Romeo Langford - Pick #14

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
It will likely be a work in progress over a couple years for him to get fully comfortable with it in-game, but Langford's shot looks a lot cleaner now.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
It will likely be a work in progress over a couple years for him to get fully comfortable with it in-game, but Langford's shot looks a lot cleaner now.
Shooting is the easiest skill to improve. Romeo has so many other plus skills he has a chance to surprise a lot of people this year and next (inserting caveat).......if he remains heathy. I think one of the reasons Smart has been mentioned as prime trade bait is due to the team feeling Romeo can slide right into his role.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Yeah I don't really care that he hit the shots as much as the fact that he looked very comfortable with the motion of it and confident enough to do it in game.
Yup. If we ever start seeing that from Nesmith, the pants are coming off.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,127
Santa Monica
Shooting is the easiest skill to improve. Romeo has so many other plus skills he has a chance to surprise a lot of people this year and next (inserting caveat).......if he remains heathy. I think one of the reasons Smart has been mentioned as prime trade bait is due to the team feeling Romeo can slide right into his role.
While I think Romeo will do a lot of what Smart does (w/better offense), I'd rather keep both and move on from Kemba this summer. The defense is so much better when it's a "real" switchy defense. Not that crap where every player on the floor is concerned about Kemba guarding anybody inside the 3pt line (not that Kemba adequately guards the 3pt line at all).

I'm fine with keeping 1 smurf on this team (Pritchard) but Danny needs to move on from Kemba, Carsen, Waters.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
While I think Romeo will do a lot of what Smart does (w/better offense), I'd rather keep both and move on from Kemba this summer. The defense is so much better when it's a "real" switchy defense. Not that crap where every player on the floor is concerned about Kemba guarding anybody inside the 3pt line (not that Kemba adequately guards the 3pt line at all).

I'm fine with keeping 1 smurf on this team (Pritchard) but Danny needs to move on from Kemba, Carsen, Waters.
I think we are one year away from realistically being able to move Kemba. Maybe I’m wrong but the number of teams looking for a starting PG this summer are few. The number looking for a declining PG who is damaged goods on a $30m contract are how many? We will be down to a cellar dweller far under the cap to absorb his salary. That could get pricey if that team even exists.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,466
I think we are one year away from realistically being able to move Kemba. Maybe I’m wrong but the number of teams looking for a starting PG this summer are few. The number looking for a declining PG who is damaged goods on a $30m contract are how many? We will be down to a cellar dweller far under the cap to absorb his salary. That could get pricey if that team even exists.
I think someone might make a move, maybe 2 teams just because this year's FA class is pretty weak.
Now arguably the two best UFA are PGs (Conley, Lowry) but neither is a scorer, the best scorers are... DeRozan, Norm Powell and Fournier
 

cardiacs

Admires Neville Chamberlain
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,993
Milford, CT
Yeah I don't really care that he hit the shots as much as the fact that he looked very comfortable with the motion of it and confident enough to do it in game.
Agree with this 100%. It's surprising how comfortable he looks out there all things considered.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,127
Santa Monica
I think we are one year away from realistically being able to move Kemba. Maybe I’m wrong but the number of teams looking for a starting PG this summer are few. The number looking for a declining PG who is damaged goods on a $30m contract are how many? We will be down to a cellar dweller far under the cap to absorb his salary. That could get pricey if that team even exists.
Danny got the phone slammed down on him last Fall trying to move Walker, so you may be right. I keep forcing a KW/Horford swap. OKC may want a 22ppg/no D player while unloading Horford's contract. Others have suggested the Knicks as a Kemba destination (don't see them with Rose/Quickley) + Thibs likes defense. Maybe Orlando

It was nice to see the C's play D last night, and keep a team below 100 (even though the Knicks shot lights out from 3). Need to get back to being physical defensively. Watching other teams ISO Kemba 30 minutes a night, while the 4 other Celtics scramble to cover for him is brutal
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,101
Danny got the phone slammed down on him last Fall trying to move Walker, so you may be right. I keep forcing a KW/Horford swap. OKC may want a 22ppg/no D player while unloading Horford's contract. Others have suggested the Knicks as a Kemba destination (don't see them with Rose/Quickley) + Thibs likes defense. Maybe Orlando

