2012-2012 Celtics Season

God, the Celtics are almost unwatchingly bad these days. Courtney Lee is so athletic but seems to have completely forgotten how to shoot the 3 and cannot fight through the lightest screen. Rondo is unable to stay in front of anyone unless it's a TNT game. Green continues to insist on posting up even though he can only go right (drive or righty hook shot) and everyone knows it. Terry can't create anything off the dribble for himself or others other than a contested mid-range jump shot. It's just awful to watch.

Cousins for Bradley, Sullinger, and Melo? I'd probably do that deal with the understanding that the 2012-13 Celtics are probably dead in the water anyways and a Rondo/Cousins future wouldn't be the worst in the world.

His defense looks great. Conley has put up some points but most have been when Terry or Rondo are on him. Bradley's on-ball hounding looks like what it was last year and he forced a couple turnovers and blew up some pick-and-rolls. His jump shooting looks rusty but he scored on a couple great baseline cuts.

Unfortunately, the Grizzlies are incredibly hot from downtown (19th in the league in 3pt%, but are over 50% so far, including the first two 3s of Darell Arthur's five-year-career). That and guys like Bass and Terry continue to be tentative offensively and Garnett can't hit a jump shot.

This deadline cannot come fast enough.

I hate everyone on this team outside of Rondo, Pierce, KG and Bradley.

Yeah, everyone they acquired this offseason has sucked. Doc has sucked. Terry has been a disaster. Doc has sucked. Lee tries hard...but man, he's been bad. Collins is a stiff, yet Doc has him starting because he's lost his mind as a coach. Green is overpaid, although I don't think he's been as terrible as people say. Doc has sucked. Sullinger is fine for a rookie. He needs to play more next to KG. Doc has sucked.

That's a rant - not that coherent post of yours that's broken up into neat little paragraphs.

Obviously losing Rondo sucks, but one silver lining is that it might force Danny Ainge's hand. Either KG and/or Pierce could acquiesce to a trade if they realize that this year's team is dead in the water and next year's team could be as well. Both could return significant assets from a contending team-- Pierce only has $5m guaranteed on his contract next season and KG's on a super reasonable deal. A team like the Nuggets (Gallinari, Chandler, Koufos, Faried), Rockets (Asik, Patterson, Morris), Minnesota (Derrick Williams), or the Hawks (Josh Smith) might be willing to acquire Pierce/Garnett and send back younger assets that the Celtics could use to build the post-KG core. A team like the Clippers, Lakers, or Spurs might be interested but it would require a third team to be involved (or maybe you can make them take back Green's contract in return for expirings). Terry might also be of interest to teams looking for shooting and "clutch" (Memphis? Brooklyn?), and that team would probably be willing to swallow his contract and send back expiring contracts and/or picks.

Agreed-- that was really impressive energy and effort. Gives credence to the idea that the Celtics play up (and down) to opponents and that the veterans fall into lulls against bad teams in December but can turn it on when they need to. As bad as they looked at times in the regular season, it's a shame we didn't get to see this team in the playoffs.

My hope is that Boston would. Not that it's an unreasonable return for Pierce but I would just love to see Boston use Garnett and/or Pierce to try and get some combination of young big men, young PGs and draft picks.

Grantland has some "target" teams that Boston should go after. I like the idea of Utah with Enes Kanter as a target (would prefer Favors but I think that would be a non-starter for the Jazz).

I'd take back Marvin Williams and Raja Bell to get my hands on Kanter. Or maybe put Earl Watson or Jamaal Tinsley with some other salary in lieu of Bell.

Well, ****.

If we assume that Danny would only deal one of Pierce/Garnett if he can trade both Pierce and Garnett, the following combo of deals is the one I'd prefer:

Garnett, Avery Bradley to the Clippers for Eric Bledsoe, DeAndre Jordan and Trey Thompkins
Pierce and Jason Terry to the Warriors for Harrison Barnes, Jarrett Jack, Richard Jefferson and Festus Ezeli

You instantly set up the post-Garnett core with some very high-ceiling pieces in Bledsoe, Jordan, and Barnes, all of whom are young, athletic, and fast. That core would be desperately short on shooting, but would be a fun team to watch, with the ability to play ball-hawking defense and run the break.

I think the Clippers might be willing to trade Bledsoe if (a) they get a commitment from KG that he'll be mentally engaged in LA and he won't retire after the season and (b) if they get Bradley in return. I understand there's a small risk that Paul will leave in free agency, but I don't think anyone thinks he realistically would (none of the other teams with cap space are anywhere near title competition). Paul/Griffon/Garnett is as good of a two-way core as you're going to get, and it gives you at least two good years of title contention.

Barnes is a blue-chip prospect for me. He's a decent three-point shooter with the potential to improve and a very good mid-range shooter. Combine that with his size (6'8" with a 6'11" wingspan) and terrific athleticism, he's one of the few players that might be available who could blossom into the type of All-NBA player you need for realistic title contention (Bledsoe is another). It's easy to see him developing into a Joe Johnson/Paul Pierce-esque wing scorer (although note he's nowhere in their league as a passer; a slightly more efficient Luol Deng might be a better comparison). That said, there's always the possibility that he doesn't improve his handle enough to be a team's offensive fulcrum and ends up as a Marvin Williams-type.

The fact that KG would only accept a trade if Pierce is traded too makes this a sequential problem-- if you can first find a good deal for Pierce, you then might as well trade Garnett too before he loses any more value, but if you can't get a good enough return for Pierce, Garnett talks are useless due to his no-trade clause. The fact that so many of the 5-on-5 writers didn't realize that and proposed win-now-ish trades for Pierce was frustrating (Gasol? Al Jefferson? Millsap? Seriously?)-- if you're going to trade Pierce, you have to move KG (and maybe Terry), too.

The thing with OKC's package is that it's very high-risk high-reward, but since at that point you've hypothetically traded Pierce already, it's better than nothing. But I think we're in agreement that the Clippers package is much better, even if you have to trade away Bradley, and I think it's one they might seriously consider.

Sidenote: I'm really quite surprised how many Celtics fans think the team is still in contention this year and next with the current core. Without Rondo, the Celtics might have played a little better because they were better motivated and his absence promoted better ball movement, but without his creative genius (and Sullinger's much-needed rebounding), this team's ceiling is basically a tough seven game series in the second round, right? Next season is also a toss-up-- who knows whether Rondo and Sullinger will bounce back to what they were while KG/Pierce/Terry get a year older and Ainge is too capped-out to add any additional pieces. Of course, if you can't get some combination of salary relief/promising young players/draft picks at this year's trade deadline, Danny might have to keep the core intact, but if he gets offered anything close to the above deals, he has to take it.

We're not getting Bledsoe or Barnes. I'd love to, but that's not happening at all.

The OKC trade is the only one who has a sense of believability. Sadly, because that trade sucks.