Rumor: Sully and Jones for Morris

[D.o.s.]

TP for that, nicely done.

[Celtics4ever]

You might be right.  It may be a complete rationalization owing to the fact that I really don't want to see any of our promising youngsters fall out of the rotation in favor of a couple of thirty-something year old journeymen vets.

Because our promising youngsters are so promising.   LOL HAHA,  thanks you made Monday bearable.  That was great sarcasm.  Smart has the most promise, I think the ship has sailed on Sully and Oly because of their athletic limitations.   They both have a window where they could take the next step though.   But I do not like their chances to be impact franchise players, that being said they can help a franchise in some roles.   But they are not savior types.

David Lee won't be "handed" a starting spot, but at the same time, he would not have been traded here if his agent hadn't been given some kind of assurance that the starting spot was more or less his to lose.  If not the starting spot, then very significant minutes (28-30+). 

I agree.  But I also do not think that Sully will be handed a spot.   CBS will take who plays best and gives us the best chance to win.   He has more options now with Lee and Johnson as well as Jonas coming back.   Lazy play will not and should not be tolerated.  Minutes should have to be earned. 

We win either way, I think, Lee is decent and Sully can score albiet not the best shooting wise but he would be a really solid bench big providing he can stay on the court and healthy.  Both Lee and Sully are not top tier starters but either one ought to thrive against the bench of the other team on offense, both are not good defenders but the second team ought to have more scoring pop this year.

[D.o.s.]

David Lee won't be "handed" a starting spot, but at the same time, he would not have been traded here if his agent hadn't been given some kind of assurance that the starting spot was more or less his to lose.  If not the starting spot, then very significant minutes (28-30+). 

Lee was traded here so he could rehab his value prior to hitting the free agent market next summer.  No way the deal gets done unless there is the understanding that he'll be given the chance to do that.

Not buying that at all.  I don't think there's any way that Danny gave assurances to David Lee or his agent that the starting spot (or 28+ minutes) was his to lose.

I mean, c'mon, the Warriors traded him for Gerald "Once Was" Wallace.  I know the narrative is that the Warriors did this completely as a favor to Lee, but it doesn't seem like the Lee team was exactly sitting in a huge position of strength here.  GSW obviously felt like $5Million extra in cap space was more valuable to them than another year of David Lee.

He's got a nice opportunity to gain some valuable minutes on a team with a young, relatively inexperienced front court, but to think that guarantees were made about how many minutes he would get seems farfetched. 

It's not likely David Lee had the choice of going anywhere he wanted. 

He was traded after all.  He wasn't a free agent.

The cap space wasn't the focus of the trade in and of itself: it was the salary cap tax relief trading Lee provided.

Here's a good breakdown of the numbers:
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2015/7/9/8917137/david-lee-trade-golden-state-warriors-gerald-wallace-new-luxury-tax-salary-cap

[Granath]

David Lee won't be "handed" a starting spot, but at the same time, he would not have been traded here if his agent hadn't been given some kind of assurance that the starting spot was more or less his to lose.  If not the starting spot, then very significant minutes (28-30+). 

Er, no. You're in Fantasyland.

He was getting traded regardless and there was no no-trade clause. There were only a handful - if that many - of teams who were willing and able to absorb him. Fewer still who actually could see him as a potential contributor. Lee and his agent had exceptionally limited leverage - like almost none - over the trade. He was getting moved, like it or lump it, because of the tax hit on Golden State.

As such, there is no chance whatsoever that Ainge and Stevens gave "assurances" to him that the "starting spot was more or less his to lose". There would be no reason for them to do so because Lee couldn't do a [dang] thing about it either way. If he pitched a fit, all he'd do is reduce his opportunity to play and hurt his chances of "rehabbing his value".

You act like he was a top free agent who can dictate such things. He's not. He's an aging, coming off an injury, overpaid 32 year old PF with limited appeal. He goes where someone is willing to pay his salary.

[D.o.s.]

That's actually not entirely true, even though you're right in a vacuum: Lee had no leverage, and if  Golden State had wanted to ship him off to Siberia (or Minnesota) or whatever he would have had no say in it.

