Author Topic: Celtics trade for David Lee  (Read 82834 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #420 on: July 08, 2015, 12:16:40 AM »

Offline CelticSooner

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11495
  • Tommy Points: 866
  • GOT IT!!!
28 pages of actual debate  :o

I think we found the new Rondo.

Now all we need is KevMcl32 and BballJim to represent the two sides and be passionate and intelligent foils of each other! This forum is coming back, baby!

No there's not just not much too talk about in the off-season. lol

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #421 on: July 08, 2015, 12:16:52 AM »

Offline GetLucky

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1760
  • Tommy Points: 349
28 pages of actual debate  :o

I think we found the new Rondo.

Now all we need is KevMcl32 and BballJim to represent the two sides and be passionate and intelligent foils of each other! This forum is coming back, baby!
KevMcl32 sure as hell owned that last debate.  Majon Mondo was a disaster in Rallas.

For sure! I give you credit for recognizing that Rondo was past his athletic prime before pretty much anyone else did. That last post was not an insult towards you, by the way.

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #422 on: July 08, 2015, 12:21:23 AM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
I love this trade. I think that David Lee could be a guy we resign that retires here. Just the kind of vet we need, one who is pretty good in the short-term, and who will probably age okay, but is a locker-room chemistry guru.
As I said in the other thread, the last time we acquired a 32 year old former all-star with injury concerns, it was met with widespread anger...   but shortly after acquiring Ray, we traded for a legit franchise savior and it all made sense.

This situation is different for a number of reasons. 
#1 - Ray was obviously better than Lee.   
#2 - We actually gave up assets (our highest draft pick in the past 18 years) to acquire Ray... this time we gave up nothing. 
#3 - I don't think there's necessarily going to be a follow-up trade here.  Getting Lee was just a no-brainer.   Even if the goal is to showcase him and then trade him eventually, you stand a chance of getting a draft pick for Lee mid season... you wouldn't have that option with Wallace.

My guess is that if people are unhappy with this trade it's because they haven't been paying attention for the past couple weeks and didn't realize we sank our "cap space" dreams the second we agreed to sign Amir and Jerebko.  That ship sailed.  Now we just have to maximize our assets.

But honestly, I haven't really read this thread closely.  What are people mad about?

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #423 on: July 08, 2015, 12:22:36 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
no the fear is that he doesn't move the needle enough in a positive direction, and that our team still sucks, but we're now more likely to overachieve to be a 7th seed punching bag.

You can make the argument that there's merit to signing someone like Greg Monroe if you do things this way  -- aka the Milwaukee method -- but, uh, that's Greg Monroe and we can't surround him with a Jabari Parker, you know? Instead we have David Lee and Marcus Smart, and we continue to miss out on the assets to land someone with the potential to be a real game changer.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #424 on: July 08, 2015, 12:24:56 AM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
no the fear is that he doesn't move the needle enough in a positive direction, and that our team still sucks, but we're now more likely to overachieve to be a 7th seed punching bag.
Well yeah... but that's the same concern with the signing of Amir.   Neither is going to win us a championship.   Nice players, though.  I'm looking forward to seeing what this roster looks like on opening night.

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #425 on: July 08, 2015, 12:26:21 AM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
I have nothing to complain about with the David Lee trade.  Only thing to complain about is people complaining about it.

Nice job, Danny.   This is the most positive thing to happen so far this summer.   Poor man's Kevin Love.  I dig it.   

It's also kind of exciting, because it semi forces our hand to make an additional move eventually else we'll degrade the trade value of Sully/Oly (since I can't imagine them playing over Lee).  Looking forward to seeing how the rest of this offseason plays out.

I get the feeling you're happy to take whichever position seems to be least popular or most controversial at any given time.  :P
I dunno...  If "controversial" = "usually true", I guess that's accurate.

I've only skimmed this thread.  Help me understand what the consensus is.  Why is there 28 pages here?   I thought everyone was pretty on-board with us trying to win as much as possible.  There's really nothing negative about acquiring David Lee.  It's not a big splashy move like DeMarcus Cousins or something, but anytime you can get a borderline all-star on a 1 year contract for literally nothing, you have to do it.

I think the consensus is that David Lee is a more useful player than Gerald Wallace.  There are some people who think that this off-season proves that the Celtics will never sign a major free agent, so the team needs to shift into tank mode to get a high draft pick.  Some people are angry that all the draft picks and transactions have led to zero shot-blocking centers being added to the roster and this move seems to mostly set the roster.

I wouldn't be shocked if this ultimately leads to Sullinger being shipped out near the trade deadline for a second-round pick or two.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #426 on: July 08, 2015, 12:28:19 AM »

Offline GetLucky

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1760
  • Tommy Points: 349
David Lee has pretty much been a 16-18pt, 10 rebounds per-game guy since he came into the league. Last year, he took a loss of minutes and still put up similar stats per-36. A few years ago, he was an All-NBA player. And, as LarBrd said, we got him for nothing. I honestly don't see what is wrong here.

Even the "more likely to overachieve" thing doesn't really make sense to me. We all knew that the Celtics, under Ainge and Stevens, were going to try to win games next season. This maybe moves the team up a few games in the win department. So maybe they go from a 10-seed to an 8-seed. At that point, a a spot or two is not a huge deal, and it helps build the culture of the team. I love the 1.5% (not exact) chance of winning the lottery that a 10th seed has too, but realistically this deal is in line with what the C's are trying to do next year- win games.

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #427 on: July 08, 2015, 12:29:52 AM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
I have nothing to complain about with the David Lee trade.  Only thing to complain about is people complaining about it.

Nice job, Danny.   This is the most positive thing to happen so far this summer.   Poor man's Kevin Love.  I dig it.   

It's also kind of exciting, because it semi forces our hand to make an additional move eventually else we'll degrade the trade value of Sully/Oly (since I can't imagine them playing over Lee).  Looking forward to seeing how the rest of this offseason plays out.

I get the feeling you're happy to take whichever position seems to be least popular or most controversial at any given time.  :P
I dunno...  If "controversial" = "usually true", I guess that's accurate.

I've only skimmed this thread.  Help me understand what the consensus is.  Why is there 28 pages here?   I thought everyone was pretty on-board with us trying to win as much as possible.  There's really nothing negative about acquiring David Lee.  It's not a big splashy move like DeMarcus Cousins or something, but anytime you can get a borderline all-star on a 1 year contract for literally nothing, you have to do it.

I think the consensus is that David Lee is a more useful player than Gerald Wallace.  There are some people who think that this off-season proves that the Celtics will never sign a major free agent, so the team needs to shift into tank mode to get a high draft pick.  Some people are angry that all the draft picks and transactions have led to zero shot-blocking centers being added to the roster and this move seems to mostly set the roster.

I wouldn't be shocked if this ultimately leads to Sullinger being shipped out near the trade deadline for a second-round pick or two.
Bismack Biyombo is not walking through that door.


Heh... let's see what Danny does from here.  Lee is a solid player.  This is a good day for the Celtics. 

Like 6-8 years ago I watched Lee torch the Celtics for the Knicks and said, "If that dude played in Boston, the fans would be calling him the "next Dave Cowens" within a week"... He's a good player.  People shouldn't be down on him.  He's 32 years old, but he can definitely still play.   Fans will love him.

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #428 on: July 08, 2015, 12:59:39 AM »

Offline cltc5

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7054
  • Tommy Points: 445
I love this trade. I think that David Lee could be a guy we resign that retires here. Just the kind of vet we need, one who is pretty good in the short-term, and who will probably age okay, but is a locker-room chemistry guru.
As I said in the other thread, the last time we acquired a 32 year old former all-star with injury concerns, it was met with widespread anger...   but shortly after acquiring Ray, we traded for a legit franchise savior and it all made sense.

