The Case for Trading Gordon Hayward (Hear Me Out)

[keevsnick]

So first of all credit to Ryan Bernardoni (@dangercart on Twitter) who just had a long twitter thread basically outlining this idea, but I've been wondering about this to msyelf for months so here it goes.

I think the Celtics should strongly consider trading Gordon Hayward.

I think most C's fans can agree that Tatum, Brown, Hayward have payed at a roughly even level this year. Lets call them B+ guys. They're each good in differnet ways, but roughly equivalent. There's only one basketball right? So what is it that 3 B+ level guys will give you that 2+ level guys and a decent 3+D can't? What really would you be losing if you trade Gordon Hayward? Now you might rightly say "We don't lose much, but thats not a reaosn to do it you fool." To which I would respond with four points.

1) You likely can't keep all four of Kemba/Hayward/ and the Jays long term for money/luxury tax reasons. And yes, I know Wyc said the C's would pay the tax but 4 (near) max contracts is very, very, very diffcult to fit on a team long term.

2) Given their age and how they've played this year, you're kepeing the Jays. So it makes sense to give them a larger role and allow them to grow in it. Neither of them is as good a playamaker/passer as Hayward, but it might help to let them do more of it. Trading Hayward allows them to do that.

3) With or without Hayward probably doesnt change the ceiling of the team that much. I dont think you're winning a tittle with or without him. I think its also possible that having him, another guy who needs to eat on the floor can in fact in some cases lead to stagnant "you turn, my turn" offense. The net translation basically being the repetiitve skill set/talent level doesnt raise your ceiling enough to matter, and in the regular season may not even be worth say more than 3 wins.

4) Even if you think the C's can afford to keep Hayward long term, trading Hayward could give you the sallary fodder to upgrade in other areas. If he's not adding a whole lot to the team ceiling wise then doesnt it make to use his sallary to upgrade else where like bench, stretch big, or defensive center? Isnt it possible that subtratcing him and adding too those relatively weak points makes you better even if hes the best player in a deal?

So in conclusion you arent keeping him long term for money reasons. The Jays can probably replace alot of what you'd lose by trading him right now, and would be afforded increased developmental oppurtunities going forward (this point is critical). It desnt change your ultimate ceiling this year, while perhaps being a better use of resources that ultimately makes the team better (depending on the deal) in the long term.

I know conventional wisdom says its crazy. But I think it has to be considered. Now obviously if you truly believe this team is a real contender you probably dont do this, but I don't think its crazy.

[PhoSita]

I don't think there's a trade out there for Gordon that is going to make sense for both sides.  He makes too much money and there's too much uncertainty about his health and what he's going to do with his player option.

[gouki88]

I chose the last option. I don’t think Gordon has high value right now (although certainly higher than last season). I also don’t think his contract helps. If we trade him to a bad team why would he stay there?

I have no doubt in my mind that Danny would likely trade him if the right offer came up, but I also remember reading that the IT thing has had somewhat of an impact.

I’m unapologetically a huge Hayward fan. I think he’s our most complete player, and unlocks shots for our other guys that nobody else on our team can. I don’t think trading him is wise.

[NKY fan]

I chose the first option but not because it can happen but am hopeful that an all-NBA player becomes available.
If OKC offer Paul straight up for GH to get below the luxury line I would think long and hard whether to pull the trigger or not.

[gouki88]

I chose the first option but not because it can happen but am hopeful that an all-NBA player becomes available.
If OKC offer Paul straight up for GH to get below the luxury line I would think long and hard whether to pull the trigger or not.

I wouldn’t. Super injury-prone, brutal contract, nearly 35, would leave us with a tiny back-court, and is not even necessarily better than Hayward.

[nickagneta]

I think the player option in Hayward's contract makes trading him problematic.

Rather than trading Hayward and so needing to integrate new players into Stevens system and rotations, I think the better option is getting the rotation healthy and set and having everyone get to know their role. Also, this gives Stevens the best opportunity to put these guys in the best position to maximize their talents, to figure out how to best utilize everyone, Hayward including.

I am not sure Stevens has figured this out yet due to the raft of injuries and illnesses. Because of that Stevens has needed to use lineups and rotations that have been all over the place with players being thrown in and out of different roles. Add this to the fact he has had to use the Williams boys, Edwards, Waters and, last night, even Tacko when they haven't been ready for it and you get a team that isn't running at its highest potential level.

I think this team and this coach just needs more time getting themselves settled into the right roles and rotations and they will be really good. And when that happens, Hayward will shine and show his value

[Monkhouse]

I chose the first option but not because it can happen but am hopeful that an all-NBA player becomes available.
If OKC offer Paul straight up for GH to get below the luxury line I would think long and hard whether to pull the trigger or not.

I wouldn't.

Paying Chris Paul over $40 million for the next two years doesn't sit too well with me.

I think the player option in Hayward's contract makes trading him problematic.

Rather than trading Hayward and so needing to integrate new players into Stevens system and rotations, I think the better option is getting the rotation healthy and set and having everyone get to know their role. Also, this gives Stevens the best opportunity to put these guys in the best position to maximize their talents, to figure out how to best utilize everyone, Hayward including.

I am not sure Stevens has figured this out yet due to the raft of injuries and illnesses. Because of that Stevens has needed to use lineups and rotations that have been all over the place with players being thrown in and out of different roles. Add this to the fact he has had to use the Williams boys, Edwards, Waters and, last night, even Tacko when they haven't been ready for it and you get a team that isn't running at its highest potential level.

