Strong Interest in Grant Williams (Rumor)

[bogg]

Let him test the market, if he gets that, let him walk. Otherwise, max I’d give this guy is like in the $12 million range. He doesn’t do a lot of things great to get that money. He’s very undersized and not a great rebounder or defender. He’s become a good 3 pt shooter but we’ve seen past history that it’s not smart to just overpay for good 3pt shooters. You can find specialist players for cheaper than that.

Again though, the question isn't whether there are guys who do similar things around the league making in the low teens or less, it's whether Boston can find a player to replace Grant if he walks. You don't open up any ability to sign someone else for 10-12 million a year, because you don't have cap space and you're too far over the tax to use the non-tax mid-level or work a sign-and-trade. You're stuck with only the taxpayer mid-level to replace Grant, which you had to use with Grant too - it prevents you from plugging a hole or taking a flier elsewhere.

Theoretically you could spend some (increasingly scarce for Boston) second-rounders to convince the other team to do a sign-and-trade to create a TPE, and then later try to trade for someone to replace Grant, but you're burning (at least) a first and two seconds just to save Wyc some money.

Any way you cut it you're taking tools off the table over $2-5 million a year, you're not executing any big-brain strategy to improve the team. It's penny-wise, pound-foolish for a team chasing a ring.

The team already has an insurance policy for Grant in Danilo Gallinari. Also, Grant is a RFA so he can’t “walk”. The Celtics would have to let him. This is exactly what happened with Smart after his rookie deal was up. Marcus thought he was worth more than what the C’s offered, he tested the market and other teams were not willing to pay. Boston handled that the right way and they are doing the same with Grant.

35-year-old Danilo Gallinari coming off his second major knee injury will in no way be a 3/4 that's ready to play 25-30 minutes a night of perimeter defense. Gallo's going to be a bench big who offers more outside shooting than Kornet (assuming Gallo is still here).

The first sentence of the quote I replied to ends with "let him walk". I have no problem with Boston playing the RFA game with Grant, because I'm not convinced that there's a team out there that's going to shoot their cap space on Grant. However ownership/Brad has to be prepared for the possibility that, say, Indiana steps up with a bigger-than-expected offer and be willing to bite the bullet on something like 60-70 million over 4 years.

[Vermont Green]

Grant is a tough call.  He is a useful and productive back up PF.  He is a versatile player overall (although fairly one dimensional offensively) so well suited to the role he has on the Celtics.  I think if a team pays him like a starter and then expects him to play at starter level, they will be disappointed.

I am not sure what team is going to pay him that kind of money.  They would have to have cap space and I think teams with cap space are going to have better options than Grant Williams.  That leaves the MLEs.  Some non-tax paying team may be willing to use that slot on him, I don't know.  Again, there will probably be better or at least higher upside options.  Contending teams, that may be looking to fill a bench role, are probably tax payers anyway.  They won't be able to offer anything the Celtics wouldn't match.

Bottom line, nothing the Celtics can do at this point other than wait to see what he gets offered.  I don't think he is going to get a crazy high offer and in the end, the Celtics will likely match.

Teams with "Projected" Cap Space per Spotrac:

SAN
HOU
IND
ORL
DET
CHA
OKC

These are the top 7, don't see any of them looking to spend big on Grant.  Then there are some teams that could have cap space if they renounce current players:

LAL, UTA, SAC, MIN, POR, MEM, CLE, CHI

These teams would have to actively clear salaries by renouncing current players, essentially hard capping themselves, in order to sign Grant to the kind of money that is being thrown around ($15M-$17M).  No other team is going to even have a chance to sign Grant.

[Moranis]

Would be a travesty if he gets that much from the Cs. Nice player but they should let him walk if he’s getting offers for that (I find that unlikely tbh). He’s a player without a position. He’s turned into a good 3 pt shooter but not sure that is enough to overcome his size and defensive limitations.

