Zach Lowe’s opinion of Fournier

[Roy H.]

I just don't think you can pay at absolute best the 4th best player on a contender 20 million a year (and he is probably more suited as the 5th best player on a contender), especially when you aren't a contender.  That is how you end up perpetually in mediocrity. 

And it is easy to say you can move that contract now, but there is absolutely no guarantee you can move that contract.  40 million with 2 years left is still a lot of money for a role player.  The teams that would take that contract (without a 1st or something like that) often don't have the pieces available to move to do so.

Fournier is not going to raise the ceiling of Boston this year and he could harm the team's ability to really improve next summer, so there was absolutely no reason to sign him.

I totally agree. Fans are more concerned with taking a half step forward next year at the expense of two steps forward the following year.

And who knows, maybe a young guy actually will step up and fill 80% of Fournier's play and become a valuable trade piece.

Richards is probably 80% of the player Fournier is offensively and is probably like 300% the player Fournier is defensively.  And while theoretically the team could have both, there just aren't minutes available for both so that was never a realistic option.

Yeah, we don't need Langford or Nesmith to replace Fournier, we got Richardson at the cost of Moses Brown.  If it is true that Richardson will provide 80% of the shooting/scoring/playmaking and is a better defender, isn't that type of player a better fit on a team that already has two top scorers?  It is not like Richardson is scoring deficient like Smart or Tony Allen, he is a decent scorer/shooter who defenses will have to respect.  I am not that worried that we lost Fournier.  I predict Richardson will be a nice fit in the role that Fournier would have had.

Adding an inefficient shooter next to Smart isn’t a good fit, no.

[Roy H.]

Fournier was solid for us in the playoffs. Of course he looked bad in the playoffs in Orlando - he was the #2 option, a role he should not have been in!

I don't know if I'd say he was solid in the playoffs.  He scored okay-ish (15.4 points per game as the de facto #2) mostly because he was hitting his threes, but he wasn't getting other guys involved and his defense was nearly unplayable.  Better than his previous playoff runs with Orlando, but still not exactly career highlight reel material.

Much better than Richardson’s playoffs.

[Vermont Green]

Fournier was solid for us in the playoffs. Of course he looked bad in the playoffs in Orlando - he was the #2 option, a role he should not have been in!

I don't know if I'd say he was solid in the playoffs.  He scored okay-ish (15.4 points per game as the de facto #2) mostly because he was hitting his threes, but he wasn't getting other guys involved and his defense was nearly unplayable.  Better than his previous playoff runs with Orlando, but still not exactly career highlight reel material.

Much better than Richardson’s playoffs.

Has Fournier ever been on a team that has won a playoff series?  Anyway, we got to see him for 16 regular season and 5 playoff games, post trade and broken up by COVID.  That is not a great sample size but I did not see anything from him in that time that makes me upset we didn't sign him to a fairly large, fairly long contract.  I was actually pretty disappointed.  I was expecting more.  I thought he was going to be an impactful pick up.  He wasn't.

We ended up with Richardson and "flexibility" in exchange for Fournier.  We'll see how this plays out.  I don't expect this to turn overwhelmingly in either direction.  It will be roughly a wash.  That is why I am just not that worried about it.

[gouki88]

I see Fournier much the same way. I still would've kept him though because (1) he is better than what we have (2) his contract was moveable. Signing him did not take future opportunities in FA off the table. It would only do that if his contract was not tradeable.

By letting him leave, we just hurt our team for no good reason.

His contract with the Knicks is definitely not moveable lol.

If John Wall is a moveable contract this Fournier one is easily moveable.

[Moranis]

I see Fournier much the same way. I still would've kept him though because (1) he is better than what we have (2) his contract was moveable. Signing him did not take future opportunities in FA off the table. It would only do that if his contract was not tradeable.

By letting him leave, we just hurt our team for no good reason.

His contract with the Knicks is definitely not moveable lol.

If John Wall is a moveable contract this Fournier one is easily moveable.

yes Wall + 1st and taking on a huge contract.  That isn't what people mean when they say movable, especially in the context of creating cap room or using the player as salary in a trade.  Every contract can be moved if enough assets are included

[gouki88]

I see Fournier much the same way. I still would've kept him though because (1) he is better than what we have (2) his contract was moveable. Signing him did not take future opportunities in FA off the table. It would only do that if his contract was not tradeable.

By letting him leave, we just hurt our team for no good reason.

His contract with the Knicks is definitely not moveable lol.

If John Wall is a moveable contract this Fournier one is easily moveable.

yes Wall + 1st and taking on a huge contract.  That isn't what people mean when they say movable, especially in the context of creating cap room or using the player as salary in a trade.  Every contract can be moved if enough assets are included

Westbrook was a much better asset than Wall, especially before Wall had even returned to the court. It was a fairly minimal pick inclusion given how horrible Wall’s deal is.

