Elect Roy Hobbs next C's GM

[Moranis]

I agree with Roy most of the time.  But I don't believe this team had any better option than what we just did.  It's the smart move.  It's a big picture long-term deal for a team that didn't have nearly as many options as some folks like to imagine.

First, this thread cracks me up, and I feel egotistical responding.

That said...  We had other moves.  Please don't get fooled into thinking this was the only option.

The Cavs were probably in a worse situation than we were when Lebron left.  What did they do?  They leveraged cap room / trade exceptions to rebuild their team.  They got an unprotected lottery pick -- Kyrie Irving -- for taking on something like $8 million extra in Baron Davis' salary.  They got a Memphis first rounder for taking on the contracts of Marreese Speights and guards Wayne Ellington (both decent players on reasonable contracts, by the way).

Those are two picks that the Cavs didn't have to surrender anybody of significance for, and who didn't saddle the team with terrible contracts.  Yet, some folks see it as a coup that we traded Pierce and KG, and took on a terrible $30 million contract, for three picks that will never be as good as the Cavs got?

Maybe we should hire Chris Grant.

Yeah but the Cavs also didn't have a ton of big and bad contracts on the team and thus had cap room.  With Bass, Green, and Lee on the team (in addition to Rondo and the young guys), Boston wasn't going to have cap space for anything of note for a couple of years anyway so taking on Wallace isn't really a big deal.  Now granted, we should have never been in that position to begin with, something I have been saying since last summer and doing so pretty loudly on this board, but that is a different issue.

Who signed those players to the "big and bad" contracts, though?

The Cavs had their share of bad deals.  Antwan Jamison was making $15 million in 2012 (!!).  Daniel Gibson was signed to a long-term deal.  The Cavs were well over the salary cap, but they had a trade exception, which they put to work.

Danny had that option.  He chose the easier, albeit uglier and less effective, method.

Cavs didn't use their trade exception.  They traded Williams and Moon for Davis.  The salary numbers matched up so no exception was needed.

And I know Danny signed those guys.  I have been on that train since last summer which was a total and utter disaster and which I've been stating on here pretty consistently since last summer.  here are a couple of posts of mine from January where I was once again bemoaning the 2012 summer and the disaster that it was
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=55509.255
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=61115.msg1355636#msg1355636

[BleedGreen1989]

Why are we lauding the Cavs for landing Kyrie? They still suck.

Because they're still rebuilding?  They have a superstar to build around.  There's about a 0% chance that any of the draft picks we just acquired every come within 85% of Kyrie Irving's level.

They have a superstar with Irving , who has never even made a all-star game yet, but we don't have one with Rondo who is a 3 time all-star , and voted the starter this year?  Not to mention he is a proven stud in the playoffs .

Guess we are screwed forever 

No offense, but I have a hard time taking your eye rolling seriously when you don't know that Irving was an all-star last year (in his second season).

Not to mention Irving JUST turned 21.

Are we really bashing Kyrie Irving here?

[rondohondo]

Why are we lauding the Cavs for landing Kyrie? They still suck.

Because they're still rebuilding?  They have a superstar to build around.  There's about a 0% chance that any of the draft picks we just acquired every come within 85% of Kyrie Irving's level.

They have a superstar with Irving , who has never even made a all-star game yet, but we don't have one with Rondo who is a 3 time all-star , and voted the starter this year?  Not to mention he is a proven stud in the playoffs .

Guess we are screwed forever 

No offense, but I have a hard time taking your eye rolling seriously when you don't know that Irving was an all-star last year (in his second season).

Not to mention Irving JUST turned 21.

Are we really bashing Kyrie Irving here?

my bad , but the point is Rondo is a proven winner , and star. I just hate how people overlook him and call him a punk . I think he is a great piece to build around .

I agree that Irving has the POTENTIAL to be better than Rondo , but I wouldn't call Irving a superstar , and not admit that Rondo is a top 20 players in the league .

[Roy H.]

Why are we lauding the Cavs for landing Kyrie? They still suck.

Because they're still rebuilding?  They have a superstar to build around.  There's about a 0% chance that any of the draft picks we just acquired every come within 85% of Kyrie Irving's level.

They have a superstar with Irving , who has never even made a all-star game yet, but we don't have one with Rondo who is a 3 time all-star , and voted the starter this year?  Not to mention he is a proven stud in the playoffs .

