CelticsStrong
Around the League => Transaction Ideas and Rumors => Topic started by: Moranis on February 05, 2013, 08:10:47 AM
-
Something like this would work financially
Houston - Granger
Indiana - Pierce, Douglas
Boston - Augustin, Aldrich, Delfino, and then one (or more) of the young Rockets prospects (Jones, Patterson, Parsons, Morris, White, etc.)
-
Eh....nothing to get excited about...not sure why anyone is interested in Granger or why we want a platter of poo....highly doubt the rockets would include Parsons...the only name in there that would interest me
-
that's a lot of lesser-quality players coming back to the C's for their best clutch performer (PP) and someone who might be major salary relief for Indy next year if they get him.
I'd want at least Parsons and either Jones or Patterson too in place of Delfino (if the $ works). Augustin, Delfino and Aldrich just don't do it for me as an incentive to trade PP
-
This is why I'd probably be a bad GM in terms of not actually being able to pull the trigger on a trade. If I were trading with Houston, I find so many of their players to be so similar that I would want several back in a trade. for example, this 3 way works financially:
Boston
Gives: Pierce
Gets: Delfino, Aldrich, Jones, Motiejunas, Parsons, Smith
Has to cut: Wilcox, Collins, Barbosa
Indiana:
Gives: Ben Hansbrough, Granger
Gets: Pierce
Houston:
Gives: Delfino, Aldrich, Jones, Motiejunas, Parsons, Smith
Gets: Granger, Ben Hansbrough
So Indiand upgrades Granger to Pierce and saves some money. They have to include 1 small contract with Granger to make the money work.
Houston likely doesn't do this. But the challenge for them is unless they are giving up Lin or Asik, they need to include a bunch of small contracts; in this case Delfino and Aldrich are just salary filler, while the rest are the meat of the trade. I don't know if Houston would give all that up for Granger, but I probably would take that.
-
This is why I'd probably be a bad GM in terms of not actually being able to pull the trigger on a trade. If I were trading with Houston, I find so many of their players to be so similar that I would want several back in a trade. for example, this 3 way works financially:
Boston
Gives: Pierce
Gets: Delfino, Aldrich, Jones, Motiejunas, Parsons, Smith
Has to cut: Wilcox, Collins, Barbosa
Indiana:
Gives: Ben Hansbrough, Granger
Gets: Pierce
Houston:
Gives: Delfino, Aldrich, Jones, Motiejunas, Parsons, Smith
Gets: Granger, Ben Hansbrough
So Indiand upgrades Granger to Pierce and saves some money. They have to include 1 small contract with Granger to make the money work.
Houston likely doesn't do this. But the challenge for them is unless they are giving up Lin or Asik, they need to include a bunch of small contracts; in this case Delfino and Aldrich are just salary filler, while the rest are the meat of the trade. I don't know if Houston would give all that up for Granger, but I probably would take that.
I like the general idea, Fan from VT. I was playing with the trade machine last night for Pierce trades, and the only one that even remotely made sense was Indy, and including Houston makes a lot of sense. I just think that your proposal has them giving up too many decent young assets. Parsons, in particular is a good player, and I could see them keeping him as a piece going forward for their team (would like him on ours, too). Jones has a lot of talent and will be a player, imo. Smith is a very useful guy, as we've seen all year. Montiejunas looked like a very solid project in the preseason (or was it summer league, can't remember) when I saw him. Still, they'd be getting Granger, a youngish borderline all-star type of guy. He'd pair nicely with Harden. I really like what they're doing down there in Houston.
Anyway, some variation of your 3 way makes a lot of sense. Even if we don't get 4 prospects as in your idea, just getting, say, Parsons and Jones out of it (if you're going the rebuild/trade PP route) is a decent jump start on the rebuild, and like I said, it's hard to find a PP trade that makes any sense for other teams. Indy is one of the few that might work.
Then, the other shoe to drop would be KG to LAC. It's going to be an interesting couple of weeks. A team (in this case Indy) would have to feel like they're right there on the cusp to do a deal like this, and I'm not sure they're quite that close. It's all pretty unlikely still, but I do think Indy is the most likely landing spot for PP if any deal is to be done.
-
This is why I'd probably be a bad GM in terms of not actually being able to pull the trigger on a trade. If I were trading with Houston, I find so many of their players to be so similar that I would want several back in a trade. for example, this 3 way works financially:
Boston
Gives: Pierce
Gets: Delfino, Aldrich, Jones, Motiejunas, Parsons, Smith
Has to cut: Wilcox, Collins, Barbosa
Indiana:
Gives: Ben Hansbrough, Granger
Gets: Pierce
Houston:
Gives: Delfino, Aldrich, Jones, Motiejunas, Parsons, Smith
Gets: Granger, Ben Hansbrough
So Indiand upgrades Granger to Pierce and saves some money. They have to include 1 small contract with Granger to make the money work.
