Poll: Would you make this trade For Beal

[nickagneta]

So if we got Beal, we would be kind of like the Nets but not as good and not as big.

Beal  ----  Kyrie
Brown --- Harden
Tatum --- Durant

To me the big difference is that Kevin Durant is 6'-10" vs Tatum at 6'-8" so better suited to play as the PF.  And at this point, we don't know what the Nets can do if healthy.  It sure looked like they were going to waltz to the finals based on how they played against us (without Brown) but who knows.

If we were going to trade for Beal, and I don't think WAS takes this deal, but if it did somehow happen, I think we would then need to trade Brown for a top end big.  Maybe Sabonis or Towns.  Then Beal makes sense.  But adding Beal to Brown and Tatum does not make sense to me.  And to me, I would rather at the really good big to Brown and Tatum.

 Durant is clearly longer than Tatum.  7'5" wingspan compared to 6'11"

 However both Brown and Beal have size and length advantages over Kyrie and Harden.

 So Size wise. Celtics would have the slight edge.

I don't disagree but for the position that they are playing, Beal and Irving are about the same and sufficient for the position, same with Brown and Harden.  Irving and Harden aren't small for their positions even if slightly smaller than Beal and Brown.  It is Tatum trying to be a PF where we have a disadvantage over the Nets with Durant.

If we have Beal. Brown, and Tatum, nothing stops us from getting an actual PF so that Tatum can play as a SF and then we are fine.  I just don't like spending all that to get Beal and still not have any bigs on the team (at least not any good ones).  It just does not seem like the right way to build the team.  I would rather spend that capital on a big to pair with Brown and Tatum or go ahead and get Beal but then trade Brown for a big.  It seems to me that it would be easier to just get a big and pair with Brown and Tatum rather than first dealing for Beal and then needing a second deal to get the big you needed all along anyway.

If we get a power forward who has no size disadvantage compared to Durant then there'll be 10 other disadvantages they have, unless it's Giannis.

I agree, at least I think.  My main point is that a team built around Beal, Brown, Tatum and the rest of our current roster (or what would be left of it after the trade for Beal) is not well constructed as we are so weak at PF and C.  We are probably adequate at C with some combination of Horford, Williams, Moses Brown, Thompson but we have no PF, forcing us to play Tatum as the PF.  BKN can play Durant at PF and get away with it much better than we could with Tatum.

If we add a PF to the mix, the main advantage is that we can then play Tatum at his natural position where in the case of BKN, he would have an advantage over Harris.  But absolutely, no matter what we do, BKN is going to have an advantage particularly with Harden and Durant over pretty much anyone.  Bringing in a good PF, unless as you say it is Giannis or Davis, isn't going to change that relative to BKN but I feel if we spent the capital that it would take to get Beal instead on a good PF, the team would be better served.

And either way is fine, if you want Tatum and Beal as your 1st and 2nd, trade Brown for a PF who could be your legit 3rd.  That would be a very strong team.  Or keep Tatum and Brown but get a PF instead of Beal as your 3rd.  Either of these result in a better team in my mind than Tatum, Beal, Brown and Grant Williams or Jabari Parker as your best actual PF.

Boston was in the ECF with Tatum as the primary PF 2 seasons ago.  He played nearly 40% of his minutes at PF last year.  Boston's issue has been talent.  You add Beal and fill in around them.  There is no set formula that says you need a dominant interior scorer or defender to be effective.  Heck even the teams with the high scoring big men, do a lot of their scoring from the perimeter (Jokic, Embiid, Davis) or through setting it up themselves (like Giannis who scores a lot inside, but starts at the top of the key to do it most of the time).  Sitting around waiting for a "better" option is how you end up in mediocrity.  You pull the trigger when you have a chance to.  I can't help but think that Boston might very well be on their way to a title this year, had Ainge pulled the trigger on the Harden trade.  You can't just keep letting chances to improve the talent pass you by or you end up in the cylce of mediocrity pretty quickly with no real way out of it.

