Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
They could because the East is so bad, but I'd blow that ship up now. At least you have an excuse. Trade KG, Pierce, and Terry to contenders for young players/picks and try to set up a nice core around Rondo in two years. A first round exit against Miami isn't worth keeping their old guys around.
That's not what I said. What I said was they were a good enough team last year to take the Heat to 7 games. Without Rondo, they should have a decent chance to get in the playoffs, so why throw away all your top talent and lose all that money?With no Rondo you seriously think they can ride Pierce, Garnett, and Terry to a finals? Really?
Uhh...what value do you think you'll get as "decent 3rd or 4th options"? Especially considering the amount of money both Pierce and Garnett are owed?The longer you wait the less value you get out of them. Someone could still use Pierce or Garnett as decent 3rd or 4th options
The same thing which happens if you get rid of them now, except you also lose out on a lot of money?What happens if they can't make the playoffs and they don't get rid of those guys?
That's not what I said. What I said was they were a good enough team last year to take the Heat to 7 games. Without Rondo, they should have a decent chance to get in the playoffs, so why throw away all your top talent and lose all that money?
Uhh...what value do you think you'll get as "decent 3rd or 4th options"? Especially considering the amount of money both Pierce and Garnett are owed?
The same thing which happens if you get rid of them now, except you also lose out on a lot of money?
But the Celtics will still sell playoff tickets.They aren't going anywhere in the playoffs even if they do make it.
Not really. Which team would need them, want them and have the flexibility to sign them?They all have good value.
That only works with teams in the playoff hunt. Which team needs, want and can afford them?Garnett is still the anchor on that defense, he just can't go as long as he used to. Terry is a bench scorer that can play like a starter and has somewhat of a track record (2011 finals). Pierce isn't as mobile as he once was but he can still shoot it and give you 15+ a night. They can get you some combination of draft picks + expirings + young cheap players.
Again, why would teams call for these guys? And if they do, who exactly do you see the Celtics getting in return that would be worth giving up Hall of Fame players who can put you in the playoffs?People won't want them as badly in the offseason since they could use free agency or the draft to address their needs. Rondo likely won't be back till the ASB next year so, best case scenario, they are around the level where they're at now fighting for an 8 seed. If teams come calling Ainge for those 3 it'd be quite foolish to not try to work a deal.
But the Celtics will still sell playoff tickets.
I feel like you don't understand what I'm saying.
Not really. Which team would need them, want them and have the flexibility to sign them?
That only works with teams in the playoff hunt. Which team needs, want and can afford them?
Again, why would teams call for these guys? And if they do, who exactly do you see the Celtics getting in return that would be worth giving up Hall of Fame players who can put you in the playoffs?
Because there's no guarantee you're not making the playoffs in two years? Because you are as sure as you can be that you have a competitive team this year?What's the difference from missing the playoffs now to missing the playoffs two years from now? At least if you miss the playoffs now you can try to deal those vets for younger guys to build a team that's capable of making the playoffs next year or the year after.
I have no idea why OKC would make that trade. The Thunder are a young, uptempo team. KG is not. Not to mention the amount you're giving up to get a guy who is possibly a year away from retirement.Here's a few deals I was just playing around with on NBA's trade machine:
KG -> OKC
Jeremy Lamb, Perry Jones, Kendrick Perkins, Toronto's 2013 First Round Pick (top 3 and 15-30 protected) -> Boston
Boston gets a guy who was in the lottery in Lamb (although he's in the d-league right now), Jones who's barely gotten anytime, Perkins who's really just to match salaries and that all important lottery pick which atm would likely be in the 8-10 range. They don't shed much of salary, but they get younger and a potential lottery pick. According to Hollingers trade machine OKC would get 6 wins better as well, so it's not like they are staying even.
Maybe...Another one I tried was
Pierce + Sullinger -> Utah
Terry + Barbosa -> Indiana
Favors + Marvin Williams + DJ Augustin + Alec Burks -> Boston
Boston gets rid of two of their bad contracts, Barbosa is a throw in to add depth to Indiana although he did well for them last year off the bench. Terry helps Indiana's 29th ranked bench scoring. Pierce can play the 3 instead of Marvin Williams. Sullinger is a supposed young guy but playing behind Jefferson and Millsap he could keep getting the same amount of minutes he's currently getting. Those are improvements for both of those teams.
As for Boston they get Favors who's blocked by Jefferson and Millsap for PT and has a lot of potential. Augustin is only on a 1 year deal and a throw in. Burks is a late lottery pick himself that isn't getting much PT. Williams is simply to balance out the trade and has 2 years left. You could also pull out a late first rounder from Utah (via GS) if you needed one.
