Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Terry Duerod Fan Club, Ltd.
sweet·due (swēt-dū) n.
A Voluntary Association Dedicated To Moderately Timely And Occasionally Incisive Commentary On Professional Sports, With Particular Emphasis On The Teams Of The Boston Area. Since 2006.
Testimonials
"Blogtastic!"
-M. Tatupu
"Blogariffic!"
-A. Iafrate
"Blogtacular!"
-B. Lee
"I'm suing."
-T. Duerod
-M. Tatupu
"Blogariffic!"
-A. Iafrate
"Blogtacular!"
-B. Lee
"I'm suing."
-T. Duerod
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(326)
-
▼
April
(21)
- RB, WR, TE, FB, PK, OT, . . . .
- Great basketball
- Hot stove Celtics
- The end of lawlessness?
- On the plus side...
- Who will be the next Gary Payton?
- Hot stove talk
- Wells to the DL.
- Gomes watch, part 3
- Minor league basketball (cont.)
- HR Dept.
- Warning: past performance predicts future results
- Coach Cal to NC State?
- A penny saved is a penny earned
- Got scapegoat?
- Green Around The Edges
- Tebucky part deux
- 100 reasons to love Rasheed Wallace
- National champions
- Returning, but not prodigal.
- Details, details
-
▼
April
(21)
Links
- APBR
- Baseball Prospectus
- Basketball Reference
- Bill Simmons
- Boston Dirt Dogs
- Boston Globe
- Boston Herald
- Boston Sports Media
- Celtics Blog
- Database Basketball
- Doug's Stats
- Dr. Z
- ESPN
- ESPN NBA Trade Machine
- Football Outsiders
- Gregg Easterbrook
- Hoopshype Salaries
- Loscy's Chair Chuckers
- NBA Game Flow Data
- NBA Salary Cap FAQ
- Patricia's Basketball
- Peter King
- Real GM
- RealGM Tradechecker
- Rodney Fort
- Sons of Sam Horn
- Sports Illustrated
- The Best Damn Law Blog, Period!
19 comments:
All three of those trades are absolutely ridiculous. I'd say more but they speak for themselves. Garnett for Kendrick Perkins, Gerald Green, Raef LaFrentz(?!?) and a first round pick! A trade that only a Celtics fan would love. :)
Agreed on Garnett. I think it would have to be more like Jefferson and Green to make it palatable. And even then, Green, Jefferson and Raef (for cap purposes) wouldn't work via NBA trade rules. It would have to be something like Garnet and Mark Madsen for Jefferson, Green, Raef and Brian Scalabrine (which does work).
But regardless, I don't see how McHale could make this trade, or any trade with the Celtics. Even if you decided that trading Garnett for two prospects with upside (Jefferson and Green) made sense, you couldn't do it with the Celtics. In essence, you'd be trading away your two best players (Wally and Garnett) in the space of 6 months to the same team and getting mostly crappy players and big contracts in return. He'd be crucified, and definitely wouldn't be around if/when Green and Jefferson developed into legitimate NBA players.
I personally think all three trades are ridiculous, not just Garnett. The Garnett trade is just the most absurd.
Garnett is one of the top 5-6 players in the NBA. Obviously the T-Wolves won't get equal value back for him, but I think they could get a lot more than guys like Perkins, Green, and Jefferson.
I bet the Bulls would be willing to trade the Knicks pick (projects to be #2 overall, can't be lower than #5), Ben Gordon, and Luol Deng for Garnett. And they'll probably be outbid. I think the Suns might give up Shawn Marion (who will get some MVP votes this year) to get Garnett. The Pacers might give up Jermaine O'Neal. Etc.
There's no chance whatsoever that the Raptors will trade Chris Bosh. They're doing everything they can to re-sign him. He's one of the most talented young players in the NBA.
Jermaine O'Neal might be available, but the Pacers will want an All-Star in return. He's a dominant post player--20/10 year after year--and he's signed long-term. They're not going to settle for Jefferson and the rest of that junk.
