@TheNBACentral: The Cavs, Kings, Celtics 3 way trade

[Tr1boy]

Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere but this is where the original rumor started... dude's verified on Twitter, his bio says he's a Cleveland sportscaster: https://twitter.com/JohnTelich8/status/481912556374618113

Two players? Sullinger & Green? Bradley & Green?

There's NO WAY that trade is happening. It would be one of the worst trades in Celtics history. Cavs fantasy.

so you don't want wiggins??

[Smokeeye123]

Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere but this is where the original rumor started... dude's verified on Twitter, his bio says he's a Cleveland sportscaster: https://twitter.com/JohnTelich8/status/481912556374618113

Two players? Sullinger & Green? Bradley & Green?

There's NO WAY that trade is happening. It would be one of the worst trades in Celtics history. Cavs fantasy.

green sullinger and 2 picks for the number 1 that could be flipped for love? Id do that in a heartbeat

[BigAlTheFuture]

Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere but this is where the original rumor started... dude's verified on Twitter, his bio says he's a Cleveland sportscaster: https://twitter.com/JohnTelich8/status/481912556374618113

Two players? Sullinger & Green? Bradley & Green?

There's NO WAY that trade is happening. It would be one of the worst trades in Celtics history. Cavs fantasy.

Yah right. They have better offers out there.

[Tr1boy]

imo if this trade happens, the Celtics will be drafting Napier at 17th or if he is gone, Russ Smith at 33rd to be the teams starting pg for next season.  Napier obvilously is a clutch performer and Russ Smith is an incredible competitor. In his third season he was averaging 27 points a game and last season only 18 but his assist totals went up by 2 to 3 points.  His fg and 3 pt shooting increased 8 percent.  He cameback to improve and did just that.

[CM0]

Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere but this is where the original rumor started... dude's verified on Twitter, his bio says he's a Cleveland sportscaster: https://twitter.com/JohnTelich8/status/481912556374618113

Two players? Sullinger & Green? Bradley & Green?

There's NO WAY that trade is happening. It would be one of the worst trades in Celtics history. Cavs fantasy.

so you don't want wiggins??

Logically, the trade proposed in the quote above is Smart/Gordon/Embiid + Nurkic/Warren/Payton/Saric + Green + Sully/Bradley for...

Wiggins.

Only an AMATEUR would make that move. Look up draft history and you'll quickly realize that the lottery is a total crapshoot and that the implied value of a #1 pick is not nearly as high as many fans realize (unless there's a LeBron-type talent that's unquestionably better than everyone else). Wiggins isn't even a lock for #1 and the argument has been made by many scouts that he will never be a legendary player. Any even half-hearted analysis will show that the best way to draft a superstar is to draft as many high-ceiling players as possible- not to go all-in on a single 18/19 year old.

You also have to remember that the available talent at #6 this year is astounding, and there are a host of high-floor players available at #17- especially important given that the Celtic are rife with needs.

If the Celtics go the full rebuild route, they would be better off trading Jeff Green to a contender for an additional pick or two and grabbing a high risk/reward Euro.

[Rondo9]

So you think that guys like Smart and Gordon are better than Wiggins and Parker? It's your opinion, but I vehemently disagree with it.

[Tr1boy]

Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere but this is where the original rumor started... dude's verified on Twitter, his bio says he's a Cleveland sportscaster: https://twitter.com/JohnTelich8/status/481912556374618113

Two players? Sullinger & Green? Bradley & Green?

There's NO WAY that trade is happening. It would be one of the worst trades in Celtics history. Cavs fantasy.

so you don't want wiggins??

Logically, the trade proposed in the quote above is Smart/Gordon/Embiid + Nurkic/Warren/Payton/Saric + Green + Sully/Bradley for...

Wiggins.

Only an AMATEUR would make that move. Look up draft history and you'll quickly realize that the lottery is a total crapshoot and that the implied value of a #1 pick is not nearly as high as many fans realize (unless there's a LeBron-type talent that's unquestionably better than everyone else). Wiggins isn't even a lock for #1 and the argument has been made by many scouts that he will never be a legendary player. Any even half-hearted analysis will show that the best way to draft a superstar is to draft as many high-ceiling players as possible- not to go all-in on a single 18/19 year old.

You also have to remember that the available talent at #6 this year is astounding, and there are a host of high-floor players available at #17- especially important given that the Celtic are rife with needs.

If the Celtics go the full rebuild route, they would be better off trading Jeff Green to a contender for an additional pick or two and grabbing a high risk/reward Euro.

Wiggins has the total package or very close to. He just needs to put it together.  1 year under Stevens could be a big next step for Wiggins.

one on one, Wiggins is not and won't be easy to defend.  Elite Athlete plus is super quick out there

[CM0]

So you think that guys like Smart and Gordon are better than Wiggins and Parker? It's your opinion, but I vehemently disagree with it.

