Grant “Corner Office” Williams

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
26,999
Earlier in the playoffs, it seemed like Grant could guard almost anyone on the floor. Lately, it has seemed like all he can do is “the Grant” which is when you put your hands straight up, the defender bounces off you to draw the foul, and they shoot over you to get than and one. Add that to his inability to get open lately and he’s seeming much more limited than he used to be. Calling him “Baby Al” wasn’t really fair because he doesn’t have the length to ever be Al Horford, but his ceiling sure seems lower lately.
GW's never going to be Al, but he's also never going to be a max player.

GW's guarded almost literally every opponent during the playoff series and has held up against everyone but, who - Butler and Steph? (Leaving off Giannis because no one of the Cs could really guard Giannis one-on-one and GW did better against him than, say, JB did). That's pretty freaking valuable for what the Cs are trying to do.

I'm not all that confident that GW is staying. One thing we've seen in this playoffs is how teams are lacking wing defenders who can shoot. All it takes is one GM to say that he needs more defense to make GW an offer that BOS can't match.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
9,244
Toscana via Kyiv
GW's never going to be Al, but he's also never going to be a max player.

GW's guarded almost literally every opponent during the playoff series and has held up against everyone but, who - Butler and Steph? (Leaving off Giannis because no one of the Cs could really guard Giannis one-on-one and GW did better against him than, say, JB did). That's pretty freaking valuable for what the Cs are trying to do.

I'm not all that confident that GW is staying. One thing we've seen in this playoffs is how teams are lacking wing defenders who can shoot. All it takes is one GM to say that he needs more defense to make GW an offer that BOS can't match.
This is why it's relevant that Grant hasn't been as used lately. He will be marginally less confident turning down an extension.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
It's also OK to slightly overpay for a rotation guy when he fits so well around your superstars. With JT as a max and JB a step below that as your big two, there's a lot more money for the RWs, GWs, Als and Marcuses, when you compare the total for the Jays to the total $ outlay to other teams top 2s.

Next year cap hits:
  • JT + JB = $58
  • Step + Klay = $88
  • LeBron + AD = $82 (+$47 more for RW!)
  • Giannis + Chris = $80
  • Jimmy + Bam = $68
  • KD + Kyrie = $81 (+$35 more for Simmons!)
  • Harden + Embiid = $81 (+$37 more for Harris!)
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
15,337
Santa Monica
It's also OK to slightly overpay for a rotation guy when he fits so well around your superstars. With JT as a max and JB a step below that as your big two, there's a lot more money for the RWs, GWs, Als and Marcuses, when you compare the total for the Jays to the total $ outlay to other teams top 2s.

Next year cap hits:
  • JT + JB = $58
  • Step + Klay = $88
  • LeBron + AD = $82 (+$47 more for RW!)
  • Giannis + Chris = $80
  • Jimmy + Bam = $68
  • KD + Kyrie = $81 (+$35 more for Simmons!)
  • Harden + Embiid = $81 (+$37 more for Harris!)
+1
It could be argued that they are also slightly underpaying their role players (Smart/TL/Grant/DW/PP). Horford will be the only role player that could be seen as a slight overpay ($26.5MM next season). Theis is probably also a very slight overpay but that's picking nits.

This team has played cap games to stay under over the last few years with not a whisper of a complaint from the fanbase. If Wyc does anything short of shelling out tax $$$, he should expect hardcore pushback from a very knowledgeable fanbase (and for the record, I don't expect him to go cheap)
 

DGreenwood

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2003
2,041
Seattle
Keith Smith takes a crack at predicting rookie extensions:
2019 Draft Class Rookie Scale Extension Updates and Predictions

Regarding Grant Williams:
Boston likes to lock their draftees up when they can. Williams probably won’t be any different. He’s become a key rotation player for the Celtics and he’s one of the better stretch-4 options in the league right now. Look for an incentive-laden deal that could hit bigger if Williams keeps improving.
Prediction: four years, $44 million with incentives to push it to $50 million, no options
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,230
The money is right, I kind of worry about him mailing it in after a pay day though. At 4/44, it's not crippling if that does happen.
I think I would go to 4/44 but I definitely wouldnt go much higher than that.
As good and important as he was at the start of the playoffs he was that bad the last two series.