All three of those trades would be All-time great swindles, like the trade the Nets made to get Vince Carter for nothing. Ainge or any other GM would get fired for not accepting ridiculous offers like those. Sadly it's hard to get your hands on talent like Garnett, Bosh, or O'Neal.
Personally I still think the Wally trade wasn't that great for the Celtics. You can't compare him to Garnett. He's really overpaid--he's an above-average but nowhere near All-Star quality player. Plus the T-Wolves got a quality player signed to a modest deal (Ricky Davis) in return. The T-Wolves sucked before and after the deal, as did the Celtics. I think that trade was a wash at best.
Fortunately for the Celtics they didn't make the playoffs. After Jefferson, their lottery pick (projects as #7) is the most valuable trade chit they have, assuming they keep Pierce. I still think that the Celtics need to pick a path (compete now or rebuild) and go that route. Right now they have a team with the 7th worst record in the NBA yet they're over the cap for the foreseeable future and most of their money is tied up in players (Pierce, Wally, LaFrentz) who are in their prime now. How much worse would young players do?
You can debate whether your package of players is better, but I agree that in terms of here and now, Gordon/Deng would be more attractive. The biggest problem with your proposed Chicago trade is the salaries. Right now, you'd need to include Tyson Chandler in any trade for Garnett to even come close to matching the salaries. Or trade 8 players for Garnett. Either way, unless Chicago signs a bigtime free agent this summer and works them into a trade, there's no way Chicago is even at the table in the Garnett sweepstakes.
By the way, in terms of the Wally trade, I think there's no comparison. The C's got the best of that deal hands down. Post-trade the C's went 16-24, despite major injuries to Delonte West, Kendrick Perkins, Al Jefferson, and Wally. They even played Gerald Green in big minutes at the end of the season once they "realized" they wouldn't make the playoffs. (Wink, wink.) But to put that in perspective, their 16 wins post-trade was about half their season total (33) in about half their season (40 games), and accomplished with a decimated roster.
The T-Wolves, on the other hand, went 13 and 28 over their final 41 games after the trade. Prior to the trade, they had won 26 of 41. That's a pretty steep decline, and that happened without any significant injuries (that I know of). I'd say they got the short end of the stick -- by far.
Also, I think we're now clear that Marcus Banks, Ricky Davis and Mark Blount are not likely to be on good NBA teams, no matter what their numbers are like. As a kindergarten teacher might say, they do not play well with others.
This summer, the Bulls will be able to take in far more salary than they trade because they will be over $10 million below the cap. (The Bulls won't be able to trade away a free agent they sign this summer, however, because of the 30-day trade rule.)
The T-Wolves' performance is deceiving. They had to give away their first-round pick unless it was in the top 10, so they tanked down the stretch, going so far as to actually sit Garnett for several games even though he wasn't injured.
Dzen, I think, is far more optimistic about the Celtics ability to make a trade these days then he should be.
The NBA's CBA restricts teams from trading salaries that are greater than 25% different in value. This restriction creates an additional level of complexity to assessing a player's value. Ricky Davis' ~$6M/yr contract is within 25% of far more players in the NBA than Wally Szczerbiak's $11M/yr contract. Many Davis' comps are likewise relatively close to him in talent and productivity. This makes Davis a relatively easy player to trade, increasing his value to whichever team he's on. Wally, by contrast, is a hard player to trade because his much smaller group of comps are generally far better players than he is. Either that, or they have significant warts that would make them very undesirable to the Celtics. The Timberwolves were unsuccessfully trying to dump him for years before we finally bit the bullet.
Unfortunately, the MN trade greatly reduced the number of trade possibilities the Celtics will have for the next ~18 months. This is because our roster now consists of three $10M+ players (Pierce, Raef, Wally) and a bunch of rookie-scale deals. We no longer have the kinds of $5-10M contracts that allow you to be creative in how you assemble offers. Likewise the big contracts we might trade are tied to players (Wally, Raef) no other team is going to want to touch. Expect the next six months to be full of lots of ridiculous Raef-based speculation in the media and among Celtics fans. I don't expect the Celtics to be a real player in trading market until Kendrick Perkins contract negotiations next summer.
