The Hayward S&T: Missed Opportunity? (Merged)

[Roy H.]

it had to be a trade that we wanted, not a trade just to let Gordon go somewhere where he wanted to play.

Interesting quote. Let's add some context and look at the entirety of it:

Ainge joined 98.5 The Sports Hub’s Toucher & Rich morning show Tuesday when he talked about the Celtics’ initial offseason plan was to bring Hayward back. Instead, Gordon inked a massive four-year, $120 million deal with the Charlotte Hornets.

The two sides fell to come to an agreement (clearly), however, through no intentions of his own, Ainge says the Celtics anticipated Hayward’s exit plan months ago. But Danny hoped that both sides could come to an agreed destination via a sign-and-trade best for all parties considered.

Ultimately, leaving Ainge and the Celtics with a parting gift in the form of a $28.5 million traded player exception – the largest TPE in NBA history. It wasn’t Plan A, certainly wasn’t Plan B but it was the best Ainge could squeeze out of losing his second max-paid signee in back-to-back years.

“We set out to try to get Gordon (Hayward) to come back,” Ainge said. “That was our number one goal in the offseason was to get Gordon back with the Celtics. He’s a terrific player and I just think that he preferred to go somewhere else, and made his choice to go to Charlotte.

“I think he preferred to be a more featured player and Charlotte was paying him a lot of money and he chose to go there.”

Ainge went on to confirm that the Indiana Pacers was a potential destination for a Gordon Hayward, sign-and-trade deal but said that those talks fell through.

“Indiana was one of a handful of teams, maybe three or four teams would probably be a more accurate description, that we talked about the potential of sign and trades,” Ainge added. “And, as you know, with sign and trades the player controls that because if we work out a deal with another team but if Gordon doesn’t want to go there, then he doesn’t have to go there. It takes all three parties to be pleased.”

As for the specifics surrounding a trade proposal for the Pacers, Ainge pleaded the fifth. He wouldn’t get into which Indiana players were discussed but had plenty to say to those speculating that he asked the Pacers for the farm and wouldn’t settle for less.

“That’s not even close to fair,” Ainge said. “I understand that perspective because if you don’t know what I know then you really don’t know, at all, what happened. We knew all four of those options and what they were so any trade that came on, it had to be a trade that we wanted, not a trade just to let Gordon go somewhere where he wanted to play.

It had to be something that was good for the Celtics and good for our business, for our luxury tax, for our personnel and the cost of their contracts.”

Ainge, who said it donned on him weeks before Hayward’s decision, believes, either way, Gordon was ready to move on from Boston.

“I think he just wants to be involved in the offense more,” Ainge explained. “Having the ball in his hands to dribble and pass and participate in the offense a little more. I think it’s very common and I think we’ve had some good players. Kemba (Walker), Jaylen (Brown), Jayson (Tatum), and Marcus (Smart); those guys demand the ball some, and I think if you ask each one of them, they’d probably like to have a little bit more of a featured role.

“But that’s the nature of the business that we’re in, that’s not any knock on Gordon in any way, shape, or form.”

What does that context change?

It confirms that Hayward had a destination he preferred, and that Danny didn’t like the trade for the Celtics.

We, as fans, get to critique that admission.  Was Danny’s decision a good one or a bad one?

[mmmmm]

If Indy wanted Hayward so bad they could easily have matched the Charlotte offer and continued negotiating with Boston. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that Hayward's agent, a very good player agent, wouldn't have offered Indy a chance to match Charlotte's offer.

All the stuff coming out of Indy seems like a PR smokescreen to me. It takes three parties to do a sign and trade and Gordo wanted money that Indy looks like they didn't want to pay him. That's the story right there. Everything else is white noise.

It is getting pretty annoying in this thread that people just assume with 100% certainty that Ainge/Pritchard could have gotten this deal done before Hayward's agent actually explored possibilities beyond IND. Sure, I buy that Hayward was interested in going to the Pacers, but the only other team (besides BOS) that he ever actually signed with in the past was CHA; it's just that UTA matched that contract.

Hayward signed for the most money with a franchise/city that he apparently likes. Would I rather have Turner/McDermott/a 1st? Of course, but that seemingly was never in the cards.

Since Danny rejected that offer, I guess we will never know with absolute certainty.  I tend to trust the word of a long term, respected GM when he goes on record though.

I hope that interview with Pritchard isn't indicative of who he is as as a professional - it wasn't very becoming. You are right that we may never know, but I find it hard to believe that Hayward's agent was just ready to accept a deal w/ IND w/o searching for potentially better offers. As nick noted above, if IND was willing to pay $30M/yr, then he would probably be there right now.

