who really won the Celtic Brooklyn trade

[KG Living Legend]

The Celtics Really won. They Did. Really. They Really won. Honest. Really.

[KG Living Legend]

Tp if you laughed.

[tarheelsxxiii]

I laughed but haven't received my TV yet. Weird.

[mmmmm]

The idea that the Wallace's contract is an albatross is ridiculous and simple reflects a lack of understanding of the CBA and how the salary cap works.

First off, Danny's first preference will be to stay above the cap.  The reason is, that allows him to retain all his own FA rights and TPEs.  So any big FA he tries to sign, he will try to obtain by sign&trade, if possible.  For that, he'll need matching salary to send out.  Wallace is a 1 year expiring contract that can match up to 15M of incoming contract.  He's potentially extremely useful now for that purpose.  Yes, sending him out as filler will currently require a modest draft pick as compensation to the team paying his 10M contract.  But as a part of the cost of getting a stud player, that's more than worth it.  And, if no deal happens until close to the deadline in Feb, the cost of moving his expiring contract actually goes down (because the prorated portion of his contract remaining will be much smaller).

Second, even if Danny DOES end up needing to drop under the cap and needing to get rid of Wallace's cap hit, he can be stretched, reducing his cap hit to just a little over 3M.

Wallace's contract is anything but an albatross right now.  It is in many ways an asset.

[Surferdad]

I call this trade The Gift That Keeps On Giving. 

[hwangjini_1]

Okay yall the heading was written in a rush so it is misleading. If you read the post it is obvious that I believe the Celtics won the deal, the question at the end though is if we count the fact that we took the 40 million contract off the books for Brooklyn was the deal that much of the steal that yall think. Wallace has barely played and Cs pay him 10 million a year.

My point is we never mention this fact when we analyze the deal. If we now spend a first round draft to dump that contract we have to subtract that first round draft from what we hauled from the Nets, no?

unless it is one of the picks brooklyn sent to the celtics, no.

[Monkhouse]

The idea that the Wallace's contract is an albatross is ridiculous and simple reflects a lack of understanding of the CBA and how the salary cap works.

First off, Danny's first preference will be to stay above the cap.  The reason is, that allows him to retain all his own FA rights and TPEs.  So any big FA he tries to sign, he will try to obtain by sign&trade, if possible.  For that, he'll need matching salary to send out.  Wallace is a 1 year expiring contract that can match up to 15M of incoming contract.  He's potentially extremely useful now for that purpose.  Yes, sending him out as filler will currently require a modest draft pick as compensation to the team paying his 10M contract.  But as a part of the cost of getting a stud player, that's more than worth it.  And, if no deal happens until close to the deadline in Feb, the cost of moving his expiring contract actually goes down (because the prorated portion of his contract remaining will be much smaller).

Second, even if Danny DOES end up needing to drop under the cap and needing to get rid of Wallace's cap hit, he can be stretched, reducing his cap hit to just a little over 3M.

Wallace's contract is anything but an albatross right now.  It is in many ways an asset.

Nailed it.

TP.

You always post insightful comments, and I enjoy reading them.

I remembered you used to write a few articles, do you still post them?

[slamtheking]

it has become quite fashionable to write about the deal that sent KG and PP to Brooklyn as a favorable trade for the Celtics because of all the accumulated assets and the impending Brooklyn implosion that will make these assets really valuable assets. One thing that is always left unsaid about this Brooklyn deal is that terrible Wallace contract the Cs absorbed.

The truth is the Wallace contract has become an albatross on the roster and prevents us from making a move not to talk about the millions of dollars spent without any return for the money spent. Therefore when the Brooklyn deal is analyzed the analysts should put in the Boston column of what they gave up the almost 40 million dollars paid on the Wallace contract and if Cs have to spend a first to get rid of that contract that should also be added to what the Cs gave up in that deal. So we add PP, KG, Jet, 40 million dollars, and a 1st for whatever we got in return.