This situation is different for a number of reasons. 
#1 - Ray was obviously better than Lee.   
#2 - We actually gave up assets (our highest draft pick in the past 18 years) to acquire Ray... this time we gave up nothing. 
#3 - I don't think there's necessarily going to be a follow-up trade here.  Getting Lee was just a no-brainer.   Even if the goal is to showcase him and then trade him eventually, you stand a chance of getting a draft pick for Lee mid season... you wouldn't have that option with Wallace.

My guess is that if people are unhappy with this trade it's because they haven't been paying attention for the past couple weeks and didn't realize we sank our "cap space" dreams the second we agreed to sign Amir and Jerebko.  That ship sailed.  Now we just have to maximize our assets.

But honestly, I haven't really read this thread closely.  What are people mad about?

People are mad because on cblog,  if it's good its bad and if it's bad it's good :-\

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #429 on: July 08, 2015, 07:39:21 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
I love this trade. I think that David Lee could be a guy we resign that retires here. Just the kind of vet we need, one who is pretty good in the short-term, and who will probably age okay, but is a locker-room chemistry guru.
As I said in the other thread, the last time we acquired a 32 year old former all-star with injury concerns, it was met with widespread anger...   but shortly after acquiring Ray, we traded for a legit franchise savior and it all made sense.

This situation is different for a number of reasons. 
#1 - Ray was obviously better than Lee.   
#2 - We actually gave up assets (our highest draft pick in the past 18 years) to acquire Ray... this time we gave up nothing. 
#3 - I don't think there's necessarily going to be a follow-up trade here.  Getting Lee was just a no-brainer.   Even if the goal is to showcase him and then trade him eventually, you stand a chance of getting a draft pick for Lee mid season... you wouldn't have that option with Wallace.

My guess is that if people are unhappy with this trade it's because they haven't been paying attention for the past couple weeks and didn't realize we sank our "cap space" dreams the second we agreed to sign Amir and Jerebko.  That ship sailed.  Now we just have to maximize our assets.

But honestly, I haven't really read this thread closely.  What are people mad about?

People are mad because on cblog,  if it's good its bad and if it's bad it's good :-\
But is right when it's wrong? Or is it wrong cause it's not only right now but we know it's wrong later?

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #430 on: July 08, 2015, 08:09:18 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58540
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
David Lee has more value than Gerald Wallace.  No team was likely to give a positive asset for Wallace.  Some team *might* be willing to give something for Lee.

Because of that, I'm fine with the trade.  This franchise isn't going to tank, for better or for worse, so picking up value in others ways makes sense to me.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #431 on: July 08, 2015, 08:22:06 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18699
  • Tommy Points: 1818
I love this trade. I think that David Lee could be a guy we resign that retires here. Just the kind of vet we need, one who is pretty good in the short-term, and who will probably age okay, but is a locker-room chemistry guru.
As I said in the other thread, the last time we acquired a 32 year old former all-star with injury concerns, it was met with widespread anger...   but shortly after acquiring Ray, we traded for a legit franchise savior and it all made sense.

This situation is different for a number of reasons. 
#1 - Ray was obviously better than Lee.   
#2 - We actually gave up assets (our highest draft pick in the past 18 years) to acquire Ray... this time we gave up nothing. 
#3 - I don't think there's necessarily going to be a follow-up trade here.  Getting Lee was just a no-brainer.   Even if the goal is to showcase him and then trade him eventually, you stand a chance of getting a draft pick for Lee mid season... you wouldn't have that option with Wallace.

My guess is that if people are unhappy with this trade it's because they haven't been paying attention for the past couple weeks and didn't realize we sank our "cap space" dreams the second we agreed to sign Amir and Jerebko.  That ship sailed.  Now we just have to maximize our assets.

But honestly, I haven't really read this thread closely.  What are people mad about?

You were doing well until you began talking about cap space. It's quite clear you're either completely uninformed, don't understand how it works, or prefer to remain blissfully ignorant as it's been explained to you countless times in the past weeks.

The most important context regarding cap space is not that we didn't have it (could've easily manufactured $15M+ if needed), but that the talent pool of targets dried up once Orlando decided it would match anything for Tobias Harris.

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #432 on: July 08, 2015, 10:39:23 AM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
Kevin Pelton (ESPN)-

Quote
The Deal

Celtics get: Forward David Lee

Warriors get: Forward Gerald Wallace


Boston Celtics: B-
Not all bad contracts are created equal, an important distinction that occasionally gets glossed over in the rush to categorize players and their salaries. The Celtics are taking advantage of that nuance here, trading a player with almost no basketball value for one who is overpaid but can still contribute.

Wallace is the former. He played just 286 minutes last season with a 6.2 player efficiency rating, and it's possible his NBA career is over. Unfortunately, the fall was quick and hard for Wallace after the Brooklyn Nets gave up the pick that became Damian Lillard to acquire him in March 2012 and subsequently re-signed him to a four-year, $40 million contract that has become an albatross.

Lee is the latter. Because of his defensive shortcomings, Lee was never as good as his traditional statistics indicated, and even a slight age-related decline made those more difficult to accept. But he remains a capable scorer and playmaker for a big man, as well as a presence on the offensive glass. Were he on the market right now, Lee would probably merit at least a mid-level contract for next season, and maybe more.

Boston can easily swallow the difference in the two players' salaries, allowing the Celtics to take advantage of Lee's superior production. It will be interesting to see how he fits in Brad Stevens' offense. Boston has had plenty of skilled big men, but probably not one as good overall as Lee.

The downside is that with the addition via free agency of Amir Johnson and Lee to go along with incumbents Kelly Olynyk, Jared Sullinger and Tyler Zeller, the Celtics' frontcourt is getting rather crowded without considering small-ball options such as Jonas Jerebko and Jae Crowder. That's classic Danny Ainge -- acquire the pieces for value first, then figure out how they fit later -- but it won't make Stevens' challenge any easier as he sorts out how to balance winning games next season with developing the young players who are truly part of Boston's future.



Golden State Warriors: A
Had they kept Lee and filled out their roster by re-signing restricted free agent Ognjen Kuzmic and keeping James Michael McAdoo, whose contract is non-guaranteed, the Warriors were staring at a luxury-tax bill of more than $40 million for next season's roster. (The exact figure depends on where the tax line is set later this week.)

Because the luxury tax is progressive -- teams pay increasingly higher penalties as they spend more over the tax line -- even small decreases in payroll can have a huge impact. So just trading Lee for Wallace would shave that to a little more than $25 million, about triple the difference in their salaries this season. And waiving Wallace and stretching his contract over the next three seasons would get Golden State down to a little more than $10 million in tax, assuming the Warriors filled his roster spot with a player making the veteran's minimum. (Unlike Wallace, Lee was not eligible for the stretch provision because his contract was signed before the NBA's most recent collective bargaining agreement.)

Add in the actual salary difference and we're talking about $35 million in potential savings for Golden State. Getting that without giving up any draft picks is a win for the Warriors, who almost certainly would have had to include picks to move Lee into another team's cap space.

Golden State is taking a certain on-court risk here. Remember, we're only a few weeks removed from Lee playing rotation minutes at times in the NBA Finals. Despite the limitations that turned Lee into a bit player last season, there's nobody on the roster who matches his proficiency as a roll man. But asking Lee to swallow a small role for a second season in a row, especially as he heads into free agency, was probably too much to ask.

If keeping Lee wasn't a realistic option, this was probably the best possible outcome for the Warriors after teams such as the Los Angeles Lakers and New York Knicks, who might have been willing to take on his salary, exhausted their cap room.

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #433 on: July 08, 2015, 11:22:22 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
At first, I thought he was too long in the tooth.   But after some retrospect, he will instantly be the best big we have and his contract is up soon.   

Re: Celtics trade for David Lee
« Reply #434 on: July 08, 2015, 11:53:22 AM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
I wouldn't be shocked if Lee plays well enough and enjoys Boston so that both sides are mutually interested in a three-year deal at a discount after this season.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference