CelticsStrong

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Tr1boy on November 11, 2017, 12:10:45 PM

Title: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Tr1boy on November 11, 2017, 12:10:45 PM
From 1 to 10 is he??

Chris Gasper thinks even if he keeps shooting less than 40 percent from the field (which is a clown show now btw) . Smart will be able to still command 20 million a year due to his defense, intangibles and 4th quarter intensity.

At this price tag, it will be very difficult to keep him long term.  Any NBA team can only really pay 3 max players .  Don't forget we will need to worry about Brown and Tatum next contract sooner than later

So the question is, is Smart replaceable?  (via Semi, Rozier etc)  .  If not how does this all play out?
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: KGs Knee on November 11, 2017, 12:13:55 PM
Smart isn't going to get offers anywhere near $20mil per year. Maybe half that.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: CelticD on November 11, 2017, 12:24:07 PM
There's no way this guy could command 20m a year for just his defense alone. He has no defensive accolades, and his only notable accolade is the 2nd All-rookie team in a weak draft class.

He's shooting under 30% from both the 3-point line AND the field so far this season. Is there any precedent for a wing player that only plays defense to get that kind of money despite shooting THIS historically bad?

In terms of "Is he replaceable"? I'd say he'd be irreplaceable if he didn't maximize his weaknesses by shooting so dang much, but as of right now, if the C's don't re-sign him I wouldn't shed a tear.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: kozlodoev on November 11, 2017, 12:27:20 PM
Chris Gasper thinks even if he keeps shooting less than 40 percent from the field (which is a clown show now btw) . Smart will be able to still command 20 million a year due to his defense, intangibles and 4th quarter intensity.
Chris Gasper pays attention to basketball? But it's not the NBA finals yet...

Also, it's worth noting that Smart's "new and improved" shooting this season has him struggling to reach the 30%, not the 40% mark. That's from the field, not from three.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: RJ87 on November 11, 2017, 12:32:13 PM
I think Phoenix is gonna throw a lot of money at him, will it be $20m? Idk. But he makes sense from a basketball standpoint and they will have the money to spend.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Tr1boy on November 11, 2017, 12:33:39 PM
Chris Gasper thinks even if he keeps shooting less than 40 percent from the field (which is a clown show now btw) . Smart will be able to still command 20 million a year due to his defense, intangibles and 4th quarter intensity.
Chris Gasper pays attention to basketball? But it's not the NBA finals yet...

Also, it's worth noting that Smart's "new and improved" shooting this season has him struggling to reach the 30%, not the 40% mark. That's from the field, not from three.

he "looks" better shooting the ball though

when he is wide open he looks like he makes it more often than not

in the past you didn't know what was coming

but yes, overall stat wise its the same broken record
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: GreenGoggles on November 11, 2017, 12:35:32 PM
Smart is averaging the most shots per game of his career and shooting a career low. He is not an NBA player on offense.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Tr1boy on November 11, 2017, 12:36:50 PM
There's no way this guy could command 20m a year for just his defense alone. He has no defensive accolades, and his only notable accolade is the 2nd All-rookie team in a weak draft class.

He's shooting under 30% from both the 3-point line AND the field so far this season. Is there any precedent for a wing player that only plays defense to get that kind of money despite shooting THIS historically bad?

In terms of "Is he replaceable"? I'd say he'd be irreplaceable if he didn't maximize his weaknesses by shooting so dang much, but as of right now, if the C's don't re-sign him I wouldn't shed a tear.

First for everything lol

Dummy Memphis threw millions at a guy riding a wheelchair pretty much (Parsons)

I think a team like Brooklyn will have no problems throwing this money at smart. Also be a nice revenge type signing.   I can see them try to pry off Smart, Rozier, Brown, Tatum etc.

Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: IDreamCeltics on November 11, 2017, 12:38:18 PM
I actually think this is a great opportunity to resign Smart. 

Yes, defense first point guard is the most replaceable position, BUT Smart is 3 years into his NBA career.  That's 3 years of playing competitive NBA basketball.  While the statistics aren't bearing out his improvement you can see in his game a lot of minor adjustments and improvements that are going to eventually add up.

It's not like he's a joke, he was just ALWAYS a long term project on offense.  People who are tired of waiting now just made the mistake of overhyping his potential.  If, and I mean IF, the Celtics can resign him at an all time low in what the league accepts as his value and "potential" I'm all for it.  Guys like Smart find ways to stay relevant in the NBA, maybe his offense won't bloom until he can't take over games defensively anymore, but at some point it will and suddenly you'll have a good defensive guard with strong passing skills and some offense who has spent half a decade under the best coach in the NBA.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: kozlodoev on November 11, 2017, 12:39:57 PM
Chris Gasper thinks even if he keeps shooting less than 40 percent from the field (which is a clown show now btw) . Smart will be able to still command 20 million a year due to his defense, intangibles and 4th quarter intensity.
Chris Gasper pays attention to basketball? But it's not the NBA finals yet...