Eh, Boston's now at that point in team building where they're solidly in the tax going forward, so there isn't really a good way to replace Grant (or his salary slot) if you let him walk. It's not like you're freeing up cap space or unlocking the non-tax mid-level instead of the TMLE. I'd be pretty disappointed if they let him walk for nothing in order to save Wyc some tax payments.

As a potential annual contender for the next 5-10 years, the C's need to keep good rotation guys.  Grant recently turned 24 and his trajectory should be in a plus direction over the course of his next deal.  If C's are reluctant to make (or match) a decent offer then they should trade him for some value, but he's a more known quantity than anyone else they'll bring in.   Don't take him for granted.

Sorry, I dont buy this theory. If he was a starter or all star caliber player, sure, over step yourself and sign him. I don’t think they should saddle themselves with another mid teens contract for the #8 guy on the bench. Grant has improved since he got drafted but I dont think it’s wise to give him $15-20 mil a year as your 8th best player.

Let him test the market, if he gets that, let him walk. Otherwise, max I’d give this guy is like in the $12 million range. He doesn’t do a lot of things great to get that money. He’s very undersized and not a great rebounder or defender. He’s become a good 3 pt shooter but we’ve seen past history that it’s not smart to just overpay for good 3pt shooters. You can find specialist players for cheaper than that.

If the Cs feel like they won’t be able to sign him cheap, they should flip him and some of the other end of bench fodder for another player at the deadline.

Have to disagree. We’re losing a solid rotation player by letting him walk for nothing. Match what the market bears and if we can replace him somehow more cheaply in the future, then we trade him at that point. But letting him walk for nothing would really hamper the club given our current youth on the bench and expected draft picks in the near-future. Besides, Grant is still only 24 and could develop into a respectable starter.

right like Miami can just trade Duncan Robinson.  You cannot over pay any player, but if you are, it needs to be a star player.  You cannot under any circumstance over pay your 7th or 8th man.  That is how you end up in cap hell with no way out and how you miss out on other opportunities that may arise because you have no flexibility.

[bogg]

right like Miami can just trade Duncan Robinson.  You cannot over pay any player, but if you are, it needs to be a star player.

Duncan Robinson's problem is that he can't reliably defend any position, so he needs to either shoot absolutely lights out or only play against poor offensive lineups to not hurt more than he helps. Grant being an actual useful defender (not necessarily great, but fine) is what separates him from the kind of replacement-level guys available for the tax-MLE. There's really no team out there where you look at them and go "Grant cannot see the floor in a playoff series against those guys".

 

You cannot under any circumstance over pay your 7th or 8th man.  That is how you end up in cap hell with no way out and how you miss out on other opportunities that may arise because you have no flexibility.

What opportunities? Everyone besides Grant is signed for a few more seasons. All that's available to Boston going forward is the tax mid-level and cobbling together trades, with or without Grant. Having Grant on a mid-sized contract gives you more flexibility to swing the kind of "player X and player Y as salary matching plus multiple firsts for a star or former star" that may actually move the needle.

[td450]

Grant Williams is a more useful asset than Duncan Robinson because as stated earlier he's a reasonably complete player and can actually defend. Robinson signed at $18M 1 1/2 years ago. 

If Grant gets a big offer, the salary involved also is an asset. Like all assets, there is a limit to how much that is worth. At a certain point, it is possible to overpay so much that the salary asset isn't worth it. That did happen with Robinson, but when Grant fields offers, the equivalent overpay will be several million more per year than the $18M Robinson got.

There are several other guys in this free agent class that can do more, especially on offense.

I just don't see how anyone is going to offer close to that. I'm not sure anyone makes an offer at all given the dynamics. Why offer someone like Grant $16M and put your team in a freeze, only to lose him back to the C's at the end? Paying him any more would be crazy.

