Renewed / regurgitated Poeltl rumor

[Roy H.]

The Athletic's Shams Charania reported Tuesday that Poeltl "has gained significant trade interest from teams such as the Toronto Raptors and Boston Celtics, according to league sources who, like all the other sources in this story, were granted anonymity so that they would be able to speak freely."

Charania also reports "The Spurs have had a standing offer to Poeltl for his maximum extension of four years and $58 million since before the season, but that has been declined, league sources say."

Poeltl is averaging 12.3 points, 9.4 rebounds and 1.2 blocks per game. He's 7-foot-1 and 260 pounds. His interior defense is good, and he's a strong rebounder. The 27-year-old veteran doesn't have great athleticism and also won't be a threat to shoot from 3-point range, but his inside presence at both ends of the floor is definitely valuable.

Poeltl is an unrestricted free agent at the end of the season, so it's possible that any team acquiring him would only have him for a few months as a rental, unless of course that squad re-signs him.

[slamtheking]

if anything, his impending free agent status would seem to make a trade for him less likely for the C's.  giving up assets for a short-term rental isn't something I see Brad doing

[PAOBoston]

if anything, his impending free agent status would seem to make a trade for him less likely for the C's.  giving up assets for a short-term rental isn't something I see Brad doing

I think it is important for this team to have solid big man depth, especially for this team. I would trade for and extend Poeltl. Considering Rob’s injury history and Horford’s age, a strong interior defender and rebounder is a need on this team in my opinion. Poeltl is a good defender and rebounder. Any offense you get from him would be a plus but you cannot rely on just Horford and Williams to get by for an entire regular season and post season and expect them to not wear down and/or stay healthy.

[Roy H.]

if anything, his impending free agent status would seem to make a trade for him less likely for the C's.  giving up assets for a short-term rental isn't something I see Brad doing

I think it is important for this team to have solid big man depth, especially for this team. I would trade for and extend Poeltl. Considering Rob’s injury history and Horford’s age, a strong interior defender and rebounder is a need on this team in my opinion. Poeltl is a good defender and rebounder. Any offense you get from him would be a plus but you cannot rely on just Horford and Williams to get by for an entire regular season and post season and expect them to not wear down and/or stay healthy.

The question for me:  how much does he cost?  He's turning down roughly $15 million per year.  Do we go to $20 million per season?  And long term, could he play next to Rob?

[PAOBoston]

if anything, his impending free agent status would seem to make a trade for him less likely for the C's.  giving up assets for a short-term rental isn't something I see Brad doing

I think it is important for this team to have solid big man depth, especially for this team. I would trade for and extend Poeltl. Considering Rob’s injury history and Horford’s age, a strong interior defender and rebounder is a need on this team in my opinion. Poeltl is a good defender and rebounder. Any offense you get from him would be a plus but you cannot rely on just Horford and Williams to get by for an entire regular season and post season and expect them to not wear down and/or stay healthy.

The question for me:  how much does he cost?  He's turning down roughly $15 million per year.  Do we go to $20 million per season?  And long term, could he play next to Rob?

I’m not sure how much he would make on FA market tbh. But I’d also say $15 mil per to stay on the rebuilding/tanking Spurs not the same as $15 mil to ply on a contender. I also don’t hink he can play next to Williams but with Williams and Horford needing constantly restricted minutes and load management days, I would think there would be ample plying time for him.

Even if the cost wasn’t too prohibitive, I’d still pull the trigger even if he did not resign. Cs only have so many opportunities for a ring here so I think they need to go for it and cash in before that window closes.

[Vermont Green]

If you want to trade for him, Pritchard + Gallinari gets it done, at least from a contracts standpoint (not sure if SAN would take that but maybe).  I am not sure just how good of a long term solution he would be for us.  53% career FT% is a warning flag.  He gets on the box score, 12 pts/9 reb with nearly 3 assists, but has never impressed me much when I see him play.  He is intriguing to me, for sure.

As to the potential future contract, I think the team that has his Bird rights will have a big advantage, so if we do trade for him, we would be likely in the best position to resign him.  Kind of like Grant, someone else either needs cap space or they are limited to an MLE.

In any case, I wouldn't want to give up Pritchard and Gallinari for a bench rental and I don't see him really worth overpaying to keep him here long term.  The only argument that I could make would be that if the price of Grant gets too high, we would be able to go above the MLE to sign him and he could a back up plan if we are unable to sign Grant.  Poeltl as a back up big , Grant replacement, would be reasonable.

[slamtheking]

if anything, his impending free agent status would seem to make a trade for him less likely for the C's.  giving up assets for a short-term rental isn't something I see Brad doing

I think it is important for this team to have solid big man depth, especially for this team. I would trade for and extend Poeltl. Considering Rob’s injury history and Horford’s age, a strong interior defender and rebounder is a need on this team in my opinion. Poeltl is a good defender and rebounder. Any offense you get from him would be a plus but you cannot rely on just Horford and Williams to get by for an entire regular season and post season and expect them to not wear down and/or stay healthy.