Also, it's worth noting that Smart's "new and improved" shooting this season has him struggling to reach the 30%, not the 40% mark. That's from the field, not from three.

he "looks" better shooting the ball though

when he is wide open he looks like he makes it more often than not

in the past you didn't know what was coming

but yes, overall stat wise its the same broken record
Nope.

His EFG hovers around 45% when open/wide open (no-one within 4 feet). Virtually the same as last season.

The new NBA advanced stats are a wonderful thing.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Tr1boy on November 11, 2017, 12:48:25 PM
I actually think this is a great opportunity to resign Smart. 

Yes, defense first point guard is the most replaceable position, BUT Smart is 3 years into his NBA career.  That's 3 years of playing competitive NBA basketball.  While the statistics aren't bearing out his improvement you can see in his game a lot of minor adjustments and improvements that are going to eventually add up.

It's not like he's a joke, he was just ALWAYS a long term project on offense.  People who are tired of waiting now just made the mistake of overhyping his potential.  If, and I mean IF, the Celtics can resign him at an all time low in what the league accepts as his value and "potential" I'm all for it.  Guys like Smart find ways to stay relevant in the NBA, maybe his offense won't bloom until he can't take over games defensively anymore, but at some point it will and suddenly you'll have a good defensive guard with strong passing skills and some offense who has spent half a decade under the best coach in the NBA.

Danny tried

If Danny offered him 10 million a season and he said no..... understandable

if Danny was closer to 13-14 million per season and he said no....

well he must be confident he can get closer to 20 million per season from some foolish team

Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: positivitize on November 11, 2017, 12:50:26 PM
Nope, he's not replaceable. Resigning both Smart and Baynes need to be the #1 and #2 priorities this offseason. Hopefully, his low percentages will make it possible.

I read http://celticsgreen.blogspot.com's Comments from the Other Side after almost every game. 100% of the time, there are comments about how the opposing team hates playing against Smart. 80% of the time, there's a response saying that Smart's the kind of guy you hate to play against but love to have on your team. 75% of the time there's a comment saying "I wish Smart were on our team" or something like that. Smart is a coveted player, no matter how bad his offense is.

So my answer to your question is 2 or 9, depending on if high or low is Irreplaceable.

Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: DefenseWinsChamps on November 11, 2017, 12:50:44 PM
Why do you think we have Rozier, Bird, and Allen?

To make smart expendable. I’m almost ready to sell my smart stock.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: ImShakHeIsShaq on November 11, 2017, 12:56:46 PM
I actually think this is a great opportunity to resign Smart. 

Yes, defense first point guard is the most replaceable position, BUT Smart is 3 years into his NBA career.  That's 3 years of playing competitive NBA basketball.  While the statistics aren't bearing out his improvement you can see in his game a lot of minor adjustments and improvements that are going to eventually add up.

It's not like he's a joke, he was just ALWAYS a long term project on offense.  People who are tired of waiting now just made the mistake of overhyping his potential.  If, and I mean IF, the Celtics can resign him at an all time low in what the league accepts as his value and "potential" I'm all for it.  Guys like Smart find ways to stay relevant in the NBA, maybe his offense won't bloom until he can't take over games defensively anymore, but at some point it will and suddenly you'll have a good defensive guard with strong passing skills and some offense who has spent half a decade under the best coach in the NBA.


This is year 4 but it is still early and he is young.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: BringToughnessBack on November 11, 2017, 12:57:03 PM
He brings so much to the table on the Defensive and intensity side. He is the kind of guy you want going into war with you and for playoffs, an important piece of our cog. However, I would not let him be shooting the canyon in the war. We do need a few stoppers on our side for playoffs though to put on opposing team stars. Those kind of players don't grow on trees.

When a horrible shooter has a shooters mentality, think A. Walker with threes but a thousand times worse, we have a problem. I wish he would focus on improving his passing even more to increase assists and lower shots per game. His value could approach 15M for us if he did that.

Only shoot when he is wide, wide open and that is if there another player who is not also wide open who shoots better for him to pass to.

AT 20M with current offensive shooting problems, that would be a crippling signing and not one I want any part of right now. At least with Avery Bradley and even Tony Allen from years ago, there was potential for improvement in shooting. I have not seen that yet and that is most likely because he is shooting some wild shots and not showing discipline.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: keevsnick on November 11, 2017, 01:01:27 PM
There is no way in hell Smart is commanding 20 milion a year. None. Zero. Not Happening. I think its highly likely we tried shopping him this off-season when we were trying to clear cap room, and couldnt find anybody who was willing to send us back value. So why do we think he's getting highly paid. Forget 40%, he's barely shooting 30%. I Like Smart for his hustle, attitude, defense, for the role he plays. That makes him a role player. Can you find smeone who replicates EXACTLY what he gives you, no probably not. But guys who give you similar all around value are not hard to find.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Stig on November 11, 2017, 01:04:12 PM
From 1 to 10 is he??

Chris Gasper thinks even if he keeps shooting less than 40 percent from the field (which is a clown show now btw) . Smart will be able to still command 20 million a year due to his defense, intangibles and 4th quarter intensity.

