Kawhi wants out of San Antonio

[trojanfan12]

As far as I'm concerned, Stern was right to veto a bad trade like that. He was protecting the Then Hornets. Im tired of hearing fans blame the commissioner for that

The problem wasn't that it was a bad trade. It was actually a pretty good trade.

The problem was that there was only 1 star involved and he was going to be leaving the team that was being sold. That drives down the value of the team, even if the team was probably better off from a winning basketball games perspective.

The commissioner was to blame because the league never should have been in that position in the first place. Also, the whole point of putting Demps in that position and giving him the power they did, was to remove as much of the conflict of interest as possible.

When he vetoed the trade, he created the conflict of interest that having Demps was supposed to avoid.

 

[The Q]

The problem wasn't that it was a bad trade. It was actually a pretty good trade.

The problem was that there was only 1 star involved and he was going to be leaving the team that was being sold. That drives down the value of the team, even if the team was probably better off from a winning basketball games perspective.

The commissioner was to blame because the league never should have been in that position in the first place. Also, the whole point of putting Demps in that position and giving him the power they did, was to remove as much of the conflict of interest as possible.

When he vetoed the trade, he created the conflict of interest that having Demps was supposed to avoid.

Exactly. And by vetoing it the trade and then basically going over the clippers gm to get a deal done it looked really bad for the NBA.

Like I said, it was clear it was about the lakers. Which means...the conflict was obvious.

 

[trojanfan12]

Obviously not, the money doesn't match.

They have to add a Kyrie or a Horford.

But, Brown and picks would be the centerpiece.

If they add Horford, the Spurs could ship out Pau.

If you are the Celtics, would that be too much?

Horford is overpaid.

But, he fits so well.

Pau is washed.

I'd send Kyrie since I have Rozier.

Imo, unless they can get a virtual guarantee that he will re-sign with them. I think they'd be foolish to trade all of that for him. They were able to get within a game of the finals without their 2 best players.

If they give up a bunch of that for Kawhi and he leaves...they've undone much of what they did to get where they are.

 

[tlance]

Lavine is legit replacement level.

And Gordon is much better than that, so you just ruined your own comp.

 

[Mecca]

Imo, unless they can get a virtual guarantee that he will re-sign with them. I think they'd be foolish to trade all of that for him. They were able to get within a game of the finals without their 2 best players.

If they give up a bunch of that for Kawhi and he leaves...they've undone much of what they did to get where they are.

Brown is the sticking point for me.

If it were Kyrie and picks, it would be a no brainer because his deal is up at the same time as Kawhi's and the Spurs were Kyrie's preferred destination.

Wonder if it would still be the case without Kawhi?

 

[The Q]

And Gordon is much better than that, so you just ruined your own comp.

Actually both were replacement level their first year after the trade. And both were fas to be after one year after he deal.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

I'm wondering if the Celtics going for Kawhi is the best thing to do for them. Especially if it could be on a one year rental.

Now I get Kawhi is a top 5 player. Some have him top 3. There's no doubt that usually if a superstar could be available, you go for him.

But this current Celtics team WITHOUT Irving and Hayward was one game away from making the finals. Give it another year and they probably do.

Is it really worth giving up some key players to get him? In my mind that would be the same as the Warriors getting rid of Thompson and Green to get Lebron - why break up a sure thing?

 

[Heatles84]

That’s true but it was without Kawhi and no replacement. If they can get decent return they’ll be good.

Problem is they're going to get short changed by a lot of teams. Kawhi tried to put the Spurs in a corner with his trade demand to the Lakers.

 

[Heatles84]

I'm wondering if the Celtics going for Kawhi is the best thing to do for them. Especially if it could be on a one year rental.

Now I get Kawhi is a top 5 player. Some have him top 3. There's no doubt that usually if a superstar could be available, you go for him.

But this current Celtics team WITHOUT Irving and Hayward was one game away from making the finals. Give it another year and they probably do.

Is it really worth giving up some key players to get him? In my mind that would be the same as the Warriors getting rid of Thompson and Green to get Lebron - why break up a sure thing?

Because the Celtics are more known for having a really nice roster. Sure, Tatum looks like he'll be a star potentially down the road. But who else looks like they're going to be in the caliber of any of Golden St.'s 4 all stars? Kawhi Leonard gives the Celtics a fighting chance. Boston at this point looks like they'll be the favorite out of the East, and that's with Cleveland standing pat with Lebron returning.

But if/when they go against Golden St. (presumably) next year, it will be a similar result to what the Cavs have experienced the last two years - getting beat down in the Finals. Ainge hasn't been putting these moves together just to get destroyed in the Finals.

 

[DefCONNOne]

The reason Stern stepped in wasn't because they wanted to keep the Lakers down. That would be incredibly stupid since the Lakers are the league's glamour franchise.

The Boston Celtics say hi.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Because the Celtics are more known for having a really nice roster. Sure, Tatum looks like he'll be a star potentially down the road. But who else looks like they're going to be in the caliber of any of Golden St.'s 4 all stars? Kawhi Leonard gives the Celtics a fighting chance. Boston at this point looks like they'll be the favorite out of the East, and that's with Cleveland standing pat with Lebron returning.

But if/when they go against Golden St. (presumably) next year, it will be a similar result to what the Cavs have experienced the last two years - getting beat down in the Finals. Ainge hasn't been putting these moves together just to get destroyed in the Finals.

We don't know what the team is going to be like WITH Irving and Hayward though.

Maybe if the trade was for Kyrie and a set of 1st rounds picks, then yeah go for it. But as soon as guys like Tatum get involved it could all change. Especially if it is for a potential one year rental.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

The Boston Celtics say hi.

Not really. You take away the 60's when the league had less than ten teams and the Celtics are hardly a dominant franchise.

 

[DefCONNOne]

When is the last time the spurs bottomed out?

When they tanked, lied about Robinson’s and injury and then another him maybe retiring so the league would give them Duncan so the de accuse wouldn’t have to move?

Unless pop quits now too they’re not a team that will try to bottom out.

Would you care to translate that in english?

 

[DefCONNOne]

Not really. You take away the 60's when the league had less than ten teams and the Celtics are hardly a dominant franchise.

There are no words for the steaming pile of monkey crap you just posted.

 

[Scapegoat]

Problem is they're going to get short changed by a lot of teams. Kawhi tried to put the Spurs in a corner with his trade demand to the Lakers.

Nobody puts baby in a corner.

 

[tlance]

Actually both were replacement level their first year after the trade. And both were fas to be after one year after he deal.

No they weren't.

Gordon was in the middle of his best season when he was traded. He was averaging over 22 per game with pretty solid efficiency numbers in his 3rd season as a 22 year old. That is far from replacement level and actually much closer to my Brandon Ingram comparison in terms of value.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

There are no words for the steaming pile of monkey crap you just posted.

Not the greatest with words, are you?

I'm guessing you either got dropped on your head as a baby a few times or you don't know shit about basketball.

Probably both.

 

[tlance]

Actually both were replacement level their first year after the trade. And both were fas to be after one year after he deal.

Both were injured after their trades.

Not sure how that has any bearing on their trade value at the role of the deal.

 

[The Q]

Both were injured after their trades.

Not sure how that has any bearing on their trade value at the role of the deal.

Both had well documented knee issues.

 

[Mecca]

I'm wondering if the Celtics going for Kawhi is the best thing to do for them. Especially if it could be on a one year rental.

Now I get Kawhi is a top 5 player. Some have him top 3. There's no doubt that usually if a superstar could be available, you go for him.

But this current Celtics team WITHOUT Irving and Hayward was one game away from making the finals. Give it another year and they probably do.

Is it really worth giving up some key players to get him? In my mind that would be the same as the Warriors getting rid of Thompson and Green to get Lebron - why break up a sure thing?

Irving is basically a 1 year rental.

He played half the Season last year and he's free to leave after this Season.

He has also declined to commit to the Celtics for more than this year.

If it's him and picks, what's the difference?

They already know they can play at a high level with Smart and Rozier.

Now losing Brown?

That's a risk.

But, if they keep Tatum and Gordon is healthy.....

If Kawhi said he's open to staying if things go well, I'm trading for him.

If he says, I'm going to the Lakers no matter what....?

The Spurs gots problems.