Marco Belinelli traded to Toronto

[MrTripleDouble10]

yeah, where was Danny on this one. Belinelli would have been a great fit here. seems like we have been too tied up with this Daniels saga. that situation really needs to come to an end...
[/quote]

just because there are trades doesn't mean that we should have been there
[/quote]

Potapenko Boxout-  Haven't you realized by now that there are several posters here that expect Ainge to be involved in every trade that goes down in the NBA?  It's hilarious.  It happens with every trade.  Within an hour, someone makes a post asking why Ainge didn't either A) get the better player involved in the trade or B) find a way to get a draft pick/drop a bad contract, etc.

If Vegas had the over/under for CelticsBlog posters making the aforementioned posts just after ANY trade in the NBA is made, I would set it at 30 minutes and take the under.

[nickagneta]

http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/07/30/golden-state-sends-marco-belinelli-to-toronto-for-devean-george/

Looks like Toronto is picking up almost the full bill on Devean George so basically, Belinelli was a contract dump. George can get outright released and still be worth the savings of not having to pay Belinelli's contract.

[indeedproceed]

http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/07/30/golden-state-sends-marco-belinelli-to-toronto-for-devean-george/

Looks like Toronto is picking up almost the full bill on Devean George so basically, Belinelli was a contract dump. George can get outright released and still be worth the savings of not having to pay Belinelli's contract.

Sigh. Its always about money.

[winsomme]

Potapenko Boxout-  Haven't you realized by now that there are several posters here that expect Ainge to be involved in every trade that goes down in the NBA?  It's hilarious.  It happens with every trade.  Within an hour, someone makes a post asking why Ainge didn't either A) get the better player involved in the trade or B) find a way to get a draft pick/drop a bad contract, etc.

If Vegas had the over/under for CelticsBlog posters making the aforementioned posts just after ANY trade in the NBA is made, I would set it at 30 minutes and take the under.

when a promising player like Belinelli is traded for a guy that has averaged just north of 3 PPG the last two seasons, yeah I don't think we were priced out of that deal.

[MrTripleDouble10]

Potapenko Boxout-  Haven't you realized by now that there are several posters here that expect Ainge to be involved in every trade that goes down in the NBA?  It's hilarious.  It happens with every trade.  Within an hour, someone makes a post asking why Ainge didn't either A) get the better player involved in the trade or B) find a way to get a draft pick/drop a bad contract, etc.

If Vegas had the over/under for CelticsBlog posters making the aforementioned posts just after ANY trade in the NBA is made, I would set it at 30 minutes and take the under.

when a promising player like Belinelli is traded for a guy that has averaged just north of 3 PPG the last two seasons, yeah I don't think we were priced out of that deal.

Agreed.  But, how do you know that A) Ainge had zero talks with GS about this? or B) GS wanted anything Ainge could offer?

Hey I wouldn't mind Belinelli here I actually like his game even though his defensive makeup consists primarily of flopping.  Bring all the Italians here, it would make me proud!

Seriously though my point was that I find it amusing that some people want the Celtics involved in every transaction possible.  Like, 'we should have gotten Moon, Anthony Parker, Matt Barnes, etc.'  It's just amusing to me that's all... It's like fantasy basketball.

[winsomme]

Potapenko Boxout-  Haven't you realized by now that there are several posters here that expect Ainge to be involved in every trade that goes down in the NBA?  It's hilarious.  It happens with every trade.  Within an hour, someone makes a post asking why Ainge didn't either A) get the better player involved in the trade or B) find a way to get a draft pick/drop a bad contract, etc.

If Vegas had the over/under for CelticsBlog posters making the aforementioned posts just after ANY trade in the NBA is made, I would set it at 30 minutes and take the under.

when a promising player like Belinelli is traded for a guy that has averaged just north of 3 PPG the last two seasons, yeah I don't think we were priced out of that deal.

