Celtics General Offseason Thread Pt 11: Kanter believe you thought of former player

[Tiny ball]

Kyrie was allowed to leave - he chose to play closer to home. There’s no way to really stay angry at that decision. What is sh*tty on his part is promising to stay at the start of the season, his limited leadership, and the extent to which his choice to bail on the franchise was because of some short-term difficulties. Once the AD scenario was put to bed, we had any number of ways to restructure the team that would’ve kept him here- we were asset-rich.

The problem to me is it seems half the NBA players knew he was leaving middle of in the season. Why was he not moved for some assets?
I don't have a clue what is going on with owners upper management of the Celtics but something smells bad. I'm not getting any younger and I want to win NOW.

[Celts17Pride]

Kyrie was allowed to leave - he chose to play closer to home. There’s no way to really stay angry at that decision. What is sh*tty on his part is promising to stay at the start of the season, his limited leadership, and the extent to which his choice to bail on the franchise was because of some short-term difficulties. Once the AD scenario was put to bed, we had any number of ways to restructure the team that would’ve kept him here- we were asset-rich.

I'm not angry at all that Kyrie went to Brooklyn. In fact it made me very happy.

[Tiny ball]

Kyrie was allowed to leave - he chose to play closer to home. There’s no way to really stay angry at that decision. What is sh*tty on his part is promising to stay at the start of the season, his limited leadership, and the extent to which his choice to bail on the franchise was because of some short-term difficulties. Once the AD scenario was put to bed, we had any number of ways to restructure the team that would’ve kept him here- we were asset-rich.

I'm not angry at all that Kyrie went to Brooklyn. In fact in made me very happy.

I agree draft them play them and development them. Trade to fill in weakness win championships. Imho Danny can't do this.

[Homerclease]

Kyrie was allowed to leave - he chose to play closer to home. There’s no way to really stay angry at that decision. What is sh*tty on his part is promising to stay at the start of the season, his limited leadership, and the extent to which his choice to bail on the franchise was because of some short-term difficulties. Once the AD scenario was put to bed, we had any number of ways to restructure the team that would’ve kept him here- we were asset-rich.

I'm not angry at all that Kyrie went to Brooklyn. In fact in made me very happy.

I agree draft them play them and development them. Trade to fill in weakness win championships. Imho Danny can't do this.

........but he already did do that.

[Celts17Pride]

I'm not angry at all that Kyrie went to Brooklyn. In fact in made me very happy.

I agree draft them play them and development them. Trade to fill in weakness win championships. Imho Danny can't do this.

........but he already did do that.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

[Bleeding Green]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2847686-espn-to-broadcast-australian-nbl-games-featuring-lamelo-ball-rj-hampton

Pretty excited for this, maybe we'll see major changes in the NCAA and the recent rash of guys opting to skip college will become the norm, at least for the top prospects. I feel like it started with Brandon Jennings a decade ago, and now you have 3-5+ prospects skipping college to either play in Europe/China/Australia or just spend the year working out. None have been drafted in the lottery since Jennings, but the hit-rate on them is pretty high just anecdotally.

RJ Hampton even has a sneaker deal worth millions, if that is on the table for other guys in coming years, it's hard to pass up a few million and a year in Europe/New Zealand just so you can play for some prick college coach.

I never got how the players sold out the younger guys with that deal. Why should anyone be able to deal you out of a job when you are of age?

If you're a veteran NBA player, why would you want people taking your job if you could very easily avoid it? Even if you're a vet minimum guy, every extra year you hang on is another 1.5+ million dollars that can go to you as opposed to some young draftee.

Chris Paul is head of the player's union and had the Over-38 rule pushed into the CBA so he could sign for 45 million more dollars on his most recent contract. If you're one of the guys running the union, why do you care about some kid coming to take your job? And the owners don't necessarily want high schoolers that they have to pay to sit on the bench for a year either, so I'm kind of surprised that there seems to be a push to get rid of the one-and-done rule. For every LeBron that is ready Day 1, there are ten Jonathan Bender-like players. Even when you have high schoolers who prove worthy, they take at least an extra year of just sitting on a bench producing nothing. Gerald Green took like 5 years before he was ready, Tyson Chandler is a huge high school success and he was nothing his first 3-4 years. The team that drafts these kids usually don't see the full benefit unless they are Kobe/KG/LeBron/Amare/Durant and they instantly step in and are great within year 2.

