Author Topic: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT  (Read 17692 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #75 on: May 26, 2017, 08:00:16 PM »

Offline flybono

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1012
  • Tommy Points: 48
You in Colorado smoking green?

Top 15 Player in this League......

I have an idea, lets trade him for an 18 year old stiff

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #76 on: May 26, 2017, 08:13:27 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
#1.

Since we already have it, I see no need to trade IT. Looking into my crystal ball (which I have named "Common Sense"), I can pretty much guarantee nobody in this draft outside of Fultz ever reaches 2nd team All-NBA.

Because the goal of team building is to put guys on the All-NBA teams.

I don't care what the All-NBA team voters decided - these are the same people that put DeRozan on the third team and David Lee on the third team a few years back.

IT is not a top 10 guy. He's barely a top 10 PG. He plays the same position of our incoming franchise player.

We should move him.
Sorry what?
Despite all the ridiculousness and irrational things said on this forum recently (Brad is a bad coach, we should move the #1 for worse players etc. etc.), this one absolutely takes the cake.

Most moronic thing I've read in quite some time.
Well, he's certainly not a GREAT coach, as his recent playoff endeavors have indicated.
you mean the endeavors whereby CBS lead the celtics to the eastern division finals, something only one other team managed to do, and that team had lebron?
No, the endeavors where he was on pace to be swept by Chicago and lucked into a Rondo injury -- and the endeavors where he got completely exposed by Cleveland.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #77 on: May 26, 2017, 08:15:11 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Trading IT means no Hayward. It's that black and white.
Not sure why it means this. If Hayward is coming here because of Stevens he's still coming here because of Stevens.

I think trading Thomas for a competent big man and the chance to draft Fox makes us every bit as good in the present and more stocked in the future.
Strongly disagree. No way we win 53 games with a "competent big" instead of Thomas.

Furthermore, there's 0% chance you can get a competent big and a chance to draft Fox for An injured expiring Isaiah Thomas
I think I was pretty clear that my floor for trading him is a pick that can fetch us Fox and a starting-caliber big. Wasn't that the question here?
The word you used was competent.

I dont see your confusion. If you think that trading Thomas for a "competent big" and a rookie Fox  isnt a downgrade in the present then I dont know what to tell you.
A team with Howard, Fox and a competent big who can start is arguably better than this year's team.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #78 on: May 26, 2017, 08:22:10 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8595
  • Tommy Points: 842
Trading IT means no Hayward. It's that black and white.
Not sure why it means this. If Hayward is coming here because of Stevens he's still coming here because of Stevens.

I think trading Thomas for a competent big man and the chance to draft Fox makes us every bit as good in the present and more stocked in the future.
Strongly disagree. No way we win 53 games with a "competent big" instead of Thomas.

Furthermore, there's 0% chance you can get a competent big and a chance to draft Fox for An injured expiring Isaiah Thomas
I think I was pretty clear that my floor for trading him is a pick that can fetch us Fox and a starting-caliber big. Wasn't that the question here?
The word you used was competent.

I dont see your confusion. If you think that trading Thomas for a "competent big" and a rookie Fox  isnt a downgrade in the present then I dont know what to tell you.
A team with Howard, Fox and a competent big who can start is arguably better than this year's team.
I don't think Hayward signs here if we trade Thomas for a competent big and a rookie, no matter who the rookie is.

How can we tell Hayward we are gonna try to win during his contract if we turn around and hand the reigns of the team over to two rookies?

Let me be clear I'd pull the trigger on a trade that gave us a top 5 pick and a competent big. I just don't think Hayward would sign with us afterwards. at best it would damage our chances at signing him substantially.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #79 on: May 26, 2017, 08:23:30 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Not sure why it means this. If Hayward is coming here because of Stevens he's still coming here because of Stevens.
I don't think Hayward signs here if we trade Thomas for a competent big and a rookie, no matter who the rookie is.

How can we tell Hayward we are gonna try to win during his contract if we turn around and hand the reigns of the team over to two rookies?

Let me be clear I'd pull the trigger on a trade that gave us a top 5 pick and a competent big. I just don't think Hayward would sign with us afterwards. at best it would damage our chances at signing him substantially.
We're going in circles. I've highlighted my response to this.

Bottom line is, if you think he's coming because of the relationship, the trade doesn't change this. Also, he's still coming to a team that's probably more competitive than Utah.

But yes, that's what I'm thinking of: trade Thomas if you can get a starting PF and a top 5 pick, and sign Howard. Maybe it's a pipe dream; I certainly don't think there's a realistic plan for it.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #80 on: May 26, 2017, 08:30:38 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8595
  • Tommy Points: 842
Not sure why it means this. If Hayward is coming here because of Stevens he's still coming here because of Stevens.
I don't think Hayward signs here if we trade Thomas for a competent big and a rookie, no matter who the rookie is.

How can we tell Hayward we are gonna try to win during his contract if we turn around and hand the reigns of the team over to two rookies?

