Ainge on Toucher and Rich: "Consolidating quantity for quality"

[Donoghus]

Kinda interesting to hear Danny admit it, even though it's the worst kept secret in the NBA. The Cs pretty desperately need to package up a few players and or picks before the 2016 draft.

I would tend to agree.  This current roster is begging it to happen.  Too many logjams at too many spots.

It's true, but I guess you have to ask yourself, since we're so willing to get rid of some of these guys, what would make another team really excited to trade for them?

The Celts have a lot of guys who can play.  Guys like Lee, Turner, Zeller, Sullinger, Jerebko, Johnson -- they could carve a significant role on most teams in the league if given the chance.

But how much would other teams be willing to give up for them?  My guess is that in most cases you're probably talking about expiring contracts and low 1sts / high 2nds.  In other words, more of the same kind of assets we already have.


To really upgrade the roster, you'd probably have to put guys on the table that are a core part of the success the team is having right now, or part of the team's vision for the future:  Thomas, Crowder, Bradley, Smart, Olynyk, or one of the Brooklyn picks.

I think it would have to be a really substantial upgrade to make it worth trading one or more of those pieces.

Who says the Celtics are so willing to part with these guys?

Its more of a practical matter than anything.  You have a glut of depth/bodies at certain positions & limited playing time.  Some of these guys become more valuable as trade assets than as players, simply because the time isn't there for them.   I don't think Danny is necessarily willing to force guys out the door but the current roster kind've dictates it.

right because Ainge has never forced people out the door.

Willingness & practicality are two different concepts.

I'm sure there is some willingness that we're not reading about but any armchair GM can look at this current roster and realize that logjams need to be cleared.

[walker834]

If we could turn David Lee and Tyler ZEller into someone who can knock down a shot at the end of games should Ainge do it?  Even if it's on an expiring deal.  Or hinders guys like KO and our other young shooters development?  Even Evan Turner really.  Turner and Zeller could have a small role here long term.  David Lee really doesn't except as a towel waiver.

I'll sour on the whole Ryan anderson thing for now, I hear the asik comparisons, but he is what we could use in ways. I just don't know if Ainge should do it anymore.  Maybe we can do better.  We can keep waiting and hoping KO knocks down that shot at the end and our young shooters get better.

RJ and Young are very young. So are Kelly and Sully.  But I honestly  question KO's want to when taking a big shot.  He doesn't even seem to want to knock it down.

[PhoSita]

I agree with the above, you'll have a hard time finding many teams that are looking to trade quality for quantity. 

Teams usually only do that when:

(a) they've hit a dead end with their current team and they want to rebuild (in which case the guy you're trading for is typically on the older side),

(b) they gave a guy a bad contract and what out (so you have to take on a bad contract), or

(c) somebody they've got signed to a multi-year deal is causing problems in the locker room (meaning you're trading for a headcase).


Probably the best time to trade quantity for quality is on draft night.  Find a team that's really lacking in young rotation talent and try to convince them to trade a lottery pick outside of the top 5 for a handful of lesser picks.

Even then, it's pretty hard to make happen.  Danny made a godfather offer for the #9 pick this past draft, as we well know, and was turned down.

(d) a team going all in that wants some veterans and that would trade a young player not quite ready to help for a title run (see OKC)

(e) a team that has a logjam of its own at a position (see Orlando)

In situation (d), it's doubtful that we'd be getting a young player with a ton of upside.  Could you get a Kyle Singler, Cameron Payne, Mitch McGary, or Andre Roberson from OKC?  Probably.

But they don't have any guys with an excellent draft pedigree that isn't a core part of what they're doing.  Steven Adams, who I imagine you're thinking of with this example, is very unlikely to be available because he's been an important part of what they do and the Celts would have to offer an even better player (e.g. Crowder) to get the Thunder to consider giving him up.

That is, unless you want to trade for a maxed-out Enes Kanter.


