Author Topic: Ainge: C's asset depth has made other teams ask for too much (in trade talks)  (Read 9553 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33464
  • Tommy Points: 1533
So all these teams would rather get less from other teams just because Boston has more assets but won't give them all up.  It just isn't logical.

Since when are people logical?  No one wants to "lose" a trade, so it becomes easy to convince yourself to take another offer rather than lower your demands to Ainge.

Mike
that is just nonsense

Spoken like a guy who has never negotiated anything bigger than a garage sale purchase.  Look what the Kings traded Cousins for.  Look what the Bulls traded Butler for.  Look what Atlanta got for Dwight Howard just one year after signing him as a free agent.

People make bad decisions ALL THE TIME when ego and emotions get involved.  And yes, that includes Ainge.  It seems like he remembers almost giving away the store for Justise Winslow and is now being VERY careful in trade talks.

Mike
I've negotiated million dollar contracts.  Part of my job.  It is just nonsense to think a team is going to take a lesser offer because of appearances.  You can miss windows and end up with less like what happened with Cousins and Butler, but the Kings and Bulls didn't take a lesser offer to prove a point or for appearances.  At the time they made those trade, those were the best offers on the table.  The Celtics wouldn't include 3 or the BKN pick in the discussions regarding Butler.  Thus, I am pretty confident that Minnesota did in fact have the best offer on the table.

1.  Neither you nor I actually know anything.  We don't know what Chicago asked.  We don't know what Danny offered.  Someone who actually negotiated million dollar contracts would understand how foolish it is to speak with certainties when you don't actually know what's going on.

2.  Someone who actually negotiated million dollar contracts would also understand that different people make different judgments.  When presented with multiple offers, they will evaluate them differently and come to to different conclusions about which is best, and some people are better at it than others.  What were the other offers for Butler?  You don't know.  Ainge has said Chicago never engaged him on Butler this time around?  Why not?  I don't know.

3.  Ainge could have put Smart, Olynk, Bradley, the LA/Sac/Philly pick and another non-Brooklyn future first on the table for Butler.  While Levine might have a higher ceiling, he's coming off and ACL injury, Bradley is clearly better right now, Smart is better than Dunn, Olynyk already is what you hope Markanen becomes and they get two future firsts AND keep the 16 this year.  But they apparently didn't even try and ask Boston for that better deal.  Why?  Perhaps because their egos wouldn't let them accept getting far less from Ainge than they'd been asking for over the last two years.

4.  And, of course, Chicago had Butler under contract for two more years, so they didn't need to take any deal for him right now.  If Ainge misses on Hayward or PG13 but does get Griffin, suddenly Butler is much, much more attractive to Boston.

I would have thought our last Presidential election destroyed anyone's delusion that we live in a rational universe where rational people make rational choices, but I guess I was wrong.

Mike
1. No one truly knows what was out there, but it is illogical to believe the Minnesota offer wasn't the best one on the table at the time of the trade.  If your only response is people aren't logical that isn't a real response.

2. Of course people can analyze things differently but at the end of the day Chicago took what it felt was the best offer.  Maybe they are ultimately wrong, but they didn't take an offer they believed to be worse just to prove a point.

3. The fact that you've included something that couldn't be traded in your scenario shows your level of understanding.  Minnesota obviously wanted a pick in this draft which is why they traded Butler at the draft. If Ainge wasn't going to give up a high pick in the draft then his offer was clearly worse especially if Brown wasn't in it (thoigh youncoukd easily argue that Chicago thought Dumm was better than Brown anyway). Bradley doesnt make sense at all for a team that is going to tank.

4. The Bulls clearly wanted a lottery pick in this draft which is why they moved Butler when they did. Rrading him later this summer doesnt achieve thst goal and then they risk no one wanting him enoigh to give up 3 young high value assets which is wjay they gor from Minnesota.  Offwrs tend to get worse as time goes on not better
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Offline Casperian

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3501
  • Tommy Points: 545

Replace "Tatum" with "Fultz" and this all still applies.

No, it doesn't. Fultz is not an unathletic low-ceiling iso guy. And even if it does, so what? I didn't want Fultz, either.

The problem still exists for Tatum, though, and we should've used the single biggest asset this franchise had in over 30 years a lot smarter.


And what does labeling anyone who disagrees with you as "just toeing the company line" (as if that's the only reason they could POSSINLY disagree with you) show?

Please, don't be delusional. Maybe you don't notice it, but I see the same people who were on the Fultz or Jackson bandwagon just a week ago now looking for justifications why Tatum is the clear best pick. Just look at all the Jackson is a liar nonsense.


Tatum's production as a freshman was roughly equivalent to Harden's and his numbers were better than Westbrook's were as a sophomore.  Fultz's numbers are closer to Durant's, but he was playing on a horrible team and good stats on a bad team have fooled a lot of GMs.