I think Smart right there with both but that is beside the point. It's about probability and implied value. To support that trade, you would have to believe that Wiggins and Parker are so much vastly better as prospects than Smart/Gordon/Embiid that they justify getting rid of Green (who is worth a late 1st round pick at least) AND either Bradley (worth at least two second round picks) OR Sully (a former would be lottery pick that slipped due to injury and is now blossoming into a consistent double-double threat) AND the potential upside of a player at #17.

The logic there is pretty muddy when you look at the historical probability of drafting franchise-type players and even muddier when you look into the scouting reports of the top 6 guys.

[byennie]

Lots of permutations here, but it sure would be an entertaining draft if our net was something like:

IN: Parker, Smart, Saric
OUT: Rondo, Green

We'd be freeing up $20M+ in cap room, adding two young guys who are ready to play, and a euro stash with top-10 value. A Smart/Bradley/Parker/Sully/Saric/Olynyk core could be scary good in a couple of years, with picks and cap room to go after a veteran or two.

Not sure it's what I want, but it'd be a [dang] entertaining rebuild.

[LilRip]

So you think that guys like Smart and Gordon are better than Wiggins and Parker? It's your opinion, but I vehemently disagree with it.

I think Smart right there with both but that is beside the point. It's about probability and implied value. To support that trade, you would have to believe that Wiggins and Parker are so much vastly better as prospects than Smart/Gordon/Embiid that they justify getting rid of Green (who is worth a late 1st round pick at least) AND either Bradley (worth at least two second round picks) OR Sully (a former would be lottery pick that slipped due to injury and is now blossoming into a consistent double-double threat) AND the potential upside of a player at #17.

The logic there is pretty muddy when you look at the historical probability of drafting franchise-type players and even muddier when you look into the scouting reports of the top 6 guys.

I would trade Gordon, Green, Bradley and the 17th pick for Wiggins, yes.

I think the upside of Wiggins (and pre-injury Embiid) is so much higher than any of those players were trading out. If the C's can draft a future franchise core player to build around and add to Rondo, then I wouldn't mind shipping out career role players (Green/Bradley/17th) and a lower impact rookie (Gordon). It's so much harder to build a foundation than find supporting guys.

[CM0]

So you think that guys like Smart and Gordon are better than Wiggins and Parker? It's your opinion, but I vehemently disagree with it.

I think Smart right there with both but that is beside the point. It's about probability and implied value. To support that trade, you would have to believe that Wiggins and Parker are so much vastly better as prospects than Smart/Gordon/Embiid that they justify getting rid of Green (who is worth a late 1st round pick at least) AND either Bradley (worth at least two second round picks) OR Sully (a former would be lottery pick that slipped due to injury and is now blossoming into a consistent double-double threat) AND the potential upside of a player at #17.

The logic there is pretty muddy when you look at the historical probability of drafting franchise-type players and even muddier when you look into the scouting reports of the top 6 guys.

I would trade Gordon, Green, Bradley and the 17th pick for Wiggins, yes.

I think the upside of Wiggins (and pre-injury Embiid) is so much higher than any of those players were trading out. If the C's can draft a future franchise core player to build around and add to Rondo, then I wouldn't mind shipping out career role players (Green/Bradley/17th) and a lower impact rookie (Gordon). It's so much harder to build a foundation than find supporting guys.

My point is that the best way to get a foundation-type guy is to draft as many as possible from a reasonably high-tier and hope that one hits. Check out Simmons from earlier- it's one of many article that reaffirms that message:

http://grantland.com/features/nba-draft-crapshoot-repick-1995/

Simmons claims that the #1 pick produced the best player in 6 of the last 19 drafts. That's a higher number of best players produced than any other pick, but it's hardly the kind of thing you can bank on. It also reflects years when a given player was clearly, undoubtedly better than everyone else by a long-shot (not the case this year).

This draft is especially filled with high-ceiling guys (don't discount #17 picks) and I don't share your conviction that Wiggins is a guaranteed superduperstar (as Simmons would call it). There's a very good chance that he becomes Jeff Green.

[LilRip]

So you think that guys like Smart and Gordon are better than Wiggins and Parker? It's your opinion, but I vehemently disagree with it.

I think Smart right there with both but that is beside the point. It's about probability and implied value. To support that trade, you would have to believe that Wiggins and Parker are so much vastly better as prospects than Smart/Gordon/Embiid that they justify getting rid of Green (who is worth a late 1st round pick at least) AND either Bradley (worth at least two second round picks) OR Sully (a former would be lottery pick that slipped due to injury and is now blossoming into a consistent double-double threat) AND the potential upside of a player at #17.

The logic there is pretty muddy when you look at the historical probability of drafting franchise-type players and even muddier when you look into the scouting reports of the top 6 guys.

I would trade Gordon, Green, Bradley and the 17th pick for Wiggins, yes.

