Report: Smart Signs 4 year, $77 million extension

[Celtics2021]

Team’s making bet that Smart will be a component of their dream team. Hope they are right. That’s rich turf for a pretty inefficient shooter.

who owns the single game three points made record for the Cs?

Besides, Ime Udoka prioritizes defense. Smart will anchor that defense. Can we now slot him as a starter? That is starter money.

He was always a starter in my book, but yes, I hope that silences the debate for a bit.  The notion that Schröder was going to send Smart to the bench always seemed silly to me.

[Roy H.]

Evan Fournier money, with an extra year.  Does that make it an "unmovable" contract?

We're out of the max space game now.

It means they don’t want to move him.  But I have a feeling he’s more movable than Fournier would have been.  Cap could be 7-10% higher next year, and will be a minimum of 3%, so relative to the cap Smart’s deal is still cheaper.

In the off-season Smart will have four years left, all guaranteed.  Fournier will have two years left, plus a team option.  I think the two year deal will be at least equally moveable.

Regardless, the fan base has been misled a bit, no?  We’re told we can’t add long term free agents due to “flexibility”, then our ability to sign a max free agent (or bundle our expirings) is voluntarily surrendered.

Now, we’ve got no real flexibility, no way of winning in the near future.  We gave away the #16 pick not to becom competitive, but rather only to save money.  Now we’re locked into a team with a mediocre third best player for half of a decade.

Fireworks.

[Jiri Welsch]

Lots of money for such a wildly inconsistent and often unreliable player. Oh well. Doubt he sees it the whole way through. That could just be me being hopeful though.

Less money than Fred Van Vleet, same money as Joe Harris, and Smart averaged 17/7/6 last playoffs on 59%TS. He's also a beast defensively and has shown clutch moments in multiple playoffs. I think it's a fine contract.

Having a new coach and clearly assigning him the role of PG will be good for him.

[Goldstar88]

Smart and Lowry have eerily similar numbers for the first 7 years of their careers. I am happy with locking him up at that number. He's also still tradeable despite the trade kicker. Go Celtics.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&player_id1=smartma01&player_id2=lowryky01&p2yrfrom=2007&p2yrto=2013

Kyle was a late bloomer in terms of production, but I don’t see a lot of Lowry in Smart. I Think Marcus can get his assists per game up to maybe 6 per game, but I don’t see his shooting or scoring ability improving.

[Walker Wiggle]

I’m surprised by this. Clearly the front office felt that having Smart in tow was worth more than the threat of max cap space (to be used to muscle teams like the Wizards into sign and trades). I figured they would gamble on the possibility of being able to make moves this offseason while signing him with Bird rights.

It may reflect that Beal is not the be-all-end-all of their plans. And of course, that this team (most importantly Brad) really does love and trust Smart.

Lastly, the front office may have been looking at the possibility of 2018-19 redux. That is, a bunch of disgruntled guys in the last year of their deals, gunning for their own careers to the detriment of team chemistry. Now the starting PG is Smart, no doubt, and everyone (most notably Schroeder) can proceed accordingly.

[Rondo9]

Only on Celticsblog where people groan about a homegrown talent getting paid. Good for Smart to make that money and Tatum is clearly happy about this. It's obvious the organization as well as the franchise players love him so he wasn't going anywhere at least for now.

[Ogaju]

Only on Celticsblog where people groan about a homegrown talent getting paid. Good for Smart to make that money and Tatum is clearly happy about this. It's obvious the organization as well as the franchise players love him so he wasn't going anywhere at least for now.

Yep…it’s a new regime. You have to honor your players with what talks best. Money!!!

[cons]

Ambivalent about this. If they can get one good season out of him and move him as part of a major deal I'm ok with it. And there's a decent chance that he has a very good year playing for a new coach who's obviously a fan of his.

 
Yeah. I’m hopeful the new coach can harness Marcus and make him much more consistent and efficient.
  I think he can be. I think he’s been undisciplined so far. If that changes this deal could be well worth it.

[pearljammer10]

Sigh. That’s unfortunate.

[scottwedman]

I don't have a problem with the money.  I have a problem with the role.  Smart is not a PG.  Correction: Smart is not a good PG.  He'd be a fine SG next to a good PG . . .

[nebist]

Not great - would have rather had him at $68M. He's a good player, but limited. I can't believe they gave him a trade kicker.

Whatever, if he's here for the long-haul, that's fine; if he's traded, that's fine. I won't lose sleep over it, but I'm not going to cheer this move from the front office. They gave him the most possible money they could have. I really hope this doesn't limit future possibilities with our team - say if TL, Nesmith, or Romeo break-out. Smart's a nice player, but he is what he is at this stage. I thought he was fairly paid on his last contract - didn't think he needed a $25M raise.

Without having done the research to verify, I would guess that this deal will represent almost the exact same % of the cap as his last deal over the life of the deal accounting for rising cap #s.

[Cman]

Good for you Smart!
I'm happy to have him here in Boston, but I could have talked myself into him being traded away for something significant in return (which could still happen but more unlikely now).

[BudweiserCeltic]

Evan Fournier money, with an extra year.  Does that make it an "unmovable" contract?

We're out of the max space game now.

It means they don’t want to move him.  But I have a feeling he’s more movable than Fournier would have been.  Cap could be 7-10% higher next year, and will be a minimum of 3%, so relative to the cap Smart’s deal is still cheaper.

In the off-season Smart will have four years left, all guaranteed.  Fournier will have two years left, plus a team option.  I think the two year deal will be at least equally moveable.

Regardless, the fan base has been misled a bit, no?  We’re told we can’t add long term free agents due to “flexibility”, then our ability to sign a max free agent (or bundle our expirings) is voluntarily surrendered.

Now, we’ve got no real flexibility, no way of winning in the near future.  We gave away the #16 pick not to becom competitive, but rather only to save money.  Now we’re locked into a team with a mediocre third best player for half of a decade.

Fireworks.

Why are we bringing up the Kemba trade again here? We all knew AND agreed that he needed to me moved, and he was moved. That we saved money is a bonus, that people began writing fan-fiction about next year and what not, that's another story. The team we traded him to, a team that is collecting picks left and right bought him off because of apparent low trade value...

Bringing the Kemba trade as "evidence" of ownership being cheap is not strengthening the argument, but distracting from it.

[pearljammer10]

I don't have a problem with the money.  I have a problem with the role.  Smart is not a PG.  Correction: Smart is not a good PG.  He'd be a fine SG next to a good PG . . .

I completely disagree. Smart as an SG is awful because he can’t shoot.

Smart is at his best when he is in the paint, making the defense collapse, and making plays around the rim whether that’s tough finishes, floaters, or making crafty and nifty passes to the open cutters or shooters. I would have him as my point guard 100 times out of 100 instead of at SG. Honestly, I’d rather have him play Forward, either of them, instead of SG.

He finished with 5.7 assists last season and I’d rather have the ball in his hands to distribute as opposed to waiting for a catch and shoot. He’s less likely to screw up that way.

My problem is the timing. It appeared that we were clearing cap space and moving assets to do so to have max cap space next year. We were quiet in free agency, didn’t resign Fournier (which for the money he got is fine I guess but he’d be another moveable contract), and we’re fleeced into thinking we’d chase a max FA next year.

Now all of a sudden, that entire philosophy is thrown out the window to extend a player we could have just resigned next year. Now we have no cap space next year, are probably a little worse as a team than we were last year, lost out on the 16th pick this year, and don’t have much means to get better. We are a luxury tax team without a contending status stamp on us.

That’s tough to swallow.

[pearljammer10]

Evan Fournier money, with an extra year.  Does that make it an "unmovable" contract?

We're out of the max space game now.

It means they don’t want to move him.  But I have a feeling he’s more movable than Fournier would have been.  Cap could be 7-10% higher next year, and will be a minimum of 3%, so relative to the cap Smart’s deal is still cheaper.

In the off-season Smart will have four years left, all guaranteed.  Fournier will have two years left, plus a team option.  I think the two year deal will be at least equally moveable.

Regardless, the fan base has been misled a bit, no?  We’re told we can’t add long term free agents due to “flexibility”, then our ability to sign a max free agent (or bundle our expirings) is voluntarily surrendered.

Now, we’ve got no real flexibility, no way of winning in the near future.  We gave away the #16 pick not to becom competitive, but rather only to save money.  Now we’re locked into a team with a mediocre third best player for half of a decade.

Fireworks.

Why are we bringing up the Kemba trade again here? We all knew AND agreed that he needed to me moved, and he was moved. That we saved money is a bonus, that people began writing fan-fiction about next year and what not, that's another story. The team we traded him to, a team that is collecting picks left and right bought him off because of apparent low trade value...

Bringing the Kemba trade as "evidence" of ownership being cheap is not strengthening the argument, but distracting from it.

Where does anything above mention “evidence” of ownership being cheap?

We are a luxury tax team without being a contender and with no means to improve our roster next summer. That’s the reality of the situation. I’m not sure what you’re getting at.