I think this team and this coach just needs more time getting themselves settled into the right roles and rotations and they will be really good. And when that happens, Hayward will shine and show his value

That's the way I see it. Hayward is one of our best play makers, and when he's running on the fast break, he's really hard to stop. Problem I've been noticing is that he hasn't even tried to drive that much anymore, maybe it's due to injuries, but there were many times where he was starting the fast break, and then dribble the ball a little too much.

I think our team is best when there's ball movement. Players need to accept the roles given, and Stevens needs to keep a tighter leash. It's just hard when there's been a brevity of injuries and not enough information built on such a short sample size.

[NKY fan]

I chose the first option but not because it can happen but am hopeful that an all-NBA player becomes available.
If OKC offer Paul straight up for GH to get below the luxury line I would think long and hard whether to pull the trigger or not.

I wouldn't.

Paying Chris Paul over $40 million for the next two years doesn't sit too well with me.

is the goal to win championships or to be competitive while at the same time keeping the owners pockets full?
I am not saying that CP = Lary O'brien trophy but it looks like a lot of people on here are content with young and competitive team but that is it..

[gouki88]

I chose the first option but not because it can happen but am hopeful that an all-NBA player becomes available.
If OKC offer Paul straight up for GH to get below the luxury line I would think long and hard whether to pull the trigger or not.

I wouldn't.

Paying Chris Paul over $40 million for the next two years doesn't sit too well with me.

is the goal to win championships or to be competitive while at the same time keeping the owners pockets full?
I am not saying that CP = Lary O'brien trophy but it looks like a lot of people on here are content with young and competitive team but that is it..

The goal is for the young competitive team to grow into a mature title-contender. Similar to the Warriors (obviously not expecting a dynasty).

CP3 is not the answer.

[CelticSooner]

Ainge needs to find out what he's going to do with that player option. If he plans to opt out he needs to be traded IMO.

[NKY fan]

I chose the first option but not because it can happen but am hopeful that an all-NBA player becomes available.
If OKC offer Paul straight up for GH to get below the luxury line I would think long and hard whether to pull the trigger or not.

I wouldn't.

Paying Chris Paul over $40 million for the next two years doesn't sit too well with me.

is the goal to win championships or to be competitive while at the same time keeping the owners pockets full?
I am not saying that CP = Lary O'brien trophy but it looks like a lot of people on here are content with young and competitive team but that is it..

The goal is for the young competitive team to grow into a mature title-contender. Similar to the Warriors (obviously not expecting a dynasty).

CP3 is not the answer.

The warriors traded monta Elis for Bogut at the time. Warriors fans were upheaving because a fan favorite was sent for an injured center...
Joe Lacob had to state publicly that most fans can’t understand the trade at the time. He was right and the rest is history..
With that said I see a number of parallels between the two situations.

[Monkhouse]

I chose the first option but not because it can happen but am hopeful that an all-NBA player becomes available.
If OKC offer Paul straight up for GH to get below the luxury line I would think long and hard whether to pull the trigger or not.

I wouldn't.

Paying Chris Paul over $40 million for the next two years doesn't sit too well with me.

is the goal to win championships or to be competitive while at the same time keeping the owners pockets full?
I am not saying that CP = Lary O'brien trophy but it looks like a lot of people on here are content with young and competitive team but that is it..

The goal is for the young competitive team to grow into a mature title-contender. Similar to the Warriors (obviously not expecting a dynasty).

CP3 is not the answer.

The warriors traded monta Elis for Bogut at the time. Warriors fans were upheaving because a fan favorite was sent for an injured center...
Joe Lacob had to state publicly that most fans can’t understand the trade at the time. He was right and the rest is history..
With that said I see a number of parallels between the two situations.

The difference is Monta Ellis wasn't a great fit next to Curry; his USG % and need to have the ball in his hands conflicted with Curry, who Lacob, correctly guessed had the far higher ceiling than Ellis. And while Bogut was oft hit with injury issues, and question marks, there was no doubt he was considered by many the 1st round pick based on his ability to change the game defensively.

The trade also included Stephen Jackson, who was brought in for his clutch scoring + veteran presence.

And as you can see the rest is history.

Hayward being traded for CP3, is the complete opposite of what the Warriors did.

[mctyson]

Ainge needs to find out what he's going to do with that player option. If he plans to opt out he needs to be traded IMO.

Yeah I do not think he is going to find out any time soon.

[blink]

So do we think that DA would really pull the switch on a Hayward deal, if one that benefited us could be found?  I keep seeing other posters mention the IT trade and the negativity it brought us.  Would a Hayward trade even have any of that attached to it at this point?

It feels like the team is so used to 1 of the big 4 being out that when get all 4 healthy no one knows how to play together at all.  To me it seems like our best performances this year have been with 1 of the 4 out of the lineup.  I am not sure if this means that we are better off with a trade, or we just haven't had enough time to gel together.

If Hayward can start playing at a more elite level it makes it better for everyone.  But I am not sure that is going to happen on a consistent basis with this team.  Brown and Tatum need to grow into more play makers.  Does keeping Gordon help or hurt that process?

[ozgod]

Ainge needs to find out what he's going to do with that player option. If he plans to opt out he needs to be traded IMO.

Good luck finding out  I'm pretty sure Gordon's agent isn't that stupid (though you never know) 

Also didn't Danny say that none of the core are available for trade? Assuming he wasn't lying I would assume we're only looking at small trade options for this deadline.