Anthony Davis: No Loyalty

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
11,308
Santa Monica
Playing along w/kazuenko's thought process. New Orleans gets a former All-Star in his prime, a young potential All-Star, 3 first round picks, a 2018 1st round pick (local kid) and their bench is filled out. They lose an older Moore and an unhappy AD.

Hayward/Brown/TL/Yabu*/Sac pick/Grizz pick/Celtic pick for
AD/Moore

Pelicans bring back Randle and start TL/Randle/Hayward/Brown/Holiday. With the right coach that team is competitive. They have (4) 1st round picks and (2) 2nd round picks in 2019 to build their bench/future

Celtics start: AD/Horford/Tatum/Smart/Kyrie
Bench: Moore/Baynes/Vet MLE/Semi/Clipper pick/Dozier/Wannamaker

60 win Celtic team headed for multiple rings.

* Yabusele included to appease NOLA's French Quarter :redwine:
 
Last edited:

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,066
Kiev, Ukraine
Playing long w/kazuenko thought process. New Orleans gets a former All-Star in his prime, a young potential All-Star, 3 first round picks, a 2018 1st round pick (local kid) and their bench is filled out. They lose an older Moore and an unhappy AD.

Hayward/Brown/TL/Yabu*/Sac pick/Grizz pick/Celtic pick for
AD/Moore

Pelicans bring back Randle and start TL/Randle/Hayward/Brown/Holiday. With the right coach that team is competitive. They have (4) 1st round picks and (2) 2nd round picks in 2019 to build their bench/future

Celtics start: AD/Horford/Tatum/Smart/Kyrie
Bench: Moore/Baynes/Vet MLE/Semi/Clipper pick/Dozier/Wannamaker

60 win Celtic team headed for multiple rings.

* Yabusele included to appease NOLA's French Quarter :redwine:
That bench is really shit, but I imagine they'd move rotations around to have Tatum and/or Smart as playmakers on it. I'd like to keep Rozier at < $12M/year in that scenario--he's shown in the playoffs that he has another level he can hit defensively, and I'd like to buy low on him, since I think he'll play a lot more under control once he has his contract locked in.

Do you think the Celtics would do that to Hayward? He chose them for the best years of his career, and trading him to a rebuilding team (even one that could be decent fast) is not a good look. Danny takes this stuff really seriously, as well he should. (Yes, I know the IT thing happened, but the league knew he was toast, and there has been basically no blowback aside from the AD dad manufactured drama).

On a team that has Kyrie/Davis/Horford/Smart, would you rather have Tatum at $30M/yr or Brown at $19M/yr? Would you rather have Hayward or Tatum as the primary playmaker on the 2nd unit?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,942
On a team that has Kyrie/Davis/Horford/Smart, would you rather have Tatum at $30M/yr or Brown at $19M/yr? Would you rather have Hayward or Tatum as the primary playmaker on the 2nd unit?
Do we think Tatum can play that role?
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,066
Kiev, Ukraine
Do we think Tatum can play that role?
Yeah, that was my thought: I trust Hayward a lot more doing that. I think the final pieces fit better if you center the deal around Tatum+lower picks+filler rather than Brown+Hayward+lots of picks.

Of course, a lot of this will depend on David Griffin’s evaluation of the players involved.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
4,213
Do we think Tatum can play that role?
I'm trying to figure out what Tatum would be like as a lead dog with carte blanche on offense. As a supporting cast member, he's averaged a bit less than a point every two minutes, but his 46/40/84% shooting at age 21 makes him one of the most efficient wings at that age ever. His .520 eFg is higher than any of the leagues top 20 active career scorers, except for AD, a big, and he's tied with Klay Thompson.

The question of course is if he can be as efficient as a lead dog taking 18+ shots a game. Tatum averages a FT every 10 minutes, while superstar scorers like LBJ, Harden, Durant etc. averaged one every 4-6 minutes as a 21 year old. I'm guessing as a lead guy Tatum would probably get more FTs and shoot a lower percentage from the field.

