Author Topic: Jackie Macmullan hinting that LaMarcus Aldridge could be traded  (Read 15854 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Jackie Macmullan hinting that LaMarcus Aldridge could be traded
« Reply #105 on: October 21, 2016, 11:04:17 AM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30937
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
i have no idea why anyone would want a 31 year old at this point.  this team needs to look to the future with brown and adding two more brooklyn picks.  that's the ideal core going forward.   the current group isn't the team thats going to win stuff.
Because Horford is by far Boston's best player.  Boston didn't sign Horford to build around the Brooklyn picks.


IT is also our second best player and turns 28 this year. Bradley and Crowder (our 3rd and 4th best players) are right behind them in age. This team is built to win in the next few years. Not really sure how fans would follow this team and think otherwise...

If the Celtics play this thing right and they can have their cake and eat it too.   Built to win now, built to win 3 years from now, built to win a decade from now. 

Celtics certainly have the chips to do it.  It's all about using them right.
Boston is only built to win now if it uses the assets that would be used to be built for a decade from now.

I am not really getting this decade stuff. In a decade IT, Horford and Amir will all be out of the league. Smart and Bradley and KO will definitely be on the back end of their career. Even Brown would be 30 and Rosier would 32. Is the decade just meant for hyperbole? Pointless negativity?

Well, lets go back.

In 3-4 years, Isaiah and Al are gone from this team. Avery and Jae might be the veterans on the team, or maybe theyre gone too. The point here, though, is that Smart, Rozier, Brown, 17 Nets pick, etc., have all grown and developed in a winning environment here in Boston (thanks to the earlier contributions of Isaiah and Al and Jae and Bradley, etc). When the time comes, the young core will be the ones to be granted the keys to the franchise. But by then, theyre also at or near their primes. Theyre gonna be winning immediately. The franchise will likely not even have a drop off, and that leads to at least 5 years of relevance and "win now" situation, probably even more.

So basically, like Donoghus said, we can have our cake now, and eat it too in 5 years, and for the next 5 years after that.

We can win for literally 10 straight years if we draft well and manage contracts correctly. The negativity by Moranis is a little pointless, if you ask me. It wont take a decade for the young guys to become the faces of the franchise. It'll take 3, maybe 4 years.

Thank you for getting what I was talking about.  Pretty much spot on. 

Man I thought my point was obvious.  Boston right now is not a true contender, the only way for Boston to become one is to trade assets that would form the basis for a future contender i.e. Brown, BKN 17, BKN 18 (maybe Smart, Rozier).  Thus, my point was either Boston can be a true contender now by trading its assets or it can be a middle of the road type playoff team now and hope the young guys hit forming a future contender.  Given Boston signed Horford, I would absolutely expect Boston to be looking to acquire players that fit more in line with Horford's timeline and thus would be surprised if Boston doesn't trade at least one of the future BKN picks if not both of them (it might not be until this summer).

Not a "true contender" yet but trending in that direction.  Also, "win now" doesn't always equate to "true contender" but its one step towards getting there.

I don't think blowing assets on LMA is the direction to go, either.  Does adding him to this bunch (and subtracting out whatever it cost in assets) put this team over the top to overtaking CLE in the conference?  I don't think so.

They can certainly add guys to the Horford timeline but I don't think LMA is that guy.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Jackie Macmullan hinting that LaMarcus Aldridge could be traded
« Reply #106 on: October 21, 2016, 11:47:47 AM »

Offline sdceltsfan

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 347
  • Tommy Points: 45
I will agree that LMA is not the ideal player that the Celtics need. LMA of 3 years ago, yes, but he was also untouchable in a trade.

However, the team clearly has a logjam of talent mostly stranded on the end of the bench. With tons of high draft picks, and overseas stashes already in the chamber, is there any other player that will come along superior to LMA's caliber, that we could do a consolidation trade for?

I think Amir, Rozier, Jerbeko, and any non BKN 1st rounder would be a considerable offer.

