who really won the Celtic Brooklyn trade

[Roy H.]

The Celtics clearly won the trade.

That said, I don't think anybody can argue that having Wallace on the team - and his contract on the books - has been a good thing. Rather, the negative of his contract has been outweighed by the assets we got back.

[hwangjini_1]

The Celtics clearly won the trade.

That said, I don't think anybody can argue that having Wallace on the team - and his contract on the books - has been a good thing. Rather, the negative of his contract has been outweighed by the assets we got back.

and add in that the albatross that is wallace was three years of pain. the benefits to be reaped from the draft picks could last far, far longer.

two marshmellows for me please.

[Granath]

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.

You still don't get it. Wallace's contract is an albatross only if it prevented the Celtics from pursuing or acquiring someone else who could have helped. We know the last man on the bench isn't going to contribute much anyway. We also know that at any time if it was such a millstone, Danny could have offloaded it and a 1st to get rid of it in order to make a deal happen. But he never felt the need to - and in fact we never really even heard about a serious trade offer involving Wallace - which indicates that it never was really a hindrance. And of course, now it's more of an asset than it it a problem.

So Wallace has been clogging the last bench spot. For a rebuilding team, it's not a big deal. It would be if the Celtics were trying to find that "one last piece" to compete for a title and unable to acquire it because he was using $10m of the cap. But they weren't. Of course, it didn't gain them anything either and there may have been an opportunity cost in carrying Wallace.

So it most definitely was a net negative, but not that much of one. Albatross? Hardly. More like a splinter.

[BudweiserCeltic]

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.

It was never an albatross... the Celtics were over the cap these past 2 years. Having Wallace's contract on our books has been irrelevant. The most he did was take up a roster spot, but he didn't prevent us from going after a player.

So no, it never was an albatross to the Celtics.

Also, Wallace has been with us 2 years....

I just don't think you have a grasp  on how the salary cap works. How teams operate while over or under the cap respectively, how TPE's work and their effect on the cap, etc., etc.

[mctyson]

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

Is this going to make the Celtics a contender in the near future?  Unknown.

Could Boston have rebuilt without trading KG and PP, by simply letting them walkaway? Possibly.

[Roy H.]

We also know that at any time if it was such a millstone, Danny could have offloaded it and a 1st to get rid of it in order to make a deal happen. But he never felt the need to - and in fact we never really even heard about a serious trade offer involving Wallace - which indicates that it never was really a hindrance. And of course, now it's more of an asset than it it a problem.

I'm not sure that I agree with this.  I'm skeptical that another team would have taken Wallace for a single first rounder.  The going rate seems to be one first rounder to take on a large one year contract, although some teams have paid more (i.e., the Warriors when clearing room for Iguodala).  If we assume that the cost to clear Wallace was multiple firsts, or one likely lottery pick, I don't think we can read that much into Danny's failure to make a deal.

I think that Wallace's contract probably has had a minimal effect in terms of our moves.  If I'm recalling correctly, the Celts were pretty close to the luxury tax a couple of times over the past two seasons, which could have impacted some moves.  I also disagree with the argument that others have made that the Celtics prefer Wallace's contract over cap space.  I would prefer the ability to sign multiple free agents, even if we have to let Bass and Crowder go for nothing.

[MBunge]

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

Is this going to make the Celtics a contender in the near future?  Unknown.

Could Boston have rebuilt without trading KG and PP, by simply letting them walkaway? Possibly.

I don't see how anyone can prefer cap space to three straight years of unprotected draft picks.

Mike

[BudweiserCeltic]

We also know that at any time if it was such a millstone, Danny could have offloaded it and a 1st to get rid of it in order to make a deal happen. But he never felt the need to - and in fact we never really even heard about a serious trade offer involving Wallace - which indicates that it never was really a hindrance. And of course, now it's more of an asset than it it a problem.

I'm not sure that I agree with this.  I'm skeptical that another team would have taken Wallace for a single first rounder.  The going rate seems to be one first rounder to take on a large one year contract, although some teams have paid more (i.e., the Warriors when clearing room for Iguodala).  If we assume that the cost to clear Wallace was multiple firsts, or one likely lottery pick, I don't think we can read that much into Danny's failure to make a deal.

I think that Wallace's contract probably has had a minimal effect in terms of our moves.  If I'm recalling correctly, the Celts were pretty close to the luxury tax a couple of times over the past two seasons, which could have impacted some moves.  I also disagree with the argument that others have made that the Celtics prefer Wallace's contract over cap space.  I would prefer the ability to sign multiple free agents, even if we have to let Bass and Crowder go for nothing.

Well, I'm not sure about the claim of Wallace's contract vs. cap space, but I do think Ainge prefers to operate over the cap, particularly when he has the TPE's at his disposal.

I'm really not sure which way would be more beneficial, I do think though that having Wallace's contract gives us some options, and that's where I'll leave it. It allows us to operate over the cap if we desire it (and keep/use our TPE's) or if we need the cap room, I think it should be easily dumped. I don't know if I'd call this "adding flexibility", probably wouldn't, but I do think it gives us some options to explore via S&T, etc.

[boscel33]

The Celtics clearly won the trade.

That said, I don't think anybody can argue that having Wallace on the team - and his contract on the books - has been a good thing. Rather, the negative of his contract has been outweighed by the assets we got back.

I agree.  The C's won in a land slide. Besides, if some rumors are correct, Danny may be trying to offload the contract by including the 28.  This would open up serious cap room.

[LooseCannon]

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.

While Wallace's contract has not been an asset, it is also not an albatross that has crippled Ainge's ability to make moves and it does not prevent the Celtics from having the cap space to sign a max free agent this summer.  Wallace has not held the team back during a rebuilding phase.

[Ogaju]

We also know that at any time if it was such a millstone, Danny could have offloaded it and a 1st to get rid of it in order to make a deal happen. But he never felt the need to - and in fact we never really even heard about a serious trade offer involving Wallace - which indicates that it never was really a hindrance. And of course, now it's more of an asset than it it a problem.

I'm not sure that I agree with this. I'm skeptical that another team would have taken Wallace for a single first rounder.  The going rate seems to be one first rounder to take on a large one year contract, although some teams have paid more (i.e., the Warriors when clearing room for Iguodala).  If we assume that the cost to clear Wallace was multiple firsts, or one likely lottery pick, I don't think we can read that much into Danny's failure to make a deal.

I think that Wallace's contract probably has had a minimal effect in terms of our moves.  If I'm recalling correctly, the Celts were pretty close to the luxury tax a couple of times over the past two seasons, which could have impacted some moves.  I also disagree with the argument that others have made that the Celtics prefer Wallace's contract over cap space.  I would prefer the ability to sign multiple free agents, even if we have to let Bass and Crowder go for nothing.

And hence my point that if the cost to clear Wallace was multiple firsts or one likely lottery pick, it seems that the trade with the Nets was not this 'daylight robbery' that we like to think. If the Nets had not had the spate of injuries or the problems with Kidd and had gone on to win the Championship the deal would have a different flavor.

[Ilikesports17]

If the Nets... had gone on to win the Championship the deal would have a different flavor.

yes. this is true, however instead of winning a championship they came in 6th in the garbage east won a single playoff series against the Raptors and then got crushed by the Heat, who then went on to get even further crushed by the Spurs.

I mean if James Young won Rookie of the Year and led us to the NBA finals this year, the trade looks different too.

[PhoSita]

It is mystifying to me that anybody can still ask this question.

[hwangjini_1]

We also know that at any time if it was such a millstone, Danny could have offloaded it and a 1st to get rid of it in order to make a deal happen. But he never felt the need to - and in fact we never really even heard about a serious trade offer involving Wallace - which indicates that it never was really a hindrance. And of course, now it's more of an asset than it it a problem.

I'm not sure that I agree with this. I'm skeptical that another team would have taken Wallace for a single first rounder.  The going rate seems to be one first rounder to take on a large one year contract, although some teams have paid more (i.e., the Warriors when clearing room for Iguodala).  If we assume that the cost to clear Wallace was multiple firsts, or one likely lottery pick, I don't think we can read that much into Danny's failure to make a deal.

I think that Wallace's contract probably has had a minimal effect in terms of our moves.  If I'm recalling correctly, the Celts were pretty close to the luxury tax a couple of times over the past two seasons, which could have impacted some moves.  I also disagree with the argument that others have made that the Celtics prefer Wallace's contract over cap space.  I would prefer the ability to sign multiple free agents, even if we have to let Bass and Crowder go for nothing.

And hence my point that if the cost to clear Wallace was multiple firsts or one likely lottery pick, it seems that the trade with the Nets was not this 'daylight robbery' that we like to think. If the Nets had not had the spate of injuries or the problems with Kidd and had gone on to win the Championship the deal would have a different flavor.

it is not zero sum game.

having the nets do well in the trade does not diminish the gains the celtics got from the trade. this statement is really, really reaching at this point.

[PhoSita]

The Celtics clearly won the trade.

That said, I don't think anybody can argue that having Wallace on the team - and his contract on the books - has been a good thing. Rather, the negative of his contract has been outweighed by the assets we got back.

If by "outweighed" you mean like this



compared to this