Hypothetical a or b...Davis or keep assets

[Roy H.]

Trade for Davis.

(Do we have to resign Rozier, though??

I just assumed we’d keep Smart and have him as our sixth man. He could take Rozier’s backup PG slot.

Smart is being traded in option A.

I don’t think it would be necessary.

[smokeablount]

So, would I rather have one top five player or zero top five players?

[Consults NBA history books...]

Davis, please. And I don’t think we’d necessarily have to include Smart.

Horford / Baynes
Davis / Morris
Hayward
Brown / Smart
Kyrie

That’s a championship rotation.

Bingo x3.

[Fierce1]

Ainge has his sights on AD for years now.

He's going to pull the trigger.

There's no stopping Danny Ainge.

[smokeablount]

Definitely get Davis.

I think it's very tough to decide who to include, Brown or Smart, if Tatum + picks wasn't enough.  Like Roy I think we should keep both, but if forced to choose, I might surrender Brown's higher upside and keep Smart.  My logic, for better or worse:

-4 starters would be Kyrie, Davis, Hayward, Horford- all mellow dudes.  We could use a fiery leader as 5th starter.  That's Smart.

-Brown if kept would need to start, and he's maybe the worst passer on our team.  I have questions about fit.

-If both players had a low usage rate, which is possible with Kyrie/Davis/Hayward, I think Smart brings more to the table. 

-Smart at this point is the better defender and the better shooter, both 3's and FTs (both support the lower usage rate argument).

-I think Jaylen is best at SF and we'd already have Hayward.  He can be a starting SG but I think he's a much better fit at SF.

-Smart can play both guard spots, Jaylen is purely a swing/wing.

-In the past 4 years, Jaylen has had 1 good year shooting the 3 (last year, 39%) and 3 years shooting (I believe) under 33%.  I think he'll be fine, but that's the same profile as Smart, except Smart's good year is this year (tho he's shooting lower than 39%). 

Having said that, if we kept Brown over Smart, I'd happily jump on board.  I really like Jaylen and want him to be great. 

[footey]

Trade for Davis.

(Do we have to resign Rozier, though??

I just assumed we’d keep Smart and have him as our sixth man. He could take Rozier’s backup PG slot.

Smart is being traded in option A.

I don’t think it would be necessary.

You're not playing by the rules, Roy. Jeez.

[Roy H.]

Trade for Davis.

(Do we have to resign Rozier, though??

I just assumed we’d keep Smart and have him as our sixth man. He could take Rozier’s backup PG slot.

Smart is being traded in option A.

I don’t think it would be necessary.

You're not playing by the rules, Roy. Jeez.

I’d still trade for Davis.

The question reads as “would you rather win championships, or watch several rookies shoehorned onto a team with an already crowded rotation?”

[PhoSita]

Do we have to re-sign Rozier and Morris long term?  Why are we stipulating to that?

I'd rather save the $$ and replace them with veteran ring chasers.

I feel that way irrespective of any other moves.


My answer re: trading for AD or not depends on how long Kyrie's new deal is.


If Kyrie signs a 1+1, then NO WAY am I trading Tatum for what could easily be just one year of AD.

If Kyrie is signed to a guaranteed 3 or 4 year deal, then I'd be more open to trading for AD, though I would still feel uneasy about it.

[Silky]

Trade for Davis.

(Do we have to resign Rozier, though??

I just assumed we’d keep Smart and have him as our sixth man. He could take Rozier’s backup PG slot.

Smart is being traded in option A.

I don’t think it would be necessary.

Perhaps, but that wasnt really the point of the exercise.

I wondered what the concensus would be if team HAD to include smart and tatum and picks for Davis.

or

Keep Kyrie and all assets.



Basically, does Davis produce more towards winning a championship that the combination of, in this scenario, Tatum, Smart, Little, Bol Bol and Fernado and whatever was chosen next year with the Memphis pick?

[Fierce1]

Do we have to re-sign Rozier and Morris long term?  Why are we stipulating to that?

I'd rather save the $$ and replace them with veteran ring chasers.

I feel that way irrespective of any other moves.


My answer re: trading for AD or not depends on how long Kyrie's new deal is.


If Kyrie signs a 1+1, then NO WAY am I trading Tatum for what could easily be just one year of AD.

If Kyrie is signed to a guaranteed 3 or 4 year deal, then I'd be more open to trading for AD, though I would still feel uneasy about it.

Rozier will leave.
He wants a starting job.

Morris is a keeper if the price is right.

[Fierce1]

Ainge is a gambler.

I won't be shocked if Ainge trades for AD with no assurances of signing long term with Boston.

