The New Celtics

It looks like yesterday's rumored Kevin Garnett trade has come to pass and the Big Ticket is heading to Boston in exchange for "a package of players that reportedly includes Al Jefferson, Gerald Green, Ryan Gomes, Sebastian Telfair, Theo Ratliff and at least one first-round pick." Reactions:

• Due to the utter lack of depth, this is going to be a less-than-overwhelming team despite the starpower -- maybe 45-50 wins.
• Since it's the Eastern Conference, 45-50 wins could easily make for a Finals-caliber team.
• And of course this makes Boston an attractive destination for free agents still on the market.

Most of all, though, the fact that Minnesota put itself in a position where this rather sad offer was the best they could do is just terrible, terrible general management. In particular, it's pretty astounding that no Wolves-Bulls trade came together back when PJ Brown's expiring deal was still on the table.

Comments

Due to the utter lack of depth, this is going to be a less-than-overwhelming team despite the starpower -- maybe 45-50 wins.

The Celts will win 50+ games. It will be the consensus Eastern favorite by the time the season rolls around. And McHale is a complete maroon.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 31, 2007 9:30 AM

"Most of all, though, the fact that Minnesota put itself in a position where this rather sad offer was the best they could do is just terrible, terrible general management."

Sad offer?

The devil is obviously in the details, and we don't know for sure about the picks involved, but if Minny is getting two first rounders, including their own (high lottery) pick, then Boston is paying too much.

The deal made sense to me from Boston's perspective for Jefferson or picks, not Jefferson and picks.

I'm reasonably certain that Minny has never had (and will never have) a better offer on the table than Jefferson and a high lottery pick.

You, as well as many other punters, vastly overrate Garnett's trade value. Dude is on the verge of being old, and has a nightmare contract situation. That equals few bidders offering limited assets. If McHale pulls this off, it'll be the first smart move he's made in a very long time.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2007 9:34 AM

I'm reasonably certain that Minny has never had (and will never have) a better offer on the table than Jefferson and a high lottery pick.

Are you kidding me? Talk about overrating: Jefferson has had half of a good season.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 31, 2007 9:38 AM

What could the Bulls have given the Timberwolves thats better than what they got from the Celtics?

I've seen very little of him, but a lot of people tell me Al Jefferson is going to be a superstar and one of the two or three best low post scorers in the game. A younger Zach Randolph without the drama and a willingness to play defense. I would argue that the Bulls, while stacked, don't have a single player of equal trade worth to Jefferson.

Telfair was a throw-in, but Green is a great young prospect, and Gomes had a stellar sophmore year.

The Celtics pick should be in the 20s, but the Timberwolves are also supposed to be getting back their own pick that they stupidly traded to the Celtics. That pick is a guaranteed lotto pick in the 4-8 range with a shot at the top 3.

You're never going to get equal value for a superstar (so the cliche goes), but this was probably the best deal Minnesota fans could hope for. They weren't going anywhere with Garnett, while the rest of the division (Portland, Seattle, Utah, Denver) was leaving them in the dust. Now they have a lot of good young talent and some good picks in the next few years.

Posted by matthew c | July 31, 2007 9:40 AM

"it's pretty astounding that no Wolves-Bulls trade came together back when PJ Brown's expiring deal was still on the table."

Garnett made zero sense for the Bulls after they signed Ben Wallace.

In fact, understanding why he didn't end up on the Bulls is key to understanding his overall limited trade value.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2007 9:41 AM

"Talk about overrating: Jefferson has had half of a good season."

He's a 22 yo post player who already has viable two-way NBA game. You underestimate the trade value of that profile.

Jefferson has more trade value than any single player on the Bulls, for example.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2007 9:46 AM

according to sam smith, the bulls once offered deng, chandler and last year's #2 pick and they offered this years #9 pick plus tyrus thomas and a bunch of short-term contracts (pj brown)...as for the resurrection of the celtics, i just don't see it.

Posted by larrybob | July 31, 2007 9:49 AM

Do you not follow football at all? Does this mean we can expect no posts about the Michael Vick dogfighting ring?

Posted by Fred | July 31, 2007 9:52 AM

Jefferson has more trade value than any single player on the Bulls, for example.

So a good-not-great post player has more value than a good-not-great wing? Keep the insights coming.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 31, 2007 10:03 AM

I think Petey has the better of the argument on Jefferson. He was around 20/11 after the break last year, and he's 22 years old. "Half a good season" is a misleading way to dismiss him. Say you don't think he has the upside to do any better, if you like, but a stellar second half from a guy that age is very meaningful.

As a Celtics fan, I am cautiously optimistic. Garnett is not that old; but he's been in the NBA forever. The lack of depth is obviously a problem, and the window is only open for 2-3 years.

I think it's very good return for McHale. 2 #1s, a soon-to-be all star in Jefferson, useful, possible stars in Green and Gomes, and then some crap whose contracts expire soon. Not quite Herschel Walker stuff, but a decent haul.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 31, 2007 10:03 AM

I hate to say it, but Petey's right. Al Jefferson has the potential to be an Elton Brand, Jermaine O'Neal type player. Of course, his performance last season may also have been a case of "best player on horrible team maxing out his stats".

As for the Celts, by the time Al was peaking, Paul Pierce would be well into decline. Now they've got three core players all roughly at the same point in their careers and a team with as good a chance to win a title as anyone else in the East. The Celts now have a 2 to 3 year window to win a title, but they don't have any young talent to rebuild around. Which means they'll have to wait for Pierce and Garnett's deals to expire and then try and rebuild with high lottery picks again.

