Could Sixers be a good trade partner?

[gpap]

This, to me, is an interesting topic for a couple different reasons.

For all this talk of tanking, I think right now Philly takes the crown with Phoenix at a close 2nd.

Philly has already traded their starting point guard, still don't have a coach, and appear to be heading into the 2013-14 season with rookies making up 2/5ths of their starting lineup in Carter Williams and Nerlens Noel.

So, it looks to me like Philly has already won the Larry O'Brien trophy for shaping up to be horrendous in the upcoming season.

Now the Celtics, despite the Brooklyn deal, don't even come close to Philly in the awful looking roster department. 

So, instead of swinging for the bottom of the sea, why not improve your team by raiding the worse team in the NBA?

Celts need a center and Spencer Hawes would be a great addition (also on final year of his contract.)  Also, I think Thaddeus Young would be a great pickup for a new up-tempo lineup under Brad Stevens.

Would the Celts deal Bradley and Sullinger for Hawes and Young? Would Philly? Would you?

I am thinking Philly probably looks at Evan Turner at their franchise player so they probably wouldn't trade him, but I could be wrong.

As for the Celts, they need a center and have WAY too many guards. Something has to give and Avery makes alot of sense for a rebuilding team like Philly.

Something like Bradley, Crawford, Sully and Melo for Young and Hawes.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

I like Hawes in our lineup.

He opens up the floor because he can hit that 20 foot jumper, gives room for Olynyk to work down low also for Rondo to have more space to run. Solid rebounder and shot blocker too.

With that said, I don't think I'll trade Sullinger for him. With another year of development I think we'll see how good of a player Sully will be, and I think he's worth more than Hawes.

[LooseCannon]

I don't think Danny Ainge would trade Bradley straight up for either Hawes or Young.  I certainly wouldn't.  So, that trade makes sense only if Sullinger is less valuable than one of those players. (He isn't.)

[gpap]

I like Hawes in our lineup.

He opens up the floor because he can hit that 20 foot jumper, gives room for Olynyk to work down low also for Rondo to have more space to run. Solid rebounder and shot blocker too.

With that said, I don't think I'll trade Sullinger for him. With another year of development I think we'll see how good of a player Sully will be, and I think he's worth more than Hawes.

We'll see. When it comes to Sully, I am little concerned and not totally sold on him.

I definitely think he's a talented player but am also not sold that he's capable of being a starter.

Regardless of whatever surgery he's had, the back issues worry me and I also think he's a little undersized.

Now if Sully can play a full, healthy season and show the same potential he showed last year, then great!

However, if Sully shows that he can't play a full season and doesn't show he's 100 percent, you're never going to be able to trade him.

Minus the injury concerns, I have the same issue with Brandon Bass. For a PF, he's very undersized.

[gpap]

I don't think Danny Ainge would trade Bradley straight up for either Hawes or Young.  I certainly wouldn't.  So, that trade makes sense only if Sullinger is less valuable than one of those players. (He isn't.)

My issue with Bradley is for all of his defensive prowess, I just don't think he's a good offensive guard. Now, could he still develop into one? Absolutely.

However, between having Brooks, Bogans and Lee, does that not make Bradley expendable? And also wouldn't he make an attractive trade chip as he only has a couple years left on his contract and would the Celts be willing to resign Bradley beyond next year?

[Chris]

I don't think this trade makes any sense.  Not only are Bradley and Sully younger, and in much better contract situations, but they may actually be better players (and I love Hawes). 

I do think Philly matches up in one way though.  At this point, they still have a ways to go to get to the salary floor, and the C's have contracts they need to get rid of. 

I could see Danny trying to send someone like Humphries to Philly, in order to get the C's contract situation better under control, while helping Philly take on salary, without really hurting their tanking status.

[slamtheking]

This, to me, is an interesting topic for a couple different reasons.

For all this talk of tanking, I think right now Philly takes the crown with Phoenix at a close 2nd.

Philly has already traded their starting point guard, still don't have a coach, and appear to be heading into the 2013-14 season with rookies making up 2/5ths of their starting lineup in Carter Williams and Nerlens Noel.