I think Tatum will be a featured player by age 23. His playoff numbers, when he gets more minutes, and when every bucket has to be earned, bodes well for projecting him as a superstar. We've ruminated on his Kobe-ization all season, but being able to make iso mid-range shots in playoff games is a valuable tool. Look how effective KD has been posting at the FT line against switches in the playoffs and just abusing the other team for easy buckets. In a short sample, his playoff eFG% is a hair higher than the amazingly efficient Durant .529 to .524, and his 2FG% is almost as good, at .524 to .528 for KD. Tatum blows away 21 year old KD's playoff efficiency.

It's a stretch to take a guy like Tatum and say he's going to be comparable to an all time talent like Durant. But with his tools work ethic, makeup, and body of work so far, as the top player in his draft class trying to fit into a contender, instead of hoisting up 18 meaningless shots a game on a 20 win team, gives me confidence that he can carry a team. I'll be perfectly content if that team is the Celtics, and I'm also fine with him going to New Orleans for Davis to come here and pair with Kyrie for a half decade of title runs.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
11,308
Santa Monica
That bench is really shit, but I imagine they'd move rotations around to have Tatum and/or Smart as playmakers on it. I'd like to keep Rozier at < $12M/year in that scenario--he's shown in the playoffs that he has another level he can hit defensively, and I'd like to buy low on him, since I think he'll play a lot more under control once he has his contract locked in.

Do you think the Celtics would do that to Hayward? He chose them for the best years of his career, and trading him to a rebuilding team (even one that could be decent fast) is not a good look. Danny takes this stuff really seriously, as well he should. (Yes, I know the IT thing happened, but the league knew he was toast, and there has been basically no blowback aside from the AD dad manufactured drama).

On a team that has Kyrie/Davis/Horford/Smart, would you rather have Tatum at $30M/yr or Brown at $19M/yr? Would you rather have Hayward or Tatum as the primary playmaker on the 2nd unit?
Thanks for playing along with my fake trade, bunch of good questions, here is my take.

Danny could fill out the bench, with a couple of ring chaser types. Moore (for 3pt shooting), Baynes(for defense), and Semi (for defense) are a solid start. How deep were the 2008 Celtics? (Posey, House, Allen, Powe, PJ later on)

IMO after 2 seasons here Danny should be able to move Gordon without repercussions. I know this is also brought up by Sox fans. BUT has there ever been a team put in the penalty box for trading a player 2 years after signing?

I'm a hard NO on Rozier. He wants to start and not sure he loved this past season. I want guys that embrace their role. With that starting lineup, we will have to go cheap on the bench. Unfortunately, can't have it all.

I really don't know what Brown and Tatum's market/price will be in 2 years, but think the spread will be tighter. IF the difference is that steep (19MM vs. 30MM), since they'd play similar roles/minutes, then Tatum is a much better player than Brown. I'd rather have that option to sign JT with Horford/Smart deals expiring the next season.

I guess if your question is would I rather have Hayward/Brown/better picks OR Tatum/Moore then you have a good point. Just think Griffin will demand Tatum/Brown/picks, would like to avoid that and create something appealing to them.
 
Last edited:

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,066
Kiev, Ukraine
Thanks for playing along with my fake trade, bunch of good questions, here is my take.

Danny could fill out the bench, with a couple of ring chaser types. Moore (for 3pt shooting), Baynes(for defense), and Semi (for defense) are a solid start. How deep were the 2008 Celtics? (Posey, House, Allen, Powe, PJ later on)

IMO after 2 seasons here Danny should be able to move Gordon without repercussions. I know this is also brought up by Sox fans. BUT has there ever been a team put in the penalty box for trading a player 2 years after signing?

I'm a hard NO on Rozier. He wants to start and not sure he loved this past season. I want guys that embrace their role. With that starting lineup, we will have to go cheap on the bench. Unfortunately, can't have it all.

