2017 NBA Offseason thread

[thehef]

If Ainge is trying to make the Celtics a real contender by acquiring Gordon Hayward, I don't see how giving up maybe the 30th best player in the league in Avery Bradley (plus a draft pick!) in exchange for maybe the 125th best player (Morris) helps that cause. I know financial considerations come into play in nearly every deal, but the Bradley-for-Morris trade doesn't make the Celtics better next season or in any other.

Apparently Boston was shopping Bradley, Crowder, and Smart in order to free up space to sign Hayward. Hard to believe that this was the best trade out there. Mind-blowing.

[kenyan_cheena]

That they aren't prepared to spend the type of money the Warriors are means they are already out of their depth.

[kenyan_cheena]

Harden 6 years $228 million wtf

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by thehef

If Ainge is trying to make the Celtics a real contender by acquiring Gordon Hayward, I don't see how giving up maybe the 30th best player in the league in Avery Bradley (plus a draft pick!) in exchange for maybe the 125th best player (Morris) helps that cause. I know financial considerations come into play in nearly every deal, but the Bradley-for-Morris trade doesn't make the Celtics better next season or in any other.

Apparently Boston was shopping Bradley, Crowder, and Smart in order to free up space to sign Hayward. Hard to believe that this was the best trade out there. Mind-blowing.

They made that deal partly because Tatum looks so good in Summer League. Morris will become the ":LeBron stopper". I don't think it will even them up w/the Cavs. But sometimes getting trading the .800+ OPS SS w/limited range for the .230 hitting SS defensive wiz makes the whole team better overall. You must also remember the whole league knew the C's had to dump salary. That takes away your leverage in negotiations.Then you have to accept getting pennies for your dollar.

[kenyan_cheena]

Cuban has a good point about how if the Mavs were in the east, they wouldn't be rebuilding. It does illustrate how the disparity between the two conferences hurts some teams more than others. But then again, they were champs only six years ago and 6th in the west just two years ago.

The problem is that in basketball, more than any other sport, this type of inbalance can make the competition a bit farcical. The only thing that can resolve the issue is to make the schedule more balanced and seed the playoffs 1-16. Saying that things will even out eventually is no good, because the end of that sentence is, "so in the meantime just put up with it."

Surely a 42/40 split is not rocket science? Using the existing divisions and conferences for scheduling purposes, just have them play each conference opponent three times (42 games) and play each team in two of the other divisions three times (30 games) and the teams in the third division two times (10 games). The division that plays each other twice would rotate each year. That's about as close as you can get to a balanced schedule with 82 games. And just seed the playoff teams 1-16.

[Cobra Mgr]

What will fix the problem is making your measure of profit dependent on your success on the court. Winning doesn't mean more money. It means higher salaries eating up whatever is gained by extra home playoff games. When ending up in the lottery equals barely covering your expenses for the year, you will see the eastern teams get better management. But right now, there is no motivation for winning if the franchise is still going to be profitable. The east is content to wait out the LeBron era, hope to find the next LeBron in the draft, and then wait till the upper echelon falls back to the middle of the pack to make their move.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

They made that deal partly because Tatum looks so good in Summer League.

After 1 summer league game? (Or perhaps it was 2, still...) By that logic, Lonzo Ball is the 2nd coming of... Lindsey Hunter. Or Marc Macon. Or Bobby Hurley. Besides, Tatum is a 6'8" forward, and not a direct replacement for Bradley in the lineup. As the roster is currently constituted, that spot would likely go to either Marcus Smart or Jaylen Brown (though Stevens is a decidedly unconventional guy in respect to always sending out five players in the traditional 1-2-3-4-5 roles).

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Morris will become the ":LeBron stopper".

Doubtful. That role will still go to Crowder. Morris is a power-forward who doesn't rebound, which makes this really lopsided trade all the more puzzling as the C's biggest weakness last year was rebounding... and so they go and relinquish a very solid player for a middling PF who doesn't board.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I don't think it will even them up w/the Cavs.

