Idea: Romeo, Nesmith, future 1st for Haliburton

[KG Living Legend]

 Maybe have to throw in Prichard to make it happen, but would like to keep Peyton if possible.  The kings probably don't want to move him but with Peyton included that trade makes them better and deeper.

 For the celtics we get our PG of the future.  A big tall, long, playmaking Point that can switch, make bug shots, has that winning edge. Good shooter it just looks strange. 

 So assuming the kings would deal him would you make the trade.

Horford
Tatum
Brown
Fournier
Haliburton

[gouki88]

That's an incredible amount to give up. Absurd amount with PP thrown in. 3 recent first round picks + a future first for Haliburton is a lot.

[makaveli]

Makes no sence for either parties involved. King would only move him in a win now scenario and that is not happening.

[td450]

That's an incredible amount to give up. Absurd amount with PP thrown in. 3 recent first round picks + a future first for Haliburton is a lot.

1. Yes that is a lot to give up. But I doubt Sacramento would do it. They probably see him as a foundational player at this point.

2. He was drafted two slots before Nesmith, and Ainge just couldn't bring himself to overpay to move up.

3. He was one of those rare guys who was obviously going to be a top NBA player. He's probably going to at least be a Jrue Holliday level almost all-star (he's well on his way there already) and could become better than that.

4. He would be an ideal complementary player to Tatum and Brown.

5. The Fournier/Smart decisions decide the fates of Langford and Nesmith. They only have value if we actually decide to play them. If either Fournier or Smart goes, then there is a possible roll for both of them.

However, if we actually could make this trade, we could decide to move on from Smart for a pick, and sign Fournier. You have a nice balance there, and you would have almost no need for Langford and Nesmith. If you trade Smart, there are a number of nice players in this draft that you could take.

The C's have a money and minutes problem. We really can't make Smart, Fournier, Langford and Nesmith work. We have to waste or convert one or two of those guys.

I would much rather have Halliburton, Fournier and a pick in the 15-20 range than the pileup we have now. We will have to do something or we waste a nice player.

[gouki88]

That's an incredible amount to give up. Absurd amount with PP thrown in. 3 recent first round picks + a future first for Haliburton is a lot.

1. Yes that is a lot to give up. But I doubt Sacramento would do it. They probably see him as a foundational player at this point.

2. He was drafted two slots before Nesmith, and Ainge just couldn't bring himself to overpay to move up.

3. He was one of those rare guys who was obviously going to be a top NBA player. He's probably going to at least be a Jrue Holliday level almost all-star (he's well on his way there already) and could become better than that.

4. He would be an ideal complementary player to Tatum and Brown.

5. The Fournier/Smart decisions decide the fates of Langford and Nesmith. They only have value if we actually decide to play them. If either Fournier or Smart goes, then there is a possible roll for both of them.

However, if we actually could make this trade, we could decide to move on from Smart for a pick, and sign Fournier. You have a nice balance there, and you would have almost no need for Langford and Nesmith. If you trade Smart, there are a number of nice players in this draft that you could take.

The C's have a money and minutes problem. We really can't make Smart, Fournier, Langford and Nesmith work. We have to waste or convert one or two of those guys.

I would much rather have Halliburton, Fournier and a pick in the 15-20 range than the pileup we have now. We will have to do something or we waste a nice player.

1. Exactly. It doesn't make sense.

2. What deals were on the table? How do you know there were any? It's pretty easy to say Ainge "should have just traded up."

3. I think you're being a bit over the top. He's super efficient, passes well and plays good defence, but he had a serious injury cloud hanging over his head. He was my #4 ranked prospect in that draft, but I can see why teams passed.

4. No argument from me.

5. I'm not so sure of that. The departure of Kemba and potentially of Ojeleye opens up serious reserve minutes by moving Smart to PG. There should be 15-20MPG for each of them as 2/3 players.

