If you are rebuilding do you think its better to be at/over the cap or under? If you think its the later we are giving up some opportunity cost this offseason
2014 Celtics Offseason: Rebuilding Plans
- Thread starter Curtis Pride
- Start date
It would be easy to play the counterfactual game for a very long time, but I'll keep it short and sweet:
1) Jeff Green got paid a contract on par with guys like Paul Millsap, Omer Asik, George Hill, and Ryan Anderson. Yeah, there are shittier players getting paid the same amount (coincidentally, Kendrick Perkins is a great example), but that's not a good argument for the player's value.
2) At the time of his signing, a lot of people made the argument that the Celtics were paying for his potential. But at best, his potential was to return to the average-ish NBA starter that he had been in his early seasons in Seattle and Oklahoma City. The guy had just had heart surgery -- and while he recovered admirably, the obvious risk must have been priced into the contract. If that's the case, then Ainge had him pegged for an even higher caliber player. A bizarre aspect of Jeff Green's perceived potential is that his apparently disappointing performance has yielded a lot of armchair psychoanalysis about his decision making and assertiveness. I think this is backwards. The guy was just never that talented.
3) We still get plenty of time for Green to cost the Celtics signing opportunities, because he's still got two years left on his contract.
postscript: I liked the Jeff Green trade, largely because Kendrick Perkins was heading downhill in a hurry, and it gave the Celtics the opportunity to run Garnett at center.
1) Jeff Green got paid a contract on par with guys like Paul Millsap, Omer Asik, George Hill, and Ryan Anderson. Yeah, there are shittier players getting paid the same amount (coincidentally, Kendrick Perkins is a great example), but that's not a good argument for the player's value.
2) At the time of his signing, a lot of people made the argument that the Celtics were paying for his potential. But at best, his potential was to return to the average-ish NBA starter that he had been in his early seasons in Seattle and Oklahoma City. The guy had just had heart surgery -- and while he recovered admirably, the obvious risk must have been priced into the contract. If that's the case, then Ainge had him pegged for an even higher caliber player. A bizarre aspect of Jeff Green's perceived potential is that his apparently disappointing performance has yielded a lot of armchair psychoanalysis about his decision making and assertiveness. I think this is backwards. The guy was just never that talented.
3) We still get plenty of time for Green to cost the Celtics signing opportunities, because he's still got two years left on his contract.
postscript: I liked the Jeff Green trade, largely because Kendrick Perkins was heading downhill in a hurry, and it gave the Celtics the opportunity to run Garnett at center.
Devizier said:
This is cool and all in a vacuum, and I'd take any of those guys over Green as well, but the NBA doesn't operate that way. Not one of the examples you mention were available for the Celtics to sign.
Again, these were the Celtics options to add as a first wing off the bench to their veteran team just coming off a conference finals appearance.
1. Jeff Green
2. A minimum salary guy
That's it.
They didn't have the option to sign Millsap, Asik, Anderson, Hill or any other guy for more than the minimum.
Whether Green is overpaid or not, they needed him at the time they signed him and his salary hasn't hurt their cap one bit.
Two years are already gone, and he hasn't affected their cap.
Even if you wiped him off the cap right now for free, they'd be committed to 47Mish or so for next year, and that would be a bare minimum. That's letting all your free agents including Avery Bradley go. Letting all the non-guaranteed guys like Chris Johnson go. Doesn't really leave you enough room to maneuver, and almost no shot they would want to do that anyway, so there goes year three of Jeff Greens deal without affecting their cap at all.
So all the complaining about Jeff Greens deal is year four, when he could pick up his option? A year they are still very unlikely to contend. They should've let him walk and replaced him with a guy on a minimum deal just for the possibility they could do something else three years down the road in a year they were unlikely to contend? They should've told KG, and Pierce, and Ray Allen, and Doc...sorry guys I know you need help, but three years from now when you guys are surely all gone and we probably won't be a contender, we might want that salary cap space for God knows what reason because it's likely we'll still be rebuilding at that point, so here's Mikael Pietrus again. Good luck!
Seems straight up insane to me all the complaining about Jeff Greens contract. It's just standard business in the NBA and it hasn't hurt them whatsoever.
Excellent post, mcpickl. I agree completely, and your explanation is spot-on. Thanks for taking the time to write it, as it must be exasperating having to rehash the details every couple of months.
Another possibility was Ray Allen, who is still a better player than Jeff Green, but we all know how that turned out.
