Author Topic: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available  (Read 4277 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2023, 11:33:14 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58539
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I thought we couldn't trade for a player if we traded him to the same team within a year...or something like that

The rule bars trading within the same season, I think, not the same year.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2023, 04:05:12 AM »

Online Birdman

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9170
  • Tommy Points: 412
We also need a big, can’t depend on TimeLord
C/PF-Horford, Baynes, Noel, Theis, Morris,
SF/SG- Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Smart, Semi, Clark
PG- Irving, Rozier, Larkin

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2023, 04:46:23 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
He would be a good follow up move if you did lose PP in another deal. As is now there isn't a need or room.

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2023, 07:46:45 AM »

Offline boscel33

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2667
  • Tommy Points: 166
We also need a big, can’t depend on TimeLord

Can we depend on anyone?  Injuries are beginning to pile up.

"There's sharks and minnows in this world. If you don't know which you are, you ain't a shark."

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2023, 09:25:14 AM »

Offline dannyboy35

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1939
  • Tommy Points: 104
  I’m not sure Richardson would be near the top of my list of what I’d hope would happen but I’d welcome the addition. Nothing against Hauser at all but I’m not ready to COUNT on him dropping shots deep in the playoffs. I’m more comfortable with NOT giving up baskets I think when it’s that far down the rotation.
  I’m not sure HOW much time Richardson would get but it seems he’s an unselfish teammate and I THINK he’s well enough liked. Other than that insurance he’s also a nice player to sub in on an out of bounds play where you may want a certain defensive lineup.

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2023, 09:45:51 AM »

Online Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11225
  • Tommy Points: 860
I would be very interesting if bought out (which is unlikely), but I don't see how a trade could be put together.  Too much salary to match.

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2023, 09:58:27 AM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6227
  • Tommy Points: 823
He’d be ok as a buyout candidate, but he’s another 6’4” player who’s fight for playing time. Like someone at least 6’6” (say, Alec Burks, who’s a dependable 40%+ 3-point shooter) or ideally someone longer.

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2023, 11:29:47 AM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6227
  • Tommy Points: 823
Sure would be nice to have some nice chunk salaries right now that could be used to trade if they weren't just better themselves.  Really was a travesty the Fournier TPE wasn't used and now we've let the Hernangomez go by the wayside as well.  Just unacceptable roster moves and construction.

Yes, and what all the fans who are preaching "Player X wouldn't be playing much anyway" are overlooking is that lack of chunk salaries is going to hurt in the off-season, too.  It's better for the team to have even a garbage player like Rudy Gay on the roster than an empty roster spot, because Rudy Gay's salary can be combined with others in the off-season to bring back a meaningful player.  If we'd used the TPEs earlier in the season, we could be combining them together now.

Let's say Wyc had truly opened up the check book, like he's lied about several times.  Then, we trade for Alec Burks, getting NY to pay us a draft pick in the process.  We trade for Gay.  We'd then have around $17 million just between those two players to match salary.  Add in Gallinari and we'd be able to take on John Collins salary, without touching the current rotation.

But, without those chunk salaries, you can't really trade for improvements, now or in the future.

That’s a good point. Though I think you’re calling for the Cs to add $17M in salary which means another ~$65 in lux tax ($82M total) for: a 7th-8th man in the rotation (Burks) and a deep bench player (Gay), and the possibility we might be able to bundle these guys later to land a better player by adding some picks. You’re right that there is a limit to what the owners are willing to spend - they won’t pay the equivalent of two mid-career max deals for marginal players who raise our title odds just a little bit. Is that “lying” about being willing to spend? I see your point though I think it’s a little harsh. It would be a pretty massive payout for the chance that maybe this improves our odds of winning. They’re well into the tax, and getting Brogdon wasn’t cheap; also, we still haven’t seen what they’re willing to do. Entirely possible for them to grab a buyout guy and another small-salary guy and be top-5 in the league on salary - competing with teams that have much bigger revenue streams

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2023, 11:43:22 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58539
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Sure would be nice to have some nice chunk salaries right now that could be used to trade if they weren't just better themselves.  Really was a travesty the Fournier TPE wasn't used and now we've let the Hernangomez go by the wayside as well.  Just unacceptable roster moves and construction.