But even then there are no guarantees. It was seemingly important for Hayward to spread his wings and show he could be an All-Star/best player on a team again. That wasn't going to happen in BOS or IND. He may have been willing to give up that up to go back home to IND (and getting out of Boston asap), but apparently not for less money. It seems Pritchard and Ainge probably made assumptions about what Hayward really wanted w/o taking into account that it really was up to him in the end.

Charlotte was looking at other players, it was only when those fell through and Hayward was still out there that they moved back in.  Had Boston and Indiana made a trade on the first day, Charlotte never would have been in play and they were really the only other team that had any real interest in Hayward.  So if the trade would have been done, Hayward would be a Pacer.  It was because Boston and Indiana couldn't reach a deal that allowed Charlotte to move back in when their other targets went off the board and Charlotte knew they had to pay more than Indiana to get Hayward.  They had to pay the premium because Hayward wanted to go home.  I do wonder what would have happened had Charlotte not moved back in.

I'm dubious about your representation of how this went down.

The FA period opened up at 6 pm on Friday.  That was the earliest that any team could talk with Hayward without permission from the Celtics.   You can almost bet that Hayward's agent was on the phone with other teams at that point, whether they called him or he called them.

It's almost certain that Hayward's agent quite rightfully would never have agreed to any deal with IND or BOS before at least testing interest from other potential suitors.   He would be the worst agent on the planet if he did not do so.

Hayward said the next day that Michael Jordan called him later that same Friday evening to 'close the deal'.  That means that there were some sort of conversation between Hayward's camp and the Hornets earlier that evening, but after 6pm, enough to establish mutual interest before bringing in MJ to 'close the deal'.  And the whole thing took only a few hours between when Free Agency officially opened and to when the deal was 'closed'.

The above are basically facts of record.

What I suspect went down is that his agent got the offer from CHA fairly quickly after 6 pm.  He then probably went back to IND and BOS to look for a counter offer and those two teams probably said it was out of their price ranges.   And then the deal was closed shortly after with MJ's call.

Are you suggesting that all of this occurred during six hours? 

More “facts” that you left out:

* Hayward extended his opt out date to allow Boston more time to work out a trade;

* Shams reported that Hayward’s singular focus was Indy;

* Indy’s GM expressed that Hayward wanted to be there;

None of that really changes the facts I outlined about when things had to have happened.

Hayward agreeing to delay his option decision was to Danny's benefit, but committed him to nothing and still left him looking forward to the opening of free agency as the most desirable unrestricted free agent.  And doesn't change the timing of when the Free Agency period opened up and when MJ closed the deal.

It really doesn't matter what various reporters reported as Hayward's "singular focus".   Regardless of what anyone might speculate about where he might want to choose to go, ultimately, the decision on where to go was ... his choice.

He chose CHA.   A place he had tried to go to 6 years before.

* Indy and Ainge both on record said that a trade didn’t happen because the teams couldn’t agree on compensation.

it had to be a trade that we wanted, not a trade just to let Gordon go somewhere where he wanted to play.

Isn’t it fair to ask if Danny just misjudged what would be best for the Celts?

Except, when you read the full interview context from where you pulled that quote of Ainge, he says:

"I just think that he preferred to go somewhere else, and made his choice to go to Charlotte."
...
“I think he preferred to be a more featured player and Charlotte was paying him a lot of money and he chose to go there.”
...
“Indiana was one of a handful of teams, maybe three or four teams would probably be a more accurate description, that we talked about the potential of sign and trades,” Ainge added. “And, as you know, with sign and trades the player controls that because if we work out a deal with another team but if Gordon doesn’t want to go there, then he doesn’t have to go there. It takes all three parties to be pleased.”

And in response to narratives such as you and a few others seem to be pushing, Ainge said:

“That’s not even close to fair,” Ainge said. “I understand that perspective because if you don’t know what I know then you really don’t know, at all, what happened."

And personally, to the question of whether it was better for the Celtics for the imaginary Turner deal to have happened or not, my opinion is, it's almost certainly better that it did not.   Turner is way overpaid for his position and I'm simply not interested in McBuckets.   I think we can get a more Celtics-need-focused talent using the TPE.

In other words, Turner + McBuckets may have represented the best value we could have gotten from IND in a hypothetical Hayward deal.  But they don't necessarily represent the best match for Celtic _needs_.    With the TPE and some patience, Danny may be able to get a player that is a more optimal fit.

[Roy H.]

If Indy wanted Hayward so bad they could easily have matched the Charlotte offer and continued negotiating with Boston. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that Hayward's agent, a very good player agent, wouldn't have offered Indy a chance to match Charlotte's offer.

All the stuff coming out of Indy seems like a PR smokescreen to me. It takes three parties to do a sign and trade and Gordo wanted money that Indy looks like they didn't want to pay him. That's the story right there. Everything else is white noise.

