Elect Roy Hobbs next C's GM

[bdm860]

You really think the Cavs method is really the way to success though?  I mean I love Irving, but wasn't that just amazing luck?  The pick was slotted to be #8, and only had a 2.8% chance of landing Irving.  How would you replicate that move?  Wait till the deadline find and try to trade Pierce for Okafor + 1st? (Actually I think Amare Stoudemire would be a similar contract to what the Cavs took in Baron Davis, since he has 1 1/2 years left on a huge contract and is a shell of his former self, I just don't see any contacts like that on teams that will finish around 7-10 next year.)

Yeah it's really bizarre to see so many posts alternating between the claim that banking on winning the lottery is a pipe dream, and that a team hitting a 3% chance on a foolishly unprotected pick was not just a best case scenario, but what we should've expected to get.

Let's say the Cavs didn't land Irving, but still got the 8th pick in the draft.  That was who, Brandon Knight?  With Klay Thompson and Kawhi Leonard still on the board, among plenty of other good players?

So, let's say that for $8 million, the Cavs should have ended up with Brandon Knight.  The Cavs then picked up a future Memphis #1 (with some favorable protections for Cleveland) for taking on $6 million of Wayne Ellington's and Mareese Speights' contracts.

So, for $14 million, the Cavs ended up with a lottery pick, and a future pick that may end up in the lottery (if it falls outside the lottery in 2015 or 2016, it rolls over).  They didn't have to sacrifice two top-40 players to do it, either.

You got the interview!  Wyc reads Celticsblog and agrees with the masses that Roy should interview to become the next GM, effective 2 weeks ago (when the C's still had Doc).

Can you give us a detailed rundown of what you do, with specifics on the trades/moves you would try to make/think are possible for the 2013-2014 season?  And then maybe talk about your 5 year plan?

Interested to see the better moves that you see out there.  I think Danny made good moves given the circumstances, but maybe you can change my mind.  The job is yours for the taking, show me what you'd do!

[Roy H.]

You really think the Cavs method is really the way to success though?  I mean I love Irving, but wasn't that just amazing luck?  The pick was slotted to be #8, and only had a 2.8% chance of landing Irving.  How would you replicate that move?  Wait till the deadline find and try to trade Pierce for Okafor + 1st? (Actually I think Amare Stoudemire would be a similar contract to what the Cavs took in Baron Davis, since he has 1 1/2 years left on a huge contract and is a shell of his former self, I just don't see any contacts like that on teams that will finish around 7-10 next year.)

Yeah it's really bizarre to see so many posts alternating between the claim that banking on winning the lottery is a pipe dream, and that a team hitting a 3% chance on a foolishly unprotected pick was not just a best case scenario, but what we should've expected to get.

Let's say the Cavs didn't land Irving, but still got the 8th pick in the draft.  That was who, Brandon Knight?  With Klay Thompson and Kawhi Leonard still on the board, among plenty of other good players?

So, let's say that for $8 million, the Cavs should have ended up with Brandon Knight.  The Cavs then picked up a future Memphis #1 (with some favorable protections for Cleveland) for taking on $6 million of Wayne Ellington's and Mareese Speights' contracts.

So, for $14 million, the Cavs ended up with a lottery pick, and a future pick that may end up in the lottery (if it falls outside the lottery in 2015 or 2016, it rolls over).  They didn't have to sacrifice two top-40 players to do it, either.

You got the interview!  Wyc reads Celticsblog and agrees with the masses that Roy should interview to become the next GM, effective 2 weeks ago (when the C's still had Doc).

Can you give us a detailed rundown of what you do, with specifics on the trades/moves you would try to make/think are possible for the 2013-2014 season?  And then maybe talk about your 5 year plan?

Interested to see the better moves that you see out there.  I think Danny made good moves, but maybe you can change my mind.  The job is yours for the taking, show me what you'd do!

One thing I wouldn't do is change direction 180 degrees within a season.

2012:  Hand out no-trade clauses, give role players long-term cap-eating contracts to "win now";

2013:  Take back terrible contracts, deal star players because we have limited options due to no-trade clauses and long-term cap-eating contracts on our books.

I feel bad for 2013 Danny Ainge.  He really got screwed by the previous year's GM.

