Thought Experiment: Trading top 6 players for 1 star.

[LarBrd33]

In the game thread I made this comment: 

The thing about this team is... when they are locked in and focused, they can hang with any team in the league.  There's 11 NBA-caliber players on this roster + 4 prospects (Rozier, Hunter, Mickey, Young) that could potentially develop into rotation players with minutes.   They can play most teams tough and sneak some victories against superior teams.   

But there's no stand-out talent.  They can never afford to coast.  If they slip, they'll get crushed even if the opponent is the Brooklyn Nets.  They'd probably always lose a 7 game series against a team with superior talent, because talent always wins out in this league.

The good news is that half our team could get injured, and it wouldn't make a big difference.   This is the type of team that can afford to trade 6-for-1 without it hurting too much. 

The 6-for-1 thing felt like a mild exaggeration, but it got me wondering how far-off from the truth it actually was.  Could we move 6-for-1?  Clearly moving a package of Rozier, Hunter, Mickey, Young, Jerebko and Zeller wouldn't do a whole lot to hurt us.   But what about a package of our 6 best players?  That's more interesting. 

Say Boston traded our top 6 guys (Thomas, Smart, Crowder, Sully, Amir and Bradley) for 1 star... Cousins, for instance...  How much worse would our team be?

PG - Rozier?  - Ouch.  I'm not sure Rozier is ready to be a starting PG.
SG - Hunter?  - Ouch again, I'm not sure he's ready
SF - Evan Turner -  Arguably our best player over the second half of last season.  Per-36 is: 13 points, 6.4 rebounds, 5 assists, 1.3 steals on 43% shooting
PF - David Lee - Former all-star averaging 16 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists on 51% shooting this season per 36 minutes.
C - Cousins - True star...  Per-36 of 30.5 points, 12.3 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1.6 blocks

--- Bench---
PF/C - Olynyk - He can play.   
SF/PF - Jerebko - he can play
C - Zeller - He can play 
PF - Mickey - he probably can play
SG/SF - Young - he's not ready

Our bench still has some NBA talent.  It's all power forwards though.  Clearly, the first thing Boston would need to do is sign a couple guards from the d-league or trade someone like Olynyk, Zeller or Jerebko for a veteran guard that can maybe contribute.  Of course, in this thought experiment we've kept all our 1st rounders... so we'll have plenty of opportunities to fill out the guard rotation through follow-up trades.  Unless you're really high on Rozier, Hunter and Young, our guard play will be an issue.   That said, Boston could possibly move Jerebko into the starting lineup at SF and move Turner to SG starting next to your choice of Rozier or Hunter... Turner proved he could be an effective point-forward last season and when you have a star like Cousins, you don't necessarily need a traditional point guard.  I'd probably be happier if we somehow got the Kings to throw Ben McLemore into this deal... he's not getting minutes this year, but is shooting 42%/40%/86% ...    Anyways, 6-for-1 deals don't actually happen since a team can't take on that many roster spots... we'd get 5 throw-in players... maybe a couple can be added to the rotation. 

Honestly, I wouldn't underestimate the impact of Cousins and Brad Stevens...  I'm not sure the team would be significantly worse off.

It might make more sense if they did 6-for-1 for a guard.  For instance, James Harden.   That would leave you with the ability to play a lineup of:

PG - Harden
SG - Turner
SF - Jerebko
PF - Lee
C - Zeller

... With Olynyk, Mickey, Rozier, Hunter and Young off the bench...   How much worse is that team than the line-up that made the playoffs last year?

Harden >>> Smart + Thomas
Lee > Bass
Zeller = Zeller
Turner = Turner
Jerebko << Bradley

Yeah... Bottom line is that I think in most instances, it's not too far-fetched to say that Boston could trade 6-for-1... We have so much depth.   If we're talking about our 6 top players, it gets a little more iffy, but I'm gonna say that yes... we'd be fine in the short-term and probably much better long-term, because stars attract other stars.

What say you?

[alewilliam789]

Would never do any of these. We would decimate our depth and rotations to do any of these. Also even if we did do any of these the players probably wouldn't want to stay in Boston because the trade didn't put them in a position to win. 4 for 1 and picks is the only semi-realistic trade working for a player like Cousins or Harden, but the 5 or 6 for 1 is exactly the reason why teams generally don't trade for superstar players because it takes to massive of a package and it doesn't necessarily make us that much better considering the impact that all those player we traded away had. Of course we would have that superstar player, but I highly doubt we could even keep him if his contact ran out a year or even 2 years after.

[LarBrd33]

Depth is easy to replace when you got cash money and draft picks.  The Jerebko's of the world aren't hard to come by. 

Stars are difficult to acquire.

[SHAQATTACK]

We have a Star


Avery "green mamba " Bryant

[LarBrd33]

We have a Star


Avery "green mamba " Bryant

lol... Bradley has played really well so far.

