Author Topic: Teams with trade exceptions that can be used on Evan Turner or Jared Sullinger  (Read 5132 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
Can someone PLEASE explain to me the fascination in trading ET?

Seriously, why trade one of our top all-around players? He's a glue guy, does many things well, and seems to fit in well with Coach Stevens' plan.

His salary is good for us, too - and no I don't think that's a good reason to trade him.

Who will take his spot? James Young? Crowder? Besides the slight drop-off in defense vs Crowder, ET is better than both of these guys.

Who are we looking to bring in for ET?

Unless the return is a clear-cut improvement, I don't see the reason for trading him.

IMO we trade him we'll be taking a step back.....but that's what some of the tankers probably want anyway, LOL.

BUT - we have an Anti-Tank weapon right here in BOS:



No, not THAT....THIS:



With Brad Stevens, Danny would have to basically trade EVERYONE before we could successfully (sigh) tank.

I just don't see the logic in trading ET...or Sully for that matter. I'd rather just let the season play out.

To me, it's obvious that the team intends to play for a 4th or 5th spot, and that is GREAT to me.

I can give you my logic:

If he's one of our all-around-top-players (and I don't argue with that), that means that our team is pretty bad. Maybe not bad enough to miss the playoffs in the East, but bad nonetheless. It would seem to be a wasted season going through the year with the roster as it stands -- we have three players who are probably not going to be on the team when our squad is legitimately contending for the ECF in Lee, Turner, and Johnson, but those are the three players who are going to see a lot of playing time since Stevens, as you've pointed out, coaches to win games, and that usually entails playing your best players, even when they aren't that great compared to the rest of the NBA.

I would much rather see our team focus on developing the players that fit the timeline for contention -- and that includes players who will contribute to a title winning team if Ainge managed to pull off a ridiculous, 2007-esque trade this season. That does not include Evan Turner, who has played fewer minutes the better his teams got for his entire NBA career.

A fair point, but the problem with this Logic is that this Boston team is not one that's built with a 'top heavy' approach. 

The team is built based on the premise of having 12 good players, rather than having a roster with 3 superstars and 10 scrubs.

You can argue Sully is our third best player, but you can also make a legit argument that Lee, Johnson, Olynyk and Zeller are all more or less on par with Sully.  So if you have 5 bigs on your roster who are all good enough to be arguably your 3rd best player, then that's a lot of talent.

Likewise at the SF spot you could fairly argue that Crowder, Thomas and Jerebko are all pretty close - it's pretty hard to argue which of those players is the best, second best, third best, etc.  I could make an solid argument for each guy.

Really, the only guy on our roster who is a clear level above everybody else is Thomas.

Why is this an advantage? 

Because depth this this should lead to consistency - we aren't our there every night depending entirely on two guys to have big nights in order for us to win.  If two or three players have a poor shooting night, we should always have two or three guys who can step up in their place.  If one or two guys get injured and miss time, we almost always have one or two guys who can take their place without a significant drop in talent.  When out starters sit down, and our bench comes in, we will should barely lose a step.

When we were in the Big 3 era one of our biggest problems was depth.  We killed teams when Rondo, Ray, Pierce and KG were out there.  When those guys sat down we got torched, and often ended up giving away those leads almost entirely. Big Baby and an old/declining Jason Terry were arguably the two best bench players we ever had in that era - that's pretty bad.

Our current lineup may not be able to build leads quite as big, but when our starters sit down our bench should be able to come in and either maintain (or even increase) those leads. Being able to provide constant pressure for 48 minutes - that could potentially be a very tough thing for opposing teams to deal with.

Teams with a lot of depth but not much star power often struggle on the big stage because they don't have anybody to step up and take the big shots, but we have a number of guys (Thomas, Smart, Turner, etc) who have already proven they aren't afraid to take (and make) big shots under pressure...and even Rozier showed signs (in Summer League - I know) that he has that killer instinct too.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how effective this team building strategy is.  Remember that at the end of the day we don't need to compete this year in order to make this team a success story.  If we end up with a top 4 or 5 seed in the East, then when you add our other selling points (great coach, team history, GM willing to spend money, future picks and assets) that's probably enough to make us a pretty attractive free agent destination next season.

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
I am firmly of the belief that depth is overrated in the NBA, particularly in the postseason. that said, I was giving my reasons as to why I would trade Evan Turner (and trying to do it without my usual, the "because Evan Turner sucks"), not as an indictment of the way the C's are putting their team together right now.