It cracks me up that Danny has sold so many Celtics fans on the idea that he has a plan currently.  That "plan" changes as the wind blows.

[Moranis]

You really think the Cavs method is really the way to success though?  I mean I love Irving, but wasn't that just amazing luck?  The pick was slotted to be #8, and only had a 2.8% chance of landing Irving.  How would you replicate that move?  Wait till the deadline find and try to trade Pierce for Okafor + 1st? (Actually I think Amare Stoudemire would be a similar contract to what the Cavs took in Baron Davis, since he has 1 1/2 years left on a huge contract and is a shell of his former self, I just don't see any contacts like that on teams that will finish around 7-10 next year.)

Yeah it's really bizarre to see so many posts alternating between the claim that banking on winning the lottery is a pipe dream, and that a team hitting a 3% chance on a foolishly unprotected pick was not just a best case scenario, but what we should've expected to get.

Let's say the Cavs didn't land Irving, but still got the 8th pick in the draft.  That was who, Brandon Knight?  With Klay Thompson and Kawhi Leonard still on the board, among plenty of other good players?

So, let's say that for $8 million, the Cavs should have ended up with Brandon Knight.  The Cavs then picked up a future Memphis #1 (with some favorable protections for Cleveland) for taking on $6 million of Wayne Ellington's and Mareese Speights' contracts.

So, for $14 million, the Cavs ended up with a lottery pick, and a future pick that may end up in the lottery (if it falls outside the lottery in 2015 or 2016, it rolls over).  They didn't have to sacrifice two top-40 players to do it, either.

You got the interview!  Wyc reads Celticsblog and agrees with the masses that Roy should interview to become the next GM, effective 2 weeks ago (when the C's still had Doc).

Can you give us a detailed rundown of what you do, with specifics on the trades/moves you would try to make/think are possible for the 2013-2014 season?  And then maybe talk about your 5 year plan?

Interested to see the better moves that you see out there.  I think Danny made good moves, but maybe you can change my mind.  The job is yours for the taking, show me what you'd do!

One thing I wouldn't do is change direction 180 degrees within a season.

2012:  Hand out no-trade clauses, give role players long-term cap-eating contracts to "win now";

2013:  Take back terrible contracts, deal star players because we have limited options due to no-trade clauses and long-term cap-eating contracts on our books.

I feel bad for 2013 Danny Ainge.  He really got screwed by the previous year's GM.

It cracks me up that Danny has sold so many Celtics fans on the idea that he has a plan currently.  That "plan" changes as the wind blows.

Glad to see you have finally come around on how awful the summer of 2012 was. 

[MaxAMillion]

You really think the Cavs method is really the way to success though?  I mean I love Irving, but wasn't that just amazing luck?  The pick was slotted to be #8, and only had a 2.8% chance of landing Irving.  How would you replicate that move?  Wait till the deadline find and try to trade Pierce for Okafor + 1st? (Actually I think Amare Stoudemire would be a similar contract to what the Cavs took in Baron Davis, since he has 1 1/2 years left on a huge contract and is a shell of his former self, I just don't see any contacts like that on teams that will finish around 7-10 next year.)

Yeah it's really bizarre to see so many posts alternating between the claim that banking on winning the lottery is a pipe dream, and that a team hitting a 3% chance on a foolishly unprotected pick was not just a best case scenario, but what we should've expected to get.

Let's say the Cavs didn't land Irving, but still got the 8th pick in the draft.  That was who, Brandon Knight?  With Klay Thompson and Kawhi Leonard still on the board, among plenty of other good players?

So, let's say that for $8 million, the Cavs should have ended up with Brandon Knight.  The Cavs then picked up a future Memphis #1 (with some favorable protections for Cleveland) for taking on $6 million of Wayne Ellington's and Mareese Speights' contracts.

So, for $14 million, the Cavs ended up with a lottery pick, and a future pick that may end up in the lottery (if it falls outside the lottery in 2015 or 2016, it rolls over).  They didn't have to sacrifice two top-40 players to do it, either.

You got the interview!  Wyc reads Celticsblog and agrees with the masses that Roy should interview to become the next GM, effective 2 weeks ago (when the C's still had Doc).

