Kevin Love per Wojnarowski

[D.o.s.]

FWF nailed it.

[droopdog7]

Theorem:

No trade is worth making unless it brings in a player who is capable of single-handedly vanquishing all foes.

No, that's a bit of a strawman argument, and while I can't speak for anyone else, it's not what I mean at all. 

But if a trade doesn't make you a contender, and severely hinders your ability to to get the other pieces you'd need to become a contender, it's probably not worth doing.  I think it's very debatable whether a Love deal would qualify, especially since we don't really know what it'd take to get him, don't know what draft pick we have yet, and a lot of people have a higher opinion of Love than I do.  But we do know we'd be tying up most of our cap in Love and (presumably) Rondo's next deal, and it's unclear if we'd have enough left to get any of the very limited elite talent that might still be available via trade in the next year or two.

Pretty much the way I'm leaning right now.

I see the argument but my question is, is it factual?  Say we get Love for some assets (including Sully and/or Olynyk but not Rondo).  Would it be possible within the next year or two to get enough space to recruit a third star to the team.  Or, possibly trade for one?

[fairweatherfan]

Theorem:

No trade is worth making unless it brings in a player who is capable of single-handedly vanquishing all foes.

No, that's a bit of a strawman argument, and while I can't speak for anyone else, it's not what I mean at all. 

But if a trade doesn't make you a contender, and severely hinders your ability to to get the other pieces you'd need to become a contender, it's probably not worth doing.  I think it's very debatable whether a Love deal would qualify, especially since we don't really know what it'd take to get him, don't know what draft pick we have yet, and a lot of people have a higher opinion of Love than I do.  But we do know we'd be tying up most of our cap in Love and (presumably) Rondo's next deal, and it's unclear if we'd have enough left to get any of the very limited elite talent that might still be available via trade in the next year or two.

Pretty much the way I'm leaning right now.

I see the argument but my question is, is it factual?  Say we get Love for some assets (including Sully and/or Olynyk but not Rondo).  Would it be possible within the next year or two to get enough space to recruit a third star to the team.  Or, possibly trade for one?

It'll factually be very difficult to get enough space to sign another star-caliber guy anytime soon, assuming we also are resigning Rondo.  Whether we could trade for one depends on a lot of factors, but realistically there are usually only 1-3 guys of that caliber available in a given year.

[sofutomygaha]

It's more than a little bit of a strawman. It's a total strawman. It's satire.

You guys are staking yourselves to the position that Kevin Love isn't worth max money, and I don't believe you. I think that you're being contrarian because Kevin Love is an imperfect, known quantity and you aren't willing to give up the dream that some asset we already have in hand is going to provide a better opportunity.

[sofutomygaha]

Theorem:

No trade is worth making unless it brings in a player who is capable of single-handedly vanquishing all foes.

No, that's a bit of a strawman argument, and while I can't speak for anyone else, it's not what I mean at all. 

But if a trade doesn't make you a contender, and severely hinders your ability to to get the other pieces you'd need to become a contender, it's probably not worth doing.  I think it's very debatable whether a Love deal would qualify, especially since we don't really know what it'd take to get him, don't know what draft pick we have yet, and a lot of people have a higher opinion of Love than I do.  But we do know we'd be tying up most of our cap in Love and (presumably) Rondo's next deal, and it's unclear if we'd have enough left to get any of the very limited elite talent that might still be available via trade in the next year or two.

Pretty much the way I'm leaning right now.

I see the argument but my question is, is it factual?  Say we get Love for some assets (including Sully and/or Olynyk but not Rondo).  Would it be possible within the next year or two to get enough space to recruit a third star to the team.  Or, possibly trade for one?

Even if we do trade some assets for Love, we'll still have buckets of draft picks.

[DarkAzcura]

You don't need a third star. It's an overrated concept, imo, and not necessary. Rondo and Love is enough star power. At that point, you follow the Spurs, Mavs, Grizz, Pacers, Pistons '04, Jazz of yesterday models. Try to fill the team with some ball handlers, shooters, and defenders. Bradley, Bayless, Green, and Asik (if we manage a trade for him also) fit the bill and would be a great starting point. Even OKC only has two stars. Ibaka really isn't much better than Asik.

[D.o.s.]

It's more than a little bit of a strawman. It's a total strawman. It's satire.

You guys are staking yourselves to the position that Kevin Love isn't worth max money, and I don't believe you. I think that you're being contrarian because Kevin Love is an imperfect, known quantity and you aren't willing to give up the dream that some asset we already have in hand is going to provide a better opportunity.

And I think you're overrating Kevin Love. So now what?

[sofutomygaha]

It's more than a little bit of a strawman. It's a total strawman. It's satire.

You guys are staking yourselves to the position that Kevin Love isn't worth max money, and I don't believe you. I think that you're being contrarian because Kevin Love is an imperfect, known quantity and you aren't willing to give up the dream that some asset we already have in hand is going to provide a better opportunity.

And I think you're overrating Kevin Love. So now what?

Well, I guess we gotta arm wrestle.

[mmmmm]

It's more than a little bit of a strawman. It's a total strawman. It's satire.

You guys are staking yourselves to the position that Kevin Love isn't worth max money, and I don't believe you. I think that you're being contrarian because Kevin Love is an imperfect, known quantity and you aren't willing to give up the dream that some asset we already have in hand is going to provide a better opportunity.

And I think you're overrating Kevin Love. So now what?

Only one possible resolution is left:

[D.o.s.]

I'm down for either as long as we schedule it for after the draft.

[fairweatherfan]

It's more than a little bit of a strawman. It's a total strawman. It's satire.

You guys are staking yourselves to the position that Kevin Love isn't worth max money, and I don't believe you. I think that you're being contrarian because Kevin Love is an imperfect, known quantity and you aren't willing to give up the dream that some asset we already have in hand is going to provide a better opportunity.

While there's no telling who'll be available, how our picks pan out, etc, I do prefer flexibility to paying a high price for Love.  I trust Danny to do more than just that one move, but we need more than Love, and I'm not sure how we get there if most of our best assets go out for him.

I also think it's hard to characterize this as contrarian when at least a large minority of the blog seems to agree, including a lot of posters who don't typically take contrarian positions.

[Fafnir]

It's more than a little bit of a strawman. It's a total strawman. It's satire.

You guys are staking yourselves to the position that Kevin Love isn't worth max money, and I don't believe you. I think that you're being contrarian because Kevin Love is an imperfect, known quantity and you aren't willing to give up the dream that some asset we already have in hand is going to provide a better opportunity.

While there's no telling who'll be available, how our picks pan out, etc, I do prefer flexibility to paying a high price for Love.  I trust Danny to do more than just that one move, but we need more than Love, and I'm not sure how we get there if most of our best assets go out for him.

I also think it's hard to characterize this as contrarian when at least a large minority of the blog seems to agree, including a lot of posters who don't typically take contrarian positions.

My issue is that if you don't think you can build around Love + Rondo, I'm really not sure you think you can build around anyone who's not an MVP caliber player.

[Donoghus]

It's more than a little bit of a strawman. It's a total strawman. It's satire.

You guys are staking yourselves to the position that Kevin Love isn't worth max money, and I don't believe you. I think that you're being contrarian because Kevin Love is an imperfect, known quantity and you aren't willing to give up the dream that some asset we already have in hand is going to provide a better opportunity.

While there's no telling who'll be available, how our picks pan out, etc, I do prefer flexibility to paying a high price for Love.  I trust Danny to do more than just that one move, but we need more than Love, and I'm not sure how we get there if most of our best assets go out for him.

I also think it's hard to characterize this as contrarian when at least a large minority of the blog seems to agree, including a lot of posters who don't typically take contrarian positions.

My issue is that if you don't think you can build around Love + Rondo, I'm really not sure you think you can build around anyone who's not an MVP caliber player.

My question is if you have Rondo/Love and their new contracts, what's left?  How much flexibility do you have?  Of the remaining draft picks, is there any chance of them falling in the top 5-7?  Now you're banking on the Nets to lose because a Celtics team of Rondo/Love isn't cracking the top 15, IMO.  What roster assets/contracts do you have to move besides draft picks?

My concern is if you build around Rondo/Love, you could be painting yourself into a corner fast without much room to budge.  I don't think that core (along with Green) gets you through the eastern conference.

I've been thinking for a while that this is going to be a multi-year rebuild.  It's not going to be an overnight thing like '07. 

[BleedGreen1989]

It's more than a little bit of a strawman. It's a total strawman. It's satire.

You guys are staking yourselves to the position that Kevin Love isn't worth max money, and I don't believe you. I think that you're being contrarian because Kevin Love is an imperfect, known quantity and you aren't willing to give up the dream that some asset we already have in hand is going to provide a better opportunity.

While there's no telling who'll be available, how our picks pan out, etc, I do prefer flexibility to paying a high price for Love.  I trust Danny to do more than just that one move, but we need more than Love, and I'm not sure how we get there if most of our best assets go out for him.

I also think it's hard to characterize this as contrarian when at least a large minority of the blog seems to agree, including a lot of posters who don't typically take contrarian positions.

My issue is that if you don't think you can build around Love + Rondo, I'm really not sure you think you can build around anyone who's not an MVP caliber player.

I'm with Faf.

If people don't think Love/Rondo is a great START to a championship team, then I'm not sure what will satisfy them short of Durant coming to Boston.

[fairweatherfan]

It's more than a little bit of a strawman. It's a total strawman. It's satire.

You guys are staking yourselves to the position that Kevin Love isn't worth max money, and I don't believe you. I think that you're being contrarian because Kevin Love is an imperfect, known quantity and you aren't willing to give up the dream that some asset we already have in hand is going to provide a better opportunity.

While there's no telling who'll be available, how our picks pan out, etc, I do prefer flexibility to paying a high price for Love.  I trust Danny to do more than just that one move, but we need more than Love, and I'm not sure how we get there if most of our best assets go out for him.

I also think it's hard to characterize this as contrarian when at least a large minority of the blog seems to agree, including a lot of posters who don't typically take contrarian positions.

My issue is that if you don't think you can build around Love + Rondo, I'm really not sure you think you can build around anyone who's not an MVP caliber player.

I think you can build around Love+Rondo; I'm not sure if you can build around Love+Rondo at two max or near-max salaries under the current CBA.  It's hard to build around two near-max salaries without at least one of them being an MVP caliber guy, especially if you're not doing it by inflating your own payroll re-signing a guy you had on his rookie deal.  Really, one of the few ways to do it would be by having another elite talent on a rookie contract, but there's probably no way we get Love without giving up our shot at that in this draft.

Of course all bets are off if Danny's really angling to trade Rondo as well and build around Love + our young guys + cap space.  Doubly so if he manages to do it while keeping our high pick this year.  Doubtful but I wouldn't put it past him to try.