At this price tag, it will be very difficult to keep him long term.  Any NBA team can only really pay 3 max players .  Don't forget we will need to worry about Brown and Tatum next contract sooner than later

So the question is, is Smart replaceable?  (via Semi, Rozier etc)  .  If not how does this all play out?


Don't think he's worth anywhere near 20m, that's a price tag for a player like Avery Bradley, who's a recognised defensive player, with a pretty good offensive game. I think Smart is more like 12-14m.

Having said that I won't be surprised if some team like the Nets will throw him a short term 20m contract.

In comparison, Evan turner got 17m by doing:
10.5p, 4.9r, 4.4a, 46%, 24%

Smart's stats so far is:
9.3p, 4.3r, 5.5a, 29%, 28%

Turner does not have the same impact on defence but is more efficient. The Evan Turner contract is terrible, hopefully teams have learnt and won't bid to overpay Smart.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: vjcsmoke on November 11, 2017, 01:15:02 PM
10m per yes, sign him up today!

20m per NO WAY!  Sorry but we can't pay that much for a 1 dimensional player.  Even if his dimension on defense is really quite good.

Smart is shooting a putrid 30% from the field.  I like the kid, but I can't see us paying 20 large to keep him.

That is close to MAX, and he's not even close to a max player.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: mctyson on November 11, 2017, 01:19:44 PM
Smart isn't going to get offers anywhere near $20mil per year. Maybe half that.

I think you are dramatically underrating the fact that he can basically defend anyone in the NBA.  If Kelly Olynyk gets $12 per, Smart is easily $15 at his current offensive output.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: mctyson on November 11, 2017, 01:21:10 PM
And to answer the question - yes he is replaceable.  He is not Lebron or Steph Curry.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Csfan1984 on November 11, 2017, 01:25:38 PM
I'd guess he is a $12-15 million per year player. His shooting is terrible but he does everything else at an above average level. I can't image he gets more than that any where unless he goes nuts in the playoffs. We have seen guys with good playoff runs get a huge payday.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: JBcat on November 11, 2017, 01:28:58 PM
Why do you think we have Rozier, Bird, and Allen?

To make smart expendable. I’m almost ready to sell my smart stock.

It would be nice if Bird becomes the real thing, and be a backup 2.  He can play D and he can shoot! 
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Rosco917 on November 11, 2017, 01:40:14 PM
Hopefully Smart will except a contract for what he is realistically worth, and remain with the Celtics.

The realization is that not all basketball players can improve their shooting, not everyone can be Avery Bradly and practice their way into becoming a reliable outside shooter. Some players simply have limited shooting ability, Marcus may be one.

Marcus has other intangibles that drive his net worth. These intangibles are infectious to other players, especially young players. 

I'm hoping we're able to find a way to sign him to a reasonable contract.

Is he replaceable?... a begrudging, yes. 
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: IDreamCeltics on November 11, 2017, 02:06:08 PM
I didn't realize when I originally posted that people thought the floor for his contract would be 10 million a year... If that's the minimum he's worth then there's no way the Celtics can resign him.

If he was willing to make between 6-7.8 million per season that would be a deal the Celtics could work around, but looking at their salary numbers and knowing they'll soon have to resign Brown, Rozier, and Kyrie there's absolutely no way they can afford to pay Smart 10 million a year or more. They already have about 84 million a year locked up in just Hayward, Horford, and Irving.  Unless the cap balloons signing Smart to a 8 figure contract is an impossibility.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: DefenseWinsChamps on November 11, 2017, 02:17:37 PM
He is replaceable.

But in defense, I do think this year has been different so far. He has missed a lot of shots, but he's not missing like previous years. He is missing slight short or long, not left or right. He's taking good shots (for the most part) and he is getting good shots for the team.

There won't be a lot of money available for his next off-season. Is a team gonna take a chance on him? I seriously doubt it, even though he does have good upside.

That leaves two options: 1) Ainge offers a Jae Crowder contract (something like 5 years for 45 million under today's cap), banking that. like Crowder, Smart's percentages will rise as he gets more comfortable in his role. Or 2) Smart accepts the qualifying offer and plays another year for us at a reasonable contract, then becomes an UFA in 2019.

The problem with option 2 is that there is less money to throw around now and Smart is not a cornerstone piece. For example, Noel is likely to get less next off-season than he would have this off-season from the Mavs. Will Smart learn from this and take the security?
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Tr1boy on November 11, 2017, 02:21:22 PM
10m per yes, sign him up today!

20m per NO WAY!  Sorry but we can't pay that much for a 1 dimensional player.  Even if his dimension on defense is really quite good.

Smart is shooting a putrid 30% from the field.  I like the kid, but I can't see us paying 20 large to keep him.

That is close to MAX, and he's not even close to a max player.

But Smart says no thanks

He knows that he is worth more than 10 million a season

look at the contracts KO and James Johnson received..... 