Maybe Ainge convince the Pels to take Brown and Smart instead of Tatum and Smart.

[Silky]

Do we have to re-sign Rozier and Morris long term?  Why are we stipulating to that?

I'd rather save the $$ and replace them with veteran ring chasers.

I feel that way irrespective of any other moves.


My answer re: trading for AD or not depends on how long Kyrie's new deal is.


If Kyrie signs a 1+1, then NO WAY am I trading Tatum for what could easily be just one year of AD.

If Kyrie is signed to a guaranteed 3 or 4 year deal, then I'd be more open to trading for AD, though I would still feel uneasy about it.

I assumed that both Kyrie and Davis both sign long term.

Morris and Rozier was resigned for the depth the provide and team familiarity and to take out uncertainly in the scenario.

I did not want to put to many assumptions or variables into the proposals.

[smokeablount]

Trade for Davis.

(Do we have to resign Rozier, though??

I just assumed we’d keep Smart and have him as our sixth man. He could take Rozier’s backup PG slot.

Smart is being traded in option A.

I don’t think it would be necessary.

Perhaps, but that wasnt really the point of the exercise.

I wondered what the concensus would be if team HAD to include smart and tatum and picks for Davis.

or

Keep Kyrie and all assets.



Basically, does Davis produce more towards winning a championship that the combination of, in this scenario, Tatum, Smart, Little, Bol Bol and Fernado and whatever was chosen next year with the Memphis pick?

You created the thread, so no doubt you're the man who get to say what the point of the poll is. 

This is just me asking, but isn't it more telling to learn if people would rather keep our assets in general, or more specifically if Tatum + Griz pick + 3 (three) 2019 1sts + a future 1st isn't enough? 

I'm kind of asking, why is including Smart mandatory but not Brown?  You think NO would reject Brown and only take Smart?  You would much rather keep Brown so you don't want him offered here?  Or you think having to give up Smart will make us reconsider?

I get why Tatum + picks are involved here but can you explain why Smart is mandatory?  I'm not trying to stir **** up, legit asking.
 

[knuckleballer]

So, would I rather have one top five player or zero top five players?

[Consults NBA history books...]

Davis, please. And I don’t think we’d necessarily have to include Smart.

Horford / Baynes
Davis / Morris
Hayward
Brown / Smart
Kyrie

That’s a championship rotation.

This is what I'm hoping for.  We would still have the MLE which we could use on a backup pg.  Jeremy Lin comes to mind.

[Silky]

Trade for Davis.

(Do we have to resign Rozier, though??

I just assumed we’d keep Smart and have him as our sixth man. He could take Rozier’s backup PG slot.

Smart is being traded in option A.

I don’t think it would be necessary.

Perhaps, but that wasnt really the point of the exercise.

I wondered what the concensus would be if team HAD to include smart and tatum and picks for Davis.

or

Keep Kyrie and all assets.



Basically, does Davis produce more towards winning a championship that the combination of, in this scenario, Tatum, Smart, Little, Bol Bol and Fernado and whatever was chosen next year with the Memphis pick?

You created the thread, so no doubt you're the man who get to say what the point of the poll is. 

This is just me asking, but isn't it more telling to learn if people would rather keep our assets in general, or more specifically if Tatum + Griz pick + 3 (three) 2019 1sts + a future 1st isn't enough? 

I'm kind of asking, why is including Smart mandatory but not Brown?  You think NO would reject Brown and only take Smart?  You would much rather keep Brown so you don't want him offered here?  Or you think having to give up Smart will make us reconsider?

I get why Tatum + picks are involved here but can you explain why Smart is mandatory?  I'm not trying to stir **** up, legit asking.

Well. Smart is included because he makes 9 million per season more than brown and salaries need to match.

So that is why smart and not brown.

Davis make 25 million and tatum brown is 11 million. Celtics cannot take on that much salary in a deal

That is why some of us have been screaming thay rozier and morris needed to be moved for a salary that didnt expire at seasons end. And why some have been screaming that we desparately need to sign someone with the mle over 2 years that can be used for salary filler in the deal.

[td450]

To answer this, I think, is to answer what you really believe the longer term expectations for Tatum are.

I'm much less sure what to think of him this year. He is so young, and so good at certain things, it sometimes seems crazy to let him go. At the same time, there are three things that bother me about him a lot and make me wonder if he is significantly overrated:

1. He often doesn't seem to play with intensity.
2. He doesn't seem to be addressing his weaknesses and bad habits very quickly, or at all.
3. Its hard to be a truly great wing if you can't pass, and he appears to be a well below average passer.

I'm almost certain he's going to be very good and a volume scorer, but I'm less confident that he's going to be a superstar.