Agreed.  But, how do you know that A) Ainge had zero talks with GS about this? or B) GS wanted anything Ainge could offer?

Hey I wouldn't mind Belinelli here I actually like his game even though his defensive makeup consists primarily of flopping.  Bring all the Italians here, it would make me proud!

Seriously though my point was that I find it amusing that some people want the Celtics involved in every transaction possible.  Like, 'we should have gotten Moon, Anthony Parker, Matt Barnes, etc.'  It's just amusing to me that's all... It's like fantasy basketball.

Well one of our priorities coming into this off season was getting a wing who could knock down shots, so I would actually expect Danny to have been in on all of those guys. maybe not Barnes because he has had two shots at him now and doesn't seem interested.

anyway, he was reportedly looking at every wing out there, so it's a little disappointing to see a quality player like Belinelli moved for so little and also no reports that we were even sniffing around this.

like i said earlier, I think we are wrapped up in this Daniels saga and I think that has made getting involved in other backup SG deals not possible. and it's too bad because Belinelli went for a very reasonable price and would have been a great addition here IMO.

[Cman]

Salary-wise, the Cs could have sent Bill Walker + Gabe Pruitt + $1.5M cash to GSW for Belinelli.

After not picking up Pruitt's option, GSW would have ended up with an even smaller contract (Walker's) on its payroll than George's, plus a player with more upside than George, if they chose to keep Walker around next year (but it is team option, so either way, better contract than George's).

So why wouldn't the Cs do such a deal?  Perhaps financial reasons (it would cost the Cs about $3M to do the deal -- the $1.5M sent to GSW plus the loss of savings from not picking up Pruitt's contract(2*$0.8M, bc of luxury tax)); perhaps because they don't really like Belinelli; perhaps the Cs think Walker has more upside.

[winsomme]

Salary-wise, the Cs could have sent Bill Walker + Gabe Pruitt + $1.5M cash to GSW for Belinelli.

After not picking up Pruitt's option, GSW would have ended up with an even smaller contract (Walker's) on its payroll than George's, plus a player with more upside than George, if they chose to keep Walker around next year (but it is team option, so either way, better contract than George's).

So why wouldn't the Cs do such a deal?  Perhaps financial reasons (it would cost the Cs about $3M to do the deal -- the $1.5M sent to GSW plus the loss of savings from not picking up Pruitt's contract(2*$0.8M, bc of luxury tax)); perhaps because they don't really like Belinelli; perhaps the Cs think Walker has more upside.

I have to think that it either was a deal that came together really fast and the Cs just didn't see it or they don't like Belinelli for the team (like  you say).

but there is another benefit of a Belinelli deal. if you look at Daniels, for instance, the Cs don't really seem to want to just sign him with the LLE. doing that would take up a roster spot at a postion where we already have at least three backups (TA, JR and Walker) more if you add on Pruitt and Hudson...and IND doesn't seem to be biting on a deal to get Daniels which would create a roster spot and swap payroll (ie not adding payroll)

but if you traded for Bel, you don't add payroll (because you are swapping Pruitt and Walker in your idea) and you not only aren't losing roster spots but you adding an extra roster spot.

I really don't see the downside of a Bel deal, but maybe you're right...maybe they just aren't that high on Bel...

[nickagneta]

Salary-wise, the Cs could have sent Bill Walker + Gabe Pruitt + $1.5M cash to GSW for Belinelli.

After not picking up Pruitt's option, GSW would have ended up with an even smaller contract (Walker's) on its payroll than George's, plus a player with more upside than George, if they chose to keep Walker around next year (but it is team option, so either way, better contract than George's).

So why wouldn't the Cs do such a deal?  Perhaps financial reasons (it would cost the Cs about $3M to do the deal -- the $1.5M sent to GSW plus the loss of savings from not picking up Pruitt's contract(2*$0.8M, bc of luxury tax)); perhaps because they don't really like Belinelli; perhaps the Cs think Walker has more upside.

