Trading Chips and Keepers

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Honestly, I'm not sure Jeff Green is really that much of an overpay given the current SF market. Sure, you'd like better production for that money, but he basically got the same deal as Thaddeus Young, DeMar Derozan. Danillo Gallinari, and Nick Batum got, give or take a few million dollars. In other words, his deal is pretty much in line with what the middle tier of 3s are getting paid. 

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
but that doesnt stop guys like say Gay or Evan Turner from taking shots at a rate as if they are really 'the guy'.  Thats what I would have liked to see from Green, not even changing his game and driving more, just taking more shots.  He is one of our best offensive players and even if he is taking a lower efficiency shot for him its better than some of the other options we have on the team taking one of their most efficient shots.

 
Of course, if he started jacking up shots like Rudy Gay - who Green is not as good as - people on this board would be giving him grief about that too.
 

but there is a significant discrepancy between his talent and his production.

 
Maybe there actually isn't a discrepancy between his talent and production; maybe people just see him as more talented than he really is.
 
Just for fun, here is the list of 37 players making over $13M a year.  Jeff Green is clearly inferior to almost all of them, and as for the ones he may be better than, we should be glad, quite frankly, that we don't have the likes of Ben Gordan making $13.2M a year.
 
Kobe Bryant; Dirk Nowitzki; Amar'e Stoudemire; Joe Johnson; Carmelo Anthony; Dwight Howard; Pau Gasol; LeBron James; Chris Bosh; Dwyane Wade; Chris Paul; Deron Williams; Rudy Gay; Kevin Durant; Zach Randolph; Derrick Rose; Blake Griffin; Paul Pierce; Carlos Boozer; LaMarcus Aldridge; Marc Gasol; Russell Westbrook; Kevin Love; Brook Lopez; Emeka Okafor; Eric Gordon; Roy Hibbert; Luol Deng; Tyson Chandler; Danny Granger; Andrew Bogut; David Lee; James Harden; Josh Smith; Al Jefferson; Ben Gordon; and Nene Hilario
 
And the next two lists consists of (i) the other 31 players who are paid more than Green and (ii) the remainder of the top 100 paid guys in the NBA (Green is 69).  I think sometimes people forget how much the average player is paid in the NBA.  To me, while I'm not saying Green is a bargain by any means, on a per annum basis, certainly he fits in with players who are being paid in the same neighborhood..
 
Andre Iguodala; Tony Parker; Kevin Garnett; Serge Ibaka; Andrew Bynum; Nikola Pekovic; David West; Kris Humphries; Al Horford; Rajon Rondo; Andrea Bargnani; Nicolas Batum; Joakim Noah; Richard Jefferson; DeAndre Jordan; Ty Lawson; JaVale McGee; Tim Duncan; Tyreke Evans; Danilo Gallinari; Gerald Wallace; Tiago Splitter; Stephen Curry; DeMar DeRozan; Paul Millsap; Shawn Marion; Steve Nash; Jrue Holiday; Anderson Varejao; Andris Biedrins; Kendrick Perkins
 
Thaddeus Young; Jameer Nelson; Charlie Villanueva; Rodney Stuckey; Omer Asik; Jeremy Lin; Nenad Krstic; Ryan Anderson; Mike Conley; Marcus Thornton; Caron Butler; O.J. Mayo; George Hill; Monta Ellis; Jeff Teague; Ersan Ilyasova; Arron Afflalo; Trevor Ariza; Marcin Gortat; Brandon Jennings; John Salmons; Taj Gibson; Marvin Williams; Manu Ginobili; Goran Dragic; John Wall; Tayshaun Prince; Steven Hunter; Robert Horry; Wesley Matthews; Jose Calderon

 

[wutang112878]

 
Reasonable or not, I do see scenarios play out like this in the "real world" often enough not to rule it out as an approach.  Your point on the overpay is well placed, and the premium in that light sounds excessive. For the record I don't run my organizations/companies like this.  
 
You are correct that the C's position would be improved if the league (GMs) perceived all their contracts as "valuable".  Admittedly, I like Jeff as a player on this team over the duration of his contract, I like what he contributes and versatility he provides.  And I think the (IMO) 1.5 MM overpay is probably in the upper end of the variance (in talent -> salary) you could have forecasted in him as a player when the contract was rewarded.  I am in agreement that there is a slight overpay for JG now, I am suggesting it is not the overpay people are making it out to be.  The contract may have been driven by a different motive than we are discussing (e.g. happiness) or due to imperfect forecasting of his growth.
 
I think Bass and Humph can and will be moved, but I don't think there is anything of much value coming back.  Sure lower salaries would open up potential partners and therefore theoretically increase demand. The contracts to Bass, Lee/Terry (in light of having bradly on the roster) that I would be more critical of.

 
IMO most 'real world' how to run a company lesson dont particularly apply to running a basketball franchise.  When running a company you can decide to make less per widget to increase payroll to gain employee continuity.  When running a basketball franchise on most teams you are going to completely, or almost completely, turnover your roster every 5 to 7 years.  Your speed and efficiency for doing that can be affected by how you value continuity, there is certainly a give an take and a much greater give and take than in the business world.
 
