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".
I ignored much of your post because those weren't the points I objected to. Originally, you had suggested that economics was the most important part of the alleged trade. They're not, and it makes no sense to argue they are, at least in the manner you're arguing.
As for the rest of your analysis, I'll repeat what I said: if that's really Danny's plan, he's a moron. If he's hell bent on opening up roster spots, he'd be better off cutting Scal and Pruitt (or trading Pruitt for a trade exception) than he would in dumping Powe for Hunter. Also, the idea of getting rid of a talented contributor like Powe (who was *significantly* better than BBD offensively at both ends of the course, and defensively at power forward) in order to clear up time for Darius Miles borders on the absurd.
I can't imagine that Danny is so asinine as to make the talent on his team even worse because of Darius Miles. Let's say for the moment that Miles really has looked good in his work outs / light scrimmages so far. Let's say that right now, he really is playing between 85 - 95%, and let's say that puts him at the talent level of a contributing NBA player (I'm not sure if I buy that... Darius Miles with 15% athleticism is still a guy who can't shoot or play man defense, and who has a whole host of other flaws, but I digress.) So let's say this 85% Darius Miles, right now, is good enough to make the roster. Beautiful. Unfortunately, *nobody* knows how his knee is going to hold up over the course of a full NBA season. No matter how hard Miles is pushing himself in practice (and knowing Darius, not very hard
), it doesn't compare to the rigors of an 82 game season. Those who are qualified to give a professional opinion on the probability of Miles' knee holding up have opined that the risk of reinjury is high. According to Kevin Pritchard (take it for what its worth), these doctors are predicting knee replacement surgery as a realistic, and perhaps probable, outcome.
My point is, you can't rely on Miles' knee to hold up. If he makes the team, great, but that doesn't mean his knee is in the clear. According to doctors, that thing is a ticking time bomb. When Danny has gambled on injured players in the past, invariably it hasn't worked out (Raef, Wally, Pollard, etc.) That should be enough of a track record to teach him that you don't make roster moves to limit the talent of your team, based upon your hope that a guy is going to miraculously recover from a career-ending injury.
I appreciate that people defend every potential Celtics move to the hilt, but this one makes little sense, and the rationale being offered just (in my opinion) is just not a credible argument. Because of all of the foregoing, though, I don't think there's any truth to this rumor, at least as reported. Again -- Danny isn't stupid. Leon is the most consistent producer on our bench right now. After losing Posey, Danny isn't going to degrade the talent on the team further, for apparently the sole purpose of clearing up time for a guy making a non-guaranteed minimum salary who is on the verge of having his knee explode.
Topic: Rumor (source unlisted): Celtics might acquire Steven Hunter (Read 39755 times)