Yeah, the debate rages on but if you look at the final 8 teams this year, PHO (Ayton), DEN (Jokic), LAC, UTA (Gobert), PHI (Embiid), ATL (Collins-Capela), MIL (Giannis), BKN, 6 of the 8 had at least 1 really good big.  The exceptions, LAC and BKN have unusual rosters that I don't think we can replicate (2-3 hall of fame level players).  So get Beal and try to be like the Nets or get a decent big and try to be like the other 6 successful teams?

I think the Clippers are a good example of what we could be with Brown and Tatum.  If you added Beal to Leonard and George, does that really change the Clipps in the same way that adding a really good big would?  Does a team that already has two elite scorers really need another elite scorer or is it served better by what a good big would add?  Who did Wade and LeBron want to team with?  Bosh, a big.  That is not the only formula of course but it is still I think the best one.

This debate with rage on and no doubt a team with Beal, Brown, and Tatum would have a lot of talent and win a lot of games.  And as you say if you pass on a chance to get Beal but then don't get a big, you are no better off.  If we get Beal though, I think we would then need to trade Brown for a good young big which I think would be a realistic thing to do.

RWill can be our "really good big."  He doesn't need to be KAT, AD, etc, but he can be really good!

Yeah, OK, if RWill develops into a really good big, I am fine with that.  Of course the trade referenced in this poll has us trading Williams for Beal but assume we keep Williams and still get Beal and RWill becomes as good as say Capela or Gorbert  or Ayton (agree, we don't necessarily need Antony Davis level) we would be a very tough team.  No one can say what Williams' ceiling in the next few seasons will be but I have my doubts he makes that kind of leap.  Moses Brown may have more ceiling in the next few seasons than Williams.  He has already done some things that Williams may never do (a 20 - 20 game).  And MBrown is 2 years younger.

Banking on either of these suddenly becoming a "really good big" to me is a risky strategy.

When healthy, Timelord is already a really good big. But health is really the big "if" with Williams.

"If" he can stay injury free.
"If" he can also give Udoka 28 MPG.

"If"so ....then Timelord giving the team 13/10/3 with 1.5 steals and 2.5 blocks while shooting 68% from the field is the exact type of cost controlled big that the Beal, Brown, Tatum trio would need.

I love me some Timelord, I just don't trust his body holding up. But if Robert only has one good one or two year run in his career, let's hope it's here and hope it leads to a title because healthy.....I think he is a difference maker for this team

[Moranis]

So if we got Beal, we would be kind of like the Nets but not as good and not as big.

Beal  ----  Kyrie
Brown --- Harden
Tatum --- Durant

To me the big difference is that Kevin Durant is 6'-10" vs Tatum at 6'-8" so better suited to play as the PF.  And at this point, we don't know what the Nets can do if healthy.  It sure looked like they were going to waltz to the finals based on how they played against us (without Brown) but who knows.

If we were going to trade for Beal, and I don't think WAS takes this deal, but if it did somehow happen, I think we would then need to trade Brown for a top end big.  Maybe Sabonis or Towns.  Then Beal makes sense.  But adding Beal to Brown and Tatum does not make sense to me.  And to me, I would rather at the really good big to Brown and Tatum.

 Durant is clearly longer than Tatum.  7'5" wingspan compared to 6'11"

 However both Brown and Beal have size and length advantages over Kyrie and Harden.

 So Size wise. Celtics would have the slight edge.

I don't disagree but for the position that they are playing, Beal and Irving are about the same and sufficient for the position, same with Brown and Harden.  Irving and Harden aren't small for their positions even if slightly smaller than Beal and Brown.  It is Tatum trying to be a PF where we have a disadvantage over the Nets with Durant.

If we have Beal. Brown, and Tatum, nothing stops us from getting an actual PF so that Tatum can play as a SF and then we are fine.  I just don't like spending all that to get Beal and still not have any bigs on the team (at least not any good ones).  It just does not seem like the right way to build the team.  I would rather spend that capital on a big to pair with Brown and Tatum or go ahead and get Beal but then trade Brown for a big.  It seems to me that it would be easier to just get a big and pair with Brown and Tatum rather than first dealing for Beal and then needing a second deal to get the big you needed all along anyway.

