Author Topic: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"  (Read 2709 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #45 on: July 11, 2017, 05:15:13 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16481
  • Tommy Points: 783
It wasnt Danny fault that Pritchard couldn't and wouldn't wait..Pacers are determined to send him out West so nothing Danny can do about it...Danny I believe would have given up the Laker pick and or Smart. Really AB Crowder Smart and or the Laker pick arr just really that much better than what they got from OKC.
Sure it was.  Ainge wouldn't commit.  A commitment doesn't mean an immediate trade.  The trade with OKC wasn't finalized for a week.

Why would Ainge commit without Hayward? If Hayward doesnt come you have just traded your 3 best defenders or maybe 2 best defenders for him. If you are trying to go all in the plan would have to be Hayward and George. Indy wanted the deal they saw before them and took it. Im not sure how one can blame Danny for wanting to hold the space open for Hayward and then getting Hayward.
You should always trade Crowder, Smart, and a non-premium pick for Paul George.  It should never be a question.  Ainge totally blew the negotiations and Paul George should be a Celtic.  Boston still could have acquired Hayward by just waiting to make it official.  All Ainge had to say was, we have a deal no matter what, just let me use my cap space first before we make it official.  Thomas, Hayward, George, and Horford is absolutely a contender even with vet minimum types surrounding them (but they would have still have Tatum and Brown).  That team would not only push Cleveland, but might actually be favored against them and would be a real threat to Golden State (though GS would still be the favorite).  Ainge blew this summer by not acquiring George for what the rumored price was.  If Hayward didn't sign, then you end up with a nice solid 4 some of Thomas, Bradley, George, and Horford, which is better than the current 4 some anyway.  Paul George would be by far the best player on the Celtics.  He is a 2 way star.  A legit top 10 player in the league.  A guy that can not only guard the James', Durant's, and Leonard's of the world, but also forces those guys to play defense.


I havent read past the 1st sentence because what you wrote is not possible and still get Hayward. You would have to trade AB, Smart, and Crowder to make the money work.
Not if you don't sign Hayward.  To sign Hayward you had to trade 1 of them anyway, so trading all 3 isn't a big deal if you land George and Hayward (and you didn't have to trade Bradley to Indy, he could have gone to another team for a draft pick or something).


You would have to trade all 3 in order to maintain the option of signing Hayward. Its not a matter of signing him. Im talking about even having the option to sign him would be gone if you just trade Smart and Crowder. Or fine you could trade Crowder, Smart, Brown, Rozier, and Jackson. That would work but you will still trade AB to make room for Hayward.
You didn't have to trade Bradley to Indiana though.  Indiana wanted Smart, Crowder, and a non-premium 1st (say Boston's 2018 1st).  Boston would have had to trade Bradley in the same trade, but that could have been to a 3rd team that wanted Bradley.  So maybe Boston calls up Philly (pre-Redick) and tries to get a pick out of them or the rights to someone.  So Boston trades Bradley, Crowder, Smart, and its 2018 1st for George and a PHI 2nd (or something like that).  Boston then waives Mickey and Jackson and trades Rozier to acquire Hayward.  If however, Hayward decided to stay in Utah, then Boston can just trade Crowder, Smart, and the 2018 1st for George and absorb the rest of George's salary into the left over cap space and thus wouldn't have had to trade Bradley and would have been able to keep Olynyk (if it wanted to). 

The point is for what Indy wanted for George there was absolutely no reason for Ainge to not make the commitment to acquire him.  You figure the other stuff out later.
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #46 on: July 11, 2017, 05:39:01 PM »

Offline clevelandceltic

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 536
  • Tommy Points: 27
It wasnt Danny fault that Pritchard couldn't and wouldn't wait..Pacers are determined to send him out West so nothing Danny can do about it...Danny I believe would have given up the Laker pick and or Smart. Really AB Crowder Smart and or the Laker pick arr just really that much better than what they got from OKC.
Sure it was.  Ainge wouldn't commit.  A commitment doesn't mean an immediate trade.  The trade with OKC wasn't finalized for a week.

Why would Ainge commit without Hayward? If Hayward doesnt come you have just traded your 3 best defenders or maybe 2 best defenders for him. If you are trying to go all in the plan would have to be Hayward and George. Indy wanted the deal they saw before them and took it. Im not sure how one can blame Danny for wanting to hold the space open for Hayward and then getting Hayward.
You should always trade Crowder, Smart, and a non-premium pick for Paul George.  It should never be a question.  Ainge totally blew the negotiations and Paul George should be a Celtic.  Boston still could have acquired Hayward by just waiting to make it official.  All Ainge had to say was, we have a deal no matter what, just let me use my cap space first before we make it official.  Thomas, Hayward, George, and Horford is absolutely a contender even with vet minimum types surrounding them (but they would have still have Tatum and Brown).  That team would not only push Cleveland, but might actually be favored against them and would be a real threat to Golden State (though GS would still be the favorite).  Ainge blew this summer by not acquiring George for what the rumored price was.  If Hayward didn't sign, then you end up with a nice solid 4 some of Thomas, Bradley, George, and Horford, which is better than the current 4 some anyway.  Paul George would be by far the best player on the Celtics.  He is a 2 way star.  A legit top 10 player in the league.  A guy that can not only guard the James', Durant's, and Leonard's of the world, but also forces those guys to play defense.


I havent read past the 1st sentence because what you wrote is not possible and still get Hayward. You would have to trade AB, Smart, and Crowder to make the money work.
Not if you don't sign Hayward.  To sign Hayward you had to trade 1 of them anyway, so trading all 3 isn't a big deal if you land George and Hayward (and you didn't have to trade Bradley to Indy, he could have gone to another team for a draft pick or something).


You would have to trade all 3 in order to maintain the option of signing Hayward. Its not a matter of signing him. Im talking about even having the option to sign him would be gone if you just trade Smart and Crowder. Or fine you could trade Crowder, Smart, Brown, Rozier, and Jackson. That would work but you will still trade AB to make room for Hayward.
You didn't have to trade Bradley to Indiana though.  Indiana wanted Smart, Crowder, and a non-premium 1st (say Boston's 2018 1st).  Boston would have had to trade Bradley in the same trade, but that could have been to a 3rd team that wanted Bradley.  So maybe Boston calls up Philly (pre-Redick) and tries to get a pick out of them or the rights to someone.  So Boston trades Bradley, Crowder, Smart, and its 2018 1st for George and a PHI 2nd (or something like that).  Boston then waives Mickey and Jackson and trades Rozier to acquire Hayward.  If however, Hayward decided to stay in Utah, then Boston can just trade Crowder, Smart, and the 2018 1st for George and absorb the rest of George's salary into the left over cap space and thus wouldn't have had to trade Bradley and would have been able to keep Olynyk (if it wanted to). 

The point is for what Indy wanted for George there was absolutely no reason for Ainge to not make the commitment to acquire him.  You figure the other stuff out later.

So again the net result is exactly what I said. In the deal you have to trade Bradley, Smart and Crowder to keep open a spot for Hayward. You are changing your story from they could have kept Bradley to they could have just traded him to a 3rd team. Also that deal doesnt work cap wise.

Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #47 on: July 11, 2017, 05:53:56 PM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6107
  • Tommy Points: 396
Is he really supposed to say it's not before the season at OKC?  It's all damage control now.

I do think most often this talk is overblown but not with him.  He came out so publically not wanting to be in Indy it's pretty obvious.
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #48 on: July 11, 2017, 05:58:12 PM »

Online saltlover

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9317
  • Tommy Points: 2024
We'll know whether or not it's overstated when Westbrook signs that huge extension he's been offered.  If Westbrook decides to pass, it's tough to not see George heading to LA, maybe with Westbrook, next summer.

Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #49 on: July 11, 2017, 06:14:34 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10857
  • Tommy Points: 1212
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2720966-paul-george-says-rumors-of-lakers-interest-are-overstated-in-si-interview

This is very interesting if true, which is a big if. Many of us on here said exactly this about PG's intentions before he was traded. I was certainly willing to give up the LA pick for him, because I felt that it was highly unlikely that he'd leave this good of a team for a bad one in LA. And I still do feel that way.

If he does end up staying in OKC, how big of a miss by Danny would that be? I really like what we ended up doing this summer with signing Hayward and getting Morris and Baynes, and I know it would've been ungodly expensive to add George to the mix, too. But if the owners were willing to spend the money, this would seemingly be a big miss by Danny if he doesn't end up going to LA.

It's another illustration of the 2 perspective with which to assess a "move":  1) Now -- is it a good move given current information (risk/reward, etc.)?; 2) Over time -- how did it play out?

It's understandable, but a little unfair, for people to judge a move as the "right" move in the present and then to bash it later when it turns out to be the wrong move.  Consider selecting KO instead of Giannis.  Obviously, 100 out of 100 in retrospect would have selected GA.  But it is only those who at the time of selection were sure GA was the right choice that really have the right to gripe.   

My opinion on the PG trade is that it is wise in the present to have held onto Smart, Crowder and the picks (even though not valuable picks) given the risk of PG bolting.   Reality is that IT, Bradley and PG would be up next year and that's $80M to add to Hayward and Horford.  Not sure that bottom line wouldn't have been losing Smart, IT, Crowder and Bradley (& picks) all for PG, or, saying farewell to PG after just one year. 

Anyway, at best I think it's dilemma and tough call -- so if PG stay in OKC I won't disparage DA's decision a year from now.   

Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #50 on: July 11, 2017, 11:10:19 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16481
  • Tommy Points: 783
It wasnt Danny fault that Pritchard couldn't and wouldn't wait..Pacers are determined to send him out West so nothing Danny can do about it...Danny I believe would have given up the Laker pick and or Smart. Really AB Crowder Smart and or the Laker pick arr just really that much better than what they got from OKC.
Sure it was.  Ainge wouldn't commit.  A commitment doesn't mean an immediate trade.  The trade with OKC wasn't finalized for a week.

Why would Ainge commit without Hayward? If Hayward doesnt come you have just traded your 3 best defenders or maybe 2 best defenders for him. If you are trying to go all in the plan would have to be Hayward and George. Indy wanted the deal they saw before them and took it. Im not sure how one can blame Danny for wanting to hold the space open for Hayward and then getting Hayward.
You should always trade Crowder, Smart, and a non-premium pick for Paul George.  It should never be a question.  Ainge totally blew the negotiations and Paul George should be a Celtic.  Boston still could have acquired Hayward by just waiting to make it official.  All Ainge had to say was, we have a deal no matter what, just let me use my cap space first before we make it official.  Thomas, Hayward, George, and Horford is absolutely a contender even with vet minimum types surrounding them (but they would have still have Tatum and Brown).  That team would not only push Cleveland, but might actually be favored against them and would be a real threat to Golden State (though GS would still be the favorite).  Ainge blew this summer by not acquiring George for what the rumored price was.  If Hayward didn't sign, then you end up with a nice solid 4 some of Thomas, Bradley, George, and Horford, which is better than the current 4 some anyway.  Paul George would be by far the best player on the Celtics.  He is a 2 way star.  A legit top 10 player in the league.  A guy that can not only guard the James', Durant's, and Leonard's of the world, but also forces those guys to play defense.


I havent read past the 1st sentence because what you wrote is not possible and still get Hayward. You would have to trade AB, Smart, and Crowder to make the money work.
Not if you don't sign Hayward.  To sign Hayward you had to trade 1 of them anyway, so trading all 3 isn't a big deal if you land George and Hayward (and you didn't have to trade Bradley to Indy, he could have gone to another team for a draft pick or something).


