Author Topic: Revisiting the trade: C's trade Deyonte Davis for a future 1st from Memphis  (Read 7622 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8913
  • Tommy Points: 1212
It's way too early to tell anything about the pick (and, really, the players selected) right now, but the pick actually looks really good.  As long as the Clippers make the playoffs in 2019 or 2020 (which seems to be their goal given the contracts they gave to Blake and Gallinari this summer), we should get a pick in the late teens or early twenties.  That's a great return for a couple of 2nd rounders.

I wasn't too sure about the trade when we made it (although I was of fan of trading a couple of seconds for a likely late first given that we had to move some picks), but LA's offseason has warmed me too it a lot. They're no longer one of the top teams in the West, but haven't slipped out of the playoffs either.  That's ideal for us.
I'm bitter.

Offline Dino Pitino

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1822
  • Tommy Points: 219
Quote
LA's offseason has warmed me too it a lot. They're no longer one of the top teams in the West, but haven't slipped out of the playoffs either.  That's ideal for us.

Agreed. When they traded Chris Paul, I was afraid they'd let Griffin go too and enter full tank mode. The way it's set up now the pick should be as good as it ever could've been, just outside the lottery.
"Young man, you have the question backwards." - Bill Russell

"My guess is that an aggregator of expert opinions would be close in terms of results to that of Danny." - Roy H.

Offline loco_91

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
  • Tommy Points: 145
I'd rather have a 50% chance at the 15-20 pick than a 100% chance at the 31st pick. Right now it looks like a good trade. Who knows who we would've drafted but Davis is a benchwarmer.

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
It was a bad trade at the time but looks worse now.

Davis' Per 36 numbers last year

8.8 pts, 9.1 Rebs, 2.6 Blks

The Celtics could SORELY use a young, athletic rebounder/shotblocker in many of their lineups. 
 
He averaged 6.5mpg, how can you possibly keep a straight face while multiplying that out to a per 36 number? That's just ridiculous.

It's like me saying DeAndre Liggins should be picked up because per 36 he averaged 72pts and 36reb in 2013-14. It's irrelevant

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10774
  • Tommy Points: 789
It was a bad trade at the time but looks worse now.

Davis' Per 36 numbers last year

8.8 pts, 9.1 Rebs, 2.6 Blks

The Celtics could SORELY use a young, athletic rebounder/shotblocker in many of their lineups. 
 
He averaged 6.5mpg, how can you possibly keep a straight face while multiplying that out to a per 36 number? That's just ridiculous.

It's like me saying DeAndre Liggins should be picked up because per 36 he averaged 72pts and 36reb in 2013-14. It's irrelevant
lol true.

Not just that but the stats came in garbage time against fellow garbage time players like the Jordan mickeys of the world. Imagine how he does against the lebrons

Offline RockinRyA

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5572
  • Tommy Points: 699
It was a bad trade at the time but looks worse now.

Davis' Per 36 numbers last year

8.8 pts, 9.1 Rebs, 2.6 Blks

The Celtics could SORELY use a young, athletic rebounder/shotblocker in many of their lineups. 
 
He averaged 6.5mpg, how can you possibly keep a straight face while multiplying that out to a per 36 number? That's just ridiculous.

It's like me saying DeAndre Liggins should be picked up because per 36 he averaged 72pts and 36reb in 2013-14. It's irrelevant
lol true.

Not just that but the stats came in garbage time against fellow garbage time players like the Jordan mickeys of the world. Imagine how he does against the lebrons

who needs deyonta davis when you can have jordan mickey who averaged 10.7 pts 8.5 rebs 3.1 blocks per 36 in his career?!

Offline Androslav

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2983
  • Tommy Points: 528
I liked the trade and I aprove it still. We had 8 picks and we managed to flip 2 2nds for a potential 1st. Hard to evaluate it further as we didn't yet revieve our part of the the deal.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 04:35:58 AM by Androslav »
"The joy of the balling under the rims."

Offline LatterDayCelticsfan

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2195
  • Tommy Points: 171
  • Community Text
Losing This trade won't doom us to eternal Oblivion. I am sure of that.
Banner 18 please 😍

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13002
  • Tommy Points: 1756
  • Everybody knows what's best for you
It's way too early to tell anything about the pick (and, really, the players selected) right now, but the pick actually looks really good.  As long as the Clippers make the playoffs in 2019 or 2020 (which seems to be their goal given the contracts they gave to Blake and Gallinari this summer), we should get a pick in the late teens or early twenties.  That's a great return for a couple of 2nd rounders.

I wasn't too sure about the trade when we made it (although I was of fan of trading a couple of seconds for a likely late first given that we had to move some picks), but LA's offseason has warmed me too it a lot. They're no longer one of the top teams in the West, but haven't slipped out of the playoffs either.  That's ideal for us.

TP, BJ - this is my take, too. With LAC solidifying themselves as a playoff team (but not necessarily a good one), I would have to think that pick is now worth more than what Danny traded for it at the time. With so many picks in the 2016 draft, asset appreciation was his best case scenario.

With that being said, I would gladly trade the pick for Skal. I was satisfied enough with the Zizic pick, but thought that Skal was the perfect Ainge selection and was a bit upset we didn't take him (top hs recruit who had slipped, but still had great measurements, tools). I suppose the real surprise was Yabusele and we just have to hope for the best with him.

