Stop hoarding TP(E) - the what should the Celtics do with the TPE thread

What should the Celtics do with their TPE

  • Use it before the current season starts

    Votes: 6 4.6%
  • See what is available around the NBA trade deadline and level up for the playoffs

    Votes: 55 42.3%
  • Save it for next summer's free agent bonanza

    Votes: 69 53.1%

  • Total voters
    130

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
I don't think the suggestion is that they are giving Bojan away for nothing at all, but that he could be had for fairly minimal cost (draft compensation or someone who is not a part of the rotation) given his age.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Jared lists his TPE list: Aaron, Gordon, D.Murray, Aldridge, Gobert, Ingles, B. Bogdanovich

It's really too early IMO to start looking to use it unless the Rockets yard sale happens preseason.

Dejounte Murray has me mildly interested, but wouldn't chase.
Murray would be the only guy on that list that I think worth the effort. A Smart/Murray backcourt would be hellacious defensively, and allow Kemba to start afresh in a Lou Williams type role.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I don't think the suggestion is that they are giving Bojan away for nothing at all, but that he could be had for fairly minimal cost (draft compensation or someone who is not a part of the rotation) given his age.
Yeah, the article mentioned getting Bojan so Nesmith and Langford can develop. I'd have to think one of them would go in a trade for Bojan but I could be wrong. Maybe a 1st round pick would be enough. Or Grant Williams but I think the board would riot.

Bojan would clearly be a much bigger part of the rotation than any of Nesmith, Langford or Grant for next season and probably the 2 after that. At this point, we are hoping we can get 20-25 minutes from 1 or 2 of them.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
Murray would be the only guy on that list that I think worth the effort. A Smart/Murray backcourt would be hellacious defensively, and allow Kemba to start afresh in a Lou Williams type role.
agreed
In a vacuum, everyone would criticize that he's a downgrade from Hayward. BUT Murray would help more than GH with timeline, role and roster construction.

Danny can be really patient here. Feels like teams went loco this offseason with contracts. There will be player movement at the trade deadline or next Summer to open up cap space
 
Last edited:

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
I'm a sucker for mobile big guys so I'd go for Gordon if they think the shot can be league average. Murray's a good long term fit too, but that's as much cost as the Turner contract y'all can't stomach. BB and Ingles seem like all in 1-2 year window bets, but maybe that's where we are.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
I'm a sucker for mobile big guys so I'd go for Gordon if they think the shot can be league average. Murray's a good long term fit too, but that's as much cost as the Turner contract y'all can't stomach. BB and Ingles seem like all in 1-2 year window bets, but maybe that's where we are.
I don’t think Danny balks at the Turner contract if he were a better player at a more premium position, like Murray would be. Problem with Turner is he just isn’t that good and plays a position where you can get comparable production much cheaper.

Murray definitely intrigues me. If he can get back to his Year 2 defensive form while providing incremental improvement on the shot, you have a really good player on your hands. He is so disruptive in the passing lanes and is rangy so the switch ability is high. Imagine a closing lineup of Smart/Murray/Brown/Tatum/Theis. Who do you attack?

I remain skeptical that Murray becomes available but it’s possible if the Spurs are stuck in neutral and want to tank for the 2021 draft.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
I'm a sucker for mobile big guys so I'd go for Gordon if they think the shot can be league average. Murray's a good long term fit too, but that's as much cost as the Turner contract y'all can't stomach. BB and Ingles seem like all in 1-2 year window bets, but maybe that's where we are.
The problem with Turner isn't the size of the contract, it's that he's a low impact player on a high money deal that would force them to make hard financial choices on other higher impact players (e.g. letting Theis walk because paying him would send them skyrocketing into luxury tax land).