Let me be clear I'd pull the trigger on a trade that gave us a top 5 pick and a competent big. I just don't think Hayward would sign with us afterwards. at best it would damage our chances at signing him substantially.
We're going in circles. I've highlighted my response to this.

Bottom line is, if you think he's coming because of the relationship, the trade doesn't change this. Also, he's still coming to a team that's probavbly more competitive than Utah.
Brad Stevens is a factor. He's not the only factor. The idea that he is just blindly following Brad Stevens or he isn't is way over simplifying it.

But overall we agree on the trade.

Top 5 pick and a competent big would be delightful. It's also very unlikely to happen.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #81 on: May 26, 2017, 08:38:00 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Not sure why it means this. If Hayward is coming here because of Stevens he's still coming here because of Stevens.
I don't think Hayward signs here if we trade Thomas for a competent big and a rookie, no matter who the rookie is.

How can we tell Hayward we are gonna try to win during his contract if we turn around and hand the reigns of the team over to two rookies?

Let me be clear I'd pull the trigger on a trade that gave us a top 5 pick and a competent big. I just don't think Hayward would sign with us afterwards. at best it would damage our chances at signing him substantially.
We're going in circles. I've highlighted my response to this.

Bottom line is, if you think he's coming because of the relationship, the trade doesn't change this. Also, he's still coming to a team that's probably more competitive than Utah.
Brad Stevens is a factor. He's not the only factor. The idea that he is just blindly following Brad Stevens or he isn't is way over simplifying it.

But overall we agree on the trade.

Top 5 pick and a competent big would be delightful. It's also very unlikely to happen.
It also doesn't help that Phoenix and Sacramento have picks 4 and 5 -- and these are two places that Thomas isn't going back to, in all likelihood :)
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 08:46:34 PM by kozlodoev »
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #82 on: May 26, 2017, 08:46:25 PM »

Offline Jvalin

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3737
  • Tommy Points: 737
You in Colorado smoking green?

Top 15 Player in this League......

I have an idea, lets trade him for an 18 year old stiff
Wish I were mate! ;D I'm in Greece bleeding green. Sounds close enough? ;D

I don't believe Thomas is a top 15 player. In all honesty, I would be very hesitant to resign him so I'd rather trade him now than let him walk in a year's time.

If you believe we can find better value than the 9th pick I am all ears.

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #83 on: May 26, 2017, 08:56:14 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
You in Colorado smoking green?

Top 15 Player in this League......

I have an idea, lets trade him for an 18 year old stiff
Wish I were mate! ;D I'm in Greece bleeding green. Sounds close enough? ;D

I don't believe Thomas is a top 15 player. In all honesty, I would be very hesitant to resign him so I'd rather trade him now than let him walk in a year's time.

If you believe we can find better value than the 9th pick I am all ears.
To MN for LaVine, Dieng and #7? :P To ORL with Zeller for Vucevic, CJ Watson, and #6?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 09:22:42 PM by kozlodoev »
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #84 on: May 26, 2017, 10:24:10 PM »

Offline Jvalin

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3737
  • Tommy Points: 737
You in Colorado smoking green?

Top 15 Player in this League......

I have an idea, lets trade him for an 18 year old stiff
Wish I were mate! ;D I'm in Greece bleeding green. Sounds close enough? ;D

I don't believe Thomas is a top 15 player. In all honesty, I would be very hesitant to resign him so I'd rather trade him now than let him walk in a year's time.

If you believe we can find better value than the 9th pick I am all ears.
To MN for LaVine, Dieng and #7? :P To ORL with Zeller for Vucevic, CJ Watson, and #6?
Not sure if serious or just joking... Anyway, I'll play along.

The Magic have just fired their GM. No pressure whatsoever for the front office to make a win-now move. Not to mention, trading for Vuc-CJ Watson would kill our chances of landing Hayward (not enough cap space for everyone).

Same thing goes for the Minny trade. Dieng has signed a 4-year, $64 million contract extension. If we trade for him we can no longer go after Hayward. Don't get me wrong, in a vacuum that's a good trade for the C's. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the Celtics do it. Why would the Wolves?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2017, 12:28:50 AM by Jvalin »

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #85 on: May 26, 2017, 10:32:32 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
The Celtics are NOT trading Thomas unless some team gets absolutely stupid with what they offer. Imagine what trading him would do to the lockerroom?

If we dont resign him so be it, let him walk. People forget that he was 3rd in the league in scoring and 2nd team all nba last year. His defense is poor yes, but without him we are probably the 5th seed.
Well in all fairness it could be positive for the locker room (which half the players may also be new come next year). It may say as you said, "poor defense" may get you traded.

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #86 on: May 27, 2017, 07:55:25 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
You in Colorado smoking green?

Top 15 Player in this League......

