Choose Your Own Adventure: Celtics 2020 Offseason

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,073
I think the worst case scenario is pretty obviously “Celtics don’t win a championship they would have won if they still had Hayward and that all they have to show for it is a draft pick that busts.”
Completely agree with this.

Again, I like the ideas in theory and I understand that Hayward may force his way out (although I don’t find that option very likely) but it seems like a terrible idea to trade away a top 6 guy on a team that had incredibly shitty depth in the first place without a concrete plan or idea of who you’re going to get. I just fundamentally don’t like the amount of risk with saying “fuck it! This flexibility probably should work but who knows” with a team that is very, very close to championship level
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
356
Losing GH would stink BUT

You'd be betting that NBA revenues (arenas not being full + fewer games) don't recover to pre-pandemic levels over the next 8 months. If revenues continue to be a problem, there should be talent available from non-contenders. Then the TPE is very valuable BUT we don't really know who the non-contenders/sellers will be right now. So player speculation is next to impossible.

BUT we can all agree the absolute worst-case scenario would be:
1. TPE expires worthless a year from now
2. CAP is re-set
3. Draft stock added
4. The C's we saw in the 2020 playoffs is a year more experienced and doesn't play so poorly in crunch time.
That is not a bet, its a certainty. Revenue will be down the only question is how much. There will be less than 82 games, is it 72 or 50.

According to Silver the gate is 40% of revenue, which is why some owners were reportedly pushing to delay the start of the season into Feb/March to give the best chance of having fans in stands. Based on the reporting two things changed that calculus 1) the ongoing covid spike and 2) more importantly the TV "partners" telling the league that they not excited about televising games in mid-July and August.

The priority for the league now is safeguarding the following season, not the coming one. For the coming year it is just about salvaging whatever revenue they can.

So every team is going into the season knowing that revenue will be way down. Dealing a guy at the deadline is a only small antidote to the loss of revenue b/c you have already paid the bulk of his salary by then (it does help with ducking the tax.)

Another part of the calculus, there will almost certainly be a "play in" scenario for the playoffs. So more teams than in the past will be "in contention" for a playoff spot. Historically teams that were in the hunt for a playoff spot have not dealt away assets, even if that would have been a wise long term move. Maybe that changes in the current climate.

In the West, outside of OKC no one looks to be tanking. That's not to say all of the teams will be in contention at the deadline, but it is not like you can look at the West and identify the obvious sellers other than OKC. Do we want Adams or Schroder? (I am honestly asking - didn't watch any OKC last year).

In the East, you've got Cleveland and Charlotte for sure, but who would we want? Love, Drummond, Rozier, Batum, Cody Zeller? I feel confident the answer here is no. The Knicks who knows. They could be a basement dweller or they could acquire Chris Paul and be the 7th seed. Then you have a bunch of teams in the 7/8/9 range. If Detroit reunites Casey and FVV and Blake returns to health, then they are in this bunch, otherwise they go with Cleveland. They've got Rose, Kennard and Snell. The Hawks are clearly trying to win. Washington will have Wall and the 9th pick, but that could definitely go off the rails, but again who are we getting. Orlando should trade Gordon and others and completely rebuild, but probably won't. Chicago seems like a potential fit. New front office generally = more willingness to deal and less need to win. Porter is expiring at 27.5. Sato and Thad Young have a couple years left but at reasonable numbers and could fit this roster.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,355
Santa Monica
That is not a bet, its a certainty. Revenue will be down the only question is how much. There will be less than 82 games, is it 72 or 50.

According to Silver the gate is 40% of revenue, which is why some owners were reportedly pushing to delay the start of the season into Feb/March to give the best chance of having fans in stands. Based on the reporting two things changed that calculus 1) the ongoing covid spike and 2) more importantly the TV "partners" telling the league that they not excited about televising games in mid-July and August.

The priority for the league now is safeguarding the following season, not the coming one. For the coming year it is just about salvaging whatever revenue they can.

So every team is going into the season knowing that revenue will be way down. Dealing a guy at the deadline is a only small antidote to the loss of revenue b/c you have already paid the bulk of his salary by then (it does help with ducking the tax.)

Another part of the calculus, there will almost certainly be a "play in" scenario for the playoffs. So more teams than in the past will be "in contention" for a playoff spot. Historically teams that were in the hunt for a playoff spot have not dealt away assets, even if that would have been a wise long term move. Maybe that changes in the current climate.

In the West, outside of OKC no one looks to be tanking. That's not to say all of the teams will be in contention at the deadline, but it is not like you can look at the West and identify the obvious sellers other than OKC. Do we want Adams or Schroder? (I am honestly asking - didn't watch any OKC last year).

In the East, you've got Cleveland and Charlotte for sure, but who would we want? Love, Drummond, Rozier, Batum, Cody Zeller? I feel confident the answer here is no. The Knicks who knows. They could be a basement dweller or they could acquire Chris Paul and be the 7th seed. Then you have a bunch of teams in the 7/8/9 range. If Detroit reunites Casey and FVV and Blake returns to health, then they are in this bunch, otherwise they go with Cleveland. They've got Rose, Kennard and Snell. The Hawks are clearly trying to win. Washington will have Wall and the 9th pick, but that could definitely go off the rails, but again who are we getting. Orlando should trade Gordon and others and completely rebuild, but probably won't. Chicago seems like a potential fit. New front office generally = more willingness to deal and less need to win. Porter is expiring at 27.5. Sato and Thad Young have a couple years left but at reasonable numbers and could fit this roster.
Thanks Swedgin. I agree with a lot of this. BUT the TPE has some nice time value. Danny wouldn't have to use it until the trade deadline.

Every team should want to reach their goals at the beginning of the season. But injuries happen, teams underperform, coaches get fired, etc Teams don't have to be "tanking" to be selling. Team owners may not be thrilled to keep paying $10-12MM/yr for good players when some of their outside interests are in trouble. Especially if those players turn them into taxpayers. This year, last year and next year will be unlike any other in sports revenue/ratings.

The "play-in" game is a gimmick, it won't stop Tilman Fertitta from moving Covington or Tucker if his hospitality business starts going delinquent on rents. I really don't need to get into speculating on players being offered, since the TPE has ~ 8mths to be exercised. BUT I'll take the over on OKC being the only seller out West.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
Again, I like the ideas in theory and I understand that Hayward may force his way out (although I don’t find that option very likely) but it seems like a terrible idea to trade away a top 6 guy on a team that had incredibly shitty depth in the first place without a concrete plan or idea of who you’re going to get. I just fundamentally don’t like the amount of risk with saying “fuck it! This flexibility probably should work but who knows” with a team that is very, very close to championship level
No one is saying this. Literally no one. What we're saying is that if he walks for nothing Boston is pretty screwed because they probably don't have a replacement on the roster, have a rapidly aging third option in Kemba, and no way to add around the Jay-Crew until NBA revenues return to normal. And that for the future it might be best that Boston take more shots at finding a long term replacement in the draft and focus on finding players to put around Tatum and Brown. Because Hayward's a one year patch that won't be back after that.

And that's assuming he doesn't opt out this year, because despite the lack of teams with cap space, the free agent market this year is so crappy that Hayward would be the star of it. And teams like Dallas are going to come a callin'. And interest from teams like Dallas and Indiana is a good thing, because it means that Boston can get something for Hayward's exit.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
In the West, outside of OKC no one looks to be tanking. That's not to say all of the teams will be in contention at the deadline, but it is not like you can look at the West and identify the obvious sellers other than OKC. Do we want Adams or Schroder? (I am honestly asking - didn't watch any OKC last year).
I don't think that OKC is tanking. Yes, they're strongly considering a CP3 trade, but they're going to get back some talent in any deal (Milwaukee talks brave about getting him for #24 and flotsam, but I bet they get more than that in any eventual deal. Especially if the Knicks are serious about adding him and OKC ends up with Knox/#8 to build around SGA. Schroeder (aka Grondo) likes playing offense and can be frustrating to deal with. But he scores points in bunches. And SGA is really fucking good.

