What is the reason for the relative lack of interest in coming to the Celtics?

[MBunge]

I am fully prepared for Hayward to go elsewhere. It fits what has become a fairly consistent pattern of inaction from this front office, a pattern that I imagine won't change until Ainge and Grousbeck begin to feel the heat when this cute collection of role players and IT plateaus on the floor.

In the meantime, I'll just sit back and chuckle at those of you who insist in putting your faith into Danny Ainge and enjoy all the rationalizing of his inaction you do.

The East is ready to be taken over. It will be a shame if someone else does it.

please feel free to send your resume for the GM job to Wyc! good luck!

I've never understood the argument that you need to be an expert in a field to criticize people in that field.

If you go to a 5-star restaurant, can you only critique a meal if you can do better? Can you only criticize books or movies if you are capable of producing something superior?

You don't have be be a great filmmaker to say the "Transformers" franchise sucks.  If you say "The Godfather" and "The Godfather Part II" suck, however, the standard is a little higher.

Danny Ainge has PROVEN to be one of the best GMs in the NBA and several of the people who might rank above him benefited from being handed transcendent talents through the draft.  When you say you have no faith in the guy who just..

1.  Built a team that won the most games in the East and made it to the conference finals.
2.  Added two top 3 lottery picks in the past two seasons and might add two more top 5 picks next year.
3.  Might be 24 hours away from adding one of the most talented free agents on the market FOR THE SECOND YEAR IN A ROW.

...you need a bit more than completely unearned arrogance to back it up.

Mike

[Roy H.]

Roy's not happy with Ainge right now.  If we miss on Hayward, the forum may be shut down for a day or two...

And all things considered, I agree.  If I'm understanding correctly, Boston chose not to trade #3 for Butler; Smart, Crowder, and multiple non-lotto firsts for George.  If true, that's pretty reckless.

is there any proof that is exactly what we offered? suppose PG bailed?

this is the part that blows my mind...


why are so many people ok with a rental of pg?

if he walks then we're left without smart crowder and probably the memphis pick(underrated pick)

i'm SO FREAKING GLAD danny is our gm

You act like I'm stating a desire for an impulsive, win-now move.  It's clear to any one with a brain that you don't make the move without PG signing an extension, or a strong guarantee that he'd re-sign.  Clearly there are moving parts.  But if a concerted effort wasn't made to snag PG/Butler, or a reasonable offer was turned down, then that very well could've been a mistake.  It's also entirely possible that four straight top-5 picks could not result in a player of their caliber.

That's the thing: it's incredibly unlikely that any of our young core / draft picks ever become as good as Paul George. It's virtually a certainty that none of Smart, Crowder and late firsts reach that level.

Championships are so rare that you have to take small / moderate risks. I get not wanting to deal a top-5 pick. I don't understand not being willing to trade role players for a superstar.

You're leaving out the repercussions of our cap space, the limited window we've had with it... the first time in history at that as it is.

Doing trades that would hamper your cap space on players with limited years in their contract, while giving away assets, it's not an efficient way of going about things, particularly when the offers reported already have you overpaying as it is.

Once cap space is used up, and all the bargain contracts we have are gone (Crowder, Isaiah, Bradley), turning assets into legit players would become a higher priority. Trading before cap space is used limits your buying power.

We wouldn't have had to use any cap space to acquire George. It's still the July moratorium.

[jambr380]

That's the thing: it's incredibly unlikely that any of our young core / draft picks ever become as good as Paul George. It's virtually a certainty that none of Smart, Crowder and late firsts reach that level.

Championships are so rare that you have to take small / moderate risks. I get not wanting to deal a top-5 pick. I don't understand not being willing to trade role players for a superstar.

I don't see any evidence that Danny was unwilling to trade role players for a superstar.  In fact the rumor was that he was willing to send Crowder plus one other _starter_ plus non-lottery pick(s) for George.   

But he wasn't willing to do so before he first finished his business with Hayward.  And that makes perfect sense because he can't do anything but cap-neutral moves until he knows whether he's going to sign Hayward.