Speaking for us Jeff Green haters, our issues are probably based on two assumptions we had for him.  One was that he would significantly impact the KG/PP Celtics team and keep their window open a little longer.  And two was that he would increase some counting stats once KG and PP was gone so he would be easily movable.  The later hasnt exactly happened and our consensus on this board is basically 'he is what he is'.  As for the former, Green was at his best, like career best, from Jan to Mar/Apr last year.  While our PPG went up, our points per shot was virtually unchanged, so we werent playing better (more efficient) offense we were just playing faster.  At that time on this board we started debating if revolving the offense around Green really helped because everyone else struggled as a result or if everyone else was struggling for reasons unrelated to Green.  Its difficult to tell which it was.  But he 2 assists per game the last 4 months of the season when he handled the ball a great deal.  And between that and my eyes telling me that he didnt make things easier for teammates when he held the ball, I just dont think he helped the offense.  At the end of the day, it might of been Greens fault and it might not have been, but the expectation that he would help extended the teams window was simply not met.
 
Personally, while we dont complain about them as often I put the Bass, Lee, Terry contracts in the same boat.  Slight overpays due to lack of alternatives to add talent, that ultimately slow down the rebuilding process once the run is over.  They were all long term sacrifice for short-term gain deals.
 
 

Honestly, I'm not sure Jeff Green is really that much of an overpay given the current SF market. Sure, you'd like better production for that money, but he basically got the same deal as Thaddeus Young, DeMar Derozan. Danillo Gallinari, and Nick Batum got, give or take a few million dollars. In other words, his deal is pretty much in line with what the middle tier of 3s are getting paid. 

 
Maybe its moving the goalposts, but it begs the question: Is it worth it?  None of those guys are really impacting their franchises all that much, and the use of comps reminds me of real estate.  When I bought my house in 2005 it wasnt an overpay, but with the bubble bursting it wasnt worth it at all.  I would have been better off not bidding whatsoever, point being its not all about price justification.  So perhaps the problem isnt Green specific, perhaps its a 'you cant pay a decent SF $8-9M' and your GM should recognize that.

 

[nighthob]

Maybe its moving the goalposts, but it begs the question: Is it worth it?  None of those guys are really impacting their franchises all that much, and the use of comps reminds me of real estate.  When I bought my house in 2005 it wasnt an overpay, but with the bubble bursting it wasnt worth it at all.  I would have been better off not bidding whatsoever, point being its not all about price justification.  So perhaps the problem isnt Green specific, perhaps its a 'you cant pay a decent SF $8-9M' and your GM should recognize that.

As the other option was not signing a swing forward and letting Pierce play 40 m/g are you saying that the team should have done a Garnett sign & trade, moved Pierce for scraps, let Green go and tanked the 2013 season?

 

[wutang112878]

There is a difference between tanking a season and not using every single resource available for short term gain.  My viewpoint, and I am purely title driven, is that team had maybe a 5% shot at winning and signing Green maybe gave them a 7% chance.  Considering the long-term risk associated with that Green contract and the minimal short-term reward, there is a case to be made that doing nothing was a reasonable option when balancing the short and long term.
 
There were also other options.  Would it have been unreasonable to ask Green for a 1 year show me deal considering he was coming off heart surgery?  And maybe give him a higher 1 year salary because it was just a 1 year deal.  Trying to sign and trade Green was another option, because if there was enough demand in the market to justify the contract then there must have been someone out there who would be willing to do a sign and trade.

 

[nighthob]

If they weren't going to sign someone to back up their 36 year old SF who already showed that he couldn't do it for more than 30 minutes a night anymore, why would you hold on to them? If they weren't going to sign Bass & Green it was time to blow the whole thing up. But last year's draft was shit and knowing that there was no prize they elected to sign Green to a market rate deal (because, really, that's what above average guys get) and Bass to one that was probably slightly over-market rate for a 6'6" and change PF that doesn't rebound much, but was better than their available alternatives. People are down on Green because he's not an alpha scorer. Guess what? He doesn't have the game to be one. He is a great sixth man being asked to be the focal point of opposing defenses. But, trust me, the professionals understand this. If all Boston wanted was to dump the salary they could do it tomorrow because there are lots of playoff teams that would take an effective swing forward for free.

 

[mcpickl]

 
Green does not defend as well as Bass.  Here is a great article that details some stats for Bass early in the season and it speaks to the intensity that he has had defensively this year. 
 
As for the aggression, this year he had the chance to be 'the guy' offensively, the alpha dog.  Yes he doesnt have the skillset to do that, but that doesnt stop guys like say Gay or Evan Turner from taking shots at a rate as if they are really 'the guy'.  Thats what I would have liked to see from Green, not even changing his game and driving more, just taking more shots.  He is one of our best offensive players and even if he is taking a lower efficiency shot for him its better than some of the other options we have on the team taking one of their most efficient shots.
 
Unless the Lakers are idiots they dont do that, they dont want Green clogging their cap.  Furthermore, if you want to take on a $9M a year contract and allow another team to shed salary, there are more talented players than Green that you could do that with.  Also, in that Green for Nash scenario we get nothing but to shed Greens salary, I dont see what value we receive.

You wouldn't receive any value. Why would you expect value for someone you think is a non-aggressive overpaid JAG?
 
This is what cracks me up about sports fans. This guy stinks, we need to get out from under a terrible contract! Point out a way you could, we're not getting enough value!!
 
Just the best.
 
PS. wanting Jeff Green to play more like the chuckers Rudy Gay and Evan Turner do is a terrible idea. It's not the 1970s anymore. Putting up inefficient bulk stats don't help other GMs view your player better, these teams all have advanced stat guys in their front offices now. Not many Isiah Thomas' running around these days.

