Rumor (source unlisted): Celtics might acquire Steven Hunter

[Lucky17]

I believe most of you are missing the point of this rumored trade if you are looking at the on-court values of the players involved.

This would be a move to position better financially for the 2010 off-season as Hunter, TA, House, POB, Giddens, Walker, would all be expiring deals going into that season.

It seems clear from the moves the team made this off-season that they want to be a player in the 2010 market and the best way for them to do that is to have decent sign-and-trade chips to couple with their potential expiring deals of RA and PP.

Powe for Hunter is a no-brainer win for Denver-Hunter sux...but the move is designed to open up PT for Darius Miles, eliminate the Powe/Davis dilemma, and create more flexibility for the 2010 off-season.

I think this potential trade has absolutely nothing to do with the players involved and everything to do with preparing for the following off-season...

Let's look at the remaining roster for a second, assuming this trade went through:

Glen Davis is a better option at center defensively than Powe, so he becomes the 2nd or 3rd center depending on how POB performs. he would also have the same op at the 4 if he can beat out Miles or spell him in case of ineffectiveness or necissary rest, (not sure how durable Miles is at this point.)

Darius Miles now has 20 to 30 minutes available to him as the backup 3 and 4 without Powe there to take all of KG's backup minutes, which gives him a greater chance to impact that game.

Bill Walker, JR Giddens, and TA all have a little more PT oportunity at the wings without Powe forcing Miles to be strictly a 3. 

Pruitt clears up the guard situation a bit for Rondo/House/Cassell so that has more of a natural feel to it.

Bottom line, I love Leon Powe as much as anybody and he is clearly a very valuable player, but from a roster management standpoint, removing these 3 players consolidates the roster, opens up PT ops for others, and  puts the team in a better position to make a big-time move next off-season.

I'd hate to lose Powe, but he'll get more PT in Denver i'd imagine, and I am far more concerned with the Celtics acquiring an impact player in his 20's to pair with Rondo than I am about my infatuation with Powe.

Next off-season will determine the Celtics ability to compete for titles beyond the GPA era...that is the most important organizational objective at this point IMO and the team seems poised to position itself well without jeapordizing its short-term contention status.

...plus, Bill Walker is still here in this scenario, so i'm covered!!!

Sorry, Bill, but I don't buy your rationale.

I don't see how Davis is a better option defensively at C than Powe. Powe is better at C, and at PF, for that matter.

Making a move like this to free up "20 to 30 minutes a night" for Miles at SF/PF (!) is a ridiculous notion. He has a non-guaranteed contract for a reason: there is no telling how his surgically-repaired knee will respond over the course of training camp, let alone the season.

If this kind of move is simply about salary-cap positioning, why not deal Davis and Pruitt along with Scal for Hunter, and simply let Powe play out the string on his contract or find someone with a trade exception to avoid taking back salary altogether?

I see no reason to make this deal if it a) degrades the overall talent level of the team and b) offers no appreciable salary cap relief.

[cdif911]

The deli guy strikes again?

nonono, he works at healthpoint, its the towel guy!

[CoachBo]

I believe most of you are missing the point of this rumored trade if you are looking at the on-court values of the players involved.

This would be a move to position better financially for the 2010 off-season as Hunter, TA, House, POB, Giddens, Walker, would all be expiring deals going into that season.

It seems clear from the moves the team made this off-season that they want to be a player in the 2010 market and the best way for them to do that is to have decent sign-and-trade chips to couple with their potential expiring deals of RA and PP.

Powe for Hunter is a no-brainer win for Denver-Hunter sux...but the move is designed to open up PT for Darius Miles, eliminate the Powe/Davis dilemma, and create more flexibility for the 2010 off-season.

I think this potential trade has absolutely nothing to do with the players involved and everything to do with preparing for the following off-season...

Let's look at the remaining roster for a second, assuming this trade went through:

Glen Davis is a better option at center defensively than Powe, so he becomes the 2nd or 3rd center depending on how POB performs. he would also have the same op at the 4 if he can beat out Miles or spell him in case of ineffectiveness or necissary rest, (not sure how durable Miles is at this point.)

Darius Miles now has 20 to 30 minutes available to him as the backup 3 and 4 without Powe there to take all of KG's backup minutes, which gives him a greater chance to impact that game.

Bill Walker, JR Giddens, and TA all have a little more PT oportunity at the wings without Powe forcing Miles to be strictly a 3. 

Pruitt clears up the guard situation a bit for Rondo/House/Cassell so that has more of a natural feel to it.

Bottom line, I love Leon Powe as much as anybody and he is clearly a very valuable player, but from a roster management standpoint, removing these 3 players consolidates the roster, opens up PT ops for others, and  puts the team in a better position to make a big-time move next off-season.