I have to think that it either was a deal that came together really fast and the Cs just didn't see it or they don't like Belinelli for the team (like  you say).

but there is another benefit of a Belinelli deal. if you look at Daniels, for instance, the Cs don't really seem to want to just sign him with the LLE. doing that would take up a roster spot at a postion where we already have at least three backups (TA, JR and Walker) more if you add on Pruitt and Hudson...and IND doesn't seem to be biting on a deal to get Daniels which would create a roster spot and swap payroll (ie not adding payroll)

but if you traded for Bel, you don't add payroll (because you are swapping Pruitt and Walker in your idea) and you not only aren't losing roster spots but you adding an extra roster spot.

I really don't see the downside of a Bel deal, but maybe you're right...maybe they just aren't that high on Bel...

You add payroll because you still have to send $1.5 million to GSW to take care of any contracts sent there.

[Cman]

Salary-wise, the Cs could have sent Bill Walker + Gabe Pruitt + $1.5M cash to GSW for Belinelli.

After not picking up Pruitt's option, GSW would have ended up with an even smaller contract (Walker's) on its payroll than George's, plus a player with more upside than George, if they chose to keep Walker around next year (but it is team option, so either way, better contract than George's).

So why wouldn't the Cs do such a deal?  Perhaps financial reasons (it would cost the Cs about $3M to do the deal -- the $1.5M sent to GSW plus the loss of savings from not picking up Pruitt's contract(2*$0.8M, bc of luxury tax)); perhaps because they don't really like Belinelli; perhaps the Cs think Walker has more upside.

I have to think that it either was a deal that came together really fast and the Cs just didn't see it or they don't like Belinelli for the team (like  you say).

but there is another benefit of a Belinelli deal. if you look at Daniels, for instance, the Cs don't really seem to want to just sign him with the LLE. doing that would take up a roster spot at a postion where we already have at least three backups (TA, JR and Walker) more if you add on Pruitt and Hudson...and IND doesn't seem to be biting on a deal to get Daniels which would create a roster spot and swap payroll (ie not adding payroll)

but if you traded for Bel, you don't add payroll (because you are swapping Pruitt and Walker in your idea) and you not only aren't losing roster spots but you adding an extra roster spot.

I really don't see the downside of a Bel deal, but maybe you're right...maybe they just aren't that high on Bel...

You add payroll because you still have to send $1.5 million to GSW to take care of any contracts sent there.

.. and you can no longer not pick up Pruitt's option, which
would save another $1.5M.

[nickagneta]

Salary-wise, the Cs could have sent Bill Walker + Gabe Pruitt + $1.5M cash to GSW for Belinelli.

After not picking up Pruitt's option, GSW would have ended up with an even smaller contract (Walker's) on its payroll than George's, plus a player with more upside than George, if they chose to keep Walker around next year (but it is team option, so either way, better contract than George's).

So why wouldn't the Cs do such a deal?  Perhaps financial reasons (it would cost the Cs about $3M to do the deal -- the $1.5M sent to GSW plus the loss of savings from not picking up Pruitt's contract(2*$0.8M, bc of luxury tax)); perhaps because they don't really like Belinelli; perhaps the Cs think Walker has more upside.

I have to think that it either was a deal that came together really fast and the Cs just didn't see it or they don't like Belinelli for the team (like  you say).

but there is another benefit of a Belinelli deal. if you look at Daniels, for instance, the Cs don't really seem to want to just sign him with the LLE. doing that would take up a roster spot at a postion where we already have at least three backups (TA, JR and Walker) more if you add on Pruitt and Hudson...and IND doesn't seem to be biting on a deal to get Daniels which would create a roster spot and swap payroll (ie not adding payroll)

but if you traded for Bel, you don't add payroll (because you are swapping Pruitt and Walker in your idea) and you not only aren't losing roster spots but you adding an extra roster spot.

I really don't see the downside of a Bel deal, but maybe you're right...maybe they just aren't that high on Bel...

