Woj: Celtics working to land both Gordon Hayward and Paul George

[slc]

Don't think Paul George would ever come here
He has made it clear he wants to go to Lakers period

 

[♪alt13]

And then lose both one year from now, having blown all our assets to lose to golden state again.

No thanks. I'd rather be the same team minus Hayward a year from now vs the same team minus Hayward and a ton of assets.

Hayward won't sign a 1+1. If he signs it will be for 5 or 4+1.

 

[MT Steve]

Hayward won't sign a 1+1. If he signs it will be for 5 or 4+1.

If Hayward is deciding to leave, getting Paul George on a one year rental isn't going to suddenly persuade Hayward to stay for a 4+1 here.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

I think the OP is a leaked story on behalf of Indiana to try to get teams to hurry up and make good offers for Paul George. There's no guarantee that George to Boston will happen or that he'll forego significant money to extend with the Celtics. Hayward has leverage here and doesn't need to take that risk.

So far, ESPN has only reported that George wants to go to LA or is willing to stay with Cleveland as long as Lebron is there.

 

[stitches]

The alternative is to tank for several years and probably have to trade Rudy to avoid having him walk for nothing.

It may be delusional, but I'm not sure it's any more delusional than expecting to completely rebuild in one year. It's kind of a situation where there aren't any good answers, but I don't understand how you think a tank would only last one season. Even if we landed the top pick, it takes most rookies a year or three before making a significant impact on the game.

We could try to gather a bunch of picks in hopes of finding a trade for a player like Butler, but there's no guarantee that opportunity becomes available in one or 2 years.

By tank I mean deliberate losing. Constructing the team and making decisions to maximize the chances that we pick as high as possible. You can do it for just 1 year. I'm not saying we will be competing for a title in year 2. I'm saying we tank 1 year, we take our superstar at no. 1(Porter jr for example, hopefully) and we start building up around him and Gobert. By year 3 IMO we are going to be contending for playoffs with core around Exum/Mitchell-Hood(maybe, if we don't trade him)-Porter/Doncic-Gobert + additions in FA or through other trades. This way in year 3 you hopefully have at least 3 building cornerstones/stars(Porter, Gobert + one of the others(depends on who pans out)). The alternative is to stack the team with vets going into their 30s who will be finished by the time Gobert's contract is coming for extension. In one case you will have a young core around hopefully 3 budding stars with future in the league, in the other you will have a Gobert with limited vets taking the developmental time of Exum/Mitchell/ etc. on the treadmill.

 

[♪alt13]

If Hayward is deciding to leave, getting Paul George on a one year rental isn't going to suddenly persuade Hayward to stay for a 4+1 here.

Hayward will sign a longterm deal where ever he goes. There is no cap spike coming and even the supermax that everyone has been speculating about requires (iirc) that the player be on at least the 3rd year of his current contract.

 

[Shocker00]

I expected this to happen, Boston trying to get better while the Jazz sit on their hands doing nothing. There is absolutely no reports on the Jazz pursuing PG13 but all the rest of the contenders in the league were attempting to get him. The Jazz already threw in the towel. I said this about a month ago the one that gets PG13 gets Hayward. This league has become about superteams, you need three all stars on your team and then the veterans is willing to sign for cheap. Jazz are about being good and not great!

Would you rather be on a team that's proactive or one that wants to stay home and bake the cake?

 

[SCS]

Wow. Sounds like a great way to lose both players and a bunch of assets. This is giving Hayward way too much power. Breaking the bank for George so Hayward stays and then giving him a 1+1? cmon now.

It's a gamble. But you're giving Hayward power as a show of faith. You just got him Paul George. You're giving him a 1+1 in order to keep the team together long-term. If you sit on your hands and do nothing and Boston acquires George then it's definitely over. Hayward's gone. Do want a chance or do you want no chance? All of those assets lose value if we don't have Hayward because we'll need to start from scratch again.

 

[idiot]

The alternative is to tank for several years and probably have to trade Rudy to avoid having him walk for nothing.

It may be delusional, but I'm not sure it's any more delusional than expecting to completely rebuild in one year. It's kind of a situation where there aren't any good answers, but I don't understand how you think a tank would only last one season. Even if we landed the top pick, it takes most rookies a year or three before making a significant impact on the game.

We could try to gather a bunch of picks in hopes of finding a trade for a player like Butler, but there's no guarantee that opportunity becomes available in one or 2 years.

Pretty much this. I just don't think we can tank with Gobert. We might get to 35 wins. I don't think Gobert will go in on the plan if we somehow manage to rid ourselves of enough talent to get less than 35 wins. So the point is it's better to try to stay in the 45-50 win range than the 35 win range and hope that in the meantime we can get someone else to step up like Hayward and Gobert have so far.

Just a bunch of bad choices if Hayward leaves, but I think you have a lot better chance of things breaking your way if you're a playoff team rather than a middling to somewhat bad team.

 

[slc]

Haywards agent would never agree to a 1+1 contract verses a $175 mil guaranteed deal

 

[Keefe]

I can't believe Hayward would want to be the #3 or #4 guy on the team. Behind IT, Paul George and possibly Horford. I know he has said he just wants to win, but if that's really the case, he should just sign the veteran minimum with the warriors.

I don't blame if he expects that Jazz to make moves. But the situation in Boston doesn't seem all that great to be honest.

Behind Horford?

Lulz.

 

[framer]

There is so much smoke... I am on a roller coaster with this daily.

If we don't make a move this week I think it is because we believe there isn't much of a shot of Hayward returning so why give up assets... cap space or picks to appease someone who is out.

Boston generates their own smoke. There were many articles last year claiming Durrant to Boston was a "done deal," which is why so many were surprised when he went to Golden State. I bought into it as well.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

By tank I mean deliberate losing. Constructing the team and making decisions to maximize the chances that we pick as high as possible. You can do it for just 1 year. I'm not saying we will be competing for a title in year 2. I'm saying we tank 1 year, we take our superstar at no. 1(Porter jr for example, hopefully) and we start building up around him and Gobert. By year 3 IMO we are going to be contending for playoffs with core around Exum/Mitchell-Hood(maybe, if we don't trade him)-Porter/Doncic-Gobert + additions in FA or through other trades. This way in year 3 you hopefully have at least 3 building cornerstones/stars(Porter, Gobert + one of the others(depends on who pans out)). The alternative is to stack the team with vets going into their 30s who will be finished by the time Gobert's contract is coming for extension. In one case you will have a young core around hopefully 3 budding stars with future in the league, in the other you will have a Gobert with limited vets taking the developmental time of Exum/Mitchell/ etc. on the treadmill.

Here are the options:

- Try to fill the holes... leads to Treadmill City population Us.
- Earnestly tank... this would include trading Rodney and anything else that might make us too good... including Gobert maybe (I can't do the Gobert trade... I've thought about it and it makes me so sad).
- Half *** tank... maybe Gobert gets suspended for PEDs or maybe we sit him every time we are on a winning streak. I just can't see us losing more than 30 games with Gobert.

Long term the right answer is to tank the eff out of the B, but how do you sell that to Gobert? He wants to be DPOY and that ain't happening where we will be record wise.

He's too much of a competitor to sign on to some dumb fake injury type plan. Basically Hayward leaving us screws us in the worst way possible.

I do not think they will have the stomach to tank... we likely get Rudy Gay or some other stupid thing.

If Hayward leaves we should play Dante and Mitchell and Bolomboy 45 minutes a night, but we won't.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

See if Miami pursues both Griffin and Hayward in free agency.

Dragic / Waiters / Hayward / Griffin / Whiteside would be top 4 in the EC.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

The Jazz have a good young core with Exum / Mitchell / Hood / Johnson / Gobert.

Their move would be to trade out their veterans for future picks and try to draft another stud.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Here is the plan... you tell Rudy look we've got Dante, Donovan, and Hood (let's be honest he plays 50-60 games per year) we need them to catch up and it will take some learning. This is your team... you are their leader but we likely drop some games because of development time. We gonna collect some assets and go at this hard in year 1 or 2. If we become 50 win team magically we will supplement some vets to help, but otherwise we might not win 30 games.

You are the leader though... we need you to buy in to take us there. Can you do that for us?

 

[framer]

If we lose Hayward and Hill, why do you want Beverley? What does he accomplish for us, besides making our pick next year worse and taking away an OKC pick we can use to move up if we are not at the very top? We have Exum and Mitchell who are both defensive minded prospects and we get Beverley to clog their minutes in a year when we are not fighting for anything realistically?

Because Beverly on his contract is a better asset than the OKC pick. If OKC gets drummed out of the playoffs, that OKC pick turns into two second rounders, no?

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Here is the plan... you tell Rudy look we've got Dante, Donovan, and Hood (let's be honest he plays 50-60 games per year) we need them to catch up and it will take some learning. This is your team... you are their leader but we likely drop some games because of development time. We gonna collect some assets and go at this hard in year 1 or 2. If we become 50 win team magically we will supplement some vets to help, but otherwise we might not win 30 games.

You are the leader though... we need you to buy in to take us there. Can you do that for us?

PS we need to wait out GS a little too, so let's chill just a bit.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Because Beverly on his contract is a better asset than the OKC pick. If OKC gets drummed out of the playoffs, that OKC pick turns into two second rounders, no?

Exactly... it is doing something that can benefit us either way.

Beverly is fun as hell too... we'd be the most exciting 45 win team ever.

 

[Shocker00]

It doesn't help that Boston former players keep throwing championship pieces their way.