Now, Fultz could be a Hall of Famer and Tatum could be a bust but let's at least be honest and accurate.

Mike

Yeah, sorry man, that's not how you evaluate talent.



Secondly, we have new information now.  That information is what ACTUALLY happened, that Ainge took Tatum and said there was not much difference basketball-wise in the top 4-5 picks.  He finally revealed his reasoning.  Who am I to disagree? Ainge has much more information than any of us.  Call that "towing the company line", if you like, but I call it adjusting based on new information, rather than being stubborn for the sake of holding a previous position which was actually incorrect.

q.e.d.

Danny is a clown who believes his own hype but can't get **** done.

All the "prime real estate" in the world is worth nothing if you squander it like he did with our #1 pick.

Needs anger management classes. Call your buddy Josh Jackson to schedule.

q.e.d.

Weren't you the biggest Jackson supporter just a week ago?

And I want to be angry, thank you very much.


but why the uncalled for personal attack to cap your post? i dont see where that added to your argument or created the good will needed to have a civil discussion.

I'm not the one who starts with the labeling. And it's not a personal attack, it's clearly insecurity.

Got us to the #1 seed and we're still getting better.

So we get more than 53 wins next season? I mean, we did enter this off-season with the #1 pick. It's not unreasonable to expect more wins next season, no?

As far as I'm concerned, this whole "Contend now, contend later" project is now officially dead. Not happening.

Danny drafted 3 role players with our last three top 6 picks. Does anyone honestly believe a young core of Smart, Brown and Tatum has a snowball's chance in hell of competing with the young cores in Minny, Philly or Washington?

I believe we're at least 10 more years away from #18 after this off-season.



A lot of this kind of confusion can be cleared up by realizing "the blog" is hundreds of posters with a wide array of opinions rather than just one dude with a bunch of alt accounts who keeps contradicting himself.

Thank you, Captain Obvious, I'm aware of that, and it doesn't change anything. You're not adding anything to the discussion.

While I have no real problem with the events leading to the Tatum pick - I wasn't enamored with Fultz - I find the asset depth argument almost Trump-like in its laughable vapidity.

I'm not sure whether Grousbeck is pinching pennies again or this is Ainge's ego at work again, fed by the battalion of excuse-makers he has in the fan base, but until I see a move to improve this club on the floor, rather than the hoarding of teen-age projects, I am going to continue to dismiss absurdities such as this ridiculous asset depth statement of his.


If I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, I think it's just us making "the safe pick" once again. Our guys can't really evaluate talent, they can't project, they just play the percentages game of how to minimize bust potential.

It's how we end up with the Kelly Olynyk's of this world.

Btw, coach, I think this whole board, including me, owes you a massive apology. You were the only one who saw through the bull**** all these years.

It has become quite obvious that the owners care more about selling tickets and kid-sized IT4 shirts than actually winning championships.

----------------


Btw, I just had to defend myself against what, eight different posters?

If you want to know where the group think is coming from, there's your answer. That, hwangjini, is also the reason why having a "civil discussion" on topics like these is inherently impossible.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 06:17:08 AM by Casperian »
In the summer of 2017, I predicted this team would not win a championship for the next 10 years.

3 down, 7 to go.

Offline Spilling Green Dye

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
  • Tommy Points: 115
The assertion that the Celtics care only about hoarding teen-age assets (and selling kid-sized IT jerseys) and not putting a superior product on the floor, is hard to refute after we essentially passed on Jimmy Butler and Demarcus Cousins. 

As somebody who does professional Sales and Negotiating for a living, I suspect that teams do initially ask for more from the Celtics than they do other teams.  Why not?  But my opinion is that Danny and his team does not do a good job of selling the value of what he has.  You don't sell value by making a pitch, or playing hard to get.  You (basically) sell by asking about the other team's needs, extrapolating out what their frustrations will look like if they continue (and get worse), offering solutions (picks & players) that fix those issues, getting the other team's agreement on that vision, and systematically eliminate the competition so that only your picks & players solve their issues.  If Danny ever did that, then he could start the negotiation process.

It appears Danny wins trades against the GM's who should never have been GM's.  The other 28 GM's?  Danny doesn't build proper value, the two sides end up too far apart, and Danny sells the "it didn't make sense for us to trade" instead of the reality - he doesn't know how to sell.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 08:30:40 AM by Spilling Green Dye »

Offline RLewis35

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 440
  • Tommy Points: 20
  • I drink and I know things
The assertion that the Celtics care only about hoarding teen-age assets (and selling kid-sized IT jerseys) and not putting a superior product on the floor, is hard to refute after we essentially passed on Jimmy Butler and Demarcus Cousins. 

As somebody who does professional Sales and Negotiating for a living, I suspect that teams do initially ask for more from the Celtics than they do other teams.  Why not?  But my opinion is that Danny and his team does not do a good job of selling the value of what he has.  You don't sell value by making a pitch, or playing hard to get.  You (basically) sell by asking about the other team's needs, extrapolating out what their frustrations will look like if they continue (and get worse), offering solutions (picks & players) that fix those issues, getting the other team's agreement on that vision, and systematically eliminate the competition so that only your picks & players solve their issues.  If Danny ever did that, then he could start the negotiation process.

It appears Danny wins trades against the GM's who should never have been GM's.  The other 28 GM's?  Danny doesn't build proper value, the two sides end up too far apart, and Danny sells the "it didn't make sense for us to trade" instead of the reality - he doesn't know how to sell.

Cousins and butler would have eaten into cap room for Hayward and/or george.  Danny may know a lot more than we do about how likely these possibilities are.

Ultimately if we get Hayward and george without trading jaylen, Tatum or thenbrooklyn pick, it will be pretty clear he was smart to not deal for cousins or buckets.  Let's wait and see.

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
The assertion that the Celtics care only about hoarding teen-age assets (and selling kid-sized IT jerseys) and not putting a superior product on the floor, is hard to refute after we essentially passed on Jimmy Butler and Demarcus Cousins. 

As somebody who does professional Sales and Negotiating for a living, I suspect that teams do initially ask for more from the Celtics than they do other teams.  Why not?  But my opinion is that Danny and his team does not do a good job of selling the value of what he has.  You don't sell value by making a pitch, or playing hard to get.  You (basically) sell by asking about the other team's needs, extrapolating out what their frustrations will look like if they continue (and get worse), offering solutions (picks & players) that fix those issues, getting the other team's agreement on that vision, and systematically eliminate the competition so that only your picks & players solve their issues.  If Danny ever did that, then he could start the negotiation process.

It appears Danny wins trades against the GM's who should never have been GM's.  The other 28 GM's?  Danny doesn't build proper value, the two sides end up too far apart, and Danny sells the "it didn't make sense for us to trade" instead of the reality - he doesn't know how to sell.

Cousins wasn't about hoarding.  The organization wasn't convinced that his inconsistent effort level made him worth acquiring.  They never made an offer this season.

Offline Boston Garden Leprechaun

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18478
  • Tommy Points: 1551
Danny is a clown who believes his own hype but can't get **** done.

All the "prime real estate" in the world is worth nothing if you squander it like he did with our #1 pick.

wow
LET'S GO CELTICS!

Offline Boston Garden Leprechaun

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18478
  • Tommy Points: 1551
The assertion that the Celtics care only about hoarding teen-age assets (and selling kid-sized IT jerseys) and not putting a superior product on the floor, is hard to refute after we essentially passed on Jimmy Butler and Demarcus Cousins. 

As somebody who does professional Sales and Negotiating for a living, I suspect that teams do initially ask for more from the Celtics than they do other teams.  Why not?  But my opinion is that Danny and his team does not do a good job of selling the value of what he has.  You don't sell value by making a pitch, or playing hard to get.  You (basically) sell by asking about the other team's needs, extrapolating out what their frustrations will look like if they continue (and get worse), offering solutions (picks & players) that fix those issues, getting the other team's agreement on that vision, and systematically eliminate the competition so that only your picks & players solve their issues.  If Danny ever did that, then he could start the negotiation process.

It appears Danny wins trades against the GM's who should never have been GM's.  The other 28 GM's?  Danny doesn't build proper value, the two sides end up too far apart, and Danny sells the "it didn't make sense for us to trade" instead of the reality - he doesn't know how to sell.

sigh
LET'S GO CELTICS!

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Tommy Points: 419
So going to the ECF, being a #1 seed, drafting 3rd overall two years in a row, having 2 likely lotto picks next year, being the forerunners for the #1 free agent this year, signing the #2 FA last year, with a plan to add Paul George if the #1 FA signs is not good enough for a big part of this sub?

I think like 1/3rd of the posters would fail this test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10774
  • Tommy Points: 789

Offline MVPPierceNoJoke

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1862
  • Tommy Points: 106
Pacers asking for nets 2018 pick, Lakers 2018 pick, and starting players
http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/246570/Pacers-Asking-Celtics-For-Both-Nets-Lakers-2018-FRP-Starting-Players
And when he told Ainge that all he heard was a laugh and a click

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
Pacers asking for nets 2018 pick, Lakers 2018 pick, and starting players
http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/246570/Pacers-Asking-Celtics-For-Both-Nets-Lakers-2018-FRP-Starting-Players
And when he told Ainge that all he heard was a laugh and a click

Nets would have YES !

Offline OldSchoolDude

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 599
  • Tommy Points: 79
Teams should learn by now that Ainge will not over pay.   We are not a desperate team.  We are coming off the ECF and looking at two top 5 picks next year.  Don't like our offer for Butler, no problem we'll develop Brown.  Don't like our offer for George, no problem we'll develop Tatum.