A Missed Opportunity

[gpap]

I've gone back and forth on this.

In the end, I think yesterday was a golden opportunity to blow this team up.

I would've dealt Pierce for Humphries and Brooks. Brooks is a good scoring guard and Humph is a young athletic rebounder.

Then, KG likely would've wavied his no-trade clause and you could've had Bledsoe and Jordan. The idea is not because I want to see the Celtics suck. That's the last thing I want to see.

BUT...I just don't see us getting past Miami this year. Thus, we could've expedited the rebuild process by landing 4 assets in two separate trades which we could've used in a BIGGER deal this summer.

Therefore, we could've been competitive again as early as next season. I am off the belief you don't have to dwell in the basement for an eternity to get good again.

Look at the Chicago Bulls. In the 90s, they were dominant. They made it back to the playoffs in the mid 2000s and by 2009 they were good again with Derrick Rose.

Heck, even if KG still didn't waive his no trade clause, we still could've had another big in Hump to help KG in the paint. For all we know, that could've even helped the Celts more THIS season.

[Fafnir]

Taking on more salary if you're blowing it up, in Humphries, for marshon brooks and a low first round pick is a crappy trade for Pierce.

Brooks hasn't shown much at all after two "hot" months where he was passable and Humphries is awful.

You'd do better to trade Pierce in the offseason when he's partially guarenteed or just waive him. If the motivation of the trade would be primarily to change KGs mind, then you shouldn't do it.

[gpap]

Taking on more salary if you're blowing it up, in Humphries, for marshon brooks and a low first round pick is a crappy trade for Pierce.

Brooks hasn't shown much at all after two "hot" months where he was passable and Humphries is awful.

You'd do better to trade Pierce in the offseason when he's partially guarenteed or just waive him. If the motivation of the trade would be primarily to change KGs mind, then you shouldn't do it.

And I disagree. This summer, I am predicting that Pierce's trade value will be even lower than it was leading up to 3pm yesterday.

Unless Paul discovers the fountain of youth between now and July 1st, I highly doubt any team will be willing to trade you a power forward, a scoring guard and a no 1 pick for him

Also, Humphries would've only been under contract this season and next season and that's it.

I could easily argue that if you acquired Humph's contract, it would've been more valuable that Pierce's.

[Fafnir]

Taking on more salary if you're blowing it up, in Humphries, for marshon brooks and a low first round pick is a crappy trade for Pierce.

Brooks hasn't shown much at all after two "hot" months where he was passable and Humphries is awful.

You'd do better to trade Pierce in the offseason when he's partially guarenteed or just waive him. If the motivation of the trade would be primarily to change KGs mind, then you shouldn't do it.

Also, Humphries would've only been under contract this season and next season and that's it.

I could easily argue that if you acquired Humph's contract, it would've been more valuable that Pierce's.

And I disagree. This summer, I predicting that Pierce's trade value will be even lower than it was leading up to 3pm yesterday.

Unless Paul discovers the fountain of youth between now and July 1st, I highly doubt any team will be willing to trade you a power forward, a scoring guard and a no 1 pick for him

The Nets offer will almost certainly still be on the table.

Because that PF makes 12 million and he can't outplay Reggie Evans, the scoring guard has played at the same level as Jordan Crawford (.520 TS% and 98 ORTG), and the pick is going to be in the low 20s in a weak draft.

No one wants that bad offer. Pierce's value as an expiring contract that isn't fully guarenteed is worth more than that due to its ability to save a team over 10 million dollars.

[Snakehead]

The Nets offer was a golden opportunity...

Well.... we won't agree on that.

[PhoSita]

Humphries, Jordan, and whatever we would have had to pay Bledsoe a year from now to keep him would have been too expensive.

That's just too much money tied up in guys who aren't stars.

[lrybrd]

These kind of posts just amaze me.  Lets trade a hall of famer and a franchise legend for a bunch of retreads that have no value and a 1st round pick in the 20s.  While I can understand moving PP for value (i.e., a building block player, cap space, etc.), you cannot move him just for the sake of moving him which is the thought process of a lot of people on this site.   

[Geo123]

Taking on more salary if you're blowing it up, in Humphries, for marshon brooks and a low first round pick is a crappy trade for Pierce.

Brooks hasn't shown much at all after two "hot" months where he was passable and Humphries is awful.

You'd do better to trade Pierce in the offseason when he's partially guarenteed or just waive him. If the motivation of the trade would be primarily to change KGs mind, then you shouldn't do it.

I agree totally.  That would have been a terrible trade for us.  There's a reason Brooks and Humprhies aren't playing nearly as much this year and that's because they're unproductive.  Nobody wanted them.

PP becomes very valuable this summer if you wanted to trade him becuase of his contract.  Don't make a trade just to mix things up...

