Celtics interested in Amare

[D.o.s.]

Dumping salaries will be the last option Danny takes.

Ainge wants picks or a nice young player for Bass, Humprhies, Lee and now you can include Green.

At worse you can get back a 2nd pick for any of these guys and some definitely a 1st round pick.

IF nobody is willing to give up a pick or young player than by the trade deadline, definitely Wallace and Humprhies for Amare will happen.

Then likely Amare waived.

Getting rid of Wallace and Humprhies also = more time on the floor for Faverani and we can also bring up Osby.

Amare+Shump for Wallace+Humphries+Lee works for both teams, and the best "asset" the Celtics would get is cutting down some millions from the cap. Of course, if Shumpert could get back to 100%, he would be the best piece for the Cs, but you can't count on that.

Knicks have no other assets outside of Hardaway Jr., and they need useful players. As of today, Humphries, Lee and Wallace are better players than Amare or an injured Shumpert. The Knicks are in cap hell anyways, and after this trade they would be able to cut Hump's salary at the end of the season, while fielding a better team around Melo.

Wallace is not a scorer, but he can defend, can annoy LeBroid/Wade/Paul George/Pierce... he's useful for them.

Lee is healthy, can defend and can attack the basket, unlike JR or Melo. He's a good complement for the Knicks.

Humphries is a solid big, I actually like him a lot as the first big off the bench, but we can afford him. He could be useful for any contender, so he is a good fit there.

After that trade, the Celtics would still have Bass/Bogans/Crawesome to try to get one or more picks. Those are the easier to move contracts. Bogans pseudo-expiring can bring a young prospect, and if showcasing keeps going, Bass+Crawesome can bring a first round pick alongside a bad 2-year contract (Perkins?). That bad 2-year contract would be highly useful at the 2015 trade deadline, just like Amare's. A contender just can't have 25-30M in dead weight, but in this scenario the Celtics could afford that.

I hope Danny is looking for this kind of flexibility.

I'm sorry -- but this is all just wishful thinking. Your POV on the Knicks needs, your analysis of the Cs players and the trade itself.... all wishful thinking.

Teams do fairly frequently exchange junk for junk. Teams don't send good players on rookie contracts to other teams for crap -- not even the Knicks.

Granted it was the Knicks who floated that Shumpert-for-Faried rumor, but you think they've adjusted their goals from Faried to Courtney Lee? Or Gerald Wallace? On their contracts? C'mon....

You know, for a guy who tried to posit an impossible trade as a "who says no?," you're awfully critical of other CB'ers "wishful thinking."

[BleedGreen1989]

Forget Shumpert.

Just trade Wallace and Hump for Amare and call it a day.  It's just a salary swap.

Lee has 3 years on his deal too... if you can include him for a 2 year deal, you do that as well.

Pretty much my train of thought.

[ssspence]

D.o.s. ~~ I didn't try to post it -- I posted it. Clerical errors happen, guy. you saying i'm wrong here?

Speaking of "who says no?" trades...

NYK gets: Jason Thompson, Kris Humphries, Gerald Wallace, Isiah Thomas
SAC gets: Iman Shumpert, Ray Felton, Marshon Brooks
BOS gets: Stat, Jimmer Ferdette (sorry couldn't help myself)

[D.o.s.]

"posit" is not "post it."

And I agree with you, I'm just saying you're coming across as kind of a jerk.

I'd trade our 2014 pick for Jimmer straight up. He's a superstar in the making. This draft is overrated anyway.

[ssspence]

"posit" is not "post it."

And I agree with you, I'm just saying you're coming across as kind of a jerk.

I'd trade our 2014 pick for Jimmer straight up. He's a superstar in the making. This draft is overrated anyway.

what can i tell you -- i excel at ****.

edit: you changed **** to jerk. don't you think you're being kind of a jerk by calling me a jerk?

[Lucky17]

Forget Shumpert.

Just trade Wallace and Hump for Amare and call it a day.  It's just a salary swap.

Lee has 3 years on his deal too... if you can include him for a 2 year deal, you do that as well.

Pretty much my train of thought.

I'm waiting for the next train.

Sacrificing roster flexibility and payroll space for 2014-15 to save $10 mil in 2015-16 just doesn't seem worth it to me. Especially when you're basically telling Rondo you're burning up another year of his prime.

[D.o.s.]

"posit" is not "post it."

And I agree with you, I'm just saying you're coming across as kind of a jerk.

I'd trade our 2014 pick for Jimmer straight up. He's a superstar in the making. This draft is overrated anyway.

what can i tell you -- i excel at ****.

edit: you changed **** to jerk. don't you think you're being kind of a jerk by calling me a jerk?

I'm not calling you a jerk, I'm just point out how you might be coming across.

And I had to change **** to Jerk because "another name for Nixon" got asterisk'd.