[Goldstar88]

Let him test the market, if he gets that, let him walk. Otherwise, max I’d give this guy is like in the $12 million range. He doesn’t do a lot of things great to get that money. He’s very undersized and not a great rebounder or defender. He’s become a good 3 pt shooter but we’ve seen past history that it’s not smart to just overpay for good 3pt shooters. You can find specialist players for cheaper than that.

Again though, the question isn't whether there are guys who do similar things around the league making in the low teens or less, it's whether Boston can find a player to replace Grant if he walks. You don't open up any ability to sign someone else for 10-12 million a year, because you don't have cap space and you're too far over the tax to use the non-tax mid-level or work a sign-and-trade. You're stuck with only the taxpayer mid-level to replace Grant, which you had to use with Grant too - it prevents you from plugging a hole or taking a flier elsewhere.

Theoretically you could spend some (increasingly scarce for Boston) second-rounders to convince the other team to do a sign-and-trade to create a TPE, and then later try to trade for someone to replace Grant, but you're burning (at least) a first and two seconds just to save Wyc some money.

Any way you cut it you're taking tools off the table over $2-5 million a year, you're not executing any big-brain strategy to improve the team. It's penny-wise, pound-foolish for a team chasing a ring.

The team already has an insurance policy for Grant in Danilo Gallinari. Also, Grant is a RFA so he can’t “walk”. The Celtics would have to let him. This is exactly what happened with Smart after his rookie deal was up. Marcus thought he was worth more than what the C’s offered, he tested the market and other teams were not willing to pay. Boston handled that the right way and they are doing the same with Grant.

35-year-old Danilo Gallinari coming off his second major knee injury will in no way be a 3/4 that's ready to play 25-30 minutes a night of perimeter defense. Gallo's going to be a bench big who offers more outside shooting than Kornet (assuming Gallo is still here).

The first sentence of the quote I replied to ends with "let him walk". I have no problem with Boston playing the RFA game with Grant, because I'm not convinced that there's a team out there that's going to shoot their cap space on Grant. However ownership/Brad has to be prepared for the possibility that, say, Indiana steps up with a bigger-than-expected offer and be willing to bite the bullet on something like 60-70 million over 4 years.

The Celtics don’t need Gallinari to play 25-30mins per game. Tatum is the starting PF on this team. Jayson can play 30 mins at the 4, which would leave only 18 mins to be divided between  Gallo, Horford, Hauser, Griffin, or another vet big that they sign. I would think the C’s would be a desirable destination for ring chasers. Grant is definitely replaceable and in his 4th year, I think he’s about peaked. I expect his contract to be similar to Rob’s. Inferior talent, but G-Will is reliable in terms of availability.

[Moranis]

right like Miami can just trade Duncan Robinson.  You cannot over pay any player, but if you are, it needs to be a star player.

Duncan Robinson's problem is that he can't reliably defend any position, so he needs to either shoot absolutely lights out or only play against poor offensive lineups to not hurt more than he helps. Grant being an actual useful defender (not necessarily great, but fine) is what separates him from the kind of replacement-level guys available for the tax-MLE. There's really no team out there where you look at them and go "Grant cannot see the floor in a playoff series against those guys".

 

You cannot under any circumstance over pay your 7th or 8th man.  That is how you end up in cap hell with no way out and how you miss out on other opportunities that may arise because you have no flexibility.

What opportunities? Everyone besides Grant is signed for a few more seasons. All that's available to Boston going forward is the tax mid-level and cobbling together trades, with or without Grant. Having Grant on a mid-sized contract gives you more flexibility to swing the kind of "player X and player Y as salary matching plus multiple firsts for a star or former star" that may actually move the needle.

There are always opportunities.  Heck that might just mean signing a guy like Hauser to a much larger long term contract when he is a free agent. 

The player has to be worthwhile though.  The thought was the Heat would have had to include a 1st to move off Robinson.  Having a negative asset like that makes it harder to make moves, especially when there is other salary that can be included to make moves. 

I was fine bringing someone like Robinson in for the big TPE because that was an asset that was going to be wasted, but I wouldn't want to sign a guy like Robinson to that sort of contract.  And when Robinson signed his contract he was coming off of back to back seasons in which he averaged over 13.3 ppg on 42.7% shooting, as a starter (and one of those years they made the finals).  In other words, he outperformed anything Grant has done.  Grant is a better defender, but he isn't exactly a world beater, but over the last season and a half, Grant has averaged just 8.2 ppg though with 41.9% from 3 (though just 3.5 attempts, Robinson was at 8.4 attempts a game).  Grant is a mostly bench player that doesn't rebound or pass well either.   He is a better defending worse shooting version of Duncan Robinson.  You can't pay him anywhere near Duncan Robinson money because it is a contract Boston will almost immediately regret.  If Grant wants much more than the MLE, then Boston should let him walk.  You just can't overpay your basically non-important bench players. 

[Roy H.]

Would be a travesty if he gets that much from the Cs. Nice player but they should let him walk if he’s getting offers for that (I find that unlikely tbh). He’s a player without a position. He’s turned into a good 3 pt shooter but not sure that is enough to overcome his size and defensive limitations.

Eh, Boston's now at that point in team building where they're solidly in the tax going forward, so there isn't really a good way to replace Grant (or his salary slot) if you let him walk. It's not like you're freeing up cap space or unlocking the non-tax mid-level instead of the TMLE. I'd be pretty disappointed if they let him walk for nothing in order to save Wyc some tax payments.

As a potential annual contender for the next 5-10 years, the C's need to keep good rotation guys.  Grant recently turned 24 and his trajectory should be in a plus direction over the course of his next deal.  If C's are reluctant to make (or match) a decent offer then they should trade him for some value, but he's a more known quantity than anyone else they'll bring in.   Don't take him for granted.

Sorry, I dont buy this theory. If he was a starter or all star caliber player, sure, over step yourself and sign him. I don’t think they should saddle themselves with another mid teens contract for the #8 guy on the bench. Grant has improved since he got drafted but I dont think it’s wise to give him $15-20 mil a year as your 8th best player.

Let him test the market, if he gets that, let him walk. Otherwise, max I’d give this guy is like in the $12 million range. He doesn’t do a lot of things great to get that money. He’s very undersized and not a great rebounder or defender. He’s become a good 3 pt shooter but we’ve seen past history that it’s not smart to just overpay for good 3pt shooters. You can find specialist players for cheaper than that.

If the Cs feel like they won’t be able to sign him cheap, they should flip him and some of the other end of bench fodder for another player at the deadline.

Have to disagree. We’re losing a solid rotation player by letting him walk for nothing. Match what the market bears and if we can replace him somehow more cheaply in the future, then we trade him at that point. But letting him walk for nothing would really hamper the club given our current youth on the bench and expected draft picks in the near-future. Besides, Grant is still only 24 and could develop into a respectable starter.

right like Miami can just trade Duncan Robinson.  You cannot over pay any player, but if you are, it needs to be a star player.  You cannot under any circumstance over pay your 7th or 8th man.  That is how you end up in cap hell with no way out and how you miss out on other opportunities that may arise because you have no flexibility.

Didn't you push strongly for us to use the TPE on Duncan Robinson?  What's the difference between making that trade, versus overpaying GW?

[Moranis]

Would be a travesty if he gets that much from the Cs. Nice player but they should let him walk if he’s getting offers for that (I find that unlikely tbh). He’s a player without a position. He’s turned into a good 3 pt shooter but not sure that is enough to overcome his size and defensive limitations.

Eh, Boston's now at that point in team building where they're solidly in the tax going forward, so there isn't really a good way to replace Grant (or his salary slot) if you let him walk. It's not like you're freeing up cap space or unlocking the non-tax mid-level instead of the TMLE. I'd be pretty disappointed if they let him walk for nothing in order to save Wyc some tax payments.

As a potential annual contender for the next 5-10 years, the C's need to keep good rotation guys.  Grant recently turned 24 and his trajectory should be in a plus direction over the course of his next deal.  If C's are reluctant to make (or match) a decent offer then they should trade him for some value, but he's a more known quantity than anyone else they'll bring in.   Don't take him for granted.

Sorry, I dont buy this theory. If he was a starter or all star caliber player, sure, over step yourself and sign him. I don’t think they should saddle themselves with another mid teens contract for the #8 guy on the bench. Grant has improved since he got drafted but I dont think it’s wise to give him $15-20 mil a year as your 8th best player.

Let him test the market, if he gets that, let him walk. Otherwise, max I’d give this guy is like in the $12 million range. He doesn’t do a lot of things great to get that money. He’s very undersized and not a great rebounder or defender. He’s become a good 3 pt shooter but we’ve seen past history that it’s not smart to just overpay for good 3pt shooters. You can find specialist players for cheaper than that.

If the Cs feel like they won’t be able to sign him cheap, they should flip him and some of the other end of bench fodder for another player at the deadline.

Have to disagree. We’re losing a solid rotation player by letting him walk for nothing. Match what the market bears and if we can replace him somehow more cheaply in the future, then we trade him at that point. But letting him walk for nothing would really hamper the club given our current youth on the bench and expected draft picks in the near-future. Besides, Grant is still only 24 and could develop into a respectable starter.

right like Miami can just trade Duncan Robinson.  You cannot over pay any player, but if you are, it needs to be a star player.  You cannot under any circumstance over pay your 7th or 8th man.  That is how you end up in cap hell with no way out and how you miss out on other opportunities that may arise because you have no flexibility.

Didn't you push strongly for us to use the TPE on Duncan Robinson?  What's the difference between making that trade, versus overpaying GW?

I explained that in my next post in the thread.  But basically Boston had the Big TPE and using it on anyone was better than not using it all.  Especially if that meant getting an asset from Miami in the process.  Now I get on some level that same logic could work with losing a player like Grant, but in that scenario you aren't getting something of value along with the player.  I'd have rather used the Big TPE on someone other than Robinson, but Robinson + Asset was better than just letting it expire.  Maybe over paying for Grant is better than just letting him leave, but I'm not entirely sure that is the case because at least in the Robinson scenario an asset would be coming with him. 

That said, if Boston isn't sure it will re-sign Grant, then Boston should trade him before the deadline and pick something up for him.  That is the much better approach long term as I really can't see Grant being the difference between winning or losing a title, so I don't think that is a real concern.

[Sophomore]

I’ve seen people argue they would resign Grant for $12M a year, but if another team offered $15M they would let him walk. Have we really got it to that level of precision?

[wdleehi]

The Celtics  are not going to trade him.    Their goal is to win a title this year,  not worry about FA for next season.   

[td450]

Would be a travesty if he gets that much from the Cs. Nice player but they should let him walk if he’s getting offers for that (I find that unlikely tbh). He’s a player without a position. He’s turned into a good 3 pt shooter but not sure that is enough to overcome his size and defensive limitations.

Eh, Boston's now at that point in team building where they're solidly in the tax going forward, so there isn't really a good way to replace Grant (or his salary slot) if you let him walk. It's not like you're freeing up cap space or unlocking the non-tax mid-level instead of the TMLE. I'd be pretty disappointed if they let him walk for nothing in order to save Wyc some tax payments.

As a potential annual contender for the next 5-10 years, the C's need to keep good rotation guys.  Grant recently turned 24 and his trajectory should be in a plus direction over the course of his next deal.  If C's are reluctant to make (or match) a decent offer then they should trade him for some value, but he's a more known quantity than anyone else they'll bring in.   Don't take him for granted.

Sorry, I dont buy this theory. If he was a starter or all star caliber player, sure, over step yourself and sign him. I don’t think they should saddle themselves with another mid teens contract for the #8 guy on the bench. Grant has improved since he got drafted but I dont think it’s wise to give him $15-20 mil a year as your 8th best player.

Let him test the market, if he gets that, let him walk. Otherwise, max I’d give this guy is like in the $12 million range. He doesn’t do a lot of things great to get that money. He’s very undersized and not a great rebounder or defender. He’s become a good 3 pt shooter but we’ve seen past history that it’s not smart to just overpay for good 3pt shooters. You can find specialist players for cheaper than that.

If the Cs feel like they won’t be able to sign him cheap, they should flip him and some of the other end of bench fodder for another player at the deadline.

Have to disagree. We’re losing a solid rotation player by letting him walk for nothing. Match what the market bears and if we can replace him somehow more cheaply in the future, then we trade him at that point. But letting him walk for nothing would really hamper the club given our current youth on the bench and expected draft picks in the near-future. Besides, Grant is still only 24 and could develop into a respectable starter.

right like Miami can just trade Duncan Robinson.  You cannot over pay any player, but if you are, it needs to be a star player.  You cannot under any circumstance over pay your 7th or 8th man.  That is how you end up in cap hell with no way out and how you miss out on other opportunities that may arise because you have no flexibility.

Didn't you push strongly for us to use the TPE on Duncan Robinson?  What's the difference between making that trade, versus overpaying GW?

I explained that in my next post in the thread.  But basically Boston had the Big TPE and using it on anyone was better than not using it all.  Especially if that meant getting an asset from Miami in the process.  Now I get on some level that same logic could work with losing a player like Grant, but in that scenario you aren't getting something of value along with the player.  I'd have rather used the Big TPE on someone other than Robinson, but Robinson + Asset was better than just letting it expire.  Maybe over paying for Grant is better than just letting him leave, but I'm not entirely sure that is the case because at least in the Robinson scenario an asset would be coming with him. 

That said, if Boston isn't sure it will re-sign Grant, then Boston should trade him before the deadline and pick something up for him.  That is the much better approach long term as I really can't see Grant being the difference between winning or losing a title, so I don't think that is a real concern.

It is impossible for Boston to "be sure" they will resign Grant. Free agency isn't happening until next summer and there is a very small chance another team will sign him to a number so stupid, it outweighs the benefit of holding on to the cap space. The team is making a calculated gamble, but they don't know what will happen for certain.

The one thing all of us can be sure of is there is a very close to zero chance he gets traded before the deadline. If we did that, we'd be trading him at the lowest possible salary and at the lowest possible value.

And why can't you see Grant being the difference between winning or losing a title?  The guy plays 28 mpg for us. Big playoff games get decided by a few plays all the time. He's a key rotation guy covering positions we are thin at. He's important.

[GreenlyGreeny]

If anybody really thinks that we should not match the best offer for Grant, assuming nobody goes crazy and offers him $25 mil./yr.+, go rewatch game 7 against the Bucks. Grant is our seventh or eighth  best player, and there’s a big drop in talent after D-White/Grant (although Hauser is showing promise). Like Red always said, you need at least eight good players to win a title. We cannot afford to lose one of our eight good players for nothing…

[keevsnick]

Grant is a great player to have for a contending team. The prototypical wing/4 3+D guy with a little extra straight line driving off a pump fake ability. All that's great.

He's still not a guy who's going t get a huge pay-check imo. He's bets for a contending team but contending teams generally don't have huge cap space to throw at guys. And he's restricted, which always drive down the price. For as good as he is he's still averaging 10/4 right now.

Guys who fit this mold generally don't get huge contracts. My guess is it will be like a 4/48 type deal, a little more than the full MLE.

If he was smart he's sacrifice a little money on this deal to keep it shorter, like three years, in order to get back onto the market faster and take advantage of the 25' cap spike. A three years deal means he'd be a free agent in 2026 at only 27 years old and unrestricted.