SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2017 Celtics offseason
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 27, 2017 10:22:32 GMT -5
Looking at Kaufman's tweet that started this all there are several possibilities:
1. Like many tweets of this nature, it's bunk
2. The trade DOES depend on Hayward signing but it's OR not AND
3. The literal interpretation - trade for PG with an extension after signing Hayward
4. The trade happens but the terms of the trade and any contract with PG is conditional on GH but in a non-intuitive way.
After reading a lot from the likes of CelticsBlog, CelticsHug, Ryan Bernardoni and Heat Hoops I'm actually wondering if #4 is the most likely (of the non-bunk options).
#3 doesn't make sense as RJP points out. George would be limited to 4.5% raises in an extend and trade. The other option would be a renegotiate (to the max), extend and trade. This would require Boston to clear enough for Max while also keeping $10 available for a renegotiation of PG's $19Mn.
#2 is possible but counter to everything we've been reading/interpreting.
#4 could be it. The non-intuitive part would be that the "renegotiate/extend" piece happens if GH DOESN"T sign. IF he signs, Boston makes a deal (with a smaller return for Indy given the risk) and is more confident that PG will re-sign in the offseason given what they have. If Hayward DOESN'T sign, Boston wants to add 1 more star anyway and gives up more to get PG13. They give up more to get him and give him a renegotiated and extend contract.
The question on that is that we know why PG would give up the idea of going to the Lakers to join GH on a top East team. Would he do so without that? Maybe. It goes counter to what we've been reading but . . .
So interested in how this goes down (if at all).
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 27, 2017 12:30:01 GMT -5
Was just watching some highlights of Luca Doncic... damn that kid looks smooth and playing for Real Madrid too... damn... Free Agency is going to be exciting for a lot of reasons... the Nets obviously will try to get better but the Lakers, if they don't get George via trade really shouldn't be. Even though they have no draft reason to Tank they have 2018 free agency reasons not to add salary. So basically, if the Celtics can add Hayward and trade for George it really helps them with the Lakers selection. Having two top 5 picks in next years draft would be epic. Well I guess the Nets could spend and get some role players, but I don't see them improving out of the three worst teams in the NBA. The Lakers pick is a valid point and another reason along with the 1000 other reasons why they should trade for George after signing a free agent like Griffin or Hayward. So far the great reasons why the Celtics should trade for George I got is- 1) Better chance of resigning him 2) Adding to the Celtics chances of landing a top 5 pick with the Lakers pick 3) Making next year's team a championship contender 4) Adding a top 10 talent in the league 5)Getting something of value for a expiring contract like a Avery Bradley I should try not to get my hopes up too high though. I'll be really disappointed if the Celtics just add Griffin or Hayward, even though that would be still really great for the Celtics. I wouldn't just look at how the Nets improve, but at the teams looking to rebuild like the Bulls and Hawks. If the Bulls buy out Rondo and Wade, they are now a bottom 5 team. Same with Hawks if they don't sign Millsap, after trading Howard. Those teams will have every reason to tank. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 27, 2017 13:02:51 GMT -5
I'm going to go against the grain here a little bit. I don't want to trade for George with an extension. First, it's kind of unrealistic to expect him to sign an extension as a condition of the trade - there is no financial benefit for him to do so other than security and I really hope he's past the security stage of earnings. Secondly, the cost would likely go up to acquire him. I would gamble on him resigning if you can get him for Bradley, Crowder plus say the Celtics and Clippers picks next year. I just don't see that happening. If they don't want Love why would they want Bradley and Crowder? Per report's they want high draft picks and young players. That's why Cleveland tried to get Denver to take Love and ship picks and young players to the Pacers. I can see the Pacers taking Crowder, he's a great asset they can flip down the road. They are going to want a good young player or a good pick. If they were going to just trade him for a crappy deal he would have been dealt by now. There GM is being Smart, unlike the Bulls GM. If I had to guess it would be Crowder, Bradley and the Lakers pick. The other way it could work is finding a third team to take Bradley and send the Pacers the assets they want. A team like the Pistons makes sense. They send Ellenson, Johnson and a first round pick to the Pacers. We send Crowder and some picks to them and we get George. Reports are the 3 team trade between the Cavs, Pacers and Nuggets is dead. Thing is I wouldn't be surprised to see them try and make it work again after free agency. It just makes sense. The Nuggets really need Love and have a ton of good young players. They can offer players like Harris, Mudiay, Beasley and Hernangomez. All that being said it just doesn't make a ton of sense to sign Hayward and trade for George. Why not sign Griffin and trade for George? That seems to make more sense. You can go small and play Griffin at center. I just don't like the mix of George, Hayward, Tatum and Brown. I've had my fill of watching the Celtics get out rebounded every game. I like small ball in small stretches to create mismatches, but I don't want to see a full game of it. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 27, 2017 13:38:41 GMT -5
Woj is now reporting the plan as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 27, 2017 14:05:40 GMT -5
I'm not sure why you said what I suggested you can't see then suggested he same players and changed the pick.
