Author Topic: Mclemore  (Read 7938 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2015, 07:43:31 AM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
The only part of this thread that makes any sense: a deal involving Green for Perk and change. And no, by change I don't mean Jackson. Perk and one lesser asset -- maybe Jones or a pick.
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2015, 09:01:23 AM »

Offline ebonilla34

  • Jaden Springer
  • Posts: 9
  • Tommy Points: 2
Not sure why people think Jeff Green is worth scraps. He's having a career year in almost all his stats. He's a good versatile scorer, and an above average defender who's have been mildly consistent this year on a reasonable contract.

His only hindrance to a potential team is that he will command a big paycheck next year.

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2015, 09:25:26 AM »

Offline fantankerous

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 915
  • Tommy Points: 122
I'd rather have Jeff Green than Mclemore. 

Also, if true that we almost traded the six pick for him, then we dodged a major bullet.

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2015, 09:52:55 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
McLemore is a fantastic prospect.  If there was ever an opportunity to get him, it's passed.

Sounds like we considered trading the #6 pick for during the draft according to Woj.  Keep in mind this was after a DREADFUL rookie season where McLemore averaged 8.8 points on 37%/32%/80% shooting and looked like a horrid bust.  Now that he's proved his worth by averaging 12 points on 48%/40%/81% shooting... he aint goin nowhere. 

I imagine it's going to be a really serious debate for the next 15 years whether or not we should have traded the #6 pick for McLemore or if we were better off drafting Smart.   That's going to be a great "what-if" to look back on.

Oh and FYI, no chance they take a Jeff Green level talent for him.  No chance.

The ship sailed on McLemore.  We'll continue seeing threads about him, because we know that Danny wanted to buy low on him and supposedly there was something about McLemore for Rondo last season.  But the ship sailed.  Can't see them moving an elite prospect like that for anything less than an all-star.

He's got a PER of just over 10 as an offensive-minded player (15 is average and KO 17+ must be on his way to the HOF as a soph).  Assist/TO ratio under 1! Defensive rating of 112 is worse than anyone we have!
Meh.   Pretty much the only thing that matters about McLemore is that he's averaging 12 points on phenomenal 48%/40%/80% shooting.

  It also might matter that he's in the bottom quarter of the league in terms of usage (lower than players like Noel, TA or Haslem and he has an extremely high percentage of his shots assisted. High shooting percentages matter, so does the low scoring total and he whole "doesn't shoot a lot and rarely tries to create his own shot" can't just be ignored.

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2015, 10:02:55 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11226
  • Tommy Points: 860
Sacramento has Rudy Gay, McLemore's value aside, I don't see why they would be interested in a half season rental of Green.

I was thinking more along the lines of we give them:

To Sac:

Bass, Turner, a good pick (maybe Dallas #1)

To Bos:

McLemore, Derrick Williams

I think in the short run, Sac gets better as Bass>Williams and Turner is more established and more versatile than McLemore (McLemore clearly has more upside).

Even though I think this is a fair trade (or close to fair), Sac only does it if they think they can compete this year and they probably don't.  They would be smarter to just hang on to their young assets like McLemore and build around Cousins/Gay for a few more years than to try to get better now (or move Gay and really try to rebuild).

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2015, 03:34:18 AM »

Offline HeadDoctorJ

  • Oshae Brissett
  • Posts: 56
  • Tommy Points: 9
How about this:

Boston gets: Ben McLemore, Derrick Williams, Eric Gordon, $5.0M Wright TPE

Sacramento gets: Ryan Anderson, Austin Rivers, Brandan Wright (separate deal; into JET TPE)

New Orleans gets: Jeff Green, Jason Thompson, Gerald Wallace


Maybe New Orleans tosses a 2nd rounder to Sacramento, or to us.

Again, I think Sacramento could soon make a panic trade to go after a playoff spot, and that's probably the only reason they would make this kind of trade.

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2015, 06:40:59 AM »

Offline RRNoLookPass

  • Joe Mazzulla
  • Posts: 128
  • Tommy Points: 15
How about this:

Boston gets: Ben McLemore, Derrick Williams, Eric Gordon, $5.0M Wright TPE

Sacramento gets: Ryan Anderson, Austin Rivers, Brandan Wright (separate deal; into JET TPE)

New Orleans gets: Jeff Green, Jason Thompson, Gerald Wallace


Maybe New Orleans tosses a 2nd rounder to Sacramento, or to us.

Again, I think Sacramento could soon make a panic trade to go after a playoff spot, and that's probably the only reason they would make this kind of trade.

Another McLemore trade idea  ::)

...Did you ever consider the fact that your trade proposal would leave the Celts with only ONE true SF on the roster?? And Jae Crowder is clearly not starter material.