The Milwaukee-ifying of the roster is fine, but note that Monroe decided to sign with the team after they nabbed Jabari Parker and Giannis, not after they signed O.J. Mayo.
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.

Offline LilRip

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6857
  • Tommy Points: 391
I can give you my logic:

If he's one of our all-around-top-players (and I don't argue with that), that means that our team is pretty bad. Maybe not bad enough to miss the playoffs in the East, but bad nonetheless. It would seem to be a wasted season going through the year with the roster as it stands -- we have three players who are probably not going to be on the team when our squad is legitimately contending for the ECF in Lee, Turner, and Johnson, but those are the three players who are going to see a lot of playing time since Stevens, as you've pointed out, coaches to win games, and that usually entails playing your best players, even when they aren't that great compared to the rest of the NBA.

I would much rather see our team focus on developing the players that fit the timeline for contention -- and that includes players who will contribute to a title winning team if Ainge managed to pull off a ridiculous, 2007-esque trade this season. That does not include Evan Turner, who has played fewer minutes the better his teams got for his entire NBA career.

Pretty much this. If we're a middling team because of Evan Turner and a lottery team without him, I'd much rather be a lottery team and have our guys develop. And if we turn out to be a middling team, then at least it's on the backs of our young core.

Not to say having vets are bad. I don't really have a problem with having Lee/Johnson on the team. But the biggest difference between Lee/Johnson and ET is that ET needs the ball in his hands to be effective while Lee and Johnson don't. You take away the ball from him and you end up playing to his weaknesses (shooting/off-ball movement) rather than his strengths (playmaking). Badly put, ET is a role player who plays with a star player playstyle.

As crimson stallion pointed out, we don't need to be a contender this year for it to be a success. I agree with that and am actually willing to take it a step further. For me, the W/L record isn't as important as seeing our young players develop (Smart/Hunter/Rozier...fine, Young). Then if the Wins come, then so be it.

- LilRip

Offline dreamgreen

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3558
  • Tommy Points: 182
Who does Portland have for bigs?
in the time it took you to type that post, you could have found this....

http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/teams/Portland_Trail_Blazers/24/Rosters

Thanks for the speech dad  :-*

Anyway it doesn't look like they have much, my real question is do they expect any of their bigs to be solid enough to build with in the future? Wondering how Sully would look out there, maybe there is not as much pizza in Portland? ;)

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
Who does Portland have for bigs?
in the time it took you to type that post, you could have found this....

http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/teams/Portland_Trail_Blazers/24/Rosters

Thanks for the speech dad  :-*

Anyway it doesn't look like they have much, my real question is do they expect any of their bigs to be solid enough to build with in the future? Wondering how Sully would look out there, maybe there is not as much pizza in Portland? ;)

I think they'd like Leonard and Vonleh to be their starting bigs of the future.  Although I'm surprised they haven't made a giant offer to Tristan Thompson just in case the Cavs get scared of the luxury tax.  They did that with Kanter, after all.

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
dont know why you would be interested in trading the second best scoring option and the utility guy, but if i had to, i would avoid all eastern teams, unless it was for an actual player. but cavs certainly could use more bench presence. brooklyn definitely could use all the help they could get but that would harm our chances at a good from them. to be frank i think all these teams could use either turner or sully or both. theyre good players

With Lee on board, I don't think Sullinger is the second best scoring option.
Lee's much more expensive and doesn't figure to be here next year.  I'd be surprised if Lee is still here after the trade deadline. 

Offline YoungOne87

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1167
  • Tommy Points: 65
it makes absolutely no sense to trade sullinger before the season.

Comes off an injury riddled season, with heavy questions about is conditioning and dicipline.

He can only up his value this season.

Offline Hemingway

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1181
  • Tommy Points: 123
A lot of good points all around here. This thread is a great read! Really, cudos to everyone.

For me, I'd part with both guys but I would rather do it at the deadline. A little risky but I have reasons:

Turner: I think we still need him to run the point until Smart shows that he can do it.

Sully: He is in a contract year and off injury. He has millions of reasons to come out aggressive this season.

I don't see either guy as someone I want on the team a year from now. It's about getting the best return and in Turners case keeping him just a bit longer.

Right now I would not trade either guy unless we got a pick ith a decent chance of being in the lotto. they are both probably realistically worth about a 15th pick but I'd hold out for something with a chance at top 10.

