Secret Sauce: The Terry Rozier Thread

[HornetJail]

Can we afford to extend Terry, while also.....

- Continue paying Hayward
- Re-sign Monk
- Sign or trade for a center this offseason

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q58

The salary in the first year of a veteran extension may be any amount up to 120% of the player's previous salary6, or 120% of the estimated average salary (see question number 31), whichever is greater, but no more than the player's maximum salary in that season (i.e., the maximum salary the player can receive if he were to sign a new contract that year as a free agent -- see question number 23).

Based on this, the max extension we can offer Terry in the upcoming season is a contract starting at $17.9M * 120% = ~ $21.5M starting, with max raises, a 4 year deal comes out to 4/$96.3M. We would be paying him roughly $27M in his age 31-32 season if we did that. As well as Terry is playing, I would really hesitate on that. Maybe if that 4th year is unguaranteed or has a team option?. But it would not affect our books this upcoming season, it would take effect in 2022.

[JDR720]

Read on Twitter

[SWedd523]

Can we afford to extend Terry, while also.....

- Continue paying Hayward
- Re-sign Monk
- Sign or trade for a center this offseason

I would argue that it isn't very fiscally responsible to pay both Terry AND Monk the type of money they'll both be (likely) looking for. I don't see how you can invest that much money into one position and not have All-NBA level production.

The difficult (and probably correct) answer is to choose one to lock up long term and hunt the cheaper vet market for a backup.

Same logic applies to not paying Graham long term.

Hayward (plus Bstum) make too much money to continue playing that "give everyone 5 years and 60-80mil" game like they've been doing

[yosemiteben]

It depends on the cap math. If we're going to be just below the cap anyway, I'm good with getting everyone under contract and then maneuvering as an over the cap team with trades and utilizing the MLE. I really don't know what our cap situation looks like the next two summers given the decisions we have to make.

Depending on what the market looks like, I probably would give Graham and Monk decently large deals and then plan to move one of them for a big.

[Hornet Mania]

Next two years will be tight with extensions, but if the rumors about the next TV deal doubling revenue are true we're going to see a massive spike after that. In that scenario it's better to lock guys up before the spike, even if we have to go into the luxury tax, because they'll be making a pittance of their actual market value in the latter half of a 3-4yr contract.

I don't see any easy answers, I just hope we don't put ourselves in another financial straight jacket like we did in 2016.

[Chapelchilla]

I would pay Terry and Devonte their respective market rates and let Monk walk after his RFA year. Having Devonte as a backup PG is a big help. Monk is more replaceable.

[SWedd523]

It depends on the cap math. If we're going to be just below the cap anyway, I'm good with getting everyone under contract and then maneuvering as an over the cap team with trades and utilizing the MLE. I really don't know what our cap situation looks like the next two summers given the decisions we have to make.

Depending on what the market looks like, I probably would give Graham and Monk decently large deals and then plan to move one of them for a big.

That's a very dangerous game to play banking on their trade value after large longer term extensions,essentially one season of slightly above average play by Monk and one season of above average pay followed by largely doodoo from Graham

Sounds like exactly what they did before with Cody, Marv, Batum etc.

Didn't work then, dubious if it'll work now

[SWedd523]

I'd definitely avoid giving long term deals to ANYONE until they've proven to be an integral part in a Lamelo future.

Last thing I want to see is cashing into a bunch of mediocre dudes and wasting our star PG's time on the team before he gets tired of doing all the heavy lifting and bolting for Boston.

Overpay on guys (if necessary) for shorter deals, no more than three years, and maintain a clean cap sheet moving forward in hopes that they can cash in on a second star in the draft or FA.

[yosemiteben]

It depends on the cap math. If we're going to be just below the cap anyway, I'm good with getting everyone under contract and then maneuvering as an over the cap team with trades and utilizing the MLE. I really don't know what our cap situation looks like the next two summers given the decisions we have to make.

Depending on what the market looks like, I probably would give Graham and Monk decently large deals and then plan to move one of them for a big.

That's a very dangerous game to play banking on their trade value after large longer term extensions,essentially one season of slightly above average play by Monk and one season of above average pay followed by largely doodoo from Graham

Sounds like exactly what they did before with Cody, Marv, Batum etc.

Didn't work then, dubious if it'll work now

It's a point well taken. Monk is a bit different though, he just turned 23.

Batum was being paid as a 27/28 year old earning his big pay day while being asked to take a new role that was different from the one he'd had every other year of his career.

Marv got paid $13M per year, which I think was a good contract, and he was 30 when we have it to him.

Cody's deal is also reasonable, the only problem with it IMO is the dude can't stay healthy.

The closest comparison is probably Graham, which I think is fair. If we pay him starter money I can see coming to regret that.

[SWedd523]

Teams don't win giving out a bunch of mid tier contracts. "reasonable" for a non all-star is pretty pointless unless you already have stars on the team. That's buying into mediocrity.

