Which center should we sign?

[Celtics2021]

Getting back to the minimum salary guys, Tony Bradley seems like he will become available soon, if he isn’t already.  The Bulls have effectively 16 guaranteed contracts (Dosunmu is not guaranteed but there’s no way the Bulls don’t keep him), and it figures that Bradley could be the odd one out with Vucevic, Drummond, and the prospect Marko Simonovic also on the roster at center.

He struggled a little bit finishing around the rim last year, which hurt his stats a bit, but that feels like a blip, potentially due to the Bulls loss of PGs last season.  Otherwise he’s pretty much a rim runner with good shotblocking and rebounding numbers, and teams generally perform okay with him in limited minutes.  He probably could be had for effectively free since the Bulls would otherwise eat his salary.

He would be excellent. Had a down year finishing, as you mention, but prior to that was a career 65% shooter from the field. Good rebounder, decent defender, excellent length, and is perfectly accustomed to that back-up role, so no potential locker-room drama unlike certain other veteran bigs.

Yes, I would be happy with that as well.  Bradley has at least started games in the NBA and has proven that he has some decent nba skills for a big guy.   Would we need to dip into the TPE or would he be a vet min contract?

He’s on the minimum, so acquiring him would not require a TPE (but at $2 million he’d even fit into the one we have from Bol Bol if we did need to).

[Moranis]

I guess Bradley would be ok if he didn't require anything, but I'd still rather have Dwight.  I feel a lot more comfortable with Dwight starting 20 games than I would with Bradley doing it.

[gouki88]

Getting back to the minimum salary guys, Tony Bradley seems like he will become available soon, if he isn’t already.  The Bulls have effectively 16 guaranteed contracts (Dosunmu is not guaranteed but there’s no way the Bulls don’t keep him), and it figures that Bradley could be the odd one out with Vucevic, Drummond, and the prospect Marko Simonovic also on the roster at center.

He struggled a little bit finishing around the rim last year, which hurt his stats a bit, but that feels like a blip, potentially due to the Bulls loss of PGs last season.  Otherwise he’s pretty much a rim runner with good shotblocking and rebounding numbers, and teams generally perform okay with him in limited minutes.  He probably could be had for effectively free since the Bulls would otherwise eat his salary.

He would be excellent. Had a down year finishing, as you mention, but prior to that was a career 65% shooter from the field. Good rebounder, decent defender, excellent length, and is perfectly accustomed to that back-up role, so no potential locker-room drama unlike certain other veteran bigs.

Yes, I would be happy with that as well.  Bradley has at least started games in the NBA and has proven that he has some decent nba skills for a big guy.   Would we need to dip into the TPE or would he be a vet min contract?

He’s on the minimum, so acquiring him would not require a TPE (but at $2 million he’d even fit into the one we have from Bol Bol if we did need to).

I forgot Bol Bol was a Celtic. What could have been

[tazzmaniac]

I guess Bradley would be ok if he didn't require anything, but I'd still rather have Dwight.  I feel a lot more comfortable with Dwight starting 20 games than I would with Bradley doing it.

When Timelord or Horford miss a game, I'd expect the other to start at center with the other 4 being guards and wings.  If whoever ends up as 3rd center starts 20 games, that's a big problem. 

[Vermont Green]

I guess Bradley would be ok if he didn't require anything, but I'd still rather have Dwight.  I feel a lot more comfortable with Dwight starting 20 games than I would with Bradley doing it.

When Timelord or Horford miss a game, I'd expect the other to start at center with the other 4 being guards and wings.  If whoever ends up as 3rd center starts 20 games, that's a big problem.

Yeah, for the regular season game here and there, if RWill or Horford are out, they will just play Gallinari and Grant a little more, maybe spot minutes for Kornet, and some small ball mixed in.  Nothing to worry about.  If someone is out for extended period or for the playoffs, it is a different story.  That may require a move at the trade deadline to address.  This is not that big of an issue until it is an issue (meaning Horford or Williams are out for some extended period).  If that happens, it happens and they will have to deal with it.