In situation (e), you're talking about a team that has the same problem the Celts do: too much quantity, not enough quality.

I think there might be a trade opportunity with Orlando where we shuffle some pieces around, send them a couple picks, and acquire a guy with high draft pedigree who doesn't have a clear path to playing time in Orlando (e.g. Mario Hezonja).

My guess is that the Magic wouldn't be super interested in such a trade, but who knows.

Might there be a trade for somebody like Tobias Harris or Nikola Vucevic?  Perhaps, but would it really be worth trading a bunch of assets to acquire a more or less average starter with defensive question marks signed to a hefty long term contract? 

[PhoSita]

I'm sure there is some willingness that we're not reading about but any armchair GM can look at this current roster and realize that logjams need to be cleared.

Absolutely, but the question I have is whether Ainge would be willing to give up guys for only marginal net value just to clear some log jams?

I mean, I'd be happy to trade David Lee and a lesser pick like, say, the Dallas 2016 1st, for Danilo Gallinari, but I'm guessing the Nuggets would ask for quite a bit more than that because Danilo is probably their best player right now.

Even if they were willing to do that trade, Danny Ainge might not want to do it because it would eat into cap space next summer, and Danny always wants to leave the door open for a huge move via trade or free agency, even if it's very unlikely.


My guess is "clearing log jams" would require doing things like trading Jerebko, Zeller and Lee for 2nd rounders or marginal rotation players on expiring deals.  In other words, trading them purely to open roster / rotation spots.

[Moranis]

I agree with the above, you'll have a hard time finding many teams that are looking to trade quality for quantity. 

Teams usually only do that when:

(a) they've hit a dead end with their current team and they want to rebuild (in which case the guy you're trading for is typically on the older side),

(b) they gave a guy a bad contract and what out (so you have to take on a bad contract), or

(c) somebody they've got signed to a multi-year deal is causing problems in the locker room (meaning you're trading for a headcase).


Probably the best time to trade quantity for quality is on draft night.  Find a team that's really lacking in young rotation talent and try to convince them to trade a lottery pick outside of the top 5 for a handful of lesser picks.

Even then, it's pretty hard to make happen.  Danny made a godfather offer for the #9 pick this past draft, as we well know, and was turned down.

(d) a team going all in that wants some veterans and that would trade a young player not quite ready to help for a title run (see OKC)

(e) a team that has a logjam of its own at a position (see Orlando)

In situation (d), it's doubtful that we'd be getting a young player with a ton of upside.  Could you get a Kyle Singler, Cameron Payne, Mitch McGary, or Andre Roberson from OKC?  Probably.

But they don't have any guys with an excellent draft pedigree that isn't a core part of what they're doing.  Steven Adams, who I imagine you're thinking of with this example, is very unlikely to be available because he's been an important part of what they do and the Celts would have to offer an even better player (e.g. Crowder) to get the Thunder to consider giving him up.

That is, unless you want to trade for a maxed-out Enes Kanter.


In situation (e), you're talking about a team that has the same problem the Celts do: too much quantity, not enough quality.

I think there might be a trade opportunity with Orlando where we shuffle some pieces around, send them a couple picks, and acquire a guy with high draft pedigree who doesn't have a clear path to playing time in Orlando (e.g. Mario Hezonja).

My guess is that the Magic wouldn't be super interested in such a trade, but who knows.

Might there be a trade for somebody like Tobias Harris or Nikola Vucevic?  Perhaps, but would it really be worth trading a bunch of assets to acquire a more or less average starter with defensive question marks signed to a hefty long term contract?

Those guys are upgrades though.  Isn't that point?  To upgrade.

And I certainly could see OKC going all in and moving Adams.  Adams, Waiters, McGary, Novak for Amir, Evan, Bos 1st, Dal 1st.  Something like that, seems to make sense for both teams. 

[Endless Paradise]

That makes no sense for OKC whatsoever.

[LooseCannon]

Ainge a) wants to upgrade the roster b) thinks the team is in a good position so that he doesn't have to make a deal before the off-season.

