The Jump gives the Celtics Trade Deadline Grades

[Big333223]

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=18751545

T-Mac gives the Celtics a 'D' for not making a deal. Billups gives them a 'B' because maybe they can get Hayward this summer for nothing, so why trade now?

Most interesting to me: Windhorst gives them an 'A' because he says the price for Paul George is only going to go down. The price will be better in June, and may be great in a year.

I give them a 'B'. To get an 'A' they would've had to have done something to improve their situation. But they've still got a boatload of assets, good flexibility, and time left to use them this summer.

[footey]

A+

[BitterJim]

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=18751545

T-Mac gives the Celtics a 'D' for not making a deal. Billups gives them a 'B' because maybe they can get Hayward this summer for nothing, so why trade now?

Most interesting to me: Windhorst gives them an 'A' because he says the price for Paul George is only going to go down. The price will be better in June, and may be great in a year.

I give them a 'B'. To get an 'A' they would've had to have done something to improve their situation. But they've still got a boatload of assets, good flexibility, and time left to use them this summer.

I give them an N/A.  We didn't do anything to get graded on, so what is the grade for? Rumored deals that we didn't make? Even if you know the rumored deals are 100% accurate (which they likely aren't), there's still other info (like how Danny feels about FA) that we don't know enough about to really say if not making those deals was a good or bad decision.

[Darío SpanishFan]

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=18751545

T-Mac gives the Celtics a 'D' for not making a deal. Billups gives them a 'B' because maybe they can get Hayward this summer for nothing, so why trade now?

Most interesting to me: Windhorst gives them an 'A' because he says the price for Paul George is only going to go down. The price will be better in June, and may be great in a year.

I give them a 'B'. To get an 'A' they would've had to have done something to improve their situation. But they've still got a boatload of assets, good flexibility, and time left to use them this summer.

I give them an N/A.  We didn't do anything to get graded on, so what is the grade for? Rumored deals that we didn't make? Even if you know the rumored deals are 100% accurate (which they likely aren't), there still other info (like how Danny feels about FA) that we don't know enough about to really say if not making those deals was a good or bad decision.

You are as right as bitter. TP.

[KGBirdBias]

I give them a B.

If teams are trying to fleece them and break up the team than it's a good move. Keep in mind we are the 2nd seed. I don't think Ainge wanted to disrupt the chemistry since this is a close knit team.

If they draft Fultz or trade the pick and sign Haywood, all of this will be forgotten quickly.

The Cavs will be much older next year.

[Granath]

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=18751545

T-Mac gives the Celtics a 'D' for not making a deal. Billups gives them a 'B' because maybe they can get Hayward this summer for nothing, so why trade now?

Most interesting to me: Windhorst gives them an 'A' because he says the price for Paul George is only going to go down. The price will be better in June, and may be great in a year.

I give them a 'B'. To get an 'A' they would've had to have done something to improve their situation. But they've still got a boatload of assets, good flexibility, and time left to use them this summer.

I give them an N/A.  We didn't do anything to get graded on, so what is the grade for? Rumored deals that we didn't make? Even if you know the rumored deals are 100% accurate (which they likely aren't), there still other info (like how Danny feels about FA) that we don't know enough about to really say if not making those deals was a good or bad decision.

I entirely agree with you.  There's no score to give. The deals didn't get made and often times the best trades are the ones you don't make.

Pushing your chips into the middle of the table to go all-in while you know that 2 other players are holding 4 aces isn't the smart play. Yes, teams like Toronto got better but for how long? How much does that hurt them long term when their chances of actually succeeding are still very remote?

[A Future of Stevens]

I give them a B.

If teams are trying to fleece them and break up the team than it's a good move. Keep in mind we are the 2nd seed. I don't think Ainge wanted to disrupt the chemistry since this is a close knit team.

If they draft Fultz or trade the pick and sign Haywood, all of this will be forgotten quickly.

The Cavs will be much older next year.

I agree with everything except the last part. I tend to think they will be a year older next year. JK

[Snakehead]

I have seen they wanted the Nets pick plus 3 out of four of Crowder, Smart, Bradley, Brown.  I think that is a bad trade so you wait.

If the Nets pick becomes the first pick, it maybe lets you just trade that pick and Avery Bradley for George or something.  You can't gut the team for these guys.  I think teams see the Celtics have more assets so their price goes up just for the Celtics.

[Big333223]

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=18751545

T-Mac gives the Celtics a 'D' for not making a deal. Billups gives them a 'B' because maybe they can get Hayward this summer for nothing, so why trade now?

Most interesting to me: Windhorst gives them an 'A' because he says the price for Paul George is only going to go down. The price will be better in June, and may be great in a year.

I give them a 'B'. To get an 'A' they would've had to have done something to improve their situation. But they've still got a boatload of assets, good flexibility, and time left to use them this summer.

I give them an N/A.  We didn't do anything to get graded on, so what is the grade for? Rumored deals that we didn't make? Even if you know the rumored deals are 100% accurate (which they likely aren't), there's still other info (like how Danny feels about FA) that we don't know enough about to really say if not making those deals was a good or bad decision.

That's fair. But we know the teams they were talking to and the players they were targeting (and the players they weren't) and they didn't make a bad deal. The team doesn't get praise just for not messing up but given all the pressure to do something and given the flexibility the team retains, I think the patience is worth a 'B' grade.

[Sketch5]

It's hard to say what to give them when we don't really know what the asking price was.

If it was Crowder and 2017 and filler, you'd have to give them a D....

BUt, if it's the reported 2017, and 3 of Crowder,AB,Smart,Brown. You'd  have to go, B+ or A. That just too much for a guy who may not get you past Cleveland or GSW, especially if you give up 3 of your best defenders and 2/3 or your best prospects. Your team actually gets weaker because you start to lack your depth that has helped you get where you are. And in the playoffs, Crowder,Smart off the bench can win you games.

Plus PG13 could have bounced in a year and a half to LA.

You can get Hayward and draft Fultz or Jackson, you have a line up of...

IT/Smart/(Fultz)
Hayward/AB/(Jackson)(Fultz)
Crowder/Brown/(Jackson)
Horford/KO/Yabu
FA(trade)/Zizic?

Mickey/Young/Rozier

Thats a deep team if Fultz or Jackson's learning curve is fast.

[saltlover]

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=18751545

T-Mac gives the Celtics a 'D' for not making a deal. Billups gives them a 'B' because maybe they can get Hayward this summer for nothing, so why trade now?

Most interesting to me: Windhorst gives them an 'A' because he says the price for Paul George is only going to go down. The price will be better in June, and may be great in a year.

I give them a 'B'. To get an 'A' they would've had to have done something to improve their situation. But they've still got a boatload of assets, good flexibility, and time left to use them this summer.

I give them an N/A.  We didn't do anything to get graded on, so what is the grade for? Rumored deals that we didn't make? Even if you know the rumored deals are 100% accurate (which they likely aren't), there's still other info (like how Danny feels about FA) that we don't know enough about to really say if not making those deals was a good or bad decision.

That's fair. But we know the teams they were talking to and the players they were targeting (and the players they weren't) and they didn't make a bad deal. The team doesn't get praise just for not messing up but given all the pressure to do something and given the flexibility the team retains, I think the patience is worth a 'B' grade.

I give them a C+.  They didn't do anything rash, and this is a team that doesn't need to do anything rash.  But they let a decent reserve (Tucker) go to Toronto for 2 late seconds.  We have three second-round picks this year, and none of them are likely to be on the roster next season.  This past year we renounced the rights to one late second from a few years ago (Iverson), let another one go in training camp (Bentil), have another one playing not so well in the Italian league (the other Marcus Thornton), and might salary dump/release 1-2 others this summer or even next week to make roster room (Jackson and Mickey).  It's not the end of the world that we didn't make that trade, but it was an easy trade to make at the cost of picks that are unlikely to be well-utilized.

[bdm860]

Most interesting to me: Windhorst gives them an 'A' because he says the price for Paul George is only going to go down. The price will be better in June, and may be great in a year.

I personally dislike this opinion, that I've heard from a few other people as well.

Of course the price will go down, but the C's also get less.  Missing out on a year of playoffs from one of those guys is a huge cost.

Look at the Garnett/Pierce/Allen team.  They won a championship that first year, then never again.

Same thing with the 2004 Pistons when they brought in Sheed.  They won a title that first year together, then never again.

What if one of those teams said, "Let's wait a year, the price will be lower?"  Maybe the price would be lower, but they also might not have won a championship.

Missing a year of playoff performance from one of those guys is a huge cost (especially considering I'm one of those guys who don't think Cleveland and Golden State are unbeatable, though no doubt the C's would still be the underdog).

Of course, that's me not knowing what the actual cost is, and from the rumors I hear, it probably was way too high.  But it's one thing to say the cost is too high, it's another thing to say you should wait because the cost will go down.  The team just cut a first rounder after 1 year while also stashing 2 other first rounders overseas because they don't have enough roster spots.  It takes injuries for Jaylen Brown to get any minutes, and they want to bring in another Top 4 pick next year too?  And bring in the guys from overseas?

And just like the price of George/Butler will go down, so too will the price of Avery Bradley. The value of the Nets picks can drop (if it ends up #4 and/or they improve next year) too.

So all that rant just to say I really disagree with "wait, the price will go down" train of thought.  I don't want to sell the farm for George/Butler, but I also don't want to wait for rock bottom prices and miss opportunities in '17 and '18.

[action781]

Most interesting to me: Windhorst gives them an 'A' because he says the price for Paul George is only going to go down. The price will be better in June, and may be great in a year.

I'm with Windhorst here.  I think Indy is too small of a market to take the gamble that PG13 stays plus they've already got one promising young player in Turner, so why not build on to that?  (That is of course assuming they can't make some moves to make this current squad more competitive)

[Bobshot]

I'll give Ainge a B for Butler and George. Mainly because they weren't really available unless the offer was counter productive. He is in a great position this summer. Still has all his cards.

I'll give him an F for not getting a rebounder--even a temporary one like Bogut. With his competitors improving, he may not win the East. And that puts him in exactly the position he was in last year--without Horford. My feeling is he has to show some improvement this year to convince FAs he has a chance for a Championship next year with them.

He may still salvage the situation signing Bogut or even Jones. Maybe this was part of his plan--he hates to give up those draft picks in trades!

[footey]

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=18751545

T-Mac gives the Celtics a 'D' for not making a deal. Billups gives them a 'B' because maybe they can get Hayward this summer for nothing, so why trade now?

Most interesting to me: Windhorst gives them an 'A' because he says the price for Paul George is only going to go down. The price will be better in June, and may be great in a year.

I give them a 'B'. To get an 'A' they would've had to have done something to improve their situation. But they've still got a boatload of assets, good flexibility, and time left to use them this summer.

I give them an N/A.  We didn't do anything to get graded on, so what is the grade for? Rumored deals that we didn't make? Even if you know the rumored deals are 100% accurate (which they likely aren't), there's still other info (like how Danny feels about FA) that we don't know enough about to really say if not making those deals was a good or bad decision.

That's fair. But we know the teams they were talking to and the players they were targeting (and the players they weren't) and they didn't make a bad deal. The team doesn't get praise just for not messing up but given all the pressure to do something and given the flexibility the team retains, I think the patience is worth a 'B' grade.

I give them a C+.  They didn't do anything rash, and this is a team that doesn't need to do anything rash.  But they let a decent reserve (Tucker) go to Toronto for 2 late seconds.  We have three second-round picks this year, and none of them are likely to be on the roster next season.  This past year we renounced the rights to one late second from a few years ago (Iverson), let another one go in training camp (Bentil), have another one playing not so well in the Italian league (the other Marcus Thornton), and might salary dump/release 1-2 others this summer or even next week to make roster room (Jackson and Mickey).  It's not the end of the world that we didn't make that trade, but it was an easy trade to make at the cost of picks that are unlikely to be well-utilized.

I view 2nd round picks differently.

 First of all, they are pretty liquid, since they generally don't have a lot of value, you don't mind packing them and kicking the can down the road, kind of what we did with our deal with Memphis in the 2016 draft.

Second, I think they can be used like baseball, where you take your chances with foreign guys who aren't ready  but, with seasoning, may pan out.  They become a second farm system for us. Like baseball, most won't pan out. But 1 in 10 will, which is probably as good or better than the batting average for 2nd round picks in general. And you get to manage your roster more efficiently in the mean time.