[yosemiteben]

Teams don't win giving out a bunch of mid tier contracts. "reasonable" for a non all-star is pretty pointless unless you already have stars on the team. That's buying into mediocrity.

Don't think it's quite that simple, salary can create trade options. This deadline Cody pretty much had to be included in any deal if the target wasn't on a rookie contract.

There's also the question of cap space. If you're going to be near or over the cap anyway, better to keep the talent and do something with it rather than let it walk and still have no cap space left over.

[SWedd523]

Teams don't win giving out a bunch of mid tier contracts. "reasonable" for a non all-star is pretty pointless unless you already have stars on the team. That's buying into mediocrity.

Don't think it's quite that simple, salary can create trade options. This deadline Cody pretty much had to be included in any deal if the target wasn't on a rookie contract.

There's also the question of cap space. If you're going to be near or over the cap anyway, better to keep the talent and do something with it rather than let it walk and still have no cap space left over.

And it took him how many years to become a trade "asset" that wasn't even used?

Keeping talent is one thing. Locking into a bunch of mediocre talent for half a decade is suicidal. I disagree completely. I would much rather let non-difference-makers walk than lock them up for no real reason aside from maintaining a negative to neutral asset.

The worst thing this team could do is lock into Graham, Monk, Miles, and maybe PJ long term because "Gosh darn it we can't let them walk for nothing". They did that crap for Kemba's entire career and were never able to make any serious moves because they either never amassed enough cap space to sign anybody worth a damn, or couldn't make any trades because dudes were given a bunch of loyalty deals

[Roll Tide 09]

Rozier is better in the clutch than Kemba. Yes, extend him...and possibly move a few players (Washington, Hayward, and Graham) in order to open space and get a Center who can defend, catch, and go straight up with the ball.

[yosemiteben]

Teams don't win giving out a bunch of mid tier contracts. "reasonable" for a non all-star is pretty pointless unless you already have stars on the team. That's buying into mediocrity.

Don't think it's quite that simple, salary can create trade options. This deadline Cody pretty much had to be included in any deal if the target wasn't on a rookie contract.

There's also the question of cap space. If you're going to be near or over the cap anyway, better to keep the talent and do something with it rather than let it walk and still have no cap space left over.

And it took him how many years to become a trade "asset" that wasn't even used?

Keeping talent is one thing. Locking into a bunch of mediocre talent for half a decade is suicidal. I disagree completely. I would much rather let non-difference-makers walk than lock them up for no real reason aside from maintaining a negative to neutral asset.

The worst thing this team could do is lock into Graham, Monk, Miles, and maybe PJ long term because "Gosh darn it we can't let them walk for nothing". They did that crap for Kemba's entire career and were never able to make any serious moves because they either never amassed enough cap space to sign anybody worth a damn, or couldn't make any trades because dudes were given a bunch of loyalty deals

Again, if the choice is be over the cap with less talent or be over the cap with more talent...why go with less? Ditching one of Monk or Graham isn't enough to get us real cap space.

That's why I said it depends on cap math. If we have space and can use it on more productive options, then sure let's do it. But if we're at the cap, then keep whatever talent we can.

[SWedd523]

Because the world

A. Doesn't exist in a vacuum and
B. Is clearly nowhere near as simplistic as more talent over the cap vs less

Kind of a lazy argument to be honest

[yosemiteben]

Because the world

A. Doesn't exist in a vacuum and
B. Is clearly nowhere near as simplistic as more talent over the cap vs less

Kind of a lazy argument to be honest

My argument is, if we are at or over the cap, we should retain guys. Are you saying I'm wrong, just calling me lazy for kicks, or saying it's not possible that we're at or over the cap?

[BigSlam]

Read on Twitter

[yosemiteben]

Read on Twitter

How is this possible?

[BigSlam]

Read on Twitter

How is this possible?

Tae started as an assist guy with less scoring but has now morphed into more of a scorer than assist guy.

Walker was a big scorer, but not a huge assist guy.

Felton wasn’t really outstanding at either.

Knight was a huge assist guy but not a scorer at all.

I’d imagine LaMelo will have all sorts of these records soon enough.

[Robot Rock]

Like the signing. Hate the money. But it’s also for just three years and to me, it’s still a better deal than MKG, Marvin or Biz, all of whom are FAs after this season — correct?

Devonte Graham can’t play 48 mins for 82 games. Also plenty of folks at this time last year were talking about how Rozier carried the Celtics in the playoffs and Kemba’s never a No. 1. They switch teams and suddenly Kemba is covered like he’s a top-5 player and Rozier is suddenly Cory Higgins.

Somebody has to score points for this **** and I don’t think Mitch trusted Monk to do that. I hate that, but genuinely do think Rozier is far better than his stats last year on a team in disarray behind a star player who is a flat-earth truther and a degenerate malcontent.

I'm pretty proud of this take.

Have not batted 1.000 throughout history, but I kinda nailed it on this one. Couple others did, too.