Zach Lowe: C's "recoiled" at price for Dwight,may still have interest....

[BDeCosta26]

Given the choice, I actually choose the rental.  If we lock in to Love, we are stuck with him.  If he comes to Boston and looks just as bad as he does in Cleveland, then the "lebron" excuse falls aparts, and his trade value falls through the floor.  We would get stuck with a $20M a year contract for the next 4 years that would be practically untradeable - think Amare Stoudemire.

I do not disagree here.  I too would prefer a rental this season.  But understand that a Dwight Howard rental has to be appropriately priced.  According to the little info we have, Morey's current ask is not appropriate.

So if you have to make the comparison to Love (ie a trade has to happen) it makes more sense to "pay up" for a Love who at least in under contract for a few more years and can be traded yet again if you don't like his performance, than it does to pay up for a Howard rental.

I would prefer Horford over all of them, and I think if Danny is patient enough Atlanta will crack and send us Horford for way less than Howard.

Yeah, Morey's not stupid though. I just can't imagine anyone is offering a whole lot for Howard. He's had so many problems at every place he's been, he's injury-riddled, steadily declining, unpopular in the locker room, and basically a rental due to his opt out, while it's likely someone gives him A LOT more money and years than he's worth because of the cap spike. It's highly unlikely the Rockets sign him to his next contract. So basically, you almost need to trade him. And I just don't think anyone is going to offer a whole lot for Howard.

So when it comes to zero hour, and the best deal sitting in Morey's lap is Lee, Zeller, Rozier (who Houston really liked IIRC) and the Minny or Philly pick this year, you might just have to take it. And if your the Celtics, at that price, you almost have to take the chance on the rental. Chances are he opts out, so if you don't wanna sign him long term you don't have to. But you add a guy who can make a real difference in the playoffs and turns this team into the best defensive team in the league possibly. For that price, even if you don't resign him, which you shouldn't, you get a chance to see what having a guy like him does for your team. Who knows, maybe the Nets pick ends up at 5 and you trade it to Philly for Noel. But Howard's  still a good enough player to justify that small amount of assets and  make an attempt at filling one of your weaknesses.

[tomrod]

Dwight is an offensive black hole. He can't shoot jumpers or free throws. Horford fits what CBS is trying to do some so than Howard. His drop off on D is minimal compared to what he brings on offense. Howard can't even play on the the 2nd night of back to backs for fear of injury.

How can you call Dwight an "offensive black hole" when he:

1) Only takes 9 FGA per night (the same number Turner takes this year off the bench)
2) Averages 3.5 offensive rebounds per game, which probably accounts for 30% of his offense
3) Makes 3.8 Free Throws per night, which probably accounts for another 30% of his offense
4) Shoots 61% from the field and 75% inside 3 feet

I mean honestly, some 50% - 60% of Dwight's offense comes from offensive rebounds and free throw, which are basically free possessions.  You might have to run 4 or 5 plays for him over the entire course of a 48 minute game for him to get his 14 - 15 points. 

Almost every time he touches the ball he's going to score or get to the foul line, so calling him a "black hole" on offense just makes zero sense.  You couldn't find a more efficient offensive player than Dwight Howard if you tried.

That doesn't even take into account the fact that his 7 FTA per night means bout 3.5 fouls drawn against opposing players on a nightly basis - this opens up a whole variety of other benefits such as:

a) Getting key opposing players into foul trouble
b) Getting the team into the bonus early

It's hard to put a number on how much value things like that add to a team.  How much have we gained as a team from Isaiah's ability to get to the line?  It's been huge for us. 

Isaiah and Dwight average 15 FTA per night between them. That's more than 7 personal fouls drawn on opponents, between the two of them, on a nightly basis.  That would add a whole other obstacle for opposing teams when trying to work out how on earth to defend us.
 

I think the difference is that Howard's game is entirely predicated on his extraordinary athleticism. It's all downhill from here. No skill acquisition to come, no adjustments, no maturing well. Horford -- whose game is already way more rounded and less susceptible to sudden collapse -- in the space of a single season just added a competent three point shot! Howard will fall off a cliff, Horford will have a steady decline. Back injuries could instantly cripple Howard's game forever, as soon as tomorrow, if he falls wrong, once. Horford had a pectoral issue, not really a career-killer. Horford is a half-year younger. Most importantly, though, Horford has played about 20700 minutes, and Howard has played 33400...so in "dog years" Howard is already, say, 34 or 35.

I do prefer Howard as a rental versus Horford as a rental.

I disagree with that completely.

A few points.


On Dwights dependence on athleticism

Dwight Howards game is NOT based entirely on athleticism. 

Dwight is 6'11", 265 pounds, has a 7'5" wingspan and is as wide as a Chevy Impala.  The guy is absolutely huge, and even without his athleticism, he still might well be THE most physically imposing player in the entire NBA (he'd certainly be up there). 

I mean honestly - arguing that Dwight's game depends entirely on athleticism is like arguing that Shaq's game was dependent entirely on athleticism.  Yeah Shaq was freakishly athletic for a man of his physical size early in his career - but once his athleticism faded and the injuries came along, he was still able to physically dominate on his sheer size alone. 

That's despite the fact that Shaq put on ridiculous amounts of fat late in his career, versus Dwight who is consistently one of the most impressively ripped/conditioned players in the NBA on a yearly basis. 

When you are as HUGE as Dwight is, you really don't need to be able to outrun the next guy. Dwight's sheer physical size is impressive enough for him to be able to dominate opposing big men in this league for years on end.

Remember how much slower and less mobile KG got in his last couple of years with us, when he was in his mid 30's?  Between age and injuries he had slowed to the point where he looked like he was in quicksand half the time.  But he was still a dominant force on defense and on the boards, largely due to his incredible length, defensive IQ and physicality. 

I don't see any reason why Dwight (if his body holds up) couldn't be just as effective on defense and on the boards, all the way in to his mid 30's.


On declining quicker than Horford

Horford is clearly showing signs of decline. His Per 36 numbers have dropped the past two seasons in a number of statistical category including:

* Points (20.2 -> 18 -> 17.4)
* Rebounds (9.2 -> 8.4 -> 7.8 )
* FG% (56.7% -> 53.8% -> 50.7%)
* Free Throw rate (20.2% -> 14.6% -> 12.8%)

This is all despite the fact that he's still in the same role and on the same team, so you cannot blame change in scenery or role as a possible reason for the declines.

Dwight on the other hand (as I demonstrated earlier) really has not declined statistically in any areas outside of points scored (easy to argue this is due to less attempts, playing with Harden) and shot blocking.

I see no evidence to suggest that Dwight has declined any more than Horford has over the past two seasons, nor do to suggest that he's likely decline more quickly moving forward. 

In fact statistically Horford probably shows more signs of a decline pattern than Dwight does.
 

On being worthy of a max contract

Horford's numbers this year (15.3 / 6.9 / 3.1 / 0.8 / 1.5 / 51% FG) are certainly nowhere near "Max Contract" numbers.

On the other hand Dwight's numbers this year (14.6 / 12.0 / 1.5 / 1.0 / 1.5 / 61% FG) make a pretty strong argument based on his rebounding dominance and elite offensive efficiency alone. 

Horford is highly regarded on this forum for his defense, and yet his advanced defensive stats (RPM, Rim protection, defensive rating) are all pretty much on par with Kevin Love, and only slightly better than Greg Monroe. 

Considering how much most people on this forum bag criticise Love and Monroe for their defense, it's pretty irrational that Horford's Defense is held in such high regard.

The guy has got to be far and away one of the most overrated players in the NBA right now. 

I am completely bewildered as to how so many people are convinced he is a worthy Max Contract / All-Star level player based entirely on the fact that he is decidedly average at absolutely everything (a.k.a. no major holes in his game)...and despite of the fact that he has never been able to lead any of his teams to anything meaningful.


On his potential fit/impact on the Celtics
Even in Horford's absolute best individual season of his career (2012/13) he still:

1) Didn't put up especially impressive numbers (17/10/3 - good but not elite)

2) Couldn't establish himself as the clear #1 player on his team (he was 1A to Josh Smith's 1B) in either the regular season or the playoffs

3) Couldn't lead the Hawks to any success (they finished only 3 games above 0.500 and were eliminated in the first round)

So if that is all Horford was able to achieve in the absolute best season of his NBA career, what do you seriously expect him to bring to the Celtics over the next 5 years, as a 30 year old who has already spent two years in decline?

I mean Horford is a nice player, don't get me wrong.  If you are a team that has an establishes superstar, such as if you are:

* The Pelicans, with Anthony Davis
* The Thunder with Durant/Westbrook
* The Cavs with Lebron
* The Knicks with Carmelo
* The Pacers with George

Then adding a 'nice player' like Horford  (who can do a bit of everything with no major weaknesses), could potentially be a huge addition and could really push you over the top.

But when you are a team like the Hawks or the Celtics (who have rosters filled with 'nice' players and need a star player) then adding guy like Horford does little for you.  He'll make you a better team sure, but he's not going to take transform you dramatically into this elite contender.  He's not going to carry the torch and lead you to the finals.  He's just not THAT type of player. 

The only reason the Hawks have been able to have so much regular season success is that they basically have had three 'Horford-like" players in Horford, Millsap and Teague.  Put three solid guys like that together and your team will become solid enough to be competitive and to get some real success in the regular season.  But once you get to the Playoffs against top tier teams, you'll be stuck trying to work out which of your guys you can depend on to carry you, before eventually realising the answer is "none of them"...because neither one of those guys is a go-to guy.

