I'd guess the same. Ainge was going to have to make a decision between Bradley and Smart anyway so I don't feel the cap adjusting downward would play an additional factor in his decision.
Kyrie Irving traded to Celtics for IT, Crowder, Zizic, BKN 1st, 2020 2nd
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
- Status
I mean others may feel differently but I've always felt that if Hayward signed here that Crowder was going to be moved as he wasn't going to accept a backup role behind the guy we signed to replace him.
I don't think Bradley really fits what the Celtics seem to want to do, which is play a playmaker at the 1 who is not a horrific liability on switches, and then have 2-4 (or even 2-5) be lots of long guys who can defend, shoot and make plays to a greater or lesser degree.
If Bradley was good enough to build a team around, you'd obviously deviate from your default philosophy, but he's pretty clearly not. I also agree with HRB that the choice was Bradley or Smart. Smart has a clearer path to becoming a really valuable player (learn to shoot); Bradley's path is learn to dribble, learn to pass, and grow 3-4 inches. Smart will also probably cost less, which is a big factor now that the team is starting to enter higher payroll territory.
Cleveland wouldn't want Bradley over Crowder given contract situation.
Probably Avery still gets traded, but I wonder if they would have had the opportunity to get something better back than Morris.
I guess there might be a chance keep him all year and let him walk.
Here's the article that breaks down the Cs options: http://www.celticshub.com/2017/05/26/looking-forward-celtics-future/. It even uses the $101MM as a salary cap. You just need to trade out Fultz's $7+MM cap hit for Tatum's $5,645,400.
Without going too deeply into this, given the loss of big men, I have to think AB for MM would have been done even if the cap was $101MM but YMMV.
If the cap had been a tad higher, I would've been more inclined to keep Olynyk than Bradley -- AB is the better player, but KO plays a position of greater need and fits the C's system exceptionally well. No idea if keeping KO would have been realistic, even with a higher cap.
The problem was that AB was already signed, whereas they had to renounce Olynyk's hold to clear room for GH. So once that was renounced, he was all but gone--they no longer had RFA rights, and they would have had to sign him with cap room or for an exception, neither of which was happening given his market price.
This was Ainge's M.O. as well. Once a player who produced on a cheap (or rookie) contract and were about to get (over)paid he never had a problem moving on to the next cheap/value player to replace him. Ainge has never overpaid to retain a role player on one of his good teams.......Posey, Big Baby, Perkins, Sullinger, Rondo, Evan Turner, and now you can add Olynyk, Bradley, and Isaiah to that list. Ainge has overpaid role players as stopgaps during lean years when the cupboard was bare (Blount, Jeff Green) but never on an up and coming championship team.
I'll predict that they offer him an extension in the 7-9M/year range this fall, which is probably fair in the current massively depressed FA market given the state of his shot. Failing that, they're over the cap now, so they'll let him go to RFA and see what his market is.
I can see this going both ways depending on outside factors. Smart avg 30 mpg as a 22-year old who can defend 3 positions......I feel Ainge views Smart as a core piece as a Top 4-5 guy. However, if Rozier continues his uptick to take more of those minutes and the opportunity to trade Smart, Tatum, Yabu along with a couple lottery picks for Brow over the next 12 months.....I could see him being the next non-star player to move once his cheap deal expired. The chance of moving on from Smart increases if Rozier gets off to a fast start this year but I do feel that it's more likely Ainge is a Smart guy. See what I did there.
Playing on this idea whether it be Brow, Porzingis, or another young star coming onto the market.......Ainge continues to plan ahead just as he did with signing Baynes (allowing Zizic to go), trading for the Lakers pick (to replace the Nets one), signing Hayward which also enabled him to trade Crowder, etc. We all had our eyebrows raised when he signed Larkin to a guaranteed deal as his 16th contract but this could precede a future move as if this player becomes available we'd not want to be spending $15m on Smart when Rozier could provide much of what he does on a rookie deal with Larkin sliding into Rozier's role.
I've got Smart as a $15-17m guy which always has the chance of someone exceeding that. He'd be a fool to sign an extension for $10-12 AAV.
I'm not so sure he gets $15-17M unless his shot improves. The cap took that huge jump last year so teams spent freely, but it hasn't happened this year. Nerlins Noel thought he was worth $17-20M but he wasn't. And RFAs like Mirotic and JaMychal Green are still in limbo. Tim Hardaway, Jr. got a nice 4 yr/$71M deal when the Hawks refused to match the Knicks offer sheet, but I'm unaware of any other RFA who made a killing.
I agree with this, and if the new regimen they have him working with this summer helps him become an average three point shooter then he's definitely a core player. Because he would essentially be a 6'4" Ron Artest.
If Rozier were 2"-3" taller I might agree that he could replace Smart, but he's a little too small to do it. And you guys really need to lay off the sauce, because the Unibrower isn't leaving the chance to sign a DVPE contract on the table. The earliest that he would be traded is three years from now, but mostly you can expect it to be in the middle of next decade.
Otto Porter, who is something like Smart if Smart can improve his shooting.
