Logically, Ainge should be looking to trade Brandon Bass

[TripleOT]

Bass and Sasha or Daniels, with buyout cash and a 2nd round pick for Beasley will work money wise March 1. Boston desperately needs scoring off the pine.   

[Eja117]

Bass and Sasha or Daniels, with buyout cash and a 2nd round pick for Beasley will work money wise March 1. Boston desperately needs scoring off the pine.   

I think that works for Minny. Addition by subtraction.

[PosImpos]

Bass and Sasha or Daniels, with buyout cash and a 2nd round pick for Beasley will work money wise March 1. Boston desperately needs scoring off the pine.   

I think that works for Minny. Addition by subtraction.

Doesn't really make sense for them, though.  They already have too many guys vying for that backup PF spot.  All of those minutes should really go to Derrick Williams.

[Eja117]

Bass and Sasha or Daniels, with buyout cash and a 2nd round pick for Beasley will work money wise March 1. Boston desperately needs scoring off the pine.   

I think that works for Minny. Addition by subtraction.

Doesn't really make sense for them, though.  They already have too many guys vying for that backup PF spot.  All of those minutes should really go to Derrick Williams.

But they already have that problem with Beas. Ship out a moody vet and bring in a pro like Bass. You get some depth if you need it and he's gone in a year anyway. Saves money and in a year D WIll gets all his minutes anyway.

[PosImpos]

Bass and Sasha or Daniels, with buyout cash and a 2nd round pick for Beasley will work money wise March 1. Boston desperately needs scoring off the pine.   

I think that works for Minny. Addition by subtraction.

Doesn't really make sense for them, though.  They already have too many guys vying for that backup PF spot.  All of those minutes should really go to Derrick Williams.

But they already have that problem with Beas. Ship out a moody vet and bring in a pro like Bass. You get some depth if you need it and he's gone in a year anyway. Saves money and in a year D WIll gets all his minutes anyway.

I think they can do what you describe while picking up a player who can actually fit in their rotation and perhaps be a contributor beyond this season.  I don't think they're that desperate to get rid of Beasley, seeing as he's in the last year of his deal.

[GreenEnvy]

I've been torched several times for suggesting Bass is a guy we can afford to lose.  "He's our best bench player," they say.  "He's the only scorer..." they say.  "He plays solid and consistent ball," they say.  They even say he's our 2nd best big, even though he's an undersized bench player.

He's a 7th man on any good team.  Any way you slice it, a team looking to vault into contention should be very ready to part with their 7th man, regardless of the contract issues.

TP for working through the cap side of things in a simple and concise way, though.  Bass is definitely not a central piece of any future plan, and heaven help us if he is.

Unfortunately, we already lost our 6th man before the season even started. We'd be getting rid of our best bench player (by far) while still claiming we are going all in with the Big Three. If DA blows things up, there's no point keeping Bass. But if we really are making one last run, then we need him, or can only include him in a bigger deal to get better now.

[green7]

and we will get close to nothing in a bass trade so just stop it.. [insert big 3 member here]

[wdleehi]

Bass and Sasha or Daniels, with buyout cash and a 2nd round pick for Beasley will work money wise March 1. Boston desperately needs scoring off the pine.   

No point.  Little to no upgrade this season.  Gave away a draft pick for another player that would be a FA next year.   

[Inside-Out]

I've been torched several times for suggesting Bass is a guy we can afford to lose.  "He's our best bench player," they say.  "He's the only scorer..." they say.  "He plays solid and consistent ball," they say.  They even say he's our 2nd best big, even though he's an undersized bench player.

He's a 7th man on any good team.  Any way you slice it, a team looking to vault into contention should be very ready to part with their 7th man, regardless of the contract issues.

TP for working through the cap side of things in a simple and concise way, though.  Bass is definitely not a central piece of any future plan, and heaven help us if he is.

This I don't see as a valid arguement to deal Bass. Yes, he's ideally 7th guy on a very good team (he's the 6th man for us), but he's been playing very well, he fills a real need, and he seems to have bought into what the Celtics are doing without adding any headaches (except for the mystery of the unknown ailment).

If contract issues don't matter, you only part with that guy if its necessary to get a deal done that will unmistakably improve your team. You don't 'take a flier' on a guy with Bass.

I think Perkins is a very good parallel. IF contract issues didn't matter, you don't trade Perkins for anything other than a clear win, and that's only if he's demanded as part of the deal.

But, we're obviously not contenders right now, and contract issues do matter, and trading Bass is likely the smart move, assuming you can get real value for him, instead of a bad contract.

Surely we don't want to take on bad contracts or screw things long term, but just because the 7th man is playing well doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't use him in trade, and considering that we don't have a 5th or 6th man, the smart money would trade him one way or another: for a win-now piece (filling the 5th/6th man roles) or for a future piece in either a draft pick or someone with upside (Bass has no upside-he is who he is).

Sorry about the run-on sentence.

[indeedproceed]

I've been torched several times for suggesting Bass is a guy we can afford to lose.  "He's our best bench player," they say.  "He's the only scorer..." they say.  "He plays solid and consistent ball," they say.  They even say he's our 2nd best big, even though he's an undersized bench player.

He's a 7th man on any good team.  Any way you slice it, a team looking to vault into contention should be very ready to part with their 7th man, regardless of the contract issues.

