If we needed one or two?

[billysan]

Looking over the roster going into trainiing camp for this season like everyone else, I see some redundancy(kind of ). We have plenty of power forwards and shooting guards and seemingly no depth at center.

I know we are in a rebuilding or reloading mode now so we dont need a lot of veteran role players that we normally in the past would have embraced to back up Pierce, KG and Ray.

The guys we most often hear talked about in trade proposals are these same guys. Courtney Lee, Keith Bogans, Gerald Wallace, Brandon Bass and Kris Humphries are all guys we would have loved to add as role players during our deep playoff runs. We may have added Lee and Bass a year or so too late to be much help.

I want to hear who we keep and and why. My question to all of you is this, "If we are to keep a role player or two as back ups at the F and SG position out of this current group, which two do you want?"

I feel like we may be playoff bound again in a couple years so I consider Lee and Hump because they are the most versatile and both will accept a bench role (it appears) if needed.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

I'd like to give Lee a shot at returning to the Lee we traded for from Houston in the 1st place. Other than that whichever veteran big shows  most versatility to play at the 5

[Eric M VAN]

My instinct is dump as many of these backups guys as possible. I'd like to see them go in these tiers

Tier 1 (Useful to someone else but too darn expensive for them to take)

Wallace
Humphries (Expiring contracts attractive but for someone elses albatross?)


It's all about salary for me with these two. Not anywhere near as much to do with what they have to offer on the court (and ideas and conjecture range wildly and widely for Wallace & Humphries)

Tier 2 (Useful to no one else)

Crawford
Bogans

These two are just not needed. Crawford because his Twin Marshon is already here and makes less $$ Bogans because, for about 20% of that amount of cash you could get a guy to fill the "End of the bench" vet teams seem to think they always need.

Tier 3 (Useful and not too expensive for someone else)

Bass
Lee
Brooks

The first 2 I would think are attractive commodities for a team looking for a 5th or 6th best player on a big playoff run. Brooks maybe for potential. The nice thing about not having played as much as Crawford, is there are always GM's who think a guy hasn't had enough time to show what he is yet.

I guess I'm just in, if they aren't young enough to be essential players here in 3-5 years, ship them off as long as you don't take on anyone elses long term contract.

For the most part, the Bass's/Lees/Brooks/Bogan's types are eminently replaceable so stashing them away for the future is of little value.

Ok, that's where my heads at, but the bigger question for me is, not who to get rid of, but When and in what combination.

Right now, there's no overwhelming need to get rid of any of them. Flipping a player or two this season (at least early this season) doesn't make this team any closer to a deep playoff contender and the Celts are already poised to be under the cap, so just play the season out unless they are overwhelmed with an offer for draft assets, someone overseas or a quickly expiring contract in return.

That's not as much fun as throwing trade ideas out, but when was the last midseason ***blockbuster trade in the NBA? Most of the trades at midseason are fodder for fodder (Crawford). The Gasol's or Iverson's or Shaq type transactions are few and far between.


*** Not suggesting any of these guys fall under blockbuster commodity types

[lightspeed5]

if you havent noticed, we're trying to suck for wiggins. we're not going to trade anybody

[billysan]

if you havent noticed, we're trying to suck for wiggins. we're not going to trade anybody

I agree this is something that would be nice, but we need to plan for other contingincies dont you think? If a max FA becomes available then we need to have a few decent veterean role players in place that they would feel good about playing with.

I know that a lot of folks dont care much for our current roster and I am one  of them. I do think that there are a couple of veteran guys that we could and should hang on to for the sake of building for our next championship run.

After figuring in cost and versatility, I like Lee and Hump out of the ones I listed. I would love to hang on to Rondo, Green and Sullinger if possible. Any of those three combined with a draft pick or two could also really upgrade our roster so we should be open minded.

[slamtheking]

of the core role players, I'd only be interested in keeping Lee if anyone.  he's still young enough and plays enough quality D to still be a productive role player in 3 years or so when this team starts to rise again.

[Surferdad]

The thing about Wallace, Hump, Bogans, Lee and Bass is that they all help with the minimum roster salary requirement (can't get there with only Rondo, Green and a bunch of young players). They are a decent group talent-wise though none are really in the long-term plans. If you can unload any of them, fine, but get back some assets. Otherwise just play them this season until a deal comes along.

[billysan]

The thing about Wallace, Hump, Bogans, Lee and Bass is that they all help with the minimum roster salary requirement (can't get there with only Rondo, Green and a bunch of young players). They are a decent group talent-wise though none are really in the long-term plans. If you can unload any of them, fine, but get back some assets. Otherwise just play them this season until a deal comes along.

True enough, the better 'value for value' trades will come as teams find their needs come mid season. These guys are all role players though and my expectation is that Danny will try to get draft picks in exchange. That seems to be his current preferred form of currency. Hard to see why he would trade any for 'other' comparable role players unless he wins the exchange by significant salary margin.

Nobody giving up a star or All Star level talent for any combination of these and picks even if the $$ add up  unless it is a salary dump or problem child.

[crimson_stallion]

If I can choose three I'd keep Bougans, Wallace and Humphries.

Bougans because:
This is a young team that could really use a veteran role model who who is a little more grounded than Rondo.

Secondly because he has a proven history as a solid 3+d player, which we could use.  That's a role Lee was supposed to fill until he proved himself mediocre at both 3 and D.