It is getting pretty annoying in this thread that people just assume with 100% certainty that Ainge/Pritchard could have gotten this deal done before Hayward's agent actually explored possibilities beyond IND. Sure, I buy that Hayward was interested in going to the Pacers, but the only other team (besides BOS) that he ever actually signed with in the past was CHA; it's just that UTA matched that contract.

Hayward signed for the most money with a franchise/city that he apparently likes. Would I rather have Turner/McDermott/a 1st? Of course, but that seemingly was never in the cards.

Since Danny rejected that offer, I guess we will never know with absolute certainty.  I tend to trust the word of a long term, respected GM when he goes on record though.

I hope that interview with Pritchard isn't indicative of who he is as as a professional - it wasn't very becoming. You are right that we may never know, but I find it hard to believe that Hayward's agent was just ready to accept a deal w/ IND w/o searching for potentially better offers. As nick noted above, if IND was willing to pay $30M/yr, then he would probably be there right now.

But even then there are no guarantees. It was seemingly important for Hayward to spread his wings and show he could be an All-Star/best player on a team again. That wasn't going to happen in BOS or IND. He may have been willing to give up that up to go back home to IND (and getting out of Boston asap), but apparently not for less money. It seems Pritchard and Ainge probably made assumptions about what Hayward really wanted w/o taking into account that it really was up to him in the end.

Charlotte was looking at other players, it was only when those fell through and Hayward was still out there that they moved back in.  Had Boston and Indiana made a trade on the first day, Charlotte never would have been in play and they were really the only other team that had any real interest in Hayward.  So if the trade would have been done, Hayward would be a Pacer.  It was because Boston and Indiana couldn't reach a deal that allowed Charlotte to move back in when their other targets went off the board and Charlotte knew they had to pay more than Indiana to get Hayward.  They had to pay the premium because Hayward wanted to go home.  I do wonder what would have happened had Charlotte not moved back in.

I'm dubious about your representation of how this went down.

The FA period opened up at 6 pm on Friday.  That was the earliest that any team could talk with Hayward without permission from the Celtics.   You can almost bet that Hayward's agent was on the phone with other teams at that point, whether they called him or he called them.

It's almost certain that Hayward's agent quite rightfully would never have agreed to any deal with IND or BOS before at least testing interest from other potential suitors.   He would be the worst agent on the planet if he did not do so.

Hayward said the next day that Michael Jordan called him later that same Friday evening to 'close the deal'.  That means that there were some sort of conversation between Hayward's camp and the Hornets earlier that evening, but after 6pm, enough to establish mutual interest before bringing in MJ to 'close the deal'.  And the whole thing took only a few hours between when Free Agency officially opened and to when the deal was 'closed'.

The above are basically facts of record.

What I suspect went down is that his agent got the offer from CHA fairly quickly after 6 pm.  He then probably went back to IND and BOS to look for a counter offer and those two teams probably said it was out of their price ranges.   And then the deal was closed shortly after with MJ's call.

Are you suggesting that all of this occurred during six hours? 

More “facts” that you left out:

* Hayward extended his opt out date to allow Boston more time to work out a trade;

* Shams reported that Hayward’s singular focus was Indy;

* Indy’s GM expressed that Hayward wanted to be there;

None of that really changes the facts I outlined about when things had to have happened.

Hayward agreeing to delay his option decision was to Danny's benefit, but committed him to nothing and still left him looking forward to the opening of free agency as the most desirable unrestricted free agent.  And doesn't change the timing of when the Free Agency period opened up and when MJ closed the deal.

It really doesn't matter what various reporters reported as Hayward's "singular focus".   Regardless of what anyone might speculate about where he might want to choose to go, ultimately, the decision on where to go was ... his choice.

He chose CHA.   A place he had tried to go to 6 years before.

* Indy and Ainge both on record said that a trade didn’t happen because the teams couldn’t agree on compensation.

it had to be a trade that we wanted, not a trade just to let Gordon go somewhere where he wanted to play.

Isn’t it fair to ask if Danny just misjudged what would be best for the Celts?

Except, when you read the full interview context from where you pulled that quote of Ainge, he says:

"I just think that he preferred to go somewhere else, and made his choice to go to Charlotte."
...
“I think he preferred to be a more featured player and Charlotte was paying him a lot of money and he chose to go there.”
...
“Indiana was one of a handful of teams, maybe three or four teams would probably be a more accurate description, that we talked about the potential of sign and trades,” Ainge added. “And, as you know, with sign and trades the player controls that because if we work out a deal with another team but if Gordon doesn’t want to go there, then he doesn’t have to go there. It takes all three parties to be pleased.”

And in response to narratives such as you and a few others seem to be pushing, Ainge said:

“That’s not even close to fair,” Ainge said. “I understand that perspective because if you don’t know what I know then you really don’t know, at all, what happened."

