Celtics Plan, Summer 2021

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,887
New York, NY
Their roster is in the midst of a complete overhaul. I’m not sure what we know they will need but as I mentioned earlier a big part of the value could be in freeing up cap space for next summer as well as having it for this summer. Being locked into 3 more years of Murray and White is what I’m thinking they may want to move away from by draft night.
If their main goal is cap flexibility (which they already have in abundance) why wouldn’t Tristan and Jabari be just as good? The Celtics would need to add future draft value to make that work (or swap Jabari for one of our young players with value), but if the Spurs are mainly looking for future cap flexibility than they shouldn’t value a year of Smart very highly so the difference would be fairly small.

I think Smart for Murray is an interesting idea in that we’d be trading for future contract certainty and probably a bit of upside but are getting a similar caliber of player back, with similar flaws, but it doesn’t make sense for Boston if we have to add real assets to the picture. At that point, better to just keep and pay Smart what he costs in a year, which may be more than Murray but probably not that much more. And it doesn’t make sense for the Spurs if Smart is the main piece and you are right that their goal is cap flexibility because why wouldn’t they prefer to just dump him for an expiring and draft picks (a deal we and many other teams could offer).

I’d also note that the Spurs don’t really need to move anything this year. They are likely to do what the Heat did last year and overpay 1+1 deals to preserve space and give them options going into next offseason. If they need to dump Murray or White next year to sign two max contracts (assuming they can successfully recruit them), that won’t be hard since neither are bad contracts.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
If their main goal is cap flexibility (which they already have in abundance) why wouldn’t Tristan and Jabari be just as good? The Celtics would need to add future draft value to make that work (or swap Jabari for one of our young players with value), but if the Spurs are mainly looking for future cap flexibility than they shouldn’t value a year of Smart very highly so the difference would be fairly small.

I think Smart for Murray is an interesting idea in that we’d be trading for future contract certainty and probably a bit of upside but are getting a similar caliber of player back, with similar flaws, but it doesn’t make sense for Boston if we have to add real assets to the picture. At that point, better to just keep and pay Smart what he costs in a year, which may be more than Murray but probably not that much more. And it doesn’t make sense for the Spurs if Smart is the main piece and you are right that their goal is cap flexibility because why wouldn’t they prefer to just dump him for an expiring and draft picks (a deal we and many other teams could offer).

I’d also note that the Spurs don’t really need to move anything this year. They are likely to do what the Heat did last year and overpay 1+1 deals to preserve space and give them options going into next offseason. If they need to dump Murray or White next year to sign two max contracts (assuming they can successfully recruit them), that won’t be hard since neither are bad contracts.
You are confusing my point of the Spurs goals with the fact that Dejounte isn’t going to be anyone’s salary dump. They Spurs are in a good spot with both him and White while surely able to receive value in return. They will be looking to add MORE value than Smart.....not less in TT and Parker.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,887
New York, NY
You are confusing my point of the Spurs goals with the fact that Dejounte isn’t going to be anyone’s salary dump. They Spurs are in a good spot with both him and White while surely able to receive value in return. They will be looking to add MORE value than Smart.....not less in TT and Parker.
Agree that Murray isn’t a salary dump. My point is more that any trade of Smart where you think the other team values that he is expiring rather than valuing his Bird rights is almost certainly not a good fit and, similarly, if what another team values is an expiring, we have Tristan and Jabari who we can use to fill that role without needing to trade Smart.

Trading Smart for a similar player on a similar contract but 2 years behind Smart in age/development/FA makes sense for Boston, but Murray isn’t better than Smart and we can almost certainly keep Smart next offseason at a not horrifying cost, so there’s no good reason to give up meaningful assets to make a lateral move.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
Agree that Murray isn’t a salary dump. My point is more that any trade of Smart where you think the other team values that he is expiring rather than valuing his Bird rights is almost certainly not a good fit and, similarly, if what another team values is an expiring, we have Tristan and Jabari who we can use to fill that role without needing to trade Smart.

Trading Smart for a similar player on a similar contract but 2 years behind Smart in age/development/FA makes sense for Boston, but Murray isn’t better than Smart and we can almost certainly keep Smart next offseason at a not horrifying cost, so there’s no good reason to give up meaningful assets to make a lateral move.
I don’t view it as a lateral move at all based on fit alone. We lock in our starting 1 for the next 3 years rather than still not have the position filled during that window. It’s more need-based, maybe lateral talent to a degree (although I prefer Murray long term).

The point you make about the Spurs preferring far inferior expirings who provide less deadline value doesn’t make much sense to me. He could also be a fit for them long term whereas the other clearly wouldn’t.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
14,959
Somewhere
I don’t view it as a lateral move at all based on fit alone. We lock in our starting 1 for the next 3 years
That's exactly right, and also why I don't understand why the Spurs would be looking to move him. He's a huge value, it would be like trading Marcus two years ago.
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,743
Smart has to be the one included based on contract, what the Spurs are possibly looking to accomplish, and position. There isn’t another player(s) that makes sense for either side.
I disagree. That’s why, in my proposal, the Celtics would be trading 3 1st rounders and 2 of their recent lottery picks.
Thompson being included makes the salaries fit.
Now, you may question if the Spurs would accept my offer but contracts wouldn’t be the issue
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
That's exactly right, and also why I don't understand why the Spurs would be looking to move him. He's a huge value, it would be like trading Marcus two years ago.
The reason is both he and White are on long term deals and are redundant so one could be available. Smart could be viewed as a much better fit while adding toughness that have lacked.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,887
New York, NY
I don’t view it as a lateral move at all based on fit alone. We lock in our starting 1 for the next 3 years rather than still not have the position filled during that window. It’s more need-based, maybe lateral talent to a degree (although I prefer Murray long term).

The point you make about the Spurs preferring far inferior expirings who provide less deadline value doesn’t make much sense to me. He could also be a fit for them long term whereas the other clearly wouldn’t.
I think this is a big part of the difference. I view Smart as a natural 1 that just has never gotten a real chance to prove it. Setting aside his off year defensively this past year, he’s always previously excelled defensively in his limited opportunities at the 1 and he also fits much better as a 1 offensively than as a wing. The fact that Ainge kept building teams based around undersize, offense-first PGs makes this an area where reasonable minds can disagree, and maybe we’ll get an answer this year that settles the issue.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
3,189
Saint Paul, MN
I disagree. That’s why, in my proposal, the Celtics would be trading 3 1st rounders and 2 of their recent lottery picks.
Thompson being included makes the salaries fit.
Now, you may question if the Spurs would accept my offer but contracts wouldn’t be the issue
The Spurs would trade you Murray for 3 first round picks and two recent lottery picks in a second. That is so much to give up.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
I think this is a big part of the difference. I view Smart as a natural 1 that just has never gotten a real chance to prove it. Setting aside his off year defensively this past year, he’s always previously excelled defensively in his limited opportunities at the 1 and he also fits much better as a 1 offensively than as a wing. The fact that Ainge kept building teams based around undersize, offense-first PGs makes this an area where reasonable minds can disagree, and maybe we’ll get an answer this year that settles the issue.
Smart has been somewhat passable as a 1 offensively bc Brad never put him in a position to fail against many matchups. As a full time 1 in pinches at the end of this year we saw what he’s always shown in a bad matchup.....the inability to get to his spot with his dribble for the offense to function properly. That’s offense.....on defense having him run around chasing quicks 30-50 feet from the basket isn’t his optimal usage.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,162
Three first round picks and two recent lottery picks got the Lakers Anthony Davis
He was forcing his way there and only there, on the threat of walking for free. also... they were a lot better lotto picks and they gave up swaps. recent lottery picks is a lot different when it's two #14s who haven't shown anything than two #2 overall picks who had shown a lot more.

The better comp is probably Jrue, who netted 3 1sts, two swaps and a vet coming off an All-Defense nod. Murray is probably not as good as Jrue, but he's on a longer contract well below the max. He's going to be expensive, very expensive, and the Celtics seem unlikely to get him.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
39,216
He was forcing his way there and only there, on the threat of walking for free. also... they were a lot better lotto picks and they gave up swaps. recent lottery picks is a lot different when it's two #14s who haven't shown anything than two #2 overall picks who had shown a lot more.

