Path to 2026 Contention

[Ilikesports17]

In another thread I proposed this trade

Brown, Scheierman for Harper, Johnson, Sochan, Bryant, Champagnie

Not sure either team would actually do that, but that is what I'd be looking at especially with the added benefit of shedding nearly 11 million.

You do that, I might try to move White to Houston.  Something like

White for VanVleet, Okogie, 2 1st

Trade Simons for someone like Stewart and then tank hard this year. Go into next year with Harper, Bryant, and Okogie getting heavy minutes and better able to play well. Add the very high pick in a deep draft with immense talent at the top. 

So

Starters - Harper, Okogie, Johnson, Tatum, Dybantsa/Boozer
Bench - VanVleet, Pritchard, Bryant, Hugo, Hauser, Champagnie, Sochan, Queta, Stewart, Williams

Team is definitely younger so there will be some growing pains, but the top end talent and depth is also better extending the Tatum window though with less certainty

Also has more trade options.  For example VanVleet's expiring plus the 2 future 1st from Houston could be attractive to teams.  And you could use Harper and/or Dybantsa as the centerpiece of a trade for Giannis (or someone like that) if he asks to be traded.

Again, I don't think Boston moves Brown or White let alone both, but that is the type of thing I'd be looking at.

Many find you a pessimist, I think this is frankly optimistic.

1) the Spurs arent doing this trade. Browns simply not worth Harper.
2) With these trades, we will likely settle somewhere in the 4-7 range of the lottery which gives us somewhere between 20 and 40% chance at being able to select one of the premium prospects. You pencil in, us getting a top 3 pick
3) There remains the very real chance that these elite prospects end up being not that great.

A Brown trade makes sense if its like the one you outline: we get back a premium prospect in addition to pushing our own pick up a ton. The ancillary assets and cap relief are great too, but imo little more than details.

You outline a future where we trade Brown and White and tank and get Dybantsa or Boozer along with Harper.

I see trading Brown as looking much more like:

Starters - VanVleet, Okogie, Johnson, Tatum, Cenac Jr.
Bench - Pritchard, Bryant, Hugo, Hauser, Champagnie, Sochan, Queta, Stewart, Williams

The vision is beautiful when we get Harper (we wont), he turns into a star(50/50 chance) and we get Boozer/Dybantsa(we likely wont) and they turn into a start(probably 40% chance generously)

But gets much less rosy when we dont get a premium centerpiece and we take Chris Cenac Jr with the #6 pick.

I encourage you to turn your same rosy glasses to our current stated strategy of turning zeros into non-zeroes. Is it really more fanciful to think Brad can package Simons with future picks to find an Aaron Gordon/Jrue Holiday level #4 starter? That Queta or Minott can establish themselves as a good #5 starter?

That Brad might be able to conjure up additional depth next to Queta/Minott, Pritchard and Hauser to make the bench elite again?

I think both are fanciful visions but the fact is that we are now once again like most teams in the NBA: we do not have a clear path to a title. Tanking does not create that and nor does not tanking. The reason tanking seems more visible is that its easier to look at the best prospect in this years class, imagine him on your team, and imagine him living up to the hype. I dont think that path is actually more accessible than ccreating elite depth with minimal assets.

[slamtheking]

In another thread I proposed this trade

Brown, Scheierman for Harper, Johnson, Sochan, Bryant, Champagnie

Not sure either team would actually do that, but that is what I'd be looking at especially with the added benefit of shedding nearly 11 million.

You do that, I might try to move White to Houston.  Something like

White for VanVleet, Okogie, 2 1st

Trade Simons for someone like Stewart and then tank hard this year. Go into next year with Harper, Bryant, and Okogie getting heavy minutes and better able to play well. Add the very high pick in a deep draft with immense talent at the top. 

So

Starters - Harper, Okogie, Johnson, Tatum, Dybantsa/Boozer
Bench - VanVleet, Pritchard, Bryant, Hugo, Hauser, Champagnie, Sochan, Queta, Stewart, Williams

Team is definitely younger so there will be some growing pains, but the top end talent and depth is also better extending the Tatum window though with less certainty

Also has more trade options.  For example VanVleet's expiring plus the 2 future 1st from Houston could be attractive to teams.  And you could use Harper and/or Dybantsa as the centerpiece of a trade for Giannis (or someone like that) if he asks to be traded.