And personally, to the question of whether it was better for the Celtics for the imaginary Turner deal to have happened or not, my opinion is, it's almost certainly better that it did not.   Turner is way overpaid for his position and I'm simply not interested in McBuckets.   I think we can get a more Celtics-need-focused talent using the TPE.

In other words, Turner + McBuckets may have represented the best value we could have gotten from IND in a hypothetical Hayward deal.  But they don't necessarily represent the best match for Celtic _needs_.    With the TPE and some patience, Danny may be able to get a player that is a more optimal fit.

Seriously? You are reading some thing into the fact that Danny said that Hayward chose to sign in Charlotte? Of course he did. How do you think he ended up there? That doesn’t mean it was his preferred option.

[NKY fan]

I need to stop looking at box scores.  25 points, 6 blocks for Turner today.

Turner carrying the big man rotation load tonight with Sabonis injured. Another excellent game for Myles 😡

Pacers fans saying he is playing with a chip on his shoulder since the failed trade being leaked.

[Roy H.]

I need to stop looking at box scores.  25 points, 6 blocks for Turner today.

Turner carrying the big man rotation load tonight with Sabonis injured. Another excellent game for Myles 😡

Pacers fans saying he is playing with a chip on his shoulder since the failed trade being leaked.

19 / 8 tonight, with “only” three blocks.  16 FTAs!  Sigh.

[Moranis]

My closing thought on the offshoot of this thread is, when was the last time teams were negotiating sign and trade deals without commitment from the player?  The only time I can recall when this happened was 2010 when Cleveland and Toronto had worked out the particulars of a sign and trade to bring Bosh to Cleveland, Bosh ultimately refused and that is when Lebron went to Miami because he didn't want to be basically alone in Cleveland anymore. 

I just can't believe Boston and Indiana would go that far down the rabbit hole if Hayward didn't want to go to Indiana and go there for the compensation being discussed in the sign and trade (because that has to be a component).

[Moranis]

As for Turner, Turner is obviously blocking shots at an unsustainable level, however, he did lead the league 2 seasons ago so I'm not sure why anyone is surprised he can block shots.  His 2 pt percentage is at an unsustainable uber elite level and will probably drop back down to a more reasonable rate as well.  Aside from that though, Turner is basically the same player he has always been.  In fact, many of his per 36 numbers are worse than his career averages this year.  Points down 0.7, Rebounds down 0.9, Assists down 0.3, Turnovers up 0.1, Fouls up 0.3.  Basically only his steals and blocks are better than his career averages per 36.  Even his WS/48 are tied for the 2nd best of his career.  Nothing abnormal at all about this season from Turner.  Pretty typical really aside from the unsustainable blocks and more dunks than normal.

In other words, I just don't buy this notion that Turner has turned the corner and is a revelation.  This is the player he has always been, which is an excellent shot blocking center that has very good 3 point range.  That is his game and always has been. 

[pearljammer10]

Might as well skip tonight’s box score too.

21 points, 10 boards, 3 blocks, 5-9 field, 11-16 FTs and a +14 in a win over the Raptors.

Sigh.

[mmmmm]

If Indy wanted Hayward so bad they could easily have matched the Charlotte offer and continued negotiating with Boston. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that Hayward's agent, a very good player agent, wouldn't have offered Indy a chance to match Charlotte's offer.

All the stuff coming out of Indy seems like a PR smokescreen to me. It takes three parties to do a sign and trade and Gordo wanted money that Indy looks like they didn't want to pay him. That's the story right there. Everything else is white noise.

It is getting pretty annoying in this thread that people just assume with 100% certainty that Ainge/Pritchard could have gotten this deal done before Hayward's agent actually explored possibilities beyond IND. Sure, I buy that Hayward was interested in going to the Pacers, but the only other team (besides BOS) that he ever actually signed with in the past was CHA; it's just that UTA matched that contract.

Hayward signed for the most money with a franchise/city that he apparently likes. Would I rather have Turner/McDermott/a 1st? Of course, but that seemingly was never in the cards.

Since Danny rejected that offer, I guess we will never know with absolute certainty.  I tend to trust the word of a long term, respected GM when he goes on record though.

I hope that interview with Pritchard isn't indicative of who he is as as a professional - it wasn't very becoming. You are right that we may never know, but I find it hard to believe that Hayward's agent was just ready to accept a deal w/ IND w/o searching for potentially better offers. As nick noted above, if IND was willing to pay $30M/yr, then he would probably be there right now.

But even then there are no guarantees. It was seemingly important for Hayward to spread his wings and show he could be an All-Star/best player on a team again. That wasn't going to happen in BOS or IND. He may have been willing to give up that up to go back home to IND (and getting out of Boston asap), but apparently not for less money. It seems Pritchard and Ainge probably made assumptions about what Hayward really wanted w/o taking into account that it really was up to him in the end.

