Author Topic: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC  (Read 22045 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #30 on: December 10, 2009, 10:30:01 AM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32335
  • Tommy Points: 10099
No way Portland does this....too little back....too much going out

I don't follow.

They trade one rotation player (webster), one occasional player where they're deep (bayless), a guy who is out indefinitely, likely until he's a Free Agent this summer (outlaw) and a relic (howard) for two guys who would play 25 minutes each at positions of serious need considering outlaw, batum and oden all being out of the line-up.

They start Miller, Roy, Nocioni, Baby and Aldridge bringing Blake, Rudy and Pryz off the bench. They're immediately improved and a major player in the west.
Um, hate to come across like a smartass  ::) but you just made the case for the C's NOT to make this deal.  All the points you made about why they give up those players was the same thing that ran through my mind why this wasn't a good deal when I read your proposal.

Philly alternative would be the same response.  C's get a redundant relic in Howard, a no-pass/no-ballhandling guard with Bayless, a IR-player with Outlaw and a marginal forward with Webster.  No thanks.

Incorrect, my man. These are reasons why Portland does it. Where do they need help? At the starting 3 and 4. They get it. Where do the Cs need help? At the back-up 1 and back-up wing. They get it. Not every trade involves someone getting ripped off. It's about team needs, and this certainly deepens our bench, and you'd have a hard time arguing they lose on talent.

The Cs trade a back-up PF for a back-up 1 and a wing player who can come off the bench and do two things at the same time: shoot and play defense. These are items the Cs DO NOT have.

Bayless can't dribble? Ever seen him play?
incorrect? don't think so.

From a C's perspective, they get nothing.  BBD is better than Howard at this stage of their careers.  Outlaw is injured and likely out for the year.  Bayless does not provide the backup point they need nor is he big enough to play backup SF.  Webster, marginal player that's not worth this deal by himself.  If Outlaw were healthy, this would be a deal that might be worth making.

Portland certainly does ok when picking up BBD and Nocioni. 

The Cs get nothing? Come on, dude.

When you've got a (moderately realistic) trade idea that nets us better players with the not-so-fine bunch I'm offering up -- ping me.
OK, they didn't get "nothing", they got 4 different players than the ones they currently have.  The point is that the 4 bodies they brought in do not address the team's primary deficiencies which are a better backup ballhandler than House and a wing player that can replace Daniels for the short term and going forward another couple of seasons.  This trade doesn't accomplish that.

Am I against making a deal that improves the team?  Absolutely not.  Am I against moving the players you've used?  not at all.  Do I have a better deal?  can't say that I have one at the moment but just because I don't have something better does not make this deal one worth making.  but to recap what I said previously---if Outlaw were healthy and the C's could get him under contract for 2-3 years, the deal may be worth considering provided thay can also fill the backup PG issue at some point. 

If Pruitt and Hudson aren't good enough for Doc then I don't see Bayless as good enough for Doc either.  The kid isn't that impressive based on what little I've seen. 
No need for options A, B or C.

A -- won't happen.  My NBA viewing is strictly Celtics, no one else.  Don't care about watching anyone else since the product is far inferior to the one I grew up watching in the 80's. From waht I have seen and from feedback from family in Oregon that follows the Blazers, I'll take their assessment that Bayless and Webster are nothing to get excited about. 

B -- well duh, TA and Scal need to go.  no brainer there and no disagreement either.

C -- See A and B.

to reiterate my point that you don't seem to be picking up on -- I'm not debating the need to improve the team nor the selection of players on the C's to be used in a trade.  My concern is with the players coming back to the C's not being sufficient to meet the team's needs while using up almost all of the C's bargaining chips. 

obviously you feel differently which is fine.  just understand that you haven't made an argument that will sway my viewpoint, if that matters to you.






Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #31 on: December 10, 2009, 10:32:23 AM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
So Portland gives away 3 nice prospects for a pile of poop?

You think Glen Davis and Andres Nocioni are a pile of poop for a team that has major holes to plug at the 3 and the 4?
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #32 on: December 10, 2009, 10:37:14 AM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
No way Portland does this....too little back....too much going out

I don't follow.

They trade one rotation player (webster), one occasional player where they're deep (bayless), a guy who is out indefinitely, likely until he's a Free Agent this summer (outlaw) and a relic (howard) for two guys who would play 25 minutes each at positions of serious need considering outlaw, batum and oden all being out of the line-up.

