Celtics 20-21 Roster Construction

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,384
I would have been fine to replace Semi with a shiny new draft toy. Would also have been fine to cut Waters (I think he could be traded for a future 2nd) and replace him with Maledon or someone else.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,384
This is why I never understand why people kept insisting that we can't draft 3 guys. Wouldn't a guy like Bane be preferable to one of Ojeleye, Waters or Green? Would have imo.
I agree. I don't feel like any of them have any future with the club. Fine as cheap end of the bench filler - but they aren't prospects.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,256
Remember, the Celtics will almost certainly add a vet on the MLE and probably another vet or two on LLE and Min contracts.

I would expect the Celtics to have a top 13 of:
Walker
Brown
Smart
Tatum
Theis
Langford
G. Williams
R. Williams
Kanter
Nesmith
Pritchard
MLE
OTHER VET

So really we're looking at 2 spots for:
Hayward (or any player returned in a S&T, possibly 2 players)
Edwards
Semi
Green
Waters
Tacko
Wanamaker
Poirier

And Danny would probably like 15 to be someone who is easy to cut (ala Green last year) so he has trade flexibility.

And that is why we didn't draft anyone at 30. That locks in a 14th spot and really limits flexibility.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,455
Remember, the Celtics will almost certainly add a vet on the MLE and probably another vet or two on LLE and Min contracts.

I would expect the Celtics to have a top 13 of:
Walker
Brown
Smart
Tatum
Theis
Langford
G. Williams
R. Williams
Kanter
Nesmith
Pritchard
MLE
OTHER VET

So really we're looking at 2 spots for:
Hayward (or any player returned in a S&T, possibly 2 players)
Edwards
Semi
Green
Waters
Tacko
Wanamaker
Poirier

And Danny would probably like 15 to be someone who is easy to cut (ala Green last year) so he has trade flexibility.

And that is why we didn't draft anyone at 30. That locks in a 14th spot and really limits flexibility.
Pretty neat that 8 of your top 13 players would have been drafted by the Celtics. That has to be a higher percentage than most teams.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
12,808
The last few years they've signed some overseas guy to fill the end of the bench. Wonder if they do it again this year.

(Theis, Larkin, Wanamaker, Vincent)
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
12,808
I agree. I don't feel like any of them have any future with the club. Fine as cheap end of the bench filler - but they aren't prospects.
Those other guys named probably don't either and will be in the same position as Carsen and Tremont in a year or two.

Vast majority of them are binkies, not prospects.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,699
Is Poirier still on the roster or did he get flipped last night?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
12,808
Any proven shooters that the C's could afford? If Nesmith doesn't adjust right away, they'll need it.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,754
I don't dislike Wanamaker in theory. Its just that I am happy the Celtics no longer have him in practice...or games.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
19,702
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
I think Wanamaker got a lot of heat, and think there were moments he helped the team. But that being said, we needed something different moving forward
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,754
I think Wanamaker got a lot of heat, and think there were moments he helped the team. But that being said, we needed something different moving forward
In all seriousness, he is a NBA caliber player but not as the seventh guy off the bench for an aspiring contender, especially one that was playing in a conference finals that featured far more accomplished players coming off opponents and potential match-up benches.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,256
Wanamaker was a solid backup PG, who did a lot of things well, BUT... Pritchard is probably a better fit for 3rd PG. We needed more offense than Brad could give, and while his defense was good, that wasn't really what we needed most from that role
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
19,702
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
In all seriousness, he is a NBA caliber player but not as the seventh guy off the bench for an aspiring contender, especially one that was playing in a conference finals that featured far more accomplished players coming off opponents and potential match-up benches.
agreed. He’d be a great deep option as he was a couple years ago. But was too big a drop off at the backup
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
39,404
Yeah the issue with Wanamaker is not that he was bad for a 3rd pg, it's that he had no business being elevated to what his role ended up being because of injuries and young guys not being ready.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,699
I love me some Tackos, but I don't wash them down with Waters.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,256
conditional second really means nothing, we paid them (likely his full salary) to get him off the books

Edit- though it also creates a 2.6M or so TPE which might be useful at some point
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,256
Makes that draft night deal look extra double meh now.
We still don't know what that deal was.

