Fast forward to legitimate title contention...

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
The biggest problem with Favors is that he takes 20% of his shots from 16 ft or longer, but that are still 2's, and he's not that great at it (30% career). That's the worst shot in basketball. The question would be whether they could actually stretch his range to three point land. That's what Amir did in Toronto before he came to the Celtics. 70% of Amir's shots last year were either at the rim or 3 pointers. This is most of what led to his .612 eFG%. Favors took only 40% of his shots in those two ranges, and had a .490 eFG%.

So the question is whether you can break Favors of that habit. Shooting 25% from 3 is better than shooting 35% from 16 feet, and creates some of the extra spacing the Celtics like.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,961
That's a good point. The Celtics should definitely only trade Bradley -- who has one year left on his contract and is about to get way more expensive himself -- for a cost-controlled rim protector who rebounds and is also a really good offensive player. Those guys are a dime a dozen and you always get them in exchange for pending free agents who are undersized for their position.

Horford is a very capable stretch big, by the way. How exactly does it kill the Celtics spacing to put him alongside a center like Favors?
Because Horford can no longer chase guys around on the perimeter full time. So essentially you're burning out Horford for the sake of a rental, because it's not likely that the ownership agrees to go into luxury tax land for the sake of Favors' next deal. But if they do re-sign him it means punting on contention for the foreseeable future, and likely means trading Smart to avoid the luxury tax. Boston is a thousand percent better off with just future picks for Bradley.

Or if you insist on a player, dealing with the Sixers for Holmes and future picks. Because Holmes is a lot more versatile and a lot cheaper.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I was going to mention Holmes as well but figured I'd get laughed off the board. He had a solid finish to the year and can hit the 3. Plus, the 76ers don't really need him if Embiid is healthy and they still believe in Okafor. The 76ers could actually use AB too.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,961
I don't think they really believe in Okafor anymore, but with another 47 draft picks this year guys like Covington and Holmes are probably destined to go elsewhere. Plus if the Sixers are right and Simmons can run the offense from a F spot, then they really could use a solid vet like Bradley to provide floor spacing and to defend the PG spot.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Because Horford can no longer chase guys around on the perimeter full time. So essentially you're burning out Horford for the sake of a rental, because it's not likely that the ownership agrees to go into luxury tax land for the sake of Favors' next deal. But if they do re-sign him it means punting on contention for the foreseeable future, and likely means trading Smart to avoid the luxury tax. Boston is a thousand percent better off with just future picks for Bradley.

Or if you insist on a player, dealing with the Sixers for Holmes and future picks. Because Holmes is a lot more versatile and a lot cheaper.
Favors is a 25-30 minute a game guy, max. His presence doesn't "burn out Horford," because they play together based on matchups, and in matchups where the other team has an excellent stretch 4 Favors is a better choice to be guarding that 4 anyhow. When Horford's off the floor, or you're playing against two traditional bigs, you get the benefit of Favors rim protection, as well.

Favors is most likely a rental. Just like the guy you're trading for him. Sure, you'd love to get a useful, cost-controlled, long-term piece in exchange for that. But there's no guarantee you get it, because teams are going to be hesitant to give that up in exchange for Bradley, who may well bolt in free-agency.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,820
I don't think they really believe in Okafor anymore, but with another 47 draft picks this year guys like Covington and Holmes are probably destined to go elsewhere. Plus if the Sixers are right and Simmons can run the offense from a F spot, then they really could use a solid vet like Bradley to provide floor spacing and to defend the PG spot.
I'm interested to see what happens with Covington. I'm sure they want to extend him, as he's become one of the best perimeter defenders in the league and a good fit with Simmons and Embiid, but as an undrafted guy who hasn't made much in his career, he's going to want to get paid. Things get really interesting if they take Isaac, Jackson or Tatum.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
That's demonstrably not so---Amir played 20 minutes a game and Zeller (on average, with variation of course and missed games) 10.
So where does Zizic fit in? He's not a stretch big.
Amir Johnson is a way better shooter than Derrick Favors, though. He may not be a stretch five, but he is at least a threat from deep. He shot .409 on 1.5 3PA/36 minutes.