Here's the thing, Jeff Green is not a top 100 player in the league -- in other words, he's a below-average starting player -- and his contract put him at the level of the top 50 guys. Whether his contract hurts the current edition Celtics is besides the point. The counterfactuals over the last few seasons could be potentially endless; maybe Ainge could have made Allen feel a little more special and kept him for half the money that Green is getting, or maybe having a smidge of extra tax room would have enabled some trades that never happened, we'll never know. I'm not really interested in counterfactuals. The reality, as I see it, is that Green is a mediocre NBA basketball player and that this was his potential at the time that the Celtics gave him his big contract.
Seguing back to the topic at hand; Green can't be traded for anything of value. This is, somewhat ironically, why I'm opposed to making "trade Green" a major component of the Celtics' offseason plans.
Here's the thing, Jeff Green is not a top 100 player in the league -- in other words, he's a below-average starting player -- and his contract put him at the level of the top 50 guys. Whether his contract hurts the current edition Celtics is besides the point. The counterfactuals over the last few seasons could be potentially endless; maybe Ainge could have made Allen feel a little more special and kept him for half the money that Green is getting, or maybe having a smidge of extra tax room would have enabled some trades that never happened, we'll never know. I'm not really interested in counterfactuals. The reality, as I see it, is that Green is a mediocre NBA basketball player and that this was his potential at the time that the Celtics gave him his big contract.
Seguing back to the topic at hand; Green can't be traded for anything of value. This is, somewhat ironically, why I'm opposed to making "trade Green" a major component of the Celtics' offseason plans.
So I didn't watch a ton of games this year. And he definitely took a big step back – maybe several.
But is Jeff Green really that bad of a player?
My sense was that 2012-13 was his breakout year – he showed numerous flashes of dominance and an ability to rise to the moment on the big stage. In 2013-14, he showed that he wasn't ready to take the team over. Which I'm not sure wasn't too much to ask of him.
He is unbelievably inconsistent. He stinks at rebounding. But there have been games against the Heat where he has literally looked like the best player on the floor.
I know last year was depressing and disappointing and Green gave a lot of people reason to say "He is who we thought he was!" But it seems like this was a guy who was finally coming into his own and was poised to be a major contributor when his team switched the script and said, "Actually, we need you to be a leader because we traded away all the other ones."
Which is a long way of saying, I'm not sure I'd completely give up on Green yet.
But is Jeff Green really that bad of a player?
My sense was that 2012-13 was his breakout year – he showed numerous flashes of dominance and an ability to rise to the moment on the big stage. In 2013-14, he showed that he wasn't ready to take the team over. Which I'm not sure wasn't too much to ask of him.
He is unbelievably inconsistent. He stinks at rebounding. But there have been games against the Heat where he has literally looked like the best player on the floor.
I know last year was depressing and disappointing and Green gave a lot of people reason to say "He is who we thought he was!" But it seems like this was a guy who was finally coming into his own and was poised to be a major contributor when his team switched the script and said, "Actually, we need you to be a leader because we traded away all the other ones."
Which is a long way of saying, I'm not sure I'd completely give up on Green yet.
Devizier said:
Normally I would be banging this same drum, as people have a tendency to ignore the "do nothing" option when faced with a number of bad choices. But your "top 50 NBA players" argument ignores the fact that almost all of those players were unavailable to be signed to the Celtics. They would have to give up assets to trade for Asik, not just pay him. And Asik is overrated anyway.
Jeff Green is probably overpaid. But when he was signed he was entering his prime and had the potential to make an all star game some day. I don't think they wanted the whole roster to be made up of rookies and salary dumps like Gerald Wallace and Humphries. Green was one of their VERY few options for finding a star in his prime. It hasn't worked out, but I think the risk was worth it. Gambling on Green gave them a better chance than doing nothing would have (except for improving our lottery position.)
wutang112878 said:
The principle advantage for bad teams to be under the cap is that you can trade your cap space for late picks. Well, the Celtics already have a ton of late picks coming their way, as well as a bunch of young role players. Do we want to take on another Gerald Wallace type contract in exchange for another pick in the 20's?
The Celtics need star players, and the only way stars are going to a bottom 10 team in a cold weather city is if you overpay them. I don't think Celtics fans want a Josh Smith type signing anyway, and guys like Melo and Kevin Love aren't realistic options.
I don't believe that the cap space Jeff Green is eating up could really have been turned into a legit max player. But I do agree that if the team could have found a superstar and opted for Green instead, then they made a mistake.
mcpickl said:
All your conclusions here are predicated on the fact that you wanted to continue with that core, you wanted to devote your resources to continuing that run and that justified every move that maximized the short term gain.
That offseason prior to the 2012 season Danny:
- Resigned Garnett to 3 / $36M
- Resigned Jeff Green to 4 / $35M
- Resigned Bass to 3 / $20M
- Signed Lee to 4 / $21M
- Signed Jason Terry to 3 / $15M
Having said all that, pulling all these numbers has got me to reflect and revisit the situation thinking about these alternatives either blow it all up in 2012 offseason or continue forward as Danny did. I dont know if folks remember but I kind of, sort of wanted is to blow it up, and as I reflect now I think I was wrong. If we blew it up we have a healthier cap today and get a higher pick in the last draft, but we dont have the 3 Brooklyn picks, the 1 Brooklynn swap and the 1 Clippers pick. However, there was about a 1% chance of Danny pulling something like that off so he took a big risk and he also hit a grand slam.
But what sucks about saying that, is now I have to join the 'Greens contract doesnt matter' team, and that really sucks because I hate him as a player and complaining about him in anyway brings me great satisfaction.
All of the "Jeff Green or nobody" stances also ignore that just because they held Jeff Green's rights didn't mean they had to give him that much money. He was a guy who a) was coming off of a major health condition and b) had never earned an $8/year salary on the court. There's no evidence that he could have gotten anything close to what the Celtics gave him elsewhere. Was Jeff Green really in a position to turn down 3/$20 or 4/$24 or 4/$26 even 4/$30. That's why people don't like that deal. Not because of all of the other options, or the effect it's having on the cap currently, but because it seemed like an arbitrary number and an unnecessary risk.
Van Everyman said:
These 4 sentences sum up Greens entire career. The potential is there, you see it inconsistently but its there maybe 20% of the time, 20% of the time you hardly notice he is on the court and 60% of the time he is adequate. Thats part of what frustrates the Green critics is the wildly inconsistent play, and if we never saw that potential if he was a Bass with a very clear and finite ceiling then he probably isnt as frustrating.
But the narrative you have here to explain some recent bad performance is also a common theme in Greens career. In year 2 he took a leap and improved from his rookie season, but in year 3 there was no leap, in year 4 there was no leap in OKC. Then he came here and the thought was that perhaps OKC wasnt the right fit considering the offense really revolved around Durant and then Westbrook loved to shoot more than he wanted to help make shots easier for his teammates. His performance seemed to improve here while he was playing a smaller role and we thought he was going to continue to improve. Then 11/12 was a completely lost season. He kind of got a pass for 12/13 because he was coming back from the heart surgery and in the last couple months of the season it looked like he was coming into his own. But then this year instead of improving he regresses and the rationale is that he cant be a leader on the team he just lacks that skillset. But even if he didnt fulfill that role his efficiency was just very, very bad.
The punchline to my long winded synopsis is that there are always a lot of reasons why we dont see the improvement we would want to see from Green that would allow him to tap into that potential. And when you consider the past history and the frequency of those reasons, I think they are just going to continue for the duration of his career. I think its very, very difficult for Green to find himself in the right circumstances where the team around him is the most conducive environment for him and he can truly flourish. We also need to remember the guy is 28, about 95% of all basketball players are what they are at 28, even those with major injuries. So thats why at this point, I just think Green is what he is.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
Not that it justifies it, but it explains part of the reason Greens agent was making the demands, in July they resigned KG, Bass, traded for Lee and signed Terry. Green was the final domino to fall and his agent knew it, and knew that Danny needed that final piece. I bet Greens agent even used Bass as a comp, 'if you give this borderline starer $6M then....' I agree it was an overpay though
They'd also made the Perkins trade and at that point had nothing much to show for it. Green certainly had leverage, but let's not forget that part of that leverage was Danny's own creation. They rescinded a qualifying offer to him which turned him into a UFA in a year that he was only slated to be an RFA.wutang112878 said:
moly99 said:
Take this year though, even if they didnt have cap space if they werent right up against the luxury tax they probably could have been more aggressive in exploring trades. You can also use your cap space to absorb players who are already overpays but are actually talented and try to turn those guys into trade chips by letting them put up some hollow stats on a bad team and hope another GM falls in love with them. We also arent attracting a premier FA, no doubt about that, but perhaps we could have signed a guy who is really an MLE type of guy but because we are under the cap we can go slightly over the MLE and we get a guy who could be a 4th wheel, thats another thing to consider. There really are a lot of options, its certainly isnt a magic bullet for rebuilding but it helps.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
Yeah, but... Who cares? First, we're not Grousbeck and he seems perfectly fine with the way Ainge has spent the team's money. Second, because of the absurdity that is the NBA team salary cap rules (including rights and all that crap), literally nothing of import was affected whether he signed at 4/20 or 4/40. The idiotic cap rules make it so salaries are distorted in all directions - your individual expectations should not relate to what a guy ends up making.