Much like when Pat Reily traded for Shaq, if they win a title Ainge will be a genius. If not, he's crippled the franchise for the next 5 to 6 years to win 45 to 50 games a year and lose in the second round.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 31, 2007 10:08 AM

Ainge made the Celtics interesting. Watching them develop a core that had a small chance of turning into a contending team was interesting in a self-deluding kind of way, and watching them build around Jefferson and Oden/Durant would have been awesome, but since that wasn't happening, I understand,

I think the case for Ainge's offseason is that Jeff Green (or whoever) was just going to be another pretty good player on a team that could aspire to 40ish wins at their peak.

There wasn't enough talent there to really compete without winning the lottery. So Ainge threw everything he had at a three-man core that certainly can win the East and has a shot at the Finals if they get a good matchup. I'm sure there's some bench depth coming, and I'm stupidly optimistic about Big Baby Davis.

I just don't think that whether the 2008 lottery pick is in the deal or not is the tipping point. Once the Celtics had traded their 2007 pick for Allen, they needed to make the next trade to compete for real. Obviously it'd be better to have that lottery pick - this core should be good for two years, adding a lottery pick to it helps - but I don't see how it's as big a deal as Petey says.

Posted by DivGuy | July 31, 2007 10:12 AM

Al Jefferson has the potential to be an Elton Brand, Jermaine O'Neal type player.

All of these evaluations are dependent on KG's skills falling off a cliff. Elton Brand is now worth more than KG? Was there a round of the playoffs I missed last year? And O'Neal is unbelievably overrated.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 31, 2007 10:13 AM

And of course this makes Boston an attractive destination for free agents still on the market.

Except that this trade pushes Boston into long term luxury tax territory, so they will be stuck with the mid-level exception for the foreseeable future.

Money, after all, is what makes a destination more attractive than anything else...

Posted by 3pointshooter | July 31, 2007 10:16 AM

I endorse MBunge. The people underestimating Jefferson are, well, underestimating him. Now, I'm trying to turn off the home team filter here (sometimes I get agitated and start frothing that Pierce doesn't get enough respect around the league, which is probably ridiculous) but it's not like Jefferson was sucking and then put together an improbable few months there; with the exception of a patch of injury trouble, he's been steadily improving, and I fully expect him to evolve into a steady 20/10 guy if not a 25/12 guy. Honestly, the only (basketball) reason I'd rather have Dwight Howard is that Howard's got the sheer size/strength to be an imposing 5, whereas Jefferson's at best an average sized 4. Otherwise, I'll take Jefferson's superior footwork and offensive knack/finesse in the post over Howard's explosive athleticism.

Fandom requires that I instantly change tack and become a believer in the Garnett/Truth/Shuttlesworth troika, but Jefferson has been my binky, and I'll miss him. And Gomes, oddly, has been my reserve binky, so this deal stings.

Posted by Quarterican | July 31, 2007 10:19 AM

eh...it's probably the best MN could do now (the Bulls offer a year ago was the best they ever had...Deng, Chandler and a 1st round pick...or maybe the Phoenix offer of Marion and 3 1st round picks), but Boston is not overpaying.

Jefferson has a lot of potential...but he'll never be a Garnett. it's one thing to be all-star quality in the Eastern Conference...it's another to be playing against the Western Conference power forwards. just think about it for a second. there's a reason why EC players (other than James) are all overrated by EC fans.

Green...who knows? yeah, maybe a genuine scorer down the road...maybe a bust. J.R. Rider come to mind? basically, MN is hoping that either he or McCants pans out...I guess having two of them makes sense..you only need one to work out.

Telfair? ok, there's a slight chance he could become a decent backup point if he matures.

Gomes. a good bench player. MN already has a roster full of those.

Ratliff's contract is useful.

getting their lottery pick back for next year is useful.

Boston's 2009 pick? almost useless. The Celtics will still be dominant in the EC in two years. (they've just bought three years of EC dominance).

some of you folks have no clue how good Garnett really is. you're going to be pleasantly surprised.

Posted by Nathan | July 31, 2007 10:20 AM

"Except that this trade pushes Boston into long term luxury tax territory, so they will be stuck with the mid-level exception for the foreseeable future."

Every year, about 25 out of 30 teams are "stuck" with the MLE. The number of free-agent contracts signed every year above the MLE is miniscule. This year, there were only two, Darko and Rashard.

In reality, the free agent market takes place almost entirely at or below the MLE. And once you are competing in a market capped at the MLE, having a team that can contend for the title is a massive assist in wooing players, especially when you have a well-liked unselfish superstar like KG.

Add to that the fact that Boston needs low priced players to complement their big three, not high priced players...

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2007 10:27 AM

I think Petey's right. This was a huge windfall for the TWolves. A brilliant and carefully calculated move. This move makes it immediately apparent why McHale is the best sports GM in the game. I predict the Powder Blues v. TWolves in the Western conference finals. Nuggets will probably sweep with the TWolves, but Jefferson will have a brilliant series. And Green will emerge as really gifted and versatile 2.
Meanwhile, Celtics will barely sneak into the playoffs only to get swept by the Knicks.
I'm calling it right now: Knicks-Nuggets '08. You read it here first. Don't forget that shit.

Posted by anon | July 31, 2007 10:29 AM

if they win a title Ainge will be a genius

No he won't, and I can't turn lead into gold either, I can only paint it yellow.

Posted by Antid Oto | July 31, 2007 10:31 AM

Telfair was a throw-in, but Green is a great young prospect, and Gomes had a stellar sophmore year.

Telfair is terrible, and McHale is doing the Celtics a favor by taking him off their hands. In a year or two he'll be playing abroad. Green can do exactly one thing, and thinks he is much better than he is, which doesn't suggest he'll ever turn into a basketball player, let alone a star. Gomes is a solid reserve, and can score decent rotisserie numbers if he's given the minutes, but a good team shouldn't be giving him those minutes. As a C's fan, I'm disappointed to see him go as part of the deal, but not overly so. I'm crushed to see Jefferson leave, but thrilled to see Garnett come in.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | July 31, 2007 10:31 AM

All of these evaluations are dependent on KG's skills falling off a cliff. Elton Brand is now worth more than KG? Was there a round of the playoffs I missed last year?

I think you missed the round of the playoffs where KG didn't play.

Seriously, SCMT, maybe KG's got a longer shelf-life than we're all assuming (after all, what's the last thing to go on a big man? the turnaround jumper. What's Garnett's go-to post move? the turnaround jumper). But consider: I think KG is overrated, yet all things being equal I consider him superior to Brand. However, Garnett is three years older and has played over three hundred more professional games than Brand (Brand's two years of college don't really affect the math here). Which player (ceteris paribus) would you rather have for the next five years, or the next eight? It's one thing to think that Jefferson won't be as good as people are predicting, but thinking that he'll be that good (i.e., Brand range if not [in my homer's heart of hearts, which hope I must now abandon] better) and yet downplaying his long-term value relative to Garnett's is silly.

Posted by Quarterican | July 31, 2007 10:33 AM

as one who has been to several t-wolf games of kg's career, i can say quite honestly there is no drop-off yet. yes, he isn't as quick, but he is smarter. dude remains an outstanding player and the best big-man distributor in the game. he will thrive with allen and pierce.

for what mn got, meh. gomes is an undersized, scrappy rent-a-player. telfair is crap. green might be good, but he might be a freakisly athletic wing who can't shoot and wont' defend. the contract is huge, but its unlikely this core of young players will attrace the veterans they need. the picks - at least they got back there own pick.

key here is moving davis and thud next. if the wolves open camp with either on their roster, this team is doomed. not now, they will suck for two years - but in three years when they might be good. davis and thud are cancers who must go.

Posted by notchris | July 31, 2007 10:34 AM

"And Gomes, oddly, has been my reserve binky"

I caught a couple of Celts games this past year where Gomes looked really impressive.

And like Delonte, Gomes seems like he'd be able to immediately be a useful big minute role player on a team with superstars to carry the load. But you've got to break some eggs to make a quiche...

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2007 10:35 AM

that Howard's got the sheer size/strength to be an imposing 5, whereas Jefferson's at best an average sized 4

Umm...yeah. Size, esp. in the post, is not nothing. Shaq has always been more skilled than people care to admit, but the reason he was so valued was because he could carry 300+ pounds on a 7' frame without giving up much quickness. You can compensate with quickness, but that's not Jefferson's bag, either.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 31, 2007 10:35 AM

Quarterican:

Garnett will be at the tail end in five years and be done before 8.

so? this trade was about the next three years for the Celtics and about three years from now for the T-Wolves.

Posted by Nathan | July 31, 2007 10:36 AM

"All of these evaluations are dependent on KG's skills falling off a cliff. Elton Brand is now worth more than KG? Was there a round of the playoffs I missed last year? And O'Neal is unbelievably overrated."

Would you rather pay a KG in decline to go nowhere in the West for the next 5 years, or pay much less for an Elton Brand to go nowhere in the West for the next 10 years? Brand is a very, very good but not great player. Jermaine O'Neal at his peak and healthy is probably a big better than Brand. If Al Jefferson turns out to be better than those guys, Celt fans better get a title now to comfort them when we suck again in 5 years.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 31, 2007 10:39 AM

Simmons hits the two points we're going to hear repeated ad infinitum:

- Is McHale the Manchurian Celtic?

- Is this Barkley going to the Rockets to team with Hakeem and Clyde?

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2007 10:39 AM

SCMT -

I know size isn't nothing. That's why I said it was the only reason I'd rather have Howard than Jefferson. Implying that I'd rather have Howard than Jefferson. Because he's bigger. His athletic ability, for me, doesn't cancel out that Jefferson is a more skilled offensive player; his athletic ability at 6'11 265 (or whatever) does.

Nathan -

I know that (the deal is about right now for the Cs, long term for the Wolves). I was arguing that people thinking this is a steal for the Celtics, that the players the Wolves got don't amount to much, that Jefferson doesn't deserve to be the centerpiece of a deal for the fabled Kevin Garnett, are nuts, for that very same reason. Garnett is better right now. Jefferson will be very good and just possibly maybe could happen turn into great for a long time.

Posted by Quarterican | July 31, 2007 10:42 AM

The deal made sense to me from Boston's perspective for Jefferson or picks, not Jefferson and picks.

Petey: you've got to be freaking kidding me. The. Celtics. Now. Have. A. Reaonable. Chance. To. Win. A. Seventeenth. Banner.

Now, anything's possible. And a number of things have to pan out for the Celtics, such as staying healthy, and picking up a key signing or two. But damn!. The Cs play in the east, and KG is supposedly starving (Stephen A. Smith's phrase) for a ring. All of the top handful of teams have things that need to fall into place.

He was around 20/11 after the break last year, and he's 22 years old. "Half a good season" is a misleading way to dismiss him. Say you don't think he has the upside to do any better, if you like, but a stellar second half from a guy that age is very meaningful.

Look, as a Celtics fan it pains me to lose Jefferson. It really does. Sure, this deal could come back to haunt them. But I doubt it. Jefferson's no Garnett. His offensive game had shaped up nicely. But we'll see how he performs against the Western conference. And I frankly hadn't seen squat from big Al on the defensive end. And that, my friend, is what wins championships. Sure, he was "20/11" after the break. But how many shots did he alter? How many coaches had to devise plays to deal with Al's defensive presence? And how many top-flight big men did did Al have guarding him?

Moroever, we shouldn't get crazy on the "Kevin Garnett is an old man angle". I mean, it's not like all players are washed up at 36, and KG still is very obviously in his prime right now. By all accounts KG is quite a specimen, and treats his body well. I doubt he'll suffer the (obviously weight-related) ailments that have eroded Shaquille's abilities.

