Interesting Larry Sanders tweet

[Eddie20]

L8 Show
‏@LarrySanders   
Which team do you believe will utilize my skills the best?

Celtics
Bucks
Warriors
Cavs
Knicks
Lakers
Dallas

[tarheelsxxiii]

And what do you make of this tweet, Fred?

[Bobshot]

Sanders, in shape and properly motivated, is the kind of guy the Celtics need up front, but I doubt Ainge is interested.

[kozlodoev]

Sounds really desperate to me.

[footey]

The fact he listed Celtics first is obviously (although probably unintentionally) flattering.

Now that we just signed Zeller, do we have any way to sign Sanders? Is there any other exception available? 

[kozlodoev]

The fact he listed Celtics first is obviously (although probably unintentionally) flattering.

Now that we just signed Zeller, do we have any way to sign Sanders? Is there any other exception available?

Do you think we would have signed Zeller if we had any interest in Sanders?

[Eddie20]

The fact he listed Celtics first is obviously (although probably unintentionally) flattering.

Now that we just signed Zeller, do we have any way to sign Sanders? Is there any other exception available?

Do you think we would have signed Zeller if we had any interest in Sanders?

Yes, but only if we trade Amir, which has been rumored.

[kozlodoev]

The fact he listed Celtics first is obviously (although probably unintentionally) flattering.

Now that we just signed Zeller, do we have any way to sign Sanders? Is there any other exception available?

Do you think we would have signed Zeller if we had any interest in Sanders?

Yes, but only if we trade Amir, which has been rumored.

And unless we trade him for Blake Griffin, which would be a big-for-big swap. Way too many ifs.

[BudweiserCeltic]

The fact he listed Celtics first is obviously (although probably unintentionally) flattering.

Now that we just signed Zeller, do we have any way to sign Sanders? Is there any other exception available?

Do you think we would have signed Zeller if we had any interest in Sanders?

Yes, keeping Zeller has intrinsic value regardless of finding players in his position. The question here is about whether we would've found better use for the $6.5M in cap space he was holding. Apparently, there wasn't.

If Larry Sanders would join us, it would be for the Room Exception or for the league minimum. Roster space will get tricky, so a trade would've to be made or let players go. But I'd hesitate to let go of a player in a multi-year contract for a one year deal (which I assume is what Sanders would be getting at this stage).

[kozlodoev]

The fact he listed Celtics first is obviously (although probably unintentionally) flattering.

Now that we just signed Zeller, do we have any way to sign Sanders? Is there any other exception available?

Do you think we would have signed Zeller if we had any interest in Sanders?

Yes, keeping Zeller has intrinsic value regardless of finding players in his position. The question here is about whether we would've found better use for the $6.5M in cap space he was holding. Apparently, there wasn't.

If Larry Sanders would join us, it would be for the Room Exception or for the league minimum. Roster space will get tricky, so a trade would've to be made or let players go. But I'd hesitate to let go of a player in a multi-year contract for a one year deal (which I assume is what Sanders would be getting at this stage).

It just doesn't seem like good roster management to keep seven bigs and let go of depth in other positions.

[BudweiserCeltic]

The fact he listed Celtics first is obviously (although probably unintentionally) flattering.

Now that we just signed Zeller, do we have any way to sign Sanders? Is there any other exception available?

Do you think we would have signed Zeller if we had any interest in Sanders?

Yes, keeping Zeller has intrinsic value regardless of finding players in his position. The question here is about whether we would've found better use for the $6.5M in cap space he was holding. Apparently, there wasn't.

If Larry Sanders would join us, it would be for the Room Exception or for the league minimum. Roster space will get tricky, so a trade would've to be made or let players go. But I'd hesitate to let go of a player in a multi-year contract for a one year deal (which I assume is what Sanders would be getting at this stage).

It just doesn't seem like good roster management to keep seven bigs and let go of depth in other positions.

Well, depends how much you count on Hunter, Young, Holland, Jackson as depth worthy players.

But certainly, a valid point. I just don't think it's more important than increasing our trading asset potential.

But it's manageable. We're 3 deep at the very least in all 1-3 positions, that's enough depth to let you tinkle with.

PG - Thomas, Smart, Rozier,
SG - Bradley, Smart, Green, Rozier
SF - Crowder, Brown, Jerebko, Green

And the bigs. Depth is not an issue all told.

[Donoghus]

"I'm getting closer to running out of money so its time to put some feelers out there"

[rondohondo]

"I'm getting closer to running out of money so its time to put some feelers out there"

If true the man is a moron . How could you run out of money that quick?

[Donoghus]

"I'm getting closer to running out of money so its time to put some feelers out there"

If true the man is a moron . How could you run out of money that quick?

See Mike Tyson, Antoine Walker.....

[kozlodoev]

The fact he listed Celtics first is obviously (although probably unintentionally) flattering.

Now that we just signed Zeller, do we have any way to sign Sanders? Is there any other exception available?

Do you think we would have signed Zeller if we had any interest in Sanders?

Yes, keeping Zeller has intrinsic value regardless of finding players in his position. The question here is about whether we would've found better use for the $6.5M in cap space he was holding. Apparently, there wasn't.

If Larry Sanders would join us, it would be for the Room Exception or for the league minimum. Roster space will get tricky, so a trade would've to be made or let players go. But I'd hesitate to let go of a player in a multi-year contract for a one year deal (which I assume is what Sanders would be getting at this stage).

It just doesn't seem like good roster management to keep seven bigs and let go of depth in other positions.

Well, depends how much you count on Hunter, Young, Holland, Jackson as depth worthy players.

But certainly, a valid point. I just don't think it's more important than increasing our trading asset potential.

But it's manageable. We're 3 deep at the very least in all 1-3 positions, that's enough depth to let you tinkle with.

PG - Thomas, Smart, Rozier,
SG - Bradley, Smart, Green, Rozier
SF - Crowder, Brown, Jerebko, Green

And the bigs. Depth is not an issue all told.

The depth chart looks nifty when you put the same body in multiple positions until you realize this also means that one injury can cut your depth in multiple positions, too.