But perhaps with the push to make the G-League relevant, and with the addition of two-way contracts, we'll see high school kids get drafted and spend a year or two in the G-League before they are given an NBA contract. Something similar to baseball, where you don't start accruing time on your NBA contract until you are on the active roster. So when the next LeBron comes through, he can play immediately at the NBA level, but someone who is the next Jonathan Bender, needs a couple years of strength training, skills development, etc, he can stay in the G-League a year or two and then come up to the big show. That seems like it would be beneficial; a guy like Bender maybe would have made it at the NBA level if not for injury and contract service-time issues.

God damn Jon Bender was ridiculous in high school, wish he could have figured it out.

[djFan71]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2847686-espn-to-broadcast-australian-nbl-games-featuring-lamelo-ball-rj-hampton

Pretty excited for this, maybe we'll see major changes in the NCAA and the recent rash of guys opting to skip college will become the norm, at least for the top prospects. I feel like it started with Brandon Jennings a decade ago, and now you have 3-5+ prospects skipping college to either play in Europe/China/Australia or just spend the year working out. None have been drafted in the lottery since Jennings, but the hit-rate on them is pretty high just anecdotally.

RJ Hampton even has a sneaker deal worth millions, if that is on the table for other guys in coming years, it's hard to pass up a few million and a year in Europe/New Zealand just so you can play for some prick college coach.

I never got how the players sold out the younger guys with that deal. Why should anyone be able to deal you out of a job when you are of age?

If you're a veteran NBA player, why would you want people taking your job if you could very easily avoid it? Even if you're a vet minimum guy, every extra year you hang on is another 1.5+ million dollars that can go to you as opposed to some young draftee.

Chris Paul is head of the player's union and had the Over-38 rule pushed into the CBA so he could sign for 45 million more dollars on his most recent contract. If you're one of the guys running the union, why do you care about some kid coming to take your job? And the owners don't necessarily want high schoolers that they have to pay to sit on the bench for a year either, so I'm kind of surprised that there seems to be a push to get rid of the one-and-done rule. For every LeBron that is ready Day 1, there are ten Jonathan Bender-like players. Even when you have high schoolers who prove worthy, they take at least an extra year of just sitting on a bench producing nothing. Gerald Green took like 5 years before he was ready, Tyson Chandler is a huge high school success and he was nothing his first 3-4 years. The team that drafts these kids usually don't see the full benefit unless they are Kobe/KG/LeBron/Amare/Durant and they instantly step in and are great within year 2.

But perhaps with the push to make the G-League relevant, and with the addition of two-way contracts, we'll see high school kids get drafted and spend a year or two in the G-League before they are given an NBA contract. Something similar to baseball, where you don't start accruing time on your NBA contract until you are on the active roster. So when the next LeBron comes through, he can play immediately at the NBA level, but someone who is the next Jonathan Bender, needs a couple years of strength training, skills development, etc, he can stay in the G-League a year or two and then come up to the big show.

Agree with all of this - esp. the last paragraph. Gotta be something like that if you start drafting HS kids again. Maybe some sort of tiered higher 1st round contract, but not full rookie scale til you're in the league. It's such a lot of money and commitment to give a kid, and in most cases, you get minimal return before you're at risk of losing them.

[Bleeding Green]

I never got how the players sold out the younger guys with that deal. Why should anyone be able to deal you out of a job when you are of age?

If you're a veteran NBA player, why would you want people taking your job if you could very easily avoid it? Even if you're a vet minimum guy, every extra year you hang on is another 1.5+ million dollars that can go to you as opposed to some young draftee.

Chris Paul is head of the player's union and had the Over-38 rule pushed into the CBA so he could sign for 45 million more dollars on his most recent contract. If you're one of the guys running the union, why do you care about some kid coming to take your job? And the owners don't necessarily want high schoolers that they have to pay to sit on the bench for a year either, so I'm kind of surprised that there seems to be a push to get rid of the one-and-done rule. For every LeBron that is ready Day 1, there are ten Jonathan Bender-like players. Even when you have high schoolers who prove worthy, they take at least an extra year of just sitting on a bench producing nothing. Gerald Green took like 5 years before he was ready, Tyson Chandler is a huge high school success and he was nothing his first 3-4 years. The team that drafts these kids usually don't see the full benefit unless they are Kobe/KG/LeBron/Amare/Durant and they instantly step in and are great within year 2.