The better comp is probably Jrue, who netted 3 1sts, two swaps and a vet coming off an All-Defense nod. Murray is probably not as good as Jrue, but he's on a longer contract well below the max. He's going to be expensive, very expensive, and the Celtics seem unlikely to get him.
And even Jrue isn’t a perfect comp since Milwaukee was over a barrel due to Giannis. Spurs might be open to trading Murray but they’ll need a compelling reason to deal him, IMO.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
3,189
Saint Paul, MN
I was making the AD to Lakers comp as a joke. But for real nobody is trading three first-round picks let alone two recent lottery picks in addition for Murray
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
I was making the AD to Lakers comp as a joke. But for real nobody is trading three first-round picks let alone two recent lottery picks in addition for Murray
Yeah his return is a comparable starter and a prospect. Maybe a low future pick.

I mean I love Dejounte.....but he’s still Dejounte, a good starting 1 in this league on a good contract. He isn’t Chris Paul.
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,743
Yeah his return is a comparable starter and a prospect. Maybe a low future pick.

I mean I love Dejounte.....but he’s still Dejounte, a good starting 1 in this league on a good contract. He isn’t Chris Paul.
You realize that you’re now agreeing with someone who’s saying the trade I proposed was giving up way too much….

The same trade proposal that you directly responded to and said theres no way the Spurs would take because Smart wasn’t in it?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
You realize that you’re now agreeing with someone who’s saying the trade I proposed was giving up way too much….

The same trade proposal that you directly responded to and said theres no way the Spurs would take because Smart wasn’t in it?
I have been consistent on this offering since my original Smart plus Nesmith offer....only adding that I’d also include a low pick. I didn’t respond directly to you 3 firsts plus offer bc honestly I thought you were joking and not making a serious offer. Hands On Wyc may fire Brad on the spot if he came to him with that proposal to approve.
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,743
I have been consistent on this offering since my original Smart plus Nesmith offer....only adding that I’d also include a low pick. I didn’t respond directly to you 3 firsts plus offer bc honestly I thought you were joking and not making a serious offer. Hands On Wyc may fire Brad on the spot if he came to him with that proposal to approve.
interesting that my trade offer was so widely panned as too much. Maybe I overcompensated for my Celtics bias there and went too far the other direction…

However, you would think the Celtics would want to keep Smart in any Murray swap. Romeo’s rotation spot would pretty much be taken so any offer would include him. Same with TT for salary.

Romeo, TT, and 1 1st just isn’t enough. Maybe Romeo, TT, 1 1st and a protected pick swap?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
interesting that my trade offer was so widely panned as too much. Maybe I overcompensated for my Celtics bias there and went too far the other direction…

However, you would think the Celtics would want to keep Smart in any Murray swap. Romeo’s rotation spot would pretty much be taken so any offer would include him. Same with TT for salary.

Romeo, TT, and 1 1st just isn’t enough. Maybe Romeo, TT, 1 1st and a protected pick swap?
That’s the thing.....I don’t think Brad minds moving off Smart as to not lose him for nothing next summer or have the “right” to pay him 4/$100m to retain him.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,053
Santa Monica
That’s the thing.....I don’t think Brad minds moving off Smart as to not lose him for nothing next summer or have the “right” to pay him 4/$100m to retain him.
I'm a huge Smart fan, but no team in the NBA is paying $100MM next season for 4yrs of Marcus Smart, including the Celtics. Now that would be a fireable offense.

I guess all it takes is one team, but good defense/poor shooting struggles to get compensated, as Marcus learned the last time around.

interesting that my trade offer was so widely panned as too much. Maybe I overcompensated for my Celtics bias there and went too far the other direction…

However, you would think the Celtics would want to keep Smart in any Murray swap. Romeo’s rotation spot would pretty much be taken so any offer would include him. Same with TT for salary.

Romeo, TT, and 1 1st just isn’t enough. Maybe Romeo, TT, 1 1st and a protected pick swap?
3 firsts and both Romeo & Nesmith is probably too steep. BUT It shouldn't get panned, since we are all just kicking around a fake trade*.
IMO Dejounte would blossom playing for the Cs, a borderline All-Star with the Jays. I agreed with HRBs initial assessment of DM as a better creator/up top defender of 1s than Marcus, but would want the C's to keep Smart. If they are too similar then Brad would have all season to move MS.

Defense is undervalued, around the NBA, and DM's cost shouldn't really be more than 3-4 young/cheap players (Romeo + PP + Carsen + a 1st Rounder). Adding another 1st while keeping PP would also be fine.
Moving TT in the deal helps the C's and meets a 1 season need of the Spurs (back-up Center) while giving them the time/cap flex to work on adding 2 MAX guys next Summer (maybe Pop & Co are doing their own recruiting at the Olympics?). Spurs also have 2 pgs in Tre Jones and Derrick White, so could entertain the idea of adding a bushel of youngsters while getting CAP flex by moving Dejounte

If you believe in the Jays, the Celtic 1st round picks are going to lose their value going forward:
1. the team should be a late 20s draft slot
2. the Jays will want experienced NBA players on the floor around them, not developing late 20 1st rounders bouncing the ball off their knee caps.

I'm expecting Brad to be more aggressive moving their 1sts for exp NBA players over the Jays contracts.

* I'll add this disclaimer for the entire offseason: Fake trades are a fun, fan exercise & have a .1% chance of happening. So save it if you want to pan it out of lack of intimate GM knowledge/or ongoing talks
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,716
around the way
I know that our firsts will be non lottery and likely well into the 20s for a while, but there is no planet where Murray is worth parting with three firsts, let alone throwing in rookie contract prospects. It is absurd, and it's ok to recognize it as such.

I like the player too, but that hamstrings future options just too much
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,162
I know that our firsts will be non lottery and likely well into the 20s for a while, but there is no planet where Murray is worth parting with three firsts, let alone throwing in rookie contract prospects. It is absurd, and it's ok to recognize it as such.

I like the player too, but that hamstrings future options just too much
I think SA would probably settle for two 1sts and one of the past #14 picks plus filler. Our rookie contract guys have little trade value, and Murray is only 24 with 3 years left. I think the best deal you can really hope for if you're the Celtics is probably:
TT, Nesmith 2022 1st, 2024 1st.... and there's a chance someone outbids that by including a more attractive young player in their offer.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,496
Weren't people floating 4/90 around here for Smart? How is 4/100 all that much different? I don't think Smart gets a significant pay raise over what he is getting now but time will tell.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
I think SA would probably settle for two 1sts and one of the past #14 picks plus filler. Our rookie contract guys have little trade value, and Murray is only 24 with 3 years left. I think the best deal you can really hope for if you're the Celtics is probably:
TT, Nesmith 2022 1st, 2024 1st.... and there's a chance someone outbids that by including a more attractive young player in their offer.
Why would the Spurs want the salaries to match with worse players on expirings? They aren’t in tank mode which is why I don’t know why some are treating them like last years Thunder.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,162
Why would the Spurs want the salaries to match with worse players on expirings? They aren’t in tank mode which is why I don’t know why some are treating them like last years Thunder.
I was just taking the general premise of a trade without Smart. I think the Spurs would find a use for TT and Nesmith in their rotation if they try to make the playoffs and a pair of 1sts might make sense for them to re-set this year by doing a S&T with DeRozan. They may not be in tank mode, but they aren't contenders either.

Overall though, the real thing to me is... we don't match up that well with SAS for a deal. The player that makes the most sense is Smart, but he's basically a bit better defending but probably worse offensive and older version of Murray who is on the last year of his deal.

If people want Murray, the most likely way to get him is to overpay on 1sts enough that SAS thinks it's worth being worse this year and clearing cap long term.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
I was just taking the general premise of a trade without Smart. I think the Spurs would find a use for TT and Nesmith in their rotation if they try to make the playoffs and a pair of 1sts might make sense for them to re-set this year by doing a S&T with DeRozan. They may not be in tank mode, but they aren't contenders either.

Overall though, the real thing to me is... we don't match up that well with SAS for a deal. The player that makes the most sense is Smart, but he's basically a bit better defending but probably worse offensive and older version of Murray who is on the last year of his deal.

If people want Murray, the most likely way to get him is to overpay on 1sts enough that SAS thinks it's worth being worse this year and clearing cap long term.
I mean if our offer is TT and Nesmith then we don’t match up as they will surely get a better talent return elsewhere. I feel we do matchup well and will be looking to move Smart anyway rather than being hamstrung with overpaying him next summer.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,162
I mean if our offer is TT and Nesmith then we don’t match up as they will surely get a better talent return elsewhere. I feel we do matchup well and will be looking to move Smart anyway rather than being hamstrung with overpaying him next summer.
What deal do you see as a good match that involves right now talent? I see nothing other than Smart and I have no idea why SAS would want 1 year of Smart and the right to pay him over 3 years of the much younger higher upside Murray (whose floor isn't that far from Marcus anyway).
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,887
New York, NY
I mean if our offer is TT and Nesmith then we don’t match up as they will surely get a better talent return elsewhere. I feel we do matchup well and will be looking to move Smart anyway rather than being hamstrung with overpaying him next summer.
I think the latter may be another part of the disconnect here. I think odds are Smart will not be overpayed. Defense first guards are rarely paid full value. It’s hard to see anyone offering 4/100 for Smart. 4/80 I can see, but that isn’t that different from Murray per year anyway. I don’t see why we would want to make a lateral move on talent and give up assets to save $5 million or less per year in the future.

The caveat here is if Smart is a locker room problem, but literally nothing we know about the team indicates that is the case.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
What deal do you see as a good match that involves right now talent? I see nothing other than Smart and I have no idea why SAS would want 1 year of Smart and the right to pay him over 3 years of the much younger higher upside Murray (whose floor isn't that far from Marcus anyway).
Smart. Smart. Smart. Nothing else matters.

He’s a better fit with White and is viewed around the league as a strong piece. They would have flexibility with him in either resigning or moving at the deadline for assets. Throwing in Nesmith and maybe a low pick should be enough. People on this board really undervalue Smart’s worth around the league imo.

While this may be a lateral move on talent it is a better FIT for BOTH teams.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,162
Smart. Smart. Smart. Nothing else matters.

He’s a better fit with White and is viewed around the league as a strong piece. They would have flexibility with him in either resigning or moving at the deadline for assets. Throwing in Nesmith and maybe a low pick should be enough. People on this board really undervalue Smart’s worth around the league imo.

While this may be a lateral move on talent it is a better FIT for BOTH teams.
Yeah, I can see the idea. I don't think SAS want to pay Smart, but maybe I'm wrong.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
3,053
Cultural hub of the universe
https://www.celticsblog.com/2021/7/23/22590782/celtics-and-nigel-hayes-rumored-to-have-mutual-interest-brad-stevens-ime-udoka-nba-free-agency

"Questions around Hayes’ scoring ability were rife throughout his time in Wisconsin, where he went 33.2% from three over four seasons, and a concerning 66% from the line. Exposure to more playing time against EuroLeague athletes seems to have resolved some of his scoring deficiencies though, with Hayes ending this year shooting 44.3% from down town and 89.4% at the charity stripe.

If Hayes can carry some of that shooting form over to the NBA, along with his defensive activity and intangible off-ball movement, Stevens and new head coach Ime Udoka could envision him having a similar impact to Theis and Wanamaker."

What's not to like?
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,053
Santa Monica
I think SA would probably settle for two 1sts and one of the past #14 picks plus filler. Our rookie contract guys have little trade value, and Murray is only 24 with 3 years left. I think the best deal you can really hope for if you're the Celtics is probably:
TT, Nesmith 2022 1st, 2024 1st.... and there's a chance someone outbids that by including a more attractive young player in their offer.
yea, that's kind of what I was thinking. Always hard to guess who else would be interested in Murray (well everyone) but be willing to pay up. The top 20 NBA teams are pretty well set with their starting PG. Top 10 lottery teams aren't going to move numerous picks for a defense-first PG.

His skillset/timeline would work really well with Brown/Tatum/Fournier/Williams. Figure Ime/Brad would be really motivated to reach for him.
https://www.celticsblog.com/2021/7/23/22590782/celtics-and-nigel-hayes-rumored-to-have-mutual-interest-brad-stevens-ime-udoka-nba-free-agency

"Questions around Hayes’ scoring ability were rife throughout his time in Wisconsin, where he went 33.2% from three over four seasons, and a concerning 66% from the line. Exposure to more playing time against EuroLeague athletes seems to have resolved some of his scoring deficiencies though, with Hayes ending this year shooting 44.3% from down town and 89.4% at the charity stripe.

If Hayes can carry some of that shooting form over to the NBA, along with his defensive activity and intangible off-ball movement, Stevens and new head coach Ime Udoka could envision him having a similar impact to Theis and Wanamaker."

What's not to like?
thanks for posting

Looks like a perfect deep bench (11-15) option. Like these Euro vets on cheap 2yr deals
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,042
I disliked Hayes in college - bad bodied, slow release, slow twitch, bad shooter.

It looks like he's improved his shooting & his body at least, so seems like a fine low-risk addition.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,716
around the way
I disliked Hayes in college - bad bodied, slow release, slow twitch, bad shooter.

It looks like he's improved his shooting & his body at least, so seems like a fine low-risk addition.
He seems like the NBA game might be a bit quick for him, but that should be the type of thing that PBS et al. would know how to diagnose.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,042
He seems like the NBA game might be a bit quick for him, but that should be the type of thing that PBS et al. would know how to diagnose.
He could fit in as a more competent Semi or Jabari who tries on defense. 7'3 wingspan is nice. Would be better to get a real NBA player to fit that role, but upgrades are upgrades.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,716
around the way
He could fit in as a more competent Semi or Jabari who tries on defense. 7'3 wingspan is nice. Would be better to get a real NBA player to fit that role, but upgrades are upgrades.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing about Semi. Huge difference in wingspan and probably jumps (which would be a pleasant change). Can't argue with Hayes as Semi replacement.

Watching that clip above, he looks kind of like Uncle Jeff.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
3,189
Saint Paul, MN
He could fit in as a more competent Semi or Jabari who tries on defense. 7'3 wingspan is nice. Would be better to get a real NBA player to fit that role, but upgrades are upgrades.
Semi and Jabari are both competent end of the rotation guys. You all have way too high of expectations of the 8th or 9th or 10th guy on the roster. MIL and PHO just played in the finals with Jeff Teague and Frank Kaminsky as their 8th guy off the bench.

The problem with this team wasn't the 8th or 9th guy or 10th guy, it was that Tristan Thompson and Payton Pritchard were the first guys off the bench. Improve those spots and Jabari and/or Semi look absolutely great in their spots
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,716
around the way
Semi and Jabari are both competent end of the rotation guys. You all have way too high of expectations of the 8th or 9th or 10th guy on the roster. MIL and PHO just played in the finals with Jeff Teague and Frank Kaminsky as their 8th guy off the bench.

The problem with this team wasn't the 8th or 9th guy or 10th guy, it was that Tristan Thompson and Payton Pritchard were the first guys off the bench. Improve those spots and Jabari and/or Semi look absolutely great in their spots
I'd love to improve the third or fourth guy on the team, but improving the 8, 9, and 10 guys would be good too.

Even if only Nesmith and Langford improve (big if), that means fewer minutes from a Semi or Grant level player. We all benefit from watching better basketball. If we can keep Fournier and add more talent that jumps the Semi types, even better.

I don't think that anyone is saying that Semi was the problem with the team this year.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,683
A few words here.

1) There’s no sense talking about Murray because there really isn’t a fit there. From San Antonio’s perspective. Their future depends on the continued development of the 17 guards on their roster. The exact thing they don’t need is another G between the heights of 6’1” and 6’5”. That description literally describes five guys on their roster (that they need playing time for) without including Murray or free agents. The reason they’re even considering a Murray move is because they need some serious front court upgrades (you should really look at the pile of flap doodle that they’re sending out on a nightly basis up front), and they don’t have nearly enough to trade for a member of the JayCrew.

2) You guys really need to slow your roll with this fantasy of someone offering Marcus Jaylen money. Anyone offering Marcus 4/100 is going to be unemployed less than 12 months after signing the deal. And their former employer might sue them for damages after. Seriously, Horford was a better player and Elton Brand even cleaned up his own mess. And still ended up unemployed. Paying 80% max money for a roleplayer (no matter how good that roleplayer is) is how you end up an ex-GM. If Marcus signs a max extension this summer his ensuing five year deal is going to end up a little over $90 million. We can probably live with that.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,042
Semi and Jabari are both competent end of the rotation guys. You all have way too high of expectations of the 8th or 9th or 10th guy on the roster. MIL and PHO just played in the finals with Jeff Teague and Frank Kaminsky as their 8th guy off the bench.

The problem with this team wasn't the 8th or 9th guy or 10th guy, it was that Tristan Thompson and Payton Pritchard were the first guys off the bench. Improve those spots and Jabari and/or Semi look absolutely great in their spots
I can't imagine any non-garbage time minutes where Semi would look "absolutely great".

Random stat:

14 times in NBA history, players have had at least as many blocks in 1 game as Semi has had in his 4 year, 254 game, career (13).

Of course Semi isn't THE problem, but he's the biggest problem that can be solved with a random min contract signing.

& Teague & Kaminsky only ended up as 8th men due to the attrition of this condensed season. If they started off the season as 8th men, their teams would have even bigger problems.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,951
Upgrading from Semi is quite trivial; it would be GM malpractice to return him in the same role next season.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,053
Santa Monica
& Teague & Kaminsky only ended up as 8th men due to the attrition of this condensed season. If they started off the season as 8th men, their teams would have even bigger problems.
this is correct

If Semi or Jabari started off the year as the 15th man, that would be acceptable

Starting the season with Semi/Jabari in the top 10 rotation would mean that Brad cleaned out a lot of the roster for Beal or Dame while retaining Brown/Tatum/TL...that also would be acceptable
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
3,189
Saint Paul, MN
Semi was the 10th or 11th guy to start the season. He was getting less minutes than Javonte Green and Jeff Teague. Look around the league at the 10th or 11th guy. It is generally not very pretty. Abdel Nader, Mike Scott, some guy named Miye Uni, etc.

I am not trying to defend Semi here - it's just that guys who are playing 15-17 minutes a night always have major flaws, hence the reason they aren't playing more
 

Fishy1

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
3,868
Minor quibbles, but TT was not the first man off the bench - he started 43 games and played the fifth most minutes. Pritchard did play the sixth most minutes, Grant played the seventh most. After that it was Theis at 8th, Rob Williams at 9th, and Ojeleye at tenth.

Grant playing 7th man minutes, given his particular limitations - that does seem disastrous. Obviously MP does not correspond neatly to role, but you look around the league, and most good teams are not giving a player of Grant's limitations 7th man minutes.

So while I'm quibbling with some of the details here, the conclusions are the same. Grant and Ojeleye shouldn't be getting 1000 minutes on a team that ostensibly has Final's aspirations. The 2019-2020 team had Hayward playing the 5th most minutes, followed by Theis and Wanamaker at 6th and 7th. Go back another year and you have Jaylen and Hayward getting six and seventh most minutes, Rozier at 8th most, and Theis and Barnes at 9th and 10th. That seems a shocking difference from this year.

The obvious conclusion is that the teams depth has declined year by year, but I think anyone who was paying attention already knew that.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
this is correct

If Semi or Jabari started off the year as the 15th man, that would be acceptable

Starting the season with Semi/Jabari in the top 10 rotation would mean that Brad cleaned out a lot of the roster for Beal or Dame while retaining Brown/Tatum/TL...that also would be acceptable
Yes. Players always finish the year higher than they began simply based on attrition. This is why beginning the season with strong depth (ex: Last year with 3 big) is so crucial as those 10’s and 11’s will be counted on at some point and given opportunities.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
25,600
Yes. Players always finish the year higher than they began simply based on attrition. This is why beginning the season with strong depth (ex: Last year with 3 big) is so crucial as those 10’s and 11’s will be counted on at some point and given opportunities.
Agreed—this is where a few posters completely missed last offseason. There is a real and highly probable cost to carrying Javonte/Carsen/Semi instead of Bane/legit vets.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
16,496
Agreed—this is where a few posters completely missed last offseason. There is a real and highly probable cost to carrying Javonte/Carsen/Semi instead of Bane/legit vets.
Not really. People were complaining about the depth and roster construction all season. Plus acting like Bane was a sure thing and not in the same group as Carsen/Semi/Jevonte to start last season is rich. He worked out, but the C's may also not have drafted him anyway.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,786
Not really. People were complaining about the depth and roster construction all season. Plus acting like Bane was a sure thing and not in the same group as Carsen/Semi/Jevonte to start last season is rich. He worked out, but the C's may also not have drafted him anyway.
Ainge has him in for workouts/interviews and still passed so there is reason to believe he didn’t jump off the page at Danny.