Did anybody pay any attention whatsoever to the 24ish hours that were the draft?
Teague for the 12th pick. An all star for the 12th pick. That was a great trade.
OKC got a GREAT trade.
I also absolutely do not believe that there wasn't a decent trade to be had for the 3rd pick. Don't believe it. Don't come here with that.
The trade we made with the 2nds for the future first. It was decent.
Robin Lopez and Jerian Grant for D Rose is pretty good.
Where would Teague fit in on our team? Would you be willing to give up our double max cap space for a guy who is not as good as IT and would take playing time away from our best player and from Smart and Bradley? I'm glad we didn't trade for Teague. He doesnt help our team at all.
The OKC trade was great for OKC, but as I said, what borderline all-star PF do we have to offer to Orlando, and why would we want more rookies when we were already drafting 8 players?
The Rose trade, Rose is cooked, would kill our cap, and like Teague doesnt fit our team. The Bulls were trying to give him away. On the other side, the guys we drafted thursday night are much better than Robin Lopez and Jerian Grant, and we didn't have to give up anything to get them, AND they allow us to keep our cap flexibility.
So, where are the good trades that were made that would have helped us that we missed out on?
Wait..... a guard who shoots 36% for his career from 3, and hit at a 40% clip last season, and produced about 6 assists per game last year as well, doesn't fit the Celtics? Really?
I don't care about the Teague situation one way or another, but come on.
No he wouldn't. He would take time away from younger and better players at his position, and would kill our ability to sign 2 max free agents, so he would in reality hurt us.
To repeat, summarize and clarify:
It's your position that a guard who can shoot would not help a team that needs a guard who can shoot. It's also your position that said guard would actually hurt the team.
That's completely insane.
And to repeat, summarize and clarify:
You guys are arguing about Jeff Teague. The #12 pick wasn't traded for Jeff Teague. It was traded for George Hill.
Nonetheless, both Teague and Hill make 8 million dollars next season (effectively kills our chance to have a second max contract), are both unrestricted free agents at the end of the season (they can leave for nothing), and Boston did not have the #12 pick.
It would have made little to no sense for Boston to trade #16 + #23 + later picks to move up to #12 and then trade it for George Hill. We have Thomas, Bradley, Smart and Rozier needing minutes at our guard positions. What's Hill going to do... split minutes off the bench with Smart? We were going to blow our chance to have another max-level talent next to Durant so that we could have George Hill getting 12 minutes per game off the bench for a single season before he bailed on us for a team that would give him starter minutes?
Bad example of a "great trade".
The #12 was traded for George Hill, but Teague was traded for the #12 (if that makes any sense)
I think they're saying we could have gotten Teague for #16+#23, or a similar deal
And maybe that would have been an ok idea. But probably not given that we have a pretty excellent guard rotation as is in Thomas, Bradley, Smart (and possibly even Rozier). Even if it had been Teague, which it wasn't, the same problems apply.
- You'd have a major log jam at the guard position. Are you going to just start Teague and Bradley, bench Thomas and give zero minutes to Smart, Rozier, etc?
- You're potentially hurting one of our greatest strengths - back court defense
- You're killing the opportunity to have double-max cap space this Summer
- Teague/Hill can walk at the end of the year. They'll command much large contracts next Summer. That could potentially hurt your long-term flexibility to add impact talent next Summer instead.
Not a bad move, theoretically, but there will be better opportunities. Need to meet with KD to see what he wants to do.