Author Topic: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?  (Read 19913 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #45 on: October 26, 2021, 02:04:14 PM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6970
  • Tommy Points: 466
I figure if we are only doing okay (.500ish) and want to get below the tax, then we will be looking to move Schroder. Instead of having to give up a supposed 1st, we might actually get a pick back.

Don't get me wrong, I would be more than happy having Schroder here for the long-term, but it's going to be close to impossible to make that happen.

Of course if we are killing it, then I imagine we will just accept the tax and all of the implications that come with it. Just need to see what happens with this group.
How do we move Schroeder (presumably to a contender) that doesn't have to send money back?

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #46 on: October 26, 2021, 02:18:41 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
I understand why we got him, I don't understand why we extended him at all
to trade him in the summer


And it is not like the Celtics are going to have cap room next summer either way.   

So the team bet on being able to get the best out of Richardson and extended him so he could be trade filler in the summer.   They extended the time they can use him for that purpose.
This.

Whatever you think of Richardson the player, having him on a deal they can use next summer was a smart play.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #47 on: October 26, 2021, 02:20:50 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58539
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I understand why we got him, I don't understand why we extended him at all
to trade him in the summer


And it is not like the Celtics are going to have cap room next summer either way.   

So the team bet on being able to get the best out of Richardson and extended him so he could be trade filler in the summer.   They extended the time they can use him for that purpose.
This.

Whatever you think of Richardson the player, having him on a deal they can use next summer was a smart play.

... unless they can't use it and he's dead weight.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #48 on: October 26, 2021, 02:34:08 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
I understand why we got him, I don't understand why we extended him at all
to trade him in the summer


And it is not like the Celtics are going to have cap room next summer either way.   

So the team bet on being able to get the best out of Richardson and extended him so he could be trade filler in the summer.   They extended the time they can use him for that purpose.
This.

Whatever you think of Richardson the player, having him on a deal they can use next summer was a smart play.

... unless they can't use it and he's dead weight.
In this case "dead weight" will be an expiring contract barely more than the midlevel exception for a terrific wing defender and streaky shooter.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #49 on: October 26, 2021, 02:38:59 PM »

Offline dannyboy35

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1939
  • Tommy Points: 104
  I think if Danny made the move to get Richardson he’d be getting killed right now. “Why did we bring in another non shooter etc.”
  He’s not too expensive and he’s good at d and can make a basketball play, basically. That’s how I look at him. But also definitely part of a future deal. Is another team gonna want him as part of the deal is a good question , though. I think with shooting such a priority, I think his value will continue to drop.

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #50 on: October 26, 2021, 02:40:35 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58539
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I understand why we got him, I don't understand why we extended him at all
to trade him in the summer


And it is not like the Celtics are going to have cap room next summer either way.   

So the team bet on being able to get the best out of Richardson and extended him so he could be trade filler in the summer.   They extended the time they can use him for that purpose.
This.

Whatever you think of Richardson the player, having him on a deal they can use next summer was a smart play.

... unless they can't use it and he's dead weight.
In this case "dead weight" will be an expiring contract barely more than the midlevel exception for a terrific wing defender and streaky shooter.

I'm not sure where you're seeing the terrific defense, but that's far from the worst case reasonable scenario.  There's not much of a market for unproductive players in consistent decline, expiring or not.  And, the trade exception we have is much more valuable.  I'm not sure what type of trade people are expecting involving Richardson, but I think they're going to be disappointed.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #51 on: October 26, 2021, 03:26:37 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
I would be so thrilled if we could package Smart and Richardson for someone..

Fingers crossed

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #52 on: October 26, 2021, 05:17:57 PM »

Online Celtics2021

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7142
  • Tommy Points: 979
From a contract perspective, it is true that Richardson is less tradable at the deadline with the extension than without it.  But he, of course, is more tradable next summer with it.  So the question is whether the C’s feel they are more likely to make a major move in February or July.

The Celtics, pre-Richardson extension, already had the Thompson TPE, the Theis TPE, and Kris Dunn’s expiring, which could all be used to acquire a rotation level player to fix a hole, so Richardson’s expiring was less needed.  Since then they’ve converted Dunn to Hernangomez’ larger expiring and added the Fournier TPE, so it’s even more true now than it was then.  Given that, it would seem that the Celtics feel if they’re going to make a major player acquisition (e.g. Beal, but who knows internally what players they might be targeting) it would be better to have an expiring next summer.  And if they don’t make the move, for whatever reason, Richardson is still a perfectly useful player.  Maybe paid a couple million more than one would like, but he’s in the ballpark of the correct value, especially with a cap increase that should be 8-10% next year (i.e. less than his raise, so his salary as a percentage of the cap will likely be lower next year than this).

I know you prefer Fournier, and while I don’t miss him, I don’t think you’re crazy.  I do think that if the Celtics are trying to make a major move next summer, Richardson’s expiring would be more useful than Fournier in year 2 of a 4-year deal.  We heard “flexibility” as the buzzword this summer, and I know a lot of us, myself included, thought that meant leaving room to be a player in free agency next year through cap space.  But the Celtics do, in fact, have a lot of flexibility to be active in the trade market both at the deadline and next summer, and when you see all the names that came off the free agency board next year due to extensions, it seems that trades will be how the league shakes itself up in June and July.  In the meantime, maybe they have a team that can be competitive — we’ll all have a better idea of that by the deadline — but they have flexibility without punting on the year.

On court, I do think there is concern about Jaylen’s knee/general durability, and I think Richardson’s style of play, while being vastly inferior to Jaylen, is similar, so he can step into that role better if Brown needs a day off.  I’m personally a fan of having someone like that on the roster, because it means everyone else doesn’t have to change their assignments and creates a bit more on-court cohesion.

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #53 on: October 26, 2021, 05:40:11 PM »

Online Celtics2021

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7142
  • Tommy Points: 979
I figure if we are only doing okay (.500ish) and want to get below the tax, then we will be looking to move Schroder. Instead of having to give up a supposed 1st, we might actually get a pick back.

Don't get me wrong, I would be more than happy having Schroder here for the long-term, but it's going to be close to impossible to make that happen.

Of course if we are killing it, then I imagine we will just accept the tax and all of the implications that come with it. Just need to see what happens with this group.
How do we move Schroeder (presumably to a contender) that doesn't have to send money back?

Said contender should have a TPE if it’s a pure dump.  The Nets, Mavs, Pacers, Clippers, and Jazz can all fit him.  (Some other teams can too, but I’m not considering the Pels, Thunder, or Magic as potential contenders).

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #54 on: October 26, 2021, 06:16:07 PM »

Offline 86MaxwellSmart

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3821
  • Tommy Points: 378
I would be so thrilled if we could package Smart and Richardson for someone..

Fingers crossed

Buddy Hield
Larry Bird was Greater than you think.

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #55 on: October 26, 2021, 06:33:40 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58539
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Quote
I do think that if the Celtics are trying to make a major move next summer, Richardson’s expiring would be more useful than Fournier in year 2 of a 4-year deal.

Year two of a three year deal.  That fourth year is a team option, so it in no way negatively affects trade value.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #56 on: October 26, 2021, 06:46:58 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Comparing who the team should have signed/extended for solely trading purposes is a moot point. Fournier wasn't retained. For all we know, behind the scenes, Fournier might not be the type of player and dude that fit with the coaches and players, meaning there wasn't a huge push to retain him. And, Fournier might not have liked Boston...the team, it's players and the city, and had no intention of returning.

As for Richardson, if they extended him for the sole purpose of using him in a trade some 10 months in the future, that's dumb. Just look at all the picks the team had to give up to dump salary because they couldn't use players in bigger deals. Seems to me that's bad asset management.

Now, if they see Josh as a piece they think will solidify the bench for the next two seasons, fine, I am willing to be patient to see if I see what Brad and Ime did. But if they have to give away more picks to dump him at some point, that's going to irk me something fierce.

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #57 on: October 26, 2021, 06:49:46 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
I would be so thrilled if we could package Smart and Richardson for someone..

Fingers crossed

Buddy Hield
That would be cool, as long as we got something else from Sac-Town given they are pushing Hield out of town
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #58 on: October 26, 2021, 07:06:29 PM »

Online Celtics2021

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7142
  • Tommy Points: 979
Quote
I do think that if the Celtics are trying to make a major move next summer, Richardson’s expiring would be more useful than Fournier in year 2 of a 4-year deal.

Year two of a three year deal.  That fourth year is a team option, so it in no way negatively affects trade value.

Fair enough.  That said, Richardson’s deal will still be easier to trade as matching salary.  I think it’s silly at times how much NBA teams value expirings over multi-year deals that are at market value, but they do.  (I remember the Celtics having to give up a 2nd to move Courtney Lee at the 2014 deadline, but a couple of years later, on the same contract and putting up worse numbers, he was worth 2 2nds as an expiring.)

Re: Why did we extend Josh Richardson?
« Reply #59 on: October 26, 2021, 07:20:53 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
I am giving Richardson at least ten games before I have an opinion on next year.