Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 155
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    2,289
    Quote Originally Posted by beasted86 View Post
    So is McDermott really the problem or is Turner the problem? You seem confused.

    And the $18M (not 19) a season is not a bad contract by even the wildest stretch of your imagination.
    Not confused. I donít think Ainge really wanted Turner and McDermott wasnít enough of a valuable add on to to convince him he was worth the cost of having to acquire Turner. Ainge want going to make a deal for the sake of making a deal for fear of losing Hayward. Heíd make the deal if he got a player heíd actually like back.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    27,272
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    I agree with you. I loved the idea of Turner and valued him highly. I legitimately would have given them Nesmith who we just took at #14 in the S&T for Turner if that's what it took. At the same time, I see the flaws. He seems too timid/soft to keep up his great defense against the elite bigs. His shooting is timid too so he makes an occasional three but he doesn't really space the floor. There's a little "looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane" to him. I just think he's been misused in IND and asked to cover for weak defenders like Sabonis/Warren. I think in Boston he'd break out. So I value him more for what I think he'd be here than what he has been.

    It's definitely possible that Ainge just doesn't like him that much. We just signed TT for the MLE. Turner makes twice that and we'd have to take back some extra salary that isn't desirable to make the deal work for IND on top of that. I just don't find it absurd that he prefers TT and some scrap heap vet signings to more expensive Turner and more expensive scrap heap players. It's not beyond belief to me. I just like Turner a loooooooot.
    haha, thats a good analogy..

    In general, I think the price tag for bigs has significantly dropped. guys like Tristan Thompson, Favours, Howard etc are going for pretty cheap. Thompson is only about 5 years older than Turner, but hes def on the decline, where as I think Turner could have gotten better playing with that group in Boston and could have really became part of the core imo. The Celtics wouldnt even need him to become more than what he is. A floor running big man that protects the rim and can hit an open shot here and there. I think he would've flourished. With that said, Id say Tristan Thompson can fill the same needs and when its on a more favorable contract, it does more than suffice.
    Last edited by smith&wesson; 11-22-2020 at 12:12 AM.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,547
    Quote Originally Posted by PAOboston View Post
    Not confused. I donít think Ainge really wanted Turner and McDermott wasnít enough of a valuable add on to to convince him he was worth the cost of having to acquire Turner. Ainge want going to make a deal for the sake of making a deal for fear of losing Hayward. Heíd make the deal if he got a player heíd actually like back.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The thing is though, you have to weigh that package against what we can get now. Thompson via MLE... I can buy that he's better value than Turner. He's not a better player though. We don't really have anything else to spend now and still need perimeter depth.

    If Turner/McDermott truly was the offer then we could have taken that back and been below the tax. Again, I can totally understand Ainge viewing that as not great. I understand not liking Turner at his price (even though I disagree and think he'd break out here). I do not think McDermott is good value. But I just don't see how taking that back and still being below the tax is not waaaaaaaay better than what we're looking at now. McDermottis expiring so you're done with him next year. Turner has been the subject of lottery trade rumors for multiple years now so even if you don't want him I think you'd be able to get good value.

    I just can't agree with Ainge at all if he thinks the players we will end up with now are better than what that S&T would have been. If that was truly the offer he got and decided to go this route, I think it's a mistake.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    63,469
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    The thing is though, you have to weigh that package against what we can get now. Thompson via MLE... I can buy that he's better value than Turner. He's not a better player though. We don't really have anything else to spend now and still need perimeter depth.

    If Turner/McDermott truly was the offer then we could have taken that back and been below the tax. Again, I can totally understand Ainge viewing that as not great. I understand not liking Turner at his price (even though I disagree and think he'd break out here). I do not think McDermott is good value. But I just don't see how taking that back and still being below the tax is not waaaaaaaay better than what we're looking at now. McDermottis expiring so you're done with him next year. Turner has been the subject of lottery trade rumors for multiple years now so even if you don't want him I think you'd be able to get good value.

    I just can't agree with Ainge at all if he thinks the players we will end up with now are better than what that S&T would have been. If that was truly the offer he got and decided to go this route, I think it's a mistake.
    So looking at multiple sides here maybe what was going on is Ainge trying to get more depth, but made the mistake in wanting to get one of the starters rather than a bench player. ALA the perfect deal for him.

    Turner would kill it in that system. Absolutely would. Doesnít need the ball but can score. Can protect the rim but has better defenders helping him.

    And if Iím Indy I do say no to Warren and Dipo in that. Can get more for Dipo at the deadline and Warren is on such a value contract it would be silly to use him as salary matching.

    I think this is the first one Danny messed up. I usually get on GMs who donít get more in S&T scenarios but that was a bit greedy. Coulda asked for a protected 1st along with it and possibly gets done.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,547
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    So looking at multiple sides here maybe what was going on is Ainge trying to get more depth, but made the mistake in wanting to get one of the starters rather than a bench player. ALA the perfect deal for him.

    Turner would kill it in that system. Absolutely would. Doesnít need the ball but can score. Can protect the rim but has better defenders helping him.

    And if Iím Indy I do say no to Warren and Dipo in that. Can get more for Dipo at the deadline and Warren is on such a value contract it would be silly to use him as salary matching.

    I think this is the first one Danny messed up. I usually get on GMs who donít get more in S&T scenarios but that was a bit greedy. Coulda asked for a protected 1st along with it and possibly gets done.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I don't deny that he was being greedy asking for that. I just don't know that it ultimately cost him the deal though.

    Like let's say Hayward was already under contract but BOS wanted to move him. And IND offered McDermott/Turner but Ainge hit em with an absurd counter proposal. IND can definitely turn around and say ok F you then and trade McDermott/Turner for a different player they like. And then bam, all negotiations are dead. In a case like that being an A-hole definitely can pull the deal out from under you.

    I just view this different because it's a S&T. That means that Hayward is the guy who decides when negotiations end, not the teams. Reportedly Hayward wanted to be in Indy and would have taken a hometown discount (per Scott Agnus of the Athletic). If that's true, Ainge can try to negotiate for whatever he wanted, but end of the day Hayward is coming to Ainge and saying **** or get off the pot, they made their final offer. It's just different when it's Hayward making that final call because if Indy is where he wants to be he wouldn't choose to live his life in another city out of haste or spite.

    I fully agree that Ainge is a hard *** and has cost himself some deals by trying to over-play his hands. Because of the S&T dynamics here I just don't think he could have really lost himself a deal with that. End of the day he had the McDermott/Turner offer knowing from Hayward's camp it was take it or leave it, and he just didn't want it. I think he lost this deal on his evaluation of the IND package, not any overplaying his hand type stuff.

    And I fully agree with you he should have taken Turner. As I said before, I would have sent them assets with Hayward to get them to offer Turner to begin with.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    63,469
    I think it's very possible he had even offers and leaned Indy over Charlotte, and as the S&T talks with Indy fell apart, Charlotte decided to waive and stretch Batum and up there offer which changed Haywards mind.

    And who knows what happened behind closed doors. Maybe Ainge made the move almost impossible by basically asking the moon for the S&T. Maybe he was trying to get something more fair and Indy was lowballing them with offers based on what happened with last years S&T transactions. Maybe this Charlotte offer was what made Hayward opt out in the first place.

    We'll never truly know the order of operations but it wouldn't shock me if this is what happened:
    ~Charlotte gets word out they would sign Hayward.
    ~Indy then expresses interest before Haywards option deadline.
    ~Boston/Hayward extend the deadline to give Bos/Indy more time to negotiate a trade.
    ~Deadline comes and no deal is done, Hayward opts out knowing there's an offer out there.
    ~FA starts Bos/Indy are still talking, Indy can officially tell Hayward their offer.
    ~Bos asks for more knowing how much Hayward rather be in Indy.
    ~Indy cuts off talks.
    ~Hayward takes the Charlotte offer deciding he doesn't want to try to return.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    8,917
    Regardless, two things have happened.

    1) Barring convincing Charlotte to sign and trade for Hayward, Boston lost their asset for nothing. I see very little reason for Charlotte to do this unless Boston wants to take back Batum.

    2) The market for centers has dried up, and Indy needs to figure out what to do with Turner. They really should have pursued a backup plan since Ainge deals are known to fall through.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    63,469
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyRealist View Post
    Regardless, two things have happened.

    1) Barring convincing Charlotte to sign and trade for Hayward, Boston lost their asset for nothing. I see very little reason for Charlotte to do this unless Boston wants to take back Batum.

    2) The market for centers has dried up, and Indy needs to figure out what to do with Turner. They really should have pursued a backup plan since Ainge deals are known to fall through.
    Yea. If Charlotte were to get anything out of a S&T here it would be to not need to waive and stretch Batum. Otherwise they need to get something for helping facilitate a TPE for Boston.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,547
    The basketball fan in me that likes to see all teams be competitive and the Hayward apologist in me who wants to see him shine are very sad that Trez Harrell turned down their offer for the Lakers.

    On the surface, it seems silly and inefficient that CHA would stretch/waive Batum to create the cap room for Hayward. However, doing that would have freed them up to both give Hayward this deal and sign Trez for a little more than MLE.

    Ball / Rozier
    Graham / Monk
    Hayward / Bridges
    Washington / Trez
    Zeller / Biyombo

    That would have been pretty fun.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    63,469
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    The basketball fan in me that likes to see all teams be competitive and the Hayward apologist in me who wants to see him shine are very sad that Trez Harrell turned down their offer for the Lakers.

    On the surface, it seems silly and inefficient that CHA would stretch/waive Batum to create the cap room for Hayward. However, doing that would have freed them up to both give Hayward this deal and sign Trez for a little more than MLE.

    Ball / Rozier
    Graham / Monk
    Hayward / Bridges
    Washington / Trez
    Zeller / Biyombo

    That would have been pretty fun.
    Charlotte should move Bridges in this case. Heís kill it as a small ball 4. Instead heís wasted as a 3.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    16,597
    This contract reminds me of the Batum deal. An above average wing with passing skills gets overpaid by Jordan.

    Guess old dogs don't learn new tricks.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,547
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Charlotte should move Bridges in this case. Heís kill it as a small ball 4. Instead heís wasted as a 3.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Moot point now since Harrell is on LA. But yeah maybe could have done that as a follow up. I imagine they would have just played small and Trez would have been more 5 than 4. But the 1st and 2nd units looked prettier how I listed it haha

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,859
    Hayward just chose money over meaningful basketball, unless he plans to cry for a trade a couple years in.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,308
    First, Hayward choose money over being on a maeningful team. Second, Charlotte will look to rade him a year or two from now because he will become an overpaid, underpreforming, injured, player.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    16,597
    Quote Originally Posted by GoferKing_ View Post
    First, Hayward choose money over being on a maeningful team. Second, Charlotte will look to rade him a year or two from now because he will become an overpaid, underpreforming, injured, player.
    These teams never cease to amaze me.

    It's like Batum, Hayward, and Parsons are all the same player. And teams keep doing the same thing.

    The player underwhelmed on their last huge contract and was injury prone....but hey, let's sign them to an even bigger contract on a new team now that they're older and see if it changes his production.

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •