Don't shoot me. I know that we've been over this a few... hundred times. But hey, why not once more for old times sake, right?
I blame Forsberg anyway, he's the one that came up with the question. Anyway, speaking of Chris here's how he lays out the issue.
This writer isn't sold that a big deal is likely, if only because of how difficult it is to find a trade partner (and then you add in the additional obstacles with any in-season deal given roster clutter and cap constraints). And yet we can't shake what Ainge has repeated so often: That Boston wants to "stay in the game" and be ready to pounce should a superstar talent become available. What works in Boston's favor is it's ability to immediately offer a seller an enticing package of draft picks, young talent and expiring contracts should an opportunity arise.
Personally I said "yes" (while hedging on the fact that I've said that before and had been wrong) and several writers registered votes on both sides of the issue. The bottom line is that Ainge would probably love to do something big, but it will take a dance partner to get his gig on. So we'll see.
What do you think? Will the fish finally bite?
This is the issue with rebuilding that is so often under-appreciated: You’ve got to be lucky. It has nothing to do with the tired trope about free agents not wanting to sign in Boston. Free agents don’t really like signing anywhere new. They mostly like to stay put, or to be traded before free agency. Ask DeAndre Jordan about that.
Somewhere along the line, something improbable has to happen that shakes free a star player and sends him your way. A general manager in this league can do everything exactly as he should, can plan for trades and free agency carefully and wisely. But he can’t force players like Harden or Howard onto the market — or a guy like Garnett back in 2007, when the Celtics were last able to cash in assets and turn themselves into contenders.