Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?

[tazzmaniac]

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.

Given all that, Charlotte wanting to flip Kemba for Rozier says a lot.  Kemba was their guy, their team leader, their star attraction.  He wanted to get paid but I don't recall him wanting out of Charlotte.  And yet Charlotte was eager to overpay for a very unproven Rozier rather than pay their star player. 

[Who]

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.

Given all that, Charlotte wanting to flip Kemba for Rozier says a lot.  Kemba was their guy, their team leader, their star attraction.  He wanted to get paid but I don't recall him wanting out of Charlotte.  And yet Charlotte was eager to overpay for a very unproven Rozier rather than pay their star player.

A remember years ago, a decade and change, MJ commenting on Andrew Bogut and whether he deserved a max contract or not. This was at a point in Bogut's career where he was 3rd team All-NBA, DPoY candidate, one of the league's leading rebounders and a good but unexceptional offensive player.

Jordan was firmly against it saying that you can't build a title contender overpaying stars like Bogut. Reading through the lines that max contracts are guys like MJ or Barkley or Hakeem. Not supporting stars who are 2nd or 3rd options on their teams. Franchise guys only. This was MJ's idealogy of team building.

This came around to Kemba. Kemba was their franchise guy but was incapable of leading Charlotte to more than a 7th / 8th seed and a first round loss. In MJ's eyes, Kemba was not a true franchise player. He was a 2nd / 3rd option and according to MJ's belief of team building to win a title was thus unworthy of a max deal.

And that is what the negotiations came down to. MJ didn't think Kemba was worth the max because he was not a true franchise guy. He wanted to keep Kemba but at a much lower number than Kemba (1) felt he was worth (2) could get elsewhere from multiple teams. So the negotiations fell apart.

The Rozier signing to me was just "hey, he's a good young player and he can replace a good chunk (but not all) of Kemba's production ... let's sign him and move on".

Now I don't agree with MJ's theory of team building. You can clearly carry 3 max deals on the same team so you can and need to pay guys like Bogut (at that time) or Kemba max contracts if you want them on your team because if you don't someone else will. But I do see that carryover from his ideas on Bogut to Kemba and how it directed contract talks with Kemba that summer.

[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?

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.

Are they?  Besides Lebron, Wade and Bosh, and KD and Irving, who else has joined up due to personal ties?  Lebron was going to the Lakers regardless of them being able to get AD.  Kawhi was going to LA regardless of PG13.  Now he may have ended up on the Lakers w/Lebron rather than the Clippers. 

[Moranis]

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.

Given all that, Charlotte wanting to flip Kemba for Rozier says a lot.  Kemba was their guy, their team leader, their star attraction.  He wanted to get paid but I don't recall him wanting out of Charlotte.  And yet Charlotte was eager to overpay for a very unproven Rozier rather than pay their star player.

A remember years ago, a decade and change, MJ commenting on Andrew Bogut and whether he deserved a max contract or not. This was at a point in Bogut's career where he was 3rd team All-NBA, DPoY candidate, one of the league's leading rebounders and a good but unexceptional offensive player.

Jordan was firmly against it saying that you can't build a title contender overpaying stars like Bogut. Reading through the lines that max contracts are guys like MJ or Barkley or Hakeem. Not supporting stars who are 2nd or 3rd options on their teams. Franchise guys only. This was MJ's idealogy of team building.

This came around to Kemba. Kemba was their franchise guy but was incapable of leading Charlotte to more than a 7th / 8th seed and a first round loss. In MJ's eyes, Kemba was not a true franchise player. He was a 2nd / 3rd option and according to MJ's belief of team building to win a title was thus unworthy of a max deal.

And that is what the negotiations came down to. MJ didn't think Kemba was worth the max because he was not a true franchise guy. He wanted to keep Kemba but at a much lower number than Kemba (1) felt he was worth (2) could get elsewhere from multiple teams. So the negotiations fell apart.