I'd hate to lose Powe, but he'll get more PT in Denver i'd imagine, and I am far more concerned with the Celtics acquiring an impact player in his 20's to pair with Rondo than I am about my infatuation with Powe.

Next off-season will determine the Celtics ability to compete for titles beyond the GPA era...that is the most important organizational objective at this point IMO and the team seems poised to position itself well without jeapordizing its short-term contention status.

...plus, Bill Walker is still here in this scenario, so i'm covered!!!

Sorry, Bill, but I don't buy your rationale.

I don't see how Davis is a better option defensively at C than Powe. Powe is better at C, and at PF, for that matter.

Making a move like this to free up "20 to 30 minutes a night" for Miles at SF/PF (!) is a ridiculous notion. He has a non-guaranteed contract for a reason: there is no telling how his surgically-repaired knee will respond over the course of training camp, let alone the season.

If this kind of move is simply about salary-cap positioning, why not deal Davis and Pruitt along with Scal for Hunter, and simply let Powe play out the string on his contract or find someone with a trade exception to avoid taking back salary altogether?

I see no reason to make this deal if it a) degrades the overall talent level of the team and b) offers no appreciable salary cap relief.

Throwing Powe into this deal is horrible, along with the notion that Ainge is back to playing the nonsensical games that saddled us with terrible basketball before the generosity of Sam Presti and Kevin McHale saved us.

Ainge should be building for another title run; swapping pieces in some faint plan for two years down the road while Garnett and Allen have miles on them is insane, and it's unacceptable.

[JBcat]

A little ironic that Powe is being discussed to be traded to Denver as I believe it was Denver who we aquired the draft rights for Powe in exchange for a future 2nd round pick.  Maybe he would pull a Eric Williams and be back with the C's in 2 years.

[BillfromBoston]

I believe most of you are missing the point of this rumored trade if you are looking at the on-court values of the players involved.

This would be a move to position better financially for the 2010 off-season as Hunter, TA, House, POB, Giddens, Walker, would all be expiring deals going into that season.

I'm not following you.  Pruitt and Scal are free agents the same season Hunter is, and Powe expires a year earlier.  How can a deal that leaves us in the exact same position financially (if not a worse one) be one that centered around positioning the team better financially?  That makes absolutely zero sense.

Pruitt + Scal have a greater combined salary than Hunter, in terms of expiring contracts.  If we care that much about financial flexibility (rather than talent) we'll just cut Powe.  So, the team would be less talented, and in the same or worse financial position.  Again... that makes no sense.  I think you're overthinking this one.

but the move is designed to open up PT for Darius Miles, eliminate the Powe/Davis dilemma, and create more flexibility for the 2010 off-season.

Lord, I hope not.  "Open up PT" for a guy trying to recover from a career-ending injury?  "Eliminate" a debate by dumping the more talented player?  And "create more flexibility" by putting the team in a worse position than it was financially?

No, I've got to think that this is just a made up rumor, or the details are far from accurate.  Danny isn't a moron.

Roy, I think you are under thinking this one actually...I contributed to this by accidentilly saying "next off-season" instead of "2010 off-season."

Scal/Pruitt do not make more combined during the 09/10 season than Hunter does, let alone factoring in a re-signed Powe, but that's not the point.

This is a multi-tiered incentive:

1. As many-including you-have lemented, this team is thin on experienced veterans. A 3-for-1 trade leaves Boston with an open roster spot as well as the ability to keep Miles and Cassell on the roster. Factoring in the PJ Brown information from earlier in the off-season, it stands to reason that PJ would be that 15th player later on if and when needed.

2. As far as Darius Miles is concerned, it looks more and more like he will be able to play and contribute to a team. Clearly, if this trade were to happen, that is a ringing endorsement in favor of Miles and his health, so any concerns we have should be superseded by the superior information that Ainge and company have to work with. Miles is a virtual lock to play this year, be it here or somewhere else.

3. Ainge's comments about Bill Walker's ability to contribute "short term" as well as long term must factor into this equation as well. With Walker, Giddens, TA, and Miles all capable wing options behind Pierce/Allen, it stands to reason that the team may move some of the glut at guard, wing, and front court in order to consolidate the talent at each position. Perk/POB/Davis, KG/Davis/Miles, Pierce/Miles/Walker, Allen/Allen/Giddens, Rondo/House/Cassell...with Hunter able to backup both 4 and 5, Miles good at the 3 and 4, and the other wings noninterchangeable situationally at either 3 or 2, this is a sound move.

4. Long term, the team gains by creating more playing time for a more limited set of prospects which increases the potential for them to increase their value. It also creates leaves the team with a large amount of expiring deals that coincide with Ray Allen's walk year, which is also an option year for Pierce.