Though I will say 30 for two future seconds would be a decent enough deal. 30 is arguably less valuable in some ways than 31-35, and this was not a particularly good draft. If one of the seconds comes in the 2022 draft (first HS eligibility year) and is in the top 40 it might well be a better pick than #30 this year.... also, 3 rookies this year is a poor use of roster space this year and going forward.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,394
I think it's tough to argue a 2 is better than a 1, frankly.

That said, one benefit of having the extra 2s is that if you need to package them with Hayward in a S&T you now have them.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
4,216
around the way
We still don't know what that deal was.

Though I will say 30 for two future seconds would be a decent enough deal. 30 is arguably less valuable in some ways than 31-35, and this was not a particularly good draft. If one of the seconds comes in the 2022 draft (first HS eligibility year) and is in the top 40 it might well be a better pick than #30 this year.... also, 3 rookies this year is a poor use of roster space this year and going forward.
I'm not saying that it was a bad deal, and we don't know quite yet what it even is of course.

But riding the "Utah pick plus Sex Pants salary freedom" wave from last night into what looks today like generally expected value for a 30 and a subsidized VP is pretty disappointing.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,394
The need to get rid of Kanter to save money disappears without Hayward, seems to me.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,486
why would they give up kanter and a 1st for 2 2nds when he's a very useful bench piece?
Maybe they don't think he's a very useful bench piece?

I'd do that deal in a heartbeat, but I'd guess it's just the 30th pick for the two seconds straight up.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,256
I think it's 30 for two 2nds, with the option to dump some salary and they are figuring out if they need it.

Matt Moore saying that multiple teams had Kanter interest makes me think he might get traded for a 2nd or something, then MEM is either just picks or if we need to dump Carsen or something
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,384
Borrowing from above

11 Players locked in:
Walker
Brown
Smart
Tatum
Theis
Langford
G. Williams
R. Williams
Kanter
Nesmith
Pritchard

2 way contracts
Waters
Tacko

So, we still have 4 slots, right?

Hayward (or any player returned in a S&T, possibly 2 players)
Edwards
Semi (if not cut)
Wanamaker (if resigned, but likely gone)
Any vets
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,256
Borrowing from above

11 Players locked in:
Walker
Brown
Smart
Tatum
Theis
Langford
G. Williams
R. Williams
Kanter
Nesmith
Pritchard

2 way contracts
Waters
Tacko

So, we still have 4 slots, right?

Hayward (or any player returned in a S&T, possibly 2 players)
Edwards
Semi (if not cut)
Wanamaker (if resigned, but likely gone)
Any vets
Waters and Tacko aren't on 2 way contracts btw, they have QOs, not sure what kind of contracts they'll sign, depending what interest there is Celtics might have to either put them on the main roster or lose them.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
581
Borrowing from above

11 Players locked in:
Walker
Brown
Smart
Tatum
Theis
Langford
G. Williams
R. Williams
Kanter
Nesmith
Pritchard

2 way contracts
Waters
Tacko

So, we still have 4 slots, right?

Hayward (or any player returned in a S&T, possibly 2 players)
Edwards
Semi (if not cut)
Wanamaker (if resigned, but likely gone)
Any vets
Don’t forget Ojeleye. That bench is fucking trash.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,609
New York, NY
Don’t forget Ojeleye. That bench is fucking trash.
Ojeleye isn’t going to be here. I’d disagree on the bench, but it is super high variance. Assuming the rookies and Langford don’t contribute much, we have a major need for guard/wing depth, but there’s a ton of big depth between Timelord, Grant, and Kanter, all of whom I see as average of above players next year. If any of Nesmith, Pritchard or Langford can contribute, they are one smaller wing away from a solid rotation, and they have the full MLE available to bring in that player.