# Dickau - sign and trade?



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

CelticsBlog is reporting that the Dickau deal might be a sign and trade. FSNE is reporting that the deal is 7.5M over three years.



> Monday, August 22, 2005
> 
> *Dickau Deal Close - Sign & Trade Possible*
> 
> ...


This means that Dickau was signed with our remaining MLE. Although I hate the Scalabrine signing, him and Dickau for the MLE is pretty nice use of it. Three years isn't bad, but once again, I would rather have Banks.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

Who would be traded?


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Wouldnt probably be a two for one so the Celtics can cut there roster down.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

Maybe we get Magloire and send blount and lafranchise as well. (This is out of my prayers)


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

Did we trade Scalabrine for him?


----------



## theBirdman (Jun 20, 2003)

http://www.boston.com/sports/basket.../23/celtics_and_hornets_agree_to_dickau_deal/

I guess a trade exception and two second rounders would make sense...

We have two trade exceptions for about 1,5 million + the 5 million one, right?



> Team	Amount	Expires
> Boston $1,419,240 24th Feb 2006
> Boston $1,337,500 8th Feb 2006


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

My question is does that make Dickau first, second, or third on the point guard depth chart? He obviously is the best pure point guard that we have, but doesn't have the height that Ainge likes in a point guard.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

theBirdman said:


> http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2005/08/23/celtics_and_hornets_agree_to_dickau_deal/
> 
> I guess a trade exception and two second rounders would make sense...
> 
> We have two trade exceptions for about 1,5 million + the 5 million one, right?


New Orleans actaully traded a trade exception to us. 

Here is a look at our three trade exceptions.

So instead of a trade exception and two second rounders from the Walker deal, we end up with Dan Dickau.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Dickau will be the starting point guard without question.

Marcus Banks will be traded.


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

Okay then I guess my next question is who do you think is better and why Dickau or Watson? why wouldn't the celtics have looked into possibly getting Watson?


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

Premier said:


> Dickau will be the starting point guard without question.
> 
> Marcus Banks will be traded.


Sounds good TO ME.

But how will be able to trade Banks and get any sort of value back unless we trade, Lafrentz, or Blount. I don't think anyone wants either of those two though. Any thoughts?


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

I still think Marcus Banks can be the best PG on our roster next year, even with Dickau. The guy is going to break out sometime soon and I really hope it is here.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Earl Watson is the same exact player as Marcus Banks although he has already peaked. Grizzlies fans will be happy to tell you that they do not want him. I prefer Dickau to Watson, but I would rather have Banks start.


----------



## Dakota (Aug 18, 2002)

Premier said:


> Earl Watson is the same exact player as Marcus Banks although he has already peaked. Grizzlies fans will be happy to tell you that they do not want him. I prefer Dickau to Watson, but I would rather have Banks start.


haha

Okay, I'm not trying to stir trouble, but if you say Marcus Banks is going to be the same player as Earl Watson and you prefer Dickau to Watson, then why would you rather have Banks start than Dickau if Banks is going to end up being the guy you don't even prefer before Dickau? 


(hahahaha) Did anyone understand that? It's a take-two though.


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

Danny has got to be the most active GM in the league. You know, piling up the young talent for future.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Dakota said:


> haha
> 
> Okay, I'm not trying to stir trouble, but if you say Marcus Banks is going to be the same player as Earl Watson and you prefer Dickau to Watson, then why would you rather have Banks start than Dickau if Banks is going to end up being the guy you don't even prefer before Dickau?
> 
> ...


Yes, I was aware of that when I posted.

Unlike Watson, Banks has potential to improve his point guard skills. Banks will only get better, while Watson will remain a mediocre backup point guard. Dickau, right now, is a better point guard than Watson and Banks, but I wouls still prefer Banks to start.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Lynx said:


> Danny has got to be the most active GM in the league. You know, piling up the young talent for future.


I wouldn't be surprised if Ainge actually _was_ the most active GM in the league. Some of his transactions have been questionable, but the guy is willing to take risks (although I cannot see why he has already given up on Banks in favor of West. He seems to like non-talented players that know their role and hustle. It's a wonder that he hasn't signed me yet.