Word was, though, that Lee's agent and Golden State did their due diligence in trying to give him as preferable a landing spot as possible:

“We’ve been working very closely with the Warriors for quite a while,” Bartelstein said by phone. “[Warriors general manager] Bob Myers and I have been talking quite a bit to find a good situation for a guy who was an All-Star-caliber player. It just wasn’t going to happen there future-wise with the Warriors.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/07/07/celtics-acquire-david-lee-from-golden-state/xf6BXobJa0WYomfwh16lQP/story.html

Now, that could be bull****, obviously, but I'm not inclined to think so. Owners always say nice things about their players while they're in uniform but Lacob and Lee have a pretty good relationship:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/06/the-golden-state-warriors-almost-traded-david-lee

[Celtics18]

You might be right.  It may be a complete rationalization owing to the fact that I really don't want to see any of our promising youngsters fall out of the rotation in favor of a couple of thirty-something year old journeymen vets.

Because our promising youngsters are so promising.   LOL HAHA,  thanks you made Monday bearable.  That was great sarcasm.  Smart has the most promise, I think the ship has sailed on Sully and Oly because of their athletic limitations.   They both have a window where they could take the next step though.   But I do not like their chances to be impact franchise players, that being said they can help a franchise in some roles.   But they are not savior types.

David Lee won't be "handed" a starting spot, but at the same time, he would not have been traded here if his agent hadn't been given some kind of assurance that the starting spot was more or less his to lose.  If not the starting spot, then very significant minutes (28-30+). 

I agree.  But I also do not think that Sully will be handed a spot.   CBS will take who plays best and gives us the best chance to win.   He has more options now with Lee and Johnson as well as Jonas coming back.   Lazy play will not and should not be tolerated.  Minutes should have to be earned. 

We win either way, I think, Lee is decent and Sully can score albiet not the best shooting wise but he would be a really solid bench big providing he can stay on the court and healthy.  Both Lee and Sully are not top tier starters but either one ought to thrive against the bench of the other team on offense, both are not good defenders but the second team ought to have more scoring pop this year.

By "promising" I didn't mean to imply that I thought either Sully, Olynyk, or Zeller are "savior types."

It wasn't sarcasm, it just wasn't intended to mean what you took it to mean.

[Celtics18]

That's actually not entirely true, even though you're right in a vacuum: Lee had no leverage, and if  Golden State had wanted to ship him off to Siberia (or Minnesota) or whatever he would have had no say in it.

Word was, though, that Lee's agent and Golden State did their due diligence in trying to give him as preferable a landing spot as possible:

“We’ve been working very closely with the Warriors for quite a while,” Bartelstein said by phone. “[Warriors general manager] Bob Myers and I have been talking quite a bit to find a good situation for a guy who was an All-Star-caliber player. It just wasn’t going to happen there future-wise with the Warriors.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/07/07/celtics-acquire-david-lee-from-golden-state/xf6BXobJa0WYomfwh16lQP/story.html

Now, that could be bull****, obviously, but I'm not inclined to think so. Owners always say nice things about their players while they're in uniform but Lacob and Lee have a pretty good relationship:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/06/the-golden-state-warriors-almost-traded-david-lee

The bolded is the most important part of this equation.  I'm sure the Warriors were happy to be able to trade David Lee to a place that both Lee and his agent thought would be a good fit, but I highly doubt it was one of the main motivators (for the Warriors).

What would Lee's camp have said if they hated the trade?  Would he have refused to show up to camp?Demanded a trade elsewhere?

He wasn't in that kind of position.  It wouldn't have been wise.  Lee, and everybody else involved, were best served putting a giant happy face on this deal.

This is not to say that David Lee was brought here to rot on the bench.  It of course doesn't mean he was brought here as a guaranteed starter either.

He has a chance to play a significant role on a young team with playoff aspirations.  No more, no less.

That's a pretty good deal for David Lee. 

[PhoSita]

General Managers like to maintain good relationships with agents.

