NBA insiders - "Celts hit a home run, SHOCKED by how much value they got"

[Yogi]

Something isn't always better than nothing.

I would expect more than crap. We got a lot in the trade, a lot of crap. Nothing worthy of calling it value or a home run.

Any way you slice it, they definitely gave up the two best players, regardless of age. Factoring what two of them meant to the franchise makes it even worse.

In this case something is pretty significantly better than nothing. 

1.  Three first round picks are inherently extremely valuable.  Late first round picks give you so much value because you can lock down a player long term for peanuts without risk because you can use your team option on them in a couple of years if they don't pan out.  With Danny's success drafting late in the first, early in the second, that's quite the haul. 

2.  The trade exception is extremely valuable.  Even if we don't get a player, it allows us to do trades that are not possible normally because we are way over the cap. 

3.  The expirings are a wash with Pierce's contract. 

4.  Gerald Wallace at 31 (10 Million for 3 years) is better than KG and Terry at 36-7 (15 Million for 2 years).  Wallace can improve his numbers and become easier to move, while KG and Terry have steadily been declining.  (it is also a lower cap hit for two years and a 10 Million expiring in the last year.)

5.  Yes they gave up the two best players, but in 3 years probably none of those players will be playing.  Wallace, Humphries and Brooks will definitely still be in the league.  The long term value of the guys we got back is much greater than Terry, Pierce and KG.

6.  It sucks that Pierce and KG got traded.  But there was no bad blood.  They are happy, the Celtics are happy, the fans are spared watching another shot at the championship being derailed by injuries and get to watch a much younger, more athletic and exciting group play. 

[EDWARDO]

I think its a ton of value and I think the NBA insiders are right on with that assessment.

One thing though, we got 3 picks and the right to swap for the 4th pick. That's 4 unprotected opportunities. I would agree that the next pick is likely to be quite late, but I could ABSOLUTELY see the other picks being lottery picks or mid first rounders. The Nets have gone ALL IN on the next 1-2 years, and the Vegas odds have them at about 15:1 to win the title. (I checked 3 sites offering 14:1, 15:1 and 15:1... also that only means that the "right" number is actually a lower %... if you combined all the odds together it would come to over 150%, so the correct "mid price" odds would be closer to 20:1) . They are tied in to Deron Williams, Joe Johnson and Brook Lopez for a long time. DW and JJ will be getting older and Lopez hasn't really stayed all that healthy. The Russian is spending like mad right now, but that could quickly change, especially if/when the most likely scenario happens - they don't win it all and the team disintegrates a bit. I could definitely see this team being quite awful in 2-3yrs time and locked in to bad deals with players on the decline. Its UNlikely that all these picks will be in the 20s.

[bfrombleacher]

Even from a sentimental standpoint you can say it was a win. You give Pierce and KG their last shot at a ring, the next best thing to retiring in green.

[Eric M VAN]

Is Chad Lowe the love child of Zach Lowe and Chad Ford? 

Anyways, It's all about assets. There was a group of folks that were going to hang Daryl Morey last year for doing pretty much the same thing and, though I don't expect a Dwight Howard type signing in the near future, I expect Ainge will turn these picks/players/trade Exceptions into something worthwhile.

It took 4 or 5 years for Ainge to flip bad players for progressively less bad players before getting Allen & Garnett and there will always be some other GM or Management dumber than a box of rocks (Jordan anyone?) That will take 2 cents on the dollar for roster fodder.

http://hoopshype.com/general_managers/danny_ainge.htm

Oh my the Ricky Davis, Wally Szczerbiak years. As I re-run through that transaction log, I still scratch my head sometimes. That 2004 draft was remarkable. (As an aside, it's fun to see some of the names folks were so excited about...remember Brandon (The Second Coming) Hunter and how he HAD to be signed after tearing up the summer league? Orien Green? Gabe Pruitt?)

He's been a reasonably astute "drafter" even in the later parts of the First round and gotten some good value in the second  so I have some confidence he can continue to make chicken salad from C.S.

I'm happy with the run the Celts had since 2008 (except for the Perkins trade, that Championship should have gone to Boston IMO if he hadn't been traded), but last year was the final " go for it" year and it just didn't work out. The original 3 year window went to 5...I don't think it was open any longer in terms of winning the whole thing.

As fans we really tend to over rate the value of the players on the roster and flipping Pierce, Garnett and Terry, all of who will probably be out of the league or out of commission when the majority of these picks come up was a smart move to me.

I don't want the Celts to be the Mavericks or the early 90's Celtics. I love the guys, but it was time to move on.

[hwangjini_1]

EV and others have it right. It was not about immediate, existing talent and foregoing a credible run at a nba title. It was time to pack it in and ship folks out for future assets. Cruel? In a way, but that is what a good GM should do.

