Celtics interested in Amare

[Lucky17]

People cite "flexibility" as the prime reason for taking on Amare's gargantuan non-insurable deal.

How easy do people really think it will be to move a $23 million dollar expiring contract next season?

Doesn't matter if we move it or not.

Good, because what are the chances the Celtics can?

Also, keep in mind that the net payroll gain in 2014-15 posed by Amare's bloated deal also restricts trade activity re: the luxury tax threshold and that TE from the Nets megadeal.

You're basically in trade gridlock until that Amare deal expires.

If you want to drive Rondo out of town, an Amare deal would probably be the best way to do it.

[Endless Paradise]

People cite "flexibility" as the prime reason for taking on Amare's gargantuan non-insurable deal.

How easy do people really think it will be to move a $23 million dollar expiring contract next season?

Doesn't matter if we move it or not. 

I'd take 20 million in dead-weight on the books next year if it means we don't still have 10 million in dead-weight on the team 3 seasons from now.

That $10 million will be expiring at that point and presumably much more valuable for inclusion in trades than Amare's salary dump contract.  Realistically speaking, trading Amare away isn't an option if the Celtics acquire him; they will hold him and his $23 million contract until it expires.  Wallace will be older and likely even more regressed, but he'll still be much more easily moved for further assets.

[LarBrd33]

People cite "flexibility" as the prime reason for taking on Amare's gargantuan non-insurable deal.

How easy do people really think it will be to move a $23 million dollar expiring contract next season?

Doesn't matter if we move it or not.

Good, because what are the chances the Celtics can?

Also, keep in mind that the net payroll gain in 2014-15 posed by Amare's bloated deal also restricts trade activity re: the luxury tax threshold and that TE from the Nets megadeal.

You're basically in trade gridlock until that Amare deal expires.

If you want to drive Rondo out of town, an Amare deal would probably be the best way to do it.

Lucky17, let me clarify why I think a 23 million dollar expiring contract could be valuable.

Say we do this trade.

Say next season, there's a team out there who is struggling and wants to trade their star player.  For the sake of argument, I'll use DeMarcus Cousins as an example.  Let's say things go south with the Kings and they decide that the 4 year 62 million dollar extension was a bad idea.  They now have Cousins on the books for 15 million a year and want to trade them.  Then let's also pretend that they have another awful contract stuck on the books ... an over paid player who is underpeforming.  Let's pretend Carl Landry is that player... let's pretend like he's become a complete dump of a player, but they are still stuck paying him 7 mil a year for the next 3 years.

A team like the Kings might then decide that their ideal package for Cousins would be a big expiring contract + young assets + draft picks, but they also want someone to take on one of their bad contracts.   Having a fat 23 million dollar expiring contract would allow us to take on Cousins + the crap contract of their choice. 

Just as an example.

[D.o.s.]

People cite "flexibility" as the prime reason for taking on Amare's gargantuan non-insurable deal.

How easy do people really think it will be to move a $23 million dollar expiring contract next season?

Doesn't matter if we move it or not.

Good, because what are the chances the Celtics can?

Also, keep in mind that the net payroll gain in 2014-15 posed by Amare's bloated deal also restricts trade activity re: the luxury tax threshold and that TE from the Nets megadeal.

You're basically in trade gridlock until that Amare deal expires.

If you want to drive Rondo out of town, an Amare deal would probably be the best way to do it.

Lucky17, let me clarify why I think a 23 million dollar expiring contract could be valuable.

Say we do this trade.

Say next season, there's a team out there who is struggling and wants to trade their star player.  For the sake of argument, I'll use DeMarcus Cousins as an example.  Let's say things go south with the Kings and they decide that the 4 year 62 million dollar extension was a bad idea.  They now have Cousins on the books for 15 million a year and want to trade them.  Then let's also pretend that they have another awful contract stuck on the books ... an over paid player who is underpeforming.  Let's pretend Carl Landry is that player... let's pretend like he's become a complete dump of a player, but they are still stuck paying him 7 mil a year for the next 3 years.