I am not that worried about big depth.  Brown might get hurt and the issue will be wing depth.  Or Smart and then it is guard depth.  Big depth will likely rear its head at some point but when and for how long?  I think many are overreacting to what may or may not even be a problem with our big rotation.

[Moranis]

I guess Bradley would be ok if he didn't require anything, but I'd still rather have Dwight.  I feel a lot more comfortable with Dwight starting 20 games than I would with Bradley doing it.

When Timelord or Horford miss a game, I'd expect the other to start at center with the other 4 being guards and wings.  If whoever ends up as 3rd center starts 20 games, that's a big problem.

I don't think starting Horford at center and Tatum or Gallo at PF makes a whole lot of sense for the team.  It is at its best with Horford at the 4 and Tatum at the 3.  So when Rob invariably misses his 20 games, I absolutely think and would expect a back-up center to start, at least if they had one good enough to do so.  That is where a guy like Howard comes in.  He can absolutely start and give you a solid 20-24 minutes every game.

[Celtics2021]

I guess Bradley would be ok if he didn't require anything, but I'd still rather have Dwight.  I feel a lot more comfortable with Dwight starting 20 games than I would with Bradley doing it.

When Timelord or Horford miss a game, I'd expect the other to start at center with the other 4 being guards and wings.  If whoever ends up as 3rd center starts 20 games, that's a big problem.

I don't think starting Horford at center and Tatum or Gallo at PF makes a whole lot of sense for the team.  It is at its best with Horford at the 4 and Tatum at the 3.  So when Rob invariably misses his 20 games, I absolutely think and would expect a back-up center to start, at least if they had one good enough to do so.  That is where a guy like Howard comes in.  He can absolutely start and give you a solid 20-24 minutes every game.

The team plays the majority of any given game with only one of Rob or Al on the floor.  When Rob is out, Al will start at the 5 and either Grant at the 4 or Brogdon at the 2 with Tatum shifting up.  My bet is Grant.

One thing that’s important to remember is that every season‘s team is different.  With a thin backcourt last year, it made good sense to have two-big lineups often.  With the backcourt depth and quality now improved with the acquisition of Brogdon, it will often make less sense to go with two bigs.  They’ll still start the game and half’s with it, but probably we won’t see it much more than 6-8 minutes a game, and there will be no reason to force the issue starting a 3rd-string center / 5th-string big when there are at least four players of better quality who could start ahead of him.

[Roy H.]

I don't think it's time to panic about a lack of a backup center.  Training camp doesn't start for another 2+ months.  Most teams are at or near roster capacity, so it's unlikely that all of the FA options will be gone. 

At the same time, the four or five free agent options aren't completely interchangeable.  Brad presumably can't wait for months and still guarantee that he will get his favorite guy.

But, I do feel strongly that it would be unacceptable to go into the regular season with obvious holes in the roster.  We're now a contender; the "figure it out as we go along" strategy doesn't make a lot of sense at this point.  To make a parallel, I was reading an article from Tomase regarding the Sox today, with his premise being that the problems the Sox are having now were caused in the off-season, when management got cute and didn't adequately fill roster holes.  That's causing the Sox to lose games, games that will be important if they want to win the wild card.

I'm okay with the Sox not using the TPE.  If there plan is to keep the budget at about $20 million over the tax, with two $6-ish million TPEs available if necessary around the deadline, I'm good with that.  But, what the team shouldn't do is fill out the remaining roster spots with G-League scrubs, like we've seen before.  It's imperative that Brad adds NBA-quality players to fill at least two of the remaining slots. 

[Jvalin]

You guys are vying over a bunch of scrubs. As long as KD is on the market, we should be aiming for the big fish. If we cannot acquire KD, we should be trying to facilitate a 3-way trade with the aim of landing Bam or Simmons. Personally speaking, I'd rather have Tatum, Brown and Bam over Tatum and KD. But that's just me.

Btw, I fully believe Horford is at his best when playing at the 5 (especially at this stage in his career). All we need is a 3rd string Center. Who cares? I'd be more than happy with a guy like Tony Bradley.