Yes, and what all the fans who are preaching "Player X wouldn't be playing much anyway" are overlooking is that lack of chunk salaries is going to hurt in the off-season, too.  It's better for the team to have even a garbage player like Rudy Gay on the roster than an empty roster spot, because Rudy Gay's salary can be combined with others in the off-season to bring back a meaningful player.  If we'd used the TPEs earlier in the season, we could be combining them together now.

Let's say Wyc had truly opened up the check book, like he's lied about several times.  Then, we trade for Alec Burks, getting NY to pay us a draft pick in the process.  We trade for Gay.  We'd then have around $17 million just between those two players to match salary.  Add in Gallinari and we'd be able to take on John Collins salary, without touching the current rotation.

But, without those chunk salaries, you can't really trade for improvements, now or in the future.

That’s a good point. Though I think you’re calling for the Cs to add $17M in salary which means another ~$65 in lux tax ($82M total) for: a 7th-8th man in the rotation (Burks) and a deep bench player (Gay), and the possibility we might be able to bundle these guys later to land a better player by adding some picks. You’re right that there is a limit to what the owners are willing to spend - they won’t pay the equivalent of two mid-career max deals for marginal players who raise our title odds just a little bit. Is that “lying” about being willing to spend? I see your point though I think it’s a little harsh. It would be a pretty massive payout for the chance that maybe this improves our odds of winning. They’re well into the tax, and getting Brogdon wasn’t cheap; also, we still haven’t seen what they’re willing to do. Entirely possible for them to grab a buyout guy and another small-salary guy and be top-5 in the league on salary - competing with teams that have much bigger revenue streams

I've said before that I understand not using the $17 million TPE if there are budget restrictions.  It's probably unfair to ask an owner to lose money, for instance. 

But, to me that all changes when the owner is loudly and proudly in front of the media saying there are no budgetary or financial constraints, that he'll do whatever it takes to win a title.  In that circumstance, then you *maximize* your shot at a title, money be damned.  And, maximizing your shot means adding Alec Burks instead of allowing the TPE to expire, and adding tradeable salary, etc.

And, for whatever its worth, the team made $137 million in operating income last year.  Even with payroll and tax increases, if they bring in the same revenue this year, Wyc and Pags will make around $40 million in profit.  I'd expect revenue to actually be higher in the regular season, although time will tell regarding the playoffs. 

So, $40 million in profits potentially kept in ownership's pocket.  Are those the actions of a team that is truly maxing out its opportunities?


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2023, 12:15:06 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Sure would be nice to have some nice chunk salaries right now that could be used to trade if they weren't just better themselves.  Really was a travesty the Fournier TPE wasn't used and now we've let the Hernangomez go by the wayside as well.  Just unacceptable roster moves and construction.

Yes, and what all the fans who are preaching "Player X wouldn't be playing much anyway" are overlooking is that lack of chunk salaries is going to hurt in the off-season, too.  It's better for the team to have even a garbage player like Rudy Gay on the roster than an empty roster spot, because Rudy Gay's salary can be combined with others in the off-season to bring back a meaningful player.  If we'd used the TPEs earlier in the season, we could be combining them together now.

Let's say Wyc had truly opened up the check book, like he's lied about several times.  Then, we trade for Alec Burks, getting NY to pay us a draft pick in the process.  We trade for Gay.  We'd then have around $17 million just between those two players to match salary.  Add in Gallinari and we'd be able to take on John Collins salary, without touching the current rotation.

But, without those chunk salaries, you can't really trade for improvements, now or in the future.