 

[mcpickl]

There is a difference between tanking a season and not using every single resource available for short term gain.  My viewpoint, and I am purely title driven, is that team had maybe a 5% shot at winning and signing Green maybe gave them a 7% chance.  Considering the long-term risk associated with that Green contract and the minimal short-term reward, there is a case to be made that doing nothing was a reasonable option when balancing the short and long term.
 
There were also other options.  Would it have been unreasonable to ask Green for a 1 year show me deal considering he was coming off heart surgery?  And maybe give him a higher 1 year salary because it was just a 1 year deal.  Trying to sign and trade Green was another option, because if there was enough demand in the market to justify the contract then there must have been someone out there who would be willing to do a sign and trade.

No it wasn't. Celtics did not have sign and trade rights on Jeff Green.
 
As for asking Jeff Green to sign a one year deal, yes it would've been unreasonable. Because he had leverage too. He, and his agent, knew the Celtics options for a backup wing on a team with contending aspirations were Jeff Green or minimum salary guys.

 

[Cellar-Door]

You wouldn't receive any value. Why would you expect value for someone you think is a non-aggressive overpaid JAG?
 
This is what cracks me up about sports fans. This guy stinks, we need to get out from under a terrible contract! Point out a way you could, we're not getting enough value!!
 
Just the best.
 
PS. wanting Jeff Green to play more like the chuckers Rudy Gay and Evan Turner do is a terrible idea. It's not the 1970s anymore. Putting up inefficient bulk stats don't help other GMs view your player better, these teams all have advanced stat guys in their front offices now. Not many Isiah Thomas' running around these days.

 
Because that isn't what he is? He's a starting caliber SF in the NBA who is appropriately payed. The people who think he has value are the people who realize this, the people saying he is overpayed and should be dumped for nothing are getting overly emotional, and taking out their disappointment that he didn't suddenly become a star after 6 years in the league.

 

[mcpickl]

 
Because that isn't what he is? He's a starting caliber SF in the NBA who is appropriately payed. The people who think he has value are the people who realize this, the people saying he is overpayed and should be dumped for nothing are getting overly emotional, and taking out their disappointment that he didn't suddenly become a star after 6 years in the league.

Right. I'm in this group.
 
I was referring to the other group.

 

[Brickowski]

IMHO Green has more talent than some folks here think he has, but he wastes it. Regardless of whether or not people (like me) think he has been underperforming, or if people think he's a decent but not great sf playing up to his talent level, can we all agree that he's a trading chip (for whatever Ainge can get for him) and not a keeper?

 

[wutang112878]

If they weren't going to sign someone to back up their 36 year old SF who already showed that he couldn't do it for more than 30 minutes a night anymore, why would you hold on to them? If they weren't going to sign Bass & Green it was time to blow the whole thing up. But last year's draft was shit and knowing that there was no prize they elected to sign Green to a market rate deal (because, really, that's what above average guys get) and Bass to one that was probably slightly over-market rate for a 6'6" and change PF that doesn't rebound much, but was better than their available alternatives. People are down on Green because he's not an alpha scorer. Guess what? He doesn't have the game to be one. He is a great sixth man being asked to be the focal point of opposing defenses. But, trust me, the professionals understand this. If all Boston wanted was to dump the salary they could do it tomorrow because there are lots of playoff teams that would take an effective swing forward for free.

 
Before Green was signed we had 3 scenarios:  Use all available financial resources, blow it up, somewhere in between by signing vet min guys or contracts that did not end after KG & PPs  I was in the blow it up camp, but there is indeed a middle ground.  Its similar to what LA did over the summer, effectively nothing.  They didnt blow it up and they didnt spend either.
 
Last years draft wasnt great, but if they blew it up pre-Green deal this team would be bottoming out right now, it would be a completely blank slate and would be on its way to a win total in the teens.  In this years draft, thats a wonderful thing.  Thats the thing about rebuilding, its almost never a 1 year transition from great to bottom out awful, whenever the flip is switched there is typically enough remaining talent on the roster that the team doesnt have that many ping pong balls.  This hangover effect is the price we pay.
 
 

Sorry, but what is the long term risk on Green's contract? What is he preventing them from doing?

This team is miserable, nearly completely devoid of talent. They'd be even worse without green.

 
Risk may not categorize it correctly, but his contract lengthens a rebuilding process the same way, in isolation, the Gerald Wallace contract lengthens the process which is why we got 3 or 4 first round picks for taking him.
 
 

You wouldn't receive any value. Why would you expect value for someone you think is a non-aggressive overpaid JAG?
 
This is what cracks me up about sports fans. This guy stinks, we need to get out from under a terrible contract! Point out a way you could, we're not getting enough value!!
 
Just the best.
 
PS. wanting Jeff Green to play more like the chuckers Rudy Gay and Evan Turner do is a terrible idea. It's not the 1970s anymore. Putting up inefficient bulk stats don't help other GMs view your player better, these teams all have advanced stat guys in their front offices now. Not many Isiah Thomas' running around these days.

 
You're right, I lost my train of thought.  I thought we were debating if Greens contract was valuable not movable. 
 
Some GMs are dumb enough to be confused by counting stats.  Look at Gay, Greens salary is less than half of Gays and Gay just got moved for effectively no value.  Imagine if Green could put up 70% of the counting stats Gay could, at that salary, perhaps we could move him for something of value?
 
 

No it wasn't. Celtics did not have sign and trade rights on Jeff Green.
 
As for asking Jeff Green to sign a one year deal, yes it would've been unreasonable. Because he had leverage too. He, and his agent, knew the Celtics options for a backup wing on a team with contending aspirations were Jeff Green or minimum salary guys.

 
I probably have to read up on the CBA, but we must have had Bird rights because we went over the cap to resign him, so how couldnt we have sign and trade rights? 

 

[lexrageorge]

When the Celtics resigned Green, they were coming off a year where they gave the Heat all they could handle in the ECF.  Once Garnett decided to return, Ainge decided to reload the bench.  At the time, it was doubtful that Ainge could get a better play for MLE money (which was all they had available), but they could use their Bird rights on Green.  Green's agent knew this, and was in a reasonably strong negotiating position.  As noted, he ended up getting paid about where players of his ilk get slotted.  
 
Also, with Terry, Lee, and Green, Ainge obviously felt that they had a better than 5% chance of returning to the Conference Finals.  We may disagree, and it didn't work out that way, but that is what Ainge had to work with at the time.  
 
Going forward, not sure how much it matters.  The rebuild is under way; I don't see how Green or his contract affects that process one way or the other.  Not sure how much of a trade chip he will be, but I'm sure we'll find out come February. 

 

[lexrageorge]

 
 
 
I probably have to read up on the CBA, but we must have had Bird rights because we went over the cap to resign him, so how couldnt we have sign and trade rights? 

With the new CBA that went into affect at that time, there was really no incentive for Green to agree to a sign-and-trade.  

 

[Cellar-Door]

The Green inability to sign and trade was a weird wrinkle in the CBA because he had missed the entire previous year and was not on the roster technically. It was implemented after a trade in the early 2000s where a player who had basically retired was traded a year and a half later because he hadn't filed for retirement with the league. I think it was Keith Van Horn as part of the Jason Kidd to NJ deal.

 

[mcpickl]

With the new CBA that went into affect at that time, there was really no incentive for Green to agree to a sign-and-trade.  

No, as Cellar-Door said it was illegal.
 
To have sign and trade rights to a player, he has to have finished the previous season on your roster.
 
Green wasn't on Bostons' roster.

 

[nighthob]

Before Green was signed we had 3 scenarios:  Use all available financial resources, blow it up, somewhere in between by signing vet min guys or contracts that did not end after KG & PPs  I was in the blow it up camp, but there is indeed a middle ground.  Its similar to what LA did over the summer, effectively nothing.  They didnt blow it up and they didnt spend either.

But Boston did spend. They gave Garnett that three year deal, which meant that the over the cap Celtics had very few options. They needed guards and forwards. Are you saying they should have signed the crappy vet min players (because ringchasers weren't taking a discount to not compete for a title) and one MLE guy? They had very few options if they wanted to give it one last go. And when the year was done they cashed out Pierce and Garnett for a pile of draft picks, a huge TPE, and bottomed out in the right year.
 

Some GMs are dumb enough to be confused by counting stats.  Look at Gay, Greens salary is less than half of Gays and Gay just got moved for effectively no value.  Imagine if Green could put up 70% of the counting stats Gay could, at that salary, perhaps we could move him for something of value?

Did you know that Gay is producing more points/possession than Dwyane Wade? The problem with Gay isn't his offense, believe it or not, it's his execrable defense. Sacramento gambled that once he was away from Kyle Lowry he'd play better, and he has, offensively (and that's been a complaint about him since Memphis, the Grizzlies gave Lowry away to see if they could salvage the situation, the Raptors made the mistake of trading for his BFF, and ultimately gave up on it). And having a guy that can create his own offense down the stretch is a big advantage for a team.

IMHO Green has more talent than some folks here think he has, but he wastes it. Regardless of whether or not people (like me) think he has been underperforming, or if people think he's a decent but not great sf playing up to his talent level, can we all agree that he's a trading chip (for whatever Ainge can get for him) and not a keeper?

What is this hidden talent? It's truly hidden as it was invisible in college, too. He doesn't dribble particularly well, he isn't a particularly good shooter if he isn't on one of spots. He isn't great at anything. I mean he has long arms and is athletic, but not really strong enough to be a full time PF and not as quick as the quicker SFs. As a sixth man? Great. As an offensive focal point? Not so much.

 

[mcpickl]

 
Before Green was signed we had 3 scenarios:  Use all available financial resources, blow it up, somewhere in between by signing vet min guys or contracts that did not end after KG & PPs  I was in the blow it up camp, but there is indeed a middle ground.  Its similar to what LA did over the summer, effectively nothing.  They didnt blow it up and they didnt spend either.
 
Last years draft wasnt great, but if they blew it up pre-Green deal this team would be bottoming out right now, it would be a completely blank slate and would be on its way to a win total in the teens.  In this years draft, thats a wonderful thing.  Thats the thing about rebuilding, its almost never a 1 year transition from great to bottom out awful, whenever the flip is switched there is typically enough remaining talent on the roster that the team doesnt have that many ping pong balls.  This hangover effect is the price we pay.
 
 
 
Risk may not categorize it correctly, but his contract lengthens a rebuilding process the same way, in isolation, the Gerald Wallace contract lengthens the process which is why we got 3 or 4 first round picks for taking him.
 
 
 
You're right, I lost my train of thought.  I thought we were debating if Greens contract was valuable not movable. 
 
Some GMs are dumb enough to be confused by counting stats.  Look at Gay, Greens salary is less than half of Gays and Gay just got moved for effectively no value.  Imagine if Green could put up 70% of the counting stats Gay could, at that salary, perhaps we could move him for something of value?
 
 
 
I probably have to read up on the CBA, but we must have had Bird rights because we went over the cap to resign him, so how couldnt we have sign and trade rights? 

