Author Topic: Source: Garnett To Clippers Trade Was 'Closer To Happening Than People Think' -  (Read 5791 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CelticG1

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4201
  • Tommy Points: 288
Ainge's willingness to give Garnett (and Allen) a no trade clause could long be a blemish on his resume considering his quotes in year's past about Red's mistakes.

It certainly will be talked about in the press for many years to come, especially if Bledsoe goes on to a pretty successful career.

Im sure the phrase "easier said than done" has been rolling through Dannys brain the past 5 years.

I love how people hold Dannys comments about Red not making some trade 25 years ago and comparig it to todays NBA like everything is identical.

Offline ssspence

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4578
  • Tommy Points: 264
  • James Naismith to Dickey Betts for the jam.....
Ainge's willingness to give Garnett (and Allen) a no trade clause could long be a blemish on his resume considering his quotes in year's past about Red's mistakes.

It certainly will be talked about in the press for many years to come, especially if Bledsoe goes on to a pretty successful career.

Im sure the phrase "easier said than done" has been rolling through Dannys brain the past 5 years.

I love how people hold Dannys comments about Red not making some trade 25 years ago and comparig it to todays NBA like everything is identical.

I don't really think that's the case. It's obviously much different, and I'm not advocating him trading these guys for trade's sake.

All I'm saying is -- the words came out of his mouth, then he gave Garnett a no-trade. Had Allen accepted, he'd also have one.

Then, half a year later, he wanted to trade Garnett (and presumably would also have Allen, like always), but really struggled to do so based largely on that fact.

Just saying it's blood in the water for obnoxious Boston press.


Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22583
  • Tommy Points: 1038
Hmm, I'm trying to find the info, but I think I'm mistaken. I think a team under the apron CAN receive a player via sign-and-trade and still have the full mid-level at their disposal.

You can't use the MLE or do a sign-and-trade and end up over the apron and if you use either, then you won't be able to exceed the apron at all during the season.

Assuming Paul Pierce is not waived, the Celtics have almost $73m committed to 11 players next season, not including likely salary of draft picks.  The apron this season is around $74m, so if the Celtics don't dump salary, they would need to see a massive increase in NBA revenues to be able to use the full MLE.

I'm aware of the hardcap, it's an inevitability we'll be facing regardless. The figures I was using had us at around $70 million committed to next year, so yeah depending on who's correct, then the panorama will change a bit as well as our options. Seems like hoophype might be understating next year's Garnett contract.

Even more reason why I believe Danny will try to make Crawford salary dump move.

Even more reason now that I believe that Danny should push for a sign-and-trade deal, consolidate, hopefully reduce salary a bit and leave enough room for you to use the MLE + finish up the roster.

  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11986
  • Tommy Points: 1149
Hmm, I'm trying to find the info, but I think I'm mistaken. I think a team under the apron CAN receive a player via sign-and-trade and still have the full mid-level at their disposal.

You can't use the MLE or do a sign-and-trade and end up over the apron and if you use either, then you won't be able to exceed the apron at all during the season.

Assuming Paul Pierce is not waived, the Celtics have almost $73m committed to 11 players next season, not including likely salary of draft picks.  The apron this season is around $74m, so if the Celtics don't dump salary, they would need to see a massive increase in NBA revenues to be able to use the full MLE.

I'm aware of the hardcap, it's an inevitability we'll be facing regardless. The figures I was using had us at around $70 million committed to next year, so yeah depending on who's correct, then the panorama will change a bit as well as our options. Seems like hoophype might be understating next year's Garnett contract.

Even more reason why I believe Danny will try to make Crawford salary dump move.

Even more reason now that I believe that Danny should push for a sign-and-trade deal, consolidate, hopefully reduce salary a bit and leave enough room for you to use the MLE + finish up the roster.

  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think everyone is fair game.

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22583
  • Tommy Points: 1038
Hmm, I'm trying to find the info, but I think I'm mistaken. I think a team under the apron CAN receive a player via sign-and-trade and still have the full mid-level at their disposal.

You can't use the MLE or do a sign-and-trade and end up over the apron and if you use either, then you won't be able to exceed the apron at all during the season.

Assuming Paul Pierce is not waived, the Celtics have almost $73m committed to 11 players next season, not including likely salary of draft picks.  The apron this season is around $74m, so if the Celtics don't dump salary, they would need to see a massive increase in NBA revenues to be able to use the full MLE.

I'm aware of the hardcap, it's an inevitability we'll be facing regardless. The figures I was using had us at around $70 million committed to next year, so yeah depending on who's correct, then the panorama will change a bit as well as our options. Seems like hoophype might be understating next year's Garnett contract.

Even more reason why I believe Danny will try to make Crawford salary dump move.

Even more reason now that I believe that Danny should push for a sign-and-trade deal, consolidate, hopefully reduce salary a bit and leave enough room for you to use the MLE + finish up the roster.

  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think everyone is fair game.

  Everyone's always fair game, those are IMO the most expendable of the players with value.

Offline LooseCannon

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9420
  • Tommy Points: 716
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6175
  • Tommy Points: 382
  • Jeff Green
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".

Not really. Bradley is slightly overrated.
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Offline mctyson

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1818
  • Tommy Points: 133

Offline mctyson

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1818
  • Tommy Points: 133
Ainge's willingness to give Garnett (and Allen) a no trade clause could long be a blemish on his resume considering his quotes in year's past about Red's mistakes.

That quote is very often misinterpreted.  The Celtics were offered Detlef Schrempf and Sam Perkins in their young prime, two top notch players that anchored perennial playoff contenders and were part of championship caliber teams.  That is what Danny was critiquing.

We have not been offered anything near that for KG or Pierce.

Offline gpap

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4021
  • Tommy Points: 192
Ainge's willingness to give Garnett (and Allen) a no trade clause could long be a blemish on his resume considering his quotes in year's past about Red's mistakes.

It certainly will be talked about in the press for many years to come, especially if Bledsoe goes on to a pretty successful career.

Im sure the phrase "easier said than done" has been rolling through Dannys brain the past 5 years.

I love how people hold Dannys comments about Red not making some trade 25 years ago and comparig it to todays NBA like everything is identical.

But it is the same situation. Danny has kept this Pierce and KG duo together way too long. In July 2007, would anyone believe that we would have the same core in 2013??And like another fan astutely pointed out, had Ray come back, Danny would've given him a no-trade clause too. So that's two guys on the wrong side of 30 that would've had no trade clauses on our team. ???

I also think alot of it has to do with supposedly how "bold" Danny is. He has built a reputation of being someone unafraid to make a bold move, yet hasn't seem too have done so in over 2 years.

Last "bold" move he made was trading Perk and I can easily aruge that was more stupid than it was bold

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11986
  • Tommy Points: 1149
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".

Agreed. I value his contributions to our perimeter defense too much. In part is why I'm more willing to trade Rondo than Bradley.

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".

I'm a fan of bradley but even I think you're overrating him if you think hes going to get us a really good BIG by himself. Unless you're talking about a package deal that's borderline laughable.

Offline gpap

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4021
  • Tommy Points: 192
Ainge's willingness to give Garnett (and Allen) a no trade clause could long be a blemish on his resume considering his quotes in year's past about Red's mistakes.

That quote is very often misinterpreted.  The Celtics were offered Detlef Schrempf and Sam Perkins in their young prime, two top notch players that anchored perennial playoff contenders and were part of championship caliber teams.  That is what Danny was critiquing.

We have not been offered anything near that for KG or Pierce.

Right, but I think it's also fair to say that Larry, Kevin and Parish, in their after prime years had more value around the league than Pierce and Garnett do now.

Offline gpap

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4021
  • Tommy Points: 192
  I'm wondering whether he'd trade Bradley or Lee (and possibly Bass) to get a halfway decent big.

I think trading Bradley requires the return of a big who is more than "halfway decent".

Avery Bradley for Al Horford and Josh Smith as a throw-in.

Offline cman88

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2753
  • Tommy Points: 196
I dont really fault Ainge for not trading Pierce/Garnett...lets not beat around the bush, trading Pierce for Humphries,Brooks and a late 20's pick isnt exactly a "must do!!" trade that would improve us now, Or in the future

if Ainge had traded a celtics legend for such trash, he would be torn apart on this board

and by all accounts, Ainge tried to make this garnett trade happen, but the clippers from all accounts backed down.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog