Not worth it to get rid of Wallace. No need to give up an asset to move Wallace until there is an actual player ready to sign with the Celtics and they need the space.
Not worth it?
If someone would give us 20 mil in expiring contracts for Bradley + Wallace, I'd consider it a major, major win for us.
In fact, I'd include Crowder's contract to sweeten the pot. Crowder + Bradley + Wallace for Amare's expiring. Sign me up.
agree that it's not worth it. what's your point for dumping an asset for cap space that will not attract a top FA? I not one of those people that spew the BS the FAs don't like Boston due to weather, taxes, etc? but this team is devoid of established talent. what FA would come here to play with this roster?
Prior to the Rondo deal I fully expected Danny to be active this offseason acquiring established talent with the assets he accumulated. after the Rondo and Green deals, I don't think he'll start building up the talent level until 2016 when the young players (AB, Sully, KO, Smart, Young, Zeller, Crowder) have improved their games to be more attractive to other teams, he's added 2 rookies from a solid draft class (including a likely top 5 pick) AND he has a war chest of picks in the 2016 draft to use as trade chips when other teams can better gauge their worth.
there's no need to move Wallace who'll be an expiring deal going into next year and if not traded, will come off the books in 2016 anyway. the extra "bonus" to having him going into next season is that he provides that large contract needed to make deals for well-paid players. takes a lot of players on rookie deals to trade for someone making around $15 mill whereas with Wallace, it takes him and maybe 2 players and still be able to provide value by adding picks.
Topic: Could you use Bradley to dump Wallace? (Read 6940 times)