a draft pick against other picks, but it isn't particularly useful for estimating how many win shares a player drafted there will get. There are so many total washouts, and guys who are way above the mean that it isn't really a good way to project. You are far more likely to get well above or well below than actually hit the mean.
 
Anyway I got off track.
Even if we take your assumption that the picks will produce at approximately those numbers: combined 29 wins. And Sully will produce at his current pace of 3.3per year:  so 9.9 over the next 3 years. (seems low since a player's first years are usually lower than 3-5, but whatever) . That's 38.9 wins for about $8 a year. Versus Love's $20M a year. He'd have to produce about 97 WS over the same period to get the same WS production on investment. And that assumes the trade is Love for Sullinger, 6, 17. It likely would include at least 1 more draft pick producing at a low dollar amount.
 
 
Edit- went in and read the Silver piece. He does take $ into account later, and notes that players drafted, particularly early produce much better value than open market talent. In the case of 6 and 17 they produce value that would cost an average of 27M more to get  on the market.

 

[Auger34]

For the anti-Love people out there, what superstar player do you think this team could acquire? Do you put all your hope in getting a top 3 pick and drafting one? Putting all of your hope in the lottery process seems like a fools errand.
Would like to hear some specific suggestions on a top player (presumably better than Love) that could (logically) be available via trade for the C's. I think we all agree that there is pretty much no way Boston can attract a top level player in free agency
The main reason why I am pro trading for Love is because I just don't see another player of his caliber being on the trading block anytime soon.

 

[ivanvamp]

For the anti-Love people out there, what superstar player do you think this team could acquire? Do you put all your hope in getting a top 3 pick and drafting one? Putting all of your hope in the lottery process seems like a fools errand.
Would like to hear some specific suggestions on a top player (presumably better than Love) that could (logically) be available via trade for the C's. I think we all agree that there is pretty much no way Boston can attract a top level player in free agency
The main reason why I am pro trading for Love is because I just don't see another player of his caliber being on the trading block anytime soon.

 
This is kind of where I'm at.  Despite the defensive holes in his game, Kevin Love is absolutely a superstar in the NBA.  Not a LeBron or Durant level player, but let's be serious - the Celtics are not getting one of those guys.  Love is tremendous, though, and he's available.  And the Celtics absolutely have the ammo to get him.  I think they should take a shot.  And they'll still have tons of picks even if this doesn't work out.  

 

[Brickowski]

We get it.  You hate Howard.
 
Howard and Harden are two of the top 15 or 20 players in the NBA.  Adding him was hardly an error.  Jesus.

They were eliminated in the first round weren't they? Harden doesn't play defense and Howard, for all of his defensive prowess, couldn't handle LaMarcus Aldridge without fouling. They had to put Asik on Aldridge (that didn't work either).

And this same top heavy group will be going into next season with a 71M payroll-- with Chandler Parsons still making less than a million-- with absolutely no hope of being in serious contention.

 

[bakahump]

Doesnt this basically come done to a value question?  No one seems to be addressing it directly (probably because its impossible to know).
 
Would Love be more valuable then the picks/players needed to acquire him....and the picks needed to gloss over his weaknesses.
 
The picks/Players you kept in lieu of Love would also have weaknesses you would need to compensate for. Thus meaning using more picks...or using them to acquire veterans to cover the Draftees weaknesses.
You would also have to hope that the picks when used provided some value.
The picks you send would be cheaper then Love allowing you a bit more flexibility with the Cap.
The picks you kept would not have the proven ability of Love and may never develop into a player nearly as good.
Do we feel that the picks in the pipeline will give us a player of Loves caliber? Better?
If so...what might be the ETA? Will this years #6?  The Sac picks?  The Nets picks?
Does it make sense to wait until that potential ETA or "start the clock" early by acquiring Love and fill in around him?
Do we think we can get a more complete player eventually via the draft?
Will it be easier and more likely to fill in the gaps around a draft pick with a slew of other draft picks/traded for vets or Acquiring Love and filling in around him with less draft picks/resources to acquire veterans.

 

[Blacken]

The Heat in 2010-2011 didn't know how to play together and had no heart, too. Hurf durf, durf hurf, durf.

How is the main board so routinely good and this forum filled with such mindless shit?

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Brick doesn't.
 
I don't either. I actually agree with most of what Brick thinks on this.
I don't want to trade what it takes for Love and build around him. Mostly because I think a team built on a perimeter oriented PF who can't score and a PG who can't shoot outside 18 feet is not going anywhere. That is the current MInny team with less cap space to work with.
I would go BPA at 6 and 17, and see what I can get for Rondo (Nash's expiring and 7 maybe?)
 
I'm assuming we don't get our C of the future this year, but if we get an above average player at any other position, going into 2015 there is a really good class of unrestricted Cs. (Lopez, Lopez, Aldridge, Gasol, Hibbert Asik,(a few have player options or ETOs, but I expect most if not all to be on the market).
There is also a pretty strong RFA market. and other UFA like Henderson and Afflalo.
 
Additionally, the future picks and young guys we draft are just as valuable in trade next year as now, and there could be some interesting players available.
I think if you don't believe Love can be the best player on a championship team he isn't worth it, and the flexibility to trade the same assets later is a better choice.

 
This is exactly what I don't get about the anti-Love people. They don't think it's possible to win a championship while paying him 20 million a year, but they want to save that money to acquire some vague future player who will be worth it. And when pressed, the list they provide includes people like Brooke Lopez, Roy Hibbert, LaMarcus Aldridge and Marc Gasol. Putting aside for a minute that none of those players are a) currently available or b) have ever expressed any interest in Boston as a destination, why is it any easier to build a championship level roster around them? All of them will command at or near the max--with Lopez/Hibbert being possible exceptions due to health/whatever-the-fuck-is-going-on-with-Hibbert--and each would present the single largest free agent signing in the history of the Celtics. I don't understand why that's accepted as a valid plan and a wise use of assets, while acquiring Love is a path to mediocrity.
 
And you're welcome to funadamentally believe that Love isn't a player worth building around, but in doing so, you're essentially stating that there are very few players in the league worth building around. It's very easy to say "Kevin Love isn't the right guy," but that argument becomes much less convincing when names like Brook Lopez are thrown out as the alternative. Even LaMarcus Aldridge--what, exactly, does he do better than Kevin Love? He's a better defender, I guess, but he's hardly a difference maker on that end. Why is he worth a max deal but Love isn't?
 
And because, for some reason, this thread requires that every post includes a full re-hash of every other point made prior lest Brickowski remind you that Dwight Howard isn't Bill Russell or whatever, I'll say this again: Acquiring Kevin Love doesn't hamstring the Celtics flexibility, and will leave them with plenty of assets to build a team around him.

 

[bakahump]

Is/was Nowitski < = or > Love?

 

[Brickowski]

So, a disappointing first year indicates that their entire plan has failed? With some minor tweaks (a PG who doesn't suck), the Rockets could easily go much deeper into the playoffs next year. Put that team in the EC and they go at least 2 rounds.

I doubt if they have the assets to acquire a pg who doesn't suck without losing Parsons, and if they elect to give Parsons an extension at market value, in 2015-16 they'll have roughly 50M invested in 4 players (assuming they exercise their team option on Terrence Jones) and no lotto picks. They have a bunch of second round picks, though, so maybe they can improve on the likes of Canaan and Beverly.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

My plan:

1. Draft the BPA at #6
2. Draft the BPA at #17
3. Use the TPA to bring in one more piece of the puzzle (preferably not Asik)
4. Develop your draft picks along with Sullinger and Olynyk.
5. Trade Rondo, Green, Bass and Wallace (if you can). Hopefully one of those deals will bring back a youngish interior defender.
6. Win 30-35 games in 2014-15
7. Make two more good draft picks in 2015.
8. Make your move on draft night or over the Summer of 2015 to acquire one or two stars, either via free agency or trade.

 
Let's take a stab at how this plays out.
 
1. Aaron Gordon
2. Zach LaVine
3. No idea. But bear in mind that whoever you acquire here either has to be on a long deal so as to still be under team control when the puzzle's nearing completion, has to be the sort of player that wont leave Boston for a contender, or has to be the sort of player that wont command an above market deal to stay. Who do you have in mind? And which asset are you coupling with the TPE to make it happen?
4. Okay, you're developing Aaron Gordon, Zach LaVine, Sullinger and Olynyk. What is the absolute best case scenario for these four? Do they, for instance, ever eclipse the combined output of Utah's big man group of Horford, Jefferson, Kanter, and Favors? Is Zach LaVine ever as good as Gordon Hayward? Better? What's a realistic ceiling for that group?
5. What can you get for Rondo? This board has a fun habit of trashing Rondo, debating whether he's currently an above average NBA point guard, and then conveniently turning him into a real asset come rebuilding time. Point guard is very deep right now. And it's about to get deeper with Marcus Smart and Dante Exum. Who is trading for Rondo? Same question about Green, Bass, and Wallace.
6. Seems reasonable.
7. Easy to say. Harder to do. Also impossible to project where those picks will be.
8. Okay. We're ready to make our move next summer. And we get. . .who? LaMarcus Aldridge? Why is he leaving Portland? What intrigues him about Boston? Marc Gasol? He's gonna be over 30 and looking for a championship contender. Is Boston that? How much has the needle moved in a year? Who else is available? Why do they want to play in Boston?

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

I doubt if they have the assets to acquire a pg who doesn't suck without losing Parsons, and if they elect to give Parsons an extension at market value, in 2015-16 they'll have roughly 50M invested in 4 players (assuming they exercise their team option on Terrence Jones) and no lotto picks. They have a bunch of second round picks, though, so maybe they can improve on the likes of Canaan and Beverly.

 
Houston currently has:
 
2 large expiring deals in Lin and Asik, a good, cheap PF in Terrance Jones, Chandler Parsons, and they own all of their first round picks. That's enough to acquire a "PG who doesn't suck", even if they don't want to deal Parsons.
 
Edit: They also currently own the rights to Sergio Llull, a combo guard for Real Madrid, Kostas Papanikolaou a starter at Barcelona this season, and a 22 year old center in Marko Todorovic who earned playing time with with Barcelona this year.

 

[Brickowski]

Houston currently has:
 
2 large expiring deals in Lin and Asik, a good, cheap PF in Terrance Jones, Chandler Parsons, and they own all of their first round picks. That's enough to acquire a "PG who doesn't suck", even if they don't want to deal Parsons.

Time will tell. But do you really see Houston as presently constituted as a serious contender in the WC?

 

[CreightonGubanich]

Is/was Nowitski < = or > Love?

 
I think they're pretty comparable, actually. Their career PERs are nearly identical: 23.5 for Dirk, 23.2 for Love. In his prime, Dirk had a couple years with a PER around 28, and Love peaked last year with a PER of 26.9. Dirk's put a up a couple seasons where he was better than Love has been in terms of win shares, but they were later in his career, and Love is trending in the right direction. Last year, Love had a .591 true shooting percentage, which is up there with some of the best seasons of Dirk's career. 
 
In terms of skill set, Love is a much better rebounder, with a career rebound percentage of 20.8. The high water mark for Dirk's career is 14.8. Love is also a much better passer than Nowitzki. I think he's a little more athletic than Dirk, but he doesn't have single go-to move as effective as Dirk's midrange step-back jumper. They are both at their best as the big man in the pick-and-roll, and have a similar warping effect on team defenses, as they force the opposing big to stay with them tight out to the three point line. They both have similar defensive issues; Dirk's length might make him a little better post defender, but they both need to play with a center who can protect the rim. 
 
This comparison is important, because there are many in this thread that are skeptical the Celtics can build a title-winning team around Love. The 2011 Mavericks are an easy counterpoint. They won a title with an offense build around a 32 year old Dirk, and added complimentary pieces around him. Those guys - Chandler, Terry, Marion, etc - are not superstars such that the Celtics would be unable to acquire similar players given their assets and cap position with Love on board. That's your blueprint for building a team around Love, and I really don't get why people are so skeptical.
 
Sure, your chances of winning a title are much better if you have a top three player in the league. But I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that a GM should wait until he has one to start building a contender. You don't need a LeBron or Durant to compete and even win. Plus, the window is opening. The Heat are still the best team in the NBA, but the cracks are starting to show. The role players are worse, Wade is more fragile than ever, and the Heat have to spend more time in their highest gear to beat good teams. They're markedly worse than the last two years' versions, and I'm skeptical they have more than one or two years as the dominant force in the NBA (assuming LeBron stays put, which is not a given). After that, then what? The Spurs are aging, I think the Thunder have peaked. Anthony Davis is the Next One, but his team's a mess. There's no one in the East that looks ready to reel off multiple titles. Go get Love, and build from there. 

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Time will tell. But do you really see Houston as presently constituted as a serious contender in the WC?

 
How do you define contender? I think they're one of the 4-5 best teams in the conference. Do I think they'll have to keep adding to what they have? Of course. But I absolutely think that a team built around Dwight Howard and James Harden is talented enough to win a championship. It's a tough road anytime you're in the same conference as Durant, and the west in general is stacked, but I think you make the moves Morey made 100 times out of 100.

