Author Topic: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?  (Read 10346 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #105 on: January 25, 2022, 06:12:45 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 49893
  • Tommy Points: -26124
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
What does the contract matter? 

Because you're paying to dump it. That's what the pick is for. The contracts were the entire reason both Boston and Philly wanted off their particular players, and the "badness" of the contract is what determines how much you have to pay to dump it.

Why pay a first to dump it?  Dumping the contract didnít make us better in the short term, and itís unlikely to do so in the long term.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHERóóó AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #106 on: January 25, 2022, 06:18:00 PM »

Offline Celtics2021

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3527
  • Tommy Points: 323
What does the contract matter? 

Because you're paying to dump it. That's what the pick is for. The contracts were the entire reason both Boston and Philly wanted off their particular players, and the "badness" of the contract is what determines how much you have to pay to dump it.

Why pay a first to dump it?  Dumping the contract didnít make us better in the short term, and itís unlikely to do so in the long term.

Because the goal isnít to punt on two seasons with Tatum and Brown.

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #107 on: January 25, 2022, 06:25:19 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 49893
  • Tommy Points: -26124
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
What does the contract matter? 

Because you're paying to dump it. That's what the pick is for. The contracts were the entire reason both Boston and Philly wanted off their particular players, and the "badness" of the contract is what determines how much you have to pay to dump it.

Why pay a first to dump it?  Dumping the contract didnít make us better in the short term, and itís unlikely to do so in the long term.

Because the goal isnít to punt on two seasons with Tatum and Brown.

And yet, here we are at .500.  If not wasting the Jaysí prime was the goal, Brad failed miserably.  Not only is this a wasted season, but he squandered an asset for the future.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHERóóó AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #108 on: January 25, 2022, 07:03:56 PM »

Offline Celtics2021

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3527
  • Tommy Points: 323
What does the contract matter? 

Because you're paying to dump it. That's what the pick is for. The contracts were the entire reason both Boston and Philly wanted off their particular players, and the "badness" of the contract is what determines how much you have to pay to dump it.

Why pay a first to dump it?  Dumping the contract didnít make us better in the short term, and itís unlikely to do so in the long term.

Because the goal isnít to punt on two seasons with Tatum and Brown.

And yet, here we are at .500.  If not wasting the Jaysí prime was the goal, Brad failed miserably.  Not only is this a wasted season, but he squandered an asset for the future.

But your question is ďwhyĒ.  Trades that donít work how youíd hope happen all the time in the NBA.  It feels like youíre harping on this one a bit more than makes sense ó we know why he dumped Kemba, because he was completely cooked, and there were also rumblings of locker room tension on top of it.  (i didnít believe them at the time, but within a week of those stories coming out, Kemba was gone, so it feels like there was some truth.  And in NY last month he said he hadnít talked to Thibs for weeks.)

Has it worked?  Not yet, and probably ultimately it wonít.  Is that because of the trade or other peripheral reasons?  Again, the starting lineup is very successful, but the supporting cast has been questionable at best, so Horford himself has worked at least at times.  The coaching is obviously a big question mark.  But if the Cís were just going to decide last summer they were going to ride out Kemba, the answer would have been to trade the Jís.  Iím not going to sweat them giving away a pick to try to make things work for another two seasons.

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #109 on: January 25, 2022, 07:12:07 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 49893
  • Tommy Points: -26124
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
What does the contract matter? 

Because you're paying to dump it. That's what the pick is for. The contracts were the entire reason both Boston and Philly wanted off their particular players, and the "badness" of the contract is what determines how much you have to pay to dump it.

Why pay a first to dump it?  Dumping the contract didnít make us better in the short term, and itís unlikely to do so in the long term.

Because the goal isnít to punt on two seasons with Tatum and Brown.

And yet, here we are at .500.  If not wasting the Jaysí prime was the goal, Brad failed miserably.  Not only is this a wasted season, but he squandered an asset for the future.

But your question is ďwhyĒ.  Trades that donít work how youíd hope happen all the time in the NBA.  It feels like youíre harping on this one a bit more than makes sense ó we know why he dumped Kemba, because he was completely cooked, and there were also rumblings of locker room tension on top of it.  (i didnít believe them at the time, but within a week of those stories coming out, Kemba was gone, so it feels like there was some truth.  And in NY last month he said he hadnít talked to Thibs for weeks.)

Has it worked?  Not yet, and probably ultimately it wonít.  Is that because of the trade or other peripheral reasons?  Again, the starting lineup is very successful, but the supporting cast has been questionable at best, so Horford himself has worked at least at times.  The coaching is obviously a big question mark.  But if the Cís were just going to decide last summer they were going to ride out Kemba, the answer would have been to trade the Jís.  Iím not going to sweat them giving away a pick to try to make things work for another two seasons.

