Fast forward to legitimate title contention...

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
7,922
New York, NY
As for the bolded, my first reaction is, "Oh."

Obviously I didn't take your post the way you intended or I would have skipped the rest of my response (I'm glad I didn't spend a lot of time on my response) since it's obviously not germane to what you intended.

But I'm curious to see why you think it matters that the Cs don't have a player who is better than Gobert right now? You're basically saying that Gobert is better than IT4 - and while I'm not going to necessarily argue with you with that point but I just don't see how it matters. Why would Heywoodie care about who the best player is on a team right now? I would guess that most free agents care about money, coach, organization, location, and chance to win - in varying degrees. If Haymarket cares about chance to win, he's going to be looking beyond who the next best player is and I think it's pretty clear that HeyWardCleaver's chance to win is higher with the Cs than the Jazz.

If the he signs with the Cs, the odds of that SayHayward plays with a player better than Gobert over the life of his next contract is pretty high, and if I were a free agent, that's what I would be looking at.
Because, as is clear in the context of my original post, and as Ainge has recently discussed, great players are the pathway to championships. Gobert is a guy who could continue to develop and be a great player. Hayward is a really good player, not a great player. The Celtics currently top out at really good players who have no prospect of ever being great players. Choosing to stay with the guy who is already almost great versus jumping to the team that has a couple of guys with some chance of being great but no one who is close to there yet is not a clear-cut decision (I'm omitting IT and Horford because, as good as they are, they have no chance to ever be truly great players).
 

sox311

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,750
That's what she said.
Anyway, I liked the strong vote of support for Isaiah. I don't think he makes sense at all on a max contract, and I doubt Ainge thinks so either. I'm sure Ainge would like to keep him though -- at the right price. That's where negotiations will probably founder. But until that day comes, I think Ainge's comments will help make Isaiah feel appreciated and motivated as a Celtic.

It is pretty clear that players in the NBA, and in MLB, are paid for past performance. Are there any examples that come to mind, in the past decade or two as you can't compare any other eras here, where a player was paid less than expected?

Paul Milsap in his first Hawks deal when Utah let him walk for nothing? That year though they half way expected some short term deals for players wanting to cash in on the increased salary cap two years later. Anyone else?

Isaiah is an amazing offensive player, and deserved to be paid max money last year. But as we all know, or else we would't be having this conversation he won't be worth it five or six years from now when a max deal for him would expire.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
678
That seems right to me as well. His wife reportedly loves Utah.

So what's the next option (barring a big trade that eats up the cap space)? Gallinari? Otto Porter (restricted)? Greg Monroe? Do nothing and wait for 2018?
If they strike out on the big guns, a re-negotiate and extend for IT or Bradley makes the most sense to me. For IT you get a lower max and fewer years as opposed to re-signing him. For his part he could make more next year than he has in his entire career to date.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
I assumed they would extend IT in any event. Same with Bradley unless they trade him. So I guess doing nothing and waiting for 2018 is not an option. So assuming no big trades, that leaves Porter, Gallinari, Monroe, etc. as plan B, and matching offers for Olynyk as plan C.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
678
I assumed they would extend IT in any event. Same with Bradley unless they trade him. So I guess doing nothing and waiting for 2018 is not an option. So assuming no big trades, that leaves Porter, Gallinari, Monroe, etc. as plan B, and matching offers for Olynyk as plan C.
A team needs cap space to do a renegotiate and extend. So the Celts can't both sign a significant free agent and pull it off. Also, the Celts would not have enough space to do both Bradley and IT.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
A team needs cap space to do a renegotiate and extend. So the Celts can't both sign a significant free agent and pull it off. Also, the Celts would not have enough space to do both Bradley and IT.
They have full Bird rights on both of these players.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
49,859
But rebounding is a weakness the Celtics don't seem too concerned about.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it appears to be real. That needs to be factored in.
Yeah, I think it's pretty clearly preferable to be strong in floor spacing, ball movement, and outside shooting at the expense of rebounding as opposed to the other way around. Jordan was the guy the KG Celtics would have loved. This team, not so much.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,287
They have full Bird rights on both of these players.
That only matters if a player goes to free agency. If you extend a player the extension is limited by the size of the current contract, which is why neither player will sign one. You can renegotiate the final year of a contract, but the CBA requires you have the cap space to fit the new deals, which is why you probably won't see either deal renegotiated.

