Could Ainge surprise us and trade Pierce or KG? (place possible trade ideas)

[Michael Anthony]

KG is untradable, plain and simple. Pierce might have some value to a contender with a hole at small forward, but we need to make sure we get something good back - not just expiring deals.

Cleveland and Orlando are set at SF, Atlanta does not have appropriate contracts / picks / young players to trade, so the East is out.

Lakers are good with Artest, and San Antonio does not have the assets. Portland does not really have the assets either - we are not getting Oden or Roy. Fernandez, Outlaw and Blake are not enough. Their pick is low.

Utah could be interesting.

They have expiring deals (Boozer, Korver), replacement talent (Kirilenko), young talent (Brewer, Miles, Koufos) and solid picks (NY #1).

Are Pierce and Walker for Kirilenko, Koufos, NY #1 and Utah #1 equal value?

[Brickowski]

Well I would trade Garnett and Pierce to Utah for Boozer, Kirilenko and Korver.  Why not?

But it won't work.  For starters, KG has a no trade clause and would not likely want to go to Utah.  Pierce has torpedoed trades in the past by letting it be known that he would not report to his new team.

Also, Garnett and Pierce are the focus of the team's marketing efforts.  Even when they are playing like total crap they put fannies in the seats.

[ssspence]

Well I would trade Garnett and Pierce to Utah for Boozer, Kirilenko and Korver.  Why not?

But it won't work.  For starters, KG has a no trade clause and would not likely want to go to Utah.  Pierce has torpedoed trades in the past by letting it be known that he would not report to his new team.

Also, Garnett and Pierce are the focus of the team's marketing efforts.  Even when they are playing like total crap they put fannies in the seats.

yes I'd been meaning to point out the obvious business drawbacks to trading KG. He has a no trade clause in his deal? Is that true?

[Evantime34]

Well I would trade Garnett and Pierce to Utah for Boozer, Kirilenko and Korver.  Why not?

But it won't work.  For starters, KG has a no trade clause and would not likely want to go to Utah.  Pierce has torpedoed trades in the past by letting it be known that he would not report to his new team.

Also, Garnett and Pierce are the focus of the team's marketing efforts.  Even when they are playing like total crap they put fannies in the seats.

Marketing efforts can be changed, as long as the team is winning people will come out.
I think Pierce is a possibility if a team can convince him to use his early termination option so that he can sign with a contender next year.
KG won't be traded until he becomes an expiring contract if at all.

Not to toot my own horn but I got another star :-)

[Who]

Well I would trade Garnett and Pierce to Utah for Boozer, Kirilenko and Korver.  Why not?

But it won't work.  For starters, KG has a no trade clause and would not likely want to go to Utah.  Pierce has torpedoed trades in the past by letting it be known that he would not report to his new team.

Also, Garnett and Pierce are the focus of the team's marketing efforts.  Even when they are playing like total crap they put fannies in the seats.

yes I'd been meaning to point out the obvious business drawbacks to trading KG. He has a no trade clause in his deal? Is that true?

I don't think so ... but KG does have a large trade kicker.

[slamtheking]

Well I would trade Garnett and Pierce to Utah for Boozer, Kirilenko and Korver.  Why not?

But it won't work.  For starters, KG has a no trade clause and would not likely want to go to Utah.  Pierce has torpedoed trades in the past by letting it be known that he would not report to his new team.

Also, Garnett and Pierce are the focus of the team's marketing efforts.  Even when they are playing like total crap they put fannies in the seats.

If that trade was even on the table, Utah would have to send back picks with that.  C's would be sending out their top 2 players for a PF that becomes a UFA (and the one talent truly worth keeping in the deal), an underperforming swing forward that's paid more than their current performance level and a shooter that's not shooting particularly well this year and would be a UFA.  C's could potentially end up with a roster of Rondo/Perk/Kirilenko/Sheed/BBD/Walker with everyone else an FA.  That's a lot of spots to fill without a significant amount of cap space due to Rondo and Kirilenko's contracts, Perk's impending new contract and the cap hold spaces to fill out the roster.  Also, with that roster, if there was just enough cap space to get a max-contract FA, who'd want to join that bunch?

[PosImpos]

Please never trade Paul Pierce.  I don't care if it means an extra 2-3 years of mediocrity.

[Who]

Please never trade Paul Pierce.  I don't care if it means an extra 2-3 years of mediocrity.

I'm not willing to accept another 2-3 years of mediocrity to keep Pierce.

I'd rather trade him or let him leave in free agency.

[rondohondo]

Please never trade Paul Pierce.  I don't care if it means an extra 2-3 years of mediocrity.

I'm not willing to accept another 2-3 years of mediocrity to keep Pierce.

I'd rather trade him or let him leave in free agency.

yea I love PP but its all about the name on the front of the Jersey. He would be traded to a contender anyways so he would be happy.

[Fan from VT]

Here's a ridiculous scenario i posted in another thread. obviously would never happen:

How about we REALLY blow it up:

KG to Cleveland for Ilgauskas and a S&T Wally and a pick at about 4 million for the rest of this year (he's still a UFA and Cleveland has bird rights). We'd even buy out ilgauskas for them. How does Cleveland say no?

AND

Pierce and Sheed to either Houston for T-Mac and a pick or to Dallas for Howard/Dampier.   


Boom. 3 players under roster: 3 mil Davis, 4.9 for Perk and 9.1 for Rondo. First round pick holds, what, 1.5? then it's 500k per empty spot up to 12? so say we end up with our own pick and one other. so that's 3 mil + 3.5 for the roster spots, plus 3 + 4.9 + 9.1, is 23.5. That leaves probably 30 million; would Bron and Bosh split that? if not, just deal Davis for an expiring, i bet that would be easy enough. So say that happens...would Bron and Bosh be able to say no to Max Contracts to play in Boston (Legacy alert! we know they care about image and history!) with Rondo and Perk?