Memphis, on the other hand, is totally going to tank the season now that there's no more worry about pick conveyance.

The "play-in" game is a gimmick, it won't stop Tilman Fertitta from moving Covington or Tucker if his hospitality business starts going delinquent on rents. I really don't need to get into speculating on players being offered, since the TPE has ~ 8mths to be exercised. BUT I'll take the over on OKC being the only seller out West.
Covington, I think, is a realistic target. I could see Fertitta ordering the nuking of the team under certain circumstances. Like if New York went all in on a Harden bid (basically Knox, Frankie Smokes, #8, New York's '21 and '23 #1s and the right to switch in '22 and '24) then they'd be open to cutting salary further by moving one of their roleplayers.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
356
I don't think that OKC is tanking. Yes, they're strongly considering a CP3 trade, but they're going to get back some talent in any deal (Milwaukee talks brave about getting him for #24 and flotsam, but I bet they get more than that in any eventual deal. Especially if the Knicks are serious about adding him and OKC ends up with Knox/#8 to build around SGA. Schroeder (aka Grondo) likes playing offense and can be frustrating to deal with. But he scores points in bunches. And SGA is really fucking good.

Memphis, on the other hand, is totally going to tank the season now that there's no more worry about pick conveyance.

Covington, I think, is a realistic target. I could see Fertitta ordering the nuking of the team under certain circumstances. Like if New York went all in on a Harden bid (basically Knox, Frankie Smokes, #8, New York's '21 and '23 #1s and the right to switch in '22 and '24) then they'd be open to cutting salary further by moving one of their roleplayers.
Tanking might have been a little strong for OKC, but they are in "asset acquisition" not "win now" mode. Adams and Schroeder are expiring and seem likely to be removed. All reports indicate Gallo is not coming back. I like SGA, probably more than most, but he, Knox and Dort are the worst team in the West by a wide margin.

I do not see it for Memphis. The Griz may not make the playoffs but a team with Ja, JJJ, Brandon Clarke, Valanciunas, Winslow and Dillon Brooks and depth like Slomo, Tyus Jones and Grayson Allen should be in the Suns, Kings, Spurs, Pelicans tier of teams fighting for the 8/9 seeds. The only real minutes they lost from last year's team was Crowder and, apart from whatever he brought to the locker room, he was not good for them last year (.368 FG, .291 from 3). They are under the tax with only Melton to bring back and a large expiring in Dieng.

I personally think Houston should move Harden now. However, that would be such an admission of failure on Tillman's part, that I just can't see it happening. I would bet a mortgage payment Houston trades Harden too late, rather than too soon; my money would be at the deadline in 2021-2022, with the prior offseason a possibility. For instance, if Tillman deals off Covington or Tucker while Houston is the 6 seed for no immediate help in return, I could see Harden demanding a trade.

Every team should want to reach their goals at the beginning of the season. But injuries happen, teams underperform, coaches get fired, etc Teams don't have to be "tanking" to be selling. Team owners may not be thrilled to keep paying $10-12MM/yr for good players when some of their outside interests are in trouble. Especially if those players turn them into taxpayers. This year, last year and next year will be unlike any other in sports revenue/ratings.

The "play-in" game is a gimmick, it won't stop Tilman Fertitta from moving Covington or Tucker if his hospitality business starts going delinquent on rents. I really don't need to get into speculating on players being offered, since the TPE has ~ 8mths to be exercised. BUT I'll take the over on OKC being the only seller out West.
I agree completely. There will be some teams that whether due to injury etc. that disappoint. My point was that there are fewer teams than in years past who are (despite public pronouncements) not trying to win. That combined with the play in games, will I think reduce the amount of sellers. In short, I would take that over too. But if you put it at 3, I am probably going under.
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,355
Santa Monica
I agree completely. There will be some teams that whether due to injury etc. that disappoint. My point was that there are fewer teams than in years past who are (despite public pronouncements) not trying to win. That combined with the play in games, will I think reduce the amount of sellers. In short, I would take that over too. But if you put it at 3, I am probably going under.
I'd still take the over on Sellers.

