BK_2020 wrote:soxfan2003 wrote:flintsky21 wrote:It's interesting how the Celtics FO, and most especially the ownership, will do moving forward. Can't recall if it was Wyc who said that if they feel they've got a championship team, that's the only time they'll go "all in." Obviously, the Celtics has proven to be that. You look at the Warriors and how they don't seem to hold back in ensuring that Steph got the best possible squad around him, overspending be damned. Obviously, something like taking a chance on Wiggs (who at a time was considered a top 3 worst contract in the league) is a huge risk, but it proved that the Warriors owners are not afraid to spend whatever it takes.
On the other hand, does this run make the Celtics just a tad more attractive to ring chasers? Otto Porter was a guy I hoped we got last offseason.
Andrew Wiggins was not a big risk at all IMO. I posted after the trade, the Warriors won that trade and Wiggins would fit much better than DLo and give them a chance to get back into championship contention.
viewtopic.php?p=81619962#p81619962
If anything taking on DLo was the much bigger risk since if that guy got hurt before being traded, it would have been a disaster for the Warriors. I knew all along that DLo was just acquired as trade bait. Warriors didn't even hide that fact. Wiggins is very durable and while he didn't play up to max contract status in MN, he still showed that he was very talented and he filled a big need on the Warriors (athletic wing). He was just misused and not worth a max contract since he hadn't proven it enough on the court and was signing a max deal a year early. All things considered including potential, Wiggins should have gotten a deal slightly better than Jaylen Brown's deal -- can't penalize Wiggins too much for playing with worse players -- or been forced to wait until after his 4th year before signing an extension. But by the time the Warriors acquired Wiggins, he was still super athletic and had already proven the he could defend at a fairly high level in the playoffs. MN put up a respectable showing vs a Houston team that should have beaten the Curry/KD/Klay/Green Warriors and Wiggins the first half of that series was their 2nd best player.
Wiggins was not a huge trade risk but he was a large financial commitment that not many teams could afford unless they were willing to go into the tax. With Wiggins the Warriors were getting out of max contract that didn't fit that well at all (DLo) and getting a top 10 pick.
The 3rd worst contract in the league was just by people overlooking situation and not realizing that it was never that bad because of his age/great durability and increasing contracts in general. John Wall is making 47 million next year while Wiggins will make 14-15 million less than that.
If you want to win a championship, Kemba Walker was a much worse contract, literally the day the Celtics signed him. And Celtics didn't get a top 10 pick for signing Kemba Walker.
Wiggins narrative is all kinds of wrong. When Wiggins signed his 5 year extension, he was coming off a 23.6-4-2.3 season on 97 TS+. The year before that he had averaged 20 ppg on 100 TS+. He was just 22.
Compare that to Jaylen Brown who was coming off a 13-4-1.6 season on 98 TS+ and was 23 years old. Maxing Wiggins was a no-brainer.
What really happened is Wiggins fell off hard after signing his extension. He stopped getting to the line and was at Antoine Walker-level efficiency a while until becoming a roleplayer.
Wiggins didn't fall off that much as a player, his numbers fell off since he had to adjust to a lesser role with Jimmy butler being added to the team. The year after Butler wasn't on the team much, he also started playing with some injuries that probably hurt his numbers a bit. He then returned to form his last half season in MN. His reduced free throws probably also a result of him no longer being number 1 scoring option or an emerging star.
IMO maxing Wiggins a year early was a bad decision based upon his trajectory...., he hadn't really improved much since his freshman season at KU other than get physically stronger after that first year in the NBA. Just look at his free throw shooting percentage. Higher at KU than his first 3 years in the NBA.
Yes, he improved from first year in NBA to his 2nd but I maintain 2nd year Wiggins and pretty much any other year after that Wiggins would have done virtually the same for Golden State as he did this season as long as he was healthy. Maybe slightly better or slightly worse but not radically different.
He hadn't improved much at all other than more usage between his 2nd and 3rd years. Same PER and slightly lower TS%. Again, I was still a believer in Wiggins all this time -- he just wasn't good enough shooter to be a #1 scoring option --- but just not at the max a year early.... His games against Lebron were promising but just not enough to be handing out a max a year early.
IMO NBA teams should be very careful handing out max contracts a year early. Even when MN signed Wiggins to the max it was really seriously questioned by nearly everyone since there wasn't enough upside for the Wolves and he could always get hurt. If I remember correctly, John Wall was signed a year early when it made no sense as well. Maybe the MN owner didn't want to repeat the Kevin Love situation but I don't think one should operate with fear.
It wasn't like Wiggins wasn't worth paying a lot from a risk/reward perspective. Something like 4/110 million may have been reasonable at that time which given NBA inflation is probably 10-12 more million than JB. That offer isn't an insult to Wiggins but would have still limited the Wolves risk. If Wiggins didn't sign it then you have to consider trading him since he still had good value even if it wasn't peak value.
Remember we are talking small market MN, not the high budget Warriors or some other team that can afford to have massive payrolls. It was also clear at the time, Wiggins wasn't fitting that great with Towns.
