Author Topic: Lawson and Faried for IT , AB, Wallace, 2015 16th, 28th picks trade idea  (Read 8337 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bucketgetter

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1227
  • Tommy Points: 11
I like the trade, just doesn't fit our team very well. I would be ok with it though, and hope that DA flips Sully or Faried because they're too good for one to be a bench player and neither can play center.
CB Mock Deadline - Minnesota Timberwolves
Kemba Walker / Tyus Jones / Aaron Brooks
Jimmy Butler / Jamal Crawford / Treveon Graham
Rodney Hood / Nic Batum / Marcus Georges Hunt
Taj Gibson / Nemanja Bjelica / Jonas Jerebko
KAT / Derrick Favors / Cole Aldrich
Picks - 2018 CHA 1st (Lotto protected), none out

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
I don't get the fascination with Faried. 

I could see trading for Lawson.  We need a starting PG (Thomas is a back-up), and I think if we attempt to land a star like Cousins, it will require trading Marcus Smart.

List me another 6'7 pf in the league that can grab 25 rebounds in one game
You are giving him bonus points because he is short?  You should subtract points for that.

yes. Bc it goes to show how hard this guy plays. As explosive , strong as they come at 6'7.

He can rebound against any center in this league. But also versatile enough to guard sfs/sgs out on the perimeter

Against the Cavs we got beat up bc we couldn't do a simple thing like grab defensive rebounds during crunch time.  Thompson/Mozgov would not grab half the offensive rebounds they did if we had Faried

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
I like faried alot and a fan of Lawson .  Doesn't mean we should go ahead with this trade without a thought.  Just wanted to see what people think

I do agree If we got Faried/Lawson it would not be the end of it  and the team would be a whole lot more attractive for key FAs to want to join.

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417
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.

-Like I mentioned to another fan, it could take 2-3 years (maybe more) for a player in the mid to late round to transpire into a good player. Are you willing to wait that long? I know I am not

-Whatever off-court issues Lawson has had is his own personal business. I don't know why someone's "off court issues" are a big topic of conversation around here.
Question is can Lawson player? Answer is yes

-Your argument vs Faried can be made against pretty much any player. If Lebron lost some of his explosiveness, he wouldn't be the same player either.

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
I like Lawson and Faried as players, but I don't really think either player fills a need for this team any more then the assets we'd be giving up to acquire them.

1) Lawson is an undersized PG who is a good ball handler, can score in bunches, and is a pretty good passer...but a highly questionable defender.  We already have that in Isaiah Thomas.  Lawson really is a pretty minor upgrade.

2) Faried is an undersized PF who is fairly athletic, is a strong rebounder, and is loved for his hard work and toughness.  Between Bass and Sully, we basically already have everything that Faried offers, and our roster is clearly saturated at the PF spot as it is.  Again, I like Faried but think he's a fairly minor upgrade over both Bass and Sully, all things considered.

3) One position where we don't have much depth is SG.  Bradley and Smart are basically the only guys on our roster who can play that position, unless you count James Young (who is still far too green to spend significant minutes there).  If we made a trade like this, we'd then have to try to find a starting caliber SG to replace Bradley. Or we'd need to start Smart, and find a backup SG who can give us what Bradley does (about 15 points per 36 minutes and some excellent defense to go with it).  That's probably not as easy as it sounds. 

4) This trade is already not really helping us much as it is, but to throw two first round picks in there as well?  Considering what draft picks are worth on the market these days, versus the relatively small upgrade we get from doing this trade - really not worth giving up two 1st rounders for such a modest return. 

5) In the past, the idea of getting rid of Wallace would make you at least think about this trade, but at the moment even that isn't worth it.  At the conclusion of this season (which for us, is basically now) Gerald Wallace's contract turns from a $20M/2 to $10M/1.  That means that as of this off-season, Wallace's deal very quickly transforms from a liability in to a significant trade asset.  A $10M expiring contract isn't too easy to come by in this league, and they are highly valuable commodities.  Gerald Wallace is also the perfect type of player to attach to such a contract, because his can sit on the bench and provide veteran experience/leadership to a young team (the type who will normally be acquire such a contract) without having to take minutes away from your existing youth. 

If were were a team that was really lacking at PG and PF (and had redundant talent at SG) then I'd have no hesitation making this deal.  Unfortunately though, the opposite is true for us.  Out back court is pretty good, but is only three deep...and out most redundant position is PF. 

Our big needs are SF and C, and Faried doesn't help for either spot.  If he could start for us at SF then maybe, but given he has only made one single three-pointer in his entire career (out of 11 attempts) having him at SF wouldn't do much for our court spacing.

I think this is the perfect example of a trade which looks good on paper, but falls apart in practice.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2015, 11:22:57 PM by crimson_stallion »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
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.

I would take Monroe as my starting center over Asik or Koufos any day of the week.

Monroe is actually better at center then he is at PF - just as effective offensively, but much more effective defensively.

They key thing with Monroe is that he doesn't really bring any major liabilities.  Monroe's biggest weakness is his defense, but even there he is no worse than average - he's not going to give up more than he gets very often.  On the other hand he's a very good offensive player (both scoring and passing) and an excellent rebounder.   He's also still very young (just going on 25) and I think that he has all the tools (size, strength, length and IQ) to become an above average defensive player in the right system.