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 voiceofreason on Jun 5, 2017 11:28:50 GMT -5
Responses: 1. If you'd prefer to say $20Mn for a complimentary player vs $20Mn for a bench player, I think the story is still the same. 2. IF you're getting Hayward and IF you believe Brown is a future starter to star (somewhere in between) then something has to give. 3. So you don't think they could trade Bradley and Smart (most likely in separate deals) and get a rebounder and cap space??? Or did I misunderstand your post? In regards to Brown and Hayward. I would love to see Brown develop more as a 2. With the current style being played in the NBA, fewer big men on the floor and spreading it out, having oversized guards like Brown at the 2 and Fultz at the point would be a big advantage. Can Brown do it? I think he can, along with playing some 3 depending on match ups. |
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 5, 2017 11:35:03 GMT -5
We have the Jeff Teague trade from last year to go by. The Hawks got the #12 pick for him. He had one year remaining on deal, just like Bradley. Considering this years draft is stronger at the top than last year, the #12 pick seems like fair value. Now I would for sure jump on a trade if they included another 1st. Only thing I don't think I've ever seen protection on a pick like what your thinking 14-20 is only way it conveys. It would be more like lottery protected or top 20 protected. I wouldn't mind getting Henry Ellenson either. He hardly played last year, but he could replace KO as a stretch big. Though the #12 pick and Ellenson is cutting the money really tight. Can't remember which team it was that did this, but I saw a deal in the last 2 years where a team added protections to prevent a pick from conveying if it were in the top or bottom 10 of the first round. I think Dallas was involved in the deal but I don't remember on which end |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 5, 2017 12:21:57 GMT -5
Responses: 1. If you'd prefer to say $20Mn for a complimentary player vs $20Mn for a bench player, I think the story is still the same. 2. IF you're getting Hayward and IF you believe Brown is a future starter to star (somewhere in between) then something has to give. 3. So you don't think they could trade Bradley and Smart (most likely in separate deals) and get a rebounder and cap space??? Or did I misunderstand your post? In regards to Brown and Hayward. I would love to see Brown develop more as a 2. With the current style being played in the NBA, fewer big men on the floor and spreading it out, having oversized guards like Brown at the 2 and Fultz at the point would be a big advantage. Can Brown do it? I think he can, along with playing some 3 depending on match ups. Really just comes down to distributing, spacing and defending. 2s? 3s? Doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 5, 2017 12:25:00 GMT -5
Responses: 1. If you'd prefer to say $20Mn for a complimentary player vs $20Mn for a bench player, I think the story is still the same. 2. IF you're getting Hayward and IF you believe Brown is a future starter to star (somewhere in between) then something has to give. 3. So you don't think they could trade Bradley and Smart (most likely in separate deals) and get a rebounder and cap space??? Or did I misunderstand your post? I guess I don't follow your cap space situation. Is it just for space to sign Hayward? Also in my opinion you have enough PT for IT, Bradley Fultz Brown and Hayward even if the youngsters become stars. Why do I care if IT and Bradley are high paid super productive second Teamer's in 3 years? If Brown and Fultz get so good minutes set up for one of the others they'd be very tradable with a contract that can get you good players in return. Again not against dealing either IT or AB but it's not like you have to. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 5, 2017 12:30:19 GMT -5
We have the Jeff Teague trade from last year to go by. The Hawks got the #12 pick for him. He had one year remaining on deal, just like Bradley. Considering this years draft is stronger at the top than last year, the #12 pick seems like fair value. Now I would for sure jump on a trade if they included another 1st. Only thing I don't think I've ever seen protection on a pick like what your thinking 14-20 is only way it conveys. It would be more like lottery protected or top 20 protected. I wouldn't mind getting Henry Ellenson either. He hardly played last year, but he could replace KO as a stretch big. Though the #12 pick and Ellenson is cutting the money really tight. Can't remember which team it was that did this, but I saw a deal in the last 2 years where a team added protections to prevent a pick from conveying if it were in the top or bottom 10 of the first round. I think Dallas was involved in the deal but I don't remember on which end The only weird Dallas trade that I remember was the Noel trade, Sixers got a 1st for this year if it was pick 15 or later. It was more for fans to show we might get a first. In no way was Noel going to make Dallas a playoff team. They were just to far behind. The Sixers were always going to get 2 2nd round picks for Noel. If you find the trade you're talking about please post it. I would be very interested to look at the details. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 5, 2017 12:53:56 GMT -5
I mentioned trading both Bradley and Smart before. You can get a ton for Bradley and don't want to pay him a ton of money. I can certainly underdtand trading Bradley. I just think Smart, Fultz and Thomas don't fit together long-term. Sure it could work next year, but not long-term. I think it's a little unrealistic to trade both, but long-term it could make perfect sense. Especially if you get a high pick for Bradley. What if Rip is right and you can get the #7 pick for Bradley? If Monk is there that looks like a long-term awesome fit. If I had to trade one of them, I trade Smart. The thing is dealing both of them also makes a lot of sense if your goal is more 3-4 years down the road.
