Bass, Lee, Crawford for Biedrins, Rush

[Moranis]

This makes no sense for Utah. Your reasons are that they need someone to nurture their team and provide depth. Utah's depth is fine as is, and while Bass/Lee are veterans, they aren't exactly the locker room leaders that would persuade the team to give up expirings for.

Utah's depth is horrible.  They have Kanter, Favors, Biedrins, and Evans at the 4/5.  Kanter and Favors are obviously good, but behind them they are awful.  Hayward, Carroll, and Jefferson at the 3 are fine (especially after Marvin Williams comes back), but the backcourt is essentially Burke, Burks, Rush, and Lucas.  Rush hasn't been able to stay healthy, Burke is a rookie and Burks just isn't that good and Lucas is barely NBA caliber.  Lee would likely start for Utah and Bass would be the 1st big off the bench.  Now maybe they would rather just be awful, but Bass and Lee would help them.  They also might prefer to keep Biedrins and instead trade Jefferson.  I would be ok with that as well, but would prefer Biedrins.

[Moranis]

I can't see any reason either team would do this trade.

There are other ways to reduce salary to get under the Luxury Tax threshold without giving away significant pieces.

Even if you feel Bass & Lee are not in the Celtic's long term plans, moving them pretty much purely for salary dump seems like a waste of their player value.

Lee actually is a reasonable piece to keep longer term.  He had a down year, but he's only 27 and is a very good player and has a modest contract.    I don't see the point of moving him for the sake of moving him.

I assume your purpose here is to make sure that the Celtics have the absolute worst possible roster to minimize the chance that they don't make the lottery.

But seeing Biedrins dressed in green might be too harmful to the franchise long term as so many fans would likely kill themselves after watching him.

My purpose is to eliminate some long term salary to make Boston relevant in free agency sooner.  In addition, there are too many similar parts on the roster, this trims some of that out.  I also think Rush, if he can stay healthy, would be a great addition and I wouldn't mind signing him long term (on a reasonable deal).

[rondoallaturca]

Utah's depth is horrible.  They have Kanter, Favors, Biedrins, and Evans at the 4/5.  Kanter and Favors are obviously good, but behind them they are awful.  Hayward, Carroll, and Jefferson at the 3 are fine (especially after Marvin Williams comes back), but the backcourt is essentially Burke, Burks, Rush, and Lucas.  Rush hasn't been able to stay healthy, Burke is a rookie and Burks just isn't that good and Lucas is barely NBA caliber.  Lee would likely start for Utah and Bass would be the 1st big off the bench.  Now maybe they would rather just be awful, but Bass and Lee would help them.  They also might prefer to keep Biedrins and instead trade Jefferson.  I would be ok with that as well, but would prefer Biedrins.

Wow, wow, wow. I mean, this entire post screams of poorly thought-out, ignorant, and false statements. Yikes.

"Rush hasn't been able to stay healthy." His ACL tear is his first significant injury in his entire professional career. Sure, he tore the ACL in his other knee in college, but this isn't some sort of Gordon/Bogut situation where it's a multitude of repeating injuries that continually sideline the player.

"Burke is a rookie." In case you aren't aware by them starting Burks/Hayward/Favors/Kanter, Utah's whole point is to develop their young talent this year. He might not get big minutes from the get-go but he'll have at least a sizable role.

"Burks just isn't that good." Lol, awesome analysis there. Fact is that while Burks hasn't done anything to suggest he's going to ever reach his potential, he's never been given a big opportunity, either. Congratulations on writing off an athletic 6'6 23-year old who has only played 2 years in the league without giving any sort of reasoning.

"Lucas is barely NBA caliber." I'm beginning to question whether you're just a casual fan who pays no attention to guys the national media doesn't focus on.

"Now maybe they would rather just be awful, but Bass and Lee would help them." No comment.

[mmmmm]

I can't see any reason either team would do this trade.

There are other ways to reduce salary to get under the Luxury Tax threshold without giving away significant pieces.

Even if you feel Bass & Lee are not in the Celtic's long term plans, moving them pretty much purely for salary dump seems like a waste of their player value.

Lee actually is a reasonable piece to keep longer term.  He had a down year, but he's only 27 and is a very good player and has a modest contract.    I don't see the point of moving him for the sake of moving him.

I assume your purpose here is to make sure that the Celtics have the absolute worst possible roster to minimize the chance that they don't make the lottery.