Houston likely doesn't do this. But the challenge for them is unless they are giving up Lin or Asik, they need to include a bunch of small contracts; in this case Delfino and Aldrich are just salary filler, while the rest are the meat of the trade. I don't know if Houston would give all that up for Granger, but I probably would take that.
I think this is such a one sided trade for Boston. Pierce is not and upgrade for Granger and Houston is giving up way too much for Granger as well.
IMO of course.
-
This is why I'd probably be a bad GM in terms of not actually being able to pull the trigger on a trade. If I were trading with Houston, I find so many of their players to be so similar that I would want several back in a trade. for example, this 3 way works financially:
Boston
Gives: Pierce
Gets: Delfino, Aldrich, Jones, Motiejunas, Parsons, Smith
Has to cut: Wilcox, Collins, Barbosa
Indiana:
Gives: Ben Hansbrough, Granger
Gets: Pierce
Houston:
Gives: Delfino, Aldrich, Jones, Motiejunas, Parsons, Smith
Gets: Granger, Ben Hansbrough
So Indiand upgrades Granger to Pierce and saves some money. They have to include 1 small contract with Granger to make the money work.
Houston likely doesn't do this. But the challenge for them is unless they are giving up Lin or Asik, they need to include a bunch of small contracts; in this case Delfino and Aldrich are just salary filler, while the rest are the meat of the trade. I don't know if Houston would give all that up for Granger, but I probably would take that.
I think this is such a one sided trade for Boston. Pierce is not and upgrade for Granger and Houston is giving up way too much for Granger as well.
IMO of course.
You're right. That is homerish for Boston. The truth is, if Houston wants Granger, they've got better pieces (at least for the long term) to give Indy than we do. Indy already has Paul George at the 3, who's merely playing great. Crazy as it sounds, we'd probably have to throw in a first to shoehorn in on this. Danny would have to decide whether the players he'd get back are more valuable/have more upside than who he might get in the draft.
-
Eh....nothing to get excited about...not sure why anyone is interested in Granger or why we want a platter of poo....highly doubt the rockets would include Parsons...the only name in there that would interest me
I would be mighty scared of Granger. He's dropped off the last two years and that was before he had major surgery.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
-
Houston is interested in Granger?
-
Eh....nothing to get excited about...not sure why anyone is interested in Granger or why we want a platter of poo....highly doubt the rockets would include Parsons...the only name in there that would interest me
I would be mighty scared of Granger. He's dropped off the last two years and that was before he had major surgery.
And the knee he had surgery on is apparently a bad degenerative condition too...
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
Yeah, which is why Danny might instead trade some of the role players if he can.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
Two extra years from now.
Trading Pierce (and others) now gives Danny more time and more opportunities to put a new contender together around Rondo.
-
The reason the Pacers would want to trade with Houston is that the Rockets have cap space and could give them a handful of cheap young players in return for Granger (i.e. cost-controlled depth).
Taking on Pierce instead doesn't really fit their goals. Paul George has blossomed while starting at SF this year. Why acquire a high usage veteran like Pierce who will only be around for a season or so anyway and push George back to SG?
Makes more sense for the Pacers to use Granger to bolster their horrid bench and get some more young assets.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
Two extra years from now.
Trading Pierce (and others) now gives Danny more time and more opportunities to put a new contender together around Rondo.
Doubtful. With the new CBA, I don't foresee many contenders built through free agency.
-
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine
Boston
Sends: Jeff Green, Fab Melo, Jason Collins, B Bass, pix
Gets: Omer Asik, Chandler Parsons
Indiana
Sends: Danny Granger
Gets: Jeff Green, B Bass, Fab Melo, pix
Houston
Sends: Omer Asik, Chandler Parsons, pix
Gets: Danny Granger, Jason Collins
Something in this ballpark, eh?
This exact trade probably won't go through, because of Green's contract, and Houston won't (and shouldn't) give up Asik, but wishful thinking doesn't hurt. :D
I think Parsons should've been a Celtic, anyway. He'd also fit very nicely next to Paul George on Indy, imo.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
Two extra years from now.
Trading Pierce (and others) now gives Danny more time and more opportunities to put a new contender together around Rondo.