Can you give us a detailed rundown of what you do, with specifics on the trades/moves you would try to make/think are possible for the 2013-2014 season?  And then maybe talk about your 5 year plan?

Interested to see the better moves that you see out there.  I think Danny made good moves, but maybe you can change my mind.  The job is yours for the taking, show me what you'd do!

One thing I wouldn't do is change direction 180 degrees within a season.

2012:  Hand out no-trade clauses, give role players long-term cap-eating contracts to "win now";

2013:  Take back terrible contracts, deal star players because we have limited options due to no-trade clauses and long-term cap-eating contracts on our books.

I feel bad for 2013 Danny Ainge.  He really got screwed by the previous year's GM.

It cracks me up that Danny has sold so many Celtics fans on the idea that he has a plan currently.  That "plan" changes as the wind blows.

Bingo...all of these "had to do" moves were all woven together by what Danny did earlier.

[fairweatherfan]

One thing I wouldn't do is change direction 180 degrees within a season.

2012:  Hand out no-trade clauses, give role players long-term cap-eating contracts to "win now";

2013:  Take back terrible contracts, deal star players because we have limited options due to no-trade clauses and long-term cap-eating contracts on our books.

I feel bad for 2013 Danny Ainge.  He really got screwed by the previous year's GM.

It cracks me up that Danny has sold so many Celtics fans on the idea that he has a plan currently.  That "plan" changes as the wind blows.

I generally agree with this - in many ways that 2012 run was a double-edged sword.  With so many expiring deals I think Danny expected had 2012-13 to be the rebuilding year, but when we got as close as we did blowing up the team would've gotten him crucified, so he took one more shot hoping a bunch of role players could prop up the top 3 and get us over the top.  Now we've gotta reverse course abruptly, and we're feeling the fallout now.

If Rose doesn't blow out his knee I think we go down fighting in the 2nd round and last offseason goes a lot more like this one did.

[action781]

If we had two trades on the table... one being a 2014 unprotected first from Charlotte and the other being an 2014 unprotected first from Dallas and we chose the Charlotte one but Dallas won the lottery, would you look back and say we made a bad trade?  That's the logic you're using here.

Um, no?  I don't know whose logic that is, but it isn't mine.

To paraphrase, you've been saying that we gave up 2 good players in our deal, but Cleveland didn't give up anything (rather simply took one on) and got Kyrie back while our players coming back are going to be nothing compared to Kyrie.  Hence, we made a bad deal.  That's been your general perspective, no?

Yet "Kyrie" in that trade was actually a single unprotected draft pick that had a 2.8% chance of becoming Kyrie.  So, you've judging the trade based on the result, not on the terms agreed upon. 

[kozlodoev]

I agree with Roy most of the time.  But I don't believe this team had any better option than what we just did.  It's the smart move.  It's a big picture long-term deal for a team that didn't have nearly as many options as some folks like to imagine.

First, this thread cracks me up, and I feel egotistical responding.

That said...  We had other moves.  Please don't get fooled into thinking this was the only option.

The Cavs were probably in a worse situation than we were when Lebron left.  What did they do?  They leveraged cap room / trade exceptions to rebuild their team.  They got an unprotected lottery pick -- Kyrie Irving -- for taking on something like $8 million extra in Baron Davis' salary.  They got a Memphis first rounder for taking on the contracts of Marreese Speights and guards Wayne Ellington (both decent players on reasonable contracts, by the way).

Those are two picks that the Cavs didn't have to surrender anybody of significance for, and who didn't saddle the team with terrible contracts.  Yet, some folks see it as a coup that we traded Pierce and KG, and took on a terrible $30 million contract, for three picks that will never be as good as the Cavs got?

Maybe we should hire Chris Grant.

FWIW, old friend Mark Spears at Yahoo considers us huge winners from draft day.

So perhaps there are other ways -- but none include keeping Garnett and Pierce... and we did get two unprotected picks for taking on Gerald Wallace's salary. I don't think you can expect to get a deal where you're guaranteed a top pick and he's guaranteed to be a Kyrie Irving. But as far as draft deals are concerned, this one is as good as any.

[KCattheStripe]

No thanks, there's only so many times I can listen to a man pitch me on a Zbo Boozer front court.

[Roy H.]