The Rozier signing to me was just "hey, he's a good young player and he can replace a good chunk (but not all) of Kemba's production ... let's sign him and move on".

Now I don't agree with MJ's theory of team building. You can clearly carry 3 max deals on the same team so you can and need to pay guys like Bogut (at that time) or Kemba max contracts if you want them on your team because if you don't someone else will. But I do see that carryover from his ideas on Bogut to Kemba and how it directed contract talks with Kemba that summer.

I think MJ is correct.  And he was clearly proven correct in the Kemba instance.  And I suspect if Charlotte had the true #1 franchise guy, they would have been more inclined to pay Kemba.  You don't pay for your role players are second tier stars, if you don't have the #1 guy or starters in place.  It is how you end up with a mediocre team with no cap flexibility. 

[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.

Are they?  Besides Lebron, Wade and Bosh, and KD and Irving, who else has joined up due to personal ties?  Lebron was going to the Lakers regardless of them being able to get AD.  Kawhi was going to LA regardless of PG13.  Now he may have ended up on the Lakers w/Lebron rather than the Clippers.

I think Kawhi wasn't going to join the Clips unless they got PG13.

AD would only be traded to the Lakers, as his uncle or dad or something was talking smack about the C's.

Harden refused and Simmons is refusing to play unless they get traded somewhere they prefer. Harden getting some noise about being traded yet again. Those are probably the next to drop.

Fair point - despite all this player empowerment stuff it's mostly those few. Although it's those few players that win championships.

[KG Living Legend]

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.

Given all that, Charlotte wanting to flip Kemba for Rozier says a lot.  Kemba was their guy, their team leader, their star attraction.  He wanted to get paid but I don't recall him wanting out of Charlotte.  And yet Charlotte was eager to overpay for a very unproven Rozier rather than pay their star player.

A remember years ago, a decade and change, MJ commenting on Andrew Bogut and whether he deserved a max contract or not. This was at a point in Bogut's career where he was 3rd team All-NBA, DPoY candidate, one of the league's leading rebounders and a good but unexceptional offensive player.

Jordan was firmly against it saying that you can't build a title contender overpaying stars like Bogut. Reading through the lines that max contracts are guys like MJ or Barkley or Hakeem. Not supporting stars who are 2nd or 3rd options on their teams. Franchise guys only. This was MJ's idealogy of team building.

This came around to Kemba. Kemba was their franchise guy but was incapable of leading Charlotte to more than a 7th / 8th seed and a first round loss. In MJ's eyes, Kemba was not a true franchise player. He was a 2nd / 3rd option and according to MJ's belief of team building to win a title was thus unworthy of a max deal.

And that is what the negotiations came down to. MJ didn't think Kemba was worth the max because he was not a true franchise guy. He wanted to keep Kemba but at a much lower number than Kemba (1) felt he was worth (2) could get elsewhere from multiple teams. So the negotiations fell apart.

The Rozier signing to me was just "hey, he's a good young player and he can replace a good chunk (but not all) of Kemba's production ... let's sign him and move on".

Now I don't agree with MJ's theory of team building. You can clearly carry 3 max deals on the same team so you can and need to pay guys like Bogut (at that time) or Kemba max contracts if you want them on your team because if you don't someone else will. But I do see that carryover from his ideas on Bogut to Kemba and how it directed contract talks with Kemba that summer.

I think MJ is correct.  And he was clearly proven correct in the Kemba instance.  And I suspect if Charlotte had the true #1 franchise guy, they would have been more inclined to pay Kemba.  You don't pay for your role players are second tier stars, if you don't have the #1 guy or starters in place.  It is how you end up with a mediocre team with no cap flexibility.

 I don't care if Kembas knees exploded or not, kemba is short with short arms.  Rozier has a 6'8" wingspan and is a freak athlete that's much younger.

 We paid twice as much for Kemba for a guy that you know can't guard anyone come playoff time. Bonehead move.