If we get a power forward who has no size disadvantage compared to Durant then there'll be 10 other disadvantages they have, unless it's Giannis.

I agree, at least I think.  My main point is that a team built around Beal, Brown, Tatum and the rest of our current roster (or what would be left of it after the trade for Beal) is not well constructed as we are so weak at PF and C.  We are probably adequate at C with some combination of Horford, Williams, Moses Brown, Thompson but we have no PF, forcing us to play Tatum as the PF.  BKN can play Durant at PF and get away with it much better than we could with Tatum.

If we add a PF to the mix, the main advantage is that we can then play Tatum at his natural position where in the case of BKN, he would have an advantage over Harris.  But absolutely, no matter what we do, BKN is going to have an advantage particularly with Harden and Durant over pretty much anyone.  Bringing in a good PF, unless as you say it is Giannis or Davis, isn't going to change that relative to BKN but I feel if we spent the capital that it would take to get Beal instead on a good PF, the team would be better served.

And either way is fine, if you want Tatum and Beal as your 1st and 2nd, trade Brown for a PF who could be your legit 3rd.  That would be a very strong team.  Or keep Tatum and Brown but get a PF instead of Beal as your 3rd.  Either of these result in a better team in my mind than Tatum, Beal, Brown and Grant Williams or Jabari Parker as your best actual PF.

Boston was in the ECF with Tatum as the primary PF 2 seasons ago.  He played nearly 40% of his minutes at PF last year.  Boston's issue has been talent.  You add Beal and fill in around them.  There is no set formula that says you need a dominant interior scorer or defender to be effective.  Heck even the teams with the high scoring big men, do a lot of their scoring from the perimeter (Jokic, Embiid, Davis) or through setting it up themselves (like Giannis who scores a lot inside, but starts at the top of the key to do it most of the time).  Sitting around waiting for a "better" option is how you end up in mediocrity.  You pull the trigger when you have a chance to.  I can't help but think that Boston might very well be on their way to a title this year, had Ainge pulled the trigger on the Harden trade.  You can't just keep letting chances to improve the talent pass you by or you end up in the cylce of mediocrity pretty quickly with no real way out of it.

Yeah, the debate rages on but if you look at the final 8 teams this year, PHO (Ayton), DEN (Jokic), LAC, UTA (Gobert), PHI (Embiid), ATL (Collins-Capela), MIL (Giannis), BKN, 6 of the 8 had at least 1 really good big.  The exceptions, LAC and BKN have unusual rosters that I don't think we can replicate (2-3 hall of fame level players).  So get Beal and try to be like the Nets or get a decent big and try to be like the other 6 successful teams?

I think the Clippers are a good example of what we could be with Brown and Tatum.  If you added Beal to Leonard and George, does that really change the Clipps in the same way that adding a really good big would?  Does a team that already has two elite scorers really need another elite scorer or is it served better by what a good big would add?  Who did Wade and LeBron want to team with?  Bosh, a big.  That is not the only formula of course but it is still I think the best one.

This debate with rage on and no doubt a team with Beal, Brown, and Tatum would have a lot of talent and win a lot of games.  And as you say if you pass on a chance to get Beal but then don't get a big, you are no better off.  If we get Beal though, I think we would then need to trade Brown for a good young big which I think would be a realistic thing to do.

I get it was a small sample size, but Horford averaged 14.2 ppg last year.  That is basically what Gobert and Ayton averaged and only slightly behind Capela.

[Vermont Green]

So if we got Beal, we would be kind of like the Nets but not as good and not as big.

Beal  ----  Kyrie
Brown --- Harden
Tatum --- Durant

To me the big difference is that Kevin Durant is 6'-10" vs Tatum at 6'-8" so better suited to play as the PF.  And at this point, we don't know what the Nets can do if healthy.  It sure looked like they were going to waltz to the finals based on how they played against us (without Brown) but who knows.

If we were going to trade for Beal, and I don't think WAS takes this deal, but if it did somehow happen, I think we would then need to trade Brown for a top end big.  Maybe Sabonis or Towns.  Then Beal makes sense.  But adding Beal to Brown and Tatum does not make sense to me.  And to me, I would rather at the really good big to Brown and Tatum.