Also, Boston isn't going to have any interest in Monroe, he is terrible defensively and kills spacing. And defense and spacing are the two primary requirements for bigs here.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
That only matters if a player goes to free agency. If you extend a player the extension is limited by the size of the current contract, which is why neither player will sign one. You can renegotiate the final year of a contract, but the CBA requires you have the cap space to fit the new deals, which is why you probably won't see either deal renegotiated.
Yes that's true for a "renegotiation." It doesn't apply to "extensions" capped at 107.5% of the last year's salary but obviously neither IT nor Bradley is going to accept that. I had been assuming all along that the brinks truck won't be backing into IT's driveway until July, 2018. It would be crazy for Ainge to use any portion of his precious cap space this Summer to extend a player in which he has full Bird rights.

The question is what to do if Hayward says no.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,192
Saint Paul, MN
If Hayward says no, I think extending IT makes the most sense. Mostly because of the length of the deal. You get him for his next 4 years, as opposed to signing him to a max next summer which means you have him for the next 6 years. If you extend, you get him at a 6 year max player rather than a 7 year as well.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
45,590
If Hayward says no, I think extending IT makes the most sense. Mostly because of the length of the deal. You get him for his next 4 years, as opposed to signing him to a max next summer which means you have him for the next 6 years. If you extend, you get him at a 6 year max player rather than a 7 year as well.
I'd make a run at Blake Griffin and Millsap if Hayward is a no-go.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,287
If Hayward says no, I think extending IT makes the most sense. Mostly because of the length of the deal. You get him for his next 4 years, as opposed to signing him to a max next summer which means you have him for the next 6 years. If you extend, you get him at a 6 year max player rather than a 7 year as well.
This may have changed, but I think renegotiate & extends are capped at four years, which would be its lone selling point, you wouldn't need to pay Lil' Zeke for the years that he's a complete non-factor. The downside is that you're betting the house on Brown/Fultz/Zizic/2018 draftee being good enough to contend for a long time because there won't be any chance of free agent acquisitions.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,192
Saint Paul, MN
Yes, that was what I was getting at.

If they extend IT this summer, being a 6 year veteran, he will get 26 million for 4 years (2017 - 2020).

If they wait to sign him to the max next year, he will get 31 million for 5 years (2018 - 2022).

It's a tough spot to be in. IT has a very good chance to live up to his extension contract. He has little chance of doing that if he is signed to a 5 year max next summer.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
678
Yes, that was what I was getting at.

If they extend IT this summer, being a 6 year veteran, he will get 26 million for 4 years (2017 - 2020).

If they wait to sign him to the max next year, he will get 31 million for 5 years (2018 - 2022).

It's a tough spot to be in. IT has a very good chance to live up to his extension contract. He has little chance of doing that if he is signed to a 5 year max next summer.
This is why is an IT extension is my preferred plan B if the Celts can't land Gordon or Blake. Unlike a 5 year max, a renegotiate and extend preserves flexibility. It should be a neutral to a small net negative value in the out years. Meaning you can move it, maybe with a small sweetener if you need to free up space in 2019 or 2020.

I want no part of Millsap on a 4 year 35% max.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
678
So why would IT lave 51M on the table to extend now?
1. Security. To date his career earnings are less than he could make in just the next year of a renegotiated deal. It's life altering money.

2. It's not a done deal that Boston will give him the 5 year max.

He may not take a renegotiate and extend, but there is a rationale for doing so.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,320
This may have changed, but I think renegotiate & extends are capped at four years, which would be its lone selling point, you wouldn't need to pay Lil' Zeke for the years that he's a complete non-factor. The downside is that you're betting the house on Brown/Fultz/Zizic/2018 draftee being good enough to contend for a long time because there won't be any chance of free agent acquisitions.
This has been changed to five years.

Also extensions are now able to start at up to 120% of the current salary, up from 107.5%. Though that wouldn't affect a Bradley or IT extension much.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
678
This has been changed to five years.

