Terry Coming Up Rozes

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,303
Is this true, I thought that once Kyrie signs an extension he's not a Rose rule player anymore.
Kyrie will not sign an extension until next offseason. That's the only way he can get the max contract. So he's a Rose rule player for this season no matter what.

HRB was suggesting that if the Celtics extend Rozier now, the C's could trade Kyrie at this season's deadline as part of a hypothetical Anthony Davis deal. Or, as nighthob suggested, the Celtics could throw Rozier into a Davis deal next offseason after Kyrie signs for the max.

I'm not convinced either is likely, but it's a good strategy to keep the options open in the event Davis becomes available. There's not a lot of downside.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,086
Would be interested to know what Terry would sign now for. While he's saying all the right things, you have to think that he wants a starting gig somewhere. He's basically the Celtics' Jimmy G.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,667
Would be interested to know what Terry would sign now for. While he's saying all the right things, you have to think that he wants a starting gig somewhere. He's basically the Celtics' Jimmy G.
He's going to start somewhere next season. The extension now wouldn't be a discount or else it wouldn't benefit Rozier to sign it. It would essentially be protection for both sides......Rozier to injury and Ainge for added flexibility while securing an asset by not losing Rozier to FA for nothing. This could very easily be a win-win which is why it's apparently being discussed.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,096
Celtics talking extension with Rozier.

I don't really understand the logic, from either side.
I get it from the Celtics side if they can get him at a price that makes his a trade asset.

I don't see Rozier doing it. He'd either be locking himself in as a backup, or more likely a starter somewhere else of Danny Ainges' choosing next summer.

Whatever price he locks himself in for now, he'd have to think he's very likely to beat it next summer, and maybe even for enough money that the Celtics wouldn't match so he could choose his new team and have that team not give up assets for him.

I guess the only reasoning would be fear of injury, But for a young, confident guy like Rozier that hasn't had major health issues, if I were his agent I'd advise him to wait til next summer.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,086
What about a 3 year deal? Lock in some financial security and get another bite at the FA apple when you’re 28 and have presumably demonstrated that you’re capable of running a team.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
3,934
Lisbon, PT
I get it from the Celtics side if they can get him at a price that makes his a trade asset.

I don't see Rozier doing it. He'd either be locking himself in as a backup, or more likely a starter somewhere else of Danny Ainges' choosing next summer.

Whatever price he locks himself in for now, he'd have to think he's very likely to beat it next summer, and maybe even for enough money that the Celtics wouldn't match so he could choose his new team and have that team not give up assets for him.

I guess the only reasoning would be fear of injury, But for a young, confident guy like Rozier that hasn't had major health issues, if I were his agent I'd advise him to wait til next summer.
He also has the risk of being the 7th-8th man when the team makes a deep run. Not a huge risk to his value imo, but RFA is tricky, as we've seen.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
21,627
I think locking in 'never need to work' money on an extension is always more valuable to the real-life player than the theoretical bigger payday a year or two out, and we forget that sometimes. So do players!

If Rozier signs a three year $45 mil deal he and his family (and extended family) are set for life. That's really, really valuable security for him. While no athlete wants to think about it, fact is guys do have career-ending injuries every year (fortunately, not too many these days) and it's a factor in a first big contract, imo.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,086
I think locking in 'never need to work' money on an extension is always more valuable to the real-life player than the theoretical bigger payday a year or two out, and we forget that sometimes. So do players!

If Rozier signs a three year $45 mil deal he and his family (and extended family) are set for life. That's really, really valuable security for him. While no athlete wants to think about it, fact is guys do have career-ending injuries every year (fortunately, not too many these days) and it's a factor in a first big contract, imo.
Agreed. And who knows where his mind is at given he had a front row seat to Hayward’s injury. Those injuries are rare but they happen. Even an ACL tear would have a big impact on him. I’d lock in the extension if it were me and go at it again when I’m 28 or so.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,667
I think locking in 'never need to work' money on an extension is always more valuable to the real-life player than the theoretical bigger payday a year or two out, and we forget that sometimes. So do players!

If Rozier signs a three year $45 mil deal he and his family (and extended family) are set for life. That's really, really valuable security for him. While no athlete wants to think about it, fact is guys do have career-ending injuries every year (fortunately, not too many these days) and it's a factor in a first big contract, imo.
Purchasing insurance is what best protects players from accepting the "never need to work" money......not accepting a below market long-term contract. $14-15m for Rozier is likely below what a rebuilding team in need of a young starting PG will have on the table. Rozier's RFA status isn't going to negatively affect his suitors as Ainge isn't a threat to match an offer if he should remain here throughout the season. His market is more similar to George Hill and Jeff Teague's $19m AAV imo.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,554
With Kyrie healthy, Rozier may not get nearly the minutes he got last year. $15M per year seems about right to me.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
21,627
Purchasing insurance is what best protects players from accepting the "never need to work" money......not accepting a below market long-term contract. $14-15m for Rozier is likely below what a rebuilding team in need of a young starting PG will have on the table. Rozier's RFA status isn't going to negatively affect his suitors as Ainge isn't a threat to match an offer if he should remain here throughout the season. His market is more similar to George Hill and Jeff Teague's $19m AAV imo.
It's hard to assess insurance for these situations because the policies vary so much, at least in my understanding. I am not sure you can realistically insure that level of pay at a reasonable cost, but others may have better info there. Insurance also only covers some of the risk factors---straight injury related ones. And it requires the player to plan for this all in advance, which some do and so do not.

On the other side of the equation, the fact is, the lifestyle difference for Rozier between a 3/$45 and a "market rate" 3/$60 mil deal is nonexistent. I understand why agents and players fixate on 'market rate' and want guys to maximize but it simply is not the best economic decision for most players most of the time when you back ego out of it.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,303
Rozier isn't getting George Hill money this offseason as an RFA with very limited minutes under his belt. Barring injury, he's not going to get those minutes this year either. So, yes, 3/45 is very much in line with what he's probably worth today given the circumstances.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
9,832
It's interesting that Rozier would be getting paid more than Smart when pretty much everyone on this board thinks Smart will get more playing time. I'm guessing the majority of the board considers Smart to be the better player too. I prefer Rozier but I'm biased against guards who can't shoot and think Rozier still has some potential upside. Either way, it's hard to envision the Celtics with 2 combo guards coming off the bench getting paid $13 and $16 mil.

Maybe the owners are willing to pay the tax, but if not you'd have to think Smart might be traded next off season. That's especially true if you factor in the man crush Ainge has on Rozier. It's possible they plan to let Horford walk when his contract is up too and are willing to pay the tax for just one year. Re: Rozier, the only way I see him getting traded instead of Smart is if he takes another step forward. If that does happen, his trade value would go through the roof with the new contract in hand.

Luckily both of those contracts will be pretty easy to move even if they are just Kyrie insurance. It makes us better for this season with little to no downside (injury). We get another year to see if Rozier can develop his game even more without the risk of losing him at seasons end. If he does, the contract ends up being a huge bargain. If not, you can probably flip him for the same type of return you would get now. Smart might not get much of a return, but I can't imagine he'd be hard to move. There's also the possibility his 3 point shot becomes respectable, even if it is like 0.01%. If that happens, he'd also be a huge bargain with tons of trade value.

It'll be an interesting year and I don't think playing time will be that big of a concern, especially when you factor in injuries. If everyone is healthy all year long, it will be an issue though, especially if Theis is a regular part of the rotation. If you factor in normal injury luck, the starters and Smart could get around 30 mpg, Rozier and Morris 25, Baynes 18 and Theis 15. The rest of the players would just get sporadic minutes here and there with most of those going to Semi and Yabu. I see RWill in Maine most of the season, Wanamaker glued to the bench and not even sure Georges-Hunt makes the team. Not sure what they are doing with Jabari Parker, but I'm assuming he's going to get cut.

Only real question I have going into the season is whether the Celtics go with mostly a 9 man rotation or 10. If Theis isn't part of the rotation, that makes playing time even less of an issue. This team is built to play small.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
9,832
Rozier isn't getting George Hill money this offseason as an RFA with very limited minutes under his belt. Barring injury, he's not going to get those minutes this year either. So, yes, 3/45 is very much in line with what he's probably worth today given the circumstances.
Seems about right, especially when you consider Smart got 4/52. Rozier's playmaking skills have always been mocked pretty heavily on this board up until the 2nd half of last season. Now everyone is ready to label him a starting PG. I think he's a SG who can play point if needed and not a guy you roll into the season with as your starting PG. He did make some pretty big strides in that department last year though. It is possible he develops into a true PG this season. He also needs to work on his finishing. If he improves in either of those 2 areas (play making, finishing) I could see him getting paid quite a bit more but he's going to get less playing time this year to showcase his talents.