 

[Brickowski]

Let's take a stab at how this plays out.
 
1. Aaron Gordon
2. Zach LaVine
3. No idea. But bear in mind that whoever you acquire here either has to be on a long deal so as to still be under team control when the puzzle's nearing completion, has to be the sort of player that wont leave Boston for a contender, or has to be the sort of player that wont command an above market deal to stay. Who do you have in mind? And which asset are you coupling with the TPE to make it happen?
4. Okay, you're developing Aaron Gordon, Zach LaVine, Sullinger and Olynyk. What is the absolute best case scenario for these four? Do they, for instance, ever eclipse the combined output of Utah's big man group of Horford, Jefferson, Kanter, and Favors? Is Zach LaVine ever as good as Gordon Hayward? Better? What's a realistic ceiling for that group?
5. What can you get for Rondo? This board has a fun habit of trashing Rondo, debating whether he's currently an above average NBA point guard, and then conveniently turning him into a real asset come rebuilding time. Point guard is very deep right now. And it's about to get deeper with Marcus Smart and Dante Exum. Who is trading for Rondo? Same question about Green, Bass, and Wallace.
6. Seems reasonable.
7. Easy to say. Harder to do. Also impossible to project where those picks will be.
8. Okay. We're ready to make our move next summer. And we get. . .who? LaMarcus Aldridge? Why is he leaving Portland? What intrigues him about Boston? Marc Gasol? He's gonna be over 30 and looking for a championship contender. Is Boston that? How much has the needle moved in a year? Who else is available? Why do they want to play in Boston?

Those aren't the players I would select, but maybe they are the best available with those picks.
On the flip side, if you put all of your eggs in the Love basket and then he gets hurt, as he has on several prior occasions, you're screwed. With the picks, you have multiple opportunities to acquire good, cost-controlled players. Diversification.

As for free agents willing to come to Boston in 2015, who knows? Maybe they'll come for the same reasons that Love allegedly would re-sign here: good organization, good young coach, good young players and more first round picks in 2016 and 2017.

 

[bakahump]

 
This comparison is important, because there are many in this thread that are skeptical the Celtics can build a title-winning team around Love. The 2011 Mavericks are an easy counterpoint. They won a title with an offense build around a 32 year old Dirk, and added complimentary pieces around him. Those guys - Chandler, Terry, Marion, etc - are not superstars such that the Celtics would be unable to acquire similar players given their assets and cap position with Love on board. That's your blueprint for building a team around Love, and I really don't get why people are so skeptical.

That was my thought.
 
Not saying it should be...but it can be done (build a team around Love/Nowitzski).  We dont NEED a Lebron (which is good cause odds are good we will never get one).
 
So could those with more NBA knowledge them me expand on the 2011 Mavs?  Where they a fluke? A Cinderella? A top 3 team in their conference?

 

[Devizier]

Considering that Lebron is arguably one of the two or three best players in NBA history, waiting on someone like him seems like a bad idea.

 

[bowiac]

Time will tell. But do you really see Houston as presently constituted as a serious contender in the WC?

Yes. They've got some roster warts to solve (Asik, Lin, they need a defense/threes guy who can play PG/SG), but they're in a pretty strong spot going forward. They're not the top contender, but it's hardly impossible for them to win a title. Their starters 1-5 are also 25, 24, 25, 22, and 28. There's a lot to like there.

 

[bowiac]

And because, for some reason, this thread requires that every post includes a full re-hash of every other point made prior lest Brickowski remind you that Dwight Howard isn't Bill Russell or whatever, I'll say this again: Acquiring Kevin Love doesn't hamstring the Celtics flexibility, and will leave them with plenty of assets to build a team around him.

Why doesn't acquiring Love hamstring their flexibility? It would cost them assets and cap space - what is flexibility if not assets and cap space?

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Why doesn't acquiring Love hamstring their flexibility? It would cost them assets and cap space - what is flexibility if not assets and cap space?

 
It would cost them some of their assets and some of their cap space, though. Most of the suggestions for a Love deal involve something like Sullinger, Bass, Anthony, #6, and a future first. That leaves 4 first round picks, and puts the Celtics in the position to afford as much as a max contract free-agent as soon as next summer. They could also use those extra picks, and their own, to acquire veterans.
 
I'm just trying to dispel the myth that acquiring Love then leaves the Celtics without any options to build around him. They'll still have multiple first round picks, Rondo as a trade piece, the TPE, and cap space next summer.

 

[CreightonGubanich]

That was my thought.
 
Not saying it should be...but it can be done (build a team around Love/Nowitzski).  We dont NEED a Lebron (which is good cause odds are good we will never get one).
 
So could those with more NBA knowledge them me expand on the 2011 Mavs?  Where they a fluke? A Cinderella? A top 3 team in their conference?

 
They weren't the title favorite, but they won 57 games in a very good Western Conference. Hardly a Cinderella. They entered the playoffs as the third seed in the West, and beat the Blazers, Lakers, Thunder and Heat, losing only a total of five games along the way. I would say most people would have pegged them as a title contender, but not a favorite. They also took advantage of timing - the Lakers were fading, the Thunder hadn't really arrived yet, and the Heat were still figuring out what it took to win together.
 
But short of building a juggernaut like the Heat, it's going to take some luck to win a title. I don't think trying to build a consensus number one team in the league is necessarily the right goal for a general manager, because that will cause you to pass on building around a top-20 guy (like Love) in favor of continually trying to get a top-5 guy (like Love probably isn't). For a non-free agent destination like Boston, that often means putting yourself at the mercy of the lottery and wishcasting on first-round draft picks.

 

[DJnVa]

Kemp's off court activities and weight issues destroyed his career. Those Sonics teams had a good run. Kemp was a beast. He sucked in the playoffs though.

 
He did? Looking at his age 21-30 years, his per/36 numbers in regular season and postseason are pretty close. Maybe I'm not remembering some big flame-out though.

 

[bowiac]

It would cost them some of their assets and some of their cap space, though. Most of the suggestions for a Love deal involve something like Sullinger, Bass, Anthony, #6, and a future first. That leaves 4 first round picks, and puts the Celtics in the position to afford as much as a max contract free-agent as soon as next summer. They could also use those extra picks, and their own, to acquire veterans.
 
I'm just trying to dispel the myth that acquiring Love then leaves the Celtics without any options to build around him. They'll still have multiple first round picks, Rondo as a trade piece, the TPE, and cap space next summer.

Sure. And the cap space loss isn't such a big deal in this context, as it only matters if he stays (I find it unlikely that he will). But the picks matter, and Sullinger is sort of an asset as well.
 
