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

[Boris Badenov]

That trade was INCREDIBLE. We fleeced NJ. They were bidding against themselves and overpaid. 3 1st rounders and a swap?? Great haul for a a contract dump, and 2 older players clearly on the decline.

I would say NJ got the contract dump.  Wallace was by far the worst contract.

I essentially see the trade as one first round pick as the compensation for the difference between the contracts of Wallace and Terry and everything else as value given back in return for Pierce and Garnett or salary filler to make the trade legal.

Wallace's contract may be bad, but it's not so horrible that it prevents the Celtics from manufacturing cap space to sign a major free agent next summer.

I've also been thinking that if we had hung onto Pierce we very well might have paid him around what Wallace is getting over the next three years. Pierce's contract is technically up next year but if we would have kept him, isn't it reasonable to think he would have resigned for two years, $25 million or so?

If that's true, I don't think the Wallace contract leaves us much worse off in terms of flexibility than would have been the case if we'd kept Pierce.

[Vermont Green]

That trade was INCREDIBLE. We fleeced NJ. They were bidding against themselves and overpaid. 3 1st rounders and a swap?? Great haul for a a contract dump, and 2 older players clearly on the decline.

I would say NJ got the contract dump.  Wallace was by far the worst contract.

Yes, taking on Wallace is the worst part of the deal but I think that shows just how good of a deal this is.  Worst case, Wallace continues to play as bad as he did last year.  So what.  He eats up some salary space.

More likely I think is that we got a player who was a recent all star and first team all defensive team in 2010 and now has more of an opportunity to play his game on a bad team.  He was even more recently traded for a first round pick and Okur.

I think he is going to end up getting traded and is part of a deal that gets us some real value back.  $10M is even in the worst case not that bad of a contract.

[action781]

There are many things the celts acquired in this trade that are completely irrelevant to me:
-Kris Humphries (won't be here more than 2 seasons)
-Marshon Brooks (won't be here more than 2 seasons
-Keith Bogans (won't be here more than 2 seasons)
-2014 Nets draft pick (will be in the 20's and is a pick that can be bought or acquired for not much generally speaking)

There are 3 things the celts acquired in this trade that are very relevant:
-Gerald Wallace (this contract makes it almost impossible to rebuild on the fly over the next 2 seasons even if we want to)
-2016 and 2018 draft picks
-Right to swap picks in 2017

I think this deal was a gamble essentially by Danny on one (and only one) key opinion -- that the Brooklyn Nets will be a bad team from 2015-2018.  If Brooklyn is a good team in 2016-2018, then these picks will be in the 20's and this deal was not very good in my opinion.  If Brooklyn is a bad team though, this trade could have landed us anywhere between 1 to 3 very good picks.  If those picks are indeed lottery picks, then we've got a lot of shots and drafting a future all star.  Or Danny could use the "value" of these unknown picks to get a good player.

I agree with Danny's gamble.  I think KG will have retired before the 2015-16 season, Pierce will have retired by 2017 (or be significantly less productive) for sure and maybe earlier.  Brooklyn's other three key players, Deron, Johnson, and Lopez, will be older and less productive while combining for $60 mil in salary, which prevents Brooklyn from going out and simply buying more talent.  They'd have to get very creative in any attempts to do so and won't have any young players or draft picks to trade away to do so.  I think this will cause Brooklyn to be very bad by the time those picks come around and I think that will work out great for us.

[syfy9]

There are many things the celts acquired in this trade that are completely irrelevant to me:
-Kris Humphries (won't be here more than 2 seasons)
-Marshon Brooks (won't be here more than 2 seasons
-Keith Bogans (won't be here more than 2 seasons)
-2014 Nets draft pick (will be in the 20's and is a pick that can be bought or acquired for not much generally speaking)

There are 3 things the celts acquired in this trade that are very relevant:
-Gerald Wallace (this contract makes it almost impossible to rebuild on the fly over the next 2 seasons even if we want to)
-2016 and 2018 draft picks
-Right to swap picks in 2017

I think this deal was a gamble essentially by Danny on one (and only one) key opinion -- that the Brooklyn Nets will be a bad team from 2015-2018.  If Brooklyn is a good team in 2016-2018, then these picks will be in the 20's and this deal was not very good in my opinion.  If Brooklyn is a bad team though, this trade could have landed us anywhere between 1 to 3 very good picks.  If those picks are indeed lottery picks, then we've got a lot of shots and drafting a future all star.  Or Danny could use the "value" of these unknown picks to get a good player.

