Westbrook Trade Rumors (Beck)

[ashanm10]

i think the only time i feel happy to cash in everything would be for (As much as i hate/respect that guy) Lebron and none other lol XD

[Kuberski33]

With no extension I'd give up Rozier and one other player who's not one of the key rotation guys (I'm including Brown in the rotation).  That's it.

[chiken Green]

Great players don't get traded on the first two years of their deals. And deals are now all 4 years (with player option after 3) or 5 years (with a player option after 4).

Any player we trade for is going to be either a FA after a single season or best case scenario you get them for two. If you're not willing to trade for a rental player or a short term deal you're just not willing to trade for great talent.

TP, very underappreciated point. Teams aren't just willingly selling away top 15-20 players unless they absolutely have to.

That doesn't make them worth paying more for, though.    If you aren't confident that you can retain the player past next summer, it's a rental.

Westbrook in particular scares me that he would not be willing to re-sign in Boston because:

a) He's clearly going to leave OKC -- so that means that Bird Rights' contractual advantage is not going to be enough to convince him to stay.  So trading for him now would give Boston no particular advantage due to Bird Rights.   He is perfectly willing to sign a non-Bird FA max contract with a different team in order to exercise his finally-won ability to decide where he wants to play.
b) He's from Long Beach, CA.
c) He's got pretty well known business and personal interests in the fashion industry and celebrity pop culture.
d) He just bought a 4.65M mansion in Beverly Hills (from some dude who is on one of the reality shows (Kardashians?).
e) The Lakers will have enough cap space to sign him to a max contract plus an attractive, "Come back to your home town and rebuild the next great Laker dynasty with all our young talent, Russ!", sales pitch.
d) The Clippers almost certainly could move one of their big assets (CP3) to clear cap space to sign him.

What about any of that would give you confidence that he would stay in Boston?

All signs to me indicate he will most likely end up going to one of the LA teams.

Sure, any star we might trade for is likely to only have 1 or 2 years remaining on their deal.  But I don't think all one-year-rentals are created equally.

For example, if we traded for Gordon Hayward, I'd expect that the probability that he would sign long term with the Celtics to be extremely high.   That said, that doesn't mean I'd want to trade very much for Hayward, either.  Because if we think we have a very high probability of signing a player to sign here long term, why not just wait and sign him next year in free agency, and not give up significant assets?

Ultimately it comes down to price.  I'd be willing to give up a little for Hayward to get him here early, but definitely not a lot because he's not going to win us Banner 18 this year.   

And I'd be willing to give up even less for Westbrook to get him here early because I don't have faith that he will resign and, again, he's not going to win us Banner 18 this year.

If the Lakers' pitch to Westbrook is to rebuild a dynasty rather than jump into a ready-made contender and create one, their proposal is dead in the water already. More than anything, the dude hates losing. I don't see any way he goes to the Lakers unless they're a competitive team this year or make the requisite moves next offseason to become one beforehand. He might seem like an L.A. guy, but he's even more of a "I'm obsessive about winning" guy.

The Lakers are poised to be impressive in the very near future. They have Room to  bring in 2 max guys, they have 2 top 2 picks and one top 10 pick already in the line up. Each with at least 2 years under the belt before Russell gets there in 2017.. Ingram is going to be a player whether we like it or not..  when they Add Russ they will have room for 1 more max player.. That pitch is exactly what we are pitching.  They have what Cleveland had when they brought their Cleveland guy back for the 2nd time.

[SparzWizard]

And I hear other Celtics fans saying "you don't know basketball if you don't trade for Russell Westbrook he is a top 3 PG in the league blah blah blah" 

I think almost every team would want him on their team- it's just the context of his contract, and what the C's are willing to give up for.

[mef730]

Another article about RW to C's


http://www.sportsrageous.com/nba/nba-rumors-celtics-nears-deal-star-player-demarcus-cousins-russell-westbrook/34810/

It doesn't matter who does/does not get traded. The big winner of this deal (or lack thereof) is Dan Lifshatz. I never would have imagined that his original tweets would have gotten so much traction.

Mike

[dannyboy35]

Gotcha. Thanks guys.

[walker834]

Disapointed if we sell out for this guy. Is the talent level that bad in the nba where we have to bring in complete **** ballhogs?  I also dont think Westbrook puts us in the best position to win a championship.

[RJ87]

That doesn't make them worth paying more for, though.    If you aren't confident that you can retain the player past next summer, it's a rental.

