The Maximum Return: A rough look at how Ainge could cash in all the chips (OLD)

[Dino Pitino]

Forget the unlikelihood of a four-way trade. This is just a hypothetical example to get a sense of how Ainge could cash in all the loose chips all at once to create an instant contender, combining three popular trade targets. The only Celtics contributors traded are Amir and Sully. All the picks are cashed in. By the end, we have a team that ideally could win everything this year, barring chemistry/injury/suspension issues. The only long-term risk is assuming Horford will re-sign.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=z6bo34j

Hawks give: Horford, Teague
Hawks get: Sullinger, Zeller, Lee, BRK '18 1st, DAL '16 1st

Jazz give: Hayward
Jazz get: Teague, James Young, BOS '18 1st, PHI '16 2nd, MIN '16 2nd

Clippers give: Griffin
Clippers get: Amir, Jerebko, BRK '16 1st, BOS '16 1st

Celtics give: Amir, Sullinger, Zeller, Jerebko, Lee, James Young, BRK '16 1st, BRK '18 1st, DAL '16 1st, BOS '16 1st, Boston '18 1st, PHI '16 2nd, Minny '16 2nd
Celtics get: Griffin, Horford, Hayward

Isaiah/Smart/Rozier
Hayward/Bradley/Hunter
Crowder/Turner
Griffin/Olynyk
Horford/Mickey

Voila, rebuilding done. Or is it?

Does that team have a good chance to beat GS, SA, CLE? Has the team been weakened too much or at all in any key area? If you were assured that Horford re-signs, that Griffin is healthy and unsuspended, that the team's chemistry is instantaneous, would you do it? Which of the other three teams says No the loudest? If the picks aren't allocated right, re-allocate them as you see fit. Subtract any excess if a team is getting too much value.

(Edited the picks to reflect that Teague is almost as valuable as Hayward and so Utah shouldn't require as much draft pick value as the other teams.)

(Forgot the Memphis '17-or-later 1st, d'oh. Too many picks! If there's still a team not getting enough, give it to them. If not, cool, we even get to keep a tradeable 1st. Plus all those other 2nds, lol.)

EDIT: For those of you checking this thread for the first time, on page 2 I outlined an even better scenario, what I see as the real Maximum Return.

To show that this particular hypo isn't unique, here's a version using Philly instead of Atlanta.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=jqwdkjk

Sixers give: Noel
Sixers get: BRK '18 1st, DAL '16 1st, PHI '16 2nd, Rozier, Hunter, Mickey

Jazz give: Hayward
Jazz get: MEM '17+ 1st, BOS '18 1st, BOS '20 1st, MIN '16 2nd, Turner, Young, Jerebko

Clippers give: Griffin
Clippers get: BRK '16 1st, BOS '16 1st, Sullinger, Zeller, Lee

Celtics give: BRK '16 1st, BRK '18 1st, DAL '16 1st, BOS '16 1st, BOS '18 1st, BOS '20 1st, MEM '17+ 1st, PHI '16 2nd, MIN '16 2nd,  Sullinger, Turner, Zeller, Jerebko, Lee, Hunter, Rozier, Mickey, Young
Celtics get: Griffin, Hayward, Noel

Isaiah/Smart
Hayward/Bradley
Crowder
Griffin/Amir
Noel/Olynyk

Here, the Celtics even get to hold onto Amir, haha. Just like the original one where LA would probably want to involve a third team to convert pick value into player value, here Utah would want the same re: Hayward since they aren't getting Teague now.

So, is each team getting enough value?
I'm now worried Utah isn't.

This hypo four-way better captures the amazing asset situation, I think, since it truly uses all of the Celtics' best tradeable assets, all while sacrificing almost zero usefulness from the current roster. There'd almost be too much usefulness, lol. Also the big difference is that there is now much less long-term risk. None of the nine players on the C's expire. The risk of Horford leaving or declining is instead replaced by Noel's upside and hometown pull.

Hayward gets to play for Stevens, Noel gets to play in Boston, Doc gets to deal his problematic star to a friendly franchise. Celtics improve on their already elite defense, maintain their elite depth and actually improve the quality of it, turn from subpar to above average on the glass, and have one of the league's better offenses led by three 20+ ppg scorers.

It's no longer an "HGH" return, but it's even more of the equivalent of HGH for the roster. Whoosh, from the middle class to title contention, instant. Moreover, the average age of the team would stay about the same! I think that lineup and bench could beat the Warriors, Spurs, and Cavs.

