Trading Ray in his last year-should it be done?

[cordobes]

I hope Danny trades him this summer. His stock is high and the C's need to get younger. If I were Danny I'd be calling Donnie Walsh. He is likely to blow up the Knicks and good players could be had for a pro's pro like Ray.

My trade proposal:

Ray
Perk
Scalabrine

for

Curry
Crawford
Jerome James


I think Curry is an upgrade over Perk (not defensively, but overall), Crawford is close to Ray plus can handle backup pg (and younger) , and James gives us a backup center.

Heck Chief, this is the kind of trade that only Isiah Thomas would do... if he was the Celtics GM! Curry is a very fat man that gives the opponent twice whatever he scores, Crawful is a ballhog who can score, but very inefficiently, in very bad teams and Jerome James can't play anymore.

Going to the point: I think your reasoning is flawed when you say that "the C's need to get younger". At this moment, we don't. We just need to get better.

How are we going to get better? We have an aging team that is over the cap. This year is as good as it gets. And my guess is, we will lose 2-3 of our rotation players. PJ, Cassell, Tony, Eddie, and Posey might be retired or on another team next season.

We can get better via:
1. This core has been playing together for a single year. Teams improve as their core bond and gel.
2. Our youngster (Rondo, Perkins, Powe, BBD) are still developing. Probably, they will be better next season.
3. House and Posey might go but they might stay. It's even possible that they might stay with non-Bird exception contracts. In that case, we'd be able to add 2/3 new FAs using the MLE and the LLE. If that happens, we'll have a stronger roster.
4. Even if they leave, that we'll leave us with the MLE, the LLE, 2 rookie contracts and multiple veteran minimum salaries to grab new players. Well, that's exactly what we used to get them a year ago. 

Finally, we are the champions. The others must be more worried to improve. What I'm sure we can't afford is to regress. Trading Ray Allen for lesser players would do that. What's exactly the point? When you have players like Allen, Pierce and Garnett, the goal is to win it all. We have a chance to do it next year. Ray just averaged 20 ppg, 5 rpg, 3 apg, 1 spg, 50 FG%, 52 3P% and 87 FT% in 41 mpg in the NBA finals while guarding the so-called best player in the universe for most of the time. Find me someone who can contribute this way and I'm all for trading him.

Once again: I have no problems in trading any player for same value/better players. I will have no problems in trading Pierce (ergo also Allen or KG) in the future. But what's the point of turning a contender into a pretender right now? That deal would make us far worse right now and it wouldn't even improve our salary situation for the future.

[RickyD Fan]

Okay, here is my proposal. Instead of guarding Kobe, we trade Ray to LA for Kobe, straight up. Then we trade Scalabrine and Pruit to Cleveland for LeBron. We get younger and will put up 170 points a game.

Honestly, we just WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP, let's keep our guys together and try to do it again!

[ACF]

I'd rather eat one of my cats'
poo-poos than have The Snake on
the Celtics. Seriously. I kid you NOT.

NOTE TO SELF:
READ POSTS PROPERLY BEFORE REPLYING! 

[SShoreFan 2.0]

Yesterday I responded to this post, but the more I thought about it the more I felt I needed to clarify my thought process regarding this thread and its emergence on the day of the parade following Ray's performance in the finals.

So just to clarify:

I HATE THIS THREAD!!!

ok, now I can take my medication.

[Reyquila]

I agree that in the Bird era, he had earned the right to retire as a celtic. thats true. Now, I think the only player that has earned the right to retire as a celtic is Mr. Pierce. After that, we have to keep our hearts in check and look at all possible deals involving our declining players to be and get on with the "tomorrow" team. I think Ainge is aware of this danger and will make the necessary timely adjustments. Besides, We are getting used to playing 12 players at all times, so getting rid of Scal, and Big Davies( I honestly think we can get a player with more game than Davies - maybe a 6.7 wing scorer).
 

[Roy Hobbs]

It's strange, but I think I like Ray every bit as much as I like KG, maybe even a little more because of the "underdog" thing he's got going on due to all of his detractors.  I don't want to see him go anywhere.

[mustang]

This is a fantasy sports junkie thread. Utter nonsense in the real world filled with real people.

Anyway, why not wait to see how he does two years after double ankle surgery before you trade him for Jamal "Black Hole" Crawford and the Knicks' tag team entry into the Nathan's hot-dog eating contest? He might even continue to get better as the surgery recedes farther into the past--see e.g., hangtime on Game 4 baseline reverse layup.

Good lord...