That’s a good point. Though I think you’re calling for the Cs to add $17M in salary which means another ~$65 in lux tax ($82M total) for: a 7th-8th man in the rotation (Burks) and a deep bench player (Gay), and the possibility we might be able to bundle these guys later to land a better player by adding some picks. You’re right that there is a limit to what the owners are willing to spend - they won’t pay the equivalent of two mid-career max deals for marginal players who raise our title odds just a little bit. Is that “lying” about being willing to spend? I see your point though I think it’s a little harsh. It would be a pretty massive payout for the chance that maybe this improves our odds of winning. They’re well into the tax, and getting Brogdon wasn’t cheap; also, we still haven’t seen what they’re willing to do. Entirely possible for them to grab a buyout guy and another small-salary guy and be top-5 in the league on salary - competing with teams that have much bigger revenue streams

I've said before that I understand not using the $17 million TPE if there are budget restrictions.  It's probably unfair to ask an owner to lose money, for instance. 

But, to me that all changes when the owner is loudly and proudly in front of the media saying there are no budgetary or financial constraints, that he'll do whatever it takes to win a title.  In that circumstance, then you *maximize* your shot at a title, money be damned.  And, maximizing your shot means adding Alec Burks instead of allowing the TPE to expire, and adding tradeable salary, etc.

And, for whatever its worth, the team made $137 million in operating income last year.  Even with payroll and tax increases, if they bring in the same revenue this year, Wyc and Pags will make around $40 million in profit.  I'd expect revenue to actually be higher in the regular season, although time will tell regarding the playoffs. 

So, $40 million in profits potentially kept in ownership's pocket.  Are those the actions of a team that is truly maxing out its opportunities?
There were also certain players that would have come with an asset.  Burks or Noel from the Pistons seemed like candidates for that.
 Another was Duncan Robinson, who the C's probably would have been able to get a 1st round pick from Miami (or maybe Jovic or some other quality young asset) and maybe more because of his contract.  An extra 1st or recent 1st rounder, would be a valuable asset to use in a trade right now.  For example, maybe you acquire Hachimura if you have an extra 1st to trade. 

If you claim to not have a budget and you claim you will pay whatever it takes to win, then you can't keep letting TPE's expire when there are players available and you have open roster spots.  I mean we had like 5 open spots this summer with the Fournier TPE.  Instead we wasted 3 roster spots on garbage.  That doesn't sound like a team trying to win a title that doesn't have a budget.  It sounds like a penny pinching team just trying to get by.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2023, 12:35:55 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
I agree it is a bummer that we haven’t used the tpe’s and think there were definitely players like burks or Noel that we could have gotten and could play a role in a playoff series. But can we use some common sense and stop with the duncan Robinson stuff? He is possibly the worst contract in the league, a horrible defender and is only on the fringes of the heat rotation despite them dealing with injuries all year. He plays 17 minutes a game this year down from 26 last year and 31 two years ago. He is shooting a career worst 33% from 3. He would have been an absolute disaster if we had traded for him and we would have freed up a conference rival from a terrible contract. Let’s just be thankful Brad and co were smart enough to not do that trade. We would need at least two first rounders to take this albatross and even then I am not sure. Year 2 of a 90 million extension.

https://www.si.com/nba/heat/.amp/miami-news/miami-heat-struggling-to-find-suitors-in-duncan-robinson-trade
« Last Edit: January 24, 2023, 12:41:49 PM by celticsclay »

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2023, 12:40:35 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2343
  • Tommy Points: 610
Sure would be nice to have some nice chunk salaries right now that could be used to trade if they weren't just better themselves.  Really was a travesty the Fournier TPE wasn't used and now we've let the Hernangomez go by the wayside as well.  Just unacceptable roster moves and construction.

Yes, and what all the fans who are preaching "Player X wouldn't be playing much anyway" are overlooking is that lack of chunk salaries is going to hurt in the off-season, too.  It's better for the team to have even a garbage player like Rudy Gay on the roster than an empty roster spot, because Rudy Gay's salary can be combined with others in the off-season to bring back a meaningful player.  If we'd used the TPEs earlier in the season, we could be combining them together now.

