How many roster spots should be used for non-playable players?

[Celtics2021]

One thing I think is getting lost in the discussion is that there are two types of unplayable players:

1) The ones that everyone knew were unplayable when the roster was made, but they're on it for development, contractual reasons, or because you simply need bodies/expiring contracts for trades. (i.e. Pre-season unplayables)
2) The ones you thought would be playable when you made the roster but were wrong about.  This includes season-ending injuries. (i.e. post-season or hindsight unplayables).

By the end of last season, it was clear the Celtics had 6 unplayables -- 2 were developmental (Hauser and Nesmith), and 4 were due to a need of bodies (Stauskas, Fitts, Morgan, and Kornet).  This was because the team started the season with a ton of Type 1 unplayables (Fernando, Parker, Hernangomez, Nesmith, Langford) and chose to spend the trade deadline (wisely in my opinion) upgrading the rotation instead of fixing the depth.  It's not clear they could have done both, given how weak the buyout market was and how few low-contract rotation players were moved around the deadline.  The only two players that contributed in the postseason from the buyout market were Goran Dragic and Jevon Carter, and so the Celtics were left to fill out the roster with fodder.

Of the current 12 players under contract with the Celtics, only one player meets the pre-season definition of unplayable, and that's Kornet.  The Celtics clearly think Hauser will be playable, which is why they did the contract gymnastics of signing him to a 3-year deal with 2 years guaranteed, rather than just letting him stay on his non-guaranteed deal this season before hitting restricted free agency.  That shows they think he'd get a decent offer next summer they wouldn't want to match, and that's only happening if he's in actuality playable this season.  It remains to be seen if their player evaluation is correct, but if he's unplayable, that's a fault of evaluation and not roster construction.

In a perfect world they'd have 13 playables and 2 developmental unplayables when they break camp, but it's all right if it's 12/3 or 12/2, because finding one more player during the year is not a tall order when the rotation doesn't need the upgrading it did last winter.  11/4 or 11/3 would be less good, but still fixable, although I don't think that's where this ends up anyway.

[footey]

One thing I think is getting lost in the discussion is that there are two types of unplayable players:

1) The ones that everyone knew were unplayable when the roster was made, but they're on it for development, contractual reasons, or because you simply need bodies/expiring contracts for trades. (i.e. Pre-season unplayables)
2) The ones you thought would be playable when you made the roster but were wrong about.  This includes season-ending injuries. (i.e. post-season or hindsight unplayables).

By the end of last season, it was clear the Celtics had 6 unplayables -- 2 were developmental (Hauser and Nesmith), and 4 were due to a need of bodies (Stauskas, Fitts, Morgan, and Kornet).  This was because the team started the season with a ton of Type 1 unplayables (Fernando, Parker, Hernangomez, Nesmith, Langford) and chose to spend the trade deadline (wisely in my opinion) upgrading the rotation instead of fixing the depth.  It's not clear they could have done both, given how weak the buyout market was and how few low-contract rotation players were moved around the deadline.  The only two players that contributed in the postseason from the buyout market were Goran Dragic and Jevon Carter, and so the Celtics were left to fill out the roster with fodder.

Of the current 12 players under contract with the Celtics, only one player meets the pre-season definition of unplayable, and that's Kornet.  The Celtics clearly think Hauser will be playable, which is why they did the contract gymnastics of signing him to a 3-year deal with 2 years guaranteed, rather than just letting him stay on his non-guaranteed deal this season before hitting restricted free agency.  That shows they think he'd get a decent offer next summer they wouldn't want to match, and that's only happening if he's in actuality playable this season.  It remains to be seen if their player evaluation is correct, but if he's unplayable, that's a fault of evaluation and not roster construction.

In a perfect world they'd have 13 playables and 2 developmental unplayables when they break camp, but it's all right if it's 12/3 or 12/2, because finding one more player during the year is not a tall order when the rotation doesn't need the upgrading it did last winter.  11/4 or 11/3 would be less good, but still fixable, although I don't think that's where this ends up anyway.