So, it looks to me like Philly has already won the Larry O'Brien trophy for shaping up to be horrendous in the upcoming season.

Now the Celtics, despite the Brooklyn deal, don't even come close to Philly in the awful looking roster department. 

So, instead of swinging for the bottom of the sea, why not improve your team by raiding the worse team in the NBA?

Celts need a center and Spencer Hawes would be a great addition (also on final year of his contract.)  Also, I think Thaddeus Young would be a great pickup for a new up-tempo lineup under Brad Stevens.

Would the Celts deal Bradley and Sullinger for Hawes and Young? Would Philly? Would you?

I am thinking Philly probably looks at Evan Turner at their franchise player so they probably wouldn't trade him, but I could be wrong.

As for the Celts, they need a center and have WAY too many guards. Something has to give and Avery makes alot of sense for a rebuilding team like Philly.

Something like Bradley, Crawford, Sully and Melo for Young and Hawes.

this is awful. 

at least you're consistant in your constant undervaluation of C's players and your constant overvaluation of players on other teams.

Hawes is a back-of-the-rotation center and although I like Thad, I think he's a bench player.  I wouldn't swap Sully for either of them straight up.

If the roster were a little different where we were contending and just needed that man in the middle, I'd consider AB for Hawes but with us trying to develop young talent, Hawes has no place here.  I wouldn't swap AB for Thad even though I like Thad better because we already have a bunch of PFs on the roster.

[clover]

Philly's already sitting pretty and there's no reason to trade JS and AB to a team that has so little available to send back.

[slamtheking]

I don't think this trade makes any sense.  Not only are Bradley and Sully younger, and in much better contract situations, but they may actually be better players (and I love Hawes). 

I do think Philly matches up in one way though.  At this point, they still have a ways to go to get to the salary floor, and the C's have contracts they need to get rid of. 

I could see Danny trying to send someone like Humphries to Philly, in order to get the C's contract situation better under control, while helping Philly take on salary, without really hurting their tanking status.

not a bad point.  if that were in the works, I'd like to see Danny get their 2nd round for next year (or the year after) in exchange for KH

[gpap]

This, to me, is an interesting topic for a couple different reasons.

For all this talk of tanking, I think right now Philly takes the crown with Phoenix at a close 2nd.

Philly has already traded their starting point guard, still don't have a coach, and appear to be heading into the 2013-14 season with rookies making up 2/5ths of their starting lineup in Carter Williams and Nerlens Noel.

So, it looks to me like Philly has already won the Larry O'Brien trophy for shaping up to be horrendous in the upcoming season.

Now the Celtics, despite the Brooklyn deal, don't even come close to Philly in the awful looking roster department. 

So, instead of swinging for the bottom of the sea, why not improve your team by raiding the worse team in the NBA?

Celts need a center and Spencer Hawes would be a great addition (also on final year of his contract.)  Also, I think Thaddeus Young would be a great pickup for a new up-tempo lineup under Brad Stevens.

Would the Celts deal Bradley and Sullinger for Hawes and Young? Would Philly? Would you?

I am thinking Philly probably looks at Evan Turner at their franchise player so they probably wouldn't trade him, but I could be wrong.

As for the Celts, they need a center and have WAY too many guards. Something has to give and Avery makes alot of sense for a rebuilding team like Philly.

Something like Bradley, Crawford, Sully and Melo for Young and Hawes.

this is awful. 

at least you're consistant in your constant undervaluation of C's players and your constant overvaluation of players on other teams.

Hawes is a back-of-the-rotation center and although I like Thad, I think he's a bench player.  I wouldn't swap Sully for either of them straight up.

If the roster were a little different where we were contending and just needed that man in the middle, I'd consider AB for Hawes but with us trying to develop young talent, Hawes has no place here.  I wouldn't swap AB for Thad even though I like Thad better because we already have a bunch of PFs on the roster.

Goal should always be to win, NOT "develop young talent."

Either you're really bad or you're contending. If you want to see a 30 win basketball team with no lottery pick and no playoff berth, then enjoy.

That's NBA purgatory.