It does not, on paper. If the C's catch Cleveland next year (and assuming rosters are similar now to what they will be), it will have to do with either injuries & age (with the Cavs) and/or development (of C's younger players)...

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

But sometimes getting trading the .800+ OPS SS w/limited range for the .230 hitting SS defensive wiz makes the whole team better overall.

True. But is there any evidence of that with this trade? They don't play the same positions so a direct comparison is difficult. That said, Bradley is the superior offensive player, defensive player, and locker-room/character guy. No matter how you slice it, the Bradley-for-Morris trade cannot, in and of itself, be considered to have made the C's better. And in this era, the idea - if you want to compete for a title - is to accumulate as much starting lineup talent as possible. A Thomas-Hayward-Horford-Bradley foursome would've been poised to easily be the 3rd-best team in the league and it's not out of the question that it could topple the Cavs, and within a year and with other tweaks, perhaps push the Warriors... And even taken in full context with the other related moves, getting Hayward and Morris but giving up Bradley, Olynyk, A Johnson to get there is essentially 2 steps forward and 1 3/4 steps back, at best. So while it's not difficult to make an argument that the C's are better now than they were last year, it's not really possible to make the argument that they are now better positioned to challenge the Cavs & Warriors than they would've been had they kept Bradley. So...

Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena

That they aren't prepared to spend the type of money the Warriors are means they are already out of their depth.

Pretty much agree, although I would say that it means they aren't serious about contending for a title this year.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

You must also remember the whole league knew the C's had to dump salary. That takes away your leverage in negotiations.Then you have to accept getting pennies for your dollar.

True. But this still looks more like a fleecing when you compare the two players and also factor in that Boston also threw in a 2nd round pick to make it happen... What makes it all the more-puzzling is Ainge's track record of brilliant deals. Not everything he does has worked out, but his overall tenure has been a resounding success, and few - if any - moves of his were seen as flops at the time. Some, like signing Shaq or Marbury, were seen as crapshoots and then may not have worked out, but these were not particularly risky. But this move? Just makes no sense... if a title is the goal.. What I would've expected of Ainge is either finding a way to keep Bradley to go with the other three all-stars, or at least trading Bradley for a player or players that improves the team.

I'm hoping that "quarter-step" forward works out...

[TonyJ]

They had to clear salary to fit Hayward under the cap. It's as simple as that. Think of it as trading Bradley for Morris and Hayward and I'll bet you feel better about it.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by TonyJ

They had to clear salary to fit Hayward under the cap. It's as simple as that. Think of it as trading Bradley for Morris and Hayward and I'll bet you feel better about it.

They had to renounce other players - such as Olynyk, A Johnson, Jerebko, T Zeller - in order to make room for Hayward. So it's not as simple as looking at it as getting Hayward and Morris in exchange for Bradley. It is getting Hayward and Morris in exchange for Bradley and all four mentioned above. And, regardless, that doesn't address the fact that they traded a top-30 player and only received a generic power-forward in return. That's not a recipe for title contention.

Finally, they had other options to clear salary. Unloading either Crowder or Smart (in addition to those renounced) would've created enough room to sign Hayward. While I would've hated to see them part with either of those dudes, too, of the three, Bradley is the best player and the one to keep... If the Warriors are able to return a roster that includes Curry, Durant, Klay, Draymond, plus key reserves Iguodala, Livingston, and Pechulia, then Ainge should've found a way to keep Bradley. Because if you are otherwise decimating much of your roster, what is the point of getting Hayward? A Horford-Thomas-Hayward-Smart-Morris starting five is nice, but is not a serious title-contending lineup, especially when you consider that the bench is likely to be mostly rookies & 2nd year players, and veteran scrubs...

[TonyJ]

Originally Posted by thehef

They had to renounce other players - such as Olynyk, A Johnson, Jerebko, T Zeller - in order to make room for Hayward. So it's not as simple as looking at it as getting Hayward and Morris in exchange for Bradley. It is getting Hayward and Morris in exchange for Bradley and all four mentioned above. And, regardless, that doesn't address the fact that they traded a top-30 player and only received a generic power-forward in return. That's not a recipe for title contention.

