What's the lowest pick you ​would accept for IT

[ThePaintedArea]

If we traded IT I would expect something along​ the lines of the Rondo deal.  A decent draft pick and a player that we probably aren't too familiar with (like Crowder at the time) who Ainge and company see a lot of value in.

Still looks like a step back to me.

It's great the way Crowder has turned into a critical piece of the puzzle, but the Celtics now need a star, and shouldn't give up a star like Thomas unless getting back a better star.

Of course it's a step back. If we can't move the needle past Cleveland/Golden State we might as well take a step back, don't you think?

I do not.

The short version is basically: taking a step back would mean having to take the same step forward later.

I'm not persuaded by the argument that: Cleveland and Golden State are unbeatable, therefore there's no point. Of course they are not unbeatable. You make the team better, not trade top assets for the 22nd pick or whatever.

1) You add assets - Boston is in a uniquely privileged position to improve its roster. 

2) You make your franchise a destination - it has crossed the minds of every potential free agent that they might be the one to put the Celtics over the top. 

3) You get better by competing - by advancing in the playoffs, fighting like hell to beat the good teams. 

4) You develop young players by having them compete with mature, experienced players - not by replacing your leadership with more rookies.


Bigger picture:

Why step back when you're adding three top picks anyway? The long-term future is bright indeed.  Even if you buy the argument that "GS/Cavs are too good, there's no point in trying to get better", Boston is set up to bring along the Bk3 picks so that they hit their primes as today's power teams decline - as they inevitably will.

[ThePaintedArea]

If we traded IT I would expect something along​ the lines of the Rondo deal.  A decent draft pick and a player that we probably aren't too familiar with (like Crowder at the time) who Ainge and company see a lot of value in.

Still looks like a step back to me.

It's great the way Crowder has turned into a critical piece of the puzzle, but the Celtics now need a star, and shouldn't give up a star like Thomas unless getting back a better star.

Of course it's a step back. If we can't move the needle past Cleveland/Golden State we might as well take a step back, don't you think?

TP. What about trading IT for Isaiah Canaan? Could maybe get a pick too.

What about Brandon Jennings? 

After his dismal playoffs, the Wiz would probably take Isaiah and a first for him.

[Jvalin]

Hello everybody,

this is my first post and I have to say that I'm absolutely thrilled to join this community. I'm a Celtics fan for about 2 years now.

In Holland, we rarely get to see any basketball on television, so I naturally as a sports fanatic was more familiar with football (I'll never say soccer), cycling, ice skating and such. But about 5/6 years ago, NBA basketball became an interest. I enjoyed to see the NBA finals with the San Antonio Spurs and more and more I invested my (often night) time in watching and learning the NBA. 

I wanted to support a team to make it even more interesting, but what team did I have to choose? No dad that taught me as of childhood (partly why I support Ajax  ) what team is the greatest team on earth. No roots with any city in the US.

Easy to pick one of the best teams in the NBA. I disliked the stars of Miami (and later Cleveland) or the LA Clippers, so that weren't options. I liked watching the Spurs, but I didn't have any feelings about their results. So I watched basically any team if I had time to spare. 

In general I like teams (like in football, Ajax) that play daring offensively with guts and sportmanship. Basketball is a strange sport in that sense as you can't choose to defend or attack, as it is always both. You can only choose to focus on being great on one end. But in 2015 there was a team that jumped in the eye that actually did play offense all the time in some way.

It was the Boston Celtics. They attacked even when they we're defending! I loved how players like Smart, Crowder and Bradley constantly harassed their opponents. So I began to watch Boston more and more. Friends who knew a bit about basketball found that odd (the Celtics are a **** team!), and they did loose a lot. Always fighting, playing with their heart, never giving up, but in the end often it wasn't enough. But I didn't mind! Boston had no stars and we're unlikely to achieve anything (at best making a low play-off spot) anytime soon, but I enjoyed watching their games and I got fully engaged with the team. I had become a Celtics fan!

It is two years later now and I have (intensely) watched almost every game they played since then. Strangely enough they achieved a lot in this period. From a questionable play-off team they became a conference finalist. They have stars now with Thomas, Horford and even Bradley to an extent. They almost acquired a NBA superstar in Durant (I really thought that after the news that Horford chose the Celtics, Durant would follow  ). And they have an even better future with the talent that is incoming with Fultz (!!!), Brooklyn pick '18, Zizic and Brown (Ainge did great).

