Celtics trade for David Lee

[Scintan]

I would just want to know how trading one player for a better player who has a better expiring contract could be considered to be a bad thing on any planet.  I could understand if we gave up a pick or a promising young player like Sully or Olynyk, but we basically gave up NOTHING.

If you are in favor of the tanking strategy, this is a terrible trade, as is.

Also, I'm not sure how you figure Lee's expiring contract is better than Wallace's expiring contract, so I can't address that.

[mnshyn]

I think the rationale behind the trade is simple.

If that debacle in Sacramento continues to go South...

[Jonny CC]

I would just want to know how trading one player for a better player who has a better expiring contract could be considered to be a bad thing on any planet.  I could understand if we gave up a pick or a promising young player like Sully or Olynyk, but we basically gave up NOTHING.

If you are in favor of the tanking strategy, this is a terrible trade, as is.

Also, I'm not sure how you figure Lee's expiring contract is better than Wallace's expiring contract, so I can't address that.

Isn't a $15mil expiring contract worth more than a $10 mil expiring contract???

[Scintan]

I would just want to know how trading one player for a better player who has a better expiring contract could be considered to be a bad thing on any planet.  I could understand if we gave up a pick or a promising young player like Sully or Olynyk, but we basically gave up NOTHING.

If you are in favor of the tanking strategy, this is a terrible trade, as is.

Also, I'm not sure how you figure Lee's expiring contract is better than Wallace's expiring contract, so I can't address that.

Isn't a $15mil expiring contract worth more than a $10 mil expiring contract???

It depends on how you intend to use the contract and/or player.  The $15m contract wasn't better for Golden State, for example.

[Jonny CC]

I would just want to know how trading one player for a better player who has a better expiring contract could be considered to be a bad thing on any planet.  I could understand if we gave up a pick or a promising young player like Sully or Olynyk, but we basically gave up NOTHING.

If you are in favor of the tanking strategy, this is a terrible trade, as is.

Also, I'm not sure how you figure Lee's expiring contract is better than Wallace's expiring contract, so I can't address that.

Isn't a $15mil expiring contract worth more than a $10 mil expiring contract???

It wasn't for Golden State.

Because they needed to free up the money THIS YEAR.  They can extend Wallace's contract and only have a $3 mil hit for 3 years.  C's obviously thought that $15 mil is better for NEXT YEAR.  It helps both teams.

[hpantazo]

I would just want to know how trading one player for a better player who has a better expiring contract could be considered to be a bad thing on any planet.  I could understand if we gave up a pick or a promising young player like Sully or Olynyk, but we basically gave up NOTHING.

If you are in favor of the tanking strategy, this is a terrible trade, as is.

Also, I'm not sure how you figure Lee's expiring contract is better than Wallace's expiring contract, so I can't address that.

Isn't a $15mil expiring contract worth more than a $10 mil expiring contract???

It depends on how you intend to use the contract and/or player.  The $15m contract wasn't better for Golden State, for example.

Because GS wants a bit of cap room to re-sign Draymond Green and maybe another player. We want a large-ass expiring to package with our stockpile of picks for a superstar. GS has no stockpile of picks or prospects that they would be looking to move for anyone.

[celticsclay]

i feel that in the back of Danny's mind, he's gotta be thinking KO and Sully arent panning out at a amazing rate. And he needs to have alternatives shall that happen

Hes experimenting with  a core of bout 7-8 players 25 and under.

Hes got players like IT,ET and now Lee who wan to prove theirselves

With the exclusion of Al Jefferson. I dont remeber the last time a Elite player signed to a team of jus raw young  talent.

Bingo. And Big Al has never been 'elite' either. If we want to get a top level player or two to come here via trade or free agency at some point, we need good vets for them to play with, not rookies and second year players.

I mean didn't Lebron? If you want to go back further, you could definitely make the Argument that Shaq did when he went to LA. It is rare, but it also can happen. Overall, the larger point is that elite talent doesn't change teams that much.

[Scintan]

I would just want to know how trading one player for a better player who has a better expiring contract could be considered to be a bad thing on any planet.  I could understand if we gave up a pick or a promising young player like Sully or Olynyk, but we basically gave up NOTHING.

If you are in favor of the tanking strategy, this is a terrible trade, as is.

Also, I'm not sure how you figure Lee's expiring contract is better than Wallace's expiring contract, so I can't address that.

Isn't a $15mil expiring contract worth more than a $10 mil expiring contract???

It wasn't for Golden State.

Because they needed to free up the money THIS YEAR.  They can extend Wallace's contract and only have a $3 mil hit for 3 years.  C's obviously thought that $15 mil is better for NEXT YEAR.  It helps both teams.

Yes......  the contract itself can be better or worse, depending upon how it's used, and by whom.  That's my point, and that's why I couldn't really address it.  This is not a black/white a/k/a yes/no kind of situation.

If the Celtics don't trade Lee, then they spent an extra $5 million dollars.  That's not a better contract, even if it's a better player.  If they trade Lee to a team that couldn't have made the move with Wallace's deal, that's a better contract.

The variables make the answer one or the other.

[cb8883]

Great another over the hill player to take minutes away from youngsters...Enjoy the 40 wins while the teams tanking are laughing all the way to the lottery next year. The Celtics really don't want to compete for a title in the next 20 years...and if they think they can get Durant then hahahahahahaha. I hope Danny isn't that delusional but taking on Lee instead of just letting Wallace expire is just awful. Takes minutes away from youngsters who could tank for us. A strong tank is what's needed not David Lee!

Who's over the hill?

Check his per minute stats. It's pretty much the same as when he was an All Star. And I'm glad that he will take the minutes from the youngsters. He's way better and those youngsters will now have to prove themselves that they can be better than Lee to earn those minutes.

David Lee is 32. That's the only stat I care about. He has someone like Mickey behind him now who Stevens could actually develop into a decent young big and Ainge ends up getting this old man on the team. This team needs no one on the team playing meaningful minutes over the age of 26-28. It's about developing talent that was drafted. Should have just cut Wallace instead.

[viulo]

Once upon a time I remember people being adamant that "The Celtics are about winning championships!", "Just making the playoffs means nothing in Boston!", and "The Celtics are too good to settle for the middle of the road!"

My, how times have changed.

Celtics fans have developed the mindset of just another small-market team instead of in the club with the Lakers and Knicks, etc. No one thinks of bigtime talent anymore, we're that scrappy little team that could, our little roster of role players trying so hard to make the playoffs. Kind of sad really.

This is a franchise with the most HOFers and All-Stars in NBA history. By some crazy coincidence they also have the most championships. If I didn't know any better, I'd say there's some type of correlation between HOF and All-Star talent and championships or something. But that can't be right.

We just got done literally two seasons ago competing for championships with three HOFers and now fans are back to wanting to get out of the first round like we're the Clippers or the Bucks or something. "Oh no we can't let the great Zeller leave us!! Can't trade Avery Bradley!!"

I live in Phoenix and there is literally no difference between Suns and Celtics fans mentality-wise..

Yeah, and how's that working out for them?
We're talking about two teams that picked #2 and #4 in the draft and weren't even tanking last year, they had Kobe and Melo... until the middle of the season, that is, when they realized they were terrible.

Do you know how many teams have won the NBA in the last 17 seasons? Seven.
In the last 17 seasons, 23 teams didn't taste success, if that's how we measure it (and I'm fine with that).
But with the exception of Boston in 2008 and Miami in 2012 and 13, no other team managed to go from the bottom to the top in one or two years through a magic move of some kind.
For all the rest, there was evolution. So making the play-offs, for me, isn´t a goal in itself, but a validation of the evolution being undertaken.
Now, I respect people that tell me that we don't have stars, so even if we continue to improve we will never get to be champions. Maybe. I'm with the group that thinks that to get a star you have to have a good team already in place; and on the other hand I dispute the usual concept of stars. Who would have guessed that Curry, in his first or second season, would become the most important player in a title winning team?
I also respect (although I've seen no evidence that it works - at least as a strategy) people who think the only way to get a star is to pick in the first five positions in a draft. Well, guess what: not even 1 in 5 of the first five players taken in a draft become a star; and of those who do, how many won a ring with the team that selected them? In the last 17 years, I think there's only one: Wade. So, I admit the validity of that way of thinking, but I disagree - I see it as likely to be a first step towards being champion as being able to win +5 games every year...

So, no, I don't think people are happy just getting to the play-offs. But one thing I guarantee: you'll never be a champion if you don't get to the play-offs.

[Smartacus]

I would just want to know how trading one player for a better player who has a better expiring contract could be considered to be a bad thing on any planet.  I could understand if we gave up a pick or a promising young player like Sully or Olynyk, but we basically gave up NOTHING.

If you are in favor of the tanking strategy, this is a terrible trade, as is.

Also, I'm not sure how you figure Lee's expiring contract is better than Wallace's expiring contract, so I can't address that.

Isn't a $15mil expiring contract worth more than a $10 mil expiring contract???

It depends on how you intend to use the contract and/or player.  The $15m contract wasn't better for Golden State, for example.

Because GS wants a bit of cap room to re-sign Draymond Green and maybe another player. We want a large-ass expiring to package with our stockpile of picks for a superstar. GS has no stockpile of picks or prospects that they would be looking to move for anyone.

Not to mention this was a favor to Lee for the professionalism he showed last year after losing his spot in the rotation to Green and Harrison Barnes. He gets to a great situation to reinflate his value and lock up a contract on the new T.V. deal.

I'm intrigued by the prospect of resigning him. With Lee and Amir Johnson we're getting the some of the most solid, know what your getting contributors on the market.

Definitely surprised the pro tank movement is still this vocal. You all are consistent I'll give you that.

[fairweatherfan]

We just traded a guy who literally can't play in the NBA for a player that can start for us and will lead the team in rebounding.

Naturally, more than half the posters on this board are devastated.   

This is the worst thing since the last thing!  It's simultaneously making the team better and worse, when what we really need is to get worse and better!  We have a bunch of crappy assets nobody wants, except when they trade for them, and we need to make moves that turn those crappy assets into great ones, without being so delusional that we expect other teams to want our assets, because we have a bunch of crappy assets nobody wants, except when they trade for them.  It's truly a disaster.

...honestly the most striking thing about this isn't the negative reaction - that happens pretty much anytime any move is made - but how schizophrenic the collective reaction is.  Consequences of feeling stuck in the middle I guess.

[Jonny CC]

I would just want to know how trading one player for a better player who has a better expiring contract could be considered to be a bad thing on any planet.  I could understand if we gave up a pick or a promising young player like Sully or Olynyk, but we basically gave up NOTHING.

If you are in favor of the tanking strategy, this is a terrible trade, as is.

Also, I'm not sure how you figure Lee's expiring contract is better than Wallace's expiring contract, so I can't address that.

Isn't a $15mil expiring contract worth more than a $10 mil expiring contract???

It wasn't for Golden State.

Because they needed to free up the money THIS YEAR.  They can extend Wallace's contract and only have a $3 mil hit for 3 years.  C's obviously thought that $15 mil is better for NEXT YEAR.  It helps both teams.

Yes......  the contract itself can be better or worse, depending upon how it's used, and by whom.  That's my point, and that's why I couldn't really address it.  This is not a black/white a/k/a yes/no kind of situation.

If the Celtics don't trade Lee, then they spent an extra $5 million dollars.  That's not a better contract, even if it's a better player.  If they trade Lee to a team that couldn't have made the move with Wallace's deal, that's a better contract.

The variables make the answer one or the other.

Good point.

[LarBrd33]

I'm with D.o.s. on this one -- if you think David Lee is suddenly the best player on the Celtics, I'm not sure how great a handle you have on how NBA basketball works.

I don't think David Lee is a terrible basketball player -- D.o.s. and I diverge on that one -- but I think his value is situational and limited (see: the Finals).

That said, like Kris Humphries before him he'll earn major minutes because that's where this roster is at right now.

Lee has weaknesses. 

I'm still trying to think of similar situations to the one Lee had.  Maybe the year that Danny Granger was riding the pine while Paul George broke out?  And then when Granger returned, they kept him on the bench in order to not impact chemistry?

That isn't David Lee.   I have no reason to believe that David Lee can't still put up 18 and 9.  He came back from his injury, the team was on a historic win pace... and they decided they best not mess with it.   Draymond Green is clearly a better defender.  That team clearly found a way to win without David Lee (champions)...

But David Lee is still the same player, in my opinion.   Maybe calling him the "best player on the Celtics now" is an exaggeration.  I'm not sure that it is, though.  Boston is a pretty weak collection of talent.  Lee was the 2nd/3rd best player on a 50 win team a year ago.  He's a 2x all-star and unless there's more to his injury than I'm aware of, he's still the same defensively-challenged all-star player he was a year ago.   

David Lee = Poor man's Kevin Love.  If you hate Kevin Love, you hate David Lee.  But David Lee has game. 

It will be interesting to see what Danny does from this point.  But that was a trade you had to take.  There's really no reason not to take that trade.   Maybe 8 months from now we'll be offering up Poor man's Kevin Love + young assets for real Kevin Love.   Maybe we'll move Sully/Oly for a greater position of need.  Maybe Lee just comes off the bench, but I doubt it. He's the best PF on this team right now.

[gpap]

We just traded a guy who literally can't play in the NBA for a player that can start for us and will lead the team in rebounding.

Naturally, more than half the posters on this board are devastated.   

Deal Phil Pressey for Kevin Durant, and there will be an uproar over Pressey no longer being a Celtic because he was good for "locker room morale."