And we'd still have a '17 1st with the right to swap with Brooklyn, i.e., a likely top 5-10 pick a year and a half from now. And, amazingly, Ainge would then still have about 9 million in cap space this summer, which could become 21 million if he chooses to move Amir for picks or cut him, so...enough to sign a near-max free agent. The full max (i.e., Durant) if he also then moved one of Smart/Bradley for picks. A starting lineup of Isaiah, Hayward, Durant, Griffin, and Noel would be possible, with Smart-or-Bradley, Crowder, and Olynyk off the bench...

Isaiah/Smart-or-Bradley
Hayward
Durant/Crowder
Griffin
Noel/Olynyk

...if you keep that core of eight players together, plus a top 5-10 pick in 2017, you might make and win the Finals every year the rest of the decade. That might be the The Maximum that Ainge could convert this team's total assets into, over the space of the next six months, using only targets plausibly available right now.

The possibilities are unreal, though.

[Ainge-gasm]

[GratefulCs]

TP for the well thouht out deal



I'd love it if it happened

[Dino Pitino]

If this hypo accomplishes anything, regardless of how one values the individual players or trade components, I hope it'd show that Ainge has so much excess ammunition at his disposal plus enough useful contracts as placeholders that, if the parts were available and he really wanted to, he could acquire an entire new Big Three to add to what is already our most talented (small ball) lineup of Isaiah, Bradley, Smart, Crowder, Olynyk. I think that's amazing. Ainge is a genius. So lucky to have him as GM.

[Dino Pitino]

As a nickname for this kind of option -- considering that the return would be Horford, Griffin, Hayward -- how about The HGH Option, as in, going all-in to suddenly complete the rebuilding process as if injecting the roster with a performance enhancing drug.

[Sketch5]

Forget the unlikelihood of a four-way trade. This is just a hypothetical example to get a sense of how Ainge could cash in all the loose chips all at once to create an instant contender, combining three popular trade targets. The only Celtics contributors traded are Amir and Sully. All the picks are cashed in. By the end, we have a team that ideally could win everything this year, barring chemistry/injury/suspension issues. The only long-term risk is assuming Horford will re-sign.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=z6bo34j

Hawks give: Horford, Teague
Hawks get: Sullinger, Zeller, Lee, BRK '18 1st, BOS '18 1st

Jazz give: Hayward
Jazz get: Teague, James Young, DAL '16 1st, BOS '16 1st

Clippers give: Griffin
Clippers get: Amir, Jerebko, BRK '16 1st, BRK '17 swap, PHI '16 2nd, MIN '16 2nd

Celtics give: Amir, Sullinger, Zeller, Jerebko, Lee, James Young, BRK '16 1st, BRK '17 swap, BRK '18 1st, DAL '16 1st, BOS '16 1st, Boston '18 1st, PHI '16 2nd, Minny '16 2nd
Celtics get: Griffin, Horford, Hayward

Isaiah/Smart
Hayward/Bradley
Crowder/Turner
Griffin/Olynyk
Horford

Voila, rebuilding done. Or is it?

Does that team have a good chance to beat GS, SA, CLE? Has the team been weakened too much or at all in any key area? If you were assured that Horford re-signs, that Griffin is healthy and unsuspended, that the team's chemistry is instantaneous, would you do it? Which of the other three teams says No the loudest? If the picks aren't allocated right, re-allocate them as you see fit. Subtract any excess if a team is getting too much value.

I was thinking the same thing using Teague to get Hayward, nice work getting Griffin in there. Only problem is, now it's late and my eyes are nrear shut, but it looks like all our first rounder are spent.

We have to keep either one this year and one in 2018, or the 2017. I don't remember if we have an other first rounder next year, we could DA keeps pulling them from where ever. 

[Dino Pitino]

Forget the unlikelihood of a four-way trade. This is just a hypothetical example to get a sense of how Ainge could cash in all the loose chips all at once to create an instant contender, combining three popular trade targets. The only Celtics contributors traded are Amir and Sully. All the picks are cashed in. By the end, we have a team that ideally could win everything this year, barring chemistry/injury/suspension issues. The only long-term risk is assuming Horford will re-sign.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=z6bo34j

Hawks give: Horford, Teague
Hawks get: Sullinger, Zeller, Lee, BRK '18 1st, BOS '18 1st

Jazz give: Hayward
Jazz get: Teague, James Young, DAL '16 1st, BOS '16 1st

Clippers give: Griffin
Clippers get: Amir, Jerebko, BRK '16 1st, BRK '17 swap, PHI '16 2nd, MIN '16 2nd

Celtics give: Amir, Sullinger, Zeller, Jerebko, Lee, James Young, BRK '16 1st, BRK '17 swap, BRK '18 1st, DAL '16 1st, BOS '16 1st, Boston '18 1st, PHI '16 2nd, Minny '16 2nd
Celtics get: Griffin, Horford, Hayward

Isaiah/Smart
Hayward/Bradley
Crowder/Turner
Griffin/Olynyk
Horford

Voila, rebuilding done. Or is it?