That being said, Woj said that they were working on a 3 team deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 27, 2017 14:09:26 GMT -5
Kaufman reporting that it's Crowder, Salary, LAL/SAC/PHI pick and either MEM or LAC pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by prangerx on Jun 27, 2017 16:55:30 GMT -5
I think you go with Hayward and Jackson if you can. Hayward is a much better player and Griffen is too injury prone. The match ups don't really matter when you are dealing with great players. Griffen is fine as a plan B but he isn't the player he was years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 27, 2017 17:29:18 GMT -5
Jackson?
|
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 27, 2017 17:34:54 GMT -5
The celtics are on the verge of blundering big time. Forget trying to win it all this year. The Celts are not getting past Cleveland. Bide your time. From what I understand there is no way to resign George. He is going to go to LA. Therefore they had better not give up so much for a rental. And to sign him for max money as if he is near the tops in the NBA - he isn't. He's a real good player. Very Very very very good. Not elite.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 27, 2017 17:49:03 GMT -5
Having IT, Hayward, Horford and George while still keeping all 3 BRK assets is blundering big time?  It may not be perfect but that team can compete with Cleveland (and overtake them should the Cavs stumble) but id it doesn't cost much relative to what you're getting and you still have the pieces of the "patient" game plan, how is that a blunder??? |
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 27, 2017 18:34:42 GMT -5
Having IT, Hayward, Horford and George while still keeping all 3 BRK assets is blundering big time? It may not be perfect but that team can compete with Cleveland (and overtake them should the Cavs stumble) but id it doesn't cost much relative to what you're getting and you still have the pieces of the "patient" game plan, how is that a blunder??? It absolutely is. How long will you have George for? One year. One year. One year. That HAS to sink in. Not winning a title and only having him one year and giving up two quality players along with a top-tier draft pick for ONE YEAR in which you still aren't the favorite IS a blunder.
Generally in trades like this unless you are already awesome because you have a superstar -- it takes time to mesh. OFC in the Eastern Conference they can win enough anyways but they aren't better than Cleveland and the trade doesn't help them get stronger beyond 1 year, does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Jun 27, 2017 19:06:56 GMT -5
Interesting, CBS sports guy has the Celtic's getting Daniel G from the nuggets in FA. First I heard that one. I guess he is the fall back if you do not get Hayward? I have to ask umass again but I am not sure that whether we can sign Daniel G instead of George plus hayward? I DO NOT want to give up much of anything for a 1 year player. Besides I am trying to wrap my head around bringing two small forward/multi position players at the expense of development of brown and tatum. One maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 27, 2017 19:21:56 GMT -5
Having IT, Hayward, Horford and George while still keeping all 3 BRK assets is blundering big time? It may not be perfect but that team can compete with Cleveland (and overtake them should the Cavs stumble) but id it doesn't cost much relative to what you're getting and you still have the pieces of the "patient" game plan, how is that a blunder??? It absolutely is. How long will you have George for? One year. One year. One year. That HAS to sink in. Not winning a title and only having him one year and giving up two quality players along with a top-tier draft pick for ONE YEAR in which you still aren't the favorite IS a blunder.