They get 75 cents on the dollar replacement (for almost half the price) in Amir. Rozier would be a great drive and dish type of PG to at least experiment with Leonard. He can do much of what Parker used to do, but obviously Parker has the superior range/accuracy, and it's not even close. Jerbeko is no slouch, and seems like a Popovich type of role-player off the bench. The 1st allows them an additional shot at beginning to cultivate a youth movement.

All of my statements are predicated on the idea that the Spurs organization truly has no interest in continuing with LMA through a 3-year deal.

18 and 8 as a PF/C, and I believe he could play Center alongside Horford. The offensive side is an obvious upgrade, and would be a very tough combo to guard for any current NBA roster. Defensively, I THINK Amir/Horford has a little bit of edge, but I feel like that idea could be proven wrong easily. LMA has a lot of length, and wouldn't have a problem guarding most centers in the league.


Re: Jackie Macmullan hinting that LaMarcus Aldridge could be traded
« Reply #107 on: October 21, 2016, 12:29:00 PM »

Online Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11226
  • Tommy Points: 860
I think Horford and Aldridge are comparable players in terms of value.  The difference is we signed Horford (no outgoing assets except cash) and we would have to compete on the trade market for Aldridge and no doubt give up assets.  I was not thrilled with Horford (I see it as a nice extra base hit but not a home run) but it is a good deal because we keep all our assets.  I would definitely not like to see us give too much away for Aldridge.  Of course it is an "it depends" question because we don't know the deal but I think it is fair to assume we would give up quite a bit.

In terms of Horford, he is a good asset.  I like the deal in that respect but I do not expect we can "build around" him.  I think it is possible we trade him at some point for a younger player or players who then fit around talent that will be emerging like Brown or someone we get with the Brooklyn picks.  Horford is not going to be a star. Brown, the picks, maybe even Rozier or one of our stashes could become stars.

How about a straight up trade of Horford for Aldridge (hypothetically of course).  Who wins  that trade?  I think Aldridge is probably a tick better.  Aldridge is less money but Horford is locked up one more year.  They will probably get more for Aldridge than we would get for Horford.

Re: Jackie Macmullan hinting that LaMarcus Aldridge could be traded
« Reply #108 on: October 21, 2016, 01:01:35 PM »

Offline D Dub

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3123
  • Tommy Points: 251
I'd stay far far away from Lamarcus.

First he can't get along on a competitive team with Lillard.   

Then he can't get along on the Spurs, the model franchise of the league?

no thanks.


Re: Jackie Macmullan hinting that LaMarcus Aldridge could be traded
« Reply #109 on: October 21, 2016, 01:10:21 PM »

Offline D Dub

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3123
  • Tommy Points: 251
I will agree that LMA is not the ideal player that the Celtics need. LMA of 3 years ago, yes, but he was also untouchable in a trade.

However, the team clearly has a logjam of talent mostly stranded on the end of the bench. With tons of high draft picks, and overseas stashes already in the chamber, is there any other player that will come along superior to LMA's caliber, that we could do a consolidation trade for?

I think Amir, Rozier, Jerbeko, and any non BKN 1st rounder would be a considerable offer.

They get 75 cents on the dollar replacement (for almost half the price) in Amir. Rozier would be a great drive and dish type of PG to at least experiment with Leonard. He can do much of what Parker used to do, but obviously Parker has the superior range/accuracy, and it's not even close. Jerbeko is no slouch, and seems like a Popovich type of role-player off the bench. The 1st allows them an additional shot at beginning to cultivate a youth movement.

All of my statements are predicated on the idea that the Spurs organization truly has no interest in continuing with LMA through a 3-year deal.

18 and 8 as a PF/C, and I believe he could play Center alongside Horford. The offensive side is an obvious upgrade, and would be a very tough combo to guard for any current NBA roster. Defensively, I THINK Amir/Horford has a little bit of edge, but I feel like that idea could be proven wrong easily. LMA has a lot of length, and wouldn't have a problem guarding most centers in the league.