Ainge clearly tipped his hand this past off-season by insisting on 2 year deals or less for all potential FA on the market. The team is focused on 2010 and has lined itself up to have a decent amount of money to spend. Having all these 2 year deals also sets up the team for potential sign-and-trade opportunities. The team can use any S&T player to make up the difference between what an incoming player may cost and the amount they need to make up after they hit the cap.

So if Dwayne Wade, for instance, wanted to bolt from Miami and was looking at 20 millon per season, Boston could be 12 million under and then utilize S&T to make up the 8 million difference. With Miles, Walker, POB, Giddens, TA all getting a chance to boost their value and show some potential, this may very well put the team in the best position to acquire him based off their ability to compensate Miami while at the same time providing Wade with a title-level destination.

4. Finally, it stands to reason that SOMETHING is up. Cassell represents the 16th spot on the roster, reports have been VERY favorable on Miles, and NOBODY makes up rumors about Steven Hunter.

In fact, all the recent rumors have been about very bit players that fill potential needs but have no significant impact. So it seems like the team would like to make a minor tweak to the roster to satisfy some very clear objectives that would serve both short and long term interest.

While Powe is certainly the best of the bunch, the team may not value re-signing him as much as it does positioning itself for a larger windfall down the line, including opening up that extra roster spot, which can't be underrated.

IF, IF this trade or any permutation comes to pass, I think that validates the scenario I outlined above...the team is looking toward the future while addressing the past. A move of Powe would translate into a vote of confidence for Miles, who is a 3/4 all the way....seems very plausible

[Redz]

I believe most of you are missing the point of this rumored trade if you are looking at the on-court values of the players involved.

This would be a move to position better financially for the 2010 off-season as Hunter, TA, House, POB, Giddens, Walker, would all be expiring deals going into that season.

I'm not following you.  Pruitt and Scal are free agents the same season Hunter is, and Powe expires a year earlier.  How can a deal that leaves us in the exact same position financially (if not a worse one) be one that centered around positioning the team better financially?  That makes absolutely zero sense.

Pruitt + Scal have a greater combined salary than Hunter, in terms of expiring contracts.  If we care that much about financial flexibility (rather than talent) we'll just cut Powe.  So, the team would be less talented, and in the same or worse financial position.  Again... that makes no sense.  I think you're overthinking this one.

but the move is designed to open up PT for Darius Miles, eliminate the Powe/Davis dilemma, and create more flexibility for the 2010 off-season.

Lord, I hope not.  "Open up PT" for a guy trying to recover from a career-ending injury?  "Eliminate" a debate by dumping the more talented player?  And "create more flexibility" by putting the team in a worse position than it was financially?

No, I've got to think that this is just a made up rumor, or the details are far from accurate.  Danny isn't a moron.

Roy, I think you are under thinking this one actually...I contributed to this by accidentilly saying "next off-season" instead of "2010 off-season."

Scal/Pruitt do not make more combined during the 09/10 season than Hunter does, let alone factoring in a re-signed Powe, but that's not the point.

This is a multi-tiered incentive:

1. As many-including you-have lemented, this team is thin on experienced veterans. A 3-for-1 trade leaves Boston with an open roster spot as well as the ability to keep Miles and Cassell on the roster. Factoring in the PJ Brown information from earlier in the off-season, it stands to reason that PJ would be that 15th player later on if and when needed.

2. As far as Darius Miles is concerned, it looks more and more like he will be able to play and contribute to a team. Clearly, if this trade were to happen, that is a ringing endorsement in favor of Miles and his health, so any concerns we have should be superseded by the superior information that Ainge and company have to work with. Miles is a virtual lock to play this year, be it here or somewhere else.

3. Ainge's comments about Bill Walker's ability to contribute "short term" as well as long term must factor into this equation as well. With Walker, Giddens, TA, and Miles all capable wing options behind Pierce/Allen, it stands to reason that the team may move some of the glut at guard, wing, and front court in order to consolidate the talent at each position. Perk/POB/Davis, KG/Davis/Miles, Pierce/Miles/Walker, Allen/Allen/Giddens, Rondo/House/Cassell...with Hunter able to backup both 4 and 5, Miles good at the 3 and 4, and the other wings noninterchangeable situationally at either 3 or 2, this is a sound move.

4. Long term, the team gains by creating more playing time for a more limited set of prospects which increases the potential for them to increase their value. It also creates leaves the team with a large amount of expiring deals that coincide with Ray Allen's walk year, which is also an option year for Pierce.

Ainge clearly tipped his hand this past off-season by insisting on 2 year deals or less for all potential FA on the market. The team is focused on 2010 and has lined itself up to have a decent amount of money to spend. Having all these 2 year deals also sets up the team for potential sign-and-trade opportunities. The team can use any S&T player to make up the difference between what an incoming player may cost and the amount they need to make up after they hit the cap.