Also extensions are now able to start at up to 120% of the current salary, up from 107.5%. Though that wouldn't affect a Bradley or IT extension much.
Do you have a source for the five year provision? Everything I have seen has suggested the renegotiate and extend option is limited to four years. Which frankly is a big selling point relative to IT. The Celts can position themselves as offering IT the most dollars/years possible under the rules, while at the same time hedging against the risk of age or injury related decline.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,320
Do you have a source for the five year provision? Everything I have seen has suggested the renegotiate and extend option is limited to four years. Which frankly is a big selling point relative to IT. The Celts can position themselves as offering IT the most dollars/years possible under the rules, while at the same time hedging against the risk of age or injury related decline.
Under part III. B. 1 here

http://official.nba.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/01/NBA-2017-CBA-Principal-Deal-Points.pdf

Unless I'm wrong, always a strong possibility, I believe a renegotiate and extend is treated the same as any standard veteran extension. They used to be for a max total of 4 years and are now 5 years.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,287
Looking over CBAFAQ.com it still says that renegotiated contracts are limited to four total years. I guess I'll need to read the CBA for myself now.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
29,015
Not having time to do an exhaustive read, Article IX, Section 1 contains this clause (c): "(c) an Extension of a Veteran Player (other than a Designated Veteran Player Extension with a Team’s Designated Veteran Player) may cover, in the aggregate, up to no more than five (5) Seasons from the date such Extension is signed,"
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
28,209
2. It's not a done deal that Boston will give him the 5 year max.
I'd take this another step and call it outrageously insane to give a 5'9 player a 5-year max for his ages 30-34 seasons. I'm expecting a 4/$80m offer for those seasons with him eventually signing or being traded elsewhere. Ainge doesn't make mistakes in signing big money long-term deals that strap him.....he's not going to make his first on a 5'9 player on the wrong side of 30 imo.
 

sox311

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,750
That's what she said.
When Isaiah said the Brinks truck is going to back up at his house I wish he would have told us how much he expects to be delivered. Those trucks run on a tight schedule, can't be slow and unprepared, or they will leave and charge you more.

If KD is going to take less to keep his teams core intact I can see Isaiah doing the same thing. Just how much less will be the interesting thing.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
29,937
When Isaiah said the Brinks truck is going to back up at his house I wish he would have told us how much he expects to be delivered. Those trucks run on a tight schedule, can't be slow and unprepared, or they will leave and charge you more.

If KD is going to take less to keep his teams core intact I can see Isaiah doing the same thing. Just how much less will be the interesting thing.
I think part of Isaiah's message was 'don't trade me, I'm willing to play ball on the next contract'

Celts have sent signals there may be a lot of change, and many astute analysts (here and in the media) have noted that there's some logic to exploring that kind of deal now rather than face the extension or lose him question. I'm not saying it will definitely happen, but I think it's a lot more of a live topic than general media and fandom think it is.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Collectively the Celtics' assets cannot match up to those of the Warriors' or Cavs' assets. Where the Celtics have an advantage over the rest of the league is flexibility. They can . . .
  1. give Thomas an extension if he agrees to a sensible deal.
  2. see if a desperate GM is willing to trade blue chip asset for Thomas. (Unfortunately the Magic already fired Rob Hennigan, but there's always the Knicks.)
  3. let Thomas play out the year, and then work out a sign and trade.
  4. let Thomas play out the year and leave.
Any of those results is an acceptable ROI for the team. I won't complain with whatever they choose to do as long as they don't cave and give him a full max deal.
 
Last edited:

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
Depends on your time horizon, yes? Boston has Stevens and lots of high draft picks. LeBron and Durant, for all of their skills, are wasting assets.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,320
Looking over CBAFAQ.com it still says that renegotiated contracts are limited to four total years. I guess I'll need to read the CBA for myself now.
Larry Coon hasn't updated that site to reflect the new CBA yet.

He must be waiting til it actually goes into effect this summer.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Regarding Bradley and his value, I think there's actually a really solid fit with Utah. I still feel like it's far more likely than not that Hayward stays there, and assuming that's the case, Utah and Boston are solid trade partners because they both fall into the 'very good but not great' category. They obviously prefer Gobert to Favors, who has a year left on his deal, and Bradley'll likely be the odd man out in Boston.

