I disagree somewhat. If we had added to the team, that shows free agents we're not complacent. If a rental gets us one round further in the playoffs, that's a message to free agents that we're a threat.
Assume you're Gordon Hayward. If Utah makes it to the second round, and the Celts lose in the first, does that tip the scales? If so, wouldn't it have made sense to trade some second rounders for Tucker or Noel?
Bingo. Not only do we have too many of these lesser assets to use/keep anyways (RJ Hunter anyone?), but it also would've bolstered our playoff run this year. A potential first or second round loss is a much harder sell to a Griffin or Hayward this summer than an ECF Finsls berth. And the price/cost to potential reward ratio of these types of deals (Tucker, Noel, and even Ibaka) were still very favorable to the club taking the chance on them.
As evidence of this, look how helpful both Tucker and Ibaka have been so far in Toronto, and Noel has had nothing but glowing reviews out of Dallas so far. All three of them would've been super beneficial to us, and Noel would've ended up a long-term core piece for us, too.
Tucker is the only one that qualifies here. If we are talking about the non factor assets that he was acquired for, the 2nd round picks, then fine. But Ibaka cost Terrence Ross and a 1st. It's very reasonable to not want to give that up for a guy not in your long term plan. As for Noel, he completely ruins any cap space options this summer. I get that some fans love the idea of his blocks and his defense but in reality he would have detracted from this team and what its strengths are.
The issue with Tuxker is where do his minutes come from? In Toronto they are relatively easy to come by. In Boston the only guy who I would take minutes from is JJ, but then we play even smaller which could be a problem. He isn't taking minutes from Crowder, Brown, Smart or Bradley
Naw, Noel was still workable. You could still get someone like Hayward this summer even with his cap hold, though you'd have to let KO go and trade Bradley for future draft considerations, which might've happened no matter what, along with losing one of our other end of the bench players iirc. But it was certainly still doable.
As for Ibaka, I still think evaluating his fit here for the rest of the season was worth the minimal assets it would've cost to get him. We still could've had just as much (actually a bit more) cap space this summer by an Ibaka trade of Zeller, Rozier, and the Clips pick, which was the reported price, and that's a price we should be willing to pay, even if we decided to waive our rights to him this summer. That's why you stockpile assets to make those types of moves. That Clippers pick won't be anything substantial (lottery-protected anyways iirc), and Rozier ultimately has no place on this roster with IT, AB, and Smart all significantly ahead of him, especially after we draft a Fultz or Ball type this summer.
Though I still think he would've fit in here like a glove, and we could've ultimately liked his fit enough to resign him long-term as we build our younger core. I ultimately think someone like Ibaka would've given us a legit chance to beat Cleveland, and even GS sans Durant, if that's the case in June. He just fits what we need in a stretch 4 so well on both sides of the ball that it was completely worth the risk of trading those minimal assets for him.
Topic: All in all, the best option was not to give any assets for rentals (Read 2821 times)