Danny Ainge:" Would Consider Trading The Big Three For Younger Talent "

[Neurotic Guy]

I don't think you trade MJ and Scottie for whatever the kids-du-jour were back after their 5th or 6th title.  6th may not be a good example, but you see what I'm saying

No, but you probably trade them a few years later if they weren't winning titles.   The Celtics were a year and a half removed from the last title at Christmas 87 and the team was getting worse and more injured.  I probably don't trade them then either given they were just in the finals the June prior to that, but I certainly would have moved them in 89-90 or 90-91 and wouldn't have given it a second thought, which is exactly the situation the current Celtics are in.  It has been 3.5 years since the last title and 1.5 years since the last finals appearance.  This team isn't going to win a title so if you can some value you trade them.  Period.

I'll agree to that, although I'm just guessing it would have been much easier moving Bird then than KG and his $21mill contract now. Maybe not, but still. His contract comes off the books anyway and we can try to bring him back for MLE type money

The salary cap was new back then and the numbers much lower for everyone, it was easier to trade players as GMs didn't know exactly the best manage the cap.

Not to mention Bird was better then than KG is now.

Bird was better in his waning years than KG is now, but certainly no less fragile.  By 90-91 it was painful to watch him -- not because of the quality of play but because of the back pain that seemed constant.
Point being -- I'm not sure there is much of a difference in terms of trade value to where KG is now.  Salary match limitations is the biggest hinderance to getting some value for KG  at this point.

[nickagneta]

What year was Danny's Christmas party conversation?  I'd guess Christmas of '87.  That year, Larry Bird was 31 years old, and averaged 29.9 points, plus over 9 rebounds and 6 assists.  The Celtics were coming off of a Finals run.  

Person + Williams + Stipanovich would have been a bad trade for us at the time, and in hindsight, having those guys wouldn't have helped our team a whole lot.  We would have had a good-but-not-great player in Person (zero career all-star games), a mediocre guy in Williams, and a guy who would quickly be out of the league in Stipanovich.

If that is the level of trades Danny is considering, look out.  I just don't see the sense in picking up mid-level players and attempting to build around them; it ensures mediocrity.

It had to be 86 or 87 since that was the only years those players were all on the same team.

The McHale trade would have been a solid trade.  Perkins and Schrempf both had solid careers after that point in time and were key members of title contenders and/or winners.

As for the Bird trade, I think it only looks worse now because Stipanovich retired after the 88 season.  He was a pretty solid player early in his career before he walked away in his prime.  Person was a great scorer for a number of years and Herb Williams was a solid role player for much of his fairly long career.  It wasn't a terrible trade at the time, but had Stipanovich still retired right after it, it would have been.

The Celtics were still a contender in 87-88 (losing to Detroit in the ECF), but weren't close again after that never getting past the second round (and losing in the first round a lot).  

By the same token the only reason that trade looks good in any way in hindsight is because Bird hurt his back that next year. So if you are discounting Stipanovich retiring then you have to discount Bird's future injury.

I think Roy's point is valid. At the time, that was bad value for Larry Bird in the middle of one of his greatest years ever.

[Moranis]

What year was Danny's Christmas party conversation?  I'd guess Christmas of '87.  That year, Larry Bird was 31 years old, and averaged 29.9 points, plus over 9 rebounds and 6 assists.  The Celtics were coming off of a Finals run.  

Person + Williams + Stipanovich would have been a bad trade for us at the time, and in hindsight, having those guys wouldn't have helped our team a whole lot.  We would have had a good-but-not-great player in Person (zero career all-star games), a mediocre guy in Williams, and a guy who would quickly be out of the league in Stipanovich.

If that is the level of trades Danny is considering, look out.  I just don't see the sense in picking up mid-level players and attempting to build around them; it ensures mediocrity.

It had to be 86 or 87 since that was the only years those players were all on the same team.

The McHale trade would have been a solid trade.  Perkins and Schrempf both had solid careers after that point in time and were key members of title contenders and/or winners.

As for the Bird trade, I think it only looks worse now because Stipanovich retired after the 88 season.  He was a pretty solid player early in his career before he walked away in his prime.  Person was a great scorer for a number of years and Herb Williams was a solid role player for much of his fairly long career.  It wasn't a terrible trade at the time, but had Stipanovich still retired right after it, it would have been.

The Celtics were still a contender in 87-88 (losing to Detroit in the ECF), but weren't close again after that never getting past the second round (and losing in the first round a lot).  

By the same token the only reason that trade looks good in any way in hindsight is because Bird hurt his back that next year. So if you are discounting Stipanovich retiring then you have to discount Bird's future injury.

I think Roy's point is valid. At the time, that was bad value for Larry Bird in the middle of one of his greatest years ever.

Bird was 31.  Old guys get hurt.  Stipanovich walking away at 27 doesn't happen very often.

I wouldn't have made the trade in that season, but I certainly would have been shopping Bird in 89-90 (after it was clear he had recovered from the 6 game season).  McHale, Parish, and DJ also would have been on the trade block in that season.

For me the Celtics right now are like the 89-90 Celtics team.  Good enough to make the playoffs, but not good enough to contend for a title and no real prospects of getting better without first getting worse.

[nickagneta]

For me the Celtics right now are like the 89-90 Celtics team.  Good enough to make the playoffs, but not good enough to contend for a title and no real prospects of getting better without first getting worse.

I agree. But by the same token, teams at that time could attempt to rebuild on the run due to a lack of salary cap restrictions and so forth.

Now, its a lot more difficult and given that most of the team's salaries come off the books this year, the prospects are decent that they can get very bad quickly and rebuild  with high draft picks and creative use of the cap space.

I wouldn't say it will be fast, it won't be, but I think the Celtics can return to prominence faster than 22 years later.

[Jon]

I know I'm in a little late on this (I wanted to comment last night, but was away from a computer and didn't feel like typing it out on my smart phone). 

But I really think the whole article really proves the opposite of how many in the national media are portraying it.  Yes, Danny would consider trading the Big Three, but what he really spent more time doing is explaining how the comments he made about the original Big Three don't hold up in today's NBA.

While it's nice to say Danny needs to trade the Big Three while he can still get something, as others have suggested, what exactly is he going to get?

In 2007, we traded Big Al, Ryan Gomes, Gerald Green, Sebastian Telfair, Theo Ratliff, and two first rounders.  While that was a fairly good package, let's keep two things in mind: 1) That was 4 1/2 years ago, and 2) while Big Al is a nice player, it's not like the Timberwolves got a core piece to their future championship dreams by trading one of the top 5 players in the league at the time. 

Same with Ray.  We traded West, Wally Sczerbiack, and the pick that would be Jeff Green.  All were nice players, but not players that became the next core superstars that the Sonics/Thunder were going to build their team around.  And again, that was the value that these teams got 4 1/2 years ago. 

So might we be able to get some nice players for our Big Three?  Maybe.  But to complicate matters more, as others have pointed out, we'd also have to take back equal salary.  And while it might be nice to get some assets, do we really want to be paying a bunch of average-to-good players Big Three kind of money?  This isn't like Major League Baseball where teams dump high priced, aging superstars for young, cheap minor league talent. 

Now I realize there really aren't many good alternatives.  Free agency likely isn't going to net us a future superstar either (at least next summer).  But I think for all those who are pushing trading the Big Three, you really have to look closely at the whole situation and realize that their trade market is likely small and trading them hardly secures us the future success that some would believe.