Let's say Wyc had truly opened up the check book, like he's lied about several times.  Then, we trade for Alec Burks, getting NY to pay us a draft pick in the process.  We trade for Gay.  We'd then have around $17 million just between those two players to match salary.  Add in Gallinari and we'd be able to take on John Collins salary, without touching the current rotation.

But, without those chunk salaries, you can't really trade for improvements, now or in the future.

That’s a good point. Though I think you’re calling for the Cs to add $17M in salary which means another ~$65 in lux tax ($82M total) for: a 7th-8th man in the rotation (Burks) and a deep bench player (Gay), and the possibility we might be able to bundle these guys later to land a better player by adding some picks. You’re right that there is a limit to what the owners are willing to spend - they won’t pay the equivalent of two mid-career max deals for marginal players who raise our title odds just a little bit. Is that “lying” about being willing to spend? I see your point though I think it’s a little harsh. It would be a pretty massive payout for the chance that maybe this improves our odds of winning. They’re well into the tax, and getting Brogdon wasn’t cheap; also, we still haven’t seen what they’re willing to do. Entirely possible for them to grab a buyout guy and another small-salary guy and be top-5 in the league on salary - competing with teams that have much bigger revenue streams

I've said before that I understand not using the $17 million TPE if there are budget restrictions.  It's probably unfair to ask an owner to lose money, for instance. 

But, to me that all changes when the owner is loudly and proudly in front of the media saying there are no budgetary or financial constraints, that he'll do whatever it takes to win a title.  In that circumstance, then you *maximize* your shot at a title, money be damned.  And, maximizing your shot means adding Alec Burks instead of allowing the TPE to expire, and adding tradeable salary, etc.

And, for whatever its worth, the team made $137 million in operating income last year.  Even with payroll and tax increases, if they bring in the same revenue this year, Wyc and Pags will make around $40 million in profit.  I'd expect revenue to actually be higher in the regular season, although time will tell regarding the playoffs. 

So, $40 million in profits potentially kept in ownership's pocket.  Are those the actions of a team that is truly maxing out its opportunities?
There were also certain players that would have come with an asset.  Burks or Noel from the Pistons seemed like candidates for that.
 Another was Duncan Robinson, who the C's probably would have been able to get a 1st round pick from Miami (or maybe Jovic or some other quality young asset) and maybe more because of his contract.  An extra 1st or recent 1st rounder, would be a valuable asset to use in a trade right now.  For example, maybe you acquire Hachimura if you have an extra 1st to trade. 

If you claim to not have a budget and you claim you will pay whatever it takes to win, then you can't keep letting TPE's expire when there are players available and you have open roster spots.  I mean we had like 5 open spots this summer with the Fournier TPE.  Instead we wasted 3 roster spots on garbage.  That doesn't sound like a team trying to win a title that doesn't have a budget.  It sounds like a penny pinching team just trying to get by.

Seems to me that you are assuming an asset coming in. Maybe ur right, I can't remember. Can you show a report that those players would bring in an asset? Or can you reference actual similar trades that brought in an asset that we had a chance at?

If your assumption is false then is it likely that we would have had to give up picks to aquire most players via the TPE. Then more picks to acquire an actually useful player. My guess is that the pick cost is the actual thing making deals prohibitive. I feel like we have maybe one more swing at a trade with our picks to improve our roster. We are running out of cheap labor, which picks provide. The aggregat TPE usage and then player trade idea, while in theory is possible, it potentially uses a lot of picks, some of which just disappear if the player trade portion of the plan fall through. I don't think its the sure thing you paint it to be, more of a high risk high reward strategy.

....but I also recall the Warriors somewhat using this strategy to get Russell(which looked like a poor decision) and turn him into Wiggins (a great move).
Any other succesdful examples? Or failed examples?

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2023, 01:22:24 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58539
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Quote
Seems to me that you are assuming an asset coming in. Maybe ur right, I can't remember. Can you show a report that those players would bring in an asset? Or can you reference actual similar trades that brought in an asset that we had a chance at?

