Two mid-season trades that consolidate our contracts: Amare and Perk

[SHAQATTACK]

what are they gonna play off the blind cripple and diseased team

we need them like a flat tire

[LooseCannon]

I don't think that's happening, Humphries and Wallace for Stoudemire??

I doubt the Knicks will bite, unless we throw in like a pick or two for him.

The Knicks would happily do that. Amare has become their worst fear when the contract was signed. They would trade him if anyone would take him. No one wants to take him.

Stoudemire has probably the worst current contract in the league. He also has another season on it, while Humphries would be done next season.

We would require a pick to take Stoudemire, but they don't have any to trade.

You could wait until after the 2014 draft.  Then the Knicks can trade their 2015 pick, the rights to one of their 2014 second-round picks, and Amare for the instant bench of Wallace, Lee, and Bass.

[CoachBo]

what are they gonna play off the blind cripple and diseased team

we need them like a flat tire

I look at the bright side. The "Bring Back Al Jefferson" threads should slow down for awhile.

[connor]

The deal isn't about bringing in Stoudemire and Perkins, it's about consolidating all of our contracts into a handful that expire at the same time to give us ultimate cap flexibility two years down the line.

Yes Perkins and Bass have the same length contract, but we are picking up a prospect in PJ3 to develop behind Green and yet another future first just for eating Perk's deal. It's going to make Rondo happy, fills a need for us, reduces the logjam at the 4 and lets Olynyk focus on being a stretch 4.

Yes Stoudemire's contract is awful, but we sacrifice the immediate relief that Humphries would provide for getting out of Wallace's contract a year earlier.   

If you had the opportunity take the last year of Wallace's deal and switch it over to Humprhies so they were both on 2 year 10m deals wouldn't you do that? That is basically what Stoudemire's deal is except he is a MUCH better player who is also a MUCH bigger injury concern.

If he stays healthy and plays well then great we got a steal and if not it will only help our tanking, but the important thing is that we get out of Wallace's deal a year early.

With the assets we've already stockpiled we could potentially have an incredibly quick rebuild, but we have to move out all of our bad contracts first.

For those of you who wanted to see us chase Josh Smith this offseason or expect us to be big players next offseason, I can totally understand why you aren't interested, but this deal is for 2 years down the line when we will have the flexibility and assets to instantly rebuild into a contender. We tank this year ending up with a solid lottery selection (somewhere 5-10) and the Nets late 20s pick. Next offseason we don't have the space to make any major moves (I'd use the trade exception to eat another bad contract expiring 2015 in exchange for a pick), but enough to retain Bradley if we want, followed by a potentially competitive season in 2014 if we stay healthy.

Then in 2015 we have 40m in cap space, Jeff Green, Bradley (possibly), Sullinger, Olynyk, PJ3, the two 2014 picks (one lottery) we drafted, two 2015 picks, two 2016 picks, two 2018 picks and the Dallas pick that could be in any one of those years. Talk about options! Talk about flexibility!

I'm all for playing the long game and waiting out the next two years for that kind of an offseason where we can literally turn into legitimate contenders overnight. Resign Rondo to a max deal, sign a max free agent big to a deal (Gasol/Aldridge/Love) or sign and trade for one using our picks, Green is still on a team friendly deal, plus tons of young assets. That's the future I want to see.

Patience people. Patience.

[hpantazo]

I like the idea, but a major reason why Houston says no is they would not move Asik, one of the best defensive centers in the league, to their main competition in the WC for the foreseable future so that he can defend Dwight Howard in the playoffs for OKC. No way.

[aporel#18]

The Amare Trade is a bad idea. Yeah, we get rid of the third year of Wallace's contract, when he'll have the biggest value as an expiring deal. I don't see no benefit in doing so aside from tanking harder, and then letting him expire.

The Celtics would do better sending Humphries to the Sixers for a big TPE and their 2014 second round pick. Philly could get something good for him at the trade deadline, but right now they're under the salary floor.

Wallace is a good player, he can rebuild his value playing as SF/PF off the bench. You'll need to give assets to get rid of him, and that shouldn't be done.

