Contrary to what has been stated ad nauseum by some, Lowe reports that the Celtics and Indy had never agreed to a final deal and that Boston didn't turn their head on an agreed upon deal because of Hayward. Apparently even the players and picks hadn't been agreed upon.
Think that clearly shows that Ainge did what he could but that Indy had set for themselves some arbitrary deadline and stuck with it for the best finished negotiations they had. That George is not a Celtic is on Pritchard who couldn't wait 4 days, not Ainge.
Who said Boston and Indiana had agreed to a final deal? That's called a trade, and I don't think anybody is unser the impression that there's a pending deal sending PG to the Celtics.
Rather, what Woj reported, and Lowe confirms, is that Indiana accepted our offer, but Indiana didn't want to wait.
Actually that isn't what was reported. Woj said Indy wanted a deal of Crowder and Smart with 3 first rounders. He didn't say that was offered by Boston or accepted by Indy. He also said Boston wanted to wait. Lowe reports deals were discussed regarding two players and three picks or three players and two picks. That sure sounds like a final offer was never given and Lowe mentions nothing regarding Indy accepting an offer. He did confirm Boston wanted to wait.
That's what's being reported. You're reading stuff into it that just isn't there
I don't think Roy is reading anything into, I think Roy is saying that if Indy wanted Crowder, Smart, and 3 late 1st's for George that Ainge should have jumped at the chance to accept that trade and Ainge made a big error in not doing so. All Ainge had to say was, we accept but can't make it official until we use our cap space, but Indy even if we don't land Hayward we still have a deal, just give us a week.
Exactly right.
2 things:
1. Indy behaved irrationally by demanding that we put our offer in prematurely. They knew our circumstances, and also knew we would offer a better package.
2. Maybe Danny would never have included 3 non-lotto firsts. Crowder and Smart alone, when factoring in salary, was more attractive offer than OKC. Plus inasmuch as we are retaining as many future assets as possible, including non-lottery 1st rounders, in the hopes of acquiring a disgruntled super star next year (e.g., AD, or even Porzingis), would not surprise me if Ainge was unwilling to include 3 firsts, especially following George's recent pronouncement that he intends to sign with Lakers in 2018.
1. What if Ainge didn't want to give up Crowder and Smart (and the 3 late 1st's) for George without Hayward and Hayward didn't sign? Then what, maybe by then OKC has traded Sabonis or Oladipo and the Pacers don't get anything. When there are contingencies, there are no guarantees.
2. As Roy says, the reported deal included 3 1st's, but let's think about this. Boston acquires George has Thomas, has Horford, has Bradley, and may have Hayward (or someone else in the cap space). How exactly is Boston going to acquire another star and reasonably fit that person into the cap. I mean as is, that team is way into luxury tax range (next summer), it isn't going to add another star into that mix. And you don't make deals for top of the line talent with late 1st's anyway. Boston isn't acquiring Anthony Davis (as an example) with picks in the 20's. To acquire a star that isn't a rental, you need to include some top of the line assets, whether they are players or draft assets or some combination thereof. I mean as bad as Chicago and Sacramento took it in the media, they each got a lottery pick and a player taken in the high lottery 2 drafts ago, plus other stuff (and in Chicago's case that other stuff was Lavine who was the 2nd best player and asset in the trade).