It was nice to see the C's play D last night, and keep a team below 100 (even though the Knicks shot lights out from 3). Need to get back to being physical defensively. Watching other teams ISO Kemba 30 minutes a night, while the 4 other Celtics scramble to cover for him is brutal
I believe the bolded was unconfirmed rumor from somewhat sketchy sources. True or not, this offseason should have a better trade market for Kemba. It's only a 1-2 year commitment, he's shown he can still score, and there will be a lot of trades this offseason.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
I believe the bolded was unconfirmed rumor from somewhat sketchy sources. True or not, this offseason should have a better trade market for Kemba. It's only a 1-2 year commitment, he's shown he can still score, and there will be a lot of trades this offseason.
Yup, Kemba didn't go 2017-2018 IT this year. His knee still works, he can still shoot, and his deal is a year shorter. He's not KEMBA anymore, but he's not John Wall either.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,475
Somewhere
There are also going to be a lot of guys that get paid unreasonable contracts this off-season, some of whom are worse than Kemba.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,127
Santa Monica
There are also going to be a lot of guys that get paid unreasonable contracts this off-season, some of whom are worse than Kemba.
I can guarantee you no team is giving a MAX or large multi-year deal to a player worse than Kemba.

It's the yearly amount ($36MM + $37.6MM) that is so tricky to move, who's got that space and wants to use a 1/3 of their cap on Kemba for 2 seasons? KW opt-out is remote (nothing like GH). The C's will be taking back a large contract

I believe the bolded was unconfirmed rumor from somewhat sketchy sources. True or not, this offseason should have a better trade market for Kemba. It's only a 1-2 year commitment, he's shown he can still score, and there will be a lot of trades this offseason.
Rick Boucher (on the Herd) is flakey, that's fine. But I haven't heard Danny deny it
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,475
Somewhere
I can guarantee you no team is giving a MAX or large multi-year deal to a player worse than Kemba.

It's the yearly amount ($36MM + $37.6MM) that is so tricky to move, who's got that space and wants to use a 1/3 of their cap on Kemba for 2 seasons?
I mean, we just saw Westbrook moved twice, albeit once for John Wall (!). The yearly number is manageable if the Celtics don’t assume they can move Kemba into space.

The thing is, would the Celtics benefit from moving Kemba for air? They need to hold above-cap salary somewhere, and although a handful of smaller sized contracts would be more flexible, Kemba is still a better player than many combinations of overpaid mid level guys.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,466
I can guarantee you no team is giving a MAX or large multi-year deal to a player worse than Kemba.

It's the yearly amount ($36MM + $37.6MM) that is so tricky to move, who's got that space and wants to use a 1/3 of their cap on Kemba for 2 seasons? KW opt-out is remote (nothing like GH). The C's will be taking back a large contract


Rick Boucher (on the Herd) is flakey, that's fine. But I haven't heard Danny deny it
I don't think Danny would deny that he took a bunch of calls on Kemba, but based on other rumors, it sounded more like Kemba's value was low, and Danny was looking for bigger return rather than there being no interest at all.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,213
The thing is, would the Celtics benefit from moving Kemba for air? They need to hold above-cap salary somewhere, and although a handful of smaller sized contracts would be more flexible, Kemba is still a better player than many combinations of overpaid mid level guys.
Agreed, I think the challenge is they need that slot to get them the player they want back as well. Which could occur two ways:

1. Preserve the slot (a Horford scenario) and trade for the actual player who fills the slot later
2. Trade (most likley in a three way) for the player now

What's hard is that Celts simply don't have a lot of tradeable assets now either. You can staple future 1s to something, and someone may like Romeo/Nesmith a bit, but unless you take on a lot of risk with future unprotected 1s it's hard to get to a real impact asset from what they have to trade.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Agreed, I think the challenge is they need that slot to get them the player they want back as well. Which could occur two ways:

1. Preserve the slot (a Horford scenario) and trade for the actual player who fills the slot later
2. Trade (most likley in a three way) for the player now

What's hard is that Celts simply don't have a lot of tradeable assets now either. You can staple future 1s to something, and someone may like Romeo/Nesmith a bit, but unless you take on a lot of risk with future unprotected 1s it's hard to get to a real impact asset from what they have to trade.
I think at a certain point they need to take that future unprotected 1st risk.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,127
Santa Monica
I mean, we just saw Westbrook moved twice, albeit once for John Wall (!). The yearly number is manageable if the Celtics don’t assume they can move Kemba into space.

The thing is, would the Celtics benefit from moving Kemba for air? They need to hold above-cap salary somewhere, and although a handful of smaller sized contracts would be more flexible, Kemba is still a better player than many combinations of overpaid mid level guys.
Yea but Westbrook and Wall weren't paid/signed last off-season. Both were bad legacy deals. I agree that's where the Celtics have been with Kemba since month 4 of this contract. He has no value on the trade market, other than accepting a big/bad contract in return.

Yes, 2 or 3 veteran players are much better for this team for Kemba's salary slot. Adds flexibility and the rotations would be more productive. For example, players that went for very little at the trade deadline: Delon Wright ($9MM) + Fournier ($17MM) combined would add much more value than Kemba. Then take your choice of trading for $10-15MM/yr player (staple past 1sts to add $$$).

Kemba is offensively replaceable with a shooter (Fournier) and defensively with a Fultz practice chair.
If Kemba remains 2 more seasons, don't expect a top 5 defensive team, especially when KW would get relentlessly hunted/isolated in the playoffs. Then you just burned 2 years of JayRob
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,701
Saint Paul, MN
I think at a certain point they need to take that future unprotected 1st risk.
There haven't been many unprotected picks traded recently. At least not ones that are a few years out. Seems like everyone is sticking the 1-4 protection on them. Or 1-3 if you are the Timberwolves
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,303
I can guarantee you no team is giving a MAX or large multi-year deal to a player worse than Kemba.

It's the yearly amount ($36MM + $37.6MM) that is so tricky to move, who's got that space and wants to use a 1/3 of their cap on Kemba for 2 seasons? KW opt-out is remote (nothing like GH). The C's will be taking back a large contract


Rick Boucher (on the Herd) is flakey, that's fine. But I haven't heard Danny deny it
I am 99% sure that you’re conflating reports.
A few people have claimed that Danny was offering up Kemba to a few teams before the draft (Zach Harper I think was the first person to tweet about it.)
Bucher took it a step further and implied that Ainge was lying to every team about Kemba’s health and that every other GM was pissed at him and bla bla bla.

And Bucher is more than flakey. He’s a fucking idiot who gets literally everything wrong. It’s amazing that him and Chris Broussard actually get paid to cover a league they know 0 about
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,101
There haven't been many unprotected picks traded recently. At least not ones that are a few years out. Seems like everyone is sticking the 1-4 protection on them. Or 1-3 if you are the Timberwolves
It's disaster insurance.

Chance that the Celtics are going to have a top 4 pick in the draft over the next few years are minimal. So the buyer of the pick isn't giving up that much by accepting the protections. However, the seller has protection in the event of a Tatum torn ACL.

I don't believe the Celtics will need to trade a fully unprotected pick.

I am 99% sure that you’re conflating reports.
A few people have claimed that Danny was offering up Kemba to a few teams before the draft (Zach Harper I think was the first person to tweet about it.)
Bucher took it a step further and implied that Ainge was lying to every team about Kemba’s health and that every other GM was pissed at him and bla bla bla.

And Bucher is more than flakey. He’s a fucking idiot who gets literally everything wrong. It’s amazing that him and Chris Broussard actually get paid to cover a league they know 0 about
And the idea that Ainge has pissed off every other GM was killed quite quickly by a reporter that actually took the time to interview multiple front offices. We really shouldn't take anything Boucher says seriously; certainly shouldn't take it as "news".

EDIT: What's far more likely is that Ainge did some due diligence and offered Kemba's name up. When asked about his knee, Ainge probably told the GM's what he mentioned publicly, and that he expected Kemba back sometime in January. Maybe that was enough to scare off some GM's; maybe other GM's took a more pessimistic assessment. To spin that into Ainge was "lying" is obvious BS, to the point it's impossible to take the source seriously at all.
 
Last edited:

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
There haven't been many unprotected picks traded recently. At least not ones that are a few years out. Seems like everyone is sticking the 1-4 protection on them. Or 1-3 if you are the Timberwolves
If you're going to nitpick, you should at least be factually correct.