I think he’s a valuable bench piece (and very valuable against certain match ups) but I don’t think he’s a starter for a good team
 
Aug 9, 2015
462
The money is right, I kind of worry about him mailing it in after a pay day though. At 4/44, it's not crippling if that does happen.
Nothing about Grant suggests he would do this to me. He has his limitations but work ethic doesn’t seem to be one of them. I actually worry about him seeking to expand his role by jacking too many threes or playing outside his competence.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
6,503
I don't feel like I could go above 4/44 as he seems a lot like a replacement level player. Maybe he improves a bit and gets above that line, but I think he's equally likely to fall below replacement level.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
9,244
Toscana via Kyiv
Grant seems to have a fairly strong reputation on other teams defensively, especially once he fixed his 2nd year issues.

Still hopeful on a cheap extension, because I think his market could be quite robust. There aren't many guys who can move decently on the perimeter while having his strength; he's a bit of a freak in that regard.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
8,009
around the way
Grant seems to have a fairly strong reputation on other teams defensively, especially once he fixed his 2nd year issues.

Still hopeful on a cheap extension, because I think his market could be quite robust. There aren't many guys who can move decently on the perimeter while having his strength; he's a bit of a freak in that regard.
In a lot of ways, he really is the player that some of us were hoping that Semi would become, except Semi stopped improving. Being able both to bang that corner 3 and drive closeouts is a huge plus. Being able to block the occasional shot also.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
5,770

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
15,337
Santa Monica
In a lot of ways, he really is the player that some of us were hoping that Semi would become, except Semi stopped improving. Being able both to bang that corner 3 and drive closeouts is a huge plus. Being able to block the occasional shot also.
Ha, that's pretty funny, and correct, he has turned into Elite Semi. A 3&D threat from the CornerOffice

Grant hyping up Sam Hauser as a top three point shooter right in front of Duncan Robinson was great. He recognized that Sam had some work to do to get into the rotation with all the depth of the team, but he thinks he will show out when he finally gets the chance
I totally buy into the Hauser optimism of being a rotational (10th man) sniper

OTOH, the Kornet Happy Talk is 100% Celtic offseason misdirection. I'm not sold on Luke being anything more than #14/15 on IME's roster
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,884
I was about to post about this in the Gallo thread, but I think I'd just let Grant test RFA after the year?
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
46,351
It's not my money but if you can get him for the 2022 version of Jae Crowder's 2nd contract I think you do it in a heartbeat.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
8,009
around the way
It's not my money but if you can get him for the 2022 version of Jae Crowder's 2nd contract I think you do it in a heartbeat.
Fwiw, I don't think that anyone would have a problem with that, even those that are bearish on Grant.

Not to put words in everyone's mouth, but the "let him go to RFA first" posters are adding in their heads "so that he finds out first hand that the market for his services may not be as robust as he thinks it is."

Folks generally appreciate Grant here. But there is some concern (justified imo) that he might think that he's the best thing since sliced bread and expect to be paid like sliced bread. If that's paranoia, awesome--we'll see him sign at an appropriate number. If not, I think that going to RFA and not getting the Brinks truck might be one step in getting him to the right number. And if that too fails, then Brad has a tough call on how much to overpay Grant or whether to let him walk.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I would be more than happy to see the Celts offer Grant a contract that looks something like Marcus Smart's RFA extension, which was in the neighborhood of 4 years for $48M. Perhaps it would need to be inflation-adjusted, but that's what I think weeks fair. In both cases, you are talking about a guy who fits this team better than most, has positional versatility (while arguably being a bit between positions), and brings a lot of defensive value and toughness.

Here is stathead.com's comparison of their first three years.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
8,009
around the way
I would be more than happy to see the Celts offer Grant a contract that looks something like Marcus Smart's RFA extension, which was in the neighborhood of 4 years for $48M. Perhaps it would need to be inflation-adjusted, but that's what I think weeks fair. In both cases, you are talking about a guy who fits this team better than most, has positional versatility (while arguably being a bit between positions), and brings a lot of defensive value and toughness.

Here is stathead.com's comparison of their first three years.
54783

If not for Grant's overweight year, I think that their early DARKO curves probably would have looked pretty similar.


From the stathead link, I'm having a hard time figuring out why Grant's OBPM is so much worse than Marcus's, given the former's TS%. I get assists and stuff, but -2.0 to -2.9 is a huge difference. ORTG & DRTG seem ok, but not exactly. VORP has them both as modest pluses for first three, Grant basically being just above replacement. Not sure what to make of all of those numbers to be honest. I guess that it shows that they're in the same ballpark, if we blend it like an Australian wine.


TL;DR; I'm not sure that I'd adjust too much for inflation, but I'd be ok with 4/48 also.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
590
I would be more than happy to see the Celts offer Grant a contract that looks something like Marcus Smart's RFA extension, which was in the neighborhood of 4 years for $48M. Perhaps it would need to be inflation-adjusted, but that's what I think weeks fair. In both cases, you are talking about a guy who fits this team better than most, has positional versatility (while arguably being a bit between positions), and brings a lot of defensive value and toughness.

Here is stathead.com's comparison of their first three years.
Smart's RFA deal averaged just under 13M per season. At the time it was signed cap was at 102, so just under 13 percent of the cap. Adjusted for cap inflation, the deal would be 4 for 64M under the 123M 2022 cap - AAV of 16M. Next years cap of 133, would make it 4 for 69 - AAV 17.2.

One thing to keep in mind, the Non-Taxpayer MLE would be around 11.2 next year. You don't typically see extensions for around the MLE, because at that salary range a guy's market is not limited to tax space teams. So an extension normally needs come in north of the MLE by at least a few million.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Smart's RFA deal averaged just under 13M per season. At the time it was signed cap was at 102, so just under 13 percent of the cap. Adjusted for cap inflation, the deal would be 4 for 64M under the 123M 2022 cap - AAV of 16M. Next years cap of 133, would make it 4 for 69 - AAV 17.2.

One thing to keep in mind, the Non-Taxpayer MLE would be around 11.2 next year. You don't typically see extensions for around the MLE, because at that salary range a guy's market is not limited to tax space teams. So an extension normally needs come in north of the MLE by at least a few million.
Thank you for the details. If I'm the Celts, I start with 4/48 and feel happy with anything under 4/64.

It wasn't that long ago that the playoff broadcasters (SVG, IIRC) were drooling over Grant's D against both KD and GA. Idistincly remember one time that same commentator saying that GW looked like a DOPY candidate. Now that was likely overstating it by quite a bit, but Marcus wasn't DPOY at end of year 3 either; he made All-Defensive team at the end of his 5th season.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,884
Fwiw, I don't think that anyone would have a problem with that, even those that are bearish on Grant.

Not to put words in everyone's mouth, but the "let him go to RFA first" posters are adding in their heads "so that he finds out first hand that the market for his services may not be as robust as he thinks it is."

Folks generally appreciate Grant here. But there is some concern (justified imo) that he might think that he's the best thing since sliced bread and expect to be paid like sliced bread. If that's paranoia, awesome--we'll see him sign at an appropriate number. If not, I think that going to RFA and not getting the Brinks truck might be one step in getting him to the right number. And if that too fails, then Brad has a tough call on how much to overpay Grant or whether to let him walk.
Pretty much. I also apparently value him lower than most here. I wouldn't really think he'd be a positive value at more than $10m, but of course the extra couple million that can't really be directly used anywhere else anyway isn't that big of a deal.
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
845
Pretty much. I also apparently value him lower than most here. I wouldn't really think he'd be a positive value at more than $10m, but of course the extra couple million that can't really be directly used anywhere else anyway isn't that big of a deal.
With the projected rapidly expanding cap, $16 million may be the new $10 million. Or something like that.
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
3,872
I also apparently value him lower than most here. I wouldn't really think he'd be a positive value at more than $10m, but of course the extra couple million that can't really be directly used anywhere else anyway isn't that big of a deal.
This is about where I'm at. He did kind of disappear in the finals. He was surprisingly good on defense last year, compared with the year before, but he can still get exposed by quick players. He has very limited offensive moves (after people caught on to his headfake from the three-point line, he didn't really have a B option).
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
7,420
New York, NY
Grant isn’t a $15-16 million a year player right now. He’s maybe a full MLE player at the most. He could be a player at that higher level after this coming year if everything goes right for him. He could also fall back toward taxpayer MLE or lower.