The problem is that LMA doesn't like playing center.  Part of Pops pitch was that he'd play mostly 4 alongside Duncan.  Then they bring in Pao to play five, and sounds even that isn't appeasing him.

He needs to realize that his ego isn't his amigo.  What he's developed into is an iso-specialist power forward who can't switch down to 3's, and doesn't want to bang with 5's.  Problem is, he's lost a step now that he's older and doesn't do a great job handling perimeter 4's either.

By next season his game will be a dinosaur, and all but extinct before his contract is out.     

Re: Jackie Macmullan hinting that LaMarcus Aldridge could be traded
« Reply #110 on: October 25, 2016, 08:24:00 AM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
i have no idea why anyone would want a 31 year old at this point.  this team needs to look to the future with brown and adding two more brooklyn picks.  that's the ideal core going forward.   the current group isn't the team thats going to win stuff.
Because Horford is by far Boston's best player.  Boston didn't sign Horford to build around the Brooklyn picks.


IT is also our second best player and turns 28 this year. Bradley and Crowder (our 3rd and 4th best players) are right behind them in age. This team is built to win in the next few years. Not really sure how fans would follow this team and think otherwise...

If the Celtics play this thing right and they can have their cake and eat it too.   Built to win now, built to win 3 years from now, built to win a decade from now. 

Celtics certainly have the chips to do it.  It's all about using them right.
Boston is only built to win now if it uses the assets that would be used to be built for a decade from now.

I am not really getting this decade stuff. In a decade IT, Horford and Amir will all be out of the league. Smart and Bradley and KO will definitely be on the back end of their career. Even Brown would be 30 and Rosier would 32. Is the decade just meant for hyperbole? Pointless negativity?

Well, lets go back.

In 3-4 years, Isaiah and Al are gone from this team. Avery and Jae might be the veterans on the team, or maybe theyre gone too. The point here, though, is that Smart, Rozier, Brown, 17 Nets pick, etc., have all grown and developed in a winning environment here in Boston (thanks to the earlier contributions of Isaiah and Al and Jae and Bradley, etc). When the time comes, the young core will be the ones to be granted the keys to the franchise. But by then, theyre also at or near their primes. Theyre gonna be winning immediately. The franchise will likely not even have a drop off, and that leads to at least 5 years of relevance and "win now" situation, probably even more.

So basically, like Donoghus said, we can have our cake now, and eat it too in 5 years, and for the next 5 years after that.

We can win for literally 10 straight years if we draft well and manage contracts correctly. The negativity by Moranis is a little pointless, if you ask me. It wont take a decade for the young guys to become the faces of the franchise. It'll take 3, maybe 4 years.

Thank you for getting what I was talking about.  Pretty much spot on. 

Man I thought my point was obvious.  Boston right now is not a true contender, the only way for Boston to become one is to trade assets that would form the basis for a future contender i.e. Brown, BKN 17, BKN 18 (maybe Smart, Rozier).  Thus, my point was either Boston can be a true contender now by trading its assets or it can be a middle of the road type playoff team now and hope the young guys hit forming a future contender.  Given Boston signed Horford, I would absolutely expect Boston to be looking to acquire players that fit more in line with Horford's timeline and thus would be surprised if Boston doesn't trade at least one of the future BKN picks if not both of them (it might not be until this summer).

Not a "true contender" yet but trending in that direction.  Also, "win now" doesn't always equate to "true contender" but its one step towards getting there.

I don't think blowing assets on LMA is the direction to go, either.  Does adding him to this bunch (and subtracting out whatever it cost in assets) put this team over the top to overtaking CLE in the conference?  I don't think so.

They can certainly add guys to the Horford timeline but I don't think LMA is that guy.
I always equate built to win now as an equivalent to a true contender.  And there was no point in Boston signing Horford if it wasn't going to go for a title.  It sets the team back long term, if it makes no other significant moves because Boston isn't winning a title with this team and having Horford around significantly hurts the long term development of the young guys and future draft picks.  That said, I like the Horford signing much like I liked the Ray Allen trade, because it indicated a clear direction the team was moving (rather than the status quo).  I fully expect Boston to trade at least one of the Brooklyn picks (though it may not happen till this summer) and go for a championship run. 

I certainly am not sold on LMA being the guy to acquire, but he would fully mesh with Horford's timeline and they would form a very nice big man combination, that while maybe not a true contender, certainly would be the clear #2 team in the East and would have some matchup advantages against the Cavs.  I'm also not sure someone better than LMA would become available that Boston could actually acquire.  Obviously it would depend on just what the asking price is (like I'm not giving up both Brooklyn picks), but if it was 2018 BKN, Amir, and Rozier (or something like that) I'd do that without question. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Jackie Macmullan hinting that LaMarcus Aldridge could be traded
« Reply #111 on: October 25, 2016, 09:16:53 AM »

Offline wayupnorth

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1109
  • Tommy Points: 141
i have no idea why anyone would want a 31 year old at this point.  this team needs to look to the future with brown and adding two more brooklyn picks.  that's the ideal core going forward.   the current group isn't the team thats going to win stuff.
Because Horford is by far Boston's best player.  Boston didn't sign Horford to build around the Brooklyn picks.


IT is also our second best player and turns 28 this year. Bradley and Crowder (our 3rd and 4th best players) are right behind them in age. This team is built to win in the next few years. Not really sure how fans would follow this team and think otherwise...

If the Celtics play this thing right and they can have their cake and eat it too.   Built to win now, built to win 3 years from now, built to win a decade from now. 

Celtics certainly have the chips to do it.  It's all about using them right.
Boston is only built to win now if it uses the assets that would be used to be built for a decade from now.

I am not really getting this decade stuff. In a decade IT, Horford and Amir will all be out of the league. Smart and Bradley and KO will definitely be on the back end of their career. Even Brown would be 30 and Rosier would 32. Is the decade just meant for hyperbole? Pointless negativity?

Well, lets go back.

In 3-4 years, Isaiah and Al are gone from this team. Avery and Jae might be the veterans on the team, or maybe theyre gone too. The point here, though, is that Smart, Rozier, Brown, 17 Nets pick, etc., have all grown and developed in a winning environment here in Boston (thanks to the earlier contributions of Isaiah and Al and Jae and Bradley, etc). When the time comes, the young core will be the ones to be granted the keys to the franchise. But by then, theyre also at or near their primes. Theyre gonna be winning immediately. The franchise will likely not even have a drop off, and that leads to at least 5 years of relevance and "win now" situation, probably even more.

So basically, like Donoghus said, we can have our cake now, and eat it too in 5 years, and for the next 5 years after that.

We can win for literally 10 straight years if we draft well and manage contracts correctly. The negativity by Moranis is a little pointless, if you ask me. It wont take a decade for the young guys to become the faces of the franchise. It'll take 3, maybe 4 years.

Thank you for getting what I was talking about.  Pretty much spot on. 

Man I thought my point was obvious.  Boston right now is not a true contender, the only way for Boston to become one is to trade assets that would form the basis for a future contender i.e. Brown, BKN 17, BKN 18 (maybe Smart, Rozier).  Thus, my point was either Boston can be a true contender now by trading its assets or it can be a middle of the road type playoff team now and hope the young guys hit forming a future contender.  Given Boston signed Horford, I would absolutely expect Boston to be looking to acquire players that fit more in line with Horford's timeline and thus would be surprised if Boston doesn't trade at least one of the future BKN picks if not both of them (it might not be until this summer).

Not a "true contender" yet but trending in that direction.  Also, "win now" doesn't always equate to "true contender" but its one step towards getting there.

I don't think blowing assets on LMA is the direction to go, either.  Does adding him to this bunch (and subtracting out whatever it cost in assets) put this team over the top to overtaking CLE in the conference?  I don't think so.

They can certainly add guys to the Horford timeline but I don't think LMA is that guy.
I always equate built to win now as an equivalent to a true contender.  And there was no point in Boston signing Horford if it wasn't going to go for a title.  It sets the team back long term, if it makes no other significant moves because Boston isn't winning a title with this team and having Horford around significantly hurts the long term development of the young guys and future draft picks.  That said, I like the Horford signing much like I liked the Ray Allen trade, because it indicated a clear direction the team was moving (rather than the status quo).  I fully expect Boston to trade at least one of the Brooklyn picks (though it may not happen till this summer) and go for a championship run. 

I certainly am not sold on LMA being the guy to acquire, but he would fully mesh with Horford's timeline and they would form a very nice big man combination, that while maybe not a true contender, certainly would be the clear #2 team in the East and would have some matchup advantages against the Cavs.  I'm also not sure someone better than LMA would become available that Boston could actually acquire.  Obviously it would depend on just what the asking price is (like I'm not giving up both Brooklyn picks), but if it was 2018 BKN, Amir, and Rozier (or something like that) I'd do that without question.

What?

Re: Jackie Macmullan hinting that LaMarcus Aldridge could be traded
« Reply #112 on: October 25, 2016, 09:20:59 AM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6846
  • Tommy Points: 448
Playing with a really good big man does not hurt the development of your young guards.... it gives them someone they can actually play with and play off of.  It lets them actually run pick and roll.  That is crazy talk.
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: Jackie Macmullan hinting that LaMarcus Aldridge could be traded
« Reply #113 on: October 25, 2016, 09:52:20 AM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
i have no idea why anyone would want a 31 year old at this point.  this team needs to look to the future with brown and adding two more brooklyn picks.  that's the ideal core going forward.   the current group isn't the team thats going to win stuff.
Because Horford is by far Boston's best player.  Boston didn't sign Horford to build around the Brooklyn picks.


IT is also our second best player and turns 28 this year. Bradley and Crowder (our 3rd and 4th best players) are right behind them in age. This team is built to win in the next few years. Not really sure how fans would follow this team and think otherwise...

If the Celtics play this thing right and they can have their cake and eat it too.   Built to win now, built to win 3 years from now, built to win a decade from now. 

Celtics certainly have the chips to do it.  It's all about using them right.
Boston is only built to win now if it uses the assets that would be used to be built for a decade from now.

I am not really getting this decade stuff. In a decade IT, Horford and Amir will all be out of the league. Smart and Bradley and KO will definitely be on the back end of their career. Even Brown would be 30 and Rosier would 32. Is the decade just meant for hyperbole? Pointless negativity?

Well, lets go back.

In 3-4 years, Isaiah and Al are gone from this team. Avery and Jae might be the veterans on the team, or maybe theyre gone too. The point here, though, is that Smart, Rozier, Brown, 17 Nets pick, etc., have all grown and developed in a winning environment here in Boston (thanks to the earlier contributions of Isaiah and Al and Jae and Bradley, etc). When the time comes, the young core will be the ones to be granted the keys to the franchise. But by then, theyre also at or near their primes. Theyre gonna be winning immediately. The franchise will likely not even have a drop off, and that leads to at least 5 years of relevance and "win now" situation, probably even more.

So basically, like Donoghus said, we can have our cake now, and eat it too in 5 years, and for the next 5 years after that.

We can win for literally 10 straight years if we draft well and manage contracts correctly. The negativity by Moranis is a little pointless, if you ask me. It wont take a decade for the young guys to become the faces of the franchise. It'll take 3, maybe 4 years.

Thank you for getting what I was talking about.  Pretty much spot on. 

