I don't think the suggestion is that they are giving Bojan away for nothing at all, but that he could be had for fairly minimal cost (draft compensation or someone who is not a part of the rotation) given his age.
Murray would be the only guy on that list that I think worth the effort. A Smart/Murray backcourt would be hellacious defensively, and allow Kemba to start afresh in a Lou Williams type role.Jared lists his TPE list: Aaron, Gordon, D.Murray, Aldridge, Gobert, Ingles, B. Bogdanovich
It's really too early IMO to start looking to use it unless the Rockets yard sale happens preseason.
Dejounte Murray has me mildly interested, but wouldn't chase.
Yeah, the article mentioned getting Bojan so Nesmith and Langford can develop. I'd have to think one of them would go in a trade for Bojan but I could be wrong. Maybe a 1st round pick would be enough. Or Grant Williams but I think the board would riot.I don't think the suggestion is that they are giving Bojan away for nothing at all, but that he could be had for fairly minimal cost (draft compensation or someone who is not a part of the rotation) given his age.
agreedMurray would be the only guy on that list that I think worth the effort. A Smart/Murray backcourt would be hellacious defensively, and allow Kemba to start afresh in a Lou Williams type role.
I don’t think Danny balks at the Turner contract if he were a better player at a more premium position, like Murray would be. Problem with Turner is he just isn’t that good and plays a position where you can get comparable production much cheaper.I'm a sucker for mobile big guys so I'd go for Gordon if they think the shot can be league average. Murray's a good long term fit too, but that's as much cost as the Turner contract y'all can't stomach. BB and Ingles seem like all in 1-2 year window bets, but maybe that's where we are.
The problem with Turner isn't the size of the contract, it's that he's a low impact player on a high money deal that would force them to make hard financial choices on other higher impact players (e.g. letting Theis walk because paying him would send them skyrocketing into luxury tax land).I'm a sucker for mobile big guys so I'd go for Gordon if they think the shot can be league average. Murray's a good long term fit too, but that's as much cost as the Turner contract y'all can't stomach. BB and Ingles seem like all in 1-2 year window bets, but maybe that's where we are.
Theis obviously. He is a fine team defender, but would clearly be the weak link in that closing 5Imagine a closing lineup of Smart/Murray/Brown/Tatum/Theis. Who do you attack?
I mean Thompson can't shoot the three as well as Turner, and doesn't get the blocks, but those are literally Turner's two skills. Thompson's much better at every other phase of the game and costs half as much. And this isn't because Thompson's some hidden all star. Because there are guys like that available every summer.I don’t think Danny balks at the Turner contract if he were a better player at a more premium position, like Murray would be. Problem with Turner is he just isn’t that good and plays a position where you can get comparable production much cheaper.
There are no official measurements with him because San Antonio gave him a draft promise to refuse working out/getting measured because he's literally Danny's guard prototype. The rumor at the time was that he was a +6 wingspan player.Murray definitely intrigues me. If he can get back to his Year 2 defensive form while providing incremental improvement on the shot, you have a really good player on your hands. He is so disruptive in the passing lanes and is rangy so the switch ability is high.
That deathtime lineup could literally make a ten point lead insurmountable. I mean how the hell do you even pass the ball against that lineup? Magic in his prime would be seeing ghosts having to make passes against that lineup.Imagine a closing lineup of Smart/Murray/Brown/Tatum/Theis. Who do you attack?
Yeah, you'd be offering Langford and hoping they settle on Langford and a pick.I remain skeptical that Murray becomes available but it’s possible if the Spurs are stuck in neutral and want to tank for the 2021 draft.
Probably although you could swap in Thompson if Theis is getting roasted. Offense may be a little iffy but the Jay’s can pretty much carry the load there.Theis obviously. He is a fine team defender, but would clearly be the weak link in that closing 5
You'd see a lot of Theis, Smart and Murray chucking 3's as the Jays get relentlessly doubled. Gotta have at least one more guy out there that's a real perimeter threat.Probably although you could swap in Thompson if Theis is getting roasted. Offense may be a little iffy but the Jay’s can pretty much carry the load there.
You're going to have to start showing your work on Turner. He was 5th in DPOY just 2 years ago. Comparing him to Thompson, he's a better mid range and 3 point shooter. He's a better shot blocker. His steal and assist %'s are better, and his turnover % is lower on higher usage. Thompson is a better offensive rebounder and is a more mobile defender, and his assist numbers have gotten better the last couple of years.The problem with Turner isn't the size of the contract, it's that he's a low impact player on a high money deal that would force them to make hard financial choices on other higher impact players (e.g. letting Theis walk because paying him would send them skyrocketing into luxury tax land).
Murray will make as much over the next four years as Turner will over the next three, and unlike Turner Murray's an impact defender. And there's still the hope that Larranaga could help Murray the same way that he's helped Smart. A Dejounte Murray that can shoot the three at a league averagish rate at volume (he was a league averagish three point shooter last year, but at less than two per game) is a borderline all star with that D.
The bearish takes are going to look pretty accurate as Turner wastes away on a terribly constructed team again. Maybe the new coach knows how to use players, who knows. I'll go to my grave thinking that MT would have thrived here with decent coaching and culture, not that it matters.You're going to have to start showing your work on Turner. He was 5th in DPOY just 2 years ago. Comparing him to Thompson, he's a better mid range and 3 point shooter. He's a better shot blocker. His steal and assist %'s are better, and his turnover % is lower on higher usage. Thompson is a better offensive rebounder and is a more mobile defender, and his assist numbers have gotten better the last couple of years.
I like Thompson for his intensity and switchable defense. I'm not sure the C's will really take advantage of his offensive rebounding as that seems a lower priority for BS. He's also 29 with a lot of miles on him. Turner is 24, and there's a good chance he'd improve not having to play next to another big. Relentlessly asserting that he's a "low-impact" player just doesn't make it so.
Turner defends poorly in space, isn’t terribly switchable, and not much of a screener. Literally the three things that Boston asks of their Cs. And the fact is that the league’s GM disagree with you as regards Turner. So you should be asking yourself where you’ve gone wrong in your evaluation. Also, the problem with Murray isn’t his “chucking threes”, it’s that he doesn’t shoot them at all. If he can shoot them at 36%, he needs to be taking more.You're going to have to start showing your work on Turner. He was 5th in DPOY just 2 years ago. Comparing him to Thompson, he's a better mid range and 3 point shooter. He's a better shot blocker. His steal and assist %'s are better, and his turnover % is lower on higher usage. Thompson is a better offensive rebounder and is a more mobile defender, and his assist numbers have gotten better the last couple of years.
I like Thompson for his intensity and switchable defense. I'm not sure the C's will really take advantage of his offensive rebounding as that seems a lower priority for BS. He's also 29 with a lot of miles on him. Turner is 24, and there's a good chance he'd improve not having to play next to another big. Relentlessly asserting that he's a "low-impact" player just doesn't make it so.
C'mon man, how about convincing me that's the case rather than just taking your word for it?Turner defends poorly in space, isn’t terribly switchable, and not much of a screener.
I'd love to hear additionally why something as basic as screening can't be taught to a 24yo by a pro staff that prioritizes such things.C'mon man, how about convincing me that's the case rather than just taking your word for it?
Out of one side of your mouth, you talk openly about Pritchard and his inability to complete any deal unless he's a clear winner and gets all of his roster and payroll challenges addressed. Out of the other side, you use Pritchard's inability to get such problems solved as evidence that it's Turner's fault because he's not that good. Just pointing that out.Boston runs a lot of double screen action that requires quickness out of the C spot. Myles Turner isn’t exactly fleet afoot. And he doesn’t like the contact. He is not only a mediocre rebounder for a 6’11” guy, he’s not even good at screening out other guys defensively. You guys keep telling us that Turner’s this impact player, and yet no one seems to want him.
Here’s the other thing, he had one really good defensive year. His contract year. Aside from that he’s been no better than above average. He would need to get considerably better to be worth that deal. There’s a reason that Indiana can’t find any takers. He just isn’t that good.
We had a story posted here about Boston trying to find a taker for Turner to accommodate Hayward’s desire to play in Indy, and they found no takers. And I doubt that Boston was asking for anything beyond a first. No takers.Out of one side of your mouth, you talk openly about Pritchard and his inability to complete any deal unless he's a clear winner and gets all of his roster and payroll challenges addressed. Out of the other side, you use Pritchard's inability to get such problems solved as evidence that it's Turner's fault because he's not that good. Just pointing that out.
I'm not a huge fan of Turner, but it was less no takers (it was Lowe who had it) but that the Celtics didn't like the market. Hard to tell what that means, could mean no takers, could mean the takers needed to salary match with things Danny liked even less on the books than Turner. I know in the past NO supposedly was after him, though they ended up going with Adams instead.We had a story posted here about Boston trying to find a taker for Turner to accommodate Hayward’s desire to play in Indy, and they found no takers. And I doubt that Boston was asking for anything beyond a first. No takers.
Spot on. Thank you. Turner has positive hoops value but his contract essentially makes him a negative.A different description of the problem is this:
Myles Turner has a somewhat uncommon set of skills, and those skills are a pretty imperfect fit for where the game is going and also for the Celtics scheme. He has value, but it's limited for Cs and likely worth well less than his salary.
He can space offensively as a shooter, which is an asset. But he's somewhat limited as a passer and he doesn't move a lot, so he is an awkward fit in Celtics scheme. Think about how Theis screens high, or Horford screened high and operated out of high post---Turner's positioning and motion is closer to what Semi does (though Turner can post a little) in that his primary value is standing somewhere for a spot-up jumper. There's value there, and he's a better shooter than Theis, but he can't do some of the other stuff they want.
Defensively he's more like an old-school center who can block shots well and is a reasonable rim-protector. But he's old-school---not a great swtich guy physically, not good on the perimeter. So, some of the matchups the Celtics struggled with (Bam for example) are awkward for Turner too. And the Celts scheme, which uses switches and ends up with the C on perimeter players, exposes his worst defensive capabilities. While they'd benefit some from the shot blocking and rim protection, his lack of mobility cuts against that benefit to some degree as well.
So, is he better than Theis overall? I think unclear (I personally think not, but a reasonable case can be made for 'yes' if only slightly). If cost were zero, he'd be a great addition for the matchups and situations he brings something but he's quite expensive for what is really a different flavor of what Kanter brought---situational utility. Turner is better than Kanter, but it's the same problem really...it's not a 30 minute a game guy and not someone you can use in all games/situations.
fair points, good post.A different description of the problem is this:
Myles Turner has a somewhat uncommon set of skills, and those skills are a pretty imperfect fit for where the game is going and also for the Celtics scheme. He has value, but it's limited for Cs and likely worth well less than his salary.
He can space offensively as a shooter, which is an asset. But he's somewhat limited as a passer and he doesn't move a lot, so he is an awkward fit in Celtics scheme. Think about how Theis screens high, or Horford screened high and operated out of high post---Turner's positioning and motion is closer to what Semi does (though Turner can post a little) in that his primary value is standing somewhere for a spot-up jumper. There's value there, and he's a better shooter than Theis, but he can't do some of the other stuff they want.
Defensively he's more like an old-school center who can block shots well and is a reasonable rim-protector. But he's old-school---not a great swtich guy physically, not good on the perimeter. So, some of the matchups the Celtics struggled with (Bam for example) are awkward for Turner too. And the Celts scheme, which uses switches and ends up with the C on perimeter players, exposes his worst defensive capabilities. While they'd benefit some from the shot blocking and rim protection, his lack of mobility cuts against that benefit to some degree as well.
So, is he better than Theis overall? I think unclear (I personally think not, but a reasonable case can be made for 'yes' if only slightly). If cost were zero, he'd be a great addition for the matchups and situations he brings something but he's quite expensive for what is really a different flavor of what Kanter brought---situational utility. Turner is better than Kanter, but it's the same problem really...it's not a 30 minute a game guy and not someone you can use in all games/situations.
