Author Topic: Lawson and Faried for IT , AB, Wallace, 2015 16th, 28th picks trade idea  (Read 8332 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
Rumours swirling around that the Celts could be still interested in Lawson.

If Denver wants to get rid of Lawson (some off court issues, publicly stating he would of been a better fit with the Mavs than Rondo) and Faried's contract, would you take the deal proposed above?

Starting lineup
Zeller
Faried
-FA-
Smart
Lawson

Bench
Sully
KO/Jerebko
Crowder
Young
Harvey (33rd pick)

*trade Turner for a future 2nd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0z3YxIpZGA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAVkhdZgH1I

Offline moiso

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7640
  • Tommy Points: 441
Good trade for the Celts if you like Faried.  I don't like him though.

I'd be interested in IT and something for Lawson.

Offline HomerSapien

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 657
  • Tommy Points: 43
No thanks. I don't like Faried. And I'd only want Lawson as a relative bargain which this trade is not.

Offline mahonedog88

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2194
  • Tommy Points: 119
Kenneth Faried on paper I think sounds like a good idea.  His entire game is incumbent on hustle and effort, so in that matter, he'd fit perfectly on this team.  But it feels like that ever since he had those breakout couple of years, he's kind of flatlined.  He's waaaay overpaid, but when the salary cap goes way up after next year, perhaps it won't look as bad.

I'm down on AB right now, so I don't think I'd be that sad to see him go.  I still haven't gotten over how disappointing he was against the Cavs.

But having said all that, I think giving up BOTH Bradley and Thomas is too much.  Gotta find a way to keep one of them.

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
I wouldn't throw in the a first but I would throw in two seconds because my view
 IT+45=Lawson(DUI prone and wants out)
AB+Wallace+33=Faried (because Faried's contract is nuts and Denver escapes it).

And if they said no I'd pass because I like Smart at the PG spot. People need to realize this system doesn't use a ball dominant PG. Spreading the floor, setting screens and picks are more important Smart does that.

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
It's not a bad idea in that Lawson and Faried should be just entering their primes and if you could land another upper-mid level FA small forward, you'd have the foundation of a pretty decent team.

I wouldn't do it because...

1.  I want Smart to have a chance to be a PG.  He could be an absolute beast at that position.

2.  I'm not ready to give up on Sully.  I think it's clear he has the potential to be a better and more valuable player than Faried.  He may not fulfill it but I'd rather roll the dice.

3.  If we're going to spend assets and not get an elite player in return, I'd go for an upgrade in the middle.  Bring in Asik or Monroe along with 16 and 28 and see if the team can take another step forward.

Mike


Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Lawson's a pretty good player, but why is Ainge seemingly obsessed with acquiring pint-sized point guards?  This guy is barely taller than Thomas, if at all, so no matter how many points he scores, in the end, he's just too much of a defensive liability, imo.  Doesn't he want to go to Dallas, anyway, though?  I thought I saw something that said he wants to show that he's better than Rondo ::).  In terms of shooting, yes, but as far as everything else, hell no, lol ;D, and it's not even close.  Now, having said that, Lawson would be the better fit in Dallas, but then again, so would George Hill or Aaron Brooks.  Honestly, the Mavericks would probably be a lot better next year even if their only offseason move was to replace Rondo with CJ Watson, lol ;D.

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Don't think Denver would go for this, may not benefit them enough to make it worthwhile. Plenty of contenders that would value these guys. Knocks on Faried are semi-reasonable, but again, he's a hard-nosed glue guy that historically can have a big impact on winning in the playoffs.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Offline BDeCosta26

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • Tommy Points: 232
If were trading for Lawson, we need to capitalize on his low value right now and put together a package that gets us #7. Perhaps IT, 16, 33 and the DAL 1st for Lawson and #7. But not Faried. I love Faried as a player, he's like a big man version of Crowder, but he's not a good enough defender to plug into the defensive hole we have in the front-court, and he's not talented enough to change our offense around. If his contract wasn't so rough, I'd probably consider trading Sullinger for him as part of that package.

