Kevin Pelton - 6 Cs Trade Scenarios

[BitterJim]

Surprised how many are for the Monroe trade. He has negative value. He makes teams worse. No way I would ever want the Celtics to trade for him.

The picks given up would be lucky to even play an NBA game.  Monroe would be an upgrade on Sully.  I don't see how anyone can say that it's a bad trade (except the Bucks)

[Eddie20]

Surprised how many are for the Monroe trade. He has negative value. He makes teams worse. No way I would ever want the Celtics to trade for him.

Low risk/high reward guy. He will likely be opting out after the 16-17 season, so in theory it's an expiring deal. Getting him for the 31 and 51 is excellent value for a guy that will provide some inside scoring, rebounding, and good passing. There was also a stat I heard (I don't remember where) that he was one of the best and most efficient scorers in the NBA during the 4Q and crunchtime possessions.

[LooseCannon]

Love, just love trade idea number 4.

I'd be willing to pay a bit more, but I'd want to use him in a role as the first big off the bench.

[DarkAzcura]

Surprised how many are for the Monroe trade. He has negative value. He makes teams worse. No way I would ever want the Celtics to trade for him.

The picks given up would be lucky to even play an NBA game.  Monroe would be an upgrade on Sully.  I don't see how anyone can say that it's a bad trade (except the Bucks)

If I think a player will make the team worse, I don't really care if we are giving up nothing. It would be a bad trade for us. He is better than Sully, but he has a history of making every team he plays on worse now. Detroit and Mil. The Bucks are probably dying to get rid of him now. If you want to take a flier on him just to see if Stevens can work magic with him, I guess it would be fine, but this isn't really as much of a home run as some are making it seem, IMO. It doesn't matter if those picks are unlikely to play a game in the NBA, because I'd prefer the team not to become worse. He is negative value in my mind so giving up any asset for him second rounders included is not good.

[heyvik]

Surprised how many are for the Monroe trade. He has negative value. He makes teams worse. No way I would ever want the Celtics to trade for him.

The picks given up would be lucky to even play an NBA game.  Monroe would be an upgrade on Sully.  I don't see how anyone can say that it's a bad trade (except the Bucks)

only downer would be his salary

[Vox_Populi]

Surprised how many are for the Monroe trade. He has negative value. He makes teams worse. No way I would ever want the Celtics to trade for him.

I've said it before, Greg Monroe's minutes per game have gone down every year for four straight seasons. On teams that are always in the lottery and typically struggle tremendously to score the ball.

[DarkAzcura]

Surprised how many are for the Monroe trade. He has negative value. He makes teams worse. No way I would ever want the Celtics to trade for him.

I've said it before, Greg Monroe's minutes per game have gone down every year for four straight seasons. On teams that are always in the lottery and typically struggle tremendously to score the ball.

Exactly. He's not a good enough or consistent enough talent to change your offense around to make him work. He will make every Celtic around him worse and make this team worse especially considering we aren't the best shooting team around. The paint will be clogged, and IT will never be able to drive because Monroe can't really step out to shoot the ball consistently. Monroe himself isn't consistent enough to make the offense tailored to his specific needs.

[hpantazo]

Surprised how many are for the Monroe trade. He has negative value. He makes teams worse. No way I would ever want the Celtics to trade for him.

The picks given up would be lucky to even play an NBA game.  Monroe would be an upgrade on Sully.  I don't see how anyone can say that it's a bad trade (except the Bucks)

only downer would be his salary

His salary is a legit downside because it would take away our ability to sign two max free agents. Is losing that worth it for Monroe?

[td450]

It seems odd to me that so many posters aren't accepting how the NBA landscape has changed for big men.

Having a big man that can't spread the floor is bad.

Having a big man that can't show and recover on pick and rolls AND can't spread the floor is death.

Greg Monroe is not a starting player for a competitive team. It looks like he will never be.

Okafor is young, but until he solves one of these two problems, he isn't a starting caliber player either.

[jpotter33]

Surprised how many are for the Monroe trade. He has negative value. He makes teams worse. No way I would ever want the Celtics to trade for him.

Low risk/high reward guy. He will likely be opting out after the 16-17 season, so in theory it's an expiring deal. Getting him for the 31 and 51 is excellent value for a guy that will provide some inside scoring, rebounding, and good passing. There was also a stat I heard (I don't remember where) that he was one of the best and most efficient scorers in the NBA during the 4Q and crunchtime possessions.

Holy hell, I didn't know that Monroe had a player option for the third year of his deal. Yeah, there's absolutely no way that you don't trade two second rounders for him. If we can't get something like a Love/Noel pairing going, I'd definitely get Milwaukee to send him over on the cheap.

[BleedGreen1989]

It seems odd to me that so many posters aren't accepting how the NBA landscape has changed for big men.

Having a big man that can't spread the floor is bad.

Having a big man that can't show and recover on pick and rolls AND can't spread the floor is death.

Greg Monroe is not a starting player for a competitive team. It looks like he will never be.

Okafor is young, but until he solves one of these two problems, he isn't a starting caliber player either.

Preach.

[MetroGlobe]

only downer would be his salary

But we're going to be paying that salary to someone anyway.  Sullinger is and Zeller are gonzo (or we would have to pay that kind of $$ to keep them).

[Csfan1984]

I'd take Monroe deal. Would be nice to see how that level and type of big man would fit in without committing too much assets or long term $. Biggest thing is this draft is loaded with bigs. Even at 31 you could land a rotation big man. It's pretty nuts.

[MBunge]

Surprised how many are for the Monroe trade. He has negative value. He makes teams worse. No way I would ever want the Celtics to trade for him.

I have soured a lot on Monroe...but for two second round picks?  How can could Boston say no?  Worst comes to worst, Monroe would still be a huge upgrade on Zeller.

Mike

[MBunge]

It seems odd to me that so many posters aren't accepting how the NBA landscape has changed for big men.

Having a big man that can't spread the floor is bad.

Having a big man that can't show and recover on pick and rolls AND can't spread the floor is death.

Greg Monroe is not a starting player for a competitive team. It looks like he will never be.

Okafor is young, but until he solves one of these two problems, he isn't a starting caliber player either.

The trade is essentially giving up two second round picks and some salary cap space to replace Zeller with a guy who averaged over 15 and 8 last season.  Monroe last season would have been Boston's leading rebounder and third leading scorer.  For two second round picks.

I'm not a Monroe fan, but...TWO SECOND ROUND PICKS?

Mike