So if Dwayne Wade, for instance, wanted to bolt from Miami and was looking at 20 millon per season, Boston could be 12 million under and then utilize S&T to make up the 8 million difference. With Miles, Walker, POB, Giddens, TA all getting a chance to boost their value and show some potential, this may very well put the team in the best position to acquire him based off their ability to compensate Miami while at the same time providing Wade with a title-level destination.

4. Finally, it stands to reason that SOMETHING is up. Cassell represents the 16th spot on the roster, reports have been VERY favorable on Miles, and NOBODY makes up rumors about Steven Hunter.

In fact, all the recent rumors have been about very bit players that fill potential needs but have no significant impact. So it seems like the team would like to make a minor tweak to the roster to satisfy some very clear objectives that would serve both short and long term interest.

While Powe is certainly the best of the bunch, the team may not value re-signing him as much as it does positioning itself for a larger windfall down the line, including opening up that extra roster spot, which can't be underrated.

IF, IF this trade or any permutation comes to pass, I think that validates the scenario I outlined above...the team is looking toward the future while addressing the past. A move of Powe would translate into a vote of confidence for Miles, who is a 3/4 all the way....seems very plausible

Bill,  Good post.

I'll be honest, I guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the Miles situation since he was acquired.  What have you heard that is leading you to be so confident about his ability to be a contributor this season?

[BillfromBoston]

I believe most of you are missing the point of this rumored trade if you are looking at the on-court values of the players involved.

This would be a move to position better financially for the 2010 off-season as Hunter, TA, House, POB, Giddens, Walker, would all be expiring deals going into that season.

It seems clear from the moves the team made this off-season that they want to be a player in the 2010 market and the best way for them to do that is to have decent sign-and-trade chips to couple with their potential expiring deals of RA and PP.

Powe for Hunter is a no-brainer win for Denver-Hunter sux...but the move is designed to open up PT for Darius Miles, eliminate the Powe/Davis dilemma, and create more flexibility for the 2010 off-season.

I think this potential trade has absolutely nothing to do with the players involved and everything to do with preparing for the following off-season...

Let's look at the remaining roster for a second, assuming this trade went through:

Glen Davis is a better option at center defensively than Powe, so he becomes the 2nd or 3rd center depending on how POB performs. he would also have the same op at the 4 if he can beat out Miles or spell him in case of ineffectiveness or necissary rest, (not sure how durable Miles is at this point.)

Darius Miles now has 20 to 30 minutes available to him as the backup 3 and 4 without Powe there to take all of KG's backup minutes, which gives him a greater chance to impact that game.

Bill Walker, JR Giddens, and TA all have a little more PT oportunity at the wings without Powe forcing Miles to be strictly a 3. 

Pruitt clears up the guard situation a bit for Rondo/House/Cassell so that has more of a natural feel to it.

Bottom line, I love Leon Powe as much as anybody and he is clearly a very valuable player, but from a roster management standpoint, removing these 3 players consolidates the roster, opens up PT ops for others, and  puts the team in a better position to make a big-time move next off-season.

I'd hate to lose Powe, but he'll get more PT in Denver i'd imagine, and I am far more concerned with the Celtics acquiring an impact player in his 20's to pair with Rondo than I am about my infatuation with Powe.

Next off-season will determine the Celtics ability to compete for titles beyond the GPA era...that is the most important organizational objective at this point IMO and the team seems poised to position itself well without jeapordizing its short-term contention status.

...plus, Bill Walker is still here in this scenario, so i'm covered!!!

Sorry, Bill, but I don't buy your rationale.

I don't see how Davis is a better option defensively at C than Powe. Powe is better at C, and at PF, for that matter.

Making a move like this to free up "20 to 30 minutes a night" for Miles at SF/PF (!) is a ridiculous notion. He has a non-guaranteed contract for a reason: there is no telling how his surgically-repaired knee will respond over the course of training camp, let alone the season.

If this kind of move is simply about salary-cap positioning, why not deal Davis and Pruitt along with Scal for Hunter, and simply let Powe play out the string on his contract or find someone with a trade exception to avoid taking back salary altogether?

I see no reason to make this deal if it a) degrades the overall talent level of the team and b) offers no appreciable salary cap relief.

...with all due respect, you are not factoring in for what you don't know in this situation...

If this trade were to go down it would indicate a greater confidence level in Miles and his ability to contribute...you can't base your logic on the premise that you have all the facts to work with, you've got to look at the scenario with an eye toward what may motivate Ainge, not what would motivate you...the team has more information to work with and if they were to do a move like this it certainly wouldn't be about talent coming back in the trade, but clearly for other reasons...

[BillfromBoston]

I believe most of you are missing the point of this rumored trade if you are looking at the on-court values of the players involved.