Does that team have a good chance to beat GS, SA, CLE? Has the team been weakened too much or at all in any key area? If you were assured that Horford re-signs, that Griffin is healthy and unsuspended, that the team's chemistry is instantaneous, would you do it? Which of the other three teams says No the loudest? If the picks aren't allocated right, re-allocate them as you see fit. Subtract any excess if a team is getting too much value.

I was thinking the same thing using Teague to get Hayward, nice work getting Griffin in there. Only problem is, now it's late and my eyes are nrear shut, but it looks like all our first rounder are spent.

We have to keep either one this year and one in 2018, or the 2017. I don't remember if we have an other first rounder next year, we could DA keeps pulling them from where ever. 

As far as I can tell we'd still be left with at least one 1st in '17 and '19, our own, so that should satisfy the Stepien Rule, seeing how we definitely did not leave ourselves without a pick this past year. We are free to trade our own '16 and '18 1sts. EDIT: Nope, I'm wrong, you're right. The swap would constitute us losing our '17 1st. Okay, I'll remove that and shuffle the picks a little in the OP. EDIT2: Took out the '17 swap, lessened what Utah gets for picks because Teague by himself is not that far off in value from Hayward, switched the picks a little for ATL and LAC, too.

[Quetzalcoatl]

We keep the Memphis pick too and a bunch of seconds

[Dino Pitino]

We keep the Memphis pick too and a bunch of seconds

Nice, lol. That was an oversight on my part. If need be, it can be added into the mix if one of the teams isn't getting back enough. But yeah, we could even hold onto that one pick for the future. Plus all the other 2nds.

[trickybilly]

We keep the Memphis pick too and a bunch of seconds

Ahh gonma be great sipping iced tea and watching that memphis pick get more and more valuable while memphis inevitably get worse and worse..

[LGC88]

TP Dino.
Nice example to show how close Celtics are ready to contention.
Not to mention we can add free agent(s) as well in order to keep some picks.
I like the way you manage to keep our core.

[Ilikesports17]

Seems like Atlanta gets ripped off a bit

[Clench123]

I like it

[Dino Pitino]

Seems like Atlanta gets ripped off a bit

Okay, let's give them Memphis 1st, just to be sure? Or would they still need more? Horford is a free agent. That depresses his value. That BRK '18 1st covers Teague's value plus some, no? If not, could the BRK '16 1st be given to ATL instead, and LAC be the one who gets the BRK '18 1st and the added Memphis 1st?

Remember that Sullinger and Zeller are actually useful players themselves, they add some value, too. Hey, maybe they would like Rozier and/or Hunter and/or Mickey, too. Ainge, man: Three more completely tradeable assets we haven't even mentioned. The 16th, 28th, and 33rd picks from the very last draft. Incredible. After all that, there'd still be a trio of projects to develop on the bench.

[ssspence]

Nice effort. Deal has a few problems. The biggest? No way Doc does that deal. If he ever traded Blake, not only would he demand more, but he wants players -- especially wings -- not picks. Doc won't be around for a rebuild. Unless you put Bradley, Crowder, or both in, you're not getting Griffin.

Now, you could try sending Hayward there as part of netting Griffin and Horford. Given this is a fantasy trade to begin with, I think you should give that a shot.

[Dino Pitino]

Nice effort. Deal has a few problems. The biggest? No way Doc does that deal. If he ever traded Blake, not only would he demand more, but he wants players -- especially wings -- not picks. Doc won't be around for a rebuild. Unless you put Bradley, Crowder, or both in, you're not getting Griffin.

Good point.

In place of giving up another Celtic, though, imagine that there's a fifth team ready to facilitate the BOS-LAC angle, a team that can give the Clippers a Bradley/Crowder-level player if the non-Nets 1st (plus a couple unlisted 2nds) is routed to them.

It's cool how that was the first legit obstacle brought up, when I started the thread less to create a trade that can actually happen in the world than to see what the maximum of what all the assets could get us might look like, if cashed in all at once. The Clippers wouldn't be happy with the exact type of the return, would want less pick value and more player value, but the value itself is enough, right?