In fact Isaiah Thomas is FAR more capable of taking on a "go-to guy" role than Horford is, and even IT wasn't enough to save us from getting swept by the Cavs last year (ultimately, the same fate Horford suffered).


On their ability to contribute to a playoff run

In the playoffs last year Al Horford averaged 14 points, 8 rebounds, 3 assists and 50% FG.  The Hawks got swept by the Cavs in the conference finals

Dwight Howard averaged 16 points, 14 rebounds, 2.3 blocks and 58 FG.  The Rockets lost to the Warriors (the eventual champion who convincingly beat the Cavs, and proved themselves one of the best teams in history) in 5 games.

Horford's Career Playoff Per 36 numbers (64 games) are 13.3 points, 8.9 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 0.7 steals, 1.2 blocks, 49% FG, 75% FT.

Dwight's Career Playoff Per 36 numbers (84 games) are 18.5 points, 13.4 rebounds, 1.3 assists, 1.4 steals, 2.5 blocks, 59% FG, 55% FT.

I get that people like Horford more because he has a more 'team first' attitude, but looking at past history it seems pretty clear that Dwight would add more to this team's playoff success than Horford would.

Howard at 30 millions a year is less valuable than Horford at 20, or Love at 25. In fact, Howard at 30 millions just hinders the team and makes it impossible to compete for a title. Im not sure I would do Horford at 20 million either, but its better cause they are pretty close in their impact level.

Even at 25 millions you could only add one max player and have scraps to fill your rotation.

And thats all thinking he is an elite player. He isn't. He is still very good. He can play positional defense, but he doesn't cover as much ground as he used to, and his rim protection is no longer good. His advanced defensive stats are all down across the board, he is no longer an impactful player, he is an average rim protector, and a good positional defender.
I mean, you cite his free throw attemps like it means something. There's a reason team sending him to the line.

[crimson_stallion]

Given the choice, I actually choose the rental.  If we lock in to Love, we are stuck with him.  If he comes to Boston and looks just as bad as he does in Cleveland, then the "lebron" excuse falls aparts, and his trade value falls through the floor.  We would get stuck with a $20M a year contract for the next 4 years that would be practically untradeable - think Amare Stoudemire.

I do not disagree here.  I too would prefer a rental this season.  But understand that a Dwight Howard rental has to be appropriately priced.  According to the little info we have, Morey's current ask is not appropriate.

So if you have to make the comparison to Love (ie a trade has to happen) it makes more sense to "pay up" for a Love who at least in under contract for a few more years and can be traded yet again if you don't like his performance, than it does to pay up for a Howard rental.

I would prefer Horford over all of them, and I think if Danny is patient enough Atlanta will crack and send us Horford for way less than Howard.

Yeah, Morey's not stupid though. I just can't imagine anyone is offering a whole lot for Howard. He's had so many problems at every place he's been, he's injury-riddled, steadily declining, unpopular in the locker room, and basically a rental due to his opt out, while it's likely someone gives him A LOT more money and years than he's worth because of the cap spike. It's highly unlikely the Rockets sign him to his next contract. So basically, you almost need to trade him. And I just don't think anyone is going to offer a whole lot for Howard.

So when it comes to zero hour, and the best deal sitting in Morey's lap is Lee, Zeller, Rozier (who Houston really liked IIRC) and the Minny or Philly pick this year, you might just have to take it. And if your the Celtics, at that price, you almost have to take the chance on the rental. Chances are he opts out, so if you don't wanna sign him long term you don't have to. But you add a guy who can make a real difference in the playoffs and turns this team into the best defensive team in the league possibly. For that price, even if you don't resign him, which you shouldn't, you get a chance to see what having a guy like him does for your team. Who knows, maybe the Nets pick ends up at 5 and you trade it to Philly for Noel. But Howard's  still a good enough player to justify that small amount of assets and  make an attempt at filling one of your weaknesses.

You actually raise an intersting point here that I hadn't even thought of.

If Howard were to come here in a trade as a rental, and really impressed in the playoffs, but Danny still decided not to gamble on a max deal...he could become a huge trade chip if out Brooklyn pick falls lower than we'd like.

The Sixers have had how many high picks in the last three years, and where has that gotten them?  Embiid has been a DNP for 2 years straight, Noel is an overglorified role player, Saric is still overseas, and Okafor looks is a one dimensional offensive big - none of those picks has gotten them a transcendent star.  They might seriously consider giving up a top 2 pick in return for an an established star plus another high pick.  If we offered them Dwight (S&T) + #5 for Noel + #1/#2 they may well bite.     

