Celtics want Love "only at the right price"?

[Roy H.]

Steve Bulpett reports:

The Celtics would like to have the kind of foundation into which they could welcome Love, but they do not currently possess that kind of roster. Director of basketball operations Danny Ainge tried hard to get involved in trade talks for him last summer, but he was repeatedly told by the Timberwolves that he had nothing that interested them. ...

It’s doubtful now that the Celtics would throw everything they have at Love. Unless they can make a series of moves to reshape the roster and bring him to a club more ready to challenge for the top spot in the Eastern Conference, they would be better than last year but not good enough.

The Celtics will still look into the Love situation, but word is strong that, as opposed to last year’s all-out push, they would want him only at the right price and under the right roster circumstances.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/boston_celtics/2015/06/not_quite_set_for_a_boston_love_in

What's the "right price"?  I assumed that every team chasing Love would give him his choice of deals, most likely a four year max with an opt out clause.  I wish Bulpett had explained this more.

The "roster circumstances" thing makes a bit more sense, although you would assume that Danny's plan would be to land a big-name free agent, and then build around that player via future transactions.

[crimson_stallion]

I'm guessing that if he leaves Cleveland, then they will want to move him as a Sign-and-trade in order to get some assets back.  Ainge probably wants to do the same, so that can clear Wallace's contract and clear cap space to sign another FA.

I'm assuming when it comes to "the right price" Ainge is referring to that assets Cleveland would want in a sign and trade, and whether he feels Love is worth giving up those assets.

 

[BudweiserCeltic]

I'm guessing that if he leaves Cleveland, then they will want to move him as a Sign-and-trade in order to get some assets back.  Ainge probably wants to do the same, so that can clear Wallace's contract and clear cap space to sign another FA.

I'm assuming when it comes to "the right price" Ainge is referring to that assets Cleveland would want in a sign and trade, and whether he feels Love is worth giving up those assets.

 

Yep.

[tankcity!]

Well Ainge better change his motto. No one else is coming here and the offseason is looking disappointing so far reading into the reports.

[Rondo2287]

I would imagine the right price maybe refers to not wanting to sign and trade to get him here. 

I think if love came to Danny and said, I want to sign in boston, Danny would offer him the max on the spot.

[slamtheking]

I would imagine the right price maybe refers to not wanting to sign and trade to get him here. 

I think if love came to Danny and said, I want to sign in boston, Danny would offer him the max on the spot.

that would make the most sense--> no S&T, just sign as a FA outright

[Robb]

Steve Bulpett reports:

The Celtics would like to have the kind of foundation into which they could welcome Love, but they do not currently possess that kind of roster. Director of basketball operations Danny Ainge tried hard to get involved in trade talks for him last summer, but he was repeatedly told by the Timberwolves that he had nothing that interested them. ...

It’s doubtful now that the Celtics would throw everything they have at Love. Unless they can make a series of moves to reshape the roster and bring him to a club more ready to challenge for the top spot in the Eastern Conference, they would be better than last year but not good enough.

The Celtics will still look into the Love situation, but word is strong that, as opposed to last year’s all-out push, they would want him only at the right price and under the right roster circumstances.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/boston_celtics/2015/06/not_quite_set_for_a_boston_love_in

What's the "right price"?  I assumed that every team chasing Love would give him his choice of deals, most likely a four year max with an opt out clause.  I wish Bulpett had explained this more.

The "roster circumstances" thing makes a bit more sense, although you would assume that Danny's plan would be to land a big-name free agent, and then build around that player via future transactions.

Could be that Danny won't do the 1 year max with a player option for the 2016-2017 year. Even then, though, I think he'd want to do it, right? That money needs to get spent somewhere...

[D.o.s.]

Good.

[slamtheking]

had to mention -  saw the title and immediately thought "Don't we all?"  and I wasn't thinking Kevin Love 

[crimson_stallion]

Well Ainge better change his motto. No one else is coming here and the offseason is looking disappointing so far reading into the reports.

As much as they may seem to make sense on the surface, at the end of the day there is ALWAYS dollar value on any player.

Lets say the Cleveland wanted to trade Love, but only if he could get a return of Marcus Smart, Avery Bradley, Jae Crowder, Jared Sullinger, Kelly Olynyk, Isaiah Thomas and Tyler Zeller along with #16, #28, and next year's Brooklyn pick (unprotected).

Would you say yes?

If so then you have a starting lineup of:

Phil Pressey
James Young
Evan Turner
Kevin Love
Brandon Bass (assuming you re-sign him)

Is that team going to win more games than the team we have right now?  No.

Hence we lose more from the assets we give away, then we gain by adding Love.

So as much as it may appear to makes sense, on the surface, to trade everything you have for that superstar - doing that essentially turns you in to the Knicks of last season...and Boston want to win now.

 

I would imagine the right price maybe refers to not wanting to sign and trade to get him here. 

I think if love came to Danny and said, I want to sign in Boston, Danny would offer him the max on the spot.

If I understand correctly (from a post in another CV thread) we technically do not have the ability to sign him outright, because right now we are technically over the cap thanks to cap holds.  We would have cap holds for all of our free agents (until they are renounced or sign elsewhere) and for all of our Trade Exceptions (until they are used or renounced). 