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
dont know why you would be interested in trading the second best scoring option and the utility guy, but if i had to, i would avoid all eastern teams, unless it was for an actual player. but cavs certainly could use more bench presence. brooklyn definitely could use all the help they could get but that would harm our chances at a good from them. to be frank i think all these teams could use either turner or sully or both. theyre good players

With Lee on board, I don't think Sullinger is the second best scoring option.
Lee's much more expensive and doesn't figure to be here next year.  I'd be surprised if Lee is still here after the trade deadline.

I'm not sure who out there is going to trade for $15 million worth of David Lee unless they're sending us long term contracts.

I suppose you could see something like David Lee and a pick for a young but somewhat overpaid guy like Chandler Parsons.  Help Dallas clear cap space.

Most likely Danny will try to conserve cap space unless a true star is coming back.  So I'd guess that Lee stays unless Cousins gets traded at the deadline.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
I'll just say this about Evan Turner -- I think fans of the NBA often confuse "ball-handler" with "one of our best players."

Turner has the ball in his hands a lot when he's on the floor, and he naturally accrues some counting stats as a result.  I disagree that he's one of our best or most productive players.

He does have a knack for ending up with the ball and getting a shot off at the end of a game, and his game winners tend to stick in people's minds.  That's another big factor that people equate with "best."  Happened with Jeff Green, too.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Offline jaketwice

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1384
  • Tommy Points: 102
I also want to keep Turner. Sullinger I think should be traded, due to a huge log jam at his position. I am also in favor of trading James Young.

I think Utah might be a good location for Sullinger. Favors has experience playing with Al Jefferson, and I could see Sullinger heading up a decent second unit for them.

Utah also has a 2017 draft pick from Golden State to trade. ...where they just lost Exum, I would also consider throwing in Rozier in order to get that pick. I can already hear the outcry, but I think (1) we owe it to Sully to move him somewhere he could maybe be successful;(2) James Young is not a huge loss; (3) I am virtually certain Rozier will be out of the league in a few years. He is a 6'2" shooting guard who can't shoot, and I HATED his game in college.

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
To be clear, I think the likeliest scenario for trading Turner is if the Celtics need to clear a roster spot because they decide they want to keep Perry Jones III after they like what he does in pre-season.  He'd have to play good enough that they feel much more willing to have him on the team beyond 2015-2016 vs Turner.
"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

Offline BDeCosta26

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • Tommy Points: 232
I am firmly of the belief that depth is overrated in the NBA, particularly in the postseason. that said, I was giving my reasons as to why I would trade Evan Turner (and trying to do it without my usual, the "because Evan Turner sucks"), not as an indictment of the way the C's are putting their team together right now.

The Milwaukee-ifying of the roster is fine, but note that Monroe decided to sign with the team after they nabbed Jabari Parker and Giannis, not after they signed O.J. Mayo.

In the playoffs, yeah I agree, but only to an extent. In the regular season, I think it's pretty important to have depth.

82 games is a LONG season. A lot longer than it should be really. Managing minutes is fast becoming a very important element to coaching. Injuries are an almost certain occurrence. Having a team at least 10 deep of legit NBA contributors is a vital component to a successful season. You really don't wanna run your guys ragged like Thibs had been just to win a few extra games in the regular season. In our case, since we lack current star talent, our depth is very vital to our success. We have maybe the deepest and most talented bench in the league. That's gonna win us games.

In the playoffs, sure. It doesn't matter so much then, because for that brief period guys go 110% and everyone wants their best talent on the floor at all possible times. Hell, the Cavs brought the finals to six games playing like with like 1 or 2 legit subs. But they were destroyed physically and beat mentally by the end of that series. You could see it on the floor. Everyone except maybe LeBron had nothing left to give. And if your on a team like the Bulls that was playing that way year round, it takes a toll. I mean yeah, rotations shorten up to like 8 or 9 guys in the playoffs anyway, but when the game plan needs to change or someone goes down, having guys that can really contribute makes a big difference.

I think were at the extreme as far as depth goes, but having a bunch of guys who can play roles and contribute isn't a bad thing.

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Sure. That has little to do with whether or not you'd trade Evan Turner.
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.

Offline PutItInTheAir

  • Jordan Walsh
  • Posts: 22
  • Tommy Points: 1
dont know why you would be interested in trading the second best scoring option and the utility guy, but if i had to, i would avoid all eastern teams, unless it was for an actual player. but cavs certainly could use more bench presence. brooklyn definitely could use all the help they could get but that would harm our chances at a good from them. to be frank i think all these teams could use either turner or sully or both. theyre good players

With Lee on board, I don't think Sullinger is the second best scoring option.

thats yet to be seen