I think 4/48 is about as high as I’d consider going for Grant. While he had a bunch of places to improve to add more value, he has a very low ceiling because he’s never going to be able to create on offense and he’s not a true defensive anchor. The comparison to Smart misses the mark as Smart was better on all ends and also had (still has) a meaningfully higher ceiling. Avery Bradley or Tony Allen are better comps for Grant in terms of value/ceiling (Jae Crowder works for me too). I tend to think Grant will go to RFA after generating enough buzz in the playoffs that he could be dreaming of a $20/year value and also is the type of player that probably has more to win that lose by betting on improving because his lack of elite potential in, well, almost anything means he won’t get paid for upside probably even in an extension.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
15,337
Santa Monica
There is a relatively fine line between working the refs and overworking the refs - and of course the coaching staff probably has a reasonably good handle on this. It can be problematic when a player doesn’t get back on defense because he is jawing about a missed call. I know these guys are not robots and Grant is hardly the only player that does it but by virtue of where he lands on the depth chart he probably gets outsized negative attention from the fan base for it.
moving this over here

Grant is a VP for the NBPA. While Grant isn't high on the star/depth chart he probably gets a little more respect from NBA players/refs than most starters. These playoffs also spotlighted him since he guarded players like KD, Giannis, Bam, and Draymond for stretches. The media went a little overboard on his defensive work in the playoffs, so I wouldn't expect Grant to pipe down

The constant player barking, coaches whining, and play-acting for foul calls SUCK, but it's part of the NBA drama. Until the Owners instruct the REFs to take a firm stand it will continue.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,432
I'd pass at that price. Let him play next year and decide if he's worth it. He's not going to play himself into a bigger contract.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
9,244
Toscana via Kyiv
I'd pass at that price. Let him play next year and decide if he's worth it. He's not going to play himself into a bigger contract.
At a $134M cap next year, he definitely could play himself into a bigger contract. $15M is only 11% of the cap at that point.

For comparison, Jae Crowder's super-bargain contract was 10% of the cap when it was signed. He was 25 at the time.

I'd prefer to get Grant cheaper, but I haven't seen a single person here suggest that the Crowder contract was bad, and I don't think Crowder was much better than Grant then (and definitely had less upside).
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
590
At a $134M cap next year, he definitely could play himself into a bigger contract. $15M is only 11% of the cap at that point.

For comparison, Jae Crowder's super-bargain contract was 10% of the cap when it was signed. He was 25 at the time.

I'd prefer to get Grant cheaper, but I haven't seen a single person here suggest that the Crowder contract was bad, and I don't think Crowder was much better than Grant then (and definitely had less upside).
Another consideration, the recent cap increases will pale in comparison to the consequences of the new TV deal in 2025-2026. In his reaction to the Barrett contract, Hollinger wrote about a 200M cap by the later part of the decade. Other have forecast a jump to 170M in 25-26 without smoothing (there will probably be smoothing). That is going to require an adjusting of the benchmarks we all use when thinking about what constitutes a "reasonable" deal. When you hear "max" instead of thinking 30-40M, you need to be thinking of a deal that starts at 60-70M with 8% raises on top.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,432
Another consideration, the recent cap increases will pale in comparison to the consequences of the new TV deal in 2025-2026. In his reaction to the Barrett contract, Hollinger wrote about a 200M cap by the later part of the decade. Other have forecast a jump to 170M in 25-26 without smoothing (there will probably be smoothing). That is going to require an adjusting of the benchmarks we all use when thinking about what constitutes a "reasonable" deal. When you hear "max" instead of thinking 30-40M, you need to be thinking of a deal that starts at 60-70M with 8% raises on top.
25/26 is 4 seasons away. Grant would be getting a 4 year deal. I wouldn't want to pay him 25/26 prices in 22/23.

I guess if the deal is incredibly backloaded. Or do they do AAV?
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
11,873
At a $134M cap next year, he definitely could play himself into a bigger contract. $15M is only 11% of the cap at that point.
I definitely get the idea that the money is getting huge and we have to recalibrate our thoughts about contracts. But even accounting for that, I'm not sure there is huge risk Grant is going to play himself into a non-role player contract of a lot more than 15M/season.

Unless he wants to take a clear team friendly deal, I'd just ride it out and address it later.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
590
25/26 is 4 seasons away. Grant would be getting a 4 year deal. I wouldn't want to pay him 25/26 prices in 22/23.

I guess if the deal is incredibly backloaded. Or do they do AAV?
A four year deal would run through the 27/28 season. With 8% raises, the 4 for 60 would look something like:

23/24: 13.3
24/25: 14.3
25/26: 15.5
26/27: 16:75
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
38,680
If SoSH has a bias with regards to economics of the various pastimes we follow, its that we consistently seem to underestimate simply how much revenue these leagues take in, especially on a projected basis - everything from cap to individual contracts flows from that but this information is pretty tightly controlled for obvious reasons .

Given the data we do have access to here - essentially the last price/contract paid to a comparable player - and that people tend to struggle with any price increases at all (see the real world right now), its no surprise that we seem to miss to the downside.

Maybe this isn't the correct read but its hard to characterize many of the deals we see happen in value terms (good or bad) given how little we know about forward economics for a team/league. Generally speaking, if you see a deal and think "overpay", you probably need to research the market more, even if a perfect comp got paid much less a few months prior. Markets move all the time.

Finally, again I throw it out to the forum - when is the last time an NBA contract actually hurt a team in a real sense (I don't care about an owner and their money - team labor here)? I am sure I am missing it but I can't recall a recent instance.

I definitely cannot recall a contract like the one being discussed for Granite ever truly hurting a team. If anything, it seems like contending teams are always looking for these sorts of players - cheaply if possible but at a high price when they are making runs.
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
845
If SoSH has a bias with regards to economics of the various pastimes we follow, its that we consistently seem to underestimate simply how much revenue these leagues take in, especially on a projected basis - everything from cap to individual contracts flows from that but this information is pretty tightly controlled for obvious reasons .

Given the data we do have access to here - essentially the last price/contract paid to a comparable player - and that people tend to struggle with any price increases at all (see the real world right now), its no surprise that we seem to miss to the downside.

Maybe this isn't the correct read but its hard to characterize many of the deals we see happen in value terms (good or bad) given how little we know about forward economics for a team/league. Generally speaking, if you see a deal and think "overpay", you probably need to research the market more, even if a perfect comp got paid much less a few months prior. Markets move all the time.

Finally, again I throw it out to the forum - when is the last time an NBA contract actually hurt a team in a real sense (I don't care about an owner and their money - team labor here)? I am sure I am missing it but I can't recall a recent instance.

I definitely cannot recall a contract like the one being discussed for Granite ever truly hurting a team. If anything, it seems like contending teams are always looking for these sorts of players - cheaply if possible but at a high price when they are making runs.
Ever since I heard what the next TV contract was going to be 2-3 times as much as the last one I have stopped sweating these contracts.
A side effect of these salaries is that all of the high level athletic talent in their teens are going to start playing basketball. The amount of money these guys are getting plus the added advantage of not getting your brains beaten out on a football field is going to be too much to ignore.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
9,244
Toscana via Kyiv
I definitely get the idea that the money is getting huge and we have to recalibrate our thoughts about contracts. But even accounting for that, I'm not sure there is huge risk Grant is going to play himself into a non-role player contract of a lot more than 15M/season.

Unless he wants to take a clear team friendly deal, I'd just ride it out and address it later.
The point of recalibrating isn't to love Grant; it's to accurately compare him to past contracts.

What did you think of the Crowder deal? It was only slightly less than 15M for Grant would be, for a guy who was seen as a good role player.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
11,873
The point of recalibrating isn't to love Grant; it's to accurately compare him to past contracts.

What did you think of the Crowder deal? It was only slightly less than 15M for Grant would be, for a guy who was seen as a good role player.
Crowder deal was a good one, but my point is that I agree with Cesar. I doubt there is a ton of risk Grant plays so well that he's going to get way more than 15M per season.

Just let him play it out and see where things stand at the end of the year. I don't see the rush to sign him unless he wants to sign really cheap.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
9,244
Toscana via Kyiv
Crowder deal was a good one, but my point is that I agree with Cesar. I doubt there is a ton of risk Grant plays so well that he's going to get way more than 15M per season.

Just let him play it out and see where things stand at the end of the year. I don't see the rush to sign him unless he wants to sign really cheap.
The risk is that he plays well enough to get "4th/5th starter" money, which is more like 12-16% of the cap. That's about 20M at the high end, given a 134M cap.

I'm not saying give him everything he wants, but I don't think I'd be saying "44M or nothing" either. Saving a few million annually, for a team that will be in the tax for awhile, is important.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,174
If SoSH has a bias with regards to economics of the various pastimes we follow, its that we consistently seem to underestimate simply how much revenue these leagues take in, especially on a projected basis - everything from cap to individual contracts flows from that but this information is pretty tightly controlled for obvious reasons .

Given the data we do have access to here - essentially the last price/contract paid to a comparable player - and that people tend to struggle with any price increases at all (see the real world right now), its no surprise that we seem to miss to the downside.

Maybe this isn't the correct read but its hard to characterize many of the deals we see happen in value terms (good or bad) given how little we know about forward economics for a team/league. Generally speaking, if you see a deal and think "overpay", you probably need to research the market more, even if a perfect comp got paid much less a few months prior. Markets move all the time.

Finally, again I throw it out to the forum - when is the last time an NBA contract actually hurt a team in a real sense (I don't care about an owner and their money - team labor here)? I am sure I am missing it but I can't recall a recent instance.

I definitely cannot recall a contract like the one being discussed for Granite ever truly hurting a team. If anything, it seems like contending teams are always looking for these sorts of players - cheaply if possible but at a high price when they are making runs.
It's a fair question. My response would be that it is less that overpaying 1 guy hurts you than that overpaying several guys ends up costing you a chance at cap space or (in the right conditions) a max guy. And, for a luxury tax team, every dollar counts 3x so overpaying does impact how long ownership will hold it together or their willingness to pay a MLE guy.

The first doesn't really impact Celts given where they are---Jaylen/Jayson's contracts don't line up in a way they are likely to have signifciant space given the other contracts in place....this is an over-the-cap team for foreseeable future.

The second is a real consideration, whether or not one cares about the owners.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
4,017
Cultural hub of the universe
The risk is that he plays well enough to get "4th/5th starter" money, which is more like 12-16% of the cap. That's about 20M at the high end, given a 134M cap.

I'm not saying give him everything he wants, but I don't think I'd be saying "44M or nothing" either. Saving a few million annually, for a team that will be in the tax for awhile, is important.
It's a risk I guess from a lawyer/accountant perspective, but if GW morphs into that guy we're raising 18 and I'm feeling pretty good.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
38,680
It's a fair question. My response would be that it is less that overpaying 1 guy hurts you than that overpaying several guys ends up costing you a chance at cap space or (in the right conditions) a max guy. And, for a luxury tax team, every dollar counts 3x so overpaying does impact how long ownership will hold it together or their willingness to pay a MLE guy.

The first doesn't really impact Celts given where they are---Jaylen/Jayson's contracts don't line up in a way they are likely to have signifciant space given the other contracts in place....this is an over-the-cap team for foreseeable future.

The second is a real consideration, whether or not one cares about the owners.
Fair enough. I would counter that if Boston views itself as a contender, they should not be afraid of failing to get pricing exactly right. They aren't people planning a summer vacation on a limited budget or some financially constrained entity looking to maximize every penny.

Professional sports is a messy business given that its product is essentially people. Their will be breakage, spillage, pilfering and outright waste just like any other form of commerce. I understand the leverage for luxury tax teams but my sense is that if the spectrum is nailing every contract to YOLO, the ideal spot is not worrying about getting it exactly right. It really feels like this is how most competitive teams approach thing but who knows.

It does feel like we fans tend to be behind on valuing realized talent in the form of post rookie contracts while overvaluing draft capital. Maybe its right but teams often behave as if the opposite is true, regularly "overpaying" players vs their comps and trading away forward picks or swaps like they are simply currency.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,174
I agree with you on the valuation point.

celts need to re sign grant because they won’t be able to realistically replace his production, at least if he’s close to last year. They should try to do so at the right level for the team because value matters—to trades as well. But their alternative is poor, unless they simply don’t believe in him (which I doubt is the case)

I don’t think we can just tell team to spend endlessly, but letting grant go absent a crazy offer sheet next summer would be bad and also contrary to how they have spent when in contention historically
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
7,420
New York, NY
I agree with you on the valuation point.

celts need to re sign grant because they won’t be able to realistically replace his production, at least if he’s close to last year. They should try to do so at the right level for the team because value matters—to trades as well. But their alternative is poor, unless they simply don’t believe in him (which I doubt is the case)

I don’t think we can just tell team to spend endlessly, but letting grant go absent a crazy offer sheet next summer would be bad and also contrary to how they have spent when in contention historically
Yes, although it’s also worth noting that if there is crazy interest (like someone willing to pay 4/80 if Grant is basically the same player next year), then we can likely do a sign and trade to net a big TPE that has some non-trivial value, so even that scenario is unlikely to be a total loss.

I think Grant is about a full MLE player and would consider going up to about 4/50 as an extension. 4/60 is too much in my book. I’m not confident I’m right on drawing that line, but I think 4/60 is probably around an 80th percentile outcome for Grant in RFA, and you don’t pay that a year early. I also don’t think I’m always on the pay less side of things. I’ve consistently advocated that Smart would get paid around where he has signed and that those were good deals. I was surprised how cheap Timelord signed for and, if memory serves, probably would’ve been happy with anything 4/60 or less and might not have drawn a firm line there because I believed in the talent. But Grant is just another role player. He’s replaceable and he’s also not exciting, meaning RFA is a big risk for him because he’s the sort of player that could easily find himself drawing zero interest because no one values him at a level they don’t think Boston will match. If he is signing an extension, it should be at a meaningful discount to his theoretical free market value. If he wants to roll the dice, that’s fine too. Again, this isn’t Timelord. There’s no risk of losing a guy who is a top 6 player on this roster at any foreseeable point in the future. Grant is a 7th/8th man, so if we lose him we lose him and move on.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
11,873
If he is signing an extension, it should be at a meaningful discount to his theoretical free market value. If he wants to roll the dice, that’s fine too. Again, this isn’t Timelord. There’s no risk of losing a guy who is a top 6 player on this roster at any foreseeable point in the future. Grant is a 7th/8th man, so if we lose him we lose him and move on.
Agree with your entire post, especially the bolded. Grant is not a guy you stretch for, particularly a year early.

He has had an up and down short career and there is no reason to risk a major overpay.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
15,337
Santa Monica
But Grant is just another role player. He’s replaceable and he’s also not exciting, meaning RFA is a big risk for him because he’s the sort of player that could easily find himself drawing zero interest because no one values him at a level they don’t think Boston will match. If he is signing an extension, it should be at a meaningful discount to his theoretical free market value. If he wants to roll the dice, that’s fine too. Again, this isn’t Timelord. There’s no risk of losing a guy who is a top 6 player on this roster at any foreseeable point in the future. Grant is a 7th/8th man, so if we lose him we lose him and move on.
I get the queasiness with the $$$. Agree with the unexciting stuff and he's a bit annoying/brash (the youngest guy on the roster last season?) BUT I'd push back on "just another role player", and "replaceable" narrative.

Grant finished 5th in regular season minutes played. He also finished 5th in playoff minutes played last season. He is young enough (under the magical 25) to still see improvement.

With Gallinari out, TL's fragility and Al's age/load mgmt I wouldn't be shocked to see Grant end up in the top 5 in minutes played again this season.

It's a coin toss whether we see Horford on the roster beyond this season and Grant would be the best option to replace him.

After 10 years of being under the tax (& collecting that annuity) the team has skillfully set themselves to be over, but saving every million counts 3X.

11% of the cap for Grant is something Brad will probably go up to.
 
Last edited:

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
7,420
New York, NY
I get the queasiness with the $$$. Agree with the unexciting stuff and he's a bit annoying/brash (the youngest guy on the roster last season?) BUT I'd push back on "just another role player", and "replaceable" narrative.

Grant finished 5th in regular season minutes played. He also finished 5th in playoff minutes played last season. He is young enough (under the magical 25) to still see improvement.

With Gallinari out, TL's fragility and Al's age/load mgmt I wouldn't be shocked to see Grant end up in the top 5 in minutes played again this season.

It's a coin toss whether we see Horford on the roster beyond this season and Grant would be the best option to replace him.

After 10 years of being under the tax (& collecting that annuity) the team has skillfully set themselves to be over, but saving every million counts 3X.

11% of the cap for Grant is something Brad will probably go up to.
Minutes played is not a great measure of quality. Our rotation, by quality and without including Gallinari, is roughly in the following order:

Tatum
Jaylen
Smart/Timelord
Brogdon/White/Horford
Grant
Pritchard
Kornet/Hauser

Grant is our 8th best player, not 5th.