Luke: "What do you mean I'm unplayable?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf3GuNq8MnI

[Celtics2021]

One thing I think is getting lost in the discussion is that there are two types of unplayable players:

1) The ones that everyone knew were unplayable when the roster was made, but they're on it for development, contractual reasons, or because you simply need bodies/expiring contracts for trades. (i.e. Pre-season unplayables)
2) The ones you thought would be playable when you made the roster but were wrong about.  This includes season-ending injuries. (i.e. post-season or hindsight unplayables).

By the end of last season, it was clear the Celtics had 6 unplayables -- 2 were developmental (Hauser and Nesmith), and 4 were due to a need of bodies (Stauskas, Fitts, Morgan, and Kornet).  This was because the team started the season with a ton of Type 1 unplayables (Fernando, Parker, Hernangomez, Nesmith, Langford) and chose to spend the trade deadline (wisely in my opinion) upgrading the rotation instead of fixing the depth.  It's not clear they could have done both, given how weak the buyout market was and how few low-contract rotation players were moved around the deadline.  The only two players that contributed in the postseason from the buyout market were Goran Dragic and Jevon Carter, and so the Celtics were left to fill out the roster with fodder.

Of the current 12 players under contract with the Celtics, only one player meets the pre-season definition of unplayable, and that's Kornet.  The Celtics clearly think Hauser will be playable, which is why they did the contract gymnastics of signing him to a 3-year deal with 2 years guaranteed, rather than just letting him stay on his non-guaranteed deal this season before hitting restricted free agency.  That shows they think he'd get a decent offer next summer they wouldn't want to match, and that's only happening if he's in actuality playable this season.  It remains to be seen if their player evaluation is correct, but if he's unplayable, that's a fault of evaluation and not roster construction.

In a perfect world they'd have 13 playables and 2 developmental unplayables when they break camp, but it's all right if it's 12/3 or 12/2, because finding one more player during the year is not a tall order when the rotation doesn't need the upgrading it did last winter.  11/4 or 11/3 would be less good, but still fixable, although I don't think that's where this ends up anyway.

Luke: "What do you mean I'm unplayable?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf3GuNq8MnI

Ah yes, the halcyon days when Roy spoke “The Green Kornet” into existence rather than griping about his minimum-salary resigning.  What a difference 15 months makes.

[Roy H.]

One thing I think is getting lost in the discussion is that there are two types of unplayable players:

1) The ones that everyone knew were unplayable when the roster was made, but they're on it for development, contractual reasons, or because you simply need bodies/expiring contracts for trades. (i.e. Pre-season unplayables)
2) The ones you thought would be playable when you made the roster but were wrong about.  This includes season-ending injuries. (i.e. post-season or hindsight unplayables).

By the end of last season, it was clear the Celtics had 6 unplayables -- 2 were developmental (Hauser and Nesmith), and 4 were due to a need of bodies (Stauskas, Fitts, Morgan, and Kornet).  This was because the team started the season with a ton of Type 1 unplayables (Fernando, Parker, Hernangomez, Nesmith, Langford) and chose to spend the trade deadline (wisely in my opinion) upgrading the rotation instead of fixing the depth.  It's not clear they could have done both, given how weak the buyout market was and how few low-contract rotation players were moved around the deadline.  The only two players that contributed in the postseason from the buyout market were Goran Dragic and Jevon Carter, and so the Celtics were left to fill out the roster with fodder.

Of the current 12 players under contract with the Celtics, only one player meets the pre-season definition of unplayable, and that's Kornet.  The Celtics clearly think Hauser will be playable, which is why they did the contract gymnastics of signing him to a 3-year deal with 2 years guaranteed, rather than just letting him stay on his non-guaranteed deal this season before hitting restricted free agency.  That shows they think he'd get a decent offer next summer they wouldn't want to match, and that's only happening if he's in actuality playable this season.  It remains to be seen if their player evaluation is correct, but if he's unplayable, that's a fault of evaluation and not roster construction.

In a perfect world they'd have 13 playables and 2 developmental unplayables when they break camp, but it's all right if it's 12/3 or 12/2, because finding one more player during the year is not a tall order when the rotation doesn't need the upgrading it did last winter.  11/4 or 11/3 would be less good, but still fixable, although I don't think that's where this ends up anyway.