For the people who want to trade for Love with such a package, what % chance of him staying is sufficient to justify it? 10%? 25%? 50%? 80%? If I thought Love was as good as Dirk, I'd take a 25% chance for instance.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Why doesn't acquiring Love hamstring their flexibility? It would cost them assets and cap space - what is flexibility if not assets and cap space?

Cap space isn't flexibility in this day and age. Large expiring contracts on the books each year to be utilized in acquiring a highly compensated star adds MUCH greater flexibility in acquiring players such as Garnett in '07 and potentially Love today than waiting, hoping a praying a star hits the FA market (they rarely do under this CBA) and chooses Boston despite decades of historical evidence that they most likely won't.

The issue "could" be an owners unwillingness to pay the luxury tax however Wyc has always said he would pay the tax for a contender and stood by his words in building our last championship team. We aren't the Miami Marlins or OKC Thunder.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Sure. And the cap space loss isn't such a big deal in this context, as it only matters if he stays (I find it unlikely that he will). But the picks matter, and Sullinger is sort of an asset as well.
 
For the people who want to trade for Love with such a package, what % chance of him staying is sufficient to justify it? 10%? 25%? 50%? 80%? If I thought Love was as good as Dirk, I'd take a 25% chance for instance.

 
I only make the deal if it's 100%. And the way that these deals typically go down, I don't think a trade's made without having some assurance--whether it's a full-assurance that he'll resign, or an assurance that he'll opt into his player option so you get him for two years--that he'll stay beyond next year. Players in Love's position hold pretty much all of the cards. They can dictate the value of the return by making it known through back channels whether or not they'll re-sign with particular teams, and they end up controlling their destiny in that manner. And the only example I can think of where a team traded assets for a star, and then he left in free agency the next year is Dwight Howard. And the backlash he faced was so substantial, that others will think twice before going that route. This is, essentially, Kevin Love's free agency, in the same way that Carmelo's free agency was when he forced his way to the Knicks. It's about getting a larger max from a team they want to play for. I highly, highly doubt that Love accepts a trade to Boston, depletes their assets, and then bails in free agency for less money a year later. Once he accepts the deal, he's a Celtic long-term.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

At this point this thread kind of sucks because there are a few of us advocating for something and there is a rather large peanut gallery looking at an early sketch and telling us its not a finished Bonnet work of art.  And I'm guilty of this myself making counter arguments.
 
Can we just change the discussion.  Rather than explaining how something is wrong and wont work and this is the wrong guy, can we provide suggestions that would make the plan better?  For example: "I understand that you want to trade draft assets for a young star.  Instead of Love why dont we trade for LaMarcus Aldridge who is a little taller" 
 
And if your alternative is to make no move and wait and see how long it will take to get the core of your team through the draft, can you try to quantify how long that might take?  We could get really fancy and run some simulations on where our draft picks might fall and the expected player value of those picks and figure out how much expected player value we need before we make a 'lets go get a developed asset' move

Ok i'll bite. How about the ever increasing chances of Silver's proposal to increase the draft age eligibility to 20 coming to fruition? Another caveat to Ainge acquiring the 2 unprotected Nets picks AND our right to swap in a 3rd year is that this would LOAD UP the draft for two consecutive years while the 18 and 19 years old in college await turning 20 to become eligible.

Ainge is big time ahead of the curve here which is why those future picks DO carry more value than they typically would under normal circumstances aside from the Nets decent possibility of being a falling knife.

 

[bowiac]

I only make the deal if it's 100%. And the way that these deals typically go down, I don't think a trade's made without having some assurance--whether it's a full-assurance that he'll resign, or an assurance that he'll opt into his player option so you get him for two years--that he'll stay beyond next year. Players in Love's position hold pretty much all of the cards. They can dictate the value of the return by making it known through back channels whether or not they'll re-sign with particular teams, and they end up controlling their destiny in that manner. And the only example I can think of where a team traded assets for a star, and then he left in free agency the next year is Dwight Howard. And the backlash he faced was so substantial, that others will think twice before going that route. This is, essentially, Kevin Love's free agency, in the same way that Carmelo's free agency was when he forced his way to the Knicks. It's about getting a larger max from a team they want to play for. I highly, highly doubt that Love accepts a trade to Boston, depletes their assets, and then bails in free agency for less money a year later. Once he accepts the deal, he's a Celtic long-term.

Maybe we're talking past each other here then. I think the Love-skeptics (of which I am one), don't want to do a deal without an assurance that he'll stay. So far, we've gotten no indication that he would stay. Merely a vague report that he'd consider it.
 
Much of the "debate" as it were, was about whether it makes sense to trade for him in hopes of convincing him to stay. If in this hypo, that's not an issue, then great. Trade away.

 

[fairlee76]

Considering that Lebron is arguably one of the two or three best players in NBA history, waiting on someone like him seems like a bad idea.

Was coming here to post a variation of this.  Guys like LeBron come along once in a generation.  If the plan is to get someone like him, the Celtics will a) wait a long time for the next generational talent to come along, b) counting on the right level of suck when said player enters the draft, and c) need the lottery balls to bounce their way.  I'd rather not tie my hopes for the next great Celtics team to that string of "could happen, maybe" variables.
 
I trust Ainge to do the right thing.  If he thinks that is using some of their resources to acquire Kevin Love, so be it.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Maybe we're talking past each other here then. I think the Love-skeptics (of which I am one), don't want to do a deal without an assurance that he'll stay. So far, we've gotten no indication that he would stay. Merely a vague report that he'd consider it.
 
Much of the "debate" as it were, was about whether it makes sense to trade for him in hopes of convincing him to stay. If in this hypo, that's not an issue, then great. Trade away.

 
I think we are talking past each other just a bit. My point is that the information we currently have on Love's intentions is incomplete, but that Ainge will certainly have more before he pulls the trigger. In my mind, this entire discussion is based on the premise that Love will agree to come to Boston long-term, because I don't see Ainge making the deal without first having long conversations with Love's agent about the viability of Love staying in Boston. I don't think Danny makes the deal unless he sense a 100% commitment to Boston.
 
The debate that I've been having over the last couple of pages with people like Brickowski/Cellar-Door isn't about convincing him to stay, it's about whether or not Kevin Love's even worth trading for. So I do think there's a bit of talking past each other, not just between you and I, but between pretty much everybody in the thread. We're all working with different assumptions, which is probably inevitable given how many hypotheticals have to be piled on top of each other in order to discuss moves 2 or 3 years down the road.

 

[zenter]

Has anything new been said in the last three pages? Might be time to lock up the thread or make this about, I dunno, Kevin Love news.