When this is done, the deal does not look like that steal it was for Celtics, does it?

seriously?  mmmmm pegged your lack of understanding to a T.  so many reasons why this is not an albatross that have been posted in so many threads. 

I smh'ed my head so much I wrenched my neck

[GetLucky]

Guys, maybe the OP is right. The Celtics didn't really win the trade. The real winners were Danny Ainge, the Celtics' ownership group, Lucky the Leprechaun, the ghost of Red, and Celtics fans.

[Chris22]

Saying Brooklyn won that trade is like saying the Vikings won the Herschel Walker trade.
Sheesh.

[max215]

There's no way that you can argue that Brooklyn actually won the trade.

However, I will say that I'm not so sure the haul the Cs got will turn out to be as good as we thought.  I think once we saw all the 1st round picks coming our way, and given the current state of the Nets, that Ainge timed it perfectly and these would be really high picks...that's what I thought anyway

I'm not so sure of that anymore.  Given that GM Billy King did that trade in the first place, one can only imagine the kinds of trades he'll attempt just to keep the team competitive.  Plus, after next season, Brook Lopez, Joe Johnson, and Thaddeus Young all come off the books so they'll have plenty of money to spend.  Can't discount Lionel Hollins either, he's a pretty solid coach.

So while there's no debate at all that the Cs won that trade, it's how much they actually got in return that's up for debate.  And we won't be able to settle that debate for another 3 years.

Odds are its more like 6 years until we see what our picks end up being. That is unless the Nets pick next year winds up being Ben Simmons...

In terms of the actual talent, absolutely.  But I was just talking specifically about draft position.

Oh ok, then yes it'll be 3 years. However, I'd still argue that if any of the picks wind up being top 5, we'll know immediately that the trade was downright criminal.

Oh totally.  That's absolute best case scenario and if it does happen, that trade could go down as one of the biggest train robbery trades in Celtics history, maybe even sports history depending on what the Celtics actually do with the picks.  And that's not an exaggeration.

But like I said, I'm not as confident as I initially was that it was going in that direction.  Realistically, I'm guessing they'll be closer to 9-15.

Just my opinion, but I think at least one (quite possibly more) of the remaining 3 picks will be in the 6-8 range (pre-lotto). I guess we'll agree to disagree on that and wait to see what happens though. Man, I DO miss the captain and KG, but I just get so happy every time I think about that trade and what it has already given us/what it will in the future. IMO the trade should play at least some (possibly major) role in bringing us back into contention, while the Nets wallow in mediocrity.

I still see PP as the captain of our team, even though he plays for a different one. I hope he returns to Boston after his career for a job in the front office.

Definitely, I both expect and hope that he will.

[Greyman]

Was the timing of off loading KG and PP right? Yes (definitely KG)

Have we gained contributors so far? Yes

Are we likely to add assets going forward? Yes

[Ogaju]

Was the timing of off loading KG and PP right? Yes (definitely KG)

Have we gained contributors so far? Yes

Are we likely to add assets going forward? Yes

good points to which I agree. The only people I disagree with are those that claim Wallace's contract was never an albatross on roster. It may be an asset now, but it has been a clog on the roster for three years. The contract was also part of the cost for assets we got back, we might as well have handed Brooklyn $40 million because we definitely did not pay Wallace to play.

[konkmv]

Only the celtics won... ther is no question about that

[BornReady]

Is this a debate?

Cause no one can see Brooklyn winning the trade

Brooklyn
Jason terry was traded to Houston
Paul pierce left after one year
KG gets traded for thaddeus young (there only silver lining)
They end up with a huge bill for the contracts and luxury tax
Only make it to the 2nd round in their all in season

Celtics
Stuck with Wallace giant contract however can be used to easily match salaries for a major free agent trade
Traded kris humoheries for non-guaranteed 2nd rounder in sign and trade to create a small trade exception
Marshon brooks leaves into the season
Keith bogans is traded for Tyler zeller, Marcus Thornton and Cleveland 1st rounder
Cleveland 1st rounder traded into Isaiah Thomas
Plus the draft swaps and picks obtained