I agree with Danny's gamble.  I think KG will have retired before the 2015-16 season, Pierce will have retired by 2017 (or be significantly less productive) for sure and maybe earlier.  Brooklyn's other three key players, Deron, Johnson, and Lopez, will be older and less productive while combining for $60 mil in salary, which prevents Brooklyn from going out and simply buying more talent.  They'd have to get very creative in any attempts to do so and won't have any young players or draft picks to trade away to do so.  I think this will cause Brooklyn to be very bad by the time those picks come around and I think that will work out great for us.

Agreed. The Celtics have always been about gambles, though.

Red Auerbach traded starting SG Gerald Henderson in the 80s for the future 1st round draft pick from Seattle. It turned out to be #2 overall.

Follow the legacy, Danny! Hopefully we hit a home run.

[Kane3387]

I love this blog

[crimson_stallion]

Another nice thing about this deal is that now there is another team I will cheer for that has a legit chance of knocking Miami off their pedestal...and I really want to see Miami lose almost as much as I want to see Pierce, KG and even Terry win.

By the time the nets are turning bad, the Celtics should be turning good. WW
orks for me!!

[guava_wrench]

Rajon Rondo was a non-lottery pick. Non-lottery 1st round picks can become excellent players. Boozer, Artest, Granger, David West, Tony Parker, Zack Randolph, Kevin Martin and Josh Smith were all second half of the first round picks.

Would people feel better if KG and Pierce were traded for 3 Avery Bradleys/Eric Bledsoes, both taken in the second half of the draft, but both with good trade value?

those happen once in a blue moon, the truth is you need a lotto pick to pick up a superstar.

you call all the first rounders avery bradley, but they can easily (and more likely) be jajuan johnson and fab melo.

If by blue moon you mean every draft. I didn't even include 2nd round picks who are good NBA starters or all stars.

Superstars are irrelevant. You weren't going to get a superstar straight up for Pierce and KG at this point in their careers. What we can get is starter level players, even if the picks aren't in the lottery. Superstars will require either lottery luck, free agency, or a trade.

Don't forget how we got KG. We traded Al Jefferson - 15th pick, Gomes - 50th pick, Gerald Green - 18th pick, an Telfair - 13th pick (and already a bust at that point). All you need is for one of the picks to pan out and you have a good asset.

The reason why people are shocked that the Celtics got this much value is that the Celtics had almost no other potential trade partner, yet they were able to at least get assets -- the picks. I think that taking on the 2 big contracts make the deal more even such that no one should be shocked. But the Nets might miss those picks when they need complimentary players post-KG and Pierce. The Heat have won 2 titles starting a 34th pick at PG. Humble draft positions can still result in guy who can really contribute in the NBA.

Over the next couple of years, our draft picks won't be any worse than the positions that got us Ray and KG.

[Cman]

Rajon Rondo was a non-lottery pick. Non-lottery 1st round picks can become excellent players. Boozer, Artest, Granger, David West, Tony Parker, Zack Randolph, Kevin Martin and Josh Smith were all second half of the first round picks.

Would people feel better if KG and Pierce were traded for 3 Avery Bradleys/Eric Bledsoes, both taken in the second half of the draft, but both with good trade value?

those happen once in a blue moon, the truth is you need a lotto pick to pick up a superstar.

you call all the first rounders avery bradley, but they can easily (and more likely) be jajuan johnson and fab melo.

If by blue moon you mean every draft. I didn't even include 2nd round picks who are good NBA starters or all stars.