But perhaps with the push to make the G-League relevant, and with the addition of two-way contracts, we'll see high school kids get drafted and spend a year or two in the G-League before they are given an NBA contract. Something similar to baseball, where you don't start accruing time on your NBA contract until you are on the active roster. So when the next LeBron comes through, he can play immediately at the NBA level, but someone who is the next Jonathan Bender, needs a couple years of strength training, skills development, etc, he can stay in the G-League a year or two and then come up to the big show.

Agree with all of this - esp. the last paragraph. Gotta be something like that if you start drafting HS kids again. Maybe some sort of tiered higher 1st round contract, but not full rookie scale til you're in the league. It's such a lot of money and commitment to give a kid, and in most cases, you get minimal return before you're at risk of losing them.

In baseball, you'll receive a signing bonu (first overall pick is somewhere around $8 million I think?) and then whatever pittance from whatever minor league level you play at from there, usually $20-40k a year until you make AAA (~$100k) and then three years at minimum MLB salary (~$500k), then three arbitration years, then free agency. That's a little too much power for teams I think, but something like that could work, though I dunno how it would work with the NBA salary cap if you pay a high school kid 1st overall signing bonus, then he spends a full year in the G-League?

[djFan71]

Spoiler:

If you're a veteran NBA player, why would you want people taking your job if you could very easily avoid it? Even if you're a vet minimum guy, every extra year you hang on is another 1.5+ million dollars that can go to you as opposed to some young draftee.

Chris Paul is head of the player's union and had the Over-38 rule pushed into the CBA so he could sign for 45 million more dollars on his most recent contract. If you're one of the guys running the union, why do you care about some kid coming to take your job? And the owners don't necessarily want high schoolers that they have to pay to sit on the bench for a year either, so I'm kind of surprised that there seems to be a push to get rid of the one-and-done rule. For every LeBron that is ready Day 1, there are ten Jonathan Bender-like players. Even when you have high schoolers who prove worthy, they take at least an extra year of just sitting on a bench producing nothing. Gerald Green took like 5 years before he was ready, Tyson Chandler is a huge high school success and he was nothing his first 3-4 years. The team that drafts these kids usually don't see the full benefit unless they are Kobe/KG/LeBron/Amare/Durant and they instantly step in and are great within year 2.

But perhaps with the push to make the G-League relevant, and with the addition of two-way contracts, we'll see high school kids get drafted and spend a year or two in the G-League before they are given an NBA contract. Something similar to baseball, where you don't start accruing time on your NBA contract until you are on the active roster. So when the next LeBron comes through, he can play immediately at the NBA level, but someone who is the next Jonathan Bender, needs a couple years of strength training, skills development, etc, he can stay in the G-League a year or two and then come up to the big show.

Agree with all of this - esp. the last paragraph. Gotta be something like that if you start drafting HS kids again. Maybe some sort of tiered higher 1st round contract, but not full rookie scale til you're in the league. It's such a lot of money and commitment to give a kid, and in most cases, you get minimal return before you're at risk of losing them.

In baseball, you'll receive a signing bonu (first overall pick is somewhere around $8 million I think?) and then whatever pittance from whatever minor league level you play at from there, usually $20-40k a year until you make AAA (~$100k) and then three years at minimum MLB salary (~$400k), then three arbitration years, then free agency. That's a little too much power for teams I think, but something like that could work, though I dunno how it would work with the NBA salary cap if you pay a high school kid 1st overall signing bonus, then he spends a full year in the G-League?

That could make sense. There's gonna need to be a new CBA, so they can write that in. I think it works well with your vet min point. There would be more spots for minimum vets to hang on one extra year. Which in turn would leave more money under the cap (as opposed to full rookie scale) for more in their prime vets to be overpaid.

First round picks can get 50% of rookie scale in signing bonus, and can be assigned to G-league for up to 2 years (new signing bonus the 2nd year as well). Salary-wise they make G league standard. If you bring them up too many times, they convert to a full NBA rookie scale contract - and you need to be able to do that under the cap rules. If you do convert, the signing bonus goes towards that salary (ie, no longer an additional bonus). Something along those lines could work pretty well.

[GreenTeamah]

Yeah, hard no to Drummond.

Give me Capela/Turner/Adams if we are sending out Hayward...

Would love Favors too.... Favors/Moore for shooting off the bench combo would be nice....

As much as I think Hayward is the odd man out, they'll want to see how he comes back and performs until the deadline to make any sort of deal, if he looks amazing and say Brown looks extremely average then pivot and try a low cost big man.

As far as a low LOW cost option Salah Mejri actually had decent advanced stats from memory?

