Blakely: C's look to deal Wallace & Humphries

[Phil125]

Humphries is probably move able. But I doubt Wallace is going anywhere.

I agree. But Wallace use to be good. Even though moving him would be better, keeping him is that bad either. We have to put out something this season.

We have to put out something but we also need to shoot for the lottery in our situation. Guys like these two bums will give us an extra 7-8 wins a year taking us from around a 20 win team to around a 30 win team.
That's the difference between a top 3 and top 12 pick.

Yes, because watching a 20 win team next season will be very enjoyable

I'd like to keep both guys. Wallace is a very good defender and Humphries can rebound.

It won't be fun, but would you rather watch a 20 win season for one season with the chance to get a franchise player...Or would you rather watch a 30 win team for the next 2 seasons and then have Rondo walk without much other than a few top 15 picks on top of Olynyk+Sully+Green+Bradley.

Suffer for a season or two to solidify the future. Not guaranteed via the draft but not any free agents in next 2 seasons that can make us a contender.
There are plenty of potential franchise players via the draft though.

Suffer short term or be miserable and mediocre long term?
Seems like our only options :S

Here is the way I look at it:

There is no difference between a 49 win team and a 19 win team next year for us.  NONE!

We are building for the future and Scrapping together what we can to make the team a little fun to watch does not help that at all.

I am sick and tired of the guys on this board who would love to get bounced out of the first round of the playoffs again.  I for one and am looking much more forward to watching our young talent develop over watching Wallace and Kris help us get 40 wins so we can get steamrolled by the Heat in round 1.

Move these two as soon as possible.  I actually think Wallace will be easier to move next year with only two years left on that contract but if the opportunity presents itself when he becomes tradable do it.

[EDWARDO]

Everyone will want the Humphrey contract. NO ONE will touch the Wallace contract, unless they are getting something pretty decent in return. I mean, A LOT. That is not a moveable deal and the guy plays about 30 games a year. God bless him... very good player in his prime and when healthy. Right now, he and his contract are like the bubonic plague.

Or a building block, according to some people on this blog. Go figure......

[Phil125]

Or a building block, according to some people on this blog. Go figure......

Yes the OOOOO we can win with these guys crowd around here is getting nuts.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Or a building block, according to some people on this blog. Go figure......

Yes the OOOOO we can win with these guys crowd around here is getting nuts.

I don't know a single person who falls into that camp. (Cue a "straw man" post by PhoSita). It's obvious to every one they need to go.

It's going to be a huge challenge to get rid of Wallace. Who do you think may be possible suitors?

[Roy H.]

"May be looking to"...

Such typical non-committal nonsense.

[Yogi]

"May be looking to"...

Such typical non-committal nonsense.

It's worse than nonsense.  That statement literally reveals no information.

[TeamGreen.dm]

Or a building block, according to some people on this blog. Go figure......

Yes the OOOOO we can win with these guys crowd around here is getting nuts.

I don't know a single person who falls into that camp. (Cue a "straw man" post by PhoSita). It's obvious to every one they need to go.

It's going to be a huge challenge to get rid of Wallace. Who do you think may be possible suitors?

Pistons, Cavs, maybe even back to the Bobcats. Im thinking of teams who may be looking for a playoff berth and some existing cap room. Personally the Cavs may be a decent spot. Now granted this is all an IDEA of mine

[Celtics18]

Everyone will want the Humphrey contract. NO ONE will touch the Wallace contract, unless they are getting something pretty decent in return. I mean, A LOT. That is not a moveable deal and the guy plays about 30 games a year. God bless him... very good player in his prime and when healthy. Right now, he and his contract are like the bubonic plague.

Or a building block, according to some people on this blog. Go figure......

I'm in the camp that happens to think that Gerald Wallace's contract is going to be difficult to move.  I also happen to think that he brings a skill set (if healthy--which I realize is a big if) that can be helpful to this team. 

I guess that means that I am calling him a "building block."

[Roy H.]

Or a building block, according to some people on this blog. Go figure......

Yes the OOOOO we can win with these guys crowd around here is getting nuts.

I don't know a single person who falls into that camp. (Cue a "straw man" post by PhoSita). It's obvious to every one they need to go.

It's going to be a huge challenge to get rid of Wallace. Who do you think may be possible suitors?

Pistons, Cavs, maybe even back to the Bobcats. Im thinking of teams who may be looking for a playoff berth and some existing cap room. Personally the Cavs may be a decent spot. Now granted this is all an IDEA of mine

I can't imagine the Cavs would have interest.  They're trying to preserve their cap space for a run at Lebron; Wallace would basically preclude that.

[Vermont Green]

I don't think we should just dump either of these guys.  Here is my logic.

If they play badly, they won't be hurting us in terms of lottery position or young player development.  So why give up any kind of an assest to give away two bad players?  If they play badly, just ride it out.

If they play well and heaven forbid, we actually start winning some games as a result of their good play, then they will actually have some trade value.  That would be the time to trade them where we might actually get something back for them.

Humphries is only a problem for 1 year so whether he plays well or not, I am not too concerned.  With Wallace, I think he can be put in a position on this Celtics team where he will accumulate some numbers and then at some point during the season, he can be traded.

[BostonNative]

can we not amesty him?

[LooseCannon]

I'm in the camp that happens to think that Gerald Wallace's contract is going to be difficult to move.  I also happen to think that he brings a skill set (if healthy--which I realize is a big if) that can be helpful to this team. 

I guess that means that I am calling him a "building block."

His contract is not impossible to move.  You just have to be willing to give up a first-round pick and take back a contract (probably non-expiring) which is bad, but not as bad.

If you want to be an armchair GM, start looking for teams with contracts lasting beyond next season that they might want to dump.  My idea in the trade idea forum was Wallace/Brooks to Sacramento for Salmons/Hayes, possibly tacking on Melo for Fridette, with Sac'to asking for a pick and Ainge reluctant to give one up..

But if you're holding out for an expiring contract plus a young player with upside and/or a pick, you're trading Wallace this off-season.

[Fred Roberts]

Best case scenario is crash = mike lowell . .. we gotta rebuild his value this season. if he looks good, he'll become a chip w/ only 2 years left next summer.

right now, he's an albatross a la mike lowell when we traded for beckett. dude rebounded and became world series MVP and fan favorite.

after his worst season of his career, it's a bad time to try and trade gerald w.

[LooseCannon]

There is no difference between a 49 win team and a 19 win team next year for us.  NONE!

A 19-win season probably means that most of the rookie and second-year players on the team are worthless or over-rated.  A 49-win season probably means at least some of those players are or will be above-average NBA starters.

[rondoallaturca]

This report is on the level of Chris Broussard. Well done, Blakely.