Author Topic: Jackie Mac Rumor: Ainge offered IT for lottery pick in last years draft  (Read 18061 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jvalin

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3737
  • Tommy Points: 737
I wonder how much Ainge hates Jackie right about now
If ''he was on the phone with everyone from coast to coast, and he was offering everybody'', I bet there is not a single NBA GM out there who didn't already know about this.

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
I wonder how much Ainge hates Jackie right about now
If ''he was on the phone with everyone from coast to coast, and he was offering everybody'', I bet there is not a single NBA GM out there who didn't already know about this.

And yet every GM apparently declined, signaling interest in no one on the Celtics.  It wasn't just IT whi was offered, it was everyone.

Or this story is a bunch of crock.

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
Hield would have been the guy.
Danny loves him.

If Danny loved him he would have drafted him. He obviously loved Jaylen Brown more.

Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Offline IDreamCeltics

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1401
  • Tommy Points: 140
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.

I keep wondering about this too.  You just can't ignore the fact that we havent been able to hide IT on defense in the playoffs. I wonder if DA is more realistic about giving a huge contract to IT. 

Does it make more sense to use some of that money between AB and Marcus and roll with AB. Fultz, Smart, and maybe Rozier if he isn't traded as part of a deal for a big.  That all of course depends on Fultz becoming a solid starter within a year. If he does turn out to be the player we think he will be, then I am pretty happy with Fultz, AB, Smart as core guards moving forward.  Gives us way more flexibility

I want to address this narrative because I think it's the byproduct of group-think and lazy media members parroting each other.

Who is going to sign IT to a max contract?

Everyone keeps insisting that IT is going to get a max contract, but what team is indicating they want him this badly?  His last contract was for 27 million over 4 years. 


Literally EVERYONE agrees he's a gifted scorer who's a complete liability on defense...This is exactly what his reputation was the last time he signed a contract three seasons ago and, by the way, the team that signed him to that contract traded him for a late first round pick within half a season of signing him. 

Nobody wanted him for peanuts three years ago when he was essentially the same exact player... Even his staunchest fans are concerned about signing him to a max deal so what GM in the NBA is going to sign Isaiah to the max?   

The last time Isaiah was a free agent people were SHOCKED that 27 million over four years was the best deal he could get.  He was coming off a season where he scored 20 points a game, averaged 6 assists, and shot .35% from three.

I think there's a very good chance that his open market value is MUCH less than what people keep insisting it is.  If Danny's smart he'll Belichick this negotiation and wait for the market to set the terms of the deal.

Dallas seems like a sure bet to throw crazy money at IT.

When has Dallas ever thrown crazy money at a pointguard?

They wouldn't even pay Steve Nash the Max in his PRIME.

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
I wonder how much Ainge hates Jackie right about now
If ''he was on the phone with everyone from coast to coast, and he was offering everybody'', I bet there is not a single NBA GM out there who didn't already know about this.

And yet every GM apparently declined, signaling interest in no one on the Celtics.  It wasn't just IT whi was offered, it was everyone.

Or this story is a bunch of crock.

It's semi-crock.

We all know by now that virtually nobody's untouchable in Danny's world - as it should be. He'd take the right offer for anyone. For KG. For Pierce. For Rondo. And yes, for IT. However, I don't think he was actively shopping IT last year. I'm sure if a Godfather offer came that involved Lil Thomas then he would have pulled the trigger. And that's not news.

PS - Note I said "virtually" above. If a deal did long-term damage to the brand then Danny wouldn't do it. Hence Horford is untouchable because dealing him would kill any chance of any notable FA from signing here ever again. But beyond that caveat, everyone can be had.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
Yeah, if Collins were a Towns or Embiid level prospect, which is how he sounds based on Snively's description, that would be one thing.

But from what I've seen and read Collins is borderline starter / decent role player type prospect, and he doesn't necessarily project to have a great jumper at the next level, which means he'll be relegated to a role as an energy big unless he's physically dominant as a defender or rim roller.

He came off the bench... Karnowski was the starter

Cant blame collins... Alot of times they were on the court together... Gonzaga did make the finals. Team wasnt stacked or anything

Offline Jvalin

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3737
  • Tommy Points: 737
I wonder how much Ainge hates Jackie right about now
If ''he was on the phone with everyone from coast to coast, and he was offering everybody'', I bet there is not a single NBA GM out there who didn't already know about this.

And yet every GM apparently declined, signaling interest in no one on the Celtics.  It wasn't just IT whi was offered, it was everyone.

Or this story is a bunch of crock.
Who's to say Danny wasn't the one who declined? For all we know he was on the phone talking about trades involving IT (among others). No clue whatsoever why those discussions failed to materialize.

