Author Topic: Celtics Better off without Hayward?  (Read 8894 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« on: July 04, 2017, 03:56:31 AM »

Offline mutineer33

  • Lonnie Walker IV
  • Posts: 55
  • Tommy Points: 13
Cheers all.

First time logging in to post in over 5 years, although I have been a regular reader.  In fact, living in Southeast Asia, in a country where basketball is nonexistent, Celtics Blog has been invaluable to me in following the team, even if I do find the "In Danny We trust" crap a bit nauseating at times.

Anyway, this off-season has been a big disappointment in terms of expectations, although I would not call it a failure yet.  I get the feeling most here will judge it based on whether GH signs with us or not.

I would not mind seeing GH in Green either, but I find myself increasingly thinking if we do not get him it might be a blessing in disguise ....

1) We desperately need help at the 4/5 instead (particularly rebounding)
2) We need to develop some of our young players

There are a lot of trade scenarios out there .... but one I think might be very realistic would be Kevin Love to Boston (No Galinari Please!!!).  Yes ... I know ... No Def, Big Contract, Old (2014) rumors etc. but please hear me out:

One trade scenario that works financially AND I think would make sense for all 3 teams in terms of fit and value:

Boston Gets: Kevin Love
Cleveland Gets: Carmelo Anthony and Avery Bradley
New York Gets: Jae Crowder, Terry Rozier, Jordan Mickey, Iman Schumpert, Richard Jefferson

No need for anyone to add picks as far as I am concerned.

From Cleveland's perspective:  They seem a bit tired of Love and LBJ and Melo seem interested in playing together.  AB fits perfectly to chase after GS.  Melo's deal is one year shorter than Loves so if LBJ bolts to LA it will be easier to to get out from Melos contract and start a total rebuild.  Bradley is a pending FA so they can resign if LBJ stays or part ways next year if LBJ bolts.

From New York's perspective:  Melo still has some game left, but it seems he really is an albatross hanging on the neck of the organization.  Player and team both need to move on, whether Melo realizes it or not.  As to assets acquired:  Schumpert is serviceable, but really is in the deal as cap filler.  Mickey and RJ are pure cap filler to make the deal work financially.  The main assets acquired would be Rozier and Crowder.  Neither are going to redefine the franchise, but both would fill needs on the Knicks.  They are already looking for a PG to chaperone Nitikina and Rozier might be ready to step up and start on a bad team.  Crowder has his limitations, but would bring a cultural change and toughness to a team that sorely needs it.  I think the Knicks would be happy with this return.

From Boston's Perspective:

Love would fit perfectly in CBS offense. He would also address our most critical need (Rebounding). Another important factor is that he  would not be blocking the development of any of our core young players. The price to get him should not be too high.  I love Jae Crowder.  In fact he has been my favorite Celtic (along with Smart) over the past few years.  That said, the reality is with the young talent at SF we  have added, he is an asset we no longer need.  Avery Bradley has been a great contributor as a Celtic but he is also a pending FA.  I don't think we can keep him AND Smart long term.  They are also a bit redundant in terms of skill set so time to consolidate assets and commit to the younger player.  Rozier is a nice young PG, but not a deal breaker to lose either.

I am no capologist, but I don't think the Celtics can acquire GH AND Love together ... unless they move Smart or  Jaylen Brown too, which I am fully unwilling  to do. Hayward is the better player than Love, but Love the better fit in terms of immediate need and young player development.  Count me as one who will not be totally heartbroken if GH stays in Utah.  We would be far too young to be championship caliber, but we would still be the 2nd best team in the east and probably better than last year.  We also keep our picks and open up minutes for younger players.  Nothing wrong with cheering for a team of young upstarts in the ECF  :) 

Depth Chart after Trade:

C: Horford/Zicic/Theiss
PF: Love/Yabusele/?
SF: Tatum/Ojeleye/Abdel Nader
SG: Brown/Smart/Bird
PG: Thomas/K Allen/D Jackson

Rotation:
Back Court: (96 Minutes between them ) Thomas/Brown/Smart
Front Court (144 Minutes between them)  70 minutes to Horford/Love --- as to the other 74 minutes let the the young guys earn their minutes and let CBS scheme the best combinations.

I am all in.

What do you think?



« Last Edit: July 04, 2017, 04:20:07 AM by mutineer33 »

Re: Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2017, 04:00:16 AM »

Offline ashanm10

  • NGT
  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 771
  • Tommy Points: 12
  • Ahsan from Greece :D Panathinaikos and Celtics Fan
sorry but no

if people say we need 1/2 players to actually challenge the CAVS (Which i think we could even do now that we finally have some big bodies)

we cant help them get better...

they falling apart
🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀

Banner 18...and BEYOND!!!

Re: Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2017, 04:05:43 AM »

Offline celticinorlando

  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32875
  • Tommy Points: 843
  • Larry Bird for President
I am not sure why people think boston is going to make some sort of deal if Hayward does not come. They aren't. Same roster as last year with Tatum and a few of the other rookies mixed in. Danny does not have any other hands left to play.

The path forward is draft picks, young players being developed.

Re: Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2017, 05:01:11 AM »

Offline Darío SpanishFan

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 981
  • Tommy Points: 141
Welcome!!!

I see no use in making such trades if we haven't landed Hayward, Griffin or even Millsap. We sacrifice many players to bring back Love, while we are still miles away from Cleveland.

The WORST part, with Anthony and especially Bradley to defend Curry in the future Finals, we make the Cavs better...and maybe if they win the 2018 LeBron could stay instead of going West.

Re: Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2017, 05:13:07 AM »

Offline iadera

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 964
  • Tommy Points: 74
  • CroCeltics
Giving up Bradley, Crowder, Rozier, Mickey is way too much for Love.

Re: Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2017, 05:30:15 AM »

Offline Rida

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 765
  • Tommy Points: 86
I am not sure why people think boston is going to make some sort of deal if Hayward does not come. They aren't. Same roster as last year with Tatum and a few of the other rookies mixed in. Danny does not have any other hands left to play.

The path forward is draft picks, young players being developed.

Strongly disagree here. Ainge is all about assets, so why would he let Smart/Isaiah/Bradley expire without getting anything for them when there is a strong market for them?

We are going back to a normal cap situation, where teams will be looking to get hold of expiring contracts at the deadline.

This isn't  Zeller/ Amir Situation there is a strong trade market for quality expiring contracts like Smart/Isiaah/Bradley


Re: Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2017, 06:51:11 AM »

Offline trickybilly

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5848
  • Tommy Points: 643
I've found myself thinking "maybe we'd be better off without Hayward" too a few times lately.

Then I realize it's just so I not tempted to kill someone randomly in the street when he signs in Miami..
"Gimme the ball, gimme the ball". Freddy Quimby, 1994.

Re: Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2017, 07:24:08 AM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15236
  • Tommy Points: 1034
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
Nice post, and welcome back to CB.

Have to agree with most others that this not only will not happen, but is not a good idea.  That roster is quite imbalanced, much more than the current one, in fact.

CENTER: Zizic is not a backup center yet.  He needs a lot of work on his game, his conditioning, etc.  Theis might not even be on the team opening night.

POWER FORWARD: Yabusele is most likely playing another year overseas.

SMALL FORWARD: 3 rookies?

SHOOTING GUARD: Brown & smart, ok, but I don't see Bird making the team, probably be in the G-league.

POINT GUARD: Allen and Jackson are just not very good.

Again, nice try, interesting post.  TP for you.

EDIT: In addition, you have to think about what role Love would play.  He is a bit of a liability on defense.  IMO, his best years were in Minny where he was the featured player and played more in the paint where they could take advantage of his excellent rebounding skills.  It took him an entire season in Cleveland to find/accept his role of standing in the corner for three's so that Irving and James could have driving lanes. 
« Last Edit: July 04, 2017, 07:33:04 AM by Surferdad »

Re: Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2017, 08:28:22 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20090
  • Tommy Points: 1331
No offense to the OP but Ainge pursues a guy, I trust him over you.

Re: Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2017, 08:47:46 AM »

Offline PaulAllen

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1103
  • Tommy Points: 55
I feel like he is probably signing with Miami... But I think Durant will be available next year so build the team with the kids (less expensive contracts) and save the $$$ for the big prize.... Hayward is just not a max contract player IMO

Re: Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2017, 09:01:33 AM »

Offline chilidawg

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2009
  • Tommy Points: 261
Good to think outside the box OP, but I agree that's too much for Love.  On the other hand I don't worry that this makes Cleveland better, as I think Melo is a big step down from Love.

At very least I'd keep Rozier because there's no way you want Kadeem Allen and Demetrius Jackson to be your back up point guards, especially with IT's health in question.

Re: Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2017, 09:09:24 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 62679
  • Tommy Points: -25472
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Hayward is better than Love, and we can get him without surrendering assets.



I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2017, 09:26:15 AM »

Offline footey

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16039
  • Tommy Points: 1837
Hayward is better than Love, and we can get him without surrendering assets.

Not yet.

Re: Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2017, 09:29:54 AM »

Offline footey

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16039
  • Tommy Points: 1837
I thought about OP's idea as well and understand it makes sense from a positional perspective, particularly Live's rebounding. I think OP is giving up too much, I would try to keep AB. Maybe include a non lottery first which is probably more interesting to the Knicks anyway.

Re: Celtics Better off without Hayward?
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2017, 12:42:18 PM »

Offline spikelovetheCelts

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1616
  • Tommy Points: 113
  • Peace it's a board. We all will never agree.
Tim Hardway Jr. Would be a good option without Heyward IMO. We need another scorer. Thee are some players left if Heyward says no. If Gay was no coming off injury I would say give him a one year big deal.
"People look at players, watch them dribble between their legs and they say, 'There's a superstar.'  Well John Havlicek is a superstar, and most of the others are figments of writers' imagination."
--Jerry West, on John Havlicek