Westbrook in particular scares me that he would not be willing to re-sign in Boston because:

a) He's clearly going to leave OKC -- so that means that Bird Rights' contractual advantage is not going to be enough to convince him to stay.  So trading for him now would give Boston no particular advantage due to Bird Rights.   He is perfectly willing to sign a non-Bird FA max contract with a different team in order to exercise his finally-won ability to decide where he wants to play.
b) He's from Long Beach, CA.
c) He's got pretty well known business and personal interests in the fashion industry and celebrity pop culture.
d) He just bought a 4.65M mansion in Beverly Hills (from some dude who is on one of the reality shows (Kardashians?).
e) The Lakers will have enough cap space to sign him to a max contract plus an attractive, "Come back to your home town and rebuild the next great Laker dynasty with all our young talent, Russ!", sales pitch.
d) The Clippers almost certainly could move one of their big assets (CP3) to clear cap space to sign him.

What about any of that would give you confidence that he would stay in Boston?

All signs to me indicate he will most likely end up going to one of the LA teams.

Sure, any star we might trade for is likely to only have 1 or 2 years remaining on their deal.  But I don't think all one-year-rentals are created equally.

For example, if we traded for Gordon Hayward, I'd expect that the probability that he would sign long term with the Celtics to be extremely high.   That said, that doesn't mean I'd want to trade very much for Hayward, either.  Because if we think we have a very high probability of signing a player to sign here long term, why not just wait and sign him next year in free agency, and not give up significant assets?

Ultimately it comes down to price.  I'd be willing to give up a little for Hayward to get him here early, but definitely not a lot because he's not going to win us Banner 18 this year.   

And I'd be willing to give up even less for Westbrook to get him here early because I don't have faith that he will resign and, again, he's not going to win us Banner 18 this year.

If the Lakers' pitch to Westbrook is to rebuild a dynasty rather than jump into a ready-made contender and create one, their proposal is dead in the water already. More than anything, the dude hates losing. I don't see any way he goes to the Lakers unless they're a competitive team this year or make the requisite moves next offseason to become one beforehand. He might seem like an L.A. guy, but he's even more of a "I'm obsessive about winning" guy.

The Lakers are poised to be impressive in the very near future. They have Room to  bring in 2 max guys, they have 2 top 2 picks and one top 10 pick already in the line up. Each with at least 2 years under the belt before Russell gets there in 2017.. Ingram is going to be a player whether we like it or not..  when they Add Russ they will have 1 room for 1 more max player.. That pitch is exactly what we are pitching.  They have what Cleveland had when they brought their Cleveland guy back for the 2nd time.

They couldn't even get a meeting with Durant, so people might be overestimating where the Lakers are right now.

Again, Russ as a sure lock to LA seems to be the narrative but there's nothing to substantiate any of that. People said the same thing about Kevin Love, but he opted out and resigned in Cleveland. So what if Russ just bought a house there? You know who also bought a house in Beverly Hills this offseason? Lebron James. Do we think he's going to the Lakers? Chandler Parsons is also another athlete who has interests in fashion and celebrity, and allegedly had interest from the Lakers, and he ended up in Memphis.

My point is, you can't assume any of these guys have a predetermined destination and working on that assumption will cost us opportunities. I think Russ is really competitive and he wants to be in a situation where he has a good chance to win. Maybe that's in Boston, maybe it's not.

[Boris Badenov]

The time is now. Horford's 29. Our other guys, whoever we would keep, aren't so young either.

We've been accumulating these assets with the goal of getting a top 10 player. Russell is one.

If we end up moving a significant share of our young guys and picks, so be it. We will surely retain enough other assets of medium value, and the higher cap along with our existing set of players means we can still pickup the 2B to Horford's 2A if need be.

And once we have those guys, we will be a destination for the David Wests of the world who will sign for peanuts in order to win. Concerns about depth are overblown and picking up 6th-10th men is a heckuva lot easier than getting an MVP-level player.

Giving up both Brooklyn picks is not too high a price. Even in a deep 2017 draft, that BKN pick has about a 10% chance of getting you someone as good as or better than Westbrook, and the odds are even worse in 2018.

If we can do this without breaking up the core of the current rotation, it should be done

[Endless Paradise]

"complete **** ballhogs" who were second in the league in assists per game. 

Great players don't get traded on the first two years of their deals. And deals are now all 4 years (with player option after 3) or 5 years (with a player option after 4).