Partly for these reasons I think the Celtics have no real chance of making a play for Jermaine, Bosh or KG, should those teams decide to make a move. If we're serious about adding a veteran post player the more realistic options probably start with second-tier folks like Carlos Boozer and Kenyon Martin, who both have 'buyer beware' painted on their foreheads.
One team that the Celtics do match up with for a potential trade is Utah. Harpring is getting ready to test the FA waters and will likely sign a MLE+ deal which will leave a hole at SF for the Jazz. Harpring's knee problems (microfracture surgery: something from which no NBA player to date has fully recovered from) would dimish his value to a team like Utah that would need to play him 30+ minutes a night to justify that salary. By all accounts Kris Humphries' relationship with Jerry Sloan makes Doc Rivers and Marcus Banks seem like a love fest. Humphries was a very successful college player who might do well with a change of scenary.
Especially if the Celtics draft Brandon Roy (my personal pipe dream) I could see something happening with Utah built around the core of Boozer, Szczerbiak, Jefferson and Humphries.
Why would you give up Jefferson for any of that Jazz?
Well, I have mixed feelings about that trade which I suspect will be par for any realistic trade option out there. The assets the Celtics currently have I suspect have far less value around the league than people in Boston realize. Jefferson has nice potential to be an above-average but sub-All Star PF. He took a big step backward this season, though, and raised all kinds of questions about his commitment and motivation.
The NBA is a league that eats its young. A team awash with youth like the Celtics will need several veteran rotation players to provide stability or you end up in the bottom of the lottery like we did this year. Unfortunately, the Celtics current veteran ballast include a fast-declining backup post player and two SFs. The incompatibility of the players on our current roster is part of the reason we currently suck. The whole is less than the sum of the parts.
The T-Wolves' performance is deceiving. They had to give away their first-round pick unless it was in the top 10, so they tanked down the stretch, going so far as to actually sit Garnett for several games even though he wasn't injured.
The Timberwolves went 5-13 in the games preceeding the decision to sit KG for the year, including a stretch in which they lost 7 in a row. Don't underestimate how much that team now stinks. They were slightly above .500 for most of the season before February and finished 16 games under.
There are relatively few teams whose current talent and future potential are both worse than the Celtics and the Timberwolves are one of them. This is mostly because McHale has absolutely failed over the years to bring in productive players through the draft, forcing him to repeatedly overpay for mediocre free agents. Other than KG their roster is horrid and largely on long-term deals. McHale should be counting his blessings for every day that he stays employed out there.
B stole my thunder with his last post, particularly with regard to the disastrous results of the Wally/Ricky trade and Garnett's sitting at the end of the season. Does anybody else see that as a guy who told McHale, "I ain't coming back, so don't bother playing me"? Either that, or McHale didn't want to take any chances that Garnett would get injured in a meaningless game.
Getting back to trades, I have one question. I know that the Bulls can make trades and take on salary because they are under the cap (as long as they stay under the cap) but how does that impact teams like the T-Wolves? Let's say they decided to go for RM's deal and trade Gordon, Deng and a pick for Garnett. By my math, that would make both teams fit under the salary cap. Does that then make it Kosher, meaning neither team would have to worry about the 125% rule? In which case, I think RM's deal is definitely more palatable -- you're trading for decent young players (already established in the NBA, but still with upside) plus a pick. And hopefully by the time they fully mature, you haven't further sabotaged your roster with more long term contracts to mediocre veterans.
Maybe I should have said this at the beginning, but I think the only way the Celtics deals Dzen mentioned are palatable are if you're going to completely scrap your team and rebuild from scratch. In that case, getting as many young players as possible with upside is worth the risk. But it's a huge risk.
mmazz:
Yes, that's right. The T-Wolves wouldn't have to worry about the cap because they're trading away more salary than they're taking in, and the Bulls will be able to absorb the extra salary because they're far under the cap.