The Celtics would have a ton of cheap controlled youngsters on the roster. Add them + a TPE. WC owners that are getting walloped in the wallet & on the court will want a temporary reset. Especially with Bron not aging/AD improving. PG/Kawhi figuring it out. Denver young/improving and GSW reappearance. Those 4 teams are head and shoulders above the rest.

My guess on potential WC Sellers of talent priced around $5-15MM:
OKC, Hou, Sac, Por, Minn, Grizz, Spurs, Pels + whoever gets hit with key injuries.

The EC list is even longer.

With fans not attending nor watching on TV. Owners of teams in purgatory won't really be too concerned about players like Robert Covington
 
Last edited:

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,358
I could see Harden demanding a trade.
Does he really care about winning that much? When I see a guy playing in a blowout through the 4th quarter and padding his stats against 2nd teamers rather than resting up and being ready to win the next game, I see a guy who mostly cares about individual achievements. I'm sure that's probably a pretty harsh take - but I'd think as long as Houston doesn't completely suck, and Harden is able to put up his numbers, he'll be happy.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
Does he really care about winning that much? When I see a guy playing in a blowout through the 4th quarter and padding his stats against 2nd teamers rather than resting up and being ready to win the next game, I see a guy who mostly cares about individual achievements. I'm sure that's probably a pretty harsh take - but I'd think as long as Houston doesn't completely suck, and Harden is able to put up his numbers, he'll be happy.
He’d get his numbers as surely some place else, though.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,358
Agree, but why go through the process of demanding a trade if it's really all the same to him?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
Let's assume Celts owners are willing to pay the luxury and the repeater tax for purposes of this question. I know they likely have some limits there, but just as a thought experiment: would you consider Hayward/Poirer (or Hayward/opted-in Kanter) for Horford-JRich-a future 1st?

It's an interesting basketball fit for both teams. Horford's contract sucks, but half the last year is unguaranteed. I think you wouldn't do that as the Celtics, but it gave me pause....you backfill the wing, get a big who can play differently than Theis, and create some flexibility (JRich) beyond this year plus get hte future 1st. If you're the Sixers, you get a guy who helps you compete this year and you move off of some long-term money.

Of course, the other question is if you are willing to pay the tax is that better than just re-signing Hayward.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,384
Let's assume Celts owners are willing to pay the luxury and the repeater tax for purposes of this question. I know they likely have some limits there, but just as a thought experiment: would you consider Hayward/Poirer (or Hayward/opted-in Kanter) for Horford-JRich-a future 1st?

It's an interesting basketball fit for both teams. Horford's contract sucks, but half the last year is unguaranteed. I think you wouldn't do that as the Celtics, but it gave me pause....you backfill the wing, get a big who can play differently than Theis, and create some flexibility (JRich) beyond this year plus get hte future 1st. If you're the Sixers, you get a guy who helps you compete this year and you move off of some long-term money.

Of course, the other question is if you are willing to pay the tax is that better than just re-signing Hayward.
Nah. Would rather have Hayward for a year and lose him. Don’t have much interest in mid-30s Horford. He looked to be slowing down. Let Philly keep that albatross contract.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
47,082
deep inside Guido territory
Let's assume Celts owners are willing to pay the luxury and the repeater tax for purposes of this question. I know they likely have some limits there, but just as a thought experiment: would you consider Hayward/Poirer (or Hayward/opted-in Kanter) for Horford-JRich-a future 1st?

It's an interesting basketball fit for both teams. Horford's contract sucks, but half the last year is unguaranteed. I think you wouldn't do that as the Celtics, but it gave me pause....you backfill the wing, get a big who can play differently than Theis, and create some flexibility (JRich) beyond this year plus get hte future 1st. If you're the Sixers, you get a guy who helps you compete this year and you move off of some long-term money.

Of course, the other question is if you are willing to pay the tax is that better than just re-signing Hayward.
In terms of a basketball fit, the Rudy Gobert/Joe Ingles trade I brought up would be much better than this one.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
In terms of a basketball fit, the Rudy Gobert/Joe Ingles trade I brought up would be much better than this one.
Perhaps----perhaps not, it is quite unclear Gobert fits Celtics at all. That deal is also a whole different level of luxury tax challenge and makes little sense for Utah.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,355
Santa Monica
Let's assume Celts owners are willing to pay the luxury and the repeater tax for purposes of this question. I know they likely have some limits there, but just as a thought experiment: would you consider Hayward/Poirer (or Hayward/opted-in Kanter) for Horford-JRich-a future 1st?

It's an interesting basketball fit for both teams. Horford's contract sucks, but half the last year is unguaranteed. I think you wouldn't do that as the Celtics, but it gave me pause....you backfill the wing, get a big who can play differently than Theis, and create some flexibility (JRich) beyond this year plus get hte future 1st. If you're the Sixers, you get a guy who helps you compete this year and you move off of some long-term money.

Of course, the other question is if you are willing to pay the tax is that better than just re-signing Hayward.
It's a good question (repeater tax aside)

Brad is pretty damn good at getting something out of misfit 5s. There's a chance the Brad Machine could rehab Al from last year's disaster of a season. You'd put Smart in the starting lineup. JRich becomes your veteran scorer off the bench.

Hayward is very efficient. Will he decline with age or improve as he distances himself from the injury? Also sometimes I think Gordon would be better coming off the bench and be the super 6th man. Theoretically, GH would see higher offensive usage without having to share the floor with the Jays/Kemba as much.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,355
Santa Monica
Why do we want either of those contracts, if money is an issue?
In the "real world", I don't want those contracts.

I was just answering Pedro's question on which worked better for a "basketball fit"

Let's assume Celts owners are willing to pay the luxury and the repeater tax for purposes of this question. I know they likely have some limits there, but just as a thought experiment: would you consider Hayward/Poirer (or Hayward/opted-in Kanter) for Horford-JRich-a future 1st?

It's an interesting basketball fit for both teams. Horford's contract sucks, but half the last year is unguaranteed. I think you wouldn't do that as the Celtics, but it gave me pause....you backfill the wing, get a big who can play differently than Theis, and create some flexibility (JRich) beyond this year plus get hte future 1st. If you're the Sixers, you get a guy who helps you compete this year and you move off of some long-term money.

Of course, the other question is if you are willing to pay the tax is that better than just re-signing Hayward.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
Yeah, I think Dallas is probably an option given that they want that third wheel for Lukazingis. But part of that will be Dallas being able to find a place to bury Tim Hardaway Jr and the filler to add in to make the deal work financially.

All Boston would get out of it is #18 and #33, but with the other two late firsts they would have the ability to trade up from either 18 or 14 to land a player they particularly wanted. Whether Okongwu, Vassell, or Hampton they'd all be in range.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
42,308
Does he really care about winning that much? When I see a guy playing in a blowout through the 4th quarter and padding his stats against 2nd teamers rather than resting up and being ready to win the next game, I see a guy who mostly cares about individual achievements. I'm sure that's probably a pretty harsh take - but I'd think as long as Houston doesn't completely suck, and Harden is able to put up his numbers, he'll be happy.
It's kind of harsh when you consider he played all of 1:45 more per game than Lebron, for a team that had more close games.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
I was talking w/ a Sixers fan tonight. He said there are Harden/Embiid+ murmurs since Morey joined.
That's the sort of deal Houston should be looking for. While dumping Westbrook on the Knicks (hopefully for #8).
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
42,308

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
42,308
Holiday’s $26.1 million salary is placed perfectly between Smart’s $13.5 million and Hayward’s $34.2 million player option to make salary matching a pain. He is actually just narrowly within the 125 percent matching range of Hayward and Walker, who is making slightly more than his teammate at $34.4 million. Pairing Smart with Langford and Vincent Poirier just gets you there, or instead deal him with a combination of Enes Kanter — if he opts into his player option as part of the deal — Semi Ojeleye (team option), Carsen Edwards or Javonte Green. So the Celtics can build a package around one of their core players that can net Holiday back.
The first candidate would be the Indiana Pacers, who could be amenable to sending Myles Turner and Doug McDermott to New Orleans to bring in Hayward. The Celtics wing is an optimal fit for their new offensive direction and Indiana is home for him. Boston would likely have to send the 14th overall pick to New Orleans since Turner has become a bit overrated at this point by the public, but that gives New Orleans a J.J. Redick replacement in McDermott and a good young center on an affordable deal who can hold down the middle as Jaxson Hayes slowly develops. New Orleans had interest in Turner last year, so they seem like a solid fit. But after an underwhelming season, New Orleans may need even more draft pick compensation to make this move.
We’ve wondered how Holiday could replace Smart or even Hayward, but what about Walker? Utah could be a partner if the Celtics want to shorten their cap horizon, with the Celtics sending Walker to the Jazz and the 14th pick to New Orleans, Mike Conley and the 23rd pick moving to Utah and Holiday heading to Boston. This takes a year off Boston’s long-term commitments and reduces the tax impact with Holiday’s lower salary. There is always a chance that Holiday could opt out of his player option next season in hopes of a max deal, but that is fairly unlikely at his age. While the Pelicans don’t get a proven young player, they clear the books for the 2021 free agency bonanza and add two rookies. This makes obvious sense for Utah after Conley struggled mightily last year, bringing in a clear upgrade at a fairly low price.
Then there is Chicago. With a completely revamped front office and coaching staff, the prudent move would be to remain cap nimble and accumulate young talent as they develop their recent draft picks. But if ownership decides it’s playoff time, they could pull off a deal of Otto Porter and Coby White to New Orleans with Walker heading to Chicago and Holiday going to Boston. White had a strong enough rookie season to justify Boston holding firm on draft pick compensation, so this is a more ideal arrangement from the Celtics’ end. If New Orleans values White highly, the Pelicans have the ideal long-term point guard to fit next to their playmaking wings.
Still, it’s hard to find a deal for Boston that truly stands out as something that can give New Orleans the kind of exciting future asset it could get from other teams. Miami can offer someone like Tyler Herro, while the Warriors could send over Andrew Wiggins and the Wolves’ top-3 protected 2021 draft pick. These are the kinds of rebuild pieces that could really lift New Orleans’ trajectory to contention down the road. The Celtics are already there and they don’t need to do something drastic to bring in someone like Holiday.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
Yeah, no thanks to sending out the best player and a lottery pick for a worse player that’s going to want a raise a year from now. Especially for the privilege of running out a smurfy backcourt. When we talk about smallball we usually mean going smaller and quicker in the frontcourt, not rolling out a sub-6’3” backcourt.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
42,308
It's the "throw things against the wall" phase of the offseason.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,561
Maine
And would Miami really trade Herro? I doubt it. Everyone is in love with him currently. He is almost untouchable. (with the NBA caveat that if you could get a top 10 for him then he is tradable.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
4,182
around the way
Thanks DJ. Good piece and good reminder to sub.

I think that I love Jrue more than most. But if a straight GH for JH trade doesn’t solve the money problem (or get us damn close), I don't see the benefit.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
My favorite trade is the Indiana/Boston/New Orleans one, it's on Boston to compensate the Pelicans for having to take Indiana's flotsam. Hey, here's an idea, how about Indiana give up picks for unloading their overpaid mediocrities?
 

tbrown_01923

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2006
544
My favorite trade is the Indiana/Boston/New Orleans one, it's on Boston to compensate the Pelicans for having to take Indiana's flotsam. Hey, here's an idea, how about Indiana give up picks for unloading their overpaid mediocrities?
I don't understand the proposals where Heyward + picks goes to Indianapolis and Turner and junk comes back scenarios. IMO Heyward is clearly a better player than Turner, why are folks suggesting that the celts wouod need to add picks to get that done? The value and length of the deals are different, but that can't be what is inspiring the suggestion that Heyward isn't enough (in exchange for turner).