Finally, they had other options to clear salary. Unloading either Crowder or Smart (in addition to those renounced) would've created enough room to sign Hayward. While I would've hated to see them part with either of those dudes, too, of the three, Bradley is the best player and the one to keep... If the Warriors are able to return a roster that includes Curry, Durant, Klay, Draymond, plus key reserves Iguodala, Livingston, and Pechulia, then Ainge should've found a way to keep Bradley. Because if you are otherwise decimating much of your roster, what is the point of getting Hayward? A Horford-Thomas-Hayward-Smart-Morris starting five is nice, but is not a serious title-contending lineup, especially when you consider that the bench is likely to be mostly rookies & 2nd year players, and veteran scrubs...

Yeah, it's not getting them past the Cavs yet, but it is an upgrade and they still have plenty of cards they can play. They still have a Brooklyn pick plus another lottery pick coming. Plus, as you say, they could always trade Smart and Crowder (they won't have the room to re-sign them) and there's the chance that either Brown or Tatum turn in to stars.

I mean I get it. After all the talk of Butler or George and then George PLUS Hayward to only end up with Hayward has to be frustrating. But I think Ainge is still doing a good job. You could be a Knicks fan!

[kenyan_cheena]

Couldn't they have just paid the luxury tax?

[TonyJ]

Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena

Couldn't they have just paid the luxury tax?

Not to bring in Hayward, no. They had to clear enough room under the hard cap to fit him in. I suppose they could have tried to do a sign and trade with the Jazz (and maybe they did) but since he was a free agent they had to have exactly enough room to fit his salary under it.

[thehef]

To sign Howard, after renouncing free agents, their options were:

1) Get rid of promising guard Terry Rozier and ask Hayward to take a slight cut from the maximum he could get from a deal withe C's. (Getting rid of Rozier - plus the free agent renouncements - would not quite have cleared enough space for Hayward's max deal.)

2) Trade Bradley, Smart, or Crowder.

A Crowder/Hayward sign-and-trade was apparently discussed with the Jazz, but wasn't able to be worked out. Apparently, Utah was asking for too much. Why Utah wouldn't want to get something (and Crowder is a pretty good player) instead of nothing is strange...

At any rate, I suspect the main reason for trading away Bradley - rather than one of the other two - is the fact that Bradley and Thomas both will be free agents looking for big paydays after next season, and signing both would've apparently be out of the question (whether the out of the question part is because of salary cap rules, or ownership's unwillingness to spend to win is unknown to me). And as much as I like Thomas, if I knew I had Hayward, Horford, Smart (presuming Crowder would've been dealt), Brown, and Tatum in the fold, I'd rather have Bradley (by a nose) in that lineup and on a huge salary deal instead of Thomas, due to the defense Avery brings...

[thehef]

Originally Posted by TonyJ

After all the talk of Butler or George and then George PLUS Hayward to only end up with Hayward has to be frustrating. But I think Ainge is still doing a good job.

I actually would've preferred adding only Hayward but keeping Bradley and continuing down the path of development with Brown, Tatum, and what comes out of the remaining future picks, plus add'l roster-tweaks. Adding two or three among Hayward, George, and Butler really would've required a near-complete dismantling of last year's team, very likely sacrificing most of their youth (in the form of Brown, Tatum, and those future picks). I can see the appeal of that, but it wouldn't have been my choice.

Originally Posted by TonyJ

You could be a Knicks fan!

Well, at least there's that!

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by thehef

After 1 summer league game? (Or perhaps it was 2, still...) By that logic, Lonzo Ball is the 2nd coming of... Lindsey Hunter. Or Marc Macon. Or Bobby Hurley. Besides, Tatum is a 6'8" forward, and not a direct replacement for Bradley in the lineup. As the roster is currently constituted, that spot would likely go to either Marcus Smart or Jaylen Brown (though Stevens is a decidedly unconventional guy in respect to always sending out five players in the traditional 1-2-3-4-5 roles).

