Please look away if you dislike our current front office:
Garrison Mathews helped the Rockets upset the Jazz (in Utah).
Off the bench, Mathews put up 23 points, 4 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, 50 FG%, 55.6 3P%, 80 FT% (8-10)
Garrison Mathews turned down the Celtics not the other way around. C's offered him the two way slot they gave Broderic Thomas, but Mathews said no.
It was reported that Mathews wanted a full roster slot and thought Hauser, who was already signed, had a lot of overlap of skills with Mathews. And given the performances of the three young guys(Nesmith, Pritchard and Romeo) in Summer League and the pre-season, not offering a full roster spot contract seemed the right move at the time.
I don't blame the C's for Mathews not being here. He chose to go elsewhere.
The Celtics could've given him Parkers roster spot. Parker never played. Why have him on a contract? Ever year we have too many dead roster spots used on guys that see no time.
And if a pig had wings it could fly.
At the time, Mathews didn't show enough to warrant a roster slot. One of the worst teams in the league, Houston, only brought him in on a two-way before converting it to a full roster slot contract.
Mathews took another two-way someplace he thought he could get playing time. He had to be talked into taking that two-way with Houston. He contemplated leaving basketball.
It's not like Boston offered less than Houston. Matthews just did not have confidence he would have an opportunity here so rejected the Celtics. The Celtics did not reject him or offer him anything less than Houston.
The Celtics also cut Parker after training camp only to resign him. They weren't scared of anyone claiming Parker off waivers. They had Matthews under an NBA contract and could have just kept him instead of trying to make him a 2-way, and they chose a different player who was equally unwanted by the league. That was a mistake, plain and simple. Heck, just resigning Parker at all was a mistake. If they'd just let him walk and left the roster spot open, they'd be under the luxury tax already, which they're still going to have to make trades to get under. In other words, the best answer was to keep Matthews. The second best answer was to keep neither. They went with the worst of those three choices. It was a bad decision, and a lot of us said so at the time, for either of the above reasons.
The only deal Boston had Matthews on was the typical 1 year, non-guaranteed training camp deal almost every camp player that probably won't make the final roster gets signed to. Matthews being good enough to warrant a guaranteed roster slot deal was not some obvious black and white decision. 29 other teams in the league agreed with the Celtics that Matthews wasn't at a guaranteed contract value as a player. It took one of the worst teams in the league to offer him a two-way after Matthews rejected Boston's two-way offer, for Matthews to be convinced to stay in the league. That's what Matthews said after his two-way was converted to a guaranteed deal in Houston.
The Celtics have no culpability in Matthews not being here any more than 28 other teams have that same culpability. He did not accept the Celtics offer. Everything after that is Monday morning quarterbacking to the nth degree.
This "28 other teams' argument is a fan crutch, and it bugs me.
Mathews shot 38% from 3 in 64 games for the Wiz last year. The Cs signed him. He wanted playing time, the Cs wouldn't assure him any -- so they let him go.
He subsequently went on to do the same for another team. Meanwhile, our bench sucks, and our shooting sucks.
He signed with the Cs for a reason, and they sent him packing. But the Cs have "no culpability in Mathews not being here"?