If Green piled up more counting stats, but did so inefficiently as you're asking, I don't think his value goes up. Probably not down either, but just stays where it is.
 
He's already putting up 80% of Gays points and rebounds as it is.

 

[wutang112878]

But Boston did spend. They gave Garnett that three year deal, which meant that the over the cap Celtics had very few options. They needed guards and forwards. Are you saying they should have signed the crappy vet min players (because ringchasers weren't taking a discount to not compete for a title) and one MLE guy? They had very few options if they wanted to give it one last go. And when the year was done they cashed out Pierce and Garnett for a pile of draft picks, a huge TPE, and bottomed out in the right year.

 
Remember the Danny who wouldnt match a deal for James Posey at the beginning of the Big3 era because Posey's deal would have extended beyond the Big3s contracts?  I wanted that Danny and the open checkbook Danny we saw last offseason to swap roles.  I think extending yourself financially at the beginning of the runs makes a lot more sense than doing so at the end of your title runs. 
 
Prior to the 2012/13 he gave new deals to Bass $6M, Green $8.4M, Lee $5M, and Terry $5M  I think thats the most he ever spent on the Big3s supporting cast in any offseason.  So yeah, I think its silly to have a free spending attitude at the absolute very end of their run, even though the only other option was to do very little. 

 

[tbrown_01923]

wu  - I think we could critique a number dannys moves, and that nobody here would disagree that the assets the C's have would have more value if they were on cheaper deals.  I think you are approaching the green contract from a perspective that we should have blown it up earlier, while there is another group looking at the contract in the context that danny decided to make another run for it.  I would have prefered them to make a decision to blow it up earlier, but given they decided to extend it I don't mind the contract given to green and find him to be an acceptable value in his currnt role, but better served in a future sixth mans role.

 

[bowiac]

Honestly, I'm not sure Jeff Green is really that much of an overpay given the current SF market. Sure, you'd like better production for that money, but he basically got the same deal as Thaddeus Young, DeMar Derozan. Danillo Gallinari, and Nick Batum got, give or take a few million dollars. In other words, his deal is pretty much in line with what the middle tier of 3s are getting paid. 

Other than perhaps DeRozan, I'd take each of those players well ahead of Green. I'd happily trade Green for any of those guys.

 

[wutang112878]

wu  - I think we could critique a number dannys moves, and that nobody here would disagree that the assets the C's have would have more value if they were on cheaper deals.  I think you are approaching the green contract from a perspective that we should have blown it up earlier, while there is another group looking at the contract in the context that danny decided to make another run for it.  I would have prefered them to make a decision to blow it up earlier, but given they decided to extend it I don't mind the contract given to green and find him to be an acceptable value in his currnt role, but better served in a future sixth mans role.

 
What causes me to nitpick these deals is my larger issue with how the Big3 era was run from the standpoint of when to be aggressive.  After the Big3 trade we added Posey on a 1 year deal.  The next year we didnt add a significant contract.  The next year we added Sheed.  That didnt work out so the next year we added Jermaine.  The next year we didnt make a significant addition.  Then it was last offseason that we added the Green, Bass, Lee and Terry deals.  In isolation, those deals arent that bad, I actually thought all of them were good, in terms of talent, depth signings for the team.  But I think it would have made much more sense to make those types of long-term commitment deals in the first few years of the era, even though it would have resulted in some tough cap hits it would have provided you with roster continuity and depth for a solid 3 year stretch run.  In isolation Dannys decision to make one more run made sense, but in hindsight it made his decision to be conservative earlier on with the managing of the era look foolish.
 
Compare this to how Miami has managed their non-core spending with this run.  Year 1 (2010/11) they sign their Big3 and are under the cap just enough to get Miller (overpay) who they sign to a long-term deal, and they resign both Haslem and Anthony (both slight overpays) to long-term deals.  Year 2 they resign Chalmers for some unknown reason since they dont let him handle the basketball to a long-term deal and added Battier to a long-term deal.  Year 3 they add Ray Allen.  So after year 2 they had Miller, Haslem, Anthony, Chalmers and Battier locked up on long-term deals.  While none of those are great players but whatever starting lineup you want to use those 3 guys coming off the bench are pretty good and that depth from roster spots 4 - 8 has been critical for their runs. 
 
But most importantly, because they made those long-term commitments earlier, their 'blow it up' scenario leaves them with a virtually blank slate.  Next year the only players on the books are Lebon, Wade, Bosh, Haslem ($4.6M expiring deal), if not for the recent trade Anthony ($3.8M expiring) would have been, Birdman at $1.4M and Cole on his rookie deal.  They arent left with a single cap problem. 
 
That is the type of approach Danny wanted to take, why he wouldnt resign Posey, and why he wanted all the financial commitments to end in one specific year.  But compare and contrast the Heat to the Celts this offseason once we decided to blow it up.  On the books we had 2 years (and a player option) of Green ($9M), 2 years of Bass ($6M), 2 years of Lee ($5M) and 2 years of Terry.  Thats probably the easiest way to explain it, if Danny had made these exact same moves 2 years ago right now our cap is completely clean without a single deal you really want to move on the books and you are already rapidly into rebuilding, instead we are still deconstructing.

 

[Jer]

Imagine Green and Bass expired this summer (heck even take Wallace off the books). Who would you sign or trade for with all of this cap room? I don't see the deals that would suddenly open up.
 
I kind of like having their contracts around so that we have some salary filler if a big trade presents itself.

