Just like i said........ the loss of Bradley undermines the

[kozlodoev]

Trading Bradley was an inevitability. He deserves our respect and admiration but he'll be know as one of the 2 the best guys from stage 1 of the rebuild. This summer we've moved into stage 2.

Maybe. But someone sill needs to make a compelling case about why two years of Morris is better than one year of Bradley.

It's not, but this is a false dichotomy.  We didn't trade Bradley for Morris; we traded him for Morris AND THE ABILITY TO KEEP BOTH SMART AND CROWDER.  Nobody has said that this trade makes sense in a vacuum, because it doesn't, but here in the real world it actually does.  Maybe there was a better deal out there (only the front office knows), but acting like this deal was about Bradley vs. Morris is just playing dumb

The dichotomy is very real. Smart is a RFA next season, so I'm not sure what makes you think we can keep him after that. Also, for all we know, we traded Bradley for the ability to keep Terry Rozier, because I refuse to believe that the now proverbial 300k were the make or break of the Hayward deal.

[blink]

Was keeping TR for the future more important than one more year of Bradley?  I guess DA thinks so.

[BitterJim]

Trading Bradley was an inevitability. He deserves our respect and admiration but he'll be know as one of the 2 the best guys from stage 1 of the rebuild. This summer we've moved into stage 2.

Maybe. But someone sill needs to make a compelling case about why two years of Morris is better than one year of Bradley.

It's not, but this is a false dichotomy.  We didn't trade Bradley for Morris; we traded him for Morris AND THE ABILITY TO KEEP BOTH SMART AND CROWDER.  Nobody has said that this trade makes sense in a vacuum, because it doesn't, but here in the real world it actually does.  Maybe there was a better deal out there (only the front office knows), but acting like this deal was about Bradley vs. Morris is just playing dumb

The dichotomy is very real. Smart is a RFA next season, so I'm not sure what makes you think we can keep him after that. Also, for all we know, we traded Bradley for the ability to keep Terry Rozier, because I refuse to believe that the now proverbial 300k were the make or break of the Hayward deal.

Mainly because Smart is an RFA and will be making less than Bradley next year.  The luxury tax is a very real thing, and $20+ million for AB vs. $13 or so million for Smart is a huge difference.

As for that $300k, 1. It wasn't Danny's decision to make Hayward take less money.  He offered him the max, now he needs to make moves like he no doubt said he would in order to give it to Hayward.  2. It wasn't just Rozier in that case.  It was Rozier+Yabusele (for next year, we'd presumably have him long term no matter what)+Morris.  3. The $300k assumes that Yabusele was willing to stay stashed another year - we couldn't clear his hold without his cooperation unless we traded away his rights. If he wasn't willing to sign the paper saying he wouldn't be coming over this season, we'd have been ~$2.5 million short, not $300k

So if you want to keep asking how AB for Morris makes sense and ignore everything besides "AB>Morris", be my guest.  But the other factors involved in the deal are why it happened.  The question isn't AB vs. Morris, it's Morris vs. what else we could have done to clear the space.  And clearly Ainge felt this was the best option

[Ilikesports17]

Was keeping TR for the future more important than one more year of Bradley?  I guess DA thinks so.

Wait how does that make sense?

Roziers contract wasn't big enough to clear space for Hayward.

[jade88]

So basically 7 million in luxury tax between Smart and Bradley made this happen? So much for going for it all.

[tonydelk]

I guess no matter what the C's do there will always be someone unhappy.  If Bradley was signed for 2-3 more years he would not be going anywhere.  We all understand the great skill set Bradley has but the fact Hardaway Jr. go 20+ million per year increases what Bradley can get.  The C's just can't afford to pay him 20-25 per year and retain IT.  If this was baseball and there wasn't a salary cap then they'd sign everyone.  Unfortunately it isn't and NBA teams can't keep everyone.  I will miss what Bradley brings to the team but I understand why he had to go.  I am not a fan of Morris but he's cheap and can play.  They don't need him to be an all star.  They need a PF who can hit 3's, play some D and play about 25 minutes a night. 

[Granath]

So basically 7 million in luxury tax between Smart and Bradley made this happen? So much for going for it all.

Where do you get $7m? It's more like $70m next year if you try to keep Smart, Bradley and signed Hayward.

[jade88]

So basically 7 million in luxury tax between Smart and Bradley made this happen? So much for going for it all.

Where do you get $7m? It's more like $70m next year if you try to keep Smart, Bradley and signed Hayward.

I wasn't asking to retain Smart.

[BitterJim]

So basically 7 million in luxury tax between Smart and Bradley made this happen? So much for going for it all.

If Bradley made $7 million more than Smart, that's not just $7 million in luxury tax.  Over the tax line, that would be $11 million at the absolute best (aka our salary with Smart is just at the tax line, which is way too low if we give IT a max), and probably more like $20 million (figuring we'd be ~$10 million over the tax line), with the possibility that it's way higher.  Add in the extra $7 million from AB's salary, and you're looking at $27 million IF AB gets only $7 million more than Smart (doubtful) and we're only $10 million over the tax line after signing them (doubtful, but possible if the LA pick doesn't convey next season)

So, no.

[kozlodoev]

Mainly because Smart is an RFA and will be making less than Bradley next year.  The luxury tax is a very real thing, and $20+ million for AB vs. $13 or so million for Smart is a huge difference.

This is, of course, largely conjecture. Someone gave Tim Hardaway Jr. a $20 million per annum offer.

As for that $300k, 1. It wasn't Danny's decision to make Hayward take less money.  He offered him the max, now he needs to make moves like he no doubt said he would in order to give it to Hayward.

We don't really know what he offered him. I just refuse to believe that in a world where people actually talk to each other gutting the roster over $300k could happen.

2. It wasn't just Rozier in that case.  It was Rozier+Yabusele (for next year, we'd presumably have him long term no matter what)+Morris.  3. The $300k assumes that Yabusele was willing to stay stashed another year - we couldn't clear his hold without his cooperation unless we traded away his rights. If he wasn't willing to sign the paper saying he wouldn't be coming over this season, we'd have been ~$2.5 million short, not $300k

You'd have room for some combination of these by trading Jae Crowder as well. Maybe he could have fetched you a real big so that we wouldn't have to be subjected to watching Morris and Horford trying to put a finger on the ball. We'll never know, I guess, because the brass is "excited about combinations" /cue obligatory facepalm+eyeroll here.

So if you want to keep asking how AB for Morris makes sense and ignore everything besides "AB>Morris", be my guest.  But the other factors involved in the deal are why it happened.  The question isn't AB vs. Morris, it's Morris vs. what else we could have done to clear the space.  And clearly Ainge felt this was the best option

We moved Bradley, the player with the least value of the expendables, in order to put together an even more redundant roster. I'm sure there were "factors", but to me it seems the biggest one was falling in love with Crowder's contract. Doesn't strike me as good management, but what do I know.

[Hank Finkel]

I guess no matter what the C's do there will always be someone unhappy.  If Bradley was signed for 2-3 more years he would not be going anywhere.  We all understand the great skill set Bradley has but the fact Hardaway Jr. go 20+ million per year increases what Bradley can get.  The C's just can't afford to pay him 20-25 per year and retain IT.  If this was baseball and there wasn't a salary cap then they'd sign everyone.  Unfortunately it isn't and NBA teams can't keep everyone.  I will miss what Bradley brings to the team but I understand why he had to go.  I am not a fan of Morris but he's cheap and can play.  They don't need him to be an all star.  They need a PF who can hit 3's, play some D and play about 25 minutes a night.

Well stated I agree completely tonydelk. 

[keevsnick]

Trading Bradley was an inevitability. He deserves our respect and admiration but he'll be know as one of the 2 the best guys from stage 1 of the rebuild. This summer we've moved into stage 2.

Maybe. But someone sill needs to make a compelling case about why two years of Morris is better than one year of Bradley.

It's not, but this is a false dichotomy.  We didn't trade Bradley for Morris; we traded him for Morris AND THE ABILITY TO KEEP BOTH SMART AND CROWDER.  Nobody has said that this trade makes sense in a vacuum, because it doesn't, but here in the real world it actually does.  Maybe there was a better deal out there (only the front office knows), but acting like this deal was about Bradley vs. Morris is just playing dumb

The dichotomy is very real. Smart is a RFA next season, so I'm not sure what makes you think we can keep him after that. Also, for all we know, we traded Bradley for the ability to keep Terry Rozier, because I refuse to believe that the now proverbial 300k were the make or break of the Hayward deal.

Yep, that 300K assumes we dealt Rozier, Jackson, Mickey and stashed Yabuselle (and who knows he would agree to that). Now we keep Rozier, can bring over Yabuselle, and can even keep one of Mickey or Jackson I believe. And we brought back another guy who can defend Lebron.

[kozlodoev]

Yep, that 300K assumes we dealt Rozier, Jackson, Mickey and stashed Yabuselle (and who knows he would agree to that). Now we keep Rozier, can bring over Yabuselle, and can even keep one of Mickey or Jackson I believe. And we brought back another guy who can defend Lebron.

I'm not going to lose sleep over two guys that don't look like they can be any sort of meaningful NBA contributors. You can put those two (or any other Joe Schmoes) on two-way contracts in Maine and be just fine.

[Smitty77]

Mainly because Smart is an RFA and will be making less than Bradley next year.  The luxury tax is a very real thing, and $20+ million for AB vs. $13 or so million for Smart is a huge difference.

This is, of course, largely conjecture. Someone gave Tim Hardaway Jr. a $20 million per annum offer.

As for that $300k, 1. It wasn't Danny's decision to make Hayward take less money.  He offered him the max, now he needs to make moves like he no doubt said he would in order to give it to Hayward.

We don't really know what he offered him. I just refuse to believe that in a world where people actually talk to each other gutting the roster over $300k could happen.

2. It wasn't just Rozier in that case.  It was Rozier+Yabusele (for next year, we'd presumably have him long term no matter what)+Morris.  3. The $300k assumes that Yabusele was willing to stay stashed another year - we couldn't clear his hold without his cooperation unless we traded away his rights. If he wasn't willing to sign the paper saying he wouldn't be coming over this season, we'd have been ~$2.5 million short, not $300k

You'd have room for some combination of these by trading Jae Crowder as well. Maybe he could have fetched you a real big so that we wouldn't have to be subjected to watching Morris and Horford trying to put a finger on the ball. We'll never know, I guess, because the brass is "excited about combinations" /cue obligatory facepalm+eyeroll here.

So if you want to keep asking how AB for Morris makes sense and ignore everything besides "AB>Morris", be my guest.  But the other factors involved in the deal are why it happened.  The question isn't AB vs. Morris, it's Morris vs. what else we could have done to clear the space.  And clearly Ainge felt this was the best option

We moved Bradley, the player with the least value of the expendables, in order to put together an even more redundant roster. I'm sure there were "factors", but to me it seems the biggest one was falling in love with Crowder's contract. Doesn't strike me as good management, but what do I know.

How in the world is trading a guard from a VERY guard HEAVY team for a PF when our team was very weak at the PF position putting together "an even more redundant roster" Koz?

Smitty77

[kozlodoev]

How in the world is trading a guard from a VERY guard HEAVY team for a PF when our team was very weak at the PF position putting together "an even more redundant roster" Koz?

Our roster is not guard-heavy. It is forward-heavy, and guys like Crowder, Hayward, and Tatum are essentially vying for the same minutes. There's less of a logjam at guard if you simply carve out Rozier, which is the clear weak link there.

So you eased the lesser logjam and added someone who is essentially like Crowder or Tatum, except less talented. Sure, you made room for Brown, but kicked Tatum even further down the totem pole. Perhaps it's fair to expect close to nothing from Tatum this season, but the one obvious need was an NBA-ready big who can rebound -- and I think the team should have been ready to part with Smart or Crowder if that would have been the price of it. Perhaps that deal just wasn't available -- but this doesn't change the fact that what was done doesn't really improve our issues all that much.