There Are No Good Reasons for Boston Celtics to Trade for Amar’e Stoudemire
Another day, another Boston Celtics trade rumor. This time, trade talks surrounding Kris Humphries and Gerald Wallace have emerged, delighting many a Celtics fan. However. rather than trying to trade them for a young upstart player that could help the Celtics’ already-bright future or a solid veteran replacement for Rajon Rondo, the Celtics would give up Humphries and Wallace for the New York Knicks‘ Amar’e Stoudemire.
They troubling thing about this deal is that there is simply nothing in it for the Celtics. Sure, Wallace and Humphries might not be fan favorites or triple-double threats, but their incredible propensity for rebounding solves a problem that the Celtics have had since 2008. They are bricks in the interior defense/rebounding wall of Jared Sullinger as well as Vitor Faverani.
So, Wallace and Humphries getting shipped out would probably hurt the Celtics more than it would help them. But in exchange for Stoudemire? Why would Celtics GM Danny Ainge ever agree to a deal like that? He would exchange one massive contract for another in Stoudemire, and just lose Humphries for the sake of losing Humphries. Say what you want about Wallace, but unlike his proposed trade counterpart, he actually has an effect on the game.
There is only so much so say about the proposed deal. Losing Stoudemire and his contract would be great for the Knicks, and adding it would be awful for the Celtics. Never in a million years would I see this trade being successful. The Knicks are in a lot of trouble right now, and a deal like the one proposed would help a lot.
The Celtics are also in a lot of trouble, and going through with trading for Stoudemire just wouldn’t help. Even if the Knicks forward was playing like he was a year ago, it would still be a bad idea.
I’d like to see the look on Ainge’s face if he ever heard that this somehow even made it to rumor status. No one should be shocked if this didn’t even get off the ground.