Again, I don't think Boston moves Brown or White let alone both, but that is the type of thing I'd be looking at.

Many find you a pessimist, I think this is frankly optimistic.

1) the Spurs arent doing this trade. Browns simply not worth Harper.
2) With these trades, we will likely settle somewhere in the 4-7 range of the lottery which gives us somewhere between 20 and 40% chance at being able to select one of the premium prospects. You pencil in, us getting a top 3 pick
3) There remains the very real chance that these elite prospects end up being not that great.

A Brown trade makes sense if its like the one you outline: we get back a premium prospect in addition to pushing our own pick up a ton. The ancillary assets and cap relief are great too, but imo little more than details.

You outline a future where we trade Brown and White and tank and get Dybantsa or Boozer along with Harper.

I see trading Brown as looking much more like:

Starters - VanVleet, Okogie, Johnson, Tatum, Cenac Jr.
Bench - Pritchard, Bryant, Hugo, Hauser, Champagnie, Sochan, Queta, Stewart, Williams

The vision is beautiful when we get Harper (we wont), he turns into a star(50/50 chance) and we get Boozer/Dybantsa(we likely wont) and they turn into a start(probably 40% chance generously)

But gets much less rosy when we dont get a premium centerpiece and we take Chris Cenac Jr with the #6 pick.

I encourage you to turn your same rosy glasses to our current stated strategy of turning zeros into non-zeroes. Is it really more fanciful to think Brad can package Simons with future picks to find an Aaron Gordon/Jrue Holiday level #4 starter? That Queta or Minott can establish themselves as a good #5 starter?

That Brad might be able to conjure up additional depth next to Queta/Minott, Pritchard and Hauser to make the bench elite again?

I think both are fanciful visions but the fact is that we are now once again like most teams in the NBA: we do not have a clear path to a title. Tanking does not create that and nor does not tanking. The reason tanking seems more visible is that its easier to look at the best prospect in this years class, imagine him on your team, and imagine him living up to the hype. I dont think that path is actually more accessible than ccreating elite depth with minimal assets.

I had to reread this a few times.  couldn't follow how you could call him an optimist and then I realized you weren't referring to his trade returns but how he thinks his masterplan to dump Jaylen would turn out.

I agree that it's 'fanciful' in that there's no way that scenario plays out as projected but we more than likely end up with the short end of the stick in both deals where we lose the best player in each case and then have an unhappy Tatum on a struggling team instead of a contender and he looks to move on.

[wdleehi]

In another thread I proposed this trade

Brown, Scheierman for Harper, Johnson, Sochan, Bryant, Champagnie

Not sure either team would actually do that, but that is what I'd be looking at especially with the added benefit of shedding nearly 11 million.

You do that, I might try to move White to Houston.  Something like

White for VanVleet, Okogie, 2 1st

Trade Simons for someone like Stewart and then tank hard this year. Go into next year with Harper, Bryant, and Okogie getting heavy minutes and better able to play well. Add the very high pick in a deep draft with immense talent at the top. 

So

Starters - Harper, Okogie, Johnson, Tatum, Dybantsa/Boozer
Bench - VanVleet, Pritchard, Bryant, Hugo, Hauser, Champagnie, Sochan, Queta, Stewart, Williams

Team is definitely younger so there will be some growing pains, but the top end talent and depth is also better extending the Tatum window though with less certainty

Also has more trade options.  For example VanVleet's expiring plus the 2 future 1st from Houston could be attractive to teams.  And you could use Harper and/or Dybantsa as the centerpiece of a trade for Giannis (or someone like that) if he asks to be traded.

Again, I don't think Boston moves Brown or White let alone both, but that is the type of thing I'd be looking at.

Many find you a pessimist, I think this is frankly optimistic.

1) the Spurs arent doing this trade. Browns simply not worth Harper.
2) With these trades, we will likely settle somewhere in the 4-7 range of the lottery which gives us somewhere between 20 and 40% chance at being able to select one of the premium prospects. You pencil in, us getting a top 3 pick
3) There remains the very real chance that these elite prospects end up being not that great.