A team like the Kings might then decide that their ideal package for Cousins would be a big expiring contract + young assets + draft picks, but they also want someone to take on one of their bad contracts.   Having a fat 23 million dollar expiring contract would allow us to take on Cousins + the crap contract of their choice. 

Just as an example.

Dude I really hope your example is actually some kind of crazy future-casting, because that would be a phenomenal trade for us.

[Lucky17]

People cite "flexibility" as the prime reason for taking on Amare's gargantuan non-insurable deal.

How easy do people really think it will be to move a $23 million dollar expiring contract next season?

Doesn't matter if we move it or not.

Good, because what are the chances the Celtics can?

Also, keep in mind that the net payroll gain in 2014-15 posed by Amare's bloated deal also restricts trade activity re: the luxury tax threshold and that TE from the Nets megadeal.

You're basically in trade gridlock until that Amare deal expires.

If you want to drive Rondo out of town, an Amare deal would probably be the best way to do it.

Lucky17, let me clarify why I think a 23 million dollar expiring contract could be valuable.

Say we do this trade.

Say next season, there's a team out there who is struggling and wants to trade their star player.  For the sake of argument, I'll use DeMarcus Cousins as an example.  Let's say things go south with the Kings and they decide that the 4 year 62 million dollar extension was a bad idea.  They now have Cousins on the books for 15 million a year and want to trade them.  Then let's also pretend that they have another awful contract stuck on the books ... an over paid player who is underpeforming.  Let's pretend Carl Landry is that player... let's pretend like he's become a complete dump of a player, but they are still stuck paying him 7 mil a year for the next 3 years.

A team like the Kings might then decide that their ideal package for Cousins would be a big expiring contract + young assets + draft picks, but they also want someone to take on one of their bad contracts.   Having a fat 23 million dollar expiring contract would allow us to take on Cousins + the crap contract of their choice. 

Just as an example.

Right. So, the Celtics dump Wallace's deal so that they can take on a contract that they can then package with assets to get Cousins and another bad long-term deal just to make the numbers work.

BTW, see my recent post on Sacramento. Cousins is their franchise.

[LarBrd33]

People cite "flexibility" as the prime reason for taking on Amare's gargantuan non-insurable deal.

How easy do people really think it will be to move a $23 million dollar expiring contract next season?

Doesn't matter if we move it or not.

Good, because what are the chances the Celtics can?

Also, keep in mind that the net payroll gain in 2014-15 posed by Amare's bloated deal also restricts trade activity re: the luxury tax threshold and that TE from the Nets megadeal.

You're basically in trade gridlock until that Amare deal expires.

If you want to drive Rondo out of town, an Amare deal would probably be the best way to do it.

Lucky17, let me clarify why I think a 23 million dollar expiring contract could be valuable.

Say we do this trade.

Say next season, there's a team out there who is struggling and wants to trade their star player.  For the sake of argument, I'll use DeMarcus Cousins as an example.  Let's say things go south with the Kings and they decide that the 4 year 62 million dollar extension was a bad idea.  They now have Cousins on the books for 15 million a year and want to trade them.  Then let's also pretend that they have another awful contract stuck on the books ... an over paid player who is underpeforming.  Let's pretend Carl Landry is that player... let's pretend like he's become a complete dump of a player, but they are still stuck paying him 7 mil a year for the next 3 years.

A team like the Kings might then decide that their ideal package for Cousins would be a big expiring contract + young assets + draft picks, but they also want someone to take on one of their bad contracts.   Having a fat 23 million dollar expiring contract would allow us to take on Cousins + the crap contract of their choice. 

Just as an example.

Dude I really hope your example is actually some kind of crazy future-casting, because that would be a phenomenal trade for us.