Per cleaningtheglass, Gallinari has played limited minutes at Center throughout his career. I'd expect him to provide cover at Center in case we face an injury crisis. If Nemanja Bjelica transformed into a stretch Center, I don't see why Gallo can't. After all, they are both the same height (6'10'').

[Vermont Green]

I don't think it's time to panic about a lack of a backup center.  Training camp doesn't start for another 2+ months.  Most teams are at or near roster capacity, so it's unlikely that all of the FA options will be gone. 

At the same time, the four or five free agent options aren't completely interchangeable.  Brad presumably can't wait for months and still guarantee that he will get his favorite guy.

But, I do feel strongly that it would be unacceptable to go into the regular season with obvious holes in the roster.  We're now a contender; the "figure it out as we go along" strategy doesn't make a lot of sense at this point.  To make a parallel, I was reading an article from Tomase regarding the Sox today, with his premise being that the problems the Sox are having now were caused in the off-season, when management got cute and didn't adequately fill roster holes.  That's causing the Sox to lose games, games that will be important if they want to win the wild card.

I'm okay with the Sox not using the TPE.  If there plan is to keep the budget at about $20 million over the tax, with two $6-ish million TPEs available if necessary around the deadline, I'm good with that.  But, what the team shouldn't do is fill out the remaining roster spots with G-League scrubs, like we've seen before.  It's imperative that Brad adds NBA-quality players to fill at least two of the remaining slots.

Not sure what problems the Red Sox could have solved in the off season.  Their problem is injuries to Sale, Eovaldi, Wacha, Hill, and Whitlock.  That is 5 starting pitchers.  I guess you could say first base isn't entirely resolved.  Bullpens are never fully resolved.  But the Sox were doing just fine, even without Sale, until very recently.  And they have James Paxton coming back at some point.

As to the Celtics, your first statement was it is not time to panic over back up center.  Exactly, and it could be argued that whoever we bring in (based on the names available at this point) may be the 3rd or 4th center behind RWill, Horford, and maybe even Gallinari.  Or looked at another way, the 5th big is what at most will be a 6 big rotation (Kornet being 6th).

I suspect we will mostly play 2-bigs, one more PF'ish, one more Center'ish.  But positional designations are very blurred these days.   If needed and against some match ups, we can play 2 PF'ish players (Gallinari and Horford) or one PF'ish and one big wing.  Any of the above are fine for games here and there in the regular season or for some minutes in individual games.  If along the way, someone gets hurt more long term, then you need to do something.  That is the "figure it out" part.  You don't know how new players are going to fit in exactly, you don't know how young players will develop, you don't know who is going to get injured.  That key need that needs to be addressed at the trade deadline may or may not be a big.

This has been a great off season.  We brought in size that can shoot in Gallinari (something they have been talking about for a while), we brought in a very versatile and skilled guard/wing type in Brogdon, we brought back all of the core rotation from last season, and we cleared out a lot of incidental players that were taking up roster spots.  Now we have a few of the incidental roster spots to fill back up.  I understand we don't want to just waste these spots but these moves are not going to impact the season all that much.

[Vermont Green]

I guess Bradley would be ok if he didn't require anything, but I'd still rather have Dwight.  I feel a lot more comfortable with Dwight starting 20 games than I would with Bradley doing it.

When Timelord or Horford miss a game, I'd expect the other to start at center with the other 4 being guards and wings.  If whoever ends up as 3rd center starts 20 games, that's a big problem.

I don't think starting Horford at center and Tatum or Gallo at PF makes a whole lot of sense for the team.  It is at its best with Horford at the 4 and Tatum at the 3.  So when Rob invariably misses his 20 games, I absolutely think and would expect a back-up center to start, at least if they had one good enough to do so.  That is where a guy like Howard comes in.  He can absolutely start and give you a solid 20-24 minutes every game.

The team plays the majority of any given game with only one of Rob or Al on the floor.  When Rob is out, Al will start at the 5 and either Grant at the 4 or Brogdon at the 2 with Tatum shifting up.  My bet is Grant.

