@WEEI: Source: Celtics sign Jordan Mickey for 4 years, $5 million http://t.co/1nBanIeftf
Highest contract ever for a 2nd round pick...
Highest contract ever for a 2nd round pick...
Are the 2015-2016 Celtics better or worse than the 2014-2015 Celtics?
- Thread starter Devizier
- Start date
Teams with leverage are beginning to really take advantage of the CBA loophole in being able to maintain team control for that 4th year. The player really can get screwed here much like Chandler Parsons did with the 4-year 2nd round deal without any outs. Otoh, a guy like Ricky Ledo gets his 2nd year fully guaranteed so it can work out for someone who doesn't initially make it in the league.Eddie Jurak said:
Every year we see more and more creativity in finding inefficiencies in the CBA. This summer a 2nd rounder (Mickey) gets a $5m contract while last summer a 1st rounder (Huestis) who otherwise may not even had been a 2nd round pick is "promised" the 29th overall selection only if he agrees to NOT sign a contract and become the first player essentially stashed in the NBDL for $25k. Fun stuff.
Wallace (Lee)/Thomas/Bradley/Smart/Turner/Zeller/Sullinger/Olynyk/Jerebko/Johnson/Mickey/Young/Joneswade boggs chicken dinner said:
13 right now,
Crowder, and the 2 1st rounders pending.
Have to think Jones gets released if there isn't a trade.
Agreed. Street clothes for the first month then to Maine once their season gets underway.nighthob said:
Interesting. Jae Crowder's deal is front loaded. Pays the most in year 1 and decreases by 7.5% in each subsequent year.
Starts out at $8.2 million and 12% of Celtics' cap and declines to $5.8 million (and 5.7% of projected cap) in year 5.
https://twitter.com/kevinoconnornba/status/625869769363750912
https://twitter.com/kevinoconnornba/status/625869769363750912
link to tweet
Starts out at $8.2 million and 12% of Celtics' cap and declines to $5.8 million (and 5.7% of projected cap) in year 5.
https://twitter.com/kevinoconnornba/status/625869769363750912
https://twitter.com/kevinoconnornba/status/625869769363750912
link to tweet
Danny is a freaking genius, what a great deal for both sides. Crowder gets more money up front thus increasing the net present value of his deal. The Celtics use up more cap space now, which they didnt have many better alternatives for, and Crowders contract becomes more valuable / trade-able as the years go on.
https://twitter.com/kevinoconnornba/status/625869769363750912Eddie Jurak said:
link to tweet
Is there a player opt-out or ETO there? Seems like a risky proposition for Jae, whose upside is "a poor man's Draymond Green".
https://twitter.com/kevinoconnornba/status/625869769363750912Eddie Jurak said:
link to tweet
Ummm, that's a win.
zenter said:
Where is the risk as opposed to say a 5 yr $35M deal with salaries of $7M every season? Sure there is more of a risk of being traded but how much additional risk is that really? We're only talking about a swing of like ~$2-3M a season
If anyone is wondering why Justise Winslow isn't with the Cs, Hornets have given "explanation" here: http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/7/28/9058035/charlotte-hornets-frank-kaminsky-trade-celtics.
(Emphasis added.)
So basically the Hornets refused the trade because they hadn't prepared for the scenario where they trade down so their draft board stopped after their pick. Amazing group of executives.
OTOH, I'm glad they turned it down. It was too much for Winslow.
(Emphasis added.)
So basically the Hornets refused the trade because they hadn't prepared for the scenario where they trade down so their draft board stopped after their pick. Amazing group of executives.
OTOH, I'm glad they turned it down. It was too much for Winslow.
Well to be fair to the Hornets, they have had a hard enough time trying to just hit on their picks without making trades so I can understand why they would want to keep all their focus on just selecting the right guy for the pick they have. However, you have to be a pretty pathetic franchise to not be prepared for trades. I would imagine you would have some rating system and basically rate every player available so by the time it comes to your pick you can see that the 'best available' is an 82 and in 5 picks it looks like there will still be an 80 and 79 available. But thats assuming they have a real system in place to do their rankings which is probably doubtful.
