Jae Crowder?

[Blob]

The Celtics are trying to land Paul George (19.3M) and Gordon Hayward (max player). They need to clear space to get these two players with starting salaries adding up to over 40M. They are one of the few teams with a glut of wings, with Tatum and Jalen Brown. The odd man out could be Jae Crowder.

Crowder is 26 years old under contract for next three years for peanuts (6.8M 7.3M 7.8M). He has 2:1 assist to turnovers, made 60% TS and was instrumental player on a 53 win team. Tough defender. This guy could be our starting small forward and perfect complement to our 1st and 2nd year guys.

For the cost he would be far better value than Otto or Tony Snell to fill our void at SF. I don't know if the Pacers would want him in a trade for George. I think they would because he's such great value and glue player. But I also know they are building around Myles Turner who turned 21 this Spring and perhaps want assets to go with his timeline.

Perhaps we can get in on this action to facilitate the trade, to help the Celtics clear space they need and take bad contracts from one or both teams:

• (BOS Tyler Zeller: 1 year 8M)
• (IND Monta Ellis: 11.2M 11.7M)
• (IND Al Jefferson 9.8M).

If we take two of these contracts to facilitate the trade then the effective cost of Crowder is 3 years / 50 million. He would command that on the open market. I think it would great if we could pull something off like this. I would also consider including the rights to Justin Jackson in this trade. I don't want to trade him but having a guy like Crowder would solidify our roster substantially.

 

[Jimbob]

I'm not sure about all the trade aspects to land Crowder, but I would like him as a King.
He is still young enough, almost 27, to grow with our youth, and would bring Justin Jackson along nicely.
It's unfortunate that Malachi is seeming like the odd man out with Bogdan signing and the apparent search for a seasoned SF.

 

[ParniValjak]

I'm not sure about all the trade aspects to land Crowder, but I would like him as a King.
He is still young enough, almost 27, to grow with our youth, and would bring Justin Jackson along nicely.
It's unfortunate that Malachi is seeming like the odd man out with Bogdan signing and the apparent search for a seasoned SF.

Crowder is one of the best contracts in the league and he would be excellent for us. I just can't see Ainge letting him go lightly.

 

[Kingsfan91]

Crowder is one of the best contracts in the league and he would be excellent for us. I just can't see Ainge letting him go lightly.

I agree, and with that contract there isn't really a reason for him to trade crowder. I think the only thing he trades him for would be Paul George to make a run at the Warriors and Cavs.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

bogdanovic, hield, richardson, temple, jj

thats a glut of wings. if temple or richardson slides over to the 3 we maybe alright.

 

[The Hammer]

bogdanovic, hield, richardson, temple, jj

thats a glut of wings. if temple or richardson slides over to the 3 we maybe alright.

I have to think that is the plan, since each of these picks were made with such precision. Keep Temple for mentorship/backup as these guys mature and fight out the pecking order.

 

[twslam07]

Again, cart before the horse. Find your stars first and then focus on bringing in excellent role players like Crowder.

 

[Ozymandias]

All for it but I think Ainge asks for too much in return. He's tough and a great lockerroom player also a good 3pt shooter.

 

[Blob]

All for it but I think Ainge asks for too much in return. He's tough and a great lockerroom player also a good 3pt shooter.

Ainge has priority to add Hayward and George to become the favorites in the East over the Cavs. He is likely going to want to retain Jaylen Brown and Tatum. There's not enough room for all these guys and Crowder. The Pacers would likely want to obtain Crowder as George replacement. But this is where we can step in and steal him by taking on their bad contracts and be compensated for our role. It's a long shot but worth the effort relative to throwing 100M at Otto Porter, a futile plan if there ever was one.

 

[Blob]

Again, cart before the horse. Find your stars first and then focus on bringing in excellent role players like Crowder.

We may have our stars in Fox, Buddy and Skal....and even Giles. What you say is nonsense given conspicuous void at SF and league leading cap space. Crowder represents opportunity based on Celtics need to consolidate assets and Pacers need to rebuild around Turner with franchise guy wanting out. This could be ideal for us to swoop in and make out like bandits by renting cap space and being rewarded for doing so. It is a long shot but more creative and prudent approach then throwing 100M at a player with no intention of leaving or bottom feeding in free agency for the next Affalo or Barnes.

