Do Our Celtics Have Enough "Chips" To Package To Obtain Another Max Guy?

[edwardjkasche]

You're giving up too much.  No trade will include Green, Sully, and Bradley.  Not gonna happen. 

One, maybe two of those guys, plus a mix of Bass, Lee, Melo (all expendable), and the pick.

But, what is more likely to happen is that Ainge spends another season or two acquiring assets to trade.

Don't rush into trading away good assets for a player who isn't worth it.

Remember, it took Ainge a few years to gather the assets to get Allen and KG.

Patience is key here.

[guava_wrench]

You're giving up too much.  No trade will include Green, Sully, and Bradley.  Not gonna happen. 

One, maybe two of those guys, plus a mix of Bass, Lee, Melo (all expendable), and the pick.

But, what is more likely to happen is that Ainge spends another season or two acquiring assets to trade.

Don't rush into trading away good assets for a player who isn't worth it.

Remember, it took Ainge a few years to gather the assets to get Allen and KG.

Patience is key here.

Why would Ainge want to trade for a player that isn't worth it? He will try to trade for a player that is worth it.

Those assets are not too much to give up for an all-NBA caliber player. Talent math in the NBA is like this. If Green is 50% the player that Lebron is, then Lebron is worth WAY more than 2 Greens. The reason is that it is easy to find replacements for the lesser talents.

Add to that the problem that Green's contract is likely to onerous for teams will to trade difference makers that they won't be able to pay, and you would need Sully and Bradley's good value contracts to offset that cost.

There is no way Ainge trades these guys unless he is getting a young perennial all star caliber player. It is hard to see his motivation to make any other trade. What he would me more likely to do is trade Pierce for legitimate young talent (from impatient teams or from teams with a logjam at a position) and picks. He could also do lateral trades, like BBD for Bass (though that was actually a sign and trade).

[celts55]

I wish because most of those guys on our team aren't good, at all.

Green is inconsistent, Bradley literally disappeared in the playoffs, Lee sucks, Sullinger was out of shape and Bass is undersized and inconsistent.

It be great if those guys could get us Dirk Nowitzki because I would make that deal in a heartbeat, but they probably couldn't even get us Dirk Diggler.

Bradlry never LITERALLY disappeared. I could see him the whole time.

Sorry just a pet peeve of mine.

[snively]

Green, Sully, 16, and a future 1st is not about the same as Martin, Lamb, Lotto Pick from another team, 1st, 2nd

Martin is better than Green and expiring.  Lamb was drafted higher than Sully in the same draft and is not currently injured.  A lotto pick from Toronto is far better than 16.  The 1st and future 1st are about a wash, plus there is a 2nd.

1. Martin is not better than Green.  He's an efficient scoring role-player who can't play defense or create for others.  Green is a less potent offensive role player who makes up for it my offering greater positional versatility (capable 2-way player at the 3, Kevin Martin/prime Al Harrington level scoring role player at the 4).  The expiring can have added value in the right circumstance, but so too can extra years at an affordable rate.  I think Green would be viewed as the superior asset by some teams.

2. Sully had an excellent rookie year (the kind that would have gotten him drafted in the lottery) - I don't think the surgery is viewed so negatively around the league in terms of his long-term prospects.  If he returns to form by the trade deadline, I think his value will surpass what Lamb's was at the time of the trade.

3.  The lotto pick from Toronto projected in the upper lottery given Toronto's acquisition of Lowry.  Not a big difference between that and #16. An edge for the Houston package, but I'd argue the difference can be closed pretty easily by the Green/Sully part of the deal.

4.  Throwing in a second would hardly stall any negotiations.

[kozlodoev]

2. Sully had an excellent rookie year (the kind that would have gotten him drafted in the lottery) - I don't think the surgery is viewed so negatively around the league in terms of his long-term prospects.  If he returns to form by the trade deadline, I think his value will surpass what Lamb's was at the time of the trade.

Surgery, in principle, no. Back surgery for someone who weighs 250 lbs? Ouch. The only thing worse than that for a big is lower body surgery (knee/ankle).