I hate to lose Jefferson. My first reaction was frankly "no!!!" to this deal. But then I began thinking rather than emoting. As Bill Simmons's Dad said, "this is a deal we hadda do." Oh, and if there are any C's fans out there who are squeamish about the deal, click on this: http://broadband.espn.go.com/ivp/splash2?id=2955040

Posted by Jasper | July 31, 2007 10:42 AM

no doubt petey. gomes was bananas last year. seriously, if I were MN I probably would have done a straight up KG for Gomes trade. But to get Jefferson. Arguably the most gifted low-post player in 50 years, for an aging overrated PF. Seriously, that's some brilliant shit right there. How'd McHale pull it off?

I'm starting to think TWolves might be a lock for the championship. That depends, of course, on how many shots AI chucks in the conference finals. But if the TWolves can limit him to 150 shots per game (and as Green matures into a brilliant defender, that shouldn't be too difficult), the TWolves might be able to knock off the powder blues. It will definitely be an interesting series. Either way, the Celtics are done and the rest of the league will basically be in Jefferson and Gomes' shadow for the next decade.

Posted by anon | July 31, 2007 10:42 AM

Jefferson will be very good and just possibly maybe could happen turn into great for a long time.

For which team? Isn't his contract up in two years?

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | July 31, 2007 10:51 AM

"Petey: you've got to be freaking kidding me ... As Bill Simmons's Dad said, "this is a deal we hadda do."

The problem is that if you decide that you simply must do the deal, then your offer can get way too high.

I think the Celts had more leverage than the Wolves here, and that they could've played hardball to get better terms. They are getting a very nice property, but the price tag, as currently described, seems awfully high to me.

I don't think this is precisely a bad deal for the Celts. I just think they could've landed Garnett for a bit less.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2007 10:55 AM

"For which team? Isn't his contract up in two years?"

For Minnesota. You may not be aware of how free agency works for players in Jefferson's shoes in the NBA - hint: they re-sign.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2007 10:57 AM

click on this

Well, I learned that Ray Allen is literally starving, which puts the whole thing in doubt. Will he have the strength to play 35 minutes a night if he's malnourished? Is this a political hunger fast or anorexia? Or is there merely a Third World famine zone following him around like a little raincloud?

Steven A. Smith was too callous even to ask, let alone offer the man a muffin.

Posted by Antid Oto | July 31, 2007 10:58 AM

Aging overrated PF? I guess you've never seen him play. He's 31, he's a guaranteed 20/10 player, he's a defensive monster. No one works harder. I think this is the rare trade that will help both teams.

Posted by Gus | July 31, 2007 10:58 AM

please gus. you obviously know nothing about basketball. let the experts (Petey and me) handle this. yeah, KG is okay. But c'mon man, Jefferson is the future. I would have probably done a straight up KG for a big inflated Jefferson balloon. But to get the real thing. Shit. I mean, that's like nine championships in a row. Jefferson alone could probably take on the '07 Spurs. But throw in Gomes, Green, Ratliff, Telfair, and some draft shift. hot damn! That might be the most lopsided deal in sports history. I mean, Sebastian fucking Telfair! On the Minnesota Timberwolves! That's such an interesting side-story (him being Marbury's cousin and all), that it alone will save the league from this referee scandal.

Posted by anon | July 31, 2007 11:09 AM

Danny Ainge is the George W. Bush of pro basketball. With this deal, Ainge ruins the Celtics' chances of doing anything memorable for the next 10 years. All of their three top players are old -- questionable survivors this year, let alone next. Pierce has been in decline since he played on the U.S. Olympic team and he doesn't have the killer instinct. Might they win the East? Sure. Could they possibly win it all? Give me a break. And what happens next year, and the year after? No money, no players, no draft picks, no hope.

Posted by Walter Crockett | July 31, 2007 11:11 AM

True, I don't know from basketball. Baseball's my sport. This is the first time I've paid attention to the sport since Shaq was a Laker. This has stimulated my interest, though. I might even watch a few games this year.

Posted by Gus | July 31, 2007 11:13 AM

Petey, a couple months ago the rumor was Jefferson + the #5 pick + spare parts for Garnett. Now they get Garnett for Jefferson + spare parts + lower draft picks, and it's too much?

I love, love, love this deal for the Celtics. Jefferson is a good player, but let's not get carried away. He could end up as a rich man's Eddie Curry. He's never going to be in Garnett's league, even if Garnett's skills drop off considerably (which I don't see happening for another 2-3 years). Garnett is still one of the best defensive players in the league. Jefferson has the potential to be an average defender. Offensively, Jefferson will probably be a better scorer (he's not, yet), and KG is better at everything else. Plus, KG is perfect with the team they've got, because he won't have to be the #1 scorer (or even #2).

And yes, the other guys are spare parts. Telfair sucks. Green isn't much better. Gomes is a decent backup.

Before I read Simmons' column, I was already thinking along the Manchurian Celtic lines. I've read that McHale could have gotten Amare. Maybe that's wrong, but shit, if it's right... well, we always knew McHale was the worst GM in the league.

Petey, the reason you should love this trade is that McHale makes Isiah look like a genius.

Posted by too many steves | July 31, 2007 11:16 AM

Well, I wouldn't be worried about KG's performance in Boston. Its Ray Allen that Celtic fans need to be worried about. 3 years of relevance? Good luck. I'd be happy with 1 or 2. And that Doc Rivers won't screw it up.

Posted by mpowell | July 31, 2007 11:25 AM

As a Celts fan, I've watched Al Jefferson play about 150 games or so. The kid has buttery soft hands, good footwork, and excellent timing on the boards. His innate ability to score around the rim is basically off the charts. On the other hand, he is a passive defender whose offensive footwork doesn't translate to lateral movement on the defensive end. Right now, he's a serious defensive liability, though it's not for lack of effort.

I think it's a little hard to say whether Jefferson will become a decent defensive player, since nice guys sometimes need to grow into their body before toughening up. Even if he doesn't, he should average 25 ppg in his sleep once he hits his stride. I think Elton Brand is a pretty good comparison, but I think Jefferson has the potential to be an even better scorer than Brand. I really can't emphasize enough how unique this kid's hands and feel around the rim are. You could literally see it the second he stepped on the court as a 19-year old rookie. He just knows how to score.

All that said, I like the trade for the Celts. If the Cleveland LeBrons can make the NBA Finals with a one-man team, there's no reason the C's can't do the same with a 3-man team. Boston won't have any single player as good as Lebron, but if they stay healthy, they can absolutely make the Finals. And for me, personally, that's enough reason to do the trade. I know a lot of Celts fans feel differently, but I've been waiting for this team for 20 years and I'm tired of it. I fully acknowledge the risks - as well as Matt's point about the depth - but I like it anyway. If the whole thing ends in disaster, you won't see me here complaining about it.

Posted by owenz | July 31, 2007 11:27 AM

I think the Celtics are a good bet for the finals, too, but don't forget, they've got a backup center as their starting 5, a promising but unproven PG, no bench, and a terrible coach.

Posted by too many steves | July 31, 2007 11:29 AM

The deal made sense to me from Boston's perspective for Jefferson or picks, not Jefferson and picks.

Among Petey's basketball-related faults is a massive overrating of the value of future picks. The same last year when he thought that the Sixers ought to have tanked the season for a few more lottery balls. It is hard enough accurately predicting how the college players available at a particular position are going to do in the NBA, even if you know what draft position the pick represents. Given the vagaries of the system, you simply cannot predict well what draft position a future pick will be.

The inclusion of the two picks are a sweetener, but in no way make the difference between this being a good trade or a bad trade for these teams. 5 years from now, looking back, they might be, but there is simply no way to know that now.

Posted by Al | July 31, 2007 11:31 AM

anon, you are killing me.

I can just hear the NBA theme music playing... "This Sunday.... Iverson .... Jefferson...battle for supremacy in a Western Conference Showdown..."

It could happen.

Posted by MP | July 31, 2007 11:33 AM

Gus: anon is someone making fun of Petey.

Posted by walt | July 31, 2007 11:39 AM

"The same last year when he thought that the Sixers ought to have tanked the season for a few more lottery balls."

Well, sure. If the Sixers are going to suck for the next couple of years, wouldn't it be nicer to be stocking up on higher quality players?

Refusing to deal Andre Miller to both get an young asset back, and to also get more ping-pong balls remains inexplicable to me.

-----

"The inclusion of the two picks are a sweetener, but in no way make the difference between this being a good trade or a bad trade for these teams. 5 years from now, looking back, they might be, but there is simply no way to know that now."

In one sense, sure. But what's the limit?

Why not have the Celtics trade Jefferson, swag, and 4 first rounders instead of just 2? Would that make a difference between a good trade and a bad one?

My position here is that the Celtics had more leverage than the Wolves. Minnesota was never going to get a better offer than what Boston was offering, and keeping Garnett was not a palatable option. So why not drive a harder bargain?

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2007 11:40 AM

His innate ability to score around the rim is basically off the charts. On the other hand, he is a passive defender whose offensive footwork doesn't translate to lateral movement on the defensive end.

What did Zach Randolph cost the Knicks again?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 31, 2007 11:41 AM

He could end up as a rich man's Eddie Curry. He's never going to be in Garnett's league, even if Garnett's skills drop off considerably (which I don't see happening for another 2-3 years). Garnett is still one of the best defensive players in the league. Jefferson has the potential to be an average defender. Offensively, Jefferson will probably be a better scorer (he's not, yet), and KG is better at everything else. Plus, KG is perfect with the team they've got, because he won't have to be the #1 scorer (or even #2).

Agree with this 100%. The big difference between Jefferson and KG isn't on the offensive end, or even rebounding. As noted, Jefferson's second half last year was somewhat comparable to KG in those areas - Jefferson looks to be a 22-11 kind of guy. But he's not a good defender. I think he's comparable to Eddy Curry right now, and has the potential to be Zach Randolph. Zach's a good offensive player, but not the player KG is.

Posted by Al | July 31, 2007 11:43 AM

Petey, why do you think Minnesota could have gotten more? The deal that happened gives them less than many of the previously rumored deals -- indeed, less than the Celtics themselves were offering a couple months ago. Maybe that was as low as Minny would go.

Posted by too many steves | July 31, 2007 11:47 AM

One interesting thing, to me, are the three extremely top-heavy teams in the East: Boston, NJ, and DC. Each of those teams has a "big 3" and little else. Boston's big 3 is better than NJ's or DC's, but the rest of their team is worse.

Posted by Al | July 31, 2007 11:49 AM

"The deal that happened gives them less than many of the previously rumored deals"

Not my understanding.

"indeed, less than the Celtics themselves were offering a couple months ago."

Again, not my understanding.

The current Celts rumored bid is a bit richer than the pre-draft Celts bid, which was itself the richest bid anyone has offered to Minny to date.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2007 11:57 AM

"My position here is that the Celtics had more leverage than the Wolves. Minnesota was never going to get a better offer than what Boston was offering, and keeping Garnett was not a palatable option. So why not drive a harder bargain?"

And what, exactly, would be that harder bargain? Jefferson and Ratliff would HAVE to be part of the deal. The Cs don't want Telfair. Green has tremendous talent but has yet to figure out how to play in the NBA. Sending back Minn's 1st round pick was also certainly a necessity. So, the only possible things the Celts could have held back in the deal was their own 1st rounder (which is now likely to be in the low 20s) and Ryan Gomes. Does any GM in the league take the slightest chance on missing out on KG for a late 20s draft pick and a good role player like Gomes?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 31, 2007 11:57 AM

I was under the impression that Minny wanted both Jefferson and the #5 pick, but I could be wrong. Giving up Jefferson, a few players who suck (plus Gomes, who's still barely average), and a pick that won't be in the lottery seems like as low as you could possibly go for KG.

Posted by too many steves | July 31, 2007 12:06 PM

"I was under the impression that Minny wanted both Jefferson and the #5 pick"

Yup. But now they're giving up Jefferson, a pick that should be somewhere around #5, and another first rounder.

Not to mention the fact that McHale had other options before the draft, while he has none now...

"seems like as low as you could possibly go for KG."

Due to age and contract reasons, as well as Minny's desperation to move him, I think Garnett has lower trade value than one would assume from judging him solely on how good he is on the court at the moment.

I'm not saying that Boston is massively overpaying, but I do think they'd have had success if they'd tried to drive a harder bargain.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2007 12:13 PM

One interesting thing, to me, are the three extremely top-heavy teams in the East: Boston, NJ, and DC. Each of those teams has a "big 3" and little else. Boston's big 3 is better than NJ's or DC's, but the rest of their team is worse.

I would also include Cleveland in that mix, since it is basically LeBron and a bunch of average players. Heck, Miami is in a similar situation too. I think the result is an extremely small margin of error when it comes to injuries. If Pierce, Garnett, and Allen all stay healthy, there is enough talent in those three alone to spread the load and keep everyone somewhat fresh. But the second any one of them goes down, the lack of depth becomes a major concern. (You saw with Miami last year what happens when a star goes down on a top-heavy team.)

As a C's fan, I like the trade while acknowledging that it's a huge risk. I wholeheartedly disagree with the commenter who said that all three guys are on the decline. Pierce had his best year as a pro two years ago; he was literally a one-man wrecking crew, setting a career high in scoring on 47% shooting and averaging almost 7 rebounds a game. Before last season, the guy missed of total of 8 games in six years. And he's only 30 now. So I think he's got plenty of gas in his tank and he's matured a great deal in the last few years. Garnett hasn't shown a measurable dip in the last few years either. The main question mark for me is Allen. Beyond being a couple of years older than Pierce, Allen has also been fairly fragile as a player. He has missed at least 20 games in three of his last six seasons. He's the key, as far as I'm concerned - although he's also the least talented of the Trio.

Posted by owenz | July 31, 2007 12:14 PM

"Giving up Jefferson, a few players who suck (plus Gomes, who's still barely average), and a pick that won't be in the lottery seems like as low as you could possibly go for KG."

That's precisely what I think Boston should have offered.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2007 12:15 PM

"And he's only 30 now."

29 now. 30 soon.

Posted by Petey | July 31, 2007 12:17 PM

You may not be aware of how free agency works for players in Jefferson's shoes in the NBA - hint: they re-sign.

Sorry, I got distracted by this Rashard Lewis fan site -- what was that again?

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | July 31, 2007 12:20 PM

You're right, I forgot about the Minny pick that the Cs gave back. But that was part of every rumored deal, wasn't it? Anyway, the #5 in this year's draft was more valuable than a high pick in next year's draft, I think, unless it winds up being the #1 or #2.

Kevin Garnett is one of the top 5 players in the league, maybe top 3. Any of the deals we're talking about don't constitute fair value when you're just talking about his current level of play, without taking into account age and contract.

Posted by too many steves | July 31, 2007 12:20 PM

In a way I feel duped because the last few years had me thinking that Ainge was serious (and honest) about a future nucleus of Jefferson-Rondo-Green. The Celtics, for all their terrible losses, were a lot of fun to watch in ’06-‘07 because they were so hard-working and energetic and earnest. Losing Jefferson really does feel awful––I imagine Tommy Heinsohn will lament his loss the most––but I’m so glad to see Telfair and Green on their way elsewhere. There’s nothing that needs to be said about Bassy’ uselessness, but Green was probably going to be a relative bust, too, despite his talents. It’s been fun to watch Gerald try to jump into the basket, and he actually is a pretty terrific shooter, with great 3-point range and many 40-point explosions in his future. But the only defensive effort he put forth involved his 40+-inch vertical and trying to spike the ball into the stands and running around like an idiot. He’s far too enamored of his own athleticism, and he doesn’t have the smarts (I’ll really miss Gomes’ court IQ) for his understanding of the game to ever catch up with or complement his freakish physical abilities. During one game toward the end of the season, play-by-play man Mike Gorman told Tommy that Gerald had vowed to spend most of the offseason in the weight room. Tommy groaned and said, “That would be a terrible idea.” I think Green is more interested in winning dunk contests and posterizing opponents than winning championships and becoming one of the game’s best swingmen. But losing Al is hard, no matter how fun it's going to be to watch Pierce-Allen-KG play together. With Rondo running the point, that's some serious quickness out there, despite the three thirtysomethings.
And hell, maybe Al will come back in a few years.

Posted by tinisoli | July 31, 2007 12:21 PM

It really stung to see Gomes go in this trade. Not because he is a particularly good player...but because the stripped down roster leaves the C's desperate for rotation players. And Gomes really is a nice little role player who could play meaningful minutes on a team like this (the same goes for Delonte West). He's going to be fairly useless on Minnesota, but the Celts could have really used his services. It's a shame Danny couldn't hold on to him.

Posted by owenz | July 31, 2007 12:21 PM

But now they're giving up Jefferson, a pick that should be somewhere around #5, and another first rounder.

Sweet jeebus. People spent the last five months telling us what supernal players Oden and Durant were, and you're treating a #5 pick in that same draft as the same as a potential lottery pick in some other draft. Jeebus.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 31, 2007 12:28 PM

It’s been fun to watch Gerald try to jump into the basket, and he actually is a pretty terrific shooter, with great 3-point range and many 40-point explosions in his future. But the only defensive effort he put forth involved his 40+-inch vertical and trying to spike the ball into the stands and running around like an idiot.

I'm of two minds on Gerald Green. If God were designing a shooting guard, he'd be off to a good start with Green's athleticism, size, and absolutely perfect looking jump shot. Of course, if God does exist, I assume he wouldn't forget to insert a brain into his protypical shooting guard, which seems to be the case with Gerald.

Still, I have little doubt that Green could easily put up Ricky Davis-caliber numbers once he gets his chance. Like Ricky, he doesn't seem like a bad guy...he's just a little confused.

Posted by owenz | July 31, 2007 12:30 PM

I don't think you get the discounted value of future picks.

Jefferson, Ratliff's contract and the #5 pick was the deal that MN took before the draft. Garnett vetoed it.

they took less.

the #5 pick (combined with MN's #7...which even gave them a shot to move up to #1 or #2) in the deepest draft in memory is easily worth two future first round picks. trust me, MN would have much preferred that deal. but Garnett wasn't interested in Boston until they brought Allen in. (Garnett really was willing to stay in MN...he wasn't going to leave just to go to another losing team...he was only going to leave if he had a shot at winning it all.)

MN wasn't going to hold a fire sale.

Posted by Nathan | July 31, 2007 12:44 PM

Nathan I think you're right and wrong. MN would have taken that deal, but it wasn't as good as what they got.

The 2007 draft was deep, but it wasn't particularly top-heavy after Oden and Durant. After Horford at #3, the talent was pretty even for the next 10 picks, so I wouldn't say the #5 was particularly valuable this year.

Would you rather have Jeff Green, or Gerald Green, Ryan Gomes, a high lotto pick next year, and a bonus 1st rounder likely in the 20s? I guess its not obvious one way or the other, but I'd prefer the package they did end up getting.

(Although I suppose the Timberwolves could have taken Noah to speed up their quest to reassemble the 2006-07 Florida Gators)

And you are 100% wrong about moving up to #1 or #2. The #3 and #4 pick wouldn't get you the #2 pick. Both Durant and Oden are worth more than any other two guys in the draft. Short of Dwayne Wade and LeBron James, I'm not sure any team had the assets to pry away those picks from the Pacific Northwest.

Posted by matthew c | July 31, 2007 1:16 PM

No, I got it, but it is true that hoops isn't my game.

Posted by gus | July 31, 2007 2:25 PM

I know this will probably start some McHale-vs-Garnett argument that we've already had, but I'd say that unless KG breaks his leg or something before he plays a couple of seasons in green, he's now on the all-time Celtics starting five: Cousy, Havlicek, Bird, Garnett and Russell.

Posted by too many steves | July 31, 2007 2:28 PM

How is what Minny gets in return for KG better than what LA offered: Bynum + Odom!

That's ridiculous. Jefferson might turn in a 20/10 player, but Odom is already a 15/10/6 player! And Bynum is the most attractive 7 footer in the league.

If Ainge had some brains, he'd arbitrage KG right to the lakers for Bynum and Odom.

Posted by cedichou | July 31, 2007 2:38 PM

"And Bynum is the most attractive 7 footer in the league."
ahem.
if this were really the case, why would you *want* him to be traded for KG, or even Duncan (both of whom are approximately 7 feet tall, but clearly not as 'attractive' as Bynum)?

Posted by jamie | July 31, 2007 3:05 PM

celtics fans need to get over themselves. there are other fans delited just to have teams make the playoffs (e.g., wiz, clippers). to disdain a chance at the finals, even if unlikely to win it all, is silly. and kg plus pierce and ray definitely gives you a shot at winning the east (though i still think a strong defensive team like chicago might take them out earlier than the east finals).

Posted by dj superflat | July 31, 2007 3:09 PM

It's not working arguing with the deranged Laker fan, is it?

Posted by too many steves | July 31, 2007 3:24 PM

"How is what Minny gets in return for KG better than what LA offered: Bynum + Odom!

That's ridiculous. Jefferson might turn in a 20/10 player, but Odom is already a 15/10/6 player! And Bynum is the most attractive 7 footer in the league."

Odom's contract doesn't expire as quickly as Ratliff's, Telfair and Gomes contracts also expire after the upcoming season, the Celts could give Minny back the 1st round pick they traded away with Wally Z and Boston is giving them a very good young big, an athletic prospect and another 1st round pick. Trading for Odom would have prevented Minn from going into complete rebuilding mode.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 31, 2007 3:29 PM

The Boston Herald says the deal is complete and adds this: "Garnett has agreed to a three-year extension with the Celtics beyond the two remaining on his contract, guaranteeing that he will be a Celtic for the next five years."

So, the Celtics are basically headed for luxury land with Pierce, Allen and KG costing $55M a year for the next several years. On the one hand, it is a bit scary to have so much invested in three players. On the other hand, I'm happy that the Celtics ownership is going there.

Posted by owenz | July 31, 2007 3:37 PM

As a 76ers fanboy, I'm ecstatic about this trade -- my team's going nowhere, yet this gives me a stress-free chance to witness the human stat sheet that is Garnett, albeit near his twilight, on a regular basis.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | July 31, 2007 4:34 PM

I watched every Celtics game the past two years (believe it or not) and despite the horrible record it was often entertaining. They were extremely inconsistent, as most teams this young would be, but when they were on they were able to compete with good teams (like Detroit). The biggest problem was closing out tight games at the end, where the inexperience killed them. Except for the time when Pierce was out they rarely had any trouble scoring points. Their defense was just terrible though. Two of the worst offenders in this department were part of this trade: Al Jefferson and Gerald Green. To be fair, they both came to the pros right from highschool, and both really tried to defend - they just never quite figured out team defense, although Jefferson did improve somewhat over the year. Gomes has always been very, very, underrated - he is one of the most versatile players I've seen, and has extremely solid fundamentals. Gerald Green is very athletic, but along with his defensive weaknesses he has only two offensive moves: the dunk, and the 3-pointer (and he is very good at both). Al Jefferson will be a star, at least on the offensive end. I think both teams made a good deal on this trade. It is a bit of a gamble whether the Celtics rookie bench will rise to the challenge this year, but I expect they will make the Eastern finals.

Posted by GlenO | July 31, 2007 4:35 PM

Sorry, I got distracted by this Rashard Lewis fan site -- what was that again?

Don't bother clicking, folks -- it just redirects you to a Carlos Boozer fansite.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | July 31, 2007 4:53 PM

the #5 pick (combined with MN's #7...which even gave them a shot to move up to #1 or #2)

Ahh, no not so much. Portland and Seattle weren't going to trade those picks unless they were offered the 27 year old version of Michael Jordan.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | August 1, 2007 12:22 AM

Well, if we have discerned anything in this long conversation it's that Yglesias' initial point shows that he probably cannot be taken very seriously as a basketball pundit. This is not a sad offer by any means. We can discuss the relative merits of it, and compare the players, but to call this a sad offer is to display a remarkable obtuseness.

I'm in the camp of AJ becoming a great, great player. Those who say he will never be a Garnett? Very premature. I see this as a tradeoff for C's fans -- relevance now and for the next 2-3 years while hopefully they can build with MLE signings, young guys develop (anyone who forgets Tony Allen is a fool -- if his knees hold up he will be a very good player in the leaqgue) and the like. But in ten years AJ will be a perennial All Star. I hate to see him go, and initially was opposed to this deal, but then I try to think of the entire arc -- we do not know how long we will have them together, but Pierce-Allen-garnett is not a pretty good or good top three. It is a great top three in a bad conference.

Like with most trades, we need to step away and give it time, but both teams really could win this one. It does not of necessity have to be a zero-sum game.

dcat

Posted by Derek Catsam | August 1, 2007 12:42 AM

"I'm in the camp of AJ becoming a great, great player. Those who say he will never be a Garnett? Very premature."

Well, there have only been 30 or 40 players in NBA history as good as Kevin Garnett, so I don't think it's premature to say Jefferson probably won't be as good as KG.

Posted by too many steves | August 1, 2007 1:30 PM

But in ten years AJ will be a perennial All Star.

Cripes. I don't even know where to begin. So your point is that when AJ is a year older than KG is today, he'll be great? Damn, that's an excellent point.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 1, 2007 1:43 PM

The deal made sense to me from Boston's perspective for Jefferson or picks, not Jefferson and picks.

I'm reasonably certain that Minny has never had (and will never have) a better offer on the table than Jefferson and a high lottery pick.

First, the 2d pick is simply returning a conditional pick to Mn they got in the Ricky Davis trade. Due to weird contingencies in the original trade and due to Mn owing another #1 to (seattle?) that takes precedence, this pick was likely to end up being a second rounder.

Second, the Celtics own pick they sent to Mn is a) lottery protected, and b) likely (now after this trade) to be a rather low first rounder. So in effect, they gave them a 1st rounder in the 20s and a second rounder.

Posted by Roger | August 1, 2007 1:49 PM

Roger, I read somewhere it was top 3-protected, not lottery protected (which would be top 14). Probably moot because there's no reason the Celtics aren't in the playoffs.

Posted by matthew c | August 1, 2007 2:20 PM

Yup. But now they're giving up Jefferson, a pick that should be somewhere around #5, and another first rounder.

What you're failing to understand is that there is no way the Celts were going to get that pick. The Mn pick in question is protected. If it falls outside the proctection (and #5 might), then it goes to Seattle (I think) as part of a deal that takes precedence. And the next year, the pick reverts to a 2d rounder per conditions on the original trade. I have no idea WHY, but it does.

Posted by Roger | August 1, 2007 2:45 PM

Roger, I read somewhere it was top 3-protected, not lottery protected (which would be top 14). Probably moot because there's no reason the Celtics aren't in the playoffs.

Ok, I'll try to recap the picks again more clearly. As I understand them.

The first is Boston's #1 from 2009. Given the trio of PP, KG and RA, thats liable to be at best, 20th. Somewhere in the 20s.

The second pick was a return of the pick they got from Mn in the Ricky Davis trade. This is where it gets confusing. a) Some other team has first crack at any Mn 1st rounder. I believe Mn doesn't have a 2008 1st rounder. So, they aren't liable to be giving their 2009 1st rounder to Boston (pre KG trade), and if it goes out past 2009, the pick reverts to a 2d rounder per some bizarre condition of the original Ricky Davis trade. I have no idea WHY, but there it is. The pick Boston is sending back apprently was highly unlikely to be anything other than a 2d rounder.

Posted by Roger | August 1, 2007 3:07 PM

As a Boston fan, I'm thrilled about the trade as you might imagine. I never thought McHale could trade Garnett to the Celtics, but somehow it happened. The other deals out there simply weren't as good. McHale has no need for Odom, he's looking for young players, so the Lakers simply didn't have the firepower to get the deal done.

And Al Jefferson will be a stud. Will he ever be as good as Garnett? Hell no. But he will be as good of a low post scorer IMO, just not as good a passer, leader, defender, and probably rebounder. But the rebounds are closer than you'd think.

Gerald Green? He's a wild card. He's got talent, but other than a sweet sweet 3 point shot he doesn't have a lot of basketball skills and has a very low BBIQ. I don't ever see him being an All-Star, but you never know.

Telfair was simply a salary dump - his contract expires at the end of this year, so like Ratliff, this was McHale getting cap flexibility.

Gomes needed to be thrown in to make the salaries work. Nice player, but a bench player on a strong playoff team IMO.

And the Celtics get Garnett. The best player to be traded in years, because Garnett right now is better than Shaq was when he was traded to Miami.

All in all, the Celtics did great, they should compete for the Finals this year and if they can pick up a veteran or two that can play defense, they should be able to beat any team in the league.

Posted by The CarpetMuncher | August 1, 2007 3:58 PM