Hayward back to Utah in a deal involving Favors? Depending on what else is involved because Favors doesn’t move the needle for me and I don’t know who Moore

Favors has been traded to the Pelicans.
So Moore is E'Twaun Moore.

That would be a good trade for us, but if Danny trade GH, then it means that GH is not back 100% physically and/or mentally...its hard to imagine another team trading a nice package for a broken player.

That’s right I forgot about that, it’s still a lopsided deal which Ainge wouldn’t do just because Favors could be a better fit than Hayward but NO got plenty of draft capital to make it worth it

[Andrew McCeltic]

Kyrie was allowed to leave - he chose to play closer to home. There’s no way to really stay angry at that decision. What is sh*tty on his part is promising to stay at the start of the season, his limited leadership, and the extent to which his choice to bail on the franchise was because of some short-term difficulties. Once the AD scenario was put to bed, we had any number of ways to restructure the team that would’ve kept him here- we were asset-rich.

The problem to me is it seems half the NBA players knew he was leaving middle of in the season. Why was he not moved for some assets?
I don't have a clue what is going on with owners upper management of the Celtics but something smells bad. I'm not getting any younger and I want to win NOW.

I assume we knew he might leave and bet on him changing his mind if we were able to get Anthony Davis. To be fair, no one knew the Lakers would make a huge bid to surpass anything in league history.

Maybe we’d have SGA or DAR now, I guess.. or SGA *and* Kemba would have been the best outcome.. but I’m sure we’d be second-guessing a Kyrie trade right now, too.

[31to6]

I'm happy that Wyc didn't pull a Dan Gilbert. I'm actually really happy that the organization, as a whole, appears to be taking the high road on this one. At the end of the day, basketball is just a business. Gotta take the bad with the good and keep it moving.

With that being said.....no tribute video please.

Agreed. As a fan I will shout to the world about how much of a psuedo-intellectual, cowardly, fake leader little bitch Kyrie Irving is. But as an organization, the Celtics have nothing to gain and potentially something to lose by doing so. I applaud both myself and the Celtics for handling this situation appropriately.

And yeah, no tribute video.

Im okay with a tribute video as long as it’s basically Constable’s GIF.

(Maybe add oh very much woke in there too)

[Darth Celtic]

Kyrie was allowed to leave - he chose to play closer to home. There’s no way to really stay angry at that decision. What is sh*tty on his part is promising to stay at the start of the season, his limited leadership, and the extent to which his choice to bail on the franchise was because of some short-term difficulties. Once the AD scenario was put to bed, we had any number of ways to restructure the team that would’ve kept him here- we were asset-rich.

The problem to me is it seems half the NBA players knew he was leaving middle of in the season. Why was he not moved for some assets?
I don't have a clue what is going on with owners upper management of the Celtics but something smells bad. I'm not getting any younger and I want to win NOW.

Keep thinking in checkers terms and Danny can keep on with 4D chess.

If we traded Kyrie 2 months before the season when half the league knows he's leaving for the Nets, what team would give up an asset for him? None. All assets you could get for 2 months of Kyrie at that time do 1 thing and 1 thing only. Make sure we don't have Max cap space to sign a player this offseason. No player, young or old, would be better than Kemba Walker with any Kyrie Irving trade.

So, stop crying like a baby off the tit about how Danny is a bad GM for not trading Kyrie last season. It's a stupid arguement.

[Feed Your Head]

Kyrie was allowed to leave - he chose to play closer to home. There’s no way to really stay angry at that decision. What is sh*tty on his part is promising to stay at the start of the season, his limited leadership, and the extent to which his choice to bail on the franchise was because of some short-term difficulties. Once the AD scenario was put to bed, we had any number of ways to restructure the team that would’ve kept him here- we were asset-rich.

The problem to me is it seems half the NBA players knew he was leaving middle of in the season. Why was he not moved for some assets?
I don't have a clue what is going on with owners upper management of the Celtics but something smells bad. I'm not getting any younger and I want to win NOW.

Keep thinking in checkers terms and Danny can keep on with 4D chess.

If we traded Kyrie 2 months before the season when half the league knows he's leaving for the Nets, what team would give up an asset for him? None. All assets you could get for 2 months of Kyrie at that time do 1 thing and 1 thing only. Make sure we don't have Max cap space to sign a player this offseason. No player, young or old, would be better than Kemba Walker with any Kyrie Irving trade.

So, stop crying like a baby off the tit about how Danny is a bad GM for not trading Kyrie last season. It's a stupid arguement.

[Triple7]

Kyrie is a weird dude, man.