I think the Bulls' offer I came up with is far superior--it's not even close. The #2 pick, Gordon, and Deng are each more valuable than any of the players in the proposed Celtics deal, and the T-Wolves would be forced to take Raef (yuk) from the Celtics. Most likely, the T-Wolves would insist that the Bulls take on a bad salary, like Marko Jaric.
As I said before, I expect the Bulls to be highly outbid in any event. Garnett is a Top-5 player and the T-Wolves will get offered Top-25 guys like Marion and O'Neal in exchange.
What you guys said about the T-Wolves' record is interesting. I know for certain the T-Wolves were purposely trying to tank, but things may have been worse than even they planned. I agree that the Wolves have done a poor job of building a winner around Garnett.
That said, I'm not sure the Celtics are in a much better position than the Wolves, because the Wolves at least have Garnett. He'll fetch far more in trade than someone like Pierce would. It's close, though. The only teams that I think are clearly far worse off than the Celtics are the Knicks and Blazers. I'd put teams like the Sonics, Hawks, Sixers, and T-Wolves in roughly the same category as the Celtics, although each has different problems/strengths.
The #2 pick, Gordon, and Deng are each more valuable than any of the players in the proposed Celtics deal
If we're talking about the same Celtics players (Perkins, Green) I think you may be letting your desire to put biased Celtics fans in their place get the better of you.
This draft looks epicly weak. The best case scenario for the top 6 players is that they all become good starters. The Bulls have the misfortune to be drafting second in a draft with no sure-fire future All Stars.
I think you can make a good argument that either Perkins or Green is as valuable as the players that will available with the second pick in the draft. Perkins may be a repeat All Star in this league (along the lines of Z. in Cleveland) in part because the league seems to be emptying out of talent at the C position. At 21 he's already an above-average rebounder, strong defender, and is far lower risk to bust out than the big men in the draft.
Green is a superior athlete than anyone in this draft, save perhaps Gay, and for all his youth and flaws has a short list of strengths that are rare and valuable in the pros. He shots for a very high percentage from outside, get incredible elevation on his jump shot, and has a fantastic first step and cross-over that makes him very difficult to defend tight. Like lots of perimeter players that jump to the pros he's got a lot of team offense and defense to learn, but at 6'8" with what he already brings to the table he has an upside that is higher than either Gordon or any of the top 6 in this draft.
In fact, I'm not sure if Gordon is the least valuable of the Perkins, Green, Deng, Gordon, 2006 #2 pick group. He's exciting on offense but is strictly average on defense. He's also small enough that he can only play SG, which happens to be the position where talent is the most common the NBA. Gordon's most probable role on a team that's competing for a championship will probably be to come off the bench, Vinnie Johnson style, to add energy and scoring. Dwayne Wade sure is having fun with him this week, though.
I don't think this draft is as weak as you say it is. It's not nearly as weak as the 2000 draft. I think it will be more like the 2001 draft, with some busts (Kwame Brown) but also some good finds (like Pau Gasol).
I'd rather have the #2 pick than Perkins or Green. I think at most Perkins projects to be someone like Sam Dalembert, and that's optimistic. Here's a quote from ESPN Insider that's realistic: "Perkins has the basic elements of a promising player -- his shooting percentage is decent and he rebounds very well -- but he falls short in every other area." Perkins' PER this year (which factors in playing time, so that's not an issue) is 13.18, which is abysmal. I'd rather take my shot with the #2 pick.
Gerald Green is better--I think he will become a quality NBA player--but I'd rather have the #2 pick in this draft than the #18 pick (Green) in the last draft.
As for Gordon, for a "future bench player" he has won a lot of games for the Bulls. He dropped 35 points on the Heat the other night. I'd rather have him on my team than Wally Szcerbiak, who struggles to create his own shot. Both are liabilities on D.
But perhaps I'm biased ;-)
Perkins' PER this year (which factors in playing time, so that's not an issue) is 13.18, which is abysmal. I'd rather take my shot with the #2 pick.