 

[twslam07]

We may have our stars in Fox, Buddy and Skal....and even Giles. What you say is nonsense given conspicuous void at SF and league leading cap space. Crowder represents opportunity based on Celtics need to consolidate assets and Pacers need to rebuild around Turner with franchise guy wanting out. This could be ideal for us to swoop in and make out like bandits by renting cap space and being rewarded for doing so. It is a long shot but more creative and prudent approach then throwing 100M at a player with no intention of leaving or bottom feeding in free agency for the next Affalo or Barnes.

You're right. We MAY have our stars. We don't know, and until we know, we keep making moves that gives us the best shot at acquiring a young star. To do that, you need to stay out of treadmill territory which is what these types of players can do to us.

I also find this quote hilarious:

But I also know they are building around Myles Turner who turned 21 this Spring and perhaps want assets to go with his timeline.

So you're saying the Pacers might potentially prefer assets that go with the 21 year old Turner's timeline but our young core of Fox (19), Giles (19), Papagiannis (19), Labissiere (21), Richardson (21), Jackson (22), Cauley-Stein (23), Hield (23), Mason (23), & Bogdanovic (24) is so old that Crowder makes sense for us? Pick a side and stick to it. You can't make this case for the Pacers only to say that we would do something different when 3 of the 4 potential stars you mentioned are younger (Fox - 19 / Giles - 19) or the same age (Labissiere - 21).

People need to seriously consider the consequences of trying to build too quickly. The worst thing you can do is load up on a bunch of decent to good players and stay in mediocrity for the next 10 years. We have one goal at the moment and that is to find young star players. Whether that is through developing your current youth and/or setting your team up for high draft picks. Anything that stalls either of those should most likely not be acted on.

 

[Hoovtrain]

Would love Crowder

 

[kingsboi]

at what cost though? Boston might value him more than we would. Give Bogdan and Justin minutes at the 3, sprinkle in Malachi from time to time. Positions aren't what they used to be anymore, if the players are good enough to play, they will find a way to get on the court.

 

[Blob]

You're right. We MAY have our stars. We don't know, and until we know, we keep making moves that gives us the best shot at acquiring a star. To do that, you need to stay out of treadmill territory which is what these types of players can do to us.

I also find this quote hilarious:



So you're saying the Pacers might potentially prefer assets that go with the 21 year old Turner's timeline but our young core of Fox (19), Giles (19), Papagiannis (19), Labissiere (21), Richardson (21), Jackson (22), Cauley-Stein (23), Hield (23), Mason (23), & Bogdanovic (24) is so old that Crowder makes sense for us? Pick a side and stick to it. You can't make this case for the Pacers only to say that we would do something different when 3 of the 4 potential stars you mentioned are younger (Fox - 19 / Giles - 19) or the same age (Labissiere - 21).

People need to seriously consider the consequences of trying to build too quickly. The worst thing you can do is load up on a bunch of decent to good players and stay in mediocrity for the next 10 years. We have one goal at the moment and that is to find young star players. Whether that is through developing your current youth and/or setting your team up for high draft picks. Anything that stalls either of those should most likely not be acted on.

You have a problem with comprehension. And you are unnecessarily combative. If I include the word "perhaps" I am not making a definitive statement. You want to play games of "gotcha" to try to feel superior in your opinions. Who in their right mind as NBA fan would reject idea of adding Crowder who is playing for peanuts and instrumental starter on a 50 win team?
Who would make a ridiculous comment like "putting the cart before the horse" when we have a conspicuous void at SF? You think this void should remain unfilled or manned by SGs so we can get a high pick in 2018? That's fine but IMHO that is a losers mentality. That is postponing success for a day that may never come. If we address the void we have at SF in fiscally responsible way, that makes us more competitive next season. It reduces the pressure on young guys to produce. You want our young guys to succeed? Then you put them in best position possible to succeed by putting proven pros around them. I didn't say the Pacers would not want Crowder. In fact, I said they probably would. But I said we could possibly induce them to send Crowder to us in exchange for taking unwanted salary and/or possibly sending the rights to Justin Jackson. The fallacy to your opinion is that a team of all rookies and 2nd year players is the optimal course of action next season. Why? So we can lose 50+ games and culture change we are aspiring to is contradicted by our win / loss? This is not a plan. This is intentionally tanking and undermining the assets you are investing in. That is not how turnaround a moribund franchise. That is perpetuating more losing but setting up the conditions to guarantee it so.