In general there is no risk to Jae. Money today is always worth more than money down the road. We're it permitted, Jae's best 5 year $35 MM deal would pay him the whole $35 MM up front and then zero for the rest of it.zenter said:
The biggest risk to Jae, I suppose, is that he manages his wealth the same way Antoine Walker did.
wutang112878 said:
Eddie Jurak said:
Good points, both. I guess I'm thinking about the new CBA and thinking "wouldn't I want to dip into that well before it dries up?"
But you're both right, the way the 35/5 is specifically laid out is basically trivial.
I think the cap figure is averaged out over the life (it works that way for backloaded deals, the Lin & Asik deals carried an approximately $8.5 million cap hit despite the fact that neither player ever made that). I'm thinking that the reason for the frontloading was to get him to agree to a slightly lower figure than he might have otherwise got if he'd gone on the open market (i.e. if he and his agent had been aggressive they might have been been able to find themselves something closer to the same money over four years) and to agree to wait patiently on the sidelines while they used their cap space before re-signing him (he was a three year free agent so they had full Bird rights, and as a second rounder his cap hold was pretty small).wutang112878 said:
nighthob said:
That's not right. The Lin/Asik deals were an example of Morey finding a weird loophole that allowed a team offering a deal to another team's RFA could average the contract's total value over the length of the deal to determine the cap figure, but that the matching team could not. In this case, because the C's help Crowder's rights, the values correspond to the cap figures.
Frontloading's pretty rare, but it happens. OKC did this with Collison a could of years back to avoid the tax.
Isaiah's contract is also front loaded.
I think front loading makes sense for any team in a rebuilding process, as the C's are. Makes trades easier down the road and moves some of the cap hit to years where the cap room is less valuable.
I think front loading makes sense for any team in a rebuilding process, as the C's are. Makes trades easier down the road and moves some of the cap hit to years where the cap room is less valuable.
That is not correct, and it wasn't a "weird loophole". It's called the Gilbert Arenas rule, the first year salary of contracts offered players coming off rookie deals where there are no Bird Rights for the original team are capped at the amount of the MLE (so as to allow the original teams to match the salary). The only way to get the average over the MLE is by adding a third year with a backloaded amount, but the monies are still averaged over the life of the deal.Grin&MartyBarret said:
This is how New Orleans managed to fit a guy getting paid $15 million (Asik) under their cap when he was traded there, his cap figure was the three average of the monies paid over the life of the deal and not the amount he was being paid (and looking it up it was just shy of $8.4 million).
wutang112878 said:
It would be pretty funny to see that FO try to navigate the 50-round MLB draft seeing as how 2 is such a challenge for them.
https://twitter.com/kevinoconnornba/status/625869769363750912Eddie Jurak said:
[URL="https://twitter.com/kevinoconnornba/status/625869769363750912
https://twitter.com/kevinoconnornba/status/625869769363750912"]link
link to tweet to tweet[/url]
Apparently these are not the correct numbers. I've heard they the deal only decreases in Year 2 and accelerates in all the others. Trying to find confirmation on this.
Correct.HomeRunBaker said:
His deal goes:
$6.8 - $6.3 - $6.8 - $7.3 - $7.8
The other structure would have been intriguing, but this one probably makes more sense.
I think the worst case scenario on Crowder (and I mean the worst, not a likely scenario) would be that he is 2014 Gerald Wallace at the end of this deal. Should that happen, he'd be far less of a cap anchor than Wallace was.
Celtics featured in the ESPN front office roundtable.
Nothing groundbreaking. They think Smart is the one player with all-star potential, that they need a big star (duh), and that moves are coming.
Nothing groundbreaking. They think Smart is the one player with all-star potential, that they need a big star (duh), and that moves are coming.
bowiac said:
In other words, water = wet, grass = green, sun = rises in west. It's pretty clear this team needs some more help on the wing, particularly at the "swing" role 3/4 spot, but it's hard for me to see an immediate trade candidate. I am sure Ainge is pushing every angle, but feels more and more likely the team goes into the year as-is and then pokes and prods all throughout the year to see if a team quits on a promising young player (MKG?) or looks to tear it down after starting off poorly (Melo?).