Or Evan Turner received

its unbelievable

I would take Smart any day over these guys ... i think most teams would as well... he has built a rep around the league...for all of his crap, at the end of the day he is a winner
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Tr1boy on November 11, 2017, 02:23:17 PM
What would help is... If Horford, GH, Irving are willing to take a discount... how KD has (not that greedy bum Curry)

Curry is not greedy, he is getting what he deserves, but he also can't complain that he has to work more or why the team lacks depth from the bench..... 
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: jayk009 on November 11, 2017, 02:24:23 PM
I say he gets around 15 million a season.

Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Rhyso on November 11, 2017, 02:26:42 PM
You can't diminish his value by calling Smart a role player and just switch him out for Rozier or something. Considering the now guard dominant league, wing defensive stoppers are the modern day rim protectors. You see it in the finals all the time where a player like Artest or TA neutralize a player like Pierce or Kobe. He doesn't have the accolades yet but I would expect them to start coming this year.

Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Atzar on November 11, 2017, 02:27:46 PM
Yes, he's replaceable.  In fact, I'm not sure he's even good.

He's a very good defender who can defend three, sometimes four positions.  He can rebound, and he's an adequate floor general with the ball in his hands.  But his inability to score is such a negative that I don't think he's ultimately a key asset.  A minor one, sure.  But he's a backup guard, and I think we can find other decent backup guards for MLE money.  So unless Smart himself is willing to take that sort of contract, I think we should look elsewhere. 
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Tr1boy on November 11, 2017, 02:30:50 PM
I say he gets around 15 million a season.

I say this is fair (a few millions too much though)

but then you still have to worry about extending Kyrie ...in a blink of an eye Brown and Tatum

Is it fair to say these 3 are the future future and should be the focus?
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on November 11, 2017, 02:43:41 PM
Sure is.

If we can find someone else who can rebound well, distribute the ball, run the offense, rebound IN TRAFFIC - among the trees, bring guile and toughness then sure bring em in.

EDIT - forgot drawing charges. Sure his flops are HILARIOUS, but wasn't he among the team leaders in charges drawn?
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Csfan1984 on November 11, 2017, 02:44:50 PM
Smart can be traded later down the line to open up cap so dont feel signing him effects the ability to resign other guys. What is an issue is if he is overpaid too much and the contract is then difficult to move if we do want to move him.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Tr1boy on November 11, 2017, 02:48:21 PM
Sure is.

If we can find someone else who can rebound well, distribute the ball, run the offense, rebound IN TRAFFIC - among the trees, bring guile and toughness then sure bring em in.

EDIT - forgot drawing charges. Sure his flops are HILARIOUS, but wasn't he among the team leaders in charges drawn?

yup

he will sacrifice his body , to win. He will fight the likes of Dwight Howard. Whatever it takes

People around the league and other fans thinks he is crazy
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Csfan1984 on November 11, 2017, 02:55:15 PM
I say he gets around 15 million a season.

I say this is fair (a few millions too much though)

but then you still have to worry about extending Kyrie ...in a blink of an eye Brown and Tatum

Is it fair to say these 3 are the future future and should be the focus?
Tatum and Irving I buy into now and long term as the team's future. Brown, not yet.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on November 11, 2017, 03:12:03 PM
Just watched some replays / highlights of our GREAT win last night.

Looks like Marcus was in middle of nearly everything we were doing in that win.

He defended Kemba Walker on that last shot - and he missed.

I saw him leading the break - setting up teammates.

I saw him with a CRUCIAL basket in the last 30-40 secs.

He is the Shaquille O'Neal of basketball right now - sure, Shaq did not shoot his FT's very well, BUT he ALWAYS seemed to make em when they counted.

Same with Marcus....dude can seemingly go 1-20 FG BUT that ONE make is an IMPORTANT one.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: SHAQATTACK on November 11, 2017, 03:18:37 PM
he does " smart " things .  Every game .   He is always looking for the " edge ". ..push the boundaries of legal , .same as KG used to .....anyway to get under the skin of a moron like Howard ....use him..., the little play that kills the opponent , confuses , demoralizing plays ,  impossible rebounds , put backs , CBS special plays guy.  There is one of these guys on NFL teams , somebody to bustbup the opponents teams plays and concentration.   Glue guy .   Forget point formthe milionith time , not about him shooting like Kyrie ,   we got him for that.   You keep Smart around to mold the team , he is worth alot to this team.  He and Morris and Theis will do the dirty work , you don't want your stars to do.      Smart nearly got Howard tossed out of the game .  Howard did not yell too much at the offical , but it was obviously a set up by Smart . 
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Androslav on November 11, 2017, 03:28:23 PM
Just watched some replays / highlights of our GREAT win last night.

Looks like Marcus was in middle of nearly everything we were doing in that win.

He defended Kemba Walker on that last shot - and he missed.

I saw him leading the break - setting up teammates.

I saw him with a CRUCIAL basket in the last 30-40 secs.

He is the Shaquille O'Neal of basketball right now - sure, Shaq did not shoot his FT's very well, BUT he ALWAYS seemed to make em when they counted.