The Lakers are crazy enough that they might consider another run at Dwight now that Kobe is out of the equation.  Imagine the Lakers with Dwight, Randle and Russell, plus whoever they could draft with our #5 pick?  Dwight could carry them until the young guys develop, and then those guys could take over.  Money is no object for the Lakers management.

The Knicks might consider it too, if they get lucky and somehow jump to a top 2 pick.  Adding Dwight would almost certainly convince Melo to stick around for the long term, and a core of Melo/Dwight/Porzingis would be devastating.  The Knicks aren't exactly the type of team that is afraid of spending money or gambling with health (Ahem Amare) so the contract probably wouldn't put them off.

Even the Pelicans might do it.  Every sign indicates they want to win now rather than waste Anthony Davis' prime tanking.  A Dwight + Davis front court would be out of this world.

Dwight could form extra insurance for us in securing that top 2 pick.

[BDeCosta26]

Given the choice, I actually choose the rental.  If we lock in to Love, we are stuck with him.  If he comes to Boston and looks just as bad as he does in Cleveland, then the "lebron" excuse falls aparts, and his trade value falls through the floor.  We would get stuck with a $20M a year contract for the next 4 years that would be practically untradeable - think Amare Stoudemire.

I do not disagree here.  I too would prefer a rental this season.  But understand that a Dwight Howard rental has to be appropriately priced.  According to the little info we have, Morey's current ask is not appropriate.

So if you have to make the comparison to Love (ie a trade has to happen) it makes more sense to "pay up" for a Love who at least in under contract for a few more years and can be traded yet again if you don't like his performance, than it does to pay up for a Howard rental.

I would prefer Horford over all of them, and I think if Danny is patient enough Atlanta will crack and send us Horford for way less than Howard.

Yeah, Morey's not stupid though. I just can't imagine anyone is offering a whole lot for Howard. He's had so many problems at every place he's been, he's injury-riddled, steadily declining, unpopular in the locker room, and basically a rental due to his opt out, while it's likely someone gives him A LOT more money and years than he's worth because of the cap spike. It's highly unlikely the Rockets sign him to his next contract. So basically, you almost need to trade him. And I just don't think anyone is going to offer a whole lot for Howard.

So when it comes to zero hour, and the best deal sitting in Morey's lap is Lee, Zeller, Rozier (who Houston really liked IIRC) and the Minny or Philly pick this year, you might just have to take it. And if your the Celtics, at that price, you almost have to take the chance on the rental. Chances are he opts out, so if you don't wanna sign him long term you don't have to. But you add a guy who can make a real difference in the playoffs and turns this team into the best defensive team in the league possibly. For that price, even if you don't resign him, which you shouldn't, you get a chance to see what having a guy like him does for your team. Who knows, maybe the Nets pick ends up at 5 and you trade it to Philly for Noel. But Howard's  still a good enough player to justify that small amount of assets and  make an attempt at filling one of your weaknesses.

You actually raise an intersting point here that I hadn't even thought of.

If Howard were to come here in a trade as a rental, and really impressed in the playoffs, but Danny still decided not to gamble on a max deal...he could become a huge trade chip if out Brooklyn pick falls lower than we'd like.

The Sixers have had how many high picks in the last three years, and where has that gotten them?  Embiid has been a DNP for 2 years straight, Noel is an overglorified role player, Saric is still overseas, and Okafor looks is a one dimensional offensive big - none of those picks has gotten them a transcendent star.  They might seriously consider giving up a top 2 pick in return for an an established star plus another high pick.  If we offered them Dwight (S&T) + #5 for Noel + #1/#2 they may well bite.     

The Lakers are crazy enough that they might consider another run at Dwight now that Kobe is out of the equation.  Imagine the Lakers with Dwight, Randle and Russell, plus whoever they could draft with our #5 pick?  Dwight could carry them until the young guys develop, and then those guys could take over.  Money is no object for the Lakers management.

The Knicks might consider it too, if they get lucky and somehow jump to a top 2 pick.  Adding Dwight would almost certainly convince Melo to stick around for the long term, and a core of Melo/Dwight/Porzingis would be devastating.  The Knicks aren't exactly the type of team that is afraid of spending money or gambling with health (Ahem Amare) so the contract probably wouldn't put them off.

Even the Pelicans might do it.  Every sign indicates they want to win now rather than waste Anthony Davis' prime tanking.  A Dwight + Davis front court would be out of this world.

Dwight could form extra insurance for us in securing that top 2 pick.

All true, but I think if it comes down to a deal like Lee, Zeller, Rozier and the Philly/Minny picks, or even a deal like Amir/Sully and our own 1st for Howard/Jones it's hard not to pick up a guy like that for that price.