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

So now if the season started tomorrow what is your starting 5? Who would be 6-10, who would be 11-15, and who wouldn't be on this team?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

There has to be another trade coming. And it does look like it's Banks. I'll wait to make my 1-15 until that happens.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

My ideal starting lineup and rotation:

C: LaFrentz / Blount / Perkins
PF: Jefferson / Perkins / Scalabrine
SF: Pierce / Gomes 
SG: Davis / Allen
PG: Dickau / Banks (even minutes)

IL: West, Reed

Borchardt should be cut. We do have an extra player in Bynum.


----------



## Dakota (Aug 18, 2002)

Premier said:


> My ideal starting lineup and rotation:
> 
> C: LaFrentz / Blount / Perkins
> PF: Jefferson / Perkins / Scalabrine
> ...


What about Gerald Green? What do you think? Before Gomes? Spell Allen a few minutes at the two?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Gerald Green is very, very raw. He should stay in the NBDL for two years.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Prem, I realize that's ideal, but you know as well as I do that Delonte West won't start the season on the IL.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Sadly, no he won't.

Let's see if all that summer league play worked off and he developed a first-step.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

> *Update:* Russillo is saying that New Orleans doesn't seem to want any of the players we are offering, and will likely take a 2nd rounder and an exception.


I guess Banks isn't gone. 

Yet.


----------



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

No, but he's broken that right hand a couple of times now, how long before he ends there? I'm hoping that the brittleness last year isn't an annual thing, but the one is a pretty tough spot to have a guy that needs 20-30 games a year off. Especially when Dickau's your backup.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

I thought this deal was exception + bum 1/bum 2 (Curtis, Woods) for Dickau...I hope it's not Banks.

I wanna see a "small ball" line up of 

C: Banks (If he can block a center, he can play center)
PF: West (He's apparently added bulk)
SF: Bynum (Why not?)
SG: Dickau (I'd rather have him shoot than Greene)
PG: Greene (Well he's gotta play one of the positions)

:rofl: I'm a :clown:


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Greene is the bigger point guard he should play center.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Starbury03 said:


> Greene is the bigger point guard he should play center.


Greene doesn't block 7 footers like Banks.

Does anyone have that movie on the computer somewhere? Man, I'd love that.


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

Dakota said:


> haha
> 
> Okay, I'm not trying to stir trouble, but if you say Marcus Banks is going to be the same player as Earl Watson and you prefer Dickau to Watson, then why would you rather have Banks start than Dickau if Banks is going to end up being the guy you don't even prefer before Dickau?
> 
> ...



lol iwuz liek wtf


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Well, I did explain it.


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

Premier said:


> Well, I did explain it.



i know lol dude


----------



## banner17 (Jun 28, 2003)

agoo101284 said:


> I still think Marcus Banks can be the best PG on our roster next year, even with Dickau. The guy is going to break out sometime soon and I really hope it is here.


agreed 100%


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

banner17 said:


> agreed 100%



sure hope so men


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Here is my 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 on what it should be and what it will probably be

SHOULD BE
1. Raef Lafrentz
2. Al Jefferson
3. Paul Pierce
4. Ricky Davis
5. Dan Dickau

6. Kendrick Perkins
7. Brian Scalabrine
8. Ryan Gomes
9. Tony Allen
10. Marcus Banks

11. Mark Blount
12. Curtis Borchardt (IL and he's only a C not a PF)
13. Gerald Green (IL or NBDL but I doubt they'd send him down)
14. Justin Reed
15. Delonte West (IL)

NBDL - Will Bynum
NBDL - Orienne Greene (he didn't get to do Summer league & needs seasoning)
Cut - Quincy Woods

WHAT IT WILL BE
1. Raef Lafrentz
2. Al Jefferson
3. Paul Pierce
4. Tony Allen
5. Dan Dickau

6. Mark Blount
7. Brian Scalabrine
8. Justin Reed
9. Ricky Davis
10. Delonte West

11. Kendrick Perkins
12. Curtis Borchardt (IL)
13. Ryan Gomes 
14. Gerald Green (IL)
15. Orienne Greene (IL)

Trade - Marcus Banks  (I hope this doesn't happen)
NBDL - Will Bynum
Cut - Quincy Woods


