Author Topic: Lawson and Faried for IT , AB, Wallace, 2015 16th, 28th picks trade idea  (Read 8335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TheTruthFot18

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2125
  • Tommy Points: 263
  • Truth Juice
Ugh, absolutely not

They didn't work in Denver so why would they work here? I'd even say maybe if they weren't making a combined 24/25 mil for the next two seasons.

IT is a cheaper Lawson (much cheaper), and we have a shot at the next Faried in Montrezl Harrell, possibly with the 28th pick.

IT and Bradley are on reasonable contracts, especially since the cap will go up with 2 years left on their deals. Just keep Wallace unless we are getting two max contract for sure.
The Nets will finish with the worst record and the Celtics will end up with the 4th pick.

- Me (sometime in January)

--------------------------------------------------------

Guess I was wrong (May 23rd)

Offline GzUP617

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 265
  • Tommy Points: 12
Ugh, absolutely not

They didn't work in Denver so why would they work here? I'd even say maybe if they weren't making a combined 24/25 mil for the next two seasons.

IT is a cheaper Lawson (much cheaper), and we have a shot at the next Faried in Montrezl Harrell, possibly with the 28th pick.

IT and Bradley are on reasonable contracts, especially since the cap will go up with 2 years left on their deals. Just keep Wallace unless we are getting two max contract for sure.

 Last year's Denver Nugget team would have put in work in the East,  Thomas is a Jamal Crawford type, he should not be starting ever regardless his size.   

Lawson is paid appropriately to what his skill set brings and his defense is not as much as a liability as Thomas is either(it's being exagerated on here) Plus you make the deal and get rid of Thomas to shed his salary.

Not too big on Farried but he'd beat out Sullinger in minutes  and possibly even Olynyk.  He'd be a pretty good asset too.  I'd make this deal without Farried in it if they include the #7th pick instead.

Let's not expect too much if we actually end up drafting at #16 & #28.

Offline spikelovetheCelts

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1616
  • Tommy Points: 113
  • Peace it's a board. We all will never agree.
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
I think our assets should be used to draft a center like Willis CS. I have no problem with Monroe but as a PF. Anyone thinking he is a starting center on a championship team is lost in a fog. Asik would be a last resort too. i like Alexis Ajinça o rKosta Koufos better than Asik.

On the topic of the post. I would like to get their 6th pick for Willie. I think he will still be there. maybe some three way trade could make it happen. I do see Denver making a trade this summer so why not with the celtics.
"People look at players, watch them dribble between their legs and they say, 'There's a superstar.'  Well John Havlicek is a superstar, and most of the others are figments of writers' imagination."
--Jerry West, on John Havlicek

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
horrible trade proposal.

Lawson's better than IT but not by a huge margin especially when accounting for contracts and off court issues.  Faried is another undersized PF that has less offensive skills than Sully, KO or Bass.  great motor guy but we need guys who can provide more offense.

I don't like the Faried fit nor do I like the idea of essentially giving up AB, Wallace (big expiring deal) and 2 1sts for essentially Faried and the marginal talent difference between Lawson and IT

Offline pearljammer10

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13129
  • Tommy Points: 885
Yuck. Terrible. We give up too much talent, picks, and financial assets for an above average role playing PG and a healthier version of Leon Powe. Put Lawson and Faried on this Celtics team and we are similar to their current Nuggets team only worse.

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6846
  • Tommy Points: 448
The value of keeping Isaiah Thomas' contract is missed by a lot of people in all this talk.  I like Lawson but you keep IT cause he's a steal.  Avery is a good contract too and yes, Lawsons will be better under a new cap?  Well Thomas' will be an even bigger steal and Avery will keep looking better (as I think Avery will keep getting better too).

I don't dislike Faried but I don't know how much better he gets and we have enough PFs on the team already.
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417
I would absolutely make this trade in a heartbeat.

In fact, I would submit that this would be a steal for the Celtics.

I am astounded at how many people wouldn't want Faried.

His hustle and rebounding would make him a HUGE upgrade over what we have now at the PF position.

As for Lawson, he is an actual starting point guard, which we don't have right now. Isaiah was coming off the bench for a reason.

And as for Bradley, see ya later. He had a good regular season but was a total dud in the Cavs series.

Finally, you're not going to get anything of value with the 16 and 28 draft pick.

Plus we rid ourselves of Wallace.

This trade improves us exponentially and then you can either shift Smart to the 2 or sign another 2 guard like Aaron Afflalo.

Who we can draft in the mid to late round along with who has the affordable contract means nothing to me. It's about how can we get back to the playoffs and go deeper than the 1st round.

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
I would absolutely make this trade in a heartbeat.

In fact, I would submit that this would be a steal for the Celtics.

I am astounded at how many people wouldn't want Faried.

His hustle and rebounding would make him a HUGE upgrade over what we have now at the PF position.

As for Lawson, he is an actual starting point guard, which we don't have right now. Isaiah was coming off the bench for a reason.

And as for Bradley, see ya later. He had a good regular season but was a total dud in the Cavs series.

Finally, you're not going to get anything of value with the 16 and 28 draft pick.

Plus we rid ourselves of Wallace.

This trade improves us exponentially and then you can either shift Smart to the 2 or sign another 2 guard like Aaron Afflalo.

Who we can draft in the mid to late round along with who has the affordable contract means nothing to me. It's about how can we get back to the playoffs and go deeper than the 1st round.

Good points

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
I would absolutely make this trade in a heartbeat.

In fact, I would submit that this would be a steal for the Celtics.

I am astounded at how many people wouldn't want Faried.

His hustle and rebounding would make him a HUGE upgrade over what we have now at the PF position.

As for Lawson, he is an actual starting point guard, which we don't have right now. Isaiah was coming off the bench for a reason.

And as for Bradley, see ya later. He had a good regular season but was a total dud in the Cavs series.

Finally, you're not going to get anything of value with the 16 and 28 draft pick.

Plus we rid ourselves of Wallace.

This trade improves us exponentially and then you can either shift Smart to the 2 or sign another 2 guard like Aaron Afflalo.

Who we can draft in the mid to late round along with who has the affordable contract means nothing to me. It's about how can we get back to the playoffs and go deeper than the 1st round.

1. Faried is an overrated player that is a poor post defender and shooter.

2. Lawson is better than Thomas, but he makes double the money Thomas does and isn't THAT much better. 

3. Afflalo is a ball stopper and doesn't really fit with the way Stevens wants to play.

4. Great, we've just become the 2011-12 Denver Nuggets.

5. It's ironic that you say we aren't getting anything from the #16 and #28 picks when the 3 guys you want (Lawson #18, Faried #22, Afflalo #27) were drafted in the same range.

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417
I would absolutely make this trade in a heartbeat.

In fact, I would submit that this would be a steal for the Celtics.

I am astounded at how many people wouldn't want Faried.

His hustle and rebounding would make him a HUGE upgrade over what we have now at the PF position.

As for Lawson, he is an actual starting point guard, which we don't have right now. Isaiah was coming off the bench for a reason.

And as for Bradley, see ya later. He had a good regular season but was a total dud in the Cavs series.

Finally, you're not going to get anything of value with the 16 and 28 draft pick.

Plus we rid ourselves of Wallace.

This trade improves us exponentially and then you can either shift Smart to the 2 or sign another 2 guard like Aaron Afflalo.

Who we can draft in the mid to late round along with who has the affordable contract means nothing to me. It's about how can we get back to the playoffs and go deeper than the 1st round.

1. Faried is an overrated player that is a poor post defender and shooter.

2. Lawson is better than Thomas, but he makes double the money Thomas does and isn't THAT much better. 

3. Afflalo is a ball stopper and doesn't really fit with the way Stevens wants to play.

4. Great, we've just become the 2011-12 Denver Nuggets.

5. It's ironic that you say we aren't getting anything from the #16 and #28 picks when the 3 guys you want (Lawson #18, Faried #22, Afflalo #27) were drafted in the same range.

Okay, but Lawson/Faried/Afflalo already have NBA experience under their belt. Do you really want to want another 2-3 years before whoever we draft at those positions becomes NBA ready?

I know I don't.

And as for becoming the 2011-12 Nuggets, that's not true.

This trade wouldn't be the final move. Another move (I hope) would follow. We'd still have our cap space to acquire another player (hopefully a center.)

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
I would absolutely make this trade in a heartbeat.

In fact, I would submit that this would be a steal for the Celtics.

I am astounded at how many people wouldn't want Faried.

His hustle and rebounding would make him a HUGE upgrade over what we have now at the PF position.

As for Lawson, he is an actual starting point guard, which we don't have right now. Isaiah was coming off the bench for a reason.

And as for Bradley, see ya later. He had a good regular season but was a total dud in the Cavs series.