This would be a move to position better financially for the 2010 off-season as Hunter, TA, House, POB, Giddens, Walker, would all be expiring deals going into that season.

It seems clear from the moves the team made this off-season that they want to be a player in the 2010 market and the best way for them to do that is to have decent sign-and-trade chips to couple with their potential expiring deals of RA and PP.

Powe for Hunter is a no-brainer win for Denver-Hunter sux...but the move is designed to open up PT for Darius Miles, eliminate the Powe/Davis dilemma, and create more flexibility for the 2010 off-season.

I think this potential trade has absolutely nothing to do with the players involved and everything to do with preparing for the following off-season...

Let's look at the remaining roster for a second, assuming this trade went through:

Glen Davis is a better option at center defensively than Powe, so he becomes the 2nd or 3rd center depending on how POB performs. he would also have the same op at the 4 if he can beat out Miles or spell him in case of ineffectiveness or necissary rest, (not sure how durable Miles is at this point.)

Darius Miles now has 20 to 30 minutes available to him as the backup 3 and 4 without Powe there to take all of KG's backup minutes, which gives him a greater chance to impact that game.

Bill Walker, JR Giddens, and TA all have a little more PT oportunity at the wings without Powe forcing Miles to be strictly a 3. 

Pruitt clears up the guard situation a bit for Rondo/House/Cassell so that has more of a natural feel to it.

Bottom line, I love Leon Powe as much as anybody and he is clearly a very valuable player, but from a roster management standpoint, removing these 3 players consolidates the roster, opens up PT ops for others, and  puts the team in a better position to make a big-time move next off-season.

I'd hate to lose Powe, but he'll get more PT in Denver i'd imagine, and I am far more concerned with the Celtics acquiring an impact player in his 20's to pair with Rondo than I am about my infatuation with Powe.

Next off-season will determine the Celtics ability to compete for titles beyond the GPA era...that is the most important organizational objective at this point IMO and the team seems poised to position itself well without jeapordizing its short-term contention status.

...plus, Bill Walker is still here in this scenario, so i'm covered!!!

Sorry, Bill, but I don't buy your rationale.

I don't see how Davis is a better option defensively at C than Powe. Powe is better at C, and at PF, for that matter.

Making a move like this to free up "20 to 30 minutes a night" for Miles at SF/PF (!) is a ridiculous notion. He has a non-guaranteed contract for a reason: there is no telling how his surgically-repaired knee will respond over the course of training camp, let alone the season.

If this kind of move is simply about salary-cap positioning, why not deal Davis and Pruitt along with Scal for Hunter, and simply let Powe play out the string on his contract or find someone with a trade exception to avoid taking back salary altogether?

I see no reason to make this deal if it a) degrades the overall talent level of the team and b) offers no appreciable salary cap relief.

Throwing Powe into this deal is horrible, along with the notion that Ainge is back to playing the nonsensical games that saddled us with terrible basketball before the generosity of Sam Presti and Kevin McHale saved us.

Ainge should be building for another title run; swapping pieces in some faint plan for two years down the road while Garnett and Allen have miles on them is insane, and it's unacceptable.

Bo, you are an intelligent guy, but you really don't seem to understand the role of a GM and how vital the balance is between short and long term planning...you also fall into the same trap of formulating your opinions as if you have all the facts at your disposal.

You've already stated what little regard you have for Ainge's off-season acquisitions and now you've stated that you believe Ainge's work to be "luck" facilitated by other parties...

I guess time will tell on this one, but I believe you to be short-sighted, mis-informed, and subsequently wrong...I think the team will be just fine and in an excellent position to address any and all short term and long term needs...

We'll see how this plays out, but if some of these off-season acquisitions are solid rotation contributors and the team is able to address its needs, I trust you will acknowledge your current stance as being incorrect--I will do the same if things implode..

The only thing I don't want to see is revisionist excuses where you act as if future moves the team makes are not related to the team positioning themselves to be able to make those moves...a GM plans for the moment and the future-and quality GM's strike the balance between the two...I think Ainge is doing fine work in this regard, you clearly do not...let's see what happens...

[Roy Hobbs]

I believe most of you are missing the point of this rumored trade if you are looking at the on-court values of the players involved.

This would be a move to position better financially for the 2010 off-season as Hunter, TA, House, POB, Giddens, Walker, would all be expiring deals going into that season.

I'm not following you.  Pruitt and Scal are free agents the same season Hunter is, and Powe expires a year earlier.  How can a deal that leaves us in the exact same position financially (if not a worse one) be one that centered around positioning the team better financially?  That makes absolutely zero sense.