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

Blount will not a be a 6th man. It will obviously be the backup PG


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Gerald Green said:


> Blount will not a be a 6th man. It will obviously be the backup PG


Dude, those are not in order of 1-15....it's the top 5 with a guy for every position, the top 10 with a guy for every position and the bottom 15 with a guy for every position, they are not ranked 1-15...if it was up to me Blount would be on the IL, who the heck would think he'd be a 6th man.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

whiterhino said:


> Dude, those are not in order of 1-15....it's the top 5 with a guy for every position, the top 10 with a guy for every position and the bottom 15 with a guy for every position, they are not ranked 1-15...if it was up to me Blount would be on the IL, who the heck would think he'd be a 6th man.


My fault. I am just so used to seeing it with the positons next to it :biggrin:


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Gerald Green said:


> My fault. I am just so used to seeing it with the positons next to it :biggrin:


Yeah I was gonna do that but it looked wierd with the #'s and the positions, sorry for the confusion.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

whiterhino said:


> Here is my 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 on what it should be and what it will probably be
> 
> SHOULD BE
> 1. Raef Lafrentz
> ...


I would really not wanna see that 2nd unit out there. They would be murdered. Also aren't we allowed to have 14 men on the active roster with 1 guy on IL or NBDL?

They need to clarify this.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

aquaitious said:


> I would really not wanna see that 2nd unit out there. They would be murdered. Also aren't we allowed to have 14 men on the active roster with 1 guy on IL or NBDL?
> 
> They need to clarify this.


My understanding was we could still only have 12 active but a team must carry at least 14 guys (some teams only had 12 or 13), you can still have 15 and then I think this season we can have 2 guys in the NBDL also.


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

Is it that you can send two out of your 15 to the NBDL, or you have a roster of 15 and can still send two other players to NBDL? does anybody know?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

If you have two guys in the NBDL, you can only have 13 on the roster. That leaves only one player on the IL and only four out of the rotation.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

Damn we need a player like Yogi


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Premier said:


> If you have two guys in the NBDL, you can only have 13 on the roster. That leaves only one player on the IL and only four out of the rotation.


Prem are you sure about that? That's not what I read but who knows if the article I read was accurate. I read the reason for this was to make more room on rosters for vets and that wouldn't do that.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Teams will be required to have 13 players (up from 11) *under contract* with the maximum staying at 15. Related to this, teams will have a salary cap hold for every roster spot under 12 (up from 11). The league has guaranteed that teams will have an average of 14 players and will be fined if that average is not met.

The active roster will still be limited to 12 players, but the designation for the others will now be ‘inactive’ rather than ‘injured.’
​NBDL players are still *under contract*.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Well that's really stupid, they are never going to have a succesful minor league if that is the case. I do beleive that there is something more to that because eventually they want each NBA team to have half an NBDL roster. They may be under contract but maybe they are not to be included in that if they are playing NBDL, that just doesn't make sense, it's contradictory to what they supposedly want to do. If they do that they might as well forget about ever having a real minor league. There is also no true incentive for a team to send it's heralded young players to the NBDL if this is the case, why not just keep them on the Major League roster and let them practice with the true pro's every day. It's dumb!


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Just because players aren't under contract by the NBA team, it doesn't mean they cannot earn money playing in the NBDL. For example, Will Bynum can be cut and still play in the NBDL where if he does well, the Celtics might sign him during the season.


----------



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

Right, but that doesn't address the change that Stern wanted to make. Right now the NBDL is a CBA-Lite. If NBA teams are only allowed to send one player down to the NBDL (which is, essentially, what this rule does), then nothing changes. The idea behind making it a real minor league was to create interest in the league among NBA fans (the same way that baseball fans watch their teams' minor league games). So how does he do it if teams can't send more than a player and there's no incentive to do even that? As you'll just have to cut that guy if there's an injury run.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

As I said before, I'm waiting for a Larry **** FAQ for clarification because something is obviously wrong.


----------

