Poll: Shane Larkin vs. Wanamaker

[rondofan1255]

[apc]

Shane, BUT we really haven’t seen enough of Wanamaker.

[RodyTur10]

Shane, BUT we really haven’t seen enough of Wanamaker.

That is clearly my view as well. We don't really know how good Wanamaker is.

[SHAQATTACK]

Shane, BUT we really haven’t seen enough of Wanamaker.

That is clearly my view as well. We don't really know how good Wanamaker is.

thats fair analysis.   

Larkin plays like a true point guard , pushing temp,  setting guys up,  he keeps the ball moving and usually only shoots the wide open shot .  Plus he has an ALL important feel for the game , like Smart ,  knows what CBS wants and does not show boat.  He had a knack for waking up a stuck offense .  i miss his game

[ozgod]

Haven’t seen enough of Wanamaker to say he’s better at this point. He’s clearly not noticeably worse though.

[Tr1boy]

Haven’t seen enough of Wanamaker to say he’s better at this point. He’s clearly not noticeably worse though.

+1

But is bigger, stronger and better capabilities for switch defense

He has looked decent thus far

[Chris22]

Wanamaker is better.

Better defender, and he is shooting 46% from three.

[otherdave]

It doesn't really matter because Shane and Brad were always destined to be "one year only" players.  Here is why:

Both were signed as non-drafted free agent rookies.  Let's use Brad as an example:  He will be a RFA after this season.  The C's have 2 options to resign him to a minimum deal:

1   A 1 yr deal at the 2 - year vet min that would give Brad a no-trade clause (C's do not want to be
        locked into a no trade provision with anyone at the end of the bench)
      
    or    
   
2    A multi year deal at the 4 - year vet min (This might be too expensive for C's given their luxury tax status)


It was the same 2 options in summer of 2018 with respect to re-signing Shane or not.     This is why C's didn't bring Shane Larkin back - it is cheaper and more flexible for C's to just to bring in someone new
each year from Euro leagues.

If C's keep all 4 of their potential first round picks in summer of 2019, it may not even be necessary to tap back into the Euro league market this summer.


Getting back to OP's question:  I prefer 6 ft 4 in Brad.  I have a real problem with players under 6 ft 2 in playing on my team in NBA: just too easy for other teams to create mismatches with a really short player.  The plan is for all the Celtic guards to stay relatively healthy and therefore have Brad play very limited minutes.  Brad has played very little and I am more than OK with that - hot dog everything is going to plan! (so far).
   

[KGs Knee]

I'm not terribly concerned about what happens with a couple of fringe players that barely add any value. They can pretty much be interchanged with any random replacement level player.

[Hoopvortex]

It doesn't really matter because Shane and Brad were always destined to be "one year only" players.  Here is why:

Both were signed as non-drafted free agent rookies.  Let's use Brad as an example:  He will be a RFA after this season.  The C's have 2 options to resign him to a minimum deal:

1   A 1 yr deal at the 2 - year vet min that would give Brad a no-trade clause (C's do not want to be
        locked into a no trade provision with anyone at the end of the bench)
      
    or    
   
2    A multi year deal at the 4 - year vet min (This might be too expensive for C's given their luxury tax
        status)


It was the same 2 options in summer of 2018 with respect to re-signing Shane or not.  This is why C's didn't bring Shane Larkin back - it is cheaper and more flexible for C's to just to bring in someone new each year from Euro leagues.

The team has an interest in building relationships with agents and players; and there's positive value in cultivating European connections. So despite the transient nature of these contracts, they are part of the long-term success of the franchise.

If C's keep all 4 of their potential first round picks in summer of 2019, it may not even be necessary to tap back into the Euro league market this summer.

The role of either Larkin or Wanamaker is "Break Glass  in  Case of Emergency" third-string point guard.  What they want at that position,  in other words, is someone with experience who can run an offense. That's different from the developmental slots that rookies would likely be in, precocious children like Tatum and Brown notwithstanding.

It's unlikely that Boston keeps two draft picks, let alone four.

Getting back to OP's question:  I prefer 6 ft 4 in Brad.  I have a real problem with players under 6 ft 2 in playing on my team in NBA: just too easy for other teams to create mismatches with a really short player.  The plan is for all the Celtic guards to stay relatively healthy and therefore have Brad play very limited minutes.  Brad has played very little and I am more than OK with that - hot dog everything is going to plan! (so far).

I agree. Though Brad doesn't have Larkin's fifth gear, you wonder if signing him is the Celtics Brass' reaction to watching Larkin get overpowered on D.  Wanamaker has a beautiful stroke, too...

[rondofan1255]

They reportedly wanted two years of team control, maybe that meant a team option like Theis?

The Celtics and Euroleague star Brad Wanamaker are close to finalizing a contract, as
@wojespn
 said.  According to a source, Boston is seeking a two-year deal and Wanamaker, a former Pitt star, is leaning toward one year. Either way, it’ll likely be done soon, possibly tomorrow

https://twitter.com/AdamHimmelsbach/status/1011334248916312064?s=20