Chad Ford ranks Celtics dead last among non-traders.

[Tai]

This is a fallacy. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The same could have been said about Joe Dumas a few years ago. Didn't stop him from making quite obvious strategic mistakes.

So Danny's making an obvious strategic mistake by "standing pat" with 4 picks in this draft? Are you freaking kidding me? It'd be one thing if we only had one 2nd round pick in this draft and Danny didn't try and get more picks if he really wanted to rebuild.

Instead, we have two first-rounders and two second-rounders. And like I already demonstrated, only two other teams outta the other 29 can also say that. I don't know how that's not a big deal to you if you're truly paying attention. Of course Ainge was happy to tread water unless a deal practically blew him away. We already have picks: How many picks you want, anyways?!

[LooseCannon]

If his goal was to preserve the cap space he already has, that wouldn't prevent him from making another deals by trading expirings for expiring. I do have a hard time to call that a strategy. That's merely a short term objective, a mean to an end. What strategy that mean serves? That's Ford's point. Ainge seemed happy to tread water when that was the only nonsensical option.

What sort of expirings for expirings deal is possible?  If there's no salary traded, here's what it looks like.  One team trades expirings for smaller expirings and, in exchange for the savings, gives up an asset.  Past trades suggest that the fair price is a second-round pick.  I had a hard time finding appropriate-sized contracts of players the other team had no interest in re-signing (because you wouldn't trade the expiring contract of a player you hope to keep, especially if you have his Bird rights).

Ainge's strategy is avoid taking future salary commitments, unless it is a trade-able young player who you can package in a deal for a star, and avoid trading away any first round picks.  I think that was the correct strategy for Ainge to pursue.  It was better to do nothing than to violate either of those constraints.

If we use Ray Allen as an example, I think the best return Ainge could have netted may have been two second round picks from Indiana (more than what was traded for Barbosa, but not a first).  I think it's crazy talk if you expect Larry Bird would have easily handed over a first round pick for a rental of Ray Allen.  I do think the Celtics might get a better return by orchestrating a sign-and-trade of Allen to a capped-out contender.  A double sign-and-trade of Ray to Chicago for Omer Asik (so that the Bulls don't match an offer sheet), with other pieces possibly involved (the Celtics may have to take back Rip Hamilton and could ask for a young player or future draft pick) is the sort of deal I can see happening, especially if Chicago can find a center they like in the draft.

[MosheP]

You need to have a strategy, a direction. Either you are prioritizing wins now or you are prioritizing winning in the future (and prioritize means exactly that, to give priority, not exclusivity).

Not having a strategy means losing now and in the future.

1.  Again, Danny's strategy was to set it up so Boston would have as much cap room as possible this coming off season.

This is demonstrably false. If true, he'd have traded Pierce for an expiring or a smaller contract.

If his goal was to preserve the cap space he already has, that wouldn't prevent him from making another deals by trading expirings for expiring. I do have a hard time to call that a strategy. That's merely a short term objective, a mean to an end. What strategy that mean serves? That's Ford's point. Ainge seemed happy to tread water when that was the only nonsensical option.

Why would he trade Pierce? He can always just amnesty him next year. If he's not going to get a reasonable return on him, then it's just not worth it.

Well, to "set it up so Boston would have as much cap room as possible this coming off season". I'm not saying that was his strategy or that it should be his strategy. That's MBunge theory.

And who is to say he didn't try to do expirings for expirings? Without picks, those are useless. What trades out there could he have trumped? Camby got two young players and a 2nd round pick. They aren't the best players, but you never know and Flynn has proved relatively capable. In any case, they have more value than what we had to offer. Jordan Hill cost Fisher and a 1st. Sessions cost a 1st. Kaman would've cost a 1st. Barbosa was absorbed by the Pacers. There was no move that I'm aware of where Danny could've trumped the offer without giving up a 1st rounder in this draft, which he clearly did not want to do.

The strategy is quite clear in this case. Keep the cap room, build through the draft and collect assets. Hope you pick 1-3 rotation players out of your 4 picks this year. Keep at it and keep the cap space free for when you can cash in. You're not going to win the 2013 championship, most likely, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

The only thing Flynn proved is that he isn't a NBA player. I doubt Portland would value those players over another 2nd rounder, for example.

If that's the strategy, there's no reason to keep Bass or Ray Allen around.

[MosheP]

This is a fallacy. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The same could have been said about Joe Dumas a few years ago. Didn't stop him from making quite obvious strategic mistakes.

So Danny's making an obvious strategic mistake by "standing pat" with 4 picks in this draft? Are you freaking kidding me? It'd be one thing if we only had one 2nd round pick in this draft and Danny didn't try and get more picks if he really wanted to rebuild.

Nah, you just misread. I said Joe Dumas made obvious strategic mistakes. I'm not sure how you were able to misunderstand it; seems to me it's phrased in a very clear way.

