Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?

[pokeKingCurtis]

I read somewhere it also allows us to be more flexible, in terms of trading future firsts because of the Stepien Rule.

Instead of having to deal with the Kemba issue now, in 2022, we have already dealt with it by losing our 2021 first. We can now trade our 2022, 2024...etc. firsts (or 2023, 2025...etc.).

Whereas if we had kept Kemba and only now decided to move him for our 2022 first, that affects which other firsts we can package in a big move.

I see that as a strange argument.  We shouldn’t have dealt any pick to dump Kemba, since Horford’s contract is just as long.

To me, dumping the contract, coupled with the fact that Horford is actually able to start basically all the games this season, makes sense.

Maintain flexibility, hopefully remain competitive (though now in hindsight they've failed).

Kemba is still having trouble staying in the rotation on the Knicks.

[Roy H.]

I read somewhere it also allows us to be more flexible, in terms of trading future firsts because of the Stepien Rule.

Instead of having to deal with the Kemba issue now, in 2022, we have already dealt with it by losing our 2021 first. We can now trade our 2022, 2024...etc. firsts (or 2023, 2025...etc.).

Whereas if we had kept Kemba and only now decided to move him for our 2022 first, that affects which other firsts we can package in a big move.

I see that as a strange argument.  We shouldn’t have dealt any pick to dump Kemba, since Horford’s contract is just as long.

To me, dumping the contract, coupled with the fact that Horford is actually able to start basically all the games this season, makes sense.

Maintain flexibility, hopefully remain competitive (though now in hindsight they've failed).

Kemba is still having trouble staying in the rotation on the Knicks.

What flexibility do you think we’ve maintained?  Is that more or less flexibility than we’d have if we traded #16 for two future picks?  Or drafted Sengun?

[Who]

I read somewhere it also allows us to be more flexible, in terms of trading future firsts because of the Stepien Rule.

Instead of having to deal with the Kemba issue now, in 2022, we have already dealt with it by losing our 2021 first. We can now trade our 2022, 2024...etc. firsts (or 2023, 2025...etc.).

Whereas if we had kept Kemba and only now decided to move him for our 2022 first, that affects which other firsts we can package in a big move.

I see that as a strange argument.  We shouldn’t have dealt any pick to dump Kemba, since Horford’s contract is just as long.

To me, dumping the contract, coupled with the fact that Horford is actually able to start basically all the games this season, makes sense.

Maintain flexibility, hopefully remain competitive (though now in hindsight they've failed).

Kemba is still having trouble staying in the rotation on the Knicks.

I care more about the 1st than whether Kemba or Horford is the better option for us this season. The reason being that the 1st was a long term piece and neither Kemba or Horford are.

Now if Horford's semi-guaranteed contract ends up as a trade asset or cap space needed to get a long term piece, I'll remove by objection to losing the 1st. But that is looking less and less likely with Stevens giving out so many long term deals and the team not looking very active (or urgency) heading into this trade deadline. Although there is still the summer. Still some hope.

[pokeKingCurtis]

I read somewhere it also allows us to be more flexible, in terms of trading future firsts because of the Stepien Rule.

Instead of having to deal with the Kemba issue now, in 2022, we have already dealt with it by losing our 2021 first. We can now trade our 2022, 2024...etc. firsts (or 2023, 2025...etc.).

Whereas if we had kept Kemba and only now decided to move him for our 2022 first, that affects which other firsts we can package in a big move.

I see that as a strange argument.  We shouldn’t have dealt any pick to dump Kemba, since Horford’s contract is just as long.

To me, dumping the contract, coupled with the fact that Horford is actually able to start basically all the games this season, makes sense.

Maintain flexibility, hopefully remain competitive (though now in hindsight they've failed).

Kemba is still having trouble staying in the rotation on the Knicks.

What flexibility do you think we’ve maintained?  Is that more or less flexibility than we’d have if we traded #16 for two future picks?  Or drafted Sengun?

In the sense that we didn't have to keep deadweight like Kemba, and got a (relatively...) live body in Horford, all the while sacrificing relatively little in the way of assets.

I mean, Who hit the nail in the head above. Depends if you care about this season, and depends how you see Horford.

For me at least we can tell Tatum, hey we're still going to try for the playoffs and go as far as you'll take us, while dodging tax and avoiding too many long term contracts this season - because it's kind of a hard pill to swallow having 2 all stars and kind of tanking thanks to Kemba.

[keevsnick]

We did it to save ownership about 8 million a year over two years, the difference between Horford and Kemba's salary. It was basically to add some finacial flexibility, for example without moving Kemba we likely don't bring in Richardson.

[Somebody]

Three reasons:

1. Cheap owner in Scroogebeck
2. Clueless president of basketball operations in Brad Pitino
3. Management and ownership realising that they can sell a caricature of our 'DNA and culture' to gullible fans like many here on this forum to keep revenues high while skimping out on expenses (I love everyone here, but the optimism around the club during the summer of 2021 was extremely concerning when we have had multiple clubs in other sports fail after embarking on such a path)

[tazzmaniac]

There seem like two obvious reasons:

1.  The team wanted to open up max contract space.  Waiving and stretching Horford’s deal would have allowed that before resigning Smart, Richardson, Timelord, etc.; or

2.  Management thought the team was close to being competitive, and assumed that Horford could help us advance deep into the playoffs, moreso than Kemba would have.

Based upon subsequent moves, Option 1 wasn’t the plan.  Brad, et al, didn’t really believe in #2, did they?  If so, why’d we hire a rookie coach?

The more I watch this season, the more it looks like we gave up a #1 (Sengun) for no good reason at all.

Why is opening max contract space a big deal for us?  Do folks actually think a true max caliber free agent is going to choose the Celtics?  What true max caliber player is going to want to play with the J's? 

[pokeKingCurtis]

There seem like two obvious reasons:

1.  The team wanted to open up max contract space.  Waiving and stretching Horford’s deal would have allowed that before resigning Smart, Richardson, Timelord, etc.; or

2.  Management thought the team was close to being competitive, and assumed that Horford could help us advance deep into the playoffs, moreso than Kemba would have.

Based upon subsequent moves, Option 1 wasn’t the plan.  Brad, et al, didn’t really believe in #2, did they?  If so, why’d we hire a rookie coach?

The more I watch this season, the more it looks like we gave up a #1 (Sengun) for no good reason at all.

Why is opening max contract space a big deal for us?  Do folks actually think a true max caliber free agent is going to choose the Celtics?  What true max caliber player is going to want to play with the J's?

Bradley Beal is the one that comes up often (at least on Reddit) because of his personal ties to Tatum.

Donovan Mitchell has ties to Jaylen Brown, though less likely since he's in a much better situation.

Ridiculous as it is personal ties are running the NBA nowadays.

[Rikibellevie]

Sengun could have been a very long term complementary big with Timelord. I hope it is not an other of our bad mid/late draft catastophic choices. At time I was one of the few that didn't like that trade, because I didn't see what Horford would bring much than Kemba. We could put Kemba on the bench and trade him 2022 summer easyer (OK it is easy to move 14M garanted, but it would still have been possible to find a trash team to take a one year deal next summer I guess). Maybe OKC would have taken him for a future 1st, not a 16th pick right in the timeline of our progression. At time, with some bad to OK mid pick choices most said no more mid picks. But we can find good role player at this spot...

If Brad can't offload all vets salary and sign Beal (all the last summer rumors were fluke ??), keep Horford until the end or fire him, then it would have been a very bad moove.

[ChillyWilly]

if im not mistaken we have the poorest networth NBA owners beyond their franchise in the NBA.

[Csfan1984]

I said it at the time of the trade, it only makes sense if you flip Horford or stretch him for cap space to sign a top FA. So will judge that deal this offseason

[Walker Wiggle]

I said it at the time of the trade, it only makes sense if you flip Horford or stretch him for cap space to sign a top FA. So will judge that deal this offseason

This is the answer. All of you other guys are over-thinking this.

The Celtics’ trade for Horford — and, for that matter, extending Richardson into next year — are about packaging attractive, expiring contracts with draft picks for a max-level player next summer. Yes, it’s a gamble, but the team felt a mid-1st was worth it. We’ll see.

Also, if I read another person ask why the team sign-and-traded Rozier for Kemba I will explode. First, NO ONE thought Kemba’s knees would crumble within a year, and if they tell you otherwise they are either lying or have an orthopedic crystal ball. Second, Kemba in Charlotte was seen as one of the top PGs in the league. Third, Charlotte also offered him a boatload of money — just not as much as they could have under the CBA — which irked Kemba and drove him out of town. Fourth, Kemba was super in the beginning with Boston and started the All Star Game that year. Lastly, Rozier was a train wreck in his last year in Boston, both in terms of his play and his contributions to the ugly team dynamics, and people around the league were stunned that Charlotte was eager to offer him north of $20m per year. I’m sorry that this trade didn’t work out, but just because I feel that way doesn’t mean the team was stupid for making it.

[Rikibellevie]

I said it at the time of the trade, it only makes sense if you flip Horford or stretch him for cap space to sign a top FA. So will judge that deal this offseason

This is the answer. All of you other guys are over-thinking this.

The Celtics’ trade for Horford — and, for that matter, extending Richardson into next year — are about packaging attractive, expiring contracts with draft picks for a max-level player next summer. Yes, it’s a gamble, but the team felt a mid-1st was worth it. We’ll see.

Also, if I read another person ask why the team sign-and-traded Rozier for Kemba I will explode. First, NO ONE thought Kemba’s knees would crumble within a year, and if they tell you otherwise they are either lying or have an orthopedic crystal ball. Second, Kemba in Charlotte was seen as one of the top PGs in the league. Third, Charlotte also offered him a boatload of money — just not as much as they could have under the CBA — which irked Kemba and drove him out of town. Fourth, Kemba was super in the beginning with Boston and started the All Star Game that year. Lastly, Rozier was a train wreck in his last year in Boston, both in terms of his play and his contributions to the ugly team dynamics, and people around the league were stunned that Charlotte was eager to offer him north of $20m per year. I’m sorry that this trade didn’t work out, but just because I feel that way doesn’t mean the team was stupid for making it.

OK, but :
_ Will we have to give a 1st to unload Horford contract next summer ? I think so. The price would have been much worth for a 1 year Kemba contract to be absorbed by Detroit, Orlando or OKC ? Not that sure
_ Sengun looked a good fit and a good pick in this range...

I realy always was against this extreme scenario until a few days. But I begin to admit it may be the only way to do a big shakeup and have a big 3 for years to come.

[droopdog7]

What’s funny about this thread is that SO many people wanted kemba gone at ALL costs

[droopdog7]

The way I remember it, Kyrie announced he was signing in Brooklyn, and the C's now needed a PG/3rd Star.

Danny wanted to make a splash and keep the wolves (fans) from the door. So he signed the reliable Kemba Walker. Kemba immediately showed to be ineffective when teamed with the J's and he also had knee problems. The knee problems looked to be serious and chronic, just as they do now in NY.

Thus trading a Kemba Walker with a bad knee looked all but impossible, so we took the least bitter pill we could, hence the Horford deal.

IMO this is the reason the ownership is hesitant to go over the ceiling calling for a tax. They want to see if the J's can actually excel with anyone.

I disagree with the bolded part.  The team actually played quite well his first few months here, before tweaking his knee.

But, when traded, he was chronologically hurt.  Why was moving his bad contract for an equally long big contract a good idea?  Did Brad just badly misjudge how mediocre the team would be?

If I remember correctly Kemba looked shot at the time we traded him. He was ineffective defensively, and couldn't play back to back games.
No team wants a player making huge money with cronicly bad knees.

What is seldom asked is did Danny do a physical on him at all? Or did he take the word of his former teams doctor? If it were me and he didn't do a complete physical on him, I'd fire him.

That Kimber contract killed the Celtics in the short term.

You remember way incorrectly.  Kemba was an all star his first year and the last time the team was good when is he was the lead guy.  There were never any fit issue.  Kemba got hurt and wasn’t as good was the problem.