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
I want to address this narrative because I think it's the byproduct of group-think and lazy media members parroting each other.

Who is going to sign IT to a max contract?

Everyone keeps insisting that IT is going to get a max contract, but what team is indicating they want him this badly?  His last contract was for 27 million over 4 years. 


Literally EVERYONE agrees he's a gifted scorer who's a complete liability on defense...This is exactly what his reputation was the last time he signed a contract three seasons ago and, by the way, the team that signed him to that contract traded him for a late first round pick within half a season of signing him. 

Nobody wanted him for peanuts three years ago when he was essentially the same exact player... Even his staunchest fans are concerned about signing him to a max deal so what GM in the NBA is going to sign Isaiah to the max?   

The last time Isaiah was a free agent people were SHOCKED that 27 million over four years was the best deal he could get.  He was coming off a season where he scored 20 points a game, averaged 6 assists, and shot .35% from three.

I think there's a very good chance that his open market value is MUCH less than what people keep insisting it is.  If Danny's smart he'll Belichick this negotiation and wait for the market to set the terms of the deal.
There's no way Thomas is "essentially the same exact player" as he was when he signed his last deal. He averaged 20 ppg for a terrible Kings team and was thought of as a back up on any good team. He's now a 2-time all star and All NBA 2nd Teamer who just averaged almost 30ppg on a very good Celtic team.

All that said, I think your overall point still has merit. With IT's age, size, defensive limitations, and the amount of quality PG's throughout the league right now, I just don't see it as a forgone conclusion that IT will get maxed out by someone.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
I wonder how much Ainge hates Jackie right about now
If ''he was on the phone with everyone from coast to coast, and he was offering everybody'', I bet there is not a single NBA GM out there who didn't already know about this.

And yet every GM apparently declined, signaling interest in no one on the Celtics.  It wasn't just IT whi was offered, it was everyone.

Or this story is a bunch of crock.

The missing piece is that it, if it did happen, it probably wasn't a straight up offer, Danny was probably trying to squeeze other players and assets out of the other teams.

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
DA lucked out if this is true. IT was a good player that year. This past year however he has reached a new level and is a great scorer. IT should stay long term even if we draft Fultz. In year three/four he can come off the bench and be top six-man.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 07:30:46 PM by Csfan1984 »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182

And I think a consensus mid-lotto big man prospect is a pretty good return for IT.

I could not possibly disagree more strongly.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club

And I think a consensus mid-lotto big man prospect is a pretty good return for IT.

I could not possibly disagree more strongly.
Agree completely. IT's return in a trade wouldn't even be a draft pick now. You have to get an all-star back now.

And for those saying IT's market isn't great because of the glut of good guards....well, IT was just voted 3rd or 4th best guard in the entire NBA. If you think some team would by pass IT simply because they have a George Hill, Jeff Teague, Patty Mills level starting PG, you just don't understand how GMing works.

Offline Rainmaker

  • Oshae Brissett
  • Posts: 52
  • Tommy Points: 10
  • The Truth
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.

I keep wondering about this too.  You just can't ignore the fact that we havent been able to hide IT on defense in the playoffs. I wonder if DA is more realistic about giving a huge contract to IT. 

Does it make more sense to use some of that money between AB and Marcus and roll with AB. Fultz, Smart, and maybe Rozier if he isn't traded as part of a deal for a big.  That all of course depends on Fultz becoming a solid starter within a year. If he does turn out to be the player we think he will be, then I am pretty happy with Fultz, AB, Smart as core guards moving forward.  Gives us way more flexibility

I want to address this narrative because I think it's the byproduct of group-think and lazy media members parroting each other.

Who is going to sign IT to a max contract?

Everyone keeps insisting that IT is going to get a max contract, but what team is indicating they want him this badly?  His last contract was for 27 million over 4 years. 


Literally EVERYONE agrees he's a gifted scorer who's a complete liability on defense...This is exactly what his reputation was the last time he signed a contract three seasons ago and, by the way, the team that signed him to that contract traded him for a late first round pick within half a season of signing him. 

Nobody wanted him for peanuts three years ago when he was essentially the same exact player... Even his staunchest fans are concerned about signing him to a max deal so what GM in the NBA is going to sign Isaiah to the max?   

The last time Isaiah was a free agent people were SHOCKED that 27 million over four years was the best deal he could get.  He was coming off a season where he scored 20 points a game, averaged 6 assists, and shot .35% from three.

I think there's a very good chance that his open market value is MUCH less than what people keep insisting it is.  If Danny's smart he'll Belichick this negotiation and wait for the market to set the terms of the deal.