This is really well written, and I agree with pretty much all of it. I also understand why Turner doesn't now fit what the Celtics ask of bigs and is overpaid.A different description of the problem is this:
Myles Turner has a somewhat uncommon set of skills, and those skills are a pretty imperfect fit for where the game is going and also for the Celtics scheme. He has value, but it's limited for Cs and likely worth well less than his salary.
He can space offensively as a shooter, which is an asset. But he's somewhat limited as a passer and he doesn't move a lot, so he is an awkward fit in Celtics scheme. Think about how Theis screens high, or Horford screened high and operated out of high post---Turner's positioning and motion is closer to what Semi does (though Turner can post a little) in that his primary value is standing somewhere for a spot-up jumper. There's value there, and he's a better shooter than Theis, but he can't do some of the other stuff they want.
Defensively he's more like an old-school center who can block shots well and is a reasonable rim-protector. But he's old-school---not a great swtich guy physically, not good on the perimeter. So, some of the matchups the Celtics struggled with (Bam for example) are awkward for Turner too. And the Celts scheme, which uses switches and ends up with the C on perimeter players, exposes his worst defensive capabilities. While they'd benefit some from the shot blocking and rim protection, his lack of mobility cuts against that benefit to some degree as well.
So, is he better than Theis overall? I think unclear (I personally think not, but a reasonable case can be made for 'yes' if only slightly). If cost were zero, he'd be a great addition for the matchups and situations he brings something but he's quite expensive for what is really a different flavor of what Kanter brought---situational utility. Turner is better than Kanter, but it's the same problem really...it's not a 30 minute a game guy and not someone you can use in all games/situations.
Yeah, I am somewhere on the middle on Turner overall. I would take him as a player and think it's possible there's upside there. But I don't like the math on that upside against the salary given the fit questions.This is really well written, and I agree with pretty much all of it. I also understand why Turner doesn't now fit what the Celtics ask of bigs and is overpaid.
My belief all along is that he's 24, has skills and length, and was on an upward trajectory for his first four years before this past one, when he was completely overshadowed by Sabonis and regressed. He has had meh coaching. I think that he could learn to set a screen on offense and learn to hedge and drop on defense. With proper coaching, maybe that he's a less experienced Thompson with a shot. Maybe that guy still isn't worth 18M, and I accept that. And maybe Danny thinks that we can do way better in a salary dump candidate at the deadline or next offseason, which is perfectly reasonable. But I think that MT's being written off here hastily.
I agree, and I'd emphasize that "stretches the floor" is charitable: he's a ~35% shooter on low attempts (% went down last year when he increased the attempts).A different description of the problem is this:
Myles Turner has a somewhat uncommon set of skills, and those skills are a pretty imperfect fit for where the game is going and also for the Celtics scheme. He has value, but it's limited for Cs and likely worth well less than his salary.
He can space offensively as a shooter, which is an asset. But he's somewhat limited as a passer and he doesn't move a lot, so he is an awkward fit in Celtics scheme. Think about how Theis screens high, or Horford screened high and operated out of high post---Turner's positioning and motion is closer to what Semi does (though Turner can post a little) in that his primary value is standing somewhere for a spot-up jumper. There's value there, and he's a better shooter than Theis, but he can't do some of the other stuff they want.
Defensively he's more like an old-school center who can block shots well and is a reasonable rim-protector. But he's old-school---not a great swtich guy physically, not good on the perimeter. So, some of the matchups the Celtics struggled with (Bam for example) are awkward for Turner too. And the Celts scheme, which uses switches and ends up with the C on perimeter players, exposes his worst defensive capabilities. While they'd benefit some from the shot blocking and rim protection, his lack of mobility cuts against that benefit to some degree as well.