They start Miller, Roy, Nocioni, Baby and Aldridge bringing Blake, Rudy and Pryz off the bench. They're immediately improved and a major player in the west.
Um, hate to come across like a smartass  ::) but you just made the case for the C's NOT to make this deal.  All the points you made about why they give up those players was the same thing that ran through my mind why this wasn't a good deal when I read your proposal.

Philly alternative would be the same response.  C's get a redundant relic in Howard, a no-pass/no-ballhandling guard with Bayless, a IR-player with Outlaw and a marginal forward with Webster.  No thanks.

Incorrect, my man. These are reasons why Portland does it. Where do they need help? At the starting 3 and 4. They get it. Where do the Cs need help? At the back-up 1 and back-up wing. They get it. Not every trade involves someone getting ripped off. It's about team needs, and this certainly deepens our bench, and you'd have a hard time arguing they lose on talent.

The Cs trade a back-up PF for a back-up 1 and a wing player who can come off the bench and do two things at the same time: shoot and play defense. These are items the Cs DO NOT have.

Bayless can't dribble? Ever seen him play?
incorrect? don't think so.

From a C's perspective, they get nothing.  BBD is better than Howard at this stage of their careers.  Outlaw is injured and likely out for the year.  Bayless does not provide the backup point they need nor is he big enough to play backup SF.  Webster, marginal player that's not worth this deal by himself.  If Outlaw were healthy, this would be a deal that might be worth making.

Portland certainly does ok when picking up BBD and Nocioni. 

The Cs get nothing? Come on, dude.

When you've got a (moderately realistic) trade idea that nets us better players with the not-so-fine bunch I'm offering up -- ping me.
OK, they didn't get "nothing", they got 4 different players than the ones they currently have.  The point is that the 4 bodies they brought in do not address the team's primary deficiencies which are a better backup ballhandler than House and a wing player that can replace Daniels for the short term and going forward another couple of seasons.  This trade doesn't accomplish that.

Am I against making a deal that improves the team?  Absolutely not.  Am I against moving the players you've used?  not at all.  Do I have a better deal?  can't say that I have one at the moment but just because I don't have something better does not make this deal one worth making.  but to recap what I said previously---if Outlaw were healthy and the C's could get him under contract for 2-3 years, the deal may be worth considering provided thay can also fill the backup PG issue at some point. 

If Pruitt and Hudson aren't good enough for Doc then I don't see Bayless as good enough for Doc either.  The kid isn't that impressive based on what little I've seen. 
No need for options A, B or C.

A -- won't happen.  My NBA viewing is strictly Celtics, no one else.  Don't care about watching anyone else since the product is far inferior to the one I grew up watching in the 80's. From waht I have seen and from feedback from family in Oregon that follows the Blazers, I'll take their assessment that Bayless and Webster are nothing to get excited about. 

B -- well duh, TA and Scal need to go.  no brainer there and no disagreement either.

C -- See A and B.

to reiterate my point that you don't seem to be picking up on -- I'm not debating the need to improve the team nor the selection of players on the C's to be used in a trade.  My concern is with the players coming back to the C's not being sufficient to meet the team's needs while using up almost all of the C's bargaining chips. 

obviously you feel differently which is fine.  just understand that you haven't made an argument that will sway my viewpoint, if that matters to you.







oy vey. if you want to speak so definitively about what players can bring to the celtics, you should watch them play first.
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #33 on: December 10, 2009, 11:15:03 AM »

Offline moiso

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7680
  • Tommy Points: 447
So Portland gives away 3 nice prospects for a pile of poop?

You think Glen Davis and Andres Nocioni are a pile of poop for a team that has major holes to plug at the 3 and the 4?
Pretty much.  I think Portland is looking at the big picture.  Fernandez and Outlaw are far better in the long term than Baby and Nocioni.  I don't think they'll sacrifice the future for a few more wins this season.  They are a step or two away from competing anyway.

Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #34 on: December 10, 2009, 11:57:34 AM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
So Portland gives away 3 nice prospects for a pile of poop?

You think Glen Davis and Andres Nocioni are a pile of poop for a team that has major holes to plug at the 3 and the 4?
Pretty much.  I think Portland is looking at the big picture.  Fernandez and Outlaw are far better in the long term than Baby and Nocioni.  I don't think they'll sacrifice the future for a few more wins this season.  They are a step or two away from competing anyway.

Outlaw is a FA after this year. They have Batum coming back who they start over him anyway. So at the very least, his long-term outlook in Portland is shaky. He's trade-bait.

Fernandez is a shooting guard. He comes off the bench. His role doesn't change one iota in this deal.

Trading role players (including adding a 3rd year player on a very reasonable deal) sacrifices the future? They won 54 games last year. They're one of the top 4 or 5 teams in the Western Conference. You don't think they're trying to win now? Is that why they tried to sign Hedu -- for the future? Is that why they signed Andre Miller? Tell that to Brandon Roy and Lamarcus Aldridge.

~~~~~~~~~~

The days of the Blazers being able to count on Oden are sadly over. Whatever he brings to the table from here on out is gravy, and it's going to come slowly, if ever.

Meanwhile, it's hard to argue that they play their best ball when Alridge plays primarily at the 5, leaving Pryz to play more situiational minutes. But they can't do this as currently constituted -- they need a 4 who can defend and hit shots next to LA, and they simply do not have one. Their ability to play their best ball is being hindered by an unbalanced roster and injuries

Nocioni and Baby can EACH fill this role against different types of 4s in the league (say, the difference between stretch 4s and post 4s). When a team plays bigger, Noce slides the 3 with Baby and Aldridge at the 4 and 5. When they play smaller, you move Noce to the 4 and sub him with Glen.

I just think this looks like a win-win for every team involved considering their needs (including Phili if you use that version).
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #35 on: December 10, 2009, 01:16:06 PM »

Offline Atzar

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10244
  • Tommy Points: 1893
So we give BBD and our expiring contracts for Webster and a player who likely wouldn't play any minutes for us.  And this is a steal?

As I just said... if we weren't a championship contender I'd like this trade.  We are though, so I need some more help now than an unused PG and a SF who hasn't even played well for them this year.

If you don't think Bayless is capable of playing 15 minutes a game, you're not going to like this trade. All I can suggest is you reconsider his skills -- handle, turnovers (lack there of), speed, defense, ability to improve in a backcourt not completely cluster****ed by its team's front office, etc.


I like Bayless's upside.  Could he handle 15 - or even 10 -  minutes a game?  Maybe.  I'm not fond of trading for a 'maybe' - as a championship contender, I want a 'yes'.  He hasn't been given an opportunity in Portland, and I want someone I can expect, rather than hope, will produce for us when given a significant role. 

He may be as good as you think.  But that's a chance I wouldn't be willing to take.

Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #36 on: December 10, 2009, 03:07:45 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32335
  • Tommy Points: 10099


oy vey. if you want to speak so definitively about what players can bring to the celtics, you should watch them play first.
I have, but not extensively. To supplement what I've seen, I've spoken with someone who follows the Blazers and whose opinion is trustworthy (IMO) and used their feedback to become more informed on the topic.

We obviously have different interpretations of the skill levels of these players.  Evidently we can watch the same player perform and arrive at different conclusions about their abilities. 

Looking at Atzar's reply above to your same argument, he conveys my point better than I'm doing.  You're speculating that Bayless brings enough to the table to get Doc's attention so that he sees court time AND delivers while he's out there.

I'm with Atzar-->for a team making a run at the title this year, I want a definite contributor, not someone that's speculated to deliver. 
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 03:13:49 PM by slamtheking »

Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #37 on: December 10, 2009, 03:41:02 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
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.

Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #38 on: December 10, 2009, 04:58:19 PM »

Offline Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 52979
  • Tommy Points: 2570
Webster

Martell Webster is a better player than Glen Davis.

Webster is a good role player. Very good athlete. Plays good defense and has excellent defensive potential. Very good shooter and can score in a multitude of ways. Good complementary player. Predominantly a two guard (more effective there) but capable of playing both wing positions. Good rebounder for a shooting guard.

Bayless

Jerryd Bayless is one of those high risk/high reward players. He's not ready to contribute right now, not as a role player on a contender, but he has very good potential. He could be a star on a lottery team right away though (needs to monopolize the ball to be effective).

Bayless is a gym rat who is constantly working on his game. Great mentality, excellent confidence, never backs down from anything or anyone. True competitor. Plays both ends hard. Very good athlete. Qualities like that make me more optimistic about a prospect fulfilling his potential.

Bayless isn't much of a point guard though. He's a scorer through and through. He needs to play alongside a playmaking wing (Brandon Roy) to be a successful point guard in the NBA. If Bayless doesn't have that playmaking wing, then his flaws as a lead guard will cause more problems for his teams than his scoring brings benefits (like a Mo Williams).

Trade Thoughts

* Bayless -- I don't think the Blazers give up Bayless for anything the Celtics are offering.
* Webster -- I can't see Portland giving up Martell either. Not for what the Celtics have to offer.
* Outlaw -- Possibly. Doubtful but possible. Outlaw is an expiring contract and does have an uncertain future at the club. They may be willing to sacrifice him for a physically strong backup power forward ... which they incorrectly think is a need for the club.

Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #39 on: December 10, 2009, 05:24:33 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
Thanks, Who. Bayless is certainly not a traditional 'pass first' PG , but i think it's too early to assume that he can't be a sound passer to go with his scoring ability. Again, he's only had spot minutes as a pro, so he's likely trying to make his mark with scoiring. That mentality changes when you join the Ubuntu crew. 

Not that I have a problem with him being the player he is. He'd be a nice addition to our second unit -- a Bobby Jackson type. And I like his defensive potential -- excellent quickness.

I think the biggest issue in this trade is whether the Blazers like Nocioni as a poor man's Hedu Turk. If they do, this deal makes sense for the Cs, Sac, Phili AND Portland. Agreed? My guess is they may feel it's time for a change of scenery for Webster, and again Noce's deal is not much richer that Martell's. It's hard to say where they are with Bayless. Are they getting enough in the deal?
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #40 on: December 10, 2009, 05:53:30 PM »

Offline Atzar

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10244
  • Tommy Points: 1893
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.



I said this already:  I like the trade from Sacramento's point of view.  I'm not sure about Portland - I like the talent they get at the positions they need, but I'm not sure they're willing to take on a horrible contract in exchange - not to mention that they give up some quality youth. 

Right now?  I would not trade Baby straight up for Webster, no.  There are a few reasons.  First, I've said this quite a few times now - I like what Jerryd and Webster could bring later.  Not now.  Right now, Webster is shooting 37% from the field, and that's really not far out of line with his career numbers (40%).  Second, if Shelden continues to learn the system and proves that he can be an effective backup PF for this team, then maybe I'd reconsider.  I'm not quite ready to consider BBD expendable though.

Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #41 on: December 10, 2009, 06:00:39 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
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.



I said this already:  I like the trade from Sacramento's point of view.  I'm not sure about Portland - I like the talent they get at the positions they need, but I'm not sure they're willing to take on a horrible contract in exchange - not to mention that they give up some quality youth. 

Right now?  I would not trade Baby straight up for Webster, no.  There are a few reasons.  First, I've said this quite a few times now - I like what Jerryd and Webster could bring later.  Not now.  Right now, Webster is shooting 37% from the field, and that's really not far out of line with his career numbers (40%).  Second, if Shelden continues to learn the system and proves that he can be an effective backup PF for this team, then maybe I'd reconsider.  I'm not quite ready to consider BBD expendable though.

Fair enough. TP for you.
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #42 on: December 10, 2009, 06:02:29 PM »

Offline Atzar

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10244
  • Tommy Points: 1893
Back at you.

Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #43 on: December 12, 2009, 07:57:32 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
thought i'd post this related marc stein article.

http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page/dime-091112-13/weekend-dime-players-soon-trade-eligible

looks like portland is trading one of their PGs for a shooter. The Cs could be an excellent partner.
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Trade idea: BOS/POR/SAC
« Reply #44 on: December 13, 2009, 02:17:09 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32335
  • Tommy Points: 10099
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.



I said this already:  I like the trade from Sacramento's point of view.  I'm not sure about Portland - I like the talent they get at the positions they need, but I'm not sure they're willing to take on a horrible contract in exchange - not to mention that they give up some quality youth. 

Right now?  I would not trade Baby straight up for Webster, no.  There are a few reasons.  First, I've said this quite a few times now - I like what Jerryd and Webster could bring later.  Not now.  Right now, Webster is shooting 37% from the field, and that's really not far out of line with his career numbers (40%).  Second, if Shelden continues to learn the system and proves that he can be an effective backup PF for this team, then maybe I'd reconsider.  I'm not quite ready to consider BBD expendable though.
I second those sentiments with one caveat, even if Shelden learned the system better, I'd still be reluctant to move BBD for Webster.  Not just due to Webster's low shooting % for someone we need to play SF but also because BBD can play some center against the big men in the league.  Granted, that's based on BBD's size as of last year.  If he's lost a significant amount of weight and can now be pushed around by the Shaq's and Howard's of the league, he's less valuable.

Bayless is a speculation for the future and, with Who's added input, does not provide the true backup PG the team needs. 

Again, I would pass for now.  I don't worry about what the C's are sending out in talent not being appealing to other teams.   I figure the sole appeal of any players the C's are sending out are strictly that those players will be expiring at the end of the year.  For that reason, I expect Danny to get better talent coming in than going out.