I really don't know what Brown and Tatum's market/price will be in 2 years, but think the spread will be tighter. IF the difference is that steep (19MM vs. 30MM), since they'd play similar roles/minutes, then Tatum is a much better player than Brown. I'd rather have that option to sign JT with Horford/Smart deals expiring the next season.

I guess if your question is would I rather have Hayward/Brown/better picks OR Tatum/Moore then you have a good point. Just think Griffin will demand Tatum/Brown/picks, would like to avoid that and create something appealing to them.
Of course Griffin will demand that--he should be fired if he didn't. Doesn't mean he'll get it. Danny has a long track record of being willing to walk in any negotiation, and Tatum is tough to beat.

Re Brown vs Tatum markets: Brown is eligible for an extension this summer, and 4/72-84 would put him right in Gary Harris/Myles Turner territory. He might bet on himself, but he might also just take it. Tatum would never take that, because he's a lock to get maxed in RFA, which Brown is not.

For Rozier: there's no such thing as an inherently cheap or expensive asset; everything depends on price. If Terry has played himself down to the $10M/year range this year, I sign him for 4/40 at that and don't even blink. Even if he really wants to be a starter, that's a contract that likely becomes a plus and moveable for a minor asset.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Thanks for playing along with my fake trade, bunch of good questions, here is my take.

Danny could fill out the bench, with a couple of ring chaser types. Moore (for 3pt shooting), Baynes(for defense), and Semi (for defense) are a solid start. How deep were the 2008 Celtics? (Posey, House, Allen, Powe, PJ later on)

IMO after 2 seasons here Danny should be able to move Gordon without repercussions. I know this is also brought up by Sox fans. BUT has there ever been a team put in the penalty box for trading a player 2 years after signing?

I'm a hard NO on Rozier. He wants to start and not sure he loved this past season. I want guys that embrace their role. With that starting lineup, we will have to go cheap on the bench. Unfortunately, can't have it all.

I really don't know what Brown and Tatum's market/price will be in 2 years, but think the spread will be tighter. IF the difference is that steep (19MM vs. 30MM), since they'd play similar roles/minutes, then Tatum is a much better player than Brown. I'd rather have that option to sign JT with Horford/Smart deals expiring the next season.

I guess if your question is would I rather have Hayward/Brown/better picks OR Tatum/Moore then you have a good point. Just think Griffin will demand Tatum/Brown/picks, would like to avoid that and create something appealing to them.
Hard to evaluate that, but is there another league where the players pull the strings like the current NBA?

This is a bit of a unique situation - it's not poor performance, it's a career threatening injury that got us to the point of considering it. I'm sure there's a short list of guys Ainge would take the chance on moving him for, but it's not without risk, especially if he basically is just salary ballast.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,636
Playing along w/kazuenko's thought process. New Orleans gets a former All-Star in his prime, a young potential All-Star, 3 first round picks, a 2018 1st round pick (local kid) and their bench is filled out. They lose an older Moore and an unhappy AD.

Hayward/Brown/TL/Yabu*/Sac pick/Grizz pick/Celtic pick for
AD/Moore

Pelicans bring back Randle and start TL/Randle/Hayward/Brown/Holiday. With the right coach that team is competitive. They have (4) 1st round picks and (2) 2nd round picks in 2019 to build their bench/future

Celtics start: AD/Horford/Tatum/Smart/Kyrie
Bench: Moore/Baynes/Vet MLE/Semi/Clipper pick/Dozier/Wannamaker

60 win Celtic team headed for multiple rings.

* Yabusele included to appease NOLA's French Quarter :redwine:
His trade theory was Hayward+Tatum and picks, not Hayward+Brown.

I don't see any circumstance that has New Orleans trading AD to Boston without Tatum involved.

I also don't see Hayward being involved making sense from either side. Boston moving off of Hayward after just two years, one which was a complete washout, feels a bit quick especially considering his relationship with the coach and that we haven't heard a public peep of complaint from him about coming off the bench. Don't think he makes much sense for New Orleans either since he can opt out after next season. I'd assume they'll be searching for as many young controllable assets that they can dream on becoming a star as they can possibly get.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
11,308
Santa Monica
His trade theory was Hayward+Tatum and picks, not Hayward+Brown.

