Smart for Wiseman?

[Sophomore]

In the playoffs just finished, he was one of our top 3 players, behind Tatum and Brown. A few nights I thought he willed us to wins.

[dannyboy35]

  I’m starting to think from Celts perspective if they ya e a chance at #2, yeah you gotta go for it. If you can’t find choice of any guy in the nation ( except 1) to be better player OR prospect than Smart you shouldn’t be GMIng. I think Ainge would be prepared enough.
  I believe Smart dies ya e an impact and I love how much he cares but with us just not being good enough I don’t think there would be a time like this to strike again. It also takes GS having an interest so it’s probably moot. But I’d hope for it.

[Moranis]

  He really doesn't matter all that much to actual wins and losses

It’s very difficult to measure things like this, but there are metrics that try.  For instance, RPM is an attempt to measure impact.  Smart is 42nd in the league, putting him in the top 10% of all players.

I don’t think Smart is impact neutral.  He’s a positive player who makes major contributions.  I don’t think his value is necessarily the second pick in the draft, but I could see a team offering a top-10 pick for him.

Boston's W/L record for Smart's entire career and the W/L record of the team without Smart

2015 - 40-42, 5-10
2016 - 48-34, 12-9
2017 - 53-29, 2-1
2018 - 55-27, 17-11
2019 - 49-33, 1-1
2020 - 48-24, 9-3

So overall the team is 46-35, however after his first two seasons the team is 29-16 without Smart (which isn't much different then when he plays).  And that is obviously just removing him, sometimes suddenly, from the lineup without a replacement.

Defensive role players don't drive wins and losses, especially when the defensive role players are by and large terrible offensive players.  Every shot Smart takes is a shot that Tatum, Brown, Hayward, and Walker don't take.  Every time Smart initiates the offense, Walker and Hayward aren't.  Every turnover Smart commits, eliminates a possession. 

Offense is far more important than defense to actually winning basketball games and they are often very limited offensive players and unlike Smart they act like it.  Imagine if someone like Rodman was chucking up 8.8 shots a game with a TS% of 50 (for his career Rodman was 5.8 with a 54.6 TS% and he was much worse later in his career than he was starting out).  Rodman would still impact the game because he is perhaps the greatest defender and rebounder in history, but his impact would have been lessoned because you wouldn't trust him at all offensively.  Even a wide open 3 pointer for Smart is a bad shot.  If he was at 2 three point attempts a game, he would be a much more impactful player, but that isn't Smart and obviously never will be. 

[keevsnick]

I mean I think if you can get the #2 pick for Smart and lets say the 14th I think you do that, its a role of the dice for sure but I think the average expected value of that pick is better than what smart + 14 expected value is.

But I do think its somewhat close. Keep in mind Smart has only two years of team control left then he's unrestricted.

[keevsnick]

In a heartbeat...GS wouldn't do it though.

That’s my thought, as well.  But, I read this today (from the Bay Area) suggesting Danny would be the one to immediately say no:

Smart and the No. 14 overall pick in the upcoming 2020 NBA Draft for the second pick? If the Warriors called the Celtics with that proposal, they'd hear a few seconds of laughter and, then, the dial tone.

Why on Earth would the Celtics accept such a trade? Even if they're head over heels for a certain 2020 draft prospect, it's extremely hard to believe that they would view that as a good value proposition. Even if you remove the 14th pick from the equation, it still seems heavily weighted in the Warriors' favor.

https://sports.yahoo.com/why-bill-simmons-warriors-celtics-023640805.html

That last part is crazy, if you can do it with just Smart for the 2nd you HAVE TO DO IT. That would be highway robbery by the Celtics. I mean think of what Smart actually is, a nice 5th starter no better than lets say the 4th best player on a top level team. And sure, whoever you take at 2 may not be better than that, but there's a lot of upside and like 4 years of team control (plus that first restricted contract).

I think Smart+14 warriors say no, they are probably aiming higher.

[Who]

I don't trade Smart for the #2 if Wiseman is not available. There is nobody else at the top of the draft that I am confident enough in (in their talent & potential) to trade Smart for.

I am happy to trade Smart for Wiseman but not for anybody else in the draft.

[Roy H.]

2018 - 55-27, 17-11
2019 - 49-33, 1-1
2020 - 48-24, 9-3

125-69 (.644) without; 27-18 (.600) without

That difference doesn’t sound like a lot, but the difference in win percentages is about four wins per season.

[slamtheking]

I don't trade Smart for the #2 if Wiseman is not available. There is nobody else at the top of the draft that I am confident enough in (in their talent & potential) to trade Smart for.

I am happy to trade Smart for Wiseman but not for anybody else in the draft.

thing is, the trade is only justifiable for the C's based on a supposed need to cut salary due to the cap, not for improving the talent on the team to make them a better contender.  Trading a ready-made player who's the guts of this team for a rookie will be a definite setback since that rookie will need a couple of years at least to get to Smart's level (if ever since this draft is lacking star power).  The reason for GSW to do this deal is exactly the reason the C's shouldn't --> adding a proven player to a contender to improve their talent level.