[tonydelk]

Money.   No other explanation.  Teams want to be under the tax lone.  10m per team estimated luxury tax payment to help offset losses from the pandemic. 

[Kuberski33]

Money.   No other explanation.  Teams want to be under the tax lone.  10m per team estimated luxury tax payment to help offset losses from the pandemic.

In ownership's defense, we don't know what their financial situation is since so many home gates were wiped out due to the pandemic.  The way they jack up the concession prices at the Garden, I'm guessing they lost considerable revenue with so many missed games with fans in attendance.

This team is a long way from contending so I'm fine with not going overboard this season.

[Roy H.]

Money.   No other explanation.  Teams want to be under the tax lone.  10m per team estimated luxury tax payment to help offset losses from the pandemic.

In ownership's defense, we don't know what their financial situation is since so many home gates were wiped out due to the pandemic.  The way they jack up the concession prices at the Garden, I'm guessing they lost considerable revenue with so many missed games with fans in attendance.

This team is a long way from contending so I'm fine with not going overboard this season.

Have you checked out how the very rich have been doing over the pandemic?  Our richest citizens have profited immensely through their stock and real estate holdings.

The Celtics appreciated by 11% in 2020-21, with a valuation of $3.55 billion (fifth in the NBA).  They also had $46 million in profits, which I believe was 6th in the NBA.

[Kuberski33]

Money.   No other explanation.  Teams want to be under the tax lone.  10m per team estimated luxury tax payment to help offset losses from the pandemic.

In ownership's defense, we don't know what their financial situation is since so many home gates were wiped out due to the pandemic.  The way they jack up the concession prices at the Garden, I'm guessing they lost considerable revenue with so many missed games with fans in attendance.

This team is a long way from contending so I'm fine with not going overboard this season.

Have you checked out how the very rich have been doing over the pandemic?  Our richest citizens have profited immensely through their stock and real estate holdings.

The Celtics appreciated by 11% in 2020-21, with a valuation of $3.55 billion (fifth in the NBA).  They also had $46 million in profits, which I believe was 6th in the NBA.

If enough of their key customers (season ticket holders) and sponsors agree with you, they won't renew their financial commitment and that will certainly get their attention. But there is also no move you could make this season that will allow this team to contend for a conference title so from a business standpoint it's just throwing money away. 

And if you look at the current fan base - and this is just an observation from being at the games - many don't care. Most them are young, they go to enjoy the show, wear their gear, spend their money and wouldn't think of booing the many crappy efforts this team has treated them to. 

There isn't a whole lot of pressure being put on ownership to operate anyway other than what they're currently doing.

[Vermont Green]

People's issues with this trade seem to be that we gave up the 16th pick and that the owners saved money.  I am not worried one bit about the draft pick because we essentially ended up with Josh Richardson for the pick.  It is pretty straight forward dot connecting.  We got Horford and Moses Brown for Kemba and the pick, we traded Moses Brown for Josh Richardson.  So we end up with Horford, Richardson and quite a bit of cap savings.  I don't see the problem.  This is much better than what most people thought in terms of getting out from under Kemba's contract.  I see this as working out well.

And as to the owners being cheap or whatever.  Yes, I have no doubt that money was a factor.  But Horford has done more for us than Kemba has done for the Knicks and Richardson has done way more for us than Sengun would have.  Now Sengun may turn out to be the sleeper of the and people can continue complaining about this trade forever but it is a 16th pick.  16th picks don't usually turn out to be impact players.  And the owners, after getting rid of Kemba's contract spent ample money on Smart, RWilliams, and Richardson.  That just seems like good business decisions to me.

I think signing Kemba in the first place is much more questionable than what we had to do to get out of it.  But people love their offense first PGs.  And to be honest, Kemba was better than I thought he would be.  We were pretty good with him for stretch.  But those days are long gone for him.