I don't see any circumstance that has New Orleans trading AD to Boston without Tatum involved.

I also don't see Hayward being involved making sense from either side. Boston moving off of Hayward after just two years, one which was a complete washout, feels a bit quick especially considering his relationship with the coach and that we haven't heard a public peep of complaint from him about coming off the bench. Don't think he makes much sense for New Orleans either since he can opt out after next season. I'd assume they'll be searching for as many young controllable assets that they can dream on becoming a star as they can possibly get.
yea, I was just going along with kaz's Hayward going to NOLA trade theory and tried to replace Tatum with Brown.
I think Hayward will be much healthier/better next season, so it would be a fantastic deal for NOLA.

You, PP, and lovegtm sound very skeptical about the Celts dealing Gordon Hayward at all, for numerous legitimate reasons. Danny does have the reputation of trading his own mother for a player he wants. BUT maybe Hayward is a bridge too far. It's interesting that no one cited his former All-Star talent as a stumbling block, from the Celtics perspective, to a deal happening.

99% probability that fake trades never happen, so won't go to the mat over it.
 
Last edited:

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,636
yea, I was just going along with kaz's Hayward going to NOLA trade theory and tried to replace Tatum with Brown.
I think Hayward will be much healthier/better next season, so it would be a fantastic deal for NOLA.
I'd say Hayward/Brown/3picks/etc > Tatum/picks/flotsam from the Pelicans perspective (esp if they get Brown on a cheap deal)
You, PP, and lovegtm sound very skeptical about the Celts dealing Gordon Hayward at all, for numerous legitimate reasons. Danny does have the reputation of trading his own mother for a player he wants. BUT maybe Hayward is a bridge too far.

99% probability that fake trades never happen, so won't go to the mat over it.
He hasn't traded a prized free agent that chose to come here. KG would be the closest, even though he was acquired through trade, but he wanted to go for a chance to win rather than be on a rebuilding team. Hayward would be doing the reverse.

But I don't think that is the biggest hangup. I think New Orleans would prefer what's likely to be seven years of control over Tatum to one year of Hayward plus Brown.

Any fantastic deal for NOLA includes Tatum.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,636
Just a note, Tatum comes with five years of control, not seven.
I'm counting years 3 and 4 on his rookie deal, then unless he wants to play out his fifth year on his qualifying offer, he can sign a five year extension. I don't think there has been a guy yet who doesn't take the huge contract after year four if it's offered.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,066
Kiev, Ukraine
I'm counting years 3 and 4 on his rookie deal, then unless he wants to play out his fifth year on his qualifying offer, he can sign a five year extension. I don't think there has been a guy yet who doesn't take the huge contract after year four if it's offered.
Yeah, they'll offer him the 5-year max, and it will be 7 years of control, effectively.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,066
Kiev, Ukraine
You, PP, and lovegtm sound very skeptical about the Celts dealing Gordon Hayward at all, for numerous legitimate reasons. Danny does have the reputation of trading his own mother for a player he wants. BUT maybe Hayward is a bridge too far. It's interesting that no one cited his former All-Star talent as a stumbling block, from the Celtics perspective, to a deal happening.
The reputation is correct, but he also tries to do well by the players in general and maintain agent relations. I'd be shocked if a lot of Rozier and Morris' playing time this year wasn't at Danny's behest. He doesn't want more Josh Jackson situations (even though that worked out totally fine for the Celtics).
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
11,308
Santa Monica
The reputation is correct, but he also tries to do well by the players in general and maintain agent relations. I'd be shocked if a lot of Rozier and Morris' playing time this year wasn't at Danny's behest. He doesn't want more Josh Jackson situations (even though that worked out totally fine for the Celtics).
That's a good pick up where a player/agent veered themselves away from the Celtics.
I'm trying to remember when the Sox quickly dealt a player after he signed a team friendly deal? and what were the repercussions, besides the PR hit.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,066
Kiev, Ukraine
That's a good pick up where a player/agent veered themselves away from the Celtics.
I'm trying to remember when the Sox quickly dealt a player after he signed a team friendly deal? and what were the repercussions, besides the PR hit.
It’s more than the team-friendly aspect (it was a normal max): it’s that he had to hurt some close relationships in Utah specifically to go play with his old coach, and in Boston. Gobert in particular was really pissed/hurt, iirc. It was a way more personal situation than a lot of free agencies are.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,340
Nashua, NH
That's a good pick up where a player/agent veered themselves away from the Celtics.
I'm trying to remember when the Sox quickly dealt a player after he signed a team friendly deal? and what were the repercussions, besides the PR hit.
Bronson Arroyo. But, with no salary cap or max salary, baseball is a sport where money is the first, second, and third tiebreaker in most cases, so you wouldn't get much fallout there.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,062
Yeah, they'll offer him the 5-year max, and it will be 7 years of control, effectively.
Even when players do sign five year rookie extensions, they tend to leave themselves an option year so that they get to their 30% max deal. See, for example, Anthony Davis. That’s also assuming they didn’t just sign four year extensions to get their max bump at the earliest possible moment. Like Kyrie, for example.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
11,308
Santa Monica
Bronson Arroyo. But, with no salary cap or max salary, baseball is a sport where money is the first, second, and third tiebreaker in most cases, so you wouldn't get much fallout there.
Thank you. That's the deal. Arroyo for Pena. bad deal.

