People have looked at the roster and decided that Ray Allen is the most trade-able asset in terms of actually getting something valuable in return.  Otherwise, you're talking about trading Tony Allen for Mikki Moore 2.0.  Or some package like Scal/Allen/Giddens for a headcase or salary dump of an overpaid player.

A team can improve drafts, free agents, and trades.  The Celtics aren't improving through the draft this year (unless they trade Allen). They seem unlikely to spend too much on free agents, so it's hard to speculate about free agents without knowing who is willing to take less money for a shot at a ring.  So, trades are the only thing worth BSing about to bring some excitement to the off-season, at least until some free agents start signing and we get a better picture of the market.

The problem with trading Ray Allen is that he's a star, and in the NBA you never get back any combination of players that's as good as the star you traded. Look at the KG trade. Look at the Ray Allen TO the Celtics trade. The team trading away the superstar invariably gets the short end of the stick--which is why we shouldn't trade him.

He's also a great guy--intelligent, friendly, and committed.

The problem with trading Ray Allen is that he's a star, and in the NBA you never get back any combination of players that's as good as the star you traded. Look at the KG trade. Look at the Ray Allen TO the Celtics trade. The team trading away the superstar invariably gets the short end of the stick--which is why we shouldn't trade him.

He's also a great guy--intelligent, friendly, and committed.

Who got the better of the Jason Kidd to the Mavericks trade? what about the Allen Iverson to the Pistons?

While I agree that most of the time that holds true, I think it's not a 100% given.

Quote from: Rondo_is_better on May 22, 2009, 01:49:41 AM

The problem with trading Ray Allen is that he's a star, and in the NBA you never get back any combination of players that's as good as the star you traded. Look at the KG trade. Look at the Ray Allen TO the Celtics trade. The team trading away the superstar invariably gets the short end of the stick--which is why we shouldn't trade him.

He's also a great guy--intelligent, friendly, and committed.

Who got the better of the Jason Kidd to the Mavericks trade? what about the Allen Iverson to the Pistons?

While I agree that most of the time that holds true, I think it's not a 100% given.

Y'know, some people might disagree with me, but I think so far teh J-Kidd trade has been a wash. Neither team has really gone anywhere with their new pieces yet so... for me its a wash until proven otherwise.

The AI to the pistons trade I think DOES follow the traditional model I proposed. Why? Because I think Chauncey is a better player than AI at this point in time. Therefore, the team that traded away the best player (in my opinion, the Pistons) got the short end of the stick per usual.

Why would a team looking to clear salaries give up significant players and/or prospects for Ray Allen when Miami can offer Oneal plus a better draft pick (or, depending on the position of the player they are acquiring, a young prospect), or when Cleveland can offer Ben Wallace and Delonte West, and so on?


The best value the Celtics can get from Ray Allen is a productive 09-10 season and a salary reduction in the 2010 offseason.

You are rapidly climbing my list of favorite posters on this board, dlpin. TP
This argument is the absolute "trade ray" -threadkiller, imo.

This is also the reason why I said in the comments section on the front page that if the team would be looking to trade one of the big three, Paul Pierce (heaven forbid) is probably our best option to get more value in return than we´re giving away.

When someone proposes a trade that involves Ray Allen, please do not show your ignorance by brow beating the Original Poster - we should assume they are fans, and are interested in seeing our team improve.

There are three types of teams in the NBA, and three types of assets.

Team Getting Younger
Team Shedding Salary
Team Competing for a Championship

Pick/Prospect
Expiring Contract/Cap Space
Good Player

The overwhelming majority of trades happen when teams in different phases have assets that do not help them - Pau Gasol (Good Player) on Memphis (Team Shedding Salary), or Al Jefferson (Pick/Prospect) on Boston (Team Competing for a Championship).

The Celtics are a Team Competing for a Championship, so we want Good Players. On the surface, that makes everyone in our starting lineup (All Good Players) untouchable. However, other teams might consider some of our players assets of a different sort - Ray Allen is a good player, but he is also an expiring contract. Perkins and Rondo are good players, but they are also Picks/Prospects

Teams Shedding Salary or Getting Younger may be willing to trade thier Good Players for our Expiring Contracts and/or Prospects at a rate that exceeds the level we would recieve in a Good Player for Good Player swap, because they value them differently.

Now, because our Good Players are old, we also value Picks/Prospects. That, and the fact that Hobbs might ban you for your own safety, is why few people on this board proposes trades that involve Rondo or Perkins. Pierce and Garnett are Good Players, but are not assets in other ways, and are therefore unlikely to be traded for other Good Players (Assuming the return would be neutral).

A lot of people on these boards, including myself, are Ray Allen fans. However, I am a Celtics fan first. If we can trade him as an Expring Contract and return Good Players at a value that exceed his, I am all for it. Because we are all C's fans here, and we all want to see this team improve and compete, lets show mutual respect for other posters proposing ideas to that might help this team(Regardless of how innance some of the proposals might be - like my Mike Dunleavy & Jeff Foster for Ray Allen proposal from last summer... ugh).