Dallas seems like a sure bet to throw crazy money at IT.

When has Dallas ever thrown crazy money at a pointguard?

They wouldn't even pay Steve Nash the Max in his PRIME.

Yeah, that was the final straw between Don Nelson and Cuban.
Nelson was right of course.  Interesting case study.

Steve Nash and IT: Both players meant similar things to their franchise.  Both players, it seems are underappreciated.   IT turned the Celtics into contenders, yet people keep thinking he should be traded for a mid-lottery player and a bag of cheeseburgers!
Love never fails. Character never quits. And with patience and persistence, dreams do come true.
-Pistol Pete Maravich-

Offline OldSchoolDude

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 599
  • Tommy Points: 79
1) I don't think we can get fair market value for IT, but I would accept a bad trade because the alternative is he walks July , 2018.
2) I accept that IT is the best player on the team, today.
3) I get that the offense runs through IT and he is our only consistent scorer.
4) I believe that we will sign Hayward, who is a legit 20+ scorer so he provides reliable offense.
5) I believe that after two full nba seasons Brown will be ready to be relied on as a consistent scoring threat.
6) I believe  that after a full nba season Fultz will be ready to be relied on as a consistent scoring threat.
7) Today we get the bulk of our offense from IT, Bradley and Crowder. I only want to move IT so we would keep Bradley and Crowder, only they would move to the bench giving us a strong bench.
8) So we replace IT's offense with Hayward, Fultz, and Brown.  And keep Bradley and Crowder so we keep their offense.
9) we suffer no drop in offense letting IT walk and we get a defensive boost because we don't have to compensate for IT's horrid D.
10) if we can get a solid rotational player for him I'll take it because I do not believe IT will be a celtic after his contact is up.
11) of course if we can get a fair trade and a good player, preferably a big man (IT to the Kincks for Porzingis) that would be ideal.
When you say rotational player you mean you would be willing to trade him for a solid bench guy or something? Can you give an example of what exactly you have in mind?

If we draft Fultz and sign Hayward as a FA, I see no need to keep IT especially at the super max.  So either he walks or is traded. Something is better than nothing, so yes I would take a bench player who can give us 20 good minutes a night.  I would prefer to get a quality starter, but if we're going to let him walk then we might as well pick up something. I'm sure a lot of people will disagree today, but come this time next year, after a year of watching Fultz, I bet a lot of people will be ready to rethink that super max contact.

Offline NHCelticsFan

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 403
  • Tommy Points: 179
1) I don't think we can get fair market value for IT, but I would accept a bad trade because the alternative is he walks July , 2018.
2) I accept that IT is the best player on the team, today.
3) I get that the offense runs through IT and he is our only consistent scorer.
4) I believe that we will sign Hayward, who is a legit 20+ scorer so he provides reliable offense.
5) I believe that after two full nba seasons Brown will be ready to be relied on as a consistent scoring threat.
6) I believe  that after a full nba season Fultz will be ready to be relied on as a consistent scoring threat.
7) Today we get the bulk of our offense from IT, Bradley and Crowder. I only want to move IT so we would keep Bradley and Crowder, only they would move to the bench giving us a strong bench.
8) So we replace IT's offense with Hayward, Fultz, and Brown.  And keep Bradley and Crowder so we keep their offense.
9) we suffer no drop in offense letting IT walk and we get a defensive boost because we don't have to compensate for IT's horrid D.
10) if we can get a solid rotational player for him I'll take it because I do not believe IT will be a celtic after his contact is up.
11) of course if we can get a fair trade and a good player, preferably a big man (IT to the Kincks for Porzingis) that would be ideal.
When you say rotational player you mean you would be willing to trade him for a solid bench guy or something? Can you give an example of what exactly you have in mind?

If we draft Fultz and sign Hayward as a FA, I see no need to keep IT especially at the super max.  So either he walks or is traded. Something is better than nothing, so yes I would take a bench player who can give us 20 good minutes a night.  I would prefer to get a quality starter, but if we're going to let him walk then we might as well pick up something. I'm sure a lot of people will disagree today, but come this time next year, after a year of watching Fultz, I bet a lot of people will be ready to rethink that super max contact.

I agree with your comments about IT  possibly walking and how if we did trade him we might not get a similar bigger name player in return.

How about Larry Nance Jr (Plus a pick?). Nance averaged 10 and 10 as a starter last year, and is very athletic for a front court player. Lots of talent waiting to be unleashed in Nance.  LA would love a big name guy like IT, though I don't like that trade as a straight swap, just like Nance as a fit in Boston.

Maybe we trade Crowder or someone else for Nance if we can sign Hayward?