[nickagneta]

People's issues with this trade seem to be that we gave up the 16th pick and that the owners saved money.  I am not worried one bit about the draft pick because we essentially ended up with Josh Richardson for the pick.  It is pretty straight forward dot connecting.  We got Horford and Moses Brown for Kemba and the pick, we traded Moses Brown for Josh Richardson.  So we end up with Horford, Richardson and quite a bit of cap savings.  I don't see the problem.  This is much better than what most people thought in terms of getting out from under Kemba's contract.  I see this as working out well.

And as to the owners being cheap or whatever.  Yes, I have no doubt that money was a factor.  But Horford has done more for us than Kemba has done for the Knicks and Richardson has done way more for us than Sengun would have.  Now Sengun may turn out to be the sleeper of the and people can continue complaining about this trade forever but it is a 16th pick.  16th picks don't usually turn out to be impact players.  And the owners, after getting rid of Kemba's contract spent ample money on Smart, RWilliams, and Richardson.  That just seems like good business decisions to me.

I think signing Kemba in the first place is much more questionable than what we had to do to get out of it.  But people love their offense first PGs.  And to be honest, Kemba was better than I thought he would be.  We were pretty good with him for stretch.  But those days are long gone for him.

Also, let's not turn the 16th pick from last year into another liam/Bane thing, because just like with that, there is NOTHING out there anywhere that suggests just because Sengun was chosen with that 16th pick, that he would have been the guy Stevens would have picked. Stevens could just as easily have gone for Kai Jones, Isaiah Jackson or Jalen Johnson if he was looking at a big.

[Roy H.]

People's issues with this trade seem to be that we gave up the 16th pick and that the owners saved money.  I am not worried one bit about the draft pick because we essentially ended up with Josh Richardson for the pick. It is pretty straight forward dot connecting.  We got Horford and Moses Brown for Kemba and the pick, we traded Moses Brown for Josh Richardson.  So we end up with Horford, Richardson and quite a bit of cap savings.  I don't see the problem.  This is much better than what most people thought in terms of getting out from under Kemba's contract.  I see this as working out well.

And as to the owners being cheap or whatever.  Yes, I have no doubt that money was a factor.  But Horford has done more for us than Kemba has done for the Knicks and Richardson has done way more for us than Sengun would have.  Now Sengun may turn out to be the sleeper of the and people can continue complaining about this trade forever but it is a 16th pick.  16th picks don't usually turn out to be impact players.  And the owners, after getting rid of Kemba's contract spent ample money on Smart, RWilliams, and Richardson.  That just seems like good business decisions to me.

I think signing Kemba in the first place is much more questionable than what we had to do to get out of it.  But people love their offense first PGs.  And to be honest, Kemba was better than I thought he would be.  We were pretty good with him for stretch.  But those days are long gone for him.

It's fair to look at the trade like that.  Trading Kemba allowed us to afford Josh Richardson.  I don't personally look at it like that, since the only thing limiting us from having both Kemba and Richardson was Wyc's profit margin, but some fans are more sympathetic to the plight of extraordinarily rich venture capitalists than others.

So, is the #16 pick in the draft worth Richardson?  Since the Mavericks dumped him almost for free, I don't think so.  At best, Richardson had neutral value; he's certainly not worth a cost-controlled asset for the next four years.

Richardson's value currently is as a solid role player who could help a contender.  Unfortunately, that's not us.  Using a first rounder to acquire him is poor value.  And, even after a very good year in Boston, there's no chance we can recoup that value.  Do you think there's any team that would give up a first rounder inside the top-20 for him?

We had all of the following options:

Keep Kemba, keep the #16, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, force feed minutes to Langford and Nesmith

Trade the #16 on draft night for two #1s, flip one of those in a Kemba for Horford deal (while keeping the other pick)

Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson
Trade Kemba and the #16, sign Fournier
Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson and sign Fournier

We obviously went with the bolded, which -- for a non-contender -- was among the worst possible options. 

[Roy H.]

