This wont happen. Danny of course will TRY to trade both Paul and Kevin, but THAT deal with the Clippers wont happen. Bruinsman86 is dead on right that it’s laughable. Although my guess is that most Celtic fans want to believe this is “equal value” for Garnett and Pierce. To those silly fans let me say this. That would have been equal value coming from the Clippers for two future Hall of Famers when both Kevin and Paul were in their late 20′s to 30 or 31, but not now.

I hate to say it as a Celts fan, but the Kevin and Paul are close to being done. Because of that, the days of saying “the team has another run in it” are about over. By the time they get the right complimentary talent surrounding them, Pierce and Garnett wont have the tools any more. So, that said, Danny DOES need to deal them SOMEWHERE. However, I don’t believe they should be dealt just for the mere sake of being dealt. In other words dealing them for NOTHING just to free up cap space to sign big name stars would likely be a mistake. I say this because once Garnett and Pierce are gone, the team will have far less chance of attracting those big name stars.

That said, people need to understand better what “fair value” is for two guys who we all love, rightly so, and will end up in the Hall of Fame. No matter how great Kevin and Paul WERE, the operative word is WERE. Thus, nobody is going to offer All Stars in return for them unless they are “troubled” all stars, or aging all stars. Danny’s not going to deal them for other AGING All Stars because that defeats the purpose of dealing them. As for dealing them for troubled Players, Danny wont do that as well he shouldn’t.

So, what’s the best we can expect in return? The best we can expect is 4 or 5 young bench guys with promising, but not GUARANTEED promising futures. That means guys with potential of at least EVOLVING into starters, and possibly stars… risks if you will. Danny’s best shot at getting MORE than that for Kevin and Paul passed about a year or two ago, but I get why he didn’t pull the trigger on sending them packing. The sense behind holding on to them became evident with their run last season deep into the conference finals against the Heat.

Had Rondo not been injured in that series, it’s likely the gamble Danny took would have paid off in the form of a second championship for these guys but as luck would have it, that was not to be. Next season these guys will be two years removed from that run, with two years more of wear and tear on Garnett and Pierce, so I don’t think they have another run like that in them, even with Rondo’s return. So, it IS time to say goodbye to these guys, as much as we don’t want to.

My sense is, Danny badly needs to do this for the sake of avoiding another 22 year transition from one era to another. Unfortunately, the time may have passed for the Celts to deal these guys for the kind of talent that would help us avoid another crazy drought like that. If that’s true, and all the Celts are going to get in return for these guys is nothing but a bag of balls, then I say, let them play their final days in Boston in a Celtic Uniform rather than some other teams uniform.

Nice post Jim, agreed with the jist of it. My take is i’d like to see Danny keep KG and PP. If he can get a legit big to play in a front court of Green and Bass or Sully and get some shooters that can shoot the three. Bye bye Jet and lee and Bradley. bring KG and PP off the bench. The only thing is , is that Doc would have to go , only cause he would still play PP an KG despite the youth. he would always fall back to them. The style really has to change it doesn’t work.

If Danny asked for that trade, he has a sense of humor.

Take out Griffin and Doc, and make the deal. Then flip Bledsoe to Utah for a young big man.

Clippers’ are thinking of the future by getting KG and Pierce and getting huge cap room in a year or two for Lebron……………..that’s why the Clippers would do this deal.

You are all missing the point. Expiring contracts are like gold in the NBA and the Clippers, as currently assembled, are not good enough to win it all either. They need a change just as much as the Celtics do. With these two contracts, the Clippers will have an extra $40 million to spend in 2 years.

Jaypop’s probably right about Doc’s playing PP too much, relying on him. One radio station says that Pierce is “done,” but he could still provide bench scoring next year. And I’d like to see Pierce retire as a Celtic (KG, too), unless they get an offer that can’t be refused. The Clips might be desperate, but they would never include Griffin: Stephen Smith (what’s with the “A”?) just tries to be controversial.

Read my reply to Bruinsman86. The Clippers want a shot at Lebron. If I were the C’s I’d do that deal as fast as possible. I understand that PP and KG’s cap room will come off in a year or two but the C’s really have no shot at getting LBJ where a nice warm climate like LA will have a shot at LBJ.

I dont thing I’m missing anything, at all. You’re basically making my point.

Thanks Jaypop for the kind words. I see your point on the big man idea, however, my question would be WHO? Who would we bring in that’s available, and willing to play on a team who’s goal is to shoot for a 50 percent chance at ONE championship in the next 2 years, with a significant drop off after that.