It may be a long shot, but I really don't want Lawson unless we get a higher draft pick AND one of our current back-court guys is gone. IT is a considerably more valuable asset right now than Lawson is, and even though they're close in age IT is on that incredibly cheap contract. Considering they're looking at a lengthy re-build, they may find more value in IT and handful of mid-late 1sts or Young than keeping Lawson and drafting at 7 or trading him to Sacto for a one spot pick swap and Nik Stauskus or Darren Collison.

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
If were trading for Lawson, we need to capitalize on his low value right now and put together a package that gets us #7. Perhaps IT, 16, 33 and the DAL 1st for Lawson and #7. But not Faried. I love Faried as a player, he's like a big man version of Crowder, but he's not a good enough defender to plug into the defensive hole we have in the front-court, and he's not talented enough to change our offense around. If his contract wasn't so rough, I'd probably consider trading Sullinger for him as part of that package.

It may be a long shot, but I really don't want Lawson unless we get a higher draft pick AND one of our current back-court guys is gone. IT is a considerably more valuable asset right now than Lawson is, and even though they're close in age IT is on that incredibly cheap contract. Considering they're looking at a lengthy re-build, they may find more value in IT and handful of mid-late 1sts or Young than keeping Lawson and drafting at 7 or trading him to Sacto for a one spot pick swap and Nik Stauskus or Darren Collison.

I'm in agreement with you on Faried - he's like a more athletic, power forward version of Crowder, even down to the hair, lol ;D. Why give up that much for the 7th pick, though?  Do you have someone in mind for us to take at that spot?

Offline TA9

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2712
  • Tommy Points: 118
  • I Bleed Green
I'm all for acquiring Lawson and Faried, but we shouldn't trade IT!!!
Isaiah is GOLD coming off the bench since he has the ability to light up point in just 30 minutes of play. One of the biggest problems the Celtics have always had was that the 2nd unit couldn't score points, but I feel that Isaiah has fixed that problem since arriving from Phoenix. We shouldn't trade this guy. Sure he can't guard to save his life, but Lawson isn't that much better on the defensive end either...
Jack of all trades, master of none.

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
I'm all for acquiring Lawson and Faried, but we shouldn't trade IT!!!
Isaiah is GOLD coming off the bench since he has the ability to light up point in just 30 minutes of play. One of the biggest problems the Celtics have always had was that the 2nd unit couldn't score points, but I feel that Isaiah has fixed that problem since arriving from Phoenix. We shouldn't trade this guy. Sure he can't guard to save his life, but Lawson isn't that much better on the defensive end either...

I don't think there's any way to acquire Lawson and keep IT. You simply can't devote $20m+ of your salary cap to two sub-6 foot PGs who can't defend. I love what IT brings to the 2nd unit, but there's no way to put both he and Lawson on the same team.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Offline The One

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2017
  • Tommy Points: 203
I like Faried...he's got holes in his game but I like his effort and his rebounding.

I would like to see what a platoon of Sully and Faried could do on the boards.

Offline chambers

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7482
  • Tommy Points: 943
  • Boston Celtics= Championships, nothing less.
It's not a bad idea in that Lawson and Faried should be just entering their primes and if you could land another upper-mid level FA small forward, you'd have the foundation of a pretty decent team.

I wouldn't do it because...

1.  I want Smart to have a chance to be a PG.  He could be an absolute beast at that position.

2.  I'm not ready to give up on Sully.  I think it's clear he has the potential to be a better and more valuable player than Faried.  He may not fulfill it but I'd rather roll the dice.

3.  If we're going to spend assets and not get an elite player in return, I'd go for an upgrade in the middle.  Bring in Asik or Monroe along with 16 and 28 and see if the team can take another step forward.

Mike

I agree 100% +1
"We are lucky we have a very patient GM that isn't willing to settle for being good and coming close. He wants to win a championship and we have the potential to get there still with our roster and assets."

quoting 'Greg B' on RealGM after 2017 trade deadline.
Read that last line again. One more time.

Offline Rondo2287

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13009
  • Tommy Points: 816
Ugh, absolutely not
CB Draft LA Lakers: Lamarcus Aldridge, Carmelo Anthony,Jrue Holiday, Wes Matthews  6.11, 7.16, 8.14, 8.15, 9.16, 11.5, 11.16