I know it's slightly off-topic, but let's not forget - the Celts pick that became Green was traded for Ray Allen. Even Seattle thought Green had huge upside. Presti then made a second bad player evaluation, valuing Perkins more than Green (who did disappoint). Pull these deals together, and you have the Celts trading a fading Perk for a prime Ray Allen. You can't not like either deal.
zenter said:
Yeah, but... Who cares? First, we're not Grousbeck and he seems perfectly fine with the way Ainge has spent the team's money. Second, because of the absurdity that is the NBA team salary cap rules (including rights and all that crap), literally nothing of import was affected whether he signed at 4/20 or 4/40. The idiotic cap rules make it so salaries are distorted in all directions - your individual expectations should not relate to what a guy ends up making.
I know it's slightly off-topic, but let's not forget - the Celts pick that became Green was traded for Ray Allen. Even Seattle thought Green had huge upside. Presti then made a second bad player evaluation, valuing Perkins more than Green (who did disappoint). Pull these deals together, and you have the Celts trading a fading Perk for a prime Ray Allen. You can't not like either deal.
I'm not so sure that's true. Jeff Green at 4/20 is a much more attractive trade target than Jeff Green at 4/40, particularly given how hesitant teams are to even approach the luxury tax. As an asset, Jeff Green's less attractive because of his salary. For a rebuilding team, that's a bad thing.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
I might be completely making this up but were there 11/12 cap reasons they had to do that? We were over the cap that year and if we had extended the qualifying offer would his 'salary' have counted against the cap and created an additional tax bill?
The NBA is not like other sports, in that signing someone to the cheapest possible deal is not always the best option. Why? The bizarre trading scheme! I agree the length was bad, but you need human bodies on an NBA roster making certain ballpark salary amounts so that you can make contracts match in a trade.Grin&MartyBarret said:
Having said that, I don't know if $9 per year is more tradeable than $6 per year. But what I do know is that one of the greatest trades Danny Ainge ever made was when he got Theo Ratliff for Raef Lafrentz. Ratliff got I think $12 million to play two minutes in a Celtics uniform.
Getting back to the offseason plans, what are the chances that Rondo gets traded? The best scenario I can think of is the Lakers. You have an aging gunner in Kobe returning, and he's on record as a huge Rondo supporter. The "Showtime" Lakers are not the type of organization that is down for a traditional long rebuild; they're all about stars. Other than Carmelo Anthony and (possibly) Kevin Love, Rondo would be the biggest "name" player available. The Clippers are stealing the headlines, and the trust-fund ownership in LA desperately wants to get the Lakers back on the map. I firmly believe that they would prefer to trade their first round pick (assuming it's not top 3) for Rondo rather than waste the last couple of years of Kobe waiting for a Julius Randle to develop.
Steve Nash and the #7 pick in the 2014 NBA draft for Rajon Rondo: Who says no?
Steve Nash and the #7 pick in the 2014 NBA draft for Rajon Rondo: Who says no?
Lets go with that line of thinking. Currently they are at $36M in payroll for 14/15, if they add Rondo that goes up $3M to $39M. Then add in 7 cap holds for empty roster spots because they only have 5 guys on the books, thats another ~$3.5M, bringing the total to $42.5M, and if the cap goes up to $63.2M as its projected to that leaves them with $21M in cap space which would be enough to sign a max guy. Its certainly an interesting scenario for them but its really contingent upon them getting a max guy.
But does that leave them enough to contend? If they go this route they really cant add any more significant pieces for 14/15, so is Rondo, coming off injury Kobe + Max Guy enough to contend? Because then in 15/16 they can add an MLE guy but then Kobe is a year older and they also need to resign Rondo but they really wouldnt care about the tax bill associated with that. And in the post-Kobe future they would have a resigned Rondo and the Max Guy to build around, but I really dont know if they ever plan for the long-term.
From a Celtics perspective, I dont think we could really do much better than a #7 pick for Rondo, and we could probably buyout Nash to generate some more savings but it doesnt give us cap space. So the question becomes in 15/16 would you rather have the #7 guy on a rookie contract or Rondo on something between the $13M he gets now and the max? I'd have to take the #7 pick even if he is a lesser player than Rondo because long-term I really dont want to pay Rondo a ton of money when he is in his 30s
So to answer your question, I think both teams think long and hard because its a long-term projection decision for the Celts, and for the Lakers it would be the first domino to fall in their reloading plan, but I think both say yes because I cant see better alternatives for either of them.