There are some teams I think Rozier would be fine at PG even without any improvement but those teams have great playmakers at other positions.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Sep 27, 2016
7,590
Rozier's skillset is more in-demand in the league, though. There are maybe a half-dozen teams who are well-balanced enough to actually need what Smart brings to the table, to complement the rest of their lineup - contending teams, really. There wasn't a ton of competition for Smart's services (though there wasn't zero, either), which is why he ended up where he did. The same isn't true for Rozier, where maybe a third of the teams in the league would find him preferable to their current PG (or more valuable at 3*$15), and another few would think him very worthwhile even as a backup or "competing to start". When considering their roles, Smart is a luxury; Rozier is a necessity.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,667
Seems about right, especially when you consider Smart got 4/52. Rozier's playmaking skills have always been mocked pretty heavily on this board up until the 2nd half of last season. Now everyone is ready to label him a starting PG. I think he's a SG who can play point if needed and not a guy you roll into the season with as your starting PG. He did make some pretty big strides in that department last year though. It is possible he develops into a true PG this season. He also needs to work on his finishing. If he improves in either of those 2 areas (play making, finishing) I could see him getting paid quite a bit more but he's going to get less playing time this year to showcase his talents.

There are some teams I think Rozier would be fine at PG even without any improvement but those teams have great playmakers at other positions.
Smart was signed by Boston to be the ideal 3rd guard who can perform multiple roles. The teams looking to sign Rozier are viewing him as their starting PG. The market for each role are vastly different regardless of what their role would be on this particular Celtics team. The teams that signed the Brandon Knights, Reggie Jacksons, George Hills, and Jeff Teagues paid market value for a starting PG which is what Rozier's market projects to be next summer even with more limited minutes this season.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,557
It's interesting that Rozier would be getting paid more than Smart when pretty much everyone on this board thinks Smart will get more playing time. I'm guessing the majority of the board considers Smart to be the better player too. I prefer Rozier but I'm biased against guards who can't shoot and think Rozier still has some potential upside. Either way, it's hard to envision the Celtics with 2 combo guards coming off the bench getting paid $13 and $16 mil.

Maybe the owners are willing to pay the tax, but if not you'd have to think Smart might be traded next off season. That's especially true if you factor in the man crush Ainge has on Rozier. It's possible they plan to let Horford walk when his contract is up too and are willing to pay the tax for just one year. Re: Rozier, the only way I see him getting traded instead of Smart is if he takes another step forward. If that does happen, his trade value would go through the roof with the new contract in hand.
Rozier's contract wouldn't kick in until 2019, so there are likely to never be any tax implications. And he is almost certainly the one getting traded given that Smart's primary value is as a sixth man to playoff teams, while Rozier's value is as a starting scorer.

My expectation is that once Kyrie signs his new deal that Boston makes another run at Davis using Rozier and Brown as the bait. And if that doesn't work I expect Rozier to end up getting moved someplace like Brooklyn.
 

Royal Reader

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2005
1,727
UK
Purchasing insurance is what best protects players from accepting the "never need to work" money......not accepting a below market long-term contract. $14-15m for Rozier is likely below what a rebuilding team in need of a young starting PG will have on the table. Rozier's RFA status isn't going to negatively affect his suitors as Ainge isn't a threat to match an offer if he should remain here throughout the season. His market is more similar to George Hill and Jeff Teague's $19m AAV imo.
This is the point where I ask if anyone on the board works in insurance, because it seems to me unlikely that you're going to get insurance more than about $10m, and certainly not with a premium that's worth it to pay. Insurance is also only likely to pay out in the result of injuries of the catastrophic, season or career-ending variety, not a relatively minor thing that costs him a few months but occurs just before free agency. He might just regress - guys have step-back years after good years all the time.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
15,779
where I was last at
Rozier's skillset is more in-demand in the league, though. There are maybe a half-dozen teams who are well-balanced enough to actually need what Smart brings to the table, to complement the rest of their lineup - contending teams, really. There wasn't a ton of competition for Smart's services (though there wasn't zero, either), which is why he ended up where he did. The same isn't true for Rozier, where maybe a third of the teams in the league would find him preferable to their current PG (or more valuable at 3*$15), and another few would think him very worthwhile even as a backup or "competing to start". When considering their roles, Smart is a luxury; Rozier is a necessity.
Bingo.
I've used the analogy that Smart is a linebacker/special teams guy who can block a FG, and also catch a pass if needed. But he's not the smoothest guy in the game, which point-guards tend to be. And very few NBA teams need solid punt coverage.
 
Last edited:

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,158
Saint Paul, MN
The same isn't true for Rozier, where maybe a third of the teams in the league would find him preferable to their current PG (or more valuable at 3*$15)
I am failing to find anywhere near 1/3 of teams that would prefer Rozier to what they have. I think many here are vastly overating Terry. I may have missed one or two, but I am only seeing IND, ORL, and PHO. And a few others where it is debatable (MIN, MIL, CLE).
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,667
I am failing to find anywhere near 1/3 of teams that would prefer Rozier to what they have. I think many here are vastly overating Terry. I may have missed one or two, but I am only seeing IND, ORL, and PHO. And a few others where it is debatable (MIN, MIL, CLE).
While I agree there aren't that many teams who would prefer Rozier at his expected cost you don't need 1/3 of the teams to prefer him when there are plenty of less than desirable bottom feeders with cap space in need of a young PG though.


He might just regress - guys have step-back years after good years all the time.
Rozier has made a steady and significant leap in each of his 3 NBA seasons. While sure he "could" regress there is nothing to make me believe that this is very likely for a player about to enter his prime years while still learning to play the PG position.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,356
New York, NY
I am failing to find anywhere near 1/3 of teams that would prefer Rozier to what they have. I think many here are vastly overating Terry. I may have missed one or two, but I am only seeing IND, ORL, and PHO. And a few others where it is debatable (MIN, MIL, CLE).
Going by last year, Rozier was clearly better than the PG options on Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, the Knicks, Orlando, Dallas, the Clippers, Phoenix, and Sacramento. There are reasonable arguments for adding the Lakers, Denver, and Minnesota to that list. (You could also add Memphis and Washington, but those would be purely about injury.) He'd also have been a huge plus on Philly but I'm excluding them because Simmons.

Now, some of those teams wouldn't necessarily be interested in Rozier because their starter is close enough, or was a high upside rookie, etc. But, that list is also just about half the league, and reshuffling in the off-season plus rookies won't alter it too much, although the development of last year's draft class could cut a decent slice out of the list.

Even with all those things, the Clippers, Phoenix, Atlanta, Detroit, the Knicks, Orlando, and Denver could obviously use a player like Rozier.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
21,053
Melrose, MA
It's interesting that Rozier would be getting paid more than Smart when pretty much everyone on this board thinks Smart will get more playing time. I'm guessing the majority of the board considers Smart to be the better player too. I prefer Rozier but I'm biased against guards who can't shoot and think Rozier still has some potential upside. Either way, it's hard to envision the Celtics with 2 combo guards coming off the bench getting paid $13 and $16 mil.
This is kind of a tricky situation. Smart is a great fit on the Celtics, who aren't exactly lacking in guys who can score the ball. And he brings a strange assortment of skills. Can't shoot or drive the way Rozier can, but a better passer and can run the pick and roll pretty well. Tremendous defensive player who has great anticipation and awareness and can guard just about any 1-4 in the league for a possession or two. Makes winning plays. But the lack of consistent offense is problematic, unless your team is loaded offensively. Which the Celtics happen to be.

Rozier is a more typical kind of good player. Can shoot, can drive, is starting to learn how to throw a lob, his full speed down the court is jaw dropping. If he were 6'5" while maintaining his other skills he's be an All Star. As it is, he's an NBA-caliber starting PG who can provide a lot of offense from that position (unlike Smart, who cannot).

If you are building a team, or just have a team that doesn't have a lot of guys who can score, Rozier is your guy. If you have a loaded team with 2 All Stars, a future All-Star, and some other good players, and you are looking to add some different types of skills (defense, versatility, a playoff lineup that stops teams from exploiting mismatches against the PG), then Smart is your guy.

Rozier likely gets higher paid because he can start on a team and provide consistent offense.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,158
Saint Paul, MN
Going by last year, Rozier was clearly better than the PG options on Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, the Knicks, Orlando, Dallas, the Clippers, Phoenix, and Sacramento. There are reasonable arguments for adding the Lakers, Denver, and Minnesota to that list. (You could also add Memphis and Washington, but those would be purely about injury.) He'd also have been a huge plus on Philly but I'm excluding them because Simmons.

