« Reply #119 on: January 29, 2022, 12:47:15 PM »
Isn't the answer to this question that Horford - because he's better than Kemba and the particulars of his contract are more amenable - is a more desirable piece in a trade both at the deadline and this summer?
Is it?
The team sucks this year, so that’s not worth the cost of Sengun.
We won’t be below the salary cap, so that’s not worth Sengun.
Next summer, both are expiring contracts. I don’t think the difference in trade value of those two contracts is worth Sengun.
It seems weird to me to use the Celtics record now as a reason for why the deal shouldn't have been done last summer. Unless you're using the current record as evidence that the deal didn't work but I don't think that's what you're doing because there's no reason to think the record would be better with Kemba than with Horford.
It sounds almost like you're saying the team knew that they'd be mediocre this season months ago and taken that into consideration even though the Celtics were expected to be quite a bit better than they have been.
Also, I haven't watched a minute of Sengun but is he really worth this kind of talk?
The buck stops with Brad Stevens. If he gave up a good draft pick for a very, very modest upgrade that had no effect on winning, he should probably be fired.
Kemba had to be bought out by OKC and now NY is trying to get rid of him. Trying to move that guy at $37 mil versus trying to move Horford, who has been excellent on defense this year and will make only $14 mil next year is a big deal. It might be the difference between the Celtics having a chance to bring in someone significant this summer (or at the deadline now) and not having any chance.
Is that worth the #16 pick? I guess you say no. That's fine. But the reason for making the deal seems pretty clear.
Logged
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008