Instead, we have two first-rounders and two second-rounders. And like I already demonstrated, only two other teams outta the other 29 can also say that. I don't know how that's not a big deal to you if you're truly paying attention. Of course Ainge was happy to tread water unless a deal practically blew him away. We already have picks: How many picks you want, anyways?!

As much as possible. Saying "we already have 2 mid-to-late first and 2 second rounders, we don't need any more picks" seems quite bizarre to me. You can always trade draft picks for future ones or use them in trades. I'm not even sure what to say about your argument.

[Boris Badenov]

What Ford (and some people in this thread) are missing is that this trade deadline is just the first of many decision points in the rebuilding process.

The question is not whether Danny could have gotten *something* for one of the Big Three. It's whether the options *now* beat what the options might be *later*.

As one example, even if maximizing cap space and getting high draft picks is the goal, it might end up being a good idea to keep Pierce now - because his contract will be far more tradeable next year, and could fetch a better asset in return. We'll still have plenty of space this summer.

Similarly, if we are able to re-sign KG for less (say $10m, one year), then he will be easier to trade next year as long as he's still productive.

It's not all or nothing, right now. And I think the outcome we got at this deadline (no deals) is pretty consistent with Danny's long-term vision. Danny understands that wasting cap space on mediocre talent and trading away valuable draft picks are what guarantee mediocrity. He did neither of those things.

Remember, he didn't build that first championship team overnight.

[Tai]

This is a fallacy. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The same could have been said about Joe Dumas a few years ago. Didn't stop him from making quite obvious strategic mistakes.

So Danny's making an obvious strategic mistake by "standing pat" with 4 picks in this draft? Are you freaking kidding me? It'd be one thing if we only had one 2nd round pick in this draft and Danny didn't try and get more picks if he really wanted to rebuild.

Nah, you just misread. I said Joe Dumas made obvious strategic mistakes. I'm not sure how you were able to misunderstand it; seems to me it's phrased in a very clear way.

Instead, we have two first-rounders and two second-rounders. And like I already demonstrated, only two other teams outta the other 29 can also say that. I don't know how that's not a big deal to you if you're truly paying attention. Of course Ainge was happy to tread water unless a deal practically blew him away. We already have picks: How many picks you want, anyways?!

As much as possible. Saying "we already have 2 mid-to-late first and 2 second rounders, we don't need any more picks" seems quite bizarre to me. You can always trade draft picks for future ones or use them in trades. I'm not even sure what to say about your argument.

So you don't really want to rebuild, you just want to tank. There IS a difference; don't think I'm trying to put words in your mouth, either.

4 picks is more than enough to rebuild. Simply saying you want to dump players for the sole purpose of getting more than that does not make it true.

The purpose of tanking isn't even to trade our way out of the playoffs, anyways. Usually it's when it's likely you won't be making the playoffs, cause that's when you actually have the better chance of getting a lottery pick that will end up being in the top 3. The fact we're more than likely to make the playoffs means that blowing it up at this point may not even guarantee we get a pick so high as to mean anything.

Trading Pierce, Ray, or KG merely for picks is asnine when we already have so many. It's as simple as that. So now we have a chance to make noise in the playoffs, and whatever happens, we still have those 4 picks. Many teams wish they were in that situation. 

[gar]

Ainge has been shopping; but he obviously has been asking a high price. He values the Big Three for what they can offer now and what they could offer in the future if they sign on again cheap. If people are upset that he is not putting everything into winning this season, perhaps they should look at the big picture.

[MosheP]

This is a fallacy. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The same could have been said about Joe Dumas a few years ago. Didn't stop him from making quite obvious strategic mistakes.

So Danny's making an obvious strategic mistake by "standing pat" with 4 picks in this draft? Are you freaking kidding me? It'd be one thing if we only had one 2nd round pick in this draft and Danny didn't try and get more picks if he really wanted to rebuild.

Nah, you just misread. I said Joe Dumas made obvious strategic mistakes. I'm not sure how you were able to misunderstand it; seems to me it's phrased in a very clear way.

Instead, we have two first-rounders and two second-rounders. And like I already demonstrated, only two other teams outta the other 29 can also say that. I don't know how that's not a big deal to you if you're truly paying attention. Of course Ainge was happy to tread water unless a deal practically blew him away. We already have picks: How many picks you want, anyways?!

As much as possible. Saying "we already have 2 mid-to-late first and 2 second rounders, we don't need any more picks" seems quite bizarre to me. You can always trade draft picks for future ones or use them in trades. I'm not even sure what to say about your argument.

So you don't really want to rebuild, you just want to tank. There IS a difference; don't think I'm trying to put words in your mouth, either.