Recent major trades that sent unprotected picks/swaps:
- Davis to LAL
- George to LAC
- Jrue to Milwaukee
- Harden to Brooklyn

The major trades that didn't have unprotected picks were Russell to MIN and Westbrook to Houston.

Giving up unprotected picks has absolutely been the centerpiece of the recent "good team mortgages the future"-type trades.

EDIT: I guess you meant that all the trades that sent unprotected picks did so for picks that were a ways out? I guess, but it's a very strange point, given that the entire bet that the receiving team is making is that the team getting the star will be bad many years later.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
1,302
I think at a certain point they need to take that future unprotected 1st risk.
It sure would help if a star like Bradley Beal forced his way here. The reality is that there aren’t as many ways for the team to improve its roster as there were a few years ago. There are no more high lottery guys on the team to build around and no potential lottery picks fleeced from other teams on the horizon. There is no cap space in sight for a significant free agent signing and no assets on the bench to acquire an impact player via trade. The hopes are:

1) the team looks better when it has its best healthy players getting the minutes (more Tristan Thompson / less Luke Kornet and Mo Wagner)

2) Langford and Nesmith follow the Robert Williams’ path of development

3) Ainge picks off players from other rosters that can be maximized by Brad Stevens (Fournier may fit)

4) the front office finds a way to get more out of the Kemba salary slot, either by letting him walk in two years if it will liberate sufficient cap space to land another max player or by moving him sooner with a slew of unprotected firsts and pick swaps for the disenfranchised star du jour.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,127
Santa Monica
I am 99% sure that you’re conflating reports.
A few people have claimed that Danny was offering up Kemba to a few teams before the draft (Zach Harper I think was the first person to tweet about it.)
Bucher took it a step further and implied that Ainge was lying to every team about Kemba’s health and that every other GM was pissed at him and bla bla bla.

And Bucher is more than flakey. He’s a fucking idiot who gets literally everything wrong. It’s amazing that him and Chris Broussard actually get paid to cover a league they know 0 about
the point is:
1. Kemba was on the market
2. no takers
3. Danny recognizes they need to move him

I could care less about Boucher or Broussard semantics, or if Danny was being cunning, not forthright or random tweets...

Kemba needs to be moved
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,127
Santa Monica
It sure would help if a star like Bradley Beal forced his way here. The reality is that there aren’t as many ways for the team to improve its roster as there were a few years ago. There are no more high lottery guys on the team to build around and no potential lottery picks fleeced from other teams on the horizon. There is no cap space in sight for a significant free agent signing and no assets on the bench to acquire an impact player via trade. The hopes are:

1) the team looks better when it has its best healthy players getting the minutes (more Tristan Thompson / less Luke Kornet and Mo Wagner)

2) Langford and Nesmith follow the Robert Williams’ path of development

3) Ainge picks off players from other rosters that can be maximized by Brad Stevens (Fournier may fit)

4) the front office finds a way to get more out of the Kemba salary slot, either by letting him walk in two years if it will liberate sufficient cap space to land another max player or by moving him sooner with a slew of unprotected firsts and pick swaps for the disenfranchised star du jour.
Agree with all and would add

5) JayRob keeps on ascending.

They are 22, 23 and 24-year-olds. They will get bigger, stronger, and more skilled if they all continue with their work ethic.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I can guarantee you no team is giving a MAX or large multi-year deal to a player worse than Kemba.
Some team will, he just won't be worse than Kemba until after he signs the contract. That's how teams end up with Blake Griffin's and Kemba Walkers.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,407
around the way
the point is:
1. Kemba was on the market
2. no takers
3. Danny recognizes they need to move him

I could care less about Boucher or Broussard semantics, or if Danny was being cunning, not forthright or random tweets...

Kemba needs to be moved
I agree with the flexibility that moving Kemba would give them. They could do more with that spot than what he can give them at that money.

The bolded is a bit of a stretch though. I doubt that Kemba has no takers. I think that what Danny would be or has been offered was simply unpalatable. If the return is someone else's junk contract or we have to staple an unprotected first, that's probably a bridge too far for our management. That doesn't mean that no opportunity exists to move him.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I agree with the flexibility that moving Kemba would give them. They could do more with that spot than what he can give them at that money.

