Not signing Fournier…

[Roy H.]

Two things on this:

1) We made Fournier look really good by going under about 5 screens in a row for him.  Credit to him for making the wide open 3s, but man, I don’t understand that.  Know your opponent, especially when he was your teammate 5 months ago.

2) We effectively chose between Richardson and Schröder over Fournier.  Let’s maybe let Richardson play a game?

I'd take Fournier for Richardson and Schroder in a heartbeat.  And we signed Schroder well after we let Fournier walk, so I don't understand why you would lump him into this.

And the thing is, we could have acquired Fournier, Richardson and Schroder and still had a payroll in line with small market teams like the Jazz and the Bucks.

[Vermont Green]

I am sure that this will keep coming up as the season goes on, should we have signed Fournier.  The way I look at it is we had an ample opportunity to see him play on our team in regular season and playoff games and he was not all that good.  He had 25 shots last night for the Knicks to get his 32 points.  He doesn't get 25 shots on the Celtics.  It is not what we need.    Granted, his shots total was inflated some due to the double OT but his role on the Knicks is better suited to him likely than what his role would have been for us.

I don't think Fournier would be a game changer for us.  He wasn't for a half a season and probably would not have been going forward.  He is a good player.  I expected him to be a better fit last season than he was, but he wasn't.  I suppose we could have signed him if we wanted (you never know) and used the TPE on someone other than Richardson (I see no value in having both).  I would not have been unhappy with that but we didn't and I don't think that is a big deal.  This idea of a "third scorer" seems to be everyone's concern.  We scored 116 pts in regulation without Richardson and Horford.  How was lack of a "third scorer" a problem?   I am sure there will nights where we have some trouble scoring but I am not that worried.

[Vermont Green]

Two things on this:

1) We made Fournier look really good by going under about 5 screens in a row for him.  Credit to him for making the wide open 3s, but man, I don’t understand that.  Know your opponent, especially when he was your teammate 5 months ago.

2) We effectively chose between Richardson and Schröder over Fournier.  Let’s maybe let Richardson play a game?

I'd take Fournier for Richardson and Schroder in a heartbeat.  And we signed Schroder well after we let Fournier walk, so I don't understand why you would lump him into this.

And the thing is, we could have acquired Fournier, Richardson and Schroder and still had a payroll in line with small market teams like the Jazz and the Bucks.

It becomes more of a minutes thing, not a cap thing.  We don't have enough minutes now for Richardson, Schroder, Smart, Langford, Nesmith, add another wing and it makes a log jam even worse.  I don't feel it is realistic to think we could have just signed on everyone.  If we had signed Fournier, you have to give him starter minutes and we definitely don't need Richardson and maybe don't take Schroder either.  Smart would then be the full time PG since all the SG minutes would be taken by Brown and Fournier.  That roster would have been fine also but I don't see it as way better or some huge missed opportunity.  It may or may not have even been a little better.

[JBcat]

Yes, we should have kept him.  He’s on a reasonable contract, and he can play.  He’s fairly one dimensional, but we could really use that one dimension.

Yeah that one dimension, when his shots are falling, is about the most important dimensions you can have.

Honestly the Knicks may be a better spot for EF than the C's.  If Kemba play keeps falling off a cliff, EF might be more happy being a #2 to Randle, versus a #3 to JT/JB.

I’d like to give Fournier more credit than that.  He had a really nice drive up and under move against one of our bigs in the first half.  I think there is enough diversity in his scoring to not call him 1 dimensional.

[Roy H.]

Two things on this:

1) We made Fournier look really good by going under about 5 screens in a row for him.  Credit to him for making the wide open 3s, but man, I don’t understand that.  Know your opponent, especially when he was your teammate 5 months ago.

2) We effectively chose between Richardson and Schröder over Fournier.  Let’s maybe let Richardson play a game?

I'd take Fournier for Richardson and Schroder in a heartbeat.  And we signed Schroder well after we let Fournier walk, so I don't understand why you would lump him into this.

And the thing is, we could have acquired Fournier, Richardson and Schroder and still had a payroll in line with small market teams like the Jazz and the Bucks.

It becomes more of a minutes thing, not a cap thing.  We don't have enough minutes now for Richardson, Schroder, Smart, Langford, Nesmith, add another wing and it makes a log jam even worse.  I don't feel it is realistic to think we could have just signed on everyone.  If we had signed Fournier, you have to give him starter minutes and we definitely don't need Richardson and maybe don't take Schroder either.  Smart would then be the full time PG since all the SG minutes would be taken by Brown and Fournier.  That roster would have been fine also but I don't see it as way better or some huge missed opportunity.  It may or may not have even been a little better.

When you get a chance to sign a 19 ppg scorer and elite floor spacer for less than half of the max, you should do it.  If that means we passed on Richardson and kept Brown, then so be it. 

