Brad Stevens the Politician

[blink]

Is anyone considering the fact that Brad may have decided it was more important to improve the roster now to keep JB and JT happy?
Thus Brad is weighing the risk of doing smaller moves (which may not move the needle with showing the Js the commitment to winning) vs going for a player he feels strongly will be a long term fit.

We have had a disappointing season last year and pretty much the same this year (with the exception of the current turn around).  Maybe one or both JB and JT may have pushed for some type of move to get better now, or a plan to do something to improve the roster. 

[Neurotic Guy]

Isn't a "good" trade, given teams with different needs, one that brings in more value than you send out and does the same for your partner?  If you only meet your own needs and not the partner's, you won't make many trades.  In this case the Celtics and Spurs are in very different places.  If you believe the C's are a 3rd star and a couple upgrades away from contention, the White deal (and Theis deal) moved them a step closer.  Brad now has assets with tradable salaries to upgrade from White, Smart, Horford, maybe Rob to a legit 3rd star.  Trade Smart a week ago and we'd have a new hole to fill. Trade Smart or White now and there is no new hole. C's now may have assets/contracts to compete with other teams for a star -- Lillard (as an example) perhaps?  Bump up your assets and flexibility incrementally with each move and eventually you can get what you need.  Otherwise, pray for a miracle draft steal, an Ainge-type "win" from a naive GM, a player who insists on being traded to the C's, something to fall from the sky onto your lap -- who do we think the C's are, the Lakers?

[todd_days_41]

I agree with the OP.  It’s negligent.

Remember when the Grizzlies traded a top-1 protected pick six years in the future for Otis Thorpe?  It turned into the #2 pick in one of the best drafts in history.

Again, we traded a swap. Not a pick. There's a distinction there.

It’s a star driven league. If we give up a top 5 pick — does it really matter much if we get the 23rd pick back?

[showtime]

 The swap pick doesn't bother me at all. Tatum and Brown will be in their prime,and if one or both want to leave, Brad will get value for them. I think Brad will be a great GM, and be here for a long time!

[W8ting2McHale]

I agree with the OP.  It’s negligent.

Remember when the Grizzlies traded a top-1 protected pick six years in the future for Otis Thorpe?  It turned into the #2 pick in one of the best drafts in history.

Again, we traded a swap. Not a pick. There's a distinction there.

It’s a star driven league. If we give up a top 5 pick — does it really matter much if we get the 23rd pick back?

It’s also a league where number 2 picks - like Darko - are as likely to bust as non-lottery picks - like Giannis or Joker - become MVPs. Put me down for the not fretting over a pick swap 6 years from now list.

[Roy H.]

I agree with the OP.  It’s negligent.

Remember when the Grizzlies traded a top-1 protected pick six years in the future for Otis Thorpe?  It turned into the #2 pick in one of the best drafts in history.

Again, we traded a swap. Not a pick. There's a distinction there.

It’s a star driven league. If we give up a top 5 pick — does it really matter much if we get the 23rd pick back?

It’s also a league where number 2 picks - like Darko - are as likely to bust as non-lottery picks - like Giannis or Joker - become MVPs. Put me down for the not fretting over a pick swap 6 years from now list.

So, since the outcomes are equally likely, you’d trade the #2 pick in any given year for two later picks?  That’s a silly argument.

[bricone29]

I hope White exceeds my long term expectations...top 1 protection first rounder is a lot of a non superstar. White is a role player to a non super star starter.  True we can predict the future, but why six years and not 4 or 3 or 2? Because spurs now the makeup of the celtics and thought 6 years could be a good amt if years where Tatum, brown aren't here anymore. We can analyze the mall chance of x happening but a very limited protected first round pick is the kind of pick a great gm should try for in terms of franchise smart move.

[Roy H.]

I think my bottom line would have been top-6 protection and no moving up by more than 15 spaces.  That mitigates risk.

[smokeablount]

I hope White exceeds my long term expectations...top 1 protection first rounder is a lot of a non superstar. White is a role player to a non super star starter.  True we can predict the future, but why six years and not 4 or 3 or 2? Because spurs now the makeup of the celtics and thought 6 years could be a good amt if years where Tatum, brown aren't here anymore. We can analyze the mall chance of x happening but a very limited protected first round pick is the kind of pick a great gm should try for in terms of franchise smart move.

They did the 2028 swap and a 2022 first because after this draft once free agency hits, the C’s can deal firsts in 23, 25 and 27 plus salary for a star if one becomes available. The swap means they still have a pick in 28 and thus aren’t hamstrung by the Stepian rule.

Getting White allows us to deal him or Smart, plus maybe Horford, for said star without leaving a hole at the guard position. 

[CelticsWhat35]

I think my bottom line would have been top-6 protection and no moving up by more than 15 spaces.  That mitigates risk.

I would’ve felt better with top 4 protection because that removes the risk of the bouncing ping-pong balls. 

[Roy H.]

I hope White exceeds my long term expectations...top 1 protection first rounder is a lot of a non superstar. White is a role player to a non super star starter.  True we can predict the future, but why six years and not 4 or 3 or 2? Because spurs now the makeup of the celtics and thought 6 years could be a good amt if years where Tatum, brown aren't here anymore. We can analyze the mall chance of x happening but a very limited protected first round pick is the kind of pick a great gm should try for in terms of franchise smart move.

They did the 2028 swap and a 2022 first because after this draft once free agency hits, the C’s can deal firsts in 23, 25 and 27 plus salary for a star if one becomes available. The swap means they still have a pick in 28 and thus aren’t hamstrung by the Stepian rule.

Getting White allows us to deal him or Smart, plus maybe Horford, for said star without leaving a hole at the guard position.

I think SA chose 2028 because it’s the farthest out we can go.  In the off-season, I assume 24, 26, 28 would have been more valuable than 23, 25, 27.

[nickagneta]

I think my bottom line would have been top-6 protection and no moving up by more than 15 spaces.  That mitigates risk.

And eliminates any reason for San Antonio to want the swap, which probably means no trade.

[RPGenerate]

Hmm it would be interesting to see a case study on how valuable a future pick swap has been historically. Of course we know the times when it has been disastrous for teams, but I wonder whether those are outliers or not.

[Roy H.]

I think my bottom line would have been top-6 protection and no moving up by more than 15 spaces.  That mitigates risk.

And eliminates any reason for San Antonio to want the swap, which probably means no trade.

Oh well.  Then no trade.  Two minimally protected picks and a rotation player is the type of package you give up for an all-star, not the second best player on a lottery team.  If SA couldn’t accept top-six protection, then they could go find another trade partner.

[Roy H.]

Hmm it would be interesting to see a case study on how valuable a future pick swap has been historically. Of course we know the times when it has been disastrous for teams, but I wonder whether those are outliers or not.

I expect they’re outliers, but I wouldn’t want to be on the wrong side of the Jaylen Brown pick swap.