# Pre-deadline Boston trade chatter



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/boston_celtics/2015/02/prince_bass_among_celtics_potential_trade_bait



> As it stands, NBA execs are telling us that Tayshaun Prince has the greatest immediate value on the market. He’s on the last year of his contract ($7 million), and, despite a recent hip issue, he’s shown he can still play.
> 
> As one source put it, “He knows how to play, and he’s played in big games. Someone hoping to make a playoff run is going to want him, even if it’s just for depth or insurance.”
> 
> ...


It's not like Boston hasn't already executed a full season's worth of trades at this point, but it seems fairly obvious that they'll look to move all three of those vets for picks if at all possible. I also wouldn't rule out a move for a young vet if given the opportunity, perhaps making use of their trade exceptions (which look like they'll be erased when Boston drops under the cap this summer). I've wondered about eating Kenneth Faried's extension if Dever's suddenly getting cold feet on it, as I think he's got the right kind of attitude to fit in with some of the hustle guys they seem to building the team around.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

If they could get first rounders for them, I feel like the probably would have been traded already.

That being said, Bass must look more interesting to the Thunder with this Steven Adams injury.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

RollWithEm said:


> If they could get first rounders for them, I feel like the probably would have been traded already.


Yea, I doubt anyone coughs up a first for any of them, I'd settle for decent seconds or a mediocre prospect - like Jae Crowder, who I quickly decided I love because of how hard he plays. It's a shame that Miami doesn't have a big, dead, expiring contract floating around, because they're exactly the kind of team that could use some useful veteran depth for the playoffs. Maybe Milwaukee decides they want one or two guys to round out the rotation? They have the cap space to make some things workable. 



RollWithEm said:


> That being said, Bass must look more interesting to the Thunder with this Steven Adams injury.


OKC's tough to find a workable deal with salary-wise, considering they'll probably want to retain Perkins (I don't know how much swapping out Perkins for Bass actually accomplishes, if anything).


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I mean I guess Bass/Zellinger for Perkins/Jackson/#1 would work, but the pick they owe for Waiters complicates things.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

E.H. Munro said:


> I mean I guess Bass/Zellinger for Perkins/Jackson/#1 would work, but the pick they owe for Waiters complicates things.


I don't think that OKC plans on sending _out_ a pick along with Jackson in order to get a backup big. I also don't see the Thunder really wanting to unload Perkins unless they get another big center in return, as there are just too many teams in the West with good bigs come playoff time.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Right, that's why I said "Zellinger" since that would give them two bigs (three if you count C.Y. Bass, who could be effective in a smallball lineup with Ibaka moving to the C spot).


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

E.H. Munro said:


> Right, that's why I said "Zellinger" since that would give them two bigs (three if you count C.Y. Bass, who could be effective in a smallball lineup with Ibaka moving to the C spot).


I saw that, I just don't see either of Bass or Zeller (admittedly I read it as "Zeller", not "Zellinger") doing a capable job on Dwight Howard or Marc Gasol come playoff time. Honestly, I expect that OKC would rather do Jackson for one of Zellynyger (see, I can play too) straight-up than try to shoehorn Perkins and Bass into the equation as well (unless they're just really looking to duck the tax, which is actually very possible, now that I think about it).


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

As far as I know Adams will be back before year's end, so I'm not sure they'd be that worried about the playoff matchups as such as Adams can handle Howard and Gasol. And, as an added bonus if it cut payroll and got them under the luxury tax line they'd be happy.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

E.H. Munro said:


> As far as I know Adams will be back before year's end, so I'm not sure they'd be that worried about the playoff matchups as such as Adams can handle Howard and Gasol. And, as an added bonus if it cut payroll and got them under the luxury tax line they'd be happy.


They're gonna need more than just Adams in the middle to survive three rounds of the West, and I'm not sold on the PFs-as-centers they have in Collison and McGary doing the job. Perkins fills a valuable role for them off the bench. I admit that, yea, getting under the tax line may change the math in the Bass v. Perkins scenario, though.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Interesting bit from Ainge at the end of this quote....

