so either a trade you can't refuse or retire him as a celtic, let him do iso's until he is close to 40 and impede on other players progress to come through in stressful situations?
Pierce is struggling from the field overall, but he's still shooting a decent rate from three (35%) and from the line (82%).
He is currently ranked 9th in the league in scoring at 19.7 PPG despite his age and the fact that he is playing less minutes than anybody else in the top 10.
You suggest he is so bad an offensive liability that he needs to be traded, yet his numbers (19.7 PPG, 41% FG, 35% 3PT, 82% FT, 34 Min) are essentially identical to what Russel Westbrook is putting up on OKC (20.8 PPG, 42% FG, 36% 3PT, 77% FT, 36 Min). If you were in charge of OKC, would you trade out Westbrook for that same terrible return of players you suggested earlier?
Yes I know Westbrook has more potential and his overall production (assists + rebounds) is higher, but Pierce remains one of the better rebounding and passing players in the league at the SF position.
Not by any means saying Pierce is as valuable as Westbrook at this point in his career, but he is closer to Westbrook then he is to the scrubs mentioned in this thread. Why trade for young scrubs who won't give us anything useful for another two years? In two years Pierce will retire and his 15M contract will come off the books, allowing us to sign somebody FAR better then anybody mentioned on this trade idea.
The Milwalkee trade is a FAR more promising one - both are young guys provide consistent talent right now, and both have strong upside. Sanders + Mbah a Moute are both strong defensive players who could contribute significantly right away, and still have potential to improve later. They wouldnt come close to making up for what we lose with Pierce offensively, but they'd make up for that a lot with their defense. Given that our defense is a bigger problem then our offense right now, I'd probably listen to the deal at the very least...but I doubt the Bucks would be interested.