There is plenty of handwringing in the Sox Forum about dealing players and the blowback the Sox will get.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,155
Thank you. That's the deal. Arroyo for Pena. bad deal.

There is plenty of handwringing in the Sox Forum about dealing players and the blowback the Sox will get.
Most of the handwringing is by people that don't understand how player movement works in baseball. Generally, dealing players in baseball doesn't impact a team's ability to sign free agents. Baseball is by definition a very individualistic sport. Also, player movement is a fact of life in baseball; has been for ages. No prospective free agent batted an eyelid when the Sox traded newly extended Adrian Gonzalez and Josh Becket to the Dodgers in the Nick Punto trade.

The Bronson Arroyo situation was a bit different, in that Arroyo was signed at a discount in order to stay with the team. He wanted to stay in Boston for a number of reasons, and was then dealt rather suddenly. Even then, however, the blowback was minimal. Arroyo really liked it in Cincinnati, and was even involved in the local music scene there. Plus the marginal value of getting a top tier free agent is not always that much greater than getting one from the next tier. For example, there is a high likelihood that the team that wins the next World Series does not have Mike Trout on its roster. The Sox won two World Series after missing out on Teixeira.

Basketball is different, in that those few star free agents directly affect the fortunes of a franchise in a very big way. The Celtics went out of their way to recruit Hayward to come here, and if they traded Gordon against his wishes to a place he doesn't want to play, it will be a long time before any agent or player listens to Ainge's recruiting pitches. If we ignore the noise from Klutch, Boston is probably one of about 5 or 6 places that has a legit chance of landing Anthony Davis and getting him to sign here after. However, Boston may not be his first choice, and so it would be foolish for Ainge to do anything to make Boston any less appealing to Davis or any other prospective free agent.

And the media person that thinks the Celtics would have to give up Tatum, Brown, Hayward and picks to get Davis doesn't know what he's talking about and is best ignored.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,066
Kiev, Ukraine
...
And the media person that thinks the Celtics would have to give up Tatum, Brown, Hayward and picks to get Davis doesn't know what he's talking about and is best ignored.
We should make a separate thread sometime in which we contrast the speculated trades for NBA superstars with the actual trades that were subsequently made. It's laughable how much lower the cost generally ends up being (for all the reasons we know well).
 