Luke: "What do you mean I'm unplayable?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf3GuNq8MnI

Ah yes, the halcyon days when Roy spoke “The Green Kornet” into existence rather than griping about his minimum-salary resigning.  What a difference 15 months makes.

Haha.  I’m fine with him on the team so long as we add another center and wing.  Every team needs a towel waiver.

I still don’t know why we signed him to a multi year deal, however. Even if it is non-guaranteed, we are paying him slightly more than necessary, right?

[Celtics2021]

One thing I think is getting lost in the discussion is that there are two types of unplayable players:

1) The ones that everyone knew were unplayable when the roster was made, but they're on it for development, contractual reasons, or because you simply need bodies/expiring contracts for trades. (i.e. Pre-season unplayables)
2) The ones you thought would be playable when you made the roster but were wrong about.  This includes season-ending injuries. (i.e. post-season or hindsight unplayables).

By the end of last season, it was clear the Celtics had 6 unplayables -- 2 were developmental (Hauser and Nesmith), and 4 were due to a need of bodies (Stauskas, Fitts, Morgan, and Kornet).  This was because the team started the season with a ton of Type 1 unplayables (Fernando, Parker, Hernangomez, Nesmith, Langford) and chose to spend the trade deadline (wisely in my opinion) upgrading the rotation instead of fixing the depth.  It's not clear they could have done both, given how weak the buyout market was and how few low-contract rotation players were moved around the deadline.  The only two players that contributed in the postseason from the buyout market were Goran Dragic and Jevon Carter, and so the Celtics were left to fill out the roster with fodder.

Of the current 12 players under contract with the Celtics, only one player meets the pre-season definition of unplayable, and that's Kornet.  The Celtics clearly think Hauser will be playable, which is why they did the contract gymnastics of signing him to a 3-year deal with 2 years guaranteed, rather than just letting him stay on his non-guaranteed deal this season before hitting restricted free agency.  That shows they think he'd get a decent offer next summer they wouldn't want to match, and that's only happening if he's in actuality playable this season.  It remains to be seen if their player evaluation is correct, but if he's unplayable, that's a fault of evaluation and not roster construction.

In a perfect world they'd have 13 playables and 2 developmental unplayables when they break camp, but it's all right if it's 12/3 or 12/2, because finding one more player during the year is not a tall order when the rotation doesn't need the upgrading it did last winter.  11/4 or 11/3 would be less good, but still fixable, although I don't think that's where this ends up anyway.

Luke: "What do you mean I'm unplayable?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf3GuNq8MnI

Ah yes, the halcyon days when Roy spoke “The Green Kornet” into existence rather than griping about his minimum-salary resigning.  What a difference 15 months makes.

Haha.  I’m fine with him on the team so long as we add another center and wing.  Every team needs a towel waiver.

I still don’t know why we signed him to a multi year deal, however. Even if it is non-guaranteed, we are paying him slightly more than necessary, right?

Since it’s a multi-year deal we can trade him without him having to waive no-trade rights, as otherwise it’d be a one-year deal with him having Early Bird rights at the end of the year.  If he does last the full year the difference is $300k.  If he doesn’t, the difference is even less, or zero if he’s waived before he’d have played enough games to earn what he got on his guarantee.

[Roy H.]

One thing I think is getting lost in the discussion is that there are two types of unplayable players:

1) The ones that everyone knew were unplayable when the roster was made, but they're on it for development, contractual reasons, or because you simply need bodies/expiring contracts for trades. (i.e. Pre-season unplayables)
2) The ones you thought would be playable when you made the roster but were wrong about.  This includes season-ending injuries. (i.e. post-season or hindsight unplayables).

By the end of last season, it was clear the Celtics had 6 unplayables -- 2 were developmental (Hauser and Nesmith), and 4 were due to a need of bodies (Stauskas, Fitts, Morgan, and Kornet).  This was because the team started the season with a ton of Type 1 unplayables (Fernando, Parker, Hernangomez, Nesmith, Langford) and chose to spend the trade deadline (wisely in my opinion) upgrading the rotation instead of fixing the depth.  It's not clear they could have done both, given how weak the buyout market was and how few low-contract rotation players were moved around the deadline.  The only two players that contributed in the postseason from the buyout market were Goran Dragic and Jevon Carter, and so the Celtics were left to fill out the roster with fodder.