Ainge was right and what he got was impressive.

For basically forgoing one more painful fraud of a championship run, the celtics got assets. Lots and lots of assets. None of them will redeem the team by themselves, but in the hands of ainge, an ainge who is now more experienced and shrewder than before, I have no doubt the celtics will be wheeling and dealing.

Wallace was the poison pill to make this happen. Heck, his contact is probably gone in 2 years, 3 tops. That is, just when the new and improved celtics are ramping up.

Humphrey is either payroll relief or a trade chip. Probably best to hold him until a contender gets an injury, then trade him for more assets.

Bogans? Total trade fodder. The bogans dynasty will be short lived.

Brooks? Hard to say, I view him as a chucker with low BB IQ, a one dimensional player. I hope I am wrong and cb folks are right on him. Either way, nothing great is lost and some gains possible. If nothing else, he will help generate a lot of threads here. 

The draft picks. Ha, ha, ha.. Given Danny's record and the fragility of the nets future, how can anyone say these are not assets? Two years ago the nets sucked eggs. Their current team now relies upon kg and pierce, both of whom are gone in two years tops.

Lopez and Williams may not age well. Johnson is good but can't carry a team with just his talent.

Maybe the Russian plops down tens of millions each year for free agents, but under the new cba it will be more difficult for him to build teams this way, no?

So for the picks by years 3 and 4 I think they will be mid-first round to lottery picks.

Assets are what the celtics wanted, and that is what they now have, including the current roster.

Let's revisit this thread in three to four years. That is when we will all know about this trade.

[Roy H.]

The Cavaliers got a first rounder for taking on Wayne Ellington's salary for half a season.  They got an unprotected lottery pick (that turned into Kyrie Irving) for taking on the difference between Baron Davis' and Mo Williams salary.

Utah just got two first rounders and three second rounders for taking on a bunch of expiring contracts.

Late round first rounders are routinely bought and sold for anywhere from $1 million to $3 million, often with no other form of compensation.

I don't necessarily think that three draft picks is an amazing haul for giving up two players that will help NJ win now, and taking on Gerald Wallace's bad deal.  The trade exception is nice, but we'll see if it's ever utilized.

[BballTim]

I don't see it. They traded 3 players (granted, all past their prime), 2 of which still are difference-makers, for:

A bad contract (Wallace).
An expensive expiring role player contract (Humphries).
An expiring end of bench guy contract (Bogans).
A chucker (Brooks).
A trade exception ($10.3M).
An all but guaranteed late first-rounder (2014).
Two future probable non-lottery picks (2016, 2018).
And the right to swap picks with a team with deep pockets (2017).


Which of these seem like anything worth bragging about?

Trade exceptions usually go unused. Big expirings usually don't net anything more than some overpaid veteran that a team no longer wants. Young, inefficient chuckers usually stay inefficient chuckers. The draft is always a crapshoot, and usually you don't find all-stars in the 20's.


I just don't see how this one cleared the fence. Shallow fly ball to me.

  Right or wrong, almost every GM in the league places a much higher premium on first round draft picks than you do. Beyond that, I'm not so confident the Nets will be a top team for each of those years.

[CelticG1]

 Don't think it was a ton of value but we will see its a long term plan.

I do think it was pretty muvh the ideal team to trade with to try and get the most value. Owner wants to win now. Owner has too much money. They were semi in the thick of it last year and it was 2 peefect positions that they desperstely needed help in.

[Vermont Green]

I think it is a good deal for Celtics.  It was time for this type of trade and a pretty good return.  In terms of what we sent out, I think Pierce is still really good and will make a big difference for the Nets and a big loss for the Celtics.  I think the same for KG but I don't see KG lasting a season without some major time on the DL.  He will perhaps have more "protection" on the Nets but he has gotten hurt every year and will probably see a steep decline.

In terms of what we got back, it is essentially 4 unprotected first rounders.  I don't think the 2014 pick is so exciting, I expect the Nets to be very good, but 2016, 2017 (swap), and 2018 are likely to produce some really good picks I think.

In terms of the players we got back, yeah, not much there but I think there is a good chance that Wallace returns to form (what is he, 31?) and then is a very valuable trade option at some point in the next year or two.  He was already traded once for a first round pick (and Okur) so he may be able surprise some people in what he gets back.

Now the best case of all these scenarios(all picks are great, Wallace returns to form and is traded for value, we get something for Humphries, Brooks develops into a solid player) would be pretty amazing but won't happen of course.   But more likely some combination of some of all of these still could add up to a pretty good result (maybe one or two really good players with their picks plus something for Wallace a year from now for example).

[Clench123]

I think we did.  I think we did hit a homerun but it all really depends on what we get in a year.  That would decide if any of these trade was worth it.

Most of all, I was just so glad about the Brad Stevens move.  Smart move.

[Fafnir]

nets offered a lotto pick last year for pierce. the pick ended up being damian lillard.

Lillard was already drafted last year.

we were offered the nets lotto pick at the deadline  but the nets chose wallace isntead.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/7690823/new-jersey-nets-acquire-forward-gerald-wallace-portland-trail-blazers

Right we wanted the lottery pick for Pierce and the Nets chose a to land Wallace with it instead.

We weren't offered that pick for Pierce, instead we asked for that pick. You're presenting it backwards for some reason in your two posts.

[JHTruth]

Once they dump Wallace and Hump, this will have been a fantastic trade. The picks alone were great. Once we get a few more assets from our Nets rejects, I will be very happy..

[Jon]

I'm in wait and see mode now.  I think it's premature to call this a home run. 

I also think you can't count any sort of cap relief as a win here.  They could have bought out Pierce and saved 10 million this year without making any trades.  And by holding onto him one more year, they could have cleared 15 million next year and another 11 million or so the year after when KG expired (or potentially a year earlier, if he hung it up after this coming season). 

So I think any sort of "cap relief" spin on this trade is simply not true, particularly when you consider we had to take on Wallace's contract for three more years.  If clearing money was really the goal, holding onto Pierce and KG would have been the better option.  And that's not even counting what they could have offered as far as mentoring Green, Bradley, and Sullinger further. 

That's not so say I think that it's a bad deal, I think the real value will come from the picks, and obviously we'll have to see how that all plays out.  An added bonus will be what they can get from Humphries.  If they just let him expire, he's not adding any value that letting PP expire would have created.  But if they are able to turn him into a future asset along with the picks, then they do ultimately increase the value of this trade a bit more. 

[hwangjini_1]

I'm in wait and see mode now.  I think it's premature to call this a home run. 

I also think you can't count any sort of cap relief as a win here.  They could have bought out Pierce and saved 10 million this year without making any trades.  And by holding onto him one more year, they could have cleared 15 million next year and another 11 million or so the year after when KG expired (or potentially a year earlier, if he hung it up after this coming season). 

So I think any sort of "cap relief" spin on this trade is simply not true, particularly when you consider we had to take on Wallace's contract for three more years.  If clearing money was really the goal, holding onto Pierce and KG would have been the better option.  And that's not even counting what they could have offered as far as mentoring Green, Bradley, and Sullinger further. 

That's not so say I think that it's a bad deal, I think the real value will come from the picks, and obviously we'll have to see how that all plays out.  An added bonus will be what they can get from Humphries.  If they just let him expire, he's not adding any value that letting PP expire would have created.  But if they are able to turn him into a future asset along with the picks, then they do ultimately increase the value of this trade a bit more.

Good points. Only thing to add is that it is not just the picks that may prove valuable to ainge. He can also flip the players drafted as well as package picks to trade for players or  better picks.

This will be an interesting rebuild...though this year will have ugly low points to it.

[Boris Badenov]

I don't see it. They traded 3 players (granted, all past their prime), 2 of which still are difference-makers, for:

An all but guaranteed late first-rounder (2014).
Two future probable non-lottery picks (2016, 2018).
And the right to swap picks with a team with deep pockets (2017).

Which of these seem like anything worth bragging about?

  Right or wrong, almost every GM in the league places a much higher premium on first round draft picks than you do. Beyond that, I'm not so confident the Nets will be a top team for each of those years.

Tim's right, and here's the reason. With draft picks it is not the expected (or average) draft position alone that determines value. So calling a pick a "probable non-lottery pick" misses an important element, which is the randomness. Those picks all *could* be high or low, with varying probabilities. And of course even for a given draft position the player quality could be high or low.

Coupled with that, picks are "real options." Danny can adapt his decisions about what to do with the picks depending on where they end up. If LAC gets the 28th pick he can trade it, or keep it, depending on how he likes that draft slot. Same with a BKN pick that ends up being 5th.

It might seem like all this uncertainty would be a bad thing, but it actually increases the value of the picks because on the downside - i.e., if the picks end up being really unattractive - it's pretty easy to dump them before you "exercise the option."

This is in stark contrast to, say, signing a developing player to a max contract. If that doesn't work out, the GM is stuck with the deal.

So, picks carry upside risk with little downside risk. And, if the quality of a future pick is *more* uncertain, that actually can increase the value of the pick.

I think this explains the premium on picks. It also provides a perfectly intuitive explanation for why early 2nd round picks are more valuable than late 1st round picks - in the former case you can cut the guy quickly if he doesn't pan out, but in the latter case you are stuck with the rookie pay scale for 1st round picks, so 2nd round picks really allow one to opt out of the downside. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Mr. Melo).

The idea here, by the way, is a pretty straight application of option pricing theory from finance. But it should apply to draft picks or any other asset a team could own.