Wilco's Last Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 11, 2008
460
Philadelphia, PA
I don't love any trade in which the Celtics give up two of GH/JB/JT for AD - and I doubt DA does either - because it absolutely destroys their wing depth (especially once Morris walks).

Other than the remaining member of the GH/JB/JT trio, the Celtics would have Semi at the wing and...who else? You might say they can replenish the depth in the draft or with FA ring chasers, but I doubt many high-level wings are available when we use the Clips pick @ #20, or for the MLE / vet min.

You'd obviously have a great top-end with AD, Kyrie, Horford, and the remaining wing, but that roster is too heavily balanced toward guards/bigs without many ways to add the kind of athletic, versatile wings that DA loaded us up with this year.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
4,556
It seems to me that AD for Tatum plus all of this year's picks including Memphis plus whatever useless salary needs to be included is the deal that makes the most sense for both sides.
 

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
1,998
Honolulu HI
We should make a separate thread sometime in which we contrast the speculated trades for NBA superstars with the actual trades that were subsequently made. It's laughable how much lower the cost generally ends up being (for all the reasons we know well).
I think the opposite happened with the Kyrie trade, as many had speculated that the Cs wouldn't have to give up as much as they did. And despite that it still ended up a good deal for the Cs.
For this trade the lowest possible value the Cs could send out -seemingly- will still have to include two of Smart, Brown & Heyward. The big question is how many picks the Cs end up giving up and whether or not Brown or Tatum (or, in the worst case scenario, both) goes to New Orleans. I mean, clearly the Pelicans need a young star to be included (i.e Brown or Tatum) and for the salary cap to work the Cs need to include either Heyward or Smart. As discussed earlier, there is no way to get creative and sign draft picks, sending them instead so the big question with this trade is which of Smart, Heyward, Tatum and Brown are being included in the package.
And for those who say trading Heyward would be too cold-blooded, I just don't see it. The man is on a max contract and there is a good chance he is never going to be that kind of player again. He wasn't signed to score 11.5 ppg and the Cs can't risk the future of their franchise in order to appease him and/or appeal to future free agents. Any future free agent will realize that the Heyward the Cs signed and the one they traded are not the same player. No team can be expected to stick with a guy -especially when a potential MVP becomes available -when he no longer is close to deserving of his contract. Seriously, bad contracts get dumped all the time...
 
Last edited:

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
1,998
Honolulu HI
It seems to me that AD for Tatum plus all of this year's picks including Memphis plus whatever useless salary needs to be included is the deal that makes the most sense for both sides.
There are no useless salaries though. The Cs need to package Tatum with either Smart+ or Heyward. There is no other way to make the salaries match up...
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,942
There are no useless salaries though. The Cs need to package Tatum with either Smart+ or Heyward. There is no other way to make the salaries match up...
Sign and trades with potentially Rozier or Morris.
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
6,379
There are no useless salaries though. The Cs need to package Tatum with either Smart+ or Heyward. There is no other way to make the salaries match up...
That's not true and has been covered multiple times in this thread.


The bigger hypothetical will be if the Celtics can get to the finals with this core, do they really want to lose one of the kids - who are once again blossoming in the playoffs and showing they can be glue+ (Brown) or featured studs (Tatum). Seems like the absolute ideal move would be to replace Horford with Davis (or another big) over time, but I'm not sure how realistic that would be. That's the best way to extend the life of this future dynasty IMO. As much as I love Horford and everything he does.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
15,012
Pittsburgh, PA
For this trade the lowest possible value the Cs could send out -seemingly- will still have to include two of Smart, Brown & Heyward. The big question is how many picks the Cs end up giving up and whether or not Brown or Tatum (or, in the worst case scenario, both) goes to New Orleans. I mean, clearly the Pelicans need a young star to be included (i.e Brown or Tatum) and for the salary cap to work the Cs need to include either Heyward or Smart. As discussed earlier, there is no way to get creative and sign draft picks, sending them instead so the big question with this trade is which of Smart, Heyward, Tatum and Brown are being included in the package.
And for those who say trading Heyward would be too cold-blooded, I just don't see it. The man is on a max contract and there is a good chance he is never going to be that kind of player again. He wasn't signed to score 11.5 ppg and the Cs can't risk the future of their franchise in order to appease him and/or appeal to future free agents. Any future free agent will realize that the Heyward the Cs signed and the one they traded are not the same player. No team can be expected to stick with a guy -especially when a potential MVP becomes available -when he no longer is close to deserving of his contract. Seriously, bad contracts get dumped all the time...
There are no useless salaries though. The Cs need to package Tatum with either Smart+ or Heyward. There is no other way to make the salaries match up...
At this point I can't tell if you're on the joke train that DeJesus started a year ago when people first started mistyping his name, or if you really don't know how to spell the name of our star free-agent signing. At least you won't have any trouble forgetting him if they do cashier him.

Also, PPG is a terrible measuring stick to evaluate GH's progress. There aren't many worse ones you could have chosen.
 
Last edited:

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
15,012
Pittsburgh, PA
It seems to me that AD for Tatum plus all of this year's picks including Memphis plus whatever useless salary needs to be included is the deal that makes the most sense for both sides.
Griffin has 3 strategic choices at his disposal:

1) Trade Davis for the best deal he can get in the offseason
2) Trade Davis for the best deal he can get at next year's trade deadline
3) Attempt to extend Davis, thereby risking losing him for nothing

Unless Davis changes his tune in the offseason, I think it's a foregone conclusion that he won't opt for #3, and for obvious reasons the total value he can extract is greater than #1 than it is for #2 (unless there is still some faint hope of an extension in the interim).

Assuming that he is all-but-compelled to trade him for the best offer in the offseason, the question is not "how many assets can we throw at him?", but rather, "what is the minimum combination of assets that tops the next-best non-Zion offer?"

I think that's going to be lower than a lot of people suppose. Tatum plus 4 first-round picks plus other attractive salaries who are outperforming their contracts (e.g. Smart) is not how I see it going down. Griffin needs long-term upside, not present roster value, which he arguably would value in the negative (fewer wins next season = better draft pick odds).
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
5,166
That's not true and has been covered multiple times in this thread.
.
The fact that you have to give up Hayward or Smart to make the salaries match up, has been really nagging at me. When you think about giving up two very valuable players, and a boat load of picks, the cost starts to feel very high. And, let's also be realistic, players get hurt. We'd be putting a lot of our eggs in one basket - albeit a great basket, but it is still one basket.

If we could give up Tatum + picks and make it work, I'm in - but adding in Smart makes it difficult for me. If there was a way to convince NO to take Hayward and NOT Tatum, I'd be in as well, but that seems unlikely. I'd like to see a deep playoff run, with Hayward playing really well, which I hope at a minimum helps convince Kyrie that AD isn't necessary or enables a more straight swap of Hayward for AD. Had Hayward not gotten hurt, I would have thought AD for Hayward + picks would have been fair (considering that AD wants out, of course).
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
5,166
Griffin has 3 strategic choices at his disposal:
2) Trade Davis for the best deal he can get at next year's trade deadline.
If next year Hayward is looking like an All-Star again, does that become a possibility, or does it make Hayward less attractive (because at that point you only have him for 1.5 seasons)?
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
15,012
Pittsburgh, PA
The fact that you have to give up Hayward or Smart to make the salaries match up, has been really nagging at me. When you think about giving up two very valuable players, and a boat load of picks, the cost starts to feel very high. And, let's also be realistic, players get hurt. We'd be putting a lot of our eggs in one basket - albeit a great basket, but it is still one basket.

If we could give up Tatum + picks and make it work, I'm in - but adding in Smart makes it difficult for me. If there was a way to convince NO to take Hayward and NOT Tatum, I'd be in as well, but that seems unlikely. I'd like to see a deep playoff run, with Hayward playing really well, which I hope at a minimum helps convince Kyrie that AD isn't necessary or enables a more straight swap of Hayward for AD. Had Hayward not gotten hurt, I would have thought AD for Hayward + picks would have been fair (considering that AD wants out, of course).
You just replied to a post and acted as if it was entirely wrong, without making any sort of case for that point of view, where the post immediately before the one you quoted (#1678) explained WHY the post was right.

RTFThread. You want to make the case why neither of them would accept an S&T, be my guest, but let's at least start from where the conversation left off, rather than persisting in not keeping up with everybody else. Nobody can have a conversation with someone who isn't listening.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
5,166
You just replied to a post and acted as if it was entirely wrong, without making any sort of case for that point of view, where the post immediately before the one you quoted (#1678) explained WHY the post was right.
.
Not sure where you got that from, because I don't think the post is wrong at all. The consensus view seems to be that in order to make salaries work, you have to include Smart or Hayward. Tatum, picks, and flotsam and jetsum doesn't add up. I was just saying that when you add Smart (or Hayward) to Tatum AND picks, I feel like the price is getting very high for AD.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,930
Saint Paul, MN
Tatum, picks, and flotsam and jetsum doesn't add up
You can get there though. It isn't easy, or likely, but there is enough salary if Rozier/Morris can be signed and traded and they include some or one of this upcoming years draft picks.

Example - Tatum + Yabusele + Williams + Rozier (s+t at 13 mill/year) + #14 pick is enough salary.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,066
Kiev, Ukraine
Not sure where you got that from, because I don't think the post is wrong at all. The consensus view seems to be that in order to make salaries work, you have to include Smart or Hayward. Tatum, picks, and flotsam and jetsum doesn't add up. I was just saying that when you add Smart (or Hayward) to Tatum AND picks, I feel like the price is getting very high for AD.
And, has been gone over approximately 7 million times in this thread (most recently by the moops right above my comment), that is not the "consensus view" at all. There are lots of non Smart/Hayward ways to get to the salary. They're all tricky, but there are a lot of permutations, and this is what guys like Mike Zarren live for.

As a general rule, it's totally fine/fun to disagree, but it's pretty annoying to have someone come in and act like an expert when that person clearly hasn't done the required homework.
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
6,379
This isn’t doing homework. It’s coming into class 30 min late, interrupting the teacher to state that they don’t like the subject being discussed based on a flawed understanding of the very lesson being taught for the last half hour all while miss pronouncing the main subjects name the entire time.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,066
Kiev, Ukraine
This isn’t doing homework. It’s coming into class 30 min late, interrupting the teacher to state that they don’t like the subject being discussed based on a flawed understanding of the very lesson being taught for the last half hour all while miss pronouncing the main subjects name the entire time.
I was trying to be nice :)
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
11,308
Santa Monica
Here's the framework (thread cheat sheet for those who forgot their homework) of an AD deal:
1. Hayward is not being moved. WHY? (a) his relationship with Stevens, (b) improved play, (c) massive negative effect on future potential Celtic FA signings, and (d) Pelicans are looking down the road
2. Pels ask for Tatum/Brown/PLUS OR Tatum/Smart/PLUS
3. Celtics counter with Brown/Smart/PLUS OR Tatum/PLUS/Rozier (sign and trade covers money difference)
PLUS
4. 2-4 Celtic 2019 first round picks
PLUS
5. 1-2 of flotsam -n- jetsam: Yabusele, Time Lord, Semi, J Gibson

and I don't entertain any of this unless we get some sort of guarantee AD is signing long term. No interest in him coming here and watching Klutch drama unfold all next season.
 
Last edited:

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,942
If they deal Tatum and Smart they wouldn't need to include Rozier.

However, Rozier can S&T for $10-$12M and go in place of Smart.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,930
Saint Paul, MN
If they deal Tatum and Smart they wouldn't need to include Rozier.

However, Rozier can S&T for $10-$12M and go in place of Smart.
Rozier's salary will only be counted as 50% for matching purposes. So unless NO is interested in a 24 million a year contract for Rozier, he isn't going to take the full place of Smart's money.