Same with Marcus....dude can seemingly go 1-20 FG BUT that ONE make is an IMPORTANT one.
It was a great defense possesion by Morris @9:00.
https://youtu.be/oLpT0_al45c

Smart can make some defensive plays that are unheard of. But my fear with him is that when we play the very best teams, that are abnormaly good these days, we won't be able to score with them.
Making him essentialy a role player, great role player at that. Also not saying he wouldn't start for some teams. And role players are very often replecable.
I think he regrets that he didn't sign a deal if it was more than 10 mils $ per year already. Presuming the one was in the table in the first place.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: CelticsElite on November 11, 2017, 03:32:04 PM
Why do people refer to smart or Morris as "marcus?" they both play similarly tough so it's hard to distinguish which Marcus is being discussed
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on November 11, 2017, 03:38:38 PM
Just watched some replays / highlights of our GREAT win last night.

Looks like Marcus was in middle of nearly everything we were doing in that win.

He defended Kemba Walker on that last shot - and he missed.

I saw him leading the break - setting up teammates.

I saw him with a CRUCIAL basket in the last 30-40 secs.

He is the Shaquille O'Neal of basketball right now - sure, Shaq did not shoot his FT's very well, BUT he ALWAYS seemed to make em when they counted.

Same with Marcus....dude can seemingly go 1-20 FG BUT that ONE make is an IMPORTANT one.
It was a great defense possesion by Morris @9:00.
https://youtu.be/oLpT0_al45c

Marcus can make some defensive plays that are unheard of. But my fear with him is that when we play the very best teams, that are abnormaly good these days, we won't be able to score with them.
Making him essentialy a role player, great role player at that. Also not saying he wouldn't start for some teams. And role players are very often replecable.
I think he regrets that he didn't sign a deal if it was more than 10 mils $ per year already. Presuming the one was in the table in the first place.

You're right - good catch and GREAT plays by MM. Glad to see him back.

I get what you are saying, but we'd better be VERY careful about letting Marcus go. Sure - he and Danny will need to get on same page but Smart is extremely valuable to us - in more ways than just scoring.

And he DOES show up in big games....how about his 20 pts in the playoff game VS ATL a couple of years ago....defending PAUL MILSAP and slowing him down somewhat..
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: nickagneta on November 11, 2017, 03:39:05 PM
Smart is very replaceable. His defense is great but his iffense is putrid and in today's NBA, offense with some defense is much more needed than defense with bad offense.

I fully expect Ainge to trade Smart at the deadline or let him walk next off season, especially if the LA pick conveys. Smart is going to be demanding money that will cost even more because it will most likely throw us into luxury tax land. Rozier can take over Smart's role next year.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: CelticD on November 11, 2017, 03:42:21 PM
Just watched some replays / highlights of our GREAT win last night.

Looks like Marcus was in middle of nearly everything we were doing in that win.

He defended Kemba Walker on that last shot - and he missed.

I saw him leading the break - setting up teammates.

I saw him with a CRUCIAL basket in the last 30-40 secs.

He is the Shaquille O'Neal of basketball right now - sure, Shaq did not shoot his FT's very well, BUT he ALWAYS seemed to make em when they counted.

Same with Marcus....dude can seemingly go 1-20 FG BUT that ONE make is an IMPORTANT one.

If any team can get the Celtics to end their offensive possession with a Marcus Smart field goal attempt, they'll live with whatever result they get (which literally 7 times out 10, will be a brick). The one spot you don't necessarily want Marcus Smart if you're defense is the free throw line, and even then he's shooting below 70% from there this season.

He comes up with big plays sure, but 2 or 3 hustle plays towards the end of a game is not worth the previous 30 minutes of bad offensive shots that could've been taken by a more efficient player. His one weakness is shooting, but instead of minimizing it, he insists on giving the defense what they want.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Chris22 on November 11, 2017, 03:51:34 PM
Smart is gone, he will be too expensive after this year.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Phantom255x on November 11, 2017, 03:54:24 PM
Maximum I would do is 4 years/70M.

Unfortunately there's a good chance he gets offered 4/80M from another team.

Lot depends on how far into luxury tax Ainge and Wyc are willing to go...
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Greyman on November 11, 2017, 04:26:23 PM
He may end up being more affordable than other young stars, due to his shooting issues. Not just Brown and Tatum but also Rozier will attract attention in the not too distant future. There are very few players who aren't replaceable. Smart isn't one of them but I love everything he brings other than those missed shots, on and off the court.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: colincb on November 11, 2017, 04:41:32 PM
Smart will cost too much given his limitations with Rozier providing the same overall production on a rookie deal and Brown becoming a RFA 2 years out.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: kozlodoev on November 11, 2017, 04:46:28 PM
Smart will cost too much given his limitations with Rozier providing the same overall production on a rookie deal and Brown becoming a RFA 2 years out.
Yes, Rozier can at least match Smart's output of cringe-worthy shots. No need to worry  ;D
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: greece66 on November 11, 2017, 04:49:09 PM
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-cemetery-is-full-of-indispensable-people-winston-churchill-133-57-25.jpg)
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Monkhouse on November 11, 2017, 05:02:27 PM
I would tend to agree. I'm getting real tired of the hole that Smart puts us in offensively at times, but... I think we also need to be mindful of how much of an impact Smart makes, as a + - savant on, and off the court. The impact is far greater and definitely more insurmountable, especially considering how lackluster of a night he had last night offensively, and still finished with another sound +/-, once again.

