Is Grant a goner? (Yes: Traded to DAL for second rounders)

[keevsnick]

So I think the frustrating part about this is the need to rope in a 3rd team.

Like if you are worried about years 2-4 for Grant because you don't want to be over the 2nd apron then fine, but Bullock is an expiring contract. he could have been a good rotation player for you this year. And an unprotected pick swap in 2030 with this Dal team has value, maybe a lot! The c's taking back the SAS end of this deal would have been great!

And all it would have cost is money. Thats it. No other downside besides not getting the tax-MLE which they likely aren't using anyway. This feels like ownership cheeping out.

[cman88]

my only problem with losing Grant is we really have no way of replacing him on the roster. I'll feel alot better if we see other moves to improve the bench.

I mean we have the 5million MLE and veteran minimums thats it....So keeping Grant at least for the year would've been helpful if you are putting all your chips on the table to win this year.

If its about the tax, thats just a poor excuse. I understand it would really cost ownership about $50million. But Golden state is paying something like $80million in tax to keep draymond Green and they are probably the 5th best team in the west.

[Kuberski33]

I don't mind moving on from Grant. I do not like the fact they brought nothing back in for him but cheap second round picks.

If the thinking is Brissett and Walsh are going to fill the void I am not sure that is going to work. Neither can shoot. One is a rookie the other a fringe NBA player that is pretty terrible within 10 feet of the rim.

Just feels like ownership and brad are just too cautious when they have a real chance to win a title. But I don't think this team as constructed now can win one with this bench.

The problem with losing Grant, along with Smart is that a time that too often played soft last season just lost its two toughest players. Unless this is addressed they're going to get pushed around - a lot.

[Neurotic Guy]

It's a little interesting that Brad opted to trade 3 guys who shoot the 3 really well in Grant, Muscala, and Gallo (presumption), and was all but settled on sending out Brogdon, their best 3-point shooter last year.  He did get rid of a toxic, high volume 3-point shooter in Smart and added a decent long-range shooter in KP, but since has added Walsh, Brissett, ad Banton -- all poor long-range shooters.  Seems to be a GM forcing a move away from a live by the 3 mentality that has not worked for this team. 

[Who]

Multiple second round picks, for a productive 22nd pick??? Let’s not forget the Celtics had multiple teams interested in Grant Williams too.

What a joke, Spurs got a better deal than us lol

Yes, they did. Why didn't we take Reggie Bullock? Was he too expensive? He is a good 3&D wing player.

[Who]

I've never been a Grant fan but [dang] this bench is weak and the cs are 1 Tatum injury away from the play in tourney.  No depth.  I wonder if we see  brogdon deal for 2 bench pieces.  The cs now have plenty of minutes for a vet but the good ones are gone.

That is an interesting idea. How good is this team without Tatum?

Do we stay big and start Hauser. Keep Brogdon as 6th man.

G: D White, Pritchard
G: Jaylen, Brogdon
F: Hauser, Banton
F: Horford, Brissett
C: Porzingis, Rob Williams

Or maybe we go smaller. Star Brogdon. Jaylen to SF.

G: D White, Pritchard
G: Brogdon, Banton
F: Jaylen, Hauser
F: Horford, Brissett
C: Porzingis, Rob Williams


That five man starting unit is still really good. The bench is a major weak point though. Team will lose a lot of the ground that the starters create. Still, I would think a 45-49 win team. Some injury prone guys though so maybe they fall back to 40-44 wins.

I prefer the Brogdon on the bench team in the end. More important to have some talent coming off the bench to stabilize the rotation. Brogdon and Timelord give the bench two strong players for the others to play off of.

[wiley]

It's a little interesting that Brad opted to trade 3 guys who shoot the 3 really well in Grant, Muscala, and Gallo (presumption), and was all but settled on sending out Brogdon, their best 3-point shooter last year.  He did get rid of a toxic, high volume 3-point shooter in Smart and added a decent long-range shooter in KP, but since has added Walsh, Brissett, ad Banton -- all poor long-range shooters.  Seems to be a GM forcing a move away from a live by the 3 mentality that has not worked for this team.

Sorry to nitpick...the threes themselves were toxic?  Any other interpretation I think is really unfair to a guy who was a hard playing Celtic so many years, with no negative comments after his trade to Memphis...

[wiley]

I don't mind moving on from Grant. I do not like the fact they brought nothing back in for him but cheap second round picks.

If the thinking is Brissett and Walsh are going to fill the void I am not sure that is going to work. Neither can shoot. One is a rookie the other a fringe NBA player that is pretty terrible within 10 feet of the rim.

Just feels like ownership and brad are just too cautious when they have a real chance to win a title. But I don't think this team as constructed now can win one with this bench.

The problem with losing Grant, along with Smart is that a time that too often played soft last season just lost its two toughest players. Unless this is addressed they're going to get pushed around - a lot.

playing hard can offset not being so tough....although in the playoffs a little toughness is nice. (But Grant took it too far...don't inspire the other team please, ever). 

I hope they play Walsh a lot all season long so that he's ready for the playoffs.  I'm tired of waiting three years for talented specialists to get time...play him and let him specialize...and he'll reward later after early mistakes related to inexperience.