You would have to trade all 3 in order to maintain the option of signing Hayward. Its not a matter of signing him. Im talking about even having the option to sign him would be gone if you just trade Smart and Crowder. Or fine you could trade Crowder, Smart, Brown, Rozier, and Jackson. That would work but you will still trade AB to make room for Hayward.
You didn't have to trade Bradley to Indiana though.  Indiana wanted Smart, Crowder, and a non-premium 1st (say Boston's 2018 1st).  Boston would have had to trade Bradley in the same trade, but that could have been to a 3rd team that wanted Bradley.  So maybe Boston calls up Philly (pre-Redick) and tries to get a pick out of them or the rights to someone.  So Boston trades Bradley, Crowder, Smart, and its 2018 1st for George and a PHI 2nd (or something like that).  Boston then waives Mickey and Jackson and trades Rozier to acquire Hayward.  If however, Hayward decided to stay in Utah, then Boston can just trade Crowder, Smart, and the 2018 1st for George and absorb the rest of George's salary into the left over cap space and thus wouldn't have had to trade Bradley and would have been able to keep Olynyk (if it wanted to). 

The point is for what Indy wanted for George there was absolutely no reason for Ainge to not make the commitment to acquire him.  You figure the other stuff out later.

So again the net result is exactly what I said. In the deal you have to trade Bradley, Smart and Crowder to keep open a spot for Hayward. You are changing your story from they could have kept Bradley to they could have just traded him to a 3rd team. Also that deal doesnt work cap wise.
No.  Indy wanted Smart, Crowder, and a 1st.  That is all you had to commit to give up.  Bradley only has to be included if Boston lands Hayward (because it had the cap space to absorb George without signing Hayward and doing things like waiving Zeller and giving up the Amir and JJ cap holds).  It then finds a trade for Bradley with no salary coming back, but only does that if Hayward commits.  If Hayward doesn't commit you don't trade Bradley.
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #51 on: July 12, 2017, 12:31:21 AM »

Offline clevelandceltic

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 536
  • Tommy Points: 27
It wasnt Danny fault that Pritchard couldn't and wouldn't wait..Pacers are determined to send him out West so nothing Danny can do about it...Danny I believe would have given up the Laker pick and or Smart. Really AB Crowder Smart and or the Laker pick arr just really that much better than what they got from OKC.
Sure it was.  Ainge wouldn't commit.  A commitment doesn't mean an immediate trade.  The trade with OKC wasn't finalized for a week.

Why would Ainge commit without Hayward? If Hayward doesnt come you have just traded your 3 best defenders or maybe 2 best defenders for him. If you are trying to go all in the plan would have to be Hayward and George. Indy wanted the deal they saw before them and took it. Im not sure how one can blame Danny for wanting to hold the space open for Hayward and then getting Hayward.
You should always trade Crowder, Smart, and a non-premium pick for Paul George.  It should never be a question.  Ainge totally blew the negotiations and Paul George should be a Celtic.  Boston still could have acquired Hayward by just waiting to make it official.  All Ainge had to say was, we have a deal no matter what, just let me use my cap space first before we make it official.  Thomas, Hayward, George, and Horford is absolutely a contender even with vet minimum types surrounding them (but they would have still have Tatum and Brown).  That team would not only push Cleveland, but might actually be favored against them and would be a real threat to Golden State (though GS would still be the favorite).  Ainge blew this summer by not acquiring George for what the rumored price was.  If Hayward didn't sign, then you end up with a nice solid 4 some of Thomas, Bradley, George, and Horford, which is better than the current 4 some anyway.  Paul George would be by far the best player on the Celtics.  He is a 2 way star.  A legit top 10 player in the league.  A guy that can not only guard the James', Durant's, and Leonard's of the world, but also forces those guys to play defense.


I havent read past the 1st sentence because what you wrote is not possible and still get Hayward. You would have to trade AB, Smart, and Crowder to make the money work.
Not if you don't sign Hayward.  To sign Hayward you had to trade 1 of them anyway, so trading all 3 isn't a big deal if you land George and Hayward (and you didn't have to trade Bradley to Indy, he could have gone to another team for a draft pick or something).


You would have to trade all 3 in order to maintain the option of signing Hayward. Its not a matter of signing him. Im talking about even having the option to sign him would be gone if you just trade Smart and Crowder. Or fine you could trade Crowder, Smart, Brown, Rozier, and Jackson. That would work but you will still trade AB to make room for Hayward.
You didn't have to trade Bradley to Indiana though.  Indiana wanted Smart, Crowder, and a non-premium 1st (say Boston's 2018 1st).  Boston would have had to trade Bradley in the same trade, but that could have been to a 3rd team that wanted Bradley.  So maybe Boston calls up Philly (pre-Redick) and tries to get a pick out of them or the rights to someone.  So Boston trades Bradley, Crowder, Smart, and its 2018 1st for George and a PHI 2nd (or something like that).  Boston then waives Mickey and Jackson and trades Rozier to acquire Hayward.  If however, Hayward decided to stay in Utah, then Boston can just trade Crowder, Smart, and the 2018 1st for George and absorb the rest of George's salary into the left over cap space and thus wouldn't have had to trade Bradley and would have been able to keep Olynyk (if it wanted to). 

The point is for what Indy wanted for George there was absolutely no reason for Ainge to not make the commitment to acquire him.  You figure the other stuff out later.

So again the net result is exactly what I said. In the deal you have to trade Bradley, Smart and Crowder to keep open a spot for Hayward. You are changing your story from they could have kept Bradley to they could have just traded him to a 3rd team. Also that deal doesnt work cap wise.
No.  Indy wanted Smart, Crowder, and a 1st.  That is all you had to commit to give up.  Bradley only has to be included if Boston lands Hayward (because it had the cap space to absorb George without signing Hayward and doing things like waiving Zeller and giving up the Amir and JJ cap holds).  It then finds a trade for Bradley with no salary coming back, but only does that if Hayward commits.  If Hayward doesn't commit you don't trade Bradley.