But does that leave them enough to contend? If they go this route they really cant add any more significant pieces for 14/15, so is Rondo, coming off injury Kobe + Max Guy enough to contend? Because then in 15/16 they can add an MLE guy but then Kobe is a year older and they also need to resign Rondo but they really wouldnt care about the tax bill associated with that. And in the post-Kobe future they would have a resigned Rondo and the Max Guy to build around, but I really dont know if they ever plan for the long-term.
From a Celtics perspective, I dont think we could really do much better than a #7 pick for Rondo, and we could probably buyout Nash to generate some more savings but it doesnt give us cap space. So the question becomes in 15/16 would you rather have the #7 guy on a rookie contract or Rondo on something between the $13M he gets now and the max? I'd have to take the #7 pick even if he is a lesser player than Rondo because long-term I really dont want to pay Rondo a ton of money when he is in his 30s
So to answer your question, I think both teams think long and hard because its a long-term projection decision for the Celts, and for the Lakers it would be the first domino to fall in their reloading plan, but I think both say yes because I cant see better alternatives for either of them.
JohnnyTheBone said:
A top-5 PG for no PG and a pick for what's most likely not a starter? Yeah, I'd say the Lakers would need to throw in a little more. Remember, even if Rondo wants to leave, the Celtics hold far more leverage than he does. If the Lakers really want Rondo, I'd expect to see more picks or a cheap/good (Kendall Marshall?) player to help balance things. Speaking of which, what does Rondo offer over Marshall that makes him worth the Lakers' interest?
EDIT: wutang sees the exact opposite scenario that I do.
slamminsammya said:
I don't get why people think the NBA trading scheme is so weird. It's a salary cap system, so unless teams are far enough under the cap to absorb the incoming money without going over the cap, salaries have to match. It's not nearly as complicated as people make it out to be.
But the fact that salaries have to match is exactly why the Celtics haven't found a taker for Green yet. You either need to match him up with a player making 9 million a year, or multiple players making less than that. And given Green's on court value, that makes it complicated to find a deal that works for both teams. First, you'd need to find a team that considers Green an upgrade at the 3 or 4--a much more complicated task than you'd think--and then that team needs to be able to come up with 9 million dollars in salary to send back without sending out players that nullify the value Green brings back. If he were making 6 million, it's much easier, because that's a sweet spot around the MLE that makes salary matching easier.
zenter said:
This really needs some further digging because we have to project cap space which is difficult but.... Here's what I did, granted its very much a napkin math exercise. I took the 13/14 cap for each team and compared it to the 14/15 cap, and assumed that each team would go right back to their 13/14 spending levels. So the Raptors have ~$68M in spending in 13/14 and ~$51M on the cap in 14/15, so this offseason I would project them to spend ~$17M. In 15/16 they currently have $21.4M on the books, then you add in the $17M and I project them to have $38.7M on the book for 15/16 going into that offseason, which would mean assuming the cap is at $65M they would have $26M in cap space
Here is that data for all the teams, sorted by 15/16 projected cap space. And there are 13 teams that could offer a max deal, and of those I would think the Knicks, Blazers, Kings, Magic, Raptors, Hawks, Jazz, and 76ers might be interested in Rondo because currently they dont have a high priced PG on their 15/16 books. Lets assume half of those teams find a PG between now and then, that leaves 4 teams that might have the cap space and the interest in Rondo as possible max dollars.