Murray will make as much over the next four years as Turner will over the next three, and unlike Turner Murray's an impact defender. And there's still the hope that Larranaga could help Murray the same way that he's helped Smart. A Dejounte Murray that can shoot the three at a league averagish rate at volume (he was a league averagish three point shooter last year, but at less than two per game) is a borderline all star with that D.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
I don’t think Danny balks at the Turner contract if he were a better player at a more premium position, like Murray would be. Problem with Turner is he just isn’t that good and plays a position where you can get comparable production much cheaper.
I mean Thompson can't shoot the three as well as Turner, and doesn't get the blocks, but those are literally Turner's two skills. Thompson's much better at every other phase of the game and costs half as much. And this isn't because Thompson's some hidden all star. Because there are guys like that available every summer.

Murray definitely intrigues me. If he can get back to his Year 2 defensive form while providing incremental improvement on the shot, you have a really good player on your hands. He is so disruptive in the passing lanes and is rangy so the switch ability is high.
There are no official measurements with him because San Antonio gave him a draft promise to refuse working out/getting measured because he's literally Danny's guard prototype. The rumor at the time was that he was a +6 wingspan player.

Imagine a closing lineup of Smart/Murray/Brown/Tatum/Theis. Who do you attack?
That deathtime lineup could literally make a ten point lead insurmountable. I mean how the hell do you even pass the ball against that lineup? Magic in his prime would be seeing ghosts having to make passes against that lineup.

I remain skeptical that Murray becomes available but it’s possible if the Spurs are stuck in neutral and want to tank for the 2021 draft.
Yeah, you'd be offering Langford and hoping they settle on Langford and a pick.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Theis obviously. He is a fine team defender, but would clearly be the weak link in that closing 5
Probably although you could swap in Thompson if Theis is getting roasted. Offense may be a little iffy but the Jay’s can pretty much carry the load there.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
Probably although you could swap in Thompson if Theis is getting roasted. Offense may be a little iffy but the Jay’s can pretty much carry the load there.
You'd see a lot of Theis, Smart and Murray chucking 3's as the Jays get relentlessly doubled. Gotta have at least one more guy out there that's a real perimeter threat.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
The problem with Turner isn't the size of the contract, it's that he's a low impact player on a high money deal that would force them to make hard financial choices on other higher impact players (e.g. letting Theis walk because paying him would send them skyrocketing into luxury tax land).

Murray will make as much over the next four years as Turner will over the next three, and unlike Turner Murray's an impact defender. And there's still the hope that Larranaga could help Murray the same way that he's helped Smart. A Dejounte Murray that can shoot the three at a league averagish rate at volume (he was a league averagish three point shooter last year, but at less than two per game) is a borderline all star with that D.
You're going to have to start showing your work on Turner. He was 5th in DPOY just 2 years ago. Comparing him to Thompson, he's a better mid range and 3 point shooter. He's a better shot blocker. His steal and assist %'s are better, and his turnover % is lower on higher usage. Thompson is a better offensive rebounder and is a more mobile defender, and his assist numbers have gotten better the last couple of years.

I like Thompson for his intensity and switchable defense. I'm not sure the C's will really take advantage of his offensive rebounding as that seems a lower priority for BS. He's also 29 with a lot of miles on him. Turner is 24, and there's a good chance he'd improve not having to play next to another big. Relentlessly asserting that he's a "low-impact" player just doesn't make it so.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
You're going to have to start showing your work on Turner. He was 5th in DPOY just 2 years ago. Comparing him to Thompson, he's a better mid range and 3 point shooter. He's a better shot blocker. His steal and assist %'s are better, and his turnover % is lower on higher usage. Thompson is a better offensive rebounder and is a more mobile defender, and his assist numbers have gotten better the last couple of years.

I like Thompson for his intensity and switchable defense. I'm not sure the C's will really take advantage of his offensive rebounding as that seems a lower priority for BS. He's also 29 with a lot of miles on him. Turner is 24, and there's a good chance he'd improve not having to play next to another big. Relentlessly asserting that he's a "low-impact" player just doesn't make it so.
The bearish takes are going to look pretty accurate as Turner wastes away on a terribly constructed team again. Maybe the new coach knows how to use players, who knows. I'll go to my grave thinking that MT would have thrived here with decent coaching and culture, not that it matters.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
You're going to have to start showing your work on Turner. He was 5th in DPOY just 2 years ago. Comparing him to Thompson, he's a better mid range and 3 point shooter. He's a better shot blocker. His steal and assist %'s are better, and his turnover % is lower on higher usage. Thompson is a better offensive rebounder and is a more mobile defender, and his assist numbers have gotten better the last couple of years.

