Its a very good deal for Brown but surprise he turned it down..i wouldnt budge..if he goes in the future, oh well, theres alot of better players out there
can you provide some examples of players you think are better than Brown considering what he can do now, his remaining upside (expected improvements) AND is cheaper than what Danny offered AND will be available?
I suspect you'll have difficulty finding an example with 3 of those qualities, never mind all 4.
If Terry Rozier got what he got then this is pretty terrible for Brown. Especially if Brown continues to show what he's displayed in pre-season - improved handling and offensive decision-making.
Rozier got a 3 year contract that decreases every season with an average of 18.9 million (again decreasing every year) and went to a team that had no way to add him, without a trade and since they were trading out a max player had to have a high initial salary. That is a worse offer than 4 years, 80 million and was only offered because of the weird trade situation the two teams found themselves in.
Yeah, it is a worse offer, but Rozier is a considerably worse player, who is older, who has shown to be nothing more than an average NBA starter.
Buddy Hield apparently just got offered $90m/4yrs for comparison.
Hield is worth more
Hield wants 110m.
I meant Hield is worth more than Brown.
True.
Hield averaged 20.7 points per game last season.
Jaylen has never averaged more than 14.5 points per game his career.
That's why I don't think he's a max player.
Buddy Hield is also turning 27 in two months, and is a much worse defender than Brown.
Celts are win now mode.
By signing Kemba, Celts are trying to win now.
I don't know what happened to Ainge's plan of building around Tatum and Brown when Kyrie left.
Celts would've been able to sign Brown the max if Ainge didn't give Kemba 34m per year.
Regarding Hield's age, Hield is not asking for the max.
He's only asking for 110m for 4 years.
Simmons and Murray got the max.
So Hield is not being unreasonable.
I don't think signing Kemba means the Celtics are in win now mode so much as it means they were in "can't lose a max contract slot for nothing mode."
The Celtics can still sign Brown to the max since Hayward deal has only one overlapping year with Browns extension (if Hayward opts in), and Tatum will still be cheap for that year. So financials really aren't a concern, its more like is he worth it? And if you believe somebody else will offer him the max then the market has determined he is.
I doubt the Celtics are gonna trade Brown, mostly because the value won't be there. I mean the idea of trading a former top 3rd pick for some middling draft pick(s) is so underwhelming when he was off the table in Butler, George and Kawhi talks. Its almost better just to take a risk on his next contract. Now if someone makes a really good offer then sure.
I think the way this pays out is Brown bets on himself, plays the season (I think he has a really good one), and the Celtics match whatever offer he gets or works something out next summer. he's still a perfect fit next to Tatum, and Kemba and Hayward will both be 30 by next summer so it seems kind of silly to be building with those guys next to a 22 year old Tatum.
Signing Kemba for the max has lots of implications for the Celts.
The Celts are risking being in luxury tax territory by giving Kemba the max.
And Celts will be risking losing a player like Brown by giving Kemba the max.
The Celts would've been able to start a quasi rebuild with Horford and Kyrie gone.
Hayward would've been the only big contract the Celts would have to deal with.
It's not like the Celts still had Horford when Kyrie left.
If Horford stayed then it would've made sense to replace Kyrie with Kemba.
Losing your 2 best players, Horford and Kyrie, meant the Celts would have to rebuild.
But Ainge refused to rebuild.
That's why he signed Kemba.
And the Celts can get significant value for Brown if the Celts trade Brown to a team who can pay Brown the max.
Literally nothing in this post has to be true, some of it could be but none of it has to be. The Celtics aren't in the luxury tax, so they sacrificed nothing there. The loss of Rozier, Morris, and Kyrie means the young guys will still get increased roles so no sacrifice there. Kemba getting the max doesn't effect Browns next contract.
And whether they signed Kemba or not they are still in a quasi rebuild, we know that because they drafted 4 rookies 3 of which will get time on the team this team and 2 of which will probably be in the rotation. Teams going for it right now don't do that.
Only reason why the Celts ended up with 4 rookies is because the Cavs didn't want to trade the #5 pick to the Celts.
Here:
https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/celtics/nba-rumors-celtics-interested-trading-cavs-no-5-draft-pick
NBA rumors: Celtics interested in trading for Cavs' No. 5 draft pick
By Nick Goss June 20, 2019 6:46 PM
Chris Fedor
✔
@ChrisFedor
#Cavs have had inquiries now from Minnesota, Chicago and Boston for the fifth pick, according to league sources. The price hasn't been right. Yet.
So? They still took four draft picks. That about as "rebuilding" as you can get.
Not necessarily.
You don't give a player, Kemba, 34m per year, so that you can rebuild.
If a team spends that kind of money, that means the team is gunning for a playoff run.
When the Celts were rebuilding in 2013, Ainge never went after big name free-agents in 2013, 2014, and 2015.
It was only in 2016 that Ainge started going after big name free-agents.
If Celts wanted a rebuild, they would not have signed Kemba.
Celts would just have to give Brown the max and build around Tatum and Brown.