would you trade Hayward for Gobert after this season?

With the play of Tatum and Brown over the first half of this season, I think I would make that call.

Of course Hayward would have to allow the trade back to Utah. but adding Gobert (who is under contract through 2020-2021 season) would balance this team out nicely.

we'd also free up money to resign Smart to a market deal in the off-season with that move.

Gobert
Horford
Tatum
Brown
Irving

Smart
Morris
Rozier
Theis
Ojelye
Yabusele
Nader

all also under contract then

add one or two first round picks and Danny might even have room to bring Baynes back if he doesn't want a bigger deal.

we all know Danny will trade anyone.

No.

Nyet. Non. Oxi. Nein.

Would the Jazz make the trade? Its not a Kyrie situation. Gobert hasn't asked to be traded. Hopefully, Hayward will be as good as ever, but currently he is damaged goods.

I am assuming this is a joke.

Dboss

Is this The Onion?

KJ

I wasn't joking at all.

we have an abundance of wing players, enough right now to be an elite NBA team without Hayward.

who's minutes will he take when he comes back?

Our roster is unbalanced right now and someone will likely be moved in the off-season, IMO.

Tatum or Brown?

Nah, I would prefer to keep both of them now, even over Hayward.

most Celtics fans feel the one thing we need is a big man with size to move to the next level.

on other threads many are salivating at the thought of getting the Lakers pick, only so we can draft that possible big man.

so why not try to get one who has proven he is elite on the defensive side of the ball and is under contract for three more years.

Will it happen, likely not I suppose. But then most didn't think Danny would trade IT last year either.

jrleftfoot wrote:Would the Jazz make the trade? Its not a Kyrie situation. Gobert hasn't asked to be traded. Hopefully, Hayward will be as good as ever, but currently he is  damaged goods.

I noted after this season. Hayward and Gobert both are injured right now ( though Gobert's is not year long).

would Utah want Hayward back....why not?

the biggest question IF this was ever a possibility, is would Hayward waive his no trade clause.

kdp,

Kind of funny you bring this up. If anyone watched the ESPN/NBA TV post-game broadcast last night, Paul Pierce & Co. touched on this very subject. They addressed it a little more broadly; rather than saying 'would you trade Hayward?' they pointed out Boston has too many wings. In briefly discussing possibilities, they simply mentioned that Hayward has not been needed thanks to Tatum and Brown, and they specifically mentioned Smart and Rozier as adding to an overload of wings, several of whom could be used in trade to fill other needs.

Compliments on calling it as you see it. You may be ahead of most of us here in your thinking.

I'll go as far as to say I agree with you. How could the team at least not look at what Hayward could bring back? I'd venture that Ainge would be committing GM malpractice if he didn't at least consider the possibilities. If anyone thinks we absolutely need Hayward, they simply need to go look at the standings and watch some video of Tatum and Brown. I don't know about Gobert specifically, but if I had to lose Hayward in order to keep Tatum and Brown while acquiring that kind of big? Heck yes! It's a business, and the goal is banner #18. Whatever hangs that banner is fair consideration.

Regards

In overcoming the Hayward injury, many young Celtics have seen an increase in their minutes and the load they are being asked to carry. This could be considered a silver lining in an otherwise awful situation. But I dont see how anyone can look at this team circa January 2018, and not see the value and importance of adding back Gordon.

In the modern NBA of positionless basketball, I see a starting line up of:
Irving, Brown, Hayward, Tatum and Horford. This gives you a team full of shooters, who can all switch, space the floor, and play defense interchangeably.

Tatum and Hayward could both get some time at PF (if that even is a position any longer) and in instances where you need more strength - you start Baynes or Morris (or whomever they have as a big next season), and bring Tatum off the bench.

I dont personally see how Gobert would be better on this team than Hayward....and I dont see a skill set in Brown or Tatum that replaces what Gordon brings to the table.

The biggest question I see for both teams in this possible trade scenario would be Hayard's health status by next July.

Right now there is no way that anyone would give up a dominating player like Gobert for an ex-all star who cannot play. If for some reason Hayward can show that he is 100% healthy, it could be a totally different story.