Pruitt + Scal have a greater combined salary than Hunter, in terms of expiring contracts.  If we care that much about financial flexibility (rather than talent) we'll just cut Powe.  So, the team would be less talented, and in the same or worse financial position.  Again... that makes no sense.  I think you're overthinking this one.

but the move is designed to open up PT for Darius Miles, eliminate the Powe/Davis dilemma, and create more flexibility for the 2010 off-season.

Lord, I hope not.  "Open up PT" for a guy trying to recover from a career-ending injury?  "Eliminate" a debate by dumping the more talented player?  And "create more flexibility" by putting the team in a worse position than it was financially?

No, I've got to think that this is just a made up rumor, or the details are far from accurate.  Danny isn't a moron.

Roy, I think you are under thinking this one actually...I contributed to this by accidentilly saying "next off-season" instead of "2010 off-season."

Scal/Pruitt do not make more combined during the 09/10 season than Hunter does, let alone factoring in a re-signed Powe, but that's not the point.

Well...  with all due respect, if finances weren't the point, why did you write "This would be a move to position better financially for the 2010 off-season"?

That makes no sense, and that was the main part of your post I objected to.  Also, what do you mean that Scal/Pruitt don't make more in '09-'10 than Hunter?

Scal = $3,413,793 in 2009-10. 

Pruitt = $729,005 in 2009-10.

Steven Hunter = $3,696,000 in 2009-10

$3,413,793 + $729,005 = $4,142,798
   
$4,142,798 > $3,696,000

Therefore, if Danny's plan -- as you suggested -- is to accumulate expiring contracts for 2009-10, it's nonsensical that he would prefer Hunter over Scal + Pruitt.   (Powe is irrelevant, because if this trade isn't about the talent, and their primary interest is to clear room for BBD and to save money, then they'll just decline to resign Powe this offseason.)

[BillfromBoston]

I believe most of you are missing the point of this rumored trade if you are looking at the on-court values of the players involved.

This would be a move to position better financially for the 2010 off-season as Hunter, TA, House, POB, Giddens, Walker, would all be expiring deals going into that season.

I'm not following you.  Pruitt and Scal are free agents the same season Hunter is, and Powe expires a year earlier.  How can a deal that leaves us in the exact same position financially (if not a worse one) be one that centered around positioning the team better financially?  That makes absolutely zero sense.

Pruitt + Scal have a greater combined salary than Hunter, in terms of expiring contracts.  If we care that much about financial flexibility (rather than talent) we'll just cut Powe.  So, the team would be less talented, and in the same or worse financial position.  Again... that makes no sense.  I think you're overthinking this one.

but the move is designed to open up PT for Darius Miles, eliminate the Powe/Davis dilemma, and create more flexibility for the 2010 off-season.

Lord, I hope not.  "Open up PT" for a guy trying to recover from a career-ending injury?  "Eliminate" a debate by dumping the more talented player?  And "create more flexibility" by putting the team in a worse position than it was financially?

No, I've got to think that this is just a made up rumor, or the details are far from accurate.  Danny isn't a moron.

Roy, I think you are under thinking this one actually...I contributed to this by accidentilly saying "next off-season" instead of "2010 off-season."

Scal/Pruitt do not make more combined during the 09/10 season than Hunter does, let alone factoring in a re-signed Powe, but that's not the point.

This is a multi-tiered incentive:

1. As many-including you-have lemented, this team is thin on experienced veterans. A 3-for-1 trade leaves Boston with an open roster spot as well as the ability to keep Miles and Cassell on the roster. Factoring in the PJ Brown information from earlier in the off-season, it stands to reason that PJ would be that 15th player later on if and when needed.

2. As far as Darius Miles is concerned, it looks more and more like he will be able to play and contribute to a team. Clearly, if this trade were to happen, that is a ringing endorsement in favor of Miles and his health, so any concerns we have should be superseded by the superior information that Ainge and company have to work with. Miles is a virtual lock to play this year, be it here or somewhere else.

3. Ainge's comments about Bill Walker's ability to contribute "short term" as well as long term must factor into this equation as well. With Walker, Giddens, TA, and Miles all capable wing options behind Pierce/Allen, it stands to reason that the team may move some of the glut at guard, wing, and front court in order to consolidate the talent at each position. Perk/POB/Davis, KG/Davis/Miles, Pierce/Miles/Walker, Allen/Allen/Giddens, Rondo/House/Cassell...with Hunter able to backup both 4 and 5, Miles good at the 3 and 4, and the other wings noninterchangeable situationally at either 3 or 2, this is a sound move.

4. Long term, the team gains by creating more playing time for a more limited set of prospects which increases the potential for them to increase their value. It also creates leaves the team with a large amount of expiring deals that coincide with Ray Allen's walk year, which is also an option year for Pierce.