Guess we are screwed forever 

No offense, but I have a hard time taking your eye rolling seriously when you don't know that Irving was an all-star last year (in his second season).

Not to mention Irving JUST turned 21.

Are we really bashing Kyrie Irving here?

my bad , but the point is Rondo is a proven winner , and star. I just hate how people overlook him and call him a punk . I think he is a great piece to build around .

I agree that Irving has the POTENTIAL to be better than Rondo , but I wouldn't call Irving a superstar , and not admit that Rondo is a top 20 players in the league .

Kyrie > Rondo, right now.

But, that's a subject for a different thread.  We're talking about rebuilding.  The Cavs' method yielded Kyrie Irving, which I think is a pretty good return for taking on something like $8 million in salary.  Our yield for taking on Gerald Wallace's albatross contract was substantially less, and we had to give up two top-40 players in the process.

[Moranis]

Why are we lauding the Cavs for landing Kyrie? They still suck.

Because they're still rebuilding?  They have a superstar to build around.  There's about a 0% chance that any of the draft picks we just acquired every come within 85% of Kyrie Irving's level.

They have a superstar with Irving , who has never even made a all-star game yet, but we don't have one with Rondo who is a 3 time all-star , and voted the starter this year?  Not to mention he is a proven stud in the playoffs .

Guess we are screwed forever 

No offense, but I have a hard time taking your eye rolling seriously when you don't know that Irving was an all-star last year (in his second season).

Not to mention Irving JUST turned 21.

Are we really bashing Kyrie Irving here?

my bad , but the point is Rondo is a proven winner , and star. I just hate how people overlook him and call him a punk . I think he is a great piece to build around .

I agree that Irving has the POTENTIAL to be better than Rondo , but I wouldn't call Irving a superstar , and not admit that Rondo is a top 20 players in the league .

Irving is already better than Rondo.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Why are we lauding the Cavs for landing Kyrie? They still suck.

Because they're still rebuilding?  They have a superstar to build around.  There's about a 0% chance that any of the draft picks we just acquired every come within 85% of Kyrie Irving's level.

They have a superstar with Irving , who has never even made a all-star game yet, but we don't have one with Rondo who is a 3 time all-star , and voted the starter this year?  Not to mention he is a proven stud in the playoffs .

Guess we are screwed forever 

No offense, but I have a hard time taking your eye rolling seriously when you don't know that Irving was an all-star last year (in his second season).

Not to mention Irving JUST turned 21.

Are we really bashing Kyrie Irving here?

my bad , but the point is Rondo is a proven winner , and star. I just hate how people overlook him and call him a punk . I think he is a great piece to build around .

I agree that Irving has the POTENTIAL to be better than Rondo , but I wouldn't call Irving a superstar , and not admit that Rondo is a top 20 players in the league .

Kyrie > Rondo, right now.

But, that's a subject for a different thread.  We're talking about rebuilding.  The Cavs' method yielded Kyrie Irving, which I think is a pretty good return for taking on something like $8 million in salary.  Our yield for taking on Gerald Wallace's albatross contract was substantially less, and we had to give up two top-40 players in the process.

This has no basis.

[Roy H.]

Why are we lauding the Cavs for landing Kyrie? They still suck.

Because they're still rebuilding?  They have a superstar to build around.  There's about a 0% chance that any of the draft picks we just acquired every come within 85% of Kyrie Irving's level.

They have a superstar with Irving , who has never even made a all-star game yet, but we don't have one with Rondo who is a 3 time all-star , and voted the starter this year?  Not to mention he is a proven stud in the playoffs .

Guess we are screwed forever 

No offense, but I have a hard time taking your eye rolling seriously when you don't know that Irving was an all-star last year (in his second season).

Not to mention Irving JUST turned 21.

Are we really bashing Kyrie Irving here?

my bad , but the point is Rondo is a proven winner , and star. I just hate how people overlook him and call him a punk . I think he is a great piece to build around .

I agree that Irving has the POTENTIAL to be better than Rondo , but I wouldn't call Irving a superstar , and not admit that Rondo is a top 20 players in the league .

Kyrie > Rondo, right now.

But, that's a subject for a different thread.  We're talking about rebuilding.  The Cavs' method yielded Kyrie Irving, which I think is a pretty good return for taking on something like $8 million in salary.  Our yield for taking on Gerald Wallace's albatross contract was substantially less, and we had to give up two top-40 players in the process.