For different reasons I can see the Cs being better next year with either Hayward or Gobert as both are exceptional players at their positions, but I would very much like to see Hayward with the Celtics.

Okay so this is not a joke question.  I thought that it was.

My answer is no I would not trade Hayward for Gobert after this season.

The Celtics have had the hots for Hayward for several years and his Allstar selection last year (in a conference loaded with high quality SF's) confirmed that he has arrived.

The Celtics are not overloaded with wings but they are in need of help in the middle. But despite that need Hayward brings more to the table than Gobert.  Gobert is a challenged offensive player who does not pass the ball and who is slow getting up and down the court. He can only score on alleyopps and is a hack-a shaq-player at the line.   If you are looking for a pace game he does not a fit.

Hayward will be our # 2 option next year.  He is not damaged goods.  He got injured and is expected to make a full recovery.  Hayward is a perfect fit for the way Boston wants to play.  

The fact is that Boston does not have to trade one of their A players to get a B player.  Remember we still have drafts picks on the table and will have an excellent opportunity to add a center in June.  And despite the need to add another defensive minded front line play let us not overlook the facts.  Boston is already an elite level defensive team.

There is no way I would even entertain the thought of trading Hayward for Gobert.

dboss

I wasn't saying that I would trade Hayward for Gobert. I was simply expressing the opinion that his current health status woul probably affect  their willingness to make the deal.Oh, and the fact that he left them for the Celtics. Boston did, after all , outbid them for his sevices. So now, they will trade for him and  take the contract the Celtics gave him? His injury makes him more valuable? Even assuming their bid was equal to that of the Cs, he didn't choose to re-sign with them. I don't think either team would make the deal.

dboss wrote:Okay so this is not a joke question.  I thought that it was.

My answer is no I would not trade Hayward for Gobert after this season.

The Celtics have had the hots for Hayward for several years and his Allstar selection last year (in a conference loaded with high quality SF's) confirmed that he has arrived.

The Celtics are not overloaded with wings but they are in need of help in the middle. But despite that need Hayward brings more to the table than Gobert.  Gobert is a challenged offensive player who does not pass the ball and who is slow getting up and down the court. He can only score on alleyopps and is a hack-a shaq-player at the line.   If you are looking for a pace game he does not a fit.

Hayward will be our # 2 option next year.  He is not damaged goods.  He got injured and is expected to make a full recovery.  Hayward is a perfect fit for the way Boston wants to play.  

The fact is that Boston does not have to trade one of their A players to get a B player.  Remember we still have drafts picks on the table and will have an excellent opportunity to add a center in June.  And despite the need to add another defensive minded front line play let us not overlook the facts.  Boston is already an elite level defensive team.

There is no way I would even entertain the thought of trading Hayward for Gobert.

dboss

one thing that also needs to be considered is the contracts of each player.

Hayward gets north of $31M next season
Gobert $23.5M

Like I said that difference could allow the Celtics to pay Smart enough to stay.

looking at it from that perspective its Gobert and Smart for Hayward.

I agree that this is something NOT likely to even be explored by the Jazz and Boston.

I would still do it, if it allows us to keep our younger core together longer. but I can be a bit nutty at times

I feel like you can never have enough versatile wings,  like arms in baseball you can never have enough.  Lord knows injuries happen and even if we are all healthy there are more than enough minutes to go around.

As for trading him....  with that salary it would be difficult plus who would want him not even knowing how he’ll be when he’s able to play?


beat

kdp59 wrote:

dboss wrote:Okay so this is not a joke question.  I thought that it was.

My answer is no I would not trade Hayward for Gobert after this season.

The Celtics have had the hots for Hayward for several years and his Allstar selection last year (in a conference loaded with high quality SF's) confirmed that he has arrived.

The Celtics are not overloaded with wings but they are in need of help in the middle. But despite that need Hayward brings more to the table than Gobert.  Gobert is a challenged offensive player who does not pass the ball and who is slow getting up and down the court. He can only score on alleyopps and is a hack-a shaq-player at the line.   If you are looking for a pace game he does not a fit.