You are moving the goal post. What you are saying is correct if George was traded after Hayward made a decision. That wasnt the case. The trade was made before so in the real world contect you have to trade AB in the deal to keep the slot open. You are trying to play both sides of the argument by saying well you would only have to trade AB after if you got George after Hayward committed.

The fact is George was traded before FA started hence you couldnt do any of what you are talking about unless you trade AB in the deal or trade Brown and other parts as I have outlined. Ainge could not force them to wait on a deal. Nor did Ainge want to commit to a deal that restructed the team when he had the option of adding a player of similar talent.

Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #52 on: July 12, 2017, 01:07:50 AM »

Offline chiken Green

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 468
  • Tommy Points: 48
Not sure what the big deal is.. OR why some feel like Danny Fails if PG resigns with OKC.

A. Was laid out pretty clear that if Danny wanted Both he had to get GH First.. (indie Did not want to wait)
B. Sounds like someone is trying to save face
C. Danny Valued GH more than he did PG... 
D. Now that PG is gone from Indie he is going to say whatever... And its very possible at this point he and his agent Are making sure the LA knows that he has other options - (so dont try to lowball)
E. Resigning PG Next year would have meant No IT.. No IT might have meant No GH...  Also The team would have been gutted to get both.. Danny was not interested in this.   

Overstated or not it doesnt matter at this point..


Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #53 on: July 12, 2017, 01:24:29 AM »

Offline ayer

  • Marcus Smart
  • Posts: 201
  • Tommy Points: 1064
Not sure what the big deal is.. OR why some feel like Danny Fails if PG resigns with OKC.

A. Was laid out pretty clear that if Danny wanted Both he had to get GH First.. (indie Did not want to wait)
B. Sounds like someone is trying to save face
C. Danny Valued GH more than he did PG... 
D. Now that PG is gone from Indie he is going to say whatever... And its very possible at this point he and his agent Are making sure the LA knows that he has other options - (so dont try to lowball)
E. Resigning PG Next year would have meant No IT.. No IT might have meant No GH...  Also The team would have been gutted to get both.. Danny was not interested in this.   

Overstated or not it doesnt matter at this point..
TP!!

Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #54 on: July 12, 2017, 01:29:25 AM »

Offline jdz101

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2975
  • Tommy Points: 380
Whats with the fawning over Doncic? I aint taking him above some of the other guys predicted to go top 5. No way.


how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck was chris bosh?

Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #55 on: July 12, 2017, 08:38:09 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16481
  • Tommy Points: 783
It wasnt Danny fault that Pritchard couldn't and wouldn't wait..Pacers are determined to send him out West so nothing Danny can do about it...Danny I believe would have given up the Laker pick and or Smart. Really AB Crowder Smart and or the Laker pick arr just really that much better than what they got from OKC.
Sure it was.  Ainge wouldn't commit.  A commitment doesn't mean an immediate trade.  The trade with OKC wasn't finalized for a week.

Why would Ainge commit without Hayward? If Hayward doesnt come you have just traded your 3 best defenders or maybe 2 best defenders for him. If you are trying to go all in the plan would have to be Hayward and George. Indy wanted the deal they saw before them and took it. Im not sure how one can blame Danny for wanting to hold the space open for Hayward and then getting Hayward.
You should always trade Crowder, Smart, and a non-premium pick for Paul George.  It should never be a question.  Ainge totally blew the negotiations and Paul George should be a Celtic.  Boston still could have acquired Hayward by just waiting to make it official.  All Ainge had to say was, we have a deal no matter what, just let me use my cap space first before we make it official.  Thomas, Hayward, George, and Horford is absolutely a contender even with vet minimum types surrounding them (but they would have still have Tatum and Brown).  That team would not only push Cleveland, but might actually be favored against them and would be a real threat to Golden State (though GS would still be the favorite).  Ainge blew this summer by not acquiring George for what the rumored price was.  If Hayward didn't sign, then you end up with a nice solid 4 some of Thomas, Bradley, George, and Horford, which is better than the current 4 some anyway.  Paul George would be by far the best player on the Celtics.  He is a 2 way star.  A legit top 10 player in the league.  A guy that can not only guard the James', Durant's, and Leonard's of the world, but also forces those guys to play defense.


I havent read past the 1st sentence because what you wrote is not possible and still get Hayward. You would have to trade AB, Smart, and Crowder to make the money work.
Not if you don't sign Hayward.  To sign Hayward you had to trade 1 of them anyway, so trading all 3 isn't a big deal if you land George and Hayward (and you didn't have to trade Bradley to Indy, he could have gone to another team for a draft pick or something).


You would have to trade all 3 in order to maintain the option of signing Hayward. Its not a matter of signing him. Im talking about even having the option to sign him would be gone if you just trade Smart and Crowder. Or fine you could trade Crowder, Smart, Brown, Rozier, and Jackson. That would work but you will still trade AB to make room for Hayward.
You didn't have to trade Bradley to Indiana though.  Indiana wanted Smart, Crowder, and a non-premium 1st (say Boston's 2018 1st).  Boston would have had to trade Bradley in the same trade, but that could have been to a 3rd team that wanted Bradley.  So maybe Boston calls up Philly (pre-Redick) and tries to get a pick out of them or the rights to someone.  So Boston trades Bradley, Crowder, Smart, and its 2018 1st for George and a PHI 2nd (or something like that).  Boston then waives Mickey and Jackson and trades Rozier to acquire Hayward.  If however, Hayward decided to stay in Utah, then Boston can just trade Crowder, Smart, and the 2018 1st for George and absorb the rest of George's salary into the left over cap space and thus wouldn't have had to trade Bradley and would have been able to keep Olynyk (if it wanted to). 