One plus side to the Warriors dominate play is that it could break up good teams. Hayward might look at the West and think Boston looks better. Paul might bolt for Spurs, making Griffin a realistic fall back option. I'm very surprised by the Warriors play. I never thought they would be on another level than Cleveland.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 5, 2017 13:14:42 GMT -5
We have the Jeff Teague trade from last year to go by. The Hawks got the #12 pick for him. He had one year remaining on deal, just like Bradley. Considering this years draft is stronger at the top than last year, the #12 pick seems like fair value. Now I would for sure jump on a trade if they included another 1st. Only thing I don't think I've ever seen protection on a pick like what your thinking 14-20 is only way it conveys. It would be more like lottery protected or top 20 protected. I wouldn't mind getting Henry Ellenson either. He hardly played last year, but he could replace KO as a stretch big. Though the #12 pick and Ellenson is cutting the money really tight. Can't remember which team it was that did this, but I saw a deal in the last 2 years where a team added protections to prevent a pick from conveying if it were in the top or bottom 10 of the first round. I think Dallas was involved in the deal but I don't remember on which end Are you thinking about the Rockets trading Kyle Lowry with pick protections that basically guaranteed a lottery pick? See here: www.houstonpress.com/news/rockets-invent-a-new-type-of-draft-pick-lottery-protection-so-thats-something-right-6750696 |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 5, 2017 13:32:29 GMT -5
Yea that makes sense, i've just never seen a picked protected for lottery, then being protected in back of first round as to make sure you get a mid first round pick. To make sure you get a pick in the 14-20 range or the pick rolls over. Usually it's just lottery protected and that protection decreases over time or the new thing of turning into two second round picks after a set time.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 5, 2017 13:34:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 5, 2017 15:29:25 GMT -5
Responses: 1. If you'd prefer to say $20Mn for a complimentary player vs $20Mn for a bench player, I think the story is still the same. 2. IF you're getting Hayward and IF you believe Brown is a future starter to star (somewhere in between) then something has to give. 3. So you don't think they could trade Bradley and Smart (most likely in separate deals) and get a rebounder and cap space??? Or did I misunderstand your post? I guess I don't follow your cap space situation. Is it just for space to sign Hayward? Also in my opinion you have enough PT for IT, Bradley Fultz Brown and Hayward even if the youngsters become stars. Why do I care if IT and Bradley are high paid super productive second Teamer's in 3 years? If Brown and Fultz get so good minutes set up for one of the others they'd be very tradable with a contract that can get you good players in return. Again not against dealing either IT or AB but it's not like you have to. Yeah, meant more the combination of cirumstances: 1. Wanting Cap Space 2. Not wanting to pay $20Mn for those guys 3. Want minutes for other players 4. Need to improve other areas (Rebounding, Rim Protection) The combination of some or all of those could lead to both being traded (sorry I didn't see/forgot your post on that UMass) |
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 6, 2017 8:59:29 GMT -5
Yea that makes sense, i've just never seen a picked protected for lottery, then being protected in back of first round as to make sure you get a mid first round pick. To make sure you get a pick in the 14-20 range or the pick rolls over. Usually it's just lottery protected and that protection decreases over time or the new thing of turning into two second round picks after a set time. Yea I believe the Lowry trade was the one I was thinking about- just remembered reading a Zach Lowe piece about a deal like that a while ago. I know that specifically trying to lock in a pick between 10-20 or something like that hasn't been done, but it is possible to structure protections that way, and it might make sense in a scenario like this. Alternately we could just have it say top 15 protected next year, then top 12, top 10 and then just get 2 second rounders if it hasn't conveyed by then. This is all spitballing though- I like the idea of getting back into the mid-late lottery for either Markannen or Collins if they're available and Bradley or crowder seem to be the only viable way to do so. Frankly after this years playoffs I'd be much more inclined to keep Bradley all things being equal, but I think crowder is better suited to slide into a lesser offensive role and adds more positional flexibility, so my guess is he's sticking around, although I bet we could move into the 6-10 range if we were willing to include him in a deal- bet thibs would love to have him, for one |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 6, 2017 9:32:48 GMT -5