Now, some of those teams wouldn't necessarily be interested in Rozier because their starter is close enough, or was a high upside rookie, etc. But, that list is also just about half the league, and reshuffling in the off-season plus rookies won't alter it too much, although the development of last year's draft class could cut a decent slice out of the list.

Even with all those things, the Clippers, Phoenix, Atlanta, Detroit, the Knicks, Orlando, and Denver could obviously use a player like Rozier.
Terry Rozier at 15 million a year is not terribly desirable though. And you can't just go by "Rozier was better last year than what they had so they obviously want him". The fact that most of those teams have just spent a high pick on a PG (Ball, Smith, Young, Fox, etc.) most likely takes them out of wanting someone like Rozier at 15 a year
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,060
One other thing to note about Celtics players is that just about everyone who has left since Stevens took over has fallen off performance-wise. In addition to cringing every time Ainge/Zarren is on the line about a trade, I suspect many NBA GMs are, at least, cognizant of how players seem to regress once they are out of Boston's system.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,096
He also has the risk of being the 7th-8th man when the team makes a deep run. Not a huge risk to his value imo, but RFA is tricky, as we've seen.
But if Ainge is willing to extend him for whatever the number is now knowing he's going to be a 7th-8th man going into the season, wouldn't he be willing to offer him that next summer as well?

Just seems like Rozier would be locking up in advance at his absolute floor in contract terms.

Don't see any reason for Rozier to extend now unless he's just deathly afraid of a major injury. It could happen, but dudes play out their contracts all the time. I think they feel their bulletproof, especially a younger guy like Rozier. I think pretty much every guy who's bet on himself recently and went to RFA rather than agree to a rookie extension has had that bet pay off recently.

Rozier is repped by a small agency that hasn't had a big payday yet. Maybe they convince him to take a deal now, but I really think it would be a mistake for him.
 

JohnnyTheBone

Member
SoSH Member
May 28, 2007
15,278
A Buick 6
Well, in a span of a few months, Rozier watched All-Star Isaiah Thomas go from Brinks Truck to a 1-year minimum deal, then witnessed Gordon Hayward's career nearly end due to a grotesque injury 5 minutes into the season. Most recently, he saw Marcus Smart fruitlessly fishing for deals in restricted free agency, only to settle for what he and his agent consider less than market value. If anybody can understand the fragility of the big payday, it should Terry Rozier.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,086
Well, in a span of a few months, Rozier watched All-Star Isaiah Thomas go from Brinks Truck to a 1-year minimum deal, then witnessed Gordon Hayward's career nearly end due to a grotesque injury 5 minutes into the season. Most recently, he saw Marcus Smart fruitlessly fishing for deals in restricted free agency, only to settle for what he and his agent consider less than market value. If anybody can understand the fragility of the big payday, it should Terry Rozier.
Yup. There is a definite argument for playing out the string but I’m locking that $15M in for a few years if I can, especially given how cold the RFA market was last summer. If he misses out on a few million / year upside, so be it. If he plays well and stays healthy, this won’t be his last big contract.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,629
Portsmouth, NH
One other thing to note about Celtics players is that just about everyone who has left since Stevens took over has fallen off performance-wise. In addition to cringing every time Ainge/Zarren is on the line about a trade, I suspect many NBA GMs are, at least, cognizant of how players seem to regress once they are out of Boston's system.
Evan Turner and...?

Thomas was damaged. Olynyk has his numbers go up.

I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m earnestly asking for who you’re talking about, at least players at this purposed salary level. This isnt exactly ‘when BB cuts/trades/let’s go a guy, he fails elsewhere’. Just not sure other GMs are that concerned about it. They’re more concerned on what they’re sending the other way.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
9,832
Evan Turner and...?

Thomas was damaged. Olynyk has his numbers go up.

I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m earnestly asking for who you’re talking about, at least players at this purposed salary level. This isnt exactly ‘when BB cuts/trades/let’s go a guy, he fails elsewhere’. Just not sure other GMs are that concerned about it. They’re more concerned on what they’re sending the other way.
Jae Crowder, but yeah. Avery Bradley is just fine too.

