Sam Smith (NBA.com) 'Celtics motivated to trade Jeff Green'

[Chris]

Nioe complimentary player.  Good 7th or 8th man on a good team.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!  Matt Barnes is a good 7th or 8th man on a good team.  Jeff Green is clearly a starting caliber player in this league, even on a contender.

Mike

Jeff Green has never been a starter for a contender, so I'm not sure how it is clear.  Jeff Green as a starter for a contender is "clearly" conjecture.

I think Green can be a starter on a contender, just not your go-to guy or even 2nd option. Like his role in OKC, behind Durant, Westbrook and probably Harden. At worst, he is a 6th man off the bench, but he is no way a 7th, 8th man on a good team. He is easily top 5 player on a contender.

Take the Heat, behind Lebron, Wade, and Bosh. I think he's better than Beasley and Chalmers.

On Pacers -> Behind George, a healthy Granger, Hibbert?

our 2008 team - Pierce, KG, Allen, Rondo?

Part of the problem is that these days, you rarely find a contender where one of their top 2-3 players is not a SF.

[obnoxiousmime]

I have a question. If Green is supposed to excel as a bench guy or 3rd-4th option and not as a lead dog, why was everybody still disappointed when he performed that role for the Celtics before this season? Seems to me Green is just a frustrating player no matter what his role is.

[Moranis]

I proposed this in another thread, but I really think it might work for both Boston and Phoenix

Green

for

Len, Indiana 1st

Boston gets a young center, another first, and a trade exception of around 5.2 million.  Phoenix upgrades for a non-rotation player and a late first (and they still have other firsts so they can make other moves).

I think that might be a little too much value for Green.  Although I might be higher on Len than a lot of people.  I think he is still a VERY good prospect, and I htink you could hope to get 1 prospect or pick and salary relief for Green.  Not 2.

I agree.  And I think at this stage Phoenix would prefer prospects over a slightly above average established veteran.

Phoenix has 4 first round picks though and the Indiana one is clearly the worst of the four picks.  I guess it just depends what they think of Len (who btw has played just 83 minutes in just 12 games). 

Given Phoenix is weak at SF and is still in the playoffs (if the season ended today), is still without Bledsoe (and thus has a gaping hole), I think they could reasonably make that deal and find it beneficial.

[kozlodoev]

Len and the 30th pick "too much value" for Green? Don't be hilarious. Ainge isn't picking up the phone on this one.

[Chris]

I proposed this in another thread, but I really think it might work for both Boston and Phoenix

Green

for

Len, Indiana 1st

Boston gets a young center, another first, and a trade exception of around 5.2 million.  Phoenix upgrades for a non-rotation player and a late first (and they still have other firsts so they can make other moves).

I think that might be a little too much value for Green.  Although I might be higher on Len than a lot of people.  I think he is still a VERY good prospect, and I htink you could hope to get 1 prospect or pick and salary relief for Green.  Not 2.

I agree.  And I think at this stage Phoenix would prefer prospects over a slightly above average established veteran.

Phoenix has 4 first round picks though and the Indiana one is clearly the worst of the four picks.  I guess it just depends what they think of Len (who btw has played just 83 minutes in just 12 games). 

Given Phoenix is weak at SF and is still in the playoffs (if the season ended today), is still without Bledsoe (and thus has a gaping hole), I think they could reasonably make that deal and find it beneficial.

It's very possible.  Like you said, it all comes down to what they think of Len.  Len was always going to be a bit of a project.  But he has a TON of upside. 

[kozlodoev]

Part of the problem is that these days, you rarely find a contender where one of their top 2-3 players is not a SF.

Yes, technically speaking, there is a 60% chance that one of their top 3 players would be a SF.

[Chris]

Part of the problem is that these days, you rarely find a contender where one of their top 2-3 players is not a SF.

Yes, technically speaking, there is a 60% chance that one of their top 3 players would be a SF.

Snarky, I like it.

But really, name a real contender from the last 10 years where one of their top 3 players was not a SF. 

The only ones I can think of are the Spurs.  Can make an argument for the Pistons too. 

[kozlodoev]

Part of the problem is that these days, you rarely find a contender where one of their top 2-3 players is not a SF.

Yes, technically speaking, there is a 60% chance that one of their top 3 players would be a SF.

Snarky, I like it.

But really, name a real contender from the last 10 years where one of their top 3 players was not a SF. 

The only ones I can think of are the Spurs.  Can make an argument for the Pistons too.

The Lakers. And arguably even Dallas. So pretty much anyone who didn't have a SF named Paul Pierce or LeBron James.

The common trend in having a big man be one of your top 2 players is way more pronounced among most recent participants in the NBA finals.

[Chris]

Part of the problem is that these days, you rarely find a contender where one of their top 2-3 players is not a SF.

Yes, technically speaking, there is a 60% chance that one of their top 3 players would be a SF.

Snarky, I like it.

But really, name a real contender from the last 10 years where one of their top 3 players was not a SF. 

The only ones I can think of are the Spurs.  Can make an argument for the Pistons too.

The Lakers. And arguably even Dallas. So pretty much anyone who didn't have a SF named Paul Pierce or LeBron James.