I like Thompson for his intensity and switchable defense. I'm not sure the C's will really take advantage of his offensive rebounding as that seems a lower priority for BS. He's also 29 with a lot of miles on him. Turner is 24, and there's a good chance he'd improve not having to play next to another big. Relentlessly asserting that he's a "low-impact" player just doesn't make it so.
Turner defends poorly in space, isn’t terribly switchable, and not much of a screener. Literally the three things that Boston asks of their Cs. And the fact is that the league’s GM disagree with you as regards Turner. So you should be asking yourself where you’ve gone wrong in your evaluation. Also, the problem with Murray isn’t his “chucking threes”, it’s that he doesn’t shoot them at all. If he can shoot them at 36%, he needs to be taking more.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
7,758
The Celts got Turner’s productivity out of Theis at almost 1/4th the cost. Why double down on a Theis type, (with less ability to defend switches) when you can get an experienced big with different skills as his focus, for half the cost of Turner (plus a giant TPE to boot)

Tatum, Brown, Kemba, and Smart played with Turner last summer on the USA team. If he had what it takes to get the Celts to the next level, they would have been clamoring for Turner
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Boston runs a lot of double screen action that requires quickness out of the C spot. Myles Turner isn’t exactly fleet afoot. And he doesn’t like the contact. He is not only a mediocre rebounder for a 6’11” guy, he’s not even good at screening out other guys defensively. You guys keep telling us that Turner’s this impact player, and yet no one seems to want him.

Here’s the other thing, he had one really good defensive year. His contract year. Aside from that he’s been no better than above average. He would need to get considerably better to be worth that deal. There’s a reason that Indiana can’t find any takers. He just isn’t that good.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
Boston runs a lot of double screen action that requires quickness out of the C spot. Myles Turner isn’t exactly fleet afoot. And he doesn’t like the contact. He is not only a mediocre rebounder for a 6’11” guy, he’s not even good at screening out other guys defensively. You guys keep telling us that Turner’s this impact player, and yet no one seems to want him.

Here’s the other thing, he had one really good defensive year. His contract year. Aside from that he’s been no better than above average. He would need to get considerably better to be worth that deal. There’s a reason that Indiana can’t find any takers. He just isn’t that good.
Out of one side of your mouth, you talk openly about Pritchard and his inability to complete any deal unless he's a clear winner and gets all of his roster and payroll challenges addressed. Out of the other side, you use Pritchard's inability to get such problems solved as evidence that it's Turner's fault because he's not that good. Just pointing that out.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
A different description of the problem is this:

Myles Turner has a somewhat uncommon set of skills, and those skills are a pretty imperfect fit for where the game is going and also for the Celtics scheme. He has value, but it's limited for Cs and likely worth well less than his salary.

He can space offensively as a shooter, which is an asset. But he's somewhat limited as a passer and he doesn't move a lot, so he is an awkward fit in Celtics scheme. Think about how Theis screens high, or Horford screened high and operated out of high post---Turner's positioning and motion is closer to what Semi does (though Turner can post a little) in that his primary value is standing somewhere for a spot-up jumper. There's value there, and he's a better shooter than Theis, but he can't do some of the other stuff they want.

Defensively he's more like an old-school center who can block shots well and is a reasonable rim-protector. But he's old-school---not a great swtich guy physically, not good on the perimeter. So, some of the matchups the Celtics struggled with (Bam for example) are awkward for Turner too. And the Celts scheme, which uses switches and ends up with the C on perimeter players, exposes his worst defensive capabilities. While they'd benefit some from the shot blocking and rim protection, his lack of mobility cuts against that benefit to some degree as well.

