Not signing Fournier…

[Roy H.]

Boston went to double OT on the road against a team that was a top 4 seed last year in a game where Tatum was 7 of 30 overall and 2 of 15 from 3 and in which Horford and Richardson were unavailable to play.  Let that sink in and remember it is 1 game.  No need to overreact.   

Do you know who would be helpful to have on nights when Tatum isn’t hitting his shots?

Evan Fournier.

So would Richardson and Horford though.

Oh, I suspect so.  But, I think the team would have been better off keeping Fournier and Brown, and declining to trade for Richardson.  I would have preferred both Richardson and Fournier, but Wyc isn't ready to spend like Utah.

Horford / Williams / Brown
Tatum / Herangomez / Williams / Fernando
Brown / Nesmith
Fournier / Richardson / Langford
Smart / Schroder / Pritchard

We could have saved a marginal amount of money by not signing Kanter or Parker, or maybe traded Fernando and kept one or added depth.  But ultimately, that team is closer to contention than our current one.  And, I expect that Fournier will hold his value better than Richardson, although I doubt you or I have changed our opinions much on this after one game.

[Vermont Green]

I see your point, but I think Fournier addition, along with Horford and healthy Rob is a recipe for a very competitive team.  Plus how can you argue Evan taking minutes away from them. Doesn't Richardson create same issue?  Personally, I would have favored playing the two J's, Fournier and one of Nesmith and Romeo (the other coming off bench) along with a center rotation of Rob and Al.  Tatum seems better suited to play power forward in my opinion.  Water under the bridge.

Fournier and Richardson do pull from the same pool of minutes, for sure.  There is a difference in that you would be giving Fournier starter minutes (30+ in my mind) where Richardson's role appears to be bench so probably 20-24 min.  That is not a huge difference but a little difference.

And the other thing is that even though the vast majority of the people on this forum seem to want to start 3 wings and one big, with Tatum being the "kind of " PF, it does not appear that the Celtics share that view.  So if the starters or core unit are Smart, Brown, Tatum, and some combination of two bigs, Fournier is a bench player.  The most used line up for the Celtics for 5 of the last 6 seasons has been a two big line up, including last season (Theis and Thompson).

I think this all contributed to the decision to not sign Fournier and to take on two players, Richardson and Schroder, who are more suited to 20'ish minute bench roles.  Eventually, they will find a starter level PF to add to the team.  Until then, I guess we get by with Grant Williams in that role.

[Moranis]

Two things on this:

1) We made Fournier look really good by going under about 5 screens in a row for him.  Credit to him for making the wide open 3s, but man, I don’t understand that.  Know your opponent, especially when he was your teammate 5 months ago.

2) We effectively chose between Richardson and Schröder over Fournier.  Let’s maybe let Richardson play a game?

I'd take Fournier for Richardson and Schroder in a heartbeat.  And we signed Schroder well after we let Fournier walk, so I don't understand why you would lump him into this.

And the thing is, we could have acquired Fournier, Richardson and Schroder and still had a payroll in line with small market teams like the Jazz and the Bucks.

That doesn't make sense from a roster construction standpoint at all.  Too many players at the same position and not nearly enough minutes.  As is, there is a minutes problem, Fournier would only compound that.  There is no way the team would have had Fournier and Richardson, it just didn't make sense.  Ultimately though, Boston determined it was only keeping 1 of Smart and Fournier, and the team probably correctly chose Smart.

Call me crazy but I prefer winning games with elite shooters/scorers over roster construction.  Especially on nights where our star player can't hit the ocean.

So you don't want Langford to play at all.  No development from him.  Nesmith and Pritchard reduced a lot as well. 

If Boston was actually competing for a title, then maybe you don't worry about developing the young guys, but Boston isn't competing for a title this year, so you need to develop the young guys.

I see your point, but I think Fournier addition, along with Horford and healthy Rob is a recipe for a very competitive team.  Plus how can you argue Evan taking minutes away from them. Doesn't Richardson create same issue?  Personally, I would have favored playing the two J's, Fournier and one of Nesmith and Romeo (the other coming off bench) along with a center rotation of Rob and Al.  Tatum seems better suited to play power forward in my opinion.  Water under the bridge.

well if it is Fournier or Richardson that is different, than Fournier + Richardson + Schroder (which is the post I was replying to).  Fournier is better than Richardson offensively, but not defensively and the price is much better on Richardson.  I think all things considered, I'd rather have Richardson than Fournier. 

[wdleehi]

I bet the Celtics would of loved to still have Fournier the talent.


But they didn't want the contract.   

[Roy H.]

I bet the Celtics would of loved to still have Fournier the talent.


But they didn't want the contract.

The contract isn’t that bad though. It’s a three-year deal at half the max, barely more than we are paying Richardson.

[action781]

Fournier had a career high in points last night.  Let's not pretend last night is just who the guy is.

Fournier isn't going to improve Tatum's 7/30 shooting last night.  Fournier won't score 32 points for us if Tatum isn't letting his teammates get more opportunities on an off-shooting night.

Fournier is a nice player, I just think Boston was not the right situation for him to flourish.

[Roy H.]

Fournier had a career high in points last night.  Let's not pretend last night is just who the guy is.

Fournier isn't going to improve Tatum's 7/30 shooting last night.  Fournier won't score 32 points for us if Tatum isn't letting his teammates get more opportunities on an off-shooting night.

Fournier is a nice player, I just think Boston was not the right situation for him to flourish.

He's obviously not a superstar who is going to put up 32 per night.  But, he's shown pretty consistently that he can score 17 to 19 points on excellent efficiency.  He could have easily taken Kemba's scoring role from last season.  He would have been a really excellent fit in between Smart and Brown in the starting lineup.

[Moranis]

I bet the Celtics would of loved to still have Fournier the talent.


But they didn't want the contract.

The contract isn’t that bad though. It’s a three-year deal at half the max, barely more than we are paying Richardson.

The Celtics are paying Richardson and Schroder less than the Knicks are paying Fournier.  That isn't barely more.  And it is only half max for a 35% max player (which Fournier doesn't even qualify for).  At least be honest when you describe things.

[Roy H.]

I bet the Celtics would of loved to still have Fournier the talent.


But they didn't want the contract.

The contract isn’t that bad though. It’s a three-year deal at half the max, barely more than we are paying Richardson.

The Celtics are paying Richardson and Schroder less than the Knicks are paying Fournier.  That isn't barely more.  And it is only half max for a 35% max player (which Fournier doesn't even qualify for).  At least be honest when you describe things.

Eh.  Fournier makes $17.1 million.  That makes him the 75th highest paid player in the NBA.  19 players are making double what he does.  And, he's making pretty much exactly half of the 30% max.

[Vermont Green]

I bet the Celtics would of loved to still have Fournier the talent.


But they didn't want the contract.

The contract isn’t that bad though. It’s a three-year deal at half the max, barely more than we are paying Richardson.

The Celtics are paying Richardson and Schroder less than the Knicks are paying Fournier.  That isn't barely more.  And it is only half max for a 35% max player (which Fournier doesn't even qualify for).  At least be honest when you describe things.

Eh.  Fournier makes $17.1 million.  That makes him the 75th highest paid player in the NBA.  19 players are making double what he does.  And, he's making pretty much exactly half of the 30% max.

I don't see this as a question of whether or not $17.1M is a good or bad contract for Fournier.  I don't think it is an unreasonable contract.  That isn't the issue.  The question is how the Celtics wanted to spend that money.  There is no direct connection between dots but we brought in (and extended) Richardson and signed Schroder for a total of about $17.5M.  I think from a salary standpoint, this put the Celtics right about where they wanted to be.  They can deal out at the deadline and get under the tax line or deal in and add talent to make a a run.

Yes, they could have done all of this but as discussed above, having Fournier in addition to Richardson and Schroder doesn't make sense from a minutes standpoint.  Now if Fournier was a PF, they keep him, but not another wing.  Had they kept Fournier, I don't think we see Richardson although maybe we still sign Schroder, who knows.  But that would have us about $5M higher in salary and that much harder to get back under the cap if at some point they want to do that.

I think it is perfectly reasonable also to say would you rather have Richardson and Schroder for $17M coming off the bench or Fournier (and I guess Moses Brown) for $17M, probably not starting.  That is a fair debate.  To me, it is a tough call.  I lean Richardson and Schroder but this is not going to make or break the team either way in my opinion.

[wdleehi]

I bet the Celtics would of loved to still have Fournier the talent.


But they didn't want the contract.

The contract isn’t that bad though. It’s a three-year deal at half the max, barely more than we are paying Richardson.

The Celtics are paying Richardson and Schroder less than the Knicks are paying Fournier.  That isn't barely more.  And it is only half max for a 35% max player (which Fournier doesn't even qualify for).  At least be honest when you describe things.

Eh.  Fournier makes $17.1 million.  That makes him the 75th highest paid player in the NBA.  19 players are making double what he does.  And, he's making pretty much exactly half of the 30% max.

Those two are short term pieces that could be used as salary filler.   Fournier is a long term piece that could fill salary, is worth less in such a trade for a team that wants to clear cap.   


It depends on what the Celtics want to use the future cap.   I can only guess they want to aim higher then Fournier.   The question is can they actually hit such a target with those other pieces.   