Ainge clearly tipped his hand this past off-season by insisting on 2 year deals or less for all potential FA on the market. The team is focused on 2010 and has lined itself up to have a decent amount of money to spend. Having all these 2 year deals also sets up the team for potential sign-and-trade opportunities. The team can use any S&T player to make up the difference between what an incoming player may cost and the amount they need to make up after they hit the cap.

So if Dwayne Wade, for instance, wanted to bolt from Miami and was looking at 20 millon per season, Boston could be 12 million under and then utilize S&T to make up the 8 million difference. With Miles, Walker, POB, Giddens, TA all getting a chance to boost their value and show some potential, this may very well put the team in the best position to acquire him based off their ability to compensate Miami while at the same time providing Wade with a title-level destination.

4. Finally, it stands to reason that SOMETHING is up. Cassell represents the 16th spot on the roster, reports have been VERY favorable on Miles, and NOBODY makes up rumors about Steven Hunter.

In fact, all the recent rumors have been about very bit players that fill potential needs but have no significant impact. So it seems like the team would like to make a minor tweak to the roster to satisfy some very clear objectives that would serve both short and long term interest.

While Powe is certainly the best of the bunch, the team may not value re-signing him as much as it does positioning itself for a larger windfall down the line, including opening up that extra roster spot, which can't be underrated.

IF, IF this trade or any permutation comes to pass, I think that validates the scenario I outlined above...the team is looking toward the future while addressing the past. A move of Powe would translate into a vote of confidence for Miles, who is a 3/4 all the way....seems very plausible

Bill,  Good post.

I'll be honest, I guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the Miles situation since he was acquired.  What have you heard that is leading you to be so confident about his ability to be a contributor this season?

Well, finally getting some first-hand information on Miles health and performance level has given me a much clearer picture of where he's at currently. The knee has structural issues, but it is functional and getting stronger by the month, so those around him are not concerned about its ability to withstand stress as long as he maintains his regiment-he's been putting a ton of pounding on it for months and its responded well.

You gotta keep in mind that the scenario I listed previously is meant to be a logical study of why this move may be made and it seems to hold up based on what I know about the players on the team and what I think I know about the team's building plans.

The team doesn't have to do anything, it could just cut Gabe Pruitt and Scal and then let Powe walk next off-season, but I don't think that is as valuable a move as acquiring an expiring deal and freeing up an extra roster spot...

We'll see what happens, but the recent rumors are all for players that NOBODY would make up rumors about, so that alone makes me believe there is something to them. I have no source to confirm any of it, but putting the other pieces together makes it sound somewhat feasible depending on the teams intentions.

[gar]

Although I have not been super impressed with Pruitt, this is not necessarily a negative reflection on him. Once it became clear that Cassell was not going anywhere, they would be silly not to explore the trade options that his presence offers. It may also not be a negative on POB. When you are trading for a center it does not hurt to be able to offer a prospect as a backup to a team looking to save money.

[Andy Jick]

i want nothing to do with trading for the second coming of eric riley...no thanks.

[JBcat]

I understand the point of eliminating 1 out of  2 short power forwards on your roster and not re-signing both BBD and Powe when their contracts end next offseason while also creating extra roster space in a 2 for 1 or 3 for 1 deal, balancing your roster ect ect.   However and this is a big however our bench albeit very talented with good upside is covered with question marks from guys coming back from knee injuries (Hunter only played 19 games himself last year), to rookies, and other unknown commodities such as PO.  The proven or at least semi proven players we have off the bench like Leon Powe I'd rather keep unless if we get an absolute proven bench contributor to a winning team in return in which case it's very debatable Hunter is.   

For what it's worth in my opinion Leon Powe was their best bench player for most of the second half of the regular season last year.  He averaged 9.5 PPG in February, 8.1 PPG in March, and 13.7 PPG in April.   For the year he averaged 7.9 PPG in only 14.5 MPG (in contrast Posey averaged 7.4PPG in 24.4 MPG).  There aren't many players off the bench in the league that can score that well in under 15 MPG and as it stands right now he is our 4th leading scorer returning from last year's team during the regular season.  We all know Powe is a very good rebounder and takes many charges however god forbid if one of the big 3 gets hurt we will need his scoring.   Trading Powe, Scal, and maybe Pruitt for Hunter even with the additional roster space created will in my opinion reduce our chances and not help in winning the title this year.   

[cordobes]

It seems clear from the moves the team made this off-season that they want to be a player in the 2010 market and the best way for them to do that is to have decent sign-and-trade chips to couple with their potential expiring deals of RA and PP.

Pierce's contract does not expire in 2010. It goes until 2011.

It also creates leaves the team with a large amount of expiring deals that coincide with Ray Allen's walk year, which is also an option year for Pierce.

There's no option in Pierce's contract, as far as I know. I may be wrong, but I've never heard about that option.