A Brown trade makes sense if its like the one you outline: we get back a premium prospect in addition to pushing our own pick up a ton. The ancillary assets and cap relief are great too, but imo little more than details.

You outline a future where we trade Brown and White and tank and get Dybantsa or Boozer along with Harper.

I see trading Brown as looking much more like:

Starters - VanVleet, Okogie, Johnson, Tatum, Cenac Jr.
Bench - Pritchard, Bryant, Hugo, Hauser, Champagnie, Sochan, Queta, Stewart, Williams

The vision is beautiful when we get Harper (we wont), he turns into a star(50/50 chance) and we get Boozer/Dybantsa(we likely wont) and they turn into a start(probably 40% chance generously)

But gets much less rosy when we dont get a premium centerpiece and we take Chris Cenac Jr with the #6 pick.

I encourage you to turn your same rosy glasses to our current stated strategy of turning zeros into non-zeroes. Is it really more fanciful to think Brad can package Simons with future picks to find an Aaron Gordon/Jrue Holiday level #4 starter? That Queta or Minott can establish themselves as a good #5 starter?

That Brad might be able to conjure up additional depth next to Queta/Minott, Pritchard and Hauser to make the bench elite again?

I think both are fanciful visions but the fact is that we are now once again like most teams in the NBA: we do not have a clear path to a title. Tanking does not create that and nor does not tanking. The reason tanking seems more visible is that its easier to look at the best prospect in this years class, imagine him on your team, and imagine him living up to the hype. I dont think that path is actually more accessible than ccreating elite depth with minimal assets.

I had to reread this a few times.  couldn't follow how you could call him an optimist and then I realized you weren't referring to his trade returns but how he thinks his masterplan to dump Jaylen would turn out.

I agree that it's 'fanciful' in that there's no way that scenario plays out as projected but we more than likely end up with the short end of the stick in both deals where we lose the best player in each case and then have an unhappy Tatum on a struggling team instead of a contender and he looks to move on.

I agree that this type of trade leads to Tatum asking for a trade. 


How many top stars in history have asked their teams to trade away their most talented (final's winning) player for young players or draft picks?   

[Vermont Green]

Yeah, exactly, it makes no sense to me to do a trade of known solid championship caliber players for prospects and the hope that you do well in the draft lottery.  If if this does not make sense to me, it likely will not make sense to Tatum.

Above, the two paths were described well and in detail.  But one path (try to make it work with current vets) does not preclude the other.  If you blow it up, that is it.  Best case, you are good again in a few years, worst case is a total fail.  But you can work this team for a season or two.  Best case, it works and you contend or even win a title.  Worst case, it doesn't work and you can trade off the vets then.

The counter argument is that Brown, White, and even Tatum may not have the same value in a couple of years that they do now.  I don't know if that will turn out to be true or not, maybe.  But Brown and Tatum are in their 20's.  Their shelf life is fine.  I think White will have plenty of trade value for the next couple of years as well.

[Moranis]

Those trades involve getting veterans and young players.  VanVleet even has a title.  And part of the reason I'd rather get players than draft picks is the experience they'd gain this year.  Harper looks like the real deal already (which is why the Spurs may not even move him for Brown).  You give him full reign this year and he is likely better than White next year (he may be right now).  Not better than Brown next year but maybe not too far off either. 

If the goal is to win a title, moves need to be made.  Team isn't good enough and won't have a chance without winning the lottery (which is a lot easier if you tank).

[Vermont Green]

Those trades involve getting veterans and young players.  VanVleet even has a title.  And part of the reason I'd rather get players than draft picks is the experience they'd gain this year.  Harper looks like the real deal already (which is why the Spurs may not even move him for Brown).  You give him full reign this year and he is likely better than White next year (he may be right now).  Not better than Brown next year but maybe not too far off either. 

If the goal is to win a title, moves need to be made.  Team isn't good enough and won't have a chance without winning the lottery (which is a lot easier if you tank).

