Grant Williams decision revisited

[celticsclay]

I know a lot of people were disappointed we didn’t keep Grant Williams to have the asset this offseason as salary? Do people still feel this way? In addition to not wanting to be here, he performed really poorly in Dallas and it seems like Dallas had to attach a first round pick just to get off that deal. Do people still wish we had kept him?

[KG Living Legend]

 Heck no. 54 million for the Big Midget.  6'5" pf who avg 3 boards per game and can't score inside. Hard pass here

[Roy H.]

I mean, I'd have been happy to trade him and a late 1st for P.J. Washington.  Wyc wouldn't have been, probably, but the R.O.I. Is okay.

That said, 2 of the 3 seconds we just traded came from the GW deal, so it worked out for us.

[#1P4P]

Grant was a good role player for this team.

He was an elite spot up shooter and strong multi-positional team defender. One of the best Giannis and Jokic defenders in the league. Those are valuable attributes, but he would’ve been making starter money to be 7-9 on the depth chart. Holding onto him as salary filler for a potential trade for a PJ Washington-type player would’ve been less than desirable.

Brad’s done a masterful job. His ability to identify and acquire talent that fits this team is nothing short of elite; even better, he quickly pivots off of poor fits to take a shot at a better one.

[Moranis]

The MLE is not starter money (or at least full time starter money).

[celticsclay]

The MLE is not starter money (or at least full time starter money).

So do you think we should have signed him to the contract or no? You have gotten in a strange habit lately of posting throwaway comments and not actually answering the question at hand. Curious what you think here?

[Kernewek]

It's a reference to the post directly before his in the thread by 1P4P - Boston signed Grant for the non-taxpayer MLE before trading him to the Mavs.

[Moranis]

It's a reference to the post directly before his in the thread by 1P4P - Boston signed Grant for the non-taxpayer MLE before trading him to the Mavs.

Yep. 

[Vermont Green]

The MLE is not starter money (or at least full time starter money).

I am not so sure about this.  I did not check every team but I checked 4 or 5 of the top paying teams and only the Celtics and the Warriors have 5 players making over $13M.  That means that there are probably 28 teams for which $13M is in fact starter money.

Also, whether it is starter money in general or not, it is pretty clear that DAL thought they were paying for a starter.  So in this specific case, it was absolutely starter money for the player and the team.

Once it became clear to DAL that Grant was not a starter level player, they had to attach a first round pick to him to get another player who has only started 17 of 44 games for a bad team.  So Grant + First round pick = a fringe starter (in terms of trade value).

[Celtics2021]

The MLE is not starter money (or at least full time starter money).

I am not so sure about this.  I did not check every team but I checked 4 or 5 of the top paying teams and only the Celtics and the Warriors have 5 players making over $13M.  That means that there are probably 28 teams for which $13M is in fact starter money.

Also, whether it is starter money in general or not, it is pretty clear that DAL thought they were paying for a starter.  So in this specific case, it was absolutely starter money for the player and the team.

Once it became clear to DAL that Grant was not a starter level player, they had to attach a first round pick to him to get another player who has only started 17 of 44 games for a bad team.  So Grant + First round pick = a fringe starter (in terms of trade value).

It’s not free agent starter money.  You’ve got to ignore all the guys on rookie contracts or players who moved into a starting role after they signed their deals (because of injury/performance).  Free agents who sign deals with a starting role virtually promised almost always make more than the MLE.

[celticsclay]

The MLE is not starter money (or at least full time starter money).

I am not so sure about this.  I did not check every team but I checked 4 or 5 of the top paying teams and only the Celtics and the Warriors have 5 players making over $13M.  That means that there are probably 28 teams for which $13M is in fact starter money.

Also, whether it is starter money in general or not, it is pretty clear that DAL thought they were paying for a starter.  So in this specific case, it was absolutely starter money for the player and the team.

Once it became clear to DAL that Grant was not a starter level player, they had to attach a first round pick to him to get another player who has only started 17 of 44 games for a bad team.  So Grant + First round pick = a fringe starter (in terms of trade value).

It’s not free agent starter money.  You’ve got to ignore all the guys on rookie contracts or players who moved into a starting role after they signed their deals (because of injury/performance).  Free agents who sign deals with a starting role virtually promised almost always make more than the MLE.

I kind of agree with this. Whether it was 5th starter or 6th or 7th man he definitely was expected to have a significant role there. On our team it made even less sense because he would have been  the 8th man.

[Moranis]

The MLE is not starter money (or at least full time starter money).

I am not so sure about this.  I did not check every team but I checked 4 or 5 of the top paying teams and only the Celtics and the Warriors have 5 players making over $13M.  That means that there are probably 28 teams for which $13M is in fact starter money.

Also, whether it is starter money in general or not, it is pretty clear that DAL thought they were paying for a starter.  So in this specific case, it was absolutely starter money for the player and the team.

Once it became clear to DAL that Grant was not a starter level player, they had to attach a first round pick to him to get another player who has only started 17 of 44 games for a bad team.  So Grant + First round pick = a fringe starter (in terms of trade value).

It’s not free agent starter money.  You’ve got to ignore all the guys on rookie contracts or players who moved into a starting role after they signed their deals (because of injury/performance).  Free agents who sign deals with a starting role virtually promised almost always make more than the MLE.

Yeah I ran the numbers somewhere and Grant's contract put him in the 4th highest on a team, but that doesn't account for rookies.  I think it is something like 2 rookies start on average, which bumps him to 6th on a team.  Grant got rotation player/spot starter money.  That is what he is and his minutes, even in Dallas reflect that.

The real issue he had in Dallas is he wasn't shooting well after the first couple weeks of the season. 

[SHAQATTACK]

An’t changed my mind none,

Glade he’s out of Boston

[celticsclay]

Guess I should have made a poll but doesn’t seem like anyone feels we blew it let letting him walk

[Vermont Green]

Yeah I ran the numbers somewhere and Grant's contract put him in the 4th highest on a team, but that doesn't account for rookies.  I think it is something like 2 rookies start on average, which bumps him to 6th on a team.  Grant got rotation player/spot starter money.  That is what he is and his minutes, even in Dallas reflect that.

The real issue he had in Dallas is he wasn't shooting well after the first couple weeks of the season.

How can 2 rookies start on average?  That would be 60 rookies starting on 30 teams.  I guess you mean on average 2 on rookie contracts are starting?  That seems possible but still high.

At any rate, I still think that DAL signed Grant thinking he was going to be a starter and he was a starter, until they realized he wasn't that good.  The Celtics didn't see him as a starter so they likely were offering less.  I suspect that moving forward, teams will use their NT-MLE (those that have one) on players that are expected to be starters, just like DAL did with Grant.

It is certainly true that teams resigning their own may pay more for a bench player, especially contending teams, but I don't think we are going to see all that much of that.  There will be top teams where all the starters make more than Grant, but that will be more the exception than the rule.  There will be 2-3 max or super max contracts, there will be a couple in the NT-MLE range or lower, and there will be rookie or min deals to fill out the roster.  That is how the CBA is going to force teams to build their rosters.

If teams are paying more than that for their bench players, they just aren't going to be able to remain competitive.