Doubtful. With the new CBA, I don't foresee many contenders built through free agency.
Yep. Only way to "build a contender around Rondo" is to acquire various assets gradually and then make some trades or completely tank for a season or two and get lucky in consecutive drafts (the OKC plan).
Either way, Rondo is in his early 30s before the team is elite again.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
Two extra years from now.
Trading Pierce (and others) now gives Danny more time and more opportunities to put a new contender together around Rondo.
Doubtful. With the new CBA, I don't foresee many contenders built through free agency.
Yeah trades with cap space seem more likely, and the draft obviously.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
Two extra years from now.
Trading Pierce (and others) now gives Danny more time and more opportunities to put a new contender together around Rondo.
Doubtful. With the new CBA, I don't foresee many contenders built through free agency.
So you want to build through the draft after Pierce and Garnett retire?
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
Two extra years from now.
Trading Pierce (and others) now gives Danny more time and more opportunities to put a new contender together around Rondo.
Doubtful. With the new CBA, I don't foresee many contenders built through free agency.
So you want to build through the draft after Pierce and Garnett retire?
I feel like that's not as bad an option as one would think, with the right GM. I mean, when Danny stepped in, he drafted well enough to get VERY lucky and trade for Allen and Garnett.
Building a contender includes patience, good decision making, good scouting, and most of all, LUCK.
There's no sure way t build a contender, but there are good ways to put yourself in good position to build a contender, with good young players.
Just look at Houston; they're in a very good direction, because of taking chances on good signings, drafting good young talent (assets), and keeping those young assets/ trading them when the right deal comes (Harden).
They're poised for a decent future, at the very least.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
Two extra years from now.
Trading Pierce (and others) now gives Danny more time and more opportunities to put a new contender together around Rondo.
Doubtful. With the new CBA, I don't foresee many contenders built through free agency.
So you want to build through the draft after Pierce and Garnett retire?
Not necessarily after. But I don't see any more value in sitting with a ton of cap space waiting for a player of the right caliber to come along... who may or may not want to play in Boston. And don't forget that there are minimum payroll requirements too, that's how Chuck Hayes ended up with that ginormous contract in Houston.
The draft is a crapshoot, yes. But I prefer it to free agency. Even if you don't quite draft the next big thing, I really think that making someone bite on your assets is easier than signing a really good free agent.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
Two extra years from now.
Trading Pierce (and others) now gives Danny more time and more opportunities to put a new contender together around Rondo.
Doubtful. With the new CBA, I don't foresee many contenders built through free agency.
So you want to build through the draft after Pierce and Garnett retire?
Not necessarily after. But I don't see any more value in sitting with a ton of cap space waiting for a player of the right caliber to come along... who may or may not want to play in Boston. And don't forget that there are minimum payroll requirements too, that's how Chuck Hayes ended up with that ginormous contract in Houston.
The draft is a crapshoot, yes. But I prefer it to free agency. Even if you don't quite draft the next big thing, I really think that making someone bite on your assets is easier than signing a really good free agent.
I'm with you..as much as we love Boston and its history it's not really a place free agents like to play, it's very cold and cold climates don't do well in free agency.
I poses this question in another thread but who was the last big time free agent to sign in Boston?
-
I poses this question in another thread but who was the last big time free agent to sign in Boston?
Kevin Garnett. Ray Allen. Before that, you probably have to go back to Gary Payton and Dominique Wilkins.
In any case, I'm not so concerned about the "FAs don't want to play in Boston" spiel, but free agency is as much of a crapshoot as the draft. David West, LeBron James, and Chris Bosh are just the most recent examples.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
Two extra years from now.
Trading Pierce (and others) now gives Danny more time and more opportunities to put a new contender together around Rondo.
Doubtful. With the new CBA, I don't foresee many contenders built through free agency.
So you want to build through the draft after Pierce and Garnett retire?
Not necessarily after. But I don't see any more value in sitting with a ton of cap space waiting for a player of the right caliber to come along... who may or may not want to play in Boston. And don't forget that there are minimum payroll requirements too, that's how Chuck Hayes ended up with that ginormous contract in Houston.
The draft is a crapshoot, yes. But I prefer it to free agency. Even if you don't quite draft the next big thing, I really think that making someone bite on your assets is easier than signing a really good free agent.
I like blowing it up now.
I think Boston can still get a pick in the 8-12 range rather than the 16-20 range I expect them to end up in if they keep it together.
