trade idea (BOS, MIN, WAS)

[Jon]

Mike Miller is not a role player

How do you figure?  He has a career average of around 13 ppg, doesn't rebound or pass extraordinarily well, and doesn't play that great of defense.  

He is a good shooter and he is good at that role.  

Sounds like a role player to me.  

Ok you could say that about anybody.  Garnett is a very good rebounder and mid range shooter, as well as great on the defensive end.  that is his role and he is good at it....

See it works for anybody.  Im not buying it

That's ridiculous.  KG is a 12 time All Star, League MVP, Defensive Player of the Year, NBA Champion, and will be a first ballot Hall of Famer.  Mike Miller has never made an All Star team, probably never will, and certainly won't be going to the Hall of Fame.

Same with Ray Allen. He's a guy who has made 9 All Star teams and will surely be going to the Hall of Fame.  

Mike Miller might be a good role player, but he's a role player.  

Im just saying your logic was flawed, you changed your logic and now site accomplishments before you just sited skills and said he was good at that role.  The only thing thats rediculous is your logic that miller is a role player

Well, how do you define a role player then? 

Jon, would you call Perk a role player?

Good question.  At this point, I'd probably say yes.  Though I think it's a whole different ball game in terms of worth when we're talking about a strong defensive center compared to a smooth shooting 2/3.

Regardless of whether he's a role player or not, I think a cardinal rule of basketball is that you don't trade quality for quantity.  

That's NOT true in football or baseball where you have to round out rosters of 53 and 25 respectively; however, when you only have a roster of 12 and a rotation of 8-9 come playoff time, quality if absolutely paramount.  Part of the reason I don't like this trade is because in a tight playoff game (which are really the only games that are going to matter next year, since it's a given that a roster of Rondo, Pierce, KG, and Perk is going to be a top seed in the playoffs), is because our starting rotations goes down a notch.  

In my book, Gomes isn't seeing the floor in a close playoff game.  If the C's sign someone like McDyess, he'll get the backup minutes at the 4/5 in a playoff game.  Anything left Powe will get.  So take him out.

As for Miller and Foye, it's nice to have both, but you can only play one a time next to Pierce.  So in the stretch of a game where you used to have Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Perk you now have Rondo/Miller or Foye/Pierce/KG/Perk.  Whichever player Doc chooses is a downgrade over Allen, so it really hurts our ability to close out games.

I really think we should extend Allen one year, see what happens this year, and if it becomes apparent things aren't working out, we'll then in the exact same situation next summer as we're in this summer with Ray's contract.  In fact, we'll have even more flexibility as PP will be going into his final year as well.  

i hear you on the quality v quantity angle and i am not saying i would 100% do this deal, but another thing to think about, is if we have an extra scorer off the bench like Foye (or Miller), maybe those close games you talking about aren't close.

look at who were hitting the biggest shot for the Lakers....Ariza, Fisher, Odom...

anyway, mostly just put this up for debate like this so...TP.
I'm a huge Ray Allen fan and would not be excited to see him leave.

TP yourself.

I agree that an extra scorer on the bench could conceivably make some games that would be close not close; however, I also somewhat question how true that is in the playoffs.  Sure, in the regular season it'd be fine if we were playing Pierce and Miller 34 mpg, and letting Foye get the 28 or so mpg in backup.  However, come playoff time, Pierce is going to play 40+, so how much is the 5-8 mpg of improve play really going to help the team if we're also getting a downgrade at the other 2/3 spot because Ray is gone?

Moreover, if the C's sign someone like Grant Hill, doesn't that satisfy the 2/3 bench scorer need without having to trade Ray Allen?  

[winsomme]

How does that trade help our team?  It gives us three mediocre players for an All Star.  That'd be great if the league gave us a special exception to play all 3 at once at the 2 guard position (giving us 7 on 5); however, since that's not happening, I don't see how that helps us.  

In essence we're trading our must clutch shooter and a future Hall of Famer so we can downgrade at the 2 spot, get yet another undersized PF who is too slow to effectively guard SFs, and a backup 2/3.  The only improvement to the team is the backup 2/3.  However, that could easily be solved with signing Grant Hill or Quinton Ross.  

Trading Ray Allen this year is a bad idea to begin with.  Trading him for 3 role players is downright horrific.  