[CelticG1]

I cant get over people thinking the nets trade was even close to a good one.

Whats the difderence between crawford (who we got for free) and Brooks?

At least I see value in Bledsoe. Not so much Jordan especuially with that ugly contract for a guy who is pretty much an avg to below avg center.

I agree with Fafnir. I really dont think it is a smart decision to unload Pierce purely to force KG out of here

[Kane3387]

The humphries trade was trash.

[Snakehead]

I cant get over people thinking the nets trade was even close to a good one.

Whats the difderence between crawford (who we got for free) and Brooks?

At least I see value in Bledsoe. Not so much Jordan especuially with that ugly contract for a guy who is pretty much an avg to below avg center.

I agree with Fafnir. I really dont think it is a smart decision to unload Pierce purely to force KG out of here

Crawford is better than Brooks, is the difference.

Your post is right on here.  DeAndre Jordan is never developing any aspect of his game that he doesn't have right now.  Is he going to add a jumper?  Or a post game?   I don't see it.

[CoachBo]

I've gone back and forth on this.

In the end, I think yesterday was a golden opportunity to blow this team up.

I would've dealt Pierce for Humphries and Brooks. Brooks is a good scoring guard and Humph is a young athletic rebounder.

Then, KG likely would've wavied his no-trade clause and you could've had Bledsoe and Jordan. The idea is not because I want to see the Celtics suck. That's the last thing I want to see.

BUT...I just don't see us getting past Miami this year. Thus, we could've expedited the rebuild process by landing 4 assets in two separate trades which we could've used in a BIGGER deal this summer.

Therefore, we could've been competitive again as early as next season. I am off the belief you don't have to dwell in the basement for an eternity to get good again.

Look at the Chicago Bulls. In the 90s, they were dominant. They made it back to the playoffs in the mid 2000s and by 2009 they were good again with Derrick Rose.

Heck, even if KG still didn't waive his no trade clause, we still could've had another big in Hump to help KG in the paint. For all we know, that could've even helped the Celts more THIS season.

If I was Wyc and you did this deal, I would fire you.

[gpap]

First off, I hope I am wrong.

That said, my reasoning is if the Celts were currently the 1st or 2nd seed in the East, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

BUT, they are currently the 7th seed and have shown signs of fatigue this season, normal for an older team.

The idea would've been not to land Humphries and Brooks because they are such good players. The idea would've been to acquire assets for a bigger deal later on down the road.

And if KG waived the no-trade clause, then you could've picked up two more assets in Bledsoe/Jordan.

If the Celts can overtake Miami this year, I will be the happiest man on earth. I just don't see it happening which is why the Celts could've started getting ready for next year and the year after that.

As I mentioned earlier, Humphries would've only been under contract for this season and next. Also, this expiring contact his summer could've been even more valuable than Pierce's.

[CoachBo]

I cant get over people thinking the nets trade was even close to a good one.

Whats the difderence between crawford (who we got for free) and Brooks?

At least I see value in Bledsoe. Not so much Jordan especuially with that ugly contract for a guy who is pretty much an avg to below avg center.

I agree with Fafnir. I really dont think it is a smart decision to unload Pierce purely to force KG out of here

I can't for the life of me understand the anxiousness of some people to go back to 2005, when this franchise was on a fast track to three decades of irrelevancy before Kevin McHale and Sam Presti decided to take 10 cents on the dollar for two Hall of Famers.

The Nets trade is garbage, and anyone who makes it on the Celtics payroll should be immediately terminated.

And the Clippers deal I have no interest in. We traded an older version of Jordan two years ago because we didn't want to pay him $2 million less.

And we already have a guard whose shooting is questionable.

Two terrible trades that make no sense whatsoever.

[gpap]

I've gone back and forth on this.

In the end, I think yesterday was a golden opportunity to blow this team up.

I would've dealt Pierce for Humphries and Brooks. Brooks is a good scoring guard and Humph is a young athletic rebounder.

Then, KG likely would've wavied his no-trade clause and you could've had Bledsoe and Jordan. The idea is not because I want to see the Celtics suck. That's the last thing I want to see.

BUT...I just don't see us getting past Miami this year. Thus, we could've expedited the rebuild process by landing 4 assets in two separate trades which we could've used in a BIGGER deal this summer.

Therefore, we could've been competitive again as early as next season. I am off the belief you don't have to dwell in the basement for an eternity to get good again.

Look at the Chicago Bulls. In the 90s, they were dominant. They made it back to the playoffs in the mid 2000s and by 2009 they were good again with Derrick Rose.

Heck, even if KG still didn't waive his no trade clause, we still could've had another big in Hump to help KG in the paint. For all we know, that could've even helped the Celts more THIS season.

If I was Wyc and you did this deal, I would fire you.

Haha, would you at least have offered me another job further down the ladder?