Our defense has been one of the best on the league while still lacking a true rim-protector. Even at this stage, Dwight is still that kind of big man. He could instantly turn our defense into possibly the best in the league. The IT/Howard P&R combo could prove devastating, and those two in a line-up surrounded by Bradley, Crowder and Olynyk, with Smart and Turner off the bench, could be just the kind of line-up that makes an ECF interesting.

However, though I think for the price Dwight could be a good addition to this current team, I can't find a reason to justify giving that guy the kind of contract he's gonna command this summer. Still, even beyond the S&T's, having Howard succeed here could not bolt boost our standing amongst future FA's but would open up a deal like #5 for Noel, because Ainge would know a guy like that could succeed on our current team.

Tbh, I really don't like Howard that much, he's got a terrible rep around the league and I'm afraid of what he could do to this team's chemistry, on top of his whole contract situation. I'd rather have Horford even if it cost a little more. But if Morey is willing to take a package like Lee, Sully/Zeller, a rookie and the Philly pick or a 1st or something, there's a whole lot of reasons to not turn that down.

[crimson_stallion]

Howard at 30 millions a year is less valuable than Horford at 20, or Love at 25. In fact, Howard at 30 millions just hinders the team and makes it impossible to compete for a title. Im not sure I would do Horford at 20 million either, but its better cause they are pretty close in their impact level.

Even at 25 millions you could only add one max player and have scraps to fill your rotation.

And thats all thinking he is an elite player. He isn't. He is still very good. He can play positional defense, but he doesn't cover as much ground as he used to, and his rim protection is no longer good. His advanced defensive stats are all down across the board, he is no longer an impactful player, he is an average rim protector, and a good positional defender.
I mean, you cite his free throw attemps like it means something. There's a reason team sending him to the line.

If I understand correctly, the current salary cap rules for max contracts are as follows:

Up to 6 years experience = 25% of cap
7-9 years experience = 30% of cap
10+ years experience = 35% of cap

If this is accurate, then based on cap projections, their contracts would be something like this...

2015/16 (cap = $70m)
Howard: $22.4 m
Horford: $12.0m
Love: $19.7M

2016/17 (cap = $89m)
Howard: $31.0 m
Horford: $26.7m
Love: $21M

2017/18 (cap = $108m)
Howard: $37.8 m
Horford: $32.4m
Love: $22.6M

2018/19 (cap = $127m)
Howard: $44.45 m
Horford: $38.1m
Love: $24.2M

2019/20 (cap = 100m)
Howard: $35.00 m
Horford: $30.0m
Love: $25.6M

I'm not sure where you get the "Howard at $30m and Horford at $20m" from, because I'm pressure sure everybody expects Horford to get a max deal, and a Max deal after this season would have Horford making only 5% more than Dwight.

The difference with Love is much more obvious, but I still think $110m over the next 5 years is too much to spend for Love, who IMHO is not even close to a difference maker.

People are far too willing to make excuses for Love's performance, and I don't get why.  Success is clearly a paradox with Love. 

He has already proven to us that he can't carry a team to success at it's #1 guy (see: 6 years in Minny), and he has already proven that he is incapable of performing if he has to sacrifice his game to co-exist with other stars (see: Cleveland).

Dwight isnt happy being a #2 guy, but at least hes proven he can get results as a #1 man, which makes that a fair request.  Dwight has led his teams to the playoffs in 8 of his 11 seasons so far, and in at least 5 of those seasons he was the undisputed #1 guy on his team.   Love has made the playoffs in 1 out of his 7 seasons so far, and he did that riding Lebron's and Kyrie's magic broomstick.

As for your comments on Dwight, I already posted his rim protection stats and he clearly is NOT an average rim protector.  He's not the best of the best, but he's very good.

His Free Throw's also do mean something.  They mean just under 4 PPG, plus an additional 3-4 personal fouls counting against the opposing team.

In regular season games, go right ahead - put a useless end of bench guy in the game and play hack-a-Howard.   Try that in a closely fought playoff game and see how far you get.  It's been well documented that the percentage Dwight shoots from the line (~ 55%) is about the point where intentional fouling starts to hurt rather than help. 

Dwight gets to the line because he is a beast around the basket, and once he gets position in the paint he's practically unstoppable (hence his 75% FG inside 3 feet, versus some 55% for Love).  You foul him because you'd take your chance on two free throws rather than give up an easy two points. 

Give Howard more touches and he'll be getting to the line 10+ times a night, which means at least 5 fouls counting against the opposing team.  Combine that with Thomas' ability to get to the line, and opposing teams would have you in the bonus almost every night.  If you don't think that's a significant advantage, then I don't know what to tell you.

See, you mention the difference in cost and i get that.  But I'm willing to pay that, because i believe that the skills Dwight offers make this team good enough to beat Cleveland and Toronto in a 7 game series, maybe even San Antonio.  With Howard plus one more piece, i believe we have a shot against Golden State.

I don't believe any of that is true if you add Love or Horford.  I dont think eother of those guys makes us good enough to avoid us getting slapped by Cleveland.

We are an Eastern Conference rival that the Cavs dont want to have to play.  Last thing they want to do is gift us Kevin Love and risk us giving them a scare in the ECF.  If we got Love, they would make us pay through the teeth with core players that would threaten to weaken us.

Houston are far more likely to give us Howard at a discount price, without making us break up our core.

Id rather pay $35m for Dwight and a shot at the NBA finals, rather than paying $20m for Love and an ECF sweep at the hands of the Cavs.

[guava_wrench]

Given the choice, I actually choose the rental.  If we lock in to Love, we are stuck with him.  If he comes to Boston and looks just as bad as he does in Cleveland, then the "lebron" excuse falls aparts, and his trade value falls through the floor.  We would get stuck with a $20M a year contract for the next 4 years that would be practically untradeable - think Amare Stoudemire.

I do not disagree here.  I too would prefer a rental this season.  But understand that a Dwight Howard rental has to be appropriately priced.  According to the little info we have, Morey's current ask is not appropriate.

So if you have to make the comparison to Love (ie a trade has to happen) it makes more sense to "pay up" for a Love who at least in under contract for a few more years and can be traded yet again if you don't like his performance, than it does to pay up for a Howard rental.

I would prefer Horford over all of them, and I think if Danny is patient enough Atlanta will crack and send us Horford for way less than Howard.

I'll pass on a rental. Why would we give up good future assets for that? To increase our chances of winning a series? Any valuable assets should be used for long term improvements -- meaning players who can be part of a future contender.

Has anyone noticed how many people think that our draft pick assets are less risky than Kevin Love, a guy who has actually performed at an elite level in the NBA? I have never been a big Love backer, but I think some people have very skewed perceptions.

Amare had no value because he was physically broken.

[Moranis]

Given the choice, I actually choose the rental.  If we lock in to Love, we are stuck with him.  If he comes to Boston and looks just as bad as he does in Cleveland, then the "lebron" excuse falls aparts, and his trade value falls through the floor.  We would get stuck with a $20M a year contract for the next 4 years that would be practically untradeable - think Amare Stoudemire.

I do not disagree here.  I too would prefer a rental this season.  But understand that a Dwight Howard rental has to be appropriately priced.  According to the little info we have, Morey's current ask is not appropriate.

So if you have to make the comparison to Love (ie a trade has to happen) it makes more sense to "pay up" for a Love who at least in under contract for a few more years and can be traded yet again if you don't like his performance, than it does to pay up for a Howard rental.

I would prefer Horford over all of them, and I think if Danny is patient enough Atlanta will crack and send us Horford for way less than Howard.

I'll pass on a rental. Why would we give up good future assets for that? To increase our chances of winning a series? Any valuable assets should be used for long term improvements -- meaning players who can be part of a future contender.

Has anyone noticed how many people think that our draft pick assets are less risky than Kevin Love, a guy who has actually performed at an elite level in the NBA? I have never been a big Love backer, but I think some people have very skewed perceptions.

Amare had no value because he was physically broken.

depends on what the future "assets" are.  I mean does Boston really need another mid 1st round pick to sit on the bench collecting dust.  If the trade is basically Lee, Rozier, and Bos' 1st this year, it seems like a trade worth making.  Rozier is buried behind Thomas and Smart and looks to be for the foreseeable future and Boston clearly doesn't need another pick in the 20's to just rot on the bench like Young, Hunter, and Rozier are doing (and not all those guys were picks in the 20's).  I mean if Howard gives you a shot at making the Cavs series close, you have to make that trade (and it isn't like Irving and Love aren't injury prone, they go down and all of a sudden a Howard led Celtics might have a shot at the NBA Finals).  If the trade requires Sullinger or another future 1st, I still think it is worth it and you never know Howard might actually like it here enough to take a more reasonable contract (less money or less years) or maybe even better yet play well enough that you don't feel bad about giving him the max.

[BDeCosta26]

Given the choice, I actually choose the rental.  If we lock in to Love, we are stuck with him.  If he comes to Boston and looks just as bad as he does in Cleveland, then the "lebron" excuse falls aparts, and his trade value falls through the floor.  We would get stuck with a $20M a year contract for the next 4 years that would be practically untradeable - think Amare Stoudemire.

I do not disagree here.  I too would prefer a rental this season.  But understand that a Dwight Howard rental has to be appropriately priced.  According to the little info we have, Morey's current ask is not appropriate.

