In hindsight, do we keep Grant?

[Roy H.]

At the time of the Grant Williams S&T, he obviously had no idea that he'd be trading Timelord and that our depth would take a bit of a hit.  Now, though, it seems like the Celtics have gone "all in". 

In hindsight, would Brad have kept Grant?  Or would he have still made the S&T?

[JBcat]

Good question. I personally like Brissett as a low cost low maintenance replacement who is a gritty defender who can hit 3’s dare I say sort of like a James Posey. Someone who seems like he  can play the 3 and 4. He seemed to regress last season, but if he can revert back to how he played 2 years ago that’s a nice find. I was also very impressed with Jordan Walsh in the Summer league who will also help replace Grant. We’ll see how it plays out how much Grant is missed.

[Vermont Green]

There is going to be plenty of rethinking Grant.  I think the core issue is that Grant didn't want to be the 4th big on the Celtics.  He wanted to go to DAL.  The Celtics could have still matched, Grant would have gotten over it, but I have no remorse over it.  $53M for a 4th big who didn't even want to be here?  And who wasn't all that good anyway?

Of course now with trading Rob Williams, the big depth changes and Grant would be the 3rd big and would have a more significant role.  Not a starter like he is expected to be in DAL, but still a regular rotation role.  The problem for me is that I don't think he is any better than the tier of players that includes Pritchard, Hauser, Brissett, etc.  Grant is an undersized PF with limited athleticism but a decent 3 point shot, so long as he is open and in the corner.  Brissett is an inch taller, little more wingspan, more athletic and versatile, but less reliable from 3.

Bottom line for me, I am concerned that we need another decent PF/C to replace Rob Williams but I am still not convinced that Grant is any better to be that player than Brissett.  Neither is really what is needed.

[PAOBoston]

I think part of the issue wasn’t just money but playing time as well. Grant was gonna get like $15 mil to be 4th string guy (Horford/Porzingis/Williams)? Think he wanted to get paid and get minutes. Also didn’t think he jived with Mazzulla.

[Roy H.]

I think part of the issue wasn’t just money but playing time as well. Grant was gonna get like $15 mil to be 4th string guy (Horford/Porzingis/Williams)? Think he wanted to get paid and get minutes. Also didn’t think he jived with Mazzulla.

I think a lot of that is true, but keep in mind that he was restricted.  If Brad wanted him back, he'd be here.

[Kernewek]

There is going to be plenty of rethinking Grant.  I think the core issue is that Grant didn't want to be the 4th big on the Celtics.  He wanted to go to DAL.  The Celtics could have still matched, Grant would have gotten over it, but I have no remorse over it.  $53M for a 4th big who didn't even want to be here?  And who wasn't all that good anyway?

Of course now with trading Rob Williams, the big depth changes and Grant would be the 3rd big and would have a more significant role.  Not a starter like he is expected to be in DAL, but still a regular rotation role.  The problem for me is that I don't think he is any better than the tier of players that includes Pritchard, Hauser, Brissett, etc.  Grant is an undersized PF with limited athleticism but a decent 3 point shot, so long as he is open and in the corner.  Brissett is an inch taller, little more wingspan, more athletic and versatile, but less reliable from 3.

Bottom line for me, I am concerned that we need another decent PF/C to replace Rob Williams but I am still not convinced that Grant is any better to be that player than Brissett.  Neither is really what is needed.

This is where I fall as well.

[Celtics2021]

I don’t think so, no.  I think the Celtics had moved on, and were using restricted free agency to get something for him.

[kraidstar]

One thing that has flown under the radar here us that we have lost arguably our two best 3pt shooters.

Grant had his shortcomings- undersized, bad rebounder, subpar handle, no inside offense - but man, he had a sweet stroke.

If we’re destined to exceed the 2nd apron this year, then losing Grant definitely stings. Unless of course we use that TPE for someone good.