Miller is one injury-affected season away from being a 16 PPG, 7 RPG, 43% 3-pt land player.

and Foye is an emerging talent that averaged 16 PPG, 85% FT line last season and can penetrate off the dribble and dish and score.

both these guys are starting caliber players IMO.

Perhaps.  But they're still both downgrades on Ray Allen right now.

Here's how I see it.  Foye is good; however, he's a downgrade from Ray Allen.  That hurts the team, particularly in the playoffs when guys like Ray and Paul are going to play 40 minutes per game.  Thus, the downgrade from Ray to Foye is even more dramatic come playoff time when things matter most.

Then there's Miller and Gomes.  Honestly, I like both players, but I how they can help us all that much.  

Gomes is nice, but is he really going to help this team?  This team clearly needs to sign someone with size to backup Perk.  Gomes doesn't help with that.  That means he'll be joining the Leon Powe (and perhaps Big Baby) in the very limited minutes of backing up KG.  So what's the point?  He's arguably a worse player than Powe, and even if you like Gomes better, he's not enough of an upgrade at the whopping 10-15 mpg available to backup Garnett to justify breaking up this team.  

As for Miller, same deal.  He'd help in the regular season, but come playoff time, he wouldn't matter in tight game since you can't play him and Foye at the same time (and have PP on the floor).  Moreover, in the short term, I'd rather just sign someone like Grant Hill.

Overall, my big problem is this: people aren't looking at how this trade would actually play out in a regular rotation.  Gomes is a nice player, but he wouldn't help this team.  Moreover, why would we trade for a backup 2/3 when we can sign one on the FA market without giving up a cornerstone of our franchise?  It just doesn't make sense to me.  

if they worked out, there would be minutes for all these guys.

Rondo/Foye
Miller/Eddie
Paul/Gomes
KG/Powe/Scals
Perk/Sheed, Dice?

there is valuable minutes there for all of these guys. they don't all need play at the same time for them to make an impact.

and i don't know why you would think Miller would be useless in the playoffs, he shoots the 3 at over 40% for his career. why would he be useless in the playoffs?

plus, like i noted, this deal doesn't preclude signing a back up big like Sheed or Dice. In fact it makes it easier because we would have filled more spots without using the MLE and could pffer more of it to a higher caliber player.

Well, in that scenario of minutes, I'd change my comments to say that Foye would be useless.  Rondo clearly proved this playoffs he can play 40+ mpg.  What the heck use is Foye going to be in 5-8 mpg?  

Also, Gomes at the 3 is a horrible idea.  He's too slow to guard anyone effectively and would kill our defense.  

What it comes down to for me is this: come playoff times, the starters can play 40 mpg, so the value of depth is somewhat overrated.  In the closing minutes of a close playoff game, it really comes down to who can put the best 5 players out on the court.  Trading Ray Allen in this deal hurts our ability to do that.  No matter how you twist it, Mike Miller and Randy Foye are downgrades individually compared to Ray and only one of them can be on the court at the same time with Rondo, Pierce, KG, and Perk.  

Moreover, I think the deal becomes worse when we consider that two of the needs this deal arguably satisfies (backup 2/3 and backup 4) could be solved (and arguably solved better) on the FA market.  

let's say Rondo get 38 MPG, Miller gets 30 MPG (4 mins backing up Paul). that leaves 32 MPG to divide between Eddie and Foye. even if they split them evenly, that's 16 MPG.

the minutes are there IMO.

plus, what if Foye breaks out, maybe he is the starting SG...

[SSFan V]

rumor?

where did this rumor originate?

this isn't the rumor. the rumor (Ray to MIN, Foye, etc to BOS) is linked on the home page from a Minny paper I believe and was shot down immediately by MINs GM.

I just added the WAS part as another idea....

So the Minnesota paper was the one where this started.  Okay, thanks.

[winsomme]

Mike Miller is not a role player

How do you figure?  He has a career average of around 13 ppg, doesn't rebound or pass extraordinarily well, and doesn't play that great of defense.  

He is a good shooter and he is good at that role.  

Sounds like a role player to me.  

Ok you could say that about anybody.  Garnett is a very good rebounder and mid range shooter, as well as great on the defensive end.  that is his role and he is good at it....

See it works for anybody.  Im not buying it

That's ridiculous.  KG is a 12 time All Star, League MVP, Defensive Player of the Year, NBA Champion, and will be a first ballot Hall of Famer.  Mike Miller has never made an All Star team, probably never will, and certainly won't be going to the Hall of Fame.

