Trade IT if you want to build a long term contender

[jr_3421]

If we aren't going to pay him what he wants on the open market, then it makes sense to get what we can in a trade. Same for Avery.

If we're not not going to pay him but not going to get a good return on a trade, why is keeping him until the end of the year and letting him walk not an option? What would you rather have? A late first or a deep playoff run? Plus we don't get the negative press of trading away a beloved player. We can still stand behind the "he priced himself out of Boston" excuse.

[chilidawg]

Hold up.

The most valuable thing IT is bringing to the Celtics next year is a deep run in the playoffs giving Fultz and Brown invaluable experience.

Trading IT for a pick or a prospect isn't worth taking away deep playoff experience for Fultz.

Anyone disagree?

Also, if anything thinks we go deep in playoffs without IT next year, then you are just bonkers.

Totally agree, unless you're getting back an equivalent NBA talent like Butler or George.

[EJPLAYA]

If you're content winning a lot of games and losing in the Eastern conference finals a couple times go ahead. Keep IT. But no matter what a team with it's best player being IT is not going to best the Cavs in the next three years. I'm talking about winning championships and you don't do that with him as your best. You need to strike lighting like a Tim Duncan, LeBron, PP, Kobe, Duncan, etc. You do that with the most possible high picks to give you that shot. In 2-3 years IT will not even be an all Star. Brown might. Fultz might. They also could be franchise changing players. IT is good and brings energy, but not going to win us a championship.

[EJPLAYA]

Hold up.

The most valuable thing IT is bringing to the Celtics next year is a deep run in the playoffs giving Fultz and Brown invaluable experience.

Trading IT for a pick or a prospect isn't worth taking away deep playoff experience for Fultz.

Anyone disagree?

Also, if anything thinks we go deep in playoffs without IT next year, then you are just bonkers.

I would argue that IT would actually hinder brown and fultz's development, especially if we hold on to smart and AB. The team without IT is still a playoff team. These guys would just get serious minutes instead of lots of bench time.

[mqtcelticsfan]

I'm usually down for getting some value from a trade asset rather than get nothing type, but in our current situation I think the most prudent move is to go for it right now, see how IT comes back from his hip injury and how he plays with Fultz and the team we are building as well as where we stand compared to the rest of the East, then ultimately make a decision on his extension based on how all of those things play out.

[Darío SpanishFan]

Isaiah isn't getting traded. He's the only real "bright spot" about the Celtics right now and is getting everyone (management, TD Garden) extra $$ and revenue.

If he gets traded, you ARE NOT adding Hayward.

There is no way that team is a contender the next 2-3 years, and Horford won't like seeing IT traded either.

Fultz has loved the idea of playing alongside IT.

I don't see him traded. You also won't get back fair value in any trade since IT4 is an expiring contract next season.

The exact same stuff was said on this forum about RR.

I loved Rondo, but come on, IT is coming off an MVP-like season averaging 29/6 (done efficiently), and it's not like the C's are planning to go into "full tank mode" next season like the plan was during Rondo's final year - 2 years here.

Also, how many wins did the C's have the season before Rondo was traded away?

Rondo had shown he could be a good starter in a champion team, which I think Isaiah can't. This is added value, not just the numbers.

[Roy H.]

Isaiah isn't getting traded. He's the only real "bright spot" about the Celtics right now and is getting everyone (management, TD Garden) extra $$ and revenue.

If he gets traded, you ARE NOT adding Hayward.

There is no way that team is a contender the next 2-3 years, and Horford won't like seeing IT traded either.

Fultz has loved the idea of playing alongside IT.

I don't see him traded. You also won't get back fair value in any trade since IT4 is an expiring contract next season.

The exact same stuff was said on this forum about RR.

I loved Rondo, but come on, IT is coming off an MVP-like season averaging 29/6 (done efficiently), and it's not like the C's are planning to go into "full tank mode" next season like the plan was during Rondo's final year - 2 years here.

Also, how many wins did the C's have the season before Rondo was traded away?

Rondo had shown he could be a good starter in a champion team, which I think Isaiah can't. This is added value, not just the numbers.

Second year Rondo was championship material, but IT couldn't have won with the same teammates?

Was Rondo's 9/7 on 37% shooting (with 0 3PT in the series) that irreplaceable against the Lakers?