 

[wutang112878]

Once you are under the cap it opens up possibilities.  You could sign a FA.  In trades you can take back more in salary than you give up, so you dont necessarily need the salary filler.  If you can take back more than you give you can facilitate 3 team deals and get easy assets the way the Warriors just traded Toney useless Douglas for Crawford and Brooks and simply gained some value because they took on salary.  You can also take on horrible contracts to get other assets, take the Nets deal where a huge reason why we got the 3 picks and right to swap one as well was because we took the Wallace albatross contract.
 
You can do similar things with expiring deals and salary filler deals, but you have to match puzzle pieces which is more restrictive than being under the cap.  Also, as it relates to this Celtics team if we werent flirting with the luxury tax this year Danny currently would have significantly more trade flexibility and the deconstruction of the roster could happen more rapidly.  So even if we just erased the Lee deal, that might have allowed him to make 1 major move this year that he currently cant make.

 

[nighthob]

Remember the Danny who wouldnt match a deal for James Posey at the beginning of the Big3 era because Posey's deal would have extended beyond the Big3s contracts?

That was the owners' call.
 

I wanted that Danny and the open checkbook Danny we saw last offseason to swap roles.  I think extending yourself financially at the beginning of the runs makes a lot more sense than doing so at the end of your title runs.

But we get back to the fact that by tanking the 2013 season they would have got no reward and still be in the exact same position they are now. Green's deal isn't untradeable, he isn't preventing them from doing anything they might otherwise have done, and he's not good enough to win them any games this year after they moved their best players. There's no guarantee that they could have got the haul they did from Brooklyn last year, and honestly those draft picks and that $10 million TPE are a lot more valuable than some slightly better than Kelly Olynyk roleplayer.

 

[wutang112878]

That was the owners' call.

 
I know you've said that before, but I cant confidently state that as fact.  If that is the case, not a big deal, then my critique is simply of the franchise as a whole not just Danny.
 
 

But we get back to the fact that by tanking the 2013 season they would have got no reward and still be in the exact same position they are now. Green's deal isn't untradeable, he isn't preventing them from doing anything they might otherwise have done, and he's not good enough to win them any games this year after they moved their best players. There's no guarantee that they could have got the haul they did from Brooklyn last year, and honestly those draft picks and that $10 million TPE are a lot more valuable than some slightly better than Kelly Olynyk roleplayer.

 
If we look at is as 'what could he have done in the offseason of 2013' we are back to looking at the problem is isolation and ignoring, the root of my gripes, the bigger picture.
 
As for the Nets picks there are 3 scenarios worth discussing, 1 - manage era differently and push gas petal earlier, 2 - do exactly as he did, 3 - do not add Bass, Terry, Lee, Green contracts.  I know that later you despise, but it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.  Doing the later doesnt just mean getting a better pick in the draft last year, it also means this years team is appreciably worse in a year that looks to be a great draft class.  So its entirely possible we getting a franchise cornerstone with those Nets picks, its also entirely possible in scenario 3 we get that franchise cornerstone this offseason

 

[tbrown_01923]

Wu - I agree that there has been some inconsistencies in approach over the last era that have left my head scratching a little. I think the better time for the bigger spend was at the start of the run / after the first title, looking back we had salaries tied up in giddens/pruit/bill walkers of the world for about 2.5MM in 2009/10. And a bench that could have used someone a little more athletic than Scal as the number 7/8 guy.
 
I always thought (at least under the old CBA) the only way to grow an over the cap team is to use the MLE over 3 year timeframe on youngish players.  Posey was essential on that first title, and I know there were some circumstances preventing the C's signing him beyond the 1yr deal initially, but he would have been a great candidate for a 3yr MLE from the start.  It was crazy to use multiple years and most of the MLE on guys like Wallace and J-Oneal, they were worn down...

 

[wutang112878]

Wallace and Oneal certainly fall into the 'wrong guys' category.  Oneal's knee was toast.  Wallace would have been the perfect fit because he could have played the 4/5 along side Perk or KG allowing the 3 of them to play ~32 minutes a game.  Unfortunately he loved eating and hated training.  Those were just Danny taking the best available guesses he had at the time.  If he was able to sign him Corey Maggette would have fallen into the same category.  Whereas if he was able to sign David West that would have been an end of the era changer, he would have given us a real shot in 11/12 and 12/13 and we also might have kept it together this year as well if he were on the roster.
 
Its funny because trader and drafter Danny is one of the best in the business.  In the offseason prior to the 12/13 he did find the right depth guys, but prior to that all the non-Big3 spending he did, outside of the Rondo deal, just didnt work out that well

 

[nighthob]

As for the Nets picks there are 3 scenarios worth discussing, 1 - manage era differently and push gas petal earlier, 2 - do exactly as he did, 3 - do not add Bass, Terry, Lee, Green contracts.  I know that later you despise, but it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.  Doing the later doesnt just mean getting a better pick in the draft last year, it also means this years team is appreciably worse in a year that looks to be a great draft class.  So its entirely possible we getting a franchise cornerstone with those Nets picks, its also entirely possible in scenario 3 we get that franchise cornerstone this offseason

Except that part of the reason that Brooklyn made the deal was that Pierce and Garnett looked as good as they did last year with the necessary support personnel. No necessary support, as much as you hate those guys now, and the big two burn out by the all-star break, Garnett likely retires, and Boston is left trying to get something for Pierce. But it wouldn't be four first round picks and a $10 million TPE, that's for damned sure. Nope, all things told Boston got a king's ransom for Pierce and Garnett, and all it cost Boston was the chance to draft an NBA ninth man rather than end of the bench bench depth. There is not a single player in last year's draft worth four first round picks. There aren't any three guys worth that much from that pool.