 

[ivanvamp]

My plan for the Celtics:
 
1.  Trade Sullinger, Bass, Bogans, the #6, and a 2015 first-rounder to Minnesota for Love.  Minnesota gets good draft picks, a solid PF as a building block in Sullinger, a useful rotation guy in Bass.  Boston gets Love.  
 
2.  Trade Rondo to New Orleans for Jeff Withey and Jrue Holiday.  Boston gets younger at PG (plus a longer contract), and a defensive-minded center, plus a little cap space.  New Orleans upgrades significantly at PG, and Rondo might help A. Davis make another huge leap forward.
 
3.  Trade a 2015 first-round pick to New York for Iman Shumpert and the Knicks' second-rounder in 2015.  This is definitely taking a chance on Shumpert.  Lots of talent, both as a scorer and defender.  Definitely needs a change of scenery.  Good size at 6'5".  Could really emerge.  Risk move here, but it's mitigated a little by getting back a 2nd rounder in 2015, and the Knicks should suck so it probably isn't going to be too far away from a late first-rounder anyway.
 
4.  Draft TJ Warren at #17.  A ton of scoring potential.  
 
5.  Re-sign Paul Pierce for one more season.  The farewell tour.  Gives them a veteran leadership presence, and Pierce can still play a little.  Gives Warren one year to develop at SF.  
 
G - Holiday, Shumpert, Bradley
F - Green, Pierce, Warren, Wallace, Love
C - Withey, Olynyk
 
Fill in elsewhere.  The starting 5:  Holiday, Shumpert, Pierce, Love, Withey.  Or you can go small and have Love play the C (especially against a non-scoring opposing C) and have Green and Pierce man the two forward positions.
 
The D has a few nice pieces in Shumpert, Bradley, Pierce, and Withey.  The offense can get scoring from Love, Pierce, maybe Warren, and, if he develops, Shumpert.  Green can chip in as well.  
 
Not the best team, but competitive.  Then use your 2015 picks to trade for another star (Pierce and Green coming off the books after 2015), and Green's expiring contract could be a nice trade chip as well.  
 
Moving forward, you build your team around Holiday (hoping he really develops), Warren, Love, Shumpert, and the other good player they can hopefully get.
 
Look, there's no easy way for the Celtics to get back to championship contender status.  

 

[Cellar-Door]

My plan for the Celtics:
 
1.  Trade Sullinger, Bass, Bogans, the #6, and a 2015 first-rounder to Minnesota for Love.  Minnesota gets good draft picks, a solid PF as a building block in Sullinger, a useful rotation guy in Bass.  Boston gets Love.  
 
2.  Trade Rondo to New Orleans for Jeff Withey and Jrue Holiday.  Boston gets younger at PG (plus a longer contract), and a defensive-minded center, plus a little cap space.  New Orleans upgrades significantly at PG, and Rondo might help A. Davis make another huge leap forward.
 
3.  Trade a 2015 first-round pick to New York for Iman Shumpert and the Knicks' second-rounder in 2015.  This is definitely taking a chance on Shumpert.  Lots of talent, both as a scorer and defender.  Definitely needs a change of scenery.  Good size at 6'5".  Could really emerge.  Risk move here, but it's mitigated a little by getting back a 2nd rounder in 2015, and the Knicks should suck so it probably isn't going to be too far away from a late first-rounder anyway.
 
4.  Draft TJ Warren at #17.  A ton of scoring potential.  
 
5.  Re-sign Paul Pierce for one more season.  The farewell tour.  Gives them a veteran leadership presence, and Pierce can still play a little.  Gives Warren one year to develop at SF.  
 
G - Holiday, Shumpert, Bradley
F - Green, Pierce, Warren, Wallace, Love
C - Withey, Olynyk
 
Fill in elsewhere.  The starting 5:  Holiday, Shumpert, Pierce, Love, Withey.  Or you can go small and have Love play the C (especially against a non-scoring opposing C) and have Green and Pierce man the two forward positions.
 
The D has a few nice pieces in Shumpert, Bradley, Pierce, and Withey.  The offense can get scoring from Love, Pierce, maybe Warren, and, if he develops, Shumpert.  Green can chip in as well.  
 
Not the best team, but competitive.  Then use your 2015 picks to trade for another star (Pierce and Green coming off the books after 2015), and Green's expiring contract could be a nice trade chip as well.  
 
Moving forward, you build your team around Holiday (hoping he really develops), Warren, Love, Shumpert, and the other good player they can hopefully get.
 
Look, there's no easy way for the Celtics to get back to championship contender status.  

Thoughts:
1. That isn't enough to get Love. It would take at least 1 more pick.
2. I doubt NO does that, they don't want to have to pay Rondo the max, which is assuming he'd resign there.
3. Why are we trading a 1st for the right to overpay taller Avery Bradley?
4. Meh
5. I guess.
6. That team isn't winning anything long or short term.
 

 
This is exactly what I don't get about the anti-Love people. They don't think it's possible to win a championship while paying him 20 million a year, but they want to save that money to acquire some vague future player who will be worth it. And when pressed, the list they provide includes people like Brooke Lopez, Roy Hibbert, LaMarcus Aldridge and Marc Gasol. Putting aside for a minute that none of those players are a) currently available or b) have ever expressed any interest in Boston as a destination, why is it any easier to build a championship level roster around them? All of them will command at or near the max--with Lopez/Hibbert being possible exceptions due to health/whatever-the-fuck-is-going-on-with-Hibbert--and each would present the single largest free agent signing in the history of the Celtics. I don't understand why that's accepted as a valid plan and a wise use of assets, while acquiring Love is a path to mediocrity.
 
And you're welcome to funadamentally believe that Love isn't a player worth building around, but in doing so, you're essentially stating that there are very few players in the league worth building around. It's very easy to say "Kevin Love isn't the right guy," but that argument becomes much less convincing when names like Brook Lopez are thrown out as the alternative. Even LaMarcus Aldridge--what, exactly, does he do better than Kevin Love? He's a better defender, I guess, but he's hardly a difference maker on that end. Why is he worth a max deal but Love isn't?
 
And because, for some reason, this thread requires that every post includes a full re-hash of every other point made prior lest Brickowski remind you that Dwight Howard isn't Bill Russell or whatever, I'll say this again: Acquiring Kevin Love doesn't hamstring the Celtics flexibility, and will leave them with plenty of assets to build a team around him.

My point was that there are players available every year. Personally the guy I'd sign there is Robin Lopez since he's probably only cost 7-8M and is young.
Of those players how many would make the max (I say Gasol, Aldridge that's probably it. Maybe Hibbert. Asik and Robin Lopez are 8-10M a year guys.)
I personally think they should rebuild over several years because I don't think Love and Rondo is a sustainable rebuild. When the comparison getting made in this thread is Dallas' one year window it isn't a great sign. I understand it isn't popular because instant gratification makes people want to watch Love and Rondo putter around the 4 seed for 4 years, but if you want to build sustainable franchises you usually have to do it through the draft.

 

[Devizier]

If I'm New Orleans and the Celtics offer Rondo for Jrue Holliday, I take that trade and never look back. Actually, in this scenario, I'd probably gauge Boston's interest in Eric Gordon, too.

 

[ALiveH]

Ivan, good thoughts.
 
Here are my critiques...
 
That would be about 1 pick more than I would be willing to give up or what I think it would take to get Love (for reasons detailed further upthread using the Allen trade as a comp).
 
I have zero interest in Shumpert.  I would rather try to package multiple picks for a more significant upgrade.
 
Trading Rondo for Holliday would be a coup for us, which is why I don't think NO would do it.  Also, unless Rondo has something approaching a career year (is a top-5 NBA PG) no team is giving him the max.
 
I like the Pierce & Warren moves.

 

[mcpickl]

 
The Lakers arent immune from sucking.  After Kobe broke it off with Shaq they were just treading water for 3 years before they got to make the Gasol trade which really had nothing to do with the fact that they were LA, just that they found a great trade opportunity.  And since their last title they have been treading water again. Even if they were immune and we arent, what is our fall back plan then?  Only make moves when there is a 100% chance of success?  I can empathize that everyone is so concerned about giving up assets for an asset we might not have in the long run, but in the long run we are all dead. 
 
Would you compare Love to Harden?  Harden's value was a little more difficult to understand when he was playing behind Durant and Westbrook, but he most certainly was not a 'bring him in, this is our guy, our alpha dog and we have the #1 slot on our roster figured out' at the time that the Rockets traded for him.  But the Rockets brought him in, he made them a more desirable location and suddenly Howard went there when there was 0.001% chance that he might go there before Harden arrived.

My issue isn't in acquiring Kevin Love(though again, don't think he's signing here), it's in making a big move like that for anyone this year. I don't think they have the assets to build a competitive team around Love/Player X yet.
 
Everyone talks about all these assets they have, but I think they're overrating them. Let's say the Celtics make a big deal for Love/Player X. I'm assuming the #6 pick and Sullinger are in that deal, and probably at least one other pick, maybe more. What are the other really valuable assets they have right now? The #17 pick, Olynyk, one year of Rondo, the TPE that can take a salary dump? The Clippers pick I think would be valued as a late first. If Boston makes a big trade and are loading up, their own pick next year I would imagine would be valued as a non-lottery pick, as would their own future ones. So you've got the Brooklyn picks that have value and a team could dream a little dream that they are high lottery picks, but the team acquiring can't pick until 2016 at the earliest when the acquiring GM could be doing color commentary on TBS by then.
 
I just don't think those assets are enough to build a contending team around Love.
 
I'd want Ainge to take a risk, but I think this year is too soon. I'd like him to grow his assets for at least another season, it might even have to be two. For example, if he tried to trade the #21 pick two years ago, I think it would've had little value. He picked Jared Sullinger with that choice, now that same asset has much more value. I'm confident in Ainge as a drafter. I would guess that the assets he'd be trading this summer will be worth more next summer. And maybe next summer Brooklyn is coming off a terrible season, those picks are a year closer, and Ainge can sell a team on placing a much higher value on those picks.
 
You also have a lot more flexibility salary wise next summer to build around a star. Bass, Anthony, Rondo, and possibly Green come off the books. You're down to one year of Wallace you could dump on someone, or waive and stretch out. You'd have the option to re-sign or sign and trade Rondo if he's willing. If Love really does want to come to Boston, offer him the max as a FA and use the assets you'd trade for him now, next year.
 
I'm all for cashing in assets to build the next contender, I just believe that this season is too early to make that happen.

 

[wutang112878]

The number 6 and number 17 combine to make about 1/4 of what Love will make. In a salary cap league that is massive.
You can build a team where the 6 doesn't need to be as good as Love because for the money Love makes you can have 6, 17, Sullinger, (whoever you get with the other picks you would need to trade) and still have $10M to get another player.
 
Maybe my post wasn't clear above. My problem isn't with Kevin Love's talent vs, drafted talent. It is that I don't think you can win a title giving him 1/3 of the cap, and since to convince him to re-sign you probably need to extend Rondo, the two will make close to 2/3 of the cap themselves.
 
Also that Nate Silver chart is not really useful in predicting what we might get out of our picks. Averaging win shares across 20 drafts and assuming you'll get the average in that spot is dumb. Everyone knew Lebron would be great and he got something like 66 WS his first 5 years. Last year everyone knew there was no legit #1 and we can guess that will be proven out when Bennett doesn't sniff 35WS.
Taking 20 players adding up their win shares and dividing by 20 may get you some rough estimate to the value of a draft pick against other picks, but it isn't particularly useful for estimating how many win shares a player drafted there will get. There are so many total washouts, and guys who are way above the mean that it isn't really a good way to project. You are far more likely to get well above or well below than actually hit the mean.
 
Anyway I got off track.
Even if we take your assumption that the picks will produce at approximately those numbers: combined 29 wins. And Sully will produce at his current pace of 3.3per year:  so 9.9 over the next 3 years. (seems low since a player's first years are usually lower than 3-5, but whatever) . That's 38.9 wins for about $8 a year. Versus Love's $20M a year. He'd have to produce about 97 WS over the same period to get the same WS production on investment. And that assumes the trade is Love for Sullinger, 6, 17. It likely would include at least 1 more draft pick producing at a low dollar amount.
 
 
Edit- went in and read the Silver piece. He does take $ into account later, and notes that players drafted, particularly early produce much better value than open market talent. In the case of 6 and 17 they produce value that would cost an average of 27M more to get  on the market.

 
I realize this makes no economic sense, but I dont care that the #6 and #17 cost a fraction of what Love will.  Players on rookie contracts simply do not lead your team to a title, it just doenst happen.  So having them in this cost controlled time is exciting, but its not getting you a parade.  In the NBA more than any other sport the top of your roster is absolutely more important than depth.  Its why it was much better to trade for KG than keep Big Al, Ryan Gomes & a first round pick.  Even when Al got his extension he was making maybe 50% of what KG was, but those 3 players were not going to help the Celtics more than KG did.
 
