No, but the point remains that they are better off with all those draft picks than they were with the assets they gave up to get them. I'd rather have a 2nd round pick that has a 2% chance of being useful than Austin Rivers who has 0.5%.Dan to Theo to Ben said:Cherrypicking the perfect draft choice isn't really helping your case, guys.
2011 and 2012, recent, but old enough so players have enough time to have developed. But if you want to play that gameGrin&MartyBarret said:
Speaking of cherrypicking, why'd you choose 2011 and 2010 but not, say, 2009 when Stephen Curry was drafted 7th?
Of course it does, but unless you're the Spurs, the odds aren't great. I'm gl;ad we have Danny so at least there's hope though.TheDeuce222 said:
. At the end of the day, it comes down to drafting well.
Most of the current best teams were built through the draft.Dan to Theo to Ben said:Of course it does, but unless you're the Spurs, the odds aren't great. I'm gl;ad we have Danny so at least there's hope though.
Wow that is a seriously narrow tailoring on that straw man. Eliminating any team that signed or traded for a free agent star or drafted top 4 and anyone in the west.Dan to Theo to Ben said:Only see one team with a recent title there. Portland ATl have sure shown much so far in the playoffs.
SA I grant you as I did, above.
But OKC had pretty darned high draft picks. Chi too IIRC.
When was the last Eastern Conference team that won even one game in the Finals, with their best player home-drafted 4 or below?
Dan to Theo to Ben said:When was the last Eastern Conference team that won even one game in the Finals, with their best player home-drafted 4 or below?
Dan to Theo to Ben said:2011 and 2012, recent, but old enough so players have enough time to have developed. But if you want to play that game
:
2005: Charlie Villanueva
2006: Randy Foye
2007: Corey Brewer
2008: Eric Gordon
that's my whole point. People don't understand the meaning of the word " could"Grin&MartyBarret said:
The argument is that they're nice assets that could turn into nice players either through the draft or through trades. While your argument seems to be "you need good players to win."
Dan to Theo to Ben said:that's my whole point. People don't understand the meaning of the word " could"
Dan to Theo to Ben said:that's my whole point. People don't understand the meaning of the word " could"
Dan to Theo to Ben said:i'd rather would have gone for one more run in 2013-14, yes.
One more run where? They sucked before the trade, and having to re-sign both players this summer would have taken them out of the free agent game.Dan to Theo to Ben said:i'd rather would have gone for one more run in 2013-14, yes.
Dan to Theo to Ben said:i'd rather would have gone for one more run in 2013-14, yes.
How is Marcus Thornton making $8.6 million?amfox1 said:
Marc J. Spears @SpearsNBAYahoo 3h3 hours ago
The Celtics are getting a lot of interest in guard Marcus Thornton, but teams are concerned about his $8.6 million salary, a source said.
Look at his stats with SAC in 2010-11Eddie Jurak said:How is Marcus Thornton making $8.6 million?
Dan to Theo to Ben said:Only see one team with a recent title there. Portland ATl have sure shown much so far in the playoffs.
SA I grant you as I did, above.
But OKC had pretty darned high draft picks. Chi too IIRC.
When was the last Eastern Conference team that won even one game in the Finals, with their best player home-drafted 4 or below?
I wanted to make one mor run in 2013-14 as well. It's now pretty obvious I was wrong.Dan to Theo to Ben said:i'd rather would have gone for one more run in 2013-14, yes.
mcpickl said:If you don't agree with Ainges' strategy of hoarding picks, what would you have done?
I was playing with trade machine yesterday and had trouble finding a deal that matches salary, has only expiring contracts, and is relatively balanced.amfox1 said:https://twitter.com/SpearsNBAYahoo/status/555476512715976704
link to tweet
The Celtics are getting a lot of interest in guard Marcus Thornton, but teams are concerned about his $8.6 million salary, a source said.
I guess I'm just jaded by 1) the whole trade for overpriced contracts then buyout part of the CBA and 2) thought we'd get more for Rondo and Green precisely because of the Brooklyn "heist". and 3) not seeing Young play too muchmcpickl said:I wanted to make one mor run in 2013-14 as well. It's now pretty obvious I was wrong.
That Brooklyn trade is a heist.
I'm assuming you'd agree by now, even if they ran it back in 13/14, it would be rebuilding time.
If you don't agree with Ainges' strategy of hoarding picks, what would you have done?
The problem with this idea is twofold. You're trading veteran players, so only contenders are going to be interested. You're not going to get a young cornerstone player in such a deal, because that guy would be playing a key role on that team. So at best you'd be getting a young player that hasn't fulfilled his promise. Two issues with that kind of guy, he's already failed and is being given up on by his current team, and is already closer to the end of his rookie contract.Dan to Theo to Ben said:I guess I'm just jaded by 1) the whole trade for overpriced contracts then buyout part of the CBA and 2) thought we'd get more for Rondo and Green precisely because of the Brooklyn "heist". and 3) not seeing Young play too much
My strategy would be based on receiving players who are assets or can be coached/developed into assets, rather just expiring contracts and picks. I do still want to have a team to root for in the present, not 5 years from now. We traded away 3 franchise players, 2 minimum, and have zero now. Now I'm not paid handsomely to figure out and identify who to obtain, so if you're looking for that answer, I can't tell you which players when and all of that.