And Fournier’s deal is not nearly as bad as that. Similar players on similar contracts, like LeVert (better player but equalised by his enormous injury risk) get traded for value

[BudweiserCeltic]

I just don't think you can pay at absolute best the 4th best player on a contender 20 million a year (and he is probably more suited as the 5th best player on a contender), especially when you aren't a contender.  That is how you end up perpetually in mediocrity. 

And it is easy to say you can move that contract now, but there is absolutely no guarantee you can move that contract.  40 million with 2 years left is still a lot of money for a role player.  The teams that would take that contract (without a 1st or something like that) often don't have the pieces available to move to do so.

Fournier is not going to raise the ceiling of Boston this year and he could harm the team's ability to really improve next summer, so there was absolutely no reason to sign him.

That's only true if it's not a movable contract or you're using cap space to get said player. Otherwise it's merely a matter of ownership's willingness to spend for the most part.

Boston is using cap space to get him though.  Not this year, but next year.  And as I said, I wouldn't just bet that the contract is movable, at least without including other assets.

Probably assets you'd need to get rid off anyways if you're using cap space next year. Next year the contract would basically be a 2-year contract, that should be easy to move with minimum effort... $20 million per year is not an absurd amount to move for a player that can contribute in this day and age.

It also opens doors for S&T possibilities or in season trades this year as well, which is just as important.

So in the Celtics situation, I think it would've been worth keeping. Not only to be more competitive this year, but because the opportunity cost is low when you consider trade scenarios vs. cap space. It's not the definitive course, but a very valid avenue, one which I think would be better than not keeping him. Which in all right now is a moot point.

As for the Knicks I like it less, but I think it's still a good contract in the end regardless, but the Knicks don't have much of a core of players to use space this way in my opinion. Now that they added Kemba et al. it may payoff, and be a worthwhile risk for them. But Knicks in general are a good free-agent destination, so the risk is a bit higher with them, their problem has always been management.

The only real reason using cap space for the Celtics right now is that there seems to be a wink wink understanding that Beal wants to come here, otherwise playing the cap space game for the Celtics is a very risky endeavor, the better bet would've been playing above the cap with as many assets as possible, particularly with players who can actually play and not solely development options.

[Moranis]

I see Fournier much the same way. I still would've kept him though because (1) he is better than what we have (2) his contract was moveable. Signing him did not take future opportunities in FA off the table. It would only do that if his contract was not tradeable.

By letting him leave, we just hurt our team for no good reason.

His contract with the Knicks is definitely not moveable lol.

If John Wall is a moveable contract this Fournier one is easily moveable.

yes Wall + 1st and taking on a huge contract.  That isn't what people mean when they say movable, especially in the context of creating cap room or using the player as salary in a trade.  Every contract can be moved if enough assets are included

Westbrook was a much better asset than Wall, especially before Wall had even returned to the court. It was a fairly minimal pick inclusion given how horrible Wall’s deal is.

And Fournier’s deal is not nearly as bad as that. Similar players on similar contracts, like LeVert (better player but equalised by his enormous injury risk) get traded for value

LeVert's contract was 3 years, 52 million.  So a year longer (in a hypothetical trade next summer), but for a fair amount less money per year.  And he got traded for super injury risk, expiring contract Oladipo.  And as you say LeVert is better than Fournier. 

Maybe Fournier can get traded as the salary filler in a hypothetical Beal trade (sort of like Gary Harris in the Aaron Gordon trade), but maybe he can't and if he can't, what team is going to take on basically 2 years, 40 million of a role player without getting anything in return? 

Fournier was a 13/3/3 player in Boston and did so in what should be his general role i.e. a 4th or 5th option.  You don't pay 20 million a year for that, especially when said player isn't even an average defender.  I'd much rather pay Smart that money given he is an excellent defender and I can't stand Smart as an offensive player.  The Knicks will regret the Fournier contract, because it is a terrible contract.

[PAOBoston]

I see Fournier much the same way. I still would've kept him though because (1) he is better than what we have (2) his contract was moveable. Signing him did not take future opportunities in FA off the table. It would only do that if his contract was not tradeable.

By letting him leave, we just hurt our team for no good reason.

His contract with the Knicks is definitely not moveable lol.

If John Wall is a moveable contract this Fournier one is easily moveable.

yes Wall + 1st and taking on a huge contract.  That isn't what people mean when they say movable, especially in the context of creating cap room or using the player as salary in a trade.  Every contract can be moved if enough assets are included

Westbrook was a much better asset than Wall, especially before Wall had even returned to the court. It was a fairly minimal pick inclusion given how horrible Wall’s deal is.