Man I thought my point was obvious.  Boston right now is not a true contender, the only way for Boston to become one is to trade assets that would form the basis for a future contender i.e. Brown, BKN 17, BKN 18 (maybe Smart, Rozier).  Thus, my point was either Boston can be a true contender now by trading its assets or it can be a middle of the road type playoff team now and hope the young guys hit forming a future contender.  Given Boston signed Horford, I would absolutely expect Boston to be looking to acquire players that fit more in line with Horford's timeline and thus would be surprised if Boston doesn't trade at least one of the future BKN picks if not both of them (it might not be until this summer).

Not a "true contender" yet but trending in that direction.  Also, "win now" doesn't always equate to "true contender" but its one step towards getting there.

I don't think blowing assets on LMA is the direction to go, either.  Does adding him to this bunch (and subtracting out whatever it cost in assets) put this team over the top to overtaking CLE in the conference?  I don't think so.

They can certainly add guys to the Horford timeline but I don't think LMA is that guy.
I always equate built to win now as an equivalent to a true contender.  And there was no point in Boston signing Horford if it wasn't going to go for a title.  It sets the team back long term, if it makes no other significant moves because Boston isn't winning a title with this team and having Horford around significantly hurts the long term development of the young guys and future draft picks.  That said, I like the Horford signing much like I liked the Ray Allen trade, because it indicated a clear direction the team was moving (rather than the status quo).  I fully expect Boston to trade at least one of the Brooklyn picks (though it may not happen till this summer) and go for a championship run. 

I certainly am not sold on LMA being the guy to acquire, but he would fully mesh with Horford's timeline and they would form a very nice big man combination, that while maybe not a true contender, certainly would be the clear #2 team in the East and would have some matchup advantages against the Cavs.  I'm also not sure someone better than LMA would become available that Boston could actually acquire.  Obviously it would depend on just what the asking price is (like I'm not giving up both Brooklyn picks), but if it was 2018 BKN, Amir, and Rozier (or something like that) I'd do that without question.

What?
Horford is taking minutes from young players and having Horford means Boston is going to win more games and thus have worse draft picks (doesn't matter this year as we have the swap, but going forward absolutely). 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Jackie Macmullan hinting that LaMarcus Aldridge could be traded
« Reply #114 on: October 25, 2016, 10:30:02 AM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
i have no idea why anyone would want a 31 year old at this point.  this team needs to look to the future with brown and adding two more brooklyn picks.  that's the ideal core going forward.   the current group isn't the team thats going to win stuff.
Because Horford is by far Boston's best player.  Boston didn't sign Horford to build around the Brooklyn picks.


IT is also our second best player and turns 28 this year. Bradley and Crowder (our 3rd and 4th best players) are right behind them in age. This team is built to win in the next few years. Not really sure how fans would follow this team and think otherwise...

If the Celtics play this thing right and they can have their cake and eat it too.   Built to win now, built to win 3 years from now, built to win a decade from now. 

Celtics certainly have the chips to do it.  It's all about using them right.
Boston is only built to win now if it uses the assets that would be used to be built for a decade from now.

I am not really getting this decade stuff. In a decade IT, Horford and Amir will all be out of the league. Smart and Bradley and KO will definitely be on the back end of their career. Even Brown would be 30 and Rosier would 32. Is the decade just meant for hyperbole? Pointless negativity?

Well, lets go back.

In 3-4 years, Isaiah and Al are gone from this team. Avery and Jae might be the veterans on the team, or maybe theyre gone too. The point here, though, is that Smart, Rozier, Brown, 17 Nets pick, etc., have all grown and developed in a winning environment here in Boston (thanks to the earlier contributions of Isaiah and Al and Jae and Bradley, etc). When the time comes, the young core will be the ones to be granted the keys to the franchise. But by then, theyre also at or near their primes. Theyre gonna be winning immediately. The franchise will likely not even have a drop off, and that leads to at least 5 years of relevance and "win now" situation, probably even more.