Is this a result of very differnt views of both players? Am I overvaluing a helathy heyward and undervaluing turner?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
Yeah, Turner's an MLE level player making double that. Indiana would need to add serious value to the pot to compensate Boston for spending roughly $59 million for a mediocre 5. Hilariously the writer of that Athletic piece realizes that Turner is high priced flotsam, but thinks that Boston should compensate the Pelicans in that scenario.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,358
I think part of the challenge is understanding what exactly the value is that Boston is contributing by trading Hayward as this is sort of like a sign and trade, but not exactly, due to the opt out situation.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
I mean Hayward is going where he wants in these scenarios. So if he wants Indiana it will ultimately be Indiana, even if he has to force a sign & trade by opting out. But Boston isn't going to replace him with Holiday, who isn't exactly an iron man and is a pending free agent. And they're certainly not sending Walker to Utah a year after he signed his deal. That's just silly talk.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
It does but you can’t trade Walker without his cooperation. Well, you can, but you can’t expect agents to return your calls after that.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
I mean Kemba's a New York guy, and I'm sure if you said to him "Hey, we'd like to trade you because the finances are tight with a three year flat cap, and the Knicks want you," I'm sure he'd be amenable. Exile him to New Orleans without asking first and I'm pretty sure that agents won't return calls.
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
2,404
So what's this about Hayward wanting to opt out? Just more bored speculation during the offseason or does this Russillo guy have any good sources?

The Ringer’s Ryen Russillo said Tuesday that he heard the Celtics big man “does want out” of the final year of his $127.8 million contract he signed during the 2017 offseason.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
He's a borderline all star playing a minor role (for his skill/ability). You can see why he'd want to pay a larger role on another team.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,992
Palo Alto
Yech. I absolutely hate the idea of trading away draft picks just to get rid of players. I'm not saying it isn't the best move, necessarily, it just really sucks and seems like the epitome of poor management.
Its not necessarily poor management - they signed an asset that lost a tremendous amount of value through a random event (freak injury).
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
356
So what's this about Hayward wanting to opt out? Just more bored speculation during the offseason or does this Russillo guy have any good sources?
It could be a recognition that he does not have a long term future here. Even those of us who do not favor moving him for a TPE, do not think Danny is going to re-sign him next year at a market rate given the tax issues. If he opts-in, there is a risk he could be traded. If he opts out he controls his own destiny. Obviously, he's not opting out unless there is a landing spot already lined up that he likes. His agent is one of the best, so getting correct intel is not going to be an issue. As Nighthob notes, another consideration could be his role, including how that role would play into his opportunities as a FA next year.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
580
So what's this about Hayward wanting to opt out? Just more bored speculation during the offseason or does this Russillo guy have any good sources?
If we’re all going to speculate groundlessly, perhaps he wants the security of a long-term commitment? He has a young family, he’s already suffered one catastrophic injury, and he may be feeling some uncertainty about the game’s economics due to the pandemic.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,358
I completely agree that trading a player against their will is
Its not necessarily poor management - they signed an asset that lost a tremendous amount of value through a random event (freak injury).
This was with regards to Poirier and Kanter etc. Stapling picks to these players to get rid of them after signing them is poor management. It's an acknowledgement that the original signing was a mistake.
 

Buster Olney the Lonely

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2006
3,554
Atlanta, GA
From that Post article:
The Ringer’s Ryen Russillo said Tuesday that he heard the Celtics big man “does want out” of the final year of his $127.8 million contract he signed during the 2017 offseason. Hayward would be opting out of $34 million for the 2020-21 season.
Big man?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
I completely agree that trading a player against their will is


This was with regards to Poirier and Kanter etc. Stapling picks to these players to get rid of them after signing them is poor management. It's an acknowledgement that the original signing was a mistake.
On the contrary, keeping a guy just because you don't want to admit a mistake is bad management. The signing is a sunk cost at this point: the decision on whether to trade them should have zero to do with who signed them and whether it was a good or bad decision.

To be clear, I think Poirer was a mistake. But keeping him or not doesn't change that.