Sure, but Smokey Joe's point was that the Sacramento Kings for all of their front office brilliance haven't won 35 games in the past 10 seasons since Reggie Theus was coaching them and Mikki Moore was their starting center despite all of these opportunities of positive variance.
Didn't see PKB respond to this but he was referring to Nate Duncan and Danny LeRoux (specifically their podcast), not Danny AInge or the Celtic braintrust
That's what I mean. If, as basketball evaluators, Duncan and LeRoux are cap evaluators more than anything else, they should have a better understanding of the Bradley move and letting some role players go, given that the alternative = keeping last year's team long-term but paying it more money (as opposed to getting Hayward).
Keep in mind our future Memphis pick which I've been excited about since the trade two years ago. Should Memphis have a Top-8 pick in 2019 the pick is pushed to 2020 where it is Top-6 protected.......after that it becomes unprotected in 2021. The Grizzlies are primed for a sizeable fall over these next two seasons with over $55m tied up in Mike Conley and Chandler Parsons, Gasol entering his mid-30's, while losing glue pieces Tony Allen, Z-Bo, Vinsanity, and JaMychal Green. Where are the reinforcements coming from? Missing in '09 with the 2nd pick on Thabeet over Harden and in '10 when Xavier Henry didn't pan out at 12 really set them back. Much like the timing of the Brooklyn picks, Ainge has a chance to hit a home run on this one too.
Wasn't this clarified, that the visit was several weeks before the draft but only reported right around the draft?
Where was this report? There was no interest in Jackson working out for Boston until after we traded down to 3. My recollection which was confirmed by a NY Post or Times story (I'd have to dig it up) was that Jackson along with Ball made it know early that they refused to workout for Boston likely due to the intelligence out there that Ainge was looking to wheel and deal. Once the Fultz trade was completed (17th?), it was reported that now Boston was firmly in position to draft and retain their pick Jackson (and when we say Jackson we really mean his representation) was scrambling to arrange a Boston workout with the flight to Sacramento occuring between the 18 and 21st prior to the draft on the 22nd.
This is categorically incorrect. Jackson clearly indicated that the Celtics did want to work him out when they had the 1 pick, but he felt they were going to pick Fultz, so he wasn't going to go in for the workout.
For what it's worth, neither Duncan nor his co-host has much by way of personality, and they certainly don't seem the type to "stir the pot" for the sake of it.
Yes. This was the infamous workout that was cancelled while Ainge and Stevens and Hazen (?) were flying cross-country so they had to fly back. http://hoopshype.com/2017/06/23/josh-jackson-nba-draft-danny-ainge-boston-celtics-workout/
Even if one believes those things, though, an offseason where you sign Hayward (who is likely to outperform either pick the next three years) cannot be considered lukewarm, can it? I just think the scale some are applying is 'what did Celtics get relative to what I think they might have gotten' and almost always grade scales are actually done against some kind of league average.
You're right, that's the scale some are applying. I happen to think that's fair, given the assets at the Celtics disposal, but your views may vary.
This is a tough standard without knowing what they would have given up in any hypothetical deals.
You need to factor in that the smaller cap hold for #3 as opposed to #1 helped make Hayward possible.
Oh, I think it was. Without that difference, Rozier might be gone, or Yabusele stashed again. They were able to offer Hayward a max deal only by the skin of their teeth. Trading down was worth the 2018 (or 2019) pick plus an extra player.
Really? While I don't think it was the primary consideration, I think the $1.4MM they saved in cap room with the trade and then the $3M or so they got in the Bradley trade was important to Ainge as it allowed them to bring Yabusele over and then keep Ojeleye on a four-year deal. For example, https://www.boston.com/sports/boston-celtics/2017/06/19/4-takeaways-from-the-celtics-decision-to-trade-the-no-1-pick
Is this accurate? As I understand it, the Celtics needed to clear $1.73M for Hayward with Tatum. If they'd kept Fultz, they would have needed to clear $3.11M. They cleared $3.8M by trading Bradley for Morris, so they would have been fine regardless.
That article's second point is that Avery Bradley/Marcus Smart can sigh a sigh of relief because drafting Tatum means they might not be moved. Not sure that's a great resource for info about the C's cap management. Basically the opposite of everything it said happened.
I think Ainge traded down because (1) he had Tatum (and probably Jackson) equal or over Fultz; (2) he created two more tradeable assets; and (3) it saved him cap room.
I mean, again: if you traded out of the #1 pick because you didn't want to stash Gerson Yabusele that's a bad reason to trade out of #1.
So basically the grade is not based on what happened but what hypothetically should have happened and what hypothetically could happen.
Was the Bradley deal on the table at the time Ainge traded down to #3? Perhaps they did some last minute scrambling to see what they could get for Bradley, Crowder and Rozier, so as to clear the requisite cap space. There were rumors of Crowder going to Utah (for basically nothing), for instance.
I have no idea if the Bradley deal for Morris was on the table, but I don't find the Crowder/Utah rumors to be plausible.
Nor do I. But I do think it plausible that they moved closer to the target by trading down to #3 and then scrambled to find a deal to reach it. They may have been fortunate that SVG gave them the extra breathing room to sign both Yabu and Ojeleye (to the preferred 4 year deal with team options).
I think it is dumber to just say "hey they signed the best free agent, they get an A+"
I don't think anyone claimed they get an A+, of course.
So what do they deserve? They got the guy they wanted in the draft, and then they got the guy they wanted in free agency, while adding another likely lottery pick. It would have been easier had the cap not dropped at the last minute and safer from a perception standpoint to keep the #1 pick, but under the circumstances, they did exactly what they set out to do. And that includes the IT contract next summer, which IMO is not a result of these choices but a cause of them.
As much as the Kings have been mismanaged over the years, their draft history is pretty telling both 1) as to how badly you have to suck/lucky you need to be get the number 1 pick and 2) the gap between drafting 1 and mid lottery.
I agree that the A+ thing is dumb but I find that to be closer to the truth than a C-.. There is just no world in where you sign the best FA available without giving up any assets and get below a B-. unless the other moves made during the off season are inexplicably stupid. While some may not be fans of the Fultz and Bradley trades there were very logical reasons to make them.
Agree with this. I mean let's look at the roster if they don't trade Fultz or Bradley prior using the Room Exception and filling out the roster with minimum players.
Why? We are coming off of a July in which Otto Porter got a max offer and two offseasons where the Celtics gave max money to players who have never been 2nd team All-NBA or 5th in MVP voting. Unless Thomas is seriously hampered by his hip, he is correct in valuing himself as a max player both around the league and within the organization. And practically speaking, what is the benefit of offering him less? This team is capped out for the next two offseasons at the very least, and beyond that the savings between a max contract and the 24 million figure you cite is unlikely to be a difference maker.
One reason Otto Porter got the max is because he was a restricted free agent and the 'Zards were basically forced to sign him because they had managed their cap so poorly that he was literally unreplaceable. The Wiz aren't nearly good enough to compete with Porter but without him, they would have had only the MLE to use (and really no one worthwhile to use it on) and then there was a chance that Wall would have walked. So WAS was backed into a corner and signed Porter and with that I think Porter becomes the worst max contract player in the league (yes it could be Holiday but I'd take him over Porter).
It's not obvious to me. Ownership has been willing to pay the tax in the past and has expressed a willingness to do so again in the future provided that the team is in contention. Sacrifices had to be made to fit Hayward, and I don't believe they are going to max out role players moving forward, but I can't see them alienating and/or potentially losing a star player over a few million dollars in salary and tax.
I'm saying they should pay him a max salary because in the current market that's what his performance warrants. Given the contracts of Horford and Hayward, I see little advantage in trying to nickel and dime Thomas, only risk.
Outside of complications with his hip, I'd be surprised if Thomas is forced to go out on the market and shop for a max deal. I expect him to be extended when that window opens.