So you are saying that VanVleet and Harper give BOS a better chance to win a title than Brown and White?  Even if you consider a timeline of 3 seasons, you think for the next 3 seasons that BOS is better with this?  If I thought this did make BOS better, I would do the trade, but I don't.  And if you look out beyond 3 seasons, Brown will only be 32.  Can you even be sure that Harper is as good as Brown then?

How many seasons did it take SGA to lead a team to a title (spoiler alert, 7 seasons)?  So even if Harper is as good as SGA (which is unlikely, but possible), it is going to be 3 or 4 seasons at best.

The rebuild of this sort is the last resort.  Pierce was 35 and Garnett was 37 when Ainge traded them to the Nets.  It may come to a point where Brown and even Tatum should be traded, but I don't see that time as now, at least not for prospects, draft picks, and a few half decent players.

[Neurotic Guy]

Those trades involve getting veterans and young players.  VanVleet even has a title.  And part of the reason I'd rather get players than draft picks is the experience they'd gain this year.  Harper looks like the real deal already (which is why the Spurs may not even move him for Brown).  You give him full reign this year and he is likely better than White next year (he may be right now).  Not better than Brown next year but maybe not too far off either. 

If the goal is to win a title, moves need to be made.  Team isn't good enough and won't have a chance without winning the lottery (which is a lot easier if you tank).

I get what you're saying and you've been saying it for a while.  My guess is you are wrong.  The goal of winning a title is probably more likely of they stay the course and strengthen the roster through trade and FA exceptions or minimums. 
I don't think you can deny the quality of JBs play so far this year - we'll see what happens - but he is clearly looking like a top 15, even top 10 player in the league.  Assuming JT is back next year and close to 100%, that's two top flight players in their primes - and we all remember that these two won a championship. 
Derek White is off to a terrible start, but guy can play, as can Pritchard.  We are all acknowledging that Queta looks like a strong back-up center in the making, we have two promising young guys in Minott and Hugo, a bench sharpshooter in Sam and a bench scorer in Simons.  Sorry but this is a pretty good team with zero other movers once Tatum is back.   
I think if Brad leaves it as is, it would not be a contender, but we know that Brad won't do that. 
If you are going to assume a top draft pick (and no guarantee where they'd pick) is going to be JB or better quality within a couple of years, you are dreaming just as much I am believing that Brad will pull off a trade for a staring center and will get veteran bench help.  Can he make up for Al, Jrue, and KP - I'm not sure, but I think it's a better bet with keeping Jays and DWhite, etc. than it would be with a JB trade and tank. 

[Moranis]

Those trades involve getting veterans and young players.  VanVleet even has a title.  And part of the reason I'd rather get players than draft picks is the experience they'd gain this year.  Harper looks like the real deal already (which is why the Spurs may not even move him for Brown).  You give him full reign this year and he is likely better than White next year (he may be right now).  Not better than Brown next year but maybe not too far off either. 

If the goal is to win a title, moves need to be made.  Team isn't good enough and won't have a chance without winning the lottery (which is a lot easier if you tank).

So you are saying that VanVleet and Harper give BOS a better chance to win a title than Brown and White?  Even if you consider a timeline of 3 seasons, you think for the next 3 seasons that BOS is better with this?  If I thought this did make BOS better, I would do the trade, but I don't.  And if you look out beyond 3 seasons, Brown will only be 32.  Can you even be sure that Harper is as good as Brown then?

How many seasons did it take SGA to lead a team to a title (spoiler alert, 7 seasons)?  So even if Harper is as good as SGA (which is unlikely, but possible), it is going to be 3 or 4 seasons at best.

The rebuild of this sort is the last resort.  Pierce was 35 and Garnett was 37 when Ainge traded them to the Nets.  It may come to a point where Brown and even Tatum should be traded, but I don't see that time as now, at least not for prospects, draft picks, and a few half decent players.

the trades also had Johnson,  Okogie, Sochan, Bryant, Champagnie, and a higher draft pick in 26 and 2 future 1st.

In that, yes I do think Boston is more likely to win a title again in the next 5 years doing that than mostly staying the course. It gives the team a lot more flexibility and options with more youth, depth, and draft picks and value of draft picks.