Offseason Moves 4.0 "to build a contender"

[Boris Badenov]

Wait a second.

Scotto, you got me excited about saving some cap space to make moves this off-season, but in re-looking at it now I'm confused.

How does that Wallace trade save us money this off-season?  I mean, we'd still be taking back contracts.

How do we get rid of Wallace's contract without taking back contracts?  That'd be the trick.

I don't think it's possible.

I don't know the specifics of the proposed deal, but in general it's possible to take back non-guaranteed contracts and then waive the acquired players, right?

I think this is how Bogans' deal is structured, which is why he's perceived as a useful trade chip. I'm not sure about who else around the league has similar deals, but if we could match Wallace's numbers with such players, wouldn't it work?

Just to weigh in on the bigger picture I'm generally against doing such a deal, because I don't want to give up picks in order to get cap space right now. I don't see why doing that helps us. It depends on the specifics of course, but signing players like Hayward and Monroe doesn't seem worth it to me.

[Celtics18]

Wait a second.

Scotto, you got me excited about saving some cap space to make moves this off-season, but in re-looking at it now I'm confused.

How does that Wallace trade save us money this off-season?  I mean, we'd still be taking back contracts.

How do we get rid of Wallace's contract without taking back contracts?  That'd be the trick.

I don't think it's possible.

I don't know the specifics of the proposed deal, but in general it's possible to take back non-guaranteed contracts and then waive the acquired players, right?

I think this is how Bogans' deal is structured, which is why he's perceived as a useful trade chip. I'm not sure about who else around the league has similar deals, but if we could match Wallace's numbers with such players, wouldn't it work?

Just to weigh in on the bigger picture I'm generally against doing such a deal, because I don't want to give up picks in order to get cap space right now. I don't see why doing that helps us. It depends on the specifics of course, but signing players like Hayward and Monroe doesn't seem worth it to me.

But what about Marcin Gortat?

[footey]

TP to OP for the thoughtful proposal.  Not a huge fan of Hayward and Monroe, but you make a decent case.

[scotto1205]

Wait a second.

Scotto, you got me excited about saving some cap space to make moves this off-season, but in re-looking at it now I'm confused.

How does that Wallace trade save us money this off-season?  I mean, we'd still be taking back contracts.

How do we get rid of Wallace's contract without taking back contracts?  That'd be the trick.

I don't think it's possible.

By using the the trade exception to absorb the contracts I figured it would free the room for the signs no? Regardless we could shed the year off Wallace's deal not sure about the money we would have though for signing.

[Mr October]

This all looks like an exciting foundation for the Celtics' future. But i see a bunch of flaws here....

Devils advocate time.

You cant trade Wallace out for salaries, and use the trade exception to absorb salaries. That isn't how it works. Their salaries still count towards the cap totals. The trade exception's sole value is using it to exceed the cap when you are over it. For example, the celtics could trade the exception outright for Richardson, and just bog down the cap even more. The Celtics can't get far enough under the cap to sign 2 big free agents.

Your proposed salary totals are about 12 million over the projected cap of 63 million. Also missing from your totals are Joel Anthony, and then what happens with Leonard after we get him.

I think Utah matches the Hayward offer, especially considering the growth in cap space. I think 12 million per year is the limit of how high they will go. I am absolutely certain Detroit matches the Monroe offer. I actually think Detroit matches up to just under the max, at something like $60/ 4 years. He has that much value.

I cant see the 76ers being willing to take on an extra 12 million in cap space over the next 2 years just to acquire the 17th pick. That is a huge overpay. I also cant see the Blazers giving up on Robinson and Leonard to get Bass. They don't need a 7 million dollar backup at their strongest position. I also don't see why Denver would give up Mozgov. He is one of the best bargain big men in the whole league. He is possibly starting quality and costs less than 5 million. He is going to be expensive in a trade.

Why would Denver be desperate to free 5 million dollars, when they can just use the 5 million mid level exception on someone? And if the sixers want a veteran, they can just sign one in free agency for 1-3 million.

In short i dont think any of these moves work. 

I think everyone for the most part is backing these moves because they are lopsided towards Boston. The closest one to a possibility would be signing Hayward for 12 million per year. I think that is an over pay, and perhaps Utah would see it that way too.

[chambers]

Contender ... for the Atlantic Division, maybe.

Maybe 50 wins and a trip to conference semis (or if all goes well, conference Finals) with a talented and young team.   Upside, upside, upside.

why lock up 25 million in cap space in two guys who project to be no better than two guys we've already got in Sully and Green. Sully's almost the same player Monroe is statistically now and we've got him for another few years locked up at nothing. Green's the same player as Hayward statistically.
Why keep Sully if you have Monroe?
Why keep Green if you have Hayward? They're all role players and Sully's got the most 'upside' of all of them. They're not particularly good at any one thing and you're dreaming if you think Monroe and Hayward are potential All Stars. If they were then they won't be walking to other teams for 13 and 12 million.

Again, this team might make the second round if it finished top 6 in the East and got lucky vs a real contender- but there are no game changing players on this team other than Rondo and perhaps Sully in a year or two.

You're saying we went through the pain of this year to get Hayward, Monroe and Aaron Gordon for 4 years. And that's supposed to be the plan for our next championship?

Again I like the process and the thought about getting Mozgov as a back up big and moving Wallace (which has been mentioned lately), but I'd rather wait for an opportunity to get some significant impact players rather than all that precious cap room spent on a few guys who are good players but not championship caliber players. We want top 20 players guys.
These guys are top 50 players like Jeff Green.

If Danny had guys like Hayward and Monroe he'd 100% use them as pieces to get real stars and promote their 'upside' because they aren't stars and they won't ever be stars. Solid NBA starters (Monroe yes, Hayward probably depending on team) but All Stars?

Zero chance.

[Mr October]

Yeah, both Hayward and Monroe are well below all star level. I don't think Monroe is even one of the 20 best big men in the NBA. Among the 4s and 5s, i would slot him behind Drummond, Randolph, Millsap, Ibaka, Pau Gasol, etc.

Monroe is maybe the 45-50th best player over all in the NBA. And Hayward is even below that. I would rank Hayward around guys like Batum, David Lee, Oladipo, Conley, etc. nice players, but well down the ladder when it comes to cracking an all star roster.

I can see being reserved about building a team around a bunch of sub all stars. The Utah Jazz appear locked on the suball star team path. Favors, Kanter, and Hayward are nice players, but none of them are game changeling difference makers.

That could place a hard ceiling on just how good Boston (or Utah) can get.

The Celtics would still have their stack of Brooklyn picks though. Monroe plus picks could yield a Bosh, Noah, Marc Gasol, etc in a year or 2. Those players are legit all stars and/or all defensive players.

[PhoSita]

Still, the best part of that whole deal is the freeing up money by selling off Wallace part.  It's by far the best part of scotto's idea.  There are a number of teams that are so far under the minimum payroll going into next year that for them taking on Wallace's contract if they got a nice draft pick (or two) back in return might actually make sense.

I hadn't really thought of that angle or seen it mentioned. 

Kudos to scotto.

Yeah, that part of this idea is creative.  Not something I had thought of.  I share the reservations that others have articulated regarding giving up a 1st round pick in order to shed Wallace's contract just so the Celtics can sign 1 or 2 not-quite-All-Star level players.

Still, that sort of plan might be the closest the Celtics can realistically get to "fireworks" this off-season, and if it's possible, getting players like Hayward and Monroe without giving up our top 8 pick is definitely worth considering.

[More Banners]

I'm still on the side of balancing the roster first.  The holes/upgrades, or the space with the most room for improvement, are SG and C.

Fill one through the draft (likely SG, preferably a scorer) and the other with the TPE through free agency (Gortat, Okafor, Asik), and we have a competitor next season.

Rondo/..../Pressey
Drafted SG/Bradley/Johnson
Green/Babb/
KO/Sully (more of a 6th man due to size)
Gortat/C.Iverson/J.Anthony/Vitor

With Bradley and Sully leading the bench...the team looks like a 2nd round playoff team next year, with room to improve.

[JBcat]

I think it's going to be very tough to " build a contender" this offseason.  It has to be plan A though whatever small chances they are to get top flight talent like Melo or Love.   I think plan B should be to be patient and much more realistic, and don't sell out for players below all star level like Monroe and Hayward.  You'll have more Jeff Green level players and I don't see the point.  I also don't see the rush to trade assets in order to get rid of Wallace's contract.  It's not that bad of a contract and in 1 year could be a valuable expiring contract in a trade.

I'd rather Ainge continue to hoard draft picks, and maybe even aquire more as draft picks are always tradeable, makes it easier to trade up in a draft, and gives you more chances to strike gold with a great player.  That's if he can't create "fireworks" trading for Melo and Love level players.

[Birdman]

Not a bad looking team and in the East, it may be a top 4 team

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

Not a bad looking team and in the East, it may be a top 4 team

CHAMPIONSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol

[bmac934]

What do you guys think of a gerald wallace for john salmons swap.  Wallace would fit in well with Toronto and salmons has one less year on his contract for 3 million less.  Wallace is also three years younger then salmons.

[Irish Stew]

Those are thought provoking offseason moves. However, Love is always option 1 and Melo option 2 until they are no longer realistic moves. The one deal I like is the Portland deal. Bass is not in our long term plans and Leonard is still an interesting prospect/project given more playing time. Robinson will always struggle as an undersized 4. The love that this site's members have for hayward is perplexing. Hayward was on a bad team and shot 30% from 3 point land. Bradley was on an equally bad team and shot 40% plus is a much better defensive player and will cost less. Also, the 4-5 tandem of Monroe and Sullinger is not viable. It is in fact a defensive disaster in the making. Even though Monroe is a better player than both Asik and Sanders, those are the type of rim defenders that should be teamed with Sullinger because they complement his talents rather than duplicate them. Unless they are needed to get Love or Melo, I would use both picks given the depth of talent in the draft. The Philly trade gives me a popsicle headache just reading and Wallace will become a valuable expiring contract during the 2015-2016 season.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

I don't really understand how you got there but I could see that team growing and doing damage in 2-3 seasons. Just don't know if we are waiting for that.

I know people aren't high on Hayward and Monroe but for what is proposed in this we give up nothing for them.

Maybe I didn't read it right but are we getting all this done by only giving up the 17th pick? LOL now that would be crazy.