The C's had ZERO leverage in trades for Bradley. That's 100% Danny's fault.

[Darío SpanishFan]

Danny did have leverage.  He had to make exactly one deal.  He was working with Utah on a deal for Crowder.  He was working with NY on a deal for Smart.

Utah knew he HAD TO make a deal. And quickly. That's why they offered nothing to get Crowder's contract. And so the Knicks for Smart or the LA teams for Bradley.

So no, Danny did NOT have any kind of leverage. In fact, the trade we made was a pretty good one given the urgency of the situation to make room for Hayward.

Um, incorrect, see multiple posts before and after yours.

Nobody is correct when we are expressing opinions. This is not maths    And yes, I know where you are going, I suppose related to dates.

I, as many of other people around these forums, believe we had no leverage. And that's as right as your thinking the other way.

[liam]

If it was zero leverage, would teams just wait until we waved one of Crowder, AB or Smart?

[BudweiserCeltic]

Danny did have leverage.  He had to make exactly one deal.  He was working with Utah on a deal for Crowder.  He was working with NY on a deal for Smart.

Utah knew he HAD TO make a deal. And quickly. That's why they offered nothing to get Crowder's contract. And so the Knicks for Smart or the LA teams for Bradley.

So no, Danny did NOT have any kind of leverage. In fact, the trade we made was a pretty good one given the urgency of the situation to make room for Hayward.

Err, where are people getting this stuff about "HAD TO" and "quickly"? Nothing further from the truth.

Ainge was on his own timetable. He saw a trade that he liked, and went for it.

[Ilikesports17]

Danny did have leverage.  He had to make exactly one deal.  He was working with Utah on a deal for Crowder.  He was working with NY on a deal for Smart.

Utah knew he HAD TO make a deal. And quickly. That's why they offered nothing to get Crowder's contract. And so the Knicks for Smart or the LA teams for Bradley.

So no, Danny did NOT have any kind of leverage. In fact, the trade we made was a pretty good one given the urgency of the situation to make room for Hayward.

Um, incorrect, see multiple posts before and after yours.

Nobody is correct when we are expressing opinions. This is not maths    And yes, I know where you are going, I suppose related to dates.

I, as many of other people around these forums, believe we had no leverage. And that's as right as your thinking the other way.

Leverage is not binary.

It is not that we had leverage or we didn't.

We obviously had some level of leverage because there were 29 teams I. This league that could use the services of Bradley smart and crowder. 18 of them could fit Crowders contract, 24 could fit Smarts and a good number could fit Bradleys. Hayward could have also feasibly taken a 3 grand payout.

Thus anyone who wanted One of the 3 had to know they were competing with many other teams. That's leverage. It's undeniable. You can't say we have no leverage on our Utah negotiations because guess who doesn't have a SF now? Utah. They could have had Crowder for fairly cheap but they blew it because we had other options and we took one of those options. LAC and LA reportedly wanted Bradley. That's leverage. We were also supposedly engaged with nyk in smart negotiations.

That means Detroit was in a race with at least 4 other teams o org away Bradley.

That's called leverage.

Now did we have a lot of leverage? Of course not. But you can't say Ainge had no leverage. That's just incorrect.

[Surferdad]

Danny did have leverage.  He had to make exactly one deal.  He was working with Utah on a deal for Crowder.  He was working with NY on a deal for Smart.

Utah knew he HAD TO make a deal. And quickly. That's why they offered nothing to get Crowder's contract. And so the Knicks for Smart or the LA teams for Bradley.

So no, Danny did NOT have any kind of leverage. In fact, the trade we made was a pretty good one given the urgency of the situation to make room for Hayward.

Um, incorrect, see multiple posts before and after yours.

Nobody is correct when we are expressing opinions. This is not maths    And yes, I know where you are going, I suppose related to dates.

I, as many of other people around these forums, believe we had no leverage. And that's as right as your thinking the other way.