Hayward will be our # 2 option next year.  He is not damaged goods.  He got injured and is expected to make a full recovery.  Hayward is a perfect fit for the way Boston wants to play.  

The fact is that Boston does not have to trade one of their A players to get a B player.  Remember we still have drafts picks on the table and will have an excellent opportunity to add a center in June.  And despite the need to add another defensive minded front line play let us not overlook the facts.  Boston is already an elite level defensive team.

There is no way I would even entertain the thought of trading Hayward for Gobert.

dboss

one thing that also needs to be considered is the contracts of each player.

Hayward gets north of $31M next season
Gobert $23.5M

Like I said that difference could allow the Celtics to pay Smart enough to stay.

looking at it from that perspective its Gobert and Smart for Hayward.

I agree that this is something NOT likely to even be explored by the Jazz and Boston.

I would still do it, if it allows us to keep our younger core together longer. but I can be a bit nutty at times

kdp59

I just do not see Boston moving Hayward to save money. After all they already cleared cap space to sign him in the first place. And as far as Marcus is concerned Danny did not offer him an extension this year and is just as likely to keep him as he is to let him walk.

So trading Hayward for Gorbert, a player that is not as good as Hayward is a nonstarter for me. And as far as Marcus is concerned unless he improves his offense his tenure with the Celtics could be over this season.

There are not a lot of teams out there with cap space going into next season but teams like LA or even Philly are very much in need of a defensive minded guard and may be more then willing to put $15-$18 million on the table for Marcus Smart. Marcus has tremendous value for the Celtics at $5 million but what about more than $12?

dboss

Are you serious?? This is a joke right??? Gordon Hayward is going no where. After all they went thru to get him, for what he has gone through, for his relationship with Brad, This was a move they were dying to make for two years.

Be serious please

Rosalie,

I don't know that the odds of it happening are high, but I think a very good argument could be made for dealing Hayward.

When he was obtained, Brown, Tatum and Irving were either unknown quantities, or not yet Celtics. The three of them have Hayward's skills covered and then some.

We need a center and a little better bench and we can seriously talk about taking on the west. It's going to take a lot to either get into position to draft the center we need or deal for one. Why not Hayward?

As was pointed out on last night's broadcast, Hayward, Tatum and Brown create a surplus we don't need. Throw Smart and Rozier into the mix and there are 5 solid wings. We probably should keep at least 3. We could part with either Smart or Rozier, but you need one of them for the bench. Neither is a big enough name to bring us a good deal, not even combined with a pick. That leaves Brown, Tatum and Hayward. We can afford to part with one to combine with Smart or Rozier, and maybe a pick as well. Now you've got the makings of an attractive trade package. Hayward, Brown and Tatum are all young enough to be around for quite a while, but which two do you keep? My thinking is that Tatum is probably the most valuable long-term, so he stays. Brown or Hayward? Brown may never be quite what Hayward is, but he's strong enough to hold down the wing/2-guard spot in combination with Tatum and Irving. Not many stronger scoring trios 25 and under in the league. Hayward is a bonafide star, but also carries a bigger contract than Tatum or Brown will for some time. Some teams in decent cap shape might be willing to take in that salary, and he undeniably has about as high a trade value as anyone we have.

It makes perfect sense from almost every standpoint. We need a center, a damn good one. We need value to obtain him. We seem to be fine in the shooting department without Hayward, but need rebounding and interior presence. We could swap Hayward and put the finishing touch on a championship squad.

I'm not predicting we do it, but it wouldn't surprise me if we did. If you trade Thomas after he has one of the best single seasons of any Celtic, in order to take another step forward, why not trade a star you don't really seem to need, to acquire the player that brings the next title?

I would be all for it personally.

Regards

NYCelt wrote:Rosalie,

I don't know that the odds of it happening are high, but I think a very good argument could be made for dealing Hayward.

When he was obtained, Brown, Tatum and Irving were either unknown quantities, or not yet Celtics. The three of them have Hayward's skills covered and then some.

We need a center and a little better bench and we can seriously talk about taking on the west. It's going to take a lot to either get into position to draft the center we need or deal for one. Why not Hayward?

As was pointed out on last night's broadcast, Hayward, Tatum and Brown create a surplus we don't need. Throw Smart and Rozier into the mix and there are 5 solid wings. We probably should keep at least 3. We could part with either Smart or Rozier, but you need one of them for the bench. Neither is a big enough name to bring us a good deal, not even combined with a pick. That leaves Brown, Tatum and Hayward. We can afford to part with one to combine with Smart or Rozier, and maybe a pick as well. Now you've got the makings of an attractive trade package. Hayward, Brown and Tatum are all young enough to be around for quite a while, but which two do you keep? My thinking is that Tatum is probably the most valuable long-term, so he stays. Brown or Hayward? Brown may never be quite what Hayward is, but he's strong enough to hold down the wing/2-guard spot in combination with Tatum and Irving. Not many stronger scoring trios 25 and under in the league. Hayward is a bonafide star, but also carries a bigger contract than Tatum or Brown will for some time. Some teams in decent cap shape might be willing to take in that salary, and he undeniably has about as high a trade value as anyone we have.

It makes perfect sense from almost every standpoint. We need a center, a damn good one. We need value to obtain him. We seem to be fine in the shooting department without Hayward, but need rebounding and interior presence. We could swap Hayward and put the finishing touch on a championship squad.

I'm not predicting we do it, but it wouldn't surprise me if we did. If you trade Thomas after he has one of the best single seasons of any Celtic, in order to take another step forward, why not trade a star you don't really seem to need, to acquire the player that brings the next title?

I would be all for it personally.

Regards

Nice analysis NY

Shamrock1000 wrote:

NYCelt wrote:Rosalie,

I don't know that the odds of it happening are high, but I think a very good argument could be made for dealing Hayward.

When he was obtained, Brown, Tatum and Irving were either unknown quantities, or not yet Celtics. The three of them have Hayward's skills covered and then some.

We need a center and a little better bench and we can seriously talk about taking on the west. It's going to take a lot to either get into position to draft the center we need or deal for one. Why not Hayward?

As was pointed out on last night's broadcast, Hayward, Tatum and Brown create a surplus we don't need. Throw Smart and Rozier into the mix and there are 5 solid wings. We probably should keep at least 3. We could part with either Smart or Rozier, but you need one of them for the bench. Neither is a big enough name to bring us a good deal, not even combined with a pick. That leaves Brown, Tatum and Hayward. We can afford to part with one to combine with Smart or Rozier, and maybe a pick as well. Now you've got the makings of an attractive trade package. Hayward, Brown and Tatum are all young enough to be around for quite a while, but which two do you keep? My thinking is that Tatum is probably the most valuable long-term, so he stays. Brown or Hayward? Brown may never be quite what Hayward is, but he's strong enough to hold down the wing/2-guard spot in combination with Tatum and Irving. Not many stronger scoring trios 25 and under in the league. Hayward is a bonafide star, but also carries a bigger contract than Tatum or Brown will for some time. Some teams in decent cap shape might be willing to take in that salary, and he undeniably has about as high a trade value as anyone we have.

It makes perfect sense from almost every standpoint. We need a center, a damn good one. We need value to obtain him. We seem to be fine in the shooting department without Hayward, but need rebounding and interior presence. We could swap Hayward and put the finishing touch on a championship squad.

I'm not predicting we do it, but it wouldn't surprise me if we did. If you trade Thomas after he has one of the best single seasons of any Celtic, in order to take another step forward, why not trade a star you don't really seem to need, to acquire the player that brings the next title?

I would be all for it personally.

Regards

Nice analysis NY

The one thing I would add though is that, as others have pointed out, Gordon's trade value will be deflated until he shows he has comes back as the same player he was.

NYCelt wrote:Rosalie,

I don't know that the odds of it happening are high, but I think a very good argument could be made for dealing Hayward.

When he was obtained, Brown, Tatum and Irving were either unknown quantities, or not yet Celtics. The three of them have Hayward's skills covered and then some.

