Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?

[bogg]

I did a poll last year asking folks which move they preferred to try and help the celtics and as I recall, trading Kemba for a root canal won by a landslide. 

Yet here we are, "concerned" about why we traded kemba.

Nobody cares about trading Kemba in the abstract.

It's that we packaged a #1 for Kemba, even though the trade didn't make us better in the short term, and (to date) doesn't look like it will benefit us in the long-term, either.

Trading kemba was a root canal is the equivalent, or indeed worse, of taking up you know what to get it done.  I think giving up a first round pick, which was my assumption the whole time, qualifies as taking it up…

The idea is what the majority of people here wanted to trade kemba no matter what.  Well, no matter what happened.

Edit to add: and then the same people turn around and make trade proposals that were unrealistic. So there is definitely a disconnect between willing to do whatever and what is actually realistic.

Yea, for better or for worse the C's dumped about $30 million in unproductive guaranteed money in that deal, and a first-round pick is the going rate for a salary dump of that magnitude.

[Vermont Green]

How are we better off for it?  Is being the 10th seed instead of the 11th or 12th seed in the short term worth a first rounder?

And what additional flexibility do we have?

Yes, I think we are better for having Horford and Richardson over having Kemba and Sengun.  Much better for it actually.  I don't know what that means in wins or in terms of standings but neither do you as it is a hypothetical.

As to flexibility, both Horford and Richardson are much more tradeable assets than Kemba, even with Sengun would be plus we have a useful TPE for signing and trading Fournier.  I would say that is a lot more flexibility.  Kemba was dead weight when we traded him and has only gone down hill.  His contract would have been the antithesis of flexibility.  A totally useless player on a huge contract.  Horford will be expiring and only partially guaranteed and is still of some use (albeit not equivalent to his contract) and Richardson is perfectly useful as a bench or even potentially starting wing, on a contract that is reasonable dollars and reasonable duration.

I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that all this adds up to a home run or a grand slam but these were decent, reasonable moves, taking the team in a positive direction both on the court and in terms of flexibility.

[nickagneta]

Bulpett reported today that the Celtics were targeting Sengun if they kept the pick. Finally some confirmation. I guess that makes this argument of Roy's a lot more relevant as it takes out a major "what if" out of the equation.

[liam]

Bulpett reported today that the Celtics were targeting Sengun if they kept the pick. Finally some confirmation. I guess that makes this argument of Roy's a lot more relevant as it takes out a major "what if" out of the equation.

Sengun would've been a good fit here.

[Big333223]

Isn't the answer to this question that Horford - because he's better than Kemba and the particulars of his contract are more amenable - is a more desirable piece in a trade both at the deadline and this summer?

[SparzWizard]

Bulpett reported today that the Celtics were targeting Sengun if they kept the pick. Finally some confirmation. I guess that makes this argument of Roy's a lot more relevant as it takes out a major "what if" out of the equation.

Sengun would've been a good fit here.

Now we can add to another one of the Celtics' draft blunders in the offseason...trading away Sengun for Horford lol

[Roy H.]

Isn't the answer to this question that Horford - because he's better than Kemba and the particulars of his contract are more amenable - is a more desirable piece in a trade both at the deadline and this summer?

Is it?

The team sucks this year, so that’s not worth the cost of Sengun.

We won’t be below the salary cap, so that’s not worth Sengun.

Next summer, both are expiring contracts.  I don’t think the difference in trade value of those two contracts is worth Sengun.

[jambr380]

Yea, for better or for worse the C's dumped about $30 million in unproductive guaranteed money in that deal, and a first-round pick is the going rate for a salary dump of that magnitude.

OKC bought out Kemba for ~$53.5M. Even if we waive Al this offseason, we are still on the hook for $41.5M. I get that we got to actually have Al play for us this season, rather than totally buying him out like OKC did with Kemba, but is $12M and Sengun (or two 1sts) really worth one mediocre season with Al? And if we decide to get two mediocre seasons out of Al, it comes out to the same amount that Kemba was bought out for.

As far as moving forward goes, I can't see this being seen as anything but a negative if Al is still here past the deadline. With the updates from Roy and C21 on the previous page, Al's contract is no longer seen as a positive since his 'new' team can't waive him and save any money if they acquire him this offseason.

[#1P4P]

How are we better off for it?  Is being the 10th seed instead of the 11th or 12th seed in the short term worth a first rounder?

And what additional flexibility do we have?

Yes, I think we are better for having Horford and Richardson over having Kemba and Sengun.  Much better for it actually.  I don't know what that means in wins or in terms of standings but neither do you as it is a hypothetical.

As to flexibility, both Horford and Richardson are much more tradeable assets than Kemba, even with Sengun would be plus we have a useful TPE for signing and trading Fournier.  I would say that is a lot more flexibility.  Kemba was dead weight when we traded him and has only gone down hill.  His contract would have been the antithesis of flexibility.  A totally useless player on a huge contract.  Horford will be expiring and only partially guaranteed and is still of some use (albeit not equivalent to his contract) and Richardson is perfectly useful as a bench or even potentially starting wing, on a contract that is reasonable dollars and reasonable duration.

I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that all this adds up to a home run or a grand slam but these were decent, reasonable moves, taking the team in a positive direction both on the court and in terms of flexibility.

Solid post!

The negative attention has been placed on the roster, despite it being well constructed. Udoka's mismanagement of the roster has caused a plummeting of efficiency across the board. He's coaching scared and it has a domino effect.

Udoka has Horford and Williams III guarding NBA players with speed and quickness advantages out on the perimeter while protecting the paint, and boxing out/crashing the boards on every possession for 29+ MPG. Al played the most minutes, 35, in a blowout win last night where we were up 20+ points for the better part of 16 minutes in the 2nd half! Freedom played 4 minutes!

Richardson's play has made him an asset, one of the better guards coming off of the bench, and would be picked up quickly if he were on the market.

Kemba signed a contract worth less than a quarter of the value of his contract on the open market and it's considered an overpay today. Sengun is playing on one of the worst teams in the league with the worst defense in the NBA and is still getting less minutes than Daniel Theis.

This "we might have been better off..." spiel is "the grass is greener on the other side" going by a different name.

[Roy H.]

How are we better off for it?  Is being the 10th seed instead of the 11th or 12th seed in the short term worth a first rounder?

And what additional flexibility do we have?

Yes, I think we are better for having Horford and Richardson over having Kemba and Sengun.  Much better for it actually.  I don't know what that means in wins or in terms of standings but neither do you as it is a hypothetical.

As to flexibility, both Horford and Richardson are much more tradeable assets than Kemba, even with Sengun would be plus we have a useful TPE for signing and trading Fournier.  I would say that is a lot more flexibility.  Kemba was dead weight when we traded him and has only gone down hill.  His contract would have been the antithesis of flexibility.  A totally useless player on a huge contract.  Horford will be expiring and only partially guaranteed and is still of some use (albeit not equivalent to his contract) and Richardson is perfectly useful as a bench or even potentially starting wing, on a contract that is reasonable dollars and reasonable duration.

I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that all this adds up to a home run or a grand slam but these were decent, reasonable moves, taking the team in a positive direction both on the court and in terms of flexibility.

Solid post!

The negative attention has been placed on the roster, despite it being well constructed. Udoka's mismanagement of the roster has caused a plummeting of efficiency across the board. He's coaching scared and it has a domino effect.

Udoka has Horford and Williams III guarding NBA players with speed and quickness advantages out on the perimeter while protecting the paint, and boxing out/crashing the boards on every possession for 29+ MPG. Al played the most minutes, 35, in a blowout win last night where we were up 20+ points for the better part of 16 minutes in the 2nd half! Freedom played 4 minutes!

Richardson's play has made him an asset, one of the better guards coming off of the bench, and would be picked up quickly if he were on the market.

Kemba signed a contract worth less than a quarter of the value of his contract on the open market and it's considered an overpay today. Sengun is playing on one of the worst teams in the league with the worst defense in the NBA and is still getting less minutes than Daniel Theis.

This "we might have been better off..." spiel is "the grass is greener on the other side" going by a different name.

If this is a well-constructed roster being run into the ground by the coach, why is the coach still employed?

[Moranis]

As I've said elsewhere if Tatum, Horford, and Brown were shooting more typically from 3, then Boston would have won at least 5 games that they've lost this year, and none of these type of threads would exist.  There are clearly roster issues, talent issues, etc., but the fundamental problem with the team is that 3 guys that should be among the team leaders from 3, are just not carrying the proper shooting load.  That isn't to say Boston would be a real contender, it would not be, but it also wouldn't in the play-in and would firmly be in the playoffs.  And given shooting is down across the league, I can't say it a coaching problem, a roster construction problem, or something that can easily be fixed with anything other than time. 

[Somebody]

How are we better off for it?  Is being the 10th seed instead of the 11th or 12th seed in the short term worth a first rounder?

And what additional flexibility do we have?

Yes, I think we are better for having Horford and Richardson over having Kemba and Sengun.  Much better for it actually.  I don't know what that means in wins or in terms of standings but neither do you as it is a hypothetical.

As to flexibility, both Horford and Richardson are much more tradeable assets than Kemba, even with Sengun would be plus we have a useful TPE for signing and trading Fournier.  I would say that is a lot more flexibility.  Kemba was dead weight when we traded him and has only gone down hill.  His contract would have been the antithesis of flexibility.  A totally useless player on a huge contract.  Horford will be expiring and only partially guaranteed and is still of some use (albeit not equivalent to his contract) and Richardson is perfectly useful as a bench or even potentially starting wing, on a contract that is reasonable dollars and reasonable duration.

I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that all this adds up to a home run or a grand slam but these were decent, reasonable moves, taking the team in a positive direction both on the court and in terms of flexibility.

Solid post!

The negative attention has been placed on the roster, despite it being well constructed. Udoka's mismanagement of the roster has caused a plummeting of efficiency across the board. He's coaching scared and it has a domino effect.

Udoka has Horford and Williams III guarding NBA players with speed and quickness advantages out on the perimeter while protecting the paint, and boxing out/crashing the boards on every possession for 29+ MPG. Al played the most minutes, 35, in a blowout win last night where we were up 20+ points for the better part of 16 minutes in the 2nd half! Freedom played 4 minutes!

Richardson's play has made him an asset, one of the better guards coming off of the bench, and would be picked up quickly if he were on the market.

Kemba signed a contract worth less than a quarter of the value of his contract on the open market and it's considered an overpay today. Sengun is playing on one of the worst teams in the league with the worst defense in the NBA and is still getting less minutes than Daniel Theis.

This "we might have been better off..." spiel is "the grass is greener on the other side" going by a different name.

If this is a well-constructed roster being run into the ground by the coach, why is the coach still employed?

Because our management and ownership are incompetent.

[nickagneta]

As I've said elsewhere if Tatum, Horford, and Brown were shooting more typically from 3, then Boston would have won at least 5 games that they've lost this year, and none of these type of threads would exist.  There are clearly roster issues, talent issues, etc., but the fundamental problem with the team is that 3 guys that should be among the team leaders from 3, are just not carrying the proper shooting load.  That isn't to say Boston would be a real contender, it would not be, but it also wouldn't in the play-in and would firmly be in the playoffs.  And given shooting is down across the league, I can't say it a coaching problem, a roster construction problem, or something that can easily be fixed with anything other than time.

It's a league wide problem. Last year, the league wide three point average was 36.7%. This year it 34.8%.

So it's not just a Boston issue, it's happening across the league and to some usually excellent shooters. Could the rule changes on defense be part of this? If so, the issue is endemic, so if we assume Boston's big three point shooters would shoot differently, you should probably make the case every team's three point shooters return to normal, which probably erases those 5 wins you are talking about.

[Roy H.]

As I've said elsewhere if Tatum, Horford, and Brown were shooting more typically from 3, then Boston would have won at least 5 games that they've lost this year, and none of these type of threads would exist.  There are clearly roster issues, talent issues, etc., but the fundamental problem with the team is that 3 guys that should be among the team leaders from 3, are just not carrying the proper shooting load.  That isn't to say Boston would be a real contender, it would not be, but it also wouldn't in the play-in and would firmly be in the playoffs.  And given shooting is down across the league, I can't say it a coaching problem, a roster construction problem, or something that can easily be fixed with anything other than time.

Yeah, you can't just presume that Tatum, Horford and Brown perform to their averages, unless making the same adjustment for our opponents, too.  And under those circumstances, I bet we end up right where we are.  Also, we should probably adjust the shooting percentages of Richardson and Williams, since they're having career years in that regard.  Schroder is having his second best season ever from 3PT and in eFG%, as well.

You are who your record says you are, and we're a mediocre team.

EDIT:  In the "great minds think alike except in terms of politics, where they're diametrically opposed to one another" category, I defer to what nick said above.

[droopdog7]

Yea, for better or for worse the C's dumped about $30 million in unproductive guaranteed money in that deal, and a first-round pick is the going rate for a salary dump of that magnitude.

OKC bought out Kemba for ~$53.5M. Even if we waive Al this offseason, we are still on the hook for $41.5M. I get that we got to actually have Al play for us this season, rather than totally buying him out like OKC did with Kemba, but is $12M and Sengun (or two 1sts) really worth one mediocre season with Al? And if we decide to get two mediocre seasons out of Al, it comes out to the same amount that Kemba was bought out for.

As far as moving forward goes, I can't see this being seen as anything but a negative if Al is still here past the deadline. With the updates from Roy and C21 on the previous page, Al's contract is no longer seen as a positive since his 'new' team can't waive him and save any money if they acquire him this offseason.

From what I've seen, a first round pick usually buys you about 5 million in savings.  So getting 12 million is more than one would expect.  Shoot, I recall some posters thinking that we could dump all 50-60 mil of kemba for a single FRP.  That was crazy talk.

So what happened is what was expected and what the majority of fans (seemingly) wanted.