Finally, you're not going to get anything of value with the 16 and 28 draft pick.

Plus we rid ourselves of Wallace.

This trade improves us exponentially and then you can either shift Smart to the 2 or sign another 2 guard like Aaron Afflalo.

Who we can draft in the mid to late round along with who has the affordable contract means nothing to me. It's about how can we get back to the playoffs and go deeper than the 1st round.

1. Faried is an overrated player that is a poor post defender and shooter.

2. Lawson is better than Thomas, but he makes double the money Thomas does and isn't THAT much better. 

3. Afflalo is a ball stopper and doesn't really fit with the way Stevens wants to play.

4. Great, we've just become the 2011-12 Denver Nuggets.

5. It's ironic that you say we aren't getting anything from the #16 and #28 picks when the 3 guys you want (Lawson #18, Faried #22, Afflalo #27) were drafted in the same range.

Okay, but Lawson/Faried/Afflalo already have NBA experience under their belt. Do you really want to want another 2-3 years before whoever we draft at those positions becomes NBA ready?

I know I don't.

And as for becoming the 2011-12 Nuggets, that's not true.

This trade wouldn't be the final move. Another move (I hope) would follow. We'd still have our cap space to acquire another player (hopefully a center.)

Faried and Lawson will make about 24M combined next season. Afflalo will likely command more than Bradley's getting and he's turning 30. These 3 players might make us slightly better on the court, but they'll hurt us in terms of flexibility/cap space going forward.

This just isn't the type of move I'm looking for and I doubt Ainge is either. When he says "we need scorers at the 3-5 spots" I doubt Faried is what he has in mind. Especially not with that contract.

Offline ddb

  • Joe Mazzulla
  • Posts: 135
  • Tommy Points: 17
on paper TODAY that is a pretty sexy trade idea.  You hear the names Lawson and Faried and think about them joining our core and you get a little excited.  But when you break it down further, this trade is downright terrible for the Celtics for multiple reasons. 

#1- The names may be sexier, but how much better are Lawson/Faried (counting contracts) VS IT/Bradley? 

#2- Can't sleep on draft picks. Kawhi Leonard was #15 pick. Gobert was drafted in the 20's.  The list goes on and on.  For all we know today, Kevon Looney could end up being a better player then IT, Lawson, Faried and Bradley.  Draft picks are valuable...rookie contacts are valuable.

#3- Lawson has had some off court issues.  Will that continue?? Not sure I'm giving up picks in a deal for Lawson. 

#4-Faried is good, but in reality he's a glorified (and highly paid) role player.  If he loses some of his explosiveness his game is pretty much gone. 

Offline YoungOne87

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1167
  • Tommy Points: 65
I want neither of those players, they dont fill our needs at all.

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
I want neither of those players, they dont fill our needs at all.

Sure they do. Rebounding and go to scoring

Lawson is more of a pure pg than IT also

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.

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?

Sure, I think any of the possibilities in the 6-11 range fit our team pretty well. Winslow or Johnson could very well be our future 2 way SF. Mario is a very good offensive talent at the 2 and 3 spots. WCS makes all kinda of sense for this team, as we need that D minded big. Turner, with his rim-protection and jump shooting ability fit into CBS' offense well. I like Prozingas in the limited tape I've seen of him, he could fit well here too.

But even more than that, getting up to #7 puts us in a position to not just get one of those guys but it puts us in a position to choose from a couple of them. Every draft is different, and to me the top 8 or 9 guys in this draft can be real difference makers. Trading up to #7 in this draft should cost a little more than it would in say, 2013.

Still, there's always room to tweak and Ainge is a master of getting his money's worth. What do you think it would take? I don't want to lose IT in exchange for Lawson unless we also get #7 out of it. But on DEN's side of things, IT is only a year younger than Lawson and chances are they won't be good for a few years. They're taking him because he's a VERY tradable asset.

So to me something like IT, Young, 16 and 45 for Lawson and 7 is fair. Or IT, 16, 33 and maybe the MIN 1st instead of the Dallas one. Lawson is a boarder line all-star who isn't so much of a defensive liability that he can start, plus he's a better passer and #7 for #16 is a pretty big jump down. Even if they're dying to get rid of Lawson, a rebuilding team like them probably won't move down that far unless they're getting at least a couple decent picks in return. #33 is borderline decent , but #45 isn't really. That's "traded for cash considerations" territory.