It makes things like, you know, signing free agents, or trading for disgruntled stars you want to eventually re-sign, a whole lot easier.

That's a core part of how the NBA works.  Technically, players under contract don't get to dictate how their teams choose to handle them.  But smart GMs take into account the long term repercussions of treating players right.

The Warriors have a smart GM.  Danny Ainge is a smart GM.

Lee and his agent were most assuredly part of the process of finding a trade partner that would give Lee the opportunity to secure a large enough role to rebuild his market value.

[PhoSita]

GSW obviously felt like $5Million extra in cap space was more valuable to them than another year of David Lee.

What I think you're overlooking here is that the Warriors also thought that the good will they'd bank with David Lee's agent -- and agents / players in general -- was more valuable to them than keeping Lee on the bench for another season.


In general I think it's true that teams don't agonize over whether potential moves will make the players involved happy. 

But when a team puts it out there that they are actively looking for a good situation for a guy on their roster who is no longer a significant part of their game plan, that's them signaling to players and agents around the league: "Look!  We treat players right!"

[D.o.s.]

That conversation definitely happened, but it's also worth noting that Lee was ultimately limited to BPA -- Best Place Available -- for the Warriors, and that almost certainly had a larger influence on the trade than Lee's preferences.

[PhoSita]

That conversation definitely happened, but it's also worth noting that Lee was ultimately limited to BPA -- Best Place Available -- for the Warriors, and that almost certainly had a larger influence on the trade than Lee's preferences.

Right.  I don't think Lee gave them a list and said, "Make it happen."

But ultimately, the place the Warriors chose to send him to was going to be a place where he and his agent felt he could rebuild his value.

If the Warriors sent him to a crappy team, or a team that would bury him in a limited role like he had in Golden State, I think that would have been a net negative move for the Warriors.  Again, the Warriors aren't stupid.

[Celtics18]

General Managers like to maintain good relationships with agents.

It makes things like, you know, signing free agents, or trading for disgruntled stars you want to eventually re-sign, a whole lot easier.

That's a core part of how the NBA works.  Technically, players under contract don't get to dictate how their teams choose to handle them.  But smart GMs take into account the long term repercussions of treating players right.

The Warriors have a smart GM.  Danny Ainge is a smart GM.

Lee and his agent were most assuredly part of the process of finding a trade partner that would give Lee the opportunity to secure a large enough role to rebuild his market value.

I don't really disagree with any of that.

I italicized what I think is the most important part of this phrase.  I agree that everybody involved felt that the trade to the Celtics would give Lee "the opportunity to secure a large enough role to rebuild his market value."

That's a far cry from there being any assurances made of either being a starter or number of minutes played. 

[D.o.s.]

It does make it more likely that Lee will be in competition for those minutes than someone like Keith Bogans or Gerald Wallace were, though.

At least, that's a reasonable conclusion based on what we know about the situation, as well as the roster.

[Celtics18]

It does make it more likely that Lee will be in competition for those minutes than someone like Keith Bogans or Gerald Wallace were, though.

At least, that's a reasonable conclusion based on what we know about the situation, as well as the roster.

The fact that David Lee is probably a better player than either Gerald Wallace or Keith Bogans were when they became Celtics is likely what will him a better shot at being in competition for minutes.

I doubt it has much to do with what Danny Ainge did or didn't tell his agent. 

[D.o.s.]

It does make it more likely that Lee will be in competition for those minutes than someone like Keith Bogans or Gerald Wallace were, though.

At least, that's a reasonable conclusion based on what we know about the situation, as well as the roster.

The fact that David Lee is probably a better player than the guys who would be in front of him on the depth chart. either Gerald Wallace or Keith Bogans were when they became Celtics is likely what will him a better shot at being in competition for minutes.

I doubt it has much to do with what Danny Ainge did or didn't tell his agent.

Ftfy, and I'll go back a couple of pages to cite this:

All I can say is I think you're telling yourself a story to avoid being disappointed by the idea that one of the young guys will have to be sitting on the bench.

As my feelings on your position re: Lee as well.