rebuilding trade

[PLamb]

If the team decides to blow up, the best idea would be to go to the bad teams with a lot of cap space if they sign one, and only one of the top FA.  Offer KG and Pierce to be the 2nd (or third is some cases) for their 1st round pick. 

Perk to OKC fits for me

KG to Washington

Pierce to Miami

[wdleehi]

If some other team wants Garnett or Pierce, it will be mostly for cap purposes, unless it's a contender thinking that one more veteran ex-all star will put them over the top. But contending teams do not have lotto picks, and you aren't going to rebuild picking in the late 20's.

IMHO it is better to let the deals expire and get under the cap. It gives you more options.

A team (like NJ) would do a better job convincing a FA to come if they told them they had a deal in place to bring a KG into the fold after they sign them.

[Vermont Green]

Why would MN do that?

I see once scenario and that is if Garnett's knee is so bad off that he retires, insurance pays, and no cap hit (essentially expiring).  I don't think Perk and Rondo are going anywhere but something around Jefferson for a retiring Garnett could work for both teams.

Farfetched?

[Brickowski]

Well, that scenario worked for the Celtics, but IMHO it is unrealistic to think that any team would give real value for Garnett or Pierce. Other teams have scouts who watch the Celtics.

[wdleehi]

Well, that scenario worked for the Celtics, but IMHO it is unrealistic to think that any team would give real value for Garnett or Pierce. Other teams have scouts who watch the Celtics.

I disagree.  While neither of them are cappable of being the Alpha dog anymore, both are cappable of being the 2nd best player on a team. 


Dispite the terrible play the Celtics have this season, they are still going to win 50 games. 

[Chris]

Well, that scenario worked for the Celtics, but IMHO it is unrealistic to think that any team would give real value for Garnett or Pierce. Other teams have scouts who watch the Celtics.

I think you could expect to get similar value, and maybe a bit more than the Nets got for Carter.  So an expiring contract (or cap space), a young rotation player (certainly not a star), and/or a draft pick. 

They are not going to singlehandedly rebuild the team like this, but there is the potential to get some value for these guys.

The question is, could they get more value by using them as an expiring contract, and combining them with other assets to try to get a younger star type player who another team is willing to dump for salary reasons.  And would that be better for the team?

[BballTim]

Why would MN do that?  They don't need picks in the low 20s.  They will have a lotto pick of their own, and giving up Rubio is like giving up another lotto pick.  LOL.

Here's the Celtics' correct rebuilding strategy: 
1. Let Ray Allen go at the end of the year, unless you can sign and trade him for a younger player.
2. Make decent draft picks in 2010.
3. Trade Perkins and Sheed over the Summer for whatever youth you can get. You don't rebuld around a second string center who can't make free throws.
4. Let Pierce go at the end of next year. 
5. Make decent draft picks in 2011.
6. Let Garnett go in 2012. 
7. Make decent draft picks in 2012. By then they will probably be in the lottery.
8. With Pierce off the books, they will have the cap space to make a run at a decent free agent in the Summer of 2011.
9. Order Rivers to play the young players.  If he doesn't like that, too bad.

Will this rational plan happen?  Of course not.  Management will try to ride the "star power" of the big 3 as long as it can in a pathetic and dishonest attempt to sell season tickets and luxury boxes. So I expect both Pierce and Ray to get cut rate extensions.  After all, Pierce has to retire a Celtic, doesn't he, even if he totally sucks?

  With a little luck, if we follow this plan, we'll be a decent team by 2017 or so.

[wdleehi]

Well, that scenario worked for the Celtics, but IMHO it is unrealistic to think that any team would give real value for Garnett or Pierce. Other teams have scouts who watch the Celtics.

I think you could expect to get similar value, and maybe a bit more than the Nets got for Carter.  So an expiring contract (or cap space), a young rotation player (certainly not a star), and/or a draft pick. 

They are not going to singlehandedly rebuild the team like this, but there is the potential to get some value for these guys.

The question is, could they get more value by using them as an expiring contract, and combining them with other assets to try to get a younger star type player who another team is willing to dump for salary reasons.  And would that be better for the team?

Unless a team wants to dump a top 5 star, you are better off moving now for assets that has the chance of becoming a tops star.  (much like the Celtics had when they went and got KG and Ray)  And if this team is done as a contender, it is better to hit the low point sooner then later when moving them.  

[Brickowski]

Why would MN do that?  They don't need picks in the low 20s.  They will have a lotto pick of their own, and giving up Rubio is like giving up another lotto pick.  LOL.

Here's the Celtics' correct rebuilding strategy: 
1. Let Ray Allen go at the end of the year, unless you can sign and trade him for a younger player.
2. Make decent draft picks in 2010.
3. Trade Perkins and Sheed over the Summer for whatever youth you can get. You don't rebuld around a second string center who can't make free throws.
4. Let Pierce go at the end of next year. 
5. Make decent draft picks in 2011.
6. Let Garnett go in 2012. 
7. Make decent draft picks in 2012. By then they will probably be in the lottery.
8. With Pierce off the books, they will have the cap space to make a run at a decent free agent in the Summer of 2011.
9. Order Rivers to play the young players.  If he doesn't like that, too bad.

Will this rational plan happen?  Of course not.  Management will try to ride the "star power" of the big 3 as long as it can in a pathetic and dishonest attempt to sell season tickets and luxury boxes. So I expect both Pierce and Ray to get cut rate extensions.  After all, Pierce has to retire a Celtic, doesn't he, even if he totally sucks?

  With a little luck, if we follow this plan, we'll be a decent team by 2017 or so.

2015.  Look at OK City and Memphis.  Both of those tema have made it back to respectability in three years after dumping their stars (Pau Gasol in the case of Memphis, Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis in the case of OK City).  And both of those teams have bright futures.  The 2010 Boston Celtics do not.

[action781]

Why would MN do that?  They don't need picks in the low 20s.  They will have a lotto pick of their own, and giving up Rubio is like giving up another lotto pick.  LOL.

Here's the Celtics' correct rebuilding strategy: 
1. Let Ray Allen go at the end of the year, unless you can sign and trade him for a younger player.
2. Make decent draft picks in 2010.
3. Trade Perkins and Sheed over the Summer for whatever youth you can get. You don't rebuld around a second string center who can't make free throws.
4. Let Pierce go at the end of next year. 
5. Make decent draft picks in 2011.
6. Let Garnett go in 2012. 
7. Make decent draft picks in 2012. By then they will probably be in the lottery.
8. With Pierce off the books, they will have the cap space to make a run at a decent free agent in the Summer of 2011.
9. Order Rivers to play the young players.  If he doesn't like that, too bad.

Will this rational plan happen?  Of course not.  Management will try to ride the "star power" of the big 3 as long as it can in a pathetic and dishonest attempt to sell season tickets and luxury boxes. So I expect both Pierce and Ray to get cut rate extensions.  After all, Pierce has to retire a Celtic, doesn't he, even if he totally sucks?

Problem:
If we do trade 'Sheed, then we would still have 31.2M committed to only TWO players in that Summer 2011 offseason.  After cap holds and some assumed multi-year signings this offseason (and rookie contracts), we would have very little, if any, cap space to sign any free agents.

[Chris]

Well, that scenario worked for the Celtics, but IMHO it is unrealistic to think that any team would give real value for Garnett or Pierce. Other teams have scouts who watch the Celtics.

I think you could expect to get similar value, and maybe a bit more than the Nets got for Carter.  So an expiring contract (or cap space), a young rotation player (certainly not a star), and/or a draft pick. 

They are not going to singlehandedly rebuild the team like this, but there is the potential to get some value for these guys.

The question is, could they get more value by using them as an expiring contract, and combining them with other assets to try to get a younger star type player who another team is willing to dump for salary reasons.  And would that be better for the team?

Unless a team wants to dump a top 5 star, you are better off moving now for assets that has the chance of becoming a tops star.  (much like the Celtics had when they went and got KG and Ray)  And if this team is done as a contender, it is better to hit the low point sooner then later when moving them.  

I think you are right.  After going through this with Ray, and seeing what was being thrown out there (and the bad contracts that likely would have been involved), I think getting cap relief (or not taking anything longer than you are giving up), and getting guys on rookie contracts is the way to go. 

The problem is, this team does not have the "sweeteners" right now, to make a play for an elite player.  All they could get is someone another team wants to get rid of for a reason.  So if they can turn their older guys into assets (young guys on small contracts/draft picks), then that will be very valuable in their rebuilding effort.

Also, I think they respect KG and Pierce too much to send them to a team who is just trying to cut salaries by trading away their young stars. 

If they were to trade KG or Pierce (which I am not convinced they would even consider), I think they would be sure to send them into a situation where they think they could win.

[PLamb]

Well, that scenario worked for the Celtics, but IMHO it is unrealistic to think that any team would give real value for Garnett or Pierce. Other teams have scouts who watch the Celtics.

I think you could expect to get similar value, and maybe a bit more than the Nets got for Carter.  So an expiring contract (or cap space), a young rotation player (certainly not a star), and/or a draft pick. 

They are not going to singlehandedly rebuild the team like this, but there is the potential to get some value for these guys.

The question is, could they get more value by using them as an expiring contract, and combining them with other assets to try to get a younger star type player who another team is willing to dump for salary reasons.  And would that be better for the team?

