Take the Paul Pierce for LBJ exaggeration out of it.
I'm sorry, but this is simply an absurd straw-man that has little to no relation to anything I've said in this thread.
If its not an option you can actually craft a scenario for then why bring it up? That tells me there is no such option.
Who is out there that makes around what Bass makes, has a team willing to take on salary, and wants to move a rotation caliber player?
I don't consider 2 more years "a lot of years left", and ideally "upgrade" is more of a roster notion, than a player vs. player notion. If you can grab a center of comparable talent, then that's an upgrade for the team.You swap your starting PF for a backup C and that's a roster upgrade? Because Garnett isn't going back to PF, and you're still one big man short even after this swap.
There are plenty of PF/C types, or at least PF with more length than Bass. And KG can very well move to PF if needed be. Don't see the problem with that at all.
No clue. Just saying, if the option is out there, you do it. If not, I'm content with staying pat.
I'd like to see Pierce + Melo + Picks for LBJ. That's the sort of deal that "upgrades" Bass, one that the other team wants no part of.
Sorry if I'm not bothering by wasting my time to satisfy your curiousity by coming up with a specific scenario, that hinges on me knowing the specific plans of certain GMs and owners and how they envision how certain players fit into those plans, or don't fit for that matter.
When you mentioned upgrading Bass, we asked who you thought was out there to upgrade in return for Bass + assets. You demurred that you don't know, we counter then that "upgrade" doesn't exist. That's it. Nothing ridiculous about that.
I think the problem is you're putting too much emphasis on the word "upgrade", when I used it quite liberally, and expanded on it on an earlier post.
If the option isn't there, it isn't there. I allowed for that possibility, and am quite aware of how slim the chances of something getting done about it are (not going to bother to find a needle in the haystack, which probably doesn't even exist this year). It's not like I'm exhorting Ainge to move Bass, or he's a failure.
But if there's a player who we should try to move in our roster, it's Bass, and I already expanded on how the team can go about it to see if there's someone who could bite in the case there's someone available who could be a better fit. If there isn't, there isn't. The probability is that this season there's no such opportunity, and that's fine. Main problem is some of the would be possibilities have had their contracts Amnestied, so that makes it even longer-shot than it already is. Not losing sleep over it though.
Just an example, and I figure there's probably no interest, but someone like Jason Thompson is what Ainge could be looking into, and you attack it by going into the financials.
Sacramento, still a rebuilding team, Thompson is on a 5 year deal and Bass on 3. On that third year is when, other than Thompson, the last of their "big" contracts ends, so it fits in nicely on that regard, and it's when Cousins could become a free-agent. So Ainge has to explore how much does Sacramento value Thompson on that length of the contract vs. the additional cap space they may have that year, in what is looking like a very important year for the Kings... decisions wise. If you also wager that the Celtics will be in rebuild mode soon, then you figure that their picks might be worth more down the line, so that's a factor too. Maybe Ainge has no interest on a 5 year deal himself.
Maybe you try to take Chuck Hayes off their hands too, using Melo, Collins, Barbosa too. You're giving them a project/prospect on a cheaper contract (4 million per year cheaper) at a year longer than Hayes, with team options, who's being underused in Sacramento.
I'm not advocating that the above is a possibility, but just wanted to use a scenario for a quick example of you approach using Bass.
But that's the overall problem, we're dealing with a lot of subjective value here, rather than comparing talent vs. talent, which is a fairly easy exercise. And when you think on those tangent motivators, the trade doesn't look as far fetched as one would initially believe, then the wondering comes if there's someone out there willing to give a batter package. I don't think many would be lining up to get Hayes on a 3 year 5 mil per contract, and Thompson on a 5 year contract while giving a way a couple of future assets in the process. I can't read the minds of the Sacramento Kings though to know if those financial opportunities are good enough for them vs. talent.