Charlotte was looking at other players, it was only when those fell through and Hayward was still out there that they moved back in.  Had Boston and Indiana made a trade on the first day, Charlotte never would have been in play and they were really the only other team that had any real interest in Hayward.  So if the trade would have been done, Hayward would be a Pacer.  It was because Boston and Indiana couldn't reach a deal that allowed Charlotte to move back in when their other targets went off the board and Charlotte knew they had to pay more than Indiana to get Hayward.  They had to pay the premium because Hayward wanted to go home.  I do wonder what would have happened had Charlotte not moved back in.

I'm dubious about your representation of how this went down.

The FA period opened up at 6 pm on Friday.  That was the earliest that any team could talk with Hayward without permission from the Celtics.   You can almost bet that Hayward's agent was on the phone with other teams at that point, whether they called him or he called them.

It's almost certain that Hayward's agent quite rightfully would never have agreed to any deal with IND or BOS before at least testing interest from other potential suitors.   He would be the worst agent on the planet if he did not do so.

Hayward said the next day that Michael Jordan called him later that same Friday evening to 'close the deal'.  That means that there were some sort of conversation between Hayward's camp and the Hornets earlier that evening, but after 6pm, enough to establish mutual interest before bringing in MJ to 'close the deal'.  And the whole thing took only a few hours between when Free Agency officially opened and to when the deal was 'closed'.

The above are basically facts of record.

What I suspect went down is that his agent got the offer from CHA fairly quickly after 6 pm.  He then probably went back to IND and BOS to look for a counter offer and those two teams probably said it was out of their price ranges.   And then the deal was closed shortly after with MJ's call.

Are you suggesting that all of this occurred during six hours? 

More “facts” that you left out:

* Hayward extended his opt out date to allow Boston more time to work out a trade;

* Shams reported that Hayward’s singular focus was Indy;

* Indy’s GM expressed that Hayward wanted to be there;

None of that really changes the facts I outlined about when things had to have happened.

Hayward agreeing to delay his option decision was to Danny's benefit, but committed him to nothing and still left him looking forward to the opening of free agency as the most desirable unrestricted free agent.  And doesn't change the timing of when the Free Agency period opened up and when MJ closed the deal.

It really doesn't matter what various reporters reported as Hayward's "singular focus".   Regardless of what anyone might speculate about where he might want to choose to go, ultimately, the decision on where to go was ... his choice.

He chose CHA.   A place he had tried to go to 6 years before.

* Indy and Ainge both on record said that a trade didn’t happen because the teams couldn’t agree on compensation.

it had to be a trade that we wanted, not a trade just to let Gordon go somewhere where he wanted to play.

Isn’t it fair to ask if Danny just misjudged what would be best for the Celts?

Except, when you read the full interview context from where you pulled that quote of Ainge, he says:

"I just think that he preferred to go somewhere else, and made his choice to go to Charlotte."
...
“I think he preferred to be a more featured player and Charlotte was paying him a lot of money and he chose to go there.”
...
“Indiana was one of a handful of teams, maybe three or four teams would probably be a more accurate description, that we talked about the potential of sign and trades,” Ainge added. “And, as you know, with sign and trades the player controls that because if we work out a deal with another team but if Gordon doesn’t want to go there, then he doesn’t have to go there. It takes all three parties to be pleased.”

And in response to narratives such as you and a few others seem to be pushing, Ainge said:

“That’s not even close to fair,” Ainge said. “I understand that perspective because if you don’t know what I know then you really don’t know, at all, what happened."

And personally, to the question of whether it was better for the Celtics for the imaginary Turner deal to have happened or not, my opinion is, it's almost certainly better that it did not.   Turner is way overpaid for his position and I'm simply not interested in McBuckets.   I think we can get a more Celtics-need-focused talent using the TPE.

In other words, Turner + McBuckets may have represented the best value we could have gotten from IND in a hypothetical Hayward deal.  But they don't necessarily represent the best match for Celtic _needs_.    With the TPE and some patience, Danny may be able to get a player that is a more optimal fit.

Seriously? You are reading some thing into the fact that Danny said that Hayward chose to sign in Charlotte? Of course he did. How do you think he ended up there? That doesn’t mean it was his preferred option.

I am reading nothing into it that isn't there.  I never said anything about it being Danny's preferred option.   I'm pointing out that it was not at all in Danny's ability to force it to happen.

[Roy H.]

If Indy wanted Hayward so bad they could easily have matched the Charlotte offer and continued negotiating with Boston. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that Hayward's agent, a very good player agent, wouldn't have offered Indy a chance to match Charlotte's offer.

All the stuff coming out of Indy seems like a PR smokescreen to me. It takes three parties to do a sign and trade and Gordo wanted money that Indy looks like they didn't want to pay him. That's the story right there. Everything else is white noise.