The reasonable target is probably going to be a player who is seen as too old to keep around for a team that has decided to go through a rebuilding process.

[PhoSita]

Those guys are upgrades though.  Isn't that point?  To upgrade.

And I certainly could see OKC going all in and moving Adams.  Adams, Waiters, McGary, Novak for Amir, Evan, Bos 1st, Dal 1st.  Something like that, seems to make sense for both teams.

By "those guys" I'm guessing you mean Harris and Vooch?  Yes, the point is to upgrade, but only if doing so doesn't compromise your ability to make further upgrades that will actually get the team where you want to be.  I like Harris and Vooch fine, but I'm not sure either of them would really move the needle very much.  Maybe Harris could work as the starting power forward.  But if you have to give up one of Isaiah, Bradley, Smart, Crowder, or Olynyk, how much does it really push you forward?

As for the OKC thing, I'm getting the sense you value Steven Adams a lot more than I do.  Giving up two 1st rounders to acquire him, McGary, and Waiters (a pending RFA) ... I don't think I'd be very pleased with that.

Not to mention that Amir Johnson and Evan Turner isn't much of an upgrade, if at all, over Adams and Waiters. 

[chilidawg]

Or Boston.

[Ed Hollison]

Here's what I expect Ainge to do:

1) See if he can trade youth and draft picks for a stud at this season's trade deadline.

If not, then:

2) See if he can trade youth and draft picks for a stud in the offseason.

If not, then:

3) See if you can consolidate a high number of 2016 draft picks into a smaller number of better draft picks.

If not, then:

4) See if you can offload at least one first round pick in exchange for future pick.

[walker834]

We really need to consolidate draft picks and players.  It's not even a matter of if as much as when. It makes way too much sense for ainge to want to consolidate some of our end of roster guys and some picks for something a bit better. The trick is finding the right fit of course.

[PhoSita]

The reasonable target is probably going to be a player who is seen as too old to keep around for a team that has decided to go through a rebuilding process.

I think that sounds right.

So who's probably on that list?

Tyson Chandler (rapid decline, yucky contract)

Omer Asik (not very good, horrid contract)

Zach Randolph (might not even be available, but could be worth pursuing)

Marcin Gortat (if the Wizz give up on the playoffs, could be available; not a terrible contract but he'll be a 3rd stringer by the end of it)

Rudy Gay (questionable if the Kings would really consider moving him, and not sure a guy who passes so little would make sense on the C's)

Kevin Martin (could help the team with shooting, but how much of an upgrade would he be over Turner / Bradley / Smart?)

Nikola Pekovic (who knows if he can still stay healthy and play at a high level?  also seems like a duplicate of David Lee's skillset without the passing)

Danilo Gallinari (my guess is the Nuggets would ask for a ransom for him; they've never seemed willing to all-out tank and he's their best player)

Lou Williams (do you want two undersized gunners in the rotation?  Would take time away from Smart and definitively block Rozier for a while)

Roy Hibbert (he's not helping the Celts on offense, where they struggle)

Chris Kaman (can he still play?  Would he really help the Celts?  Maybe as a bench scorer)

Trevor Ariza (might be available if Rockets are willing to punt this disappointing season, is trending toward washed up but would still help the Celts)

[LooseCannon]

He's not going to consolidate picks for the sake of consolidating.  He's going to identify the guys he likes and then figure out if he needs to move up to get them.  He's not going to take something like the 20th pick and try to throw however many 2nd round picks to move up to 17th or 18th.  He's only going to do that if he wants someone who thinks will be there at 17 but not 20.  If he thinks the guys who are likely to go between 17 and 20 are pretty much the same, he will keep those extra seconds instead of trading them for no value.  I think there is a decent chance he might end up moving down and picking up some future second round picks if he doesn't love what is available.

[ssspence]

Kinda interesting to hear Danny admit it, even though it's the worst kept secret in the NBA. The Cs pretty desperately need to package up a few players and or picks before the 2016 draft.