And Fournier’s deal is not nearly as bad as that. Similar players on similar contracts, like LeVert (better player but equalised by his enormous injury risk) get traded for value

LeVert's contract was 3 years, 52 million.  So a year longer (in a hypothetical trade next summer), but for a fair amount less money per year.  And he got traded for super injury risk, expiring contract Oladipo.  And as you say LeVert is better than Fournier. 

Maybe Fournier can get traded as the salary filler in a hypothetical Beal trade (sort of like Gary Harris in the Aaron Gordon trade), but maybe he can't and if he can't, what team is going to take on basically 2 years, 40 million of a role player without getting anything in return? 

Fournier was a 13/3/3 player in Boston and did so in what should be his general role i.e. a 4th or 5th option.  You don't pay 20 million a year for that, especially when said player isn't even an average defender.  I'd much rather pay Smart that money given he is an excellent defender and I can't stand Smart as an offensive player.  The Knicks will regret the Fournier contract, because it is a terrible contract.

Ah yes. Don’t want to pay a better player (Fournier) $20 mil per but then want to give a lesser player who can’t really do anything well outside of defense (and even that is debatable after last season) $20 mil per. Makes sense. If people’s argument for not re-signing Fournier was “he’s not worth it for his role”, then they can’t make a different argument for paying Smart that. It’s hypocritical. Smart isn’t worth that. It would be a travesty to pay that much money for such a limited player.

[Kiorrik]

You call it hypocricy, but it's really just disagreeing with your assessment of both players.

[PAOBoston]

You call it hypocricy, but it's really just disagreeing with your assessment of both players.

I mean, I don’t understand the fascination with Smart from Cs fans. He’s not good lol. Fournier is a significantly more skilled player than him.  You want to tell me he’s getting paid 12-14 mil per? Sure. Fine. I can live with that. For close to $20 mil per? I’m all set.

[Kiorrik]

You call it hypocricy, but it's really just disagreeing with your assessment of both players.

I mean, I don’t understand the fascination with Smart from Cs fans. He’s not good lol. Fournier is a significantly more skilled player than him.  You want to tell me he’s getting paid 12-14 mil per? Sure. Fine. I can live with that. For close to $20 mil per? I’m all set.

I'm simply saying that you're presenting your opinion as fact, and subsequently call people hypocrites for disagreeing.

These players have almost the same stats. Marcus is a bit less good at shooting threes, Evan is a bit less good at getting assists.

But you do you.

[Jiri Welsch]

You call it hypocricy, but it's really just disagreeing with your assessment of both players.

I mean, I don’t understand the fascination with Smart from Cs fans. He’s not good lol. Fournier is a significantly more skilled player than him.  You want to tell me he’s getting paid 12-14 mil per? Sure. Fine. I can live with that. For close to $20 mil per? I’m all set.

Fournier is a better scorer; Smart is better at everything else. You are fine with $14 million and not okay with $20 million. The Celtics split the difference and offered $17 million. I feel like that's fine...

[PAOBoston]

You call it hypocricy, but it's really just disagreeing with your assessment of both players.

I mean, I don’t understand the fascination with Smart from Cs fans. He’s not good lol. Fournier is a significantly more skilled player than him.  You want to tell me he’s getting paid 12-14 mil per? Sure. Fine. I can live with that. For close to $20 mil per? I’m all set.

Fournier is a better scorer; Smart is better at everything else. You are fine with $14 million and not okay with $20 million. The Celtics split the difference and offered $17 million. I feel like that's fine...

Except for the fact that they play different positions. Smart is a point guard. Fournier is a skilled wing. Skilled wings are way more valuable than defense only guards. I’d be way more comfortable paying Fournier that money than paying Smart. Giving Smart that money is a gross overpay.

[Kiorrik]

You call it hypocricy, but it's really just disagreeing with your assessment of both players.

I mean, I don’t understand the fascination with Smart from Cs fans. He’s not good lol. Fournier is a significantly more skilled player than him.  You want to tell me he’s getting paid 12-14 mil per? Sure. Fine. I can live with that. For close to $20 mil per? I’m all set.

Fournier is a better scorer; Smart is better at everything else. You are fine with $14 million and not okay with $20 million. The Celtics split the difference and offered $17 million. I feel like that's fine...

Except for the fact that they play different positions. Smart is a point guard. Fournier is a skilled wing. Skilled wings are way more valuable than defense only guards. I’d be way more comfortable paying Fournier that money than paying Smart. Giving Smart that money is a gross overpay.

And the answer is once again presenting more opinions as facts.

You're calling Smart a defensive guard.

Yet, he produces the same number of points as Fournier. On the same number of shots. In only 3 more minutes per game.

And he produces more assists.

Stop, presenting, your opinions, as facts.