But yeah, let's trade Green away for McLemore and Eric Gordon, so we can have six shooting guards on the same team! ...Yay for shooting guards! ::)
« Last Edit: January 03, 2015, 06:46:39 AM by RRNoLookPass »

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2015, 03:37:28 PM »

Offline HeadDoctorJ

  • Oshae Brissett
  • Posts: 56
  • Tommy Points: 9
Another McLemore trade idea  ::)

...Did you ever consider the fact that your trade proposal would leave the Celts with only ONE true SF on the roster?? And Jae Crowder is clearly not starter material.

But yeah, let's trade Green away for McLemore and Eric Gordon, so we can have six shooting guards on the same team! ...Yay for shooting guards! ::)

Yes! Another McLemore trade idea! Did you really click on a thread labeled "McLemore" and expect to find something else?

::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)

And yes! I did consider the fact that my trade proposal would leave the Celts with only ONE true SF on the roster. Shooting guards are wings, like SFs, and we could play some of our larger SGs as nominal SFs. There are 48 min at SF to distribute among the roster. No problem: 20-30 Crowder; 5-10 Young; 5-10 McLemore; 5-10 Turner; 5-10 Smart. We could even toss a few min to Williams at SF. No big deal. We do not need a true, above-average SF at this stage of our rebuild unless you are under one of the following illusions: (1) that we are not in rebuild, that we are actually a competitive playoff team and we need the best SF we can get, or (2) that Jeff Green will re-sign here and be a meaningful building block moving forward. I subscribe to neither belief, and so I see this trade as a way to get a promising young wing who could be a real piece of our future in exchange for a disaffected veteran wing who will undoubtedly soon be a part of our past, one way or another.

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2015, 02:09:32 AM »

Offline RRNoLookPass

  • Joe Mazzulla
  • Posts: 128
  • Tommy Points: 15
Another McLemore trade idea  ::)

...Did you ever consider the fact that your trade proposal would leave the Celts with only ONE true SF on the roster?? And Jae Crowder is clearly not starter material.

But yeah, let's trade Green away for McLemore and Eric Gordon, so we can have six shooting guards on the same team! ...Yay for shooting guards! ::)

Yes! Another McLemore trade idea! Did you really click on a thread labeled "McLemore" and expect to find something else?

::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)

And yes! I did consider the fact that my trade proposal would leave the Celts with only ONE true SF on the roster. Shooting guards are wings, like SFs, and we could play some of our larger SGs as nominal SFs. There are 48 min at SF to distribute among the roster. No problem: 20-30 Crowder; 5-10 Young; 5-10 McLemore; 5-10 Turner; 5-10 Smart. We could even toss a few min to Williams at SF. No big deal. We do not need a true, above-average SF at this stage of our rebuild unless you are under one of the following illusions: (1) that we are not in rebuild, that we are actually a competitive playoff team and we need the best SF we can get, or (2) that Jeff Green will re-sign here and be a meaningful building block moving forward. I subscribe to neither belief, and so I see this trade as a way to get a promising young wing who could be a real piece of our future in exchange for a disaffected veteran wing who will undoubtedly soon be a part of our past, one way or another.

Are you really gonna argue that a trade proposal that leaves the Celts with 1 SF and 6 SG's on the roster is a good idea? Good luck finding any real minutes to develop McLemore with 6 SG's crammed onto one roster. You can name as many 3-guard small ball lineups as you want, but fact of the matter is, there isn't enough time to go around with 6 SG's on one roster, no matter how you want to play it. There is already a limited amount of minutes for Smart to play this yr, and now you want to throw another young SG prospect into the mix?
If you think that a rebuild means we suddenly don't need a starting caliber SF, then you are misinterpreting the point of a rebuild. No GM is gonna make a move that leaves the team with 1 SF and 6 SGs, rebuild or otherwise. The idea of a rebuild is to make important improvements and changes...Not to needlessly tear apart the starting lineup to create a 6-man logjam at one position.

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2015, 02:33:36 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
All I know about McLemore is that he's a very talented rapper.

Seriously, I don't think we have what Sacramento wants. They target veterans whose stars have fallen but are still somewhat productive. Being a small-market team with a hard time attracting FAs, they believe that's the market inefficiency they need to exploit, thus the Gay deal and the BKN flirtations.

Rondo with two years on his deal would have been the perfect acquisition for them. They don't really need a SF like Green, nor would trading McLemore make any sense if they weren't getting a SG back. Sullinger would be an interesting target for them but not if it means they have to start Stauskus. It just doesn't seem like we're good trade partners with Sacramento right now.

Maybe they'd be willing to deal Stauskus for Sullinger? I can see them being disappointed in what little impact Stauskus has made this year. Might be a potential trade consideration next season for Ainge is he decides that Sullinger is not going to be worth re-signing.

I think his wife just had a baby.

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2015, 06:19:27 AM »

Offline HeadDoctorJ

  • Oshae Brissett
  • Posts: 56
  • Tommy Points: 9
Really, it's fine. It's not a six-man logjam at one position, it ends up being a seven-man rotation through three positions. First, bench Thornton. Gordon's injured. Pressey barely plays, and that can stay the same. So, counting up all of the PGs and wings who might play, we're left with: Turner, Smart, Nelson, Bradley, Young, Crowder, McLemore. Three positions (PG + SG + SF) times 48 minutes is 144 minutes, which averages out to 20.6 minutes per player. That's not a logjam, especially when it seems Young may not play much this season, and Nelson may be traded or let go. Rebuilding is a perfect time to develop players. They get minutes, and they get experience at different positions. McLemore, Young, Crowder, Turner, Derrick Williams, and even Smart spending time at the 3 for the second half of this season is a good thing, not a problem. But, in this above trade scenario, I bet you could get NOP pretty easily to throw in Salmons, if you desparately needed a classical SF for one half of a rebuilding season.

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2015, 06:32:27 AM »

Offline Sixth Man

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1008
  • Tommy Points: 82
McLemore is a fantastic prospect.  If there was ever an opportunity to get him, it's passed.

Sounds like we considered trading the #6 pick for during the draft according to Woj.  Keep in mind this was after a DREADFUL rookie season where McLemore averaged 8.8 points on 37%/32%/80% shooting and looked like a horrid bust.  Now that he's proved his worth by averaging 12 points on 48%/40%/81% shooting... he aint goin nowhere. 

I imagine it's going to be a really serious debate for the next 15 years whether or not we should have traded the #6 pick for McLemore or if we were better off drafting Smart.   That's going to be a great "what-if" to look back on.

Oh and FYI, no chance they take a Jeff Green level talent for him.  No chance.

The ship sailed on McLemore.  We'll continue seeing threads about him, because we know that Danny wanted to buy low on him and supposedly there was something about McLemore for Rondo last season.  But the ship sailed.  Can't see them moving an elite prospect like that for anything less than an all-star.

You're quite correct, and as a Sacramento area resident, I can assure you that a deal for Cousins is less unlikely than a deal for McLemore at this point. 

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2015, 02:36:50 PM »

Offline bmac934

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 274
  • Tommy Points: 7
Way to shooting guard heavy.  And I don't think a Jeff green for mclemore conversation would stick.  But I can't escape the idea that a Avery Bradley (who just signed a fresh four year contract, and isn't overpaid) for mclemore conversation could work.  With a dead eye shooter in stauskas coming off the bench behind him, I do think a Sacramento team looking to win now and attract serious talent now would infinitely benefit from a player like ab.  Also we have some good expiring contracts and talent (like bass and wright) to really make a deal like this possible.  Especially since it's rumored sac is done with derrick Williams.  But then again I love Avery Bradley as a player so I would go both ways on the yea/no.  In Danny we trust!

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2015, 03:00:10 PM »

Offline Future Celtics Owner

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3097
  • Tommy Points: 191
  • Celtic's only raise championship Banners
Stauskas is still there and you can not count him out. But overall I would not trade for Mclemore, that ship sailed, we have James Young now..he is out future 2 and that is my opinion.

I have a feeling we are trading Avery Jan 15th-deadline just to make some room and get out of that contract so we can get 2 superstars in 2016/2017 season.

IMO just because Young is not playing does not mean he is not capable of playing quality time in the NBA. I believe Stevens is molding him and holding NBA playing time over his head is the best way to motivate him to quickly learn and apply defensive iq.

BTW I do not buy that crap that James Young is a sf. He can play the 3 but he is much more effective at the 2 and can get his shot off consistently because he has that extra length.


I remember when people on this board said: Mclemore , Isiah Thomas, and their first plus fodder for RR and Gerald Wallace(we get rid of him)......well many many people thought that was a horrible trade. Dosent matter if it would have happened or not, that was a great trade for us. But I am thankful that we got James Young instead. I do believe he has the brighter future.

Re: Mclemore
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2015, 01:09:21 AM »

Offline HeadDoctorJ

  • Oshae Brissett
  • Posts: 56
  • Tommy Points: 9
I am thankful that we got James Young instead. I do believe he has the brighter future.


I agree actually. Maybe all my McLemore trade verve is coming more from restlessness than anything else. In any event, if we can dump our expirings and come out the other side with any kind of meaningful assets, you know Ainge will be opportunistic. It's fun seeing what his options are ... while we continually lose to a cavalcade of elite teams by a couple of points a piece.