One thing that’s important to remember is that every season‘s team is different.  With a thin backcourt last year, it made good sense to have two-big lineups often.  With the backcourt depth and quality now improved with the acquisition of Brogdon, it will often make less sense to go with two bigs.  They’ll still start the game and half’s with it, but probably we won’t see it much more than 6-8 minutes a game, and there will be no reason to force the issue starting a 3rd-string center / 5th-string big when there are at least four players of better quality who could start ahead of him.

Not sure I am clear.  Are you saying only 6-8 minutes per half with 2 bigs (meaning two of Horford, RWill, Gallinari, Grant, Scrub)?  I think it will be just the opposite, if there are 24 minutes in a half, maybe you see 6-8 minutes of 1-big ball.  I think that will be true even if RWill or Horford is out for a game.

I get (I think) that you are saying since Brogdon is better than Grant, he would play but Brogdon will get his minutes.  This will end up to coming down to playing Pritchard and White more or playing Gallinari and Grant more.

We will all have to wait and see but the good news is that this team has the versatility to play a lot of different ways.  Last season we were at our best with 2-bigs and I expect that to be the same again this year.  And with Gallinari added, we have even more (better) big rotation options.  But we shall see what Coach Udoka thinks soon enough.

[Roy H.]

  I understand we don't want to just waste these spots but these moves are not going to impact the season all that much.

It's hard to say.  I mean, based upon the "our starting PF is our backup C" theory, Theis was our third center last year.  Did his addition impact the season?  Based upon his play in the first round against Brooklyn, I think he was essential.

Essentially, we've traded Nesmith and Theis for Brogdon and Gallinari.  That's a very large upgrade in terms of talent / reliability.  But, we've still done nothing to address one of the bigger problems with the team last year:  having 5 to 7 guys who weren't playable nightly (depending on whether you count 2-way players).

Seemingly the easiest task this entire off-season was upgrading the end of our bench.  Last season, we had Kornet, Hauser, Fitts, Stauskas and Morgan filling out the roster, with Ryan and Thomas on 2-ways.  That's got to be the worst 11th - 17th rotation in the NBA.  Unfortunately, we've replaced that rotation with Kornet, Hauser, _______, _______, _______, with _______ and Davison on 2-ways.

Also, here's the Tomase article:  https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/red-sox-lost-these-games-february-and-march-when-they-built-imperfect-roster

[Vermont Green]

  I understand we don't want to just waste these spots but these moves are not going to impact the season all that much.

It's hard to say.  I mean, based upon the "our starting PF is our backup C" theory, Theis was our third center last year.  Did his addition impact the season?  Based upon his play in the first round against Brooklyn, I think he was essential.

Essentially, we've traded Nesmith and Theis for Brogdon and Gallinari.  That's a very large upgrade in terms of talent / reliability.  But, we've still done nothing to address one of the bigger problems with the team last year:  having 5 to 7 guys who weren't playable nightly (depending on whether you count 2-way players).

Seemingly the easiest task this entire off-season was upgrading the end of our bench.  Last season, we had Kornet, Hauser, Fitts, Stauskas and Morgan filling out the roster, with Ryan and Thomas on 2-ways.  That's got to be the worst 11th - 17th rotation in the NBA.  Unfortunately, we've replaced that rotation with Kornet, Hauser, _______, _______, _______, with _______ and Davison on 2-ways.

Also, here's the Tomase article:  https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/red-sox-lost-these-games-february-and-march-when-they-built-imperfect-roster

The Red Sox debate is a separate thread but as to the Celtics Roster, as you said, Theis and Nesmith were the 9th and 10th guys last season and we replaced them with Gallinari and Brogdon.  Brogdon becomes the 6th man upgrading over White, Gallinari the 7th, upgrading over Grant.  Our 8th and 9th slots upgrade due to White and Grant sliding down and Pritchard becomes the 10th man.

Now I agree that slots 11-15 remain unimproved at this point.  We have Hauser and Kornet who I am fine with plus Davison on a 2-way.  We have a few more slots to fill up.  Last season there were mid season trades and tax implications so the very end of the bench was pretty thin by the end of the season.  We started out with more end of the bench vets (Jabari Parker, Freedom Kanter) but they ended up no more "playable" than the G-Leaguers.

I don't see this as some great missed opportunity or some imperfect roster that is going to become a fatal flaw for the team.  Whether we pick up Dwight Howard or not (for example).  Dwight Howard over some G-League big I have never heard of could make some small difference.  I prefer the vets to the prospects, at least for some of the remaining slots.  A vet big and a vet wing would be nice.  But if we are relying on Dwight Howard in key games or in the playoffs, that is still a problem.

[Roy H.]

I don't see this as some great missed opportunity or some imperfect roster that is going to become a fatal flaw for the team.  Whether we pick up Dwight Howard or not (for example).  Dwight Howard over some G-League big I have never heard of could make some small difference.  I prefer the vets to the prospects, at least for some of the remaining slots.  A vet big and a vet wing would be nice.  But if we are relying on Dwight Howard in key games or in the playoffs, that is still a problem.

If we play with essentially a 10 man roster for the majority of the regular season, I think it absolutely will be a problem.  That's not just a direct playoff problem.  Rather, it affects the regular season, it affects health and rest, etc.  Those things all indirectly affect the playoff result.

I mean, I'm sure somebody could have said "if the Warriors are relying on Bjelic in the playoffs, that is a problem" or "if the Celtics are starting Theis in the playoffs, that is a problem".  And yet, there they were, playing an important part.

NBA teams have 15 roster spots.  I'm surprised by the number of people who seem to think that 1/3 of them just aren't that important.

[Neurotic Guy]

  I understand we don't want to just waste these spots but these moves are not going to impact the season all that much.

It's hard to say.  I mean, based upon the "our starting PF is our backup C" theory, Theis was our third center last year.  Did his addition impact the season?  Based upon his play in the first round against Brooklyn, I think he was essential.

Essentially, we've traded Nesmith and Theis for Brogdon and Gallinari.  That's a very large upgrade in terms of talent / reliability.  But, we've still done nothing to address one of the bigger problems with the team last year:  having 5 to 7 guys who weren't playable nightly (depending on whether you count 2-way players).

Seemingly the easiest task this entire off-season was upgrading the end of our bench.  Last season, we had Kornet, Hauser, Fitts, Stauskas and Morgan filling out the roster, with Ryan and Thomas on 2-ways.  That's got to be the worst 11th - 17th rotation in the NBA.  Unfortunately, we've replaced that rotation with Kornet, Hauser, _______, _______, _______, with _______ and Davison on 2-ways.

Also, here's the Tomase article:  https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/red-sox-lost-these-games-february-and-march-when-they-built-imperfect-roster

The Red Sox debate is a separate thread but as to the Celtics Roster, as you said, Theis and Nesmith were the 9th and 10th guys last season and we replaced them with Gallinari and Brogdon.  Brogdon becomes the 6th man upgrading over White, Gallinari the 7th, upgrading over Grant.  Our 8th and 9th slots upgrade due to White and Grant sliding down and Pritchard becomes the 10th man.

Now I agree that slots 11-15 remain unimproved at this point.  We have Hauser and Kornet who I am fine with plus Davison on a 2-way.  We have a few more slots to fill up.  Last season there were mid season trades and tax implications so the very end of the bench was pretty thin by the end of the season.  We started out with more end of the bench vets (Jabari Parker, Freedom Kanter) but they ended up no more "playable" than the G-Leaguers.

I don't see this as some great missed opportunity or some imperfect roster that is going to become a fatal flaw for the team.  Whether we pick up Dwight Howard or not (for example).  Dwight Howard over some G-League big I have never heard of could make some small difference.  I prefer the vets to the prospects, at least for some of the remaining slots.  A vet big and a vet wing would be nice.  But if we are relying on Dwight Howard in key games or in the playoffs, that is still a problem.

If I thought Dwight Howard would tell the Jays - don’t ever sign with the Lakers - I’d be all in. Unfortunately he’s a 2-time Laker by choice. Not a good sign.