Crowder, Jackson, Mickey, BOS 2018 for Carmelo?

[crimson_stallion]

if they can't get hayward, then the max i offer is amir (s&t) + marcus + jackson + mickey, no way am i trading crowder or the nets unprotected pick

it would work trade rules wise if camelo argreed to forgoe his trade kicker,

carmelo trade value is at a all time low, jackson had done his best to acheive that plus carmelo has only 1 year plus a player option left in his contract anyway.

i think carmelo might be talked into staying in the same divison as the knicks as extra motivation, he has the no trade clause so he has leverage

however i feel jackson hates the c's, and will try to steer him the the clippers

Melo has already stated that he will lift the NTC if he's going to the Celtics. And Jackson don't have much choice as in the end, Melo will be the one to decide which team he can go.

As for Smart, why the hell would you trade this team's heart and soul? Crowder have shown nothing in the playoffs. Too slow to guard elite SFs and too short to guard PFs. He's an asset, yes. But he's not the solution at the 3 spot.

crowder >> smart, has efg of 10% points higher also his contract outlook is way better, smart is yet to get paid.

Do you watch the games or just look at the stats sheet? Even the analysts says that Smart brings something that is not measurable in stat sheet. He's a much better defender too. If Smart wasn't fouled out in game 1, the game could have been much closer in the 4th. I don't think Crowder can bring the intensity that Smart does.

I've been a huge critic of Smart for some time now, but I'm not a biased man and I will speak it as I see it. 

In these playoffs overall, I have to say that Smart may be legitimately outplaying Crowder.  Crowder's on paper numbers are better undoubtedly, but in a lot of those games he has completely disappeared for long stretches, while Smart (for all his limitations) has found a way to make an impact in just about every game so far.

Smart started off poorly against Chicago, and I was pretty furious with him to be honest.  He mad a lot of terrible decisions, forced a lot of bad shots, committed a lot of stupid turnovers.  I wasn't convinced that the good things he was doing were outweighing the bad.

But since those first two Chicago games he's been playing smarter (pun not intended), has been limiting the questionable shots, and has been really making a major impact - often at key times. 

He's earnt my respect for sure, and while I'm still not entirely sold on whether he is worthy of a lucrative extension once his contact ends, I'm more more inclined to consider it after the way he's played during these playoffs.

With Crowder it's kinda the opposite.  As far as Starters go Thomas, Bradley and Horford have all played extremely well throughout the playoffs, and other then the obvious hole at the PF spot, Crowder has been the weakest link in that starting 5.  For a guy who earned his spot here with his defence, Crowder's defence has largely been invisible - and his offence has been very inconsistent. 

At this point in time if I had to move one of our non-PF starters it would certainly be Crowder,

[Fireworks_Boom!]

Isn't Boston 2018 1st pick our means to swap with Brooklyn? If true, then absolutely no way you trade a Brooklyn pick for Carmelo.

[chambers]

Isn't Boston 2018 1st pick our means to swap with Brooklyn? If true, then absolutely no way you trade a Brooklyn pick for Carmelo.

yes. I was thinking the same thing. They probably ask for Rozier instead, or Boston 2019 (with protections).

[LilRip]

Isn't Boston 2018 1st pick our means to swap with Brooklyn? If true, then absolutely no way you trade a Brooklyn pick for Carmelo.

As far as I know, it's this 2017 pick that had swap rights. We have BKN's 2018 pick outright. Am I remembering the trade wrong?

[jambr380]

I know NYK reportedly likes Crowder, but AB would have to be the one to go if we are bringing in another huge contract. Crowder is like the only saving grace for this team (minus rookie contracts) after next year.

I think we would have more than enough bodies to cover the guard positions with IT, Smart, JB, Fultz, and Rozier.

[crimson_stallion]

I prefer Hayward.

That would be because Hayward is far better.

Yes, but salary wise, Melo's contract is more attractive. You'd have to offer Hayward $30 mil or convince him to take a slight paycut.

Melo has a $26+ million contract and a 15% trade kicker. I don't have the exact math, but Carmelo will be just as expensive as Hayward this year.

But Melo would only cost us that for one year - two at most. Assuming he accepts his option here, he'd be around 34 at the end of this deal and would probably be about ready to retire . Horford would be around 33 at that time, will probably not be starting calibre anymore, will have one year on his contract, and will probably be about ready to retire himself.

Melo's deal comes off the books in a year, Horford's comes off a year later, and we can use that $60M in cap space to sign a big free agent. 

By that time we're likely a contender, and Fultz is likely showing his potential, and chances are every free agent will look at us...so having that cap space will be very nice.

Hayward on the other hand would cost us upwards of $30M for the next 4-5 years, and when you factor that in (plus a likely max extension for Thomas) that leaves us in a pretty bad position once Horford's contract expires - since we'll probably be more than $30M above the cap, so Horford's contract expiring will do little for us...and if Hayward proves to not be the difference making franchise player some seem to believe he will be (as I expect he will not) then we could be in a bit of a screwed position. 

I also think that Fultz could probably learn a great deal from Melo, who is not only a highly confident and competitive player, but is also one of the most skilled offensive players of this generation.  Carmelo in his prime was an infinitely superior offensive player then Hayward is now.  Hell even current day Carmelo (at 32 YO) may still be a superior offensive player to Hayward.   

The most important part however, is this.

Lebron James is not twitching an eyelid knowing he's facing up against Hayward.  Gordon Hayward is not a concern to Lebron James.  Gordon Hayward is not a threat to Lebron James.  To Lebron James, Gordon Hayward is just another kid lining up to be demoralised, and Gordon Hayward probably knows it.  I don't see Hayward having a "Lebron killer" personality.  He doesn't believe he can beat Lebron - no matter what he says.
 
However if Lebron James knows that he's facing up against Carmelo Anthony in a 7 game series - you have got his attention.  Lebron James knows Carmelo is one of the most capable scorers of this generation.  Lebron James knows Carmelo Anthony is one of the most clutch scorers of this generation.  Lebron James knows Carmelo Anthony is capable of scoring 62 points in three quarters if he's hot - because he's done it before.

If you have Carmelo on your team, I can GUARANTEE you Lebron James is a little bit worried.  Not "oh crap, I cant beat that guy" worried, of course.  But worried in a sense that he knows if Carmelo goes completely crazy on offence (which he is capable of doing on any night), then he's capable of single highhandedly winning games - and he's capable of out-duelling Lebron himself. 

Right now, Boston doesn't really have anybody who can do that - and I don't believe that adding Gordon Hayward changes that.

[jambr380]

Isn't Boston 2018 1st pick our means to swap with Brooklyn? If true, then absolutely no way you trade a Brooklyn pick for Carmelo.

As far as I know, it's this 2017 pick that had swap rights. We have BKN's 2018 pick outright. Am I remembering the trade wrong?

You are correct. Because of the Stepien rule, BKN was not allowed to trade three consecutive picks in '16, '17, and '18 (and who knows if they would have). We outright own(ed) their '14, '16, and '18 picks with '17 being the only pick swap.

Ridiculous possible last second throw-in by Ainge. We now have the #1 pick and BKN has #27.

[Roy H.]

I prefer Hayward.

That would be because Hayward is far better.

Yes, but salary wise, Melo's contract is more attractive. You'd have to offer Hayward $30 mil or convince him to take a slight paycut.

Melo has a $26+ million contract and a 15% trade kicker. I don't have the exact math, but Carmelo will be just as expensive as Hayward this year.

But Melo would only cost us that for one year - two at most. Assuming he accepts his option here, he'd be around 34 at the end of this deal and would probably be about ready to retire . Horford would be around 33 at that time, will probably not be starting calibre anymore, will have one year on his contract, and will probably be about ready to retire himself.

Melo's deal comes off the books in a year, Horford's comes off a year later, and we can use that $60M in cap space to sign a big free agent. 

By that time we're likely a contender, and Fultz is likely showing his potential, and chances are every free agent will look at us...so having that cap space will be very nice.

Hayward on the other hand would cost us upwards of $30M for the next 4-5 years, and when you factor that in (plus a likely max extension for Thomas) that leaves us in a pretty bad position once Horford's contract expires - since we'll probably be more than $30M above the cap, so Horford's contract expiring will do little for us...and if Hayward proves to not be the difference making franchise player some seem to believe he will be (as I expect he will not) then we could be in a bit of a screwed position. 

I also think that Fultz could probably learn a great deal from Melo, who is not only a highly confident and competitive player, but is also one of the most skilled offensive players of this generation.  Carmelo in his prime was an infinitely superior offensive player then Hayward is now.  Hell even current day Carmelo (at 32 YO) may still be a superior offensive player to Hayward.   

The most important part however, is this.

Lebron James is not twitching an eyelid knowing he's facing up against Hayward.  Gordon Hayward is not a concern to Lebron James.  Gordon Hayward is not a threat to Lebron James.  To Lebron James, Gordon Hayward is just another kid lining up to be demoralised, and Gordon Hayward probably knows it.  I don't see Hayward having a "Lebron killer" personality.  He doesn't believe he can beat Lebron - no matter what he says.
 
However if Lebron James knows that he's facing up against Carmelo Anthony in a 7 game series - you have got his attention.  Lebron James knows Carmelo is one of the most capable scorers of this generation.  Lebron James knows Carmelo Anthony is one of the most clutch scorers of this generation.  Lebron James knows Carmelo Anthony is capable of scoring 62 points in three quarters if he's hot - because he's done it before.

If you have Carmelo on your team, I can GUARANTEE you Lebron James is a little bit worried.  Not "oh crap, I cant beat that guy" worried, of course.  But worried in a sense that he knows if Carmelo goes completely crazy on offence (which he is capable of doing on any night), then he's capable of single highhandedly winning games - and he's capable of out-duelling Lebron himself. 

Right now, Boston doesn't really have anybody who can do that - and I don't believe that adding Gordon Hayward changes that.

Hayward just turned 27. Unless my math is off, he won't be 33 for another 6 seasons.

Carmelo, on the other hand, turns 33 in less than two weeks.

Also, I'm interested to hear how the guy who scores the same number of points (on 3 fewer shots), has more assists, fewer turnovers, who gets to the line more, and who has the higher FG%, 3PT%, 2PT%, eFG%, FT%, and TS% is the inferior offensive player. Carmelo does grab an extra offensive rebound every ten games, so I guess there's that.

[crimson_stallion]

I prefer Hayward.

That would be because Hayward is far better.

Yes, but salary wise, Melo's contract is more attractive. You'd have to offer Hayward $30 mil or convince him to take a slight paycut.

Melo has a $26+ million contract and a 15% trade kicker. I don't have the exact math, but Carmelo will be just as expensive as Hayward this year.

But Melo would only cost us that for one year - two at most. Assuming he accepts his option here, he'd be around 34 at the end of this deal and would probably be about ready to retire . Horford would be around 33 at that time, will probably not be starting calibre anymore, will have one year on his contract, and will probably be about ready to retire himself.

Melo's deal comes off the books in a year, Horford's comes off a year later, and we can use that $60M in cap space to sign a big free agent. 

By that time we're likely a contender, and Fultz is likely showing his potential, and chances are every free agent will look at us...so having that cap space will be very nice.

Hayward on the other hand would cost us upwards of $30M for the next 4-5 years, and when you factor that in (plus a likely max extension for Thomas) that leaves us in a pretty bad position once Horford's contract expires - since we'll probably be more than $30M above the cap, so Horford's contract expiring will do little for us...and if Hayward proves to not be the difference making franchise player some seem to believe he will be (as I expect he will not) then we could be in a bit of a screwed position. 

I also think that Fultz could probably learn a great deal from Melo, who is not only a highly confident and competitive player, but is also one of the most skilled offensive players of this generation.  Carmelo in his prime was an infinitely superior offensive player then Hayward is now.  Hell even current day Carmelo (at 32 YO) may still be a superior offensive player to Hayward.   

The most important part however, is this.

Lebron James is not twitching an eyelid knowing he's facing up against Hayward.  Gordon Hayward is not a concern to Lebron James.  Gordon Hayward is not a threat to Lebron James.  To Lebron James, Gordon Hayward is just another kid lining up to be demoralised, and Gordon Hayward probably knows it.  I don't see Hayward having a "Lebron killer" personality.  He doesn't believe he can beat Lebron - no matter what he says.
 
However if Lebron James knows that he's facing up against Carmelo Anthony in a 7 game series - you have got his attention.  Lebron James knows Carmelo is one of the most capable scorers of this generation.  Lebron James knows Carmelo Anthony is one of the most clutch scorers of this generation.  Lebron James knows Carmelo Anthony is capable of scoring 62 points in three quarters if he's hot - because he's done it before.

If you have Carmelo on your team, I can GUARANTEE you Lebron James is a little bit worried.  Not "oh crap, I cant beat that guy" worried, of course.  But worried in a sense that he knows if Carmelo goes completely crazy on offence (which he is capable of doing on any night), then he's capable of single highhandedly winning games - and he's capable of out-duelling Lebron himself. 

Right now, Boston doesn't really have anybody who can do that - and I don't believe that adding Gordon Hayward changes that.

Hayward just turned 27. Unless my math is off, he won't be 33 for another 6 seasons.

Carmelo, on the other hand, turns 33 in less than two weeks.

Not sure why that is relevant? 

My point here is about cap flexibility in the future.  If we bring in Carmelo and he doesn't work out, we only get stuck to him for one or two seasons, and then he's off the books and we can move on.

If we bring Hayward in and he doesn't work out, then we get stuck with his contract for the next 4-5 years which could significantly cripple our cap flexibility in the future.

The way Hayward played this year he was good - but not good enough to be a game changer, or to scare Lebron and the Cavs.  Not good enough (IMO) to move the needle.  Especially if you need to give up a major contributer (like Bradley / Crowder) in order to get him here.

Now the one thing that could change all this is Fultz.  We already have Thomas putting up 29 PPG, and Horford doing what Horford does.  Adding Hayward improves us a lot as a team, but doesn't (IMHO) put us over the top. 

However if Fultz can give us 15 - 16 PPG in his rookie year and 19- 20 PPG in his second year, then Fultz could potentially make up for losing Bradley. But you still need to ask yourself if adding Hayward is worth it - are we better served trying to pull off a trade for a impact big who could solve some of our size/rebounding issues and help plug the hole at PF?

Or could we potentially use cap space to sign say, Nerlens Noel (to $10M - $15M a year) and then pursue a trade for Hayward?  That would allow Noel to start at center, and Horford to start at PF. 

With all the scoring we would have from Thomas/Fultz/Hayward/Horford I wouldn't be too concerned by Noel's offensive limitations - his role would be simply to defend the paint and rebound...and there is still no telling how good he could become.   

[Roy H.]

Why wouldn't Hayward "work out"? He's a 27 year old all-star.

Also, there's no "4 - 5 years". Contracts are capped at four years for outside free agents.

And yes, most of us anticipate Fultz being good sooner than later.

[Darío SpanishFan]

We have to try to sign Hayward, as it presumably is the last summer we can sign a max FA in years to come. And we don't have to give up any asset, except if we want to do a S&T with the Jazz due to salary cap reasons.

As I always say, our own 2018 pick will be hopefully in the twenties, and probably to stash a player. Well, Zizic was nº 23 last year and would be a top-10 pick in 2017, so we have to take advantage of this possibility too. I don't want to give away any chance to get a good player in the draft, because having them on rookie scale contracts will be very valuable for us.

[crimson_stallion]

Why wouldn't Hayward "work out"? He's a 27 year old all-star.

Also, there's no "4 - 5 years". Contracts are capped at four years for outside free agents.

4 years if we signed him outright, but couldn't the Jazz theoretically sign/extend and trade him to us if they are convinced he's willing to walk?  If so, then wouldn't they be able to offer him a 5th year, or am I mistaken?

Regardless, that's still 4 years at $30M a year, combined with Horford's remaining 3 years at $30M a year.  That's more than half of the cap moving forward taken up by two guys who are fringe All-Stars.  That's a very, very dangerous move.

As for your question on why it wouldn't work out - just look at the Hawks.  They had Josh Smith, Joe Johnson and Al Horford.  Then they had Jeff Teague, Paul Millsap and Al Horford.  Those teams were stacked with good (but not great) stars, and it led to them underachieving year on year. 

I'm not even remotely convinced that Gordon Hayward is better then a prime Joe Johnson.

Anyway point is that I am a little concerned about potentially having ~$98M a year (over a 2-3 year stretch) committed to just Thomas, Fultz, Hayward and Horford.  That's about 90% of the cap taken up by four guys, with precious little left for filling out a half decent second unit as support. 

Plus it's arguable whether those four guys would be good enough to make this team a contender during those seasons - it's essentially completely dependant on Fultz and how he turns out. 

It's a very risky move, because if that team doesn't work out it kills out cap flexibility for quite a while.

[crimson_stallion]

We have to try to sign Hayward, as it presumably is the last summer we can sign a max FA in years to come. And we don't have to give up any asset, except if we want to do a S&T with the Jazz due to salary cap reasons.

As I always say, our own 2018 pick will be hopefully in the twenties, and probably to stash a player. Well, Zizic was nº 23 last year and would be a top-10 pick in 2017, so we have to take advantage of this possibility too. I don't want to give away any chance to get a good player in the draft, because having them on rookie scale contracts will be very valuable for us.

I'm pretty sure we would need to give up an asset, as I think it's been established that we do not have sufficient cap space to sign him outright - and hence would most likely need to do a sign and trade with Utah to acquire him...which means giving up an asset of some description.   

I'm also not entirely sure Zizic would be a top 10 pick in 2017 - some people seem to have an incredibly high amount of confidence in him for somebody who has never played an NBA game. 

Not saying he won't be good - I sure hope he is - but there's much unknown and it's not something I would bank on.  I would recommend we expect nothing, and if he ends up contributing significantly then consider that a bonus.

[Roy H.]

Why wouldn't Hayward "work out"? He's a 27 year old all-star.

Also, there's no "4 - 5 years". Contracts are capped at four years for outside free agents.

4 years if we signed him outright, but couldn't the Jazz theoretically sign/extend and trade him to us if they are convinced he's willing to walk?  If so, then wouldn't they be able to offer him a 5th year, or am I mistaken?

Regardless, that's still 4 years at $30M a year, combined with Horford's remaining 3 years at $30M a year.  That's more than half of the cap moving forward taken up by two guys who are fringe All-Stars.  That's a very, very dangerous move.

As for your question on why it wouldn't work out - just look at the Hawks.  They had Josh Smith, Joe Johnson and Al Horford.  Then they had Jeff Teague, Paul Millsap and Al Horford.  Those teams were stacked with good (but not great) stars, and it led to them underachieving year on year. 

I'm not even remotely convinced that Gordon Hayward is better then a prime Joe Johnson.

Anyway point is that I am a little concerned about potentially having ~$98M a year (over a 2-3 year stretch) committed to just Thomas, Fultz, Hayward and Horford.  That's about 90% of the cap taken up by four guys, with precious little left for filling out a half decent second unit as support. 

Plus it's arguable whether those four guys would be good enough to make this team a contender during those seasons - it's essentially completely dependant on Fultz and how he turns out. 

It's a very risky move, because if that team doesn't work out it kills out cap flexibility for quite a while.

Sign-and-trades are capped at four years now.

[Dannys Chipotle Guy]

Why wouldn't Hayward "work out"? He's a 27 year old all-star.

Also, there's no "4 - 5 years". Contracts are capped at four years for outside free agents.

4 years if we signed him outright, but couldn't the Jazz theoretically sign/extend and trade him to us if they are convinced he's willing to walk?  If so, then wouldn't they be able to offer him a 5th year, or am I mistaken?

Regardless, that's still 4 years at $30M a year, combined with Horford's remaining 3 years at $30M a year.  That's more than half of the cap moving forward taken up by two guys who are fringe All-Stars.  That's a very, very dangerous move.

As for your question on why it wouldn't work out - just look at the Hawks.  They had Josh Smith, Joe Johnson and Al Horford.  Then they had Jeff Teague, Paul Millsap and Al Horford.  Those teams were stacked with good (but not great) stars, and it led to them underachieving year on year. 

I'm not even remotely convinced that Gordon Hayward is better then a prime Joe Johnson.

Anyway point is that I am a little concerned about potentially having ~$98M a year (over a 2-3 year stretch) committed to just Thomas, Fultz, Hayward and Horford.  That's about 90% of the cap taken up by four guys, with precious little left for filling out a half decent second unit as support. 

Plus it's arguable whether those four guys would be good enough to make this team a contender during those seasons - it's essentially completely dependant on Fultz and how he turns out. 

It's a very risky move, because if that team doesn't work out it kills out cap flexibility for quite a while.

Sign-and-trades are capped at four years now.

New CBA basically made sign and trades entirely useless correct?