 

[datamanwes]

Crowder would fit in nicely on our team, Player wise and Salary wise, Just depends what it takes to get him

 

[twslam07]

You have a problem with comprehension. And you are unnecessarily combative. If I include the word "perhaps" I am not making a definitive statement. You want to play games of "gotcha" to try to feel superior in your opinions. Who in their right mind as NBA fan would reject idea of adding Crowder who is playing for peanuts and instrumental starter on a 50 win team?
Who would make a ridiculous comment like "putting the cart before the horse" when we have a conspicuous void at SF? You think this void should remain unfilled or manned by SGs so we can get a high pick in 2018? That's fine but IMHO that is a losers mentality. That is postponing success for a day that may never come. If we address the void we have at SF in fiscally responsible way, that makes us more competitive next season. It reduces the pressure on young guys to produce. You want our young guys to succeed? Then you put them in best position possible to succeed by putting proven pros around them. I didn't say the Pacers would not want Crowder. In fact, I said they probably would. But I said we could possibly induce them to send Crowder to us in exchange for taking unwanted salary and/or possibly sending the rights to Justin Jackson. The fallacy to your opinion is that a team of all rookies and 2nd year players is the optimal course of action next season. Why? So we can lose 50+ games and culture change we are aspiring to is contradicted by our win / loss? This is not a plan. This is intentionally tanking and undermining the assets you are investing in. That is not how turnaround a moribund franchise. That is perpetuating more losing but setting up the conditions to guarantee it so.

And you have a serious problem of misrepresenting ideas. Where did I say I want a team full of all rookies and 2nd year players? I have continued to talk about the importance of veterans around the young guys but you blatantly choose to ignore it in an effort to try to make my point look weaker. It's not going to work. I'm not going to let you try and poke holes in an argument I never made.

Who in their right minds would give up the shot at a star for a good roleplayer such as Crowder? Stop trying to make this a 30-35 win team when we still don't have any established stars.

You talk about postponing success for a day that may never come, but you must be operating on a very different definition of the word success. Success to me is being a top 4 team in this league. Success to me is winning a championship. Success is not winning 30-35 games instead of 25-30. Success is not mortgaging the future potential of this team only to cap out as a 6-8 seed. I know what path I want. Maybe yours is different.

You ask who in their right mind would reject adding Crowder. I didn't realize he would be absolutely free. I didn't realize Ainge (one of the stingiest GMs) would be so kind and send him for free to us and only us. If that is the case, sure I'll take him and move him before the season starts for future assets. That way we have more future assets to work with and still don't jeopardize our pick next year. The name of the game is asset collection.

 

[twslam07]

at what cost though? Boston might value him more than we would. Give Bogdan and Justin minutes at the 3, sprinkle in Malachi from time to time. Positions aren't what they used to be anymore, if the players are good enough to play, they will find a way to get on the court.

Well at the least we know it will be at the cost of a better pick in the 2018 draft.

 

[Sac.Kings]

You're right. We MAY have our stars. We don't know, and until we know, we keep making moves that gives us the best shot at acquiring a young star. To do that, you need to stay out of treadmill territory which is what these types of players can do to us.

I also find this quote hilarious:



So you're saying the Pacers might potentially prefer assets that go with the 21 year old Turner's timeline but our young core of Fox (19), Giles (19), Papagiannis (19), Labissiere (21), Richardson (21), Jackson (22), Cauley-Stein (23), Hield (23), Mason (23), & Bogdanovic (24) is so old that Crowder makes sense for us? Pick a side and stick to it. You can't make this case for the Pacers only to say that we would do something different when 3 of the 4 potential stars you mentioned are younger (Fox - 19 / Giles - 19) or the same age (Labissiere - 21).

