The Case for Trading Gordon Hayward (Hear Me Out)

[Fierce1]

Instead of Drummond why don’t we try to get Tristan Thompson ? He has championship experience and is solid.. cavs might be showcasing him a little bit though

I said that in the past and I got laughed at.

One even said no to Tristan Thompson because of the drama that the Kardashians would bring to Boston.

[Fierce1]

Yikes! People are insisting Kanter >= Drummond?

Look, I get the whole overrating your own but really? Makes me think that if we had drafted Wiggins, people here would balk at trading Wiggins for Tatum.

TP!

[NKY fan]

Instead of Drummond why don’t we try to get Tristan Thompson ? He has championship experience and is solid.. cavs might be showcasing him a little bit though

I said that in the past and I got laughed at.

One even said no to Tristan Thompson because of the drama that the Kardashians would bring to Boston.

It will be hard to justify giving up Hayward for him

[gouki88]

Yikes! People are insisting Kanter >= Drummond?

Look, I get the whole overrating your own but really? Makes me think that if we had drafted Wiggins, people here would balk at trading Wiggins for Tatum.

Not seriously - pretty obvious tongue in cheek. But Kanter for $5m without having to trade anything is better than Drummond for 5 times that, where we’d have to trade our most well-rounder offensive player.

[Fierce1]

Instead of Drummond why don’t we try to get Tristan Thompson ? He has championship experience and is solid.. cavs might be showcasing him a little bit though

I said that in the past and I got laughed at.

One even said no to Tristan Thompson because of the drama that the Kardashians would bring to Boston.

It will be hard to justify giving up Hayward for him

The good thing about getting Tristan Thompson is we don't have to include Hayward or any of the core 5.

Celts will just have to package 4 players for Tristan.

But some of the Celtic fans here said that a 4 for 1 trade is hard to do during the season.

If the Celts don't want to give up Kanter then it will take 5 players to make the trade work for Tristan.

[LilRip]

Yikes! People are insisting Kanter >= Drummond?

Look, I get the whole overrating your own but really? Makes me think that if we had drafted Wiggins, people here would balk at trading Wiggins for Tatum.

Not seriously - pretty obvious tongue in cheek. But Kanter for $5m without having to trade anything is better than Drummond for 5 times that, where we’d have to trade our most well-rounder offensive player.

But I don’t even see the arguments talking about salary. I’m seeing the whole “we don’t need Drummond because Kanter is just as good, if not even better in limited minutes. Imagine what he could do with more!”

Like, there’s a reason Kanter doesn’t get huge minutes.

[Fierce1]

Yikes! People are insisting Kanter >= Drummond?

Look, I get the whole overrating your own but really? Makes me think that if we had drafted Wiggins, people here would balk at trading Wiggins for Tatum.

Not seriously - pretty obvious tongue in cheek. But Kanter for $5m without having to trade anything is better than Drummond for 5 times that, where we’d have to trade our most well-rounder offensive player.

But we all know if we're stuck with this current roster then it will just be another 2nd round playoff exit.

Teams like the Thunder, who refused to spend big money are paying the price for it.

OKC traded Harden because they didn't want to be a tax payer.
They never returned to the NBA Finals after doing that trade.

Money should not be an issue if we want another championship.

Celts were one of the top 2 or top 3 in spending during the KG, Pierce, and Ray era.
But the Celts got a championship out of it.

[gouki88]

Yikes! People are insisting Kanter >= Drummond?

Look, I get the whole overrating your own but really? Makes me think that if we had drafted Wiggins, people here would balk at trading Wiggins for Tatum.

Not seriously - pretty obvious tongue in cheek. But Kanter for $5m without having to trade anything is better than Drummond for 5 times that, where we’d have to trade our most well-rounder offensive player.

But I don’t even see the arguments talking about salary. I’m seeing the whole “we don’t need Drummond because Kanter is just as good, if not even better in limited minutes. Imagine what he could do with more!”

Like, there’s a reason Kanter doesn’t get huge minutes.

Well, we don’t need to needlessly give up Hayward for a guy that doesn’t offer much more than Kanter does (better defence, including rebounding, but less offensively talented) is probably what I would interpret as the argument.

[Hoopvortex]

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.

You underestimate them. Boston is top-ten in both defense and offense, and it starts with the three-headed monster.

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.

Clearly you’re right that the Celtics are keeping those two, but it looks to me as though they’re getting all the responsibility they can handle, and they’re both growing by leaps and bounds. I would further argue that Gordon makes them both better when he’s on the court with them, and serves as a mentor for those two in developing complete games.

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.

If that’s what you think, it is no wonder that you propose trading him. That’s not what I think, though; I think he’s a player who makes his teammates better.

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.

If there is one strength that Gordon Hayward has more than any other, it is the unselfishness and skill to get the ball to the player who has the best shot, including himself. I’ll be frank: you’re wrong, about 180 degrees wrong.

4) 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?

That’s logical; I don’t think we’re at the stage yet where you can just put out your five best players on the court, regardless of position. Having said that, I am deeply skeptical of trading a better for a lesser player – NBA history is mostly against you.

I know conventional wisdom says its crazy...

On the contrary, the conventional wisdom is:

‘Boston needs a center; their three wing starters are redundant; so one of them should be traded for a big to balance the roster.’

The conventional wisdom used to be that Jaylen Brown was the sacrificial lamb; now it’s Gordon Hayward.

[gouki88]

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.

You underestimate them. Boston is top-ten in both defense and offense, and it starts with the three-headed monster.

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.

Clearly you’re right that the Celtics are keeping those two, but it looks to me as though they’re getting all the responsibility they can handle, and they’re both growing by leaps and bounds. I would further argue that Gordon makes them both better when he’s on the court with them, and serves as a mentor for those two in developing complete games.

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.

If that’s what you think, it is no wonder that you propose trading him. That’s not what I think, though; I think he’s a player who makes his teammates better.

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.

If there is one strength that Gordon Hayward has more than any other, it is the unselfishness and skill to get the ball to the player who has the best shot, including himself. I’ll be frank: you’re wrong, about 180 degrees wrong.

4) 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?

That’s logical; I don’t think we’re at the stage yet where you can just put out your five best players on the court, regardless of position. Having said that, I am deeply skeptical of trading a better for a lesser player – NBA history is mostly against you.

I know conventional wisdom says its crazy...

On the contrary, the conventional wisdom is:

‘Boston needs a center; their three wing starters are redundant; so one of them should be traded for a big to balance the roster.’

Huge TP!

[Fierce1]

The good thing is it doesn't have to be Hayward.

What if the Pistons want Marcus Smart, not Hayward, included in the package for Drummond?

[vjcsmoke]

I would trade for Mitchell Robinson of the Knicks.  Celtics have plenty of late 1sts to offer in trade.  And he's a good defensive center but not much offense to his game.  Considering the Knicks nabbed him in round 2, they might be willing to get a return on that pick.  Salary matching is also pretty easy compared to trying to send Hayward out in a trade.

[GreenFaith1819]

Negatory.

Keep what we have, wait for any buyouts or any arising can't-miss opportunities but keep what we have now.

As it stands we have 4 proven scorers....all 4 with playoff experience.

A good mixture of youth, defense, athleticism and offense around these four.

Why spoil it?

Unless Marc Gasol, Steve Adams or another PROVEN big (that has played well against Embiid) becomes available then hold what we have.

[LilRip]

Yikes! People are insisting Kanter >= Drummond?

Look, I get the whole overrating your own but really? Makes me think that if we had drafted Wiggins, people here would balk at trading Wiggins for Tatum.

Not seriously - pretty obvious tongue in cheek. But Kanter for $5m without having to trade anything is better than Drummond for 5 times that, where we’d have to trade our most well-rounder offensive player.

But I don’t even see the arguments talking about salary. I’m seeing the whole “we don’t need Drummond because Kanter is just as good, if not even better in limited minutes. Imagine what he could do with more!”

Like, there’s a reason Kanter doesn’t get huge minutes.

Well, we don’t need to needlessly give up Hayward for a guy that doesn’t offer much more than Kanter does (better defence, including rebounding, but less offensively talented) is probably what I would interpret as the argument.

Mmm, then it‘s sounding like my Wiggins-Tatum analogy then.

Tatum is clearly better, but someone drinking the kool aid (assuming Wiggins was drafted by the C’s and Tatum wasn’t) will say Tatum doesn’t offer much more than Wiggins (better defense, but less offensively efficient). Of course, we don’t think that now because Tatum is objectively a better player and a fan favorite.

Going off on a tangent, I mean, how many people on here were pushing hard for the C’s to sign or trade for Kemba in the past few years? What was the board’s general consensus on Kemba circa Dec/Jan 2019? How about late 2018? I imagine the popular opinion here was that he was a nice guy, a high volume scorer who doesn’t really know how to pass, a guy who needs the ball in his hands to be effective, and maybe someone who couldn’t they see as the best player on a championship squad. Probably a solid #2 guy

Anyway, I digress. Here’s an interesting POV which I haven’t seen get brought up: whose Bird rights would people rather have? Drummond or Hayward?

We’re paying Tatum next offseason, this is obvious. Hayward may or may not opt in. If he doesn’t, do we let Hayward walk (Horford-style) or do we pay Hayward big money? Should we lock ourselves into this fearsome foursome + Smart long term?

[Fierce1]

Yikes! People are insisting Kanter >= Drummond?

Look, I get the whole overrating your own but really? Makes me think that if we had drafted Wiggins, people here would balk at trading Wiggins for Tatum.

Not seriously - pretty obvious tongue in cheek. But Kanter for $5m without having to trade anything is better than Drummond for 5 times that, where we’d have to trade our most well-rounder offensive player.

But I don’t even see the arguments talking about salary. I’m seeing the whole “we don’t need Drummond because Kanter is just as good, if not even better in limited minutes. Imagine what he could do with more!”

Like, there’s a reason Kanter doesn’t get huge minutes.

Well, we don’t need to needlessly give up Hayward for a guy that doesn’t offer much more than Kanter does (better defence, including rebounding, but less offensively talented) is probably what I would interpret as the argument.

Mmm, then it‘s sounding like my Wiggins-Tatum analogy then.

Tatum is clearly better, but someone drinking the kool aid (assuming Wiggins was drafted by the C’s and Tatum wasn’t) will say Tatum doesn’t offer much more than Wiggins (better defense, but less offensively efficient). Of course, we don’t think that now because Tatum is objectively a better player and a fan favorite.

Going off on a tangent, I mean, how many people on here were pushing hard for the C’s to sign or trade for Kemba in the past few years? What was the board’s general consensus on Kemba circa Dec/Jan 2019? How about late 2018? I imagine the popular opinion here was that he was a nice guy, a high volume scorer who doesn’t really know how to pass, a guy who needs the ball in his hands to be effective, and maybe someone who couldn’t they see as the best player on a championship squad. Probably a solid #2 guy

Anyway, I digress. Here’s an interesting POV which I haven’t seen get brought up: whose Bird rights would people rather have? Drummond or Hayward?

We’re paying Tatum next offseason, this is obvious. Hayward may or may not opt in. If he doesn’t, do we let Hayward walk (Horford-style) or do we pay Hayward big money? Should we lock ourselves into this fearsome foursome + Smart long term?

Very good question.

I don't think it's a good idea to spend over a 100m in salary cap space to 5 players and none of them are bigs.