It seems to me that some fans are confusing Danny needing to do things in a particular order (in order to manage his cap space) with "hesitation".

TP - Thank you! I feel like people just do not understand this concept and it seems like they just keep glossing over it to keep bringing up Danny's incompetence.

For all we know, Danny may have been convinced to include the LAL/Sac pick in a trade for George (or Butler), but needed to make sure he signed Hayward first. If people are afraid of George busting out of here to LAL after the season with Hayward, imagine how they would feel if we didn't sign him (and therefore were not as competitive).

[BudweiserCeltic]

Roy's not happy with Ainge right now.  If we miss on Hayward, the forum may be shut down for a day or two...

And all things considered, I agree.  If I'm understanding correctly, Boston chose not to trade #3 for Butler; Smart, Crowder, and multiple non-lotto firsts for George.  If true, that's pretty reckless.

is there any proof that is exactly what we offered? suppose PG bailed?

this is the part that blows my mind...


why are so many people ok with a rental of pg?

if he walks then we're left without smart crowder and probably the memphis pick(underrated pick)

i'm SO FREAKING GLAD danny is our gm

You act like I'm stating a desire for an impulsive, win-now move.  It's clear to any one with a brain that you don't make the move without PG signing an extension, or a strong guarantee that he'd re-sign.  Clearly there are moving parts.  But if a concerted effort wasn't made to snag PG/Butler, or a reasonable offer was turned down, then that very well could've been a mistake.  It's also entirely possible that four straight top-5 picks could not result in a player of their caliber.

That's the thing: it's incredibly unlikely that any of our young core / draft picks ever become as good as Paul George. It's virtually a certainty that none of Smart, Crowder and late firsts reach that level.

Championships are so rare that you have to take small / moderate risks. I get not wanting to deal a top-5 pick. I don't understand not being willing to trade role players for a superstar.

You're leaving out the repercussions of our cap space, the limited window we've had with it... the first time in history at that as it is.

Doing trades that would hamper your cap space on players with limited years in their contract, while giving away assets, it's not an efficient way of going about things, particularly when the offers reported already have you overpaying as it is.

Once cap space is used up, and all the bargain contracts we have are gone (Crowder, Isaiah, Bradley), turning assets into legit players would become a higher priority. Trading before cap space is used limits your buying power.

We wouldn't have had to use any cap space to acquire George. It's still the July moratorium.

It's not about acquiring George, it's about our buying power afterwards.

[Roy H.]

That's the thing: it's incredibly unlikely that any of our young core / draft picks ever become as good as Paul George. It's virtually a certainty that none of Smart, Crowder and late firsts reach that level.

Championships are so rare that you have to take small / moderate risks. I get not wanting to deal a top-5 pick. I don't understand not being willing to trade role players for a superstar.

I don't see any evidence that Danny was unwilling to trade role players for a superstar.  In fact the rumor was that he was willing to send Crowder plus one other _starter_ plus non-lottery pick(s) for George.   

But he wasn't willing to do so before he first finished his business with Hayward.  And that makes perfect sense because he can't do anything but cap-neutral moves until he knows whether he's going to sign Hayward.

It seems to me that some fans are confusing Danny needing to do things in a particular order (in order to manage his cap space) with "hesitation".

TP - Thank you! I feel like people just do not understand this concept and it seems like they just keep glossing over it to keep bringing up Danny's incompetence.

For all we know, Danny may have been convinced to include the LAL/Sac pick in a trade for George (or Butler), but needed to make sure he signed Hayward first. If people are afraid of George busting out of here to LAL after the season with Hayward, imagine how they would feel if we didn't sign him (and therefore were not as competitive).

Fans "do not understand this concept" because it's not true. Indiana asked for a commitment, not for a trade to be submitted to the league office. The OKC trade hasn't even been finalized yet.

[Roy H.]

Roy's not happy with Ainge right now.  If we miss on Hayward, the forum may be shut down for a day or two...