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/11/ainge-talks-analytics-playoff-format-trade-deadline-and-more-on-tr/



> The NBA trade deadline is just over a week away, so Rich asked Ainge what he hopes to accomplish over that time.
> “I don’t know. We’re opportunistic. There’s a lot of different things that can happen. I don’t anticipate, because right now we don’t have anything imminent. But you never know what happens at the trade deadline. But we’re ready, we have a lot of bullets in our arsenal right now. We have a lot of assets that we can move for lots of different things and go in a lot of different directions at this point,” Ainge told T&R.
> 
> *“But there’s not teams looking to make those kinds of major changes, is my perspective right now heading into this trade deadline. So I’m not sure what may happen.”*


While this is at least somewhat predictable, it looks like Ainge has shifted out of asset-gathering mode and is looking to cash in a big chunk of his chips for a star or pseudostar already. It was inevitable that he couldn't make _all_ of the draft picks that he's hoarded, but we're still earlier in the process than I would have expected for a such a move.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Bogg said:


> They're gonna need more than just Adams in the middle to survive three rounds of the West, and I'm not sold on the PFs-as-centers they have in Collison and McGary doing the job. Perkins fills a valuable role for them off the bench. I admit that, yea, getting under the tax line may change the math in the Bass v. Perkins scenario, though.


I think Zeller's perfectly fine as a backup C and they would have Collison and Sullinger for emergency exigencies. And long term Sullinger might be an acceptable Collison replacement.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

E.H. Munro said:


> I think Zeller's perfectly fine as a backup C and they would have Collison and Sullinger for emergency exigencies. And long term Sullinger might be an acceptable Collison replacement.


Hey, I hope you're right, because Boston's probably looking at buying out all three of Prince/Bass/Thornton (or at least having them ask for buyouts and then sulking when they don't get it), but I just don't see it.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I think Prince is the only one of the three with real trade value. As a matter of maintaining agent relationships he is near on certain to be bought out if Ainge can't find the right deal. I think Thornton's gone after deadline day because his tendency to shoot the ball every time he touches it reduces Boston's prospect players to onlooker status. Bass is probably here until the end of the year though, because Boston's not going to help out another team's payroll for a low second round pick.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/566317053666013184
I could get on board with Kanter if he came at the right discount, but it seems like a lot of what he brings is redundant with Sullinger already on board.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

If Sullinger were outbound as part of a package to land Li'l Zeke and the toll on Kanter involved the other slow-footed big on the Boston roster I could get behind it. Aside from that I'm with you.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

E.H. Munro said:


> If Sullinger were outbound as part of a package to land Li'l Zeke and the toll on Kanter involved the other slow-footed big on the Boston roster I could get behind it. Aside from that I'm with you.


See, even though I think Kanter is the better long-term player, I'd almost rather go after Kenneth Faried because he provides something much different than what the current C's bigs do. Obviously, the counterpoint is that Boston isn't good enough to do anything but chase the best player available at all times, and Kanter might wind up being a worthy buy-low target who's a year and a half younger than Faried (and bigger to boot).


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Bogg said:


> See, even though I think Kanter is the better long-term player, I'd almost rather go after Kenneth Faried because he provides something much different than what the current C's bigs do. Obviously, the counterpoint is that Boston isn't good enough to do anything but chase the best player available at all times, and Kanter might wind up being a worthy buy-low target who's a year and a half younger than Faried *(and bigger to boot).*


I think every 4 and 5 in the league is bigger than Faried. Might not be a bad target although it would probably be a high asking price.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

R-Star said:


> I think every 4 and 5 in the league is bigger than Faried. Might not be a bad target although it would probably be a high asking price.


Well....he's got a long wingspan which mitigates it a bit. He's actually got a higher standing reach than both Sullinger and Zeller, with Olynyk having the same standing reach despite being almost 5 inches taller. 

As far as his asking price goes - my interest in him hinges on Denver getting cold feet about the extension they just gave him and Boston exploiting their Rondo trade exception to be one of the few teams that can workably absorb his poison pill provision contract at a discount. If they have to pay full price, or even a premium, I'll pass. Right now I'm all about the C's spinning assets into better assets with an eye towards eventually turning them into one or two _great_ assets.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Some interesting tidbits in Zach Lowe's write-up today....

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-trade-deadline-primer-2015-denver-nuggets-ty-lawson-kenneth-faried/



> The more interesting questions surround Ty Lawson and Kenneth Faried. Denver isn’t shopping those guys, but Jusuf Nurkic is the only true untouchable on the roster, per several league sources who have dealt with the Nuggets. The sense around the league is that you could land Lawson or Faried with a Godfather offer. They are gettable. *Boston and Denver have had exploratory talks about Lawson, per several sources.*
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Lawson's actually an interesting name, with two more years on his contract after this one, that could potentially be the first guy in who could draw other veterans. I'd be interested to see what Denver wants for him, and I'm very glad that Smart's off the table in any talks - you almost _have_ to have him out there with Lawson for defensive purposes. I wouldn't give up the farm for a guy who probably tops out as the third-best player on a title team, and it gooses the timeframe on the rebuild forward a bit prematurely, but you have to make moves when the opportunity comes instead of when you'd maybe like to. A potential playoff matchup against Atlanta or Toronto would be fun, but I think I'd really prefer to get a decent lottery pick this year and trade for Lawson over the summer. I guess it all comes down to how much Denver is asking for him, and in the rest of the article it sounds like Denver's asking for a premium for all of their guys aside from JaVale.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

More Lawson reports, although one of the local Nuggets reporters is insisting that Denver isn't really looking to move him and the "preliminary talks" were just Ainge having a lowball offer turned down and then leaking it to the press for additional leverage. A. Sherrod Blakely (a local Boston guy) then having reports that Denver wants to move Lawson doesn't exactly refute that theory. Anyway....

http://www.csnne.com/boston-celtics/blakely-five-nba-teams-should-make-trade



> He knows – we all know – that this Nuggets team was built to play George Karl’s brand of basketball and not a slower, more defensive-oriented style by Brian Shaw.
> 
> The best way to remedy that is to make some changes via trades. The Nuggets have a nice assortment of movable talent, including their point guard Ty Lawson who has reportedly been a topic of discussion among the Celtics.
> 
> ...


EDIT: More talk from the Herald, which appears skeptical that either Lawson or Kanter wind up in Boston this week.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/boston_celtics/2015/02/danny_ainge_keeps_an_open_mind



> *Two of the names being attached to the Celts in weekend rumors should be considered, at best, longshots. It remained unlikely yesterday that either Ty Lawson or Enes Kanter would be Shamrocks by the end of this week.*
> 
> In both cases, it’s fair to assume the C’s would have interest, but the price would have to be right. And it is highly doubtful either would be made available in a straight-up trade for what the local outfit would be willing to offer. Lawson and Kanter are assets that could make sense for the Celtics depending on what was around them, but there are questions.
> 
> ...


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

You would almost think it has to be the Clippers, but what the heck do they have to trade?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

E.H. Munro said:


> You would almost think it has to be the Clippers, but what the heck do they have to trade?


I assume this is regarding the mystery team that called about Wallace? If so, it can't be the Clippers, because cap math essentially requires the deal to be for two of the Redick/Crawford/Hawes trio, and that makes no sense. The only two teams that I could even come up with something _borderline_ workable with Wallace (unless we extend "in the mix" to Denver and JaVale McGee's contract) would be with him packaged with one of the C's young players for one of David Lee or Eric Gordon. 

With Draymond Green's new contract looming, I could see the Warriors preferring to have any one of Zellynyger as cheap frontcourt depth over Lee's $16 million, with Wallace's contract chopped down using the stretch provision this summer to lessen the luxury tax hit of keeping the band together. Zeller and Wallace's "stretch" cap hit is about $10 million less than Lee's deal next year, which is about the expected value of the first year of Green's new deal. On the Boston end of things, there's the "he scores a lot and grabs plenty of rebounds!" angle, plus he _is_ a two-time all-star, so the kind of vets the C's are trying to recruit at least know his name.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Sounds like, as things start to come to a conclusion, Boston may not make any major move at all. 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/celtics_nba/boston_celtics/2015/02/celtics_in_prime_position_to_do_nothing



> ’Twas the night before the NBA trade deadline, and as far as the Celtics were concerned, not a blessed thing was stirring.
> 
> While several sources were saying all day that president of basketball operations Danny Ainge was making calls in the continued pursuit of assets, the Celts’ approach could be likened more to playing the passing lanes and looking for a deflection and an opportunity basket rather than a full-court press.
> 
> ...


----------