I think the Celtics clearly value floor spacing from their bigs. It is worth rolling the dice on a high upside player like Zizic. But Favors doesn't offer enough as a traditional big to make it worth it.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Zizic is also young enough and a decent enough FT shooter where he may develop a 3 point shot. If Favors can extend his game beyond the arc, that obviously changes things.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Amir Johnson is a way better shooter than Derrick Favors, though. He may not be a stretch five, but he is at least a threat from deep. He shot .409 on 1.5 3PA/36 minutes.

I think the Celtics clearly value floor spacing from their bigs. It is worth rolling the dice on a high upside player like Zizic. But Favors doesn't offer enough as a traditional big to make it worth it.
Favors isn't worth what? What do you realistically think Bradley's value is a year before free agency? I'd be surprised if an undersized, defense-first two guard who doesn't actually rate as a good defender nets a valuable pick.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Favors isn't worth what? What do you realistically think Bradley's value is a year before free agency? I'd be surprised if an undersized, defense-first two guard who doesn't actually rate as a good defender nets a valuable pick.
I don't think Favors is worth targeting as an asset to acquire if we are planning to clear cap space to make a run at a free agent. We probably need another big if Yabusele is not ready, but I can't see them adding a very average power forward at $12m salary.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
29,649
I think the reason to add Favors (and I'm not sure that's really a deal that would happen, only that it's interesting) is that he has the potential to be a terrific fit and if he is, you can figure out how to resign him later. If he's not a fit, you just let him walk.

For me, you'd do that deal after you signed a shooting SF this offseason and drafted Fultz, which is the combo that makes AB desireable to deal and you need a big.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,961
Favors is most likely a rental. Just like the guy you're trading for him. Sure, you'd love to get a useful, cost-controlled, long-term piece in exchange for that. But there's no guarantee you get it, because teams are going to be hesitant to give that up in exchange for Bradley, who may well bolt in free-agency.
The difference is that Bradley's Bird Rights have value whereas Favors have none to Boston for the reasons I explicitly outlined.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
I don't think Favors is worth targeting as an asset to acquire if we are planning to clear cap space to make a run at a free agent. We probably need another big if Yabusele is not ready, but I can't see them adding a very average power forward at $12m salary.
$12 million is chump change in this market. And the entire Favors suggested was premised on the idea that they miss out on Hayward. Adding Favors for Bradley does not mean they can't target a non-max guy. That's basically what Marvin Williams, Meyers Leonard, and Mitzi Telefonica got.
 
Last edited:

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
$12 million is chump change in this market. And the entire Favors suggested was premised on the idea that they miss out on Hayward. Adding Favors for Bradley does not mean they can't target a non-max guy. That's basically what Marvin Williams, Meyers Leonard, and Mitzi Telefonica got.
We are arguing in circles so this will be my last post.

Without Hayward, Griffin or perhaps Millsap we don't have the firepower to match the Cavs anyway. So what is the point in trading a legitimate asset for a one year rental of an average player than gets us no closer to beating the Cavs and Warriors? We might only be able to get a late first round pick for Bradley, but a cost controlled bench player for seven years is still more valuable than one year of Favors.
 

cumicon

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2007
86
I thought this was an interesting article making a case for an option that hasn't received much consideration: http://www.celticshub.com/2017/06/02/take-celtics-win-title-todays-nba/

cliffs: The Celtics should be eyeing the 2019/20 season and beyond as when their title window opens. Trading our best players now for future assets probably gives the Celtics the best chance at putting together a title contending team in that window.