 Durant is clearly longer than Tatum.  7'5" wingspan compared to 6'11"

 However both Brown and Beal have size and length advantages over Kyrie and Harden.

 So Size wise. Celtics would have the slight edge.

I don't disagree but for the position that they are playing, Beal and Irving are about the same and sufficient for the position, same with Brown and Harden.  Irving and Harden aren't small for their positions even if slightly smaller than Beal and Brown.  It is Tatum trying to be a PF where we have a disadvantage over the Nets with Durant.

If we have Beal. Brown, and Tatum, nothing stops us from getting an actual PF so that Tatum can play as a SF and then we are fine.  I just don't like spending all that to get Beal and still not have any bigs on the team (at least not any good ones).  It just does not seem like the right way to build the team.  I would rather spend that capital on a big to pair with Brown and Tatum or go ahead and get Beal but then trade Brown for a big.  It seems to me that it would be easier to just get a big and pair with Brown and Tatum rather than first dealing for Beal and then needing a second deal to get the big you needed all along anyway.

If we get a power forward who has no size disadvantage compared to Durant then there'll be 10 other disadvantages they have, unless it's Giannis.

I agree, at least I think.  My main point is that a team built around Beal, Brown, Tatum and the rest of our current roster (or what would be left of it after the trade for Beal) is not well constructed as we are so weak at PF and C.  We are probably adequate at C with some combination of Horford, Williams, Moses Brown, Thompson but we have no PF, forcing us to play Tatum as the PF.  BKN can play Durant at PF and get away with it much better than we could with Tatum.

If we add a PF to the mix, the main advantage is that we can then play Tatum at his natural position where in the case of BKN, he would have an advantage over Harris.  But absolutely, no matter what we do, BKN is going to have an advantage particularly with Harden and Durant over pretty much anyone.  Bringing in a good PF, unless as you say it is Giannis or Davis, isn't going to change that relative to BKN but I feel if we spent the capital that it would take to get Beal instead on a good PF, the team would be better served.

And either way is fine, if you want Tatum and Beal as your 1st and 2nd, trade Brown for a PF who could be your legit 3rd.  That would be a very strong team.  Or keep Tatum and Brown but get a PF instead of Beal as your 3rd.  Either of these result in a better team in my mind than Tatum, Beal, Brown and Grant Williams or Jabari Parker as your best actual PF.

Boston was in the ECF with Tatum as the primary PF 2 seasons ago.  He played nearly 40% of his minutes at PF last year.  Boston's issue has been talent.  You add Beal and fill in around them.  There is no set formula that says you need a dominant interior scorer or defender to be effective.  Heck even the teams with the high scoring big men, do a lot of their scoring from the perimeter (Jokic, Embiid, Davis) or through setting it up themselves (like Giannis who scores a lot inside, but starts at the top of the key to do it most of the time).  Sitting around waiting for a "better" option is how you end up in mediocrity.  You pull the trigger when you have a chance to.  I can't help but think that Boston might very well be on their way to a title this year, had Ainge pulled the trigger on the Harden trade.  You can't just keep letting chances to improve the talent pass you by or you end up in the cylce of mediocrity pretty quickly with no real way out of it.

Yeah, the debate rages on but if you look at the final 8 teams this year, PHO (Ayton), DEN (Jokic), LAC, UTA (Gobert), PHI (Embiid), ATL (Collins-Capela), MIL (Giannis), BKN, 6 of the 8 had at least 1 really good big.  The exceptions, LAC and BKN have unusual rosters that I don't think we can replicate (2-3 hall of fame level players).  So get Beal and try to be like the Nets or get a decent big and try to be like the other 6 successful teams?

I think the Clippers are a good example of what we could be with Brown and Tatum.  If you added Beal to Leonard and George, does that really change the Clipps in the same way that adding a really good big would?  Does a team that already has two elite scorers really need another elite scorer or is it served better by what a good big would add?  Who did Wade and LeBron want to team with?  Bosh, a big.  That is not the only formula of course but it is still I think the best one.

