2016 Boston Celtics Offseason Thread

I'm not the biggest Griffin fan in the world, but he's starting to become underrated. It's kind of absurd to say you wouldn't give up Crowder for him.

I would agree if the contracts were remotely the same. They aren't. I wouldn't trade Crowder for any rental. Griffin is a one year rental gamble.

Griffin is 27 years old, and it's a guarantee they'd re-sign him to a long-term contract considering the cap is about to go up again.

I'm lukewarm on the trade idea for a number of reasons (recent string of injuries, tough to hide both Griffin and IT on defense, etc.), but he's still a very good player that would make the Cetics a lot more talented. In any event, though, let's wait till this is a legitimate rumor before getting bent outta shape about it?

That's fine we can wait but let's shift the conversation simply to Crowder and his fit on this squad.

First, do we agree that Crowder and his contract (4 more years) is one of the best contracts in the NBA?

Crowder is a perfect fit for a Brad Stevens team. His defensive versatility is incredibly important. Perimeter defense is extremely important in today's NBA and Crowder brings that along with the ability to switch down low. The counter argument would be that Brown and Rozier can step in and play that role. Maybe.... It will be a step down tho... That brings us to shooting. This team
.desperately needs shooting especially from its wing and back court positions. If you remove Crowder, then that's going to get worse.

That's all...

Except Crowder isn't a good shooter. Really never has been in his career.

His contract is incredible, but his play isn't. He's a good player, but someone who's worth jettisoning in a deal for a star/superstar and feel great about it. I love his switchability and toughness. He's a fit on any roster and scheme -- but I would easily give up Crowder for a top 10-15 player in the league.

Also, Boston can't sign Hayward and Blake next off-season, and trade for another higher paid player. They can sign one and trade for one. Which seems to be the most cost effective way to build the team, IMO. Just don't know how possible it will be, since they'll need to get 2 top 10 players next off-season.

Before trading for Griffin, they'd feel out his agent for how willing he'd be to re-sign long-term. If he's open to re-signing, I do that trade in a heartbeat, and I might do it even if I don't hear much either way. The odds that you can sign Griffin in free agency next year are close to zero-- the Clippers are either going to re-sign him, or they'll trade him to another team that will. Meanwhile, if you trade for him and offer him the five-year max, he's almost certainly going to re-sign.

Griffin is a young, top-20 or so player in the league with the ability to be a centerpiece of an offense in the pick-and-roll and in the post. That's the kind of player that almost never hits free agency and the kind of player you collected all those assets in order to give yourself a shot of acquiring. If you can get him for Crowder and non-core, non-Nets picks pieces, no question in my mind that that's a deal worth doing.

He's almost certainly going to sign with the Lakers, so they should trade him and get some value back. But Presti is a nitwit, so I can see them keeping him.

Ok hold on. Blake Griffin is a way better player than Jae Crowder, has developed a decent mid range game and even a little bit of 3 point range the last 2 years and is an excellent passer. This deal doesn't sound super plausible to me anyway honestly- the salaries don't match up at all, substituting Rudy Gay for Blake Griffin is a serious downgrade for the clips, and they haven't really seemed inclined to blow it up. But adding Griffin and losing Crowder would almost certainly improve this team next year. I don't really like the long term fit next to Horford and the injury concerns are legitimate, and I don't see this happening, but describing that deal as a disaster is hyperbole in my eyes. 

Edit: wow a lot of people already jumped on that one...

Per Wojo, Brooklyn signing Luis Scola.

You guys have a much higher outlook on who Griffin is as a player than I do. If they do get him, I hope you are right. He's a supposed star who can't get out of the second round with Chris Paul at his side and his playoff numbers are not up to par. That concerns me. Tells me when a team gets into a series where they truly game plan he's much easier to eliminate from being what he's supposed to be because he limited. Put him on a team with spacing issues as is then see what happens. Anyways, wcp is right it's not worth me getting bent out of shape over something that hasn't happened.

JMei and I both referenced the Carmelo Projections earlier and since we are in a "who is worth it" type of discussion, I thought it'd be interesting to show the categorization of the top tier talent per these rankings.

I think most agree that we really should be looking at All-Star or above type players since we have a lot of good starters/rotational guys. So here is how Carmelo ranks them:

MVP Candidates: Curry, Harden, Westbrook, Leonard, James

All-Stars: Millsap, K Walker, Butler, Jokic, Dr Green, Durant, George, Paul, D Jordan, Towns, A Davis, Lillard, Cousins, Lowry, Gobert, Wall

Borderline All-Star: Horford, Batum, Love, Griffin, Rubio, Favors, Hayward

Future All-Stars: M Smart, Irving, Drummond, Russell, Winslow, Antetokounmpo, Porzingis, S Adams, Gordon, Payton, Oladipo, Noel, O Porter

The lists and projections only mean so much but it was interesting to look at these groupings.

In theory, I would give up BRK picks for an MVP Candidate but, since Westbrook is the only 1 likely available and he'd be a flight risk then no.

All-Stars? Sure but only Cousins is currently in the mill and I'm really worried about hitching my wagon to him. George and Butler might be available at the break if things go south for their teams (George is my guy but . . . doubtful)

The borderline guys definitely fit into the nice but at what cost category (no way on BRK picks).

Anyway, not sure where I was going with this but thought it was interesting as one data point in the discussion of who would be the guys to go after with our assets.

I think Hayward would be a great fit, but Millsap is on the wrong side of 30 and I'd probably rather avoid him, though he's obviously an excellent player. But I'd clearly rather have Westbrook than either. Also I'm curious where you've seen that Westbrook has said he's going to LA whether they're good or not- I'm sorry but that does not sound like Russell Westbrook to me. Neither does "endorsement baby." The guy has done a lot of charity work and the like in OKC, and the most recent things I've heard have the Thunder reluctant to trade him because they think he may well sign an extension with them, and I wouldn't be altogether surprised if he does. But the idea that he's just gonna run to LA seems laughable to me- he's a borderline psychotic competitor, and it's pretty easy to see it just watching him play. If Russell steps up and plays well, Ingram shows quick development and flashes star potential and their overpriced veterans play up to their salaries, then sure he may well think about LA. But if he really wanted out of OKC and was "an endorsement baby" who was thirsting to play in a big market, then why did he ever sign an extension in OKC? The dude wants to win, and he's going to get paid wherever he goes, so just throwing up your hands and declaring him a Laker next year makes no sense to me