We need a center and a little better bench and we can seriously talk about taking on the west. It's going to take a lot to either get into position to draft the center we need or deal for one. Why not Hayward?

As was pointed out on last night's broadcast, Hayward, Tatum and Brown create a surplus we don't need. Throw Smart and Rozier into the mix and there are 5 solid wings. We probably should keep at least 3. We could part with either Smart or Rozier, but you need one of them for the bench. Neither is a big enough name to bring us a good deal, not even combined with a pick. That leaves Brown, Tatum and Hayward. We can afford to part with one to combine with Smart or Rozier, and maybe a pick as well. Now you've got the makings of an attractive trade package. Hayward, Brown and Tatum are all young enough to be around for quite a while, but which two do you keep? My thinking is that Tatum is probably the most valuable long-term, so he stays. Brown or Hayward? Brown may never be quite what Hayward is, but he's strong enough to hold down the wing/2-guard spot in combination with Tatum and Irving. Not many stronger scoring trios 25 and under in the league. Hayward is a bonafide star, but also carries a bigger contract than Tatum or Brown will for some time. Some teams in decent cap shape might be willing to take in that salary, and he undeniably has about as high a trade value as anyone we have.

It makes perfect sense from almost every standpoint. We need a center, a damn good one. We need value to obtain him. We seem to be fine in the shooting department without Hayward, but need rebounding and interior presence. We could swap Hayward and put the finishing touch on a championship squad.

I'm not predicting we do it, but it wouldn't surprise me if we did. If you trade Thomas after he has one of the best single seasons of any Celtic, in order to take another step forward, why not trade a star you don't really seem to need, to acquire the player that brings the next title?

I would be all for it personally.

Regards

Why do you need a "center" at an all star to be successful?

Warriors dont have a great "center" / Houston doesnt have a great "center"/ Cavs dont have a great "center"/ Washington doesnt have a great "center" - those great Miami Heat teams didnt have a great "center". Add to that, people like Gobert, Embid, Towns, Davis - for all their hype, have one exactly nothing.

The Celtics are likely to end up with another great draft pick and my find their big man of the future in June, but I see the NBA trending going exactly away from worrying about positions.

Celtics put Horford, Tatum, Brown, Hayward and Irving on the court and they compete with ANY team.

mrkleen09 wrote:

NYCelt wrote:Rosalie,

I don't know that the odds of it happening are high, but I think a very good argument could be made for dealing Hayward.

When he was obtained, Brown, Tatum and Irving were either unknown quantities, or not yet Celtics. The three of them have Hayward's skills covered and then some.

We need a center and a little better bench and we can seriously talk about taking on the west. It's going to take a lot to either get into position to draft the center we need or deal for one. Why not Hayward?

As was pointed out on last night's broadcast, Hayward, Tatum and Brown create a surplus we don't need. Throw Smart and Rozier into the mix and there are 5 solid wings. We probably should keep at least 3. We could part with either Smart or Rozier, but you need one of them for the bench. Neither is a big enough name to bring us a good deal, not even combined with a pick. That leaves Brown, Tatum and Hayward. We can afford to part with one to combine with Smart or Rozier, and maybe a pick as well. Now you've got the makings of an attractive trade package. Hayward, Brown and Tatum are all young enough to be around for quite a while, but which two do you keep? My thinking is that Tatum is probably the most valuable long-term, so he stays. Brown or Hayward? Brown may never be quite what Hayward is, but he's strong enough to hold down the wing/2-guard spot in combination with Tatum and Irving. Not many stronger scoring trios 25 and under in the league. Hayward is a bonafide star, but also carries a bigger contract than Tatum or Brown will for some time. Some teams in decent cap shape might be willing to take in that salary, and he undeniably has about as high a trade value as anyone we have.

It makes perfect sense from almost every standpoint. We need a center, a damn good one. We need value to obtain him. We seem to be fine in the shooting department without Hayward, but need rebounding and interior presence. We could swap Hayward and put the finishing touch on a championship squad.