So basically, like Donoghus said, we can have our cake now, and eat it too in 5 years, and for the next 5 years after that.

We can win for literally 10 straight years if we draft well and manage contracts correctly. The negativity by Moranis is a little pointless, if you ask me. It wont take a decade for the young guys to become the faces of the franchise. It'll take 3, maybe 4 years.

Thank you for getting what I was talking about.  Pretty much spot on. 

Man I thought my point was obvious.  Boston right now is not a true contender, the only way for Boston to become one is to trade assets that would form the basis for a future contender i.e. Brown, BKN 17, BKN 18 (maybe Smart, Rozier).  Thus, my point was either Boston can be a true contender now by trading its assets or it can be a middle of the road type playoff team now and hope the young guys hit forming a future contender.  Given Boston signed Horford, I would absolutely expect Boston to be looking to acquire players that fit more in line with Horford's timeline and thus would be surprised if Boston doesn't trade at least one of the future BKN picks if not both of them (it might not be until this summer).

Not a "true contender" yet but trending in that direction.  Also, "win now" doesn't always equate to "true contender" but its one step towards getting there.

I don't think blowing assets on LMA is the direction to go, either.  Does adding him to this bunch (and subtracting out whatever it cost in assets) put this team over the top to overtaking CLE in the conference?  I don't think so.

They can certainly add guys to the Horford timeline but I don't think LMA is that guy.
I always equate built to win now as an equivalent to a true contender.  And there was no point in Boston signing Horford if it wasn't going to go for a title.  It sets the team back long term, if it makes no other significant moves because Boston isn't winning a title with this team and having Horford around significantly hurts the long term development of the young guys and future draft picks.  That said, I like the Horford signing much like I liked the Ray Allen trade, because it indicated a clear direction the team was moving (rather than the status quo).  I fully expect Boston to trade at least one of the Brooklyn picks (though it may not happen till this summer) and go for a championship run. 

I certainly am not sold on LMA being the guy to acquire, but he would fully mesh with Horford's timeline and they would form a very nice big man combination, that while maybe not a true contender, certainly would be the clear #2 team in the East and would have some matchup advantages against the Cavs.  I'm also not sure someone better than LMA would become available that Boston could actually acquire.  Obviously it would depend on just what the asking price is (like I'm not giving up both Brooklyn picks), but if it was 2018 BKN, Amir, and Rozier (or something like that) I'd do that without question.

What?
Horford is taking minutes from young players and having Horford means Boston is going to win more games and thus have worse draft picks (doesn't matter this year as we have the swap, but going forward absolutely).

As of right now, Boston doesn't have enough high quality young bigs to lose any minutes to Horford.  KO when healthy is our main big off the bench.  Should we really be worried that Zeller and Mickey aren't getting 20 minutes a night?

And with the swap this season and the Nets pick next season, we'll be halfway through Horford's contract before we have to worry about draft picks.

Add in Horford's making us more attractive for free agents and unhappy stars wanting a trade and there is no downside to signing him.

Mike

Re: Jackie Macmullan hinting that LaMarcus Aldridge could be traded
« Reply #115 on: October 25, 2016, 10:32:13 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Horford is taking minutes from young players and having Horford means Boston is going to win more games and thus have worse draft picks (doesn't matter this year as we have the swap, but going forward absolutely).
Yup, god forbid we win some games, it will get in the way of our draft picks. I mean, we all know the team exists to draft, not to win  :o :o :o
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Jackie Macmullan hinting that LaMarcus Aldridge could be traded
« Reply #116 on: October 25, 2016, 11:35:18 AM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Horford is taking minutes from young players and having Horford means Boston is going to win more games and thus have worse draft picks (doesn't matter this year as we have the swap, but going forward absolutely).
Yup, god forbid we win some games, it will get in the way of our draft picks. I mean, we all know the team exists to draft, not to win  :o :o :o
This is what happens when partial comments get responded to for awhile.  All context is lost.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip