- Dec 30, 2009
It gets waved off because it's really facile thinking. It's interesting how NFL fans can clearly deduce the context when they say 'x team is W-L record when y QB throws more than 40 times in a game' but apply the same type of statement in the NBA to Smart it becomes 'he takes touches from the Jays and Smart shooting a lot is why the Celtics lose'.I responded because the piss-poor record when Smart shoots a lot was waved off as "look at the surrounding talent"
'Can x team win while y player is their 3rd best player/4th best contract?' is equally facile. Can Houston in 2018 win if Eric Gordon is their 3rd best player/4th biggest contract? Why do such complex problems get boiled down to something that's only barely related to the overall question?
The only time that question makes sense is in the context of 'will Marcus Smart getting paid 15% of the cap prevent the team from winning a championship?' And the answer there is clearly no. Most people are in agreement that Smart can be moved for free, at the worst, if need be. Most people think he's an asset at the current price. Take everything together and detractors are essentially complaining 'I'm mad we re-signed and kept a valuable asset'. To hate this extension you have to really think that Smart is or likely is to be a negative asset sometime in the near future (within a year).
This just isn't true. In a world where we keep Smart and trade for Beal, Smart's contract doesn't matter one bit. He's a slightly better asset at a lower price, but in a Beal world you're automatically an over-the-cap team. In addition, you can't just break Marcus Smart up into 3 cheaper, better fits - you have to work with what's available and what the Celtics can realistically get. This is just a variation on Cs fans that go 'I don't like Beal's fit, I think they should get a great distributor/shooter' and when you ask them who they mean they say 'CP3'.If he's taking up 15% of the cap, it's harder to allocate that money to players who can do that