This has no basis.

Let's see...

The Cavs got Kyrie Irving.  The Cavs wouldn't trade Kyrie Irving for a protected 2014 pick, and future 2016 and 2018 picks.  So, there's a basis.

Gerald Wallace's contract is substantially worse than the $8 million or so in salary that the Cavs took on.  So, there's a basis.

Paul Pierce was 14th in the NBA in scoring last season.  Garnett was somewhere around 50th in scoring, and was near the top of the league in defensive metrics.  They're both top-40 players.  So, there's a basis.

[rondohondo]

Why are we lauding the Cavs for landing Kyrie? They still suck.

Because they're still rebuilding?  They have a superstar to build around.  There's about a 0% chance that any of the draft picks we just acquired every come within 85% of Kyrie Irving's level.

They have a superstar with Irving , who has never even made a all-star game yet, but we don't have one with Rondo who is a 3 time all-star , and voted the starter this year?  Not to mention he is a proven stud in the playoffs .

Guess we are screwed forever 

No offense, but I have a hard time taking your eye rolling seriously when you don't know that Irving was an all-star last year (in his second season).

Not to mention Irving JUST turned 21.

Are we really bashing Kyrie Irving here?

my bad , but the point is Rondo is a proven winner , and star. I just hate how people overlook him and call him a punk . I think he is a great piece to build around .

I agree that Irving has the POTENTIAL to be better than Rondo , but I wouldn't call Irving a superstar , and not admit that Rondo is a top 20 players in the league .

Kyrie > Rondo, right now.

But, that's a subject for a different thread.  We're talking about rebuilding.  The Cavs' method yielded Kyrie Irving, which I think is a pretty good return for taking on something like $8 million in salary.  Our yield for taking on Gerald Wallace's albatross contract was substantially less, and we had to give up two top-40 players in the process.

The picks the c's got are 4 and 6 years down the line , totally unprotected . Who's to say the C's didn't get as good of a return or better. The Cavs got that pick that was one of the longest shot in the lottery to win it . They got ultra lucky the year after Lebron left, go figure .

[bdm860]

Why are we lauding the Cavs for landing Kyrie? They still suck.

Because they're still rebuilding?  They have a superstar to build around.  There's about a 0% chance that any of the draft picks we just acquired every come within 85% of Kyrie Irving's level.

They have a superstar with Irving , who has never even made a all-star game yet, but we don't have one with Rondo who is a 3 time all-star , and voted the starter this year?  Not to mention he is a proven stud in the playoffs .

Guess we are screwed forever 

No offense, but I have a hard time taking your eye rolling seriously when you don't know that Irving was an all-star last year (in his second season).

Not to mention Irving JUST turned 21.

Are we really bashing Kyrie Irving here?

my bad , but the point is Rondo is a proven winner , and star. I just hate how people overlook him and call him a punk . I think he is a great piece to build around .

I agree that Irving has the POTENTIAL to be better than Rondo , but I wouldn't call Irving a superstar , and not admit that Rondo is a top 20 players in the league .

Kyrie > Rondo, right now.

But, that's a subject for a different thread.  We're talking about rebuilding.  The Cavs' method yielded Kyrie Irving, which I think is a pretty good return for taking on something like $8 million in salary.  Our yield for taking on Gerald Wallace's albatross contract was substantially less, and we had to give up two top-40 players in the process.

You really think the Cavs method is really the way to success though?  I mean I love Irving, but wasn't that just amazing luck?  The pick was slotted to be #8, and only had a 2.8% chance of landing Irving.  How would you replicate that move?  Wait till the deadline find and try to trade Pierce for Okafor + 1st? (Actually I think Amare Stoudemire would be a similar contract to what the Cavs took in Baron Davis, since he has 1 1/2 years left on a huge contract and is a shell of his former self, I just don't see any contacts like that on teams that will finish around 7-10 next year.)

[fairweatherfan]

You really think the Cavs method is really the way to success though?  I mean I love Irving, but wasn't that just amazing luck?  The pick was slotted to be #8, and only had a 2.8% chance of landing Irving.  How would you replicate that move?  Wait till the deadline find and try to trade Pierce for Okafor + 1st? (Actually I think Amare Stoudemire would be a similar contract to what the Cavs took in Baron Davis, since he has 1 1/2 years left on a huge contract and is a shell of his former self, I just don't see any contacts like that on teams that will finish around 7-10 next year.)