I would tend to agree.  This current roster is begging it to happen.  Too many logjams at too many spots.

It's true, but I guess you have to ask yourself, since we're so willing to get rid of some of these guys, what would make another team really excited to trade for them?

The Celts have a lot of guys who can play.  Guys like Lee, Turner, Zeller, Sullinger, Jerebko, Johnson -- they could carve a significant role on most teams in the league if given the chance.

But how much would other teams be willing to give up for them?  My guess is that in most cases you're probably talking about expiring contracts and low 1sts / high 2nds.  In other words, more of the same kind of assets we already have.


To really upgrade the roster, you'd probably have to put guys on the table that are a core part of the success the team is having right now, or part of the team's vision for the future:  Thomas, Crowder, Bradley, Smart, Olynyk, or one of the Brooklyn picks.

I think it would have to be a really substantial upgrade to make it worth trading one or more of those pieces.

Who says the Celtics are so willing to part with these guys?

Its more of a practical matter than anything.  You have a glut of depth/bodies at certain positions & limited playing time.  Some of these guys become more valuable as trade assets than as players, simply because the time isn't there for them.   I don't think Danny is necessarily willing to force guys out the door but the current roster kind've dictates it.

Right. By my count the Cs have 9 guys on rookie scale deals right now. It's too many to successfully develop them all. Then, you're going to add 5-7 more players in the draft? Granted we'll likely draft-and-stash with a couple, but still.... it's not a healthy way to build an NBA roster. Not to mention that the Cs, in my opinion, will be reluctant to give Sullinger or Zeller meaningful contracts this summer, so there's some pressure to consider moving them.

This is one reason why I think the Cs may become open to moving Smart. Opposing teams KNOW that asset collection comes with a bit of a ceiling. No team is looking for 6 decent players in trade, because no one wins with that make up. They want stars. I assume that Danny is talking to some teams about deals include a poo poo platter of our youngs for a vet, but he's getting lowballed because they know the longer Ainge waits, the more all those picks loom as a potential issue for the Celts.

Smart likely has the highest perceived trade value of our rookie scale deals. I wonder if Ainge will essentially need to include him in a package to get another team to bite on trading a vet whose actually worth anything.

[ssspence]

Kinda interesting to hear Danny admit it, even though it's the worst kept secret in the NBA. The Cs pretty desperately need to package up a few players and or picks before the 2016 draft.

I would tend to agree.  This current roster is begging it to happen.  Too many logjams at too many spots.

It's true, but I guess you have to ask yourself, since we're so willing to get rid of some of these guys, what would make another team really excited to trade for them?

The Celts have a lot of guys who can play.  Guys like Lee, Turner, Zeller, Sullinger, Jerebko, Johnson -- they could carve a significant role on most teams in the league if given the chance.

But how much would other teams be willing to give up for them?  My guess is that in most cases you're probably talking about expiring contracts and low 1sts / high 2nds.  In other words, more of the same kind of assets we already have.


To really upgrade the roster, you'd probably have to put guys on the table that are a core part of the success the team is having right now, or part of the team's vision for the future:  Thomas, Crowder, Bradley, Smart, Olynyk, or one of the Brooklyn picks.

I think it would have to be a really substantial upgrade to make it worth trading one or more of those pieces.

Who says the Celtics are so willing to part with these guys?

Its more of a practical matter than anything.  You have a glut of depth/bodies at certain positions & limited playing time.  Some of these guys become more valuable as trade assets than as players, simply because the time isn't there for them.   I don't think Danny is necessarily willing to force guys out the door but the current roster kind've dictates it.

right because Ainge has never forced people out the door.

Willingness & practicality are two different concepts.

I'm sure there is some willingness that we're not reading about but any armchair GM can look at this current roster and realize that logjams need to be cleared.

I'm quoted at the beginning of this string for something I didn't say. Just noting it.