Right now we bulldozed a historic landmark and have bult a fence, but I see no foundation yet, let alone rooms. If we're able to turn #7 (and change) into a franchise player, and Smart and Young and Zeller get better, I will be much happier. Just hate the tanking and the losing, and sick of it after only 16 months.
The problems are:Dan to Theo to Ben said:I guess I'm just jaded by 1) the whole trade for overpriced contracts then buyout part of the CBA and 2) thought we'd get more for Rondo and Green precisely because of the Brooklyn "heist". and 3) not seeing Young play too much
My strategy would be based on receiving players who are assets or can be coached/developed into assets, rather just expiring contracts and picks. I do still want to have a team to root for in the present, not 5 years from now. We traded away 3 franchise players, 2 minimum, and have zero now. Now I'm not paid handsomely to figure out and identify who to obtain, so if you're looking for that answer, I can't tell you which players when and all of that.
Right now we bulldozed a historic landmark and have bult a fence, but I see no foundation yet, let alone rooms. If we're able to turn #7 (and change) into a franchise player, and Smart and Young and Zeller get better, I will be much happier. Just hate the tanking and the losing, and sick of it after only 16 months.
There are a few problems here. First, the two impact players Boston traded were at the end of the line. Essentially you're arguing that we should have delayed the implosion by two more years. The problem with this is that we would still end up in the exact same spot that we're in now, only two years later and with a lot fewer draft assets.Dan to Theo to Ben said:I guess I'm just jaded by 1) the whole trade for overpriced contracts then buyout part of the CBA and 2) thought we'd get more for Rondo and Green precisely because of the Brooklyn "heist". and 3) not seeing Young play too much
My strategy would be based on receiving players who are assets or can be coached/developed into assets, rather just expiring contracts and picks. I do still want to have a team to root for in the present, not 5 years from now. We traded away 3 franchise players, 2 minimum, and have zero now. Now I'm not paid handsomely to figure out and identify who to obtain, so if you're looking for that answer, I can't tell you which players when and all of that.
Right now we bulldozed a historic landmark and have bult a fence, but I see no foundation yet, let alone rooms. If we're able to turn #7 (and change) into a franchise player, and Smart and Young and Zeller get better, I will be much happier. Just hate the tanking and the losing, and sick of it after only 16 months.
amfox1 said:
Rumor is that Phoenix may the 3rd team in the mix.
One possibility is Rivers to LAC (from BOS), Bullock to PHX (from LAC), with BOS getting Udoh (from LAC, $981k expiring contract), Randolph (from PHX, $1.23mm expiring contract) and a 2nd rounder (from LAC).
amfox1 said:
Marc Stein @ESPNSteinLinehttps://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLinehttps://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine · 9m 9 minutes ago
Expectation here at @nbadleague Showcase remains that Clips will seal trade to acquire Austin Rivers by week's end. Perhaps as soon as today
Phoenix increasingly mention as a likely third-team participant so Celtics don't have to take back any salary in sending Austin Rivers to LA
Suns are believed to covet Reggie Bullock from Clippers. Clips would naturally prefer to make deal without surrendering Bullock. But
But Austin Rivers, I'm told, never reported to Celtics after deal because Boston pledged to get him to Clippers. And that remains the plan
Shams Charania @ShamsCharania 3m3 minutes ago
Phoenix's Shavlik Randolph has been traded to Boston, with Reggie Bullock to Phoenix, Austin Rivers to Clippers, league sources tell RealGM.
I believe the Celtics get the clippers 2nd round pick in 2017. For Austin, this is fine return.amfox1 said:
I'm assuming a second min-level player (Udoh or CDR) and a 2nd round pick are also coming to BOS.
according to bbref, he has a non-guaranteed contract at $1.2M this seasonDan to Theo to Ben said:How much is Shav's buyout?
Rudy Pemberton said:welcome back!!
Dan to Theo to Ben said:My strategy would be based on receiving players who are assets or can be coached/developed into assets, rather just expiring contracts and picks.
why didn't they trade the players they released too Boston?moondog80 said:
Maybe they can trade him for a second round pick.
Farmar had an option Danny wouldn't takethe1andonly3003 said:why didn't they trade the players they released too Boston?
Cellar-Door said:Farmar had an option Danny wouldn't take
Also the Clippers are hard capped which makes matching tough.
Well of course. Do you have any reason to believe any GM wouldn't try to trade folks before buying them out?the1andonly3003 said:if danny finds out there is interest from other teams for some of these players he has traded for, he should at least keep them on the roster to see if he can get more picks (e.g. Nate Robinson, Prince)