It is getting pretty annoying in this thread that people just assume with 100% certainty that Ainge/Pritchard could have gotten this deal done before Hayward's agent actually explored possibilities beyond IND. Sure, I buy that Hayward was interested in going to the Pacers, but the only other team (besides BOS) that he ever actually signed with in the past was CHA; it's just that UTA matched that contract.

Hayward signed for the most money with a franchise/city that he apparently likes. Would I rather have Turner/McDermott/a 1st? Of course, but that seemingly was never in the cards.

Since Danny rejected that offer, I guess we will never know with absolute certainty.  I tend to trust the word of a long term, respected GM when he goes on record though.

I hope that interview with Pritchard isn't indicative of who he is as as a professional - it wasn't very becoming. You are right that we may never know, but I find it hard to believe that Hayward's agent was just ready to accept a deal w/ IND w/o searching for potentially better offers. As nick noted above, if IND was willing to pay $30M/yr, then he would probably be there right now.

But even then there are no guarantees. It was seemingly important for Hayward to spread his wings and show he could be an All-Star/best player on a team again. That wasn't going to happen in BOS or IND. He may have been willing to give up that up to go back home to IND (and getting out of Boston asap), but apparently not for less money. It seems Pritchard and Ainge probably made assumptions about what Hayward really wanted w/o taking into account that it really was up to him in the end.

Charlotte was looking at other players, it was only when those fell through and Hayward was still out there that they moved back in.  Had Boston and Indiana made a trade on the first day, Charlotte never would have been in play and they were really the only other team that had any real interest in Hayward.  So if the trade would have been done, Hayward would be a Pacer.  It was because Boston and Indiana couldn't reach a deal that allowed Charlotte to move back in when their other targets went off the board and Charlotte knew they had to pay more than Indiana to get Hayward.  They had to pay the premium because Hayward wanted to go home.  I do wonder what would have happened had Charlotte not moved back in.

I'm dubious about your representation of how this went down.

The FA period opened up at 6 pm on Friday.  That was the earliest that any team could talk with Hayward without permission from the Celtics.   You can almost bet that Hayward's agent was on the phone with other teams at that point, whether they called him or he called them.

It's almost certain that Hayward's agent quite rightfully would never have agreed to any deal with IND or BOS before at least testing interest from other potential suitors.   He would be the worst agent on the planet if he did not do so.

Hayward said the next day that Michael Jordan called him later that same Friday evening to 'close the deal'.  That means that there were some sort of conversation between Hayward's camp and the Hornets earlier that evening, but after 6pm, enough to establish mutual interest before bringing in MJ to 'close the deal'.  And the whole thing took only a few hours between when Free Agency officially opened and to when the deal was 'closed'.

The above are basically facts of record.

What I suspect went down is that his agent got the offer from CHA fairly quickly after 6 pm.  He then probably went back to IND and BOS to look for a counter offer and those two teams probably said it was out of their price ranges.   And then the deal was closed shortly after with MJ's call.

Are you suggesting that all of this occurred during six hours? 

More “facts” that you left out:

* Hayward extended his opt out date to allow Boston more time to work out a trade;

* Shams reported that Hayward’s singular focus was Indy;

* Indy’s GM expressed that Hayward wanted to be there;

None of that really changes the facts I outlined about when things had to have happened.

Hayward agreeing to delay his option decision was to Danny's benefit, but committed him to nothing and still left him looking forward to the opening of free agency as the most desirable unrestricted free agent.  And doesn't change the timing of when the Free Agency period opened up and when MJ closed the deal.

It really doesn't matter what various reporters reported as Hayward's "singular focus".   Regardless of what anyone might speculate about where he might want to choose to go, ultimately, the decision on where to go was ... his choice.

He chose CHA.   A place he had tried to go to 6 years before.

* Indy and Ainge both on record said that a trade didn’t happen because the teams couldn’t agree on compensation.

it had to be a trade that we wanted, not a trade just to let Gordon go somewhere where he wanted to play.

Isn’t it fair to ask if Danny just misjudged what would be best for the Celts?

Except, when you read the full interview context from where you pulled that quote of Ainge, he says:

"I just think that he preferred to go somewhere else, and made his choice to go to Charlotte."
...
“I think he preferred to be a more featured player and Charlotte was paying him a lot of money and he chose to go there.”
...
“Indiana was one of a handful of teams, maybe three or four teams would probably be a more accurate description, that we talked about the potential of sign and trades,” Ainge added. “And, as you know, with sign and trades the player controls that because if we work out a deal with another team but if Gordon doesn’t want to go there, then he doesn’t have to go there. It takes all three parties to be pleased.”

And in response to narratives such as you and a few others seem to be pushing, Ainge said:

“That’s not even close to fair,” Ainge said. “I understand that perspective because if you don’t know what I know then you really don’t know, at all, what happened."