This debate with rage on and no doubt a team with Beal, Brown, and Tatum would have a lot of talent and win a lot of games.  And as you say if you pass on a chance to get Beal but then don't get a big, you are no better off.  If we get Beal though, I think we would then need to trade Brown for a good young big which I think would be a realistic thing to do.

I get it was a small sample size, but Horford averaged 14.2 ppg last year.  That is basically what Gobert and Ayton averaged and only slightly behind Capela.

On Horford, I am just not sure what we can expect.  If we get the 14 pts/7 Reb he did for OKC, along with the expected good passing and good team defense, that will be a major improvement for sure.  He only played 28 min/gm which is good in that he got that production in less than expected core starter minutes but bad in that he may not have the durability to play more than that.

I look at ATL and see a kind of "big by committee" approach.  They have Capela, Collins, and Gallinari.  All legit 6'-9", 6'-10".  Collectively they make what I would call a "really good big rotation" without any of them individually being dominant.  Capela put up 15 pts and 14 rebs out of the center spot (that is actually really good).  Collins and Gallinari combined for 30 pts / 11 rebs out of the PF (and probably some center) spot which is also very good for a total of 45 pts and 25 rebs.  That is like way more big production than we had.

If Horford is our best big next season, that is an OK start, better than our best big last season (Theis?) but even with a "by committee" approach, we are going to need some other upgrades (or improvements) to have even a "good" big rotation.  Horford alone is not going to be the answer.  Now maybe if we can get something upwards towards 17 pts and 17 rebs combined out of RWill and MBrown, that is pretty good but we would still need maybe 10-15 pts out of Parker and GWill for our committee of bigs to be good.  I guess this isn't a huge stretch but a lot has to go right.

[KG Living Legend]

So if we got Beal, we would be kind of like the Nets but not as good and not as big.

Beal  ----  Kyrie
Brown --- Harden
Tatum --- Durant

To me the big difference is that Kevin Durant is 6'-10" vs Tatum at 6'-8" so better suited to play as the PF.  And at this point, we don't know what the Nets can do if healthy.  It sure looked like they were going to waltz to the finals based on how they played against us (without Brown) but who knows.

If we were going to trade for Beal, and I don't think WAS takes this deal, but if it did somehow happen, I think we would then need to trade Brown for a top end big.  Maybe Sabonis or Towns.  Then Beal makes sense.  But adding Beal to Brown and Tatum does not make sense to me.  And to me, I would rather at the really good big to Brown and Tatum.

 Durant is clearly longer than Tatum.  7'5" wingspan compared to 6'11"

 However both Brown and Beal have size and length advantages over Kyrie and Harden.

 So Size wise. Celtics would have the slight edge.

I don't disagree but for the position that they are playing, Beal and Irving are about the same and sufficient for the position, same with Brown and Harden.  Irving and Harden aren't small for their positions even if slightly smaller than Beal and Brown.  It is Tatum trying to be a PF where we have a disadvantage over the Nets with Durant.

If we have Beal. Brown, and Tatum, nothing stops us from getting an actual PF so that Tatum can play as a SF and then we are fine.  I just don't like spending all that to get Beal and still not have any bigs on the team (at least not any good ones).  It just does not seem like the right way to build the team.  I would rather spend that capital on a big to pair with Brown and Tatum or go ahead and get Beal but then trade Brown for a big.  It seems to me that it would be easier to just get a big and pair with Brown and Tatum rather than first dealing for Beal and then needing a second deal to get the big you needed all along anyway.

If we get a power forward who has no size disadvantage compared to Durant then there'll be 10 other disadvantages they have, unless it's Giannis.

I agree, at least I think.  My main point is that a team built around Beal, Brown, Tatum and the rest of our current roster (or what would be left of it after the trade for Beal) is not well constructed as we are so weak at PF and C.  We are probably adequate at C with some combination of Horford, Williams, Moses Brown, Thompson but we have no PF, forcing us to play Tatum as the PF.  BKN can play Durant at PF and get away with it much better than we could with Tatum.

