Remember when Walker came back?

[miraclejohan]

I still listen to 'no layups' on a semi regular basis during the season. Classic!

No easy baskets, no layups!  Nothin' I can't foul!

Thank you! These still make me happy

[miraclejohan]

Doc could have played Big Al more than 6 minutes.
...
Oh, as an aside, but somewhat hopeful future......Big Al Jefferson has player's option for '15-'16 season @ 13.8 million.

Any chance he declines? Any chance Danny could trade our many draft picks? Would we give up a top 1st rounder for Big Al? Do we want Big Al back? Can he play Center?

More questions to be answered haha!

I know Al's D was never there but I always wanted Doc to play him more so he could learn.  I guess that's part of the challenge for a coach/front office trying to build/develop and compete at the same time. 

I'd love Al back for pure nostalgia reasons.  I think this season in CHA will be hard for him after the excitement and success of last year.  I could see it happening.  If Danny could get a true defensive 4 or 5 to allow Al to hide his defensive shortcomings, I'd love it.

Come to think of it, I'd take KG back too to show Al what D is in a limited player role with more of the veteran mentor role.  Give PP more incentive to come back for his final season as a celtics, too

[Celtics4ever]

I'd love Al back for pure nostalgia reasons.  I think this season in CHA will be hard for him after the excitement and success of last year.  I could see it happening.  If Danny could get a true defensive 4 or 5 to allow Al to hide his defensive shortcomings, I'd love it.

That would mean we sit Sully, the preseason all star?    I'd rather get guys who play both ways so we head back to ringland someday but AJ is an improvement over Sully and not just a nostaglic gesture.

[BballTim]

Well it sure looks like Brooklyn would like to get rid of KG to shed some money. We COULD take him with our TPE. I think KG for out TPE and worst second pick we have works. The real question is how many more games do we need to win before the deadline for this to make any sense?

  If you're taking a player like KG for a TPE you should get a pick, not send one out.

[Hemingway]

The Nets are not going to give picks (and not just because they don't have them) to get rid of KG. He is still a talent. Also expiring. I only said we would give a second because I think there is a rule where you have to attach something to a TPE. I remember like a top 59 protected 2nd being traded once.

[Fafnir]

The Nets are not going to give picks (and not just because they don't have them) to get rid of KG. He is still a talent. Also expiring. I only said we would give a second because I think there is a rule where you have to attach something to a TPE. I remember like a top 59 protected 2nd being traded once.

Top 55 protected used to be the most protected draft pick that was considered an "asset" for a trade to be legal under the prior CBA.

That might have changed with the new CBA.

[BballTim]

The Nets are not going to give picks (and not just because they don't have them) to get rid of KG. He is still a talent. Also expiring. I only said we would give a second because I think there is a rule where you have to attach something to a TPE. I remember like a top 59 protected 2nd being traded once.

  You're the one that said that they'd like to get rid of him, and there's no reason for the Celts to get him unless he comes with some kind of asset. From Brooklyn's perspective, getting rid of KG and not bringing back any salary would get them close to below the luxury threshold I think. That could turn out to be much more valuable than anything they'd get back in a trade and the pick they'd send to us.

[LB3533]

The Nets are not going to give picks (and not just because they don't have them) to get rid of KG. He is still a talent. Also expiring. I only said we would give a second because I think there is a rule where you have to attach something to a TPE. I remember like a top 59 protected 2nd being traded once.

  You're the one that said that they'd like to get rid of him, and there's no reason for the Celts to get him unless he comes with some kind of asset. From Brooklyn's perspective, getting rid of KG and not bringing back any salary would get them close to below the luxury threshold I think. That could turn out to be much more valuable than anything they'd get back in a trade and the pick they'd send to us.

I've recently heard Prokorov (sp?) wants to sell the Nets, so if he could get beneath the Luxury Tax, that would be ideal?

Wouldn't trading away a pick along with KG or any other high salary Net make more sense to help shed salary to get below the tax thresh hold?

I'm not too educated with salary cap finances etc.

[hwangjini_1]

The Nets are not going to give picks (and not just because they don't have them) to get rid of KG. He is still a talent. Also expiring. I only said we would give a second because I think there is a rule where you have to attach something to a TPE. I remember like a top 59 protected 2nd being traded once.

  You're the one that said that they'd like to get rid of him, and there's no reason for the Celts to get him unless he comes with some kind of asset. From Brooklyn's perspective, getting rid of KG and not bringing back any salary would get them close to below the luxury threshold I think. That could turn out to be much more valuable than anything they'd get back in a trade and the pick they'd send to us.

I've recently heard Prokorov (sp?) wants to sell the Nets, so if he could get beneath the Luxury Tax, that would be ideal?

Wouldn't trading away a pick along with KG or any other high salary Net make more sense to help shed salary to get below the tax thresh hold?

I'm not too educated with salary cap finances etc.

it might if the celtics didnt already own most of their picks.