The bolded is a bit of a stretch though. I doubt that Kemba has no takers. I think that what Danny would be or has been offered was simply unpalatable. If the return is someone else's junk contract or we have to staple an unprotected first, that's probably a bridge too far for our management. That doesn't mean that no opportunity exists to move him.
Just means he won't be moved and 21/22 is another Kemba year. Hopefully he plays well and opts out.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
701
the point is:
1. Kemba was on the market
2. no takers
3. Danny recognizes they need to move him

I could care less about Boucher or Broussard semantics, or if Danny was being cunning, not forthright or random tweets...

Kemba needs to be moved
This is an honest question and not snark, why?

I do not see the urgency, given the following facts/assumptions:

Kemba is seen around the league as a negative value contract. However, potential trade partners may differ on how underwater it is.

Therefore, to move Kemba the Celtics need to 1) either take back a similarly priced bad asset or 2) attach assets to Kemba to move him.

Given Kemba's historic usage and role, he will not be great fit for some teams with space, such as OKC. OKC is developing and feeding (in some cases force feeding) minutes/shots to SGA, Poku, Dort etc. Accordingly, the cost to dump him into space, may be higher than what Philly paid to get off Horford (who also makes less).

Provided Wyc et al are willing to pay some tax, I am not in favor of #2 at the present time. I would do #1, if the players (it would have to be players unless we want John Wall/Wes) coming back, while overpaid, can still play and fill a role for the Celtics. Added bonus exchanging a single bad contract for two or three bad, but smaller contracts, could facilitate other trades.

If Wyc is willing to go into the tax to resign Fournier, what is the benefit of paying to move Kemba? You still would not have cap space unless you renounced Fournier's bird rights. It would give you access to the full MLE instead of the taxpayer MLE. Do we think the upgrade in the class of player we can get with the full MLE instead of the tax payer is worth the loss of multiple firsts?

If ownership won't pay, then I agree it is a closer question.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,101
Under his scenario it does. Ainge isn't trading unprotected picks and isn't taking on an even worse contract.

What does that leave?
Circumstances this coming offseason will be different than they were last year. So the trade market for a Kemba could very different.

Besides, the Celtics will lose the play-in as the 7th seed, will win the draft lottery, and Danny will pull off the first 30 team trade in NBA history, netting Beal to pair w/ Tatum, RWill, and Cade.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
What is the huge difference between Kemba's remaining 1+1 and the 2.5 years Horford had left when he was traded to OKC? Yes, Kemba makes $10M/year more, but that's not huge given the extra $14M tacked on to the back of Horford's deal, and it's not a huge deal for a rebuilding team.

They're both still contributing players who are slightly washed, and didn't fit right with their old teams.

Given the price Horford moved for, and the fact that OKC clearly didn't care at all about his on-court performance, I don't see why moving Kemba is so impossible.

You can then separate any star deal into 2 pieces: trade Kemba for salary parts or into an exception first, and then execute the other deal without having so many moving parts.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Just means he won't be moved and 21/22 is another Kemba year. Hopefully he plays well and opts out.
Kemba isn’t opting out next summer. He/agent would be best served to wait on a trade to tack on his 15% trade kicker.

The value I see in Kemba will be in two years as an expiring for a team looking to move from their player to take on the contract presuming that he’s Chandler Parsons/Isaiah Thomas-finished for them to have insurance pay for the majority of the deal. Nobody is signing Kemba to be their starting PG after the opt-out year.....this is around the time a player with such deteriorating conditions take a nose-dive. Especially the small guards who cannot afford to lose a step or two.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
What is the huge difference between Kemba's remaining 1+1 and the 2.5 years Horford had left when he was traded to OKC? Yes, Kemba makes $10M/year more, but that's not huge given the extra $14M tacked on to the back of Horford's deal, and it's not a huge deal for a rebuilding team.

They're both still contributing players who are slightly washed, and didn't fit right with their old teams.

Given the price Horford moved for, and the fact that OKC clearly didn't care at all about his on-court performance, I don't see why moving Kemba is so impossible.

You can then separate any star deal into 2 pieces: trade Kemba for salary parts or into an exception first, and then execute the other deal without having so many moving parts.
The huge difference is Ainge's reluctance to trade future 1st round picks.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,193
San Francisco
What is the huge difference between Kemba's remaining 1+1 and the 2.5 years Horford had left when he was traded to OKC? Yes, Kemba makes $10M/year more, but that's not huge given the extra $14M tacked on to the back of Horford's deal, and it's not a huge deal for a rebuilding team.

They're both still contributing players who are slightly washed, and didn't fit right with their old teams.

Given the price Horford moved for, and the fact that OKC clearly didn't care at all about his on-court performance, I don't see why moving Kemba is so impossible.

You can then separate any star deal into 2 pieces: trade Kemba for salary parts or into an exception first, and then execute the other deal without having so many moving parts.
I wonder which teams would take him on. Detroit? Cleveland? New Orleans?
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
The huge difference is Ainge's reluctance to trade future 1st round picks.
Ah, ok, I see where you're coming from now. I agree he's been reluctant to this point (and possibly in the Aaron Gordon situation). If he remains reluctant this summer, I think that's fireable.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
I wonder which teams would take him on. Detroit? Cleveland? New Orleans?
Cleveland won't; too many young guards. Orlando and NO are possibilities, maybe Detroit since they do dumb shit all the time to get talent.

The obvious fallback is OKC, sending a protected future 1st for Horford. The difference in money is material, and you can either have Horford replace TT, or use him as salary in the star deal they need to make.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,193
San Francisco
Cleveland won't; too many young guards. Orlando and NO are possibilities, maybe Detroit since they do dumb shit all the time to get talent.

The obvious fallback is OKC, sending a protected future 1st for Horford. The difference in money is material, and you can either have Horford replace TT, or use him as salary in the star deal they need to make.
Thinking about it, starving Kemba for minutes actually hurts whichever team he is on to the extent that it makes his player option more valuable than hitting the open marking after an opt out. Actually, thinking about it now is there any reasonable scenario where 32 year old bum knee Kemba declines his $37M option? I can't see any team offering 3 years > 12 AAV even if he were playing at all star level Kemba. Shit.
 

ColonelMustard

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2006
219
Horford keeps getting his name thrown around here like OKC will throw us a lifeline. The trade only makes sense (without a heavily protected future first) for OKC if they can flip KW for assets after the year.

As those lusting after Horford show, Horford has more trade value than KW. If this trade was going to get done without further Ainge concessions, it would have been done already.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,466
Under his scenario it does. Ainge isn't trading unprotected picks and isn't taking on an even worse contract.

What does that leave?
I don't think that's going to be the case though.
Kemba isn't that bad, in part because some of his issues for us are based on how we play, and that we have 2 young ball dominant wing scorers.

Last offseason there was far more cause for concern about his knee, his play this season should have ameliorated some of that concern.

A team that needs a ball dominant scorer, especially if they have strong rim protection should be looking at him. 2/73 is a lot of money, but it's short years, and if you are dumping a not very good non-max contract in the deal (Bledsoe?, Hield?, Gordon?, Harris) you're basically only increasing your cap hit by 15-20M and Kemba is a better player than most of those.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Thinking about it, starving Kemba for minutes actually hurts whichever team he is on to the extent that it makes his player option more valuable than hitting the open marking after an opt out. Actually, thinking about it now is there any reasonable scenario where 32 year old bum knee Kemba declines his $37M option? I can't see any team offering 3 years > 12 AAV even if he were playing at all star level Kemba. Shit.
If he is playing at an all star level, yeah. Some team would probably offer a 2+1 for 40 (60).

Everyone said there was no way Horford or Hayward would opt out either. I know those situations are a little different but guys will always opt out for more guaranteed money.

I wax and wane on whether he opts out. It would require him to be healthy for all of 21/22 and be reasonably consistent.

As is, he looks like maybe he could finish his career as a Lou Williams type off the bench. That player definitely isn't opting out.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Horford keeps getting his name thrown around here like OKC will throw us a lifeline. The trade only makes sense (without a heavily protected future first) for OKC if they can flip KW for assets after the year.

As those lusting after Horford show, Horford has more trade value than KW. If this trade was going to get done without further Ainge concessions, it would have been done already.
I explicitly said that I'd expect the Celtics to include a protected first in that deal.

Possibly I should just start writing in all caps. Kemba is tradeable IF DANNY IS WILLING TO PART WITH A FIRST.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,506
As those lusting after Horford show, Horford has more trade value than KW. If this trade was going to get done without further Ainge concessions, it would have been done already.
Why does a 34 year old Al Horford have more trade value than KW? Given their contracts and age, they both have negative trade value around the league and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,701
Saint Paul, MN
Why does a 34 year old Al Horford have more trade value than KW? Given their contracts and age, they both have negative trade value around the league and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
They do both have negative value. Kemba is owed 20 million extra over the next two years though. Seems like pretty easily calculus that Kemba has more negative value than Al
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
If he is playing at an all star level, yeah. Some team would probably offer a 2+1 for 40 (60).

Everyone said there was no way Horford or Hayward would opt out either. I know those situations are a little different but guys will always opt out for more guaranteed money.

I wax and wane on whether he opts out. It would require him to be healthy for all of 21/22 and be reasonably consistent.

As is, he looks like maybe he could finish his career as a Lou Williams type off the bench. That player definitely isn't opting out.
Hayward was always going to opt-out for a long-term guaranteed deal from Boston or elsewhere. I don’t specifically recall Horfords case off top of my head. Who in there right mind would give 31-yr old Kemba long-term guaranteed money with a degenerative knee condition who can’t play B2B nights? His market by then, likely following a 5th surgery, could easily be Isaiah post-hip surgery......no agent is going to walk away from $37m (or $42m if traded).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I don't think that's going to be the case though.
Kemba isn't that bad, in part because some of his issues for us are based on how we play, and that we have 2 young ball dominant wing scorers.

Last offseason there was far more cause for concern about his knee, his play this season should have ameliorated some of that concern.

A team that needs a ball dominant scorer, especially if they have strong rim protection should be looking at him. 2/73 is a lot of money, but it's short years, and if you are dumping a not very good non-max contract in the deal (Bledsoe?, Hield?, Gordon?, Harris) you're basically only increasing your cap hit by 15-20M and Kemba is a better player than most of those.
What teams need a short, ball dominant scorer on the wrong side of 30 with injury concerns? Do you see a contender trading for Kemba Walker?

I would guess if Kemba Walker is traded, it is to a lottery bound team with lots of picks attached. Trading future 1sts isn't Danny's MO.

I suppose there is the possibility that RL shows enough that if you attach him to Kemba Walker, a team might bite. Or if you attached TL to him.

Or something crazy like Jaylen and Kemba to Washington for Beal, Bertans and filler.

I hope there is a scenario out there where we can dump Kemba without moving assets but I don't see it. If takes a horde of picks to move on from Kemba, I'd rather they just keep him for 21/22 and hope he opts out or plays well unless it means Bradley Beal or someone of his kind is coming to Boston.

This team's brightest scenario is one that a lot of people on the board don't like but it's playing out 21/22 with Kemba and praying he opts out. They'd keep all their assets, have only the Jays under guaranteed contracts (possibly Evan) and have more than enough cap space to sign a max guy (Beal). Then they can re-up TL at Capela money. JT/JB/EF/TL/Beal would put them around $125. Add in RL/AN/PP/GW/CE/1st in 21/1st in 22 at an additional $23 mil or so. That's 12 players at $148. They could then decide what to do with Smart and fill the roster with vets. The bench would really need some of the young guys to come through or rely heavily on vets wanting to chase a ring. I'd go to war with that starting 5 and Marcus as my 6th man. Everyone on the bench would also be 2 years further along in their development. They would need another big, but it's possible that big is the '21 first.

Assuming they keep it, I'm kind of hoping the BPA when they pick this year is a big (or a big wing who can just as easily play the 5) and that Ainge pulls the trigger. 3rd big is a hard spot to fill. You either get the C's situation where they had to play TT/TL/DT or you get the C's situation where your 3rd big is Wagner, Kornet or Tacko Fall. I get it too. You don't really want to pay for your 3rd big but it would be nice to have another big with both length and athleticism.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see greener pastures for this team until after 21/22, possibly not until after 22/23 if Kemba opts in. The team really can't do anything until the Kemba situation is resolved.