Analyze This Quote From Wyc

[Roy H.]

I personally feel no need to add to our depth (particularly our main weakness, a 3rd center) right at this moment.

Last postseason, we went into the season with no third center.  Then we picked up Theis midseason.

In 2008, we went into the season with what looked like a very thin bench.  Then we picked up PJ Brown midseason.  Also, Leon Powe ended up being a surprise.

I'm ok with rolling into the season with some uncertainty there, seeing if any of our deep bench players can surprise us, and if not then working the trade market and buyouts midseason.

As for letting the 17M TPE expire, we just don't know what players were available and at what prices.  Maybe the players some of us regret not getting simply were not available.  Or at least not without giving up additional assets that we considered too much.

This is something to consider. Having $17m to spend (total cost $70m when you add the luxury tax cost) doesn't mean there was a player that was worth spending it on, unless you want to overpay for someone. This is where I feel when someone says "money was not a consideration", when you're the guy who is given the responsibility to spend (i.e. Brad) you would still want to spend it wisely, rather than blowing huge sums of money on players who might not be worth it. Because those decisions all come back to you, as a professional. Especially if the role you are filling is a bench or No. 7-8 guy role.

I can't be too critical of letting the TPE expire. As for adding more depth now, I'm ok if they sign a Melo type player, but maybe they want more $ than vet min, who knows. Maybe they want to wait till someone (us?) gets desperate later on in the season. Imagine having Tatum injured and out for the season in November. Our needs just increased far beyond a backup big.

I don't know enough about it all to know if they can find someone to fill a non guaranteed contract and waive them without impact on our cap space, but that's why I'm ok waiting till a bit later to see what we really need to spend $$$ on. Not spending anything now doesn't mean you won't spend anything ever.

This is a very defensible and realistic position.

I guess the thing that rubs me the wrong way is the team bragging about money being no object, while at the same time saying we're overrated.

It is hard to acquire "chunk" contacts in the NBA, and it's hard to maintain big salary slots over the cap.  We had a $17 million slot that could have been converted into short-term help, or into expiring contracts to be traded later.  Instead, we let that asset evaporate.  Is there any doubt we could have used it to acquire Evan Fournier, or Alec Burks, or Nerlens Noel, or Kelly Olynyk, or Josh Richardson, or Derrick Favors?  All would have helped, and all other than Fournier would have been easily moveable later in a bigger deal.

I just wish Wyc and Brad would be candid.  They're happy having a contender, and didn't want to spend the money to improve our chances slightly-to-moderately.

I don't understand this assumption. The team took on big money this summer so they have a willingness to spend.

It's possible they just didn't want any of those players. Some maybe for defensive reasons, some maybe for offensive reasons, some for personality reasons. Just bringing in a warm body for the sake of spending the money wouldn't have helped anyone.

In retrospect, now that Gallo is out having Kelly Olynyk would be nice but I don't think that move made sense when Gallo was going to be here and healthy.

Take money out of the equation.  You think they prefer Denzel Valentine over any of those players?  Bruno Cabolco? 

I assume that Brad doesn't have a brain tumor.  That being the case, there are obviously players we could have used the TPE on that would have improved the team.

The team made a choice:  the money wasn't worth it.  That's a rational choice.  However, it's also separate from "there are no spending caps" or "money is no object".  The team obviously has a budget, at least when it comes to moderate improvements, and Wyc is lying about it.  That rubs me the wrong way more than his failure to maximize the team's chances.

And, I guess I don't understand your logic.  Spending into the luxury tax isn't the same thing as spending to maximize our chances at a championship.  As I said:

They're happy having a contender, and didn't want to spend the money to improve our chances slightly-to-moderately.

The team has spent money to maintain its contender status.  They have not spent additional money to improve our chances slightly-to-moderately.  That doesn't seem controversial to me.

[ozgod]

I personally feel no need to add to our depth (particularly our main weakness, a 3rd center) right at this moment.

Last postseason, we went into the season with no third center.  Then we picked up Theis midseason.

In 2008, we went into the season with what looked like a very thin bench.  Then we picked up PJ Brown midseason.  Also, Leon Powe ended up being a surprise.

I'm ok with rolling into the season with some uncertainty there, seeing if any of our deep bench players can surprise us, and if not then working the trade market and buyouts midseason.