And personally, to the question of whether it was better for the Celtics for the imaginary Turner deal to have happened or not, my opinion is, it's almost certainly better that it did not.   Turner is way overpaid for his position and I'm simply not interested in McBuckets.   I think we can get a more Celtics-need-focused talent using the TPE.

In other words, Turner + McBuckets may have represented the best value we could have gotten from IND in a hypothetical Hayward deal.  But they don't necessarily represent the best match for Celtic _needs_.    With the TPE and some patience, Danny may be able to get a player that is a more optimal fit.

Seriously? You are reading some thing into the fact that Danny said that Hayward chose to sign in Charlotte? Of course he did. How do you think he ended up there? That doesn’t mean it was his preferred option.

I am reading nothing into it that isn't there.  I never said anything about it being Danny's preferred option.   I'm pointing out that it was not at all in Danny's ability to force it to happen.

Force?  Nobody said that.  Allow it to happen by accepting a good deal?  Yes.

[Vermont Green]

There can be a debate about whether Turner + McDermott is a missed opportunity.  It is hypothetical but it is specific so anyone can have an opinion on that.  This potential draft pick is less specific and harder to debate.  You don't really know the protections or what year so that is a little harder to say.

Turner was a decent asset to get back for Hayward.  You can get excited about him getting 21 pts and 3 blocks but Theis got 19 pts and 3 blocks in fewer minutes.  I am on the record as being in the camp of not really being upset we did not get Turner, all things considered.  Lord knows we need some skill in our bigs group so it would not necessarily have been a terrible deal.  I am OK walking away from it though.

What is impossible to debate is whether or not Hayward would have agreed to sign with Indy.  It seems he probably would have but maybe since Indy had Oladipo and Warren plus Brogdon, he was afraid he it would be like Boston and he wouldn't see the ball enough.  No one knows this and there is no point in trying to debate it.  I can further speculate that maybe if one of them (Oladipo, Warren, Brogdon) had come to Boston, maybe Hayward would have agreed.  There is just no way to know any of this.

Second guessing coaches and GMs is part of the fun of being a fan.  Debating it with informed fans on a Forum is fun too.  This particular debate seems unusually heated, not sure why people are upset about getting Turner or not.  Oh well.

[NKY fan]

There can be a debate about whether Turner + McDermott is a missed opportunity.  It is hypothetical but it is specific so anyone can have an opinion on that.  This potential draft pick is less specific and harder to debate.  You don't really know the protections or what year so that is a little harder to say.

Turner was a decent asset to get back for Hayward.  You can get excited about him getting 21 pts and 3 blocks but Theis got 19 pts and 3 blocks in fewer minutes.  I am on the record as being in the camp of not really being upset we did not get Turner, all things considered.  Lord knows we need some skill in our bigs group so it would not necessarily have been a terrible deal.  I am OK walking away from it though.

What is impossible to debate is whether or not Hayward would have agreed to sign with Indy.  It seems he probably would have but maybe since Indy had Oladipo and Warren plus Brogdon, he was afraid he it would be like Boston and he wouldn't see the ball enough.  No one knows this and there is no point in trying to debate it.  I can further speculate that maybe if one of them (Oladipo, Warren, Brogdon) had come to Boston, maybe Hayward would have agreed.  There is just no way to know any of this.

Second guessing coaches and GMs is part of the fun of being a fan.  Debating it with informed fans on a Forum is fun too.  This particular debate seems unusually heated, not sure why people are upset about getting Turner or not.  Oh well.

I think debate is heated because some of us want to prove that Danny takes wrong decisions sometimes while the rest want to prove that we should never second guess his decisions. It’s very similar debate with his drafting especially in the middle of the draft.

[Vermont Green]

Second guessing coaches and GMs is part of the fun of being a fan.  Debating it with informed fans on a Forum is fun too.  This particular debate seems unusually heated, not sure why people are upset about getting Turner or not.  Oh well.

I think debate is heated because some of us want to prove that Danny takes wrong decisions sometimes while the rest want to prove that we should never second guess his decisions. It’s very similar debate with his drafting especially in the middle of the draft.

Yeah, fair point.  I tend to lean more towards cutting Ainge slack.  For example, many people still gripe about taking Olynyk over Giannis.  Now that was a missed opportunity.  But does that really prove Danny is a bad GM?  Not to me and nor does electing not to trade for Miles Turner.

Fab Melo is the only draft pick where I feel Danny is totally at fault.  Anyone should have been able to see that Fab was a beat slow and would never be an NBA player.  Drafting is hard.  Teams miss on guys all the time, even first picks overall (most recently Fultz) and it seems every draft there is someone who is taken at the end of the 2nd round that becomes a star.

But as I said, second guessing and debating is half the fun of being a fan.