You add payroll because you still have to send $1.5 million to GSW to take care of any contracts sent there.

.. and you can no longer not pick up Pruitt's option, which
would save another $1.5M.

Which they can still do and probably will so either way you are paying out more money.

[nickagneta]

Salary-wise, the Cs could have sent Bill Walker + Gabe Pruitt + $1.5M cash to GSW for Belinelli.

After not picking up Pruitt's option, GSW would have ended up with an even smaller contract (Walker's) on its payroll than George's, plus a player with more upside than George, if they chose to keep Walker around next year (but it is team option, so either way, better contract than George's).

So why wouldn't the Cs do such a deal?  Perhaps financial reasons (it would cost the Cs about $3M to do the deal -- the $1.5M sent to GSW plus the loss of savings from not picking up Pruitt's contract(2*$0.8M, bc of luxury tax)); perhaps because they don't really like Belinelli; perhaps the Cs think Walker has more upside.

I have to think that it either was a deal that came together really fast and the Cs just didn't see it or they don't like Belinelli for the team (like  you say).

but there is another benefit of a Belinelli deal. if you look at Daniels, for instance, the Cs don't really seem to want to just sign him with the LLE. doing that would take up a roster spot at a postion where we already have at least three backups (TA, JR and Walker) more if you add on Pruitt and Hudson...and IND doesn't seem to be biting on a deal to get Daniels which would create a roster spot and swap payroll (ie not adding payroll)

but if you traded for Bel, you don't add payroll (because you are swapping Pruitt and Walker in your idea) and you not only aren't losing roster spots but you adding an extra roster spot.

I really don't see the downside of a Bel deal, but maybe you're right...maybe they just aren't that high on Bel...

You add payroll because you still have to send $1.5 million to GSW to take care of any contracts sent there.

.. and you can no longer not pick up Pruitt's option, which
would save another $1.5M.

But they are going to do that anyway so you're still adding more payroll than your were originally going to pay out.

[winsomme]

Salary-wise, the Cs could have sent Bill Walker + Gabe Pruitt + $1.5M cash to GSW for Belinelli.

After not picking up Pruitt's option, GSW would have ended up with an even smaller contract (Walker's) on its payroll than George's, plus a player with more upside than George, if they chose to keep Walker around next year (but it is team option, so either way, better contract than George's).

So why wouldn't the Cs do such a deal?  Perhaps financial reasons (it would cost the Cs about $3M to do the deal -- the $1.5M sent to GSW plus the loss of savings from not picking up Pruitt's contract(2*$0.8M, bc of luxury tax)); perhaps because they don't really like Belinelli; perhaps the Cs think Walker has more upside.

I have to think that it either was a deal that came together really fast and the Cs just didn't see it or they don't like Belinelli for the team (like  you say).

but there is another benefit of a Belinelli deal. if you look at Daniels, for instance, the Cs don't really seem to want to just sign him with the LLE. doing that would take up a roster spot at a postion where we already have at least three backups (TA, JR and Walker) more if you add on Pruitt and Hudson...and IND doesn't seem to be biting on a deal to get Daniels which would create a roster spot and swap payroll (ie not adding payroll)

but if you traded for Bel, you don't add payroll (because you are swapping Pruitt and Walker in your idea) and you not only aren't losing roster spots but you adding an extra roster spot.

I really don't see the downside of a Bel deal, but maybe you're right...maybe they just aren't that high on Bel...

You add payroll because you still have to send $1.5 million to GSW to take care of any contracts sent there.

.. and you can no longer not pick up Pruitt's option, which
would save another $1.5M.

But they are going to do that anyway so you're still adding more payroll than your were originally going to pay out.

It's a bit of a shell game, but the difference is if you have to add Daniels with the LLE you are only adding payroll and losing a roster spot.

[MrTripleDouble10]

The REAL reason why Ainge didn't make a move for Belinelli:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAfp6ZCsvGc