Yeah it's really bizarre to see so many posts alternating between the claim that banking on winning the lottery is a pipe dream, and that a team hitting a 3% chance on a foolishly unprotected pick was not just a best case scenario, but what we should've expected to get.

[action781]

Because they're still rebuilding?  They have a superstar to build around.  There's about a 0% chance that any of the draft picks we just acquired every come within 85% of Kyrie Irving's level.

1.  This is incredibly presumptuous and pessimistic that there is a 0% chance that the draftees will become 85% of Kyrie.  Two unprotected picks in 2016 and 2018 from a team that is shaping up to not be very good in the seasons prior.  These will very possibly be lottery picks. 

2.  A lottery pick is exactly what Cleveland traded for.  Are you saying this trade is bad and Cleveland's was good because of the trade agreed upon or because Cleveland got lucky?  Evaluate a trade based on what it was agreed upon, not on how ping pong balls fell.

If we had two trades on the table... one being a 2014 unprotected first from Charlotte and the other being an 2014 unprotected first from Dallas and we chose the Charlotte one but Dallas won the lottery, would you look back and say we made a bad trade?  That's the logic you're using here.

[Roy H.]

You really think the Cavs method is really the way to success though?  I mean I love Irving, but wasn't that just amazing luck?  The pick was slotted to be #8, and only had a 2.8% chance of landing Irving.  How would you replicate that move?  Wait till the deadline find and try to trade Pierce for Okafor + 1st? (Actually I think Amare Stoudemire would be a similar contract to what the Cavs took in Baron Davis, since he has 1 1/2 years left on a huge contract and is a shell of his former self, I just don't see any contacts like that on teams that will finish around 7-10 next year.)

Yeah it's really bizarre to see so many posts alternating between the claim that banking on winning the lottery is a pipe dream, and that a team hitting a 3% chance on a foolishly unprotected pick was not just a best case scenario, but what we should've expected to get.

Let's say the Cavs didn't land Irving, but still got the 8th pick in the draft.  That was who, Brandon Knight?  With Klay Thompson and Kawhi Leonard still on the board, among plenty of other good players?

So, let's say that for $8 million, the Cavs should have ended up with Brandon Knight.  The Cavs then picked up a future Memphis #1 (with some favorable protections for Cleveland) for taking on $6 million of Wayne Ellington's and Mareese Speights' contracts.

So, for $14 million, the Cavs ended up with a lottery pick, and a future pick that may end up in the lottery (if it falls outside the lottery in 2015 or 2016, it rolls over).  They didn't have to sacrifice two top-40 players to do it, either.

[Roy H.]

If we had two trades on the table... one being a 2014 unprotected first from Charlotte and the other being an 2014 unprotected first from Dallas and we chose the Charlotte one but Dallas won the lottery, would you look back and say we made a bad trade?  That's the logic you're using here.

Um, no?  I don't know whose logic that is, but it isn't mine.

[prov1ml34]

It hard to imagine the 2018 Nets pick being anywhere but the lottery. And I ready something last night that said we had the option to swap 2017 picks. I am not worried about the 2016-2018 picks being horrible unless those drafts are super weak.

For the record, I was all in favor of running it back one more year and letting PP and KG's salaries come off the books and let me retire Celtics. Last night, I wanted to puke and today is no different. That said, I think we should get some value in these picks. The 2014 i worthless but the others should yield decent prospects.

[Moranis]

It hard to imagine the 2018 Nets pick being anywhere but the lottery. And I ready something last night that said we had the option to swap 2017 picks. I am not worried about the 2016-2018 picks being horrible unless those drafts are super weak.

For the record, I was all in favor of running it back one more year and letting PP and KG's salaries come off the books and let me retire Celtics. Last night, I wanted to puke and today is no different. That said, I think we should get some value in these picks. The 2014 i worthless but the others should yield decent prospects.

I don't think I'd call the 2014 pick worthless.  I mean looking at some mock drafts for 2014, there should be some solid rotational players with a couple potential starters available.  But the point of this trade was to make Boston a clear high lottery pick where there are a number of potential franchise type players including the best prospect since Lebron James in Andrew Wiggins.  I mean 7 of the top 11 on nbadraft.net are all in high school right now with the other 4 freshman or internationals.