Generally in trades like this unless you are already awesome because you have a superstar -- it takes time to mesh. OFC in the Eastern Conference they can win enough anyways but they aren't better than Cleveland and the trade doesn't help them get stronger beyond 1 year, does it?
Consider the "plan" in its entirety, though. To make this all happen: - You're giving up 3 more years of Crowder for, likely, 3 years of Hayward - You're giving up 1 year of Bradley for 1 year of George* - You're dumping the UFAs who you could either bring back on minimum contracts or replace with them. - You're giving up 1 of the late picks you've acquired or had (Mem, LAC or your own) - 1 of Rozier/Smart likely has to go - You lose the "right" to pay Olynyk (I like KO but he's going to be vastly overpaid) You might say, what about the LAL/SAC/PHI pick? Heading into the offseason, you didn't have that pick. And despite Tatum being #1 on the board, it's reasonable to think that the trade back was heavily influenced by this plan. * Sure, everyone thinks George goes to LAL but that move would: a) Cost him money b) Reduce his chances at a big playoff run. That's a pretty reasonable risk for Danny to take if you ask me. Again, there are arguments against the plan but that's not a blunder. It's a calculated risk that teams that want to make the next level MUST take. Just like waiting on Brown/Tatum/18BRK to be the next big 3 is a calculated risk. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 27, 2017 19:54:15 GMT -5
George will sign here if they have Hayward... I would love this desk if we kept that Laker pick... I still think we do. But if not, I'll be ok. I can't see us giving up both Smart and the Lakers pick on top of Bradley and Crowder.
Also this team can beat Cleveland. Paul George is very near Elite and he matches up well with LeBron.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 27, 2017 19:57:03 GMT -5
Interesting, CBS sports guy has the Celtic's getting Daniel G from the nuggets in FA. First I heard that one. I guess he is the fall back if you do not get Hayward? I have to ask umass again but I am not sure that whether we can sign Daniel G instead of George plus hayward? I DO NOT want to give up much of anything for a 1 year player. Besides I am trying to wrap my head around bringing two small forward/multi position players at the expense of development of brown and tatum. One maybe. Brown - Tatum - Hayward and George can all play together. You could add either thomas or Horford to that if you wanted. It's just how the game is now. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 27, 2017 20:43:02 GMT -5
If you get George you get the rights to give him the biggest deal. You can give him 5 years, compared to 4 years. Ainge would have to believe the chances George resigns is really high to do that deal. Danny just wouldn't do that deal for one year of George.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 27, 2017 20:47:59 GMT -5
Interesting, CBS sports guy has the Celtic's getting Daniel G from the nuggets in FA. First I heard that one. I guess he is the fall back if you do not get Hayward? I have to ask umass again but I am not sure that whether we can sign Daniel G instead of George plus hayward? I DO NOT want to give up much of anything for a 1 year player. Besides I am trying to wrap my head around bringing two small forward/multi position players at the expense of development of brown and tatum. One maybe. Brown - Tatum - Hayward and George can all play together. You could add either thomas or Horford to that if you wanted. It's just how the game is now. I just don't see how Horford, Brown, Tatum, Hayward and George play together. That's not how the game is played now. Let's play a center and 4 SFs. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 27, 2017 20:50:21 GMT -5
Wherever they end up, I think Hayward (this year) and George (next) are more likely to sign shorter deals to become eligible for the 9yr + max.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jun 27, 2017 20:53:09 GMT -5
I just don't see how Horford, Brown, Tatum, Hayward and George play together. That's not how the game is played now. Let's play a center and 4 SFs. I mean, not an entire game, but that line-up is possible depending on the matchups if George can defend quicker guards and if Brown can guard bigger guards. More than anything, the Celtics are shaping up to be an insanely flexible team that could give Stevens a lot of options. I like that approach. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 27, 2017 20:53:41 GMT -5
It depends on the matchups and I'm not suggesting they would play 30 minutes a night like that but the game is out versatile two way players who are interchangeable on the court together. There are enough people in that lineup who can handle the ball and as long as they can guard the opposing PG they can play together. Brown would be that guy presumably.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 27, 2017 20:56:05 GMT -5
I don't want to get too bogged down on lineups especially with two guys not even on the team right now... but I will spin this a bit to Tatum. People under-rate his ability with the ball in his hands because of the role he played at Duke. I think his ball handling and passing are going to surprise a lot of people
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 27, 2017 21:05:12 GMT -5
Right now I don't see a guy that can guard a PG in that lineup
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 27, 2017 21:10:27 GMT -5
I also don't know of too may PGs that could cover 1 of those guys. It goes both ways.
Anyway, I think the Timeline is part of this. Brown and Tatum need playing time but also need experience before locking them in as starters. Meanwhile (again), I think the stars are signing short term deals.
A lot could happen between now and then. For now, you'd have a very good to great top 8 (depending on what's added and removed to make this plan work).
|
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 27, 2017 22:27:23 GMT -5
It absolutely is. How long will you have George for? One year. One year. One year. That HAS to sink in. Not winning a title and only having him one year and giving up two quality players along with a top-tier draft pick for ONE YEAR in which you still aren't the favorite IS a blunder.
Generally in trades like this unless you are already awesome because you have a superstar -- it takes time to mesh. OFC in the Eastern Conference they can win enough anyways but they aren't better than Cleveland and the trade doesn't help them get stronger beyond 1 year, does it?
Consider the "plan" in its entirety, though. To make this all happen: - You're giving up 3 more years of Crowder for, likely, 3 years of Hayward - You're giving up 1 year of Bradley for 1 year of George* - You're dumping the UFAs who you could either bring back on minimum contracts or replace with them. - You're giving up 1 of the late picks you've acquired or had (Mem, LAC or your own) - 1 of Rozier/Smart likely has to go - You lose the "right" to pay Olynyk (I like KO but he's going to be vastly overpaid) You might say, what about the LAL/SAC/PHI pick? Heading into the offseason, you didn't have that pick. And despite Tatum being #1 on the board, it's reasonable to think that the trade back was heavily influenced by this plan. * Sure, everyone thinks George goes to LAL but that move would: a) Cost him money b) Reduce his chances at a big playoff run. That's a pretty reasonable risk for Danny to take if you ask me. Again, there are arguments against the plan but that's not a blunder. It's a calculated risk that teams that want to make the next level MUST take. Just like waiting on Brown/Tatum/18BRK to be the next big 3 is a calculated risk. You can get Hayward without giving up Crower, can't you? Or you can trade Crower and get something else decent for more than one year?
It's a blunder.
This move does NOT get the Celtics over the hump. Getting George still puts the Celts BEHIND the Cavs. While getting Hayward still put the Celts as the 2nd best team in the EC. So why throw away a future high draft pick and a quality player in Crower, and in one year George was gone and your still probably going to be 2nd best team in EC anyways? Why waste your top tier draft pick and such a quality player in Crower based on a prayer and God intervention that "maybe the Cavs will falter?" Why throw away good players when you don't have to? Keep the pick. Keep Crower and wait and see if you can get more than a one year rental player without giving up such fine quality in Bradley, Crower and a top-tier pick.
Kyrie Irving is only going to get better. LeBron will be able to rest more considering the Cavs will also upgrade their team. Regardless if they don't do much they are still better than the Celts and the Celts without a year of playing together and without the supreme player - there is no point to waste a top tier pick and Crower for just one year accomplishing something you could have done without losing the player's for George.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 27, 2017 22:52:57 GMT -5
I would simply go to a partial zone and place my PG on the perimeter. I would bet on the quickness benefits on offense would offset the D. I mean that's what we did all last year, going with 3 guards. Going with quickness, ball handling and passing over size. Also getting more shooting on court by playing Crowder at PF. That line up doesn't seem to do that. Unless Brown takes major strides next year.
Take out Horford and insert a guard and that line up makes a lot more sense. I really just don't see a match up that would warrant a center and 4 SFs. I mean is a team going to start all centers and PFs?
If you add George and Hayward, I just don't see how Tatum and Brown get the minutes they need. I want Tatum to play 25-30 minutes a night next year. It will be interesting to watch what happens if this happens.
|
|
|