I always thought (at least under the old CBA) the only way to grow an over the cap team is to use the MLE over 3 year timeframe on youngish players.  Posey was essential on that first title, and I know there were some circumstances preventing the C's signing him beyond the 1yr deal initially, but he would have been a great candidate for a 3yr MLE from the start.  It was crazy to use multiple years and most of the MLE on guys like Wallace and J-Oneal, they were worn down...

Posey wasn't willing to sign a three year deal when he came here. He was looking for a five year deal that summer and no one was willing to give him that sort of commitment given that he was viewed as something of a problem personality in Memphis and (to a smaller degree) Miami. He took the one year MLE for Boston in the hopes that Boston would use its ensuing Early Bird Rights to sign him to a longer term higher money deal. But the owners choked at the price tag when Posey got the offer from New Orleans and declined.

 

[Jeff Van GULLY]

Would love to see Jeff Green get dealt for Gallinari. Helps with the Celtics tank this year, gives Denver someone to help them reach the playoffs and doesn't substantially impact cap flexibility since their contracts expire the same year.  A SF who can shoot from range is an important piece to pair with Rondo and his unique situation dovetails nicely with the Celtics' plans.
 
Plus he's only 25. 

 

[Cellar-Door]

Why would you want to trade Jeff Green for a worse player at the same position who makes more money and is about to miss close to 2 years with an ACL tear?

 

[nighthob]

Why would you want to trade Jeff Green for a worse player at the same position who makes more money and is about to miss close to 2 years with an ACL tear?

Because Rondo is magic? I can see why Denver would want out of the Gallinari deal. I'm just not sure why Boston would want into it (well, aside from the insurance considerations). Anyway, given the Knicks' tampering you really shouldn't be looking to find roleplayers to build around Rondo. The odds of him agreeing to toil in obscurity are really low. And then when he forces the trade you find yourself stuck with all those contracts.

 

[wutang112878]

 

[Jeff Van GULLY]

Why would you want to trade Jeff Green for a worse player at the same position who makes more money and is about to miss close to 2 years with an ACL tear?

 
Worse? 

 

[Devizier]

Here's a coarse calculation from basketballr-reference
 
For the 2013/14 season, the average cost per win share -- adjusted so that the league's lowest WS total is 0 -- is $2.216 million. Presumably if you have a team of players all matching that salary efficiency, you will have a 41 win team. Interstingly, the median cost per win share is $1.295 million. That's because the league is populated with late draft picks that have developed into good contributors (Isaiah Thomas, Chandler Parsons, Lance Stevenson) as well as veteran role players on minimum contracts for contenders (Livingston, Andersen, Brooks, Beasley).
 
Jeff Green's contract rates at $2.895 million per win share, which is not as bad as it sounds. A lot of max contract guys are close to that range. Thad Young is almost exactly the same.
 
The problem with giving Green the premium afforded to the league's best players is that he doesn't have the secondary effects of attracting good veterans to play on cheap contracts, in addition to the floor effects that great basketball players have. But you can definitely have a great team with Jeff Greens on it. You'd just much rather allocate those first dollars to a Chris Paul or Lebron James. Either way, it doesn't matter; these Celtics squad aren't getting one of those guys.
 
Of players that have played this year, Anthony Bennett has the league's worst contract at $53 million dollars per win share. Kobe Bryant is second ($43 million dollars per WS). Good luck with that, Lakers.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
Worse? 

 
I used career, not 1 year. Gallinari is a bit better shooter from 3, similar overall, Green has been the better rebounder, and Green is a significantly better defender. Gallinari has slightly better AST% numbers and turns it over slightly less. So, yes. he's the better player. Even based on just last year the difference in Defense makes up for the slight differences elsewhere.
 
Also BbRef winshares (the only real difference in their stats besides defense) are abysmally bad at valuing players and should never ever be used.
Green makes about $1.5M less a year and has two ACLs.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

 
I used career, not 1 year. Gallinari is a bit better shooter from 3, similar overall, Green has been the better rebounder, and Green is a significantly better defender. Gallinari has slightly better AST% numbers and turns it over slightly less. So, yes. he's the better player. Even based on just last year the difference in Defense makes up for the slight differences elsewhere.
 
Also BbRef winshares (the only real difference in their stats besides defense) are abysmally bad at valuing players and should never ever be used.
Green makes about $1.5M less a year and has two ACLs.

 
Green also doesn't get to the line, is incapable of completing a pass that goes forwards, and has a remarkable ability to crush any semblance of half-court rhythm when he touches the ball. And his defense is overrated. He gets lost in help defense 3 or 4 times a game and doesn't know what to do when he gets screened.
 
All else equal (money, years), I don't know why you'd take Green over Gallo personally.

 

[nighthob]

Are we assuming that not having either of them is addition by subtraction?

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
Green also doesn't get to the line, is incapable of completing a pass that goes forwards, and has a remarkable ability to crush any semblance of half-court rhythm when he touches the ball. And his defense is overrated. He gets lost in help defense 3 or 4 times a game and doesn't know what to do when he gets screened.
 
All else equal (money, years), I don't know why you'd take Green over Gallo personally.

Because even if overrated his defense is still significantly better than Gallo's, and all of the weaknesses Green has Gallo shares, Gallo gets to the line a bit more, but he's also a bad passer, and his rebounding is even worse than Green's already abysmal rate for their size. He's also seriously injured and paid over 25% more the next two years (and that assumes Green picks up the option which isn't guaranteed). There is a lot of "grass is greener" in arguments that are based on close inspection of Green's game when Gallo has many of the same problems.
The Gallo contract is brutal, there is no reason at all for the Celtics to even entertain a Green for Gallo swap.
 