Its really hard to predict this stuff, because we don't know what the NBA landscape will look like during the trade deadline of the 2014-15 season.  For all we know, the Warriors are struggling and want to blow it up by trading Steph Curry and his 9 mil a year.  Then they might decide, "We'll trade you curry, but you also have to take on Bogut's horrible 14 mil a year contract".  Having a 23 million dollar expiring contract + young assets + draft picks becomes a very appealing option for a rebuilding team.   Golden State is another likely bad example... but we have no idea what can happen in the next several months.

As for the Cousins example.... who knows.  I'm also using "assets" loosely.  Assets might mean Sully or Oly or Bradley or one of the kids we take in the 2014 draft.   My overall point is that having a 23 million dollar expiring contract next season in combination with our many young assets gives us the option of potentially taking on a Star + bad contract from a rebuilding team.

[LarBrd33]

People cite "flexibility" as the prime reason for taking on Amare's gargantuan non-insurable deal.

How easy do people really think it will be to move a $23 million dollar expiring contract next season?

Doesn't matter if we move it or not.

Good, because what are the chances the Celtics can?

Also, keep in mind that the net payroll gain in 2014-15 posed by Amare's bloated deal also restricts trade activity re: the luxury tax threshold and that TE from the Nets megadeal.

You're basically in trade gridlock until that Amare deal expires.

If you want to drive Rondo out of town, an Amare deal would probably be the best way to do it.

Lucky17, let me clarify why I think a 23 million dollar expiring contract could be valuable.

Say we do this trade.

Say next season, there's a team out there who is struggling and wants to trade their star player.  For the sake of argument, I'll use DeMarcus Cousins as an example.  Let's say things go south with the Kings and they decide that the 4 year 62 million dollar extension was a bad idea.  They now have Cousins on the books for 15 million a year and want to trade them.  Then let's also pretend that they have another awful contract stuck on the books ... an over paid player who is underpeforming.  Let's pretend Carl Landry is that player... let's pretend like he's become a complete dump of a player, but they are still stuck paying him 7 mil a year for the next 3 years.

A team like the Kings might then decide that their ideal package for Cousins would be a big expiring contract + young assets + draft picks, but they also want someone to take on one of their bad contracts.   Having a fat 23 million dollar expiring contract would allow us to take on Cousins + the crap contract of their choice. 

Just as an example.

Right. So, the Celtics dump Wallace's deal so that they can take on a contract that they can then package with assets to get Cousins and another bad long-term deal just to make the numbers work.

BTW, see my recent post on Sacramento. Cousins is their franchise.

Your recent post just backed up my random example I pulled out of my butt.  The kings are ALREADY pushing for a trade.  A  year from now, they might decide that being stuck with Cousins at 15 mil a year isn't ideal...  Cousins + a bad contract for a 23 million dollar expiring contract + a couple 1st rounders + one of our young bigs might be a VERY appealing option for them a year from now.  Just one example of infinite examples.  Usually people throw out Kevin Love's name in these kind of crystal ball posts.  Anything can happen.

Bottom line:  Hump + Wallace for Amare would be a smart move for us.  Even if we get stuck with Amare... I'd rather have Amare stuck here until 2015 than Wallace stuck here until 2016.

[Lucky17]

Well, I did think your example stank. Now I know why.

Trade for Amare, you kill all roster flexibility between now and the summer of 2015, when Rondo becomes a free agent. I wonder if he'd really stick around after going through the motions for another lost season in 2014.

I'd prefer to wait a year to trade Wallace, if necessary, use the TE next offseason, and continue to accrue assets. Not wager on a trade that might happen two years down the line.

[ssspence]

People cite "flexibility" as the prime reason for taking on Amare's gargantuan non-insurable deal.

How easy do people really think it will be to move a $23 million dollar expiring contract next season?

Doesn't matter if we move it or not. 

I'd take 20 million in dead-weight on the books next year if it means we don't still have 10 million in dead-weight on the team 3 seasons from now.

That $10 million will be expiring at that point and presumably much more valuable for inclusion in trades than Amare's salary dump contract.  Realistically speaking, trading Amare away isn't an option if the Celtics acquire him; they will hold him and his $23 million contract until it expires.  Wallace will be older and likely even more regressed, but he'll still be much more easily moved for further assets.

This makes no sense. Teams with cap space don't need expiring contracts to do deals -- they can take back whatever they care to under the cap.

It's shocking to me how few csbloggers get the cap.

[Endless Paradise]

People cite "flexibility" as the prime reason for taking on Amare's gargantuan non-insurable deal.

How easy do people really think it will be to move a $23 million dollar expiring contract next season?

Doesn't matter if we move it or not. 

I'd take 20 million in dead-weight on the books next year if it means we don't still have 10 million in dead-weight on the team 3 seasons from now.

That $10 million will be expiring at that point and presumably much more valuable for inclusion in trades than Amare's salary dump contract.  Realistically speaking, trading Amare away isn't an option if the Celtics acquire him; they will hold him and his $23 million contract until it expires.  Wallace will be older and likely even more regressed, but he'll still be much more easily moved for further assets.

This makes no sense. Teams with cap space don't need expiring contracts to do deals -- they can take back whatever they care to under the cap.

It's shocking to me how few csbloggers get the cap.

... what are you talking about?  I never said anything about trading him to a team with cap space.

[ssspence]

People cite "flexibility" as the prime reason for taking on Amare's gargantuan non-insurable deal.

How easy do people really think it will be to move a $23 million dollar expiring contract next season?

Doesn't matter if we move it or not. 

I'd take 20 million in dead-weight on the books next year if it means we don't still have 10 million in dead-weight on the team 3 seasons from now.

That $10 million will be expiring at that point and presumably much more valuable for inclusion in trades than Amare's salary dump contract.  Realistically speaking, trading Amare away isn't an option if the Celtics acquire him; they will hold him and his $23 million contract until it expires.  Wallace will be older and likely even more regressed, but he'll still be much more easily moved for further assets.

This makes no sense. Teams with cap space don't need expiring contracts to do deals -- they can take back whatever they care to under the cap.

It's shocking to me how few csbloggers get the cap.

... what are you talking about?  I never said anything about trading him to a team with cap space.

Amare's deal is a year shorter. So when it expires, they won't have to the burden of Wallace's 'valuable' deal -- they'll just have the respective cap space.

[BudweiserCeltic]

The right deal should be Wallace + Bass + Bogans for Stat.

[BleedGreen1989]

People cite "flexibility" as the prime reason for taking on Amare's gargantuan non-insurable deal.

How easy do people really think it will be to move a $23 million dollar expiring contract next season?

Doesn't matter if we move it or not. 

I'd take 20 million in dead-weight on the books next year if it means we don't still have 10 million in dead-weight on the team 3 seasons from now.

This season is a tank job.  I don't care about our salary circumstances.

Next season we begin digging out of the ashes.  WE'd have the option of including Amare's fat expiring contract with young players and picks if a highly paid star becomes available.

THe year after that, I'd really prefer not to have Gerald Wallace still eating up cap.

This exactly.

You trade for the contract so that Amare is off the books two years from now and you're not still paying Wallace for another year.

Amare doesn't even have to show up to the games. I don't care. Danny is not making trades to be good this year, he's trying to create future flexibility and removing that last year off Wallace's deal is worth it.

Rondo and Amare will come off the books at the same time in 2015 and will allow Rondo to re-up and recruit another player from a promising looking free agent year.

[Kane3387]

The only way I'm doing this trade is if it's like so:

Amare and shumpert (and possibly two vet min guys)

For

Wallace, lee, bass, and bogans.

Celtics cut salary this year and are only on the books for Jeff green after next year.

[SHAQATTACK]

I'm for this,

Frees up money in 2015 ,  I stead of 2016

Wallace is a real whiner , let him be on the Knicks with Carmelo  ....