Detroit actually was paid an asset to take on Burks and Noel (and in a separate deal, Kemba Walker).  It was a complicated deal, but Detroit ended up with a 1st rounder (13th overall) and two second rounders for taking on that salary.

We couldn't have acquired all three players, but we could have taken on Burks and been paid a second rounder or more for it.  Same thing if we wanted Evan Fournier, etc.  Renting out cap space / TPE space for draft picks has been a popular means of asset accumulation in the past.

The Celtics have done this sort of thing in the past.  If I'm remembering correctly, we picked up the #1 that we eventually used to acquire IT by taking on salary from Cleveland.  Same thing in the Chucky Atkins trade; we used it to get the #1 used on Tony Allen, I think. 

So, yeah.  Ideal scenario, we have Burks and a Knicks asset right now, for nothing other than money.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2023, 01:43:18 PM »

Online Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11225
  • Tommy Points: 860
Quote
Seems to me that you are assuming an asset coming in. Maybe ur right, I can't remember. Can you show a report that those players would bring in an asset? Or can you reference actual similar trades that brought in an asset that we had a chance at?

Detroit actually was paid an asset to take on Burks and Noel (and in a separate deal, Kemba Walker).  It was a complicated deal, but Detroit ended up with a 1st rounder (13th overall) and two second rounders for taking on that salary.

We couldn't have acquired all three players, but we could have taken on Burks and been paid a second rounder or more for it.  Same thing if we wanted Evan Fournier, etc.  Renting out cap space / TPE space for draft picks has been a popular means of asset accumulation in the past.

The Celtics have done this sort of thing in the past.  If I'm remembering correctly, we picked up the #1 that we eventually used to acquire IT by taking on salary from Cleveland.  Same thing in the Chucky Atkins trade; we used it to get the #1 used on Tony Allen, I think. 

So, yeah.  Ideal scenario, we have Burks and a Knicks asset right now, for nothing other than money.

It was separate deals but Burks was dealt with Noel and Kemba.  There is no way to know what it would have taken to get just Burks.  And no way to know if DET would have still taken Noel and Kemba if they didn't get Burks too.

It retrospect, Burks would have been a good get, even if it cost us a second.  But I will say that I was not all that interested in Burks at the time.

Re: Rumor: Josh Richardson Available
« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2023, 01:50:01 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58539
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Quote
Seems to me that you are assuming an asset coming in. Maybe ur right, I can't remember. Can you show a report that those players would bring in an asset? Or can you reference actual similar trades that brought in an asset that we had a chance at?

Detroit actually was paid an asset to take on Burks and Noel (and in a separate deal, Kemba Walker).  It was a complicated deal, but Detroit ended up with a 1st rounder (13th overall) and two second rounders for taking on that salary.

We couldn't have acquired all three players, but we could have taken on Burks and been paid a second rounder or more for it.  Same thing if we wanted Evan Fournier, etc.  Renting out cap space / TPE space for draft picks has been a popular means of asset accumulation in the past.

The Celtics have done this sort of thing in the past.  If I'm remembering correctly, we picked up the #1 that we eventually used to acquire IT by taking on salary from Cleveland.  Same thing in the Chucky Atkins trade; we used it to get the #1 used on Tony Allen, I think. 

So, yeah.  Ideal scenario, we have Burks and a Knicks asset right now, for nothing other than money.

It was separate deals but Burks was dealt with Noel and Kemba.  There is no way to know what it would have taken to get just Burks.  And no way to know if DET would have still taken Noel and Kemba if they didn't get Burks too.

It retrospect, Burks would have been a good get, even if it cost us a second.  But I will say that I was not all that interested in Burks at the time.

Here was my reaction:

Quote
Brian Robb @BrianTRobb
about 2 hours ago

New: The #Celtics turned down an Alec Burks deal into their TPE from the Knicks before his trade to the Pistons per league sources. A closer look at why and what comes next for Boston with free agency looming: masslive.com/celtics/2022/0…

That's all fine, so long as we eventually get somebody as good or better than Burks, Noel, Fournier, etc.



I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes