Jackie Mac Rumor: Ainge offered IT for lottery pick in last years draft

[footey]

Maybe he liked Buddy Hield.  IMO we could have gotten the 6th pick 4 Crowder easily. I actually posted that trade on here and added a Pelicans future 1st...everyone hated it lol.

Which means we'd have Boogie by now lol

[Jvalin]

Danny is smart. When necessary, he has no problem being coldhearted. Recall the love-fest around Rondo in the offseason prior to his being traded. Ainge and the whole C's brass billing Rondo as a building block for the future, but Ainge recognized he was a flawed superstar and was content to move him, once it became clear he couldn't obtain a secondary star like Kevin Love.

IT is a better player than Rondo ever was, but it’s entirely possible that Ainge’s thought process is the same. This current series could be a smack of reality that we’re still significantly far off from competing with the Cavs, let alone the Warriors. So Ainge may consider trading away players who have peaked, like IT, in favor of solid assets for the future. That is, invest in players like Fultz and Brown, but keep some veterans around such that the team continues to make the playoffs, maintains a solid basketball culture, and stays attractive for free agents.

Free agency complicates this whole thing and that’s why I don’t think IT will ever be traded. Can you imagine trading IT on draft night for a draft pick, and then trying to sell Gordon Hayward on signing with the Celtics a month later? The most likely thing that happens this offseason is that Ainge retains IT, drafts Fultz, and moves a couple guys like Bradley and Crowder to freely go after Hayward. Then a year later, when IT is a free agent and you’ve seen a year’s worth of what Fultz can do, you can just decide from there. In the end I think IT walks in a year’s time, but who knows.

Back in the late 80's, Danny was telling Red he should trade away Larry Legend for crying out loud!!! The guy could trade his own mother for a bag of peanuts if he had to.

Like you said, shipping off Thomas would most likely hurt our chanses of landing Hayward. The thing is, if you think IT walks in a year's time, isn't it better for us to trade him now? I mean, Hayward may (or may not) sign with us anyway. Not to mention that trading IT would free up enough cap space to go after Hayward, hence we keep Bradley/Crowder.

[Sketch5]

Okay, having just listened to the actual podcast, I think that tweet comes off a little out of context.

http://bobryanbostonpodcast.libsyn.com/episode-8-jackie-macmullan

Convo starts around 13:55.

I can tell you this, before the draft last year, last year.  Danny was trying to get 2 picks, not just Jaylen Brown.  He was trying to get 2 picks.  He was on the phone with everyone from coast to coast, and he was offering everybody, and that includes Marcus Smart and Isaiah Thomas and anything else they needed to get where he wanted to go.  There were no untouchables on that team last year.

To me, that sounds quite different than Danny was shopping Isaiah for a pick.  Sounds more like Danny was trying to get a pick and offered a variety of packages, which for all we know went something like:

We'll trade you Brooklyn '17 for Ben Simmons.
We'll trade you Brooklyn '17 and Marcus Smart for Ben Simmons
We'll trade you Brooklyn '17 and Brooklyn '18 for Ben Simmons
We'll trade you Isaiah Thomas for Ben Simmons and your '17 1st.

On Felger and MAz they were talking about this, and it came up that DA wanted Brown really badly, and could get him around 5 threw 8, and Chi wanted the 3rd pick for Butler so they could get Dunn.

What that comes out to is they wanted Butler, and then go sign Horford to they can make a strong pitch to KD. And they would have their young potential cornerstone player in Brown.

That could have made the KD sweepstakes much more interesting if the could have pulled that off.

[CFAN38]

Okay, having just listened to the actual podcast, I think that tweet comes off a little out of context.

http://bobryanbostonpodcast.libsyn.com/episode-8-jackie-macmullan

Convo starts around 13:55.

I can tell you this, before the draft last year, last year.  Danny was trying to get 2 picks, not just Jaylen Brown.  He was trying to get 2 picks.  He was on the phone with everyone from coast to coast, and he was offering everybody, and that includes Marcus Smart and Isaiah Thomas and anything else they needed to get where he wanted to go.  There were no untouchables on that team last year.

To me, that sounds quite different than Danny was shopping Isaiah for a pick.  Sounds more like Danny was trying to get a pick and offered a variety of packages, which for all we know went something like:

We'll trade you Brooklyn '17 for Ben Simmons.
We'll trade you Brooklyn '17 and Marcus Smart for Ben Simmons
We'll trade you Brooklyn '17 and Brooklyn '18 for Ben Simmons
We'll trade you Isaiah Thomas for Ben Simmons and your '17 1st.