The question for me:  how much does he cost?  He's turning down roughly $15 million per year.  Do we go to $20 million per season?  And long term, could he play next to Rob?

I’m not sure how much he would make on FA market tbh. But I’d also say $15 mil per to stay on the rebuilding/tanking Spurs not the same as $15 mil to ply on a contender. I also don’t hink he can play next to Williams but with Williams and Horford needing constantly restricted minutes and load management days, I would think there would be ample plying time for him.

Even if the cost wasn’t too prohibitive, I’d still pull the trigger even if he did not resign. Cs only have so many opportunities for a ring here so I think they need to go for it and cash in before that window closes.

for me, the cost of acquiring what's likely to be a very temporary asset is what's prohibitive.  you're assuming that Poeltl will resign for the C's what he turned down for the Spurs.  I don't think that's a valid assumption at all.  so, taking that off the table, it stands to reason he's looking for more money no matter who pays him.  For the C's, with GWill up for a new deal at arguably the same price range, do the C's resign both or just one.  I would think just one of them and it'll likely be the player that has shown he can be plugged into several different line-ups/situations rather than someone who's locked into a back up center that really doesn't fit the defensive-switching scheme used by the team.  with that in mind, C's are much more likely to pony up the cash to resign Grant than they are to resign Poeltl.

[wdleehi]

Really feels like Boston (and likely Toronto) are thrown in there to up the price.   


Unless Boston is worried another team could add him and make it harder for Boston to get out of the East, I am not sure why they make this trade.   Is the price worth the improvement in the  Kornet minutes?   

[PAOBoston]

if anything, his impending free agent status would seem to make a trade for him less likely for the C's.  giving up assets for a short-term rental isn't something I see Brad doing

I think it is important for this team to have solid big man depth, especially for this team. I would trade for and extend Poeltl. Considering Rob’s injury history and Horford’s age, a strong interior defender and rebounder is a need on this team in my opinion. Poeltl is a good defender and rebounder. Any offense you get from him would be a plus but you cannot rely on just Horford and Williams to get by for an entire regular season and post season and expect them to not wear down and/or stay healthy.

The question for me:  how much does he cost?  He's turning down roughly $15 million per year.  Do we go to $20 million per season?  And long term, could he play next to Rob?

I’m not sure how much he would make on FA market tbh. But I’d also say $15 mil per to stay on the rebuilding/tanking Spurs not the same as $15 mil to ply on a contender. I also don’t hink he can play next to Williams but with Williams and Horford needing constantly restricted minutes and load management days, I would think there would be ample plying time for him.

Even if the cost wasn’t too prohibitive, I’d still pull the trigger even if he did not resign. Cs only have so many opportunities for a ring here so I think they need to go for it and cash in before that window closes.

for me, the cost of acquiring what's likely to be a very temporary asset is what's prohibitive.  you're assuming that Poeltl will resign for the C's what he turned down for the Spurs.  I don't think that's a valid assumption at all.  so, taking that off the table, it stands to reason he's looking for more money no matter who pays him.  For the C's, with GWill up for a new deal at arguably the same price range, do the C's resign both or just one.  I would think just one of them and it'll likely be the player that has shown he can be plugged into several different line-ups/situations rather than someone who's locked into a back up center that really doesn't fit the defensive-switching scheme used by the team.  with that in mind, C's are much more likely to pony up the cash to resign Grant than they are to resign Poeltl.

I’d make the deal regardless if he resigns or not. Cs should be all in right now. Gallinari is 35 and won’t play this year. Pritchard is buried  at the end of the bench and will likely not be extended. I’m doubtful they keep Grant after next year tbh. I don’t think your 4th string PG and and an end of bench guy who is out for the season should be holding up any trades for you in acquiring a player at a position of need. Considering the state of the Cs big men, I’m not sure why we wouldn’t want to add another capable big man when it is the weakest spot depth wise on the team now and for the future.

[mobilija]

I'm lost at the part where he functions on this team. He plays a different defensive style than our best selves. He can't play alongside our best big.

He's gonna cost a draft pick right? Likely a 1st? Thats a big bullet to lose for a questionable fit and doubtful long term staying power.

[Vermont Green]

Sounds like many are buying into Poeltl for Pritchard + Gallinari (assuming that SAN would do this and we don't have to add any picks).

I analyze this from two perspectives, impact on the team this year and what position are we in for the team next year.  In terms of this year, I think Poeltl does help us more than Pritchard (Gallinari I assume won't play at all) can for the rest of the season and playoffs.  Pritchard does have some value but what Poeltl can give is is probably more valuable, harder to otherwise find.  If we trade Pritchard, we may be able to find a comparable 3rd string guard from the FAs or in a trade for a second rounder or something.  No way we find a back up center that easily.

The other perspective is where does this leave us moving forward beyond this season.  I am all for the "all in" mentality but the reality is you can't be entirely short sighted.  I like Pritchard but I think he is easily replaced moving forward.  Gallinari, not quite so easily.  The result is that we go into next season with with two (Grant and Poeltl) unsigned bench bigs.  We could loose them both.  Either is going to cost a lot more than Gallinari would have cost.

I am trying, but I just can't talk myself into this.  I don't think Poeltl helps us enough this season and next season, I would rather have Gallinari and Pritchard.

[knuckleballer]

I’d trade for him just for big man insurance. Rob didn’t finish either of the last two sessions healthy. We’re the best team in the league now, we need to go for it.

[RodyTur10]

I’d trade for him just for big man insurance. Rob didn’t finish either of the last two sessions healthy. We’re the best team in the league now, we need to go for it.

Me too. Losing Pritchard hurts a bit, but most of the time he's buried on the bench anyway. Finding a replacement productive 3rd stringer guard isn't very difficult. And Gallinari, well after this injury his career as a NBA player may basically be over.

[BitterJim]

Sounds like many are buying into Poeltl for Pritchard + Gallinari (assuming that SAN would do this and we don't have to add any picks).

I analyze this from two perspectives, impact on the team this year and what position are we in for the team next year.  In terms of this year, I think Poeltl does help us more than Pritchard (Gallinari I assume won't play at all) can for the rest of the season and playoffs.  Pritchard does have some value but what Poeltl can give is is probably more valuable, harder to otherwise find.  If we trade Pritchard, we may be able to find a comparable 3rd string guard from the FAs or in a trade for a second rounder or something.  No way we find a back up center that easily.

The other perspective is where does this leave us moving forward beyond this season.  I am all for the "all in" mentality but the reality is you can't be entirely short sighted.  I like Pritchard but I think he is easily replaced moving forward.  Gallinari, not quite so easily.  The result is that we go into next season with with two (Grant and Poeltl) unsigned bench bigs.  We could loose them both.  Either is going to cost a lot more than Gallinari would have cost.

I am trying, but I just can't talk myself into this.  I don't think Poeltl helps us enough this season and next season, I would rather have Gallinari and Pritchard.

To add to that, any trade based around Galinari's salary is difficult, since he ended last season with SAS and thus can't be required (so we'd have to dump him to a third team).

We also only have so many first rounders that we can trade, so even if Poetl is worth a first rounders or two we have to really consider if that's the best value for those picks. I'd rather see us get a cheaper (but still somewhat capable) big and a good backup wing than spend it all on a 3rd big

[Celtics2021]

Sounds like many are buying into Poeltl for Pritchard + Gallinari (assuming that SAN would do this and we don't have to add any picks).

I analyze this from two perspectives, impact on the team this year and what position are we in for the team next year.  In terms of this year, I think Poeltl does help us more than Pritchard (Gallinari I assume won't play at all) can for the rest of the season and playoffs.  Pritchard does have some value but what Poeltl can give is is probably more valuable, harder to otherwise find.  If we trade Pritchard, we may be able to find a comparable 3rd string guard from the FAs or in a trade for a second rounder or something.  No way we find a back up center that easily.

The other perspective is where does this leave us moving forward beyond this season.  I am all for the "all in" mentality but the reality is you can't be entirely short sighted.  I like Pritchard but I think he is easily replaced moving forward.  Gallinari, not quite so easily.  The result is that we go into next season with with two (Grant and Poeltl) unsigned bench bigs.  We could loose them both.  Either is going to cost a lot more than Gallinari would have cost.

I am trying, but I just can't talk myself into this.  I don't think Poeltl helps us enough this season and next season, I would rather have Gallinari and Pritchard.

To add to that, any trade based around Galinari's salary is difficult, since he ended last season with SAS and thus can't be required (so we'd have to dump him to a third team).

We also only have so many first rounders that we can trade, so even if Poetl is worth a first rounders or two we have to really consider if that's the best value for those picks. I'd rather see us get a cheaper (but still somewhat capable) big and a good backup wing than spend it all on a 3rd big

I don't think this is correct.  Here's Larry Coon, question 101 (When can't a player be traded):

A team cannot reacquire a player it traded away during the same season (a season for this purpose being defined as starting on the first day of the regular season and ending on the last day of the Finals). If the player was traded between seasons (i.e., from the first day after the Finals to the last day prior to the start of the next regular season), it cannot reacquire the player prior to the end of the next season. If he is waived by his new team, then he cannot re-sign with his original team until the one-year anniversary of the trade, or until the July 1 following the end of his contract, whichever comes first6. However, if a team trades a player's draft rights, it can reacquire the player during the same season.

The Hawks traded Gallo away after the finals, so they can't trade for him this season.  The Spurs, however, waived him, and didn't trade him.  The restriction on acquiring a player who was traded and subsequently waived also applies to the team that originally traded him (in this case the Hawks) and not the Spurs, although that restriction is moot because we subsequently signed Gallo to a new contract.  Also, if the Spurs stretched Gallo, they would be prohibited, but I don't believe that they did so.

In conclusion: Gallo can be traded to the Spurs.  He can't be traded to the Hawks, but if we cut him they could sign him.