But seeing Biedrins dressed in green might be too harmful to the franchise long term as so many fans would likely kill themselves after watching him.

My purpose is to eliminate some long term salary to make Boston relevant in free agency sooner.  In addition, there are too many similar parts on the roster, this trims some of that out.  I also think Rush, if he can stay healthy, would be a great addition and I wouldn't mind signing him long term (on a reasonable deal).

Well, signing Rush to a long term deal would probably cut the 'long term savings' here in half as he'll probably cost about 6M per to sign (He's making 4M this coming year).  He's basically a slightly better offensive Courtney Lee except not as good a defender.  And he's slightly older than Lee as well.  And coming off a significant injury.   Why not keep Lee at slightly less long term cost?

The net of that is that you are exchanging Lee for Rush and probably only clearing 4M of your long term salary.

I get the point of moving Bass, but I think you are trying to do too many things in this move.

We agree that Bass is not part of the long term picture, but he _does_ have decent player value.  Probably more so as a role player for a contending team than to any rebuilding team.   So I would be a little more patient and look to move him towards one of those scenarios, possibly involving a third team to make sure everyone gets the parts they need.

[Moranis]

Utah's depth is horrible.  They have Kanter, Favors, Biedrins, and Evans at the 4/5.  Kanter and Favors are obviously good, but behind them they are awful.  Hayward, Carroll, and Jefferson at the 3 are fine (especially after Marvin Williams comes back), but the backcourt is essentially Burke, Burks, Rush, and Lucas.  Rush hasn't been able to stay healthy, Burke is a rookie and Burks just isn't that good and Lucas is barely NBA caliber.  Lee would likely start for Utah and Bass would be the 1st big off the bench.  Now maybe they would rather just be awful, but Bass and Lee would help them.  They also might prefer to keep Biedrins and instead trade Jefferson.  I would be ok with that as well, but would prefer Biedrins.

Wow, wow, wow. I mean, this entire post screams of poorly thought-out, ignorant, and false statements. Yikes.

"Rush hasn't been able to stay healthy." His ACL tear is his first significant injury in his entire professional career. Sure, he tore the ACL in his other knee in college, but this isn't some sort of Gordon/Bogut situation where it's a multitude of repeating injuries that continually sideline the player.

Rush missed 15 games 3 years ago, was healthy 2 years ago, and then played in exactly 2 games last year.  And maybe you missed my next post when I said I actually like Rush, but you are talking about a player coming off of his second career ACL tear.  No one has any idea what type of player he is going to be.  To think that Lee isn't better than Rush is just silly especially given their careers to this point (Rush is a much better three point shooter but that is about it).

"Burke is a rookie." In case you aren't aware by them starting Burks/Hayward/Favors/Kanter, Utah's whole point is to develop their young talent this year. He might not get big minutes from the get-go but he'll have at least a sizable role.

And Lee won't take a single minute from Burke.  Burke is a PG, Lee is a SG.  Burke would play regardless of how much Lee plays.  But you said Utah had depth and they don't.  John Lucas is the only person backing up Burke and Rush (coming off an ACL tear) and Burks are the only SG's on the roster.  Lee would be a huge help to their depth and is a lot easier to rely on the Rush who he is better than (aside from 3 PT shooting) any way.

"Burks just isn't that good." Lol, awesome analysis there. Fact is that while Burks hasn't done anything to suggest he's going to ever reach his potential, he's never been given a big opportunity, either. Congratulations on writing off an athletic 6'6 23-year old who has only played 2 years in the league without giving any sort of reasoning.

Burks has played 17 minutes a game for his career.  He has a eFG% of 45.6.  He is not a very good passer, but is an ok rebounder.  I'm sure he will get better, but there is no way any team should rely on him for more than a backup role.

"Lucas is barely NBA caliber." I'm beginning to question whether you're just a casual fan who pays no attention to guys the national media doesn't focus on.

You mean the John Lucas who was so great that for 3 years in the middle of his career the only place he could find work was overseas and not even top level league work overseas (Italy, Spanish D-League, China).  The same John Lucas that has never shot even 40% in the league.  John Lucas is barely NBA caliber.  The only reason Utah signed him is because they need bodies to hit the minimum players and the salary floor.  It also helps that he is a guard and they have 3 guards on the roster aside from him

"Now maybe they would rather just be awful, but Bass and Lee would help them." No comment.

