Kemba Walker + 2021 First Round Pick to OKC for Al Horford, Moses Brown
- Thread starter Dr. Gonzo
- Start date
agreed.
saving Wyc money would be the end of the JAYs
so I doubt very much this is about saving ownership $$$ (added for clarity)
Last edited:
So what are our best to worst case outcomes:
Best.... Al plays pretty well for 1 year, then is used as part of a deal for a younger "star"
Good... AL is moved again this offseason in a deal for a younger "star"
Okay... Al is moved in either of the above for decent players not a star
Okay..... Al plays pretty well for 2 years
Bad... Al plays okay for a year then is cut to save Wyc money
Worst.. Al plays poorly then is cut to save Wyc money
Best.... Al plays pretty well for 1 year, then is used as part of a deal for a younger "star"
Good... AL is moved again this offseason in a deal for a younger "star"
Okay... Al is moved in either of the above for decent players not a star
Okay..... Al plays pretty well for 2 years
Bad... Al plays okay for a year then is cut to save Wyc money
Worst.. Al plays poorly then is cut to save Wyc money
It's a deepish draft. There was a chance #16 could have been pretty interesting. But, you know, probably not.
I'm not sure what OKC is going to do about roster spots. They have a lot of picks. They'll either need to trade them forward or be ready to make some quick decisions on guys.
Edit: The unspoken assumption here being that it's hard to consolidate picks to move up in the NBA draft unlike in football.
I'm not sure what OKC is going to do about roster spots. They have a lot of picks. They'll either need to trade them forward or be ready to make some quick decisions on guys.
Edit: The unspoken assumption here being that it's hard to consolidate picks to move up in the NBA draft unlike in football.
Last edited:
I'm thinking Kemba will be traded. OKC has a lot of expendable guys on the team right now. Other than Poku, SGA, Dort, and Maledon, it won't be hard to part with the Josh Halls and Jaylen Hoards of this world.
Forget the Kemba for Al part of this deal. If the C's drafted Moses Brown, an athletic 7'2" center who can rebound, block shots and run the floor, at #16, we'd probably all be doing back flips.
I know highlight films are just that, but man this guy looks like he's going to be fun to watch off the bench.
I know highlight films are just that, but man this guy looks like he's going to be fun to watch off the bench.
These "saving Wyc's money" takes remind me of six months of "saving Henry's money" takes after the Mookie trade. Those were silly too.
The near/middle-term future of this team is largely dependent on a young star saying “I want to play with Jayson Tatum” and the Celtics having the right mix of contracts and assets to make it happen.
I felt pretty meh about our ability to do this at any time before Kemba expired. I feel much better about it today, as our boy prepares for the Summer GM Meetings (Olympics).
I felt pretty meh about our ability to do this at any time before Kemba expired. I feel much better about it today, as our boy prepares for the Summer GM Meetings (Olympics).
Mookie made more sense, they were getting into penalties.
If the Celtics cut Al after this year in a season they won't have cap room it means they literally just wanted to save a small amount of money. If that's the case it would be pretty telling about how Wyc views the future of the Celtics in the Tatum era.
There are good reasons to want the flexibility Horford brings... saving 18M in cash isn't one of them.
I agree. Sure, it is possible that this is just about saving a lot of money. But it's really unrealistic to say "the owner should spend whatever" and be critical if they have SOME level of fiscal constraints. Similarly, if they are totally unwilling to pay the tax that deserves criticism---but (like with Henry) this ownership group has a pretty good track record on spending and posts that suggest they don't are pretty silly until they prove something has changed in a negative way for them.
Also, money is fungible---the idea that saving money year one doesn't matter in later years for sophisticated financial operators like the Celtics owners is asinine. Sure, they MIGHT not spend it but affirmatively claiming it doesn't matter is embarassingly uninformed and sophomoric. This isn't WEEI---we shouldn't be posting like it is. There is not always some sinister, evil, cheap motive and given the track record it's puzzling why anyone would conclude otherwise. They have regularly said explicitly they will spend when it impacts winning AND done it and even a simple review shows they do that in part by saving a big early and spending it when appropriate.
Last edited:
He violated UCLA's student conduct code late in the season and didn't play v. Utah, and I think there was some concern about an issue with his Achilles tendon bothering him.
But why keep insinuating that this is the motive behind the deal? What has Wyc shown that implies this as a possibility?
Right. Prior to dealing Kemba, any star deal probably would have had to include Kemba and an asset to take his contract.
The problem is that their best asset for that, the #16 pick, was going to turn into a player soon and lose its value for those trade purposes for some period, maybe forever.
Now they'd be sending a positive asset in the form of someone like Smart along with picks.
It’s hard to grade this trade on its own as others have said, but it definitely is a much needed first step in the process of getting a 3rd star around JB/JT. They have options now, which they didn’t before. The performances/return of Horford and Brown don’t really matter in the big scheme of things.
Kemba should have a little rebirth in OKC.
He'll be a top-scoring option, low-pressure environment, play happy-go-lucky, load-managed situation. I wouldn't be shocked if he opted out after posting some fat offensive #s in OKC
If you look back at Kemba's last 8 regular-season games with the Celtics, he flourished in that role.
This trade is a win/win for both teams.
Am I insinuating it?
I'm just saying it's the worst possible outcome of this trade, and it's an outcome people are speculating on.
Edit- to be clear, a bunch of reporters as well as people in this thread were talking about how they could cut al for $14.5M, I was pointing out that if that happens the trade was a massive failure because it was a 1st for Wyc saving money.
My guess is they want to trade Al next offseason for a player, and the team getting him would then cut him, letting him count for 26.5M in the deal, but the team getting him only having to pay 14.5M in real money.
They've got something like 10 picks to make over the next 2 years, 6 of which are first rounders. I guess they can just sell the second rounders, but man that's a lot of picks.
While Al the player ultimately matters less than Al the contract in this deal, I do like that we end up net neutral on good teammates. Buys some good will from the players and fans who already like Al. The fact that it’s a roster fit too is a bonus.
This aspect of the trade fascinates me, with opposing players dominating the C's in a game, immediately becoming the apple of Trader Danny's eye. The guy that most resembles this in recent years would be Kemba himself, with two games in 2019 where he went nuts. I remember this game in particular, 3/23/2019:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh9Yk19dhCo
...as I was sitting bored at a children's indoor playplace/arcade, watching the game on the big screen. Celts had the game in hand, and then Kemba went off in the 4th and buried them. He was a Celtic just a few months later.
As for the trade itself, it 100% makes sense. The C's have plenty of young mid-1st rounders to develop (or not), and getting Moses essentially replaces this year's#16. Big Al is essentially done, but so is Kemba's knee, alas.
in fairness, you have been banging the "save Wyc money as a motivation for trading Kemba" drum for a while
Also, if it is indeed a deep draft, there is often not much difference between 16 and, say, 25 which is in the range of where you can fairly easily acquire a pick if you love a guy.
Have I? I've just pointed out that unless they get under the cap there is no reason to worry about saving money. Salary slots are more important than cash, because it feels like there is a ton of discussion of "oh we have to get off that money so we can....."
The only thing that we know for sure is that the team just got a hell of a lot more flexible both on the court and off the court (potential trades and FA signings)
It really sucks that Kemba’s knee gave out on him (special shout out to Nick Nurse for playing him obscene minutes in the All Star game, I’m sure he would have done the same if Kemba was a Raptor player) but at this point it had to be done. The current iteration of Kemba was about as bad of a fit on this roster as possible and his salary made it even worse
It really sucks that Kemba’s knee gave out on him (special shout out to Nick Nurse for playing him obscene minutes in the All Star game, I’m sure he would have done the same if Kemba was a Raptor player) but at this point it had to be done. The current iteration of Kemba was about as bad of a fit on this roster as possible and his salary made it even worse
it's OK to bring it up, not trying to censor anybody.
BUT if Wyc is trying to pocket money by moving contracts we have a much bigger problem than Kemba's bad defense
Yes, like a PBS who just took a job that he didn't know involved wearing handcuffs for example. Or two young AllStars that will spend much of next year's downtime searching Zillow.
Let Mike Felger et al. hump this cow. That's their job.
I don’t think this is true. The problem is keeping the team together as is was going to be very expensive and they weren’t very good. Signing Fournier, keeping Smart, and extending Rob Williams all make sense. If you do all three of those things and still have Kemba the tax penalties are huge. Paying those penalties for a team that just got the seventh seed isn’t realistic. They need to save money somewhere and get better. I think this trade moves us in the right direction.
Honest question: Is there anything about the way Wyc has run the franchise over the years that makes you think that saving himself money was the motivator for this deal?
nope. Which is why I don't think he plans to make this move based on money, it's a hope of using Al as a trade piece. The only time there has seemed to be a clear cost cutting directive was this year to get below the tax (which was smart). My point was, that if people think this is about money then they should think it's a bad deal. If they think it is about future trade flexibility then it could be a good deal. I will say, given the last year across a number of sports, owners who never really cared about money suddenly do. Overall, I think this is a B- trade with some potential.
Edit- I was pointing out a good analysis of all the possible outcomes from Bernardoni, the response was that just saving tax is good by itself, which I don't agree with, saving tax $ without a reset and when not in the repeater is an owner being cheap, and that is bad.
exactly
+1 on PBS
yep, the only certainty in this deal is flexibility.
I've been humping "Horford for Kemba" all season long. Also paves the way for unloading TT.
Yeah, I don't think it's fair to suggest that, if they do end up cutting Al to save $14.5m on the tax next year, that is Wyc being "cheap." Because they could then use that $14.5m on something else (re-signing RWill, absorbing a third star's contract via trade, etc.). Every ownership group is going to have its own internal hard cap that they aren't willing to go above except in unusual circumstances - we don't know what that number is for Wyc but whatever it is, cutting Horford would put them farther away from that number, thereby increasing flexibility elsewhere.
(If they just cut Al after next year and then don't sign or trade for anyone else with that freed up money, then sure that's stupid. But I think there is roughly a zero percent chance of that happening.)
“Saving” money isn’t actually about making the owner richer, it’s about keeping roster-building mechanisms available such as the MLE, Bi-annual or sign-and-trade. Those options go away when you are in the tax or hard-capped. This team isn’t going to have meaningful cap space for a long time so marginal improvements are of paramount importance.
From my perspective, it’s a reasonable question to consider but I just don’t see any evidence that ownership is concerned about anything other than winning. Which is to say that it seems quite clear that the trade was made with an eye toward flexibility.
That said, a B-minus sounds about right…and about the best we could have hoped for without giving up more. But, other posters seem more optimistic about Brown’s future than you did in your assessment (I know nothing about him and therefore have no opinion worth offering), so maybe if he develops into something….
Initial thought was "oh God Brad is Doc Rivers and going after players that used to play for him or played well against him once." Really hoping that doesn't turn out to be the case. Probably an overreaction on my part.
I also don't get the saving money part of this. Kemba is as likely as not to opt out of his deal unless the knee is worse than we thought. The team may end up laying Al more than they would have Kemba.
Not loving this introduction to GMBS.
I also don't get the saving money part of this. Kemba is as likely as not to opt out of his deal unless the knee is worse than we thought. The team may end up laying Al more than they would have Kemba.
Not loving this introduction to GMBS.
I will admit I was surprised it only cost 1 first round pick to get rid of Walker, I expected it would be more expensive than that, especially this early on. Add in they get an interesting bench guy in return
Good deal for Stevens.
good deal for OKC as well of course, because Walker is irrelevant to them, as is the money for the next 2 years, so worth it in order to take a swing on the highest upside guy available at 16
Good deal for Stevens.
good deal for OKC as well of course, because Walker is irrelevant to them, as is the money for the next 2 years, so worth it in order to take a swing on the highest upside guy available at 16
If you take out the height, we already have an athletic center who can rebound, block shots and run the floor. And he was drafted at #27. And much better than Moses
There are 3 aspects of the deal
2nd for 2nd = draw basically slight win since we should be better than OKC for a while.
Kemba for Horford = huge win
16 for Moses = gain some floor, lose considerable ceiling
Agree with the first part, as I grew to REALLY dislike the destabilizing impact he had at both ends, but less sure about the second.
I suppose the door opens a crack wider for a big move, will let the capologists weigh in, but I don't seen enough addition by subtraction to make us real contenders.
At this point I think we're stuck in the middle (yeah, yeah).
Kemba is nowhere near (at the time of the deal arguably) the 2nd best player in the NBA
The best thing about this deal cap wise is that Horford's expiring is nice for salary matching. You send it out as 26.5M, but the team getting him back can cut him for $14.5M
So if you're doing a trade for a max type player next offseason, Horford is a better expiring match than a guaranteed one. It's a benefit but not a huge one.
Not really, no. He's much worse than TL was year 2 at everything other than rebounding. Way worse finisher, way worse passer, way worse defending space, worse at the rim defending.
Edit- TL was always a minutes limited guy, but his good minutes were amazing and he had tantalizing across the board skills, basically everything but shooting. Brown is an energy rebounder who hasn't really shown anything on offense, and is more inconsistent on D than TL with a lower ceiling