Of course I don't have to tell you guys this. I just want to explain how I got to be a Celtics fan and hope you will accept me on this forum. I really don't want to be seen as a bandwagon-fan  . I have been reading this forum for about two years and I learned a lot. There are very interesting discussions going on and the complexity of the NBA (no buying only trade, salarycaps, roster limits, drafts) makes up for a great variety of views on this franchise.

For example this discussion of a potential move of Isaiah Thomas. Which I think is very very very complicated, because it would be so personal to Thomas after all that has occurred. But though it seems offensive to some people I think it has to be discussed. Because what would you do if the Knicks made (an unlikely, just for the sake of argument) an offer of Porzingis for Thomas + some minor assets?
 
At some point you would have to pull the trigger right? Since we are not a championship team yet. To get to the question of this topic title, does it really matter which pick you get if it means the same player? With the 3rd pick I would take Jonathan Isaac no matter what (after we would have taken Fultz with the 1st), but he might be available until the 8th pick as well. 

My first post has been a long one. I'll try to be less wordy from now one  . And now I have to try to figure out this system of Tommy Points  .

Welcome on board mate! Here is your first TP!

[Ilikesports17]

Do you believe we still have a good chance of signing Hayward without Isaiah Thomas on the roster?

In your scenario, what is the pitch to Hayward?

"After we dump IT, we may be really good in 4 years or so.  Actually, right around the time your new contract ends... Oh the irony, Gordy!  So, whaddaya say big guy?"

I believe Hayward is smart enough to realize that no matter where he signs this summer, his team won't be able to compete with the Cavs/Warriors. The C's offer him the best possible chance to make a deep play off run (all the way to the ECF). At the same time, New England is a bigger market than Utah. The Jazz can entice him with a bigger contract, but if he signs here he is gonna get more endorsement deals / commercial opportunities. All things considered, it's highly likely he 'll make more money here than in Utah. Obviously, there is the Butler connection as well. I've read a story that his whole family wanted him to commit to Purdue and he chose Butler just because he loved the way Brad Stevens recruited him. I guess things like that matter, but on the other hand no one really knows...


@Ilikesports17
So to answer your question, yes I believe we do.

absurd.

[ThePaintedArea]

...

My first post has been a long one. I'll try to be less wordy from now one  . And now I have to try to figure out this system of Tommy Points  .

Tommy point for putting in all the work in writing your post.

I love the same things you do about today's Celtics: the fight, the intensity, the team play.  Actually, you could say the same things about the Celtics of the past.

Welcome!

[Jvalin]

Do you believe we still have a good chance of signing Hayward without Isaiah Thomas on the roster?

In your scenario, what is the pitch to Hayward?

"After we dump IT, we may be really good in 4 years or so.  Actually, right around the time your new contract ends... Oh the irony, Gordy!  So, whaddaya say big guy?"

I believe Hayward is smart enough to realize that no matter where he signs this summer, his team won't be able to compete with the Cavs/Warriors. The C's offer him the best possible chance to make a deep play off run (all the way to the ECF). At the same time, New England is a bigger market than Utah. The Jazz can entice him with a bigger contract, but if he signs here he is gonna get more endorsement deals / commercial opportunities. All things considered, it's highly likely he 'll make more money here than in Utah. Obviously, there is the Butler connection as well. I've read a story that his whole family wanted him to commit to Purdue and he chose Butler just because he loved the way Brad Stevens recruited him. I guess things like that matter, but on the other hand no one really knows...


@Ilikesports17
So to answer your question, yes I believe we do.

absurd.

Would you be kind enough to elaborate a little more on that?

[Roy H.]

Do you believe we still have a good chance of signing Hayward without Isaiah Thomas on the roster?

In your scenario, what is the pitch to Hayward?

"After we dump IT, we may be really good in 4 years or so.  Actually, right around the time your new contract ends... Oh the irony, Gordy!  So, whaddaya say big guy?"

I believe Hayward is smart enough to realize that no matter where he signs this summer, his team won't be able to compete with the Cavs/Warriors. The C's offer him the best possible chance to make a deep play off run (all the way to the ECF). At the same time, New England is a bigger market than Utah. The Jazz can entice him with a bigger contract, but if he signs here he is gonna get more endorsement deals / commercial opportunities. All things considered, it's highly likely he 'll make more money here than in Utah. Obviously, there is the Butler connection as well. I've read a story that his whole family wanted him to commit to Purdue and he chose Butler just because he loved the way Brad Stevens recruited him. I guess things like that matter, but on the other hand no one really knows...


@Ilikesports17
So to answer your question, yes I believe we do.

absurd.

Would you be kind enough to elaborate a little more on that?

He probably means the part where you argue that, without IT, Boston is still Hayward's best bet to make the Conference Finals.

[Ilikesports17]

Do you believe we still have a good chance of signing Hayward without Isaiah Thomas on the roster?

In your scenario, what is the pitch to Hayward?

"After we dump IT, we may be really good in 4 years or so.  Actually, right around the time your new contract ends... Oh the irony, Gordy!  So, whaddaya say big guy?"

I believe Hayward is smart enough to realize that no matter where he signs this summer, his team won't be able to compete with the Cavs/Warriors. The C's offer him the best possible chance to make a deep play off run (all the way to the ECF). At the same time, New England is a bigger market than Utah. The Jazz can entice him with a bigger contract, but if he signs here he is gonna get more endorsement deals / commercial opportunities. All things considered, it's highly likely he 'll make more money here than in Utah. Obviously, there is the Butler connection as well. I've read a story that his whole family wanted him to commit to Purdue and he chose Butler just because he loved the way Brad Stevens recruited him. I guess things like that matter, but on the other hand no one really knows...


@Ilikesports17
So to answer your question, yes I believe we do.

absurd.

Would you be kind enough to elaborate a little more on that?

when was the last time a team traded their best player in a move that makes them substantially worse and then turned around and signed a max guy? It doesnt happen.

[Jvalin]

Do you believe we still have a good chance of signing Hayward without Isaiah Thomas on the roster?

In your scenario, what is the pitch to Hayward?

"After we dump IT, we may be really good in 4 years or so.  Actually, right around the time your new contract ends... Oh the irony, Gordy!  So, whaddaya say big guy?"

I believe Hayward is smart enough to realize that no matter where he signs this summer, his team won't be able to compete with the Cavs/Warriors. The C's offer him the best possible chance to make a deep play off run (all the way to the ECF). At the same time, New England is a bigger market than Utah. The Jazz can entice him with a bigger contract, but if he signs here he is gonna get more endorsement deals / commercial opportunities. All things considered, it's highly likely he 'll make more money here than in Utah. Obviously, there is the Butler connection as well. I've read a story that his whole family wanted him to commit to Purdue and he chose Butler just because he loved the way Brad Stevens recruited him. I guess things like that matter, but on the other hand no one really knows...


@Ilikesports17
So to answer your question, yes I believe we do.

absurd.

Would you be kind enough to elaborate a little more on that?

when was the last time a team traded their best player in a move that makes them substantially worse and then turned around and signed a max guy? It doesnt happen.

When was the last time a team with the #1 seed got the #1 pick in the draft as well?

Do you actually disagree with anything I wrote? Cause if all you 've got is '' yeah, but it has never happened before'' that's pretty much a moot point.

[Ilikesports17]

Do you believe we still have a good chance of signing Hayward without Isaiah Thomas on the roster?

In your scenario, what is the pitch to Hayward?

"After we dump IT, we may be really good in 4 years or so.  Actually, right around the time your new contract ends... Oh the irony, Gordy!  So, whaddaya say big guy?"

I believe Hayward is smart enough to realize that no matter where he signs this summer, his team won't be able to compete with the Cavs/Warriors. The C's offer him the best possible chance to make a deep play off run (all the way to the ECF). At the same time, New England is a bigger market than Utah. The Jazz can entice him with a bigger contract, but if he signs here he is gonna get more endorsement deals / commercial opportunities. All things considered, it's highly likely he 'll make more money here than in Utah. Obviously, there is the Butler connection as well. I've read a story that his whole family wanted him to commit to Purdue and he chose Butler just because he loved the way Brad Stevens recruited him. I guess things like that matter, but on the other hand no one really knows...


@Ilikesports17
So to answer your question, yes I believe we do.

absurd.

Would you be kind enough to elaborate a little more on that?

when was the last time a team traded their best player in a move that makes them substantially worse and then turned around and signed a max guy? It doesnt happen.

When was the last time a team with the #1 seed got the #1 pick in the draft as well?

Do you actually disagree with anything I wrote? Cause if all you 've got is '' yeah, but it has never happened before'' that's pretty much a moot point.

If we trade Thomas it sends a very clear message to Hayward that we believe our time to really compete is when Fultz/Brown peak, which would likely be in 4 or so years when Hayward's contract would expire. He is unlikely to want to commit to a team that doesnt plan on "going for it" over the course of his entire prime. Free agents arent gonna go sign for less money for a team that just blew it up (and yes trading an all-nba point gaurd so you can hand the reigns over to a rookie is blowing it up).

It is fair from certain that Boston - Thomas + Hayward > Utah with Hayward.

We have to wrestly Hayward from Utah. Not the other way around. Utah is still the team that has the advantage. They can offer more money, Hayward has played his whole career, and Utah is committed to building around Hayward and Gobert. Brad Stevens give us an edge with Hayward, but if we make the public statement to Hayward that we arent trying to win now, we will doom our chances with him.

[Jvalin]

If we trade Thomas it sends a very clear message to Hayward that we believe our time to really compete is when Fultz/Brown peak, which would likely be in 4 or so years when Hayward's contract would expire. He is unlikely to want to commit to a team that doesnt plan on "going for it" over the course of his entire prime. Free agents arent gonna go sign for less money for a team that just blew it up (and yes trading an all-nba point gaurd so you can hand the reigns over to a rookie is blowing it up).

It is fair from certain that Boston - Thomas + Hayward > Utah with Hayward.

We have to wrestly Hayward from Utah. Not the other way around. Utah is still the team that has the advantage. They can offer more money, Hayward has played his whole career, and Utah is committed to building around Hayward and Gobert. Brad Stevens give us an edge with Hayward, but if we make the public statement to Hayward that we arent trying to win now, we will doom our chances with him.

Just tell him the truth. We didn't believe IT was a max guy and we didn't want to resign him. We want you to become our franchise guy. We want to build the Boston Celtics around you. The C's already have a core of experienced vets in Horford-Bradley-Crowder. It's not like we want to make a step back or something. We add you + Fultz instead of IT and we 'll be even stronger next season.

Let's face it, no team in the NBA can challenge the Cavs/Warriors right now. The C's can give him the best possible chance to challenge the Cavs/Warriors down the road. We were the second best team in the East this season, we are gonna be even better in 1-2 years time. LeBron is 32. In a couple of years the Cavs might become vulnerable. Can't say the same thing about the Warriors, not to mention the fact that the Spurs have Pop/Kawhi and look pretty scary as well. The Eastern Conference gives him an easier path to the Finals.

They can offer more money

All things considered, it's highly likely he 'll make more money here than in Utah. Boston is a bigger market -> more money from endorsements here.

Not saying it's a sure thing, but it's not a pipe dream either. At the end of the day, he may choose to stay in Utah no matter what happens with IT.

[Ilikesports17]

If we trade Thomas it sends a very clear message to Hayward that we believe our time to really compete is when Fultz/Brown peak, which would likely be in 4 or so years when Hayward's contract would expire. He is unlikely to want to commit to a team that doesnt plan on "going for it" over the course of his entire prime. Free agents arent gonna go sign for less money for a team that just blew it up (and yes trading an all-nba point gaurd so you can hand the reigns over to a rookie is blowing it up).

It is fair from certain that Boston - Thomas + Hayward > Utah with Hayward.

We have to wrestly Hayward from Utah. Not the other way around. Utah is still the team that has the advantage. They can offer more money, Hayward has played his whole career, and Utah is committed to building around Hayward and Gobert. Brad Stevens give us an edge with Hayward, but if we make the public statement to Hayward that we arent trying to win now, we will doom our chances with him.

Just tell him the truth. We didn't believe IT was a max guy and we didn't want to resign him. We want you to become our franchise guy. We want to build the Boston Celtics around you. The C's already have a core of experienced vets in Horford-Bradley-Crowder. It's not like we want to make a step back or something. We add you + Fultz instead of IT and we 'll be even stronger next season.

Let's face it, no team in the NBA can challenge the Cavs/Warriors right now. The C's can give him the best possible chance to challenge the Cavs/Warriors down the road. We were the second best team in the East this season, we are gonna be even better in 1-2 years time. LeBron is 32. In a couple of years the Cavs might become vulnerable. Can't say the same thing about the Warriors, not to mention the fact that the Spurs have Pop/Kawhi and look pretty scary as well. The Eastern Conference gives him an easier path to the Finals.

They can offer more money

All things considered, it's highly likely he 'll make more money here than in Utah. Boston is a bigger market -> more money from endorsements here.

Not saying it's a sure thing, but it's not a pipe dream either. At the end of the day, he may choose to stay in Utah no matter what happens with IT.

can you at least acknowledge that it has a substantial negative impact on our chances to sign Hayward?

Being honest with him is great, but its not really what you wrote. If you trade Thomas you dont want to build around Hayward, or make him the franchise guy. You want to use Hayward as a crutch to keep the Boston Celtics in the playoffs while we build our real contender to take off in 4 years.

[Jvalin]

can you at least acknowledge that it has a substantial negative impact on our chances to sign Hayward?

Yes, of course. Don't know if it's a substantial impact, but it's a negative impact nonetheless.

That being said, I believe Danny-CBS have already talked with Hayward and they have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen in free agency. Perhaps, that's why Danny decided to pass on Boogie at the deadline.

one pick + one prospect for Boogie < Hayward in free agency (??). Had we traded for Boogie, we wouldn't have had cap space for Hayward.

Being honest with him is great, but its not really what you wrote. If you trade Thomas you dont want to build around Hayward, or make him the franchise guy. You want to use Hayward as a crutch to keep the Boston Celtics in the playoffs while we build our real contender to take off in 4 years.

Not necessarily. Fultz/Brown could challenge him down the road, but Hayward would definitely be our go-to guy for the foreseeable future. We already have an experienced core of vets in Horford-Bradley-Crowder. It's not like we would stop trying to win now because we would only care about the future.

[Ilikesports17]

can you at least acknowledge that it has a substantial negative impact on our chances to sign Hayward?

Yes, of course. Don't know if it's a substantial impact, but it's a negative impact nonetheless.

That being said, I believe Danny-CBS have already talked with Hayward and they have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen in free agency. Perhaps, that's why Danny decided to pass on Boogie at the deadline.

one pick + one prospect for Boogie < Hayward in free agency (??). Had we traded for Boogie, we wouldn't have cap space for Hayward.

Being honest with him is great, but its not really what you wrote. If you trade Thomas you dont want to build around Hayward, or make him the franchise guy. You want to use Hayward as a crutch to keep the Boston Celtics in the playoffs while we build our real contender to take off in 4 years.

Not necessarily. Fultz/Brown could challenge him down the road, but Hayward would definitely be our go-to guy for the foreseeable future. We already have an experienced core of vets in Horford-Bradley-Crowder. It's not like we would stop trying to win now because we would only care about the future.

You don't trade your all-NBA point guard if you are trying to win now.

Also I'm less confident in our ability to sign Hayward than you are.

[Dannys Chipotle Guy]

can you at least acknowledge that it has a substantial negative impact on our chances to sign Hayward?

Yes, of course. Don't know if it's a substantial impact, but it's a negative impact nonetheless.

That being said, I believe Danny-CBS have already talked with Hayward and they have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen in free agency. Perhaps, that's why Danny decided to pass on Boogie at the deadline.

one pick + one prospect for Boogie < Hayward in free agency (??). Had we traded for Boogie, we wouldn't have cap space for Hayward.

Being honest with him is great, but its not really what you wrote. If you trade Thomas you dont want to build around Hayward, or make him the franchise guy. You want to use Hayward as a crutch to keep the Boston Celtics in the playoffs while we build our real contender to take off in 4 years.

Not necessarily. Fultz/Brown could challenge him down the road, but Hayward would definitely be our go-to guy for the foreseeable future. We already have an experienced core of vets in Horford-Bradley-Crowder. It's not like we would stop trying to win now because we would only care about the future.

You don't trade your all-NBA point guard if you are trying to win now.

Also I'm less confident in our ability to sign Hayward than you are.

no chance Gordon Hayward signs if we trade Thomas. No chance at all.