[gift]

2018 - 55-27, 17-11
2019 - 49-33, 1-1
2020 - 48-24, 9-3

125-69 (.644) without; 27-18 (.600) without

That difference doesn’t sound like a lot, but the difference in win percentages is about four wins per season.

But I don't think anyone is suggesting getting rid of Smart is a net addition by subtraction (though that may be a component). It's a matter of how easy it is to trade Smart for value that increases net team production. Adding back those 4 team wins (using Smart's trade value) plus adding a little possible upside might not be that difficult in theory.

[PhoSita]

It's amazing to me that in the year of our lord 2020 after watching 6 seasons of Marcus Smart we still have to have debates about whether he makes a difference to winning.

This is one topic on which I am firmly in the "come at me with whatever numbers you want, Smart is my guy, the end" camp.

We can have debates about his shot selection or whether an elite defensive guard can actually make that big of a difference, etc etc.  We've had all these arguments before.

Smart's my guy, I think if the Celts win a title anytime soon he'll be a part of it.  Trading him for anything less than an absolute home run lopsided trade would be a mistake. 

I know Smart is a guy I want on the floor at the end of a close elimination game -- remember that block against Toronto, anyone, or have you already forgotten?  I have no idea if Wiseman, or whoever else would be there at #2, will ever be that.




If the Celts were rebuilding and this was all about taking shots on talent, fine.  You trade an elite role player for a roll of the dice, that makes sense.


That is not the situation.  The Celtics have the ingredients to contend already.  Right now it's about finding the right mix of guys to support the top of the roster.  Trading Smart to accomplish that seems to me like a wrestler cutting off his foot to drop weight.

[jambr380]

I worry about what it will cost to re-sign Smart in two years. Perhaps that means we should play out the year and then see where we are, but it also means his value is probably as high as it will ever be (since he is not expiring).

If Danny and the scouting team feel strongly about somebody near the top of the draft, then it is probably worth making a deal. In a normal year, we would never be able to get a top 2 pick for a player like Smart. Getting a 3rd young All-star to build around Tatum and Brown could be the difference in making us a perennial powerhouse vs just a top 3-4 conference team w/ a shot at getting to the Finals.

I love Smart as much as the next guy, but I do understand he has a ceiling and that ceiling likely isn't as high as whoever the 2nd best player from this draft ends up being.

[RPGenerate]

After thinking about this for several days, I think I'd pull the trigger. I like Smart, but to get a talent like Wiseman at a position of need, on a rookie deal is really enticing. I feel like Smart plays into our worst weaknesses on offense, and perhaps moving on from his salary may help us in the long run. Let's say we do this deal, and we restructure Hayward's contract for $20 mil a year/let him leave, how would our salary look?

[footey]

For all those infatuated with Wiseman, read the Stepien Scouting Report on him posted below.  Not a pretty picture: Not a good passer, poor spacing feel, not a shooter right now, questionable decision maker, takes too much time to load on his vertical, questionable shot selection, average hands, very poor PnR coverage, slow feet, heavy feet, tight hips, etc. 

This is who we trade up to get?  I dunno.  Seems like that is a huge risk to take on this guy at 2, especially losing Smart and the 14th pick who could turn out to be as good or better than Wiseman.  He is just not a sure enough thing to do something like this IMO.  I get why we get excited about his possibilities, but a lot of the criticism above is stuff that you don't really grow out of.

Could see a better case for trading up to get Okongwu, although it would be an overpay to take him at 2. If he slides to 7/8, would understand a package to try to draft him there.

https://www.thestepien.com/2020/01/24/james-wiseman-scouting-report/

[PhoSita]

I worry about what it will cost to re-sign Smart in two years. Perhaps that means we should play out the year and then see where we are, but it also means his value is probably as high as it will ever be (since he is not expiring).
.....

I love Smart as much as the next guy, but I do understand he has a ceiling and that ceiling likely isn't as high as whoever the 2nd best player from this draft ends up being.

Maybe his ceiling is not as high, but the Celts aren't in a rebuild.  We know what Smart is now.  That's his floor.
 The floor of a rookie, even one with a lot of talent, is sub-basement.  Rookies typically detract from winning instead of contributing, and a #2 pick will be expected to play.

Every season is an opportunity to go far in the playoffs and perhaps even make the Finals.  Not to mention that showing a dedication to winning is important for when we want to re-sign Tatum in a few years.

Smart may or may not cost too much in a couple years.  That will be a tough conversation.  I tend to think that it will be a situation where his value to the Celts is higher than his value to other teams, so an agreement may be possible.

Even so, again, being in a mode where every season counts means not trading away key players because they might be too expensive to keep in a couple years.

[ChillyWilly]

Stars win in the NBA far more often than grinders. You take a chance at a star for the cost of a grinder. No emotion.