The point is for what Indy wanted for George there was absolutely no reason for Ainge to not make the commitment to acquire him.  You figure the other stuff out later.

So again the net result is exactly what I said. In the deal you have to trade Bradley, Smart and Crowder to keep open a spot for Hayward. You are changing your story from they could have kept Bradley to they could have just traded him to a 3rd team. Also that deal doesnt work cap wise.
No.  Indy wanted Smart, Crowder, and a 1st.  That is all you had to commit to give up.  Bradley only has to be included if Boston lands Hayward (because it had the cap space to absorb George without signing Hayward and doing things like waiving Zeller and giving up the Amir and JJ cap holds).  It then finds a trade for Bradley with no salary coming back, but only does that if Hayward commits.  If Hayward doesn't commit you don't trade Bradley.

You are moving the goal post. What you are saying is correct if George was traded after Hayward made a decision. That wasnt the case. The trade was made before so in the real world contect you have to trade AB in the deal to keep the slot open. You are trying to play both sides of the argument by saying well you would only have to trade AB after if you got George after Hayward committed.

The fact is George was traded before FA started hence you couldnt do any of what you are talking about unless you trade AB in the deal or trade Brown and other parts as I have outlined. Ainge could not force them to wait on a deal. Nor did Ainge want to commit to a deal that restructed the team when he had the option of adding a player of similar talent.
Committing to make a deal and making a deal are not the same thing.  the trade to OKC wasn't finalized for a week (you know after the moratorium ended).  Boston did not have to give up Bradley until it had a commitment from Hayward.  It didn't need to move Bradley first to get a commitment from Hayward.  We know this is true, because this is exactly what happened.  All Ainge had to say to Pritchard was, we have a deal no matter what happens with Hayward, but just give me a week to chase that down and/or otherwise use some of the cap space. 
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #56 on: July 12, 2017, 12:04:28 PM »

Offline clevelandceltic

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 536
  • Tommy Points: 27
It wasnt Danny fault that Pritchard couldn't and wouldn't wait..Pacers are determined to send him out West so nothing Danny can do about it...Danny I believe would have given up the Laker pick and or Smart. Really AB Crowder Smart and or the Laker pick arr just really that much better than what they got from OKC.
Sure it was.  Ainge wouldn't commit.  A commitment doesn't mean an immediate trade.  The trade with OKC wasn't finalized for a week.

Why would Ainge commit without Hayward? If Hayward doesnt come you have just traded your 3 best defenders or maybe 2 best defenders for him. If you are trying to go all in the plan would have to be Hayward and George. Indy wanted the deal they saw before them and took it. Im not sure how one can blame Danny for wanting to hold the space open for Hayward and then getting Hayward.
You should always trade Crowder, Smart, and a non-premium pick for Paul George.  It should never be a question.  Ainge totally blew the negotiations and Paul George should be a Celtic.  Boston still could have acquired Hayward by just waiting to make it official.  All Ainge had to say was, we have a deal no matter what, just let me use my cap space first before we make it official.  Thomas, Hayward, George, and Horford is absolutely a contender even with vet minimum types surrounding them (but they would have still have Tatum and Brown).  That team would not only push Cleveland, but might actually be favored against them and would be a real threat to Golden State (though GS would still be the favorite).  Ainge blew this summer by not acquiring George for what the rumored price was.  If Hayward didn't sign, then you end up with a nice solid 4 some of Thomas, Bradley, George, and Horford, which is better than the current 4 some anyway.  Paul George would be by far the best player on the Celtics.  He is a 2 way star.  A legit top 10 player in the league.  A guy that can not only guard the James', Durant's, and Leonard's of the world, but also forces those guys to play defense.


I havent read past the 1st sentence because what you wrote is not possible and still get Hayward. You would have to trade AB, Smart, and Crowder to make the money work.
Not if you don't sign Hayward.  To sign Hayward you had to trade 1 of them anyway, so trading all 3 isn't a big deal if you land George and Hayward (and you didn't have to trade Bradley to Indy, he could have gone to another team for a draft pick or something).


You would have to trade all 3 in order to maintain the option of signing Hayward. Its not a matter of signing him. Im talking about even having the option to sign him would be gone if you just trade Smart and Crowder. Or fine you could trade Crowder, Smart, Brown, Rozier, and Jackson. That would work but you will still trade AB to make room for Hayward.
You didn't have to trade Bradley to Indiana though.  Indiana wanted Smart, Crowder, and a non-premium 1st (say Boston's 2018 1st).  Boston would have had to trade Bradley in the same trade, but that could have been to a 3rd team that wanted Bradley.  So maybe Boston calls up Philly (pre-Redick) and tries to get a pick out of them or the rights to someone.  So Boston trades Bradley, Crowder, Smart, and its 2018 1st for George and a PHI 2nd (or something like that).  Boston then waives Mickey and Jackson and trades Rozier to acquire Hayward.  If however, Hayward decided to stay in Utah, then Boston can just trade Crowder, Smart, and the 2018 1st for George and absorb the rest of George's salary into the left over cap space and thus wouldn't have had to trade Bradley and would have been able to keep Olynyk (if it wanted to). 

The point is for what Indy wanted for George there was absolutely no reason for Ainge to not make the commitment to acquire him.  You figure the other stuff out later.

So again the net result is exactly what I said. In the deal you have to trade Bradley, Smart and Crowder to keep open a spot for Hayward. You are changing your story from they could have kept Bradley to they could have just traded him to a 3rd team. Also that deal doesnt work cap wise.
No.  Indy wanted Smart, Crowder, and a 1st.  That is all you had to commit to give up.  Bradley only has to be included if Boston lands Hayward (because it had the cap space to absorb George without signing Hayward and doing things like waiving Zeller and giving up the Amir and JJ cap holds).  It then finds a trade for Bradley with no salary coming back, but only does that if Hayward commits.  If Hayward doesn't commit you don't trade Bradley.