[smokeablount]

There can be a debate about whether Turner + McDermott is a missed opportunity.  It is hypothetical but it is specific so anyone can have an opinion on that.  This potential draft pick is less specific and harder to debate.  You don't really know the protections or what year so that is a little harder to say.

Turner was a decent asset to get back for Hayward.  You can get excited about him getting 21 pts and 3 blocks but Theis got 19 pts and 3 blocks in fewer minutes.  I am on the record as being in the camp of not really being upset we did not get Turner, all things considered.  Lord knows we need some skill in our bigs group so it would not necessarily have been a terrible deal.  I am OK walking away from it though.

What is impossible to debate is whether or not Hayward would have agreed to sign with Indy.  It seems he probably would have but maybe since Indy had Oladipo and Warren plus Brogdon, he was afraid he it would be like Boston and he wouldn't see the ball enough.  No one knows this and there is no point in trying to debate it.  I can further speculate that maybe if one of them (Oladipo, Warren, Brogdon) had come to Boston, maybe Hayward would have agreed.  There is just no way to know any of this.

Second guessing coaches and GMs is part of the fun of being a fan.  Debating it with informed fans on a Forum is fun too.  This particular debate seems unusually heated, not sure why people are upset about getting Turner or not.  Oh well.

I think debate is heated because some of us want to prove that Danny takes wrong decisions sometimes while the rest want to prove that we should never second guess his decisions. It’s very similar debate with his drafting especially in the middle of the draft.

Yeah, thing is, there are some posters who seem to be paid by DA to do PR. He’s a top GM but has made plenty of mistakes recently.

[Roy H.]

Second guessing coaches and GMs is part of the fun of being a fan.  Debating it with informed fans on a Forum is fun too.  This particular debate seems unusually heated, not sure why people are upset about getting Turner or not.  Oh well.

I think debate is heated because some of us want to prove that Danny takes wrong decisions sometimes while the rest want to prove that we should never second guess his decisions. It’s very similar debate with his drafting especially in the middle of the draft.

Yeah, fair point.  I tend to lean more towards cutting Ainge slack.  For example, many people still gripe about taking Olynyk over Giannis.  Now that was a missed opportunity.  But does that really prove Danny is a bad GM?  Not to me and nor does electing not to trade for Miles Turner.

Fab Melo is the only draft pick where I feel Danny is totally at fault.  Anyone should have been able to see that Fab was a beat slow and would never be an NBA player.  Drafting is hard.  Teams miss on guys all the time, even first picks overall (most recently Fultz) and it seems every draft there is someone who is taken at the end of the 2nd round that becomes a star.

But as I said, second guessing and debating is half the fun of being a fan.

I agree almost entirely.  I find debating interesting.  I think we have enough evidence to argue over whether we’d rather have Turner/McDermott/protected #1 over the TPE.

There are a lot of smart people on here, but I was surprised by seeing so much deflection from the original question.  Danny definitely has his white knights, and that’s okay: I’ve been one too.

But, I’d rather debate the pros and cons, and I’d love for others to chime in.

Pros To The Deal:

1. Turner is just better than what we have.  He’s a prolific shot blocker and three point shooter who doesn’t need the ball.  We would have added him to Theis and Williams for a very good center rotation.

2.  McDermott is an excellent shooter who plays off-ball, something we need.  He would improve the depth substantially, and could either start or come off the bench.

3.  First rounders are the most sought after currency in trades.  The Bucks pick just brought back Jarett Allen, a solid young player.  Houston wanted draft picks over young guys.  With so many contenders unable to trade firsts, we’d have a ton of flexibility.

4.  We wouldn’t have had to trade two second rounders for a trade exception.

5.  We wouldn’t have had to use the MLE on Thompson.  That opens us up to use the Taxpayers MLE on a different player, or to save it for buyouts.

6.  We wouldn’t be hard-capped.

Cons to the Deal:

1.  Danny assessed Turner’s value around the league, and there wasn’t as much interest as hoped for.  It’s hard taking on a guy for three years if you worry his contract will be hard to trade.

2.  Turner had played with four of our guys with Team USA, and the results weren’t spectacular;

3.  McDermott adds little other than floor-stretching;

4.  We would have gone over the luxury tax, meaning we’d essentially be hard-capped and would even have to shed salary to avoid the luxury tax (I think.). This means no using the MLE, because it wouldn’t be affordable;

5.  At the time, Danny didn’t necessarily know how free agency would go.  If Danny makes the trade and then finds out Paul Millsap would have taken our MLE, the trade looks worse;

6.  Yes, offense and shot-blocking improve, but our rebounding takes a hit.  Turner and McDermott are poor rebounders; Thompson is good at it;

7.  Potentially McDermott blocks our younger guys from getting minutes.

I think that’s a fair assessment.