What it would seem you are driving at is the concept my father used to refer to as “striking when the iron is hot.” Before I go on here let me note I’ve always been a big advocate of “striking when the iron is hot.” I’ve been so because as a Celtic fan, I’ve grown accustomed to winning a ton of championships. Thus, I’m bred to sense the main reason to play is to win championships, and not JUST to make the playoffs or even “go deep.”

With that logic in mind, I’ve always said, if you’ve got a GOOD shot at winning one more championship, even if it’s at the expense of sacrificing your future, I’ve always said “go for it.” But, if it’s at the expense of the future, I’ve also said, it better be a GOOD shot at a championship.

So, the next questions then are the following: Is the iron still hot for the Celtics in terms of winning championships? Further, if the iron is still hot, and you’re only a piece or two away from winning another championship, is it realistic you can get that piece you need? Finally, what are your chances of winning a championship if you get that missing piece or pieces, and how much damage do you do to your long term future to get them?

I’m old enough to remember the final years of the last THREE great Celtic eras prior to the one we’ve likely just completed. The brilliance of Red Auerbach was his knowing EXACTLY when and how to make the move from one great era to the next so as to minimize the time between great eras.

The only time the Celts had trouble making that transition was between the Bird/McHale/Parish era, and the Pierce/Garnett/Allen era. That was likely because Auerabach, while still associated with the team, was no longer calling the shots. Guys like Jan Volk, Dave Gavitt, and Chris Wallace were trying to make that transition and frankly they couldn’t “carry Red’s Jock strap.”

As a quick aside, and this will be unpopular to say, but people would wonder why not put Ricky Pitino on that list of failures I just noted. For the record, and to be fair, by the time Pitino came along, the damage was almost irreparable. The team by that point was a mis-matched pile of nobodys. Furthermore, we all know, truth be told, the story for Pitino might have been way different had the ping pong balls come up the way they SHOULD of, had the Celts had any luck at all. Put another way, by all rights, Timmy Duncan should have been on the Celtics, with his number being retired in the rafters in a few years. I digress though.

Of course it’s always easier to analyze things after the fact, but honestly I remember watching the Bird era disintegrate and personally going apoplectic as it did. I also remember being amazed that the predominant thought among Celtic fans at the time seemed to be to keep that team together for as long as possible to milk them for more championships.

I remember watching Bird laying down flat on his back instead of sitting on the bench when taken off the court. Meanwhile, McHale and Parrish WOULD sit, but nursed themselves with 5 Ice packs each routinely between stints on the court. As I watched this, I remember thinking, this was the CORE of our team, beaten, battered, and old, and thus how could anyone expect to milk ANY more championships out of them, but people did. I remember being amazed there was little public discussion of breaking that team up as the old man injuries mounted, becoming more and more frequent and serious.

While I could see the reluctance to say good bye to Celtic greats, I saw it as clearly necessary, and thus was stunned they weren’t doing it. My thought at the time was Bird was a legend, and you cant trade legends without a riot, but McHale and Parrish should have been sent packing by 1989 or 90 at the latest. As we all know now, Ainge was the only one of the starters that was dealt, and sadly, we didn’t get fair value for him. The rest is sad history.

So, I’m all for your idea if you can name me the big man to be gotten, and if you think the odds are better than 50 percent that big man brings us a championship within the next 2 years. Why do I throw out that 2 year caveat. In 2 years, Pierce’s and Garnett’s contributions, even off the bench, will no longer be significant enough to propel us to that one last championship of this fading era, and the window will close.

But why unload everyone and not get anything significant back other than 2 expiring deals? Young players with talent or upside can be traded for other players!!! So rather than just rebuild by purging the roster of most of its players in one move, trade some for other equally skilled players and some for expiring deals. The trade is way too lopsided in favor of the C’s. Plain and simple. No self-respecting GM would do that.

That’s a big “What If” with regards to LeBron. Yes, they do have the city of LA/Hollywood as a big lure for free agents, but it’s a big risk.

A valid point you make to be sure Antonio, except for one small thing. That’s a LOT of talent for the Clippers to give up for a mere “shot” at Lebron. If the Clippers shoot and miss (as they usually do) then what a mess they would be stuck with. Further, if LBJ keeps winning championships down in Miami, he’s likely to not want to leave and go ANYWHERE, including LA.
However, the Clippers have historically been one messed up franchise, so I guess they might be stupid enough to do it. If they are stupid enough, then there IS one thing I agree with you on… I’d make that deal in a second if I were Danny.

First of all..to me it makes no sense. Second, why would Stephen A. say this? I know how he can back track. He sounds as if he is speculating….that if this then they’ll ask for so and so……so he is purely speculating. The real question though is …..why is doing this? Do they (espn) need ratings that badly?