The HOU/OKC/BOS trade... what can I say? Great minds think alike     This trade has a problem, though, Adams did sign with OKC, so you can't make this trade until December 15. Since Randolph will be gone by then, swapping him for Crawford (if he's still on the team) would make that trade work. I'd also require the rights to Papanikolau from Houston, as a future asset (like another first round pick).

Asik is good, and OKC will gladly pay him 5M this season and have him as an expiring 14M next season, because they would upgrade from Perk. Pairing Asik with Ibaka would be great for their D. Totally worth giving up two raw prospects and a future pick.

Houston would get a great complementary player to Dwight, save a lot of money and have Adams to develop behind Howard. Morey would make out like a bandit if he only had to give up Asik, but he's still getting the best of it after sending us Papanikolau.

Celtics eat Perk's terrible contract, but they get two young prospects and a future pick that could turn out being a high selection.

By sending Humphries to the Sixers and making the three-way trade with OKC and HOU, Celtics are in a better position, getting 4 more trade chips. They'll overpay Perk to be a backup C, because at this point he's not a starter anymore. And they would buy minutes for Kelly and Sully.

Do it, Danny!

[aporel#18]

I like the idea, but a major reason why Houston says no is they would not move Asik, one of the best defensive centers in the league, to their main competition in the WC for the foreseable future so that he can defend Dwight Howard in the playoffs for OKC. No way.

That would be the main obstacle to the three-way trade, you're right. But they'd save a lot of money, they're thin at PF and they'd be getting a backup C prospect whose value could rise and make this trade a steal for Morey.

[hpantazo]

I like the idea, but a major reason why Houston says no is they would not move Asik, one of the best defensive centers in the league, to their main competition in the WC for the foreseable future so that he can defend Dwight Howard in the playoffs for OKC. No way.

That would be the main obstacle to the three-way trade, you're right. But they'd save a lot of money, they're thin at PF and they'd be getting a backup C prospect whose value could rise and make this trade a steal for Morey.

I can see that potential for Houston, but I still think sending Asik to OKC is too risky for them, and they can get more for Asik somewhere else.

[connor]

Both are severely in decline, and are not worth any of the "assets" we have accumulated.

The only "asset" we are giving up is Humprhies expiring 12m deal, which we exchange for lopping off a year of Wallace's deal (seems far cheaper than the two firsts that some people say it'll take to pawn off Wallace's deal).

The other "asset" would be Bass, whose contract is a better deal than Perk's, but we get PJ3 and yet another future first in exchange.

We are actually accumulating even more assets, not giving any up like you suggest.

Why would we want to consolidate contracts?  That gives us much less flexibility.

Agreed.

Yes consolidating contracts gives us less flexibility in the near future, but two years down the line we will have ultimate salary cap flexibility (I'm talking over $40m in space) to make additions from a strong free agent class let alone through sign and trades. We will have Bird Rights for Rondo and the ability to try and bring in at a minimum another max free agent to add to Green and our other pieces.

Instead of having 12m expire next season, 6m in 2015 and 10m in 2016, we can have 30m coming off the books all at the same time (2015).

We're going to have to give up assets in order to move Wallace's 3 year 10m deal. I'd rather give up Humprhies' expiring deal than any of our first round picks or players.

The 2015 free agent class is deeper and we are going to have a much better chance bringing in a superstars with all that cap room and if we hold onto our assets.

[rondoallaturca]

Yes consolidating contracts gives us less flexibility in the near future, but two years down the line we will have ultimate salary cap flexibility (I'm talking over $40m in space) to make additions from a strong free agent class let alone through sign and trades. We will have Bird Rights for Rondo and the ability to try and bring in at a minimum another max free agent to add to Green and our other pieces.

Instead of having 12m expire next season, 6m in 2015 and 10m in 2016, we can have 30m coming off the books all at the same time (2015).

We're going to have to give up assets in order to move Wallace's 3 year 10m deal. I'd rather give up Humprhies' expiring deal than any of our first round picks or players.

The 2015 free agent class is deeper and we are going to have a much better chance bringing in a superstars with all that cap room and if we hold onto our assets.