I might be able to agree with you if only your opinion wasn't based on false assumptions and a lack of research.  There were multiple reports that the C's shopped all 3 guys and multiple reports of interest in Smart and Crowder.  You can have an opinion that there was zero leverage, but it very difficult to prove.  My "opinion" that there was some leverage is easy to back up.

[BitterJim]

Maybe "leverage" isn't the right way to describe what we had regarding making a deal. DA had choices. He couldn't decide not to make a move, but he could decide to trade Bradley to Detroit, or Crowder to Utah, or Smart to the Knicks, etc. He had to make a move, but he didn't have to make any specific move. He could afford to play team's offers against each other and pick the best available. He had to eventually take one of the deals, but each team still had to offer enough to be compete time with the others. It's not like Danny had a Bogut-type contract that he had to clear, he had a commodity (a few, actually) that he could afford to wait a bit on to see what offers came in.

Maybe not leverage in the sense that he could decide not to make a deal, but leverage in the sense that he could play teams off of each other.

[Surferdad]

Maybe "leverage" isn't the right way to describe what we had regarding making a deal. DA had choices. He couldn't decide not to make a move, but he could decide to trade Bradley to Detroit, or Crowder to Utah, or Smart to the Knicks, etc. He had to make a move, but he didn't have to make any specific move. He could afford to play team's offers against each other and pick the best available. He had to eventually take one of the deals, but each team still had to offer enough to be compete time with the others. It's not like Danny had a Bogut-type contract that he had to clear, he had a commodity (a few, actually) that he could afford to wait a bit on to see what offers came in.

Maybe not leverage in the sense that he could decide not to make a deal, but leverage in the sense that he could play teams off of each other.

Exactly.  Also, TP for actually keeping a spreadsheet of the salaries.

[the TRUTH]

I loved AB as much as anyone else here did, and he may very well be a better player than Morris is. We don't know yet how Morris will play in our system or how AB will play in Detroit's. But if AB does fare better, maybe Detroit got the better end of the deal in the short term. However, can the Pistons convince AB to stay? And will they be willing to pay him what the market dictates next summer?

Same two questions would've applied to the Celtics if they'd kept AB. I think the C's could've convinced AB to stay, but probably wouldn't have been willing/able to pay him what the market will dictate. If Detroit ends up being unwilling/unable to retain AB next summer, then this may turn out to be a bad deal for the Pistons for what amounts to a one-year rental of AB.

Also, as others have said, this move didn't occur in a vacuum, as it was necessary to create the money and/or playing time needed to sign Hayward.

We'll see how this trade looks two or three years down the road, but as of now, I'd consider it a pretty even deal.

[C3LTSF4N]

Another solid trade.  Good work Danny.

[Darío SpanishFan]

Danny did have leverage.  He had to make exactly one deal.  He was working with Utah on a deal for Crowder.  He was working with NY on a deal for Smart.

Utah knew he HAD TO make a deal. And quickly. That's why they offered nothing to get Crowder's contract. And so the Knicks for Smart or the LA teams for Bradley.

So no, Danny did NOT have any kind of leverage. In fact, the trade we made was a pretty good one given the urgency of the situation to make room for Hayward.

Um, incorrect, see multiple posts before and after yours.

Nobody is correct when we are expressing opinions. This is not maths    And yes, I know where you are going, I suppose related to dates.

I, as many of other people around these forums, believe we had no leverage. And that's as right as your thinking the other way.

I might be able to agree with you if only your opinion wasn't based on false assumptions and a lack of research.  There were multiple reports that the C's shopped all 3 guys and multiple reports of interest in Smart and Crowder.  You can have an opinion that there was zero leverage, but it very difficult to prove.  My "opinion" that there was some leverage is easy to back up.

I won't try to convince anyone or "win" the debate, as it is your case. That stage in my life passed years ago.

But facts are facts. And we had to include a 2nd round pick even to make this deal. So...let everyone draw their own conclusions.