And all things considered, I agree.  If I'm understanding correctly, Boston chose not to trade #3 for Butler; Smart, Crowder, and multiple non-lotto firsts for George.  If true, that's pretty reckless.

is there any proof that is exactly what we offered? suppose PG bailed?

this is the part that blows my mind...


why are so many people ok with a rental of pg?

if he walks then we're left without smart crowder and probably the memphis pick(underrated pick)

i'm SO FREAKING GLAD danny is our gm

You act like I'm stating a desire for an impulsive, win-now move.  It's clear to any one with a brain that you don't make the move without PG signing an extension, or a strong guarantee that he'd re-sign.  Clearly there are moving parts.  But if a concerted effort wasn't made to snag PG/Butler, or a reasonable offer was turned down, then that very well could've been a mistake.  It's also entirely possible that four straight top-5 picks could not result in a player of their caliber.

That's the thing: it's incredibly unlikely that any of our young core / draft picks ever become as good as Paul George. It's virtually a certainty that none of Smart, Crowder and late firsts reach that level.

Championships are so rare that you have to take small / moderate risks. I get not wanting to deal a top-5 pick. I don't understand not being willing to trade role players for a superstar.

You're leaving out the repercussions of our cap space, the limited window we've had with it... the first time in history at that as it is.

Doing trades that would hamper your cap space on players with limited years in their contract, while giving away assets, it's not an efficient way of going about things, particularly when the offers reported already have you overpaying as it is.

Once cap space is used up, and all the bargain contracts we have are gone (Crowder, Isaiah, Bradley), turning assets into legit players would become a higher priority. Trading before cap space is used limits your buying power.

We wouldn't have had to use any cap space to acquire George. It's still the July moratorium.

It's not about acquiring George, it's about our buying power afterwards.

It wouldn't have changed our buying power. We would have used our cap space, then traded for George. This happens all the time in the NBA. Teams routinely hold off on finalizing deals until cap matters can be worked out.  Indiana wasn't insisting on us completing the deal. Rather, they were asking for a commitment.

[footey]

That's the thing: it's incredibly unlikely that any of our young core / draft picks ever become as good as Paul George. It's virtually a certainty that none of Smart, Crowder and late firsts reach that level.

Championships are so rare that you have to take small / moderate risks. I get not wanting to deal a top-5 pick. I don't understand not being willing to trade role players for a superstar.

I don't see any evidence that Danny was unwilling to trade role players for a superstar.  In fact the rumor was that he was willing to send Crowder plus one other _starter_ plus non-lottery pick(s) for George.   

But he wasn't willing to do so before he first finished his business with Hayward.  And that makes perfect sense because he can't do anything but cap-neutral moves until he knows whether he's going to sign Hayward.

It seems to me that some fans are confusing Danny needing to do things in a particular order (in order to manage his cap space) with "hesitation".

TP - Thank you! I feel like people just do not understand this concept and it seems like they just keep glossing over it to keep bringing up Danny's incompetence.

For all we know, Danny may have been convinced to include the LAL/Sac pick in a trade for George (or Butler), but needed to make sure he signed Hayward first. If people are afraid of George busting out of here to LAL after the season with Hayward, imagine how they would feel if we didn't sign him (and therefore were not as competitive).

Fans "do not understand this concept" because it's not true. Indiana asked for a commitment, not for a trade to be submitted to the league office. The OKC trade hasn't even been finalized yet.

Is this really true? That we would not be willing to "commit" two starters (Crowder and Bradley) plus non-lottery 1sts before finding the outcome with Hayward? 

So does this mean that Ainge was only interested in George if he also knew he could get Hayward? Or that he wanted to have roster flexibility to work with, assuming the Hayward signing occurred?  I'd like to know which it was.

It remains a puzzle as to why Indiana had to draw the time deadline with Ainge on this, knowing that they were far more likely to get better value for George from Boston. It makes me suspect that the Celtics would not want to have pursued George if Hayward did not sign up. Or Houston was OKC was threatening to pull its offer. But that was such a bad offer...

[MBunge]

Roy's not happy with Ainge right now.  If we miss on Hayward, the forum may be shut down for a day or two...

And all things considered, I agree.  If I'm understanding correctly, Boston chose not to trade #3 for Butler; Smart, Crowder, and multiple non-lotto firsts for George.  If true, that's pretty reckless.

is there any proof that is exactly what we offered? suppose PG bailed?

this is the part that blows my mind...


why are so many people ok with a rental of pg?

if he walks then we're left without smart crowder and probably the memphis pick(underrated pick)

i'm SO FREAKING GLAD danny is our gm

You act like I'm stating a desire for an impulsive, win-now move.  It's clear to any one with a brain that you don't make the move without PG signing an extension, or a strong guarantee that he'd re-sign.  Clearly there are moving parts.  But if a concerted effort wasn't made to snag PG/Butler, or a reasonable offer was turned down, then that very well could've been a mistake.  It's also entirely possible that four straight top-5 picks could not result in a player of their caliber.

That's the thing: it's incredibly unlikely that any of our young core / draft picks ever become as good as Paul George. It's virtually a certainty that none of Smart, Crowder and late firsts reach that level.

Championships are so rare that you have to take small / moderate risks. I get not wanting to deal a top-5 pick. I don't understand not being willing to trade role players for a superstar.

You're leaving out the repercussions of our cap space, the limited window we've had with it... the first time in history at that as it is.

Doing trades that would hamper your cap space on players with limited years in their contract, while giving away assets, it's not an efficient way of going about things, particularly when the offers reported already have you overpaying as it is.

Once cap space is used up, and all the bargain contracts we have are gone (Crowder, Isaiah, Bradley), turning assets into legit players would become a higher priority. Trading before cap space is used limits your buying power.

We wouldn't have had to use any cap space to acquire George. It's still the July moratorium.

It's not about acquiring George, it's about our buying power afterwards.

It wouldn't have changed our buying power. We would have used our cap space, then traded for George. This happens all the time in the NBA. Teams routinely hold off on finalizing deals until cap matters can be worked out.  Indiana wasn't insisting on us completing the deal. Rather, they were asking for a commitment.

Which means we would have to go through with it no matter what, which would have affected out buying power because George actually makes more than any two players we could trade for him. So we would NOT have been able to pursue another max player if Hayward turned us down AND we would have given away two rotation players and some future picks for a guy who would either leave after one season or demand a max deal, effectively killing Boston's chance to pursue ANY significant free agents next year or the foreseeable future.  All for a team that might have been a little better than last year but would still be nowhere near a real contender.

This is actually a good bit more involved than you keep making it out.

Mike

[Roy H.]

That's the thing: it's incredibly unlikely that any of our young core / draft picks ever become as good as Paul George. It's virtually a certainty that none of Smart, Crowder and late firsts reach that level.

Championships are so rare that you have to take small / moderate risks. I get not wanting to deal a top-5 pick. I don't understand not being willing to trade role players for a superstar.

I don't see any evidence that Danny was unwilling to trade role players for a superstar.  In fact the rumor was that he was willing to send Crowder plus one other _starter_ plus non-lottery pick(s) for George.   

But he wasn't willing to do so before he first finished his business with Hayward.  And that makes perfect sense because he can't do anything but cap-neutral moves until he knows whether he's going to sign Hayward.

It seems to me that some fans are confusing Danny needing to do things in a particular order (in order to manage his cap space) with "hesitation".

TP - Thank you! I feel like people just do not understand this concept and it seems like they just keep glossing over it to keep bringing up Danny's incompetence.

For all we know, Danny may have been convinced to include the LAL/Sac pick in a trade for George (or Butler), but needed to make sure he signed Hayward first. If people are afraid of George busting out of here to LAL after the season with Hayward, imagine how they would feel if we didn't sign him (and therefore were not as competitive).