So, is he better than Theis overall? I think unclear (I personally think not, but a reasonable case can be made for 'yes' if only slightly). If cost were zero, he'd be a great addition for the matchups and situations he brings something but he's quite expensive for what is really a different flavor of what Kanter brought---situational utility. Turner is better than Kanter, but it's the same problem really...it's not a 30 minute a game guy and not someone you can use in all games/situations.
I think there are two different arguments on Turner:I'm on the wrong side of the argument here with Turner, but I still see something potentially good here. I think a lot of his perceived value is lost in the fact that he hasn't improved very much (at all?) over the last 2-3 years, but:
-Playing alongside another true center is bad for development
-He's still just 24
His lack of screening ability seems like nit-picking to me. Not that it's untrue, but how hard is it to teach a large [relatively] athletic big man to set a decent screen? They all can't be Al Horford, but teaching a guy his age and size to set a half decent pick and seal doesn't sound like it should be a reason to pass.
I don't think he has a fit on this year's team, but it's not a stretch at all to see the following at the end of the season:
-Thompson has too much tread on the tires to be that effective
-Theis signs somewhere else
-Rob Williams stubs his toe crossing the street and misses 30 games, pushing back his development yet again
Who knows what happens in the future.
I'm extremely skeptical of TT's numbers in that regard, because a) the Cavs' situation was so dysfunctional b) he's a good screener on film. I would be really really surprised if the Celtics don't use him heavily as a screening big.As I have noted here in the past, the PnR data is problematic for a variety of reasons but it shows Turner as a bottom half screen roll man. He is very close to guys like Alex Len and Omari Spellman in that regard. For contrast, the Cs ran PnRs with Timelord around the same rate as Indiana did for Turner and Williams was ~ .25 PPP better than Myles. Given these comps, it seems to support the argument that Turner, while again valuable, is overpaid given his skill set.
As a side note, TT is abysmal in this category so we likely see The Seal and Timelord as the main screening bigs this season.
https://theathletic.com/2245602/2020/12/12/hollinger-2020-21-celtics-preview-boston-what-to-do-trade-exception/Astute observers fantasizing about a Celtics dream team will note that a certain Washington Wizards All-Star has a salary that can be accommodated within the exception; alas, it’s unlikely Boston has the asset collection to match what other suitors can put on the table in a Bradley Beal transaction.
You are correct. Shockingly, John Hollinger is wrong.In the Celtics season preview that John Hollinger wrote for The Athletic, he states that the Celtics can fit Bradley Beal into the trade exception (but doesn't think the Celtics have the assets to win the bidding). I thought it was pretty well established that the trade exception wasn't big enough?
https://theathletic.com/2245602/2020/12/12/hollinger-2020-21-celtics-preview-boston-what-to-do-trade-exception/
I am curious. What adjustments could tip $251,774? It would not surprise me if someone like Ainge would be capable of finding ways around this sort of thing.The TPE was initially reported at $27.5 mil, which is not enough for Beal at $28.75. When the deal happened Hayward’s first year salary was $28.5. That would appear just short of Beal (as it is TPE+ 100k) but it’s close enough that stuff like the escrow treatment or other adjustments tip it
If Bradley Beal is traded Jaylen Brown is most assurendly going out. It is the only way to compensate WAS properly. So the TPE could be used in a second deal.The more important thing to me is it's very hard to see a talent match here---you can get there with Jaylen, but pretty hard to construct a scenario where that makes sense both ways and also would great suboptimize the TPE as you'd effectively lose the value of Jaylen's contract.
Trading Brown for Beal would be very disappointing.If Bradley Beal is traded Jaylen Brown is most assurendly going out. It is the only way to compensate WAS properly. So the TPE could be used in a second deal.
I agree that it doesn't really make sense to trade one for the other though, unless either team has a drastically different evaluation of one of them
For real. Unless he's traded he's a Celtic for at least the next 5 seasons, and we're at least 3 years away from having to start worrying about this.This whole line of conversation is people thinking too hard. I get that it's a message board and shit, but JT just signed a rookie max extension like a week ago. It hasn't even kicked in yet. Sweet Jesus.