[Jon]

People are being melodramatic here. Bradley is a very nice player, but he was going to walk at the end of this season. Could we quibble and say that if Danny traded him earlier or later he could have gotten more? Sure. But people doing that are also acting like the Celtics knew they were getting Gordon Hayward the whole time. The reality is that Danny had to react in real time.

And by trading Bradley, they lose the least flexible player on the roster (he can really only play the 2), retain the flexible and cheap Crowder, and bolster their front court with Morris.

Finally, this second round pick whining is insane. We already have more draft picks than we are going to have roster space.

[Ilikesports17]

Danny did have leverage.  He had to make exactly one deal.  He was working with Utah on a deal for Crowder.  He was working with NY on a deal for Smart.

Utah knew he HAD TO make a deal. And quickly. That's why they offered nothing to get Crowder's contract. And so the Knicks for Smart or the LA teams for Bradley.

So no, Danny did NOT have any kind of leverage. In fact, the trade we made was a pretty good one given the urgency of the situation to make room for Hayward.

Um, incorrect, see multiple posts before and after yours.

Nobody is correct when we are expressing opinions. This is not maths    And yes, I know where you are going, I suppose related to dates.

I, as many of other people around these forums, believe we had no leverage. And that's as right as your thinking the other way.

I might be able to agree with you if only your opinion wasn't based on false assumptions and a lack of research.  There were multiple reports that the C's shopped all 3 guys and multiple reports of interest in Smart and Crowder.  You can have an opinion that there was zero leverage, but it very difficult to prove.  My "opinion" that there was some leverage is easy to back up.

I won't try to convince anyone or "win" the debate, as it is your case. That stage in my life passed years ago.

But facts are facts. And we had to include a 2nd round pick even to make this deal. So...let everyone draw their own conclusions.

lol so in other words

"[dang] I was wrong"

[Chief Macho]

nah,  he had to make a deal but other teams knew that other teams we're interested in the celtics players.   there was a market .  ainge liked morris and bradleys value was depressed because he isn't signed.

[Neurotic Guy]

Danny Ainge has built a contender without blowing up the budget, and has retained some youth together with experience. We still have multiple future draft picks from other teams, including potentially two lottery picks.

For this, Danny Ainge gets blasted, arguably for having to throw in a 2nd rounder in a trade.

Yep, its the good old Celticsblog!

I wouldn't say he's built a contender.  Had Rondo not gotten injured they were on pace to get swept by the 8th seeded Chicago Bulls this year.  They then won a hotly contested series against the Wizards in the second round and followed that up by losing a series 4-1 to the Cavs in the ECF.

What Danny's built so far would basically be like a 5th or 6th seed in the West.  They're more like the Portland Trailblazers then any other team right now.

Danny's done a good job of improving incrementally while maintaining assets and avoiding really stupid contracts (except maybe for Al Horford?).  He's missed some big opportunities (for example acquiring Jimmy Butler would have left him an extra 12-13 million in cap space to extend either Bradley or Isaiah when the time came).  All in all he's done a fine job, but will be remembered for 1 championship and a 15 year treadmill of mediocrity if he doesn't make a move that actually puts the Celtics in contention within the next year or two.   

Sorry for bringing realism to this thread.

Sorry to respond this way, but you are more stating the (or what should be) the obvious than you are providing a dose of reality.     Danny knows, and I really haven't seen much to the contrary here, that the Cs as currently constructed are not in the top tier of championship contenders.  Many here would probably take issue with your implication that they are in the third tier... but  be that as it may,  our GM knows full well that his legacy will be measured by championships (and to some degree finals appearances).  He knows that transformations from good to great and from great to champions are incremental especially in lieu of the elusive megastar. 

Danny has put this team among the 2nd tier of NBA teams while maintaining a host of promising young players and draft picks.   Anyone who is disappointed in the pace of the progress of this team, it's trajectory, or its prospects for future growth is being unrealistic or intentionally cynical.

[dreamgreen]

Danny's fault we were able to land an all-star? I'm good with it! It's not a perfect world Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. happens I'm very happy over all.

Seems like people think we can't win without AB but I believe our record without him this year was better than with him.