If we had two trades on the table... one being a 2014 unprotected first from Charlotte and the other being an 2014 unprotected first from Dallas and we chose the Charlotte one but Dallas won the lottery, would you look back and say we made a bad trade?  That's the logic you're using here.

Um, no?  I don't know whose logic that is, but it isn't mine.

To paraphrase, you've been saying that we gave up 2 good players in our deal, but Cleveland didn't give up anything (rather simply took one on) and got Kyrie back while our players coming back are going to be nothing compared to Kyrie.  Hence, we made a bad deal.  That's been your general perspective, no?

Yet "Kyrie" in that trade was actually a single unprotected draft pick that had a 2.8% chance of becoming Kyrie.  So, you've judging the trade based on the result, not on the terms agreed upon.

Substitute "lottery pick in the 2011 draft" if it makes you feel better.  Then, factor in the Memphis #1 they go.  That's a guaranteed lottery pick, and a likely one, for taking on $14 million in salary.

That's without having to take on a contract nearly as bad as Wallace's, and without trading away two stars.

[Moranis]

If we had two trades on the table... one being a 2014 unprotected first from Charlotte and the other being an 2014 unprotected first from Dallas and we chose the Charlotte one but Dallas won the lottery, would you look back and say we made a bad trade?  That's the logic you're using here.

Um, no?  I don't know whose logic that is, but it isn't mine.

To paraphrase, you've been saying that we gave up 2 good players in our deal, but Cleveland didn't give up anything (rather simply took one on) and got Kyrie back while our players coming back are going to be nothing compared to Kyrie.  Hence, we made a bad deal.  That's been your general perspective, no?

Yet "Kyrie" in that trade was actually a single unprotected draft pick that had a 2.8% chance of becoming Kyrie.  So, you've judging the trade based on the result, not on the terms agreed upon.

Mo Williams wasn't exactly a scrub.  At the time of the trade he was averaging 13.3 p/7.1 a/2.7 r per game.  He was the best player in that trade and had the best contract.  The trade was mid season and it was clear that the Clippers were going to be in the lottery even post trade.  I have no idea why LA didn't put at least top 3 protection on the pick, but that is more a result of LA just being LA than anything else.

[Roy H.]

No thanks, there's only so many times I can listen to a man pitch me on a Zbo Boozer front court.

ZBo / Boozer is in the past.  The new gold standard is Irving/Varejao/Thabo.

[Moranis]

If we had two trades on the table... one being a 2014 unprotected first from Charlotte and the other being an 2014 unprotected first from Dallas and we chose the Charlotte one but Dallas won the lottery, would you look back and say we made a bad trade?  That's the logic you're using here.

Um, no?  I don't know whose logic that is, but it isn't mine.

To paraphrase, you've been saying that we gave up 2 good players in our deal, but Cleveland didn't give up anything (rather simply took one on) and got Kyrie back while our players coming back are going to be nothing compared to Kyrie.  Hence, we made a bad deal.  That's been your general perspective, no?

Yet "Kyrie" in that trade was actually a single unprotected draft pick that had a 2.8% chance of becoming Kyrie.  So, you've judging the trade based on the result, not on the terms agreed upon.

Substitute "lottery pick in the 2011 draft" if it makes you feel better.  Then, factor in the Memphis #1 they go.  That's a guaranteed lottery pick, and a likely one, for taking on $14 million in salary.

That's without having to take on a contract nearly as bad as Wallace's, and without trading away two stars.

The Memphis #1 is a separate trade.  You can't really put that in the Williams/Moon for Davis/1st trade.  And part of the reason they could do the Memphis trade was that they amnestied Davis and didn't have his contract on the books (since the trade was before the new CBA they could amnesty him, which they didn't know would be an option at the time of the trade).

[kozlodoev]

That's without having to take on a contract nearly as bad as Wallace's, and without trading away two stars.

And this is, hilariously, because they didn't have two stars to trade.

We've already discussed the trade value of our two stars with an average age of 36 extensively this week. I think we got as close to 100 cents on this dollar as we could have.

[Prof. Clutch]

Seriously guys, quit hijacking the thread with your interesting back and forth debate about rebuilding and let's get back on topic!

How do we make Roy Hobbs the next Celtics GM?!