Same with Ray Allen. He's a guy who has made 9 All Star teams and will surely be going to the Hall of Fame.  

Mike Miller might be a good role player, but he's a role player.  

Im just saying your logic was flawed, you changed your logic and now site accomplishments before you just sited skills and said he was good at that role.  The only thing thats rediculous is your logic that miller is a role player

Well, how do you define a role player then? 

Jon, would you call Perk a role player?

Good question.  At this point, I'd probably say yes.  Though I think it's a whole different ball game in terms of worth when we're talking about a strong defensive center compared to a smooth shooting 2/3.

Regardless of whether he's a role player or not, I think a cardinal rule of basketball is that you don't trade quality for quantity.  

That's NOT true in football or baseball where you have to round out rosters of 53 and 25 respectively; however, when you only have a roster of 12 and a rotation of 8-9 come playoff time, quality if absolutely paramount.  Part of the reason I don't like this trade is because in a tight playoff game (which are really the only games that are going to matter next year, since it's a given that a roster of Rondo, Pierce, KG, and Perk is going to be a top seed in the playoffs), is because our starting rotations goes down a notch.  

In my book, Gomes isn't seeing the floor in a close playoff game.  If the C's sign someone like McDyess, he'll get the backup minutes at the 4/5 in a playoff game.  Anything left Powe will get.  So take him out.

As for Miller and Foye, it's nice to have both, but you can only play one a time next to Pierce.  So in the stretch of a game where you used to have Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Perk you now have Rondo/Miller or Foye/Pierce/KG/Perk.  Whichever player Doc chooses is a downgrade over Allen, so it really hurts our ability to close out games.

I really think we should extend Allen one year, see what happens this year, and if it becomes apparent things aren't working out, we'll then in the exact same situation next summer as we're in this summer with Ray's contract.  In fact, we'll have even more flexibility as PP will be going into his final year as well.  

i hear you on the quality v quantity angle and i am not saying i would 100% do this deal, but another thing to think about, is if we have an extra scorer off the bench like Foye (or Miller), maybe those close games you talking about aren't close.

look at who were hitting the biggest shot for the Lakers....Ariza, Fisher, Odom...

anyway, mostly just put this up for debate like this so...TP.
I'm a huge Ray Allen fan and would not be excited to see him leave.

TP yourself.

I agree that an extra scorer on the bench could conceivably make some games that would be close not close; however, I also somewhat question how true that is in the playoffs.  Sure, in the regular season it'd be fine if we were playing Pierce and Miller 34 mpg, and letting Foye get the 28 or so mpg in backup.  However, come playoff time, Pierce is going to play 40+, so how much is the 5-8 mpg of improve play really going to help the team if we're also getting a downgrade at the other 2/3 spot because Ray is gone?

Moreover, if the C's sign someone like Grant Hill, doesn't that satisfy the 2/3 bench scorer need without having to trade Ray Allen?  

Hill and Sheed signings are definitely what i would like to see on the non-trade route. Like i've said elsewhere, I'm still in the "stand pat" corner and sign FAs for another run at a Title with GPA.

but that said, the days of GPA playing 40+ MPG are quickly fading. just looking at Pierce get worn down this year in the playoffs playing those type of minutes made me realize even more so that we need reinforcements.

I

[Brendan]

If you did this trade, and planned to get your center by trading some combo of Scal, Tony, House, Pruit and JR - it kind of makes sense.

Rondo, Miller, Pierce, KG, Perk - if Miller bounces back from an off year, then he can replace Ray Allen well. He's got decent height for a SG, and can play SF in a pinch.

Foye becomes your combo guard off the bench. Gomes becomes your combo forward (replacing Scal), and presumably they pickup a Center in the trade. Powe's out for most of the year but eventually he comes back too.

Lets assume House stays, Pruit walks, and the trade is Scal, Tony, and JR for a big.

Rondo/House
Miller/Foye
Pierce/Gomes/Walker
KG/Powe
Perk/New Big

Pretty much depends on who the new big man is if the team is better it really all comes down to how good Foye is off the bench. If he can be a great 6th man, you are probably better off than with Ray. If he's just okay - then its a waste.