Fans "do not understand this concept" because it's not true. Indiana asked for a commitment, not for a trade to be submitted to the league office. The OKC trade hasn't even been finalized yet.

Is this really true? That we would not be willing to "commit" two starters (Crowder and Bradley) plus non-lottery 1sts before finding the outcome with Hayward? 

So does this mean that Ainge was only interested in George if he also knew he could get Hayward? Or that he wanted to have roster flexibility to work with, assuming the Hayward signing occurred?  I'd like to know which it was.

It remains a puzzle as to why Indiana had to draw the time deadline with Ainge on this, knowing that they were far more likely to get better value for George from Boston. It makes me suspect that the Celtics would not want to have pursued George if Hayward did not sign up. Or Houston was OKC was threatening to pull its offer. But that was such a bad offer...

Yes, it's true. For the life of me I can't understand why we wouldn't want George even if Hayward signs elsewhere. Sure, there's a risk we lose Jae, Smart and garbage picks for a rental. Butt, are we so scared as a franchise that we don't think we can convince PG to re-up? He'd be joining the #1 seed, and would be leaving money on the table if he joined LA.

[Bobshot]

I think that's a false perception, largely generated by a media that is negative to the Celtics outside of Boston. They all hate the Celtics--from their wins in NY, Philly and LA.

You get west coast guys like Aldridge and Amick spinning the Lakers (Aldridge is from LA and a Lakers fan), and then the ESPN bunch in NY led by Stern that is generally hostile to any Boston team. It was ESPN who falsely hatcheted the Patriots on the Deflategate nonsense. Ditto for the Philly media, who remember the wars in the Erving-Bird  and Wilt-Russell days.

It's just the media slant, not the players. Stevens has established a respect from the players around the league. Some GMs may have a problem dealing with Ainge--they might be afraid of him--he's a good trader.

[Boris Badenov]

The timing and premise of this thread is a head scratched to me...

Oh, Carmelo lifted his no-trade clause to two Super Teams, big deal.

Griffin didn't meet with ANY team in free-agency. So what does that have to do with Boston?

We got a meeting with what is seen as the #2 coveted free-agent this season, a free-agent that only met with 2 teams outside of his current one.

I mean... your timing on this is a head scratcher.

No it's not.  The assumption is Hayward isn't coming here, which is a reasonable position.  There are constantly threads built on assumptions, just go with it...

I do believe that is called, "Begging the question..."

TP for knowing the correct definition of "begging the question," which is constantly misapplied as meaning "prompting the question."

[Bobshot]

That's the thing: it's incredibly unlikely that any of our young core / draft picks ever become as good as Paul George. It's virtually a certainty that none of Smart, Crowder and late firsts reach that level.

Championships are so rare that you have to take small / moderate risks. I get not wanting to deal a top-5 pick. I don't understand not being willing to trade role players for a superstar.

I don't see any evidence that Danny was unwilling to trade role players for a superstar.  In fact the rumor was that he was willing to send Crowder plus one other _starter_ plus non-lottery pick(s) for George.   

But he wasn't willing to do so before he first finished his business with Hayward.  And that makes perfect sense because he can't do anything but cap-neutral moves until he knows whether he's going to sign Hayward.

It seems to me that some fans are confusing Danny needing to do things in a particular order (in order to manage his cap space) with "hesitation".

TP - Thank you! I feel like people just do not understand this concept and it seems like they just keep glossing over it to keep bringing up Danny's incompetence.

For all we know, Danny may have been convinced to include the LAL/Sac pick in a trade for George (or Butler), but needed to make sure he signed Hayward first. If people are afraid of George busting out of here to LAL after the season with Hayward, imagine how they would feel if we didn't sign him (and therefore were not as competitive).

I think it was purely a situation where Ainge didn't want to pull the trigger on George until he knew about Hayward. It looks to me like he didn't want both. Maybe the Pacers GM picked that up. Though I think it was pretty stupid of him not to wait a few days. He could have gotten a much better deal from Ainge or somebody else.