[Csfan1984]

6 for 1 is a great way to go but most teams don't want to be the team giving up the star top 20 player. Especially when you are say the Rockets who believe FAs want to go to your city. A team like that will sell off bad contracts and even tank a year for assets to reload. If you scale it down like a 3 for 1 and you make it a top 25-35 player that is where the deals can be made easily. Kind of bites because those guys are more final piece guys than foundation players. Once every 3 years though a big star is on the block.

Now for that star on the block the likely cases are the King's Cousins and Knick's Melo. Hard to say if either team makes a move given their history to stick things out. Maybe for both Brooklyn picks as the center pieces they might but not sure. Then add in salary matching and it's a mess. I'm sure it will have to wait till draft night to deal for either one.

[ThePoeticWolf]

Danny Ainge should be fired immediately, if he would even think of doing this.  I like Cousin's game but he's not worth a team by any means.  To big of a head case.  Is he worth 2 first rounders not including Brooklyn's, David Lee, Kelly Olynyk, Terry Rozier, Yes but nothing more. 

[hwangjini_1]

In the game thread I made this comment: 

The thing about this team is... when they are locked in and focused, they can hang with any team in the league.  There's 11 NBA-caliber players on this roster + 4 prospects (Rozier, Hunter, Mickey, Young) that could potentially develop into rotation players with minutes.   They can play most teams tough and sneak some victories against superior teams.   

But there's no stand-out talent.  They can never afford to coast.  If they slip, they'll get crushed even if the opponent is the Brooklyn Nets.  They'd probably always lose a 7 game series against a team with superior talent, because talent always wins out in this league.

The good news is that half our team could get injured, and it wouldn't make a big difference.   This is the type of team that can afford to trade 6-for-1 without it hurting too much. 

The 6-for-1 thing felt like a mild exaggeration, but it got me wondering how far-off from the truth it actually was.  Could we move 6-for-1?  Clearly moving a package of Rozier, Hunter, Mickey, Young, Jerebko and Zeller wouldn't do a whole lot to hurt us.   But what about a package of our 6 best players?  That's more interesting. 

Say Boston traded our top 6 guys (Thomas, Smart, Crowder, Sully, Amir and Bradley) for 1 star... Cousins, for instance...  How much worse would our team be?

PG - Rozier?  - Ouch.  I'm not sure Rozier is ready to be a starting PG.
SG - Hunter?  - Ouch again, I'm not sure he's ready
SF - Evan Turner -  Arguably our best player over the second half of last season.  Per-36 is: 13 points, 6.4 rebounds, 5 assists, 1.3 steals on 43% shooting
PF - David Lee - Former all-star averaging 16 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists on 51% shooting this season per 36 minutes.
C - Cousins - True star...  Per-36 of 30.5 points, 12.3 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1.6 blocks

--- Bench---
PF/C - Olynyk - He can play.   
SF/PF - Jerebko - he can play
C - Zeller - He can play 
PF - Mickey - he probably can play
SG/SF - Young - he's not ready

Our bench still has some NBA talent.  It's all power forwards though.  Clearly, the first thing Boston would need to do is sign a couple guards from the d-league or trade someone like Olynyk, Zeller or Jerebko for a veteran guard that can maybe contribute.  Of course, in this thought experiment we've kept all our 1st rounders... so we'll have plenty of opportunities to fill out the guard rotation through follow-up trades.  Unless you're really high on Rozier, Hunter and Young, our guard play will be an issue.   That said, Boston could possibly move Jerebko into the starting lineup at SF and move Turner to SG starting next to your choice of Rozier or Hunter... Turner proved he could be an effective point-forward last season and when you have a star like Cousins, you don't necessarily need a traditional point guard.  I'd probably be happier if we somehow got the Kings to throw Ben McLemore into this deal... he's not getting minutes this year, but is shooting 42%/40%/86% ...    Anyways, 6-for-1 deals don't actually happen since a team can't take on that many roster spots... we'd get 5 throw-in players... maybe a couple can be added to the rotation. 

Honestly, I wouldn't underestimate the impact of Cousins and Brad Stevens...  I'm not sure the team would be significantly worse off.

It might make more sense if they did 6-for-1 for a guard.  For instance, James Harden.   That would leave you with the ability to play a lineup of:

PG - Harden
SG - Turner
SF - Jerebko
PF - Lee
C - Zeller

... With Olynyk, Mickey, Rozier, Hunter and Young off the bench...   How much worse is that team than the line-up that made the playoffs last year?

Harden >>> Smart + Thomas
Lee > Bass
Zeller = Zeller
Turner = Turner
Jerebko << Bradley

Yeah... Bottom line is that I think in most instances, it's not too far-fetched to say that Boston could trade 6-for-1... We have so much depth.   If we're talking about our 6 top players, it gets a little more iffy, but I'm gonna say that yes... we'd be fine in the short-term and probably much better long-term, because stars attract other stars.

What say you?

does Sac get special permission to have more than 15 players on their roster? if not, then i suspect there may be a snag to the trade.

nonetheless, you raise interesting discussion questions. how many players, and whom, could the celtics trade and still put a credible team on the court?

[Rosco917]

Danny Ainge should be fired immediately, if he would even think of doing this.  I like Cousin's game but he's not worth a team by any means.  To big of a head case.  Is he worth 2 first rounders not including Brooklyn's, David Lee, Kelly Olynyk, Terry Rozier, Yes but nothing more. 

Something like the above is OK. I protects us should he require mental health treatment.

I'm up for a trade for just about any major young asset... except for Cousins, he's totally unpredictable and unstable. Giving "the store" for him could be the single most disastrous trade in Celtic history.

[flybono]

The Draft as constituted besides being Fu#ked up, is to much of a gamble as we have seen time and time again.

IF Cousins becomes available I deal both Brooklyn #1's (16-18) and a combination of any player on the current roster. The only Pick I "try" to keep is the NETS "switch" picks in 17 with a possible shot at TMaker...

Cousins guarantee's you a few legit free agents will play in Boston. A Point and power forward and your back in the Game!

[LarBrd33]

Danny Ainge should be fired immediately, if he would even think of doing this. I like Cousin's game but he's not worth a team by any means.  To big of a head case.  Is he worth 2 first rounders not including Brooklyn's, David Lee, Kelly Olynyk, Terry Rozier, Yes but nothing more.

It's a thought experiment... there's no way Sac would take our 6 top players for Cousins. 

It's more just wondering how many guys we could lose and still put together a mediocre team.  There's parity all over this roster.  If you replaced our 6 top players with Cousins, we'd probably still be a .500 team. 

[CelticPride2016]

Clearly moving a package of Rozier, Hunter, Mickey, Young, Jerebko and Zeller wouldn't do a whole lot to hurt us.

This is no more absurd an idea than thinking Brooklyn could win 35 to 40 games or Embiid wasn't damaged goods.

There are not many great players worth trading for. The last three players are currently scrubs. I wouldn't downgrade those three rookies so nonchalantly.

But what about a package of our 6 best players?  That's more interesting. 

Say Boston traded our top 6 guys (Thomas, Smart, Crowder, Sully, Amir and Bradley) for 1 star... Cousins, for instance...  How much worse would our team be?

If you replace Ainge with Billy King, maybe he will make your imaginary trade to some lucky team. I didn't read the rest. Sorry.

[Greyman]

I am not sure that I fully agree with the justification that, because the team has no star, you can take any 6 players and not make that much difference. Without a star we are a level or two below where we want to be, this is true. The Celtics ranking so far probably reflects accurately the sort of team they are. I doubt that, with this squad, we will move more than one or two positions either way in the standings.

I think if you take IT, Sully and AB out of the team (with injury for arguments sake), then you struggle to hold onto your mid table position. While we have cover and Steven's ability to do a lot with little, those guys all do things that our cover would struggle to achieve. I know you could add Smart to my list but I think showing three players and contemplating the difference makes the point. We wouldn't be a playoff chance if you took those three out for an extended period.

The scenario of trading those and other players for a star like Cousins isn't value for me. The combined value of those players is greater than what you get back. While not stars they would not be as easy to replace as suggested. Established stars would rather be coming to Boston to play with IT and AB than Rozier I expect. This may change down the track but that remains to be seen.

I know I can be accused of missing the point here and I do agree that we do have a roster where, for the right trade to get a star, anyone is expendable. I also think there is value though in what has gone into developing this relatively young squad, getting players with the right attitude and playing the CBS system. I would rather add a star to that than blow it up and more or less start again with Cousins.

[LarBrd33]

Clearly moving a package of Rozier, Hunter, Mickey, Young, Jerebko and Zeller wouldn't do a whole lot to hurt us.

This is no more absurd an idea than thinking Brooklyn could win 35 to 40 games or Embiid wasn't damaged goods.

There are not many great players worth trading for. The last three players are currently scrubs. I wouldn't downgrade those three rookies so nonchalantly.

But what about a package of our 6 best players?  That's more interesting. 

Say Boston traded our top 6 guys (Thomas, Smart, Crowder, Sully, Amir and Bradley) for 1 star... Cousins, for instance...  How much worse would our team be?

If you replace Ainge with Billy King, maybe he will make your imaginary trade to some lucky team. I didn't read the rest. Sorry.

You didn't get it. 

It's not a trade idea.  It's a conversation about our roster parity and the importance of individual players on this team.  You could remove the top 6 players, swap them out with a legitimate star, and probably be fine, because there's 6 other mediocre players that can fill in.

[LarBrd33]

I think if you take IT, Sully and AB out of the team ...

That's the point.  Three guys who are arguably back-ups.  This roster is 16 deep in back-ups.  With the exception of some of the young guys like Rozier, Hunter, Mickey and Young, all the players on this team seem like they are decent basketball players.  None stand out.  What I'm suggesting is that there's so much parity on this roster that you could probably lose half of them in a freak zombie outbreak, and still putter along as a .500 team... especially if you swapped out half the roster for a legitimate star.