[Neurotic Guy]

It's a little interesting that Brad opted to trade 3 guys who shoot the 3 really well in Grant, Muscala, and Gallo (presumption), and was all but settled on sending out Brogdon, their best 3-point shooter last year.  He did get rid of a toxic, high volume 3-point shooter in Smart and added a decent long-range shooter in KP, but since has added Walsh, Brissett, ad Banton -- all poor long-range shooters.  Seems to be a GM forcing a move away from a live by the 3 mentality that has not worked for this team.

Sorry to nitpick...the threes themselves were toxic?  Any other interpretation I think is really unfair to a guy who was a hard playing Celtic so many years, with no negative comments after his trade to Memphis...

I'm not certain about the effectiveness of his overall role in terms of team leadership -- I just don't know the true dynamics there... but yes I was referring to the toxic 3's more so (I guess) than Marcus himself -- though he was the one who chose to take the toxic threes.    Post trade Marcus has been mature and gracious - I like the guy, but will not miss his threes. 

[Who]

I don't mind moving on from Grant. I do not like the fact they brought nothing back in for him but cheap second round picks.

If the thinking is Brissett and Walsh are going to fill the void I am not sure that is going to work. Neither can shoot. One is a rookie the other a fringe NBA player that is pretty terrible within 10 feet of the rim.

Just feels like ownership and brad are just too cautious when they have a real chance to win a title. But I don't think this team as constructed now can win one with this bench.

The problem with losing Grant, along with Smart is that a time that too often played soft last season just lost its two toughest players. Unless this is addressed they're going to get pushed around - a lot.

Instigators

[Goldstar88]

I wonder how much Joe had to do with this?  I mean grant was missing in action for a LONG time there in the 2nd 1/2 of the season.
Is there a part of this that is Joe doesn't like Grant?

My guess is he wasn't coming back if Mazzulla returned and he made that clear to Brad.

Sounds unlikely enough. Almost as unlikely as a team paying $20M/season for Grant Williams.

Believe there was a wager regarding this…. Hmmm

[gouki88]

I've never been a Grant fan but [dang] this bench is weak and the cs are 1 Tatum injury away from the play in tourney.  No depth.  I wonder if we see  brogdon deal for 2 bench pieces.  The cs now have plenty of minutes for a vet but the good ones are gone.

That is an interesting idea. How good is this team without Tatum?

Do we stay big and start Hauser. Keep Brogdon as 6th man.

G: D White, Pritchard
G: Jaylen, Brogdon
F: Hauser, Banton
F: Horford, Brissett
C: Porzingis, Rob Williams

Or maybe we go smaller. Star Brogdon. Jaylen to SF.

G: D White, Pritchard
G: Brogdon, Banton
F: Jaylen, Hauser
F: Horford, Brissett
C: Porzingis, Rob Williams


That five man starting unit is still really good. The bench is a major weak point though. Team will lose a lot of the ground that the starters create. Still, I would think a 45-49 win team. Some injury prone guys though so maybe they fall back to 40-44 wins.

I prefer the Brogdon on the bench team in the end. More important to have some talent coming off the bench to stabilize the rotation. Brogdon and Timelord give the bench two strong players for the others to play off of.

How good are any of the best teams without their star? Denver - Jokic, Milwaukee - Giannis, Miami - Butler, Philly - Embiid, Suns - Durant, etc.

[Celtics2021]

So I think the frustrating part about this is the need to rope in a 3rd team.

Like if you are worried about years 2-4 for Grant because you don't want to be over the 2nd apron then fine, but Bullock is an expiring contract. he could have been a good rotation player for you this year. And an unprotected pick swap in 2030 with this Dal team has value, maybe a lot! The c's taking back the SAS end of this deal would have been great!

And all it would have cost is money. Thats it. No other downside besides not getting the tax-MLE which they likely aren't using anyway. This feels like ownership cheeping out.

We couldn’t have taken back Bullock because of the base-year compensation rule, for what it’s worth.

[Who]

So I think the frustrating part about this is the need to rope in a 3rd team.

Like if you are worried about years 2-4 for Grant because you don't want to be over the 2nd apron then fine, but Bullock is an expiring contract. he could have been a good rotation player for you this year. And an unprotected pick swap in 2030 with this Dal team has value, maybe a lot! The c's taking back the SAS end of this deal would have been great!

And all it would have cost is money. Thats it. No other downside besides not getting the tax-MLE which they likely aren't using anyway. This feels like ownership cheeping out.

We couldn’t have taken back Bullock because of the base-year compensation rule, for what it’s worth.

Ah okay. Thank you. That eases some frustration.

[Celtics2021]

I wonder how much Joe had to do with this?  I mean grant was missing in action for a LONG time there in the 2nd 1/2 of the season.
Is there a part of this that is Joe doesn't like Grant?

My guess is he wasn't coming back if Mazzulla returned and he made that clear to Brad.

Sounds unlikely enough. Almost as unlikely as a team paying $20M/season for Grant Williams.

Believe there was a wager regarding this…. Hmmm

It was $15 million a season, but you do indeed win.  Please find a mod to transfer 100 TPS from me to you.  (It should be Roy, since I owe him 100 also).