Using 16th pick to dump Gerald Wallace

[Vermont Green]

How about using the #28 instead?

I don't see anyone buying 28 for 10 million dollars, do you?

As has been pointed put a million times, the Soxers are paying Javale McGee $12 million this season, after having also taken on 1/3 of his $11.5 million salary last season, for a top 18 protected pick from OKC (so likely will be in the 20s if it conveys, or wil never convey, due to the strength of the West.). Is that more valuable than 28?  Yes, but marginally so, and it was for 20% more future cap room, and 50% more total dollars.  So I'd say 28 is closer to the cost than 16 is.

But also, there's little point in trading Wallace until a better use of that money comes along.  I'd rather pay slightly more to urgently move him than pay to move him only to have $10 million unused cap space.

I was not aware that Philly paid that much to get that pick.  Thanks for providing the detail.  It seems crazy that they took on that kind of salary.  Obviously they have no intention of signing FAs this season and pushing up to the cap (so a $12M cap hit is no big) but I wonder if they were playing games with the salary minimum?

In terms of Wallace, I am still not sure it makes sense to "sell" even the 28th pick (or the 33rd as some have postulated that it has more value than the 28th).  Wallace on the roster/cap for a year does not hurt us all that much I don't think but as others have said, it would only be done to clear space for a specific signing making the deal:

          Draft Pick X + Wallace for FA We Want

That could be a good deal depending on exactly who "FA We Want" is.  I don't think you do it just on the hope that some good FA will come or to otherwise just save money.

[saltlover]

How about using the #28 instead?

I don't see anyone buying 28 for 10 million dollars, do you?

As has been pointed put a million times, the Soxers are paying Javale McGee $12 million this season, after having also taken on 1/3 of his $11.5 million salary last season, for a top 18 protected pick from OKC (so likely will be in the 20s if it conveys, or wil never convey, due to the strength of the West.). Is that more valuable than 28?  Yes, but marginally so, and it was for 20% more future cap room, and 50% more total dollars.  So I'd say 28 is closer to the cost than 16 is.

But also, there's little point in trading Wallace until a better use of that money comes along.  I'd rather pay slightly more to urgently move him than pay to move him only to have $10 million unused cap space.

goodness gracious!!  do my eyes deceive me, or has saltlover actually used an exaggeration!!?? 

Yeah, in my haste I meant to say "approximately one million."

[More Banners]

I'd do it.

Make room for players who will play. Neither Wallace nor anyone drafted at 16 is likely to do much to help. We don't need young players, or old ones.

[Celts Fan 508]

I think the more realistic option would be Celtics pick in 2016 and Wallace as then Celts would have guarantees from 2 free agents, just hold off on one becoming 100% official until the trade goes through. 

I voted yes though even though I don't see it as possible at the draft.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

NO.

Thank God DA is the GM.

[Future Celtics Owner]

The only way I would dump Wallace at all is if Ainge found out through back channels that we can 100% get two top free agents. We shouldn't try to obtain extra cap space at the cost of a pick unless we know we are going to use it. Even then I think the 16th pick just to dump Wallace is horrendous value for the C's.

this. Plus even if we don't get all stars I bet we take on another contract because its not like we are going anywhere in the next 1-2.

[Geo123]

I am positive its a strategy Ainge has considered.

I am positive that using the 16th pick to dump Gerald Wallace is something that Ainge has seriously considered only if he is looking at ways to get fired.

+1

[manl_lui]

why? Wallace himself is an expiring contract for teams that are interested in unloading salary next year. 16th and Wallace together just to unload his contract is idiot.

however, to use these two and do a sign and trade to get a star player back who is looking to leave their franchise might be a good move (but might not get it done)

either way, I rather trade Wallace alone away for a quality player back

[Eja117]

A pick barely outside the lottery seems like a lot to give up to get rid of one year of a contract. Don't we need to take something back anyway? Plus it might be nice to have an expiring contract like his. Didn't we use Theo Ratliff's or someone like that in a huge way to get KG? The money will still come off and we can get the 16th pick anyway.

[moiso]

We took on Wallace in order to acquire draft picks so it would seem ridiculous to me to keep Wallace for two years and then trade a decent draft pick to get rid of Wallace.  That 360 makes no sense.

[More Banners]

Of course, I'd only do it if we couldn't move up or use his contract to trade with a pick for someone like a Hibbert.

Cap space is a really good thing, especially with so many future picks.

[LarBrd33]

THat's a lot to give up, but I'm not that convinced #16 is going to be worth much.

I think you could dump the contract for less than that, though.  There's only 1 year left on it.  I can't imagine someone wouldn't want the Clippers pick to rent out cap space.

[Fred Roberts]

Poll pretty much sums it up. Why now? His deal could be used in a trade and he may be more tradeable to a team actually wanting to play him now that he's expiring. 

Wouldn't Doc or some other short handed contender be thrilled to pick up Gerald if the had an exception and no other options? 

[Celtics4ever]

Depends on if we have a free agent that we like that wants to come here.

[BudweiserCeltic]

This wouldn't be a very smart move to make... quite terrible actually.