But as for Smart, is he the type of player who would bet on himself and his improvement and not sign a potentially below-market extension or is he the type of player who values continuity and understand what Stevens does for him?
BTW, here is some interesting analysis on a Marcus Smart extension: http://www.celticshub.com/2017/08/04/contemplating-marcus-smart-extension/. It appears that a baseline projection of a deal would be approximately 4/$56MM.
The Cs are currently at $109+MM, or approximately $9.3MM under the luxury tax. I presume that whatever offer DA makes with respect to Smart's extension, he will be very hesitant to do anything that puts the Cs over the luxury tax line.
Well, a Smart extension won't go into effect until next year, yes? Ainge has a bit of wiggle room next year (especially if the Laker pick doesn't convey) but 2019-2020 will be difficult, because the Celtics will have three $30M+ players if Irving resigns.
Tax in a single year is probably acceptable if they are going for a championship. It's the repeater tax that's the killer.
Tax in a single year is probably acceptable if they are going for a championship. It's the repeater tax that's the killer.
Last edited:
Yes, you are correct about the extension going into effect next year; so ignore that part of my post.
Interesting that for 2018-19, the Cs are currently at $96+MM for 12 players (and Jackson stretched) with only Smart of the core to worry about contract-wise.
Yeah, the Kyrie trade lined everything up almost perfectly timeline-wise. I'd expect to see Horford moved if someone comes available, since he's the only guy who doesn't really line up with the overall timeline, and the only contract big enough to bring in a piece that does line up.
I doubt many teams would be interested in Horford in a year or two at his contract unless it's just to make salaries work. It would have to be a contender with cap space or in a situation where a star wants out.
2019 and 2020 are the worry years, after 2020 Horford's salary goes down, but then you have Brown's extension to deal with.
This offseason, we were told that Marcus Smart's trade value was that of a late first round, perhaps even secound round draft pick. Not sure how that valuation meshes with a 15 million + per year contract
Two years from now Horford will be a large but expiring contract (and there is a lot of value to that in this league) . If he's traded that's when it's most likely to happen..
Horford's not that old — a young 31, or 1.5 years younger than LeBron, whose timeline lined up okay with Kyrie's. They're out from under his contract when he's 34, which is fine (fwiw, the same age Curry will be when he's done with his current deal). He also has a solid history of durability and a crafty game that's more reliant on skill and hoops IQ than on explosive athleticism.
Yeah, $28-30M is a big piece of the salary pie to be spending on a not-quite-elite player like Horford, but that'd be the case whether he was 26 or 31. If LeBron or Durant were 31 and on this team in place of Horford, I don't think anyone would too concerned about their slightly mismatched timeline with Kyrie and Hayward. Seems like the issue with Horford (such as it is) is less about age per se than about $$$ and talent.
Agreed. Horford is absolutely the piece the C's would prefer to move in a trade for a high-priced star, but his inclusion would likely be seen as a net negative by the team on the other side. (Not that Horford isn't a useful player, but the sort of team that's trading away a star player likely would prefer to receive a stiff on an expiring contract.)
Barring an as of yet unforeseen massive new revenue source, the old cap environment will be the new cap environment. The cap spike that gave everybody space is over. Future increases will be modest and will not even outpace the annual raises in player contracts. The biggest difference from the good/bad old days is that the shorter contracts will mean teams don't have to wait as long for their cap sheets to unclog.
Who told you that? I know Crowder's straight-up value was discussed in that range but certainly not Smart's.
Nate Duncan, Danny Leroux, and Kevin Pelton discussed this in a podcast when the offseason started and that was their valuation. I believe Zach Lowe may have said something similar. I disagree with it (at the time and now) but that has been discussed by NBA writers.
Well and in recent years any veteran with a pulse could basically pull in a 6 million dollar contract, and Allen Crabbe just got just under 20 mil a season, and Porter got 25 mil a season last year
I don't necessarily trust writers on analyzing value such as this any more than the top dozen NBA minds on this board. Duncan, iirc, was the guy who was sky high on Smart as the most athletic PG to enter the league since Wall, a pure PG out of college who would be unstoppable off the dribble. I specifically remember this as it was the polar opposite of how I viewed Smart's game to translate to the NBA since I viewed this as one skill lacking from him being a full-time PG in this league.
Needless to say, I'm skeptical of anything Nate Duncan has to say after that moment. In fairness, anyone can have a one-off but I still can't get past the physical analysis of Smart as a college player who was most effective by bullying smaller guards into the lane.
The Vertical with a nice long article on Kyrie, with lots of quotes from his high school coaches: https://sports.yahoo.com/kyrie-irving-ready-chance-franchise-145513541.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=ma
ESPN does some actual reporting, talking to doctors who are experts in labral tears, to give us an extensive analysis of what Isaiah Thomas's hip and future both hold.
I'm starting to come around on the trade. If Thomas was hell bent on ruining his health and career in a quixotic attempt to play this coming season the way (and at the quality) he played the last one... if I'm Ainge, my team's morale depends on remaining a contender. Hayward didn't sign here to play for a .500 team hoping for its future draft assets to pan out, and neither did Horford. My morale wouldn't exactly be improved by giving IT4 the bad news about a contract offer at the end of the season.
I'm starting to come around on the trade. If Thomas was hell bent on ruining his health and career in a quixotic attempt to play this coming season the way (and at the quality) he played the last one... if I'm Ainge, my team's morale depends on remaining a contender. Hayward didn't sign here to play for a .500 team hoping for its future draft assets to pan out, and neither did Horford. My morale wouldn't exactly be improved by giving IT4 the bad news about a contract offer at the end of the season.
He and LeRoux were pretty shit on the Celtics' offseason as well -- not even their specific reactions, but more in the sense that they baseball'd it up pretty hard, analytically. I enjoy listening to them as entertainment, and they do a good job keeping track of cap considerations, but they're pretty poor at most of the on-court stuff.
There is that, but the current team is still just a bridge team I think the FO has reasonably decided the best way to take the next step is not to draft in the top 5 and hope you get the next superstar, but to build a winning culture with engaged fans and an excellent coach and hope to lure increasingly high quality free agents. Then the draft picks can use the much more realistic role of providing quality value players.
This team is probably in need of another star to really contend and that means signing another free agent to a max salary. With Kyrie on board, I don't think another star is doable under the salary cap...
The other thing I realized listening to their full offseason recap and the recap of last offseason is that they have a very low grading curve, so most teams are bad/wrong at many things. That's ok, but it does bring into question what good actually looks like if the only way to get it is to have (say) Minnesota's offseason.
Some comments from Jae at Cleveland press conference: https://sports.yahoo.com/jae-crowder-raised-concerns-role-boston-celtics-traded-194554080.html
Crowder all but said what some of us expected in that he asked to be traded once Hayward signed and Morris acquired.
IT's hip problem is more than just a tear and he's been playing with it for years: https://theathletic.com/96596/2017/09/07/lloyd-so-few-answers-raise-even-more-questions-about-isaiah-thomas-health/
This has always been the most likely scenario. The labral tear stuff is just the tip of the iceberg and may be somewhat irrelevant at this point. If he really has impingement, IT has likely had a labral tear for many years (as I've said before, there is essentially zero chance he was knocked out of the playoffs with a labral tear).
He probably has fairly advanced arthritis, and had an acute exacerbation with bone bruising and fluid buildup so that he couldn't play anymore. The arthritis isn't going away no matter what. And fixing the labrum probably won't do much if its been torn for awhile and the arthritis is already bad (hence no surgery).
The truth is he probably already had bad arthritis and still had an incredible year last year. So in theory he still could have some elite seasons left in him if it doesn't progress too quickly. Unfortunately the overall clinical course is one of progressive degeneration, its just very hard to predict how quickly it will go. He might need a new hip at age 40 or age 60.
I dont blame Danny and company for not wanting to risk big money on a player his size with all those red flags, though I do feel badly IT. At least when a guy like Matt Kemp got traded and his physical showed arthritic hips he already had gotten his big payday.
Last edited:
Thanks for the post. The worse thing about the trade has been the scrutiny on IT's hip. Even if he plays 70 games at the same level, no one is going to give him the money he wants anymore. I wonder if anyone will give him more than a year or two at a time?
Which is too bad because if there's anyone who deserved a payday, it's IT4.
If only he had teamed up with Brad Stevens earlier in his career.
His agent fucked this up pretty badly. I think even at the time the Suns thought they were getting a steal, and the length of the contract really screwed IT.
We can look back on all of those long-term contracts back then which looked fine at the time but are now team bargains due to the cap rise. Crowder and Bradley signed similar deals and if you look back on the thread here there were many up in arms over the Bradley overpay. Isaiah was a backup guard playing 25 mpg at the time and still a major liability defensively.....he wasn't getting any Brinks truck backing up for him then.
Even without the trade there would have been scrutiny since training camp and the regular season would have began without Isaiah in uniform. You can't blame Cleveland for this. What are the chances he plays 70 games at last years level.....under 5%? That seems optimistic at this point. I feel, and have felt, that there is a real chance we never see Isaiah in an NBA uniform again. The most likely option imo would be that he's never the same impactful player and out of the league in a year or two. As Radsox said above......something has never smelled right with the initial diagnosis that went public along with his timeline of inactivity which continues to grow. This goes back to the Celtics originally sitting out Isaiah due to a "bone bruise-knee" back in March after KAT landed on him which we now know had to do with his hip.
My doctor friend said this to me months ago that if it was simply a labrum tear he would still likely be able to play but have to deal with problems such as arthritis down the road. He suggested that maybe it could be a structural problem with his femoral bone to where surgery could be career ending which is why they are trying to avoid it. His caveat of course was that he was only speaking out loud without any other information.
They already had their bites at the apple. They just added the #3 pick in two consecutive drafts. If neither of those guys are stars, then you're failing at the draft-a-star strategy.
- Status