[Smitty77]

There is a chance that House is a goner.  A good chance if you ask me.  That makes this trade VERY valuable.  Foye had a +14 Efficiency Rating last year.  Gomes had a +12.04 and Miller had a 15.38.

I appreciate a lot of what you are saying Jon, but Ray Ray is really NOT an All-Star.  He has been the last two years based SOLELY on what he has done over his career and the fact that he is fortunate enough to be playing on a very talented Boston team.  Ray Allen's ER for the playoffs was a 15.50.  He really is NOT an All-Star caliber player and in my mind is not that close.

This is a great trade for our Celtics.  Great trade idea.  Danny, I hope you read CBlog.  How could you not??:_))))))))))

Smitty77

[PosImpos]

Pardon me but I'm not so excited to get the SG and combo guard from the team that was worst in shooting last season

[Smitty77]

PosImpos,

How about getting a rapidly improving combo guard in Foye and a guy that could give PP some rest at SF and play some PF until Leon get back (if he can and does come back)  That is on top of getting almost an equivalent SG in terms of Efficiency.  And please don't start with Ray Ray is such a better defender than Miller.  That BOTH are below what I would prefer, clearly.

Smitty77

[PosImpos]

Foye is decent and getting better, but he's a PG or an undersized shooting guard.  He's not a replacement for Ray.  Neither is Mike Miller, as it happens.  Our team wouldnt' be better with Foye or Miller coming off the bench and the other starting at SG.

[Rondo2287]

Foye is decent and getting better, but he's a PG or an undersized shooting guard.  He's not a replacement for Ray.  Neither is Mike Miller, as it happens.  Our team wouldnt' be better with Foye or Miller coming off the bench and the other starting at SG.

I really disagree, I think Mike Miller can definitly come in and do a good job at replacing Ray.  I mean obviously Ray is one of the best of all time so nobody can give us everything that he does, but he needs to be replaced eventually. I think that their shooting abilities are similar, not in the clutch because Ray has proven himself but overall.  I also think the numbers tell us that Miller is as good or better at  rebounding the basketball.  And also, he would give us somebody with girlie looking hair to match up against vujachick

[Jon]

Foye is decent and getting better, but he's a PG or an undersized shooting guard.  He's not a replacement for Ray.  Neither is Mike Miller, as it happens.  Our team wouldnt' be better with Foye or Miller coming off the bench and the other starting at SG.

I really disagree, I think Mike Miller can definitly come in and do a good job at replacing Ray.  I mean obviously Ray is one of the best of all time so nobody can give us everything that he does, but he needs to be replaced eventually. I think that their shooting abilities are similar, not in the clutch because Ray has proven himself but overall.  I also think the numbers tell us that Miller is as good or better at  rebounding the basketball.  And also, he would give us somebody with girlie looking hair to match up against vujachick

I think you answered your own questions here.  Ray is one of the best of all time.  Replacing him shouldn't be taken lightly.  Even if he isn't what he was, he's still better than anybody we're getting in that trade.  Even if Mike Miller is his equal in shooting, the fact that it's Ray Allen standing on the perimeter and not Mike Miller dramatically changes the way that teams play guys like Pierce, Garnett, and Rondo.  You can't measure that with efficiency ratings. 

Also, I think you answered for me when you said that Ray needs to be replaced "eventually."  Yes he does.  But it shouldn't be this year.  I can't grasp the notion that so many people want to screw with our success.  The only reason we didn't win #18 this year is because KG got hurt.  Mixing things up would be one thing if KG and PP were 25 and we had some time to recover if a trade didn't work out.  But mixing things up when the two superstars remaining have limited time left to win is just insane. 

Also, I can't grasp how many of you want to do quality for quantity trades when some of the players coming back to us on the quantity end are really no better than players we could pick up on the FA market without giving up Ray Allen.  Why trade for Gomes and Miller when we could sign McDyess and Hill?  If we can get McDyess and Hill, why give up Ray Allen for Randy Foye?  It just makes zero sense. 

We should extend Ray one year, bring him back, and then have this conversation next summer. 

[Chris]

We should extend Ray one year, bring him back, and then have this conversation next summer. 

Ray is signed for next year, so you mean give him a one year extension through summer of 2011?  I don't think the C's have any interest in doing that for what he is making now, and I don't think Ray has any interest in taking a pay cut, and only getting a 1 year contract out of it.

Also, if the C's sign him to a 1 year extension, it would mean he has the right to refuse any trade next summer or beyond, because he would be playing on a 1 year contract, and being traded would mean giving up his bird rights.

This is just not realistic.

If he is going to be traded, it will be this summer, or at the trade deadline.  Otherwise, they will just let him expire, and possibly bring him back at a reduced cost for another 2-3+ years.

[Jon]

We should extend Ray one year, bring him back, and then have this conversation next summer. 

Ray is signed for next year, so you mean give him a one year extension through summer of 2011?  I don't think the C's have any interest in doing that for what he is making now, and I don't think Ray has any interest in taking a pay cut, and only getting a 1 year contract out of it.

Also, if the C's sign him to a 1 year extension, it would mean he has the right to refuse any trade next summer or beyond, because he would be playing on a 1 year contract, and being traded would mean giving up his bird rights.

This is just not realistic.

If he is going to be traded, it will be this summer, or at the trade deadline.  Otherwise, they will just let him expire, and possibly bring him back at a reduced cost for another 2-3+ years.

Maybe.  But I think it makes the most basketball sense to extend him one more year.  Since I don't pay him, I'd have no problem giving him the same money he makes right now for another year.  However, Wyc might not see things the way I do.

However, to trade him now risks too much in what could be this groups finest year.  I'd rather see him walk away and us get nothing in return than trade him at this point.  At least we'd clear some space. 

[Chris]

We should extend Ray one year, bring him back, and then have this conversation next summer. 

Ray is signed for next year, so you mean give him a one year extension through summer of 2011?  I don't think the C's have any interest in doing that for what he is making now, and I don't think Ray has any interest in taking a pay cut, and only getting a 1 year contract out of it.

Also, if the C's sign him to a 1 year extension, it would mean he has the right to refuse any trade next summer or beyond, because he would be playing on a 1 year contract, and being traded would mean giving up his bird rights.

This is just not realistic.

If he is going to be traded, it will be this summer, or at the trade deadline.  Otherwise, they will just let him expire, and possibly bring him back at a reduced cost for another 2-3+ years.

Maybe.  But I think it makes the most basketball sense to extend him one more year.  Since I don't pay him, I'd have no problem giving him the same money he makes right now for another year.  However, Wyc might not see things the way I do.

However, to trade him now risks too much in what could be this groups finest year.  I'd rather see him walk away and us get nothing in return than trade him at this point.  At least we'd clear some space. 

I can't disagree about the second point.  I think the C's probably are better off keeping Ray for this year, unless they get blown away with a trade offer.  I just don't see any chance of him resigning for just 1 year next year. 

[slamtheking]

We should extend Ray one year, bring him back, and then have this conversation next summer. 

Ray is signed for next year, so you mean give him a one year extension through summer of 2011?  I don't think the C's have any interest in doing that for what he is making now, and I don't think Ray has any interest in taking a pay cut, and only getting a 1 year contract out of it.

Also, if the C's sign him to a 1 year extension, it would mean he has the right to refuse any trade next summer or beyond, because he would be playing on a 1 year contract, and being traded would mean giving up his bird rights.

This is just not realistic.

If he is going to be traded, it will be this summer, or at the trade deadline.  Otherwise, they will just let him expire, and possibly bring him back at a reduced cost for another 2-3+ years.

Maybe.  But I think it makes the most basketball sense to extend him one more year.  Since I don't pay him, I'd have no problem giving him the same money he makes right now for another year.  However, Wyc might not see things the way I do.

However, to trade him now risks too much in what could be this groups finest year.  I'd rather see him walk away and us get nothing in return than trade him at this point.  At least we'd clear some space. 

Why would you pay Ray the same money for one more year --> going into 2011?  Makes no sense.  He's still a very good player but not worth what he's getting paid right now.  He's making franchise-player money and he's not at that level.  Extending him for the same amount one year would have crippling luxury tax impacts. 

With that in mind, I hope you meant to just extend him another year at less than half of what he'll make next year.   The trading implications mentioned above would make that a questionable deal also.

I think they're better off holding on to him this year.  Let him expire and talk him into resigning for 2-3 years at less than half of what he makes now with a declining amount each season to match his expected productivity.  After next year, we hopefully would have someone that could step in for him and he could come off the bench as the "6th" man even though he doesn't really fit the mold of a great 6th man which is being a player that can play multiple positions.