Wallace because:
Without him we don't have any legit SF to back up Jeff Green. 

Wallace has the combination of strength, atleticism and toughness to guard just about anybody on the floor.  That's a very valuable asset to have if you play a defense that involves a lot of switching as Boston tends to.

Secondly he has no pressure on him at all.  Zero expectations.  Only two seasons back he averaged 15 points, 7 rebounds, 3 assists per game for the Nets - similar to what he has produced for the past 10 years.  Since his struggles last year everybody is writing him off as being done, like he is nothing more than a trade asset (i.e. contract) with nothing left in the tank.  His rep cannot really fall much lower so he has nothing to lose, plenty to prove and everything to gain.  If he comes even close to what he produced only two seasons back, it could be a serious game changer for these Celtics.

Humphries because:
This team has sucked at rebounding since the big 3 era began, especially offensive rebounding. 

Humphries has a career average of 11 rebounds per 36 min (3.6 OFF) and his REB% numbers are consistently towards the top of the league rankings - he has proven that he is one of the better rebounders in the NBA. 

Bass and Olynyk are both pretty average rebounders, and Sully is a question mark due to his health and Domestic Violence charges.  Until he is cleared of both issues, Hump is the only quality rebounder we have.  Even when Sully does return he's still going to need help on the boards, and right now Hump is the only guy qualified for that role.

Secondly Hump has averaged 1.2 blocks per 36 min over his career, so right now he is probably the closest thing to a shot-blocker we have on this roster.  Without him opponents will score in the paint at will.  With him they probably still will, but he may at least help a little.   

Hump also averages 3 FT made per 36 min which is decent enough.  He'll aggressively crash the boards so he'll get his share of garbage points off putbacks and free throws - he won't need plays called for him to get his name on the box score.

If I have to choose two of those guys I will keep Wallace and Hump, but I don't mind Bougans too. 

Hump would have to be the guy we need most out of that group, but he's also the only one with any real trade value.  Still we don't need to trade him just because we can.  I'd rather make use of his skills (which we desperately need) and then just let the $12M come off the books next season, possibly re-sign him on the cheap or use that cash to sign a free agent (or both).

[billysan]

Wallace because:
Without him we don't have any legit SF to back up Jeff Green. 

Wallace has the combination of strength, atleticism and toughness to guard just about anybody on the floor.  That's a very valuable asset to have if you play a defense that involves a lot of switching as Boston tends to.

Secondly he has no pressure on him at all.  Zero expectations.  Only two seasons back he averaged 15 points, 7 rebounds, 3 assists per game for the Nets - similar to what he has produced for the past 10 years.  Since his struggles last year everybody is writing him off as being done, like he is nothing more than a trade asset (i.e. contract) with nothing left in the tank.  His rep cannot really fall much lower so he has nothing to lose, plenty to prove and everything to gain.  If he comes even close to what he produced only two seasons back, it could be a serious game changer for these Celtics.

You make a good argument for Bogans and if I saw him outplay Lee in training camp or beat him out of a wing rotation spot I would be right there with you. He has to show me something first though.

Wallace is a guy I have long admired. I only have the small sample size for last season to go on but he seems a lot less productive than in previous years. Could have been a different system, lack of role, lack of touches, nagging injury or whatever. If he truly just had an off year then I would be ok with keeping him under the right circumstances.

With the right big man (someone athletic and tough)and Jeff Green playing the front line with him Wallace could be like a James Posey (without the 3pt shot)type guy that would give us some toughness and leadership coming off the bench. Again, he has to show me something. The only real problem I see then is that his contract is a bit of an albatross going forward.

As to Humphries, my logic is comparable to yours. We need his rebounding and if we cant re-sign him cheap then we trade him as an expiring or he is a nice chunk of change coming off the books.

[gar]

Not sure where this thread is going:

In terms of needs we need a PG and 3pt shooting (preferably in one package). Fine with the bigs we have (rebuilding wise).

In terms of pieces to rebuild around I think we can rebuild around Rondo and Olynyk possibly Sullinger and Bradley. Brooks and Humphreys nice pickups; but not for a contender. Loose Crawford and Bogans. Always loved Wallace's game so we need his fire and experience so he has good value for now. If you consider that Bogans got us the trade exception, the only piece I think was a mistake was Crawford who was a desperation move anyway and should never have become a Celtic in the first place.

[billysan]

Not sure where this thread is going:

In terms of needs we need a PG and 3pt shooting (preferably in one package). Fine with the bigs we have (rebuilding wise).

In terms of pieces to rebuild around I think we can rebuild around Rondo and Olynyk possibly Sullinger and Bradley. Brooks and Humphreys nice pickups; but not for a contender. Loose Crawford and Bogans. Always loved Wallace's game so we need his fire and experience so he has good value for now. If you consider that Bogans got us the trade exception, the only piece I think was a mistake was Crawford who was a desperation move anyway and should never have become a Celtic in the first place.

I guess the thread is just some rambling opinions about which (if any) of the veteran role players listed should the Celtics consider hanging on to for a couple years to help build a contender. 


I dont think I can agree at this point that Kelly Olynyk is a rebuilding piece (alongside Rondo) since he hasnt played an NBA game yet. I hope you are right and he does prove to be an impact player as a Celtic.