CelticsStrong
Around the League => Transaction Ideas and Rumors => Topic started by: TheTruthFot18 on March 20, 2014, 08:41:14 AM
-
Bear with me hear since I'm not a 100% clear on use of TE and S/T rules but here we go:
Utah signs Gordon Hayward for 4/$44, signs Favors 3/$27.
Boston signs AB 4/$26
Utah receives: AB (6.5), Bass (6.5), JA (3), Lee's TE, our top pick
Boston receives: Hayward (11), Favors (9), Jazz late first pick
Why for Utah? Get a more affordable sg in Bradley and put Bass next to Kanter. Two top ten picks to solidify the future.
Why for Boston? Looks like we will end up at best 4th worst record and possibly as far back as 8th making our pick worse. Trade that mystery along with soon to be FA Bradley and expiring Bass for a future sg and c with potential and low mileage. Plus the two late firsts to add additional youth.
The Favors part might be a stretch but I think the Jazz would be enticed by another top 10 or even top 5 pick along with Bass and AB.
Thoughts?
-
Assuming this is valid for the trade checker, there's no way Utah makes this move.
1. They give up the 2 best players in the deal & a first. both players are starting-caliber.
2. AB is a bench guard, he's not starting material.
3. Bass is a bench big, he wouldn't start on a contender. Also Utah is rebuilding, adding Bass does nothing for them to help the rebuild.
4. Favors has more of a positive impact for Utah than Kanter. If either gets traded, it'll be Kanter.
5. Hayward is basically Jeff Green who we already have. why duplicate the player unless you've got a deal lined up to ship out Green. The thing is, your proposal has Hayward with a bigger contract. Rather keep Green that have 2 ok SFs making a combined 20 mill.
6. Favors has shown some promise but he's too inconsistent at this point to bank on him as a cornerstone of the future. He's still just an intriguing prospect.
7. Having a top pick in this draft should get us an established All-Star at a minimum if we trade it. Someone picked between 4-8 in this draft could very well be as good or better than Favors and certainly better than Hayward.
-
Assuming this is valid for the trade checker, there's no way Utah makes this move.
1. They give up the 2 best players in the deal & a first. both players are starting-caliber.
2. AB is a bench guard, he's not starting material.
3. Bass is a bench big, he wouldn't start on a contender. Also Utah is rebuilding, adding Bass does nothing for them to help the rebuild.
4. Favors has more of a positive impact for Utah than Kanter. If either gets traded, it'll be Kanter.
5. Hayward is basically Jeff Green who we already have. why duplicate the player unless you've got a deal lined up to ship out Green. The thing is, your proposal has Hayward with a bigger contract. Rather keep Green that have 2 ok SFs making a combined 20 mill.
6. Favors has shown some promise but he's too inconsistent at this point to bank on him as a cornerstone of the future. He's still just an intriguing prospect.
7. Having a top pick in this draft should get us an established All-Star at a minimum if we trade it. Someone picked between 4-8 in this draft could very well be as good or better than Favors and certainly better than Hayward.
I was just going to say, I think the Celts win this deal by a landslide which is why Utah wouldn't do it.
I certainly like it for the Celts but I've got to think Utah considers Favors and Kanter as part of their future core.
I also think that if Utah did deal Favors to us, that we'd probably have to give up Sullinger. Not that I would necessarily be opposed to that because Favors is one inch taller, can play the center position and is more athletic.
So, if I may fine tune this trade, I think you'd have a better chance of this happening.
Celts offer Bradley, Green, Sullinger (whatever else, if necessary)
for Favors and Hayward.
I think that would be a little more even for more both teams.
-
No way Utah does this deal.
Favors is a 22 year old center averaging 13, 9 and 1.5 blocks per game in a rebuild in Utah.
We'd have a tough time packaging Bradley, Bass and our top pick for Favors or Hayward by themselves. There's no way we would get them together.
-
Horrible trade for the Jazz, as mentioned by everyone else. To put it in perspective: would you trade Sullinger, Green, and the Clippers' first rounder for Alec Burks, John Lucas, Ian Clark, and a lottery pick?
-
Someone picked between 4-8 in this draft could very well be as good or better than Favors and certainly better than Hayward.
I'll be pleasantly surprised if whoever is picked at 8th is anywhere near as good as Gordon Hayward. He's having a rough year shooting the ball, but 16/5/5 is pretty good production for the mid-lottery.
-
I asked about a trade similar to this, but included Sully. Not because I want to get rid of him but I assume Utah would want him. Both teams would have a Center and PF in that trade.
-
I don't think people understand how highly Utah values Favors -- as they should.
Put him on a team with a good passing point guard and he's NJ-era Kenyon Martin.
-
No way Utah does this deal.
Favors is a 22 year old center averaging 13, 9 and 1.5 blocks per game in a rebuild in Utah.
