3 Different Approaches with Bradley's New Contract

[jpotter33]

The way I see it, there are three avenues regarding how to take Bradley and his new contract.

1) Status Quo: We give Rondo and Bradley another year to mesh, and we hope to sign free agents next summer to compliment the two.

2) Signed to trade after the moratorium: If I remember right, Bradley would've had to agree to be sent to Minnesota in a Kevin Love trade before he signed this contract.  It might be the case that some other team envies Bradley, and Ainge plans on trading Bradley in a bigger player trade (Hayward, Love, etc.). Signing him to this contract gives him full control over where he ships him off to. 

3) Going young: Ainge envisions Smart as a point guard and Bradley as young enough to grow alongside Smart as the two guard. He trades Rondo and our other expendable veterans for further assets (Houston/Parsons and Capella, Indiana/Stephenson, Detroit/Monroe, etc.), and he lets this team develop this year for another high draft pick next year.

Out of these avenues, I think the best case scenario is avenue two, followed by three and one.  However, I think the likelihood is the exact opposite with the first avenue the likeliest followed by three and then two.  What do you guys think? Do you prefer to use Bradley/Smart as bait for a bigger trade, keep the status quo, or go young?

[Who]

I don't see Bradley as a trade asset at $8 million. So I think it'll either be options 1 or 3.

Option 1 is my first choice because Rondo is a draw and as long as Rondo is here there is chance for a quick turnaround via trades + free agency.

Option 3 goes through the long rebuild. Lots of unsightly games and unhappy days ahead. This is my worst case scenario if Rondo leaves next summer in free agency. Retool backcourt around Smart (PG) and Bradley (SG).

[ChiefDK]

The consensus seems to be Avery's contract is a good value assuming he can stay healthy (that's a big if). So I think Ainge does think he has the option to trade him down the road, and he's not "untradeable". I could see him being included in a package with Minnesota for Love for example, especially considering they would have him for 3-4 years

[gpap]

I was hoping number 2 would be the case but another poster informed me that the Celts can not deal Bradley til January 15 now that they've agreed to terms.

In other words, if Bradley's deal was part of a Kevin Love trade, he would've first agreed to terms with Minnesota to be part of a sign and trade.

Am I understanding this correctly?

[Monkhouse]

I was hoping number 2 would be the case but another poster informed me that the Celts can not deal Bradley til January 15 now that they've agreed to terms.

In other words, if Bradley's deal was part of a Kevin Love trade, he would've first agreed to terms with Minnesota to be part of a sign and trade.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Minnesota would HAVE to be the one dictating the contract. If it was for a sign and trade, if I'm correct, Bradley would've been gone by now.