What would you be willing to give up in order to move Wallace's contract?

[connor]

It's universally agreed that Gerald Wallace's contract is awful. Not only is he overpaid, but we are also on the hook for 3 more years with him.

What people don't seem to be in agreement about is just how bad the deal is and what the Celtics would have to give up to clear him off the books.

On the one hand Wallace is coming off the worst year of his ENTIRE career. He simply looked lost on the court and as if his physical style of play had finally taken it's toll. It's hard to argue in his favor given he posted career lows in basically every major category and at no point during the year was he playing well. He was consistently bad.

On the other hand  he is also only 2 seasons removed from an all-star performance. He regularly complained about not knowing his role and feeling lost, which could have been a major contributor to his poor play. He also played 76 games and averaged 30 mins, which might suggest he hasn't entirely lost his legs.

I've heard people say that it will take anything from 2 future firsts, a 2014 first, pairing him with Rondo, to saying that we could move him for nothing, a shorter bad contract or even an expiring.

What would you be willing to give up to be rid of Wallace's contract?

[rondoallaturca]

I'd give up a couple weeks of the regular season to get a better feel on Wallace's value on the basketball court, and then make a midseason move if need be.

[LooseCannon]

At this point in time, waiting a year and seeing what can be done next summer is preferable to giving up anything of value before the season starts.  I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why the Celtics need to prioritize dumping his contract over other concerns.

[billysan]

At this point in time, waiting a year and seeing what can be done next summer is preferable to giving up anything of value before the season starts.  I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why the Celtics need to prioritize dumping his contract over other concerns.

This for me makes sense. I am also not convinced that Wallace cannot make a comeback to at least a productive role player level. A lot of variables including health and the system he plays in will determine his productivity hence his value.

[hardlyyardley]

keep him...he'll be ok

[Who]

35mpg -- I am optimistic G.Wallace will prove himself useful enough as a starting PF in Boston in 35mpg to get a trade out of here and onto a playoff team without costing Boston any assets. So I am willing to give him playing time and take things a bit slower with Olynyk and Co.

[slamtheking]

he's not near the top of the 'to-do' list.  The bigger needs are weeding out the extra SGs and PFs and getting a legit C. 

Give him the year to see if last year was a fluke.  C's won't be contending during his contract so it's not like he's a roadblock to a title in the next 2 years.  in his last year he becomes much more tradable as an expiring deal

[Eja117]

he's not near the top of the 'to-do' list.  The bigger needs are weeding out the extra SGs and PFs and getting a legit C. 

Give him the year to see if last year was a fluke.  C's won't be contending during his contract so it's not like he's a roadblock to a title in the next 2 years.  in his last year he becomes much more tradable as an expiring deal

this

[green147]

It really doesn't matter as much as mathematical sports analysts like to say (such as Bill Simmons). We are not going to outright sign any big name free agent unless we overpay for mediocre talent (a la Al Jeff or Josh Smith). Not to mention, all the big name free agents will likely re-sign with their teams next year (sorry but I'm really not sorry Lakers ). So, really it's just about having trade-able assets, developing our talent, and drafting well/being lucky. We have and can continue to do those things with or without Wallace. In two years we have an expiring contract  of value. For now we have a much better than average backup SF. That's fine with me.

[connor]

he's not near the top of the 'to-do' list.  The bigger needs are weeding out the extra SGs and PFs and getting a legit C. 

Give him the year to see if last year was a fluke.  C's won't be contending during his contract so it's not like he's a roadblock to a title in the next 2 years.  in his last year he becomes much more tradable as an expiring deal

At this point in time, waiting a year and seeing what can be done next summer is preferable to giving up anything of value before the season starts.  I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why the Celtics need to prioritize dumping his contract over other concerns.

This for me makes sense. I am also not convinced that Wallace cannot make a comeback to at least a productive role player level. A lot of variables including health and the system he plays in will determine his productivity hence his value.

I'm not asking SHOULD WE move Gerald Wallace's contract. I'm asking: what would it take to move his contract?

It's not about whether it's a priority, I'm just asking how bad is his contract in relation to assets you'd have to attach to move it. I've heard him mentioned quite a few times recently about being this big albatross of a deal, but I haven't really seen a consensus on how bad it really is.

Generally when I think about how bad a player's deal is I think of it in terms of what I'd expect in return for taking them on.

[Atzar]

We're currently in a position where it is wise to make long-term beneficial moves to the franchise.  Pairing Wallace with other assets is a short-term move that doesn't help us in the time frame for which we should be planning. 

Keep him.  Either he reestablishes some value by being a useful player for us, or we sit on the contract for two years at which point it becomes an expiring deal. 

[jambr380]

I absolutely would not give up a first round pick just to get rid of him, if that's what you're asking. I think the atrociousness of his contract is overstated. 10 mill is not that much in the NBA and neither is 3 years.

If we traded Rondo and him in a package to bring somebody back that wasn't as good as Rondo, I would probably freak out. Currently, we need a back up sf and there is no way he can be as bad as last year. Next year at this time he will only have two years left and show that he doesn't totally suck. That will be a great time to trade him to a team in need of defense and toughness (all teams).

But, if we had to trade him now, I would give up no more than a 2nd round pick.

[PhoSita]

I wouldn't worry about it this year.  It's not as though we need that cap space right now.

However, if, for example, Avery Bradley has another up and down season this year, and we're looking at possibly making a long-term financial commitment to him next season, and the alternative is dumping Gerald Wallace with Bradley in a sign and trade type deal, I'd consider something like that.

[LooseCannon]

he's not near the top of the 'to-do' list.  The bigger needs are weeding out the extra SGs and PFs and getting a legit C. 

Give him the year to see if last year was a fluke.  C's won't be contending during his contract so it's not like he's a roadblock to a title in the next 2 years.  in his last year he becomes much more tradable as an expiring deal

At this point in time, waiting a year and seeing what can be done next summer is preferable to giving up anything of value before the season starts.  I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why the Celtics need to prioritize dumping his contract over other concerns.

This for me makes sense. I am also not convinced that Wallace cannot make a comeback to at least a productive role player level. A lot of variables including health and the system he plays in will determine his productivity hence his value.

I'm not asking SHOULD WE move Gerald Wallace's contract. I'm asking: what would it take to move his contract?

It's not about whether it's a priority, I'm just asking how bad is his contract in relation to assets you'd have to attach to move it. I've heard him mentioned quite a few times recently about being this big albatross of a deal, but I haven't really seen a consensus on how bad it really is.

Generally when I think about how bad a player's deal is I think of it in terms of what I'd expect in return for taking them on.

Your question was what I would be willing to give up to move Wallace's contract.  At this moment, I would not be willing to give up any first round draft picks to move his deal.  I would be willing to trade him if I didn't have to give up any meaningful assets.  I might consider a first-round pick at the trade deadline if there was no way to get under the luxury tax threshold without giving someone a pick.

The main reasons to want to dump his contract are to create cap space or to get under the luxury tax.  There are less costly ways to get under the luxury tax.  If you could do a pure salary dump, the Celtics would still be over the cap this season.  There's no point in sending out useful assets until you need that cap space.

My answer might be different if Wallace was blocking a young player with upside at small forward or if I thought it would cost more to dump his contract in the future, but it's not like he will get worse and if he does get worse he just might retire.  I'm not really optimistic that he will be more than a high-paid reserve for the rest of this contract.

It's a pretty bad contract, but the Celtics shouldn't be willing to give away as much to get rid of him as other teams might if saddled with his contract.

[slamtheking]

he's not near the top of the 'to-do' list.  The bigger needs are weeding out the extra SGs and PFs and getting a legit C. 

Give him the year to see if last year was a fluke.  C's won't be contending during his contract so it's not like he's a roadblock to a title in the next 2 years.  in his last year he becomes much more tradable as an expiring deal

At this point in time, waiting a year and seeing what can be done next summer is preferable to giving up anything of value before the season starts.  I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why the Celtics need to prioritize dumping his contract over other concerns.

This for me makes sense. I am also not convinced that Wallace cannot make a comeback to at least a productive role player level. A lot of variables including health and the system he plays in will determine his productivity hence his value.

I'm not asking SHOULD WE move Gerald Wallace's contract. I'm asking: what would it take to move his contract?

It's not about whether it's a priority, I'm just asking how bad is his contract in relation to assets you'd have to attach to move it. I've heard him mentioned quite a few times recently about being this big albatross of a deal, but I haven't really seen a consensus on how bad it really is.

Generally when I think about how bad a player's deal is I think of it in terms of what I'd expect in return for taking them on.

I did answer your question.  basically I'm not willing to give up anything to move him.  if we move him for better assets, great, but I'm not trading a young player or a pick just to move a player who's not a locker room issue or blocking us from signing a player that will get us to a title.