He isn't strictly talking about cap room flexibility. He's talking about flexibility in general. If the Celtics pursue this idea, that automatically eliminates the Celtics' ability to jump on an opportunity before 2015 should one arise. That is ultimately what makes this proposition a weak one. Rather than keeping every possible road open, you're funneling the Celtics down a one-way street. If the Celtics swing and miss in 2015, much like how Dallas has been the past two years, how will you justify the course of action?

It's not to mention the technical failings of the trade. Bringing in Perk and Amare, the Celtics would be positioning Sullinger and Olynyk into awkward timeshares that don't really allow them to fully develop.

[connor]

Yes consolidating contracts gives us less flexibility in the near future, but two years down the line we will have ultimate salary cap flexibility (I'm talking over $40m in space) to make additions from a strong free agent class let alone through sign and trades. We will have Bird Rights for Rondo and the ability to try and bring in at a minimum another max free agent to add to Green and our other pieces.

Instead of having 12m expire next season, 6m in 2015 and 10m in 2016, we can have 30m coming off the books all at the same time (2015).

We're going to have to give up assets in order to move Wallace's 3 year 10m deal. I'd rather give up Humprhies' expiring deal than any of our first round picks or players.

The 2015 free agent class is deeper and we are going to have a much better chance bringing in a superstars with all that cap room and if we hold onto our assets.

He isn't strictly talking about cap room flexibility. He's talking about flexibility in general. If the Celtics pursue this idea, that automatically eliminates the Celtics' ability to jump on an opportunity before 2015 should one arise. That is ultimately what makes this proposition a weak one. Rather than keeping every possible road open, you're funneling the Celtics down a one-way street. If the Celtics swing and miss in 2015, much like how Dallas has been the past two years, how will you justify the course of action?

It's not to mention the technical failings of the trade. Bringing in Perk and Amare, the Celtics would be positioning Sullinger and Olynyk into awkward timeshares that don't really allow them to fully develop.

I fully admit that it limits our flexibility in the near future, but not nearly as much as people seem to think. It really only limits us next offseason and the 2014 free agent class is incredibly top heavy with players that will have no realistic interest in Boston (Melo, Lebron, Kobe, Dirk, Wade).

Perk's deal is a wash with Bass. They are for the same length and Perk's deal is only 2m more. The whole purpose of that trade is simply to eat a bad deal while we are rebuilding in exchange for a couple extra assets.

Amare's deal is what would be the major limitation to our flexibility, but next year it's a 23m expiring deal. If Celtic's wanted to make a move prior to 2015 we could move his deal for probably the same amount of assets that it'll take to move Wallace's contract, which will have 2 years 10m left at age 32 (and he is already slowing down).

If Amare is healthy (not likely, but a small chance) we could even be getting assets back for him in a trade in addition to moving his huge salary cap number.

Yes we limit our options for next season, but we open up even more options for the future and we easily get the best player in the deal. What free agent options or trades would we be precluding ourselves from that you would want to make?

Yes it's possible that we end up empty handed in 2015, but it's a deeper class than 2014 IMO and we will have the cap space and young cheap talent to attract superstars. If we miss out on the free agents we will still have the assets and cap space to make trades for superstar talent, which is something Dallas was lacking this offseason.

As for the "technical failings" of the trade the timeshare issue is actually worse with Humprhies, Wallace and Bass.

Perk and Amare average about 25 and 35 minutes respectively (60 mins total). Amare's minutes will be cut down like last season into the low 20s to try and keep him healthy (not to mention the games he will miss due to injury that will open up more minutes). That means 50 mins between the two.

Humphries and Bass average over 50 minutes just between themselves (25+ mins each). On top of that Wallace will split some of his time between SF and PF, thus taking up even more minutes. Additionally both Humprhies and Bass play PF almost exclusively, whereas Perkins is a Center and Amare can spend time at both PF and C (primarily PF), which would allow Olynyk to split time at C/PF (I think he is best suited to a stretch 4 role from the limited play I've seen) and Sullinger to get plenty of minutes at PF.