Bass and Lee would help them.  Lee would be the starting SG and Bass would be the first big off the bench.  That helps a team.

And for the record, I certainly don't appreciate your tone, your snarkiness, or the fact that you think I don't know what I'm talking about it.  Plenty of people disagree with me on this board (which is fine), but there is a reason no one questions my knowledge.  I know my facts.

[Moranis]

I can't see any reason either team would do this trade.

There are other ways to reduce salary to get under the Luxury Tax threshold without giving away significant pieces.

Even if you feel Bass & Lee are not in the Celtic's long term plans, moving them pretty much purely for salary dump seems like a waste of their player value.

Lee actually is a reasonable piece to keep longer term.  He had a down year, but he's only 27 and is a very good player and has a modest contract.    I don't see the point of moving him for the sake of moving him.

I assume your purpose here is to make sure that the Celtics have the absolute worst possible roster to minimize the chance that they don't make the lottery.

But seeing Biedrins dressed in green might be too harmful to the franchise long term as so many fans would likely kill themselves after watching him.

My purpose is to eliminate some long term salary to make Boston relevant in free agency sooner.  In addition, there are too many similar parts on the roster, this trims some of that out.  I also think Rush, if he can stay healthy, would be a great addition and I wouldn't mind signing him long term (on a reasonable deal).

Well, signing Rush to a long term deal would probably cut the 'long term savings' here in half as he'll probably cost about 6M per to sign (He's making 4M this coming year).  He's basically a slightly better offensive Courtney Lee except not as good a defender.  And he's slightly older than Lee as well.  And coming off a significant injury.   Why not keep Lee at slightly less long term cost?

The net of that is that you are exchanging Lee for Rush and probably only clearing 4M of your long term salary.

I get the point of moving Bass, but I think you are trying to do too many things in this move.

We agree that Bass is not part of the long term picture, but he _does_ have decent player value.  Probably more so as a role player for a contending team than to any rebuilding team.   So I would be a little more patient and look to move him towards one of those scenarios, possibly involving a third team to make sure everyone gets the parts they need.

I don't think Rush signs a 6 million contract unless he just explodes next year.  If you look around at the dollars players are being signed for, Rush isn't sniffing that.  I think he could get a 3 yr, 12 million or something in that neighborhood if he is healthy and if he performs at about his career level.  I just don't see much more than that.  And maybe Boston just elects to let him walk and free up cap space when him, Biedrins, and Humphries go away (leaving just Rondo, Green, Wallace, and Bradley's extension as the bigger money contracts). Having that sort of flexibility is what you need as a rebuilding team, especially because unloading Bass and Lee will allow Boston to actually use the trade exception next summer.

[rondoallaturca]

I agree that it's silly to think Lee isn't better than Rush. That's why I never said anything along those lines so I'm not sure what your point is in bringing that up. Focusing back on the main discussion of Rush's supposed inability to stay healthy, Rush has missed only 7.4% games for his entire career before he sustained his ACL injury. That is pretty solid.

You again bring in Lee for no apparent reason when discussing Burke. Since I'm arguing AGAINST your proposal, I'm not sure why you're insisting on including Lee into my perspective when clearly I'm not in favor of it.

As for Burks, you make an accurate but very shallow observation. Burks made a living off getting into the paint for easy, high-percentage shots in college, but with below average first step, a big part of Burks' offensive game has been neutralized in the pros. However, I'm hearing he's refined a great deal of the rest of his offensive end to make up for it. There's a reason why Utah fans and management are so enamored with him, and it's absolutely unfair to assume he'll be no better than a backup player based off stats in limited minutes during the first few years of a player who has had to make big adjustments transitioning into the NBA.

Your argument for Lucas has absolutely no relevant evidence whatsoever. So he played overseas for 3 years a couple seasons back. Okay, and your point is? Plenty of NBA players go overseas and come back improved. Anthony Parker came back from overseas to wilt away a few seasons in Toronto before becoming an integral part of a championship contender. Since returning from abroad, Lucas has molded into an exceptional backup PG. He did a solid job behind Rose in Chicago, and Lowry in Toronto. Just because he's a sub-.400 shooter doesn't automatically make him "barely NBA caliber", either. There are a lot of other aspects to the game outside of scoring.

I never argued that Bass and Lee wouldn't help the team. However, there is absolutely no point for Utah to give up expiring contracts to acquire them as Utah is far better off developing their young talent, and addressing their remaining roster depth issues through free agency rather than tying up salary to guys who are far more suited for a contending team.

And is it seriously fair for you to start attacking my character when you say things like "there is a reason no one questions my knowledge"?

[mmmmm]

I can't see any reason either team would do this trade.

There are other ways to reduce salary to get under the Luxury Tax threshold without giving away significant pieces.

Even if you feel Bass & Lee are not in the Celtic's long term plans, moving them pretty much purely for salary dump seems like a waste of their player value.

Lee actually is a reasonable piece to keep longer term.  He had a down year, but he's only 27 and is a very good player and has a modest contract.    I don't see the point of moving him for the sake of moving him.

I assume your purpose here is to make sure that the Celtics have the absolute worst possible roster to minimize the chance that they don't make the lottery.

But seeing Biedrins dressed in green might be too harmful to the franchise long term as so many fans would likely kill themselves after watching him.

My purpose is to eliminate some long term salary to make Boston relevant in free agency sooner.  In addition, there are too many similar parts on the roster, this trims some of that out.  I also think Rush, if he can stay healthy, would be a great addition and I wouldn't mind signing him long term (on a reasonable deal).

Well, signing Rush to a long term deal would probably cut the 'long term savings' here in half as he'll probably cost about 6M per to sign (He's making 4M this coming year).  He's basically a slightly better offensive Courtney Lee except not as good a defender.  And he's slightly older than Lee as well.  And coming off a significant injury.   Why not keep Lee at slightly less long term cost?

The net of that is that you are exchanging Lee for Rush and probably only clearing 4M of your long term salary.

I get the point of moving Bass, but I think you are trying to do too many things in this move.

We agree that Bass is not part of the long term picture, but he _does_ have decent player value.  Probably more so as a role player for a contending team than to any rebuilding team.   So I would be a little more patient and look to move him towards one of those scenarios, possibly involving a third team to make sure everyone gets the parts they need.

I don't think Rush signs a 6 million contract unless he just explodes next year.  If you look around at the dollars players are being signed for, Rush isn't sniffing that.  I think he could get a 3 yr, 12 million or something in that neighborhood if he is healthy and if he performs at about his career level.  I just don't see much more than that.  And maybe Boston just elects to let him walk and free up cap space when him, Biedrins, and Humphries go away (leaving just Rondo, Green, Wallace, and Bradley's extension as the bigger money contracts). Having that sort of flexibility is what you need as a rebuilding team, especially because unloading Bass and Lee will allow Boston to actually use the trade exception next summer.

Well, the trade exception expires July 12.   Even without unloading Bass and Lee or making any other changes for that matter, they'd be able to use it between June 30 and July 12 because Bogans, Humphries, Brooks and Crawford would come off the books (assuming we wouldn't re-up Bogans or Brooks nor put a QO on Crawford).   In other words, we'll definitely be able to use the 10.3M TPE no matter what.

So the only question on your deal is whether it gives us any useful outright cap room.

But replacing Lee & Bass with Biedrins' expiring and some few million of Rush is only going to net you a few million under the cap.    As it stands right now, we have some 51.5M of 2014 commitments on nine players (assume we exercise options on Sully & Fab) and we'll still need to extend Bradley.  Assuming AB continues as a 'starter quality SG' - then that number goes up to probably around 57.5M for 10 players.  We then add cap holds for our two draft picks and the remaining roster slots and we end up quickly back in the mid-high 60s.   And that's with renouncing/losing Bogans, Hump, Crawford, Brooks & Pressey.  Those players have to be replaced or retained.     

The maneuver you suggest (Bass+Lee+Crawford for Biedrins+Bush) gets us down into the high 50's.   Probably just a few M under the probable cap.   So there still won't be salary cap room to outright sign a big free agent unless we renounce Bradley.

All this suggests that it will still be better to stay _over_ the cap and instead bring in a star player via trade.  And to get a larger star, the 10.3M TPE is limited because it can't be combined with other salary.

A better maneuver is to trade a package of player contracts and draft picks to get that star player because it can match a much bigger incoming contract or set of contracts.

The most flexible place to sit right now is just under the LT threshold, but with a wide variety of movable contracts and spare picks.

Danny only has to shed about 3M to get to that spot.

From there he can form almost any sort of package to match any star that becomes available via trade.

Obviously, there are lots of intermediate transactions that could happen that could transform the picture dramatically.

It will be interesting to see how Danny plays this out.