I used to be of this mindset to 'this guy isnt worth the max, you cant win a title like that', but then I started to peel the onion a bit.  Its not necessarily about giving him 1/3 of the cap, its about what % of your salary budget does he represent.  The Celts will spend to the tax, they wont stop at the soft cap limit and there are many mechanisms to allow them to spend once they have reached the soft cap.  So paying Love $20M if you are willing to spent $72M isnt as bad as thinking your max spend is $58M.  And if you dont like giving him that money, I have to ask do you think you can win a title without a superstar?
 
 
Now on the win share per dollar piece, I will argue that not all win shares are created equally.  Durant had 19.2 win shares while Damian Lilliard and Robin Lopez combined for 19.1, should OKC trade Durant for those two considering Durant's salary is $18M and Lilliard and Lopez combine for $9M??  I take Durant, and I have a feeling you take Lilliard and Lopez and I think thats where we philosophically differ. 

 

[wutang112878]

My issue isn't in acquiring Kevin Love(though again, don't think he's signing here), it's in making a big move like that for anyone this year. I don't think they have the assets to build a competitive team around Love/Player X yet.
 
Everyone talks about all these assets they have, but I think they're overrating them. Let's say the Celtics make a big deal for Love/Player X. I'm assuming the #6 pick and Sullinger are in that deal, and probably at least one other pick, maybe more. What are the other really valuable assets they have right now? The #17 pick, Olynyk, one year of Rondo, the TPE that can take a salary dump? The Clippers pick I think would be valued as a late first. If Boston makes a big trade and are loading up, their own pick next year I would imagine would be valued as a non-lottery pick, as would their own future ones. So you've got the Brooklyn picks that have value and a team could dream a little dream that they are high lottery picks, but the team acquiring can't pick until 2016 at the earliest when the acquiring GM could be doing color commentary on TBS by then.
 
I just don't think those assets are enough to build a contending team around Love.
 
I'd want Ainge to take a risk, but I think this year is too soon. I'd like him to grow his assets for at least another season, it might even have to be two. For example, if he tried to trade the #21 pick two years ago, I think it would've had little value. He picked Jared Sullinger with that choice, now that same asset has much more value. I'm confident in Ainge as a drafter. I would guess that the assets he'd be trading this summer will be worth more next summer. And maybe next summer Brooklyn is coming off a terrible season, those picks are a year closer, and Ainge can sell a team on placing a much higher value on those picks.
 
You also have a lot more flexibility salary wise next summer to build around a star. Bass, Anthony, Rondo, and possibly Green come off the books. You're down to one year of Wallace you could dump on someone, or waive and stretch out. You'd have the option to re-sign or sign and trade Rondo if he's willing. If Love really does want to come to Boston, offer him the max as a FA and use the assets you'd trade for him now, next year.
 
I'm all for cashing in assets to build the next contender, I just believe that this season is too early to make that happen.

 
Let me present to you (drum roll......):
 

Pierce

2005/2006
Split	Team ORtg	Opponent ORtg	Difference ORtg
On Court	108	109.1	-1
Off Court	95.3	99.2	-3.9
On - Off	12.7	9.9	2.9
2006/2007
Split	Team ORtg	Opponent ORtg	Difference ORtg
On Court	108.2	108.6	-0.4
Off Court	99.7	106.5	-6.7
On - Off	8.5	2.1	6.3

 
These are Paul Pierce's splits during the rebuilding years.  Its difficult to quantify but how much do you think he helped those young assets develop?  I mean they looked utterly clueless, particularly on offense, without him.  I think thats what Love would provide, a stabilizing force who would allow young players to come in and focus on improving rather than being completely overwhelmed once they get into games.  Rondo's inability to create offense for himself and need to have teams that create spacing for him, hold him back from being that kind of player.
 
As far as the timing goes, I think we are all getting infatuated with Danny's original blueprint: 'develop assets, use all at once in one offseason to build dream team'.  Thats like a once in a lifetime thing, its not something he can just do on demand every 10 years.  We should probably accept that the blueprint this time around is probably going to be different.  This time maybe you make Love your centerpiece and build incremental pieces around him to the point that its a young deep team and Love and he desperately needs a sidekick and player ToBeNamedLater is itching to get out of the baron wasteland of somewhere and decides he wants to team up with Love to make a run.
 
As for the assets themselves, do you think they cumulatively will be better than Love?  Unless you absolutely strike gold on a pick (and there is obviously always some risk like this to trading picks) the #6 or #17 are not projected to be the caliber of player that Love has proven to be.  Sully is not going to be of Love's caliber, and I'd rather have a full donut than 3 munchkins.  So I guess I just dont see what we are building to, because I feel like we arent going to build to get something better than Love anyway so why not just go get the guy now?

 

[HomeRunBaker]

 
Let me present to you (drum roll......):
 

Pierce

2005/2006
Split	Team ORtg	Opponent ORtg	Difference ORtg
On Court	108	109.1	-1
Off Court	95.3	99.2	-3.9
On - Off	12.7	9.9	2.9
2006/2007
Split	Team ORtg	Opponent ORtg	Difference ORtg
On Court	108.2	108.6	-0.4
Off Court	99.7	106.5	-6.7
On - Off	8.5	2.1	6.3

 
These are Paul Pierce's splits during the rebuilding years.  Its difficult to quantify but how much do you think he helped those young assets develop?  I mean they looked utterly clueless, particularly on offense, without him.  I think thats what Love would provide, a stabilizing force who would allow young players to come in and focus on improving rather than being completely overwhelmed once they get into games.  Rondo's inability to create offense for himself and need to have teams that create spacing for him, hold him back from being that kind of player.
 
As far as the timing goes, I think we are all getting infatuated with Danny's original blueprint: 'develop assets, use all at once in one offseason to build dream team'.  Thats like a once in a lifetime thing, its not something he can just do on demand every 10 years.  We should probably accept that the blueprint this time around is probably going to be different.  This time maybe you make Love your centerpiece and build incremental pieces around him to the point that its a young deep team and Love and he desperately needs a sidekick and player ToBeNamedLater is itching to get out of the baron wasteland of somewhere and decides he wants to team up with Love to make a run.
 
As for the assets themselves, do you think they cumulatively will be better than Love?  Unless you absolutely strike gold on a pick (and there is obviously always some risk like this to trading picks) the #6 or #17 are not projected to be the caliber of player that Love has proven to be.  Sully is not going to be of Love's caliber, and I'd rather have a full donut than 3 munchkins.  So I guess I just dont see what we are building to, because I feel like we arent going to build to get something better than Love anyway so why not just go get the guy now?