If you saw Brad Stevens quote earlier this month, he said he only has 3 positions: Lead, swing & big. So versatility is what he looks for. 6'2" SG's are not as en vogue as 6'6" + guys who can play at multiple spots. Besides, you don't give up the #1 spot, then pick @ #3 somebody you think won't pan out. As a Tar Heel fan, I can tell you the only team you look at more than Carolina is dook. And I'm soooooooo glad Tatum left. The guy is a scorer. He just knows how to fill the basket.

Doubtful. That role will still go to Crowder. Morris is a power-forward who doesn't rebound, which makes this really lopsided trade all the more puzzling as the C's biggest weakness last year was rebounding... and so they go and relinquish a very solid player for a middling PF who doesn't board.

When I watch Bradley coach, it seems to me he is willing to go deeper into his roster than most. He's trying to play the numbers game. Multiple players kept fresh w/a plethora of fouls is something he can put to use. But again, as mentioned earlier, Boston knew they weren't going to get an even trade. This was about balancing the plus of adding Hayward while limiting the minus of less salary room.

True. But is there any evidence of that with this trade?

Who knows? How many trades come with guaranteed success? Sometimes you get Aguirre for Dantley. Sometimes you get a HOF'er for a draft pick that turns into Magic Johnson. You measure risk/reward & act.



Pretty much agree, although I would say that it means they aren't serious about contending for a title this year.

True. But this still looks more like a fleecing when you compare the two players and also factor in that Boston also threw in a 2nd round pick to make it happen

Again, Boston had to make room. Everyone knew it. The C's knew when Hayward agreed to come over that they were going to get fleeced. I'm positive Ainge factored all that in when they pursued Gordon. He felt it was an improvement. We'll see. But I understand the reasoning, even if it backfires.

[kenyan_cheena]

So Kyrie wants to be traded.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena

So Kyrie wants to be traded.

1. How stupid does the East look now for not trying to improve, thinking the East is LeBron's until he retires?

2. Every LeBron lover who criticized KD for not wanting to "establish his own legacy" should have not one cross word for Kyrie wanting to create his.

3. Every LeBron basher who wants to act like Kyrie was the real engine of the Cavs will have nothing to say when Kyrie can't lead a team to playoffs but LeBron still has the Cavs as contenders.

4.Does anyone know how to screw up a good thing better than Dan Gilbert?

[rudel.dietrich]

I don't blame him. Lebron has taken the team into a short term year to year mode and if he leaves them Irving doesn't want to be left holding the bag.

And even through they have made three straight finals there have been so many stories about the teams just not having fun of liking one another that some of them have to be true.

But they have made three straight Finals trips and one a title so I don't think either one owes the team anything more beyond their current contracts.

[Cobra Mgr]

I think the "get out before LeBron leaves me high & dry" theory doesn't hold water. If James does go, then Irving gets what he wants. A team where he is the alpha male. I think it's more on the lines of not wanting to be known as more than a great sidekick ala Pippen and having no trust in the Cavs management (Gilbert) to put together anything close to a contender if James isn't involved.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I think the "get out before LeBron leaves me high & dry" theory doesn't hold water. If James does go, then Irving gets what he wants. A team where he is the alpha male. I think it's more on the lines of not wanting to be known as more than a great sidekick ala Pippen and having no trust in the Cavs management (Gilbert) to put together anything close to a contender if James isn't involved.

This could be true as well. But if James leaves then Cleveland will be left in a state of dreadful. They have no young talent and almost no draft picks.
They have mortgaged everything for the last three years.

It may be a combination of reasons.
Or maybe he just wants to experience something besides Cleveland.

I have been reading a lot about Durant the last 3 months and some of his decision was that he simply wanted to experience something outside of Oklahoma.
And I am just not talking about the city. A different front office, different environment, different teammates, different coaching.

And he seems to be really enjoying the bay area. I think we tend to view athletes and not human beings.
Very few of us hold jobs from age 19 until our mid to late 30s.
We want new experiences, new challenges, new friends, better pay and also experience boredom and burnout that stem from doing one thing for too long.
Athletes are the same way.