I can't really see Ainge taking that approach. I think he is going to try to stay competitive while building for 2019/20+, but I do tend to agree that trading Isaiah, Horford, Bradley, etc would give the Celtics the greatest chance of winning a title in the next 10 years.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
17,794
Somewhere
There are a bunch of reason why firesales are a dumb idea, but I'll just outline a few

1) You rarely get anything close to reasonable return on your players (BKN trade is the obvious exception)
2) You're passing up opportunity cost when great players become surprisingly available (Cousins is sort of an example of this, Garnett is an even better one)
3) If there is an obvious window of opportunity that you're targeting, other teams are going for that, too. The best deals are often made when the competition is napping.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
We are arguing in circles so this will be my last post.

Without Hayward, Griffin or perhaps Millsap we don't have the firepower to match the Cavs anyway. So what is the point in trading a legitimate asset for a one year rental of an average player than gets us no closer to beating the Cavs and Warriors? We might only be able to get a late first round pick for Bradley, but a cost controlled bench player for seven years is still more valuable than one year of Favors.
Explain to me why Avery Bradley is a legitimate asset and Derrick Favors is not? For what it's worth, I actually don't think either is much of an asset due to their pending UFA. But I challenge the assertion that Bradley's certain to net a first round pick. He's undersized, his defense is overrated, and most importantly. he's about to be an unrestricted free agent. Maybe he gets you a late first, but the Celtics basically have an endless collection of cost controlled bench players. What they need is NBA starters. Given where the Celtics are, there's no reason they can't find a balance between trying to compete now (without pushing all of their chips to the center of the table) and building for the future. The late first round pick that Bradley nets you isn't valuable enough to them in my mind to prioritize that over a better short-term fit.

A Favors-Bradley swap is basically an acknowledgement that neither player nets a ton of value in a trade, but a swap helps both teams from a roster fit standpoint in the short term.

Edit: Also worth mentioning that Favors isn't necessarily a rental. I suspect he'd price himself out of the Celtics future plans when he's not playing alongside Gobert, but it's not necessarily the case. It's worth something to gain access to his bird rights, where as it's worth much less for the Celtics to have access to Bradley's Bird Rights with Fultz the likely #1 pick. Hell, they might not even have a roster spot for a late first round pick this year.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
You'd trade Bradley for a 2018 1st round pick most likely, so the roster spot isn't an issue. Plus with the roster expanding to 17 this year, it's probably not an issue anyway.

You're also acknowledging the Celtics need NBA starters. Do you think Favors is an NBA starter? On the Celtics, I guess he would be. He seems more like a 20-25 minute guy.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
You'd trade Bradley for a 2018 1st round pick most likely, so the roster spot isn't an issue. Plus with the roster expanding to 17 this year, it's probably not an issue anyway.

You're also acknowledging the Celtics need NBA starters. Do you think Favors is an NBA starter? On the Celtics, I guess he would be. He seems more like a 20-25 minute guy.
I think a big can be both a 25-30 minute guy and a starter in today's NBA. Amir Johnson's a good example.

I also don't think anybody here has a real sense of just how good Favors is. Look at what he did last season, before he was asked to play alongside of Gobert and try and develop new skills. He's a solid if unspectacular modern NBA big man. Owning his rights has value, and fills a need for the Celtics without adding salary, committing to longterm money without seeing results first, or giving up anything of particular value.
 

Ale Xander

doesn't like to back it in
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
61,760
A Favors-Bradley swap is basically an acknowledgement that neither player nets a ton of value in a trade, but a swap helps both teams from a roster fit standpoint in the short term.

Edit: Also worth mentioning that Favors isn't necessarily a rental. I suspect he'd price himself out of the Celtics future plans when he's not playing alongside Gobert, but it's not necessarily the case. It's worth something to gain access to his bird rights, where as it's worth much less for the Celtics to have access to Bradley's Bird Rights with Fultz the likely #1 pick. Hell, they might not even have a roster spot for a late first round pick this year.
You want to overpay for Favors? That's worth negative.
 

Ale Xander

doesn't like to back it in
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
61,760
That's not at all what I said. If you can get him at the right price, and he's been effective, I'd resign him.

But way to assume an overpay. That's a really valuable contribution to the conversation.
Paying someone a Bird rights contract is by definition an overpay. You're paying someone more than the rest of the league (i.e. market) can, because you can go over the salary cap. After you have that person signed, you have less flexibility to make moves. That's negative value.

Bird rights should be used for someone that is irreplaceable, the best at their position, like a Lebron or a Durant, or a Bird.

They're called Bird rights, not M.L. Carr rights.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Paying someone a Bird rights contract is by definition an overpay. You're paying someone more than the rest of the league (i.e. market) can.

Bird rights should be used for someone that is irreplaceable, the best at their position, like a Lebron or a Durant, or a Bird.

They're called Bird rights, not M.L. Carr rights.
This is wrong. Bird Rights let you exceed the salary cap to re-sign somebody, but do not dictate the salary level in any way.
 
Last edited:

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Paying someone a Bird rights contract is by definition an overpay. You're paying someone more than the rest of the league (i.e. market) can, because you can go over the salary cap. After you have that person signed, you have less flexibility to make moves. That's negative value.

Bird rights should be used for someone that is irreplaceable, the best at their position, like a Lebron or a Durant, or a Bird.

They're called Bird rights, not M.L. Carr rights.
That's a neat attempt to edit what you said initially to try and make it less wrong. But it's still wrong.

Bird Rights are in no way "by definition an overpay." They have no bearing on the actual dollar value of a contract, and do not require you to pay more than the rest of the league can because you're going over the cap. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what Bird Rights are. The Cavs, for instance, used Bird Rights this offseason to re-sign Richard Jefferson. He got 2 year deal worth 5 million dollars. That money has nothing to do with what the rest of the league could offer; hell, a team with max space could have offered Jefferson the max if they'd had any inclination to do so. Bird Rights only gives teams the ability to exceed the cap to retain a player. It has nothing to do with the amount or length of the contract.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
28,214
cliffs: The Celtics should be eyeing the 2019/20 season and beyond as when their title window opens. Trading our best players now for future assets probably gives the Celtics the best chance at putting together a title contending team in that window.

I can't really see Ainge taking that approach. I think he is going to try to stay competitive while building for 2019/20+, but I do tend to agree that trading Isaiah, Horford, Bradley, etc would give the Celtics the greatest chance of winning a title in the next 10 years.
I disagree. The Cs are going to rise and fall on Smart, Brown, Fultz and whoever they get next year. If those 4 can form the basis of a championship team, that's great. If not, whatever the Cs get for Bradley, Al, and IT4 probably isn't going to make a difference.

DA is aware of this, which is why he tried last year to trade IT4 and others for a lottery pick. So the Cs will continue down the same path and see what they can get.

Speaking of which, wonder if Hayward looks at the Ws and realizes he isn't going to beat them with the Jazz.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
19,307
I disagree. The Cs are going to rise and fall on Smart, Brown, Fultz and whoever they get next year. If those 4 can form the basis of a championship team, that's great. If not, whatever the Cs get for Bradley, Al, and IT4 probably isn't going to make a difference.

DA is aware of this, which is why he tried last year to trade IT4 and others for a lottery pick. So the Cs will continue down the same path and see what they can get.

Speaking of which, wonder if Hayward looks at the Ws and realizes he isn't going to beat them with the Jazz.
For what it's worth, he denied this. Since he's one of the few GMs that seems to shoot straight, I tend to believe him. As he pointed out, it makes no sense that he'd try to move IT for a lottery pick a week before he was pitching the current Celtics to Al Horford and Kevin Durant. He wasn't going to jeopardize that opportunity for a lottery pick in a relatively weak draft.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Try reading again.
It's your wording, not him.


I disagree. The Cs are going to rise and fall on Smart, Brown, Fultz and whoever they get next year. If those 4 can form the basis of a championship team, that's great. If not, whatever the Cs get for Bradley, Al, and IT4 probably isn't going to make a difference.

DA is aware of this, which is why he tried last year to trade IT4 and others for a lottery pick. So the Cs will continue down the same path and see what they can get.

Speaking of which, wonder if Hayward looks at the Ws and realizes he isn't going to beat them with the Jazz.
I don't disagree with this but there's also the outside chance they get lucky with a later pick. Landing a Khris Middleton type with a late first or early 2nd goes a long way, nevermind landing a Jokic. It's also possible Yabu becomes Zach Randolph instead of Big Baby, that Zizic develops into a rich mans Steven Adams with a 3 point shot instead of just Steven Adams, that Terry Rozier develops the offensive game of Jamal Crawford etc. None of those are likely, but they happen often enough that you can't rule them out entirely. I also think the chances of Zizic developing into a starter is pretty decent. Most redrafts I've seen have Zizic going higher than Jaylen Brown so I wonder if people are underestimating Zizic's ceiling.

edit: Zizic played in the same league as other bigs like the aforementioned Jokic, Nurkic, and Pekovic with similar success at the same age. His passing definitely needs work though.
 
Last edited:

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
3,997
Saint Paul, MN
I think you will find concensus around the league that Bradley is far more valuable than Favors. Bradley's reputation as one of the better man to man defenders in the league coupled with his three point shooting make for an enticing player. If Boston wants to move him for cap space, they will not have a difficult time finding someone willing g to give up a future first.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,961
Yeah, you explicitly outlined them. And I explicitly outlined why I disagreed with your assessment. Look at us, having different opinions.
Let's try this a different way, Favors has no use to Boston long term because they would have to trade better players to avoid the luxury tax in order to keep him. Most teams trading for Bradley would be doing so in order to acquire his Bird Rights and lock him up long term.

As for your silly claims on the defense, what kills him is that he's 6'2" playing most of his minutes with a 5'9" running mate, meaning that he has to do all the heavy lifting. The teams that would have interest in Bradley aren't running their offense through an undersized PG. So Bradley would be in the position of doing what he does best, defending PGs and shooting open threes.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Let's try this a different way, Favors has no use to Boston long term because they would have to trade better players to avoid the luxury tax in order to keep him. Most teams trading for Bradley would be doing so in order to acquire his Bird Rights and lock him up long term.

As for your silly claims on the defense, what kills him is that he's 6'2" playing most of his minutes with a 5'9" running mate, meaning that he has to do all the heavy lifting. The teams that would have interest in Bradley aren't running their offense through an undersized PG. So Bradley would be in the position of doing what he does best, defending PGs and shooting open threes.
AB seems like a guy who would have a lot of interests around the league and would easily net a mid to late first round pick. He'd be a great fit in NO, although I guess NO would want some type of protection. Houston, Milwaukee would be great fits too. Kyle Korver netted a 1st. People are overvaluing mid to late first round picks, undervaluing AB, or both.

Rodney Hood + Favors for AB and one of Smart/Rozier works. I doubt that changes anyone's minds. I'm not sure how Hood is received on these boards but he seems like he'd be a really good fit due to his height but his wingspan is kinda meh. AB+Smart seems like way too much though.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Let's try this a different way, Favors has no use to Boston long term because they would have to trade better players to avoid the luxury tax in order to keep him. Most teams trading for Bradley would be doing so in order to acquire his Bird Rights and lock him up long term.

As for your silly claims on the defense, what kills him is that he's 6'2" playing most of his minutes with a 5'9" running mate, meaning that he has to do all the heavy lifting. The teams that would have interest in Bradley aren't running their offense through an undersized PG. So Bradley would be in the position of doing what he does best, defending PGs and shooting open threes.
Again, we disagree. Or rather, you're making assumptions I'm not willing to make. We don't really know what the Celtics roster will look like next summer, which is part of why I like Favors for them in the short-term. Favors allows them to address a need without having to use a big asset or commit to any longterm money.

