Celtics have made david lee available in trade talks

[crimson_stallion]

her per minute numbers are pretty solid.  He can still average 18 and 8 for a team.  Maybe a team that needs a decent power forward will grab him.

Which teams are lacking at that position?

You mean which teams would be willing to torpedo their defense to give David Lee enough minutes to put up 18 and 8?

I think the better question is who has salary to match and might be interested in adding Lee to give their bench unit some needed scoring?  Who needs a scoring-focused backup center?

I honestly have no idea.

David Lee's Defensive RPM has actually been quite respectable the past two or three seasons.

Just sayin.

I would be pretty happy to send Lee to the Wizards in a package for Gortat.  He's not a star player, but I think he'd be a pretty nice addition to this Celtics team. 

Not sure if the Wizards would be interested, but the way they're playing they aren't going too far this year regardless.

Zeller + Lee's expiring contact for Gortat? Maybe throw in Dallas pick?

[Kuberski33]

Maybe Lee wants out and his Agent is floating that to let everyone know his client is available?  He's not going to bring anything back at this point given is contract. 

To me he looks like an aging player.  Still has some skills and can look pretty good on his better nights but too often is a non factor.

His contract is a non issue. It's a matter of matching salaries in case by case basis. He's in his last year so he has no impact in future cap space, so it's a non-issue.

So it could well be a case of Lee telling his agent, 'get me out of here if you can...'

[Beat LA]

Trading for him was probably a bad idea in hindsight. He makes $15 mill a year. Not sure who would give anything up. You take a pick if you can get it at this point.

Friendly reminder that the only thing we gave up was Gerald Wallace, who was and is worth even less.

I still dislike the move, if only because it meant we were gonna give him an extended run to rehab his value instead of giving consistent time to other, younger guys. 

I understand it was mostly a move to get a larger contract to use in a potential big time trade, but that always seemed far-fetched to me.  Danny's rebuild philosophy has always been more about setting up for a big trade than developing younger guys.

Exactly, and that is completely the wrong approach, imo.

[crimson_stallion]

Trading for him was probably a bad idea in hindsight. He makes $15 mill a year. Not sure who would give anything up. You take a pick if you can get it at this point.

Friendly reminder that the only thing we gave up was Gerald Wallace, who was and is worth even less.

I still dislike the move, if only because it meant we were gonna give him an extended run to rehab his value instead of giving consistent time to other, younger guys. 

I understand it was mostly a move to get a larger contract to use in a potential big time trade, but that always seemed far-fetched to me.  Danny's rebuild philosophy has always been more about setting up for a big trade than developing younger guys.

Exactly, and that is completely the wrong approach, imo.

I disagree, but each to their own.

I believe Danny's rebuild philosophy was always about maximizing assets in order to put yourself in a position to make a move on any and every front - be that the draft, trades, or free agency.  If you look at all the draft picks he's accrued, all the salary he's shed (etc) over the years, it seems to me like he tries his best to get his hands onto a piece of every pie in order to maximise his chances of being able to make something happen.

The moves he has made since this off-season don't meet that criteria because I don't believe he considers this to be a 'rebuild' year. I think last year was the rebuild, and this year is 'development' stage.

The key difference I see in those two scenarios?

Rebuilding: Tear everything down start again

Developing: Try and win as many games as possible, while also upgrading/adding pieces if opportunities arise

[LarBrd33]

her per minute numbers are pretty solid.  He can still average 18 and 8 for a team.  Maybe a team that needs a decent power forward will grab him.

Which teams are lacking at that position?

No, he can't. If he could average 18/8 he'd be starting for the Celtics.

This is NOT the David Lee of 3 years ago, which is what I've been saying all along. He doesn't have the lift anymore nor does he have the physical stamina to play the 35 mins a night it would take to rack up those stats. He might have a good game from time to time but at this stage in his career he's a 10th man off the bench, a guy who plays 15-20 minutes per night who knows his way around the game. That's it. That's what you're going to get.

As for him being available, he was always available. He's simply an expiring salary who had a chance of contributing more than Crash could. End of story.

Yes he can.  Give Lee 36+ minutes a night and he'll get you 18 and 8.
Yes it is basically the same David Lee from 3 years ago.

[Future Celtics Owner]

Help Indy and get Myles Turner.

[LarBrd33]

I figure we will try to use Lee's contract in a more significant trade but if the deadline passes with no move we will probably buy him out. It doesn't seem like he's a good fit in Brad's system and can probably join a team that can use him more.