I'd love him to pan out, but the red flag is there.

[Fafnir]

I'd love him to pan out, but the red flag is there.

I'd love for him to be a home run if he can be healthy and improve over a strong rookie campaign.

As long as he makes it through his rookie deal as a useful player he was a good pick at the slot the C's got him though.

[snively]

2. Sully had an excellent rookie year (the kind that would have gotten him drafted in the lottery) - I don't think the surgery is viewed so negatively around the league in terms of his long-term prospects.  If he returns to form by the trade deadline, I think his value will surpass what Lamb's was at the time of the trade.

Surgery, in principle, no. Back surgery for someone who weighs 250 lbs? Ouch. The only thing worse than that for a big is lower body surgery (knee/ankle).

I'd love him to pan out, but the red flag is there.

If he comes out strong to start the year, I think team's will lower the red flag a bit. Some teams have short memories/unbridled optimism when it comes to injury histories (Philly w/ Bynum for example). 

[LarBrd33]

Green, Sully, 16, and a future 1st is not about the same as Martin, Lamb, Lotto Pick from another team, 1st, 2nd

Martin is better than Green and expiring.  Lamb was drafted higher than Sully in the same draft and is not currently injured.  A lotto pick from Toronto is far better than 16.  The 1st and future 1st are about a wash, plus there is a 2nd.

That and I think we are using a little hindsight in regards to James Harden.   Yes, there were plenty of people who pointed out that Harden was statistically one of the best SG's in the league despite sharing the spotlight with Wesbrook and Durant (averaging 15, 4 and 4 off the bench)...  I was one of those people who believed Harden was a stud... but it was far from unanimous that this guy was a "superstar".  The two camps were either

#1 - He's totally capable of 20 points per game, but his efficiency will take a bit of a hit as the top dog

or

#2 - He's not worth the max money.  He's a good player, but he's best in that 6th man role and will struggle as a top dog.

Very few figured he'd be the 4rd most statistically productive player in the league behind Bron, Durant and Kobe...

In fact, if you check the "trade reaction thread", you'll find that this forum was somewhat divided.  A lot of folks felt that OKC "won that trade by a landside".  Even some reporters were questioning MOrey on why he didn't save his assets for a "real superstar".  We all pretty much agreed Harden would be a starter... but that was about it.   If the consensus that Harden was a "max guy/superstar", OKC would have just paid him... and he wouldn't have been coming off the bench. 

One CB'er compared Harden to Joe Johnson... someone who would get overpaid and would put up improved stats on a bad team... but defintely not a superstar.   

Check the thread yourself:  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=60367.0

My point:   Houston gave up more better assets than Boston currently has for someone who POTENTIALLY was a superstar, but few believed they were actually getting a "superstar".

I'd just like to point out that James Harden was 44th in the league in statistical productivity last season... this year he was 4th. 

So in a way it would be like trading JEff Green + Sully + the #16 pick + another 1st rounder + another 2nd rounder... for Larry Sanders.  And then projecting that Larry Sanders was a future superstar.   

[Chris]

If we have the chips to get a max player wouldn't we have gotten one by now? We are gonna have the same chips in the offseason as we did at the trade deadline.

Well, the offseason is a very different trading market than midseason.

Doesn't mean it will necessarily be any more favorable, but there are often deals that can be made in the offseason that cant be made in February.

[snively]

Green, Sully, 16, and a future 1st is not about the same as Martin, Lamb, Lotto Pick from another team, 1st, 2nd

Martin is better than Green and expiring.  Lamb was drafted higher than Sully in the same draft and is not currently injured.  A lotto pick from Toronto is far better than 16.  The 1st and future 1st are about a wash, plus there is a 2nd.

That and I think we are using a little hindsight in regards to James Harden.   Yes, there were plenty of people who pointed out that Harden was statistically one of the best SG's in the league despite sharing the spotlight with Wesbrook and Durant (averaging 15, 4 and 4 off the bench)...  I was one of those people who believed Harden was a stud... but it was far from unanimous that this guy was a "superstar".  The two camps were either

#1 - He's totally capable of 20 points per game, but his efficiency will take a bit of a hit as the top dog

or

#2 - He's not worth the max money.  He's a good player, but he's best in that 6th man role and will struggle as a top dog.

Very few figured he'd be the 4rd most statistically productive player in the league behind Bron, Durant and Kobe...

In fact, if you check the "trade reaction thread", you'll find that this forum was somewhat divided.  A lot of folks felt that OKC "won that trade by a landside".  Even some reporters were questioning MOrey on why he didn't save his assets for a "real superstar".  We all pretty much agreed Harden would be a starter... but that was about it.   If the consensus that Harden was a "max guy/superstar", OKC would have just paid him... and he wouldn't have been coming off the bench. 

One CB'er compared Harden to Joe Johnson... someone who would get overpaid and would put up improved stats on a bad team... but defintely not a superstar.   

Check the thread yourself:  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=60367.0

My point:   Houston gave up more better assets than Boston currently has for someone who POTENTIALLY was a superstar, but few believed they were actually getting a "superstar".

I'd just like to point out that James Harden was 44th in the league in statistical productivity last season... this year he was 4th. 

So in a way it would be like trading JEff Green + Sully + the #16 pick + another 1st rounder + another 2nd rounder... for Larry Sanders.  And then projecting that Larry Sanders was a future superstar.   

This is getting silly.  First, Harden was averaging 17 off the bench not 15.  Second, he was doing it at unheard of efficiency - 66 TS%.  And he could do it all - hit the 3, slash and draw fouls, create for others and defend his position.  Third, he was able to sustain his production into the playoffs, making a legitimate claim to be the 2nd or 3rd best player on a bonafide championship contender. 

Harden was drawing comparisons to Manu Ginobli - a surefire hall of famer.  Larry Sanders is drawing comparisons to Sam Dalembert. 

You strain out the relatively small difference between Green/Sully/#16, etc. and the Houston package, while swallowing the chasm between Harden and Sanders whole.

 

[goCeltics]

not a max guy at full value, someting like eric gordon perhaps or someone on a sign and trade, but there aren't any max free agents(except howard i forgot and he ain't coming here)

[LarBrd33]

Green, Sully, 16, and a future 1st is not about the same as Martin, Lamb, Lotto Pick from another team, 1st, 2nd

Martin is better than Green and expiring.  Lamb was drafted higher than Sully in the same draft and is not currently injured.  A lotto pick from Toronto is far better than 16.  The 1st and future 1st are about a wash, plus there is a 2nd.

That and I think we are using a little hindsight in regards to James Harden.   Yes, there were plenty of people who pointed out that Harden was statistically one of the best SG's in the league despite sharing the spotlight with Wesbrook and Durant (averaging 15, 4 and 4 off the bench)...  I was one of those people who believed Harden was a stud... but it was far from unanimous that this guy was a "superstar".  The two camps were either

#1 - He's totally capable of 20 points per game, but his efficiency will take a bit of a hit as the top dog

or

#2 - He's not worth the max money.  He's a good player, but he's best in that 6th man role and will struggle as a top dog.

Very few figured he'd be the 4rd most statistically productive player in the league behind Bron, Durant and Kobe...

In fact, if you check the "trade reaction thread", you'll find that this forum was somewhat divided.  A lot of folks felt that OKC "won that trade by a landside".  Even some reporters were questioning MOrey on why he didn't save his assets for a "real superstar".  We all pretty much agreed Harden would be a starter... but that was about it.   If the consensus that Harden was a "max guy/superstar", OKC would have just paid him... and he wouldn't have been coming off the bench. 

One CB'er compared Harden to Joe Johnson... someone who would get overpaid and would put up improved stats on a bad team... but defintely not a superstar.   

Check the thread yourself:  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=60367.0

My point:   Houston gave up more better assets than Boston currently has for someone who POTENTIALLY was a superstar, but few believed they were actually getting a "superstar".

I'd just like to point out that James Harden was 44th in the league in statistical productivity last season... this year he was 4th. 