The common trend in having a big man be one of your top 2 players is way more pronounced among most recent participants in the NBA finals.

Good point.  Completely missed those guys.

I guess I was too focused on teams this year.  Durant, George, Lebron. 

[manl_lui]

Part of the problem is that these days, you rarely find a contender where one of their top 2-3 players is not a SF.

Yes, technically speaking, there is a 60% chance that one of their top 3 players would be a SF.

Snarky, I like it.

But really, name a real contender from the last 10 years where one of their top 3 players was not a SF. 

The only ones I can think of are the Spurs.  Can make an argument for the Pistons too.

The Lakers. And arguably even Dallas. So pretty much anyone who didn't have a SF named Paul Pierce or LeBron James.

The common trend in having a big man be one of your top 2 players is way more pronounced among most recent participants in the NBA finals.

so top 3 players that is either a SF or a big SG that can play SF

Kobe/Giniobli and Rip Hamilton are big SGs who are top 3 player in their championship years and can play the guard-forward position

then you have Pierce and Lebron James

[CoachBo]

I would be extremely hesitant (personally against) attaching a 1st rounder to Green in order to move him.

I'd do it to get rid of the Wallace contract but that'd be about it.

I would be VEHEMENTLY against attaching a first to Green to move him.  I would be vehemently against trading Green straight up for an expiring contract even. 

I am not sure in what world a 16 and 5 guy with no attitude issues, and who always plays, is not worth some value at $9 million a year. 

Last year Rudy Gay was averaging 17 and 6 with much worse shooting numbers and making twice as much money than Green...and he brought back a promising young big man and a very productive PG on an expiring contract. 

I think people look at deals where GMs have their backs against the wall to dump salary, and think that is the way it always works in the NBA.  Yes, if you are desperate, then other GMs smell blood and ask for a ransom.  But Danny has no need whatsoever to trade Green.  He has all the leverage in the world, which means he can just wait for someone to pay a decent price for Green.

This.

The butthurt some feel for Green because he had the temerity to be acquired for the rotting, fetid - and wildly overrated on this blog - corpse of Kendrick Perkins has skewed this discussion toward the silly season.

Again.

[kozlodoev]

Good point.  Completely missed those guys.

I guess I was too focused on teams this year.  Durant, George, Lebron.

It is true that the a lot of the great players in recent memory are SFs. But I think the recipe for greatness is really having one guy who can dominate with the ball in his hands on the perimeter, another guy who can do the same in the post, and a miscellaneous third guy who can pick up the garbage efficiently.

Jeff Green, I feel, falls in the third category. That's not a knock against him, it's just who he is (he's also paid like that, by the way) -- and trying to force him in a different role is pretty much fitting a square peg in a round hole -- maybe you can cut some corners, but it's clearly not going to work very well.

The problem the Celtics are currently facing is that the closer to have to (1) and (2) are Rondo and Sullinger... and that's not very close at all.

[LarBrd33]

Does Green + Wallace for Amare make sense if we're targeting 2015 cap space?

[ChefEricT]

With Danilo Gallinari going down for the season and Denver 20-20, would they make sense as a trading partner for Green?  He could help them get into the playoffs.  Maybe something like this:

Jeff Green and Brandon Bass
For
Javale McGee and Darrell Arthur

We get a center who I always thought was athletic enough for Rondo to bring out his best and who blocks shots.  Arthur isn't terrible and makes salaries work(and becomes obsolete in Denver with the Bass upgrade).  Denver replaces DG in the starting lineup and Bass gives depth for the playoff push.

[obnoxiousmime]

Good point.  Completely missed those guys.

I guess I was too focused on teams this year.  Durant, George, Lebron.

It is true that the a lot of the great players in recent memory are SFs. But I think the recipe for greatness is really having one guy who can dominate with the ball in his hands on the perimeter, and one guy who can do the same in the post, and a miscellaneous third guy who can pick up the garbage efficiently.

Jeff Green, I feel, falls in the third category. That's not a knock against him, it's just who he is (he's also paid like that, by the way) -- and trying to force him in a different role is pretty much fitting a square peg in a round hole -- maybe you can cut some corners, but it's clearly not going to work very well.

The problem the Celtics are currently facing is that the closer to have to (1) and (2) are Rondo and Sullinger... and that's not very close at all.

That's the issue with Green, he's an in-between guy who may not even be that good. Yes, it's not outrageous that he makes 9-10 million a year, but it's also not a contract that most winning teams would dole out because he replicates what your presumptive star would do.

Look at OKC. They already had Durant and Green would have been an overpay for a bench guy. Even though Perk probably wasn't the right guy for them to instead invest that 10 million in, the thinking was correct. Sign an experienced defensive-minded center for that 10-million salary slot. Every team has one of those guys playing next to their offensive-minded PF because those are the kinds of PFs that are in large quantity.

Green needs the ball in his hands but he's also not good or consistent enough to be the primary guy. So he's stuck in in-between land and his future destiny is to be disappointing to some playoff team that tries him as a second or even third banana. A team built like the current roster of Minnesota or Detroit, perhaps.