Superstars are irrelevant. You weren't going to get a superstar straight up for Pierce and KG at this point in their careers. What we can get is starter level players, even if the picks aren't in the lottery. Superstars will require either lottery luck, free agency, or a trade.

Don't forget how we got KG. We traded Al Jefferson - 15th pick, Gomes - 50th pick, Gerald Green - 18th pick, an Telfair - 13th pick (and already a bust at that point). All you need is for one of the picks to pan out and you have a good asset.

The reason why people are shocked that the Celtics got this much value is that the Celtics had almost no other potential trade partner, yet they were able to at least get assets -- the picks. I think that taking on the 2 big contracts make the deal more even such that no one should be shocked. But the Nets might miss those picks when they need complimentary players post-KG and Pierce. The Heat have won 2 titles starting a 34th pick at PG. Humble draft positions can still result in guy who can really contribute in the NBA.

Over the next couple of years, our draft picks won't be any worse than the positions that got us Ray and KG.

Good points. I'd also add that the Cs really only took on one big contract: Wallace's. Humphries contract is not a "big contract". It is an expiring deal. It is actually an asset.

[CelticSooner]

All things considered it was a pretty nice trade for the C's. I would say it speaks more for the Russians desperation to put a winner on the court though. C's wouldn't have gotten a similar deal anywhere else.

[mmmmm]

Honestly I was happy with either choice.  I would have loved seeing KG and Pierce stay for one more year, but at the same time I was happy for us to move on, as long as we got value in return.  I think we did, so im content.

This sums up my take on it as well.

[Smitty77]

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.

I totally agree that Paul Pierce WAS a "difference maker" FOR the Knicks in the playoffs!!!  Could NOT have been said any better.

Smitty77

[Smitty77]

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.

Roy,

I think that even you are underestimating how BAD this Nets team should be in 3 years!!  They will be borderline lotto at best unless their money bag owner is willing to continue to pay a huge luxury tax to only field a team that is NOT a championship level team.  I also think you are underestimating Gerald Wallace and the VERY STRONG likelihood that he will double his points per game this year and his well above average defense.  I live about 45 minutes from Time Warner Arena in Charlotte and I saw him play for many years.  He can ball on BOTH sides!!

Smitty77

[Tr1boy]

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.

I totally agree that Paul Pierce WAS a "difference maker" FOR the Knicks in the playoffs!!!  Could NOT have been said any better.

Smitty77

I disagree. Pp struggled at times really badly and overall not the same calibre performance as the past. Some games by the half he went 2 for 9 , 1 for 6. Defense couldnt contain melo and def not against guys like shumpert when knicks played small ball. Green was better as well kg provided impact

[Smitty77]

Unless the Nets implode, just not a big fan. 



The Wallace contract is just awful.

We all were saying the SAME THING about Jeff Green's contract this time last year weren't we??

[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.

Roy,

I think that even you are underestimating how BAD this Nets team should be in 3 years!!  They will be borderline lotto at best unless their money bag owner is willing to continue to pay a huge luxury tax to only field a team that is NOT a championship level team.  I also think you are underestimating Gerald Wallace and the VERY STRONG likelihood that he will double his points per game this year and his well above average defense.  I live about 45 minutes from Time Warner Arena in Charlotte and I saw him play for many years.  He can ball on BOTH sides!!

Smitty77

I'm just not sure that it's particularly good value, based upon what we've seen from other teams.  Time will tell, though.  If we end up with three lottery picks out of it, then obviously it was a very good trade.

As for Wallace...  I'm not optimistic.

Over the past four years, his points per game have looked like this:

18.2 -> 15.7 -> 13.8 -> 7.7

His FG% over those four years:

48.4% -> 45.4% -> 45.4% -> 39.7%

His total rebounding percentage:

14.7% -> 12.8% -> 10.8% -> 9.1%

His True Shooting Percentage:

.586 -> .548 -> .547 -> .490

In other words, Wallace has been declining for four straight seasons.  It's pretty unlikely that he's going to bounce back, and it's virtually a certainty that he won't be doubling his production.