[ssspence]

Forget Shumpert.

Just trade Wallace and Hump for Amare and call it a day.  It's just a salary swap.

Lee has 3 years on his deal too... if you can include him for a 2 year deal, you do that as well.

Pretty much my train of thought.

I'm waiting for the next train.

Sacrificing roster flexibility and payroll space for 2014-15 to save $10 mil in 2015-16 just doesn't seem worth it to me. Especially when you're basically telling Rondo you're burning up another year of his prime.

I'd take the opposite POV. Removing Wallace opens up flexibility sooner (summer 2015). Pretty hard to imagine the Cs being players in the market this summer, especially considering we're not going to be able to trade Wallace elsewhere and / or for an expiring contract:

http://data.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/celtics.jsp

Meanwhile, trading for Amare isn't going to make Rondo mad -- not like Wallace is going to bring Rondo a championship. Stat's the best player in the deal (i know, that's not saying much).

And when Rondo asks Danny about it, Ainge can say: "This deal allows me to sign you to a max extension, AND sign Roy Hibbert to the max in the summer of 2015." 

[LarBrd33]

Forget Shumpert.

Just trade Wallace and Hump for Amare and call it a day.  It's just a salary swap.

Lee has 3 years on his deal too... if you can include him for a 2 year deal, you do that as well.

Pretty much my train of thought.

I'm waiting for the next train.

Sacrificing roster flexibility and payroll space for 2014-15 to save $10 mil in 2015-16 just doesn't seem worth it to me. Especially when you're basically telling Rondo you're burning up another year of his prime.

I'd take the opposite POV. Removing Wallace opens up flexibility sooner (summer 2015). Pretty hard to imagine the Cs being players in the market this summer, especially considering we're not going to be able to trade Wallace elsewhere and / or for an expiring contract:

http://data.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/celtics.jsp

Meanwhile, trading for Amare isn't going to make Rondo mad -- not like Wallace is going to bring Rondo a championship. Stat's the best player in the deal (i know, that's not saying much).

And when Rondo asks Danny about it, Ainge can say: "This deal allows me to sign you to a max extension, AND sign Roy Hibbert to the max in the summer of 2015."

Lucky17, what ssspence is trying to explain here is that we will NOT have cap space next year.  There will NOT be any "flexbility".  We'll be over the cap next season regardless of what we do.  We have Brandon Bass, Courtney Lee, Gerald Wallace, Rajon Rondo and Jeff Green eating up a ton of cap space.   So the point is... swapping out Wallace for Amare next year isn't going to make a lick of difference.  We'll be over the cap either way.  2014-15 is likely another tank year.

But 2015-16... would you rather still be paying Gerald Wallace 10 mil a year... or have him gone?   

Wallace is a 3 year deal.

Amare is a 2 year deal.

I don't understand the argument that "we mess up our flexibility next year".  That's simply not true.  Next year having Amare as a 23 million dollar expiring contract is better than having Gerald Wallace signed on for 2 seasons at 10 mil a year.  Nobody wants to trade for that guy now... and nobody will want to trade for him next year.

[Lucky17]

Forget Shumpert.

Just trade Wallace and Hump for Amare and call it a day.  It's just a salary swap.

Lee has 3 years on his deal too... if you can include him for a 2 year deal, you do that as well.

Pretty much my train of thought.

I'm waiting for the next train.

Sacrificing roster flexibility and payroll space for 2014-15 to save $10 mil in 2015-16 just doesn't seem worth it to me. Especially when you're basically telling Rondo you're burning up another year of his prime.

I'd take the opposite POV. Removing Wallace opens up flexibility sooner (summer 2015). Pretty hard to imagine the Cs being players in the market this summer, especially considering we're not going to be able to trade Wallace elsewhere and / or for an expiring contract:

http://data.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/celtics.jsp

Meanwhile, trading for Amare isn't going to make Rondo mad -- not like Wallace is going to bring Rondo a championship. Stat's the best player in the deal (i know, that's not saying much).

And when Rondo asks Danny about it, Ainge can say: "This deal allows me to sign you to a max extension, AND sign Roy Hibbert to the max in the summer of 2015."

Celtics will not have any roster flexibility to pursue trades or MLE signings with Amare's cap choking deal on the roster. Can't see Wyc authorizing the use of the Nets TE and incurring luxury tax penalties either.

So, Rondo gets to run point for the kids for another year of tanking in 2014-15. That's going to p--- him off, no matter what promises Ainge makes.

[Lucky17]

Forget Shumpert.

Just trade Wallace and Hump for Amare and call it a day.  It's just a salary swap.

Lee has 3 years on his deal too... if you can include him for a 2 year deal, you do that as well.

Pretty much my train of thought.

I'm waiting for the next train.

Sacrificing roster flexibility and payroll space for 2014-15 to save $10 mil in 2015-16 just doesn't seem worth it to me. Especially when you're basically telling Rondo you're burning up another year of his prime.

I'd take the opposite POV. Removing Wallace opens up flexibility sooner (summer 2015). Pretty hard to imagine the Cs being players in the market this summer, especially considering we're not going to be able to trade Wallace elsewhere and / or for an expiring contract:

http://data.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/celtics.jsp

Meanwhile, trading for Amare isn't going to make Rondo mad -- not like Wallace is going to bring Rondo a championship. Stat's the best player in the deal (i know, that's not saying much).

And when Rondo asks Danny about it, Ainge can say: "This deal allows me to sign you to a max extension, AND sign Roy Hibbert to the max in the summer of 2015."

Lucky17, what ssspence is trying to explain here is that we will NOT have cap space next year.  There will NOT be any "flexbility".  We'll be over the cap next season regardless of what we do.  We have Brandon Bass, Courtney Lee, Gerald Wallace, Rajon Rondo and Jeff Green eating up a ton of cap space.   So the point is... swapping out Wallace for Amare next year isn't going to make a lick of difference.  We'll be over the cap either way.  2014-15 is likely another tank year.

But 2015-16... would you rather still be paying Gerald Wallace 10 mil a year... or have him gone?   

Wallace is a 3 year deal.

Amare is a 2 year deal.

I don't understand the argument that "we mess up our flexibility next year".  That's simply not true.  Next year having Amare as a 23 million dollar expiring contract is better than having Gerald Wallace signed on for 2 seasons at 10 mil a year.  Nobody wants to trade for that guy now... and nobody will want to trade for him next year.

It absolutely will make a difference.

I'd rather have the option of using Humphries expiring and pick(s) to land a true superstar next to Rondo. And/or use the TE and picks to do the same.

Or use Green. Or Bass. Or any other number of scenarios. That's the flexibility I'm talking about.

Trading just Hump + Wallace for Amare Stoudamire railroads the Celtics into waiting until 2015-16.

Offloading more long-term money, like Lee and maybe Bass (although it's a poor return without getting additional value, like Shumpert), might make the deal advantageous to Boston. But just Hump and Wallace is a poor deal.

[guava_wrench]

I'd trade our 2014 pick for Jimmer straight up. He's a superstar in the making. This draft is overrated anyway.

Speaking of overrated.

I assume you are being sarcastic.

[LooseCannon]

I don't understand the argument that "we mess up our flexibility next year".  That's simply not true.  Next year having Amare as a 23 million dollar expiring contract is better than having Gerald Wallace signed on for 2 seasons at 10 mil a year.  Nobody wants to trade for that guy now... and nobody will want to trade for him next year.

Next season, trading Wallace will be easier than trading Amare.

Wallace could be traded to a capped-out team that sees itself having a short window after which it will blow things up, so it doesn't mind overpaying Wallace to be a sixth man for a couple of years.  Committing to him for three years is tough.  Committing to him for a year and a half may be tolerable, especially if the other team has an even worse player making at least $8-9m to send back.

The size of his deal makes Amare almost untradeable, even as an expiring contract, because it is hard to send out matching salary.  Expiring contracts are not gold.  Expiring contracts the size of Stoudemire's are unlikely to be moved unless the other team is giving up a guy making near the max.  Try coming up with a suitable trade involving Amare if the guy you want is making $9-10m.

If a team wanted to trade a max guy to the Celtics for picks during the off-season, I think they would greatly prefer a trade ballast package of the expiring contract of Bass, the unguaranteed contract of Bogans, and Lee (or a Bogans-like sign-and-trade involving Humphries or Brooks or Crawford with only the first year guaranteed) to Amare's contract.

If you want to maximize cap space to sign someone in 2015, then the trade makes sense, but it does mean you have less parts to make the salaries for a trade work out before then. Part of the reason that Wallace and stuff for Amare screws up flexibility is because of the other pieces you have to send out to keep the Celtics out of the luxury tax.

[nickagneta]

Next season, trading Wallace will be easier than trading Amare.

Trading Amare next year will be easier than trading him this year and yet, if the trade were to occur, the Knicks would be able to pull it off, so I don't see where trading Amare next year would be easier than trading Wallace.

GSW traded over $20 million in expiring contracts away in one trade last off season.

Just do not agree with you here LC.

[Lucky17]

Next season, trading Wallace will be easier than trading Amare.

Trading Amare next year will be easier than trading him this year and yet, if the trade were to occur, the Knicks would be able to pull it off, so I don't see where trading Amare next year would be easier than trading Wallace.

GSW traded over $20 million in expiring contracts away in one trade last off season.

Just do not agree with you here LC.

Look at team payrolls across the league for 2014-15, and try to come up with a feasible trade that involves Amare's $23 million contract. It's not easy at all. Sacramento so far is the only potential partner that I've found.