Of the current 12 players under contract with the Celtics, only one player meets the pre-season definition of unplayable, and that's Kornet.  The Celtics clearly think Hauser will be playable, which is why they did the contract gymnastics of signing him to a 3-year deal with 2 years guaranteed, rather than just letting him stay on his non-guaranteed deal this season before hitting restricted free agency.  That shows they think he'd get a decent offer next summer they wouldn't want to match, and that's only happening if he's in actuality playable this season.  It remains to be seen if their player evaluation is correct, but if he's unplayable, that's a fault of evaluation and not roster construction.

In a perfect world they'd have 13 playables and 2 developmental unplayables when they break camp, but it's all right if it's 12/3 or 12/2, because finding one more player during the year is not a tall order when the rotation doesn't need the upgrading it did last winter.  11/4 or 11/3 would be less good, but still fixable, although I don't think that's where this ends up anyway.

Luke: "What do you mean I'm unplayable?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf3GuNq8MnI

Ah yes, the halcyon days when Roy spoke “The Green Kornet” into existence rather than griping about his minimum-salary resigning.  What a difference 15 months makes.

Haha.  I’m fine with him on the team so long as we add another center and wing.  Every team needs a towel waiver.

I still don’t know why we signed him to a multi year deal, however. Even if it is non-guaranteed, we are paying him slightly more than necessary, right?

Since it’s a multi-year deal we can trade him without him having to waive no-trade rights, as otherwise it’d be a one-year deal with him having Early Bird rights at the end of the year.  If he does last the full year the difference is $300k.  If he doesn’t, the difference is even less, or zero if he’s waived before he’d have played enough games to earn what he got on his guarantee.

$300k, but also around $1 million in tax, right?

[Celtics2021]

One thing I think is getting lost in the discussion is that there are two types of unplayable players:

1) The ones that everyone knew were unplayable when the roster was made, but they're on it for development, contractual reasons, or because you simply need bodies/expiring contracts for trades. (i.e. Pre-season unplayables)
2) The ones you thought would be playable when you made the roster but were wrong about.  This includes season-ending injuries. (i.e. post-season or hindsight unplayables).

By the end of last season, it was clear the Celtics had 6 unplayables -- 2 were developmental (Hauser and Nesmith), and 4 were due to a need of bodies (Stauskas, Fitts, Morgan, and Kornet).  This was because the team started the season with a ton of Type 1 unplayables (Fernando, Parker, Hernangomez, Nesmith, Langford) and chose to spend the trade deadline (wisely in my opinion) upgrading the rotation instead of fixing the depth.  It's not clear they could have done both, given how weak the buyout market was and how few low-contract rotation players were moved around the deadline.  The only two players that contributed in the postseason from the buyout market were Goran Dragic and Jevon Carter, and so the Celtics were left to fill out the roster with fodder.

Of the current 12 players under contract with the Celtics, only one player meets the pre-season definition of unplayable, and that's Kornet.  The Celtics clearly think Hauser will be playable, which is why they did the contract gymnastics of signing him to a 3-year deal with 2 years guaranteed, rather than just letting him stay on his non-guaranteed deal this season before hitting restricted free agency.  That shows they think he'd get a decent offer next summer they wouldn't want to match, and that's only happening if he's in actuality playable this season.  It remains to be seen if their player evaluation is correct, but if he's unplayable, that's a fault of evaluation and not roster construction.

In a perfect world they'd have 13 playables and 2 developmental unplayables when they break camp, but it's all right if it's 12/3 or 12/2, because finding one more player during the year is not a tall order when the rotation doesn't need the upgrading it did last winter.  11/4 or 11/3 would be less good, but still fixable, although I don't think that's where this ends up anyway.

Luke: "What do you mean I'm unplayable?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf3GuNq8MnI

Ah yes, the halcyon days when Roy spoke “The Green Kornet” into existence rather than griping about his minimum-salary resigning.  What a difference 15 months makes.