I have an idea, lets trade him for an 18 year old stiff
Wish I were mate! ;D I'm in Greece bleeding green. Sounds close enough? ;D

I don't believe Thomas is a top 15 player. In all honesty, I would be very hesitant to resign him so I'd rather trade him now than let him walk in a year's time.

If you believe we can find better value than the 9th pick I am all ears.
To MN for LaVine, Dieng and #7? :P To ORL with Zeller for Vucevic, CJ Watson, and #6?
Not sure if serious or just joking... Anyway, I'll play along.

The Magic have just fired their GM. No pressure whatsoever for the front office to make a win-now move. Not to mention, trading for Vuc-CJ Watson would kill our chances of landing Hayward (not enough cap space for everyone).

Same thing goes for the Minny trade. Dieng has signed a 4-year, $64 million contract extension. If we trade for him we can no longer go after Hayward. Don't get me wrong, in a vacuum that's a good trade for the C's. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the Celtics do it. Why would the Wolves?
The Orlando trade can be completed without CJ Watson, in which case it actually opens up 3m cap space for us. Wasn't aware of the Dieng extension details, but I'm guessing Zeller can be added to even out the salaries?

Given that I spent about 5 minutes making this up, I'm not very serious, but still.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #87 on: May 27, 2017, 10:40:04 AM »

Offline Jvalin

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3737
  • Tommy Points: 737
You in Colorado smoking green?

Top 15 Player in this League......

I have an idea, lets trade him for an 18 year old stiff
Wish I were mate! ;D I'm in Greece bleeding green. Sounds close enough? ;D

I don't believe Thomas is a top 15 player. In all honesty, I would be very hesitant to resign him so I'd rather trade him now than let him walk in a year's time.

If you believe we can find better value than the 9th pick I am all ears.
To MN for LaVine, Dieng and #7? :P To ORL with Zeller for Vucevic, CJ Watson, and #6?
Not sure if serious or just joking... Anyway, I'll play along.

The Magic have just fired their GM. No pressure whatsoever for the front office to make a win-now move. Not to mention, trading for Vuc-CJ Watson would kill our chances of landing Hayward (not enough cap space for everyone).

Same thing goes for the Minny trade. Dieng has signed a 4-year, $64 million contract extension. If we trade for him we can no longer go after Hayward. Don't get me wrong, in a vacuum that's a good trade for the C's. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the Celtics do it. Why would the Wolves?
The Orlando trade can be completed without CJ Watson, in which case it actually opens up 3m cap space for us. Wasn't aware of the Dieng extension details, but I'm guessing Zeller can be added to even out the salaries?

Given that I spent about 5 minutes making this up, I'm not very serious, but still.
It would make zero difference for us. If we want to go after Hayward, Zeller has to be renounced either way. We would save $6,261,394 by trading IT, but at the same time we would be getting back $14,112,360 (Dieng) + $3,202,217 (LaVine) + $3,821,640 (cap hold for #7) = $21,136,217

$21,136,217 - $6,261,394 = $14,874,823 extra salary (with regards to free agency)

Same thing goes for the Olrando trade. The fact that we have to trade away Zeller and take back guaranteed salaries makes it far more difficult for us to go after Hayward.

Don't get me wrong, in a vacuum these are good trades for the C's. The thing is

Hayward + IT >>> Vuc + #6
Hayward + IT > LaVine + Dieng + #7

Anyway, for the sake of discussion let's say we do not sign Hayward. The C's revisit trade talks after free agency and decide they wanna do the trades. Why would Orlando/Minny do them?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2017, 11:00:15 AM by Jvalin »

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #88 on: May 27, 2017, 11:49:05 AM »

Offline Chief Macho

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1247
  • Tommy Points: 84
Don't see it happening but if they decided to go all in on a younger core, I'd trade him for a pick that could get Markkanen.  Replace IT will Fultz and KO with Lauri.   

Re: What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT
« Reply #89 on: May 27, 2017, 01:25:09 PM »

Offline vjcsmoke

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3173
  • Tommy Points: 182
IT is our window.  We're not trading him.  And we already have the #1 overall pick this year and a top 3-5 draft pick next year.  Why are you so prospect greedy?  Another rookie doesn't help us when we already get the BEST rookie out of them all!!

IT to the Mavs for #9.

Use the pick to draft Isaac (hopefully he is still on the board).

Do it Danny! Pull the trigger!!

Stupid is as Stupid does.  And that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  Thank god these armchair GMs don't run the Celtics.  You don't trade a prime superstar scoring guard for a #9 pick who most likely doesn't even crack the starting 5.  Today's NBA is catered for scoring guards like IT4.  And we're about to add Fultz to the mix. 

Celtics about to build Splash Brothers 2.0 and dumbass armchair GMs want to give it away for crap picks when we are already getting the #1 overall.  p---es me off to hear this constant stupidity spouted.  Absolutely No respect for what IT4 does for the Celtics or the impact he has on our team.

« Last Edit: May 27, 2017, 01:35:34 PM by vjcsmoke »