It's hilarious how the fanbase has turned 180 and would "rather have" Wallace

[PhoSita]

In general, if people are going to ignore the facts just to try to make a point, they should expect to be called out on it.  As I stated in a different post, it's not like Lee is replacing Drummond.  His offensive contributions will offset any defensive difference.   Now that shouldn't be hard to understand.

It's possible.

I think you may underestimating just how bad Lee is defensively, though.

[Jonny CC]

I like how one opinion can be conflated to "everyone"/"the fanbase" 

David Lee sucks. Has nothing to do with Wallace, IMO, beyond the fact that I'd rather cheer for Wallace as our best cheerleader than Lee as our best player.

If David Lee sucks then what does that say about Wallace?!?!  Even if Lee was worse than Wallace (who never played), the deal is worth it for the additional cap space at the end of the year.   I don't understand your logic.

Wallace on the bench is more of a positive contribution to the Celtics than Lee playing 20-40 minutes per game. I don't know if you're familiar with addition by subtraction, but the inverse is a real thing too.

Pho, per usual, types faster than me and makes the point better.

Although it's possible that Lee will spur on the rebirth of post play in the Garden as opposing teams get the ball down low against him night after night.

How do you know this?  You know for a fact that Wallace is a better influence in the locker-room than Lee??  This is clearly making stuff up just to have a differing opinion with no facts to back up your stance.  Keep reaching...trying to convince yourself that it's a bad deal.   

Where did I say anything about the locker room?

Are you mentally handicapped? I can explain myself more if that's the case, because you're clearly not understanding what I said there.

"Mentally handicapped"?  Really?  No need to get bent out of shape because you've been proven wrong.  Locker-room, bench...what difference does it make?  I will change my original post but you still won't have an answer...hence the insults.

How do you know this?  You know for a fact that Wallace is a better influence ON THE BENCH than Lee??  This is clearly making stuff up just to have a differing opinion with no facts to back up your stance.  Keep reaching...trying to convince yourself that it's a bad deal.

How's that?  Now try to answer it without the name calling.

Again, you're the one that is bringing in "the lockerroom" and "being an influence." This is why I asked if you have some kind of cognition problem, because I'm not addressing either of those things.

Having a player on the bench vs. having a player on the floor is a pretty common description between "a guy who plays" and "A guy who doesn't play" (your words). My point, which you seem to have totally missed, is that just because we're putting a new player into the rotation does not mean the team is automatically better.

That has zero to do with anything involving the locker room, or a player's influence, because I'm only talking about playing time. On the court. I don't care if he's a good Samaritan in this discussion.

That said, I will rephrase my point for you, using simple words, clear language, and pictures.

Gerald Wallace:


Playing
0 minutes

is better for the Celtics than David Lee:



Playing
20-40 minutes

Thanks for the big pictures. 
We agree to disagree.  I understand your point....I really do.  But it doesn't make basketball sense to me.  Lee is not a total scrub...he actaully has some offensive ability and can rebound.  If he is on the floor, he will be playing instead of Olynyk, Sully, Zeller, etc who are also not great at defense.  Then, if you factor in his contract vs Wallace's, it's another advantage for the C's. 

[D.o.s.]

As I see it, we have 3 options:

 either it means that we enter into the season with David Lee as our best player (ask the Knicks how that one goes) and we're probably facing a mediocre season and maybe a postseason birth.

Or: we have David Lee sitting on the bench as an expiring and our team continues to be fairly meh. This doesn't seem to gel with how Stevens and Co. seem to run the team, but it's possible (see Keith Bogans etc.)

or: our young talent is not worth enough to the rest of the NBA free market to move for more established pieces right now, or the pieces Ainge really wants are not available. If that's the case, a Lee-led season is going to be about as disastrous as our last season. Watching the C's get blown out by the Cavs sucked. That's the inevitable conclusion (although it may not be the Cavaliers) of this roster.

How's that?  Now try to answer it without the name calling.

I'm struggling to understand how you are failing to grasp the point.  I don't mean to insult you, but D.o.s. has made it pretty clear.

D.o.s. feels that David Lee is a net negative when he's on the floor.  He makes the team worse.  Therefore, a guy who sits on the bench is better for the team than David Lee getting playing time.

Clear it up for you?

In general, if people are going to ignore the facts just to try to make a point, they should expect to be called out on it.  As I stated in a different post, it's not like Lee is replacing Drummond.  His offensive contributions will offset any defensive difference.   Now that shouldn't be hard to understand. 

Where is your proof for the bolded?

[gpap]

Do people really think that if we make the playoffs again with a win total in the 40s -- and maybe win a game this time! -- that big name free agents will suddenly be clamoring to sign here?

No, but you can't deny that it would probably make our chances better compared to if we finished last in the East

This is not a -------------> line.
This is a <--------------->

If you finish last in the East, you get a really good shot at the top pick in the draft.

Right, a pick in which you draft a player who could just as easily stink up the joint as he could succeed.
I'll take the playoffs every time.

[YeezusChrist]

It's a good move. We basically traded a guy WHO DIDN'T PLAY for a guy who can make an impact on this team.

Seriously F*** tanking. We need to win now otherwise no "big star" would choose to play for the Celtics in the future (hence LaMarcus Aldridge, Kevin Love, DeAndre Jordan, Greg Monroe etc. who didn't want to join Lakers because they are a mess)

They didn't want to join us either even though we made the playoffs...

So if we put ourselves in the same position it is sure to work this time 

Come on we barely made the Playoffs this year. We weren't a lock at all. I presume that our chances would be better with the big players if we finish mid table.

We are still not a lock this year we would be fighting for the 8th seed

Cavs
Bulls
Toronto
Atlanta
Wizards
Bucks
Heat

That's 7 locks with Pacers, Nets, Hornets, Pistons, Knicks, Magic and Us all fighting for the last spot since we all have pretty much equal talent

Those teams could just as easily fail.

Pacers - How's Paul George going to rebound? Coming back from a broken leg is no easy task. Also, who's their center? A rookie Myles Turner? Or Ian Mahimi? Either way, the choices aren't great

Nets - Are Lopez, DWill and JJ going to stay healthy?

Hornets - Not sure how they're better than the Celtics. I like Kemba Walker and Cody Zeller always seems to play us tough. Other than that, I am not that impressed. Jefferson is still a good post player but he gets injured a lot

Pistons - Lost Monroe and replaced him with Ilyasova. Big loss. Jackson and Drummond are good for their position, though Drummond can't score to save his life. Also, not impressed with the rest of the roster

Knicks - Huge question mark. How does Melo rebound after being missing half the season? Do Robin Lopez and Aaron Afflalo really move the needle that much for the Knicks?

Magic - ? Still a bottom feeding team, IMO.

You keep using the possibilities of injuries to justify us beating them out but we had a team full of players who missed time with injuries (Bradley, Sully, Lee, Johnson, Smart, Crowder, KO, IT)

If IT gets hurt we have no chance he was the only person other than bass who scored consistently last year!!

[Jonny CC]

In general, if people are going to ignore the facts just to try to make a point, they should expect to be called out on it.  As I stated in a different post, it's not like Lee is replacing Drummond.  His offensive contributions will offset any defensive difference.   Now that shouldn't be hard to understand.

It's possible.

I think you may underestimating just how bad Lee is defensively, though.

I remember his days with the Knicks and he was basically a statue.  I get it.  But it's still worth the risk for the C's.

[Jonny CC]

As I see it, we have 3 options:

 either it means that we enter into the season with David Lee as our best player (ask the Knicks how that one goes) and we're probably facing a mediocre season and maybe a postseason birth.

Or: we have David Lee sitting on the bench as an expiring and our team continues to be fairly meh. This doesn't seem to gel with how Stevens and Co. seem to run the team, but it's possible (see Keith Bogans etc.)

or: our young talent is not worth enough to the rest of the NBA free market to move for more established pieces right now, or the pieces Ainge really wants are not available. If that's the case, a Lee-led season is going to be about as disastrous as our last season. Watching the C's get blown out by the Cavs sucked. That's the inevitable conclusion (although it may not be the Cavaliers) of this roster.

How's that?  Now try to answer it without the name calling.

I'm struggling to understand how you are failing to grasp the point.  I don't mean to insult you, but D.o.s. has made it pretty clear.

D.o.s. feels that David Lee is a net negative when he's on the floor.  He makes the team worse.  Therefore, a guy who sits on the bench is better for the team than David Lee getting playing time.

Clear it up for you?

In general, if people are going to ignore the facts just to try to make a point, they should expect to be called out on it.  As I stated in a different post, it's not like Lee is replacing Drummond.  His offensive contributions will offset any defensive difference.   Now that shouldn't be hard to understand. 

Where is your proof for the bolded?

In a simple comparison of Lee vs Zeller or Olynyk, I would expect that he won't give up enough on defense to offset approx 7 more points and 4 additional rebounds per game.     