I don't think we have too many people deserving of minutes. A ten man rotation of the following works:
Smart (26) / Pritchard (22)
Fournier (28) / Langford (15) / Nesmith (5)
Brown (34) / Nesmith (14)
Tatum (36) / Parker (12)
Horford (26) / Williams (22)

If anything, our bench is devoid of talent. Compromising that even further doesn't sit well with me

[Birdman]

Kings hangs up fast

[td450]

That's an incredible amount to give up. Absurd amount with PP thrown in. 3 recent first round picks + a future first for Haliburton is a lot.

1. Yes that is a lot to give up. But I doubt Sacramento would do it. They probably see him as a foundational player at this point.

2. He was drafted two slots before Nesmith, and Ainge just couldn't bring himself to overpay to move up.

3. He was one of those rare guys who was obviously going to be a top NBA player. He's probably going to at least be a Jrue Holliday level almost all-star (he's well on his way there already) and could become better than that.

4. He would be an ideal complementary player to Tatum and Brown.

5. The Fournier/Smart decisions decide the fates of Langford and Nesmith. They only have value if we actually decide to play them. If either Fournier or Smart goes, then there is a possible roll for both of them.

However, if we actually could make this trade, we could decide to move on from Smart for a pick, and sign Fournier. You have a nice balance there, and you would have almost no need for Langford and Nesmith. If you trade Smart, there are a number of nice players in this draft that you could take.

The C's have a money and minutes problem. We really can't make Smart, Fournier, Langford and Nesmith work. We have to waste or convert one or two of those guys.

I would much rather have Halliburton, Fournier and a pick in the 15-20 range than the pileup we have now. We will have to do something or we waste a nice player.

1. Exactly. It doesn't make sense.

2. What deals were on the table? How do you know there were any? It's pretty easy to say Ainge "should have just traded up."

3. I think you're being a bit over the top. He's super efficient, passes well and plays good defence, but he had a serious injury cloud hanging over his head. He was my #4 ranked prospect in that draft, but I can see why teams passed.

4. No argument from me.

5. I'm not so sure of that. The departure of Kemba and potentially of Ojeleye opens up serious reserve minutes by moving Smart to PG. There should be 15-20MPG for each of them as 2/3 players.

I don't think we have too many people deserving of minutes. A ten man rotation of the following works:
Smart (26) / Pritchard (22)
Fournier (28) / Langford (15) / Nesmith (5)
Brown (34) / Nesmith (14)
Tatum (36) / Parker (12)
Horford (26) / Williams (22)

If anything, our bench is devoid of talent. Compromising that even further doesn't sit well with me

No, I don't know of what the deals were. This isn't a "deal" either. I have to believe that one of the teams from 9-12 would have taken enough of an overpay, but yes that is a guess. In retrospect it would have been worth it, whether it required Marcus Smart or other picks.

The only way there would be room for both Langford and Nesmith to play 15 minutes each (it won't ever go over that unless someone is hurt) is if we do absolutely nothing else with the roster, and no one but Tatum and Parker play power forward. Brown has played at the 2 spot regularly.

Yes, we can go with that scheme. That is what will likely happen without any moves. But that is the whole point of talking trades, isn't it? Not sure it makes sense to keep both Smart and Fournier for the long run. If we keep both Nesmith and Langford, one of them better become a starter. It's pretty lame if all those two ever contribute is 15 mpg as reserves.

Smart is a weak starter at point, and we lack playmaking. We lack power forward options. So we talk about how to improve any of that, and Halliburton would be an ideal complementary starter for the long run.

[KG Living Legend]

That's an incredible amount to give up. Absurd amount with PP thrown in. 3 recent first round picks + a future first for Haliburton is a lot.

1. Yes that is a lot to give up. But I doubt Sacramento would do it. They probably see him as a foundational player at this point.

2. He was drafted two slots before Nesmith, and Ainge just couldn't bring himself to overpay to move up.

3. He was one of those rare guys who was obviously going to be a top NBA player. He's probably going to at least be a Jrue Holliday level almost all-star (he's well on his way there already) and could become better than that.

4. He would be an ideal complementary player to Tatum and Brown.

5. The Fournier/Smart decisions decide the fates of Langford and Nesmith. They only have value if we actually decide to play them. If either Fournier or Smart goes, then there is a possible roll for both of them.

However, if we actually could make this trade, we could decide to move on from Smart for a pick, and sign Fournier. You have a nice balance there, and you would have almost no need for Langford and Nesmith. If you trade Smart, there are a number of nice players in this draft that you could take.

The C's have a money and minutes problem. We really can't make Smart, Fournier, Langford and Nesmith work. We have to waste or convert one or two of those guys.

I would much rather have Halliburton, Fournier and a pick in the 15-20 range than the pileup we have now. We will have to do something or we waste a nice player.

1. Exactly. It doesn't make sense.

2. What deals were on the table? How do you know there were any? It's pretty easy to say Ainge "should have just traded up."

3. I think you're being a bit over the top. He's super efficient, passes well and plays good defence, but he had a serious injury cloud hanging over his head. He was my #4 ranked prospect in that draft, but I can see why teams passed.

4. No argument from me.

5. I'm not so sure of that. The departure of Kemba and potentially of Ojeleye opens up serious reserve minutes by moving Smart to PG. There should be 15-20MPG for each of them as 2/3 players.

I don't think we have too many people deserving of minutes. A ten man rotation of the following works:
Smart (26) / Pritchard (22)
Fournier (28) / Langford (15) / Nesmith (5)
Brown (34) / Nesmith (14)
Tatum (36) / Parker (12)
Horford (26) / Williams (22)

If anything, our bench is devoid of talent. Compromising that even further doesn't sit well with me

No, I don't know of what the deals were. This isn't a "deal" either. I have to believe that one of the teams from 9-12 would have taken enough of an overpay, but yes that is a guess. In retrospect it would have been worth it, whether it required Marcus Smart or other picks.

The only way there would be room for both Langford and Nesmith to play 15 minutes each (it won't ever go over that unless someone is hurt) is if we do absolutely nothing else with the roster, and no one but Tatum and Parker play power forward. Brown has played at the 2 spot regularly.

Yes, we can go with that scheme. That is what will likely happen without any moves. But that is the whole point of talking trades, isn't it? Not sure it makes sense to keep both Smart and Fournier for the long run. If we keep both Nesmith and Langford, one of them better become a starter. It's pretty lame if all those two ever contribute is 15 mpg as reserves.

Smart is a weak starter at point, and we lack playmaking. We lack power forward options. So we talk about how to improve any of that, and Halliburton would be an ideal complementary starter for the long run.

 TP, Td good points.

[Surferdad]

oops

[Surferdad]

That's an incredible amount to give up. Absurd amount with PP thrown in. 3 recent first round picks + a future first for Haliburton is a lot.

1. Yes that is a lot to give up. But I doubt Sacramento would do it. They probably see him as a foundational player at this point.

2. He was drafted two slots before Nesmith, and Ainge just couldn't bring himself to overpay to move up.

3. He was one of those rare guys who was obviously going to be a top NBA player. He's probably going to at least be a Jrue Holliday level almost all-star (he's well on his way there already) and could become better than that.

4. He would be an ideal complementary player to Tatum and Brown.

5. The Fournier/Smart decisions decide the fates of Langford and Nesmith. They only have value if we actually decide to play them. If either Fournier or Smart goes, then there is a possible roll for both of them.

However, if we actually could make this trade, we could decide to move on from Smart for a pick, and sign Fournier. You have a nice balance there, and you would have almost no need for Langford and Nesmith. If you trade Smart, there are a number of nice players in this draft that you could take.

The C's have a money and minutes problem. We really can't make Smart, Fournier, Langford and Nesmith work. We have to waste or convert one or two of those guys.

I would much rather have Halliburton, Fournier and a pick in the 15-20 range than the pileup we have now. We will have to do something or we waste a nice player.

1. Exactly. It doesn't make sense.

2. What deals were on the table? How do you know there were any? It's pretty easy to say Ainge "should have just traded up."

3. I think you're being a bit over the top. He's super efficient, passes well and plays good defence, but he had a serious injury cloud hanging over his head. He was my #4 ranked prospect in that draft, but I can see why teams passed.

4. No argument from me.

5. I'm not so sure of that. The departure of Kemba and potentially of Ojeleye opens up serious reserve minutes by moving Smart to PG. There should be 15-20MPG for each of them as 2/3 players.

I don't think we have too many people deserving of minutes. A ten man rotation of the following works:
Smart (26) / Pritchard (22)
Fournier (28) / Langford (15) / Nesmith (5)
Brown (34) / Nesmith (14)
Tatum (36) / Parker (12)
Horford (26) / Williams (22)

If anything, our bench is devoid of talent. Compromising that even further doesn't sit well with me

Looking at that depth chart, I think I might prefer to 'consolidate' Nesmith/Langford into Haliburton.

[wiley]

Pretty sure both Romeo and Nesmith will gain value this year...such that won't have to give up so much if we wait...

Overall would take a couple years to know if this one was wise or not....these guys are YOUNG.

tempting positionally...but too steep imo.  Looking forward to the C's defend like heck this year.
If Nesmith is defending at high level and hitting threes people won't want be so ready to trade him.

It's a gamble for both teams, so I think both say no, Sac especially as Halliburton is ahead of our guys at the moment.  They might prefer Smart and Nesmith and then add something else in...

[gouki88]

That's an incredible amount to give up. Absurd amount with PP thrown in. 3 recent first round picks + a future first for Haliburton is a lot.

1. Yes that is a lot to give up. But I doubt Sacramento would do it. They probably see him as a foundational player at this point.

2. He was drafted two slots before Nesmith, and Ainge just couldn't bring himself to overpay to move up.

3. He was one of those rare guys who was obviously going to be a top NBA player. He's probably going to at least be a Jrue Holliday level almost all-star (he's well on his way there already) and could become better than that.

4. He would be an ideal complementary player to Tatum and Brown.

5. The Fournier/Smart decisions decide the fates of Langford and Nesmith. They only have value if we actually decide to play them. If either Fournier or Smart goes, then there is a possible roll for both of them.

However, if we actually could make this trade, we could decide to move on from Smart for a pick, and sign Fournier. You have a nice balance there, and you would have almost no need for Langford and Nesmith. If you trade Smart, there are a number of nice players in this draft that you could take.

The C's have a money and minutes problem. We really can't make Smart, Fournier, Langford and Nesmith work. We have to waste or convert one or two of those guys.

I would much rather have Halliburton, Fournier and a pick in the 15-20 range than the pileup we have now. We will have to do something or we waste a nice player.

1. Exactly. It doesn't make sense.

2. What deals were on the table? How do you know there were any? It's pretty easy to say Ainge "should have just traded up."

3. I think you're being a bit over the top. He's super efficient, passes well and plays good defence, but he had a serious injury cloud hanging over his head. He was my #4 ranked prospect in that draft, but I can see why teams passed.

4. No argument from me.

5. I'm not so sure of that. The departure of Kemba and potentially of Ojeleye opens up serious reserve minutes by moving Smart to PG. There should be 15-20MPG for each of them as 2/3 players.

I don't think we have too many people deserving of minutes. A ten man rotation of the following works:
Smart (26) / Pritchard (22)
Fournier (28) / Langford (15) / Nesmith (5)
Brown (34) / Nesmith (14)
Tatum (36) / Parker (12)
Horford (26) / Williams (22)

If anything, our bench is devoid of talent. Compromising that even further doesn't sit well with me

Looking at that depth chart, I think I might prefer to 'consolidate' Nesmith/Langford into Haliburton.

So we play Semi as a permanent back-up SF? Or something else?

I would want to turn Nesmith and Langford (plus other things) into a third star type of player, like when Milwaukee nabbed Holiday. I love Haliburton, but I don't think he's worth that package when I believe those guys could be part of a deal for a fringe All-Star

[droopdog7]

Kings say no.  You trade young, very promising players for older, more established stars or close to it.  You don’t trade a young very promising players for a collection of young, maybe something, mayb not players.

[Who]

It's tempting.

I wonder is Haliburton that Gordon Hayward level player. That third option who does all the little things that make everything work. More as a combo guard than as a SF but similar offensive function in terms of secondary playmaking, extra ball-handling, shooting ability and shot creation.

I was viewing Haliburton more as a SG next to a PG in a smaller quicker offensive orientated Celtics team but you could also go big with him at PG in a more defensively slanted team. I prefer the added attacking options of having him at SG.


It's a high price but yeah, I'd do it. Haliburton is that good. Worth the risk.

[Moranis]

That's an incredible amount to give up. Absurd amount with PP thrown in. 3 recent first round picks + a future first for Haliburton is a lot.

1. Yes that is a lot to give up. But I doubt Sacramento would do it. They probably see him as a foundational player at this point.

2. He was drafted two slots before Nesmith, and Ainge just couldn't bring himself to overpay to move up.

3. He was one of those rare guys who was obviously going to be a top NBA player. He's probably going to at least be a Jrue Holliday level almost all-star (he's well on his way there already) and could become better than that.

4. He would be an ideal complementary player to Tatum and Brown.

5. The Fournier/Smart decisions decide the fates of Langford and Nesmith. They only have value if we actually decide to play them. If either Fournier or Smart goes, then there is a possible roll for both of them.

However, if we actually could make this trade, we could decide to move on from Smart for a pick, and sign Fournier. You have a nice balance there, and you would have almost no need for Langford and Nesmith. If you trade Smart, there are a number of nice players in this draft that you could take.

The C's have a money and minutes problem. We really can't make Smart, Fournier, Langford and Nesmith work. We have to waste or convert one or two of those guys.

I would much rather have Halliburton, Fournier and a pick in the 15-20 range than the pileup we have now. We will have to do something or we waste a nice player.

1. Exactly. It doesn't make sense.

2. What deals were on the table? How do you know there were any? It's pretty easy to say Ainge "should have just traded up."

3. I think you're being a bit over the top. He's super efficient, passes well and plays good defence, but he had a serious injury cloud hanging over his head. He was my #4 ranked prospect in that draft, but I can see why teams passed.

4. No argument from me.

5. I'm not so sure of that. The departure of Kemba and potentially of Ojeleye opens up serious reserve minutes by moving Smart to PG. There should be 15-20MPG for each of them as 2/3 players.

I don't think we have too many people deserving of minutes. A ten man rotation of the following works:
Smart (26) / Pritchard (22)
Fournier (28) / Langford (15) / Nesmith (5)
Brown (34) / Nesmith (14)
Tatum (36) / Parker (12)
Horford (26) / Williams (22)

If anything, our bench is devoid of talent. Compromising that even further doesn't sit well with me

Looking at that depth chart, I think I might prefer to 'consolidate' Nesmith/Langford into Haliburton.

So we play Semi as a permanent back-up SF? Or something else?

I would want to turn Nesmith and Langford (plus other things) into a third star type of player, like when Milwaukee nabbed Holiday. I love Haliburton, but I don't think he's worth that package when I believe those guys could be part of a deal for a fringe All-Star

Well if you made that trade the actual rotation would be something more like this

PG - Haliburton 30, Pritchard 18
SG - Smart 30, Fournier 18
SF - Brown 34, Fournier 14
PF - Tatum 34, Parker/G. Williams 14
C - Horford 24, Williams 24

Something like that.  And you still have Thompson to move in a trade and Brown on the bench.  If you could get some minutes from Thompson at PF, then you could play Tatum more at SF as well.