People's issues with this trade seem to be that we gave up the 16th pick and that the owners saved money.  I am not worried one bit about the draft pick because we essentially ended up with Josh Richardson for the pick.  It is pretty straight forward dot connecting.  We got Horford and Moses Brown for Kemba and the pick, we traded Moses Brown for Josh Richardson.  So we end up with Horford, Richardson and quite a bit of cap savings.  I don't see the problem.  This is much better than what most people thought in terms of getting out from under Kemba's contract.  I see this as working out well.

And as to the owners being cheap or whatever.  Yes, I have no doubt that money was a factor.  But Horford has done more for us than Kemba has done for the Knicks and Richardson has done way more for us than Sengun would have.  Now Sengun may turn out to be the sleeper of the and people can continue complaining about this trade forever but it is a 16th pick.  16th picks don't usually turn out to be impact players.  And the owners, after getting rid of Kemba's contract spent ample money on Smart, RWilliams, and Richardson.  That just seems like good business decisions to me.

I think signing Kemba in the first place is much more questionable than what we had to do to get out of it.  But people love their offense first PGs.  And to be honest, Kemba was better than I thought he would be.  We were pretty good with him for stretch.  But those days are long gone for him.

Also, let's not turn the 16th pick from last year into another liam/Bane thing, because just like with that, there is NOTHING out there anywhere that suggests just because Sengun was chosen with that 16th pick, that he would have been the guy Stevens would have picked. Stevens could just as easily have gone for Kai Jones, Isaiah Jackson or Jalen Johnson if he was looking at a big.

So, our front office is doubly incompetent then.  Not only did they make a bad trade, but the team also sucks at talent evaluation.

The "we would have missed on the pick anyway" rationale isn't really an excuse for making a bad trade.

[nickagneta]

People's issues with this trade seem to be that we gave up the 16th pick and that the owners saved money.  I am not worried one bit about the draft pick because we essentially ended up with Josh Richardson for the pick.  It is pretty straight forward dot connecting.  We got Horford and Moses Brown for Kemba and the pick, we traded Moses Brown for Josh Richardson.  So we end up with Horford, Richardson and quite a bit of cap savings.  I don't see the problem.  This is much better than what most people thought in terms of getting out from under Kemba's contract.  I see this as working out well.

And as to the owners being cheap or whatever.  Yes, I have no doubt that money was a factor.  But Horford has done more for us than Kemba has done for the Knicks and Richardson has done way more for us than Sengun would have.  Now Sengun may turn out to be the sleeper of the and people can continue complaining about this trade forever but it is a 16th pick.  16th picks don't usually turn out to be impact players.  And the owners, after getting rid of Kemba's contract spent ample money on Smart, RWilliams, and Richardson.  That just seems like good business decisions to me.

I think signing Kemba in the first place is much more questionable than what we had to do to get out of it.  But people love their offense first PGs.  And to be honest, Kemba was better than I thought he would be.  We were pretty good with him for stretch.  But those days are long gone for him.

Also, let's not turn the 16th pick from last year into another liam/Bane thing, because just like with that, there is NOTHING out there anywhere that suggests just because Sengun was chosen with that 16th pick, that he would have been the guy Stevens would have picked. Stevens could just as easily have gone for Kai Jones, Isaiah Jackson or Jalen Johnson if he was looking at a big.

So, our front office is doubly incompetent then.  Not only did they make a bad trade, but the team also sucks at talent evaluation.

The "we would have missed on the pick anyway" rationale isn't really an excuse for making a bad trade.

I'm not saying it's an excuse for any type of trade, bad or otherwise. I am also not saying they would have missed on the pick anyway. Check out my post. Never said that

I am saying you can't just assume Sengun would have been the pick. There is zero info available Stevens would have chosen him. It's the same with the Bane situation. There is no credible evidence anywhere if Boston kept that pick Bane would have been that pick. It's just a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking nonsense to say Boston makes those picks and if they wouldn't have, they are incompetent.