PER is set so that a score of 15 is the league average for that season. Players that score between 5-10 are 'abysmal', while those over 20 are exceptional.
By the way, it looks like you may be reading the wrong column (or Insider disagrees with the source of their data: 82games). Perkins offensive PER this year was 14.3, which is slightly below the league average. The centers that Perkins defended this season only managed a 13.8 PER.
Two observations: first, Perkins is already a net positive on the court, something which is unknown of all the big men in the draft. In addition, let's add to the numbers some more traditional scouting. Perkins started off the season playing ~10 minutes a night off the bench. He played much better as the season went on and was starting and averaging close to 30 minutes/night by the end. In the last 9 months he's gone from having no post game to speak of to having two reliable moves: the drop-step spin left or right and a baby hook shot. Break those PER numbers down by month and you'd see steady improvement. When you see that in the first real court time of someone with his physical gifts, its good news.
So what do we have? Someone who is already a good defender, an above-average rebounder, and who responding to the first playing time and heavy coaching of his life by adding the basics of an effective post offensive game. To the extent that as hypothetical GMs we care about character issues we can also note that Perkins is by all accounts one of the most hard-working, intense players on the team.
Gerald Green is better--I think he will become a quality NBA player--but I'd rather have the #2 pick in this draft than the #18 pick (Green) in the last draft.
Information asymmetry, my friend. Evaluate people based on what they've done most recently, not on what people thought they might be able to do 18 months ago. Given everything that is known today, and especially based on how easily Green has scored on actual NBA defenders during the second half of this season, there's no way he's the 18th pick if the draft were a do-over. You yourself called the pick incredibly lucky for the Celtics on draft night last year. Our estimation of Green's value should only have gone up since then.
As for Gordon, for a "future bench player" he has won a lot of games for the Bulls. He dropped 35 points on the Heat the other night. I'd rather have him on my team than Wally Szcerbiak, who struggles to create his own shot. Both are liabilities on D.
We'd both rather have a pile of stinking garbage than Wally and his contract. The fact that you're even introducing him to compare with Gordon makes me think you lack confidence in your position.
I'm not saying Gordon's a bad player. I'm saying that a 6'2" all-offense shooting guard probably has a lower ceiling than a top-notch 21 year old 7' center or a firt-year out of high school 6'8" athletic phenom who can already score easily on the pro level.
Gordon has carried the Bulls plenty of times, no argument. He's an exciting player. But we both know how easy it is for flawed players to score a ton of points on mediocre/bad teams. Should the Bulls get past the first round of the playoffs in coming years Gordon is going to have brutal time holding his own against the Wades, Hamiltons, Redds, Jefferies, etc. of the world. He gives up ~6 inches to all of them. And we both know that teams are merciless at scouting for and exploiting the weaknesses of their opponents in the playoffs. This is no knock on Gordon: he's more than done his best with what God gave him.
I don't doubt that Perkins can develop into a decent NBA player. I think at best he'll turn out to be Sam Dalembert, which isn't bad--Sam got a ton of money from the Sixers a year ago. More likely he'll be Stephen Hunter. Both are quality post players on the defensive end.
Perkins isn't there yet, though. His PER doesn't put him among the top 40 centers in the league (according to ESPN Insider, I don't use 82games). He has a long way to develop. And his rookie contract will be up soon.
I'd rather have the #2 pick in the draft than him, easily. Heck if nothing else I'd take that Italian guy and roll the dice. I'd rather have a 5% chance at a franchise player than a good chance at Stephen Hunter. I'd also rather have Deng or Gordon. Perkins hopes to be a good NBA player someday--Deng and Gordon are good NBA players now, and they're just as young.
I agree that Green was a steal at #18. I thought he was going to go low lottery. I'm not as enamored with him as you, but I think along with Jefferson he's the bright spot for the Celtics. But you'd take him over Gordon? Come on. As with Perkins, you hope that someday Green will be able to tear up teams the way Gordon has been doing already. If you think Green could be the next McGrady, then sure. I don't.
My comments about Szcerbiak were intended for mmazz, not you, because he loved that trade and considers Wally a "near All-Star." :) You have always had a more realistic view of Wally's abilities.
I wasn't factoring in Wally's contract. If I was playing a single game and had to pick one of those guys on my team, I'd rather have Gordon. Wally is one of the few players in the league who is a worse defender than Gordon--opposing players just blow past him. And Gordon, unlike Wally, can create his own shot.
I agree with you that Gordon is ultimately limited by his height. I've never been high on him myself, and would be happy if the Bulls trade him. But let's face it--he is a very mature and explosive scorer. Very few guys in the league can create their own shot the way Gordon can. He has value for a lot of the teams in the league. Who on the Celtics has more value right now? Pierce, of course. Wally would if he had a rookie deal, but he doesn't. Perkins doesn't. Maybe Jefferson. That's it.
I do think that in the past you guys have overestimated the Celtics' players by a big margin, although lately you have come down to earth somewhat. Let's take a step back and think about the Celtics using mmazz's assessments. The Celtics supposedly have one of the top 3 wing players and top-10 players overall (Pierce), a "borderline All-Star" (Wally), a good big man (Raef) and oodles of young talent (Perkins, Jefferson, and crew) yet they ended up with the seventh-worst record in the league. Teams like Orlando and New Orleans did better, playing a lot of scrubs and really raw young guys. The Rockets finished better even though McGrady and Ming were out much of the season. How good could Pierce and Wally and the young guys be, if the Celtics did worse than all of them?
The reality is that the young talent isn't as good as you guys think it is. I'm not thrilled with any of the Celtics' young guys, save Jefferson and maybe Green. Certainly none of the young Celtics is as valuable as the Bulls we've been discussing, who are already playing at a fairly high level. Pierce is a solid All-Star but not dominant, and Wally is a decent third-fiddle at best (given his horrid D).
That's just my take. Of course I'm a biased/evil Bulls fan, so take all I say with a grain of salt. But I think you guys (particuarly mmazz, but you too B) seriously overvalue the Celtics' talent. Fortunately the Celts have the #7 pick and maybe they can make a nice move in the off-season to rid themselves of some of their mediocre young guys and take that team in some sort of direction.
Perkins hopes to be a good NBA player someday--Deng and Gordon are good NBA players now, and they're just as young.
Since PER stats seem to have currency in this conversation I'll pause on the following, from 82games. These are player PERs when playing at their primary position
player PER opp PER net
Gordon(SG) 15.5 14 +1.5
Deng(SF) 17.0 12.5 +4.5
Perkins(C) 14.3 13.8 +0.5
Green(SF) 19.8 11.2 +8.6
I'm inclined to heavily discount Green's numbers, since he played far fewer minutes than the other three this season. Small sample sizes have large potential for error.
I've also avoided comparing Deng to Perkins and Green, because its clear (to me) that he is the best player and has the highest value of the players and picks that we've been discussing. These numbers would suggest, at the same time, that the difference between Gordon, Perkins and Green might not be as clear as your characterization that the first is already a good player and the other two hope to be.
I think Gordon's PER reveals what I consider to be the second-biggest weakness of PER as a stat. The first is that it doesn't take defense into account at all, aside from blocks and steals, which are overrated. The second is that it places a huge emphasis on shooting percentage as a measure of offensive efficiency.
As a general rule, that makes sense. But for, say, point guards in slow-paced teams it really underrepresents their value because often those PGs will be forced to take sub-optimal shots because the 24-second timer is running down.
I think Gordon is another example of a player who is shortchanged. Gordon takes more shots than he should, largely because he's the only player on the Bulls who can create his own shot and he is often called on to carry the Bulls down the stretch in close games. A player like Szcerbiak looks more efficient only because he's the second option and is getting wide-open looks that other players have created for him.
So I don't think PER does Gordon justice, and I think that Gordon is worth more than Szcerbiak despite having a lower PER (I haven't checked, but I'm sure it is far lower, given the way it's calculated.)
Post a Comment