Haha.  I’m fine with him on the team so long as we add another center and wing.  Every team needs a towel waiver.

I still don’t know why we signed him to a multi year deal, however. Even if it is non-guaranteed, we are paying him slightly more than necessary, right?

Since it’s a multi-year deal we can trade him without him having to waive no-trade rights, as otherwise it’d be a one-year deal with him having Early Bird rights at the end of the year.  If he does last the full year the difference is $300k.  If he doesn’t, the difference is even less, or zero if he’s waived before he’d have played enough games to earn what he got on his guarantee.

$300k, but also around $1 million in tax, right?

If he lasts the full year, yes, but I don't think he will.  If he does, he's probably risen to a level of competence that's worth the extra tax.

[Roy H.]

One thing I think is getting lost in the discussion is that there are two types of unplayable players:

1) The ones that everyone knew were unplayable when the roster was made, but they're on it for development, contractual reasons, or because you simply need bodies/expiring contracts for trades. (i.e. Pre-season unplayables)
2) The ones you thought would be playable when you made the roster but were wrong about.  This includes season-ending injuries. (i.e. post-season or hindsight unplayables).

By the end of last season, it was clear the Celtics had 6 unplayables -- 2 were developmental (Hauser and Nesmith), and 4 were due to a need of bodies (Stauskas, Fitts, Morgan, and Kornet).  This was because the team started the season with a ton of Type 1 unplayables (Fernando, Parker, Hernangomez, Nesmith, Langford) and chose to spend the trade deadline (wisely in my opinion) upgrading the rotation instead of fixing the depth.  It's not clear they could have done both, given how weak the buyout market was and how few low-contract rotation players were moved around the deadline.  The only two players that contributed in the postseason from the buyout market were Goran Dragic and Jevon Carter, and so the Celtics were left to fill out the roster with fodder.

Of the current 12 players under contract with the Celtics, only one player meets the pre-season definition of unplayable, and that's Kornet.  The Celtics clearly think Hauser will be playable, which is why they did the contract gymnastics of signing him to a 3-year deal with 2 years guaranteed, rather than just letting him stay on his non-guaranteed deal this season before hitting restricted free agency.  That shows they think he'd get a decent offer next summer they wouldn't want to match, and that's only happening if he's in actuality playable this season.  It remains to be seen if their player evaluation is correct, but if he's unplayable, that's a fault of evaluation and not roster construction.

In a perfect world they'd have 13 playables and 2 developmental unplayables when they break camp, but it's all right if it's 12/3 or 12/2, because finding one more player during the year is not a tall order when the rotation doesn't need the upgrading it did last winter.  11/4 or 11/3 would be less good, but still fixable, although I don't think that's where this ends up anyway.

Luke: "What do you mean I'm unplayable?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf3GuNq8MnI

Ah yes, the halcyon days when Roy spoke “The Green Kornet” into existence rather than griping about his minimum-salary resigning.  What a difference 15 months makes.

Haha.  I’m fine with him on the team so long as we add another center and wing.  Every team needs a towel waiver.

I still don’t know why we signed him to a multi year deal, however. Even if it is non-guaranteed, we are paying him slightly more than necessary, right?

Since it’s a multi-year deal we can trade him without him having to waive no-trade rights, as otherwise it’d be a one-year deal with him having Early Bird rights at the end of the year.  If he does last the full year the difference is $300k.  If he doesn’t, the difference is even less, or zero if he’s waived before he’d have played enough games to earn what he got on his guarantee.

$300k, but also around $1 million in tax, right?

If he lasts the full year, yes, but I don't think he will.  If he does, he's probably risen to a level of competence that's worth the extra tax.

Also, does the “No trade” provision apply to Kornet?  Do we have Bird rights, when he’s played with other teams in between?

[Celtics2021]

One thing I think is getting lost in the discussion is that there are two types of unplayable players:

1) The ones that everyone knew were unplayable when the roster was made, but they're on it for development, contractual reasons, or because you simply need bodies/expiring contracts for trades. (i.e. Pre-season unplayables)
2) The ones you thought would be playable when you made the roster but were wrong about.  This includes season-ending injuries. (i.e. post-season or hindsight unplayables).