So if all this is true, then it may actually be a LOT easier to trade for Love then it is to simply sign him because the Celtics may not want to renounce all of those Trade Exceptions / Free Agents unless they have a guarantee that Love would sign...and who knows what kind of messy contractual rules there are around all this stuff.

 

[crimson_stallion]

Steve Bulpett reports:

The Celtics would like to have the kind of foundation into which they could welcome Love, but they do not currently possess that kind of roster. Director of basketball operations Danny Ainge tried hard to get involved in trade talks for him last summer, but he was repeatedly told by the Timberwolves that he had nothing that interested them. ...

It’s doubtful now that the Celtics would throw everything they have at Love. Unless they can make a series of moves to reshape the roster and bring him to a club more ready to challenge for the top spot in the Eastern Conference, they would be better than last year but not good enough.

The Celtics will still look into the Love situation, but word is strong that, as opposed to last year’s all-out push, they would want him only at the right price and under the right roster circumstances.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/boston_celtics/2015/06/not_quite_set_for_a_boston_love_in

What's the "right price"?  I assumed that every team chasing Love would give him his choice of deals, most likely a four year max with an opt out clause.  I wish Bulpett had explained this more.

The "roster circumstances" thing makes a bit more sense, although you would assume that Danny's plan would be to land a big-name free agent, and then build around that player via future transactions.

Could be that Danny won't do the 1 year max with a player option for the 2016-2017 year. Even then, though, I think he'd want to do it, right? That money needs to get spent somewhere...

Maybe not...

That's putting a LOT of power in Love's hands, and he's not exactly proven to be the model of team loyalty.

If you pay him $17m for one year, with a player option for next year, then

[slamtheking]

Well Ainge better change his motto. No one else is coming here and the offseason is looking disappointing so far reading into the reports.

As much as they may seem to make sense on the surface, at the end of the day there is ALWAYS dollar value on any player.

Lets say the Cleveland wanted to trade Love, but only if he could get a return of Marcus Smart, Avery Bradley, Jae Crowder, Jared Sullinger, Kelly Olynyk, Isaiah Thomas and Tyler Zeller along with #16, #28, and next year's Brooklyn pick (unprotected).

Would you say yes?

I'd say the Cavs better be throwing in Lebron as well

[MBunge]

Steve Bulpett reports:

The Celtics would like to have the kind of foundation into which they could welcome Love, but they do not currently possess that kind of roster. Director of basketball operations Danny Ainge tried hard to get involved in trade talks for him last summer, but he was repeatedly told by the Timberwolves that he had nothing that interested them. ...

It’s doubtful now that the Celtics would throw everything they have at Love. Unless they can make a series of moves to reshape the roster and bring him to a club more ready to challenge for the top spot in the Eastern Conference, they would be better than last year but not good enough.

The Celtics will still look into the Love situation, but word is strong that, as opposed to last year’s all-out push, they would want him only at the right price and under the right roster circumstances.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/boston_celtics/2015/06/not_quite_set_for_a_boston_love_in

What's the "right price"?  I assumed that every team chasing Love would give him his choice of deals, most likely a four year max with an opt out clause.  I wish Bulpett had explained this more.

The "roster circumstances" thing makes a bit more sense, although you would assume that Danny's plan would be to land a big-name free agent, and then build around that player via future transactions.

Put Love on the Celtics and they will be A LOT better than last year.  They could probably compete with and beat anyone in the East in the playoffs except Cleveland.  Getting past LeBron and then beating whomever comes out of the East, they'd need to make two or thee more moves or wait for 2 to 3 years of player development.

Mike

[crimson_stallion]

Steve Bulpett reports:

The Celtics would like to have the kind of foundation into which they could welcome Love, but they do not currently possess that kind of roster. Director of basketball operations Danny Ainge tried hard to get involved in trade talks for him last summer, but he was repeatedly told by the Timberwolves that he had nothing that interested them. ...

It’s doubtful now that the Celtics would throw everything they have at Love. Unless they can make a series of moves to reshape the roster and bring him to a club more ready to challenge for the top spot in the Eastern Conference, they would be better than last year but not good enough.

The Celtics will still look into the Love situation, but word is strong that, as opposed to last year’s all-out push, they would want him only at the right price and under the right roster circumstances.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/boston_celtics/2015/06/not_quite_set_for_a_boston_love_in

What's the "right price"?  I assumed that every team chasing Love would give him his choice of deals, most likely a four year max with an opt out clause.  I wish Bulpett had explained this more.

The "roster circumstances" thing makes a bit more sense, although you would assume that Danny's plan would be to land a big-name free agent, and then build around that player via future transactions.

Put Love on the Celtics and they will be A LOT better than last year.  They could probably compete with and beat anyone in the East in the playoffs except Cleveland.

I have my doubts. 

Love is very skilled, but there are also a number of question marks / red flags I have about him:

* Attitude
* Defence (obviously)
* Previous medical history
* Current medical situation (will shoulder injury affect his shooting/scoring, and for how long?)
* Questions about his ability to help a team win

If we are adding love straight up via Free agency and don't need to give up pieces to get him, then I've got view doubts that this acquisition makes us significantly better. 

But If we need to work out a trade (and give up multiple pieces) to get him, then will we get better because of it?