It doesn't create a larger amount of expiring deals, as Roy has explained: Scal+Pruit expirings > Hunter expiring. This alone makes your reasoning hard to consider.

Ainge clearly tipped his hand this past off-season by insisting on 2 year deals or less for all potential FA on the market.

He offered Posey a 3 year contract. And maybe he has offered deals as long as that to other players that we don't know about.

So if Dwayne Wade, for instance, wanted to bolt from Miami and was looking at 20 millon per season, Boston could be 12 million under and then utilize S&T to make up the 8 million difference

That would probably imply (assuming a salary cap in the low 60's):
- allowing Ray, T Allen, House and other free-agents to walk out for nothing (to clear the cap holds). I have no idea who we are going to S&T.
- not offering Rondo a new contract, allowing him to play on his QO (and probably losing him in the following off-season)

I'm sorry, but it isn't happening. To accumulate deals expiring in 2010 because they'll be valuable as trade assets next off-season, sure. But the Celtics themselves won't be major players on that market.

As many-including you-have lemented, this team is thin on experienced veterans.

What's your opinion on that issue, afterall? Is this team in need of more experience or not?

[BillfromBoston]

I believe most of you are missing the point of this rumored trade if you are looking at the on-court values of the players involved.

This would be a move to position better financially for the 2010 off-season as Hunter, TA, House, POB, Giddens, Walker, would all be expiring deals going into that season.

I'm not following you.  Pruitt and Scal are free agents the same season Hunter is, and Powe expires a year earlier.  How can a deal that leaves us in the exact same position financially (if not a worse one) be one that centered around positioning the team better financially?  That makes absolutely zero sense.

Pruitt + Scal have a greater combined salary than Hunter, in terms of expiring contracts.  If we care that much about financial flexibility (rather than talent) we'll just cut Powe.  So, the team would be less talented, and in the same or worse financial position.  Again... that makes no sense.  I think you're overthinking this one.

but the move is designed to open up PT for Darius Miles, eliminate the Powe/Davis dilemma, and create more flexibility for the 2010 off-season.

Lord, I hope not.  "Open up PT" for a guy trying to recover from a career-ending injury?  "Eliminate" a debate by dumping the more talented player?  And "create more flexibility" by putting the team in a worse position than it was financially?

No, I've got to think that this is just a made up rumor, or the details are far from accurate.  Danny isn't a moron.

Roy, I think you are under thinking this one actually...I contributed to this by accidentilly saying "next off-season" instead of "2010 off-season."

Scal/Pruitt do not make more combined during the 09/10 season than Hunter does, let alone factoring in a re-signed Powe, but that's not the point.

Well...  with all due respect, if finances weren't the point, why did you write "This would be a move to position better financially for the 2010 off-season"?

That makes no sense, and that was the main part of your post I objected to.  Also, what do you mean that Scal/Pruitt don't make more in '09-'10 than Hunter?

Scal = $3,413,793 in 2009-10. 

Pruitt = $729,005 in 2009-10.

Steven Hunter = $3,696,000 in 2009-10

$3,413,793 + $729,005 = $4,142,798
   
$4,142,798 > $3,696,000

Therefore, if Danny's plan -- as you suggested -- is to accumulate expiring contracts for 2009-10, it's nonsensical that he would prefer Hunter over Scal + Pruitt.   (Powe is irrelevant, because if this trade isn't about the talent, and their primary interest is to clear room for BBD and to save money, then they'll just decline to resign Powe this offseason.)

Roy, you just conveniently ignored the rest of the post, which can't be done since its all interrelated.

My math skills are bad, the numbers are almost a wash, but that is also irrelevant...the point about "financials" wasn't' about saving money based on the value of their contracts, but based off of the value of having a singular contract of middling value to include in a potential package in order to be a player on the market.

Hunter makes comparable money to Scal/Pruitt, but Hunter represents only one roster spot and the team isn't really built to give Pruitt a chance to increase his value, barring a substantial showing in the pre-season that moves him up the depth chart.

The main point of this entire theory is about creating PT for less established players in order for them to increase their value. Expiring deals are expiring deals, but a 3 for 1 trade consolidates talent and streamlines the depth chart, which is essential if the team wants to get more value for its unprovens.

An extra roster spot also opens up the possibility for the team to add a veteran at some point in the future...so a lot more goes into it than just looking at the contract values of the mentioned players.

And again, this doesnt' account for the fact that both Davis and Powe are FA at the end of this year and making a deal like this satisfies the conundrum of Davis/Powe...Powe is the better player, but is he worth more than all the other elements that the team gains in this trade: Roster flexibility, consolidated assets, and improved leverage in the 2010 trade market? If the trade goes down, then the answer from Ainge's camp is clearly "no".