Why do people keep talking about trading Avery Bradley

[littleteapot]

You guys understand the idea of a trade is that you have a guy on your team who is worth more to someone else than he is to you. Who else is gonna take him right now?

Like it or not, we signed him to a long-term contract with a decent amount of money, which means we are going to sit through the peaks and valleys for a while. He's capable of much better than he's playing right now - if we try to move him now every team is going to assume we have given up on him for good. Unless you are willing to give up an asset to get rid of him there's no point speculating about trading him.

[kozlodoev]

You guys understand the idea of a trade is that you have a guy on your team who is worth more to someone else than he is to you. Who else is gonna take him right now?

No, the idea of a trade is to have a package of assets that is worth more to someone else than it is to you.

[Chief]

Because he stinks and we have buyers remorse?

[tazzmaniac]

You guys understand the idea of a trade is that you have a guy on your team who is worth more to someone else than he is to you. Who else is gonna take him right now?

Like it or not, we signed him to a long-term contract with a decent amount of money, which means we are going to sit through the peaks and valleys for a while. He's capable of much better than he's playing right now - if we try to move him now every team is going to assume we have given up on him for good. Unless you are willing to give up an asset to get rid of him there's no point speculating about trading him.

It's not clear what the market for Bradley really is.  With all good shooting point guards, I'd think Bradley's defensive capabilities would draw some interest and he is decent offensively.  OKC is one team that should be interested in Bradley.  Phoenix is another possibility.  Bradley's contract isn't that much of an overpay that nobody would want to trade for him and the new TV deal will make it more reasonable. 

[greece66]

You guys understand the idea of a trade is that you have a guy on your team who is worth more to someone else than he is to you. Who else is gonna take him right now?

Like it or not, we signed him to a long-term contract with a decent amount of money, which means we are going to sit through the peaks and valleys for a while. He's capable of much better than he's playing right now - if we try to move him now every team is going to assume we have given up on him for good. Unless you are willing to give up an asset to get rid of him there's no point speculating about trading him.

That was one brave post  . TP

[ViolentGhandi]

also his contract isnt all that big - compare it to other guys in the league and you will see that he isnt anywhere close to beeing overpayed. Its more like the opposite as some ppl pointed out - with the cap goining up most likely over the next couple of years (by a none insignificant amount) his contract could be considered a steal.

signing him on that contract showed that Ainge saw a spot for him on the lineup going forward. I think he also was singed before it was clear that Love wouldnt come. Not sure if the information would have made DA cut AB.

if ppl complain about his shooting one could argue that allmost every player on the team has a major flaw and should be traded. ABs role on the team is more of a defensive one anyways - I don't think that the fact that he is undersized hasnt too much impact on his on ball-D. he normally picks up his opponent at a spot way outside and remains if he can so close that the size doesnt matter all that much as some ppl think.

[jdpapa3]

Because

-People think 20 games of bad shooting will happen for the rest of his career despite 200 games of evidence to the contrary

-People think that because he has stopped stripping guys in a full court press that his defense has "really fallen off, man"

-People think that $8m/year is overpaying as they look at contracts from the year 2005 to compare it to and live in ignorance of the future of the cap.

-People think that his height means he will have issues guarding 2s despite no evidence of this actually happening.

-Defense is still not given enough weight in player assessment.

[Celtics18]

Do people keep talking about trading Avery Bradley?

[littleteapot]

-People think that because he has stopped stripping guys in a full court press that his defense has "really fallen off, man"

I don't think he's "dropped off defensively", but I think two things happened:

-The rest of the league is adjusting to him, but he isn't adjusting to the rest of the league. Teams know that very few 1 or 2 guards can beat him off the dribble. Guess what they decided to do? Run him through screens. I don't think he'll ever be Tony Allen, but he needs to at least show some improvement in this area. It reminds me of Gruden's QB camp with Johnny Manziel: "Do you know any defensive coordinators?" "No sir." "Well they know you!"

-He is being asked to guard bigger guys, which he can do - just not quite as well as guarding 6 footers obviously. I would like him to punish those guys on the other end a lot more though. He's such a great athlete, he should just be able to run away from those guys

-Defense is still not given enough weight in player assessment.

This is the main reason I don't think he'd have much trade value. Regardless of the excitement factor, perimeter players need to have an offensive game to be considered valuable. I think this is an exaggerated belief that is based on reality - teams can't afford to have 1 bad offensive perimeter player unless he does something GREAT. If you have an offensive player who plays like Bradley does now, it allows teams to hide teams to hide guys like Damien Lillard and Steph Curry, it allows them to pack the paint, etc.

[Surferdad]

Because

-People think 20 games of bad shooting will happen for the rest of his career despite 200 games of evidence to the contrary

-People think that because he has stopped stripping guys in a full court press that his defense has "really fallen off, man"

-People think that $8m/year is overpaying as they look at contracts from the year 2005 to compare it to and live in ignorance of the future of the cap.

-People think that his height means he will have issues guarding 2s despite no evidence of this actually happening.

-Defense is still not given enough weight in player assessment.

TP for you.

The problem also is that fans talk a lot about trading players away, but not a lot about what players to trade for.   Yes, the roster kind of sucks right now, but it makes no sense to start with the premise that certain players should be traded. The only players worth trading are those that can bring you back some assets that the team needs. Therefore you have to start with what the team needs, then decide if you have the assets to make a trade. 

[Who]

A fair number of people - myself included - did not want to re-sign him in the first place. Not at that price ($8mil per year).

Role players on non-rookie contracts tend not to be favoured on rebuilding teams. Many would rather get rid of the contract to free up more cap flexibility for future moves and/or minutes for young players on roster (now and in future).

[jambr380]

I think realistically the reason people talk about trading Bradley is because he isn't elite and doesn't really have the opportunity to become elite despite being our starting SG. Most people believe that to be successful in the NBA, a team needs at least one all-star wing player. Green and Bradley certainly both have the ability to start on a playoff team, but neither is likely to take that next leap to stardom.

[kozlodoev]

I think realistically the reason people talk about trading Bradley is because he isn't elite and doesn't really have the opportunity to become elite despite being our starting SG. Most people believe that to be successful in the NBA, a team needs at least one all-star wing player. Green and Bradley certainly both have the ability to start on a playoff team, but neither is likely to take that next leap to stardom.

Um, Jeff Green "isn't elite". Bradley is somewhere between horrible and average, depending on what night you catch him.

[Trr56]

To jdpapa3...it's not to the contrary...in the last 3 seasons his shooting % is .424. When you consider that's  all he does it's not good enough. Also because he never gets to the FT line, his PPS is horrific. I don't see anything recent in his defensive effort that outweighs his offensive liabilities in any stretch of the imagination.

[tazzmaniac]

Because

-People think 20 games of bad shooting will happen for the rest of his career despite 200 games of evidence to the contrary

-People think that because he has stopped stripping guys in a full court press that his defense has "really fallen off, man"

-People think that $8m/year is overpaying as they look at contracts from the year 2005 to compare it to and live in ignorance of the future of the cap.

-People think that his height means he will have issues guarding 2s despite no evidence of this actually happening.

-Defense is still not given enough weight in player assessment.

Bradley's streaky shooting isn't too much of a concern to me.  His poor ball handling, passing and overall decision making have always been a concern but they were mostly covered up with Rondo running the offense.  I think those deficiencies make Bradley a poor fit for Steven's motion offense.  I actually think Smart should be groomed to replace Bradley.  However if Ainge/Stevens are intent on making Smart the next PG I think the SG paired with him needs to be able to share the load of running the offense.  I don't think Bradley should be traded at all costs but I would trade him for a decent return.  A trade with OKC geared around Bradley for Jackson seems reasonable and beneficial to both teams.