So, is he better than Theis overall? I think unclear (I personally think not, but a reasonable case can be made for 'yes' if only slightly). If cost were zero, he'd be a great addition for the matchups and situations he brings something but he's quite expensive for what is really a different flavor of what Kanter brought---situational utility. Turner is better than Kanter, but it's the same problem really...it's not a 30 minute a game guy and not someone you can use in all games/situations.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Out of one side of your mouth, you talk openly about Pritchard and his inability to complete any deal unless he's a clear winner and gets all of his roster and payroll challenges addressed. Out of the other side, you use Pritchard's inability to get such problems solved as evidence that it's Turner's fault because he's not that good. Just pointing that out.
We had a story posted here about Boston trying to find a taker for Turner to accommodate Hayward’s desire to play in Indy, and they found no takers. And I doubt that Boston was asking for anything beyond a first. No takers.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
We had a story posted here about Boston trying to find a taker for Turner to accommodate Hayward’s desire to play in Indy, and they found no takers. And I doubt that Boston was asking for anything beyond a first. No takers.
I'm not a huge fan of Turner, but it was less no takers (it was Lowe who had it) but that the Celtics didn't like the market. Hard to tell what that means, could mean no takers, could mean the takers needed to salary match with things Danny liked even less on the books than Turner. I know in the past NO supposedly was after him, though they ended up going with Adams instead.

Overall, Turner is a decent but overpaid big.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
A different description of the problem is this:

Myles Turner has a somewhat uncommon set of skills, and those skills are a pretty imperfect fit for where the game is going and also for the Celtics scheme. He has value, but it's limited for Cs and likely worth well less than his salary.

He can space offensively as a shooter, which is an asset. But he's somewhat limited as a passer and he doesn't move a lot, so he is an awkward fit in Celtics scheme. Think about how Theis screens high, or Horford screened high and operated out of high post---Turner's positioning and motion is closer to what Semi does (though Turner can post a little) in that his primary value is standing somewhere for a spot-up jumper. There's value there, and he's a better shooter than Theis, but he can't do some of the other stuff they want.

Defensively he's more like an old-school center who can block shots well and is a reasonable rim-protector. But he's old-school---not a great swtich guy physically, not good on the perimeter. So, some of the matchups the Celtics struggled with (Bam for example) are awkward for Turner too. And the Celts scheme, which uses switches and ends up with the C on perimeter players, exposes his worst defensive capabilities. While they'd benefit some from the shot blocking and rim protection, his lack of mobility cuts against that benefit to some degree as well.

So, is he better than Theis overall? I think unclear (I personally think not, but a reasonable case can be made for 'yes' if only slightly). If cost were zero, he'd be a great addition for the matchups and situations he brings something but he's quite expensive for what is really a different flavor of what Kanter brought---situational utility. Turner is better than Kanter, but it's the same problem really...it's not a 30 minute a game guy and not someone you can use in all games/situations.
Spot on. Thank you. Turner has positive hoops value but his contract essentially makes him a negative.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
A different description of the problem is this:

Myles Turner has a somewhat uncommon set of skills, and those skills are a pretty imperfect fit for where the game is going and also for the Celtics scheme. He has value, but it's limited for Cs and likely worth well less than his salary.

He can space offensively as a shooter, which is an asset. But he's somewhat limited as a passer and he doesn't move a lot, so he is an awkward fit in Celtics scheme. Think about how Theis screens high, or Horford screened high and operated out of high post---Turner's positioning and motion is closer to what Semi does (though Turner can post a little) in that his primary value is standing somewhere for a spot-up jumper. There's value there, and he's a better shooter than Theis, but he can't do some of the other stuff they want.

Defensively he's more like an old-school center who can block shots well and is a reasonable rim-protector. But he's old-school---not a great swtich guy physically, not good on the perimeter. So, some of the matchups the Celtics struggled with (Bam for example) are awkward for Turner too. And the Celts scheme, which uses switches and ends up with the C on perimeter players, exposes his worst defensive capabilities. While they'd benefit some from the shot blocking and rim protection, his lack of mobility cuts against that benefit to some degree as well.

