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

[bfrombleacher]

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.

Yes.

The correct answer is: NOTHING


Cap space means nothing right now.

Injured Rondo. New coach. A thin free agent market. Almost an entire roster of unproven young players (that's including Jeff Green and some would argue Rondo to some extent).

So many unanswered questions. Why not just wait instead of selling all of our valuable assets way short just to get some empty cap space.

Another consideration is that Wallace goes from toxic asset to valuable expiring in a matter of a couple years.

I don't understand the fascination with moving Wallace.

[vjcsmoke]

I would give up nothing, especially not picks.  The Celtics are retooling/rebuilding.  Celtics are only marginally over the luxury tax so they can move a lesser contract to accomplish that goal. 

And who knows, under Brad Stevens, and as the clear cut #2 SF behind Green, he might improve to becoming a marginally useful player.  I say give Wallace a chance to regain some trade value.  And then you might be able to move him later.  His large salary might come in handy to make a trade for a very good player work.

[Moranis]

Depends on the rest of the financial situation of the team and what the purpose of moving him is.  I mean if it is just to move him, I don't see the point, but if moving him opens up cap space to sign an actual player (not just a theoretical one), then I'd be willing to move a lot more.  At this point I don't really see the point of moving him with assets just to move him, but if we got something back in return then sure.  Like that trade where Patterson and Fredette would come back for Wallace and Bradley with other pieces from both teams, then that is a move I would make.  It just all depends.

[Roy H.]

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.

I agree with this. 

I have very little hope that Wallace will ever become a viable starter again, though.  He's declined in points scored (per game and on a per-minute basis) for four seasons in a row.  We've seen a similar downward trajectory in terms of FG%, TS%, and TRB%.  I'm not sure that many players turn around trends like that.

[mmmmm]

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.

Ditto this.

[Chris]

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.

I agree with this. 

I have very little hope that Wallace will ever become a viable starter again, though.  He's declined in points scored (per game and on a per-minute basis) for four seasons in a row.  We've seen a similar downward trajectory in terms of FG%, TS%, and TRB%.  I'm not sure that many players turn around trends like that.

This may be true.  But to me the key is that the chances of the C's benefiting from dumping him now are much smaller than the chances of his value increasing as his contract gets shorter, and he possibly plays a little better.  I mean, I don't know if his value can really drop much lower.

If the C's were looking at cap space next summer, and he was standing in the way of that, sure, you give up assets to get him off the books.  But as of now, it looks like the C's will have no chance at cap space until his expiring year.  So, rolling the dice on his value increasing (or the cost of dumping him decreasing) seems to be the prudent move. 

While they are getting fewer and fewer, there are still a number of dumb GMs (or desperate GMs) in the NBA, which makes no player untradable.  If Wallace can show that he can still defend this year, then you never know what Danny could pull off once teams start getting desperate to contend.

[fairweatherfan]

Nothing this year - Wallace's contract really only stinks for us next season.  In 2 years it's a valuable expiring, and this year we aren't trying to add win-now talent so it doesn't hurt us.  Even in 14-15 we might still be rebuilding and not need to move it.

I do hope if Danny is looking at another big deal that he kicks the tires on throwing Wallace in though.  But we shouldn't give up value just to move him.

[nostar]

I have very little hope that Wallace will ever become a viable starter again, though.  He's declined in points scored (per game and on a per-minute basis) for four seasons in a row.  We've seen a similar downward trajectory in terms of FG%, TS%, and TRB%.  I'm not sure that many players turn around trends like that.

I'm not so sure. I remember watching Wallace in Charlotte and he looked like a role player until that '09/10 season. I think given a broken roster and the opportunity to be a focal point Wallace might bloom again. That is sort of what happened under Larry Brown in Charlotte. Actually if you throw out Rondo (injury) there are some striking parallels to that team:

Wallace (obviously)
Stephen Jackson (Jeff Green?)
Boris Diaw (Sully?)

and while I'm sure Rondo is a superior player to Ray Felton I believe that in the first part of the season this Celtics team will look at lot like that Bobcat team. We'll play an undersized center in Sully/KO/Hump just like Charlotte did with Diaw.

Now I doubt Wallace will average 18/10 on 48% shooting but if he gets 41 mpg and 12.4 FGA he might get close

The truth is that Wallace was never an all-star. He got the benefit of being played a ton on a bad team. I think he could get that benefit again and show that at 31 years old he's still a very capable NBA player. Something like 12/7/2 in 25 mpg isn't out of the question.