So in a way it would be like trading JEff Green + Sully + the #16 pick + another 1st rounder + another 2nd rounder... for Larry Sanders.  And then projecting that Larry Sanders was a future superstar.   

This is getting silly.  First, Harden was averaging 17 off the bench not 15.  Second, he was doing it at unheard of efficiency - 66 TS%.  And he could do it all - hit the 3, slash and draw fouls, create for others and defend his position.  Third, he was able to sustain his production into the playoffs, making a legitimate claim to be the 2nd or 3rd best player on a bonafide championship contender. 

Harden was drawing comparisons to Manu Ginobli - a surefire hall of famer.  Larry Sanders is drawing comparisons to Sam Dalembert. 

You strain out the relatively small difference between Green/Sully/#16, etc. and the Houston package, while swallowing the chasm between Harden and Sanders whole.

Right.  And fwiw, I was one of the people in the camp that thought it was a HUGE win for Houston.

But really it's a moot point, because we don't have a package equaling what Houston offered and as Bill Simmons violently points out in his trade value column today, that was potentially one of the worst trades in the history of basketball. 

Somehow they landed the league's best under-30 shooting guard, someone who is guaranteed to make the next seven or eight All-Star teams unless he gets injured, for one year of Kevin Martin, Jeremy Lamb, the 12th pick in a lousy 2013 draft and a future Dallas pick. Let's be honest — that's a miracle. That was a franchise-saving trade. They didn't just give up three quarters and a dime for a dollar; they inadvertently got a $2 bill back....

...It's one of the single biggest tactical mistakes any NBA contender has ever made — the modern equivalent of the Lakers freaking out after the '84 Finals, then dealing James Worthy to Detroit for one year of Kelly Tripucka, Tony Campbell and two future no. 1 picks

So the overall point is... let's not assume a crap-sandwitch of Jeff Green, last year's #21 pick coming off major back surgery, this year's #16 pick, a future protected 1st and a 2nd rounder would net you anything close to James Harden.  My suggestions of Larry Sanders or Derrick Favors is a MAJOR reach as is.   

We aren't getting a dollar for 5 dimes.

[action781]

Let's revisit how we got Ray Allen and KG...

The two players were superstars who were at the peak of their careers (starting to trend down), but their franchises were in such awful positions, they were never going to be able to contend until their superstars' peaks had passed.  They were 8th seed playoff material.

Another key factor was that they were both small markets in cold climates, so they both had difficulty attracting a solid supporting cast through free agency without wildly overpaying.  Being in a small market, they didn't have a large enough fan base to generate enough revenue to overpay.

That is the exact type of scenario that will deal away a max guy for "chips".  Other examples we've seen with superstars being traded away from small market teams during their peaks were Pau Gasol being traded from Memphis and, to a lesser degree, Chris Paul being traded from New Orleans and Carmelo being traded from Denver.

----------

So, what franchises and players fit that bill?  The player has to be near the end of their prime, because if not then the team will still hold out hope that they can turn things around.  This was why the TWolves didn't trade KG earlier.

The next players that fit this bill that I see:  Dirk is the #1 candidate.  Others are Tony Parker (when Duncan retires) and Deron Williams (2 years away).  Other names that could possibly be this player are Dwight Howard, Rajon Rondo, and possibly Lamarcus Aldridge if their front office wants to build more around the prime of Lilliard.  Horford (4 years away) is another prime candidate I think.

[droopdog7]

I wish because most of those guys on our team aren't good, at all.

Green is inconsistent, Bradley literally disappeared in the playoffs, Lee sucks, Sullinger was out of shape and Bass is undersized and inconsistent.

It be great if those guys could get us Dirk Nowitzki because I would make that deal in a heartbeat, but they probably couldn't even get us Dirk Diggler.

Bradlry never LITERALLY disappeared. I could see him the whole time.

Sorry just a pet peeve of mine.

ha ha.  TP.  And yes, I am bothered by those things too.  Most of all, the fact that many posters don't know the difference between lose and loose.

[CoachBo]

Not unless Rondo is involved - which is certainly one option that could be read into Ainge's comments about the likely return of KG and Doc.