By the end of last season, it was clear the Celtics had 6 unplayables -- 2 were developmental (Hauser and Nesmith), and 4 were due to a need of bodies (Stauskas, Fitts, Morgan, and Kornet).  This was because the team started the season with a ton of Type 1 unplayables (Fernando, Parker, Hernangomez, Nesmith, Langford) and chose to spend the trade deadline (wisely in my opinion) upgrading the rotation instead of fixing the depth.  It's not clear they could have done both, given how weak the buyout market was and how few low-contract rotation players were moved around the deadline.  The only two players that contributed in the postseason from the buyout market were Goran Dragic and Jevon Carter, and so the Celtics were left to fill out the roster with fodder.

Of the current 12 players under contract with the Celtics, only one player meets the pre-season definition of unplayable, and that's Kornet.  The Celtics clearly think Hauser will be playable, which is why they did the contract gymnastics of signing him to a 3-year deal with 2 years guaranteed, rather than just letting him stay on his non-guaranteed deal this season before hitting restricted free agency.  That shows they think he'd get a decent offer next summer they wouldn't want to match, and that's only happening if he's in actuality playable this season.  It remains to be seen if their player evaluation is correct, but if he's unplayable, that's a fault of evaluation and not roster construction.

In a perfect world they'd have 13 playables and 2 developmental unplayables when they break camp, but it's all right if it's 12/3 or 12/2, because finding one more player during the year is not a tall order when the rotation doesn't need the upgrading it did last winter.  11/4 or 11/3 would be less good, but still fixable, although I don't think that's where this ends up anyway.

Luke: "What do you mean I'm unplayable?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf3GuNq8MnI

Ah yes, the halcyon days when Roy spoke “The Green Kornet” into existence rather than griping about his minimum-salary resigning.  What a difference 15 months makes.

Haha.  I’m fine with him on the team so long as we add another center and wing.  Every team needs a towel waiver.

I still don’t know why we signed him to a multi year deal, however. Even if it is non-guaranteed, we are paying him slightly more than necessary, right?

Since it’s a multi-year deal we can trade him without him having to waive no-trade rights, as otherwise it’d be a one-year deal with him having Early Bird rights at the end of the year.  If he does last the full year the difference is $300k.  If he doesn’t, the difference is even less, or zero if he’s waived before he’d have played enough games to earn what he got on his guarantee.

$300k, but also around $1 million in tax, right?

If he lasts the full year, yes, but I don't think he will.  If he does, he's probably risen to a level of competence that's worth the extra tax.

Also, does the “No trade” provision apply to Kornet?  Do we have Bird rights, when he’s played with other teams in between?

Yes, he finished last season with us, so a one-year deal would give him two years with us next summer, making him Early Bird eligible.  He wouldn’t be full Bird eligible because of his Covid 10-days last season.

[libermaniac]

How many roster spots do we HAVE to use? Can we leave two spots open to save money and then fill them if we need to after the trade deadline with buyouts?

[Sketch5]

How many roster spots do we HAVE to use? Can we leave two spots open to save money and then fill them if we need to after the trade deadline with buyouts?

I think we have to have 14 or 15 spots before season starts. But thats why you have a couple cheap contracts, easy to move in case some one pops up.

[Celtics2021]

How many roster spots do we HAVE to use? Can we leave two spots open to save money and then fill them if we need to after the trade deadline with buyouts?

14, really.  You can leave two open for a couple of weeks at a time, but if we started the season with 13 we'd have to pick up a 14th pretty quickly, who's unlikely to be better than anyone we could have started the year with anyway.

[Roy H.]

Ime talked about team needs:

Udoka acknowledged one more need that has flown under the radar for Boston beyond adding another big.

“Talked about another big, another possible wing,” Udoka said Tuesday. “We’re just monitoring everything we’re doing here, taking a good look at our guys. Obviously, Sam has been signed already. For us, it’s best available wing possibly. You always like to add shooting, but another big will be a premium for sure.”