This is very true. During the 2006-07 season I think we were a competitive 20-26 with Pierce in the lineup and 4-32 without him. No player develops positive work habits going through a 4-32 stretch......particularly younger players trying to figure out how to win NBA games.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
I realize this makes no economic sense, but I dont care that the #6 and #17 cost a fraction of what Love will.  Players on rookie contracts simply do not lead your team to a title, it just doenst happen.  So having them in this cost controlled time is exciting, but its not getting you a parade.  In the NBA more than any other sport the top of your roster is absolutely more important than depth.  Its why it was much better to trade for KG than keep Big Al, Ryan Gomes & a first round pick.  Even when Al got his extension he was making maybe 50% of what KG was, but those 3 players were not going to help the Celtics more than KG did.
 
I used to be of this mindset to 'this guy isnt worth the max, you cant win a title like that', but then I started to peel the onion a bit.  Its not necessarily about giving him 1/3 of the cap, its about what % of your salary budget does he represent.  The Celts will spend to the tax, they wont stop at the soft cap limit and there are many mechanisms to allow them to spend once they have reached the soft cap.  So paying Love $20M if you are willing to spent $72M isnt as bad as thinking your max spend is $58M.  And if you dont like giving him that money, I have to ask do you think you can win a title without a superstar?
 
 
Now on the win share per dollar piece, I will argue that not all win shares are created equally.  Durant had 19.2 win shares while Damian Lilliard and Robin Lopez combined for 19.1, should OKC trade Durant for those two considering Durant's salary is $18M and Lilliard and Lopez combine for $9M??  I take Durant, and I have a feeling you take Lilliard and Lopez and I think thats where we philosophically differ. 

That is not the argument I made in any way.
I noted that I didn't buy the adding up win shares argument you put forward, but that even if I did it produced more wins more efficiently to go the draft route.
My argument was that I thought Love was an inefficient use of resources because I think that he can't be the player you build a championship team around (Offense only PFs are tough to build around) Therefore you should take a shot at the draft picks and see what you get, while leaving yourself the flexibility to go after a player you can build a championship team around if he becomes available.

 

[wutang112878]

That is not the argument I made in any way.
I noted that I didn't buy the adding up win shares argument you put forward, but that even if I did it produced more wins more efficiently to go the draft route.
My argument was that I thought Love was an inefficient use of resources because I think that he can't be the player you build a championship team around (Offense only PFs are tough to build around) Therefore you should take a shot at the draft picks and see what you get, while leaving yourself the flexibility to go after a player you can build a championship team around if he becomes available.

 
Ok, so which players in today's game would you be willing to build your team around?  I'm just trying to get a sense of what you look for in your alpha dog.
 
 
But I do agree those offense only SF/PFs just cant be built around
 
 

 

[mcpickl]

 
Let me present to you (drum roll......):
 

Pierce

2005/2006
Split	Team ORtg	Opponent ORtg	Difference ORtg
On Court	108	109.1	-1
Off Court	95.3	99.2	-3.9
On - Off	12.7	9.9	2.9
2006/2007
Split	Team ORtg	Opponent ORtg	Difference ORtg
On Court	108.2	108.6	-0.4
Off Court	99.7	106.5	-6.7
On - Off	8.5	2.1	6.3

 
These are Paul Pierce's splits during the rebuilding years.  Its difficult to quantify but how much do you think he helped those young assets develop?  I mean they looked utterly clueless, particularly on offense, without him.  I think thats what Love would provide, a stabilizing force who would allow young players to come in and focus on improving rather than being completely overwhelmed once they get into games.  Rondo's inability to create offense for himself and need to have teams that create spacing for him, hold him back from being that kind of player.
 
As far as the timing goes, I think we are all getting infatuated with Danny's original blueprint: 'develop assets, use all at once in one offseason to build dream team'.  Thats like a once in a lifetime thing, its not something he can just do on demand every 10 years.  We should probably accept that the blueprint this time around is probably going to be different.  This time maybe you make Love your centerpiece and build incremental pieces around him to the point that its a young deep team and Love and he desperately needs a sidekick and player ToBeNamedLater is itching to get out of the baron wasteland of somewhere and decides he wants to team up with Love to make a run.
 
As for the assets themselves, do you think they cumulatively will be better than Love?  Unless you absolutely strike gold on a pick (and there is obviously always some risk like this to trading picks) the #6 or #17 are not projected to be the caliber of player that Love has proven to be.  Sully is not going to be of Love's caliber, and I'd rather have a full donut than 3 munchkins.  So I guess I just dont see what we are building to, because I feel like we arent going to build to get something better than Love anyway so why not just go get the guy now?

They could be, sure.
 
Let's say it's Sullinger, #6, #17 and the Clippers pick next year.
 
Is it outrageous to think Sullinger at 2 yrs/3.7M and RFA rights
#6 pick at 4 yrs/12.5M plus RFA rights
#17 pick at 4 yrs/6M plus RFA rights
Clips pick(I'll call it #26) at 4 yrs/5M plus RFA rights
 
could outperform
 
Kevin Love at 1 yr/16M or hopefully 1 yr/16Mthen 5yrs/90M or more
 
I don't think that's outrageous at all, or even unlikely. And again, considerably more flexibility in the multiple assets.
 
To your last question, unless you think Ainge can build a championship team this summer, why not go get Love or another big target next summer and keep your assets?

 

[MakMan44]

 
To your last question, unless you think Ainge can build a championship team this summer, why not go get Love or another big target next summer and keep your assets?

This assumes that Love is traded and doesn't sign an extension with that team. Outside of the Kings, do you really see that happening?

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
Ok, so which players in today's game would you be willing to build your team around?  I'm just trying to get a sense of what you look for in your alpha dog.
 
 
But I do agree those offense only SF/PFs just cant be built around
 
 

Larry Bird was a pretty good defender, also a SF so he rarely had to protect the rim.
He also played on a team with two hall of fame big men who were excellent defenders.
The 1980s Celtics are never happening again, even the Heat aren't close. The league has changed as a business, you can't keep together a team with 4 or 5 hall of fame players in their prime. Especially with so many more teams.
 
Lastly: You're really going to put Kevin Love up against Larry Bird.

 

[mcpickl]

This assumes that Love is traded and doesn't sign an extension with that team. Outside of the Kings, do you really see that happening?

He's not signing an extension with any team. He can't without taking a massive discount. He will be a UFA next summer. There is a benefit to trading for him though as his current team will be able to offer him an extra year/bigger raises.
 
Also I'm not locked in on just Love. Love/another big target

 

[MakMan44]

He's not signing an extension with any team. He can't without taking a massive discount. He will be a UFA next summer. There is a benefit to trading for him though as his current team will be able to offer him an extra year/bigger raises.
 
Also I'm not locked in on just Love. Love/another big target

That's what I meant. Nobody is going to give up assets for him without some sort of insurance he's sticking around for more than one year.