Ainge will look bad, though, if he strikes out on both.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Roy's not happy with Ainge right now.  If we miss on Hayward, the forum may be shut down for a day or two...

And all things considered, I agree.  If I'm understanding correctly, Boston chose not to trade #3 for Butler; Smart, Crowder, and multiple non-lotto firsts for George.  If true, that's pretty reckless.

is there any proof that is exactly what we offered? suppose PG bailed?

this is the part that blows my mind...


why are so many people ok with a rental of pg?

if he walks then we're left without smart crowder and probably the memphis pick(underrated pick)

i'm SO FREAKING GLAD danny is our gm

You act like I'm stating a desire for an impulsive, win-now move.  It's clear to any one with a brain that you don't make the move without PG signing an extension, or a strong guarantee that he'd re-sign.  Clearly there are moving parts.  But if a concerted effort wasn't made to snag PG/Butler, or a reasonable offer was turned down, then that very well could've been a mistake.  It's also entirely possible that four straight top-5 picks could not result in a player of their caliber.

That's the thing: it's incredibly unlikely that any of our young core / draft picks ever become as good as Paul George. It's virtually a certainty that none of Smart, Crowder and late firsts reach that level.

Championships are so rare that you have to take small / moderate risks. I get not wanting to deal a top-5 pick. I don't understand not being willing to trade role players for a superstar.

You're leaving out the repercussions of our cap space, the limited window we've had with it... the first time in history at that as it is.

Doing trades that would hamper your cap space on players with limited years in their contract, while giving away assets, it's not an efficient way of going about things, particularly when the offers reported already have you overpaying as it is.

Once cap space is used up, and all the bargain contracts we have are gone (Crowder, Isaiah, Bradley), turning assets into legit players would become a higher priority. Trading before cap space is used limits your buying power.

We wouldn't have had to use any cap space to acquire George. It's still the July moratorium.

It's not about acquiring George, it's about our buying power afterwards.

It wouldn't have changed our buying power. We would have used our cap space, then traded for George. This happens all the time in the NBA. Teams routinely hold off on finalizing deals until cap matters can be worked out.  Indiana wasn't insisting on us completing the deal. Rather, they were asking for a commitment.

It would've because the rumor was we were extending him as well. Yes, the commitment to do so is not "final". but you're compromising a lot of assets you may not want to trade away or get rid-off if all you're getting out this is Paul George with no one to follow-up with, which then compromises your cap space for next season as well.

That's why I said specifically once all our bargain contracts go away (which is next season most probably really, with Thomas slated for a big contract). It's not always about "current season" math.

[Roy H.]

Roy's not happy with Ainge right now.  If we miss on Hayward, the forum may be shut down for a day or two...

And all things considered, I agree.  If I'm understanding correctly, Boston chose not to trade #3 for Butler; Smart, Crowder, and multiple non-lotto firsts for George.  If true, that's pretty reckless.

is there any proof that is exactly what we offered? suppose PG bailed?

this is the part that blows my mind...


why are so many people ok with a rental of pg?

if he walks then we're left without smart crowder and probably the memphis pick(underrated pick)

i'm SO FREAKING GLAD danny is our gm

You act like I'm stating a desire for an impulsive, win-now move.  It's clear to any one with a brain that you don't make the move without PG signing an extension, or a strong guarantee that he'd re-sign.  Clearly there are moving parts.  But if a concerted effort wasn't made to snag PG/Butler, or a reasonable offer was turned down, then that very well could've been a mistake.  It's also entirely possible that four straight top-5 picks could not result in a player of their caliber.

That's the thing: it's incredibly unlikely that any of our young core / draft picks ever become as good as Paul George. It's virtually a certainty that none of Smart, Crowder and late firsts reach that level.

Championships are so rare that you have to take small / moderate risks. I get not wanting to deal a top-5 pick. I don't understand not being willing to trade role players for a superstar.

You're leaving out the repercussions of our cap space, the limited window we've had with it... the first time in history at that as it is.