[/quote]Why do I care if IT and Bradley are high paid super productive second Teamer's in 3 years? [/quote]
I'll keep that in mind if I'm trying to project what YOU would do. For now, I'm going to focus on what I think Danny might try and do and I believe he DOES care about having that type of money committed to bench/complimentary players (at least 2 of them).
PS For clarity, that WAS intended to be playful ribbing.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 6, 2017 9:55:17 GMT -5
Why do I care if IT and Bradley are high paid super productive second Teamer's in 3 years? [/quote] I'll keep that in mind if I'm trying to project what YOU would do. For now, I'm going to focus on what I think Danny might try and do and I believe he DOES care about having that type of money committed to bench/complimentary players (at least 2 of them). PS For clarity, that WAS intended to be playful ribbing.[/quote] With NBA salaries the way they are having large contracts in the books and players you can use bird rights to are very valuable. You can afford to have highly paid bench pieces if your starters are cheap that's kind of my point. And like I said, they will be movable down the road. And even still it's not like Bradley won't be a high level player in 4 years. If you want to compete now and develop your players in a winning environment it's one of the ways to go. Think about how much money they just wasted the last 2 years on a guy like Zeller and even Johnson just to have those salaries. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 6, 2017 10:50:41 GMT -5
Never understood Zeller but Johnson's 4.6 WAR was hardly a waste. He got old quickly and was miscast as a starter but, by some metrics, was a contributor for much of the regular season.
I'd also just add that the value of the salary for AJ plus what ever contribution he provided significantly outweighed any trade value. I'd be hard pressed to say the same about Bradley (especially if his minutes are going to get cut into).
And don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting dump the salary. I'm just curious to see what Danny's thoughts are on the C's REAL window (to contend vs compete, if I can use that as shorthand).
If he IS building, in reality, for 3-5 years from now while trying to compete for a spot in the ECF now, he CAN (not HAS TO) do so while also pushing some value down the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 6, 2017 12:51:15 GMT -5
Zeller was simply to have the salary to make a trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 6, 2017 13:39:56 GMT -5
Yea that makes sense, i've just never seen a picked protected for lottery, then being protected in back of first round as to make sure you get a mid first round pick. To make sure you get a pick in the 14-20 range or the pick rolls over. Usually it's just lottery protected and that protection decreases over time or the new thing of turning into two second round picks after a set time. Yea I believe the Lowry trade was the one I was thinking about- just remembered reading a Zach Lowe piece about a deal like that a while ago. I know that specifically trying to lock in a pick between 10-20 or something like that hasn't been done, but it is possible to structure protections that way, and it might make sense in a scenario like this. Alternately we could just have it say top 15 protected next year, then top 12, top 10 and then just get 2 second rounders if it hasn't conveyed by then. This is all spitballing though- I like the idea of getting back into the mid-late lottery for either Markannen or Collins if they're available and Bradley or crowder seem to be the only viable way to do so. Frankly after this years playoffs I'd be much more inclined to keep Bradley all things being equal, but I think crowder is better suited to slide into a lesser offensive role and adds more positional flexibility, so my guess is he's sticking around, although I bet we could move into the 6-10 range if we were willing to include him in a deal- bet thibs would love to have him, for one I know Detroit is in win now mode and a Bradley trade for #12 makes a ton of sense. My only issue is where do you get that they would need to send us another first round pick? I just can't see where Bradley's value is that high. Not with only one year left on his