[TheFlex]

her per minute numbers are pretty solid.  He can still average 18 and 8 for a team.  Maybe a team that needs a decent power forward will grab him.

Which teams are lacking at that position?

No, he can't. If he could average 18/8 he'd be starting for the Celtics.

This is NOT the David Lee of 3 years ago, which is what I've been saying all along. He doesn't have the lift anymore nor does he have the physical stamina to play the 35 mins a night it would take to rack up those stats. He might have a good game from time to time but at this stage in his career he's a 10th man off the bench, a guy who plays 15-20 minutes per night who knows his way around the game. That's it. That's what you're going to get.

As for him being available, he was always available. He's simply an expiring salary who had a chance of contributing more than Crash could. End of story.

Yes he can.  Give Lee 36+ minutes a night and he'll get you 18 and 8.
Yes it is basically the same David Lee from 3 years ago.

David Lee is able to perform at level of 3 years younger D. Lee specifically because he doesn't play 36 minutes and largely doesn't face starters. This is an example of a player whose per 36 stats are misleading in the sense that they suggest he should be getting more minutes.

And by the way, that David Lee doesn't fit today's game as well as he did when he was on the Knicks or early years with GSW.

[LarBrd33]

her per minute numbers are pretty solid.  He can still average 18 and 8 for a team.  Maybe a team that needs a decent power forward will grab him.

Which teams are lacking at that position?

No, he can't. If he could average 18/8 he'd be starting for the Celtics.

This is NOT the David Lee of 3 years ago, which is what I've been saying all along. He doesn't have the lift anymore nor does he have the physical stamina to play the 35 mins a night it would take to rack up those stats. He might have a good game from time to time but at this stage in his career he's a 10th man off the bench, a guy who plays 15-20 minutes per night who knows his way around the game. That's it. That's what you're going to get.

As for him being available, he was always available. He's simply an expiring salary who had a chance of contributing more than Crash could. End of story.

Yes he can.  Give Lee 36+ minutes a night and he'll get you 18 and 8.
Yes it is basically the same David Lee from 3 years ago.

David Lee is able to perform at level of 3 years younger D. Lee specifically because he doesn't play 36 minutes and largely doesn't face starters. This is an example of a player whose per 36 stats are misleading in the sense that they suggest he should be getting more minutes.

And by the way, that David Lee doesn't fit today's game as well as he did when he was on the Knicks or early years with GSW.

seems to me he started the season out of shape.  He's more or less the same player he's always been.  Getting less minutes and has a less significant role than when he was a second option.  If his defense was a bit better and he could shoot threes, he'd maybe stand a chance here... But he's probably a better fit elsewhere.

[Beat LA]

Trading for him was probably a bad idea in hindsight. He makes $15 mill a year. Not sure who would give anything up. You take a pick if you can get it at this point.

Friendly reminder that the only thing we gave up was Gerald Wallace, who was and is worth even less.

I still dislike the move, if only because it meant we were gonna give him an extended run to rehab his value instead of giving consistent time to other, younger guys. 

I understand it was mostly a move to get a larger contract to use in a potential big time trade, but that always seemed far-fetched to me.  Danny's rebuild philosophy has always been more about setting up for a big trade than developing younger guys.

Exactly, and that is completely the wrong approach, imo.

I disagree, but each to their own.

I believe Danny's rebuild philosophy was always about maximizing assets in order to put yourself in a position to make a move on any and every front - be that the draft, trades, or free agency.  If you look at all the draft picks he's accrued, all the salary he's shed (etc) over the years, it seems to me like he tries his best to get his hands onto a piece of every pie in order to maximise his chances of being able to make something happen.

The moves he has made since this off-season don't meet that criteria because I don't believe he considers this to be a 'rebuild' year. I think last year was the rebuild, and this year is 'development' stage.

The key difference I see in those two scenarios?

Rebuilding: Tear everything down start again

Developing: Try and win as many games as possible, while also upgrading/adding pieces if opportunities arise

That's fine, no problem . My belief has always been that you rebuild mainly through the draft bc we're not LA, New York, Miami, Chicago, or even Cleveland as of right now.  The only way to develop players is to give them playing time, and lots of it, like what the Timberwolves have been doing.  Now, admittedly, the talent disparity between Boston and Minnesota is quite considerable and obvious, but we won't know how good or bad guys like Rozier, Hunter, Mickey, and Young are if we don't play them.  Screw the veterans - it's not about them, and they, along with Stevens, imo, are severely stunting the growth of our young players.  There is no Rondo or Pierce on this team as of right now, and the only way to build a foundation is by giving these guys plenty of run.  That way we'll know who we should keep, if any of them, and who we should let walk and/or trade.  I really wish that Ainge would stop reshuffling the deck every year, too, bc it completely screws up the roles and continuity among the guys who aren't dealt.  Ugh.