Roster:
Rondo/Vet that wants to play with Bron and Bosh
#15-18 pick (we'd suck the rest of the way this year)/Vet min
Bron/#29 pick from cleveland
Bosh/min
Perk/min

[Fan from VT]

Well I would trade Garnett and Pierce to Utah for Boozer, Kirilenko and Korver.  Why not?

But it won't work.  For starters, KG has a no trade clause and would not likely want to go to Utah.  Pierce has torpedoed trades in the past by letting it be known that he would not report to his new team.

Also, Garnett and Pierce are the focus of the team's marketing efforts.  Even when they are playing like total crap they put fannies in the seats.

yes I'd been meaning to point out the obvious business drawbacks to trading KG. He has a no trade clause in his deal? Is that true?

I don't think so ... but KG does have a large trade kicker.

coon:

87. When can't a player be traded? Can players be given "no-trade" clauses in their contracts?
A "no-trade" clause can be negotiated into an individual contract if the player has been in the NBA for at least eight seasons, and has played for the team with which he is signing for at least four seasons. They don't have to be the immediately prior four seasons -- for example, Horace Grant got a no-trade clause from Orlando when he signed with them in 2001. He had played for Orlando for four seasons, but had played for Seattle and Los Angeles in the interim. Very few players actually have one of these no-trade provisions. Otherwise, individually negotiated contracts may not contain no-trade clauses. The no-trade clause prevents the team from making a trade involving the player without the player's consent.

So i don't think KG has one. I think Kobe is the only one who has a real no-trade clause (as opposed to the nate robinson kind), as i believe you have to be a free agent; you can't work it into an extension of an existing contract which is what most players get. But a few years ago when kobe was posturing to go to the clips, he was a full UFA before resigning with the Lakers. If i remember, this was all mostly in order to GET the no-trade clause, as he never really planned to leave anyway.

[Who]

Well I would trade Garnett and Pierce to Utah for Boozer, Kirilenko and Korver.  Why not?

But it won't work.  For starters, KG has a no trade clause and would not likely want to go to Utah.  Pierce has torpedoed trades in the past by letting it be known that he would not report to his new team.

Also, Garnett and Pierce are the focus of the team's marketing efforts.  Even when they are playing like total crap they put fannies in the seats.

yes I'd been meaning to point out the obvious business drawbacks to trading KG. He has a no trade clause in his deal? Is that true?

I don't think so ... but KG does have a large trade kicker.

coon:

87. When can't a player be traded? Can players be given "no-trade" clauses in their contracts?
A "no-trade" clause can be negotiated into an individual contract if the player has been in the NBA for at least eight seasons, and has played for the team with which he is signing for at least four seasons. They don't have to be the immediately prior four seasons -- for example, Horace Grant got a no-trade clause from Orlando when he signed with them in 2001. He had played for Orlando for four seasons, but had played for Seattle and Los Angeles in the interim. Very few players actually have one of these no-trade provisions. Otherwise, individually negotiated contracts may not contain no-trade clauses. The no-trade clause prevents the team from making a trade involving the player without the player's consent.

So i don't think KG has one. I think Kobe is the only one who has a real no-trade clause (as opposed to the nate robinson kind), as i believe you have to be a free agent; you can't work it into an extension of an existing contract which is what most players get. But a few years ago when kobe was posturing to go to the clips, he was a full UFA before resigning with the Lakers. If i remember, this was all mostly in order to GET the no-trade clause, as he never really planned to leave anyway.

Yes, I remember all those ESPN articles and from other outlets that were saying that Kobe Bryant had the only true no trade clause in the league.

Garnett had his contract in place during all that and was never mentioned. I don't think he has one.

[dlpin]

Here's a ridiculous scenario i posted in another thread. obviously would never happen:

How about we REALLY blow it up:

KG to Cleveland for Ilgauskas and a S&T Wally and a pick at about 4 million for the rest of this year (he's still a UFA and Cleveland has bird rights). We'd even buy out ilgauskas for them. How does Cleveland say no?

AND

Pierce and Sheed to either Houston for T-Mac and a pick or to Dallas for Howard/Dampier.   


Boom. 3 players under roster: 3 mil Davis, 4.9 for Perk and 9.1 for Rondo. First round pick holds, what, 1.5? then it's 500k per empty spot up to 12? so say we end up with our own pick and one other. so that's 3 mil + 3.5 for the roster spots, plus 3 + 4.9 + 9.1, is 23.5. That leaves probably 30 million; would Bron and Bosh split that? if not, just deal Davis for an expiring, i bet that would be easy enough. So say that happens...would Bron and Bosh be able to say no to Max Contracts to play in Boston (Legacy alert! we know they care about image and history!) with Rondo and Perk?

Roster:
Rondo/Vet that wants to play with Bron and Bosh
#15-18 pick (we'd suck the rest of the way this year)/Vet min
Bron/#29 pick from cleveland
Bosh/min
Perk/min

If the Cavs got KG without giving up anyone else, there is absolutely no way Lebron leaves the cavs.

[Fafnir]

KG's trade kicker is likely a de facto no trade clause.

[Fan from VT]

And hey, isn't it a little ironic that we weren't going to trade for KG because he was threatening to leave after one season in Boston, so we made sure he signed an extension to lengthen our window, then we won the first year and he's kind of becoming the dead weight and it may have been better if he'd walked after our championship anyway?