[BornReady]

I don't mind either

Both are veterans with exp to help our younger players
Not sure whether Stevens plays lee more + lee would probably be not happy with being on the bench of our young team (compared to Wallace who settled down after the start of 1st season)
And are on 1 year expiring contracts

Though lee is paid more and will take playing time from our younger players
But is also the better player atm

[mctyson]

I like how one opinion can be conflated to "everyone"/"the fanbase" 

David Lee sucks. Has nothing to do with Wallace, IMO, beyond the fact that I'd rather cheer for Wallace as our best cheerleader than Lee as our best player.

Well, if David Lee really does suck, and he was traded for Wallace...then it quite literally has everything to do with Wallace.

[mctyson]

In general, if people are going to ignore the facts just to try to make a point, they should expect to be called out on it.  As I stated in a different post, it's not like Lee is replacing Drummond.  His offensive contributions will offset any defensive difference.   Now that shouldn't be hard to understand.

It's possible.

I think you may underestimating just how bad Lee is defensively, though.

But the point the OP was trying to make is:  Lee's value as a player is quite possibly exponentially that of what Wallace provides.  This is a straight up trade.  You cannot criticize this move. There is nothing else exchanging hands.  And the Cs get the most immediat flexibility because Lee's contract is larger...thus he can be moved for an even larger salary if that opportunity presents itself.

 Anyone saying they would "rather have" Wallace for $11M this year doing NOTHING is completely full of you-know-what and is simply being cranky.

[PhoSita]

In general, if people are going to ignore the facts just to try to make a point, they should expect to be called out on it.  As I stated in a different post, it's not like Lee is replacing Drummond.  His offensive contributions will offset any defensive difference.   Now that shouldn't be hard to understand.

It's possible.

I think you may underestimating just how bad Lee is defensively, though.

But the point the OP was trying to make is:  Lee's value as a player is quite possibly exponentially that of what Wallace provides.  This is a straight up trade.  You cannot criticize this move. There is nothing else exchanging hands.  And the Cs get the most immediat flexibility because Lee's contract is larger...thus he can be moved for an even larger salary if that opportunity presents itself.

 Anyone saying they would "rather have" Wallace for $11M this year doing NOTHING is completely full of you-know-what and is simply being cranky.

I've said it elsewhere, I think the Lee move makes some sense in and of itself.  It's not a "bad" move on its own merits.  But like all the other moves so far this off-season save re-signing Crowder, it doesn't make much sense to me in the context of a rebuild.

If the idea is, "Well, we're not rebuilding!  We're competing!" then I'm disappointed to discover the team isn't as well managed as I thought, nor does it have as lofty goals as it claims.

[CoachBo]

Consider the trade in this context:

It is, far and away, the best move Ainge has made this summer.

I'm fine with it. Lee can score, and he'll rebound some. He will be hardly alone on this roster if his defense is sub-par. Plus, he has a good reputation as a mentor.

Beats the turd that was draft night.

[PhoSita]

Consider the trade in this context:

It is, far and away, the best move Ainge has made this summer.

I'm fine with it. Lee can score, and he'll rebound some. He will be hardly alone on this roster if his defense is sub-par.

Exchanging one expiring contract for a larger expiring contract who happens to be a modest upgrade (though with poorer floor spacing) over the not one but two younger, cheaper options we already had the same position?

Perhaps that's the best move Ainge has made this summer.  If so, that's faint praise.  I sure hope one of these guys they took in the draft turns into a decent enough player to be considered a better "get" than that.

[Rondo9]

Consider the trade in this context:

It is, far and away, the best move Ainge has made this summer.

I'm fine with it. Lee can score, and he'll rebound some. He will be hardly alone on this roster if his defense is sub-par.

Exchanging one expiring contract for a larger expiring contract who happens to be a modest upgrade (though with poorer floor spacing) over the not one but two younger, cheaper options we already had the same position?

Perhaps that's the best move Ainge has made this summer.  If so, that's faint praise.  I sure hope one of these guys they took in the draft turns into a decent enough player to be considered a better "get" than that.

Worse? Wallace can't shoot at all.

[Jesus Shuttlesworth #20]

"It's hilarious" in the thread title? Is it that necessary for you to tell us how much better you are than us? Thanks, thanks man for kicking us when we are down. Nice downer/negative thread making fun of us, you are an amazing human being, noble prize worthy individual here. At least I feel much worse about myself after reading this thread title than I did before so I have that going for me now.