[Phantom255x]

Isaiah isn't getting traded. He's the only real "bright spot" about the Celtics right now and is getting everyone (management, TD Garden) extra $$ and revenue.

If he gets traded, you ARE NOT adding Hayward.

There is no way that team is a contender the next 2-3 years, and Horford won't like seeing IT traded either.

Fultz has loved the idea of playing alongside IT.

I don't see him traded. You also won't get back fair value in any trade since IT4 is an expiring contract next season.

The exact same stuff was said on this forum about RR.

I loved Rondo, but come on, IT is coming off an MVP-like season averaging 29/6 (done efficiently), and it's not like the C's are planning to go into "full tank mode" next season like the plan was during Rondo's final year - 2 years here.

Also, how many wins did the C's have the season before Rondo was traded away?

Rondo had shown he could be a good starter in a champion team, which I think Isaiah can't. This is added value, not just the numbers.

Second year Rondo was championship material, but IT couldn't have won with the same teammates?

Was Rondo's 9/7 on 37% shooting (with 0 3PT in the series) that irreplaceable against the Lakers?

TP. My thoughts exactly.

IT seriously couldn't have won with the 2008 Celtics Big 3 Era team??

I think IT and his scoring could have won us another title in that span to be honest.

[jade88]

I'm usually down for getting some value from a trade asset rather than get nothing type, but in our current situation I think the most prudent move is to go for it right now, see how IT comes back from his hip injury and how he plays with Fultz and the team we are building as well as where we stand compared to the rest of the East, then ultimately make a decision on his extension based on how all of those things play out.

You think we're a playoff team without a 29 ppg guy, who is the only guy on our roster who can get his own shot? 10 ppg in the 4th, and we're fine without that?

This team is trash without Thomas.

[mahcus smaht]

Isaiah isn't getting traded. He's the only real "bright spot" about the Celtics right now and is getting everyone (management, TD Garden) extra $$ and revenue.

If he gets traded, you ARE NOT adding Hayward.

There is no way that team is a contender the next 2-3 years, and Horford won't like seeing IT traded either.

Fultz has loved the idea of playing alongside IT.

I don't see him traded. You also won't get back fair value in any trade since IT4 is an expiring contract next season.

The exact same stuff was said on this forum about RR.

I loved Rondo, but come on, IT is coming off an MVP-like season averaging 29/6 (done efficiently), and it's not like the C's are planning to go into "full tank mode" next season like the plan was during Rondo's final year - 2 years here.

Also, how many wins did the C's have the season before Rondo was traded away?

Rondo had shown he could be a good starter in a champion team, which I think Isaiah can't. This is added value, not just the numbers.

Second year Rondo was championship material, but IT couldn't have won with the same teammates?

Was Rondo's 9/7 on 37% shooting (with 0 3PT in the series) that irreplaceable against the Lakers?

TP. My thoughts exactly.

IT seriously couldn't have won with the 2008 Celtics Big 3 Era team??

I think IT and his scoring could have won us another title in that span to be honest.

IDK Rondo was pretty brilliant in the playoffs in 2010 and 2012.

[LGC88]

At some point, the brainwash "Trade IT" has to stop.
I seriously question how people think and how they perceive Boston front office and the nba in general.
It is so wrong in so many levels.

To sum it up, you want to trade a player that was in MVP discussion, who has almost 30 points per game during the season, who makes everybody else better in offense. The guy who is making Celtics history stat wise and who is selling shirts as record rate. A guy that is very thankful to this organisation and humble. A guy that keep working and improving each year, a guy that fight through emmotional and physical adversity to get the job done in playoffs. The engine of this team that finish 1st this season.
So you want to trade this player and tell the fans, sorry for all the love and your money spent on his Tshirts. Sorry Al, we make you come for nothing, now we are back to below average in offense. Sorry FA because we don't value you that much and can trade you if we fancy that idea.

And all that just because the guy is small and might want a max?
At least OKC had their reason to trade Harden... we don't!

As Danny Ainge said, "this is not the fans concern how much money IT contract will be".
You people are stingy even if it's not your money. Owners makes money each year, they can go to ridiculous luxury taxes if they want to. Not our concern at all.
They just want good reasons to go that way, and IT is one of them (sport wise, market wise).

[ayer]

At some point, the brainwash "Trade IT" has to stop.
I seriously question how people think and how they perceive Boston front office and the nba in general.
It is so wrong in so many levels.

