This Is Why You Re-Sign Grant

[Moranis]

Grant makes the MLE (13.25 average), that seems about right for a 6th or 7th man which is what he is.  Now he probably doesn't have much trade value because he is a 6th or 7th man in the first year of the new contract, but I wouldn't call him over paid either.

I guess we will see but with the new CBA restrictions, I think full non-taxpayer MLEs are going to need to be used for better than 7th/8th man players.  Each team is going to have 2-3 max or super max contracts, a couple of MLE contracts, and then all min or rookie contracts.  Even last season, very few teams could have offered Grant that contract.  The Celtics could have matched but only non-taxpaying teams could have made the offer.

A team can choose to resign a player like Grant to this amount via Bird rules, independent of the MLE, but in this case, the Celtics chose not to.  I think most teams would chose not to sign a 7th/8th guy for the equivalent of the NTP MLE.  Dallas thought he was going to be a 3rd/4th level player.  Had they understood he was really a 7th/8th player, I do not believe they make that offer.

Currently, the Celtics pay their 6th, 7th, and 8th guys $10M, $4M (soon to bump up to more like $7M), and $2M.  In coming seasons, a team like the Celtics may not even be able to pay that much.  Signing Grant also hard-capped Dallas as they used the non-tax MLE.  So to overpay and end up hard-capped, is not something smart teams are going to do for a marginal bench player.

The Celtics have a disproportionate amount of high contracts though.  Too much top end money, which is going to cause all sorts of problems.  A team like the Lakers or Cavs seems like the most likely salary structure.

[Vermont Green]

Grant makes the MLE (13.25 average), that seems about right for a 6th or 7th man which is what he is.  Now he probably doesn't have much trade value because he is a 6th or 7th man in the first year of the new contract, but I wouldn't call him over paid either.

I guess we will see but with the new CBA restrictions, I think full non-taxpayer MLEs are going to need to be used for better than 7th/8th man players.  Each team is going to have 2-3 max or super max contracts, a couple of MLE contracts, and then all min or rookie contracts.  Even last season, very few teams could have offered Grant that contract.  The Celtics could have matched but only non-taxpaying teams could have made the offer.

A team can choose to resign a player like Grant to this amount via Bird rules, independent of the MLE, but in this case, the Celtics chose not to.  I think most teams would chose not to sign a 7th/8th guy for the equivalent of the NTP MLE.  Dallas thought he was going to be a 3rd/4th level player.  Had they understood he was really a 7th/8th player, I do not believe they make that offer.

Currently, the Celtics pay their 6th, 7th, and 8th guys $10M, $4M (soon to bump up to more like $7M), and $2M.  In coming seasons, a team like the Celtics may not even be able to pay that much.  Signing Grant also hard-capped Dallas as they used the non-tax MLE.  So to overpay and end up hard-capped, is not something smart teams are going to do for a marginal bench player.

The Celtics have a disproportionate amount of high contracts though.  Too much top end money, which is going to cause all sorts of problems.  A team like the Lakers or Cavs seems like the most likely salary structure.

What you are saying about the Celtics is true but no way the Lakers or the Cavs are going to hard-cap themselves for Grant or any other 6th-8th man.  It would be like the Celtics hard-capping themselves for Pritchard or something.  DAL will be tax payers when they start resigning their current players so they wouldn't be able to offer that much anyway, the only way would be through resigning one of their current players.

I believe the hard-cap only lasts one season?  So DAL can resign players above the cap next season?  But they will not be able to offer a full non-tax MLE again if they are above the cap.  And if they do, I guarantee they would not use it on another bench player.

This isn't that complicated.  DAL thought Grant would be a starter, maybe even their 3rd starter and the contract is commensurate for a starter.  Grant was actually playing at that level at the start of the season, for 10-15 games or so.  They did not pay him that amount expecting him to be a marginal bench player.  Paying that for a marginal bench player is overpaying.  Grant right now is a bench player, overpaid.  If he gets back to playing like a starter, it will be different.

[green_bballers13]

Why do people like Grant Williams? I don't get it.

[Moranis]

Grant makes the MLE (13.25 average), that seems about right for a 6th or 7th man which is what he is.  Now he probably doesn't have much trade value because he is a 6th or 7th man in the first year of the new contract, but I wouldn't call him over paid either.