deal. You could maybe get that deal for Crowder because of his great contract. Thing is you can't trade Crowder till you know about Hayward. This draft is loaded and the #12 pick has more value than in a normal year. For example I'm not sure Brown gets drafted in lottery this year. If he did it would most likely be in that 10-14 range. That #12 pick can get you a player with Brown's upside. That's how crazy deep this draft is, compared to last year. I look at players like Ban and Allen as being the big man verzion of Brown. They are raw, but they have NBA bodies, athleticism, size and massive upside. Bam is my favorite. He just reminds me of a young DeAndre Jordan/Dwight Howard. I just love how athletic he is for a guy his size. There's drafts where WCS goes what top 8 and this year a player like Bam is rated late lottery all the way to second round by stupid nbadraft.net. If I can get a player like that for Bradley, I don't need more picks. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 6, 2017 13:43:44 GMT -5
I still don't understand not offering that deal to Sullinger that they gave to Zeller. I don't see how he would turn it down given what he signed for.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 6, 2017 16:28:02 GMT -5
Gonna get ridiculous here but maybe we could add #10 as a possible return for Bradley??
No, not to Sacramento.
Some reports have the Kings interested in packaging 5 and 10 to move up for Fox. May need to get to 3 to lock him in. Philly has liked Bradley in the past.
So Sac gets 3. Philly gets 5 and Bradley. Boston gets 10?
AB doesn't really fit the Philly Timeline but . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 6, 2017 16:38:06 GMT -5
Bradley should fit any young teams timeline. He's only 26 and absolutely plays the game and attacks the offseason the right way. It's the main reason I want to keep him.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 6, 2017 16:45:55 GMT -5
Except for the whole "he's a free agent and may not want to stick around for a rebuild" extravaganza.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 6, 2017 17:39:31 GMT -5
The crazy thing is the Kings actually thinking about trading 5 and 10 to move up to #3. I saw that rumor and it just can't be true. All offseason I've seen reports how the Kings have new front office guys and they are no longer a joke. I like Fox, reminds me of a young Rondo. Thing is I don't see him a tier above the player's they can get at #5. If they draft well they could get two starters, one with all star upside. They would be better off taking Tatum at #5 and trading #10 for Smart. That makes more sense to me. Tatum and Smart would go a long way towards making them competitive. Or even trading for a Payton, who is a lot like Fox.
As to Bradley he is going into his age 27 season. So I don't see how he fits the timeline of a rebuilding team. The Sixers though stopped rebuilding last offseason. They started adding Vets to win now. So I could see the Sixers wanting him. Will he resign? That's the issue if I'm the Sixers. It could happen if the Kings are morons.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 6, 2017 18:22:58 GMT -5
Agreed. Too many holes to obsess over 1 player.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 6, 2017 21:30:03 GMT -5
As to Bradley he is going into his age 27 season. So I don't see how he fits the timeline of a rebuilding team. The Sixers though stopped rebuilding last offseason. They started adding Vets to win now. So I could see the Sixers wanting him. Will he resign? That's the issue if I'm the Sixers. It could happen if the Kings are morons. It depends what you think of as the timeline and what's important to get there. Bradley should still be a good NBA player in 5 years. More importantly, he should help young players get better by leading by example and showing them how to work and grow year to year. That's uber important and often overlooked. Teams that are young need to spend money as well so spending on a guy like Bradley is money very well spent. As far as him resigning - just show him the money. Let's be real. No great team is using its cap space on an Avery Bradley. It's gonna be some mediocre team that will over pay him. Or the Celtics using his bird rights to over pay him but they wouldn't have cap space even if they didn't so it's fine to do. That's just how the NBA is. Over paying a guy with their bird rights is fine but over paying them with cap space hurts. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 7, 2017 10:22:47 GMT -5
The screencaps say they're from March 3. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 9, 2017 12:16:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