TP for working through the cap side of things in a simple and concise way, though.  Bass is definitely not a central piece of any future plan, and heaven help us if he is.

This I don't see as a valid arguement to deal Bass. Yes, he's ideally 7th guy on a very good team (he's the 6th man for us), but he's been playing very well, he fills a real need, and he seems to have bought into what the Celtics are doing without adding any headaches (except for the mystery of the unknown ailment).

If contract issues don't matter, you only part with that guy if its necessary to get a deal done that will unmistakably improve your team. You don't 'take a flier' on a guy with Bass.

I think Perkins is a very good parallel. IF contract issues didn't matter, you don't trade Perkins for anything other than a clear win, and that's only if he's demanded as part of the deal.

But, we're obviously not contenders right now, and contract issues do matter, and trading Bass is likely the smart move, assuming you can get real value for him, instead of a bad contract.

Surely we don't want to take on bad contracts or screw things long term, but just because the 7th man is playing well doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't use him in trade, and considering that we don't have a 5th or 6th man, the smart money would trade him one way or another: for a win-now piece (filling the 5th/6th man roles) or for a future piece in either a draft pick or someone with upside (Bass has no upside-he is who he is).

Sorry about the run-on sentence.

I think we're arguing different things here.

I don't think anyone is untouchable. I do however think that Bass's play means, contract aside, that you don't look to trade him. You will trade him if the right deal comes along, but you don't look to trade him any harder than you do say Ray Allen, KG, or anyone else on your roster that is 'available' (which I hope is everyone, but people disagree about that so leave it up to personal preference).

[Inside-Out]

I've been torched several times for suggesting Bass is a guy we can afford to lose.  "He's our best bench player," they say.  "He's the only scorer..." they say.  "He plays solid and consistent ball," they say.  They even say he's our 2nd best big, even though he's an undersized bench player.

He's a 7th man on any good team.  Any way you slice it, a team looking to vault into contention should be very ready to part with their 7th man, regardless of the contract issues.

TP for working through the cap side of things in a simple and concise way, though.  Bass is definitely not a central piece of any future plan, and heaven help us if he is.

This I don't see as a valid arguement to deal Bass. Yes, he's ideally 7th guy on a very good team (he's the 6th man for us), but he's been playing very well, he fills a real need, and he seems to have bought into what the Celtics are doing without adding any headaches (except for the mystery of the unknown ailment).

If contract issues don't matter, you only part with that guy if its necessary to get a deal done that will unmistakably improve your team. You don't 'take a flier' on a guy with Bass.

I think Perkins is a very good parallel. IF contract issues didn't matter, you don't trade Perkins for anything other than a clear win, and that's only if he's demanded as part of the deal.

But, we're obviously not contenders right now, and contract issues do matter, and trading Bass is likely the smart move, assuming you can get real value for him, instead of a bad contract.

Surely we don't want to take on bad contracts or screw things long term, but just because the 7th man is playing well doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't use him in trade, and considering that we don't have a 5th or 6th man, the smart money would trade him one way or another: for a win-now piece (filling the 5th/6th man roles) or for a future piece in either a draft pick or someone with upside (Bass has no upside-he is who he is).

Sorry about the run-on sentence.

I think we're arguing different things here.

I don't think anyone is untouchable. I do however think that Bass's play means, contract aside, that you don't look to trade him. You will trade him if the right deal comes along, but you don't look to trade him any harder than you do say Ray Allen, KG, or anyone else on your roster that is 'available' (which I hope is everyone, but people disagree about that so leave it up to personal preference).

Ah.

I'm not totally on board with the "nobody is untouchable" concept.  I think the Ray Bourque thing was handled well, but other than that sort of situation, long-term franchise stars retire in Green unless they're interested in something else.

OTOH, I am completely on board with a last in, first out situation, especially regarding players that were traded for, rather than those who chose to sign here for some reason.

So I don't trade Pierce or KG.  I don't trade Pietrus after he signed here on a discount.  I don't consider or treat Quisy as a throw-in after his several years here (also on a discount initially) and his going down on the parquet.  These guys have earned something in my book.  These aren't guys that get shopped or offered.  If that incredible deal gets offered, I probably go to their house and talk with them and their family about it and see how the conversation goes, but don't push anything.  Respect for current players is a recruiting tool, too.

Bass (and Dooling) are in a different category.  I would make calls and, as the thread title suggests, actively look to trade them for better pieces to either make a run now or have assets later.  The team is in a position such that it NEEDS to make a deal to contend this year, IMO, so Danny has to initiate trade discussions somehow, and offering Bass/Dooling is the way to go, IMO (for a MLE center like Sideshow or Gortat, or even a value big like Darko).  So I think we're really on a different page.

[the_Bird]

I have a feeling that if Bass gets traded, it'll be alongside Rondo.  Add their salaries together, and you can bring back a fair amount of salary - and it's enough talent going out the door where you might be able to get an impact player in return (moreso that you'd get trading Rondo with JO).

A guy that's been mentioned before - on kind of a bad contract but potentially a long-term Pierce replacement - would be Rudy Gay.  Something along those lines, with Pierce then send along in a separate deal (or, potentially, amnestied so he can sign with whatever contender he wants).