Author Topic: Would you guys trade for Gay?  (Read 2953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Would you guys trade for Gay?
« on: November 23, 2016, 10:54:02 PM »

Offline alewilliam789

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1605
  • Tommy Points: 76
Putting up 20 PPG and 6 RPG, Hitting 40% from behind the arc, 44% off of catch and shoot 3s, 81 % from the freethrow line, improved defender, said he's opting out next year so no cap hold.

If you could get him for cheap, say Amir Johnson and Minnesota 2nd, would you pull the trigger? I say yes because he has the ability to score and he can play both the 3 and 4.

Re: Would you guys trade for Gay?
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2016, 10:58:31 PM »

Offline max215

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8448
  • Tommy Points: 624
My thought process:

1. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no, please no
2. Hey, that's not that much
3. And he's essentially on an expiring deal
4. Wait, it's Rudy Gay
5.  No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no, please no

He's a black hole on offense, a terrible defender, and his teams always improve after jettisoning him. He's been really good this year, but he's still Rudy Gay.
Isaiah, you were lightning in a bottle.

DKC Clippers

Re: Would you guys trade for Gay?
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2016, 11:01:16 PM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43584
  • Tommy Points: 3177
No

Re: Would you guys trade for Gay?
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2016, 11:05:22 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
Gay is definitely one of those guys Ainge has in the file marked "Plan C."

"Plan A" being to trade for a real superstar and "Plan B" being to get lucky with the Nets picks.

Mike

Re: Would you guys trade for Gay?
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2016, 11:07:11 PM »

Offline alewilliam789

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1605
  • Tommy Points: 76
My thought process:

1. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no, please no
2. Hey, that's not that much
3. And he's essentially on an expiring deal
4. Wait, it's Rudy Gay
5.  No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no, please no

He's a black hole on offense, a terrible defender, and his teams always improve after jettisoning him. He's been really good this year, but he's still Rudy Gay.
I mean think of it like this. At worst he helps us bring a scoring presence off the bench.

Re: Would you guys trade for Gay?
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2016, 11:18:41 PM »

Offline byennie

  • Webmaster
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2572
  • Tommy Points: 3033
Absolutely would take him, but I also don't think we can afford to move any big men in the deal.

Gay has a long standing curse of being paid a ton of money on lousy teams, but the stories of his awfulness are overrated. For his career he takes 15 shots in 36 minutes. He's an average defender who can get you 20 points on 15 shots every night, plays 2 positions, gets to the line for 5+ freebies, stretches the floor, and isn't *that* much of a black hole (~3apg for a few years now). As much as I like Jerebko in stretches, Gay would be a clear upgrade who would also help keep Crowder healthy and keep us out of Smart-as-a-wing type lineups.

There's also the Stevens factor- having the option to start a guy like Gay at the 4 against certain teams is a good chess piece. When you're starting Amir, the other squad doesn't really have to worry about defending the 4.

Amir + 1st + 2nd for Gay + Cauley-Stein?

Re: Would you guys trade for Gay?
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2016, 11:21:27 PM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43584
  • Tommy Points: 3177
Absolutely would take him, but I also don't think we can afford to move any big men in the deal.

Gay has a long standing curse of being paid a ton of money on lousy teams, but the stories of his awfulness are overrated. For his career he takes 15 shots in 36 minutes. He's an average defender who can get you 20 points on 15 shots every night, plays 2 positions, gets to the line for 5+ freebies, stretches the floor, and isn't *that* much of a black hole (~3apg for a few years now). As much as I like Jerebko in stretches, Gay would be a clear upgrade who would also help keep Crowder healthy and keep us out of Smart-as-a-wing type lineups.

There's also the Stevens factor- having the option to start a guy like Gay at the 4 against certain teams is a good chess piece. When you're starting Amir, the other squad doesn't really have to worry about defending the 4.

Amir + 1st + 2nd for Gay + Cauley-Stein?

Doesn't Amir start at center and AH start at power forward?

Re: Would you guys trade for Gay?
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2016, 12:18:43 AM »

Offline byennie

  • Webmaster
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2572
  • Tommy Points: 3033
Absolutely would take him, but I also don't think we can afford to move any big men in the deal.

Gay has a long standing curse of being paid a ton of money on lousy teams, but the stories of his awfulness are overrated. For his career he takes 15 shots in 36 minutes. He's an average defender who can get you 20 points on 15 shots every night, plays 2 positions, gets to the line for 5+ freebies, stretches the floor, and isn't *that* much of a black hole (~3apg for a few years now). As much as I like Jerebko in stretches, Gay would be a clear upgrade who would also help keep Crowder healthy and keep us out of Smart-as-a-wing type lineups.

There's also the Stevens factor- having the option to start a guy like Gay at the 4 against certain teams is a good chess piece. When you're starting Amir, the other squad doesn't really have to worry about defending the 4.

Amir + 1st + 2nd for Gay + Cauley-Stein?

Doesn't Amir start at center and AH start at power forward?

Yes true, I should have said "defending the 5", but really the point is you can put your better big man defender on Horford and pretty much ignore Amir. On some nights it would be interesting to roll out Thomas/Bradley/Crowder/Gay/Horford and let the opponent match up with Horford at the 5 and Crowder/Gay both as 3/4s.

Re: Would you guys trade for Gay?
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2016, 12:25:56 AM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2994
  • Tommy Points: 321
Sure. I would give Sacramento Kelly Olynyk and Tyler Zeller for Rudy Gay.

Re: Would you guys trade for Gay?
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2016, 07:06:12 AM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
Is Cousins coming with him? If not then no, not ever

Re: Would you guys trade for Gay?
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2016, 07:23:25 AM »

Offline Hank Finkel

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 392
  • Tommy Points: 41
No--Celtics have only one major need. A big man who can rebound, defend and intimidate.

Re: Would you guys trade for Gay?
« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2016, 07:26:37 AM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36890
  • Tommy Points: 2969
Let's get Josh Smith too while we are at it.

Re: Would you guys trade for Gay?
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2016, 08:08:09 AM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
He's an average defender

No, he is not.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Would you guys trade for Gay?
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2016, 08:29:42 AM »

Offline The One

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2017
  • Tommy Points: 203
No--Celtics have only one major need. A big man who can rebound, defend and intimidate.

I agree with this.  I'd be fine with a backup big with these qualities.

Someone who can keep the clamps on while Al is resting.


Re: Would you guys trade for Gay?
« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2016, 08:47:35 AM »

Offline FreddieJ

  • Kristaps Porzingis
  • Posts: 189
  • Tommy Points: 7
He's not available

Particularly for cheap