I would also add that, eventually, there is going to be a real ceiling to what ownership is willing to pay for this roster. We know Wyc and Co have been printing money the last few years, and I do believe ownership is willing to take a financial hit to aggressively contend. But if that luxury tax bill starts climbing up past $200m and Wyc is running $50m+ in the red, eventually he is going to put his foot down, most of his fortune is tied up in the value of the team.

The question is if Grant is the guy we want pushing us up closer to that limit, wherever it may be. 

Normally I would say "no." But with our 3pt shooting and big man rotation stretched so thin now I am not sure.

[Csfan1984]

Didn't love Grant's attitude or his approach to the game at times. Was too up and down for the money he was due and the direction we need to go in.

[Silas]

One thing that has flown under the radar here us that we have lost arguably our two best 3pt shooters.

Grant had his shortcomings- undersized, bad rebounder, subpar handle, no inside offense - but man, he had a sweet stroke.

If we’re destined to exceed the 2nd apron this year, then losing Grant definitely stings. Unless of course we use that TPE for someone good.

I would also add that, eventually, there is going to be a real ceiling to what ownership is willing to pay for this roster. We know Wyc and Co have been printing money the last few years, and I do believe ownership is willing to take a financial hit to aggressively contend. But if that luxury tax bill starts climbing up past $200m and Wyc is running $50m+ in the red, eventually he is going to put his foot down, most of his fortune is tied up in the value of the team.

The question is if Grant is the guy we want pushing us up closer to that limit, wherever it may be. 

Normally I would say "no." But with our 3pt shooting and big man rotation stretched so thin now I am not sure.

Not really...(1) Horford, 44.6% and 5.2 3pa;
                 (2) Brogdon, 44.4% and 4.4 3pa;
                 (3) Hauser, 41.8% and 4.2 3pa;
                 (4) Grant, 39.5% and 3.7 3pa.

But our big man rotation is stretched thin.

[Vermont Green]

One thing that has flown under the radar here us that we have lost arguably our two best 3pt shooters.

Grant had his shortcomings- undersized, bad rebounder, subpar handle, no inside offense - but man, he had a sweet stroke.

If we’re destined to exceed the 2nd apron this year, then losing Grant definitely stings. Unless of course we use that TPE for someone good.

I would also add that, eventually, there is going to be a real ceiling to what ownership is willing to pay for this roster. We know Wyc and Co have been printing money the last few years, and I do believe ownership is willing to take a financial hit to aggressively contend. But if that luxury tax bill starts climbing up past $200m and Wyc is running $50m+ in the red, eventually he is going to put his foot down, most of his fortune is tied up in the value of the team.

The question is if Grant is the guy we want pushing us up closer to that limit, wherever it may be. 

Normally I would say "no." But with our 3pt shooting and big man rotation stretched so thin now I am not sure.

Not really...(1) Horford, 44.6% and 5.2 3pa;
                 (2) Brogdon, 44.4% and 4.4 3pa;
                 (3) Hauser, 41.8% and 4.2 3pa;
                 (4) Grant, 39.5% and 3.7 3pa.

But our big man rotation is stretched thin.

Also, the thing with Grant was that he was only reliable from 3 if he was in the corner and fairly open.  That shot was only there for him because the defense had to tilt towards other players on the court.  Even if limited, having that ability in Grant's arsenal is still nice.  It separates him from a lot of players in the league, but if you just go by "39.5% from 3", and don't consider the context, it can be misleading.

[PAOBoston]

I think part of the issue wasn’t just money but playing time as well. Grant was gonna get like $15 mil to be 4th string guy (Horford/Porzingis/Williams)? Think he wanted to get paid and get minutes. Also didn’t think he jived with Mazzulla.

I think a lot of that is true, but keep in mind that he was restricted.  If Brad wanted him back, he'd be here.

I don’t disagree that they “could” have matched. I think it really boiled down to a combo of money and dealing with a possibly disgruntled player in terms of playing time and usage. Once KP came on aboard, it sort of lessened the need for a big man shooter/defender.

[PAOBoston]

One thing that has flown under the radar here us that we have lost arguably our two best 3pt shooters.

Grant had his shortcomings- undersized, bad rebounder, subpar handle, no inside offense - but man, he had a sweet stroke.

If we’re destined to exceed the 2nd apron this year, then losing Grant definitely stings. Unless of course we use that TPE for someone good.

I would also add that, eventually, there is going to be a real ceiling to what ownership is willing to pay for this roster. We know Wyc and Co have been printing money the last few years, and I do believe ownership is willing to take a financial hit to aggressively contend. But if that luxury tax bill starts climbing up past $200m and Wyc is running $50m+ in the red, eventually he is going to put his foot down, most of his fortune is tied up in the value of the team.

The question is if Grant is the guy we want pushing us up closer to that limit, wherever it may be. 

Normally I would say "no." But with our 3pt shooting and big man rotation stretched so thin now I am not sure.

Not really...(1) Horford, 44.6% and 5.2 3pa;
                 (2) Brogdon, 44.4% and 4.4 3pa;
                 (3) Hauser, 41.8% and 4.2 3pa;
                 (4) Grant, 39.5% and 3.7 3pa.

But our big man rotation is stretched thin.

They added KP and JH who shot .385 and .384 respectively. It’s not really that huge of a downgrade. Also, need to figure that JB and JT bounce back up a little in their 3 pt shooting. Both were down overall last year.

[Celtics2021]

One thing that has flown under the radar here us that we have lost arguably our two best 3pt shooters.

Grant had his shortcomings- undersized, bad rebounder, subpar handle, no inside offense - but man, he had a sweet stroke.

If we’re destined to exceed the 2nd apron this year, then losing Grant definitely stings. Unless of course we use that TPE for someone good.

I would also add that, eventually, there is going to be a real ceiling to what ownership is willing to pay for this roster. We know Wyc and Co have been printing money the last few years, and I do believe ownership is willing to take a financial hit to aggressively contend. But if that luxury tax bill starts climbing up past $200m and Wyc is running $50m+ in the red, eventually he is going to put his foot down, most of his fortune is tied up in the value of the team.

The question is if Grant is the guy we want pushing us up closer to that limit, wherever it may be. 

Normally I would say "no." But with our 3pt shooting and big man rotation stretched so thin now I am not sure.

Not really...(1) Horford, 44.6% and 5.2 3pa;
                 (2) Brogdon, 44.4% and 4.4 3pa;
                 (3) Hauser, 41.8% and 4.2 3pa;
                 (4) Grant, 39.5% and 3.7 3pa.

But our big man rotation is stretched thin.

They added KP and JH who shot .385 and .384 respectively. It’s not really that huge of a downgrade. Also, need to figure that JB and JT bounce back up a little in their 3 pt shooting. Both were down overall last year.

And as far as bench players go, Svi, who shot .424 on 3.1 attempts per game.  I agree it’s unlikely to be different, especially if KP and Jrue can help us create better shots overall.

[Roy H.]

I think part of the issue wasn’t just money but playing time as well. Grant was gonna get like $15 mil to be 4th string guy (Horford/Porzingis/Williams)? Think he wanted to get paid and get minutes. Also didn’t think he jived with Mazzulla.

I think a lot of that is true, but keep in mind that he was restricted.  If Brad wanted him back, he'd be here.

I don’t disagree that they “could” have matched. I think it really boiled down to a combo of money and dealing with a possibly disgruntled player in terms of playing time and usage. Once KP came on aboard, it sort of lessened the need for a big man shooter/defender.

Yeah.  This thread is really just theoretical, hindsight is 20/20, etc.

It's basically asking, if we knew we were making the KP and Jrue trades, would we have kept Grant.  That doesn't negate the reasons why we passed on signing him in the first place, but those things have now changed.

My guess:  we keep him, at least in the short-term.  I do think we would have looked to trade him for a different type of big man on a shorter contract.  I think the analysis about our depth and salary implications would have changed.  At this point, we need to be "all in".