We'd have a tough time packaging Bradley, Bass and our top pick for Favors or Hayward by themselves. There's no way we would get them together.
There's no way Hayward's worth anywhere near Bradley and our 1st rounder. He's the same age as AB and he's had a statistically similar year to AB. He does some things better but when I've seen him his defense has been pretty bad.
-
No way Utah does this deal.
Favors is a 22 year old center averaging 13, 9 and 1.5 blocks per game in a rebuild in Utah.
We'd have a tough time packaging Bradley, Bass and our top pick for Favors or Hayward by themselves. There's no way we would get them together.
There's no way Hayward's worth anywhere near Bradley and our 1st rounder. He's the same age as AB and he's had a statistically similar year to AB. He does some things better but when I've seen him his defense has been pretty bad.
Hayward's a much better ball-handler and passer than AB. He also has the size to play both wing positions. He's obviously not the defender that AB is, but I think he's a much better shooter. Hayward's percentages this season don't do him justice.
I agree with you, though, that I wouldn't trade a top 10 pick for Hayward. Not because he's not a good player, but because I'd hope to hit on a guy with higher upside picking in that range.
-
Just want to interject that Lee's trade exception is a little over $2 million, and so has no place in this deal.
Also, and more importantly, Favors already signed an extension for 4 years, $47 million. He's not going anywhere.
-
No way Utah does this deal.
Favors is a 22 year old center averaging 13, 9 and 1.5 blocks per game in a rebuild in Utah.
We'd have a tough time packaging Bradley, Bass and our top pick for Favors or Hayward by themselves. There's no way we would get them together.
There's no way Hayward's worth anywhere near Bradley and our 1st rounder. He's the same age as AB and he's had a statistically similar year to AB. He does some things better but when I've seen him his defense has been pretty bad.
Hayward's a much better ball-handler and passer than AB. He also has the size to play both wing positions. He's obviously not the defender that AB is, but I think he's a much better shooter. Hayward's percentages this season don't do him justice.
Hayward's a better ball-handler and passer but he turns the ball over more often and he's not much of a defender. He's healthier than Bradley but if they're both healthy the difference in shooting probably isn't that great.
-
Didn't realize Favors signed an extension. I just really want a legit center on the C's. Oh well
-
2. AB is a bench guard, he's not starting material.
3. Bass is a bench big, he wouldn't start on a contender. Also Utah is rebuilding, adding Bass does nothing for them to help the rebuild.
Bradley's been a starter for the last two and a half seasons and Bass started on a team that went to game 7 of the conference finals. Aside from that those are accurate claims.
-
2. AB is a bench guard, he's not starting material.
3. Bass is a bench big, he wouldn't start on a contender. Also Utah is rebuilding, adding Bass does nothing for them to help the rebuild.
Bradley's been a starter for the last two and a half seasons and Bass started on a team that went to game 7 of the conference finals. Aside from that those are accurate claims.
just because they started for us does not make them starting-quality players. they would serve the team better if they were coming off the bench -- primarily because we'd have better players playing in front of them.
Using your logic, anyone starting for Philly other than MCW or Young right now is someone you'd consider a starting-quality player. to me, just because a player starts, doesn't mean that player should or would be starting for a good team
-
2. AB is a bench guard, he's not starting material.
3. Bass is a bench big, he wouldn't start on a contender. Also Utah is rebuilding, adding Bass does nothing for them to help the rebuild.
Bradley's been a starter for the last two and a half seasons and Bass started on a team that went to game 7 of the conference finals. Aside from that those are accurate claims.
just because they started for us does not make them starting-quality players. they would serve the team better if they were coming off the bench -- primarily because we'd have better players playing in front of them.
That's a meaningless comment. LeBron and Durant would serve their team better if they were coming off the bench because there were better players playing in front of them.
Using your logic, anyone starting for Philly other than MCW or Young right now is someone you'd consider a starting-quality player. to me, just because a player starts, doesn't mean that player should or would be starting for a good team
Sure, if you don't see the difference between this year's Sixers and quality playoff teams. They *did* start on a good team. Saying they wouldn't is like claiming a player like Antoine Walker would never make an all-star team.
-
2. AB is a bench guard, he's not starting material.
3. Bass is a bench big, he wouldn't start on a contender. Also Utah is rebuilding, adding Bass does nothing for them to help the rebuild.
Bradley's been a starter for the last two and a half seasons and Bass started on a team that went to game 7 of the conference finals. Aside from that those are accurate claims.
just because they started for us does not make them starting-quality players. they would serve the team better if they were coming off the bench -- primarily because we'd have better players playing in front of them.
That's a meaningless comment. LeBron and Durant would serve their team better if they were coming off the bench because there were better players playing in front of them.
Using your logic, anyone starting for Philly other than MCW or Young right now is someone you'd consider a starting-quality player. to me, just because a player starts, doesn't mean that player should or would be starting for a good team
Sure, if you don't see the difference between this year's Sixers and quality playoff teams. They *did* start on a good team. Saying they wouldn't is like claiming a player like Antoine Walker would never make an all-star team.
you're making no sense. whatever. you're looking for an argument for argument's sake.
my point still stands. these guys aren't good enough to start for a contending team. period. if you want to argue that because they've started for us before (and anyone who's started for anyone) must mean they're good enough to start, feel free to argue that with someone else. i don't find it a credible argument.
if you felt that they ARE starting caliber players based on your opinion of having watched them play, that would be different and might have merit but that's not what you're saying
-
2. AB is a bench guard, he's not starting material.
3. Bass is a bench big, he wouldn't start on a contender. Also Utah is rebuilding, adding Bass does nothing for them to help the rebuild.
Bradley's been a starter for the last two and a half seasons and Bass started on a team that went to game 7 of the conference finals. Aside from that those are accurate claims.
just because they started for us does not make them starting-quality players. they would serve the team better if they were coming off the bench -- primarily because we'd have better players playing in front of them.
That's a meaningless comment. LeBron and Durant would serve their team better if they were coming off the bench because there were better players playing in front of them.
Using your logic, anyone starting for Philly other than MCW or Young right now is someone you'd consider a starting-quality player. to me, just because a player starts, doesn't mean that player should or would be starting for a good team
Sure, if you don't see the difference between this year's Sixers and quality playoff teams. They *did* start on a good team. Saying they wouldn't is like claiming a player like Antoine Walker would never make an all-star team.
you're making no sense. whatever. you're looking for an argument for argument's sake.
my point still stands. these guys aren't good enough to start for a contending team. period. if you want to argue that because they've started for us before (and anyone who's started for anyone) must mean they're good enough to start, feel free to argue that with someone else. i don't find it a credible argument.
I'm not saying that anyone who's ever started for any team is good enough to start on a contending team, but it's fairly ridiculous to say that players who have started for contending teams aren't good enough to start on a contending team. Neither of them are stars but Bass is a fairly average player and Bradley's not that much worse when he's healthy. Neither of them are all-world but if you're extolling the virtues of players like Hayward you have to realize that he's not that far above them at this point in time.
-
2. AB is a bench guard, he's not starting material.
3. Bass is a bench big, he wouldn't start on a contender. Also Utah is rebuilding, adding Bass does nothing for them to help the rebuild.
Bradley's been a starter for the last two and a half seasons and Bass started on a team that went to game 7 of the conference finals. Aside from that those are accurate claims.
just because they started for us does not make them starting-quality players. they would serve the team better if they were coming off the bench -- primarily because we'd have better players playing in front of them.
That's a meaningless comment. LeBron and Durant would serve their team better if they were coming off the bench because there were better players playing in front of them.
Using your logic, anyone starting for Philly other than MCW or Young right now is someone you'd consider a starting-quality player. to me, just because a player starts, doesn't mean that player should or would be starting for a good team
Sure, if you don't see the difference between this year's Sixers and quality playoff teams. They *did* start on a good team. Saying they wouldn't is like claiming a player like Antoine Walker would never make an all-star team.
you're making no sense. whatever. you're looking for an argument for argument's sake.
my point still stands. these guys aren't good enough to start for a contending team. period. if you want to argue that because they've started for us before (and anyone who's started for anyone) must mean they're good enough to start, feel free to argue that with someone else. i don't find it a credible argument.
I'm not saying that anyone who's ever started for any team is good enough to start on a contending team, but it's fairly ridiculous to say that players who have started for contending teams aren't good enough to start on a contending team. Neither of them are stars but Bass is a fairly average player and Bradley's not that much worse when he's healthy. Neither of them are all-world but if you're extolling the virtues of players like Hayward you have to realize that he's not that far above them at this point in time.
I'm not extolling the virtues of Hayward at all. never have. I see him as Jeff Green Lite. not sure where you're getting that from.
My point's not ridiculous as you believe. AB and Bass started for the C's because we didn't have better options. the fact the C's got as far as they did with those 2 starting is more of a tribute to the other starters. Case in point, we have 2 better options at PF than Bass that are already on the team in Sully and Hump.
Your previous statement about Lebron and Durant to contradict me was asinine. My statement about AB and Bass is valid because there's many other players at SG and PF that could start over them if they were on the team (we already have 2 PFs that are better and 1 more that will most likely be better by next season) therefore the team would be better off with those 2 off the bench because there are better options to be had to start in their place. In comparison, there aren't any better options than Durant or Lebron to justify putting them on the bench so your comment is pointless.
When this team is back in contention, neither Bass nor AB will be starters if they're still with the team because Danny will have found the necessary upgrades to those players (such is already the case with Bass).