Exactly!

[Triple7]

I'm happy that Wyc didn't pull a Dan Gilbert. I'm actually really happy that the organization, as a whole, appears to be taking the high road on this one. At the end of the day, basketball is just a business. Gotta take the bad with the good and keep it moving.

With that being said.....no tribute video please.

Agreed. As a fan I will shout to the world about how much of a psuedo-intellectual, cowardly, fake leader little bitch Kyrie Irving is. But as an organization, the Celtics have nothing to gain and potentially something to lose by doing so. I applaud both myself and the Celtics for handling this situation appropriately.

And yeah, no tribute video.

Im okay with a tribute video as long as it’s basically Constable’s GIF.

(Maybe add oh very much woke in there too)

Uncle Drew tribute video instead?

[canman1971]

The whole tribute video is really annoying. It is really simple, a player should get one for one of 3 reasons mostly, 1. They actually won something. 2. Did something extremely special (IT) 3. Longevity at a high level. He who won't be named did not do any. And please don't bring up R.Allen. He lost his green card by leaving the way he did. But, if they honor the 2008 team at some point again, I have no problem with Mr. Allen being there.

[DarkAzcura]

Yeah I don’t see why anyone has an issue with the fact that we didn’t trade Kyrie at this point. It worked out for us with Kemba. Most of the trades we could had made probably would have had us taking on salary which would had made it impossible to sign Kemba.

Now if there was a deal out there for an expiring and a first round pick, then sure that would had been nice. It’s unknown any team out there had that to offer for a 2 month rental, though. In fact I would say absolutely no team would had made that offer if Kyrie to Brooklyn was as set in stone as the league believed.

[cloverleaf]

The whole tribute video is really annoying. It is really simple, a player should get one for one of 3 reasons mostly, 1. They actually won something. 2. Did something extremely special (IT) 3. Longevity at a high level. He who won't be named did not do any. And please don't bring up R.Allen. He lost his green card by leaving the way he did. But, if they honor the 2008 team at some point again, I have no problem with Mr. Allen being there.

Exactly.

[Darthlukey]

If you're a veteran NBA player, why would you want people taking your job if you could very easily avoid it? Even if you're a vet minimum guy, every extra year you hang on is another 1.5+ million dollars that can go to you as opposed to some young draftee.

Chris Paul is head of the player's union and had the Over-38 rule pushed into the CBA so he could sign for 45 million more dollars on his most recent contract. If you're one of the guys running the union, why do you care about some kid coming to take your job? And the owners don't necessarily want high schoolers that they have to pay to sit on the bench for a year either, so I'm kind of surprised that there seems to be a push to get rid of the one-and-done rule. For every LeBron that is ready Day 1, there are ten Jonathan Bender-like players. Even when you have high schoolers who prove worthy, they take at least an extra year of just sitting on a bench producing nothing. Gerald Green took like 5 years before he was ready, Tyson Chandler is a huge high school success and he was nothing his first 3-4 years. The team that drafts these kids usually don't see the full benefit unless they are Kobe/KG/LeBron/Amare/Durant and they instantly step in and are great within year 2.

But perhaps with the push to make the G-League relevant, and with the addition of two-way contracts, we'll see high school kids get drafted and spend a year or two in the G-League before they are given an NBA contract. Something similar to baseball, where you don't start accruing time on your NBA contract until you are on the active roster. So when the next LeBron comes through, he can play immediately at the NBA level, but someone who is the next Jonathan Bender, needs a couple years of strength training, skills development, etc, he can stay in the G-League a year or two and then come up to the big show.

Agree with all of this - esp. the last paragraph. Gotta be something like that if you start drafting HS kids again. Maybe some sort of tiered higher 1st round contract, but not full rookie scale til you're in the league. It's such a lot of money and commitment to give a kid, and in most cases, you get minimal return before you're at risk of losing them.

In baseball, you'll receive a signing bonu (first overall pick is somewhere around $8 million I think?) and then whatever pittance from whatever minor league level you play at from there, usually $20-40k a year until you make AAA (~$100k) and then three years at minimum MLB salary (~$500k), then three arbitration years, then free agency. That's a little too much power for teams I think, but something like that could work, though I dunno how it would work with the NBA salary cap if you pay a high school kid 1st overall signing bonus, then he spends a full year in the G-League?

The owners fought for it as well, didn't want to risk bad lottery picks on kids that had not yet been properly quantified. Which I understand, but if you don't want risk, draft a sophomore or a junior instead