They should have just as much court time to develop if not MORE, if this trade were to happen.

[rondoallaturca]

Expiring or not, since when is moving $23M an easy task to do? It's going to be a very tall task finding that perfect trading partner like the Warriors did with Utah this year.

Amare/Perk might offer more PT to Olynyk/Sully than Hump/Bass/Wallace would, but you're thinking as if Amare/Perk is the only alternative. Why couldn't Boston trade Hump/Bass/Wallace for other pieces that could give Olynyk/Sully even more PT than Amare/Perk could?

As for free agents:

Unrestricted Free Agents
Kobe Bryant
Dirk Nowitzki
Pau Gasol
Marcin Gortat
Danny Granger
Luol Deng
Andrew Bogut
Shawn Marion
Kyle Lowry
Ray Allen

Restricted Free Agents
Kyrie Irving
John Wall
Larry Sanders
Greg Monroe
DeMarcus Cousins
Paul George
Eric Bledsoe

Player Option
Tim Duncan
Zach Randolph
Rudy Gay
Andrei Kirilenko

Early Termination Option
Lebron James
Dwyane Wade
Chris Bosh
Amare Stoudemire
Carmelo Anthony

I've italicized the names that I think actually have a realistic chance of changing teams.

This isn't even including possibilities in trades. In the NBA, you can never know when a crazy opportunity is going to show up. Houston didn't spend months planning out how they were going to get Harden. They maintained a flexible roster with plenty of assets, and when the opportunity was made available, they jumped. Aldridge is already being shopped. What if Love becomes available?

Keeping all your options available like Houston is far smarter than going after one particular goal, like Dallas. After 2011, Cuban decided to break it up and surround Dirk with stars. First they dedicated their ambitions to Deron, and failed. They ended up signing a bunch of middling players to 1-year deals, and then dedicated their ambitions to Dwight. They failed, and now they've resorted to signing Calderon, Ellis, and Dalembert.

Being limited in just the 2014 offseason might not sound like much to you, but in reality, it's HUGE. Teams either stay prepared or lose.

[connor]

Expiring or not, since when is moving $23M an easy task to do? It's going to be a very tall task finding that perfect trading partner like the Warriors did with Utah this year.

Amare/Perk might offer more PT to Olynyk/Sully than Hump/Bass/Wallace would, but you're thinking as if Amare/Perk is the only alternative. Why couldn't Boston trade Hump/Bass/Wallace for other pieces that could give Olynyk/Sully even more PT than Amare/Perk could?

As for free agents:

Unrestricted Free Agents
Kobe Bryant
Dirk Nowitzki
Pau Gasol
Marcin Gortat
Danny Granger
Luol Deng
Andrew Bogut
Shawn Marion
Kyle Lowry
Ray Allen

Restricted Free Agents
Kyrie Irving
John Wall
Larry Sanders
Greg Monroe
DeMarcus Cousins
Paul George
Eric Bledsoe

Player Option
Tim Duncan
Zach Randolph
Rudy Gay
Andrei Kirilenko

Early Termination Option
Lebron James
Dwyane Wade
Chris Bosh
Amare Stoudemire
Carmelo Anthony

I've italicized the names that I think actually have a realistic chance of changing teams.

This isn't even including possibilities in trades. In the NBA, you can never know when a crazy opportunity is going to show up. Houston didn't spend months planning out how they were going to get Harden. They maintained a flexible roster with plenty of assets, and when the opportunity was made available, they jumped. Aldridge is already being shopped. What if Love becomes available?

Keeping all your options available like Houston is far smarter than going after one particular goal, like Dallas. After 2011, Cuban decided to break it up and surround Dirk with stars. First they dedicated their ambitions to Deron, and failed. They ended up signing a bunch of middling players to 1-year deals, and then dedicated their ambitions to Dwight. They failed, and now they've resorted to signing Calderon, Ellis, and Dalembert.

Being limited in just the 2014 offseason might not sound like much to you, but in reality, it's HUGE. Teams either stay prepared or lose.

I never said it would be easy to move Stoudemire's deal, I said that we had the assets to move his contract.