Then they have the cap space to make a run at some major free agents (or trade targets using cap space to take on big contracts) this summer. If those options are unappealing or if Boston fails to get the guy they want, they can use their cap space to take on bad contracts from other teams and pick up additional assets in the process (picks / prospects).
Then they have another low pick the following summer if the FA opportunities didn't work out. Plus another shot at the free agent / trade market.
Then there will be another season to try and make moves. All before Garnett's contract expires.
I think there are a lot of opportunities there to rebuild the team. I would like to pursue them rather than keep Pierce and Garnett together for the next 2 and a half years.
That is my first preference.
-
I think Boston can still get a pick in the 8-12 range rather than the 16-20 range I expect them to end up in if they keep it together.
Then they have the cap space to make a run at some major free agents (or trade targets using cap space to take on big contracts) this summer. If those options are unappealing or if Boston fails to get the guy they want, they can use their cap space to take on bad contracts from other teams and pick up additional assets in the process (picks / prospects).
Unless you can name specific players you realistically expect to get in the draft and in free agency, this discussion remains purely academic.
-
I think Boston can still get a pick in the 8-12 range rather than the 16-20 range I expect them to end up in if they keep it together.
Then they have the cap space to make a run at some major free agents (or trade targets using cap space to take on big contracts) this summer. If those options are unappealing or if Boston fails to get the guy they want, they can use their cap space to take on bad contracts from other teams and pick up additional assets in the process (picks / prospects).
Unless you can name specific players you realistically expect to get in the draft and in free agency, this discussion remains purely academic.
Yes it is = about which way is the best and quickest way to win another NBA title.
Whether it is with this core group or not. Or if the next title will only come after the next rebuild. And if it is next rebuild, should it start now or after Pierce / Garnett retire.
If one believes this core can still win an NBA title this season or in the next two years, I can see the reason for the keeping it together.
If not, I think the added opportunities to improve the team by blowing it up now instead of in two and a half year's time are too good to pass up on.
It is a two and a half year longer window of creating opportunities (primarily through cap flexibility and also higher draft picks) to improve the team. Beginning rebuilding when Rondo is 26/27 instead of 29/30 to give Danny Ainge the best chance of building a new title contender with Rondo still a main cog in the team.
-
I poses this question in another thread but who was the last big time free agent to sign in Boston?
Kevin Garnett. Ray Allen. Before that, you probably have to go back to Gary Payton and Dominique Wilkins.
In any case, I'm not so concerned about the "FAs don't want to play in Boston" spiel, but free agency is as much of a crapshoot as the draft. David West, LeBron James, and Chris Bosh are just the most recent examples.
Re-signing our own free agents don't count lol when's the left time a free agent left their team to sign in Boston?
-
I poses this question in another thread but who was the last big time free agent to sign in Boston?
Kevin Garnett. Ray Allen. Before that, you probably have to go back to Gary Payton and Dominique Wilkins.
In any case, I'm not so concerned about the "FAs don't want to play in Boston" spiel, but free agency is as much of a crapshoot as the draft. David West, LeBron James, and Chris Bosh are just the most recent examples.
Re-signing our own free agents don't count lol when's the left time a free agent left their team to sign in Boston?
This past offseason: Jason Terry and Courtney Lee.
-
Why?? They have a beast in Parsons who's and up and coming star!?
-
I poses this question in another thread but who was the last big time free agent to sign in Boston?
Kevin Garnett. Ray Allen. Before that, you probably have to go back to Gary Payton and Dominique Wilkins.
In any case, I'm not so concerned about the "FAs don't want to play in Boston" spiel, but free agency is as much of a crapshoot as the draft. David West, LeBron James, and Chris Bosh are just the most recent examples.
Re-signing our own free agents don't count lol when's the left time a free agent left their team to sign in Boston?
Not sure why it doesn't count. Garnett had every option to leave and sign for more. Same for Allen (and he _did_ leave this year).
In any case, neither Payton nor Wilkins were our own free agents. And another thing to consider is that until recently, not that many of what you'd call "big time" players left their teams through free agency. That's a relatively new phenomenon.
-
that's a lot of lesser-quality players coming back to the C's for their best clutch performer (PP) and someone who might be major salary relief for Indy next year if they get him.
I'd want at least Parsons and either Jones or Patterson too in place of Delfino (if the $ works). Augustin, Delfino and Aldrich just don't do it for me as an incentive to trade PP
Obviously you didn't read my posted trade.
Boston would also get about a 6 million trade exception.
-
Houston is interested in Granger?
according to fox sports they are.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
no you can't. Boston won't have cap room or the ability to fill that slot with anything other than draft picks or MLE signings.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
no you can't. Boston won't have cap room or the ability to fill that slot with anything other than draft picks or MLE signings.
