Well the real justification was they didn't like the Fournier deal. They appear to have been very interested in bringing him back until NYK came in with 4/78. A Smart extension makes sense (TL honestly too) in that you can duck under the tax this year still, and then you go into a weak FA class with those guys under contract at reasonable rates so if you do have a shot at Beal or LaVIne, you can move them.
Schröder played well as the first option off the Thunder bench, but he also played alongside Chris Paul and SGA in a three point guard lineup. I thought that he was was versatile and adapted well to what was asked of him. Shooting-wise, he's always been a streaky shooter. When he was "on," he was "on"; when he was "off," he was "off."
Fair on the 3 years vs 5, but it doesn't change the conclusion. Their TS' is dead even over the last 3 years, but Schroder averaged almost 50% more points. He's a better scorer than Smart, which they absolutely need right now.
The key part to recognize here is who are trading partner would be for Beal. I brought this up last week in how Leonsis has never been a “blow it up guy” and kept running out a veteran team as Juwan and Rod Strickland were turning grey while running out 30-win team. Aside from that you have a positional match with Smart and he’s always been the obvious guy to move in a Beal deal. This all makes a ton of sense for what the ultimate goal is here.
My opinions on Smart are known here. This would be excellent news and a bargain.
A guy at what he'd command in FA is useful. Smart at 4\77 is unlikely to be some amazing asset, but it is also the type of deal that you can trade without paying to move, so if you can get Beal for example Smart needs to go out, at 4\77 he goes out easily and maybe even brings back minor assets... Much like the S&T except better for the team getting him because no hardcap.
Timing is everything. He’d be one of the most highly sought after FA on the market next season. Top tier FA get paid even if they aren’t top tier players. See: Fournier, Evan
Exactly. Avoiding the horrible deals like Kemba, Blake Griffin, etc is the key.
I don't know. Again, I see more downside risk (Smart gets hurt/sucks) than upside benefit (4/77 is seen as below market). I mean, in the end, if Smart gets 4/80 from some other team in a S&T - I certainly don't really care.
Of course is he gets hurts or declines he wouldn't be worth the contract. But if he treads water or gets better? Why such the pessimistic view?
As I mentioned earlier, I'm not much of a Marcus fan. I just don't see the upside. The possible benefit is that he plays well enough, and/or the market moves enough that 4/77 (since that is what is leaked I think there is almost zero chance that is what he signs for - but let's put that aside) is seen at below market and his real value is 4/85 or whatever. Is some other team going to give us that much extra value for that $7 million in "savings"? I don't see it. I see more risk that everyone knows we have to send him out to get Beal (or some other FA) and we don't get much for him at all, and then the risk that he declines/decreases in value I see as more likely than the upside.
Same here. I know others disagree, but I also like Smart as the starting PG. Tell him to cut the shit with bad shots and focus on defense, playmaking, and ball-handling. Tatum is going to handle the ball a ton anyways.
The upside might just be the absence of downside. I’ve made it clear that I wouldn’t allow Smart (or any other role player) to interfere with our ability to land a third pillar. My takeaway from this offer is that Stevens has confidence (if not assurances) that Smart at 4/$68-$77M is a positive asset and that Udoka probably views as central to what he’s trying to accomplish on the floor and in the locker room.
I don't see Horford being an effective starting 4 at this point so the 5 would be one of Horford/TL with Richardson likely as the 5th starter (or Nesmith/Langford if things go well), but I'm also pretty eager to see Smart as an actual starting point. The fit may be a tad iffy on offense, but it feels like forever that we've had a starting point guard that wasn't a defensive liability. Kemba/Kyrie/IT is a pretty impressive run of points (seriously, how many teams historically had three different point guards start in the all-star game over just four years), but all were a disaster on defense when the games started to count. Even Avery Bradley, for all of his defensive skill, was destroyed in switches.
So here are my thoughts:
Not just Smart, but ostensibly Dunn and even Richardson seem like a clear shift in direction from Ainge in favor of bigger smalls on the roster that Stevens has assembled and Udoka will implement.
While it doesn't rule it out by any means, the reports that Smart was consulted before the Udoka hiring (which seems unusual for a non franchise player like Smart) as well as these rumors suggest that the chemistry issue chatter around the team last season might have been overblown.
That, too. I was a bit concerned that the "Celtics are tearing it all down to go after Beal" narrative might... not bring out the best in Smart.
Additionally, Celtics have lacked a lot "middle class" contracts the last few seasons. You had the Hayward and Kemba deals and kids on cheap ones. Tough to make deals work if needed.
I suspect the plan is to ensure Schroeder agrees to the 1/$9m that will be available if Brad can move Dunn into somebodies cap space.
Hmmm....if that takes assets, I'm not super thrilled. I'm happy to have Schroeder if it doesn't cost anything (other than money).
Would OKC even take him back? I don’t see that. He does nothing for them except take minutes from draft picks Mann and Giddey. Boston is the ultimate spot for him to establish value getting major minutes on a playoff team heading into a super weak FA class.
Question: the article seems to suggest that all that the Cs need to do is waive Jabari and they can offer the full MLE of 9.8 million. Is that correct? If so, is it really true - as the article suggests- that the only real barrier to doing this would be Wyc’s pocketbook and whether or not he wants to pay the tax on a “bridge year”?
Smith, but I don't like any of his commentary this offseason. He really is handwaving the repeater tax away - here's his line about it in the article:
His rightly points out elsewhere that it's very hard to be in the tax when you sign a max free agent, as the Celtics may be posturing to do in 2022, so he's convinced that under the 'over 3 times in 4 years' criteria for the repeater the Celtics paying the tax this year won't hurt them. But at the same time he completely ignores the trade possibilities, which are far more likely than a straight-up signing. Almost every single max free agent that has moved teams in the past 4 years has been via sign-and-trade, there's absolutely no reason for any of the parties involved to avoid the sign-and-trade. The main 'uncertainty' regarding the future tax is whether or not the Celtics end up getting a max FA in 2022 or not.
40 games of 20ppg from Schroder at $10MM+ could lead to Presto the Magician turning him into...