[BudweiserCeltic]

It's strange, but I think I like Ray every bit as much as I like KG, maybe even a little more because of the "underdog" thing he's got going on due to all of his detractors.  I don't want to see him go anywhere.

I love Ray... I think he's my current favorite Celtic, even though I love Paul too. I've been arguing for quite some years that the only thing the Celtics need to win the championship would be Ray Allen at the side of Paul Pierce. Man, what a sign from heaven for me it was last year when we traded for him... and we all know how it all turned out. What a freaking coincidence, that the person I've always wanted the most to be a Celtic, gets traded and wins us a championship... completely awesome.

[Chief]

The Lakers seem to be the team who do the best job of always being in contention.  But even they can't stay on top consecutively.  I'm of the opinion that you can't be in more than one mode at the same time.  Right now, Boston and Los Angeles are in "contending" mode.  They can make some adjustments to the team, but for the most part, the team core is set.  A team like New York is in "rebuilding" mode, trying to find the pieces to be competitive.  Atlanta, I would think, is in "development" mode.  They've got good pieces that they need to develop in order to be competitive.  And very rarely do the Lakers depend on their draft picks, because they usually have winning seasons and late picks.  

The idea, I believe, is to trade your players while they still have market value.  In other words, you want to trade them while they're still good.  When I say market value, I mean not only "expiring contract" value, but also that the player still has the ability to play at a high level.  Basically, once you realize that the core isn't going to get any better, you trade them.  The team then goes downhill for a while as it switches to rebuilding mode.  The temptation is to hang on to the stars as long as the team is doing well.  However, that makes rebuilding for the future much harder.  Better to go ahead and trade them while they still have value and start rebuilding before the team hits rock bottom.  In short, when should you trade Ray Allen?  That's the question for a good GM to answer.

There may be situations in which a team may hang on to a star, or look to acquire an aging marketable star, in order to keep the fans coming in.  LA doesn't have that problem, so they've never been shy about trading away their stars to quickly get back to rebuilding mode.  Maybe that's why they've been so successful at being competitive.

You got it 100%. TP for you. A good example, although a championship team was not involved, is the Mitch Richmond/Chris Webber trade. Richmond, an all-star, was traded at 33 to the Wizards for 25 year old Chris Webber. The Kings went on to have good success for 4-5 seasons while the Wizards never made the playoffs in the three years Richmond was there.

[radiodavidm]

It's strange, but I think I like Ray every bit as much as I like KG, maybe even a little more because of the "underdog" thing he's got going on due to all of his detractors.  I don't want to see him go anywhere.

Well said - TP for you!  They are so different that I can 't say I like one more than the other, but Ray's personality works very well for this team.

What is so special and rare about Ray, KG and Pierce is that they are mature people who carry themselves with dignity both on and off the court.  We have a window of at least another one or two years to build AROUND this core group.  The 1986 C's didn't start thinking about trading DJ and Parish  just because they were latter half of their careers.  Let's see how much of the squad we can keep TOGETHER, then look at the most expendable players (Cassell, Scalabrine and BBD) to make the team better.

[Chief]

Yesterday I responded to this post, but the more I thought about it the more I felt I needed to clarify my thought process regarding this thread and its emergence on the day of the parade following Ray's performance in the finals.

So just to clarify:

I HATE THIS THREAD!!!

ok, now I can take my medication.

This thread is over a month old. If you don't like my take on trading Ray, you should reply back with some information on why the C's should not trade Ray. Or say nothing at all and just skip it. There are many topics that have arguments that I don't agree with, but I always try to counter with well thought out ideas and statistics.

This is a fantasy sports junkie thread. Utter nonsense in the real world filled with real people.

Anyway, why not wait to see how he does two years after double ankle surgery before you trade him for Jamal "Black Hole" Crawford and the Knicks' tag team entry into the Nathan's hot-dog eating contest? He might even continue to get better as the surgery recedes farther into the past--see e.g., hangtime on Game 4 baseline reverse layup.

Good lord...

In two years, when Ray is old and worthless, I think your memories of him may not be so great.

[RebusRankin]

I think you keep them together next year. This is something to consider for 2009/2010.

[cordobes]

The Lakers seem to be the team who do the best job of always being in contention.  But even they can't stay on top consecutively.  I'm of the opinion that you can't be in more than one mode at the same time.  Right now, Boston and Los Angeles are in "contending" mode.  They can make some adjustments to the team, but for the most part, the team core is set.  A team like New York is in "rebuilding" mode, trying to find the pieces to be competitive.  Atlanta, I would think, is in "development" mode.  They've got good pieces that they need to develop in order to be competitive.  And very rarely do the Lakers depend on their draft picks, because they usually have winning seasons and late picks. 