I'm not predicting we do it, but it wouldn't surprise me if we did. If you trade Thomas after he has one of the best single seasons of any Celtic, in order to take another step forward, why not trade a star you don't really seem to need, to acquire the player that brings the next title?

I would be all for it personally.

Regards

Why do you need a "center" at an all star to be successful?

Warriors dont have a great "center" / Houston doesnt have a great "center"/ Cavs dont have a great "center"/ Washington doesnt have a great "center" - those great Miami Heat teams didnt have a great "center".  Add to that, people like Gobert, Embid, Towns, Davis - for all their hype, have one exactly nothing.

The Celtics are likely to end up with another great draft pick and my find their big man of the future in June, but I see the NBA trending going exactly away from worrying about positions.

Celtics put Horford, Tatum, Brown, Hayward and Irving on the court and they compete with ANY team.  

All true, but the Celtics are thin at the "big". Note that I am not for trading Gordon - I am dying to see what they can do with him healthy - just considering all the angles.

Hi,
I’ll put myself into “it’s a very bad idea- not going to happen “ camp.
The only players I’d consider to trade GH for are AD, KD or Freak
In addition to all other arguments against, there’s a strong possibility that this trade cripples if not completely destroys team’s chemistry

AK

MrKleen,

True, the Warriors don't have a traditional center. I think that they have a roster that sufficiently compensates for that, however.

I feel that for Boston to compete at the highest level, we're deficient in rebounding and inside play on both ends. To me, adding a traditional center to what we have completes the picture. Rebounding, interior defense and a low post presence that can score. Add that to what we now have and the Celtics become one incredibly tough out IMO.

For all the talk about change in the way the game is played in the NBA, I see very little of it. The Celtics haven't moved toward a position-less type of lineup at all.

While I also think our opening night lineup of Irving, Horford, Tatum, Brown, and Hayward is a dangerous scoring threat, I think that lineup becomes more dangerous at both ends minus one of the wings while adding another big. If Horford is still part of the equation, though, it can't be just any big. Horford can stretch the floor, but is less of an inside presence. That's exactly while I feel a big, traditional, low post monster is the solution.

Right now Golden State and Cleveland dominate without one, but look at the rest of their lineups. Both feature generational type forces of nature like James, Curry and Durant. Most teams don't have that. We don't. That's why I think we're seeing the emphasis on developing young bigs like Davis, Embiid, Towns and Gortat. They haven't won it yet because of the current, unusual, era, led by Cleveland and Golden State with their respective collections, including players who will enter the debate of top few ever at their position. In my opinion, the return of the center is pounding at the door. Besides the young centers I mentioned earlier, two of the early front-runners as most prized in the upcoming draft are Ayton and Bamba. Big, long, 7' centers who can play inside.

This thread got really interesting, in my view, when kdp mentioned dealing a star we may not really need right after it was discussed in last night's game. I'm not saying I do or don't expect to see it happen, but I'd bet it has been or will be considered. If it's debated by a rank amateur like me, and by analysts who played not only in the league but for the GM involved, it makes sense to me that it should at least get tossed around in the front office.

I think Hayward makes most sense as the odd man out. He can give us shooting and some decent defense. We seem to have enough of that to have one of the top two records at the halfway point this season. What we lack is rebounding and interior/low post play at either end. That's not Hayward's forte.

I do expect a trade of some kind involving wings this offseason. We simply don't need 5 good ones to compete. Trading a couple of them could just bring us those missing skills. So who goes? Who would make the most sense? I feel for reasons I mentioned earlier; Hayward.

Regards

sinus007 wrote:Hi,
I’ll put myself into “it’s a very bad idea- not going to happen “ camp.
The only players I’d consider to trade GH for are AD, KD or Freak
In addition to all other arguments against, there’s a strong possibility that this trade cripples if not completely destroys team’s chemistry

AK

AK,

Just a thought...

How do you destroy team chemistry by removing a player who played less than 5 minutes for the team?

Thomas was removed after a season for the team history books, the team was taken down to 4 returning players, and chemistry seems OK.

Regards