Report: Smart Signs 4 year, $77 million extension

[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.

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.

This was brought up in another thread when talking about luxury tax and "We gave away the #16 pick not to becom competitive, but rather only to save money" doesn't mean that we're once again calling ownership cheap (not that I disagree or not) and using the Kemba trade as part of that evidence I don't know what is.

[Moranis]

Too much money, but I'd rather have Smart than Fournier as Smart is an elite defender and has more positional versatility. 

[JSD]

I’m not crazy about the deal, I was really excited about having that flexibility next offseason. But now that I’m thinking about it there could be a real upside here:

The Celtics sent a clear message to the players around the league that they are ready and willing to pay their own players. As good as Ainge was, and he was an incredible GM, but he was also very cutthroat. I think this shakes the whole Isaiah Thomas situation.

[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.

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.

Correct.  If we were content to be a mid-tier playoff team, we should have just kept Kemba for the next two seasons. Our ceiling would have been about the same, and we would have kept our pick.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Next is to see how we open 1 roster space or if we cut Parker (doubt it's done before training camp and what not) and also see how we do with our rookie scale team options on October 31, which at this point seems like accepting most if not all of them would make most sense.

[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.

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.

Correct.  If we were content to be a mid-tier playoff team, we should have just kept Kemba for the next two seasons. Our ceiling would have been about the same, and we would have kept our pick.

So it's your argument that our team with Horford is not not more competitive than with Kemba? If that's your contention, then that's fine. I think we're better and more balanced without Kemba and with Horford on-board... even more so now that we have Schroder this season (but that shouldn't factor at this point).

[Roy H.]

I’m not crazy about the deal, I was really excited about having that flexibility next offseason. But now that I’m thinking about it there could be a real upside here:

The Celtics sent a clear message to the players around the league that they are ready and willing to pay their own players. As good as Ainge was, and he was an incredible GM, but he was also very cutthroat. I think this shakes the whole Isaiah Thomas situation.

We paid Tatum. That was enough of a message, if one was needed. Locking up a role player at almost 20% of the cap is something else entirely.

[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.

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.

Correct.  If we were content to be a mid-tier playoff team, we should have just kept Kemba for the next two seasons. Our ceiling would have been about the same, and we would have kept our pick.

So it's your argument that our team with Horford is not not more competitive than with Kemba? If that's your contention, then that's fine. I think we're better and more balanced without Kemba and with Horford on-board... even more so now that we have Schroder this season (but that shouldn't factor at this point).

We may be marginally better, but we are no closer to a championship.  We don’t have a clear direction, but we do have close to 100% of the cap tied up in three players, one of whom is a defense only role-player (who didn’t play much defense last year) and is a “team leader” that doesn’t seem to lead very much.

[JBcat]

Too much money, but I'd rather have Smart than Fournier as Smart is an elite defender and has more positional versatility.

We could have signed both if ownership was willing to pay more in tax.  Smart at PG and Fournier at SG, and both moveable contracts later on for a star if need be.  Fournier wanted to be here too, and an upgrade over Richardson at least based on last season.  Though I digress,  we might as well consider a R Williams extension if reasonable since we won’t have max cap space next offseason. 

[Celtics2021]

Too much money, but I'd rather have Smart than Fournier as Smart is an elite defender and has more positional versatility.

We could have signed both if ownership was willing to pay more in tax.  Smart at PG and Fournier at SG, and both moveable contracts later on for a star if need be.  Fournier wanted to be here too, and an upgrade over Richardson at least based on last season.  Though I digress,  we might as well consider a R Williams extension if reasonable since we won’t have max cap space next offseason.

Fournier wanted to be here because the Celtics had his Bird rights and could pay him money.  He was always going to whoever the highest bidder was.  Nothing wrong with that, but I doubt he developed an especial preference for Boston over 2 months, one of which he had Covid.

[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.

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.

Correct.  If we were content to be a mid-tier playoff team, we should have just kept Kemba for the next two seasons. Our ceiling would have been about the same, and we would have kept our pick.

So it's your argument that our team with Horford is not not more competitive than with Kemba? If that's your contention, then that's fine. I think we're better and more balanced without Kemba and with Horford on-board... even more so now that we have Schroder this season (but that shouldn't factor at this point).

We may be marginally better, but we are no closer to a championship.  We don’t have a clear direction, but we do have close to 100% of the cap tied up in three players, one of whom is a defense only role-player (who didn’t play much defense last year) and is a “team leader” that doesn’t seem to lead very much.

I have no problem with that characterization. I'm just saying that looking at the Kemba trade solely from a financial perspective of saving money is ludicrous and as evidence that ownership is cheap should be avoided. First the argument was that he was traded to avoid luxury tax (not by you  that I recall, but from others... which is flat out wrong), and here we are paying tax and a non-guaranteed contract away from being above the Apron.

So that the trade did in fact give us more options and financial flexibility shouldn't be seen as a negative, particularly if you agreed that at the very least it makes us "marginally better".

Now, the Smart contract is another issue entirely. I'm not sure if I agree with this contract, but I'm was in favor of playing above the cap next year anyways, so I have no problem with it in that regard at least. Also, it doesn't remove the value of Horford's contract as a tradable asset either, just lessens that value for us in our pursuit for cap space. A Beal S&T or trade this season was always going to be the more likely path, so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise that using cap space is now a bit more difficult.

[Celtics2021]

I’m not crazy about the deal, I was really excited about having that flexibility next offseason. But now that I’m thinking about it there could be a real upside here:

The Celtics sent a clear message to the players around the league that they are ready and willing to pay their own players. As good as Ainge was, and he was an incredible GM, but he was also very cutthroat. I think this shakes the whole Isaiah Thomas situation.

We paid Tatum. That was enough of a message, if one was needed. Locking up a role player at almost 20% of the cap is something else entirely.

It’s 14% of the forecast cap, per the NBA’s most recent estimate, not 20%.

[JBcat]

Too much money, but I'd rather have Smart than Fournier as Smart is an elite defender and has more positional versatility.

We could have signed both if ownership was willing to pay more in tax.  Smart at PG and Fournier at SG, and both moveable contracts later on for a star if need be.  Fournier wanted to be here too, and an upgrade over Richardson at least based on last season.  Though I digress,  we might as well consider a R Williams extension if reasonable since we won’t have max cap space next offseason.

Fournier wanted to be here because the Celtics had his Bird rights and could pay him money.  He was always going to whoever the highest bidder was.  Nothing wrong with that, but I doubt he developed an especial preference for Boston over 2 months, one of which he had Covid.

Yes that’s my point, he signed a reasonable contract with the Knicks which I had thought we should have matched, but I believe we reportedly wouldn’t go the extra year to sign him.  If we had offered that extra year most likely he would be wearing green as he said we were his first choice.  Oh well,  it will be interesting to look back and see how these moves shake out getting Richardson to essentially replace Fournier. 

If we weren’t going for max cap space next year I’m happy we signed Smart to this extension.

[Moranis]

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.

Correct.  If we were content to be a mid-tier playoff team, we should have just kept Kemba for the next two seasons. Our ceiling would have been about the same, and we would have kept our pick.

So it's your argument that our team with Horford is not not more competitive than with Kemba? If that's your contention, then that's fine. I think we're better and more balanced without Kemba and with Horford on-board... even more so now that we have Schroder this season (but that shouldn't factor at this point).

We may be marginally better, but we are no closer to a championship.  We don’t have a clear direction, but we do have close to 100% of the cap tied up in three players, one of whom is a defense only role-player (who didn’t play much defense last year) and is a “team leader” that doesn’t seem to lead very much.

They make a combined 74 million or so in the 22-23 season.  The cap is projected at at least 116 million.  74/116 = just under 64% (and the cap will likely be even higher than that).  Approximately 64% is somehow now close to 100%.  That is some funny math. 

[Ogaju]

I’m not crazy about the deal, I was really excited about having that flexibility next offseason. But now that I’m thinking about it there could be a real upside here:

The Celtics sent a clear message to the players around the league that they are ready and willing to pay their own players. As good as Ainge was, and he was an incredible GM, but he was also very cutthroat. I think this shakes the whole Isaiah Thomas situation.

TP….. the team is sending a message to its players and league. You will be rewarded and not discarded.