I guess we will see but with the new CBA restrictions, I think full non-taxpayer MLEs are going to need to be used for better than 7th/8th man players.  Each team is going to have 2-3 max or super max contracts, a couple of MLE contracts, and then all min or rookie contracts.  Even last season, very few teams could have offered Grant that contract.  The Celtics could have matched but only non-taxpaying teams could have made the offer.

A team can choose to resign a player like Grant to this amount via Bird rules, independent of the MLE, but in this case, the Celtics chose not to.  I think most teams would chose not to sign a 7th/8th guy for the equivalent of the NTP MLE.  Dallas thought he was going to be a 3rd/4th level player.  Had they understood he was really a 7th/8th player, I do not believe they make that offer.

Currently, the Celtics pay their 6th, 7th, and 8th guys $10M, $4M (soon to bump up to more like $7M), and $2M.  In coming seasons, a team like the Celtics may not even be able to pay that much.  Signing Grant also hard-capped Dallas as they used the non-tax MLE.  So to overpay and end up hard-capped, is not something smart teams are going to do for a marginal bench player.

The Celtics have a disproportionate amount of high contracts though.  Too much top end money, which is going to cause all sorts of problems.  A team like the Lakers or Cavs seems like the most likely salary structure.

What you are saying about the Celtics is true but no way the Lakers or the Cavs are going to hard-cap themselves for Grant or any other 6th-8th man.  It would be like the Celtics hard-capping themselves for Pritchard or something.  DAL will be tax payers when they start resigning their current players so they wouldn't be able to offer that much anyway, the only way would be through resigning one of their current players.

I believe the hard-cap only lasts one season?  So DAL can resign players above the cap next season?  But they will not be able to offer a full non-tax MLE again if they are above the cap.  And if they do, I guarantee they would not use it on another bench player.

This isn't that complicated.  DAL thought Grant would be a starter, maybe even their 3rd starter and the contract is commensurate for a starter.  Grant was actually playing at that level at the start of the season, for 10-15 games or so.  They did not pay him that amount expecting him to be a marginal bench player.  Paying that for a marginal bench player is overpaying.  Grant right now is a bench player, overpaid.  If he gets back to playing like a starter, it will be different.

Your right it isn't complicated and that contract is no where near 3rd starter money. 

I used the Cavs as an example because they have a fairly typical contract situation.  They have Mitchell on a veteran max.  They have Garland on a rookie max.  They have Allen at 20 million a year.  They have Mobley on his rookie deal.  So that is their top 4.  They have both LeVert and Strus on contracts greater than the MLE (around 16 million per year), knowing at least one of them is coming off the bench.  They have Okoro (rookie), Niang, Rubio (since waived), and Dean all in the 5.7 to 9 million range. 

The Lakers are somewhat similar though they have the 2 veteran max deals, then 2 guys at 17-18 million, and then 2 guys around the MLE with a 3rd (Vanderbilt) set to make around that much next year as well. 

I just don't think there is a real understanding of what the MLE is, and what that means.  Grant has the 124th highest contract this season.  There are 30 teams, which puts him at 4.133.  That obviously doesn't account for all of the guys on rookie contracts that are better than him, which if you consider there are about 2 players per team starting with rookie deals (teams like Detroit with 5 guys starting counteracts teams like Boston that have 0), pushes Grant down into the 6th man type salary range. 

Teams don't typically give a MLE contract to a guy you think is a starter level player.  Back-end starters get contracts more like what Strus got from the Cavs, not what Grant got from the Mavericks. 

[Vermont Green]

Grant makes the MLE (13.25 average), that seems about right for a 6th or 7th man which is what he is.  Now he probably doesn't have much trade value because he is a 6th or 7th man in the first year of the new contract, but I wouldn't call him over paid either.

I guess we will see but with the new CBA restrictions, I think full non-taxpayer MLEs are going to need to be used for better than 7th/8th man players.  Each team is going to have 2-3 max or super max contracts, a couple of MLE contracts, and then all min or rookie contracts.  Even last season, very few teams could have offered Grant that contract.  The Celtics could have matched but only non-taxpaying teams could have made the offer.

A team can choose to resign a player like Grant to this amount via Bird rules, independent of the MLE, but in this case, the Celtics chose not to.  I think most teams would chose not to sign a 7th/8th guy for the equivalent of the NTP MLE.  Dallas thought he was going to be a 3rd/4th level player.  Had they understood he was really a 7th/8th player, I do not believe they make that offer.

Currently, the Celtics pay their 6th, 7th, and 8th guys $10M, $4M (soon to bump up to more like $7M), and $2M.  In coming seasons, a team like the Celtics may not even be able to pay that much.  Signing Grant also hard-capped Dallas as they used the non-tax MLE.  So to overpay and end up hard-capped, is not something smart teams are going to do for a marginal bench player.

The Celtics have a disproportionate amount of high contracts though.  Too much top end money, which is going to cause all sorts of problems.  A team like the Lakers or Cavs seems like the most likely salary structure.

What you are saying about the Celtics is true but no way the Lakers or the Cavs are going to hard-cap themselves for Grant or any other 6th-8th man.  It would be like the Celtics hard-capping themselves for Pritchard or something.  DAL will be tax payers when they start resigning their current players so they wouldn't be able to offer that much anyway, the only way would be through resigning one of their current players.

I believe the hard-cap only lasts one season?  So DAL can resign players above the cap next season?  But they will not be able to offer a full non-tax MLE again if they are above the cap.  And if they do, I guarantee they would not use it on another bench player.

This isn't that complicated.  DAL thought Grant would be a starter, maybe even their 3rd starter and the contract is commensurate for a starter.  Grant was actually playing at that level at the start of the season, for 10-15 games or so.  They did not pay him that amount expecting him to be a marginal bench player.  Paying that for a marginal bench player is overpaying.  Grant right now is a bench player, overpaid.  If he gets back to playing like a starter, it will be different.

Your right it isn't complicated and that contract is no where near 3rd starter money. 

I used the Cavs as an example because they have a fairly typical contract situation.  They have Mitchell on a veteran max.  They have Garland on a rookie max.  They have Allen at 20 million a year.  They have Mobley on his rookie deal.  So that is their top 4.  They have both LeVert and Strus on contracts greater than the MLE (around 16 million per year), knowing at least one of them is coming off the bench.  They have Okoro (rookie), Niang, Rubio (since waived), and Dean all in the 5.7 to 9 million range. 

The Lakers are somewhat similar though they have the 2 veteran max deals, then 2 guys at 17-18 million, and then 2 guys around the MLE with a 3rd (Vanderbilt) set to make around that much next year as well. 

I just don't think there is a real understanding of what the MLE is, and what that means.  Grant has the 124th highest contract this season.  There are 30 teams, which puts him at 4.133.  That obviously doesn't account for all of the guys on rookie contracts that are better than him, which if you consider there are about 2 players per team starting with rookie deals (teams like Detroit with 5 guys starting counteracts teams like Boston that have 0), pushes Grant down into the 6th man type salary range. 

Teams don't typically give a MLE contract to a guy you think is a starter level player.  Back-end starters get contracts more like what Strus got from the Cavs, not what Grant got from the Mavericks.

Your math actually proves my point.  Even now, based on the current contract landscape that is made up of past signings, some overpays, some underpays where teams were able to pay more to the middle class, Grant ranks as an average #4 starter.  That is fine, and if he was playing at a level of the 4th best player on the Mavs, I would say his contract is about right.  But he isn't.  He is playing at about the 7th best player.

And it is going to get worse.  Your salary data is based on the past signings.  The rules changed and things are going to be different.  Other than the top 2-3 players on every team, all other players are going to get less than in the past. 

Now if you are like CLE and your top 2 guys are more in the $35M range, then maybe you can afford to pay the middle class more.  But competitive teams are going to be paying more like $60M-$70M for the top guys.

[Moranis]

Grant makes the MLE (13.25 average), that seems about right for a 6th or 7th man which is what he is.  Now he probably doesn't have much trade value because he is a 6th or 7th man in the first year of the new contract, but I wouldn't call him over paid either.

I guess we will see but with the new CBA restrictions, I think full non-taxpayer MLEs are going to need to be used for better than 7th/8th man players.  Each team is going to have 2-3 max or super max contracts, a couple of MLE contracts, and then all min or rookie contracts.  Even last season, very few teams could have offered Grant that contract.  The Celtics could have matched but only non-taxpaying teams could have made the offer.

A team can choose to resign a player like Grant to this amount via Bird rules, independent of the MLE, but in this case, the Celtics chose not to.  I think most teams would chose not to sign a 7th/8th guy for the equivalent of the NTP MLE.  Dallas thought he was going to be a 3rd/4th level player.  Had they understood he was really a 7th/8th player, I do not believe they make that offer.

Currently, the Celtics pay their 6th, 7th, and 8th guys $10M, $4M (soon to bump up to more like $7M), and $2M.  In coming seasons, a team like the Celtics may not even be able to pay that much.  Signing Grant also hard-capped Dallas as they used the non-tax MLE.  So to overpay and end up hard-capped, is not something smart teams are going to do for a marginal bench player.

The Celtics have a disproportionate amount of high contracts though.  Too much top end money, which is going to cause all sorts of problems.  A team like the Lakers or Cavs seems like the most likely salary structure.

What you are saying about the Celtics is true but no way the Lakers or the Cavs are going to hard-cap themselves for Grant or any other 6th-8th man.  It would be like the Celtics hard-capping themselves for Pritchard or something.  DAL will be tax payers when they start resigning their current players so they wouldn't be able to offer that much anyway, the only way would be through resigning one of their current players.

I believe the hard-cap only lasts one season?  So DAL can resign players above the cap next season?  But they will not be able to offer a full non-tax MLE again if they are above the cap.  And if they do, I guarantee they would not use it on another bench player.

This isn't that complicated.  DAL thought Grant would be a starter, maybe even their 3rd starter and the contract is commensurate for a starter.  Grant was actually playing at that level at the start of the season, for 10-15 games or so.  They did not pay him that amount expecting him to be a marginal bench player.  Paying that for a marginal bench player is overpaying.  Grant right now is a bench player, overpaid.  If he gets back to playing like a starter, it will be different.

Your right it isn't complicated and that contract is no where near 3rd starter money. 

I used the Cavs as an example because they have a fairly typical contract situation.  They have Mitchell on a veteran max.  They have Garland on a rookie max.  They have Allen at 20 million a year.  They have Mobley on his rookie deal.  So that is their top 4.  They have both LeVert and Strus on contracts greater than the MLE (around 16 million per year), knowing at least one of them is coming off the bench.  They have Okoro (rookie), Niang, Rubio (since waived), and Dean all in the 5.7 to 9 million range. 

The Lakers are somewhat similar though they have the 2 veteran max deals, then 2 guys at 17-18 million, and then 2 guys around the MLE with a 3rd (Vanderbilt) set to make around that much next year as well. 

I just don't think there is a real understanding of what the MLE is, and what that means.  Grant has the 124th highest contract this season.  There are 30 teams, which puts him at 4.133.  That obviously doesn't account for all of the guys on rookie contracts that are better than him, which if you consider there are about 2 players per team starting with rookie deals (teams like Detroit with 5 guys starting counteracts teams like Boston that have 0), pushes Grant down into the 6th man type salary range. 

Teams don't typically give a MLE contract to a guy you think is a starter level player.  Back-end starters get contracts more like what Strus got from the Cavs, not what Grant got from the Mavericks.

Your math actually proves my point.  Even now, based on the current contract landscape that is made up of past signings, some overpays, some underpays where teams were able to pay more to the middle class, Grant ranks as an average #4 starter.  That is fine, and if he was playing at a level of the 4th best player on the Mavs, I would say his contract is about right.  But he isn't.  He is playing at about the 7th best player.

And it is going to get worse.  Your salary data is based on the past signings.  The rules changed and things are going to be different.  Other than the top 2-3 players on every team, all other players are going to get less than in the past. 

Now if you are like CLE and your top 2 guys are more in the $35M range, then maybe you can afford to pay the middle class more.  But competitive teams are going to be paying more like $60M-$70M for the top guys.

You can't count rookie contracts in the analysis because those aren't accurate projections of a players worth.  There are 478 players under contract. Something like 40% are on their rookie contracts.  That means Grant's contract is right around the half-way point of non-rookie players in the league (which includes all of the veteran minimum deals).