If the market breaks right, Rondo might actually have a choice of a few FA destinations and he would have the leverage
| Team | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | Projected 14/15 Spend | 2015-16 Currently On Books | 2015/16 On Books + Projected 14/15 Spend | 15/16 Projected Cap Space |
| New York Knicks | $88,914,896 | $92,069,924 | ($3,155,028) | $13,389,155 | $10,234,127 | $54,765,873 |
| San Antonio Spurs | $63,396,424 | $54,383,004 | $9,013,420 | $9,466,400 | $18,479,820 | $46,520,180 |
| Portland Trail Blazers | $63,214,586 | $64,832,163 | ($1,617,577) | $27,680,835 | $26,063,258 | $38,936,742 |
| Sacramento Kings | $63,329,352 | $68,179,693 | ($4,850,341) | $31,763,970 | $26,913,629 | $38,086,371 |
| Orlando Magic | $55,283,238 | $48,079,111 | $7,204,127 | $20,403,873 | $27,608,000 | $37,392,000 |
| Memphis Grizzlies | $72,004,777 | $68,396,842 | $3,607,935 | $26,233,344 | $29,841,279 | $35,158,721 |
| Phoenix Suns | $53,133,957 | $32,486,785 | $20,647,172 | $15,354,352 | $36,001,524 | $28,998,476 |
| Toronto Raptors | $68,635,924 | $51,364,505 | $17,271,419 | $21,464,399 | $38,735,818 | $26,264,182 |
| Cleveland Cavaliers | $64,739,938 | $46,526,721 | $18,213,217 | $22,406,081 | $40,619,298 | $24,380,702 |
| Atlanta Hawks | $58,878,487 | $50,184,958 | $8,693,529 | $32,220,180 | $40,913,709 | $24,086,291 |
| Utah Jazz | $57,488,043 | $32,129,564 | $25,358,479 | $16,748,801 | $42,107,280 | $22,892,720 |
| Philadelphia 76ers | $52,847,822 | $31,588,033 | $21,259,789 | $23,052,720 | $44,312,509 | $20,687,491 |
| Houston Rockets | $65,257,011 | $63,707,723 | $1,549,288 | $44,788,089 | $46,337,377 | $18,662,623 |
| Boston Celtics | $70,909,120 | $56,584,250 | $14,324,870 | $33,607,335 | $47,932,205 | $17,067,795 |
| Detroit Pistons | $61,897,253 | $42,177,875 | $19,719,378 | $28,955,624 | $48,675,002 | $16,324,998 |
| Minnesota Timberwolves | $68,495,356 | $66,454,320 | $2,041,036 | $49,365,578 | $51,406,614 | $13,593,386 |
| Milwaukee Bucks | $56,171,706 | $46,988,597 | $9,183,109 | $42,761,957 | $51,945,066 | $13,054,934 |
| Chicago Bulls | $73,715,925 | $66,520,497 | $7,195,428 | $47,017,937 | $54,213,365 | $10,786,635 |
| Dallas Mavericks | $67,731,565 | $32,161,500 | $35,570,065 | $20,645,084 | $56,215,149 | $8,784,851 |
| Indiana Pacers | $67,154,570 | $64,961,410 | $2,193,160 | $55,601,755 | $57,794,915 | $7,205,085 |
| Los Angeles Clippers | $73,056,545 | $76,042,553 | ($2,986,008) | $61,963,361 | $58,977,353 | $6,022,647 |
| Denver Nuggets | $65,522,865 | $65,663,178 | ($140,313) | $59,257,088 | $59,116,775 | $5,883,225 |
| Oklahoma City Thunder | $71,250,908 | $69,908,923 | $1,341,985 | $57,815,242 | $59,157,227 | $5,842,773 |
| Charlotte Bobcats | $63,463,450 | $45,009,947 | $18,453,503 | $40,891,437 | $59,344,940 | $5,655,060 |
| New Orleans Pelicans | $64,334,295 | $56,029,847 | $8,304,448 | $56,018,064 | $64,322,512 | $677,488 |
| Los Angeles Lakers | $77,448,046 | $36,259,471 | $41,188,575 | $25,981,348 | $67,169,923 | ($2,169,923) |
| Washington Wizards | $70,999,638 | $46,500,242 | $24,499,396 | $43,699,978 | $68,199,374 | ($3,199,374) |
| Golden State Warriors | $71,439,356 | $51,662,902 | $19,776,454 | $49,423,828 | $69,200,282 | ($4,200,282) |
| Brooklyn Nets | $102,311,956 | $90,598,105 | $11,713,851 | $64,097,402 | $75,811,253 | ($10,811,253) |
| Miami Heat | $80,932,182 | $70,267,178 | $10,665,004 | $65,880,000 | $76,545,004 | ($11,545,004) |
wutang112878 said:
While I agree, that's kind of the situation the Celtics are already in with Green. He is an athletic, talented player who is overpaid. I think any B level player we could have brought in would struggle with a role that was too big for them, just like Green has. Asking Taj Gibson, OJ Mayo, Jrue Holiday etc to carry this team would have had similar results.
Debating various scenarios with Green is re-arranging deckchairs on the titanic. While there might have been a marginal improvement in signing Green to 4/30 instead of 4/36, or finding someone 10-20% better than Green, it doesn't change where the team is or its plans for the future.
JohnnyTheBone said:
It really is amazing how many decent point guards there are out there right now. The supply/demand ratio is really bad for teams trying to move a point guard.
I'm not sure if the Lakers would be better off trading for Rondo or drafting Marcus Smart. Drafting Smart would leave them more money to spend on free agents. But Kobe probably doesn't want to waste a year tutoring a rookie PG.
zenter said:
Why do we think Rondo is a top 5 PG? Let's be honest: if he were we wouldn't be so eager to trade him.