You are moving the goal post. What you are saying is correct if George was traded after Hayward made a decision. That wasnt the case. The trade was made before so in the real world contect you have to trade AB in the deal to keep the slot open. You are trying to play both sides of the argument by saying well you would only have to trade AB after if you got George after Hayward committed.

The fact is George was traded before FA started hence you couldnt do any of what you are talking about unless you trade AB in the deal or trade Brown and other parts as I have outlined. Ainge could not force them to wait on a deal. Nor did Ainge want to commit to a deal that restructed the team when he had the option of adding a player of similar talent.
Committing to make a deal and making a deal are not the same thing.  the trade to OKC wasn't finalized for a week (you know after the moratorium ended).  Boston did not have to give up Bradley until it had a commitment from Hayward.  It didn't need to move Bradley first to get a commitment from Hayward.  We know this is true, because this is exactly what happened.  All Ainge had to say to Pritchard was, we have a deal no matter what happens with Hayward, but just give me a week to chase that down and/or otherwise use some of the cap space.

Ugh ok fine. Lets do some math. PG makes 19,508,958. Crowder and Smart combined make 11,334,137 for a difference of 8,174,821. Lets put AB at a simple 8.8 million. What we know is that if they renounced everyone they were short 3 million which meant they couldnt just trade Rozier (who makes 2 million) to get to that number. The key is they are 3 millions short.

Now if you add AB to the George trade you are taking in about 625,000 less that you sent out. Great. Now you dump Rozier for cash or a pick. You cant trade him for a player. Now you have gotten rid of Rozier who makes 2 million. You are still short 375,000. NOT A MAX SLOT.

So the only players you have left on the team are IT, Horford, Brown and Tatum and you are trading one of them to free up more money or Hayward takes the small cut. You are hard capped and cant bring over Yabu. You cant sign any of 2nd guys this year unless they go on the 2 way contract. So you have 6 maybe 7 guys depending on Zizic, one room exemption guy and a bunch of vet minimums.

The only way the Smart and Crowder for PG works and Hayward gets the max and you still have the ability to sign players is if you renounced everyone. Then traded AB for Morris. Then signed Tatum, Zizic, and Yabu. Used the room exemption. Then made the PG trade. Indy didnt want to wait for that. Boston didnt want to deal all of that for a player that might leave.

I dont know why there is a need to bang on Ainge for not getting George.




Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #57 on: July 12, 2017, 12:44:03 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16481
  • Tommy Points: 783
It wasnt Danny fault that Pritchard couldn't and wouldn't wait..Pacers are determined to send him out West so nothing Danny can do about it...Danny I believe would have given up the Laker pick and or Smart. Really AB Crowder Smart and or the Laker pick arr just really that much better than what they got from OKC.
Sure it was.  Ainge wouldn't commit.  A commitment doesn't mean an immediate trade.  The trade with OKC wasn't finalized for a week.

Why would Ainge commit without Hayward? If Hayward doesnt come you have just traded your 3 best defenders or maybe 2 best defenders for him. If you are trying to go all in the plan would have to be Hayward and George. Indy wanted the deal they saw before them and took it. Im not sure how one can blame Danny for wanting to hold the space open for Hayward and then getting Hayward.
You should always trade Crowder, Smart, and a non-premium pick for Paul George.  It should never be a question.  Ainge totally blew the negotiations and Paul George should be a Celtic.  Boston still could have acquired Hayward by just waiting to make it official.  All Ainge had to say was, we have a deal no matter what, just let me use my cap space first before we make it official.  Thomas, Hayward, George, and Horford is absolutely a contender even with vet minimum types surrounding them (but they would have still have Tatum and Brown).  That team would not only push Cleveland, but might actually be favored against them and would be a real threat to Golden State (though GS would still be the favorite).  Ainge blew this summer by not acquiring George for what the rumored price was.  If Hayward didn't sign, then you end up with a nice solid 4 some of Thomas, Bradley, George, and Horford, which is better than the current 4 some anyway.  Paul George would be by far the best player on the Celtics.  He is a 2 way star.  A legit top 10 player in the league.  A guy that can not only guard the James', Durant's, and Leonard's of the world, but also forces those guys to play defense.


I havent read past the 1st sentence because what you wrote is not possible and still get Hayward. You would have to trade AB, Smart, and Crowder to make the money work.
Not if you don't sign Hayward.  To sign Hayward you had to trade 1 of them anyway, so trading all 3 isn't a big deal if you land George and Hayward (and you didn't have to trade Bradley to Indy, he could have gone to another team for a draft pick or something).


You would have to trade all 3 in order to maintain the option of signing Hayward. Its not a matter of signing him. Im talking about even having the option to sign him would be gone if you just trade Smart and Crowder. Or fine you could trade Crowder, Smart, Brown, Rozier, and Jackson. That would work but you will still trade AB to make room for Hayward.
You didn't have to trade Bradley to Indiana though.  Indiana wanted Smart, Crowder, and a non-premium 1st (say Boston's 2018 1st).  Boston would have had to trade Bradley in the same trade, but that could have been to a 3rd team that wanted Bradley.  So maybe Boston calls up Philly (pre-Redick) and tries to get a pick out of them or the rights to someone.  So Boston trades Bradley, Crowder, Smart, and its 2018 1st for George and a PHI 2nd (or something like that).  Boston then waives Mickey and Jackson and trades Rozier to acquire Hayward.  If however, Hayward decided to stay in Utah, then Boston can just trade Crowder, Smart, and the 2018 1st for George and absorb the rest of George's salary into the left over cap space and thus wouldn't have had to trade Bradley and would have been able to keep Olynyk (if it wanted to). 

The point is for what Indy wanted for George there was absolutely no reason for Ainge to not make the commitment to acquire him.  You figure the other stuff out later.

So again the net result is exactly what I said. In the deal you have to trade Bradley, Smart and Crowder to keep open a spot for Hayward. You are changing your story from they could have kept Bradley to they could have just traded him to a 3rd team. Also that deal doesnt work cap wise.
No.  Indy wanted Smart, Crowder, and a 1st.  That is all you had to commit to give up.  Bradley only has to be included if Boston lands Hayward (because it had the cap space to absorb George without signing Hayward and doing things like waiving Zeller and giving up the Amir and JJ cap holds).  It then finds a trade for Bradley with no salary coming back, but only does that if Hayward commits.  If Hayward doesn't commit you don't trade Bradley.

You are moving the goal post. What you are saying is correct if George was traded after Hayward made a decision. That wasnt the case. The trade was made before so in the real world contect you have to trade AB in the deal to keep the slot open. You are trying to play both sides of the argument by saying well you would only have to trade AB after if you got George after Hayward committed.

The fact is George was traded before FA started hence you couldnt do any of what you are talking about unless you trade AB in the deal or trade Brown and other parts as I have outlined. Ainge could not force them to wait on a deal. Nor did Ainge want to commit to a deal that restructed the team when he had the option of adding a player of similar talent.
Committing to make a deal and making a deal are not the same thing.  the trade to OKC wasn't finalized for a week (you know after the moratorium ended).  Boston did not have to give up Bradley until it had a commitment from Hayward.  It didn't need to move Bradley first to get a commitment from Hayward.  We know this is true, because this is exactly what happened.  All Ainge had to say to Pritchard was, we have a deal no matter what happens with Hayward, but just give me a week to chase that down and/or otherwise use some of the cap space.

Ugh ok fine. Lets do some math. PG makes 19,508,958. Crowder and Smart combined make 11,334,137 for a difference of 8,174,821. Lets put AB at a simple 8.8 million. What we know is that if they renounced everyone they were short 3 million which meant they couldnt just trade Rozier (who makes 2 million) to get to that number. The key is they are 3 millions short.

Now if you add AB to the George trade you are taking in about 625,000 less that you sent out. Great. Now you dump Rozier for cash or a pick. You cant trade him for a player. Now you have gotten rid of Rozier who makes 2 million. You are still short 375,000. NOT A MAX SLOT.

So the only players you have left on the team are IT, Horford, Brown and Tatum and you are trading one of them to free up more money or Hayward takes the small cut. You are hard capped and cant bring over Yabu. You cant sign any of 2nd guys this year unless they go on the 2 way contract. So you have 6 maybe 7 guys depending on Zizic, one room exemption guy and a bunch of vet minimums.

The only way the Smart and Crowder for PG works and Hayward gets the max and you still have the ability to sign players is if you renounced everyone. Then traded AB for Morris. Then signed Tatum, Zizic, and Yabu. Used the room exemption. Then made the PG trade. Indy didnt want to wait for that. Boston didnt want to deal all of that for a player that might leave.

I dont know why there is a need to bang on Ainge for not getting George.
Rozier, Jackson, and Mickey left the team 300k short, you save 700k in the trade.  The math isn't that hard.  It was a no brainer to make the commitment and worry about waiving some fringe NBA players and trading the current 3rd string point guard.  George + Hayward is worth not having Smart, Crowder, Bradley, and Rozier.  It is a clear upgrade.  The team then fills in the roster with the room exception (Baynes), vet and rookie minimums.  At the end of the day a 4 some of Thomas, Hayward, George, and Horford is a real threat to the Cavs and makes Boston a real and legit contender.  Thomas, Hayward, Horford and Smart is not on that same level even with some other quality bench level players like Morris, Crowder, and Rozier.
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #58 on: July 12, 2017, 12:57:31 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11862
  • Tommy Points: 2358
Yeah, we'll see BOTH PG AND Russell in LA next season.

They'll make Magic Johnson a happy man.
Marcus Smart "Impacts Winning." Boston Celtics Coach Brad Stevens

Re: George: Going to LA talk is "overstated"
« Reply #59 on: July 13, 2017, 04:06:20 PM »

Offline clevelandceltic

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 536
  • Tommy Points: 27
It wasnt Danny fault that Pritchard couldn't and wouldn't wait..Pacers are determined to send him out West so nothing Danny can do about it...Danny I believe would have given up the Laker pick and or Smart. Really AB Crowder Smart and or the Laker pick arr just really that much better than what they got from OKC.
Sure it was.  Ainge wouldn't commit.  A commitment doesn't mean an immediate trade.  The trade with OKC wasn't finalized for a week.

Why would Ainge commit without Hayward? If Hayward doesnt come you have just traded your 3 best defenders or maybe 2 best defenders for him. If you are trying to go all in the plan would have to be Hayward and George. Indy wanted the deal they saw before them and took it. Im not sure how one can blame Danny for wanting to hold the space open for Hayward and then getting Hayward.
You should always trade Crowder, Smart, and a non-premium pick for Paul George.  It should never be a question.  Ainge totally blew the negotiations and Paul George should be a Celtic.  Boston still could have acquired Hayward by just waiting to make it official.  All Ainge had to say was, we have a deal no matter what, just let me use my cap space first before we make it official.  Thomas, Hayward, George, and Horford is absolutely a contender even with vet minimum types surrounding them (but they would have still have Tatum and Brown).  That team would not only push Cleveland, but might actually be favored against them and would be a real threat to Golden State (though GS would still be the favorite).  Ainge blew this summer by not acquiring George for what the rumored price was.  If Hayward didn't sign, then you end up with a nice solid 4 some of Thomas, Bradley, George, and Horford, which is better than the current 4 some anyway.  Paul George would be by far the best player on the Celtics.  He is a 2 way star.  A legit top 10 player in the league.  A guy that can not only guard the James', Durant's, and Leonard's of the world, but also forces those guys to play defense.