[Roy H.]

I bet the Celtics would of loved to still have Fournier the talent.


But they didn't want the contract.

The contract isn’t that bad though. It’s a three-year deal at half the max, barely more than we are paying Richardson.

The Celtics are paying Richardson and Schroder less than the Knicks are paying Fournier.  That isn't barely more.  And it is only half max for a 35% max player (which Fournier doesn't even qualify for).  At least be honest when you describe things.

Eh.  Fournier makes $17.1 million.  That makes him the 75th highest paid player in the NBA.  19 players are making double what he does.  And, he's making pretty much exactly half of the 30% max.

Those two are short term pieces that could be used as salary filler.   Fournier is a long term piece that could fill salary, is worth less in such a trade for a team that wants to clear cap.   


It depends on what the Celtics want to use the future cap.   I can only guess they want to aim higher then Fournier.   The question is can they actually hit such a target with those other pieces.

Is Richardson’s two year deal better than Fournier’s 3 years deal?  Is Schroder’s non-Bird deal that much more attractive?  And why is it either/or?  We could easily have both Schroder and Fournier, and even Richardson if we wanted him.

[Moranis]

I bet the Celtics would of loved to still have Fournier the talent.


But they didn't want the contract.

The contract isn’t that bad though. It’s a three-year deal at half the max, barely more than we are paying Richardson.

The Celtics are paying Richardson and Schroder less than the Knicks are paying Fournier.  That isn't barely more.  And it is only half max for a 35% max player (which Fournier doesn't even qualify for).  At least be honest when you describe things.

Eh.  Fournier makes $17.1 million.  That makes him the 75th highest paid player in the NBA.  19 players are making double what he does.  And, he's making pretty much exactly half of the 30% max.

Those two are short term pieces that could be used as salary filler.   Fournier is a long term piece that could fill salary, is worth less in such a trade for a team that wants to clear cap.   


It depends on what the Celtics want to use the future cap.   I can only guess they want to aim higher then Fournier.   The question is can they actually hit such a target with those other pieces.

Is Richardson’s two year deal better than Fournier’s 3 years deal?  Is Schroder’s non-Bird deal that much more attractive?  And why is it either/or?  We could easily have both Schroder and Fournier, and even Richardson if we wanted him.

Yes Richardson's 2 year contract is better and easier to move than Fournier's especially when they are both going to mostly be included for salary.  So the team has one less year and a lot cheaper contract for the long term books.  And Fournier is overpaid as a 4th scoring option that is a poor defender, and he isn't good enough to be a 3rd option. 

[Roy H.]

I bet the Celtics would of loved to still have Fournier the talent.


But they didn't want the contract.

The contract isn’t that bad though. It’s a three-year deal at half the max, barely more than we are paying Richardson.

The Celtics are paying Richardson and Schroder less than the Knicks are paying Fournier.  That isn't barely more.  And it is only half max for a 35% max player (which Fournier doesn't even qualify for).  At least be honest when you describe things.

Eh.  Fournier makes $17.1 million.  That makes him the 75th highest paid player in the NBA.  19 players are making double what he does.  And, he's making pretty much exactly half of the 30% max.

Those two are short term pieces that could be used as salary filler.   Fournier is a long term piece that could fill salary, is worth less in such a trade for a team that wants to clear cap.   


It depends on what the Celtics want to use the future cap.   I can only guess they want to aim higher then Fournier.   The question is can they actually hit such a target with those other pieces.

Is Richardson’s two year deal better than Fournier’s 3 years deal?  Is Schroder’s non-Bird deal that much more attractive?  And why is it either/or?  We could easily have both Schroder and Fournier, and even Richardson if we wanted him.

Yes Richardson's 2 year contract is better and easier to move than Fournier's especially when they are both going to mostly be included for salary.  So the team has one less year and a lot cheaper contract for the long term books.  And Fournier is overpaid as a 4th scoring option that is a poor defender, and he isn't good enough to be a 3rd option.

4th scoring option?  Since he would have been our third best scorer that seems like a silly way to use him.

And, I suspect that most teams would prefer a good player on a three year contract to a mediocre player on a two year deal.  Hopefully Richardson bounces back, but based upon last year Fournier is significantly better.

[gouki88]

Boston went to double OT on the road against a team that was a top 4 seed last year in a game where Tatum was 7 of 30 overall and 2 of 15 from 3 and in which Horford and Richardson were unavailable to play.  Let that sink in and remember it is 1 game.  No need to overreact.   

Do you know who would be helpful to have on nights when Tatum isn’t hitting his shots?

Evan Fournier.

As would Horford and Richardson