We could trade him, or not re-sign him, but I believe that would be a huge mistake. If Smart comes out to 10-12 million per year, I don't see why not.. That's certainly affordable, and it's giving him Avery Bradley money in that he can certainly go above and beyond that contract, or not exceed expectations either. Its on Ainge to decide eventually, but I believe Smart isn't leaving anytime soon. It doesn't make any counter intuitive sense to let him go anyways, unless Smart gets offered anything above 15+ million.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: ImShakHeIsShaq on November 11, 2017, 05:12:07 PM
Just watched some replays / highlights of our GREAT win last night.

Looks like Marcus was in middle of nearly everything we were doing in that win.

He defended Kemba Walker on that last shot - and he missed.

I saw him leading the break - setting up teammates.

I saw him with a CRUCIAL basket in the last 30-40 secs.

He is the Shaquille O'Neal of basketball right now - sure, Shaq did not shoot his FT's very well, BUT he ALWAYS seemed to make em when they counted.

Same with Marcus....dude can seemingly go 1-20 FG BUT that ONE make is an IMPORTANT one.

someone already corrected the Morris defense part but you are also wrong on making a basket in the last 30-40 seconds, Smart took one shot in the 4th and it was a miss.
He didn't make a ft either. He did get some assists, even though it's a stretch, the NBA counts them so it is what it is.

Smart is a solid player, I love watching his good moments but most of this entire post is made up.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: colincb on November 11, 2017, 05:18:35 PM
Smart will cost too much given his limitations with Rozier providing the same overall production on a rookie deal and Brown becoming a RFA 2 years out.
Yes, Rozier can at least match Smart's output of cringe-worthy shots. No need to worry  ;D

You'd be hard-pressed to find an area other than assists that Rozier is not outperforming Smart this year, many by a fair margin. Shooting (TS% 47.2% vs 39.9%), rebounding, turnovers, PER, points and advanced stats across the board including Box score +/-. See the BasketballReference comparative stats at the link below.

http://bkref.com/tiny/nu8Ez
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: mr. dee on November 11, 2017, 05:59:49 PM
Why do you think we have Rozier, Bird, and Allen?

To make smart expendable. I’m almost ready to sell my smart stock.

It would be nice if Bird becomes the real thing, and be a backup 2.  He can play D and he can shoot!

But can Allen replicate Smart's game? 3 and D players are much easier to find than all-around post up guards.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Eja117 on November 11, 2017, 06:40:06 PM
Smart is averaging the most shots per game of his career and shooting a career low. He is not an NBA player on offense.
Not a G League player either....on offense.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: DooVoo on November 11, 2017, 07:47:36 PM
Smart is one of those guys Celtics fans will whine about and never appreciate when he is here. Then when he is gone and the Celtics are losing games they will start to opine about missing Smart and what a winning player he was and all the little things he did to win games. Typical fans.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Eja117 on November 11, 2017, 07:58:47 PM
Smart is one of those guys Celtics fans will whine about and never appreciate when he is here. Then when he is gone and the Celtics are losing games they will start to opine about missing Smart and what a winning player he was and all the little things he did to win games. Typical fans.
Or maybe I'll be like "Isn't it great that we don't have to make a furious comeback from 12 points behind in the 4th quarter because Marcus Smart went 1 for 8 tonight?"
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on November 11, 2017, 08:41:37 PM
Just watched some replays / highlights of our GREAT win last night.

Looks like Marcus was in middle of nearly everything we were doing in that win.

He defended Kemba Walker on that last shot - and he missed.

I saw him leading the break - setting up teammates.

I saw him with a CRUCIAL basket in the last 30-40 secs.

He is the Shaquille O'Neal of basketball right now - sure, Shaq did not shoot his FT's very well, BUT he ALWAYS seemed to make em when they counted.

Same with Marcus....dude can seemingly go 1-20 FG BUT that ONE make is an IMPORTANT one.

someone already corrected the Morris defense part but you are also wrong on making a basket in the last 30-40 seconds, Smart took one shot in the 4th and it was a miss.
He didn't make a ft either. He did get some assists, even though it's a stretch, the NBA counts them so it is what it is.

Smart is a solid player, I love watching his good moments but most of this entire post is made up.

Poster "Androslav" already noted my mistake. You not reading HIS post and commenting on my already ADMITTED mistake is meaningless.

Unlike some here I admit my mistakes if someone points them out to me.

Will you?
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: ThePaintedArea on November 12, 2017, 11:41:39 AM
From 1 to 10 is he??

...

Smart will be able to still command 20 million a year due to his defense, intangibles and 4th quarter intensity.

...

So the question is, is Smart replaceable?  (via Semi, Rozier etc)  .  If not how does this all play out?

I don't think that I could give it a number, unless it's a 4 - he's fourth in minutes per game. Obviously his coach likes what he's doing out there.

He impacts winning on both ends. Obviously the FG shooting is an issue, but he's a plus on offense all the same.

This year he's significantly upped his assists while keeping turnovers constant. Having said that, his turnovers are still too high, especially bad passes - you've got to love his boldness, but he should dial back the risk.

He was highly productive at the line last year - got there a lot and was Grade-A when he got there - likely his "true" numbers are more like that than what he's shown so far this year.

He's a "glue" guy.  Good things happen when he's on the floor. Team offense and defense are both better. He's not a "defensive specialist".

He'll never be a star - but he is a Celtic. I hope that there's a price that works for the team and for him when it comes time to pay him.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: droopdog7 on November 12, 2017, 11:59:31 AM
There's no way this guy could command 20m a year for just his defense alone. He has no defensive accolades, and his only notable accolade is the 2nd All-rookie team in a weak draft class.

He's shooting under 30% from both the 3-point line AND the field so far this season. Is there any precedent for a wing player that only plays defense to get that kind of money despite shooting THIS historically bad?

In terms of "Is he replaceable"? I'd say he'd be irreplaceable if he didn't maximize his weaknesses by shooting so dang much, but as of right now, if the C's don't re-sign him I wouldn't shed a tear.

First for everything lol

Dummy Memphis threw millions at a guy riding a wheelchair pretty much (Parsons)

I think a team like Brooklyn will have no problems throwing this money at smart. Also be a nice revenge type signing.   I can see them try to pry off Smart, Rozier, Brown, Tatum etc.
There's no precedent for an nba player shooting this bad at any salary level.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: droopdog7 on November 12, 2017, 12:05:25 PM
Hopefully Smart will except a contract for what he is realistically worth, and remain with the Celtics.

The realization is that not all basketball players can improve their shooting, not everyone can be Avery Bradly and practice their way into becoming a reliable outside shooter. Some players simply have limited shooting ability, Marcus may be one.

Marcus has other intangibles that drive his net worth. These intangibles are infectious to other players, especially young players. 

I'm hoping we're able to find a way to sign him to a reasonable contract.

Is he replaceable?... a begrudging, yes.
Evry player can improve their shooting a little bit.  Many do, but Avery is not really one of them.  He was a good shooter coming in; he struggled due to nerves and low sample size more than anything.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: kozlodoev on November 12, 2017, 12:22:21 PM
Smart will cost too much given his limitations with Rozier providing the same overall production on a rookie deal and Brown becoming a RFA 2 years out.
Yes, Rozier can at least match Smart's output of cringe-worthy shots. No need to worry  ;D

You'd be hard-pressed to find an area other than assists that Rozier is not outperforming Smart this year, many by a fair margin. Shooting (TS% 47.2% vs 39.9%), rebounding, turnovers, PER, points and advanced stats across the board including Box score +/-. See the BasketballReference comparative stats at the link below.

http://bkref.com/tiny/nu8Ez
Plus defense at three positions would be one. Setting up teammates is another. Either way, I didn't say Rozier isn't a better offensive player (although probably not by as much as people think), but he takes his fair share of ill-advised shots as well. It's pretty tough to watch when we have both of them on at the same time.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: GreenWarrior on November 12, 2017, 01:06:11 PM
marcus is one of those guys that got drafted way higher than he should have. he was/is definitely a top 20 pick, but not a top 10 player in a draft imo. 

I believe if you're drafting in the top 10 you should be getting an all-star. Marcus is/was never going to be that, I've said from day one he'll never have the numbers to be. all the players coming out of college are projects of course but some are more of a project than others. for example look at the last few picks the suns have made, all those players are massive projects and i'd be willing to bet 2 of 3 will probably be complete busts or never sniff an All-star level, they'll likely never live up to their draft status. too many teams make this mistake.

Yes Marcus is a role player and he never should've been drafted that high. with all that said he is unique, he has the ability to influence the outcome of games and in the end the only stat that really matters is the W-L column.

so is he replaceable? it depends on the criteria, if you drafted him with the expectation of being an all star who averages 20 pts and 10 assists then he's a complete bust if that's the case and definitely replaceable. if you acknowledge that smart is unique and not you're average "role player" then he's not replaceable.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: droopdog7 on November 12, 2017, 03:01:17 PM
marcus is one of those guys that got drafted way higher than he should have. he was/is definitely a top 20 pick, but not a top 10 player in a draft imo. 

I believe if you're drafting in the top 10 you should be getting an all-star. Marcus is/was never going to be that, I've said from day one he'll never have the numbers to be. all the players coming out of college are projects of course but some are more of a project than others. for example look at the last few picks the suns have made, all those players are massive projects and i'd be willing to bet 2 of 3 will probably be complete busts or never sniff an All-star level, they'll likely never live up to their draft status. too many teams make this mistake.

Yes Marcus is a role player and he never should've been drafted that high. with all that said he is unique, he has the ability to influence the outcome of games and in the end the only stat that really matters is the W-L column.

so is he replaceable? it depends on the criteria, if you drafted him with the expectation of being an all star who averages 20 pts and 10 assists then he's a complete bust if that's the case and definitely replaceable. if you acknowledge that smart is unique and not you're average "role player" then he's not replaceable.
If you think top ten equals an all star then you’re not paying attention.  Marcus is on par with your typical #6 player in the draft unfortunately.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: gouki88 on November 12, 2017, 03:07:18 PM
marcus is one of those guys that got drafted way higher than he should have. he was/is definitely a top 20 pick, but not a top 10 player in a draft imo. 

I believe if you're drafting in the top 10 you should be getting an all-star. Marcus is/was never going to be that, I've said from day one he'll never have the numbers to be. all the players coming out of college are projects of course but some are more of a project than others. for example look at the last few picks the suns have made, all those players are massive projects and i'd be willing to bet 2 of 3 will probably be complete busts or never sniff an All-star level, they'll likely never live up to their draft status. too many teams make this mistake.

Yes Marcus is a role player and he never should've been drafted that high. with all that said he is unique, he has the ability to influence the outcome of games and in the end the only stat that really matters is the W-L column.

so is he replaceable? it depends on the criteria, if you drafted him with the expectation of being an all star who averages 20 pts and 10 assists then he's a complete bust if that's the case and definitely replaceable. if you acknowledge that smart is unique and not you're average "role player" then he's not replaceable.
If you think top ten equals an all star then you’re not paying attention.  Marcus is on par with your typical #6 player in the draft unfortunately.
Yeah, he's a #6 level guy all day. Noel, WCS, Hield and the like are all on his level
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: GreenWarrior on November 12, 2017, 06:18:55 PM
marcus is one of those guys that got drafted way higher than he should have. he was/is definitely a top 20 pick, but not a top 10 player in a draft imo. 

I believe if you're drafting in the top 10 you should be getting an all-star. Marcus is/was never going to be that, I've said from day one he'll never have the numbers to be. all the players coming out of college are projects of course but some are more of a project than others. for example look at the last few picks the suns have made, all those players are massive projects and i'd be willing to bet 2 of 3 will probably be complete busts or never sniff an All-star level, they'll likely never live up to their draft status. too many teams make this mistake.

Yes Marcus is a role player and he never should've been drafted that high. with all that said he is unique, he has the ability to influence the outcome of games and in the end the only stat that really matters is the W-L column.

so is he replaceable? it depends on the criteria, if you drafted him with the expectation of being an all star who averages 20 pts and 10 assists then he's a complete bust if that's the case and definitely replaceable. if you acknowledge that smart is unique and not you're average "role player" then he's not replaceable.
If you think top ten equals an all star then you’re not paying attention.  Marcus is on par with your typical #6 player in the draft unfortunately.

I never said drafting in the top 10 means you're automatically getting an all-star, "equals" never came into the discussion. I said if i'm drafting in the top 10 i'm not drafting a project, but you should be looking for an all star.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: mr. dee on November 12, 2017, 06:39:43 PM
marcus is one of those guys that got drafted way higher than he should have. he was/is definitely a top 20 pick, but not a top 10 player in a draft imo. 

I believe if you're drafting in the top 10 you should be getting an all-star. Marcus is/was never going to be that, I've said from day one he'll never have the numbers to be. all the players coming out of college are projects of course but some are more of a project than others. for example look at the last few picks the suns have made, all those players are massive projects and i'd be willing to bet 2 of 3 will probably be complete busts or never sniff an All-star level, they'll likely never live up to their draft status. too many teams make this mistake.

Yes Marcus is a role player and he never should've been drafted that high. with all that said he is unique, he has the ability to influence the outcome of games and in the end the only stat that really matters is the W-L column.

so is he replaceable? it depends on the criteria, if you drafted him with the expectation of being an all star who averages 20 pts and 10 assists then he's a complete bust if that's the case and definitely replaceable. if you acknowledge that smart is unique and not you're average "role player" then he's not replaceable.

Mike Bibby, Marcus Camby, Shane Battier are pretty good examples of "not your average role players" drafted at the top 6 draft.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: CELTICSofBOSTON on November 12, 2017, 06:41:20 PM
Yes Bruce Brown is the perfect replacement
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 12, 2017, 06:48:44 PM
I think Rozier is answering this from time to time.  Though Marcus plays some really tough D.
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Tr1boy on November 14, 2017, 04:43:12 PM
Smart is going to be hard to replace

He has "kg" like intensity/leadership about him

If another team gives him 20 million per season...Danny doesnt match

There also could be a chance Danny does a sign and trade plus x for a nice player on a friendly contract in return

I predict also Danny drafts with one of the picks a Smart like replacement just in case just like he did with drafting Semi(Crowders replacement)
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Tr1boy on November 14, 2017, 04:44:07 PM
Looking fwd to a matchup vs Jazz...

Smart vs Donovon Mitchell should be intense
Title: Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
Post by: Donoghus on November 14, 2017, 04:45:51 PM
Of course he is.   

He's a role player.  You let guys like that walk rather than overpay.   It'd be tough to replace his defensive intensity but you still bite that bullet when it comes to $$$.