Swapping the two of them solves a need for both teams. Boston gets a rim protecting big who rebounds, and Utah gets somebody who can give Western Conference point guards trouble defensively and who makes shots. They'll be losing Ingles at the 3, and can shift Hood to the 3 to accommodate Bradley.

Seems like a solid deal for both sides.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,192
Saint Paul, MN
Ugh. Favors does nothing for me. He is a worse player than Bradley, makes more money, is a free agent at the end of next year and not someone you want to commit any type of money to. And while he might provide some of the rebounding and rim protection you want, he is a horrific offensive player that kills spacing.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
678
Not having time to do an exhaustive read, Article IX, Section 1 contains this clause (c): "(c) an Extension of a Veteran Player (other than a Designated Veteran Player Extension with a Team’s Designated Veteran Player) may cover, in the aggregate, up to no more than five (5) Seasons from the date such Extension is signed,"
Under part III. B. 1 here

http://official.nba.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/01/NBA-2017-CBA-Principal-Deal-Points.pdf

Unless I'm wrong, always a strong possibility, I believe a renegotiate and extend is treated the same as any standard veteran extension. They used to be for a max total of 4 years and are now 5 years.
I think you are right. Without reading the whole CBA, I did not see anything that created a carve out for renegotiate and extends in the spots in the CBA where you would think such a provision would be addressed. Therefore, a renegotiate and extend for IT would run through 2021 at 25% of the cap, while resigning him at a five year max as FA would run through 2022 at 30%. So not as attractive for the Celts as I had initially thought.

One point Nate Duncan and Danny Leroux made on their podcast regarding the Celtics off season that I have not seen addressed here is the timing issue. The big FA's normally sign relatively late in the process. By the time Durant decided on Golden State, not many unrestricted FA's who could make an impact were left (other than guys like Dirk who were waiting so their teams could use cap space before making use of their Bird rights). After Durant, I think Wade and Pau were the only two unrestricted FA's who got deals in excess of 10 mill per.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Ugh. Favors does nothing for me. He is a worse player than Bradley, makes more money, is a free agent at the end of next year and not someone you want to commit any type of money to. And while he might provide some of the rebounding and rim protection you want, he is a horrific offensive player that kills spacing.
That's a good point. The Celtics should definitely only trade Bradley -- who has one year left on his contract and is about to get way more expensive himself -- for a cost-controlled rim protector who rebounds and is also a really good offensive player. Those guys are a dime a dozen and you always get them in exchange for pending free agents who are undersized for their position.

Horford is a very capable stretch big, by the way. How exactly does it kill the Celtics spacing to put him alongside a center like Favors?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
That's a good point. The Celtics should definitely only trade Bradley -- who has one year left on his contract and is about to get way more expensive himself -- for a cost-controlled rim protector who rebounds and is also a really good offensive player. Those guys are a dime a dozen and you always get them in exchange for pending free agents who are undersized for their position.

Horford is a very capable stretch big, by the way. How exactly does it kill the Celtics spacing to put him alongside a center like Favors?
Marcus Smart. When Smart isn't playing, sure. I'd be ok with Favors as a last resort type option.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
45,590
I'd rather trade Bradley for the best future pick possible than a meh guy like Favors.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
29,937
Regarding Bradley and his value, I think there's actually a really solid fit with Utah. I still feel like it's far more likely than not that Hayward stays there, and assuming that's the case, Utah and Boston are solid trade partners because they both fall into the 'very good but not great' category. They obviously prefer Gobert to Favors, who has a year left on his deal, and Bradley'll likely be the odd man out in Boston.

Swapping the two of them solves a need for both teams. Boston gets a rim protecting big who rebounds, and Utah gets somebody who can give Western Conference point guards trouble defensively and who makes shots. They'll be losing Ingles at the 3, and can shift Hood to the 3 to accommodate Bradley.

Seems like a solid deal for both sides.
This makes a lot of sense. I've been a Bradley backer historically, but I think we're now at the point people are imagining another step up for him that seems very unlikely to happen. He's a good, solid starter and you could win a title with him as your 4th option...but you aren't building around him, either.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
If you think Favors is the last resort option, you have a skewed view of what Bradley's going to be bringing in the last year of his deal. He's a rim protecting big who can finish on the pick and roll and has a 16 foot jump shot that keeps defenses honest. He's not an all star, but he does some things well, and that's what you're getting in return for Bradley.

Also, the notion that because Smart isn't a good 3 point shooter the Celtics can't trade for a rim protector who doesn't space the floor is absurd. Between IT, Rozier, Crowder, Horford, Brown, and Fultz the Celtics have plenty of wings/guards who can shoot. Bring back Olynyk and you have even more lineup combos that work.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
You shouldn't have the two on the floor together and Marcus Smart plays 30 minutes a night. Favors was also considerably worse this year than in the past. He doesn't really rebound or block shots that well anymore, but maybe that's a function of Gobert.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
He started playing alongside Gobert and defending more stretch 4s this season. I don't think those skills suddenly declined at age 25.

And those spacing issues are completely overblown. If you need two stretch bigs in order to put a good offense on the floor with Marcus Smart, then Marcus Smart is the problem. Not really sure how to build a team that protects the rim/rebounds if that's the case.
 
Last edited:
Jul 25, 2016
48
I'd rather trade Bradley for the best future pick possible than a meh guy like Favors.
I would think a 2018 pick swap with the Pelicans would be an interesting trade for Bradley. You would be gambling on the Pelicans missing the playoffs and getting a late lottery pick, but that seems like it would be reasonably fair value.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I'd personally rather trade Smart than AB anyway but I'm biased against guards who can't shoot.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
The best trades are not the logical moves for both sides, but rather the trades with a desperate or stupid GM or president. I am hoping they can work out a deal with the Knicks for their future picks. Phil Jackson won't be around in five years, so he may not care if he gives up a first round pick. And Bradley should be a good triangle PG.

Horford is a very capable stretch big, by the way. How exactly does it kill the Celtics spacing to put him alongside a center like Favors?
It prevents the Celtics from playing five out. That doesn't "kill" their spacing, but Favors is clearly not the kind of big man Stevens wants.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
29,937
It prevents the Celtics from playing five out. That doesn't "kill" their spacing, but Favors is clearly not the kind of big man Stevens wants.
That's demonstrably not so---Amir played 20 minutes a game and Zeller (on average, with variation of course and missed games) 10. That means roughly half the time they had a guy like Favors out there. That's plenty of minutes for Favors, and if he's a little better than those guys (which he likely would be) a few more minutes likely fit.

Stevens played the hand he had--5 out makes sense for situations, but was not their base set, and wouldn't need to be with Favors here either.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,159
Cultural hub of the universe
He started playing alongside Gobert and defending more stretch 4s this season. I don't think those skills suddenly declined at age 25.

And those spacing issues are completely overblown. If you need two stretch bigs in order to put a good offense on the floor with Marcus Smart, than Marcus Smart is the problem. Not really sure how to build a team that protects the rim/rebounds if that's the case.
It seems like both GS (Pachulia, McGee) and Cleveland (Thompson) can play with a big who doesn't stretch the floor, it seems like you can't just have two, or one and Marcus Smart. Like GMB, I think that says way more about Marcus. He needs to become a league average offensive player or we need to move on.
 
Jul 25, 2016
48
I'd personally rather trade Smart than AB anyway but I'm biased against guards who can't shoot.
I'm not sure I can see Ainge paying Bradley $20,000,000 a year for what he brings. Signing Smart to an extension if they miss on Hayward would likely be significantly cheaper and Smart is a better, more versatile defender who seems more likely to accept a supporting role going forward. And, of course, if they're building around Brown and Fultz, Smart is young enough to play with those two 3-4 years from now. I also want to free up minutes for Rozier, and folks here will strongly disagree with this, because I think he has the potential to be a more valuable player than Bradley.

That said, Brad seems to love Bradley, so maybe there is some intangible/locker room stuff that would make him worth it.
 
Last edited: