Should Ainge Have Traded a Massive Package for Anthony Davis?

[pearljammer10]

No.

AD was gone after a year regardless of what theories are out there. No need to mortgage the future for a guy who’s been to what... 1 playoffs?

[Pvictor11]

Of course not. If he did we would become the Boston Pelicans for a year and then become last years Cleveland Cavaliers

[gouki88]

No. Ainge drove up the price to a point where he couldn’t compete with LA without handicapping the team, which is perfectly fine

[Celtics4ever]

He didn't time to move on....It's spilt milk.

[Bobshot]

Just read a story this morning on Yahoo that Leonard has declined his option, but is "seriously considering" signing with Raptors.

Seems that typically happens with these free agents who have had a positive year with a team they were traded to on a  rental. In this case, a Championship. In George's case, not even a Championship.

Now Leonard hasn't signed with Toronto yet, but you wonder if loyalty has become an overriding factor. How can you leave a Championship team?

You really can't listen to the media on this stuff. It's what the player experiences playing for a team that counts, and he doesn't know that before playing for them.

Which leads me to the decision Ainge had to make about Davis. Danny's a smart guy, and he knows all this. He knows whether Davis stays on a rental would depend on Davis' personal experiences and success with the team--and not on much else. It's possible Ainge figured he just couldn't afford to re-sign him if he wanted to stay--having signed Horford and Irving to multi year deals. With Hayward, four max deals wasn't going to cut it.

[jambr380]

Just read a story this morning on Yahoo that Leonard has declined his option, but is "seriously considering" signing with Raptors.

Seems that typically happens with these free agents who have had a positive year with a team they were traded to on a  rental. In this case, a Championship. In George's case, not even a Championship.

Now Leonard hasn't signed with Toronto yet, but you wonder if loyalty has become an overriding factor. How can you leave a Championship team?

You really can't listen to the media on this stuff. It's what the player experiences playing for a team that counts, and he doesn't know that before playing for them.

Which leads me to the decision Ainge had to make about Davis. Danny's a smart guy, and he knows all this. He knows whether Davis stays on a rental would depend on Davis' personal experiences and success with the team--and not on much else. It's possible Ainge figured he just couldn't afford to re-sign him if he wanted to stay--having signed Horford and Irving to multi year deals. With Hayward, four max deals wasn't going to cut it.

I can assure you this isn't the reason Danny didn't trade for AD. He would have been by far the best player on the Celtics...like by far...he could have used a pick to dump Hayward next off-season if AD so desperately wanted to re-sign with us.

[td450]

No. The Lakers have destroyed their team for 6-8 years. They have a one and possibly two year window to win and they will need to get a number of lucky breaks to get what they need to do it. Given the absurdity of the Lakers ultimate package, I wonder why this is even up for debate.

[RodyTur10]

No. The Lakers have destroyed their team for 6-8 years. They have a one and possibly two year window to win and they will need to get a number of lucky breaks to get what they need to do it. Given the absurdity of the Lakers ultimate package, I wonder why this is even up for debate.

Difference between the Celtics and the Lakers is that they didn't have many assets (mainly by giving up Russell, Randle, Bryant and Zubac for basically nothing). So in order to come up with an overwhelming package the Lakers had to take a huge risk by giving up most of their young talent and future picks.

The Celtics on the other hand had a so-called 'warchest' of assets. Big collection of draft picks and highly rated talent.
Perhaps even more important is that the Celtics had established players as well, so some young guys were kind of expendable.

Even if Ainge had offered a massive package of: Tatum + Smart + R.Williams + #14 + #20 + Memphis pick (and I agree it's kind of absurd, since it would have been the best package ever), the Celtics still wouldn't have crippled their roster as much as the Lakers. (I would have tried to get the Pelicans to take Rozier instead of Smart, but ok)

The Celtics would still (potentially) have

PG: Kyrie Irving / Terry Rozier(?) / Brad Wanamaker
SG: Jaylen Brown / MLE player / PJ Dozier
SF: Gordon Hayward / Marcus Morris / Semi Ojeleye
PF: Al Horford / Grant Williams / Guerschon Yabusele
C: Anthony Davis / Aron Baynes / Daniel Theis

Very expensive roster, but a real shot at a championship.

[Donoghus]

No & I was saying it at the time.   Once the writing on the wall became clear (or certainly seems that way) that Kyrie was leaving, it made no sense to make the AD deal since that sure is looking like a one year rental.   It would've been criminal to make that trade.   Would've set the Celtics back years.   Lose all your assets for a guy who leaves in a year.   I don't know if that deal would've enticed Kyrie to come back but it would've been too risky a gamble.  And, regardless of if he was or not, I don't foresee AD signing with BOS long term. 

This plan B pivot with the kids isn't ideal but at least Danny gave this team a puncher's chance by stepping away from an AD trade and building around the kids.