Doing trades that would hamper your cap space on players with limited years in their contract, while giving away assets, it's not an efficient way of going about things, particularly when the offers reported already have you overpaying as it is.

Once cap space is used up, and all the bargain contracts we have are gone (Crowder, Isaiah, Bradley), turning assets into legit players would become a higher priority. Trading before cap space is used limits your buying power.

We wouldn't have had to use any cap space to acquire George. It's still the July moratorium.

It's not about acquiring George, it's about our buying power afterwards.

It wouldn't have changed our buying power. We would have used our cap space, then traded for George. This happens all the time in the NBA. Teams routinely hold off on finalizing deals until cap matters can be worked out.  Indiana wasn't insisting on us completing the deal. Rather, they were asking for a commitment.

Which means we would have to go through with it no matter what, which would have affected out buying power because George actually makes more than any two players we could trade for him. So we would NOT have been able to pursue another max player if Hayward turned us down AND we would have given away two rotation players and some future picks for a guy who would either leave after one season or demand a max deal, effectively killing Boston's chance to pursue ANY significant free agents next year or the foreseeable future.  All for a team that might have been a little better than last year but would still be nowhere near a real contender.

This is actually a good bit more involved than you keep making it out.

Mike

We wouldn't have acquired George with cap space. At all. We would have used all our cap room, then completed the trade.

[MBunge]

That's the thing: it's incredibly unlikely that any of our young core / draft picks ever become as good as Paul George. It's virtually a certainty that none of Smart, Crowder and late firsts reach that level.

Championships are so rare that you have to take small / moderate risks. I get not wanting to deal a top-5 pick. I don't understand not being willing to trade role players for a superstar.

I don't see any evidence that Danny was unwilling to trade role players for a superstar.  In fact the rumor was that he was willing to send Crowder plus one other _starter_ plus non-lottery pick(s) for George.   

But he wasn't willing to do so before he first finished his business with Hayward.  And that makes perfect sense because he can't do anything but cap-neutral moves until he knows whether he's going to sign Hayward.

It seems to me that some fans are confusing Danny needing to do things in a particular order (in order to manage his cap space) with "hesitation".

TP - Thank you! I feel like people just do not understand this concept and it seems like they just keep glossing over it to keep bringing up Danny's incompetence.

For all we know, Danny may have been convinced to include the LAL/Sac pick in a trade for George (or Butler), but needed to make sure he signed Hayward first. If people are afraid of George busting out of here to LAL after the season with Hayward, imagine how they would feel if we didn't sign him (and therefore were not as competitive).

Fans "do not understand this concept" because it's not true. Indiana asked for a commitment, not for a trade to be submitted to the league office. The OKC trade hasn't even been finalized yet.

Is this really true? That we would not be willing to "commit" two starters (Crowder and Bradley) plus non-lottery 1sts before finding the outcome with Hayward? 

So does this mean that Ainge was only interested in George if he also knew he could get Hayward? Or that he wanted to have roster flexibility to work with, assuming the Hayward signing occurred?  I'd like to know which it was.

It remains a puzzle as to why Indiana had to draw the time deadline with Ainge on this, knowing that they were far more likely to get better value for George from Boston. It makes me suspect that the Celtics would not want to have pursued George if Hayward did not sign up. Or Houston was OKC was threatening to pull its offer. But that was such a bad offer...

Yes, it's true. For the life of me I can't understand why we wouldn't want George even if Hayward signs elsewhere. Sure, there's a risk we lose Jae, Smart and garbage picks for a rental. Butt, are we so scared as a franchise that we don't think we can convince PG to re-up? He'd be joining the #1 seed, and would be leaving money on the table if he joined LA.

If you take away Jae and Smart and add George, do we beat Cleveland?  If we kept those guys and added George, maybe.  Replace them with George?  No way.  And if he resigns a max deal, we have no space to add any significant free agents and still have to pay IT and Bradley, which likely puts us over the luxury tax.

So, your dream is to turn Boston into a capped out, taxpaying team that can't win a title?  Maybe you should aim a little higher.

Mike