Right now, the Celts have 12 guards and no center (except for this Faverani guy, which I don't know from a whole in the wall.)

Also, for the 4 PF's they do have, both Sully and Bass are undersized.

The reason why I think Young makes sense is because I think he would fit well with Rondo and Jeff Green.

To me, the worse scenario is being a team that's not good enough to be in the playoffs and not bad enough to be a lottery team. I am afraid that's where the Celtics are right now.

[LooseCannon]

I don't think Danny Ainge would trade Bradley straight up for either Hawes or Young.  I certainly wouldn't.  So, that trade makes sense only if Sullinger is less valuable than one of those players. (He isn't.)

My issue with Bradley is for all of his defensive prowess, I just don't think he's a good offensive guard. Now, could he still develop into one? Absolutely.

However, between having Brooks, Bogans and Lee, does that not make Bradley expendable? And also wouldn't he make an attractive trade chip as he only has a couple years left on his contract and would the Celts be willing to resign Bradley beyond next year?

I think it makes Lee expendable.  I want the Celtics to be committed to trying out close to a full season of a Rondo-Bradley starting backcourt.

[gpap]

I don't think Danny Ainge would trade Bradley straight up for either Hawes or Young.  I certainly wouldn't.  So, that trade makes sense only if Sullinger is less valuable than one of those players. (He isn't.)

My issue with Bradley is for all of his defensive prowess, I just don't think he's a good offensive guard. Now, could he still develop into one? Absolutely.

However, between having Brooks, Bogans and Lee, does that not make Bradley expendable? And also wouldn't he make an attractive trade chip as he only has a couple years left on his contract and would the Celts be willing to resign Bradley beyond next year?

I think it makes Lee expendable.  I want the Celtics to be committed to trying out close to a full season of a Rondo-Bradley starting backcourt.

No doubt. I'd also rather keep Bradley over Lee. I just don't think any team is going to want to pick up Lee's tab of 3 years and 15 million remaining on his contract.

[LooseCannon]

Goal should always be to win, NOT "develop young talent."

Either you're really bad or you're contending. If you want to see a 30 win basketball team with no lottery pick and no playoff berth, then enjoy.

That's NBA purgatory.

Why do people not realize that teams usually pass through a stage of being neither when going from really bad to contending or vice versa?

The danger isn't being mediocre for a season, the danger is being mediocre with long-term commitments to players who aren't likely to improve much nor likely to decline massively.  The Celtics have too many young players with upside, too much future financial flexibility, and too many extra future draft picks to be considered stuck on the "treadmill of mediocrity".  However good or bad the Celtics are this season, it strikes me as unlikely that they will be at the same level the following season, whether for better or for worse.

[Yogi]

Why do people not realize that teams usually pass through a stage of being neither when going from really bad to contending or vice versa?

However good or bad the Celtics are this season, it strikes me as unlikely that they will be at the same level the following season, whether for better or for worse.

Great points.

[LooseCannon]

I don't think Danny Ainge would trade Bradley straight up for either Hawes or Young.  I certainly wouldn't.  So, that trade makes sense only if Sullinger is less valuable than one of those players. (He isn't.)

My issue with Bradley is for all of his defensive prowess, I just don't think he's a good offensive guard. Now, could he still develop into one? Absolutely.

However, between having Brooks, Bogans and Lee, does that not make Bradley expendable? And also wouldn't he make an attractive trade chip as he only has a couple years left on his contract and would the Celts be willing to resign Bradley beyond next year?

I think it makes Lee expendable.  I want the Celtics to be committed to trying out close to a full season of a Rondo-Bradley starting backcourt.

No doubt. I'd also rather keep Bradley over Lee. I just don't think any team is going to want to pick up Lee's tab of 3 years and 15 million remaining on his contract.

But if you have a surplus of players at a position, you don't go and trade who I think is clearly the best one (and who also happens to be on a cheap contract).  Trading Bradley because you have Lee, Bogans, and Brooks (and Crawford) would have been like the T-Wolves deciding that because they (at one point) had Ridnour, Barea, and Shved, they should trade Ricky Rubio because he's the most attractive trade chip.