As for whether or not Favors makes sense longterm in Boston, I'm not sure anybody is really in a position to say. The idea that they would necessarily have to trade better players to avoid the luxury tax is far from a certainty, and if that is indeed the case, they don't have to keep him and all they've lost in the process is Avery Bradley who the C's will also have a lot of difficultly keeping. Favors allows them to address a position of need and free up minutes for Fultz, Rozier, Smart, etc. It's hard to project where this team's cap is in a year. Do they bring back Olynyk? At what price? Amir? What's IT worth to them? What do they do in free agency this year?

As for my "silly claims on defense," you just provided a reason why my silly claims are correct. He hasn't been a good defender because he has no positional versatility. He can guard one position, and can only be matched with another guard who can run the point on defense but defend 2s. That's a limiting factor for any player, and when you throw in the fact that he's an upcoming UFA, it depresses his trade value even further. The board has had this conversation -- maybe even in this thread -- and it's pretty hard to find an obvious trade fit for Bradley. Houston gets mentioned a lot, but I'm not sure why Houston would prefer paying Bradley more when they have Beverley and Gordon who, combined, make less than Bradley will in FA. Philly was linked to Bradley at the deadline, but apparently wasn't interested in Boston's price. Given where they are as a franchise, their first round picks are going to be off the table, and Holmes should be too. A cheap, cost-controlled PF with upside should be worth more to Philly than Bradley.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
AB seems like a guy who would have a lot of interests around the league and would easily net a mid to late first round pick. He'd be a great fit in NO, although I guess NO would want some type of protection. Houston, Milwaukee would be great fits too. Kyle Korver netted a 1st. People are overvaluing mid to late first round picks, undervaluing AB, or both.

Rodney Hood + Favors for AB and one of Smart/Rozier works. I doubt that changes anyone's minds. I'm not sure how Hood is received on these boards but he seems like he'd be a really good fit due to his height but his wingspan is kinda meh. AB+Smart seems like way too much though.
I think folks are overvaluing AB. He's a nice player at his current contract. At twice that? I dunno. Why would Houston, for instance, pay AB when they have Gordon and Beverley who can do the same thing for less? Milwaukee is already over the cap for next season, and they're still going to have to pay Parker. AB also plays the same position as Middleton and they have a very nice, cheap backup at that 2 in Malcom Brogdon. The Pelicans are awful at the guard position, so it's not a bad thought, but they don't have a pick to trade for another 3 years.

It's easy enough to say AB would have a lot of interest. It's a lot harder to find a team willing to give up an asset AND pay him. Why not just wait to pay him?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
You are assuming any team who trades for him will want to sign him long term. The Pelicans also have their 2018 1st round pick? Where are you seeing that they don't? http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/draft/future_drafts/detailed

I'd also love Richaun Holmes but I'm not sure you'd get Holmes+ for Bradley. Probably just Holmes if that. He really stepped up in the 2nd half. It would also depend on what the 76ers plan to do next year. If they want to make a push for the playoffs, AB would help them more than the redundant Richaun Holmes. AB fits in nicely. As for the Bucks, Middleton also plays a lot of SF and since they have Giannis, they could play AB at PG anyway. Milwaukee is so ridiculously tall and versatile they could make almost any player fit and Jabari won't be back until February. Plus Beasley and Terry are leaving and they combined for 30+ minutes this year. Their bench could use improvement and once fully healthy, a Monroe/Snell/Brogdon bench is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
IT4 would actually look really good in Milwaukee. I don't think they'd have the pieces to trade for him though, at least realistically. Greek Freak isn't going anywhere, no one is trading for an injured Jabari and Middleton is half the reason IT4 would look great in Milwaukee. They do have Snell and Brogdon though so they could theoretically do without Middleton.
 
Last edited:

Ale Xander

doesn't like to back it in
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
61,760
I think folks are overvaluing AB. He's a nice player at his current contract. At twice that? I dunno. Why would Houston, for instance, pay AB when they have Gordon and Beverley who can do the same thing for less?
This can't be serious. AB is a great defender and Eric Gordon is a horrible defender. Gordon brings nothing to the table except long range shooting.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Do they still have Louis Williams? I'd say that would kill AB to Houston. I can't see them having Beverly, Gordon, Williams and AB. From what I can tell, Williams is signed next year for 7mil?
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,551
Houston and Milwaukee don't make a lick of sense as AB destinations. Milwaukee already has Middleton at the 2, plus Snell and Brogdon off the bench. He also doesn't fit their team concept at all. Houston makes even less sense as they have a better, cheaper version in Beverly plus Gordon and Williams off the bench.

Utah makes the most sense of any team I've heard but only if he's between Hill and Hayward and if that's the case there is little impetus for Boston to move him there.

Bradley is a nice player but he has his warts and he needs to be on a team with a PG that can guard 2s. There just aren't a lot of teams where he fits.
 
Last edited:

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
10,410
Toscana via Kyiv
IT4 would actually look really good in Milwaukee. I don't think they'd have the pieces to trade for him though, at least realistically. Greek Freak isn't going anywhere, no one is trading for an injured Jabari and Middleton is half the reason IT4 would look great in Milwaukee. They do have Snell and Brogdon though so they could theoretically do without Middleton.
Milwaukee is the one who'd say no in a Jabari for IT trade.
 

cumicon

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2007
86
There are a bunch of reason why firesales are a dumb idea, but I'll just outline a few

1) You rarely get anything close to reasonable return on your players (BKN trade is the obvious exception)
2) You're passing up opportunity cost when great players become surprisingly available (Cousins is sort of an example of this, Garnett is an even better one)
3) If there is an obvious window of opportunity that you're targeting, other teams are going for that, too. The best deals are often made when the competition is napping.
I don't think these points carry as much weight when taken in context of the current state of the NBA and the state of the Celtics. There are 2 dominant teams, and while I don't think the Cavs are totally insurmountable for the Celtics, I find it very hard to see a scenario where the Celtics can put together a team to get past the Warriors as well in the next couple years.

1) This is certainly true, but a case can be made that getting $.50 on the dollar is better for the Celtic's future than running out the same core that has close to no chance of winning a title the next two years. In addition, the Celtics would be capped out in 2019/20 with aging players, limiting the their flexibility right when the window is opening.
2) I'm not sure I agree with this. With the new CBA it is less likely that truly great players will become available. If one were to be available, the Celtics would still be an attractive option as a team on the rise with assets to trade.
3) Other teams might be targeting that window, but there won't be many others better situated than the Celtics.

My biggest concerns with the all out rebuild are:
1) Trading Horford right after signing him would be a bad look to future free agents.
2) The young players development. I think making them have to earn their playing time will be a good thing compared to just handing them 30mins a game as a rookie.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,551
Even when factoring in defense Gordon is a much better player overall than Bradley. He is also a much better fit in the Houston offense.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,096
Regardless of what the advanced stats say about Avery's defense, the guy is reigning 1st team all defense. There are going to be some NBA GMs & coaches who think he's a great defender. He measured 6'3 with 6'7 wing he can match up physically with about half the starting SGs in the league, it's just the bigger stronger ones who have physical advantages to post him or shoot over him, but he can still effectively disrupt their dribbles. Pair him with a bigger PG and those issues largely disappear (i.e., IT is probably the worst possible pairing in the league for him). I believe there's going to be some teams out there who want him in their future, and would give up a 1st to make it happen.

The SG position on the Pacers has the potential to be a dumpster fire if 30-year old CJ Miles walks as an UFA (backups Ellis and Stephenson are horrible). Their GM might think that Turner, PG, Avery, Teague, Thad Young is a decent core that are all 28 or younger. Danny might want to flip AB for their 2019 1st to bet that PG13 walks after 2017-18 and the team implodes.