I think the upside of Wiggins (and pre-injury Embiid) is so much higher than any of those players were trading out. If the C's can draft a future franchise core player to build around and add to Rondo, then I wouldn't mind shipping out career role players (Green/Bradley/17th) and a lower impact rookie (Gordon). It's so much harder to build a foundation than find supporting guys.

My point is that the best way to get a foundation-type guy is to draft as many as possible from a reasonably high-tier and hope that one hits. Check out Simmons from earlier- it's one of many article that reaffirms that message:

http://grantland.com/features/nba-draft-crapshoot-repick-1995/

This draft is especially filled with high-ceiling guys (don't discount #17 picks) and I don't share your conviction that Wiggins is a guaranteed superduperstar (as Simmons would call it). There's a very good chance that he becomes Jeff Green.

I view Jeff Green as his absolute floor. I guess that's where we differ, where you view him as marginally better than the likes of Gordon or Smart whereas I think he will be head and shoulders above them.

And yes, the draft can be a crap shoot but I'm pretty sure Green and Bradley will be career role players. #17 may likely be one too. Gordon may become something special if he develops an offense. I'm not saying he 4 players were giving up are useless. Far from it. We'd be giving up 4 productive players. My point is, I'd pay the price of 4 role players (who will likely never sniff an all star game) if it means we will secure a player who will likely be a multiple all star and one of the foundations of our franchise. For example, Bruce Bowen is a terrific player to have. But I'll take pre-injury TMac over him, especially on a team like this.

[CM0]

So you think that guys like Smart and Gordon are better than Wiggins and Parker? It's your opinion, but I vehemently disagree with it.

I think Smart right there with both but that is beside the point. It's about probability and implied value. To support that trade, you would have to believe that Wiggins and Parker are so much vastly better as prospects than Smart/Gordon/Embiid that they justify getting rid of Green (who is worth a late 1st round pick at least) AND either Bradley (worth at least two second round picks) OR Sully (a former would be lottery pick that slipped due to injury and is now blossoming into a consistent double-double threat) AND the potential upside of a player at #17.

The logic there is pretty muddy when you look at the historical probability of drafting franchise-type players and even muddier when you look into the scouting reports of the top 6 guys.

I would trade Gordon, Green, Bradley and the 17th pick for Wiggins, yes.

I think the upside of Wiggins (and pre-injury Embiid) is so much higher than any of those players were trading out. If the C's can draft a future franchise core player to build around and add to Rondo, then I wouldn't mind shipping out career role players (Green/Bradley/17th) and a lower impact rookie (Gordon). It's so much harder to build a foundation than find supporting guys.

My point is that the best way to get a foundation-type guy is to draft as many as possible from a reasonably high-tier and hope that one hits. Check out Simmons from earlier- it's one of many article that reaffirms that message:

http://grantland.com/features/nba-draft-crapshoot-repick-1995/

This draft is especially filled with high-ceiling guys (don't discount #17 picks) and I don't share your conviction that Wiggins is a guaranteed superduperstar (as Simmons would call it). There's a very good chance that he becomes Jeff Green.

I view Jeff Green as his absolute floor. I guess that's where we differ, where you view him as marginally better than the likes of Gordon or Smart whereas I think he will be head and shoulders above them.

And yes, the draft can be a crap shoot but I'm pretty sure Green and Bradley will be career role players. #17 may likely be one too. Gordon may become something special if he develops an offense. I'm not saying he 4 players were giving up are useless. Far from it. We'd be giving up 4 productive players. My point is, I'd pay the price of 4 role players (who will likely never sniff an all star game) if it means we will secure a player who will likely be a multiple all star and one of the foundations of our franchise. For example, Bruce Bowen is a terrific player to have. But I'll take pre-injury TMac over him, especially on a team like this.

Oh we're in agreement that Bradley and Green are career role-players. That being said, both have value as trade chips in more favorable deals. Green, in particular, would be a great 2nd or 3rd scoring option on a real contender.

[NorthernLightning]

Ginobli, Diaw, Splitter, and Danny Green are just role players. They just won another championship.

This concept that all role players are basically the same, and you can cram any 3 superstars together and any cast of role players, and they will win a championship, is ill-conceived and misguided.

Even the 08 Celtics won as much because of huge contributions from their excellent role players, as they did from the Big 3.

The only reason to give up so much for Wiggins would be if you were pretty sure he was going to be at that MVP level Like Lebron, Kobe, MJ.

[NorthernLightning]

Because Randle, Smart, Vonleh, and Gordon all have All Star potential, with borderline-All Star being more likely than low impact starter.

Getting two All Stars or borderline All Stars on cheap rookie contracts that free up cap space for Established stars, is better than a mere top 10 ish player who doesn't sniff an MVP award.

Look at Durant and Westbrook and Ibaka. More star power than the Spurs, but they didn't have the depth of the Spurs.

Look at the NFL teams that gamble on quarterback prospects that only have a 50/50 chance of being great. Those are usually below average teams. One miss like that, especially if you trade away half the team, can set a franchise back 5 years, or even get it stuck in a long-term rut.