[JBcat]

I am sure that this will keep coming up as the season goes on, should we have signed Fournier.  The way I look at it is we had an ample opportunity to see him play on our team in regular season and playoff games and he was not all that good.  He had 25 shots last night for the Knicks to get his 32 points.  He doesn't get 25 shots on the Celtics.  It is not what we need.    Granted, his shots total was inflated some due to the double OT but his role on the Knicks is better suited to him likely than what his role would have been for us.

I don't think Fournier would be a game changer for us.  He wasn't for a half a season and probably would not have been going forward.  He is a good player.  I expected him to be a better fit last season than he was, but he wasn't.  I suppose we could have signed him if we wanted (you never know) and used the TPE on someone other than Richardson (I see no value in having both).  I would not have been unhappy with that but we didn't and I don't think that is a big deal.  This idea of a "third scorer" seems to be everyone's concern.  We scored 116 pts in regulation without Richardson and Horford.  How was lack of a "third scorer" a problem?   I am sure there will nights where we have some trouble scoring but I am not that worried.

After obtaining Fournier last season he got COVID, and it seemed to affect him somewhat to what degree who knows but I think he was dealing with migraines.  I wanted to see what he looked like on our team after a full offseason, and he wanted to come back. Oh well, at least we have the 17 mil trade exception.

[Roy H.]

I am sure that this will keep coming up as the season goes on, should we have signed Fournier.  The way I look at it is we had an ample opportunity to see him play on our team in regular season and playoff games and he was not all that good.  He had 25 shots last night for the Knicks to get his 32 points.  He doesn't get 25 shots on the Celtics.  It is not what we need.    Granted, his shots total was inflated some due to the double OT but his role on the Knicks is better suited to him likely than what his role would have been for us.

I don't think Fournier would be a game changer for us.  He wasn't for a half a season and probably would not have been going forward.  He is a good player.  I expected him to be a better fit last season than he was, but he wasn't.  I suppose we could have signed him if we wanted (you never know) and used the TPE on someone other than Richardson (I see no value in having both).  I would not have been unhappy with that but we didn't and I don't think that is a big deal.  This idea of a "third scorer" seems to be everyone's concern.  We scored 116 pts in regulation without Richardson and Horford.  How was lack of a "third scorer" a problem?   I am sure there will nights where we have some trouble scoring but I am not that worried.

After obtaining Fournier last season he got COVID, and it seemed to affect him somewhat to what degree who knows but I think he was dealing with migraines.  I wanted to see what he looked like on our team after a full offseason, and he wanted to come back. Oh well, at least we have the 17 mil trade exception.

Yeah, he was struggling with vision problems and he still shot almost 50% from three for us.

[Moranis]

Boston went to double OT on the road against a team that was a top 4 seed last year in a game where Tatum was 7 of 30 overall and 2 of 15 from 3 and in which Horford and Richardson were unavailable to play.  Let that sink in and remember it is 1 game.  No need to overreact.   

Do you know who would be helpful to have on nights when Tatum isn’t hitting his shots?

Evan Fournier.

So would Richardson and Horford though. 

[Moranis]

Two things on this:

1) We made Fournier look really good by going under about 5 screens in a row for him.  Credit to him for making the wide open 3s, but man, I don’t understand that.  Know your opponent, especially when he was your teammate 5 months ago.

2) We effectively chose between Richardson and Schröder over Fournier.  Let’s maybe let Richardson play a game?

I'd take Fournier for Richardson and Schroder in a heartbeat.  And we signed Schroder well after we let Fournier walk, so I don't understand why you would lump him into this.

And the thing is, we could have acquired Fournier, Richardson and Schroder and still had a payroll in line with small market teams like the Jazz and the Bucks.

That doesn't make sense from a roster construction standpoint at all.  Too many players at the same position and not nearly enough minutes.  As is, there is a minutes problem, Fournier would only compound that.  There is no way the team would have had Fournier and Richardson, it just didn't make sense.  Ultimately though, Boston determined it was only keeping 1 of Smart and Fournier, and the team probably correctly chose Smart.

[Big333223]

1 game

This. 1 game where he had extra motivation to show up against the team that didn't think he was worth the money.

We probably should've tried harder to resign him but I'm not ready to call this one a loss.

[Rosco917]

1 whole game, wow that didn't take long, with hind sight being 20-20, maybe we take a look in ten games or so?

Amazing how easy it is to spend OPM.

[footey]

Two things on this:

1) We made Fournier look really good by going under about 5 screens in a row for him.  Credit to him for making the wide open 3s, but man, I don’t understand that.  Know your opponent, especially when he was your teammate 5 months ago.

2) We effectively chose between Richardson and Schröder over Fournier.  Let’s maybe let Richardson play a game?

I'd take Fournier for Richardson and Schroder in a heartbeat.  And we signed Schroder well after we let Fournier walk, so I don't understand why you would lump him into this.

And the thing is, we could have acquired Fournier, Richardson and Schroder and still had a payroll in line with small market teams like the Jazz and the Bucks.

That doesn't make sense from a roster construction standpoint at all.  Too many players at the same position and not nearly enough minutes.  As is, there is a minutes problem, Fournier would only compound that.  There is no way the team would have had Fournier and Richardson, it just didn't make sense.  Ultimately though, Boston determined it was only keeping 1 of Smart and Fournier, and the team probably correctly chose Smart.

Call me crazy but I prefer winning games with elite shooters/scorers over roster construction.  Especially on nights where our star player can't hit the ocean.

[Vermont Green]

I am sure that this will keep coming up as the season goes on, should we have signed Fournier.  The way I look at it is we had an ample opportunity to see him play on our team in regular season and playoff games and he was not all that good.  He had 25 shots last night for the Knicks to get his 32 points.  He doesn't get 25 shots on the Celtics.  It is not what we need.    Granted, his shots total was inflated some due to the double OT but his role on the Knicks is better suited to him likely than what his role would have been for us.

I don't think Fournier would be a game changer for us.  He wasn't for a half a season and probably would not have been going forward.  He is a good player.  I expected him to be a better fit last season than he was, but he wasn't.  I suppose we could have signed him if we wanted (you never know) and used the TPE on someone other than Richardson (I see no value in having both).  I would not have been unhappy with that but we didn't and I don't think that is a big deal.  This idea of a "third scorer" seems to be everyone's concern.  We scored 116 pts in regulation without Richardson and Horford.  How was lack of a "third scorer" a problem?   I am sure there will nights where we have some trouble scoring but I am not that worried.

After obtaining Fournier last season he got COVID, and it seemed to affect him somewhat to what degree who knows but I think he was dealing with migraines.  I wanted to see what he looked like on our team after a full offseason, and he wanted to come back. Oh well, at least we have the 17 mil trade exception.

I understand, there was context.  We had him for 16 games plus whatever number of practices.  That is still a pretty good look.  More would be better.  I just think it is an over reaction to every time we lose a game to say oh we would be so much better if we had only signed Evan Fournier.  He is a good player but doesn't make or break our team.

I didn't know that Fournier had migraines.  Funny that Richardson missed a game due to migraines.  What is up with migraines?

[Moranis]

Two things on this:

1) We made Fournier look really good by going under about 5 screens in a row for him.  Credit to him for making the wide open 3s, but man, I don’t understand that.  Know your opponent, especially when he was your teammate 5 months ago.

2) We effectively chose between Richardson and Schröder over Fournier.  Let’s maybe let Richardson play a game?

I'd take Fournier for Richardson and Schroder in a heartbeat.  And we signed Schroder well after we let Fournier walk, so I don't understand why you would lump him into this.

And the thing is, we could have acquired Fournier, Richardson and Schroder and still had a payroll in line with small market teams like the Jazz and the Bucks.

That doesn't make sense from a roster construction standpoint at all.  Too many players at the same position and not nearly enough minutes.  As is, there is a minutes problem, Fournier would only compound that.  There is no way the team would have had Fournier and Richardson, it just didn't make sense.  Ultimately though, Boston determined it was only keeping 1 of Smart and Fournier, and the team probably correctly chose Smart.

Call me crazy but I prefer winning games with elite shooters/scorers over roster construction.  Especially on nights where our star player can't hit the ocean.

So you don't want Langford to play at all.  No development from him.  Nesmith and Pritchard reduced a lot as well. 

If Boston was actually competing for a title, then maybe you don't worry about developing the young guys, but Boston isn't competing for a title this year, so you need to develop the young guys.

[footey]

Two things on this:

1) We made Fournier look really good by going under about 5 screens in a row for him.  Credit to him for making the wide open 3s, but man, I don’t understand that.  Know your opponent, especially when he was your teammate 5 months ago.

2) We effectively chose between Richardson and Schröder over Fournier.  Let’s maybe let Richardson play a game?

I'd take Fournier for Richardson and Schroder in a heartbeat.  And we signed Schroder well after we let Fournier walk, so I don't understand why you would lump him into this.

And the thing is, we could have acquired Fournier, Richardson and Schroder and still had a payroll in line with small market teams like the Jazz and the Bucks.

That doesn't make sense from a roster construction standpoint at all.  Too many players at the same position and not nearly enough minutes.  As is, there is a minutes problem, Fournier would only compound that.  There is no way the team would have had Fournier and Richardson, it just didn't make sense.  Ultimately though, Boston determined it was only keeping 1 of Smart and Fournier, and the team probably correctly chose Smart.

Call me crazy but I prefer winning games with elite shooters/scorers over roster construction.  Especially on nights where our star player can't hit the ocean.

So you don't want Langford to play at all.  No development from him.  Nesmith and Pritchard reduced a lot as well. 

If Boston was actually competing for a title, then maybe you don't worry about developing the young guys, but Boston isn't competing for a title this year, so you need to develop the young guys.

I see your point, but I think Fournier addition, along with Horford and healthy Rob is a recipe for a very competitive team.  Plus how can you argue Evan taking minutes away from them. Doesn't Richardson create same issue?  Personally, I would have favored playing the two J's, Fournier and one of Nesmith and Romeo (the other coming off bench) along with a center rotation of Rob and Al.  Tatum seems better suited to play power forward in my opinion.  Water under the bridge.