If we add a PF to the mix, the main advantage is that we can then play Tatum at his natural position where in the case of BKN, he would have an advantage over Harris.  But absolutely, no matter what we do, BKN is going to have an advantage particularly with Harden and Durant over pretty much anyone.  Bringing in a good PF, unless as you say it is Giannis or Davis, isn't going to change that relative to BKN but I feel if we spent the capital that it would take to get Beal instead on a good PF, the team would be better served.

And either way is fine, if you want Tatum and Beal as your 1st and 2nd, trade Brown for a PF who could be your legit 3rd.  That would be a very strong team.  Or keep Tatum and Brown but get a PF instead of Beal as your 3rd.  Either of these result in a better team in my mind than Tatum, Beal, Brown and Grant Williams or Jabari Parker as your best actual PF.

Boston was in the ECF with Tatum as the primary PF 2 seasons ago.  He played nearly 40% of his minutes at PF last year.  Boston's issue has been talent.  You add Beal and fill in around them.  There is no set formula that says you need a dominant interior scorer or defender to be effective.  Heck even the teams with the high scoring big men, do a lot of their scoring from the perimeter (Jokic, Embiid, Davis) or through setting it up themselves (like Giannis who scores a lot inside, but starts at the top of the key to do it most of the time).  Sitting around waiting for a "better" option is how you end up in mediocrity.  You pull the trigger when you have a chance to.  I can't help but think that Boston might very well be on their way to a title this year, had Ainge pulled the trigger on the Harden trade.  You can't just keep letting chances to improve the talent pass you by or you end up in the cylce of mediocrity pretty quickly with no real way out of it.

Yeah, the debate rages on but if you look at the final 8 teams this year, PHO (Ayton), DEN (Jokic), LAC, UTA (Gobert), PHI (Embiid), ATL (Collins-Capela), MIL (Giannis), BKN, 6 of the 8 had at least 1 really good big.  The exceptions, LAC and BKN have unusual rosters that I don't think we can replicate (2-3 hall of fame level players).  So get Beal and try to be like the Nets or get a decent big and try to be like the other 6 successful teams?

I think the Clippers are a good example of what we could be with Brown and Tatum.  If you added Beal to Leonard and George, does that really change the Clipps in the same way that adding a really good big would?  Does a team that already has two elite scorers really need another elite scorer or is it served better by what a good big would add?  Who did Wade and LeBron want to team with?  Bosh, a big.  That is not the only formula of course but it is still I think the best one.

This debate with rage on and no doubt a team with Beal, Brown, and Tatum would have a lot of talent and win a lot of games.  And as you say if you pass on a chance to get Beal but then don't get a big, you are no better off.  If we get Beal though, I think we would then need to trade Brown for a good young big which I think would be a realistic thing to do.

I get it was a small sample size, but Horford averaged 14.2 ppg last year.  That is basically what Gobert and Ayton averaged and only slightly behind Capela.

On Horford, I am just not sure what we can expect.  If we get the 14 pts/7 Reb he did for OKC, along with the expected good passing and good team defense, that will be a major improvement for sure.  He only played 28 min/gm which is good in that he got that production in less than expected core starter minutes but bad in that he may not have the durability to play more than that.

I look at ATL and see a kind of "big by committee" approach.  They have Capela, Collins, and Gallinari.  All legit 6'-9", 6'-10".  Collectively they make what I would call a "really good big rotation" without any of them individually being dominant.  Capela put up 15 pts and 14 rebs out of the center spot (that is actually really good).  Collins and Gallinari combined for 30 pts / 11 rebs out of the PF (and probably some center) spot which is also very good for a total of 45 pts and 25 rebs.  That is like way more big production than we had.

If Horford is our best big next season, that is an OK start, better than our best big last season (Theis?) but even with a "by committee" approach, we are going to need some other upgrades (or improvements) to have even a "good" big rotation.  Horford alone is not going to be the answer.  Now maybe if we can get something upwards towards 17 pts and 17 rebs combined out of RWill and MBrown, that is pretty good but we would still need maybe 10-15 pts out of Parker and GWill for our committee of bigs to be good.  I guess this isn't a huge stretch but a lot has to go right.

 Collins 6'8.25" no shoes. Great athlete though