Author Topic: Kevin Durant & Celtics???  (Read 10384 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #60 on: February 19, 2019, 06:01:27 AM »

Offline Silky

  • NFT
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2347
  • Tommy Points: 144
Why would Golden State do that? It's one thing to get something in return for a player like KD, but you don't do that if it gives the other team a great chance at beating you in the finals. GS would be better served letting KD go to a bad team for no return than getting Horford/Hayward and a forst from us (especially since it would make sure they had money to keep Klay, etc.)

1- You dont waste any Steph years
2- You never let someone like Durant leave your team for nothing.

Giving Durant to the Celtics would make us a superteam. That would waste Curry's prime more than having a Curry/Thompson/Green core would.

Losing an asset for nothing matters when you are in an asset collection phase, but when you are contending you instead need to focus on what will most help/least harm your chances of winning it all. Trading the second best player in the world to an already good-to-great team would hurt their chances more than letting him join a non-contender like the Knicks or Clippers, even if they got nothing in return. The Curry/Klay/Green core won 73 games without KD, and they'll be fine if he leaves, too

And hayward reduces their odds?

How does that happen?

Cause I was advocating a hayward+ for durant.

I think any gm that is in championship contention would rather hayward and assets to nothing.

Hayward doesn't reduce their odds, us improving does.

Durant is better than Hayward - I don't think anyone would dispute that. So if we upgrade from Hayward to Durant, we will have improved. If they go from Durant to Hayward, they will get worse. If the Warriors think that Celtics+Durant have a better chance to beat them+Hayward than the Celtics with Hayward have of beating them without Durant, then trading Durant to us decreases their chances of winning a championship

Again, you are ignoring that the move is not made in a vacuum. Getting a player of Hayward's caliber is better than getting nothing, but sending Durant to us has a negative effect on their chances of winning a championship. They may feel like they are still better than us if they make a deal like that, but there's more to consider than "something is better than nothing

So that was alot of words.

Lets go with this...

Is hayward better than nothing?

Cause that is what you are advocating here.

Durant will make every single team better. So your point there is moot.

Even Durant to NYK makes them alot better, Durant to nyk with max capspace makes them even better again.

Again, you're not actually listening to what I'm saying. The Warriors would be better with Hayward than with nothing, but you keep ignoring my point that that doesn't necessarily mean it gives them a better chance at a championship.

Here's a simple question: if you're the Warriors, are you more concerned about being as good as you can be, or about being the best team in the NBA? (and, no, those are not the same thing)

If they trade us Durant and that makes us better than them (with Hayward), they're in a bad place. If they think they're still the best team in the NBA without Durant (like they were before he came), then as long as he doesn't make some other team better than they are (and no, the Knicks with Durant, or even Durant and Kyrie, would not be better than the Curry/Klay/Green core. That's why him going to a bad team isn't a problem), they are in a very good position

The Warriors are trying to be the best team in the NBA and win a championship. Bringing a top rival up to (or above) their level (which giving us Durant would do) could hurt their chances more than gaining Hayward helps them. It's better to lose an asset for nothing and stay as the best team than to make another team better than you just to say that you got something in return

Oh, I got your point.

Its just a bad one.

If a player of Durants ilk wants out amd tells you what team, you trade him to that team.

Thats how the nba works now, players run the show not the other way around.

And GS without Durant won 73 games.
They are still the best team in the league.

Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #61 on: February 19, 2019, 06:37:06 AM »

Offline Pvictor11

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 408
  • Tommy Points: 62
Without Durant, but with Harrison Barnes, Andrew Bogut, Iguodala and Livingston 3 years younger. If you remove Durant right now, GSW won't be the same team as that 73 win team.
Brazilian Celtic Fan!

Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #62 on: February 19, 2019, 07:23:03 AM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
Without Durant, but with Harrison Barnes, Andrew Bogut, Iguodala and Livingston 3 years younger. If you remove Durant right now, GSW won't be the same team as that 73 win team.
Exactly. Andrew Bogut and Iggy were incredibly important to that 73 win team, and their title team. Bogut's defence, high-post passing and rebounding alongside Iggy's playmaking, defence and slashing were great complements to the original big 3. Not to mention Mo Speights and Leandro Barbosa giving them a good scoring punch off the bench.
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #63 on: February 19, 2019, 07:50:20 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
Why would Golden State do that? It's one thing to get something in return for a player like KD, but you don't do that if it gives the other team a great chance at beating you in the finals. GS would be better served letting KD go to a bad team for no return than getting Horford/Hayward and a forst from us (especially since it would make sure they had money to keep Klay, etc.)

1- You dont waste any Steph years
2- You never let someone like Durant leave your team for nothing.

Giving Durant to the Celtics would make us a superteam. That would waste Curry's prime more than having a Curry/Thompson/Green core would.

Losing an asset for nothing matters when you are in an asset collection phase, but when you are contending you instead need to focus on what will most help/least harm your chances of winning it all. Trading the second best player in the world to an already good-to-great team would hurt their chances more than letting him join a non-contender like the Knicks or Clippers, even if they got nothing in return. The Curry/Klay/Green core won 73 games without KD, and they'll be fine if he leaves, too

And hayward reduces their odds?

How does that happen?

Cause I was advocating a hayward+ for durant.

I think any gm that is in championship contention would rather hayward and assets to nothing.

Hayward doesn't reduce their odds, us improving does.

Durant is better than Hayward - I don't think anyone would dispute that. So if we upgrade from Hayward to Durant, we will have improved. If they go from Durant to Hayward, they will get worse. If the Warriors think that Celtics+Durant have a better chance to beat them+Hayward than the Celtics with Hayward have of beating them without Durant, then trading Durant to us decreases their chances of winning a championship

Again, you are ignoring that the move is not made in a vacuum. Getting a player of Hayward's caliber is better than getting nothing, but sending Durant to us has a negative effect on their chances of winning a championship. They may feel like they are still better than us if they make a deal like that, but there's more to consider than "something is better than nothing

So that was alot of words.

Lets go with this...

Is hayward better than nothing?

Cause that is what you are advocating here.

Durant will make every single team better. So your point there is moot.

Even Durant to NYK makes them alot better, Durant to nyk with max capspace makes them even better again.

Again, you're not actually listening to what I'm saying. The Warriors would be better with Hayward than with nothing, but you keep ignoring my point that that doesn't necessarily mean it gives them a better chance at a championship.

Here's a simple question: if you're the Warriors, are you more concerned about being as good as you can be, or about being the best team in the NBA? (and, no, those are not the same thing)

If they trade us Durant and that makes us better than them (with Hayward), they're in a bad place. If they think they're still the best team in the NBA without Durant (like they were before he came), then as long as he doesn't make some other team better than they are (and no, the Knicks with Durant, or even Durant and Kyrie, would not be better than the Curry/Klay/Green core. That's why him going to a bad team isn't a problem), they are in a very good position

The Warriors are trying to be the best team in the NBA and win a championship. Bringing a top rival up to (or above) their level (which giving us Durant would do) could hurt their chances more than gaining Hayward helps them. It's better to lose an asset for nothing and stay as the best team than to make another team better than you just to say that you got something in return

Oh, I got your point.

Its just a bad one.

If a player of Durants ilk wants out amd tells you what team, you trade him to that team.

Thats how the nba works now, players run the show not the other way around.


And GS without Durant won 73 games.
They are still the best team in the league.

Just like when Kawhi and AD told their teams they want to be traded to the Lakers and their teams... oh wait.

I disagree with BitterJim, in that I think GS has a high enough opinion of their core that they would trade Durant to the C's for Hayward (if the alternative was losing Durant for nothing) but his point about GS being worried about making a rival better is a legitimate one. Your response reads like you don't understand what he's saying.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #64 on: February 19, 2019, 08:58:04 AM »

Offline DefenseWinsChamps

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6043
  • Tommy Points: 766
I think neither Kyrie nor Durant cares what anyone thinks. I also think Kyrie really likes it in Boston and wants to be an all-time great in Boston.

I also think Durant could go one of two directions to end his career: 1) he could make a business decision where he should play next, where he could continue to develop his brand (Clippers, Nets, or Knicks), or 2) he could make a personal decision of where he feels like playing, and who he feels like playing with (Warriors, Celtics). Unfortunately, Golden State offers a bit of both.

Still, if Kyrie talked him into asking for a trade to Boston, on the threat he might completely walk away (leaving the Warriors with Curry, Thompson, and the fading careers of Green and Iggy), a Hayward for Durant trade makes a lot of sense for both teams. The Warriors cannot get a player anywhere close to Hayward's caliber in a different way. Even Brad Stevens wouldn't say no to that, as it would put Hayward is a great situation while significantly improving the Cs.

At that point, it makes sense to trade the farm for Davis. You prefer to keep Rozier as your backup guard. You also prefer to keep one of Smart or Brown. If you put Tatum, Brown, MLE, and Yabu on the table with your 3 draft picks, that gets it done. I think the Cs could keep Williams in that scenario.

Then the Cs have one guy in the height of his prime and two guys coming into their prime, to go with perfect role players (Horford, Baynes, Smart, Ojeleye), a good young big man (Williams), and a good sixth man (Rozier at 12-15 million a year). 

That team could be the best team of all-time. I also think the personalities would fit together really well.

I wouldn't want to trade the farm for just Davis, but it's not up to me.

Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #65 on: February 19, 2019, 10:19:44 AM »

Offline Silky

  • NFT
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2347
  • Tommy Points: 144
Why would Golden State do that? It's one thing to get something in return for a player like KD, but you don't do that if it gives the other team a great chance at beating you in the finals. GS would be better served letting KD go to a bad team for no return than getting Horford/Hayward and a forst from us (especially since it would make sure they had money to keep Klay, etc.)

1- You dont waste any Steph years
2- You never let someone like Durant leave your team for nothing.

Giving Durant to the Celtics would make us a superteam. That would waste Curry's prime more than having a Curry/Thompson/Green core would.

Losing an asset for nothing matters when you are in an asset collection phase, but when you are contending you instead need to focus on what will most help/least harm your chances of winning it all. Trading the second best player in the world to an already good-to-great team would hurt their chances more than letting him join a non-contender like the Knicks or Clippers, even if they got nothing in return. The Curry/Klay/Green core won 73 games without KD, and they'll be fine if he leaves, too

And hayward reduces their odds?

How does that happen?

Cause I was advocating a hayward+ for durant.

I think any gm that is in championship contention would rather hayward and assets to nothing.

Hayward doesn't reduce their odds, us improving does.

Durant is better than Hayward - I don't think anyone would dispute that. So if we upgrade from Hayward to Durant, we will have improved. If they go from Durant to Hayward, they will get worse. If the Warriors think that Celtics+Durant have a better chance to beat them+Hayward than the Celtics with Hayward have of beating them without Durant, then trading Durant to us decreases their chances of winning a championship

Again, you are ignoring that the move is not made in a vacuum. Getting a player of Hayward's caliber is better than getting nothing, but sending Durant to us has a negative effect on their chances of winning a championship. They may feel like they are still better than us if they make a deal like that, but there's more to consider than "something is better than nothing

So that was alot of words.

Lets go with this...

Is hayward better than nothing?

Cause that is what you are advocating here.

Durant will make every single team better. So your point there is moot.

Even Durant to NYK makes them alot better, Durant to nyk with max capspace makes them even better again.

Again, you're not actually listening to what I'm saying. The Warriors would be better with Hayward than with nothing, but you keep ignoring my point that that doesn't necessarily mean it gives them a better chance at a championship.

Here's a simple question: if you're the Warriors, are you more concerned about being as good as you can be, or about being the best team in the NBA? (and, no, those are not the same thing)

If they trade us Durant and that makes us better than them (with Hayward), they're in a bad place. If they think they're still the best team in the NBA without Durant (like they were before he came), then as long as he doesn't make some other team better than they are (and no, the Knicks with Durant, or even Durant and Kyrie, would not be better than the Curry/Klay/Green core. That's why him going to a bad team isn't a problem), they are in a very good position

The Warriors are trying to be the best team in the NBA and win a championship. Bringing a top rival up to (or above) their level (which giving us Durant would do) could hurt their chances more than gaining Hayward helps them. It's better to lose an asset for nothing and stay as the best team than to make another team better than you just to say that you got something in return

Oh, I got your point.

Its just a bad one.

If a player of Durants ilk wants out amd tells you what team, you trade him to that team.

Thats how the nba works now, players run the show not the other way around.


And GS without Durant won 73 games.
They are still the best team in the league.

Just like when Kawhi and AD told their teams they want to be traded to the Lakers and their teams... oh wait.

I disagree with BitterJim, in that I think GS has a high enough opinion of their core that they would trade Durant to the C's for Hayward (if the alternative was losing Durant for nothing) but his point about GS being worried about making a rival better is a legitimate one. Your response reads like you don't understand what he's saying.

I have a perfectly good understanding of what he is proposing.

I see it as being very incorrect.

Nba is a business, yes, but you think the league wouldnt look upon gsw very poorly if someone like Durant stated he wanted to play for celtics and instead was traded to a team elsewhere.

And the examples of davis amd leonard dont work because

A) there was more than a single team requested
B) durant hasnt personally sabatoged his current team
C) davis still might be traded to the lakers.

Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #66 on: February 19, 2019, 10:29:44 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
Why would Golden State do that? It's one thing to get something in return for a player like KD, but you don't do that if it gives the other team a great chance at beating you in the finals. GS would be better served letting KD go to a bad team for no return than getting Horford/Hayward and a forst from us (especially since it would make sure they had money to keep Klay, etc.)

1- You dont waste any Steph years
2- You never let someone like Durant leave your team for nothing.

Giving Durant to the Celtics would make us a superteam. That would waste Curry's prime more than having a Curry/Thompson/Green core would.

Losing an asset for nothing matters when you are in an asset collection phase, but when you are contending you instead need to focus on what will most help/least harm your chances of winning it all. Trading the second best player in the world to an already good-to-great team would hurt their chances more than letting him join a non-contender like the Knicks or Clippers, even if they got nothing in return. The Curry/Klay/Green core won 73 games without KD, and they'll be fine if he leaves, too

And hayward reduces their odds?

How does that happen?

Cause I was advocating a hayward+ for durant.

I think any gm that is in championship contention would rather hayward and assets to nothing.

Hayward doesn't reduce their odds, us improving does.

Durant is better than Hayward - I don't think anyone would dispute that. So if we upgrade from Hayward to Durant, we will have improved. If they go from Durant to Hayward, they will get worse. If the Warriors think that Celtics+Durant have a better chance to beat them+Hayward than the Celtics with Hayward have of beating them without Durant, then trading Durant to us decreases their chances of winning a championship

Again, you are ignoring that the move is not made in a vacuum. Getting a player of Hayward's caliber is better than getting nothing, but sending Durant to us has a negative effect on their chances of winning a championship. They may feel like they are still better than us if they make a deal like that, but there's more to consider than "something is better than nothing

So that was alot of words.

Lets go with this...

Is hayward better than nothing?

Cause that is what you are advocating here.

Durant will make every single team better. So your point there is moot.

Even Durant to NYK makes them alot better, Durant to nyk with max capspace makes them even better again.

Again, you're not actually listening to what I'm saying. The Warriors would be better with Hayward than with nothing, but you keep ignoring my point that that doesn't necessarily mean it gives them a better chance at a championship.

Here's a simple question: if you're the Warriors, are you more concerned about being as good as you can be, or about being the best team in the NBA? (and, no, those are not the same thing)

If they trade us Durant and that makes us better than them (with Hayward), they're in a bad place. If they think they're still the best team in the NBA without Durant (like they were before he came), then as long as he doesn't make some other team better than they are (and no, the Knicks with Durant, or even Durant and Kyrie, would not be better than the Curry/Klay/Green core. That's why him going to a bad team isn't a problem), they are in a very good position

The Warriors are trying to be the best team in the NBA and win a championship. Bringing a top rival up to (or above) their level (which giving us Durant would do) could hurt their chances more than gaining Hayward helps them. It's better to lose an asset for nothing and stay as the best team than to make another team better than you just to say that you got something in return

Oh, I got your point.

Its just a bad one.

If a player of Durants ilk wants out amd tells you what team, you trade him to that team.

Thats how the nba works now, players run the show not the other way around.


And GS without Durant won 73 games.
They are still the best team in the league.

Just like when Kawhi and AD told their teams they want to be traded to the Lakers and their teams... oh wait.

I disagree with BitterJim, in that I think GS has a high enough opinion of their core that they would trade Durant to the C's for Hayward (if the alternative was losing Durant for nothing) but his point about GS being worried about making a rival better is a legitimate one. Your response reads like you don't understand what he's saying.

I have a perfectly good understanding of what he is proposing.

I see it as being very incorrect.

Nba is a business, yes, but you think the league wouldnt look upon gsw very poorly if someone like Durant stated he wanted to play for celtics and instead was traded to a team elsewhere.

And the examples of davis amd leonard dont work because

A) there was more than a single team requested
B) durant hasnt personally sabatoged his current team
C) davis still might be traded to the lakers.

No, I don't think that at all and I see no reason why anyone would. The Kawhi and AD situations aren't perfect analogues but they are certainly instances of a team not bending to the will of a star player as you suggest teams would.

Plus, GS can't trade Durant anywhere he doesn't want to go because Durant would have to opt into his contract and he wouldn't do that unless he had an agreement with GS. Your scenario couldn't happen.

Again, I also disagree with BitterJim's point but his logic is sound. Saying he is "incorrect" is, well, incorrect.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #67 on: February 24, 2019, 11:37:38 AM »

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417
You know, at first I thought the chance of this happening was non-existent.

Now, the more I think about it (perhaps some wishful thinking involved), it's somewhat possible this could done.

As has been mentioned during this thread, what if Durant decides he wants to leave the Warriors. If him and Kyrie are as tight as it appears, who's to say Durant wouldn't want to come to Boston. Certainly, Durant and the Celtics have been linked together in the past (Ainge talking to Durant's mom in college, the Celts making the Tom Brady pitch in the Hamptons, etc.)

Now that Kyrie is here, could that be final factor that sways KD to Boston?

As others have mentioned, all Durant would have to do is agree to opt-in but request GSW trades him to Boston.
The Celts could offer Hayward's salary, draft picks, etc.

And who knows, maybe this has been Danny's plan the whole time.

Is this likely...hell no (lol.) But, as Jim Carrey would say

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMRrNY0pxfM

Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #68 on: February 24, 2019, 12:06:21 PM »

Offline Birdman

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9170
  • Tommy Points: 412
Rather have Durant than Davis
C/PF-Horford, Baynes, Noel, Theis, Morris,
SF/SG- Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Smart, Semi, Clark
PG- Irving, Rozier, Larkin

Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #69 on: February 24, 2019, 12:07:31 PM »

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417
Rather have Durant than Davis

Me too!

Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #70 on: February 24, 2019, 12:14:16 PM »

Offline BringToughnessBack

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8088
  • Tommy Points: 941
Rather have Durant than Davis

Me too!

As would I. Crazier things could happen.

Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #71 on: February 25, 2019, 05:46:18 PM »

Offline mrb617

  • Xavier Tillman
  • Posts: 32
  • Tommy Points: 6
We WONT get KD without Kyrie.

The only way we can get KD is for Kyrie to love it in Boston, and recruit KD to play here. If Kyrie tells his best friend how Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.ty Boston is there is ZERO chance.


Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #72 on: February 25, 2019, 05:57:15 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13002
  • Tommy Points: 1756
  • Everybody knows what's best for you
We WONT get KD without Kyrie.

The only way we can get KD is for Kyrie to love it in Boston, and recruit KD to play here. If Kyrie tells his best friend how ****ty Boston is there is ZERO chance.

While it would be fantastic to welcome KD to Boston, there is almost no conceivable way to do this under the salary cap (we are already WELL over). If KD wants to pull a Boogie Cousins and sign for the tax payer MLE, then I am all for it!

Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #73 on: February 25, 2019, 07:27:56 PM »

Offline Birdman

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9170
  • Tommy Points: 412
Sign and trade would work
C/PF-Horford, Baynes, Noel, Theis, Morris,
SF/SG- Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Smart, Semi, Clark
PG- Irving, Rozier, Larkin

Re: Kevin Durant & Celtics???
« Reply #74 on: February 26, 2019, 02:27:27 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
We WONT get KD without Kyrie.

The only way we can get KD is for Kyrie to love it in Boston, and recruit KD to play here. If Kyrie tells his best friend how ****ty Boston is there is ZERO chance.

While it would be fantastic to welcome KD to Boston, there is almost no conceivable way to do this under the salary cap (we are already WELL over). If KD wants to pull a Boogie Cousins and sign for the tax payer MLE, then I am all for it!

The way to do it would be for KD to opt into the final year of his deal and the C's and Warriors to swap him for Hayward, the thought being that GS would rather bring back Hayward from Boston than lose KD for nothing to, like, the Knicks.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008