People need to seriously consider the consequences of trying to build too quickly. The worst thing you can do is load up on a bunch of decent to good players and stay in mediocrity for the next 10 years. We have one goal at the moment and that is to find young star players. Whether that is through developing your current youth and/or setting your team up for high draft picks. Anything that stalls either of those should most likely not be acted on.

Not really singling you out, but there are a lot of worse things out there than being stuck in mediocrity. Example: the Sacramento Kings of the last 10 years. I get your point, but no need for such an extreme statement when we all know just how bad it can get.

 

[Mike]

Crowder is a very solid small forward. He would add good defense and a solid offensive outlet. He would slot in nicely for us at small forward and give us some veteran experience on the court.

The big question would be what would it cost us to get him in a trade? If it's sacrificing someone like Malachi, then I'd do it because we have Buddy and Bogdanovic. If it's someone like Willie then I'd probably waiver a little bit before agreeing to it because we could slot Pappa into the starting line up or eventually with Koufos holding down the spot until he's ready. Obviously I'd rather not give up young talent, but if it's a case they need a cheap player and will send us Crowder and a future draft pick, then that would make it somewhat appealing.

 

[Sac.Kings]

Crowder is a very solid small forward. He would add good defense and a solid offensive outlet. He would slot in nicely for us at small forward and give us some veteran experience on the court.

The big question would be what would it cost us to get him in a trade? If it's sacrificing someone like Malachi, then I'd do it because we have Buddy and Bogdanovic. If it's someone like Willie then I'd probably waiver a little bit before agreeing to it because we could slot Pappa into the starting line up or eventually with Koufos holding down the spot until he's ready. Obviously I'd rather not give up young talent, but if it's a case they need a cheap player and will send us Crowder and a future draft pick, then that would make it somewhat appealing.

No way I'm giving them WCS in return for Crowder AND a bad contract. The bad contract IS the favor and would allow Ainge the financial wiggle room to pull off a blockbuster. We don't need to include any of really important young guys. Malachi, sure, to satisfy Ainge and then add whoever else to make salaries work as long as it's not a key cog of your future.

 

[twslam07]

Not really singling you out, but there are a lot of worse things out there than being stuck in mediocrity. Example: the Sacramento Kings of the last 10 years. I get your point, but no need for such an extreme statement when we all know just how bad it can get.

I'm not saying there aren't worse things then mediocrity. Toxic owners, losing your team, etc. are all way worse.

However, being a mediocre team can make it increasingly difficult to rise to the top because you're not going to be drafting as high. Stay bad in the short term and be great in the long term, or you can become below average in the short term and stay average/above-average in the long term. That's the way I look at it.

 

[Sac.Kings]

I'm not saying there aren't worse things then mediocrity. Toxic owners, losing your team, etc. are all way worse.

However, being a mediocre team can make it increasingly difficult to rise to the top because you're not going to be drafting as high. Stay bad in the short term and be great in the long term, or you can become below average in the short term and stay average/above-average in the long term. That's the way I look at it.

I get it, I do. That's the best plan to go with, but sometimes you can't always just collect assets. When the GM/coach feels the team is ready, you use the assets you gathered and try to bring in some well established/star players to add to your team and then you try to win big. That is exactly why Danny Ainge has been doing what he's been doing for the last several years and it's about to pay off. I would wager that the chances are more likely than not that they get a star player (he's got a ton of picks he can offer teams). However, it's not a feasible scenario for us as we don't really know what kind of team we have right now and getting a player like Crowder (I actually like him quite a bit) may not be ideal if we would have to give up a lot to get him. I happen to think that it may not cost us all that much to get Crowder, as Ainge seems pretty hellbent on getting a big name on the Celtics and that we can use that against him, but only as a 3rd team in a trade scenario where we would take salary back and get rewarded for it with Crowder. I scratch your back and you scratch mine.

 

[twslam07]

I get it, I do. That's the best plan to go with, but sometimes you can't always just collect assets. When the GM/coach feels the team is ready, you use the assets you gathered and try to bring in some well established/star players to add to your team and then you try to win big. That is exactly why Danny Ainge has been doing what he's been doing for the last several years and it's about to pay off. I would wager that the chances are more likely than not that they get a star player (he's got a ton of picks he can offer teams). However, it's not a feasible scenario for us as we don't really know what kind of team we have right now and getting a player like Crowder (I actually like him quite a bit) may not be ideal if we would have to give up a lot to get him. I happen to think that it may not cost us all that much to get Crowder, as Ainge seems pretty hellbent on getting a big name on the Celtics and that we can use that against him, but only as a 3rd team in a trade scenario where we would take salary back and get rewarded for it with Crowder. I scratch your back and you scratch mine.

Sure, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm not recommending that we all we do is continue to collect young assets for the rest of our lives. However, there is a time when you should be looking to get as many young, valuable assets as you can and there's a time when you start to consolidate your assets and sign top veteran FAs. We are at the beginning stage. There are others on this site that want to jump a couple steps which makes for a shaky foundation. When you have a shaky foundation, it's more likely that it comes down.

 

[Mike]

No way I'm giving them WCS in return for Crowder AND a bad contract. The bad contract IS the favor and would allow Ainge the financial wiggle room to pull off a blockbuster. We don't need to include any of really important young guys. Malachi, sure, to satisfy Ainge and then add whoever else to make salaries work as long as it's not a key cog of your future.

True, if we don't need to send anything that's the ideal scenario if we are simply taking on a bad contract alone. However it's not uncommon to see these deals include young players or cheap salaries going the other way, and based off how Ainge has done deals, it wouldn't surprise me to see him get something in a salary dump even if it's just a rotational/depth chart player like Malachi.

 

[King Baller]

Crowder is one of the best contracts in the league and he would be excellent for us. I just can't see Ainge letting him go lightly.

Ainge strikes me as a GM who wants to "win" every transaction heavily in his teams favor. I just can't see Danny being content with a "win/win" type trade.

Love to have Crowder on the Kings though

 

[c-webb1s#1]

At this point we're gonna have to play 10 deep every night to find playing time for everyone. Then again however, Joerger last season would just sit players for 5 or so games and then play them again...just kept cycling them in a rotation.

Fox/Lawson?/Mason
Hield/Bogdanovic/Temple/Malachi
?/Temple?/Jackson
Skal?/Giles?
WCS/KK/Papa

we need serious help at the PF and SF position. Nothing major, but just some productive players. A defensive SF like Crowder would be great imo.

 

[twslam07]

Crowder is not going to come free so you're probably looking at moving guys like Richardson, Jackson, & Papagiannis to get him. Considering how good Crowder is you're also looking at this trade costing us a few spots in next year's draft. If we were to use this draft as an example, the trade could potentially end up being this:

Richardson, Papagiannis, & Fox
for
Crowder & Markkanen

Would any of you do that trade? I wouldn't. The star potential in Fox is far too valuable to me to potentially miss out on a prospect like him for someone like Crowder. All it takes is moving back a couple spots in the draft to miss out on guys like these.

 

[Telemachus]

Ainge strikes me as a GM who wants to "win" every transaction heavily in his teams favor. I just can't see Danny being content with a "win/win" type trade.

Love to have Crowder on the Kings though

The problem that Ainge has is there won't be enough playing time for everyone. He has tried to move Crowder the last 2 years, and has drafted SFs the last 2 drafts. Add in his pursuit of FA SFs (George, Hayward, and Butler), and he has driven down the price any team would offer for Crowder.

 

[twslam07]

The problem that Ainge has is there won't be enough playing time for everyone. He has tried to move Crowder the last 2 years, and has drafted SFs the last 2 drafts. Add in his pursuit of FA SFs (George, Hayward, and Butler), and he has driven down the price any team would offer for Crowder.

But the great thing about Crowder is his position versatility and his contract situation. Makes it easy to make sure you get a lot for him since he won't be hurting there team (salary wise or logjam wise)

 

[Warhawk]

I'm not recommending that we all we do is continue to collect young assets for the rest of our lives. However, there is a time when you should be looking to get as many young, valuable assets as you can and there's a time when you start to consolidate your assets and sign top veteran FAs. We are at the beginning stage.

Not sure I agree with you. We have gotten a slew of young, valuable assets. We have 2/3± of our team as basically first or second year NBA players. 2/3! We aren't running a day care and can't keep looking to add more every year at this rate. It's time to start developing/consolidating what we have.

We really need some more vets to help mentor the youth we have and see what they turn into.