Edit- to answer Nighthob. I think you can get something of small value for Green. However I would definitely take an expiring for Green over Gallinari.

 

[Devizier]

 
Also BbRef winshares (the only real difference in their stats besides defense) are abysmally bad at valuing players and should never ever be used.
Green makes about $1.5M less a year and has two ACLs.

 
Looks like Gallinari's points per possession (oRTG) is significantly better than Green's on account of the lower turnovers. That's where the difference in win shares come from.
Now, maybe you could show your work on why win shares should never be used.
 

Are we assuming that not having either of them is addition by subtraction?

 
My thoughts. No guarantee that Gallinari returns as anything resembling the player he has been in the past. Plus, the Celtics wouldn't have the luxury of playing him next to a defensive stopper like Iguodala in this imaginary scenario.

 

[Brickowski]

Chris Johnson appears to be a keeper. And I'm guessing that Faverani is being shopped, although it is unclear what, if anything, Ainge could get for him (unless he is part of a larger package).

 

[Stitch01]

Hope so, but not close to willing to say that after four games.

 

[tbrown_01923]

Well we should keep johnson for another 10 days at least!

 

[Koufax]

He said something yesterday about expecting to sign another 10-day contract today.  He made quite a first impression.  He might make a good addition to the squad going forward.
 
In terms of value to the team right now, I'd put Chris Humphries at the top of the list even though he didn't do very well last night.  He's much better than I expected him to be.  Does that make him a keeper?  Not necessarily, not when Danny the Dealer is in full poker mode, but he's at least a good chip.

 

[teddykgb]

But they're only good chips if other people are interested. Considering Johnson was pretty available to everyone, a few days in the league isn't going to make him a chip.

He has been impressive, though. I think he's an NBA player, he's eager to move to space and runs the floor, you could do a lot worse at the end of your bench. Attacks the rim and seems to be able to shoot it a little bit. Makes plenty of errors due to being too zealous, but I think he belongs, more or less. Doesn't make him particularly valuable, but he's probably a useful part even on a decent team. I'd be happy to watch him the rest of the season, he tries hard and has some athleticism.

edit: he seems to be on the Gerald Green memorial offensive instruction set: Run to the corner as fast as you can and wait to see if the offense swings back to you.

 

[ivanvamp]

Ranking Boston's best trade chips, based on ability, age, proaction, and contract:
 
1.  Rondo - about $12 million in both 2013-14 and 2014-15, but by far the biggest star on the team.
2.  Bradley - costs just $2.5 million in 2013-14 and 2014-15, and could be very helpful to a contending team.
3.  Sullinger - very inexpensive - just $1.3, $1.4, and $2.2 million over the next three years (including 2013-14).
4.  Humphries - expiring contract and solid production might make him valuable to a contender for 2013-14, but keeps them payroll flexible after that.
5.  Green - $8.9, $9.4, and $9.4 million this, next, and the year after that.  Solid player, not a star.  Might not be worth the money, though there are plenty of worse players making an awful lot more.
6.  Bass - $6.4 milion in 2013-14, and $6.9 million in 2014-15.  Useful player, could help a contender without killing them financially.
 
I think the Celtics have quite a few pretty nice trade chips if Danny wants to use them.

 

[Don Buddin's GS]

Chris Johnson gets another 10 day, per the Herald:

Johnson staying put

Chris Johnson, the NBADL guard handed a rare opportunity thanks to injuries to Avery Bradley and Jerryd Bayless, was informed last night the Celtics were signing him to a second 10-day contract.

“I learned a lot from the coaching staff and the players over the last 10 days, and I have a feel for what the guys like to do,” he said after scoring 12 points off the bench last night, including five in the fourth quarter. “Coach tries to emphasize me being hungry, and that’s what I try to do.”

Said Stevens: “He was great. He’s been fantastic and aggressive, and just a really good addition.”

 

[Devizier]

I'm still wondering what Ainge gets for Humphries. He's responded pretty well to a little showcasing. Nothing like some empty numbers on a bad team to get someone to overpay.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I'm still wondering what Ainge gets for Humphries. He's responded pretty well to a little showcasing. Nothing like some empty numbers on a bad team to get someone to overpay.

I'm guessing he gets $12M less on the cap next year. I don't see a big contract out there the Celtics would want that will be available.
Humphries might be able to get a 2nd if he made about 7.5M less than he does.

 

[wutang112878]

I'm still wondering what Ainge gets for Humphries. He's responded pretty well to a little showcasing. Nothing like some empty numbers on a bad team to get someone to overpay.

 
I'm curious too.  One option is to try to trade him for a pick or young player, but the downside of that is the salaries that come back.  Humphries makes $12M and in the ~$12M you take back there is going to be a bad contract or two.
 
Alternatively, I wonder if he could be used in a salary cap cleanup move.  Say we traded Hump ($12M) and Wallace ($10M) for Rudy Gay ($18M).  After this year Gay has a $20M option which I am sure he will use, and Wallace will have $20M left on his deal.  The Kings are at $68M in salary next year, so very close to the tax level.  Instead of paying Gay $20M next year, they could be easily under the tax and pay Wallace $20M over two years and in 15/16 they only have $31M in team salary anyway.  A 3rd team might also need be involved so the Kings get a little more value as well.  You could also do something like that with another team that is trying to get under the cap