Why would we trade the Jays if weíd kept Kemba?  That seems like an odd argument.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHERóóó AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #110 on: January 25, 2022, 07:23:11 PM »

Offline Celtics2021

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3527
  • Tommy Points: 323
What does the contract matter? 

Because you're paying to dump it. That's what the pick is for. The contracts were the entire reason both Boston and Philly wanted off their particular players, and the "badness" of the contract is what determines how much you have to pay to dump it.

Why pay a first to dump it?  Dumping the contract didnít make us better in the short term, and itís unlikely to do so in the long term.

Because the goal isnít to punt on two seasons with Tatum and Brown.

And yet, here we are at .500.  If not wasting the Jaysí prime was the goal, Brad failed miserably.  Not only is this a wasted season, but he squandered an asset for the future.

But your question is ďwhyĒ.  Trades that donít work how youíd hope happen all the time in the NBA.  It feels like youíre harping on this one a bit more than makes sense ó we know why he dumped Kemba, because he was completely cooked, and there were also rumblings of locker room tension on top of it.  (i didnít believe them at the time, but within a week of those stories coming out, Kemba was gone, so it feels like there was some truth.  And in NY last month he said he hadnít talked to Thibs for weeks.)

Has it worked?  Not yet, and probably ultimately it wonít.  Is that because of the trade or other peripheral reasons?  Again, the starting lineup is very successful, but the supporting cast has been questionable at best, so Horford himself has worked at least at times.  The coaching is obviously a big question mark.  But if the Cís were just going to decide last summer they were going to ride out Kemba, the answer would have been to trade the Jís.  Iím not going to sweat them giving away a pick to try to make things work for another two seasons.

Why would we trade the Jays if weíd kept Kemba?  That seems like an odd argument.

Because if youíre going to waste two seasons of a young players prime years by not trying because youíd rather just keep $35 million in bad salary on the roster than trading him for something useful, theyíre going to leave.

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #111 on: January 25, 2022, 07:28:56 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 49893
  • Tommy Points: -26124
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
What does the contract matter? 

Because you're paying to dump it. That's what the pick is for. The contracts were the entire reason both Boston and Philly wanted off their particular players, and the "badness" of the contract is what determines how much you have to pay to dump it.

Why pay a first to dump it?  Dumping the contract didnít make us better in the short term, and itís unlikely to do so in the long term.

Because the goal isnít to punt on two seasons with Tatum and Brown.

And yet, here we are at .500.  If not wasting the Jaysí prime was the goal, Brad failed miserably.  Not only is this a wasted season, but he squandered an asset for the future.

But your question is ďwhyĒ.  Trades that donít work how youíd hope happen all the time in the NBA.  It feels like youíre harping on this one a bit more than makes sense ó we know why he dumped Kemba, because he was completely cooked, and there were also rumblings of locker room tension on top of it.  (i didnít believe them at the time, but within a week of those stories coming out, Kemba was gone, so it feels like there was some truth.  And in NY last month he said he hadnít talked to Thibs for weeks.)

Has it worked?  Not yet, and probably ultimately it wonít.  Is that because of the trade or other peripheral reasons?  Again, the starting lineup is very successful, but the supporting cast has been questionable at best, so Horford himself has worked at least at times.  The coaching is obviously a big question mark.  But if the Cís were just going to decide last summer they were going to ride out Kemba, the answer would have been to trade the Jís.  Iím not going to sweat them giving away a pick to try to make things work for another two seasons.

Why would we trade the Jays if weíd kept Kemba?  That seems like an odd argument.

Because if youíre going to waste two seasons of a young players prime years by not trying because youíd rather just keep $35 million in bad salary on the roster than trading him for something useful, theyíre going to leave.

Instead, we have $28.5 million in bad salary, a .500 record, and missed out on a stud center with all-star potential.  So, bravo?


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHERóóó AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #112 on: January 25, 2022, 07:38:09 PM »

Offline Celtics2021

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3527
  • Tommy Points: 323
What does the contract matter? 

Because you're paying to dump it. That's what the pick is for. The contracts were the entire reason both Boston and Philly wanted off their particular players, and the "badness" of the contract is what determines how much you have to pay to dump it.

Why pay a first to dump it?  Dumping the contract didnít make us better in the short term, and itís unlikely to do so in the long term.

Because the goal isnít to punt on two seasons with Tatum and Brown.

And yet, here we are at .500.  If not wasting the Jaysí prime was the goal, Brad failed miserably.  Not only is this a wasted season, but he squandered an asset for the future.

