CelticsStrong
Around the League => Transaction Ideas and Rumors => Topic started by: KG Living Legend on November 13, 2018, 10:39:42 PM
-
Who says no and why.
-
Golden State would never ever do this
-
Golden State would never ever do this
Brad Stevens wouldn't sign off on trading Hayward...
-
Golden State would never ever do this
Brad Stevens wouldn't sign off on trading Hayward...
Especially this early IMO.
Both teams probably say no
-
Golden State would never ever do this
Brad Stevens wouldn't sign off on trading Hayward...
Especially this early IMO.
Both teams probably say no
Super interesting though right. Draymond was repeatedly calling Durant a b$itch in the huddle.
What if Hayward caught fire in there system and.
Horford
Green
Tatum
Brown
Kyrie
That is much better than we can do now on paper. Smart and Draymond would be fun to watch.
-
Hayward for Draymond? I know a lot of people don't like Dray, but he's a very valuable role player, and I think adding two supreme above average play making bigs like Horford and Dray would also play well into allowing more freedom/scoring from Tatum/Brown. Not to mention the defense down low/perimeter would be literally be unstoppable. We would be switching on everything, Draymond could run with the 2nd unit to boost his stats, and lead the charge by allowing him to set the offense occasionally. Did I mention how much deadly the defense would become?
Still the fact of the matter is, Draymond is going to get paid handsomely... I don't know if I would be content with paying Draymond over 40 million, depending on whether or not he retains that possibility by fulfilling all the necessary requirements.
-
I’m a no.
Bad juju to trade Hayward right now. Brad’s boy....left Utah to be a part of our tradition and culture...we’re stuck with him and have to hope he becomes 3/4 to 7/8 his former self this year, and 90-100% of his former self the year after.
-
Nope.
Personality fit aside (don’t think he’s Brad’s type), his game is actually kinda ugly. Yeah he does the dirty work (I guess) and is a very good defender, but he’s actually pretty offensively challenged. Can’t score off the dribble, doesn’t really have an effective post game, deep ball is unspectacular. I don’t think he enhances our already elite defense as much as he weakens our already troublesome offense.
I’ve always maintained he’d be a good player on another team, but nowhere near a star.
-
Both say no. No convo.
-
I don't think it's a good idea to trade Hayward as it would be a bad look for future free agents looking to sign here. That said, if we do trade him, we should wait until after the season to use his contract as salary filler for an Anthony Davis trade. Hayward and a gazillion first round picks.
-
I voted yes. Even though I agree that both teams say no. One the Celtics won't/can't do it, and 2 there is no way Warriors trade a star for a player that is a shell of himself right now.
Since this is purely hypothetical it makes perfect sense for both teams, of course assuming Hayward can rebound and get back into all star form.
I think it's clear Durant is leaving so the Warriors need to replace that scoring. The Celtics need to replace scoring with physicality, and Draymond is the definition of that. This trade allows Tatum and Brown to continue developing and improves our down low presence.
I hate Draymond, but this would be a great deal for the Celtics.. Not sure why Livingston would need to be involved though?
-
No, because Draymong.
-
I voted yes. Even though I agree that both teams say no. One the Celtics won't/can't do it, and 2 there is no way Warriors trade a star for a player that is a shell of himself right now.
Since this is purely hypothetical it makes perfect sense for both teams, of course assuming Hayward can rebound and get back into all star form.
I think it's clear Durant is leaving so the Warriors need to replace that scoring. The Celtics need to replace scoring with physicality, and Draymond is the definition of that. This trade allows Tatum and Brown to continue developing and improves our down low presence.
I hate Draymond, but this would be a great deal for the Celtics.. Not sure why Livingston would need to be involved though?
Great answer. TP. And Livingston has to be involved for a salary filler. Hayward makes 30 million, Green only 17.5
-
1) The Celtics won't do this trade
2) Why on god's green earth would the Warriors do this trade?
-
It would be very interesting if Durant told management that he would resign only if they got rid of Green. It would make Golden State a much worse team in the present, and Boston a much better team. We’d get a huge infusion of a lot of things we need, including the personality. We’d be an instant championship contender.
-
I am intrigued by Green but I don't see how the salaries could match up. I don't think GSW would be interested in Hayward at $30M for several years, unless they plan to let Thompson go. Then you would be essentially trading Green, Thompson, and Livingston for Hayward. Why do that? Why not just sign Thompson.
No, my guess would be that they would be looking for expiring contracts and maybe a good young player. To me, Cousins makes Green expendable but Cousins is not even playing yet. It would be a risk to trade Green but I think GSW can win without Green.
Maybe he should go to the Lakers. They have plenty of expiring contracts. How about Ingram and Caldwell-Pope? Lakers get a player that can help them right away.
-
As Simmons tweeted you could substitute Horford. Horford/Rozier for Green/Livingston works. Al to me is the one guy you can't lose but I'd have to think about that one if I were the C's. The problem with it - and with doing it for Hayward is you make promises to these guys to attract them as free agents. To ship them out of town may hurt you down the road the next time you're in the free agent market.
-
As Simmons tweeted you could substitute Horford. Horford/Rozier for Green/Livingston works. Al to me is the one guy you can't lose but I'd have to think about that one if I were the C's. The problem with it - and with doing it for Hayward is you make promises to these guys to attract them as free agents. To ship them out of town may hurt you down the road the next time you're in the free agent market.
I would not offer Horford for Green. That makes us even smaller. The point of getting Green is to add more size. If we give up our only good big to get another good big, what does that accomplish?
-
great trade for the Celtics if you don't consider PR.
complete non-starter for Warriors. Draymond is completely necessary for what they do, especially in the playoffs. They also rely on Livingston in the crunch.
If we had some like Green on the Celtics right now there'd be no fear of Philly, Toronto or anyone else in the East whatsoever... Horford is closest as far as being a do-it-all player who raises his game in the playoffs...Al gets a lot of flak this time of year when fans forget how he dominated the previous post season...
-
I guess the only reason GS would do the deal would be they are truly tired of Draymond's anitcs and think he's getting worse. Even then, it's a bit of a stretch.
For the Celtics... It makes me uncomfortable how much I like the deal for the Celtics. Green as the starting PF is a better fit than Hayward, even though he's not as good of a shooter. There would be potential for an all time defense. Lineups featuring Green, Morris, and Smart would eat other teams alive. And it would even save the C's $5 mil which means they could waive someone to open the roster spot and still get under the tax (I think) making future roster moves easier.
I feel uncomfortable about it because I don't like signing Hayward and trading him away after what happened and such a short amount of time spent on the court but... It's a great fantasy trade for the C's.
-
GS would never do it.
-
GS would never do it.
They really shouldn't. First off, they will just laugh at this offer. But even if the Celtics present a better offer, the Warriors would be dumb to trade Draymond right now.
If I'm the Warriors, I would let them hash it out during the year, and if KD leaves, so be it. The Warriors would still be contenders without Durant. Steph Curry would still be a top 5 player, they would still attract Free Agents to help out, and they would still be really good. I'm not risking trading Draymond only for KD to still be able leave after the fact.
Also, you can trade Draymond next year if need be, if Durant is the choice to keep. It doesn't have to be this year, as Green will still be under contract. If it came down to moving Dray to resign Durant, then trade him next summer.
I'm not moving Draymond this year, it would be stupid to do so. Win the championship this year. Cement your legacy as a true dynasty, worry about it next summer.
-
As Simmons tweeted you could substitute Horford. Horford/Rozier for Green/Livingston works. Al to me is the one guy you can't lose but I'd have to think about that one if I were the C's. The problem with it - and with doing it for Hayward is you make promises to these guys to attract them as free agents. To ship them out of town may hurt you down the road the next time you're in the free agent market.
I would not offer Horford for Green. That makes us even smaller. The point of getting Green is to add more size. If we give up our only good big to get another good big, what does that accomplish?
Exactly Vermont TP. what a stupid idea from Simmons.