The Jump gives the Celtics Trade Deadline Grades

[Ogaju]

A-

The minus because Ainge was not able to flip James Young for another lottery pick. lol.

[Spilling Green Dye]

I'd give the Celtics a D for the sole reason of not winning the trade for Cousins.  I'm happy they didn't overpay for Butler, and that's nice that they want to be players in free agency, but Brendan Hayward (if we got him this summer) will barely move the needle.  Cousins would have made us a major threat to Cleveland today, and for the foreseeable future.  What is better than that?... and we missed out on it

[Cman]

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.

Agreed in the case of Butler and George, but not in the case of Cousins. We see what the trade was for, and we could have matched that or better.

[Jvalin]

I 'd give us a B cause Boogie was available for next to nothing and I feel we should have jumped in. Other than that, I' m fine with standing pat.

[No Nickname]

That proposed trade for Paul George is just ridiculous if you compare it to the Kevin Love for Wiggins/Bennett trade two years ago.

First, Cleveland had very little leverage as LeBron had basically mandated to the Cavs' FO "go get Love."  So to give up the #1 pick in the draft and a bust (Bennett had very little appeal) for a 25-yr old Love was actually much less than what the Pacers/Bulls have been asking.

George is about to turn 27, has just come off a horrific injury, and has given no indication (unlike Love three years ago) that he'd resign with the team trading for him.

Once you know what that Nets' 2017 draft pick will be (is it #1 or #4?) things will become much clearer for a team such as Indiana in weighing offers.  Was Love in 2014 better than George in 2017?  That's debatable but I'd say they are pretty close in "star power." 

By passing on a trade now, Ainge could potentially get George for much less than was rumored to be required by Bird.  Possibly the 2017 Nets pick (let's say it's the #2 pick) and either Avery Bradley or Smart (depending on who Bird likes), plus filler.  I'd even venture to say that Danny wouldn't give up the 2017 Nets' pick plus Brown because of Brown's all around potential. 

Otherwise, Bird risks losing George to the Lakers for nothing.

[Big333223]

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.

This is a good point. The only thing I'd say, though, is that most examples of what you're talking about the players traded for were a little older and so the window to get them smaller.

[mctyson]

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.

The didn't do anything so the obvious grade is 'Incomplete.'

[GreenEnvy]

I don't understand how you can grade something that didn't happen.

If we had precise offers/asking prices, perhaps we could chime in. But to give a grade for not making a move when nobody really knows what Indiana/Chicago was asking is pretty ridiculous.

Would TMac still give a "D" if he heard the price really was three starters and the pick for PG13?

[KGs Knee]

I don't understand how you can grade something that didn't happen.

If we had precise offers/asking prices, perhaps we could chime in. But to give a grade for not making a move when nobody really knows what Indiana/Chicago was asking is pretty ridiculous.

Would TMac still give a "D" if he heard the price really was three starters and the pick for PG13?

Agreed

It's an exercise in futility without knowing the exact details of potential trades that were discussed.