Oh, and my response to the OP is also nothing, similar to the recent posters. I like Wallace, I think his contract is bad but I'd rather try to trade him next year when we're more competitive than give up something to trade him this year. I also think he'll be a strong veteran voice in a relatively young locker room. Something we could use after we moved out nearly all of our established leaders.

Truth be told I'd sooner stretch Wallace's $30M over 5 years and waive him rather than give up an asset to move him this year. That's just me though.

[Smitty77]

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.

I agree with this. 

I have very little hope that Wallace will ever become a viable starter again, though.  He's declined in points scored (per game and on a per-minute basis) for four seasons in a row.  We've seen a similar downward trajectory in terms of FG%, TS%, and TRB%.  I'm not sure that many players turn around trends like that.

As I mentioned earlier, Gwall's minutes per games also declined at the same pace Roy.  The PG's Gerald played with in Portland (Andre Miller) and Brooklyn (Deron) are both mostly shoot first PG's, not pure PGs like Rondo.

Smitty77

[Roy H.]

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.

I agree with this. 

I have very little hope that Wallace will ever become a viable starter again, though.  He's declined in points scored (per game and on a per-minute basis) for four seasons in a row.  We've seen a similar downward trajectory in terms of FG%, TS%, and TRB%.  I'm not sure that many players turn around trends like that.

As I mentioned earlier, Gwall's minutes per games also declined at the same pace Roy.  The PG's Gerald played with in Portland (Andre Miller) and Brooklyn (Deron) are both mostly shoot first PG's, not pure PGs like Rondo.

Smitty77

The percentage / rate stats aren't influenced by minutes played, and his per-minute scoring production has gone down.

Per-36 minute scoring numbers: 16.0 -> 14.9 -> 13.9 -> 9.2

As for Deron's point guard skills, he's ranked in the top-five in assists per game seven different times, including the top-three five times.  I think it's hard to suggest a guy like that isn't finding looks for his teammates.

Similarly, I don't think Andre Miller is regarded as a selfish point guard.  He's been top-ten in assists eight different times, including leading the league once.

I admire Crash's career, but I think he's pretty much cooked.

[tyrone biggums]

Crash isn't 35 years old. He will re establish his value here to the point of becoming a decent contract that can fetch the C's a 1st rounder. I actually have more faith in Crash fetching value for us than Kardashian. Both have had stretches of being pretty good players. Wouldn't be surprised to see Hump traded in September

[Roy H.]

Crash isn't 35 years old. He will re establish his value here to the point of becoming a decent contract that can fetch the C's a 1st rounder. I actually have more faith in Crash fetching value for us than Kardashian. Both have had stretches of being pretty good players. Wouldn't be surprised to see Hump traded in September

He's not 35, but he is 31, and in clear decline.  There are only so many Billy Kings running NBA franchises; we're not getting a #1 for Wallace unless we take on an even worse contract.

[fairweatherfan]

He's not 35, but he is 31, and in clear decline.  There are only so many Billy Kings running NBA franchises; we're not getting a #1 for Wallace unless we take on an even worse contract.

This made me think of how many teams are A. Wealthy enough to pay Crash's contract, B. Currently poorly run enough to give up something meaningful to get him, and C. Need a 3/4.  After careful consideration I think we need to find a way to get him to the Lakers.  Make it happen Danny!

[Vermont Green]

Wow, it is unusual for me to agree with the concensus but that is the case with this one.  To trade him, and not take back around $10M in different unwanted salary, we would have to trade him to a team under the cap like Phili.  A team like Phili has no desire to get Wallace as they are rebuilding and looking for young players.  I would not want to give up one of our picks or one of our promising young players to "dump" GW.  Maybe Melo if a team wanted him.

I recongnize that GW has statitically been in a decline but I think there is a good chance that he will see a bounce (statistically) by being on a bad team again.  Contending teams will have injuries and who knows, at this year's deadline or next year, someone may have a need and be willing to legitimately trade for him.

No need to "dump" crash at this point IMHO.

[Celtic]

In all likelihood it would require trading Rondo to part with Wallace's contract, this is simply too much, so as a result I wouldn't be willing to give up anything. I think Danny has his eye's on Kevin Durant's contract which expires the same season as Wallace's. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that Durant may want out in a few seasons, OKC has not had a lot of success in the free agent market and appear to only be getting worse since their Finals appearance. I think Danny actually wants to retain Wallace's contract as long as he can up to and until he is able to trade it for a marquis player.