So, is he better than Theis overall? I think unclear (I personally think not, but a reasonable case can be made for 'yes' if only slightly). If cost were zero, he'd be a great addition for the matchups and situations he brings something but he's quite expensive for what is really a different flavor of what Kanter brought---situational utility. Turner is better than Kanter, but it's the same problem really...it's not a 30 minute a game guy and not someone you can use in all games/situations.
fair points, good post.

People are undervaluing the $28.5MM TPE + giving young players PT to develop their games for trade bait or having them ride the JayCrew timeline.

Maybe youngster added minutes (Nesmith + Grant + TL) + Tristen > McDermott + Turner by season's end?

Either way, the permutations to keep & add high-end talent (up until the trade deadline or next Summer) are endless, where they wouldn't be if we solved the Pacer's roster problems.
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
A different description of the problem is this:

Myles Turner has a somewhat uncommon set of skills, and those skills are a pretty imperfect fit for where the game is going and also for the Celtics scheme. He has value, but it's limited for Cs and likely worth well less than his salary.

He can space offensively as a shooter, which is an asset. But he's somewhat limited as a passer and he doesn't move a lot, so he is an awkward fit in Celtics scheme. Think about how Theis screens high, or Horford screened high and operated out of high post---Turner's positioning and motion is closer to what Semi does (though Turner can post a little) in that his primary value is standing somewhere for a spot-up jumper. There's value there, and he's a better shooter than Theis, but he can't do some of the other stuff they want.

Defensively he's more like an old-school center who can block shots well and is a reasonable rim-protector. But he's old-school---not a great swtich guy physically, not good on the perimeter. So, some of the matchups the Celtics struggled with (Bam for example) are awkward for Turner too. And the Celts scheme, which uses switches and ends up with the C on perimeter players, exposes his worst defensive capabilities. While they'd benefit some from the shot blocking and rim protection, his lack of mobility cuts against that benefit to some degree as well.

So, is he better than Theis overall? I think unclear (I personally think not, but a reasonable case can be made for 'yes' if only slightly). If cost were zero, he'd be a great addition for the matchups and situations he brings something but he's quite expensive for what is really a different flavor of what Kanter brought---situational utility. Turner is better than Kanter, but it's the same problem really...it's not a 30 minute a game guy and not someone you can use in all games/situations.
This is really well written, and I agree with pretty much all of it. I also understand why Turner doesn't now fit what the Celtics ask of bigs and is overpaid.

My belief all along is that he's 24, has skills and length, and was on an upward trajectory for his first four years before this past one, when he was completely overshadowed by Sabonis and regressed. He has had meh coaching. I think that he could learn to set a screen on offense and learn to hedge and drop on defense. With proper coaching, maybe that he's a less experienced Thompson with a shot. Maybe that guy still isn't worth 18M, and I accept that. And maybe Danny thinks that we can do way better in a salary dump candidate at the deadline or next offseason, which is perfectly reasonable. But I think that MT's being written off here hastily.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
This is really well written, and I agree with pretty much all of it. I also understand why Turner doesn't now fit what the Celtics ask of bigs and is overpaid.

My belief all along is that he's 24, has skills and length, and was on an upward trajectory for his first four years before this past one, when he was completely overshadowed by Sabonis and regressed. He has had meh coaching. I think that he could learn to set a screen on offense and learn to hedge and drop on defense. With proper coaching, maybe that he's a less experienced Thompson with a shot. Maybe that guy still isn't worth 18M, and I accept that. And maybe Danny thinks that we can do way better in a salary dump candidate at the deadline or next offseason, which is perfectly reasonable. But I think that MT's being written off here hastily.
Yeah, I am somewhere on the middle on Turner overall. I would take him as a player and think it's possible there's upside there. But I don't like the math on that upside against the salary given the fit questions.