The idea, I believe, is to trade your players while they still have market value.  In other words, you want to trade them while they're still good.  When I say market value, I mean not only "expiring contract" value, but also that the player still has the ability to play at a high level.  Basically, once you realize that the core isn't going to get any better, you trade them.  The team then goes downhill for a while as it switches to rebuilding mode.  The temptation is to hang on to the stars as long as the team is doing well.  However, that makes rebuilding for the future much harder.  Better to go ahead and trade them while they still have value and start rebuilding before the team hits rock bottom.  In short, when should you trade Ray Allen?  That's the question for a good GM to answer.

There may be situations in which a team may hang on to a star, or look to acquire an aging marketable star, in order to keep the fans coming in.  LA doesn't have that problem, so they've never been shy about trading away their stars to quickly get back to rebuilding mode.  Maybe that's why they've been so successful at being competitive.

You got it 100%. TP for you. A good example, although a championship team was not involved, is the Mitch Richmond/Chris Webber trade. Richmond, an all-star, was traded at 33 to the Wizards for 25 year old Chris Webber. The Kings went on to have good success for 4-5 seasons while the Wizards never made the playoffs in the three years Richmond was there.

Hmm... that means that we shouldn't have traded for Ray (or KG) last year, and we should have traded Pierce for a younger star.

Here's the thing: can you come up with a trade (involving Ray or anyone else) that makes us stronger in the next 2 years when PP and KG are still in their prime? If not, what's exactly the point? 

[Chief]

Then there are the rumors about boozer, and utah has always needed a real 2-guard:

Chase (Salt Lake City, Utah): Is Boozer going to opt out of his contract after this year? If yes, are there any trade options out there for Boozer?

SportsNation Chad Ford: Yes ... which is why I don't think it's out of the question that the Jazz try to move him. I'm not sure they can afford to re-sign him and his agent Rob Pelinka may be looking for a bigger market anyway.

I may consider Allen and #30 for Boozer and Brewer, if Boozer would agree to a 3-yr extension (with raises)

then utah could move kirilenko back to PF where he belongs and thrives.

The Lakers seem to be the team who do the best job of always being in contention.  But even they can't stay on top consecutively.  I'm of the opinion that you can't be in more than one mode at the same time.  Right now, Boston and Los Angeles are in "contending" mode.  They can make some adjustments to the team, but for the most part, the team core is set.  A team like New York is in "rebuilding" mode, trying to find the pieces to be competitive.  Atlanta, I would think, is in "development" mode.  They've got good pieces that they need to develop in order to be competitive.  And very rarely do the Lakers depend on their draft picks, because they usually have winning seasons and late picks. 

The idea, I believe, is to trade your players while they still have market value.  In other words, you want to trade them while they're still good.  When I say market value, I mean not only "expiring contract" value, but also that the player still has the ability to play at a high level.  Basically, once you realize that the core isn't going to get any better, you trade them.  The team then goes downhill for a while as it switches to rebuilding mode.  The temptation is to hang on to the stars as long as the team is doing well.  However, that makes rebuilding for the future much harder.  Better to go ahead and trade them while they still have value and start rebuilding before the team hits rock bottom.  In short, when should you trade Ray Allen?  That's the question for a good GM to answer.

There may be situations in which a team may hang on to a star, or look to acquire an aging marketable star, in order to keep the fans coming in.  LA doesn't have that problem, so they've never been shy about trading away their stars to quickly get back to rebuilding mode.  Maybe that's why they've been so successful at being competitive.

You got it 100%. TP for you. A good example, although a championship team was not involved, is the Mitch Richmond/Chris Webber trade. Richmond, an all-star, was traded at 33 to the Wizards for 25 year old Chris Webber. The Kings went on to have good success for 4-5 seasons while the Wizards never made the playoffs in the three years Richmond was there.

Hmm... that means that we shouldn't have traded for Ray (or KG) last year, and we should have traded Pierce for a younger star.

Here's the thing: can you come up with a trade (involving Ray or anyone else) that makes us stronger in the next 2 years when PP and KG are still in their prime? If not, what's exactly the point? 

The Boozer trade sounded good to me.

[cordobes]

I promise to eat my hat if Utah does that trade: Boozer and Brewer for Ray Allen? Are you serious? Why would they do that? That's almost like saying that a "Ray for Wade" trade sounds good.

Besides, it wouldn't make us stronger. We'd need to move Boozer afterwards, for a SG, a C or even a PG.