Atzar, slamtheking,
Let's say Bayless comes over and he's no good at all; you guys are correct and i'm way off.
And let's say Outlaw never plays for the Cs (tho I'd be all for using his Bird Rights to sign him in the offseason to a reasonable deal).
Considering our problems, do you think Webster for Baby straight up would be a fair deal? Would this deal still be good for the Cs if only that?
Now, I already know the answer. No, Baby's a good young player, he's nible, he plays good defense, he won a title here, he hit that game winner against orlando, etc etc. There's a bias towards our own players. We overvalue them based on the relationships we develop with them, and it clouds our judgement.
The objective answer is that Webster for Baby is probably a pretty fair trade. Two solid role players of similar age who perform totally different roles.
But this is why I'm suggesting that you're underestimating the Celtics loot in this deal. Atzar, you said you didn't want a maybe, you wanted a sure thing in trade. Well who are we going to trade from the Celtics, and who do you imagine you're going to get? Do you see a PG out there who is clearly better that we can acquire -- one who will be happy playing short minutes behind Rondo? And if we can get him, what else are we going to have left to trade to solve the hole we have on the wing? Do you imagine that a package of Baby and our expiring junk can net a better player than the package I've laid out, who is it? And can you add two or three interesting pieces to that puzzle, as in this deal?
If you told me it's not realistic to hope to achieve this trade, it might give me pause. It's a pretty good talent windfall for the Cs, even though I do think it makes quite a bit of sense for the other teams.
Suggesting that the Cs don't get enough here for one 6'7" back-up PF and the dregs of our bench shows that you overestimate the players and their trade value pretty egregiously.