Beal to Celtics trade (not involving Brown or picks)

[smokeablount]

I voted yes, because as much as I’d hate to see him go, we should be able to flip Jaylen for a big man that fits well with Tatum & Beal. It seems like KAT should be wanting out soon, for one.

[tenn_smoothie]

Eh no thanks. There’s no reason to think Beal won’t be another Kyrie - a star who makes the team look sexy on paper, but in reality doesn’t really move the needle. I’m not opposed to trading young assets for a star, but it’d have to be a star who has a reputation of making others better and can pass and defend.

Thank You Sir. I vote no for the same reason.

[Moranis]

If we're giving up that much, I'd rather sign him in free-agency.

That will be tricky to satisfy the dollar amount he wants vs Celtics able to keep vets like Horford or Schroder

I'm not worried about missing out. I'd be more worried about gutting the roster and him then deciding to play elsewhere next year. I don't think the risk warrants it.

The idea of trading for him, an expiring contract that with all probability will leave Washington next year, is that we don't have to gut the roster in the process. But if we're doing that, I'd rather take my chances in free-agency where, if signed, there'll be a guaranteed of him being around at least a few years.

I have no problem with trading for him, but we shouldn't get enamored and throw everything now for him... particularly as I'm not convinced that Beal by himself brings more to the table than what we're giving up. As it is, I'm not convinced that using cap space for him in particular will be that good of an idea (though I'd be fine if it happens).

S&T during the off season or trade within season, without gutting the roster, would be the two directions we should take. If we miss out on him, we miss out on him. We look for opportunities elsewhere.

But we'd have to gut the roster to sign him as a free agent.  Waive and stretch Horford, let Smart, R. Williams, Richardson, and Schroder go, and even that isn't enough for a full max contract, so we'd probably have to send off Langford and probably 1 other player to Washington (or somewhere else) anyway.  The only thing the team would really save is some draft picks, and that isn't worth losing all of the depth you could have if you just traded for him.  The team would then have his Bird rights and could sign him to a longer (and more dollars for him) contract.

My posts have already addressed all that... you're not telling me anything new. Signing him with cap space is not what I want, I can understand doing it, but it's not what I'd want. BUT if we're going to gut the roster, then I rather doing that with an assurance that the player we're acquiring will remain beyond 1 season, even if it means we take some more time to build the rest of the roster.

The other part is that I doubt that's the market for a Beal trade, unless we start a bidding war with some other desperate team and I'd want no part in that.

the trade as proposed here doesn't actually gut the roster though.  It guts the young players, but not the roster. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

If we're giving up that much, I'd rather sign him in free-agency.

That will be tricky to satisfy the dollar amount he wants vs Celtics able to keep vets like Horford or Schroder

I'm not worried about missing out. I'd be more worried about gutting the roster and him then deciding to play elsewhere next year. I don't think the risk warrants it.

The idea of trading for him, an expiring contract that with all probability will leave Washington next year, is that we don't have to gut the roster in the process. But if we're doing that, I'd rather take my chances in free-agency where, if signed, there'll be a guaranteed of him being around at least a few years.

I have no problem with trading for him, but we shouldn't get enamored and throw everything now for him... particularly as I'm not convinced that Beal by himself brings more to the table than what we're giving up. As it is, I'm not convinced that using cap space for him in particular will be that good of an idea (though I'd be fine if it happens).

S&T during the off season or trade within season, without gutting the roster, would be the two directions we should take. If we miss out on him, we miss out on him. We look for opportunities elsewhere.

But we'd have to gut the roster to sign him as a free agent.  Waive and stretch Horford, let Smart, R. Williams, Richardson, and Schroder go, and even that isn't enough for a full max contract, so we'd probably have to send off Langford and probably 1 other player to Washington (or somewhere else) anyway.  The only thing the team would really save is some draft picks, and that isn't worth losing all of the depth you could have if you just traded for him.  The team would then have his Bird rights and could sign him to a longer (and more dollars for him) contract.

My posts have already addressed all that... you're not telling me anything new. Signing him with cap space is not what I want, I can understand doing it, but it's not what I'd want. BUT if we're going to gut the roster, then I rather doing that with an assurance that the player we're acquiring will remain beyond 1 season, even if it means we take some more time to build the rest of the roster.

The other part is that I doubt that's the market for a Beal trade, unless we start a bidding war with some other desperate team and I'd want no part in that.

the trade as proposed here doesn't actually gut the roster though.  It guts the young players, but not the roster.

Not THIS year maybe, but next year it does. It removes 4 young players, 3 of which are fairly promising at the very least, that we have control over to go along all the other expiring contracts we have. I say it's a steep price for grabbing a player that's an expiring contract himself.

Maybe the 1 year championship contention (if it works) may be worth it...

[LilRip]

As far as I understand, the options really are :

1) get Beal now: lose Smart, Timelord, Pritchard, Romeo, Nesmith

2) get Beal in FA: lose Smart, Timelord, Richardson, Horford, Schroder

3) no Beal or any max FA: keep current team

—
There’s no Beal in FA for free. To get Beal (or be a player in FA), I think we’re losing Smart & Timelord either way. So it boils down to would u rather keep Pritchard/Romeo/Nesmith or Richardson/Horford/Schroder

Pritchard and Nesmith have more of a future but the veteran package helps you win now

[BudweiserCeltic]

As far as I understand, the options really are :

1) get Beal now: lose Smart, Timelord, Pritchard, Romeo, Nesmith

2) get Beal in FA: lose Smart, Timelord, Richardson, Horford, Schroder

3) no Beal or any max FA: keep current team

—
There’s no Beal in FA for free. To get Beal (or be a player in FA), I think we’re losing Smart & Timelord either way. So it boils down to would u rather keep Pritchard/Romeo/Nesmith or Richardson/Horford/Schroder

Pritchard and Nesmith have more of a future but the veteran package helps you win now

Not quite as you're not comparing apples to apples. Richardson and Schroder, in particular Schroder, could be gone regardless of when/if we get Beal. Your observation only applies for this season, not beyond it.

Your first point doesn't guarantee that Beal stays with us either, so there's a chance we lose all that and Beal too. I know all the talk leads us to believe that Beal would want to play here, but it's still a risk and we've been burned before.

I could understand it, it's not the way I'd like to go though and I don't think that'll be the price of getting Beal as it is, but I understand the idea. Part of it is that I'm not convinced by Beal myself, but I'd take this stance with just about anyone who's coming as an expiring contract. But the narrative so far does seem to favor us.

If you tell me getting Beal this year gives us a very high chance of winning the Championship this year, then sure the risk may warrant it. I'm not as certain... but it does have the potential.

I think October 31 will be a key date to see what our plans for the future are (unless team options date have changed due to the new Covid dates).

[JBcat]

I would go pick heavy rather than young player heavy in a trade for Beal.

Jrue Holiday with 1 year left on his deal was traded along with a second round pick to the Bucks for 3 first round picks, 2 pick swaps, George Hill, and Eric Bledsoe in a 4 team trade.

Holiday is not Beal but is pretty darn good player in his own right, and many would have done a Walker for Holiday 1 for 1 trade in the past.  Also we wouldn’t be throwing in a negative asset like Bledsoe, and either trading for Beal at the trade deadline or a sign and trade next offseason the value should be less than trading for him now (Holiday was traded with 1 year left in his contract in his deal).

With using that trade as my perimeter for a Beal trade I would use any combination of Horford, Richardson, and Schroder maybe 1 of Langford, Edwards, G Williams, 3 first round picks, and 2 pick swaps in a trade deadline deal.  You could also redirect any of those players to another team in a multi team deal as I would think any team in a playoff hunt would be happy to have for a playoff run.

I think that’s more than enough, and losing all those future picks wouldn’t bother me as I would expect us to be a playoff team for the foreseeable future.  If that doesn’t work revisit again in the offseason, but Washington would have their backs up against a wall if Beal wants to leave.

[LilRip]

I would go pick heavy rather than young player heavy in a trade for Beal.

Jrue Holiday with 1 year left on his deal was traded along with a second round pick to the Bucks for 3 first round picks, 2 pick swaps, George Hill, and Eric Bledsoe in a 4 team trade.

Holiday is not Beal but is pretty darn good player in his own right, and many would have done a Walker for Holiday 1 for 1 trade in the past.  Also we wouldn’t be throwing in a negative asset like Bledsoe, and either trading for Beal at the trade deadline or a sign and trade next offseason the value should be less than trading for him now (Holiday was traded with 1 year left in his contract in his deal).

With using that trade as my perimeter for a Beal trade I would use any combination of Horford, Richardson, and Schroder maybe 1 of Langford, Edwards, G Williams, 3 first round picks, and 2 pick swaps in a trade deadline deal.  You could also redirect any of those players to another team in a multi team deal as I would think any team in a playoff hunt would be happy to have for a playoff run.

I think that’s more than enough, and losing all those future picks wouldn’t bother me as I would expect us to be a playoff team for the foreseeable future.  If that doesn’t work revisit again in the offseason, but Washington would have their backs up against a wall if Beal wants to leave.

Interesting, I’m on the opposite side. I’d rather keep picks than young players. They’re riskier but more attractive pieces too. They’re also resources for improving your team later.

Picture this, a couple of years ago, we didn’t have Pritchard. And with this logic, we would’ve traded his rights as a “low pick” (#26). Fast forward today and we wanna keep him.

I can see offering up a pick if we wanna keep someone like Pritchard, but if we could not give up something like 3 first rounders + 2 swaps, I think that’d be better for us. I remember a few months ago, people here were saying the Bucks were screwed because they gave up the farm for Holiday. Obvs the trade worked out coz they won a chip but if they didn’t, Milwaukee is pretty much at their ceiling in the foreseeable.

[LilRip]

As far as I understand, the options really are :

1) get Beal now: lose Smart, Timelord, Pritchard, Romeo, Nesmith

2) get Beal in FA: lose Smart, Timelord, Richardson, Horford, Schroder

3) no Beal or any max FA: keep current team

—
There’s no Beal in FA for free. To get Beal (or be a player in FA), I think we’re losing Smart & Timelord either way. So it boils down to would u rather keep Pritchard/Romeo/Nesmith or Richardson/Horford/Schroder

Pritchard and Nesmith have more of a future but the veteran package helps you win now

Not quite as you're not comparing apples to apples. Richardson and Schroder, in particular Schroder, could be gone regardless of when/if we get Beal. Your observation only applies for this season, not beyond it.

Your first point doesn't guarantee that Beal stays with us either, so there's a chance we lose all that and Beal too. I know all the talk leads us to believe that Beal would want to play here, but it's still a risk and we've been burned before.

I could understand it, it's not the way I'd like to go though and I don't think that'll be the price of getting Beal as it is, but I understand the idea. Part of it is that I'm not convinced by Beal myself, but I'd take this stance with just about anyone who's coming as an expiring contract. But the narrative so far does seem to favor us.

If you tell me getting Beal this year gives us a very high chance of winning the Championship this year, then sure the risk may warrant it. I'm not as certain... but it does have the potential.

I think October 31 will be a key date to see what our plans for the future are (unless team options date have changed due to the new Covid dates).

I agree that it doesn’t guarantee anything. Nothing is guaranteed in this league anyway even if guys are contract! They’ll just sit out ala Anthony Davis or James Harden. Or even if they do play, they can just quit on the floor like Kyrie did with us.

Anyway, if Beal wasn’t an expiring contract, I don’t think he’s available. Or I don’t think he’s available for what we’re willing to give up (no JB/JT). After all, there’s a diff in asking price between a player who’s on an expiring and a player who’s locked up.

If you don’t like Beal though, this I understand and where I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I see him as a top player who can put us at that Nets/Bucks tier. He opens the floor up for JB/JT to attack, he’s a threat off the ball and he’s a dynamic playmaker who can thrive alongside ball-dominant players (like John Wall and Westbrook). Defensively, he’s not that good but I think his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses

[Birdman]

I just wouldn’t give up the farm for one player..if u did, then u have 3 guys (Beal, Brown & Tatum) taking up much of the salary cap..unlike the Lakers, where everyone will take a pay cut to go to LA, Boston isn’t a free agent dream town..u have to fill roster with D-leaguers and don’t want that

[CBS_Take a Report]

I don’t see a mid-season trade for Beal at all. We have invested far too much in developing our young infrastructure and we can just wait until the offseason.

For the record, I am much more optimistic about this team’s chances. I see us as a 4 seed behind Brooklyn, Philadelphia and Milwaukee.

I look forward to seeing the growth of our youth (primarily Pritchard translating his Summer League dominance to regular season, Aaron Nesmith continuing to find his shot) and what steps forward Jaylen and Jayson make. I also believe Timelord could be an X factor this year if he can stay healthy. If he plays anything north of 60 games (25 mpg) this team is firmly in the Top 4 in Eastern Conference IMO.

[JBcat]

I would go pick heavy rather than young player heavy in a trade for Beal.

Jrue Holiday with 1 year left on his deal was traded along with a second round pick to the Bucks for 3 first round picks, 2 pick swaps, George Hill, and Eric Bledsoe in a 4 team trade.

Holiday is not Beal but is pretty darn good player in his own right, and many would have done a Walker for Holiday 1 for 1 trade in the past.  Also we wouldn’t be throwing in a negative asset like Bledsoe, and either trading for Beal at the trade deadline or a sign and trade next offseason the value should be less than trading for him now (Holiday was traded with 1 year left in his contract in his deal).

With using that trade as my perimeter for a Beal trade I would use any combination of Horford, Richardson, and Schroder maybe 1 of Langford, Edwards, G Williams, 3 first round picks, and 2 pick swaps in a trade deadline deal.  You could also redirect any of those players to another team in a multi team deal as I would think any team in a playoff hunt would be happy to have for a playoff run.

I think that’s more than enough, and losing all those future picks wouldn’t bother me as I would expect us to be a playoff team for the foreseeable future.  If that doesn’t work revisit again in the offseason, but Washington would have their backs up against a wall if Beal wants to leave.

Interesting, I’m on the opposite side. I’d rather keep picks than young players. They’re riskier but more attractive pieces too. They’re also resources for improving your team later.

Picture this, a couple of years ago, we didn’t have Pritchard. And with this logic, we would’ve traded his rights as a “low pick” (#26). Fast forward today and we wanna keep him.

I can see offering up a pick if we wanna keep someone like Pritchard, but if we could not give up something like 3 first rounders + 2 swaps, I think that’d be better for us. I remember a few months ago, people here were saying the Bucks were screwed because they gave up the farm for Holiday. Obvs the trade worked out coz they won a chip but if they didn’t, Milwaukee is pretty much at their ceiling in the foreseeable.

My thinking is the chances of hitting on non lottery picks aren’t great which we’ll most likely have in the next handful of years, and I think most of us can envision a future role for R Williams, Nesmith, and Pritchard around this potential big 3.  A bird in the hand theory with these young players verses picks.  At the end of the picks and pick swaps Brown and Tatum will be pushing 30, still plenty of time left in their prime. 

If for whatever reason it doesn’t work out and not an ideal fit, we still have enough non pick assets to try something else, so I’m not terribly worried about the loss in picks.  I believe Beal is a very able playmaker, and it could work out beautifully.  Not to mention in my proposal we also keep Smart. 😊

[Irish Stew]

Of course you do this deal.

Those 5 pennies for a nickel deals almost always work out for the team that gets the nickel looking back to the days of Jabbar to the Lakers from the Bucks.

You may have to fill out the roster with ageing veterans on the cheap, but that's what we did to in our last championship.

[Hoopvortex]

Gutting their roster for one star didn't work out for the Nets last year. No certainty it would for us either.

No way I'm giving up all that for a guy who will be an FA in a year. Personally speaking, as much as I like Beal and his game, I don't think he's a good fit with Tatum and Brown.

It did work for the Nets.... its just Irving got injured at the worst possible moment and Harden was out of shape

KD wore the wrong shoes/size too big

Dinwiddie was injured

The three pieces they lost.... Allen, Levert (not healthy), Prince.... not sure if they would have made that much a difference.   Brown, Green,  Harris,  Shamet were solid off the bench

fwiw, Joe Harris was a starter.

[smokeablount]

I would go pick heavy rather than young player heavy in a trade for Beal.

Jrue Holiday with 1 year left on his deal was traded along with a second round pick to the Bucks for 3 first round picks, 2 pick swaps, George Hill, and Eric Bledsoe in a 4 team trade.

Holiday is not Beal but is pretty darn good player in his own right, and many would have done a Walker for Holiday 1 for 1 trade in the past.  Also we wouldn’t be throwing in a negative asset like Bledsoe, and either trading for Beal at the trade deadline or a sign and trade next offseason the value should be less than trading for him now (Holiday was traded with 1 year left in his contract in his deal).

With using that trade as my perimeter for a Beal trade I would use any combination of Horford, Richardson, and Schroder maybe 1 of Langford, Edwards, G Williams, 3 first round picks, and 2 pick swaps in a trade deadline deal.  You could also redirect any of those players to another team in a multi team deal as I would think any team in a playoff hunt would be happy to have for a playoff run.

I think that’s more than enough, and losing all those future picks wouldn’t bother me as I would expect us to be a playoff team for the foreseeable future.  If that doesn’t work revisit again in the offseason, but Washington would have their backs up against a wall if Beal wants to leave.

I’m inclined to agree. Robert, Peyton and Nesmith should be better players than late first rounders, and should contribute sooner.