Maybe you aren't trying, but you're still putting words in my mouth. I wouldn't even make a point of rebuilding now. Had Ainge traded a couple of picks and expirings for some immediate help I would have no problem with his decision.

4 picks is more than enough to rebuild. Simply saying you want to dump players for the sole purpose of getting more than that does not make it true.

The purpose of tanking isn't even to trade our way out of the playoffs, anyways. Usually it's when it's likely you won't be making the playoffs, cause that's when you actually have the better chance of getting a lottery pick that will end up being in the top 3. The fact we're more than likely to make the playoffs means that blowing it up at this point may not even guarantee we get a pick so high as to mean anything.

Trading Pierce, Ray, or KG merely for picks is asnine when we already have so many. It's as simple as that. So now we have a chance to make noise in the playoffs, and whatever happens, we still have those 4 picks. Many teams wish they were in that situation. 

It's your prerogative to keep repeating that, but I've already understood your point. I still believe that saying "we already have 2 first + 2 seconds, we don't need any more picks, that's enough to rebuild" is flat out bizarre.

[Tai]

It's your prerogative to keep repeating that, but I've already understood your point. I still believe that saying "we already have 2 first + 2 seconds, we don't need any more picks, that's enough to rebuild" is flat out bizarre.

It's not bizarre if really wanted Danny to dump players for picks. There's no point in doing that. Are you saying you didn't necessarily prefer that?

[vinnie]

People talking about re-signing Ray and KG for next year. So will the plan be guys who are too old to win the championship this year might be able to win it next year when the are slower and older?

[vinnie]

Since the big three deals (Thanks, Kevin) what has Danny done besides getting Brandon Bass for Big Baby? And don't give me Avery Bradley blah blah blah, because while the guy can play great man defense, has has not proven to be more than a 15-minute a game guy.

[dlpin]

other than winning a championship and coming within a quarter of a second one, despite never having cap space or a top draft pick, what has Ainge done lately?

Cleary if we had landed Jordan Hill, or if we traded half the team for the 25th pick in the draft, we'd be contenders again.


 

[rondohondo]

People talking about re-signing Ray and KG for next year. So will the plan be guys who are too old to win the championship this year might be able to win it next year when the are slower and older?

The new CBA states that you have to use at least 85% of the cap room each year. The C's are going to be so far under the cap that they will have to add a bunch of contracts to do that .

Do you want them to offer huge contracts to mediocre talent on long term deals?( because that's what it will take to sign anyone relatively young, just look at BBD last year) or wouldn't it be smarter to just sign Ray and KG on 1 year deals around 7 mil to get closer to that 85% mark .

The 2013 free agent class is looking a lot stronger than 2012

Monta Ellis   - Early termination option
Andre Igudola - ETO
Kevin Martin  - UFA
Josh Smith    - UFA
Andrew Bynum  - UFA
Al Jefferson  - UFA
Paul Millsap   - UFA
Dwight Howard - UFA

Thats why you sign Ray and KG to 1 year deals next year so you don't get stuck with mediocre talent long term and still give yourself the ability to go after better all-star level talent in 2013 by saving your cap space .  

[Lucky17]

Since the big three deals (Thanks, Kevin) what has Danny done besides getting Brandon Bass for Big Baby? And don't give me Avery Bradley blah blah blah, because while the guy can play great man defense, has has not proven to be more than a 15-minute a game guy.

Here you go:

http://www.prosportstransactions.com/basketball/Search/SearchResults.php?Player=&Team=Celtics&BeginDate=2007-08-01&EndDate=&PlayerMovementChkBx=yes&submit=Search

[MosheP]

People talking about re-signing Ray and KG for next year. So will the plan be guys who are too old to win the championship this year might be able to win it next year when the are slower and older?

The new CBA states that you have to use at least 85% of the cap room each year. The C's are going to be so far under the cap that they will have to add a bunch of contracts to do that .

Do you want them to offer huge contracts to mediocre talent on long term deals?( because that's what it will take to sign anyone relatively young, just look at BBD last year) or wouldn't it be smarter to just sign Ray and KG on 1 year deals around 7 mil to get closer to that 85% mark .

The 2013 free agent class is looking a lot stronger than 2012

Monta Ellis   - Early termination option
Andre Igudola - ETO
Kevin Martin  - UFA
Josh Smith    - UFA
Andrew Bynum  - UFA
Al Jefferson  - UFA
Paul Millsap   - UFA
Dwight Howard - UFA

Thats why you sign Ray and KG to 1 year deals next year so you don't get stuck with mediocre talent long term and still give yourself the ability to go after better all-star level talent in 2013 by saving your cap space .  

Why are so many people convinced the only players Boston can sign for 1 year are KG and Ray Allen? That the alternative is mediocre talent in long term contracts?

Garnett and Ray Allen don't make any sense in a rebuilding team. Can Boston build a contender around them? If the answer is negative, it's time to let them go.