I expect Garnett and Pierce to go off the books simultaneously, in 2014 or 2015. If you expect that Pierce will retire in 2014 and Garnett will stay for an extra season, sure.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
no you can't. Boston won't have cap room or the ability to fill that slot with anything other than draft picks or MLE signings.
I expect Garnett and Pierce to go off the books simultaneously, in 2014 or 2015. If you expect that Pierce will retire in 2014 and Garnett will stay for an extra season, sure.
still won't have cap room.
2015 Salaries
Rondo - 13
Green - 9.5
Bass - 7
Lee - 5.5
Terry - 5.5
So right there alone you get 40.5, that doesn't account for Bradley and his Q.O. of 3.5, Sullinger's 1.4, Melo's 1.3, the 2013 rookie, the 2014 rookie and a couple of other cap holds. Obviously if Garnett sticks around that is another 12 million.
Boston will not have cap space until at least the 2015 season without making multiple moves.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
no you can't. Boston won't have cap room or the ability to fill that slot with anything other than draft picks or MLE signings.
I expect Garnett and Pierce to go off the books simultaneously, in 2014 or 2015. If you expect that Pierce will retire in 2014 and Garnett will stay for an extra season, sure.
still won't have cap room.
2015 Salaries
Rondo - 13
Green - 9.5
Bass - 7
Lee - 5.5
Terry - 5.5
So right there alone you get 40.5, that doesn't account for Bradley and his Q.O. of 3.5, Sullinger's 1.4, Melo's 1.3, the 2013 rookie, the 2014 rookie and a couple of other cap holds. Obviously if Garnett sticks around that is another 12 million.
Boston will not have cap space until at least the 2015 season without making multiple moves.
The cap was $58 this season. I don't think we'll have $18 million worth of holds.
-
If I'm giving up Pierce, I want a legit building piece back. Doesn't have to be a sure thing, but it has to have more potential than any of those players.
You can get a legit building piece with Pierce's vacated salary slot. That piece doesn't have to come directly in the trade.
You can get a legit piece with Pierce's slot when his contract expires too -- so no need to trade him.
no you can't. Boston won't have cap room or the ability to fill that slot with anything other than draft picks or MLE signings.
I expect Garnett and Pierce to go off the books simultaneously, in 2014 or 2015. If you expect that Pierce will retire in 2014 and Garnett will stay for an extra season, sure.
still won't have cap room.
2015 Salaries
Rondo - 13
Green - 9.5
Bass - 7
Lee - 5.5
Terry - 5.5
So right there alone you get 40.5, that doesn't account for Bradley and his Q.O. of 3.5, Sullinger's 1.4, Melo's 1.3, the 2013 rookie, the 2014 rookie and a couple of other cap holds. Obviously if Garnett sticks around that is another 12 million.
Boston will not have cap space until at least the 2015 season without making multiple moves.
The cap was $58 this season. I don't think we'll have $18 million worth of holds.
True, but I didn't say they would. Bradley is at least 3.5 million that summer (and probably more). Sullinger is 1.5 million. I can't see Boston walking away from them, so that adds 5 million. Melo also has an option for about 1.4 million. The 2013 and 2014 1st round picks will add at least 2.5 million, but I'd say based on current draft position liklihood those will be 3.5 million. So add in those 5 players and their 10 million and you are up to 50.5 million. That is only 10 players, so you have to add in another 1 million or so in cap holds, and you are at 51.5 million, which is essentially enough room under the cap to sign a MLE type player.
-
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=a69yt6e
This is the trade i would like.
Boston gets: Parsons,G. Smith,C. Aldrich and T. Douglas
Boston gives: Pierce (to indiana)
Indiana gets: Paul Pierce
Indiana gives: Granger, Ben Hansbrough
Houston Gets: Granger, barbosa, Wilcox and B. Hansbrough
Houston gives: Parsons, smith, aldrich and douglas
Boston starts the rebuild with two very good young players in Greg Smith and Chandler Parsons (both very good WP/48 consistently) and saves a ton of money (both aldrich and douglas are expiring deals anyway and aren't very good).
Indiana gets a much more legit playoff team without as much injury worry with Granger (pretty much a straight swap for them)
Houston gets a "star" in Granger to pair with Harden, Lin and Asik to form a very respectable starting five still packed with young talent, and get some bench replacements to help make up for their traded players so they can continue to compete.
The only thing that could hold this up is Houston not wanting Granger but all the rumors state they want him.