My guess would be that DA was trying to package the later 1sts (yabu and zizic) along with player(s) to try to get Chriss. Prior to signing Horford the Cs where fresh off a poor playoff performance. Trading IT and the Yabu and Zizic picks to move up for Chriss would have likely put in motion a step back season for the Cs. Smart would have started at PG, Rozier would have expanded his role, and either KO would have started or Sully would have been brought back on a short deal. Chriss would have given the developing Cs a young modern athletic big man. This is still a position of need.   

[celticsclay]

If it was a top2 pick, sure.

Otherwise, I'm not sure that I buy it.

How reliable is JM source?

No she isn't. She used to be. Then she started doing shows like Pardon the Interruption and saying things that would get more headlines/clicks/talking heads discussions. She definitely gets way more into conjecture than she used to.
She is one of the most reliable sports writers.

[SHAQATTACK]

cool .....

I d trade IT for Simmons

You got to wonder what other teams would Max contract IT

[PhoSita]

My response to people who want to trade IT, as always, is what do you feel the opportunity cost is for retaining him?

Or in other words, what is to be gained by letting him go?

Simply your feeling that he may not be worth $40 million when he is age 34-35 does not mean the team has a better option.

[snively]

I could see it if they were trying to trade for a top 5 selection (i.e. Simmons, Ingram, Murray, etc).


Remember, though, that at this time last year the Celts were coming off a 1st round exit, and Isaiah was a fringe All-Star selection.


Given the team signing Horford to a long term deal, Isaiah making himself an MVP candidate, and the team going on a run to the ECF, one would have to assume the asking price for Isaiah is a lot higher than a lottery pick, even one in the top 5.

Isaiah is an MVP candidate like DeRozan is a third team All-NBAer - technically true but not really all that significant. This is the same guy that got low-balled into an MLE deal after averaging 20ppg and then got almost immediately dumped for a late first after playing well. He's always been praised and talked up and then when it's time to pay-up he doesn't get as much as you'd think.

His value has grown as a player, certainly since his last trade and also over last year, but his value as a contract has also decreased, so I expect his trade value to be significantly less than his accolades.

I think the best and most likely trade partner for him would be Dallas at #9. Dallas has always been a Danny go to for star-for-pick trades, from Toine to Rondo. Dallas has probably the biggest appetites for flawed stars in the league (Toine, JET, old Kidd, Chandler, Ellis, Rondo)  and very little qualms about moving picks or dealing with upcoming contracts. Carlisle also loves scoring PNR guards.

I'd be keen on moving IT to Dallas for #9 and future considerations (with Barea as filler) for a chance at Zach Collins. Collins is going to a great big man.

[snively]

My response to people who want to trade IT, as always, is what do you feel the opportunity cost is for retaining him?

Or in other words, what is to be gained by letting him go?

Simply your feeling that he may not be worth $40 million when he is age 34-35 does not mean the team has a better option.

The most obvious opportunity cost is not getting better-fitting trade assets for him now - he will either walk for nothing in 2018 or become a likely difficult to trade max contract.

The next most obvious: playing/development time for Fultz, likely a better player in the near future.

[ETNCeltics]

My response to people who want to trade IT, as always, is what do you feel the opportunity cost is for retaining him?

Or in other words, what is to be gained by letting him go?

Simply your feeling that he may not be worth $40 million when he is age 34-35 does not mean the team has a better option.

I love IT, but his flaws would make me hesitant to pay him $30 million, maybe not even $25 million. You pay a guy that you're locking yourself into him as a key piece. Yet he can't guard anyone. It's a very tough call for Danny Ainge.

[PhoSita]

My response to people who want to trade IT, as always, is what do you feel the opportunity cost is for retaining him?

Or in other words, what is to be gained by letting him go?

Simply your feeling that he may not be worth $40 million when he is age 34-35 does not mean the team has a better option.

The most obvious opportunity cost is not getting better-fitting trade assets for him now - he will either walk for nothing in 2018 or become a likely difficult to trade max contract.

The next most obvious: playing/development time for Fultz, likely a better player in the near future.

I think they can play together.  I don't see a problem with not handing the keys to the team over to Fultz right away.  Players like that tend to need some development time.

As for better-fitting trade assets, the question is what you think you can really get for a player like IT on the last year of his deal.

It's really hard to get fair value for stars in general, but especially hard to get fair value for a guy with an obvious glaring flaw (i.e. size / defense) on the last year of his deal.

I'm also just not sure how you can be confident it would make the Celts better.

Isn't our problem that we don't have enough star talent?  How is trading IT for a couple role players and a pick (for example) going to help that?

[PhoSita]

I could see it if they were trying to trade for a top 5 selection (i.e. Simmons, Ingram, Murray, etc).


Remember, though, that at this time last year the Celts were coming off a 1st round exit, and Isaiah was a fringe All-Star selection.


Given the team signing Horford to a long term deal, Isaiah making himself an MVP candidate, and the team going on a run to the ECF, one would have to assume the asking price for Isaiah is a lot higher than a lottery pick, even one in the top 5.

Isaiah is an MVP candidate like DeRozan is a third team All-NBAer - technically true but not really all that significant. This is the same guy that got low-balled into an MLE deal after averaging 20ppg and then got almost immediately dumped for a late first after playing well. He's always been praised and talked up and then when it's time to pay-up he doesn't get as much as you'd think.

His value has grown as a player, certainly since his last trade and also over last year, but his value as a contract has also decreased, so I expect his trade value to be significantly less than his accolades.

I think the best and most likely trade partner for him would be Dallas at #9. Dallas has always been a Danny go to for star-for-pick trades, from Toine to Rondo. Dallas has probably the biggest appetites for flawed stars in the league (Toine, JET, old Kidd, Chandler, Ellis, Rondo)  and very little qualms about moving picks or dealing with upcoming contracts. Carlisle also loves scoring PNR guards.

I'd be keen on moving IT to Dallas for #9 and future considerations (with Barea as filler) for a chance at Zach Collins. Collins is going to a great big man.

Ugh.  I can't even speak to that idea beyond that.  Trading a star pick and roll scorer for a potential role player at the easiest to fill position in the league?

Ugh.

[blink]

My response to people who want to trade IT, as always, is what do you feel the opportunity cost is for retaining him?

Or in other words, what is to be gained by letting him go?

Simply your feeling that he may not be worth $40 million when he is age 34-35 does not mean the team has a better option.

I love IT, but his flaws would make me hesitant to pay him $30 million, maybe not even $25 million. You pay a guy that you're locking yourself into him as a key piece. Yet he can't guard anyone. It's a very tough call for Danny Ainge.

Exactly, a really tough call.  Yeah we don't have anyone who can fill it up like him, but no one at his level is a bigger def liability.  It all comes down to him being 5'7" or whatever he is.  Every player that size , no matter how awesome he is, will be exploited.  If there is some other way to deal with that issue, I'd like to hear it? 

IT depends on his really elite athletic ability for his size to even do what he does now.  I believe IT has maxed out his potential.  Even 3 years down the road I don't know if we should be paying him 30 million a year.  I wouldn't extend him right now if I was DA.  I would wait and see how Fultz develops, base everything regarding IT on that.

[fairweatherfan]

Everyone seems to think Bradley's the odd man out if we keep Fultz here; I have a sneaking suspicion it's actually IT we don't value as much. His game's not likely to age well and he's got a mega-contract coming up next offseason. As much as I like him I think we'll find a way for him to not be here for it.

What evidence do we really have to support the idea that IT won't age well?

As of right now he has played 441 career regular season games and 24 career playoff games.  He has played a total of 14,056 minutes.

At the start of his next deal, he will be entering his 8th season in the league, a season during which he will turn 30 years old.


Tony Parker, by comparison, was a very good starting point guard through his 13th season.  Through his 13th season + playoffs (2014), he had played approximately 38,000 minutes.

Now, Tony Parker is bigger than Isaiah, but not by a lot, and he seems to me to be a pretty good comparison in terms of a guy who relied on speed as a younger guy but who increasingly relied on pull-up jumpers and guile as he got older.


There's reason to believe Isaiah could age even better than Tony Parker, given that he is a significantly better outside shooter, and the spacing around him should only get better as he ages.


Even if Isaiah looks like 31 or 32 year old Tony Parker by the end of his next deal (i.e. 15-17 ppg on decent shooting splits in about 30 mpg), that would be well worth the overpayment if he gives the Celts a couple more seasons in the low to mid 20s or higher in terms of scoring, along with steadily improving decisionmaking and outside shooting.


Bottom line, there are not many examples in the history of the NBA of guys well under 6 feet tall playing at a high level through their 35th birthday.  However, there also have been very few players under 6 feet tall who have been able to play at the level Isaiah is at right now. 

Furthermore, the game has changed a great deal to where guard who can shoot and run the pick and roll can stay relevant for much longer.  With the spacing in today's game and the way the rules are called in favor of ballhandlers, I think we could see many of these star point guards playing into their late 30s.

I don't really want to debate about it because I love IT and ultimately my opinion doesn't matter. I'm speculating on the team's priorities. But the argument would be that IT relies on athleticism, especially explosiveness and speed, and the hits he constantly takes will drain that, especially the explosiveness.

With his defensive deficiencies, losing a step on offense would make him closer to a high-end bench scorer/playmaker than a max contract player. Losing two steps might make him a fringe rotation player.

Again, I'm just saying how I think the team might be reading it, though. We definitely know Danny's not afraid to cut bait on anyone.

[blink]

Just to reply to the 'Tony Parker is bigger but not by a lot'.  Parker is listed at 6'2", so inflated heights aside he is probably a good 5 inches taller than IT.  To me that is very significant.