So if you have to make the comparison to Love (ie a trade has to happen) it makes more sense to "pay up" for a Love who at least in under contract for a few more years and can be traded yet again if you don't like his performance, than it does to pay up for a Howard rental.

I would prefer Horford over all of them, and I think if Danny is patient enough Atlanta will crack and send us Horford for way less than Howard.

I'll pass on a rental. Why would we give up good future assets for that? To increase our chances of winning a series? Any valuable assets should be used for long term improvements -- meaning players who can be part of a future contender.

Has anyone noticed how many people think that our draft pick assets are less risky than Kevin Love, a guy who has actually performed at an elite level in the NBA? I have never been a big Love backer, but I think some people have very skewed perceptions.

Amare had no value because he was physically broken.

depends on what the future "assets" are.  I mean does Boston really need another mid 1st round pick to sit on the bench collecting dust.  If the trade is basically Lee, Rozier, and Bos' 1st this year, it seems like a trade worth making.  Rozier is buried behind Thomas and Smart and looks to be for the foreseeable future and Boston clearly doesn't need another pick in the 20's to just rot on the bench like Young, Hunter, and Rozier are doing (and not all those guys were picks in the 20's).  I mean if Howard gives you a shot at making the Cavs series close, you have to make that trade (and it isn't like Irving and Love aren't injury prone, they go down and all of a sudden a Howard led Celtics might have a shot at the NBA Finals).  If the trade requires Sullinger or another future 1st, I still think it is worth it and you never know Howard might actually like it here enough to take a more reasonable contract (less money or less years) or maybe even better yet play well enough that you don't feel bad about giving him the max.

See, that's the thing. People overstate it at times, but consolidation has to occur. We have a ton of mid-1sts/early 2nds coming up, 3 rookies and a sophomore who are all promising in their own way but just don't have a chance at PT. It's unlikel we resign Sully of he wants full market value. Lee, Sully, Rozier and the Minny pick for Howard is a deal you just gotta take, considering the potential upside.

Even if you just don't wanna sign him long term, then just don't. He's very likely to opt out anyway, and If you don't wanna pay him you don't have to. Now you know what a guy with his skills can do for your team though, and then maybe you make a run for a younger rim protector kinda guy, like trading Philly #5 (if that's where BRK lands) for Noel or something.

[ssspence]

I think the Rockets will be lucky to get one 1st round pick along with no salary commitments for next season for Howard at this point. Dude just makes so little sense for so many teams when you factor the combo of fit on the floor, concerns off it, trade conditions, and risk.

Charlotte = no. Miami has no picks to offer and it's difficult to make the number works. Knicks have nothing to offer. Nets make no sense. Can't see Portland taking him, since he won't stay. Etc etc.

Who is going to offer anything of value?

[slamtheking]

I think the Rockets will be lucky to get one 1st round pick along with no salary commitments for next season for Howard at this point. Dude just makes so little sense for so many teams when you factor both fit, trade conditions, and risk.

Charlotte = no. Miami has no picks to offer and it's difficult to make the number works. Knicks have nothing to offer. Nets make no sense. Can't see Portland taking him, since he won't stay. Etc etc.

Who is going to offer anything of value?

I think that's something that's getting overlooked in the pursuit of the Howard rental.  of the players who can be FA's after this season, Howard is the one considered most likely to bolt his new team for greener pastures.  who would have the assets that Houston wants that would also take the risk of Howard leaving them with nothing after this season?  I really can't see many teams considering that type of deal.  Boston's got the volume of assets to make a deal and still have plenty left over if Howard walks but is Howard really worth more than Sully/Amir, Lee and a very late first this year?  That's as much as I would consider giving up.  No prospects but give Houston a chance to sign a good young player in Sully (or take Amir up on his option for next season to hold the center spot), an opportunity to resign Lee to a much cheaper deal to come off their bench and a chance at a late prospect in the draft.

[LilRip]

I wouldn't mind giving up a first for Dwight. I think it's a calculated risk. The pattern I've seen is that players generally love playing for Boston, but only after they've been able to play as a Celtic. Low acquisition but high retention, if you will. I think once Dwight dons the green, he'd want to stay here. If he thinks we have a chance at landing Durant (I don't, tbh) and form a "big 3" with him, KD and IT4, I'm pretty sure he'd be willing to take a pay cut as well.

People are still hung up on the "goofball Dwight" image when he's toned it down considerably since leaving Orl and LA. People are on him about missing back to backs when that was only to start the year (after coming off injury from last year) and he's been off his minutes restriction for several weeks now.

[ssspence]

I think the Rockets will be lucky to get one 1st round pick along with no salary commitments for next season for Howard at this point. Dude just makes so little sense for so many teams when you factor both fit, trade conditions, and risk.

Charlotte = no. Miami has no picks to offer and it's difficult to make the number works. Knicks have nothing to offer. Nets make no sense. Can't see Portland taking him, since he won't stay. Etc etc.

Who is going to offer anything of value?

I think that's something that's getting overlooked in the pursuit of the Howard rental.  of the players who can be FA's after this season, Howard is the one considered most likely to bolt his new team for greener pastures.  who would have the assets that Houston wants that would also take the risk of Howard leaving them with nothing after this season?  I really can't see many teams considering that type of deal.  Boston's got the volume of assets to make a deal and still have plenty left over if Howard walks but is Howard really worth more than Sully/Amir, Lee and a very late first this year?  That's as much as I would consider giving up.  No prospects but give Houston a chance to sign a good young player in Sully (or take Amir up on his option for next season to hold the center spot), an opportunity to resign Lee to a much cheaper deal to come off their bench and a chance at a late prospect in the draft.

Right. Can anyone name a team (other than the Cs) who could AND would give up the contracts needed to trade for Howard -- with only players that are actual assets having guaranteed money for next season -- and a pick?

While Miami has no picks, they could do a variety of deals as long as they're open to moving Dragic and Deng. Riley may be desperate to contend now, but I have a hard time believing he'd do that.

He gave up two firsts a year ago for GD -- now he's gonna ship him out (with Deng) for a Howard rental + the right to bid to overpay him this summer against small market teams who will happily do so? When they don't stand a chance of winning this year?

 

[ssspence]

I wouldn't mind giving up a first for Dwight. I think it's a calculated risk. The pattern I've seen is that players generally love playing for Boston, but only after they've been able to play as a Celtic. Low acquisition but high retention, if you will. I think once Dwight dons the green, he'd want to stay here. If he thinks we have a chance at landing Durant (I don't, tbh) and form a "big 3" with him, KD and IT4, I'm pretty sure he'd be willing to take a pay cut as well.

People are still hung up on the "goofball Dwight" image when he's toned it down considerably since leaving Orl and LA. People are on him about missing back to backs when that was only to start the year (after coming off injury from last year) and he's been off his minutes restriction for several weeks now.

I agree. Challenge is: Howard for Lee + pick doesn't work straight up. And I don't see Danny trading a current player (in addition to Lee) and a 2016 1st for Howard.

Would Houston accept Sully + Lee for Howard? Or Sully, Lee and MIA 2016 2nd rounder?

[JBcat]

I wouldn't mind giving up a first for Dwight. I think it's a calculated risk. The pattern I've seen is that players generally love playing for Boston, but only after they've been able to play as a Celtic. Low acquisition but high retention, if you will. I think once Dwight dons the green, he'd want to stay here. If he thinks we have a chance at landing Durant (I don't, tbh) and form a "big 3" with him, KD and IT4, I'm pretty sure he'd be willing to take a pay cut as well.

People are still hung up on the "goofball Dwight" image when he's toned it down considerably since leaving Orl and LA. People are on him about missing back to backs when that was only to start the year (after coming off injury from last year) and he's been off his minutes restriction for several weeks now.

I agree. Challenge is: Howard for Lee + pick doesn't work straight up. And I don't see Danny trading a current player (in addition to Lee) and a 2016 1st for Howard.

Would Houston accept Sully + Lee for Howard? Or Sully, Lee and MIA 2016 2nd rounder?

In place of Sully what about Lee, Zeller, and our first (maybe lottery protect if somehow we sink) for Howard.  I can't see the Rockets doing a whole lot better than that.  Similar to the Rondo trade last year.

[mef730]

I wouldn't mind giving up a first for Dwight. I think it's a calculated risk. The pattern I've seen is that players generally love playing for Boston, but only after they've been able to play as a Celtic. Low acquisition but high retention, if you will. I think once Dwight dons the green, he'd want to stay here. If he thinks we have a chance at landing Durant (I don't, tbh) and form a "big 3" with him, KD and IT4, I'm pretty sure he'd be willing to take a pay cut as well.

People are still hung up on the "goofball Dwight" image when he's toned it down considerably since leaving Orl and LA. People are on him about missing back to backs when that was only to start the year (after coming off injury from last year) and he's been off his minutes restriction for several weeks now.

I agree. Challenge is: Howard for Lee + pick doesn't work straight up. And I don't see Danny trading a current player (in addition to Lee) and a 2016 1st for Howard.

Would Houston accept Sully + Lee for Howard? Or Sully, Lee and MIA 2016 2nd rounder?

In place of Sully what about Lee, Zeller, and our first (maybe lottery protect if somehow we sink) for Howard.  I can't see the Rockets doing a whole lot better than that.  Similar to the Rondo trade last year.

Not a huge fan of Howard long-term due to many of the issues raised here, but if that's the price, I'm all over it for a rental.

Mike