Re-ran my projections, using the actual schedule this time, adding in some preseason injuries, better minutes projections, some updated values for rookies. No huge changes. Celtics grade out very well on any RPM system. Nets grade out very poorly.
20 wins for Brooklyn would be absolutely delicious.
This team will be a lot of fun to watch. There's a number of subplots I'll be watching out for: if Smart starts to bully his way to the hoop more, he certainly has all-star potential, as 538 suggested. If Olynyk stops fucking pump-faking when his guy is ten yards away from him, the sky is the limit for him offensively. Bradley flashed some actual dribbling skills this preseason and has shown the ability to make rudimentary pick and roll pocket passes, but it's almost certainly the boost of playing European teams/the Nyets. Still, I wouldn't put improvement past him. And if James Young can just hit some fucking corner threes, he might steal some of Turner's minutes.
This team will be a lot of fun to watch. There's a number of subplots I'll be watching out for: if Smart starts to bully his way to the hoop more, he certainly has all-star potential, as 538 suggested. If Olynyk stops fucking pump-faking when his guy is ten yards away from him, the sky is the limit for him offensively. Bradley flashed some actual dribbling skills this preseason and has shown the ability to make rudimentary pick and roll pocket passes, but it's almost certainly the boost of playing European teams/the Nyets. Still, I wouldn't put improvement past him. And if James Young can just hit some fucking corner threes, he might steal some of Turner's minutes.
The C's have a bunch of backups playing the 4 and 5, and until they get a legit starter quality big, they will be nothing more than a .500 team. With this year's draft, they're really stacked at guard so the only hope I see of landing a decent big is trading Bradley, who I think is their best player right now. Otherwise, it's wait til next year and hope we can draft a big guy then
This is way too pessimistic. I could buy it if you said they won't be a legit title contender, but they are already a better than .500 team. The change from Rondo, Green, and Bass to Isaiah, Crowder, and Johnson is a sea change for this team.RoDaddy said:
As Eddie said, they won 40 games last year. They're adding full seasons of Thomas, Crowder, and Amir Johnson. They're subtracting Brandon Bass, and flotsam. The bulk of the team remains young and improving. It's not like a big stretch to expect them improve on last year just from youth, or from the additions of Thomas/Crowder/Johnson. I also disagree that Bradley is their best player (I think he's not in the top 5), and that the team has backups at the 4 & 5 (unless 15 teams in the league have backups there), but these are quibbles. Their biggest weakness is the wing, not bigs. If Crowder misses games, it could get hairy for a bit.RoDaddy said:
I dunno - nothing about their win projection seems strange to me. Stuff like projecting them for the 2 seed is mostly about expecting the rest of the east to regress.
Nobody doesn't not love David Lee. That said, I think the fans, if not RPM, will love him by the end of the season.
He has a useful skillset. I don't want him in the game in the closing minutes, but there's probably value to having him on the court when Thomas isn't out there. I think RPM mostly has him graded "correctly" in the abstract, but almost all NBA players are useful in the right role, and I'm optimistic Stevens will find it.DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
The guy I really don't understand is Evan Turner. I'm surprised he's still on the team, but clearly Stevens sees something there.
I think he's the guy most likely to lose his role goingbowiac said:
forward. Last year, like him or not, he filled a needed role on the team (primary ball handler). This year, they probably don't need that, which makes him more of a square peg in a round hole. (With IT3, improvement from Smart, and the availability Rozier.) On the other hand, they may still be a little short handed there in the event of injuries or if Smart and Rozier don't progress as hoped. So I think he's mostly an insurance policy. He can handle the ball of needed and he can play the 3 where the C's are thin.
Beyond that, he's an incumbent who the younger guys (mostly Rozier, Hunter, Young) will need to beat out to earn playing time.
Finally, maybe he can gain some trade value if there's a rash of PG injuries around the league.
I would love to see the team that loses a PG and decides: "You know who could help? Evan Turner."
I agree that that's what Stevens sees in him (ball handler, SF when Crowder/Jerebko aren't on the court). I don't get it, as he has all of Avery Bradley's weaknesses as a ball handler/distributor, and none of his defensive strengths, but that does seem to be the simplest answer.
I agree that that's what Stevens sees in him (ball handler, SF when Crowder/Jerebko aren't on the court). I don't get it, as he has all of Avery Bradley's weaknesses as a ball handler/distributor, and none of his defensive strengths, but that does seem to be the simplest answer.
It isn't clear to me that Swedish Larry Bird can play the 3 better than Turner. I like him at the 4 but we are jammed up at the 4. Turner will probably be himself but I love a comeback story and maybe Turner under his second year with Stevens will play better.bowiac said:
Turner seems to be mediocre, but not downright awful at all perimeter skills. Last year, he had a role as PG by default, plus do a little of everything. This year, there seems to be more perimeter talent & depth so if he loses significant minutes or is a DNP-Coach's Decision, that's a good sign on most nights.
He probably has little-to-no trade value unless Stevens coaxes some empty stats out of him (but that would get in the way of winning)
He probably has little-to-no trade value unless Stevens coaxes some empty stats out of him (but that would get in the way of winning)
It wasn't just ball handling that Turner offered, it was the semblance of an ability to create his own shot. Think of how often he had the ball in his hands at the end of games last season. After the acquisition of Thomas, that ability really wasn't needed. This year, with a full year of IT, hopefully a step forward for Smart, and yes, David Lee, it's needed even less. I can see the appeal of having Turner on the roster as a jack of all trades backup at three positions, but if the Celtics are really going to be the 48-win team some have them pegged as, I think they'll be doing it with Turner out of the rotation. Hopefully, Young and Hunter will be deserving of a good chunk of those minutes, because their perimeter shooting is sorely needed.
Pull Turner out of the rotation, and they jump to 53 wins on my projection. Pull Lee out too and it's 56 wins! (I would take the under on both in reality - these are the limits of RPM).CreightonGubanich said:
That's a great point, Creighton, and it is a real key to Turner's value, beyond just the ballhandling. It's also something that stanard analytics may not pick up on, as the value of this ability depends very much on the team context. (On, say, the Durant/Westbrook/Harden OKC team, it probably has negative value, but it was worth something to last year's C's.)CreightonGubanich said:
It will be interesting to see how the projected C's starting lineup does offensively. Last year, you didn't see a whole lot of Smart/Bradley backcourt without Turner. Turner is either useless to the C's (if they have "enough" shot creators/ball handlers) or necessary (if they don't).
I'm with you guys on the value of shot creation - that's something this team was really struggling with before Thomas got here. I just don't think Turner helps with that. The key with shot creation however, is creating good (or better than the alternative) shots. I just don't think Turner does that. He creates and takes terrible shots it seems. It's aso something a stat like RPM is reasonably well designed to track. Insofar as the team was less efficient scoring without Turner's shot creation, that would be seen in the plus/minus data which ultimately feeds RPM. That didn't show up however - the team was mostly worse offensively with Turner on the court.
What RPM might miss is when a role player has useful shot creation skills which get obscured because they're playing on a loaded team like the Thunder. Even though the player has a talent, they're never asked to use it, so it never shows up in the plus/minus data. Turner's in the reverse situation however. He's being asked to create shots, and he's doing a bad job at it.
What RPM might miss is when a role player has useful shot creation skills which get obscured because they're playing on a loaded team like the Thunder. Even though the player has a talent, they're never asked to use it, so it never shows up in the plus/minus data. Turner's in the reverse situation however. He's being asked to create shots, and he's doing a bad job at it.
This leads too an important question. Why would an effective (and one who is not unfamiliar with analytics, for whatever that's worth) coach such as Brad Stevens persist in asking Turner to do this if it was, on net, hurting the team? A lousy coach, or an analytics-hating coach, I could see doing something really dumb. With Stevens it is a little harder to buy that, a little easier to believe that there is a method to his apparent madness.bowiac said:
Regardless, I still think Turner is the rotation guy mostly likely to be crowded out if any of the young guys emerge and demand minutes.