PER may not be the best measure to judge players (especially good defensive players), but consider that Rondo was 11th in PER two years ago, and that was before a torn ACL and a long recovery from which he hasn't jumped back to 100%.
Devizier said:
Ray Allen can't play three, which they needed, and they signed Jason Terry to play 2.
Greens contract doesn't put him at the level of the top 50 guys at all. He's the 68th highest paid player in the league in which a large portion of the player pool are on rookie contracts that haven't allowed the good players on them to be properly paid. So I'd even call him the 68th highest paid veteran, which seems about right to me.
Saying his contract put him at the level of the top 50 guys seems to me to be, dare I say it, counterfactual.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
Yes he was. Because he had the leverage of knowing the Celtics had no other real legit options.
But let's say they could have had him at 4/30. Is that really a big enough issue to complain about that they have him on the books at 7.5M a year instead of 9M? What's happening with that extra 1.5M that's a big deal?
Grin&MartyBarret said:
The qualifying offer Ainge rescinded only made him a UFA right away in the 2011-12 season he missed rather than an RFA.
If he didn't rescind it, they'd have paid Green 9M for 2011-12 to sit out after his heart surgery, then he'd have still become a UFA.
Rescinding the qualifying offer made zero difference in Greens' leverage.
mcpickl said:
Counterfactual is a historian's way of saying "what if"
I was spitballing the top fifty -- sixty eight isn't far behind -- and the point stands anyways. Green is paid a lot more than he's worth on the court.
I'm not going to blame Ainge for missing out on inexpensive finds like Danny Green and Gerald Green -- those finds are few and far between -- but there are examples, even with the same last name, of what you can get without committing the big money to a mediocre NBA starter with red flags everywhere.
On Jeff Green. He is probably overpaid by $1-2M a year. HOWEVER- he was still a good signing. When he signed this was a team that made decisions based on being over the cap for years to come, and trying to make 2 more runs with the Pierce, Garnett, Rondo trio. that team needed Jeff Green badly, and he was very good at the role he filled in that situation, they could sign him were they couldn't sign other players because of the cap. Additionally, the whole revisionist "he could have been had for less" argument is stupid. He was one of the most sought after FA in what was a weak class, look back at the articles at the time, his agent mentioned that he probably could have gotten more from one of the other teams interested, but expressed a preference for Boston if the money was close. Similarly others in the league mentioned that even if it was an overpay it was one the Celtics needed to make.
All that aside, it isn't an albatross contract, he's a decent player and it won't hurt them much if any should they keep him.
All that aside, it isn't an albatross contract, he's a decent player and it won't hurt them much if any should they keep him.
Cellar-Door said:
These statements are a little strong. In the 2 years he played with PP, KG and Rondo he started 19 out of 107 games, Bass started over him. He averaged less than 30 min a game. He couldnt really be on the floor in crunch time because his best position to play is the 4, its where his efficiency is better than his PF counterpart, but he can not and never will rebound. If he was indeed very good his role would have been different. And before you point to the last 2 months of that season to highlight his greatness, the sample size we have seen after that really gives credence to the fact that those 2 months were just a bit of hot shooting not a demonstration of sustainable skill.
As for his rank in free agency, regardless of talent he was still coming off of serious heart surgery and there was real, genuine concern about how it would affect his career. And what do you expect his agent to say 'Thank you very much Celtics, because I couldnt create a market for Jeff so this was the only option he had'. During free agency that year I didnt hear a single offer he got from another team.
If this doesn't depress you I'm not sure what will. The Celtics greatest assets moving forward are our 2014 and 2015 1st round high lottery picks, the (3) unprotected Brooklyn Nets 1st round picks, suddenly now the 2015 LA Clippers 1st round pick, and Danny Ainge's cajones.......not necessarily in that order.Eddie Jurak said:
Jeff Green's value is blah and nobody is giving up anything worthwhile for a Rondo rental who will be in for a rude awakening as to what his value is around the league.
Sully and Olynyk could be decent complimentary pieces but no team would dream of building around them.
HomeRunBaker said:
This has me beyond excited though. Sure its not instant gratification, but if Danny creates a good young team like a poor mans Indiana in the next few years and then uses these picks to continually add talent we literally might see a 5 year run where this team is consistently in the title discussion and they get better and better as the years go on. Thats certainly best case scenario, but thats amazingly exciting.
Oh I agree this gives us tremendous flexibility and opportunity to catch lightning in a bottle as well. I remain bearish on the Nets future with an inexperienced hands-on owner and the Clippers pick suddenly became very interesting.wutang112878 said:
I was only commenting on the crapola known as our present day roster.
HomeRunBaker said:
I agree that our current youth roster isnt much to get too excited about but it is what it is. Its not as if Danny whiffed on picks, Sully and Olynyk were decent value for where they were selected. The problem was that our youth pipeline was non-existent during the Big3 era mainly because of where we were picking. Then when Danny traded PP & KG he got future value and not immediate value. This is kind of the by-product of riding an era out to absolute completion rather than proactively tearing the team down with the hopes of rebuilding more quickly, its a tough balancing act for a GM
Rudy Pemberton said:
I'd have to do the research but I dont think any team has ever had as many first round picks as we have over the next 5 years in the history of the league. Then add in the Clippers turmoil and the projected future of the Nets, and there is a lot to hope for. Rebuilding in the NBA is a lot like sailing on choppy waters without a compass or a map, but now with Danny we have an experienced captain at the helm which is huge. When we were sailing with Pitino or Chris Wallace we just got to Gilligans Island.
Darren Erman is back with the Celtics after his scandalous exit from GSW. Apparently, secret recordings are all the rage in sports today.
http://greenstreet.weei.com/sports/boston/basketball/celtics/2014/04/29/celtics-bring-former-warriors-assistant-darren-erman-back-to-boston/
http://greenstreet.weei.com/sports/boston/basketball/celtics/2014/04/29/celtics-bring-former-warriors-assistant-darren-erman-back-to-boston/
Roy Hibbert will be available very soon on the trade market. Big risk/reward for whoever gets him.
Asik too, and I'm guessing that Larry Sanders could also be had for the right price.The Social Chair said:
I'm not so down on the current roster. IMHO they are a decent center and a decent shooter away from being a 40 win team. After that they need to find a couple of stars to become a contender, and over the next two years Ainge has the draft picks and cap flexibility to get that done, either via the draft, trades or free agency.
Because nothing says franchise cornerstone like guys who put up stats on terrible teams, play no defense and don't make their teams better.Devizier said:
The Wolves are much worse on offense without him and much better on D.Grin&MartyBarret said:
Looking at 2012 when he was out most of the year their defense was good, but god was their offense bad.... I was a bit hasty, he does make his team better.
Of course whether he does so enough to make him worth what he is paid is a tough question.
Looking at this year that team has no-one else who can score and he's a very good scorer so his on/off stats look nice. Also it can be tough to gauge his impact since he plays a ton of minutes and most non-Love lineups they used this year are 5 scrubs. The only two 5 man units in the top 20 in usage that feature Rubio and not Love are two of the most effective per minute, but the sample size is tiny, less than 40 minutes total for each.
According to 82 games the defense was the same with our without him. According to basketball ref the opponents Ortg goes from 106 to 106.5 with him off the court.
The depth and the effect on these numbers cant be emphasized enough. If you compare his on/off to league average stats his offensive difference is going to be cut in half. The T-Wolves are very bad. But the interesting thing to try to project would be what his offensive stats might look like if he was surrounded by good talent. Each of the second coming of the Big3 had a very significant increase in their efficiency in 07/08, now if Love got to play with another real star he wouldnt see that but there should be some increase for sure.
The depth and the effect on these numbers cant be emphasized enough. If you compare his on/off to league average stats his offensive difference is going to be cut in half. The T-Wolves are very bad. But the interesting thing to try to project would be what his offensive stats might look like if he was surrounded by good talent. Each of the second coming of the Big3 had a very significant increase in their efficiency in 07/08, now if Love got to play with another real star he wouldnt see that but there should be some increase for sure.
Their a Nellie ball team though, the stats really need to be taken with a grain of salt. With their frantic pace and lack of emphasis on defense their style is so different than traditional basketball that it sort of catches their opponent off guard. Their pythag win total was 48, 8 above their actual total. Either they are major underachievers (I dont think so) or the explanation for their stats not conforming to the win pythag is that their offensive and defensive stats are inflated due to their style of play.
I looked at the year he was out when comparing defense. Using this year is kinda pointless since he plays a huge percentage of every game, and usually is only out when the scrubs come in for mopup duty which makes it difficult to get much of a handle on his impact.wutang112878 said:
Edit- as to the other point, the Wolves are a mediocre team, they aren't terrible. However if Love is supposed to be a franchise player they should be winning more than 40 games with that supporting cast.
Rudy Pemberton said:
Their stats and wins are fools gold because of their unorthodox style. Its like the Peyton Manning Colts with all offense and no defense that would win 12, 13 games but never do anything in the playoffs because they really werent that good. The under performance compared to the win pythag is some good evidence of that.