But your question is ďwhyĒ.  Trades that donít work how youíd hope happen all the time in the NBA.  It feels like youíre harping on this one a bit more than makes sense ó we know why he dumped Kemba, because he was completely cooked, and there were also rumblings of locker room tension on top of it.  (i didnít believe them at the time, but within a week of those stories coming out, Kemba was gone, so it feels like there was some truth.  And in NY last month he said he hadnít talked to Thibs for weeks.)

Has it worked?  Not yet, and probably ultimately it wonít.  Is that because of the trade or other peripheral reasons?  Again, the starting lineup is very successful, but the supporting cast has been questionable at best, so Horford himself has worked at least at times.  The coaching is obviously a big question mark.  But if the Cís were just going to decide last summer they were going to ride out Kemba, the answer would have been to trade the Jís.  Iím not going to sweat them giving away a pick to try to make things work for another two seasons.

Why would we trade the Jays if weíd kept Kemba?  That seems like an odd argument.

Because if youíre going to waste two seasons of a young players prime years by not trying because youíd rather just keep $35 million in bad salary on the roster than trading him for something useful, theyíre going to leave.

Instead, we have $28.5 million in bad salary, a .500 record, and missed out on a stud center with all-star potential.  So, bravo?

Horford is overpaid.  Heís showing why the Celtics didnít want to give him the deal the Sixers did.  Heís not dead salary like a benched Kemba would have been. 

And Sengun is playing 18 minutes a game for a bad team. He wasnít going to make a difference here any time soon.  Feel free to quote yourself when Sengun makes an All-Star team, and Iíll give you as many TPS as I can (I understand that TPs donít matter to someone who voluntarily gave himself negative infinity, but youíre welcome to crow about being right.  I donít think he ever makes one).

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #113 on: January 25, 2022, 10:22:04 PM »

Offline pokeKingCurtis

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3484
  • Tommy Points: 272
What does the contract matter? 

Because you're paying to dump it. That's what the pick is for. The contracts were the entire reason both Boston and Philly wanted off their particular players, and the "badness" of the contract is what determines how much you have to pay to dump it.

Why pay a first to dump it?  Dumping the contract didnít make us better in the short term, and itís unlikely to do so in the long term.

Because the goal isnít to punt on two seasons with Tatum and Brown.

And yet, here we are at .500.  If not wasting the Jaysí prime was the goal, Brad failed miserably.  Not only is this a wasted season, but he squandered an asset for the future.

But your question is ďwhyĒ.  Trades that donít work how youíd hope happen all the time in the NBA.  It feels like youíre harping on this one a bit more than makes sense ó we know why he dumped Kemba, because he was completely cooked, and there were also rumblings of locker room tension on top of it.  (i didnít believe them at the time, but within a week of those stories coming out, Kemba was gone, so it feels like there was some truth.  And in NY last month he said he hadnít talked to Thibs for weeks.)

Has it worked?  Not yet, and probably ultimately it wonít.  Is that because of the trade or other peripheral reasons?  Again, the starting lineup is very successful, but the supporting cast has been questionable at best, so Horford himself has worked at least at times.  The coaching is obviously a big question mark.  But if the Cís were just going to decide last summer they were going to ride out Kemba, the answer would have been to trade the Jís.  Iím not going to sweat them giving away a pick to try to make things work for another two seasons.

Why would we trade the Jays if weíd kept Kemba?  That seems like an odd argument.

Because if youíre going to waste two seasons of a young players prime years by not trying because youíd rather just keep $35 million in bad salary on the roster than trading him for something useful, theyíre going to leave.

Instead, we have $28.5 million in bad salary, a .500 record, and missed out on a stud center with all-star potential.  So, bravo?

Horford is overpaid.  Heís showing why the Celtics didnít want to give him the deal the Sixers did.  Heís not dead salary like a benched Kemba would have been. 

And Sengun is playing 18 minutes a game for a bad team. He wasnít going to make a difference here any time soon.  Feel free to quote yourself when Sengun makes an All-Star team, and Iíll give you as many TPS as I can (I understand that TPs donít matter to someone who voluntarily gave himself negative infinity, but youíre welcome to crow about being right.  I donít think he ever makes one).

We would have probably complained about Sengun being a bad pick if we'd gotten him because he would have been buried in the bench much like Nesmith or Romeo

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #114 on: January 26, 2022, 03:48:15 PM »

Online bogg

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 699
  • Tommy Points: 46
What does the contract matter? 

Because you're paying to dump it. That's what the pick is for. The contracts were the entire reason both Boston and Philly wanted off their particular players, and the "badness" of the contract is what determines how much you have to pay to dump it.

Why pay a first to dump it?  Dumping the contract didnít make us better in the short term, and itís unlikely to do so in the long term.

"I don't think the team should have tried this year" and "Why was Philly able to move more total salary for similar draft value" are two different statements/questions. One isn't some sort of proof that the other is untrue.

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #115 on: January 26, 2022, 04:19:20 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 49893
  • Tommy Points: -26124
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
What does the contract matter? 

Because you're paying to dump it. That's what the pick is for. The contracts were the entire reason both Boston and Philly wanted off their particular players, and the "badness" of the contract is what determines how much you have to pay to dump it.



Why pay a first to dump it?  Dumping the contract didnít make us better in the short term, and itís unlikely to do so in the long term.

"I don't think the team should have tried this year" and "Why was Philly able to move more total salary for similar draft value" are two different statements/questions. One isn't some sort of proof that the other is untrue.

No, but the fact that 1) Philly got much better value; and 2) there was no realistic shot at us contending this season are both evidence that us wasting a first rounder was a bad idea.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHERóóó AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #116 on: January 26, 2022, 04:42:08 PM »

Online bogg

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 699
  • Tommy Points: 46
No, but the fact that 1) Philly got much better value;

That's the thing - it's far from apparent that they did.  Horford is still playable while it's difficult to have Kemba on the floor without killing your defense, and Kemba's lost the step that made him special on offense. You don't have to look any further than which contract is still attached to a player and able to be moved to see which deal was/is worse.

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #117 on: January 26, 2022, 04:44:25 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 49893
  • Tommy Points: -26124
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
No, but the fact that 1) Philly got much better value;

That's the thing - it's far from apparent that they did.  Horford is still playable while it's difficult to have Kemba on the floor without killing your defense, and Kemba's lost the step that made him special on offense. You don't have to look any further than which contract is still attached to a player and able to be moved to see which deal was/is worse.

Philly got Danny Green, a two year starter, in their deal.  Heís compable to Horford, on a much lower salary.



I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHERóóó AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #118 on: January 26, 2022, 05:22:12 PM »

Online bogg

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 699
  • Tommy Points: 46
No, but the fact that 1) Philly got much better value;

That's the thing - it's far from apparent that they did.  Horford is still playable while it's difficult to have Kemba on the floor without killing your defense, and Kemba's lost the step that made him special on offense. You don't have to look any further than which contract is still attached to a player and able to be moved to see which deal was/is worse.

Philly got Danny Green, a two year starter, in their deal.  Heís compable to Horford, on a much lower salary.

Danny Green is cooked and, at around 15.5 million, was a (much less, admittedly) bad contract in his own right that the Lakers unloaded in their Schroeder deal. That wasn't a player Philly "got", it was a player they had to take back as part of the value to OKC.

Very similar to what Horford was in the Kemba trade, actually, except that when Philly was moving Horford he was still a playable starting center that could be traded again by OKC while Kemba immediately turned into dead, immovable money.

Re: Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?
« Reply #119 on: January 29, 2022, 12:47:15 PM »

Online Big333223

  • NCE
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6883
  • Tommy Points: 695
Isn't the answer to this question that Horford - because he's better than Kemba and the particulars of his contract are more amenable - is a more desirable piece in a trade both at the deadline and this summer?

Is it?

The team sucks this year, so thatís not worth the cost of Sengun.

We wonít be below the salary cap, so thatís not worth Sengun.

Next summer, both are expiring contracts.  I donít think the difference in trade value of those two contracts is worth Sengun.
It seems weird to me to use the Celtics record now as a reason for why the deal shouldn't have been done last summer. Unless you're using the current record as evidence that the deal didn't work but I don't think that's what you're doing because there's no reason to think the record would be better with Kemba than with Horford.

It sounds almost like you're saying the team knew that they'd be mediocre this season months ago and taken that into consideration even though the Celtics were expected to be quite a bit better than they have been.

Also, I haven't watched a minute of Sengun but is he really worth this kind of talk?

The buck stops with Brad Stevens.  If he gave up a good draft pick for a very, very modest upgrade that had no effect on winning, he should probably be fired.
Kemba had to be bought out by OKC and now NY is trying to get rid of him. Trying to move that guy at $37 mil versus trying to move Horford, who has been excellent on defense this year and will make only $14 mil next year is a big deal. It might be the difference between the Celtics having a chance to bring in someone significant this summer (or at the deadline now) and not having any chance.

Is that worth the #16 pick? I guess you say no. That's fine. But the reason for making the deal seems pretty clear.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008