Offline __ramonezy__

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 523
  • Tommy Points: 62
My opinion of that entire draft class was that we needed to select players that could be stashed, but had potential to contribute down the line. So just looking to match players selected isn't really indicative of the true scenario our front office faced and hence is comparing apples to oranges...

Offline Surferdad

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14456
  • Tommy Points: 972
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
It's way too early to tell anything about the pick (and, really, the players selected) right now, but the pick actually looks really good.  As long as the Clippers make the playoffs in 2019 or 2020 (which seems to be their goal given the contracts they gave to Blake and Gallinari this summer), we should get a pick in the late teens or early twenties.  That's a great return for a couple of 2nd rounders.

I wasn't too sure about the trade when we made it (although I was of fan of trading a couple of seconds for a likely late first given that we had to move some picks), but LA's offseason has warmed me too it a lot. They're no longer one of the top teams in the West, but haven't slipped out of the playoffs either.  That's ideal for us.

TP, BJ - this is my take, too. With LAC solidifying themselves as a playoff team (but not necessarily a good one), I would have to think that pick is now worth more than what Danny traded for it at the time. With so many picks in the 2016 draft, asset appreciation was his best case scenario.

With that being said, I would gladly trade the pick for Skal. I was satisfied enough with the Zizic pick, but thought that Skal was the perfect Ainge selection and was a bit upset we didn't take him (top hs recruit who had slipped, but still had great measurements, tools). I suppose the real surprise was Yabusele and we just have to hope for the best with him.
Per the highlighting above on BJ's post, I agree about unloading 2nd round picks.  Even if you argue that Danny "lost" the trade (didn't get back equivalent or better value), it was probably still the right thing to do.  Getting back something for what was arguably his least valuable assets among the stockpile is a good move.  Best case scenario is that he created a mid- late 1st rounder out of essentially nothing.

Offline BostonClamCrowdah

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 229
  • Tommy Points: 14
It was a bad trade at the time but looks worse now.

Davis' Per 36 numbers last year

8.8 pts, 9.1 Rebs, 2.6 Blks

The Celtics could SORELY use a young, athletic rebounder/shotblocker in many of their lineups. 
 

When you average as little minutes as Davis did last year, per 36 min stats rarely translate

Offline IDreamCeltics

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1401
  • Tommy Points: 140
It was a bad trade at the time but looks worse now.

Davis' Per 36 numbers last year

8.8 pts, 9.1 Rebs, 2.6 Blks

The Celtics could SORELY use a young, athletic rebounder/shotblocker in many of their lineups. 
 

When you average as little minutes as Davis did last year, per 36 min stats rarely translate

Really?  Is it actually rare?  Do you have any actual analysis backing that up or are you just repeating what you've heard other people say?

Because if you look at Aron Baynes who the Celtics are paying 4.5 million for this year his per 36 numbers are pretty much identical to his rookie year back in 2012 per when he averaged 8.6 minutes per game over 16 games.

Would you rather have Baynes for 1 year for 4.5 million or Davis for 4 years for a million a year? 


Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
It was a bad trade at the time but looks worse now.

Davis' Per 36 numbers last year

8.8 pts, 9.1 Rebs, 2.6 Blks

The Celtics could SORELY use a young, athletic rebounder/shotblocker in many of their lineups. 
 

When you average as little minutes as Davis did last year, per 36 min stats rarely translate

Really?  Is it actually rare?  Do you have any actual analysis backing that up or are you just repeating what you've heard other people say?

Because if you look at Aron Baynes who the Celtics are paying 4.5 million for this year his per 36 numbers are pretty much identical to his rookie year back in 2012 per when he averaged 8.6 minutes per game over 16 games.

Would you rather have Baynes for 1 year for 4.5 million or Davis for 4 years for a million a year?
Baynes had already shown what he could do in Europe and in representing Australia, which is basically strong rebounding and being physical.

Davis averaged roughly 1/6 of 36 minute in 36 games, so it's basically impossible to say that his per36 minutes translate, when you account for him having to play against starters, if his endurance would stand up etc etc. Davis is far more comparable to our own Mickey, not Baynes, or any other legitimately NBA calibrate big.

Still Baynes.
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
It was a bad trade at the time but looks worse now.

Davis' Per 36 numbers last year

8.8 pts, 9.1 Rebs, 2.6 Blks

The Celtics could SORELY use a young, athletic rebounder/shotblocker in many of their lineups. 
 

When you average as little minutes as Davis did last year, per 36 min stats rarely translate

Really?  Is it actually rare?  Do you have any actual analysis backing that up or are you just repeating what you've heard other people say?

Because if you look at Aron Baynes who the Celtics are paying 4.5 million for this year his per 36 numbers are pretty much identical to his rookie year back in 2012 per when he averaged 8.6 minutes per game over 16 games.

Would you rather have Baynes for 1 year for 4.5 million or Davis for 4 years for a million a year?
Again, Jordan Mickey has slightly better per 36 stats.  If you believe in them so strongly, then you should understand why Ainge would have passed on Davis, since he already had Mickey.

As to your question, I would much rather have Baynes.