I'd say moving 23m expiring is about as easy as moving Wallace's deal. Yes it's twice the size, but its expiring and comes with a far superior player attached. In this scenario we get 2 extra assets just for eating Perk's deal and don't have to give up any to get rid of Wallace's deal, which would probably take at least a first to move. I'd say at least one of the teams that has cap space and misses out on the superstar sweepstakes in 2014 would be willing to take on Stat's expiring deal for 2 firsts and PJ3, wouldn't you? Then just chase 2015 free agents.

As for the playing time, I'm not thinking as if that is the only alternative, but that is our current roster. Nevertheless I still think there would be enough minutes to spread around between the 4. An even split would mean 24 minutes each.

Of the italicized guys on that list I don't see many promising opportunities for the Celtics. Monroe and Sanders stand out the most, but they're restricted and the Bucks and Pistons probably match. I don't see Carmelo coming to Boston. And of the unrestricted names you highlighted no one really jumps out except Deng, but he plays Green's position, I'm not as high on Gortat as others and Bogut and Granger are just as bad injury wise as Amare.

I understand where you are coming from about the flexibility and leaving yourself available to opportunities like the Rockets, but I think even with this deal we could still do that. Take your example of Love coming available:

The deals I suggested are for midseason so it's safe to assume that they wouldn't preclude us from getting Love or a comparable star this year, otherwise Ainge just wouldn't do this deal in the first place and just make a move for Love.

That means we are really only restricted next offseason. As a general rule teams trading their star player are trying to rebuild, which means they are looking for cap space and picks/assets. We can send out Amare's expiring deal for Love's and throw in the picks/young players needed for the deal. Since Amare is a giant expiring it actually works well for the T-Wolves because they get assets and then can chase a 2015 free agent.

Alternatively if we weren't trading for a star on a big deal, but rather a younger guy who is getting ready to cash like Sanders, Monroe, Cousins etc. we can trade Perkins' much smaller 8m expiring contract and assets to complete the deal or if we can get it done before it expires we can use the 10.3m trade exception we got.

We still have room to maneuver if an opportunity comes up, it just might be a bit more difficult. But if those moves don't materialize we will have a totally clean slate and assets to work with in 2015.

[rondoallaturca]

You say that "moving 23m expiring is about as easy as moving Wallace's deal". I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but if you weren't, let me just tell you it's going to take a heck of an effort to move Wallace's ugly contract.

Monroe and Sanders were the only guys I italicized because I actually think they have a chance of going with S&T. Detroit has Smith/Drummond, and over the course of the season, they very likely might realize they're better off shipping away Monroe for pieces that better fit their team. As for Sanders, well, Milwaukee is Milwaukee. They traded Tobias Harris for JJ Redick, then lost JJ Redick for a couple 2nd rounders. They tried to S&T Jennings, and failed. They signed Zaza to $5M+ per year when they already have Henson, Udoh, and Sanders. At this point, it's almost a certainty they're either going to throw a ridiculous off-the-charts contract to Sanders, or sell him on the cheap. That's a 50/50 proposition, which is good enough for me to italicize him.

You're right that Amare and Perk have expiring contracts big enough to facilitate a trade, but they're not expirings until two years. So again, that immediately shuts out 2014.

I mean, I get where you're coming from. We get more assets (albeit just PJ3 and a protected 1st), and consolidate everything so we can start fresh in 2015, when Rondo is also off the books. I'm jut not sure those gains are worth justifying wasting a year and automatically shutting us out from any opportunities that arise during that span.

[PhoSita]

I appreciate the thought you put into this post, but I really think the Perk was a product of being next to Garnett.  Amare would be nice though.

I'll disagree with that only because we saw how good he could be on his own as a defensive anchor in 2008-2009 and early 2009-2010 before his knee problems started.

I agree, I think before the knee injury Perk was on his way to peaking as a very solid starting center.  A guy who despite being only 6'10'' could anchor a defense and get you 11-12 points a night on 55-60% shooting.

Unfortunately, since the knee injury he's been a huge liability offensive and pretty limited in what types of players he's useful against defensively.