Any player we trade for is going to be either a FA after a single season or best case scenario you get them for two. If you're not willing to trade for a rental player or a short term deal you're just not willing to trade for great talent.

TP, very underappreciated point. Teams aren't just willingly selling away top 15-20 players unless they absolutely have to.

That doesn't make them worth paying more for, though.    If you aren't confident that you can retain the player past next summer, it's a rental.

Westbrook in particular scares me that he would not be willing to re-sign in Boston because:

a) He's clearly going to leave OKC -- so that means that Bird Rights' contractual advantage is not going to be enough to convince him to stay.  So trading for him now would give Boston no particular advantage due to Bird Rights.   He is perfectly willing to sign a non-Bird FA max contract with a different team in order to exercise his finally-won ability to decide where he wants to play.
b) He's from Long Beach, CA.
c) He's got pretty well known business and personal interests in the fashion industry and celebrity pop culture.
d) He just bought a 4.65M mansion in Beverly Hills (from some dude who is on one of the reality shows (Kardashians?).
e) The Lakers will have enough cap space to sign him to a max contract plus an attractive, "Come back to your home town and rebuild the next great Laker dynasty with all our young talent, Russ!", sales pitch.
d) The Clippers almost certainly could move one of their big assets (CP3) to clear cap space to sign him.

What about any of that would give you confidence that he would stay in Boston?

All signs to me indicate he will most likely end up going to one of the LA teams.

Sure, any star we might trade for is likely to only have 1 or 2 years remaining on their deal.  But I don't think all one-year-rentals are created equally.

For example, if we traded for Gordon Hayward, I'd expect that the probability that he would sign long term with the Celtics to be extremely high.   That said, that doesn't mean I'd want to trade very much for Hayward, either.  Because if we think we have a very high probability of signing a player to sign here long term, why not just wait and sign him next year in free agency, and not give up significant assets?

Ultimately it comes down to price.  I'd be willing to give up a little for Hayward to get him here early, but definitely not a lot because he's not going to win us Banner 18 this year.   

And I'd be willing to give up even less for Westbrook to get him here early because I don't have faith that he will resign and, again, he's not going to win us Banner 18 this year.

If the Lakers' pitch to Westbrook is to rebuild a dynasty rather than jump into a ready-made contender and create one, their proposal is dead in the water already. More than anything, the dude hates losing. I don't see any way he goes to the Lakers unless they're a competitive team this year or make the requisite moves next offseason to become one beforehand. He might seem like an L.A. guy, but he's even more of a "I'm obsessive about winning" guy.

The Lakers are poised to be impressive in the very near future. They have Room to  bring in 2 max guys, they have 2 top 2 picks and one top 10 pick already in the line up. Each with at least 2 years under the belt before Russell gets there in 2017.. Ingram is going to be a player whether we like it or not..  when they Add Russ they will have room for 1 more max player.. That pitch is exactly what we are pitching.  They have what Cleveland had when they brought their Cleveland guy back for the 2nd time.

That's the exact same argument people were making this offseason once it was discovered that the Lakers were going to get the second pick in the draft... they then couldn't sign anyone besides Luol Deng and Timofey Mozgov.

Elite veterans aren't looking to teach young guys how to play. If the Lakers prove they're actually good this season, then they'll have a better pitch, but if they're just relying on hope and the allure of the Laker brand, they'd better get used to more guys completely shunning them, KD-style.

[Endless Paradise]

Also, you simply CANNOT compare LeBron going back to Cleveland to any other free agent moving to any other team. Every single dynamic was completely different, the most important of which were a) LeBron being from the area AND b) actually having been drafted by the Cavs.

[tyrone biggums]

Agreed, Russ would not work with Brad's offense.  Let's keeping developing current core and draft Harry Giles next summer.

What makes you think Ainge would go with the obvious pick? He likes making picks that allows him to look like a genius. That tells me Giles is not enough of a project to make Danny draft him.

[walker834]

League sources feel we would be the most likely destination because we have what OKC would want doesn't mean  DA feels that way.

These rumors always change.  Probably why they are rumors.

[MetroGlobe]

i think the only time i feel happy to cash in everything would be for (As much as i hate/respect that guy) Lebron and none other lol XD

Lebron James?  On the Celtics?  The Boston Celtics?  Absolutely no way.  Not ever.  That would be like Kobe joining the Celtics.  Or Kareem.  Eff no!

[footey]

Ainge will not give up any meaningful assets unless Westbrook agrees to extension. Would be insanity otherwise.