It's possible but as we saw this off season dumping high price expiring stars for good youth isn't a great payoff

Teams were able to dump big expiring contracts for cap space for the chance to entice an unbelievable free agency but 2011 free agency isn't nearly as attractive

Zach Randolph
Tony Parker
Jamal Crawford
Caron Butler
Maybe Carmelo Anthony - I doubt it
JR Smith
Tayshaun Prince
Shane Battier
Troy Murphy
Mike Dunleavy
Maybe David West
Jason Richardson


That's about it for quality

So will someone dump someone decent for Paul Pierce for cap space in 2011... not unless they are a team that just has to dump salary for fiscal reasons and not free agency reasons

A contender might be interested but a pick in the late twenties for Pierce and some scrubs doesn't sound very good

KG, unfortunately unless he retires early giving away money or just can't play because of his knee and is deemed unable to play and insurance kicks in, is ours, I am afraid

Perk, Wallace and Baby are the guys we will have to trade to try to get something in return for

Perk should net a first rounder in this years draft

[BballTim]

Why would MN do that?  They don't need picks in the low 20s.  They will have a lotto pick of their own, and giving up Rubio is like giving up another lotto pick.  LOL.

Here's the Celtics' correct rebuilding strategy: 
1. Let Ray Allen go at the end of the year, unless you can sign and trade him for a younger player.
2. Make decent draft picks in 2010.
3. Trade Perkins and Sheed over the Summer for whatever youth you can get. You don't rebuld around a second string center who can't make free throws.
4. Let Pierce go at the end of next year. 
5. Make decent draft picks in 2011.
6. Let Garnett go in 2012. 
7. Make decent draft picks in 2012. By then they will probably be in the lottery.
8. With Pierce off the books, they will have the cap space to make a run at a decent free agent in the Summer of 2011.
9. Order Rivers to play the young players.  If he doesn't like that, too bad.

Will this rational plan happen?  Of course not.  Management will try to ride the "star power" of the big 3 as long as it can in a pathetic and dishonest attempt to sell season tickets and luxury boxes. So I expect both Pierce and Ray to get cut rate extensions.  After all, Pierce has to retire a Celtic, doesn't he, even if he totally sucks?

  With a little luck, if we follow this plan, we'll be a decent team by 2017 or so.

2015.  Look at OK City and Memphis.  Both of those tema have made it back to respectability in three years after dumping their stars (Pau Gasol in the case of Memphis, Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis in the case of OK City).  And both of those teams have bright futures.  The 2010 Boston Celtics do not.

  2017, and that's just to get decent. Look at all the teams that have had a boatload of top picks and still struggle. And, by the way, look at OKC and Mmephis. One of those teams has a franchise player that they can try and build a title team around, one of them does not. I could see Memphis being slightly above average until they break up this group. I could see this present Celtics team, if kept together, winning as many playoff games in the next 3 years as Memphis does with this core of players.

[Brickowski]

Why would MN do that?  They don't need picks in the low 20s.  They will have a lotto pick of their own, and giving up Rubio is like giving up another lotto pick.  LOL.

Here's the Celtics' correct rebuilding strategy: 
1. Let Ray Allen go at the end of the year, unless you can sign and trade him for a younger player.
2. Make decent draft picks in 2010.
3. Trade Perkins and Sheed over the Summer for whatever youth you can get. You don't rebuld around a second string center who can't make free throws.
4. Let Pierce go at the end of next year. 
5. Make decent draft picks in 2011.
6. Let Garnett go in 2012. 
7. Make decent draft picks in 2012. By then they will probably be in the lottery.
8. With Pierce off the books, they will have the cap space to make a run at a decent free agent in the Summer of 2011.
9. Order Rivers to play the young players.  If he doesn't like that, too bad.

Will this rational plan happen?  Of course not.  Management will try to ride the "star power" of the big 3 as long as it can in a pathetic and dishonest attempt to sell season tickets and luxury boxes. So I expect both Pierce and Ray to get cut rate extensions.  After all, Pierce has to retire a Celtic, doesn't he, even if he totally sucks?

Problem:
If we do trade 'Sheed, then we would still have 31.2M committed to only TWO players in that Summer 2011 offseason.  After cap holds and some assumed multi-year signings this offseason (and rookie contracts), we would have very little, if any, cap space to sign any free agents.

But if they can get rid of Sheed, that still leaves them approximately 8-10 million under, assuming that they have signed their draft picks.  That might be enough to get a decent player in a market that's going to be tough for players with the lockout looming.

You're right, though, thay they will have no room for a max salary free agent until June, 2012. The prizes in that free agent class will be Carmello Anthony and David West (a player the Celtics could have drafted instead of Marcus Banks in 2003).
 

[Brickowski]

Let me respond to BBallTim: yes, 2015 is just to get decent.

But they are going to be in the toilet after 2012 no matter what they do, unless you think that extending the big three until they are in their late 30's is the way to go.

The Celtics will not make the playoffs in 2010-11 unless it's the 7th or 8th seed, and I hope you enjoy their role as cannon fodder for younger, more athletic teams.