Larry Sanders under investigation for starting a bar fight

[Fafnir]

I'd also add that the pick is a big question mark, it'd have to be a high value one so one of the C's own picks. That's a scary prospect, losing a lottery pick on a team that is looking to be bad for the foreseeable future is how you stay bad.

Sanders was pretty good last year. Possibly as good as your average lottery pick.

For which he will soon be paid 11 million dollars per year for four more years.

A lottery pick is paid less, even a number one overall pick, for the same four years.

Plus again Sanders has 3 years of basketball to look at and only one was good.

[hpantazo]

with the depth the Bucks have at PF, I wouldn't be surprised to see them try to move Sanders if they are concerned about this at all, together with his awful start this year on the court. They have Ersan, Henson, and now Ekpe Udoh is back from injury looking very good. Sanders better get his act cleaned up, but then again he is making 44 million either way so maybe he doesn't care.

[kozlodoev]

I'd also add that the pick is a big question mark, it'd have to be a high value one so one of the C's own picks. That's a scary prospect, losing a lottery pick on a team that is looking to be bad for the foreseeable future is how you stay bad.

Sanders was pretty good last year. Possibly as good as your average lottery pick.

For which he will soon be paid 11 million dollars per year for four more years.

A lottery pick is paid less, even a number one overall pick, for the same four years.

Plus again Sanders has 3 years of basketball to look at and only one was good.

I'm not saying we should trade for him tomorrow, just that he may be an intriguing option. I'd rather have a good player on a steep salary, than an average player on a low one.

[moiso]

I'd want to make sure Sanders isn't pulling a Blount before I'd want anything to do with him. 

[LooseCannon]

If they get tired of him, Humphries, a young big, and a first for Sanders?

I'm not sure I'd want to do that. Its awful tempting but you'd be hitching to a garbage man offensively who only had one elite season defensively.

Right, and how is what you're giving up any better?

Humphries is at least expiring.  Sanders has a four-year deal that kicks in after this season.

Right, but you get Sanders because he can play, and to keep him. Humphries, not so much.

Also, Sullinger is appreciably less proven than Sanders.

I wouldn't trade Sullinger or Olynyk for Sanders, never mind add a 1st rounder too.

If the Celtics are ever going to trade for a quality big man (not necessarily Sanders), the team is going to have to part with one of them because that is what the other team will be asking for.  I laugh at ideas in the trade forum that suggest acquiring an established big with all-star ability or potential that don't include Sullinger or Olynyk.

[hpantazo]

If they get tired of him, Humphries, a young big, and a first for Sanders?

I'm not sure I'd want to do that. Its awful tempting but you'd be hitching to a garbage man offensively who only had one elite season defensively.

Right, and how is what you're giving up any better?

Humphries is at least expiring.  Sanders has a four-year deal that kicks in after this season.

Right, but you get Sanders because he can play, and to keep him. Humphries, not so much.

Also, Sullinger is appreciably less proven than Sanders.

I wouldn't trade Sullinger or Olynyk for Sanders, never mind add a 1st rounder too.

If the Celtics are ever going to trade for a quality big man (not necessarily Sanders), the team is going to have to part with one of them because that is what the other team will be asking for.  I laugh at ideas in the trade forum that suggest acquiring an established big with all-star ability or potential that don't include Sullinger or Olynyk.

Oh, I have absolutely no problem trading one or both of them for a legit quality big man who can defend well and score in the post, but Sanders is not even on my radar as that type of a player. Eventually we have to trade at least one of Sullinger or Olynyk along with some picks and either Humpries or the 10 million trade exception, but I wouldn't do it for Sanders, he's not worth the assets or the 44 million in salary. He doesn't make us a contender, possibly doesn't even upgrade the team at all.

[LooseCannon]

If they get tired of him, Humphries, a young big, and a first for Sanders?

I'm not sure I'd want to do that. Its awful tempting but you'd be hitching to a garbage man offensively who only had one elite season defensively.

Right, and how is what you're giving up any better?

Humphries is at least expiring.  Sanders has a four-year deal that kicks in after this season.

Right, but you get Sanders because he can play, and to keep him. Humphries, not so much.

Also, Sullinger is appreciably less proven than Sanders.

I wouldn't trade Sullinger or Olynyk for Sanders, never mind add a 1st rounder too.

If the Celtics are ever going to trade for a quality big man (not necessarily Sanders), the team is going to have to part with one of them because that is what the other team will be asking for.  I laugh at ideas in the trade forum that suggest acquiring an established big with all-star ability or potential that don't include Sullinger or Olynyk.

oh, I have absolutely no problem trading one or both of them for a legit quality big man who can defend well and score in the post, but Sanders is not even on my radar as that type of a player

What if, instead of the expiring contract of Humphries, you were talking about possibly dumping Wallace?  Because the Bucks have been a team that makes trades like that.

[celtic -_- pride]

He just wants to be able to compare basketball to a bar fight. Not a big deal... IT WAS A BAR FIGHT OUT THERE TONIGHT CRAIG IT WAS A BAR FIGHT

[D.o.s.]

He just wants to be able to compare basketball to a bar fight. Not a big deal... IT WAS A BAR FIGHT OUT THERE TONIGHT CRAIG IT WAS A BAR FIGHT

TP. 

[hpantazo]

If they get tired of him, Humphries, a young big, and a first for Sanders?

I'm not sure I'd want to do that. Its awful tempting but you'd be hitching to a garbage man offensively who only had one elite season defensively.

Right, and how is what you're giving up any better?

Humphries is at least expiring.  Sanders has a four-year deal that kicks in after this season.

Right, but you get Sanders because he can play, and to keep him. Humphries, not so much.

Also, Sullinger is appreciably less proven than Sanders.

I wouldn't trade Sullinger or Olynyk for Sanders, never mind add a 1st rounder too.

If the Celtics are ever going to trade for a quality big man (not necessarily Sanders), the team is going to have to part with one of them because that is what the other team will be asking for.  I laugh at ideas in the trade forum that suggest acquiring an established big with all-star ability or potential that don't include Sullinger or Olynyk.

oh, I have absolutely no problem trading one or both of them for a legit quality big man who can defend well and score in the post, but Sanders is not even on my radar as that type of a player

What if, instead of the expiring contract of Humphries, you were talking about possibly dumping Wallace?  Because the Bucks have been a team that makes trades like that.

That's a tough call. Dumping Wallace would be great, but we would still be paying Sanders 11 million a year and losing some of our assets to essentially dump a contract. I wouldn't do it. We need to use our assets to land a future building block or two, not to dump contracts.

[Evantime34]

If they get tired of him, Humphries, a young big, and a first for Sanders?

I'm not sure I'd want to do that. Its awful tempting but you'd be hitching to a garbage man offensively who only had one elite season defensively.

Right, and how is what you're giving up any better?

Humphries is at least expiring.  Sanders has a four-year deal that kicks in after this season.

Right, but you get Sanders because he can play, and to keep him. Humphries, not so much.

Also, Sullinger is appreciably less proven than Sanders.

I wouldn't trade Sullinger or Olynyk for Sanders, never mind add a 1st rounder too.

If the Celtics are ever going to trade for a quality big man (not necessarily Sanders), the team is going to have to part with one of them because that is what the other team will be asking for.  I laugh at ideas in the trade forum that suggest acquiring an established big with all-star ability or potential that don't include Sullinger or Olynyk.

oh, I have absolutely no problem trading one or both of them for a legit quality big man who can defend well and score in the post, but Sanders is not even on my radar as that type of a player

What if, instead of the expiring contract of Humphries, you were talking about possibly dumping Wallace?  Because the Bucks have been a team that makes trades like that.

That's a tough call. Dumping Wallace would be great, but we would still be paying Sanders 11 million a year and losing some of our assets to essentially dump a contract. I wouldn't do it. We need to use our assets to land a future building block or two, not to dump contracts.

Larry Sanders is exactly the type of athletic rim protector that this team needs and would be a great fit around Green and Rondo. If we could get him around the trading deadline after irreparable harm is done to our record I would be estatic to add him if we didn't have to give up our first this year.

Larry Sanders hasn't been getting much run with the new coach this year but last year the defensive rating metric indicates he was the best defender in the league behind Tim Duncan for the year, so let's not pretend like we could get him while dumping Wallace unless Wallace starts averaging 15/9/6 with 3 steals from here on out.

[hpantazo]

If they get tired of him, Humphries, a young big, and a first for Sanders?

I'm not sure I'd want to do that. Its awful tempting but you'd be hitching to a garbage man offensively who only had one elite season defensively.

Right, and how is what you're giving up any better?

Humphries is at least expiring.  Sanders has a four-year deal that kicks in after this season.

Right, but you get Sanders because he can play, and to keep him. Humphries, not so much.

Also, Sullinger is appreciably less proven than Sanders.

I wouldn't trade Sullinger or Olynyk for Sanders, never mind add a 1st rounder too.

If the Celtics are ever going to trade for a quality big man (not necessarily Sanders), the team is going to have to part with one of them because that is what the other team will be asking for.  I laugh at ideas in the trade forum that suggest acquiring an established big with all-star ability or potential that don't include Sullinger or Olynyk.

oh, I have absolutely no problem trading one or both of them for a legit quality big man who can defend well and score in the post, but Sanders is not even on my radar as that type of a player

What if, instead of the expiring contract of Humphries, you were talking about possibly dumping Wallace?  Because the Bucks have been a team that makes trades like that.

That's a tough call. Dumping Wallace would be great, but we would still be paying Sanders 11 million a year and losing some of our assets to essentially dump a contract. I wouldn't do it. We need to use our assets to land a future building block or two, not to dump contracts.

Larry Sanders is exactly the type of athletic rim protector that this team needs and would be a great fit around Green and Rondo. If we could get him around the trading deadline after irreparable harm is done to our record I would be estatic to add him if we didn't have to give up our first this year.

Larry Sanders hasn't been getting much run with the new coach this year but last year the defensive rating metric indicates he was the best defender in the league behind Tim Duncan for the year, so let's not pretend like we could get him while dumping Wallace unless Wallace starts averaging 15/9/6 with 3 steals from here on out.

His offense is extremely limited at best. Add him to Rondo, Bradley, and Green and we will average 80 points a game. No one in the lineup can spread the floor, and Sanders and Rondo would be terrible shooters which the defense can lag off of. His defense is also overrated and based on one season on a poor team. So far this year, now that he got paid, he is awful. We need someone better than Sanders if we are going to give up our draft picks and young players.

[ssspence]

guy got a huge pay day, has struggled with expectations in week 1-2 of the season -- or -- is immature and coasting, subsequently went out and got hammered, then kicked a little ass. big deal. me thinks they'll keep him. last i checked the guy can do some pretty crazy **** on the court.   

[LarBrd33]

I was about to propose a trade idea that involved Rondo+Wallace going to the Bucks for expiring contracts, Sanders and unprotected 2014 pick... until I realized Sanders just signed a 4 year 44 million dollar extension.

[ssspence]

I was about to propose a trade idea that involved Rondo+Wallace going to the Bucks for expiring contracts, Sanders and unprotected 2014 pick... until I realized Sanders just signed a 4 year 44 million dollar extension.

you kidding? the Cs would jump all over that. deal would be done in 10 minutes if the Bucks were willing.