To sum it up, you want to trade a player that was in MVP discussion, who has almost 30 points per game during the season, who makes everybody else better in offense. The guy who is making Celtics history stat wise and who is selling shirts as record rate. A guy that is very thankful to this organisation and humble. A guy that keep working and improving each year, a guy that fight through emmotional and physical adversity to get the job done in playoffs. The engine of this team that finish 1st this season.
So you want to trade this player and tell the fans, sorry for all the love and your money spent on his Tshirts. Sorry Al, we make you come for nothing, now we are back to below average in offense. Sorry FA because we don't value you that much and can trade you if we fancy that idea.

And all that just because the guy is small and might want a max?
At least OKC had their reason to trade Harden... we don't!

As Danny Ainge said, "this is not the fans concern how much money IT contract will be".
You people are stingy even if it's not your money. Owners makes money each year, they can go to ridiculous luxury taxes if they want to. Not our concern at all.
They just want good reasons to go that way, and IT is one of them (sport wise, market wise).

TP for you...

[Jvalin]

Hold up.

The most valuable thing IT is bringing to the Celtics next year is a deep run in the playoffs giving Fultz and Brown invaluable experience.

Trading IT for a pick or a prospect isn't worth taking away deep playoff experience for Fultz.

Anyone disagree?

Also, if anything thinks we go deep in playoffs without IT next year, then you are just bonkers.

Well, it depends. If we trade IT (let's say) for Isaac and in a few years' time Isaac becomes a stud, I guess it would be worth it.

[D Dub]

Seems like folks are looking at this all the wrong way.   

Opening up a starting job for Fultz might not be the best way to teach a 19 yr old how to win.  This team has 50 win expectations, and that's too much to saddle a rookie with year one.  He'd feel a ton of pressure if we move IT.   You could end up stunting his growth, if you don't recognize the unique situation this team is in.   

Keeping our vets creates a safety net for the rooks to make mistakes and learn; without costing us too much in the W/L column. 

And it also needs to be said-- going to go up against IT every day in practice, playing on the 2nd team, getting beat time and time again by his hesitation ....  that's the kind of stuff that forges champions. 

Don't forget how young Fultz and Brown still are.   They need structure, aren't ready to take the league over in year one like Magic or Timmy D once did. 

Why not make them earn their mpg?    Make Brown beat out Crowder.  Make Fultz beat out Thomas.    The fact that we have solid vets is really a huge benefit when you factor in that 2-3 year 'growth' window that the young guys truly need to become great NBA players.   

You keep this band together, even if it means we can't afford Hayward.   Fultz can plug that hole anyways. We've got a good thing going here, and it can be a Spurs-east type run for us as long as we stay patient. 

[Sketch5]

Seems like folks are looking at this all the wrong way.   

Opening up a starting job for Fultz might not be the best way to teach a 19 yr old how to win.  This team has 50 win expectations, and that's too much to saddle a rookie with year one.  He'd feel a ton of pressure if we move IT.   You could end up stunting his growth, if you don't recognize the unique situation this team is in.   

Keeping our vets creates a safety net for the rooks to make mistakes and learn; without costing us too much in the W/L column. 

And it also needs to be said-- going to go up against IT every day in practice, playing on the 2nd team, getting beat time and time again by his hesitation ....  that's the kind of stuff that forges champions. 

Don't forget how young Fultz and Brown still are.   They need structure, aren't ready to take the league over in year one like Magic or Timmy D once did. 

Why not make them earn their mpg?    Make Brown beat out Crowder.  Make Fultz beat out Thomas.    The fact that we have solid vets is really a huge benefit when you factor in that 2-3 year 'growth' window that the young guys truly need to become great NBA players.   

You keep this band together, even if it means we can't afford Hayward.   Fultz can plug that hole anyways. We've got a good thing going here, and it can be a Spurs-east type run for us as long as we stay patient.

Exactly. Look how talented Mini is with Towns,Wiggins,LAvine,Dunn,Muhammad. But because they don't have any vet leadership, they're records aren't great. How many promising Rookies come out and don't pan out because they don't have vets teaching them how to be a pro? Even Jordan had strong vets when he came in. Barkley had Doctor J.

We also don't need many more young guys. We get a top 5 next year, that will give us 4 high draft pics under the age of 25, and two Euro pics to work with and build for the future, and still compete with IT,Horford, and possible FA.