[RodyTur10]

No & I was saying it at the time.   Once the writing on the wall became clear (or certainly seems that way) that Kyrie was leaving, it made no sense to make the AD deal since that sure is looking like a one year rental.   It would've been criminal to make that trade.   Would've set the Celtics back years.   Lose all your assets for a guy who leaves in a year.   I don't know if that deal would've enticed Kyrie to come back but it would've been too risky a gamble.  And, regardless of if he was or not, I don't foresee AD signing with BOS long term. 

This plan B pivot with the kids isn't ideal but at least Danny gave this team a puncher's chance by stepping away from an AD trade and building around the kids.

I think most people would agree that making a trade for Davis would've convinced Irving to stay, because there's nowhere else he can go now to have a chance to win a ring. And the same goes for Davis next year. Would the Lakers just do nothing, wait a year and hope Davis doesn't change his mind of wanting to go to LA?

The three biggest reasons (i.m.o.) for the Celtics to not make a serious offer where:

• Fear to lose Davis after one year to the Lakers (maybe, but you have a whole year to convince him to do otherwise)
• No confidence in restoring order in the locker room (I believe success mends a lot of problems: roles, minutes, relations etc.)
• Valuing Tatum as an indispensable upcoming superstar (Tatum has been overvalued by everybody, he's not that special)

[Casperian]

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

We don't have a future now, anyway. With AD, at least you had a shot.

The better question, however, is why we were not in a better position to acquire Davis, considering Danny had years to prepare for this trade.

[Fafnir]

No.

Kyrie's decision to leave and the level of competition for Horford would mean the path of trading for AD and resigning Horford to a market contract would have left the C's with few assets/young players and an expensive 34 year old player with 3 years left on his deal after AD left.

Especially since without KNOWING Hayward's form I don't know if we'd even be contenders with Horford/Davis + Brown/Smart + Hayward.

Davis is really good, but you need high level on the perimeter to contend still.

[CF033]

No & I was saying it at the time.   Once the writing on the wall became clear (or certainly seems that way) that Kyrie was leaving, it made no sense to make the AD deal since that sure is looking like a one year rental.   It would've been criminal to make that trade.   Would've set the Celtics back years.   Lose all your assets for a guy who leaves in a year.   I don't know if that deal would've enticed Kyrie to come back but it would've been too risky a gamble.  And, regardless of if he was or not, I don't foresee AD signing with BOS long term. 

This plan B pivot with the kids isn't ideal but at least Danny gave this team a puncher's chance by stepping away from an AD trade and building around the kids.

I think most people would agree that making a trade for Davis would've convinced Irving to stay, because there's nowhere else he can go now to have a chance to win a ring. And the same goes for Davis next year. Would the Lakers just do nothing, wait a year and hope Davis doesn't change his mind of wanting to go to LA?

The three biggest reasons (i.m.o.) for the Celtics to not make a serious offer where:

• Fear to lose Davis after one year to the Lakers (maybe, but you have a whole year to convince him to do otherwise)
• No confidence in restoring order in the locker room (I believe success mends a lot of problems: roles, minutes, relations etc.)
• Valuing Tatum as an indispensable upcoming superstar (Tatum has been overvalued by everybody, he's not that special)

This is based upon the assumption that Kyrie cares about winning another ring. He just wants to build his brand overall, I think basketball is secondary to him or at least just one piece of the pie. Boston isn't a great place for him to do that so I don't buy that him staying was a slam dunk if we brought AD in.

[footey]

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

We don't have a future now, anyway. With AD, at least you had a shot.

The better question, however, is why we were not in a better position to acquire Davis, considering Danny had years to prepare for this trade.

Brainwash AD and his agent into liking Boston?  Any other thoughts?

[Donoghus]

No & I was saying it at the time.   Once the writing on the wall became clear (or certainly seems that way) that Kyrie was leaving, it made no sense to make the AD deal since that sure is looking like a one year rental.   It would've been criminal to make that trade.   Would've set the Celtics back years.   Lose all your assets for a guy who leaves in a year.   I don't know if that deal would've enticed Kyrie to come back but it would've been too risky a gamble.  And, regardless of if he was or not, I don't foresee AD signing with BOS long term. 

This plan B pivot with the kids isn't ideal but at least Danny gave this team a puncher's chance by stepping away from an AD trade and building around the kids.

I think most people would agree that making a trade for Davis would've convinced Irving to stay, because there's nowhere else he can go now to have a chance to win a ring. And the same goes for Davis next year. Would the Lakers just do nothing, wait a year and hope Davis doesn't change his mind of wanting to go to LA?

The three biggest reasons (i.m.o.) for the Celtics to not make a serious offer where:

• Fear to lose Davis after one year to the Lakers (maybe, but you have a whole year to convince him to do otherwise)
• No confidence in restoring order in the locker room (I believe success mends a lot of problems: roles, minutes, relations etc.)
• Valuing Tatum as an indispensable upcoming superstar (Tatum has been overvalued by everybody, he's not that special)

Knowing Kyrie's personality, I think its pretty presumptuous to assume that Kyrie would've stayed if Danny had traded for Ainge.  I think there was a distinct possibility that Kyrie would walk even if they had swung the trade.   Kyrie is an odd bird and he doesn't seem to act like the conventional athlete.  He's too much of a wild card to bank on anything.