Ainge was confident he could work out the S&T and the asset he got is more interesting to me than the Turner acquisition would have been. Since TPEs vary in actual utility, we won't know for a year how that played out but I don't feel bad about the decision. I also don't think it's crazy to think Turner was a worthwhile gamble, I just think the risk is too high for what you are likely to get
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
So it comes down to, are we better off with

(Tristan Thompson + player(s) aquired with TPE) - assets coupled with TPE to aqcuire said player(s)

or

Myles Turner + Doug McDermott + taxpayer MLE player (Kris Dunn, Avery Bradley, Nerlens Noel caliber players)

And this calculation will be different this year, and next, and maybe even the year after. For if the trade resulted in the Celtics being a taxpayer, than that hinders some other moves down the road.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Yeah, that's what it came down to. There was no upside to the Indiana situation unless the Pacers were throwing in a bunch of draft picks. Cleaning up the Pacers' payroll issues would have led to some hard financial choices down the road. In the grand scheme of things he's a situational big getting paid twice his value. Not really worth sacrificing guys like Theis and Smart for.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
A different description of the problem is this:

Myles Turner has a somewhat uncommon set of skills, and those skills are a pretty imperfect fit for where the game is going and also for the Celtics scheme. He has value, but it's limited for Cs and likely worth well less than his salary.

He can space offensively as a shooter, which is an asset. But he's somewhat limited as a passer and he doesn't move a lot, so he is an awkward fit in Celtics scheme. Think about how Theis screens high, or Horford screened high and operated out of high post---Turner's positioning and motion is closer to what Semi does (though Turner can post a little) in that his primary value is standing somewhere for a spot-up jumper. There's value there, and he's a better shooter than Theis, but he can't do some of the other stuff they want.

Defensively he's more like an old-school center who can block shots well and is a reasonable rim-protector. But he's old-school---not a great swtich guy physically, not good on the perimeter. So, some of the matchups the Celtics struggled with (Bam for example) are awkward for Turner too. And the Celts scheme, which uses switches and ends up with the C on perimeter players, exposes his worst defensive capabilities. While they'd benefit some from the shot blocking and rim protection, his lack of mobility cuts against that benefit to some degree as well.

So, is he better than Theis overall? I think unclear (I personally think not, but a reasonable case can be made for 'yes' if only slightly). If cost were zero, he'd be a great addition for the matchups and situations he brings something but he's quite expensive for what is really a different flavor of what Kanter brought---situational utility. Turner is better than Kanter, but it's the same problem really...it's not a 30 minute a game guy and not someone you can use in all games/situations.
I agree, and I'd emphasize that "stretches the floor" is charitable: he's a ~35% shooter on low attempts (% went down last year when he increased the attempts).

We've seen this over and over and over: center shooting has to be elite or else it's a fake skill. Teams close out harder in the playoffs, or else late switch if the guy is making some shots.

At that point, you're left with Myles Turner, who doesn't really have a post game, operating on a small behind the 3-point line, with a lot of shot-clock already wasted.

In terms of what you get out of the possession, it's really not much better than when Semi gets closed out on and has to operate in space.

If you step back even further, his lack of screening ability means that you're trading Tatum/Kemba 3s and rim attacks for (at best) Myles Turner taking a 35% shot, and wasting the possession the rest of the time. That's not a trade that is going to produce good offense.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,021
Imaginationland
I'm on the wrong side of the argument here with Turner, but I still see something potentially good here. I think a lot of his perceived value is lost in the fact that he hasn't improved very much (at all?) over the last 2-3 years, but:

-Playing alongside another true center is bad for development
-He's still just 24

His lack of screening ability seems like nit-picking to me. Not that it's untrue, but how hard is it to teach a large [relatively] athletic big man to set a decent screen? They all can't be Al Horford, but teaching a guy his age and size to set a half decent pick and seal doesn't sound like it should be a reason to pass.

I don't think he has a fit on this year's team, but it's not a stretch at all to see the following at the end of the season:

-Thompson has too much tread on the tires to be that effective
-Theis signs somewhere else
-Rob Williams stubs his toe crossing the street and misses 30 games, pushing back his development yet again

Who knows what happens in the future.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
I'm on the wrong side of the argument here with Turner, but I still see something potentially good here. I think a lot of his perceived value is lost in the fact that he hasn't improved very much (at all?) over the last 2-3 years, but:

-Playing alongside another true center is bad for development
-He's still just 24

His lack of screening ability seems like nit-picking to me. Not that it's untrue, but how hard is it to teach a large [relatively] athletic big man to set a decent screen? They all can't be Al Horford, but teaching a guy his age and size to set a half decent pick and seal doesn't sound like it should be a reason to pass.

I don't think he has a fit on this year's team, but it's not a stretch at all to see the following at the end of the season:

-Thompson has too much tread on the tires to be that effective
-Theis signs somewhere else
-Rob Williams stubs his toe crossing the street and misses 30 games, pushing back his development yet again

Who knows what happens in the future.
I think there are two different arguments on Turner:

1. He isn't good. That's to me less defensible, he's a solid NBA center.
2. He's never going to be worth his contract: This is where I am. yes he's young, yes you can teach him how to screen (though some guys are in the league for a decade and still can't do it correctly), but he got paid on the assumption he'd improve, and didn't. So now you're at a point where he's less likely to significantly improve (he's young but he's also been in the league a long time) and unless he does he's overpaid. That makes him at best a neutral asset, but likely a negative one, and given the cap situation, that didn't make much sense for the Celtics unless it came with a significant positive asset, or if someone else in the league had a different view of him and was willing to give a positive asset for him, and the word seems to be that team either didn't exist, or couldn't find the cap space for him.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
Where did the narrative that he can't screen properly come from? It may very well be true, but just because some of you nerds say so doesn't do it for me :)
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
As I have noted here in the past, the PnR data is problematic for a variety of reasons but it shows Turner as a bottom half screen roll man. He is very close to guys like Alex Len and Omari Spellman in that regard. For contrast, the Cs ran PnRs with Timelord around the same rate as Indiana did for Turner and Williams was ~ .25 PPP better than Myles. Given these comps, it seems to support the argument that Turner, while again valuable, is overpaid given his skill set.

As a side note, TT is abysmal in this category so we likely see The Seal and Timelord as the main screening bigs this season.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
As I have noted here in the past, the PnR data is problematic for a variety of reasons but it shows Turner as a bottom half screen roll man. He is very close to guys like Alex Len and Omari Spellman in that regard. For contrast, the Cs ran PnRs with Timelord around the same rate as Indiana did for Turner and Williams was ~ .25 PPP better than Myles. Given these comps, it seems to support the argument that Turner, while again valuable, is overpaid given his skill set.

As a side note, TT is abysmal in this category so we likely see The Seal and Timelord as the main screening bigs this season.
I'm extremely skeptical of TT's numbers in that regard, because a) the Cavs' situation was so dysfunctional b) he's a good screener on film. I would be really really surprised if the Celtics don't use him heavily as a screening big.
 

DGreenwood

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2003
2,446
Seattle
In the Celtics season preview that John Hollinger wrote for The Athletic, he states that the Celtics can fit Bradley Beal into the trade exception (but doesn't think the Celtics have the assets to win the bidding). I thought it was pretty well established that the trade exception wasn't big enough?

Astute observers fantasizing about a Celtics dream team will note that a certain Washington Wizards All-Star has a salary that can be accommodated within the exception; alas, it’s unlikely Boston has the asset collection to match what other suitors can put on the table in a Bradley Beal transaction.
https://theathletic.com/2245602/2020/12/12/hollinger-2020-21-celtics-preview-boston-what-to-do-trade-exception/
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
The TPE was initially reported at $27.5 mil, which is not enough for Beal at $28.75. When the deal happened Hayward’s first year salary was $28.5. That would appear just short of Beal (as it is TPE+ 100k) but it’s close enough that stuff like the escrow treatment or other adjustments tip it
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,155
In the Celtics season preview that John Hollinger wrote for The Athletic, he states that the Celtics can fit Bradley Beal into the trade exception (but doesn't think the Celtics have the assets to win the bidding). I thought it was pretty well established that the trade exception wasn't big enough?



https://theathletic.com/2245602/2020/12/12/hollinger-2020-21-celtics-preview-boston-what-to-do-trade-exception/
You are correct. Shockingly, John Hollinger is wrong.
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,155
The TPE was initially reported at $27.5 mil, which is not enough for Beal at $28.75. When the deal happened Hayward’s first year salary was $28.5. That would appear just short of Beal (as it is TPE+ 100k) but it’s close enough that stuff like the escrow treatment or other adjustments tip it
I am curious. What adjustments could tip $251,774? It would not surprise me if someone like Ainge would be capable of finding ways around this sort of thing.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
I am not sure, as it gets beyond my cap knowledge to some degree and certainly beyond what's been publicly reported about the recent amendment to the CBA

Beal signed a max extension. The specific salary number which constitutes a 'max' is tied to BRI assumptions. But those assumptions have gone down, and the recent amendment agreed to adjusts some of the parameters (though we've only seen partial reporting on that). So, either of those could mean the Beal number is less.

I also don't know how they are dealing with the escrow and trade qualifying salaries, though I think they just ignore that aspect.

Hollinger is very, very good on the cap...not perfect but it's a lot more likely he looked and there's more going on here than not. I fully agree he might have missed it, I just wouldn't jump there as it gets quite complicated AND there's some nonpublic info that will matter.

The more important thing to me is it's very hard to see a talent match here---you can get there with Jaylen, but pretty hard to construct a scenario where that makes sense both ways and also would great suboptimize the TPE as you'd effectively lose the value of Jaylen's contract.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
The more important thing to me is it's very hard to see a talent match here---you can get there with Jaylen, but pretty hard to construct a scenario where that makes sense both ways and also would great suboptimize the TPE as you'd effectively lose the value of Jaylen's contract.
If Bradley Beal is traded Jaylen Brown is most assurendly going out. It is the only way to compensate WAS properly. So the TPE could be used in a second deal.
I agree that it doesn't really make sense to trade one for the other though, unless either team has a drastically different evaluation of one of them
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Or Boston fears Tatum leaving to join forces with Donovan Mitchell and sees his mentor as the best way to get Jayson to commit long term.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
If Bradley Beal is traded Jaylen Brown is most assurendly going out. It is the only way to compensate WAS properly. So the TPE could be used in a second deal.
I agree that it doesn't really make sense to trade one for the other though, unless either team has a drastically different evaluation of one of them
Trading Brown for Beal would be very disappointing.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
I would rather have Brown going forward. That has more to do with fit than talent, although the disparity in talent is real.
 

DGreenwood

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2003
2,446
Seattle
I bet Ainge would rather have Brown than Beal too. But keeping your stars happy is an important part of being a GM in the NBA so if Tatum asks for it Ainge may need to make it happen.
 

DGreenwood

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2003
2,446
Seattle
That's good to hear because I had read that they get along very well but don't have much in common outside of basketball. It was something about how Jayson respects Jaylens intellectual pursuits but that's not the type of thing he wants to spend a ton of time talking about in his downtime.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Is there any evidence (speculation doesn't count) that Tatum would rather play alongside Beal than Brown for the next several years?
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
This whole line of conversation is people thinking too hard. I get that it's a message board and shit, but JT just signed a rookie max extension like a week ago. It hasn't even kicked in yet. Sweet Jesus.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,021
Imaginationland
This whole line of conversation is people thinking too hard. I get that it's a message board and shit, but JT just signed a rookie max extension like a week ago. It hasn't even kicked in yet. Sweet Jesus.
For real. Unless he's traded he's a Celtic for at least the next 5 seasons, and we're at least 3 years away from having to start worrying about this.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Yeah, Beal will be onto the downside of his career.m by the time Tatum can even think about making trade demands.

The Celtics have a lot of stuff that needs shoring up, but this angle is fine.

Now back to waking up at night unable to sleep, imagining what the future would be if we had been able to draft Herro instead of Langford (true story).