So there's two deals right away and I'm not even a GM. There's teams that could be calling and it would improve their teams.
Because there's not guarantee you're not making the playoffs in two years? Because you are as sure as you can be that you have a competitive team this year?
I have no idea why OKC would make that trade. The Thunder are a young, uptempo team. KG is not. Not to mention the amount you're giving up to get a guy who is possibly a year away from retirement.
Maybe...
But I don't see the Boston Celtics trading away Paul Pierce. And I think KG has a no trade clause. I just don't think it's a good idea, nor likely.
I don't think Rondo is a leader you put pieces around. I think Rondo is a good player you put around a leader.If you put enough pieces around Rondo within the next two years you have a chance at making the playoffs.
So...Boston is going to want to rookies who don't play and a guy they traded once who "isn't all that good" (who still has a couple years left on a contract?Lamb and Jones are sitting on the bench (or in the D-League) as it is and are blocked by their cornerstones. OKC could do it to improve their D since Perkins isn't all that good and KG can still go for 25 minutes a game. Having him and Ibaka would make it tough on many teams inside of the paint. Give KG Perkins' minutes and their defense will improve (probably their offense too, for that matter).
So Boston is now going to take two rookies who aren't good enough to play, a guy they traded a couple of years ago and still has years left on a contract and a draft pick which isn't considered to be very good.Really the one thing they'd be losing is that draft pick, but this draft is considered somewhat light. If KG is even slightly better than Perkins their chances of going to the finals increase.
Yes, loyalty. And surely you understand the difference between Ray Allen, a guy they acquired roughly 5 years ago and Paul Pierce, a guy they drafted and has played exclusively for them. You understand the difference between a guy with injury problems and the "heart and soul" of the Celtics.Why not? Loyalty? Didn't stop them from letting Allen go (although I'd guess the feeling was mutual).
Exactly.Didn't stop them from trading Perkins (although he hadn't nearly had the history with the C's Pierce has).
So now the Celtics are going to trade their Hall of Fame player who is still a high caliber player (even if he's not elite) for a guy who is never going to lead your team, but will keep them average enough so you never jump back into the high lottery?That's fine, switch Millsap for Favors and the trade still works. Plus Millsap is only 27 (soon to be 28) so he still has a few decent years left. Spend a lottery pick on a big man and on a 3 and you got your future lineup (or you could use Green there if you'd want to give the 3 some time). Someone like Alex Len from Maryland could be a potential option.
EDIT: I realize Millsap is expired after the season but I'm sure Boston would try to work out an extension with him before they made the deal. Or they could let him walk to free up space, but that'd be dumb.
I don't think Rondo is a leader you put pieces around. I think Rondo is a good player you put around a leader.
Furthermore, that is complete conjecture. The draft pick you are likely to get from either a Pierce or Garnett is not likely to be a high lottery pick (since the teams willing to trade for them will be playoff contender. So you have to REALLY tank the season and hope for a good lottery season.
So...Boston is going to want to rookies who don't play and a guy they traded once who "isn't all that good" (who still has a couple years left on a contract?
So now the Celtics are going to trade their Hall of Fame player who is still a high caliber player (even if he's not elite) for a guy who is never going to lead your team, but will keep them average enough so you never jump back into the high lottery?
Here's what we know. The Celtics came within one game of the NBA Finals last year. Rondo getting hurt is a huge blow. Allen is gone, but he wasn't the same Ray Allen last year he was before. The Celtics are good enough to make the playoffs, and veteran teams in the playoffs are always dangerous.
It just seems silly to me to break up a team of Hall of Famers and lose out on all the money which comes from a competitive team just so you can get very little back in return.
I'm not talking about being a top scorer, I'm talking about being a leader. Nothing I have ever seen from Rondo, even going back to his years at Kentucky, makes me think he's a leader. He seems to be constantly at odds with people and the rumors were nobody was unhappy back when he left Kentucky.Rondo will never be your top scorer but he can definitely lead a team to a long run. He gets everyone involved and does everything else well.
But not a high lottery pick in what you called a weak draft.The pick I proposed in the KG to OKC deal IS a lottery pick.
Rondo is a beast and could be the best PG ever (overall) if he continues at this pace. However, he will never be the leader that Magic and Stockton were and things as important as leadership are important when their careers are over.
Look at Randy Moss for example. He had the tools to be the greatest WR ever, but his immaturity kept him away. Best deep threat ever. And then to top it off, he still says that he's the greatest WR of all time at his older and "wiser" age. Some people don't change and I don't think Rajon Rondo ever will.