[Evantime34]

I think the option that makes the most sense is attaching a first to Lee to bring back a better player. I don't expect Lee to be moved until the deadline.

[Csfan1984]

I'd make everyone without 2 years left on a rookie contract available.
IT, AB, Sully, AJ, Crowder, Turner, Lee, JJ, and Zeller all on the block.
Smart, Hunter, Young, Mickey, Rozier and KO I'm holding onto to develop some more. I'm making all picks except for Brooklyn picks also available if they help get a all star player.

[Endless Paradise]

You're not getting an All-Star without at least one of those Brooklyn picks, so good luck with that.

[trickybilly]

Trading for him was probably a bad idea in hindsight. He makes $15 mill a year. Not sure who would give anything up. You take a pick if you can get it at this point.

Friendly reminder that the only thing we gave up was Gerald Wallace, who was and is worth even less.

I still dislike the move, if only because it meant we were gonna give him an extended run to rehab his value instead of giving consistent time to other, younger guys. 

I understand it was mostly a move to get a larger contract to use in a potential big time trade, but that always seemed far-fetched to me.  Danny's rebuild philosophy has always been more about setting up for a big trade than developing younger guys.

Exactly, and that is completely the wrong approach, imo.

I disagree, but each to their own.

I believe Danny's rebuild philosophy was always about maximizing assets in order to put yourself in a position to make a move on any and every front - be that the draft, trades, or free agency.  If you look at all the draft picks he's accrued, all the salary he's shed (etc) over the years, it seems to me like he tries his best to get his hands onto a piece of every pie in order to maximise his chances of being able to make something happen.

The moves he has made since this off-season don't meet that criteria because I don't believe he considers this to be a 'rebuild' year. I think last year was the rebuild, and this year is 'development' stage.

The key difference I see in those two scenarios?

Rebuilding: Tear everything down start again

Developing: Try and win as many games as possible, while also upgrading/adding pieces if opportunities arise

That's fine, no problem . My belief has always been that you rebuild mainly through the draft bc we're not LA, New York, Miami, Chicago, or even Cleveland as of right now.  The only way to develop players is to give them playing time, and lots of it, like what the Timberwolves have been doing.  Now, admittedly, the talent disparity between Boston and Minnesota is quite considerable and obvious, but we won't know how good or bad guys like Rozier, Hunter, Mickey, and Young are if we don't play them.  Screw the veterans - it's not about them, and they, along with Stevens, imo, are severely stunting the growth of our young players.  There is no Rondo or Pierce on this team as of right now, and the only way to build a foundation is by giving these guys plenty of run.  That way we'll know who we should keep, if any of them, and who we should let walk and/or trade.  I really wish that Ainge would stop reshuffling the deck every year, too, bc it completely screws up the roles and continuity among the guys who aren't dealt.  Ugh.

After the trade deadline is the time to play the kids. Now is the time to keep everyone else's trade value as high as possible until then.

[pearljammer10]

Trading for him was probably a bad idea in hindsight. He makes $15 mill a year. Not sure who would give anything up. You take a pick if you can get it at this point.

Friendly reminder that the only thing we gave up was Gerald Wallace, who was and is worth even less.

I still dislike the move, if only because it meant we were gonna give him an extended run to rehab his value instead of giving consistent time to other, younger guys. 

I understand it was mostly a move to get a larger contract to use in a potential big time trade, but that always seemed far-fetched to me.  Danny's rebuild philosophy has always been more about setting up for a big trade than developing younger guys.

Exactly, and that is completely the wrong approach, imo.

I disagree, but each to their own.

I believe Danny's rebuild philosophy was always about maximizing assets in order to put yourself in a position to make a move on any and every front - be that the draft, trades, or free agency.  If you look at all the draft picks he's accrued, all the salary he's shed (etc) over the years, it seems to me like he tries his best to get his hands onto a piece of every pie in order to maximise his chances of being able to make something happen.

The moves he has made since this off-season don't meet that criteria because I don't believe he considers this to be a 'rebuild' year. I think last year was the rebuild, and this year is 'development' stage.

The key difference I see in those two scenarios?

Rebuilding: Tear everything down start again

Developing: Try and win as many games as possible, while also upgrading/adding pieces if opportunities arise

As do I. That approach won us a championship.