Edit: Jared Sullinger too, I guess.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
9,832
Jae was filler wasn’t he? Sullinger got, what, a 1/$6 deal? I don’t think much fell off there, I think he was a shitty player, they knew it and Toronto took a cheap flier.
I'm of the belief IT4 was filler too and I always thought Jae Crowder was incredibly overrated but there was a drop off. You can add Rondo to the fine side.

I don't see this really being a thing. Teams are going to trust their own evaluations of a player anyway.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,096
Well, in a span of a few months, Rozier watched All-Star Isaiah Thomas go from Brinks Truck to a 1-year minimum deal, then witnessed Gordon Hayward's career nearly end due to a grotesque injury 5 minutes into the season. Most recently, he saw Marcus Smart fruitlessly fishing for deals in restricted free agency, only to settle for what he and his agent consider less than market value. If anybody can understand the fragility of the big payday, it should Terry Rozier.
I was talking about rookie extensions rather than becoming an RFA. Didn't lump in vets like Isaiah looking for his Brinks truck extension(not that he was ever getting it), because those guys in most cases have to wait to become an FA to get those big bucks. Smart didn't lose a nickel by waiting. All reports are that he signed in the same ballpark that he would've had to take last October. If anything I'd think Rozier would look at Smart and think, he thought he would've been below market last year, missed a bunch of games due to injuries, hit a freezing cold market, and still got the same money while getting to see if there was more money/opportunity out there.

I just don't think players are nearly as worried about sustaining an injury that will cost them tons of money as fans are worried for them.

Feels a bit like the folks that wanted Garapollo to sign a bridge deal with the Patriots to sit on the bench a couple more years, or be traded elsewhere on what would now be a bargain contract, than trying to hit FA and get paid and start. Obviously not a perfect analogy since Garapollo had much less injury risk holding a clipboard on gameday.

I could see it a bit more likely if Rozier were locking up security to be the starter here. Just can't see anybody locking in at a discount to be a bench player(or traded wherever Ainge wants) when he has to believe he can start and get starter money next summer.

Who knows, he could sign an extension tomorrow and I'll look foolish. Just think his agent is doing him a disservice if he does extend.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,629
Portsmouth, NH
I'm of the belief IT4 was filler too and I always thought Jae Crowder was incredibly overrated but there was a drop off. You can add Rondo to the fine side.

I don't see this really being a thing. Teams are going to trust their own evaluations of a player anyway.
Yeah, I’m on board with all of this.

Edit
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,060
Evan Turner and...?

Thomas was damaged. Olynyk has his numbers go up.

I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m earnestly asking for who you’re talking about, at least players at this purposed salary level. This isnt exactly ‘when BB cuts/trades/let’s go a guy, he fails elsewhere’. Just not sure other GMs are that concerned about it. They’re more concerned on what they’re sending the other way.
I would submit that calling Crowder filler is not quite accurate. A few here, me included, lamented moving him because the guy was a very good player for a few seasons for Boston and was looked at as someone who could add wing-depth and toughness to Cleveland. However to clarify, my point wasn't made in reference to stars or even steady rotation players - it was aimed at all of them, setting aside wash-outs like Sprtsguy33's binky James Young

Regarding Olynyk, fair point that his counting stats went up but he got more run in the Miami system and was a good player for them. His BPM and VORP were better last season but his scoring efficiency and some defensive metrics fell off. Let's say he is the exception along with Jonas Jerebko (another steal for Golden State btw).

Setting aside those two and IT4 - though I would argue that even a healthy IT4 wasn't going to replicate what he did in Boston elsewhere, here is my list.

Turner
Crowder
Bradley - health contributed here but his numbers fell off from his best years in Boston in just about every measure.
Sullinger - he counts whether you like it or not - and he went from being semi-useful in an NBA that was bypassing his skill set to completely washed at age 24 - all in the space of one season though health had something to do with it.
Amir Johnson - age & health contributed here to and he was good defensively for Philly but nowhere near the same player as in Boston
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,667
Well, in a span of a few months, Rozier watched All-Star Isaiah Thomas go from Brinks Truck to a 1-year minimum deal, then witnessed Gordon Hayward's career nearly end due to a grotesque injury 5 minutes into the season. Most recently, he saw Marcus Smart fruitlessly fishing for deals in restricted free agency, only to settle for what he and his agent consider less than market value. If anybody can understand the fragility of the big payday, it should Terry Rozier.
This is true and certainly a case for Rozier choosing this route along with it being the only chance to remain a Celtic (if that is important to him) and possibly lead a championship team. The other side of this is that barring a catastrophic injury that really hasn't hurt many players entering FA as damaged goods or coming off an injury. This goes all the way back to Grant Hill who literally used crutches to get up to the podium for his presser in Orlando announcing their huge FA signing. It didn't affect Chandler Parsons free agency prior to signing his 4/$94m deal, Eddy Curry has a freakin heart condition and got 6/$60m, everyone knew Penny Hardaway was damaged goods and he still got 7/$87m back when that was an enormous deal. Jabari Parker has had multiple ACL's and signed a deal paying him $20m this season. I'm sure there are others that don't immediately come to mind as well.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
3,934
Lisbon, PT
Turner
Crowder
Bradley - health contributed here but his numbers fell off from his best years in Boston in just about every measure.
Sullinger - he counts whether you like it or not - and he went from being semi-useful in an NBA that was bypassing his skill set to completely washed at age 24 - all in the space of one season though health had something to do with it.
Amir Johnson - age & health contributed here to and he was good defensively for Philly but nowhere near the same player as in Boston
I think Crowder is the main one who scares people wrt Boston creating system players. Amir was just as good with Toronto--by last year that he was just old/beat-up. Turner was a bad contract the day he signed, and everyone knew it.

Jordan Crawford really started the whole "Brad creates fool's gold" meme. It's crazy to think that the Celtics got actual assets for him 4 years ago.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,367
This is the point where I ask if anyone on the board works in insurance, because it seems to me unlikely that you're going to get insurance more than about $10m, and certainly not with a premium that's worth it to pay. Insurance is also only likely to pay out in the result of injuries of the catastrophic, season or career-ending variety, not a relatively minor thing that costs him a few months but occurs just before free agency. He might just regress - guys have step-back years after good years all the time.
Interesting question to ask. Jay Ajayi apparently had a $5M "loss of value" insurance policy that reportedly cost him somewhere in neighborhood of $80K to $100K in premiums.

Pay-off is apparently tax-free. So if it's scalable (I have no idea whether it is), $25M insurance policy would cost between $400K and $500K. Oof.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/10/11/jay-ajayi-loss-value-insurance-policy-eagles.

edit: here are two articles that contain everything that anyone on this board probably wants to know on LOV insurance: http://collegead.com/understanding-loss-of-value-insurance-an-interview-with-richard-giller-part-1/ and https://www.longtermdisabilitylawyer.com/2017/04/questions-ask-buying-loss-value-insurance/.

Three important points. (1) "Loss of Value" insurance is not a stand-alone product and can only be obtained as a rider to "Permanent Total Disability" insurance. (2) It looks like the typical maximum coverage is $5M. If a person were able to get more than $5M, I suspect premiums would go up drastically. (3) Premiums depend on sports. In college football, premiums are $7K/$1M for PTD and $4K/$1M for LOV so having $5M PTD and $5M LOV would be a premium of $55K. College basketball that would be $35K.
 
Last edited:

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,629
Portsmouth, NH
I would submit that calling Crowder filler is not quite accurate. A few here, me included, lamented moving him because the guy was a very good player for a few seasons for Boston and was looked at as someone who could add wing-depth and toughness to Cleveland. However to clarify, my point wasn't made in reference to stars or even steady rotation players - it was aimed at all of them, setting aside wash-outs like Sprtsguy33's binky James Young

Regarding Olynyk, fair point that his counting stats went up but he got more run in the Miami system and was a good player for them. His BPM and VORP were better last season but his scoring efficiency and some defensive metrics fell off. Let's say he is the exception along with Jonas Jerebko (another steal for Golden State btw).

Setting aside those two and IT4 - though I would argue that even a healthy IT4 wasn't going to replicate what he did in Boston elsewhere, here is my list.

Turner
Crowder
Bradley - health contributed here but his numbers fell off from his best years in Boston in just about every measure.
Sullinger - he counts whether you like it or not - and he went from being semi-useful in an NBA that was bypassing his skill set to completely washed at age 24 - all in the space of one season though health had something to do with it.
Amir Johnson - age & health contributed here to and he was good defensively for Philly but nowhere near the same player as in Boston
So, Crowder (who played better in Utah than in Cleveland); Turner who everyone knew was a joke contract because of the cap rise; and then everyone else had health issues or one year sample size. And this is somehow stopping other teams from trading for guys because they’re system players? Got it.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
9,832
So, Crowder (who played better in Utah than in Cleveland); Turner who everyone knew was a joke contract because of the cap rise; and then everyone else had health issues or one year sample size. And this is somehow stopping other teams from trading for guys because they’re system players? Got it.
To be fair, he's a huge Crowder fan boy and at one point said Jae Crowder>>>Paul George.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,557
So, Crowder (who played better in Utah than in Cleveland); Turner who everyone knew was a joke contract because of the cap rise; and then everyone else had health issues or one year sample size. And this is somehow stopping other teams from trading for guys because they’re system players? Got it.
Yeah, I don't think other GMs are really worried about guys eating their way out of the NBA a la Sullinger.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,060
To be fair, he's a huge Crowder fan boy and at one point said Jae Crowder>>>Paul George.
While I was a Crowder fan, I don't recall saying that Crowder was better than George. Either you are confusing me with someone else or I was unclear in a post. If I did say that, I must have stroked out on that one because I would never argue that, even when George's leg was a mangled mess.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
9,832
While I was a Crowder fan, I don't recall saying that Crowder was better than George. Either you are confusing me with someone else or I was unclear in a post. If I did say that, I must have stroked out on that one because I would never argue that, even when George's leg was a mangled mess.
Yeah, my bad. It was Bowiac. I knew it was a regular who usually has reasonable takes. http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/how-good-is-demar-derozan.18299/#post-2172904
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,060
So, Crowder (who played better in Utah than in Cleveland); Turner who everyone knew was a joke contract because of the cap rise; and then everyone else had health issues or one year sample size. And this is somehow stopping other teams from trading for guys because they’re system players? Got it.
Love your posting style. Good stuff. You do know better!

That said, you are looking at this through the prism of hindsight. At this point last year, Crowder was viewed as a very good player. And you can cite whatever small samples you want but its undeniable that he was a far less valuable player last season than the prior two seasons in Boston.

Regarding Turner, again you are using hindsight to say that "everyone knew [it] was a joke contract because of the cap rise". Neil Oshley may not be a great GM - I happen to think he is good and is constrained by Portland not being a FA destination - and I don't recall anyone loving that contract at the time. However, I also don't recall "everyone" referring to it as a "joke" either. Also, while some here have fantastic foresight, I also don't recall many people here talking about the magnitude of the cap raise being a one time occurrence. If you did, kudos to you!
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,629
Portsmouth, NH
Love your posting style. Good stuff. You do know better!

That said, you are looking at this through the prism of hindsight. At this point last year, Crowder was viewed as a very good player. And you can cite whatever small samples you want but its undeniable that he was a far less valuable player last season than the prior two seasons in Boston.

Regarding Turner, again you are using hindsight to say that "everyone knew [it] was a joke contract because of the cap rise". Neil Oshley may not be a great GM - I happen to think he is good and is constrained by Portland not being a FA destination - and I don't recall anyone loving that contract at the time. However, I also don't recall "everyone" referring to it as a "joke" either. Also, while some here have fantastic foresight, I also don't recall many people here talking about the magnitude of the cap raise being a one time occurrence. If you did, kudos to you!
Then you didn’t pay attention much. There was tons of talk about the NBA after the new TV deal and whether they would put the cap increase in all at once or space it out. When they put in such a big rise at once, there was plenty of speculation about the middle class getting overpaid and there’s been plenty of talk since about the correction afterwards. If you go pull a quote from someone sayin the Turner deal was a good move by Portland I’ll go pull quotes for you. Deal? I’m not using hindsight. If Turner was coming off that season right now, he’d get half what he got then. It was inflated. It was a almost universally derided signing.

I’m granting you Crowder so I’m not sure why you’re even arguing me on him anymore. I think he’s exactly what you’re talking about, but I also think he and Turner are really the only examples of it and even Crowder was in a shitty situation in Cleveland and played much closer to how he did in Boston once he got to Utah.

The other guys I’m not sure how you can say age and injury and then also say they were system players so they’ll scare off other GMs by precedent. Those aren’t things that result from Danny or Brad.

End of day, I disagree that other teams will be wary of acquiring Celtics. Right wrong or indifferent I tend to think they evaluate a player based on more than their numbers. They certainly might be gunshy on future assets going the other way, but that’s a different conversation in my opinion.