Whether they miraculously sneak into the playoffs or not, Ainge's rebuilding plan will be shelved this summer, and only because you can't waste Pierce's prime when he's playing this well. That's the long-term effect: With a boatload of draft picks and two appealing young talents (Jefferson and Green), Ainge has enough assets to overpay for an All-Star -- whether it's KG, Jermaine O'Neal, Chris Bosh or whoever -- then compete with Pierce, Delonte, Gomes, Perk, Wally, All-Star X, Free Agent Signing X and whatever assets remain after that trade. If he decides on proceeding in any other direction, he's a moron.Gentlement, start your engines.
Friday, March 10, 2006
What next?
Bill Simmons:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Simmons makes a point I was going to post in the form of a question earlier this week, but never got around to. There are several teams with superstars (Jermaine O'Neal and Kevin Garnett) who may well be looking to deal this summer. Those players will be considerably better than the players available in free agency, as far as I know. So how do the Celtics stack up against some of their competition? They've got decent NBA players with big contracts (Wally and Raef) to move in any deal that requires matching salaries. They've got some attractive young players with potential (Jefferson, Perkins, West, and now Gomes). And they've got picks. But how do they stack up against other teams? For example, the Bulls, who have young players and decent picks, don't have any sizable contracts to help complete trades. On the other hand, the Bulls are one of the few teams in good position to sign free agents, or package multiple younger players, etc.
Regardless, if this has been Ainge's focus all the way along -- getting to the 2006 summer with options -- this whole year comes into much better focus. By trying to play the pups as much as possible (even prior to the Blount trade) was he showcasing/developing them for trade bait? And now that the aforementioned quartet (with the possible exception of Jefferson) have shown themselves to be legitimate NBA players, which of them would you be willing to part with in order to get Garnett or O'Neal?
The prospect of trading for the kind of All Stars that Simmons and MMazz reference is, of course, the holy grail of basketball deals. If still just plausible enough to be dangerous.
As MMazz said, free agency has become a sucker bet. At the risk of being flip you can get a decent rotation player, perhaps the 4-8th best player on a strong playoff team, if you're willing to pay them $6-8M and commit for six years. You can get a 10th man like Brian Scalanbrine or Dan Dickau for $3M/year, but they won't play much better than a good draft pick and you'll hear about it from the fans endlessly.
Being competitive in the NBA requires that a team draft and deal well. Danny's done a good job with the first, at least.
Here's the thing about KG, Bosh, O'Neal and the other players that we'd want: they are only getting traded if they and their agents decide they need to make a move for professional/financial reasons. And they'll have to believe the benefits will outweight the big PR hit each will take for forcing a trade and being bad-mouthed by their former team and their mouthpieces. Each of them will know that they might come out the other side with the public image that Vince Carter has now.
I think the odds they decide to bolt, in declining order of likelihood, goes: Bosh, KG, O'Neal. Bosh is coming to the end of his rookie deal, the Raptors have no fans, lots of people would think he was being sane for getting out Toronto. KG could also expect some sympathy, although unlike Bosh he's been the hope of the franchise for so much longer he knows the fallout will be greater. O'Neal is on the most competitive team and would get a lot of bad press for ditching on the folks in Indy, who are all media darlings.
As for how we stack up, the thing the Celtics have that the Bulls, Knicks and other teams with assets don't have is Paul Pierce and a roster of enthusiastic, improving role players. If you're Bosh, KB or O'Neal a big part of the equation is who you're going to play with on the other side of the blow to your image. The Celtics are the position to trade assets with real value (Jefferson, Green, picks) that aren't yet a big part of the team's rotation and young talent. The team that is left behind would be a pretty good one to play for.
Post a Comment