I havent read past the 1st sentence because what you wrote is not possible and still get Hayward. You would have to trade AB, Smart, and Crowder to make the money work.
Not if you don't sign Hayward.  To sign Hayward you had to trade 1 of them anyway, so trading all 3 isn't a big deal if you land George and Hayward (and you didn't have to trade Bradley to Indy, he could have gone to another team for a draft pick or something).


You would have to trade all 3 in order to maintain the option of signing Hayward. Its not a matter of signing him. Im talking about even having the option to sign him would be gone if you just trade Smart and Crowder. Or fine you could trade Crowder, Smart, Brown, Rozier, and Jackson. That would work but you will still trade AB to make room for Hayward.
You didn't have to trade Bradley to Indiana though.  Indiana wanted Smart, Crowder, and a non-premium 1st (say Boston's 2018 1st).  Boston would have had to trade Bradley in the same trade, but that could have been to a 3rd team that wanted Bradley.  So maybe Boston calls up Philly (pre-Redick) and tries to get a pick out of them or the rights to someone.  So Boston trades Bradley, Crowder, Smart, and its 2018 1st for George and a PHI 2nd (or something like that).  Boston then waives Mickey and Jackson and trades Rozier to acquire Hayward.  If however, Hayward decided to stay in Utah, then Boston can just trade Crowder, Smart, and the 2018 1st for George and absorb the rest of George's salary into the left over cap space and thus wouldn't have had to trade Bradley and would have been able to keep Olynyk (if it wanted to). 

The point is for what Indy wanted for George there was absolutely no reason for Ainge to not make the commitment to acquire him.  You figure the other stuff out later.

So again the net result is exactly what I said. In the deal you have to trade Bradley, Smart and Crowder to keep open a spot for Hayward. You are changing your story from they could have kept Bradley to they could have just traded him to a 3rd team. Also that deal doesnt work cap wise.
No.  Indy wanted Smart, Crowder, and a 1st.  That is all you had to commit to give up.  Bradley only has to be included if Boston lands Hayward (because it had the cap space to absorb George without signing Hayward and doing things like waiving Zeller and giving up the Amir and JJ cap holds).  It then finds a trade for Bradley with no salary coming back, but only does that if Hayward commits.  If Hayward doesn't commit you don't trade Bradley.

You are moving the goal post. What you are saying is correct if George was traded after Hayward made a decision. That wasnt the case. The trade was made before so in the real world contect you have to trade AB in the deal to keep the slot open. You are trying to play both sides of the argument by saying well you would only have to trade AB after if you got George after Hayward committed.

The fact is George was traded before FA started hence you couldnt do any of what you are talking about unless you trade AB in the deal or trade Brown and other parts as I have outlined. Ainge could not force them to wait on a deal. Nor did Ainge want to commit to a deal that restructed the team when he had the option of adding a player of similar talent.
Committing to make a deal and making a deal are not the same thing.  the trade to OKC wasn't finalized for a week (you know after the moratorium ended).  Boston did not have to give up Bradley until it had a commitment from Hayward.  It didn't need to move Bradley first to get a commitment from Hayward.  We know this is true, because this is exactly what happened.  All Ainge had to say to Pritchard was, we have a deal no matter what happens with Hayward, but just give me a week to chase that down and/or otherwise use some of the cap space.

Ugh ok fine. Lets do some math. PG makes 19,508,958. Crowder and Smart combined make 11,334,137 for a difference of 8,174,821. Lets put AB at a simple 8.8 million. What we know is that if they renounced everyone they were short 3 million which meant they couldnt just trade Rozier (who makes 2 million) to get to that number. The key is they are 3 millions short.

Now if you add AB to the George trade you are taking in about 625,000 less that you sent out. Great. Now you dump Rozier for cash or a pick. You cant trade him for a player. Now you have gotten rid of Rozier who makes 2 million. You are still short 375,000. NOT A MAX SLOT.

So the only players you have left on the team are IT, Horford, Brown and Tatum and you are trading one of them to free up more money or Hayward takes the small cut. You are hard capped and cant bring over Yabu. You cant sign any of 2nd guys this year unless they go on the 2 way contract. So you have 6 maybe 7 guys depending on Zizic, one room exemption guy and a bunch of vet minimums.

The only way the Smart and Crowder for PG works and Hayward gets the max and you still have the ability to sign players is if you renounced everyone. Then traded AB for Morris. Then signed Tatum, Zizic, and Yabu. Used the room exemption. Then made the PG trade. Indy didnt want to wait for that. Boston didnt want to deal all of that for a player that might leave.

I dont know why there is a need to bang on Ainge for not getting George.
Rozier, Jackson, and Mickey left the team 300k short, you save 700k in the trade.  The math isn't that hard.  It was a no brainer to make the commitment and worry about waiving some fringe NBA players and trading the current 3rd string point guard.  George + Hayward is worth not having Smart, Crowder, Bradley, and Rozier.  It is a clear upgrade.  The team then fills in the roster with the room exception (Baynes), vet and rookie minimums.  At the end of the day a 4 some of Thomas, Hayward, George, and Horford is a real threat to the Cavs and makes Boston a real and legit contender.  Thomas, Hayward, Horford and Smart is not on that same level even with some other quality bench level players like Morris, Crowder, and Rozier.


No I guess the math is too hard. YOu are using the current numbers situation to the Pre FA situation. These numbers are not the same. I laid out the numbers above. But its really whatever. if you are upset that the deal didnt get done thats totally your perrogative. I can only run through the numbers as I see them and the cap experts have laid out.