As for letting the 17M TPE expire, we just don't know what players were available and at what prices.  Maybe the players some of us regret not getting simply were not available.  Or at least not without giving up additional assets that we considered too much.

This is something to consider. Having $17m to spend (total cost $70m when you add the luxury tax cost) doesn't mean there was a player that was worth spending it on, unless you want to overpay for someone. This is where I feel when someone says "money was not a consideration", when you're the guy who is given the responsibility to spend (i.e. Brad) you would still want to spend it wisely, rather than blowing huge sums of money on players who might not be worth it. Because those decisions all come back to you, as a professional. Especially if the role you are filling is a bench or No. 7-8 guy role.

I can't be too critical of letting the TPE expire. As for adding more depth now, I'm ok if they sign a Melo type player, but maybe they want more $ than vet min, who knows. Maybe they want to wait till someone (us?) gets desperate later on in the season. Imagine having Tatum injured and out for the season in November. Our needs just increased far beyond a backup big.

I don't know enough about it all to know if they can find someone to fill a non guaranteed contract and waive them without impact on our cap space, but that's why I'm ok waiting till a bit later to see what we really need to spend $$$ on. Not spending anything now doesn't mean you won't spend anything ever.

This is a very defensible and realistic position.

I guess the thing that rubs me the wrong way is the team bragging about money being no object, while at the same time saying we're overrated.

It is hard to acquire "chunk" contacts in the NBA, and it's hard to maintain big salary slots over the cap.  We had a $17 million slot that could have been converted into short-term help, or into expiring contracts to be traded later.  Instead, we let that asset evaporate.  Is there any doubt we could have used it to acquire Evan Fournier, or Alec Burks, or Nerlens Noel, or Kelly Olynyk, or Josh Richardson, or Derrick Favors?  All would have helped, and all other than Fournier would have been easily moveable later in a bigger deal.

I just wish Wyc and Brad would be candid.  They're happy having a contender, and didn't want to spend the money to improve our chances slightly-to-moderately.

That's very fair. If I were to try and parse how Brad interpreted Wyc's directive about spending money, I would have come up with the following: "you can spend whatever money you think you need to get us over the line and win a championship this year, but you better make sure you spend it wisely. I'd rather we not waste money if we don't have to." Where we are with spend, those marginal dollars start to really have an exponential effect which I'm certain factors into Brad's thinking, as the steward of the funds.

As for the overrated comment, I'm sure that that's for external consumption. I think internally they're pretty confident and will be very disappointed not to repeat as EC champs. As others have said I think the brains trust prefers the team to have a chip on its shoulder, an underdog mentality, because historically that's when this team has done pretty well.

[Vermont Green]

Funny, I look at this as the Celtics picked up two $20M plus players, both of whom are established vets, in exchange for pretty much nothing.  Both of whom should improve the team immensely.  The only thing is that one of the players we only have to pay $6.5M and we didn't need to use the TPE for either.  Maybe these are not home runs but in aggregate, it is really good plus clearly shows a willingness to spend.

I recognize that the option remained to use the Fournier TPE in addition to these deals.  But all we can offer in a TPE trade is draft picks.  People were complaining incessantly when we used a pick to get White.  Now people are complaining that we didn't use a pick to get some hypothetical player that likely would not be as good as White.

There is a presumption that we could have gotten say Richardson or Fournier back with TPE.  If a team is going to trade a player like that, it means that they see very low value for the player relative to their contract.  And people want to trade a pick to get a player another team wants to dump?  I am not sure if either Richardson or Fournier fall into that category but if they do, do we really want them?

I guess my bottom line is I give a high grade for the off season so far based on what they did and they may not be done.  I am not taking off points because of what they didn't do.  And I don't take off points because Gallinari got injured.  There are still several FA vet centers out there and it probably wouldn't hurt to get one of these guys.  I would award extra credit bonus points for Whiteside or even Tristan Thompson.  It is going to take a trade to get a decent vet wing so I don't see anything happening there.

[Roy H.]

Funny, I look at this as the Celtics picked up two $20M plus players, both of whom are established vets, in exchange for pretty much nothing.  Both of whom should improve the team immensely.  The only thing is that one of the players we only have to pay $6.5M and we didn't need to use the TPE for either.  Maybe these are not home runs but in aggregate, it is really good plus clearly shows a willingness to spend.

I recognize that the option remained to use the Fournier TPE in addition to these deals.  But all we can offer in a TPE trade is draft picks.  People were complaining incessantly when we used a pick to get White.  Now people are complaining that we didn't use a pick to get some hypothetical player that likely would not be as good as White.

There is a presumption that we could have gotten say Richardson or Fournier back with TPE.  If a team is going to trade a player like that, it means that they see very low value for the player relative to their contract.  And people want to trade a pick to get a player another team wants to dump?  I am not sure if either Richardson or Fournier fall into that category but if they do, do we really want them?

I guess my bottom line is I give a high grade for the off season so far based on what they did and they may not be done.  I am not taking off points because of what they didn't do.  And I don't take off points because Gallinari got injured.  There are still several FA vet centers out there and it probably wouldn't hurt to get one of these guys.  I would award extra credit bonus points for Whiteside or even Tristan Thompson.  It is going to take a trade to get a decent vet wing so I don't see anything happening there.

All other things aside, you consider Gallo to be a $20 million player?  Obviously, before the injury.

I think this is the crux of the disagreement regarding the off-season:

I am not taking off points because of what they didn't do.

I am.  Through bad luck (Gallo), declining to spend, and an intentional focus on fringe players, this team hasn't upgraded as much as it should have.

[Vermont Green]

Funny, I look at this as the Celtics picked up two $20M plus players, both of whom are established vets, in exchange for pretty much nothing.  Both of whom should improve the team immensely.  The only thing is that one of the players we only have to pay $6.5M and we didn't need to use the TPE for either.  Maybe these are not home runs but in aggregate, it is really good plus clearly shows a willingness to spend.

I recognize that the option remained to use the Fournier TPE in addition to these deals.  But all we can offer in a TPE trade is draft picks.  People were complaining incessantly when we used a pick to get White.  Now people are complaining that we didn't use a pick to get some hypothetical player that likely would not be as good as White.

There is a presumption that we could have gotten say Richardson or Fournier back with TPE.  If a team is going to trade a player like that, it means that they see very low value for the player relative to their contract.  And people want to trade a pick to get a player another team wants to dump?  I am not sure if either Richardson or Fournier fall into that category but if they do, do we really want them?

I guess my bottom line is I give a high grade for the off season so far based on what they did and they may not be done.  I am not taking off points because of what they didn't do.  And I don't take off points because Gallinari got injured.  There are still several FA vet centers out there and it probably wouldn't hurt to get one of these guys.  I would award extra credit bonus points for Whiteside or even Tristan Thompson.  It is going to take a trade to get a decent vet wing so I don't see anything happening there.

All other things aside, you consider Gallo to be a $20 million player?  Obviously, before the injury.

I think this is the crux of the disagreement regarding the off-season:

I am not taking off points because of what they didn't do.

I am.  Through bad luck (Gallo), declining to spend, and an intentional focus on fringe players, this team hasn't upgraded as much as it should have.

In your mind, there were deals that were on the table that the Celtics didn't do because they didn't want to spend.  In legal terms, the defense would object due to the witness speculating.  So I object, speculation your honor.  And I am sure the judge would sustain my objection (at least on TV).

And I think Brogdon and Gallinari improve the team immensely.  That is just subjective opinion.  But to say they focused on fringe players?  After they had Brogdon and Gallinari, sure, but you can't feel that Brogdon and Gallinari are fringe players.  And you don't know what else they focused on.  Brogdon is a NBA starter (on most teams) and Gallinari is right there also (has started 563 games in the NBA).  Nothing fringe about either.  They are solid NBA vets.

Even Vonleh, who is not nearly at the level of Brogdon or Gallinari has started 171 games in the NBA and is only 27.  He is likely better than Fringe also.  Caboclo, Valentine, Thomas, Layman, yes, clearly fringe NBA players at best.  And probably 2 of these end up starting the year on the team.  But how is it you know that this was their focus?  That they "focused" on these fringe players more than the focused on other deals that maybe just did come to fruition?

[Roy H.]

Funny, I look at this as the Celtics picked up two $20M plus players, both of whom are established vets, in exchange for pretty much nothing.  Both of whom should improve the team immensely.  The only thing is that one of the players we only have to pay $6.5M and we didn't need to use the TPE for either.  Maybe these are not home runs but in aggregate, it is really good plus clearly shows a willingness to spend.

I recognize that the option remained to use the Fournier TPE in addition to these deals.  But all we can offer in a TPE trade is draft picks.  People were complaining incessantly when we used a pick to get White.  Now people are complaining that we didn't use a pick to get some hypothetical player that likely would not be as good as White.

There is a presumption that we could have gotten say Richardson or Fournier back with TPE.  If a team is going to trade a player like that, it means that they see very low value for the player relative to their contract.  And people want to trade a pick to get a player another team wants to dump?  I am not sure if either Richardson or Fournier fall into that category but if they do, do we really want them?

I guess my bottom line is I give a high grade for the off season so far based on what they did and they may not be done.  I am not taking off points because of what they didn't do.  And I don't take off points because Gallinari got injured.  There are still several FA vet centers out there and it probably wouldn't hurt to get one of these guys.  I would award extra credit bonus points for Whiteside or even Tristan Thompson.  It is going to take a trade to get a decent vet wing so I don't see anything happening there.

All other things aside, you consider Gallo to be a $20 million player?  Obviously, before the injury.

I think this is the crux of the disagreement regarding the off-season:

I am not taking off points because of what they didn't do.

I am.  Through bad luck (Gallo), declining to spend, and an intentional focus on fringe players, this team hasn't upgraded as much as it should have.

In your mind, there were deals that were on the table that the Celtics didn't do because they didn't want to spend.  In legal terms, the defense would object due to the witness speculating.  So I object, speculation your honor.  And I am sure the judge would sustain my objection (at least on TV).

And I think Brogdon and Gallinari improve the team immensely.  That is just subjective opinion.  But to say they focused on fringe players?  After they had Brogdon and Gallinari, sure, but you can't feel that Brogdon and Gallinari are fringe players.  And you don't know what else they focused on.  Brogdon is a NBA starter (on most teams) and Gallinari is right there also (has started 563 games in the NBA).  Nothing fringe about either.  They are solid NBA vets.

Even Vonleh, who is not nearly at the level of Brogdon or Gallinari has started 171 games in the NBA and is only 27.  He is likely better than Fringe also.  Caboclo, Valentine, Thomas, Layman, yes, clearly fringe NBA players at best.  And probably 2 of these end up starting the year on the team.  But how is it you know that this was their focus?  That they "focused" on these fringe players more than the focused on other deals that maybe just did come to fruition?

I don't recall calling Brogdon or Gallo a fringe player. 

But Vonleh and the others certainly are.  And, I think we can presume that fringe players were the focus, because the Celts haven't been linked to any legitimate NBA vets in at least a month.  There are decent players still out there, but the team has spent all 20 of its training camp spots already.

As for Vonleh, he played 4 games in the NBA last year, and 36 the year before.  Only once in his career has he scored as many as 5.0 points per game.  He's a fringe NBA player, through and through.

Lastly, if you don't like speculation, why post on a fan blog?

[Vermont Green]

Funny, I look at this as the Celtics picked up two $20M plus players, both of whom are established vets, in exchange for pretty much nothing.  Both of whom should improve the team immensely.  The only thing is that one of the players we only have to pay $6.5M and we didn't need to use the TPE for either.  Maybe these are not home runs but in aggregate, it is really good plus clearly shows a willingness to spend.

I recognize that the option remained to use the Fournier TPE in addition to these deals.  But all we can offer in a TPE trade is draft picks.  People were complaining incessantly when we used a pick to get White.  Now people are complaining that we didn't use a pick to get some hypothetical player that likely would not be as good as White.

There is a presumption that we could have gotten say Richardson or Fournier back with TPE.  If a team is going to trade a player like that, it means that they see very low value for the player relative to their contract.  And people want to trade a pick to get a player another team wants to dump?  I am not sure if either Richardson or Fournier fall into that category but if they do, do we really want them?

I guess my bottom line is I give a high grade for the off season so far based on what they did and they may not be done.  I am not taking off points because of what they didn't do.  And I don't take off points because Gallinari got injured.  There are still several FA vet centers out there and it probably wouldn't hurt to get one of these guys.  I would award extra credit bonus points for Whiteside or even Tristan Thompson.  It is going to take a trade to get a decent vet wing so I don't see anything happening there.

All other things aside, you consider Gallo to be a $20 million player?  Obviously, before the injury.

I think this is the crux of the disagreement regarding the off-season:

I am not taking off points because of what they didn't do.

I am.  Through bad luck (Gallo), declining to spend, and an intentional focus on fringe players, this team hasn't upgraded as much as it should have.

In your mind, there were deals that were on the table that the Celtics didn't do because they didn't want to spend.  In legal terms, the defense would object due to the witness speculating.  So I object, speculation your honor.  And I am sure the judge would sustain my objection (at least on TV).

And I think Brogdon and Gallinari improve the team immensely.  That is just subjective opinion.  But to say they focused on fringe players?  After they had Brogdon and Gallinari, sure, but you can't feel that Brogdon and Gallinari are fringe players.  And you don't know what else they focused on.  Brogdon is a NBA starter (on most teams) and Gallinari is right there also (has started 563 games in the NBA).  Nothing fringe about either.  They are solid NBA vets.

Even Vonleh, who is not nearly at the level of Brogdon or Gallinari has started 171 games in the NBA and is only 27.  He is likely better than Fringe also.  Caboclo, Valentine, Thomas, Layman, yes, clearly fringe NBA players at best.  And probably 2 of these end up starting the year on the team.  But how is it you know that this was their focus?  That they "focused" on these fringe players more than the focused on other deals that maybe just did come to fruition?

I don't recall calling Brogdon or Gallo a fringe player. 

But Vonleh and the others certainly are.  And, I think we can presume that fringe players were the focus, because the Celts haven't been linked to any legitimate NBA vets in at least a month.  There are decent players still out there, but the team has spent all 20 of its training camp spots already.

As for Vonleh, he played 4 games in the NBA last year, and 36 the year before.  Only once in his career has he scored as many as 5.0 points per game.  He's a fringe NBA player, through and through.

Lastly, if you don't like speculation, why post on a fan blog?

I didn't say that I don't like speculation, just debating the topic.  Your exact statement was "intentional focus on fringe players".  In a debate or discussion, I think it is important to establish what is fact and what is speculation or opinion.  All are perfectly fair game in a blog discussion, they are just very different things. 

I tried pretty hard to make it lighthearted, guess I didn't succeed.  I think you clarified your opinion (which you are stating as fact) that they focused on fringe players after Brogdon and Gallinari.  It is true that they have filled up their camp roster slots with mostly fringe players (we differ on the definition as it applies to a 27 year old player who has started 171 NBA games, albeit only 1 in the last 2 seasons) but this does not mean it was their focus.  There was talk of a Durant deal for example that got leaked but most talk does not get leaked.

They may have said "OK, we have Brogdon and Gallinari, we're good", but you can't know if that is true or not.  And now that Gallinari has gotten injured, I suspect they are reconsidering a lot of things.  Signing fringe guys to non-guaranteed Camp deals does not restrict them from doing anything.  We have 3 open roster spots and Kornet is minimally guaranteed and easily cut if needed.   They can still use a TPE trade or FA signing and bring in as many as 4 players if they want.  They have all the flexibility in the world right now.  If anything, this flexibility was their focus, the fringe camp deals are just a means to that end.

[Moranis]

Vonleh couldn't even make a roster last season and played only 11 minutes the year before.  He is basically the text book definition of a fringe NBA player.  Should we start signing guys like Mario Hezonja as well.  You know another guy that is 27 with a bunch of starts (less at 69, but still a real number).  Makes no difference he hasn't been in the league for 2 years, he showed real promise once 5 years ago.

There were a lot of players reportedly available that might not have even cost Boston a draft pick to acquire.  Duncan Robinson, for example, might have come with draft compensation from Miami as they were looking to remove salary and couldn't find anyone to take him.  He is clearly overpaid, but he also would have fit nicely as a wing shooter off the bench. 

[Vermont Green]

All other things aside, you consider Gallo to be a $20 million player?  Obviously, before the injury.

As to this, Gallinari was a player on a $20M+ contract, just a statement of fact.  Just like Fourier is a player on a $18M contract and Richardson is on a $12M contract.  Clearly, I like Gallinari at $6.5M a whole lot more than at $20M but you criticized the Celtics for not using the TPE (and likely a Pick) to get Fournier and pay him $18M.

I am not sure that the Knicks would have even done this trade back when we could have done it.  Fournier was an asset they had to use in their discussions for Mitchell or Kyrie.  That ship has sailed now but there is no way to know that the Knicks even do that deal in June or July.  And for me, I would rather not have Fourier back in any case.

[Moranis]

All other things aside, you consider Gallo to be a $20 million player?  Obviously, before the injury.

As to this, Gallinari was a player on a $20M+ contract, just a statement of fact.  Just like Fourier is a player on a $18M contract and Richardson is on a $12M contract.  Clearly, I like Gallinari at $6.5M a whole lot more than at $20M but you criticized the Celtics for not using the TPE (and likely a Pick) to get Fournier and pay him $18M.

I am not sure that the Knicks would have even done this trade back when we could have done it.  Fournier was an asset they had to use in their discussions for Mitchell or Kyrie.  That ship has sailed now but there is no way to know that the Knicks even do that deal in June or July.  And for me, I would rather not have Fourier back in any case.

Fournier wasn't an asset.  He was salary filler.  Now maybe they needed his salary to make a bigger move, but he isn't considered an asset.  He is overpaid and everyone knows it.

[Celtics2021]

Vonleh couldn't even make a roster last season and played only 11 minutes the year before.  He is basically the text book definition of a fringe NBA player.  Should we start signing guys like Mario Hezonja as well.  You know another guy that is 27 with a bunch of starts (less at 69, but still a real number).  Makes no difference he hasn't been in the league for 2 years, he showed real promise once 5 years ago.

There were a lot of players reportedly available that might not have even cost Boston a draft pick to acquire.  Duncan Robinson, for example, might have come with draft compensation from Miami as they were looking to remove salary and couldn't find anyone to take him.  He is clearly overpaid, but he also would have fit nicely as a wing shooter off the bench.

You could pretty much have said the same thing about Gary Payton II before last season, but I don't think the Warriors regret bringing him on.  (It should be noted that the Warriors are dumpster-diving for their last 2-3 roster spots as well this season, with UDFAs or former 1st round washouts likely to win a spot or two.)  Miami's solely going the UDFA route to fill the last spot it seems, which has worked for them, as literally 6 of their current 14 players under contract have been UDFAs/2-ways for them in the past.

Sure, the Celtics could have done what the Clippers are doing, and filled out the roster with a bunch of guys making the MLE or more.  It might work for them, but check in after they've had a bad road trip and see who's complaining about playing time/not knowing their role.  (Hi, Marcus Morris - thanks for being a leader on the deep 2018-2019 team!)  But they aren't, and that's fine.  They're instead sorting through a bunch of players who realize this could be their last best chance to have an NBA career, who should be near the peak of the abilities, and filling out a roster of guys who will know their role.  Maybe one of them completely shows out a la Payton II last year, and maybe not.  If not, I will be frustrated if a move isn't made at the deadline, but there's zero reason for the Celtics to force the issue now.  They return literally the most successful starting lineup, in terms of net rating, since tracking for that began.  On top of that, they upgraded their #6 man, thus increasing the quality of depth at the top.  Is there going to be a hole on the team?  Most likely.  Is it clear where that hole will be?  No, not at this instant.  The Celtics should fill that hole after it presents itself, and not sign up for albatross contracts like Duncan Robinson, or to a lesser extent Rudy Gay because they're available.

I don't understand how people in this thread, and not just Moranis (you don't need to reply, I just quoted you as an example) are so worked up at this point in the season.  The Warriors are in a very similar boat.  The Heat are in a very similar boat.  The Bucks decided to go a different route and sign the corpse of Serge Ibaka, but is that any better?  Would our depth feel good with someone who put up a -3.8 PER in 22 minutes in the playoffs last year? (PER isn't my favorite stat, but I didn't know it could go negative until I looked at Ibaka's playoff production).  The Nets grabbed Aldridge, Millsap, and Griffin for the minimum last year offseasonn, which we all thought was patently unfair.  How did that trio look?

I'd much rather have a bunch of former 1st round 26-28 year-olds taking up the back 2-3 spots of the roster.  They're on completely non-guaranteed deals, so they're easy to cut bait if you need, unlike recent 1st and 2nd rounders who aren't ready but impose a long-term cap hit if you cut them and whom you're invested in developing despite also trying to compete.  They've been in the league, so they know the ropes.  They want minutes, like every player, but don't expect a role to be handed to them, unlike guys who've been around for a decade as starters or even stars.

I think one of the training camp invites will stick in the league for 5+ years after this season, having carved out a role in the back of the rotation for this team.  I don't know which one, and I change my mind on that daily.  I think the others that make the roster will be off by the end of February, and I think it's reasonably likely that the Celtics acquire a new player during training camp as another team looks to clear a roster crunch (I'm angling for Stanley Johnson from Utah).

Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying that other title contenders also bargain shop, and have done so successfully, so it's perfectly reasonable for the Celtics to do so as well.  It's neither a sign of cheapness or incompetence.

[Moranis]

Vonleh couldn't even make a roster last season and played only 11 minutes the year before.  He is basically the text book definition of a fringe NBA player.  Should we start signing guys like Mario Hezonja as well.  You know another guy that is 27 with a bunch of starts (less at 69, but still a real number).  Makes no difference he hasn't been in the league for 2 years, he showed real promise once 5 years ago.

There were a lot of players reportedly available that might not have even cost Boston a draft pick to acquire.  Duncan Robinson, for example, might have come with draft compensation from Miami as they were looking to remove salary and couldn't find anyone to take him.  He is clearly overpaid, but he also would have fit nicely as a wing shooter off the bench.

You could pretty much have said the same thing about Gary Payton II before last season, but I don't think the Warriors regret bringing him on.  (It should be noted that the Warriors are dumpster-diving for their last 2-3 roster spots as well this season, with UDFAs or former 1st round washouts likely to win a spot or two.)  Miami's solely going the UDFA route to fill the last spot it seems, which has worked for them, as literally 6 of their current 14 players under contract have been UDFAs/2-ways for them in the past.

Sure, the Celtics could have done what the Clippers are doing, and filled out the roster with a bunch of guys making the MLE or more.  It might work for them, but check in after they've had a bad road trip and see who's complaining about playing time/not knowing their role.  (Hi, Marcus Morris - thanks for being a leader on the deep 2018-2019 team!)  But they aren't, and that's fine.  They're instead sorting through a bunch of players who realize this could be their last best chance to have an NBA career, who should be near the peak of the abilities, and filling out a roster of guys who will know their role.  Maybe one of them completely shows out a la Payton II last year, and maybe not.  If not, I will be frustrated if a move isn't made at the deadline, but there's zero reason for the Celtics to force the issue now.  They return literally the most successful starting lineup, in terms of net rating, since tracking for that began.  On top of that, they upgraded their #6 man, thus increasing the quality of depth at the top.  Is there going to be a hole on the team?  Most likely.  Is it clear where that hole will be?  No, not at this instant.  The Celtics should fill that hole after it presents itself, and not sign up for albatross contracts like Duncan Robinson, or to a lesser extent Rudy Gay because they're available.

I don't understand how people in this thread, and not just Moranis (you don't need to reply, I just quoted you as an example) are so worked up at this point in the season.  The Warriors are in a very similar boat.  The Heat are in a very similar boat.  The Bucks decided to go a different route and sign the corpse of Serge Ibaka, but is that any better?  Would our depth feel good with someone who put up a -3.8 PER in 22 minutes in the playoffs last year? (PER isn't my favorite stat, but I didn't know it could go negative until I looked at Ibaka's playoff production).  The Nets grabbed Aldridge, Millsap, and Griffin for the minimum last year offseasonn, which we all thought was patently unfair.  How did that trio look?

I'd much rather have a bunch of former 1st round 26-28 year-olds taking up the back 2-3 spots of the roster.  They're on completely non-guaranteed deals, so they're easy to cut bait if you need, unlike recent 1st and 2nd rounders who aren't ready but impose a long-term cap hit if you cut them and whom you're invested in developing despite also trying to compete.  They've been in the league, so they know the ropes.  They want minutes, like every player, but don't expect a role to be handed to them, unlike guys who've been around for a decade as starters or even stars.

I think one of the training camp invites will stick in the league for 5+ years after this season, having carved out a role in the back of the rotation for this team.  I don't know which one, and I change my mind on that daily.  I think the others that make the roster will be off by the end of February, and I think it's reasonably likely that the Celtics acquire a new player during training camp as another team looks to clear a roster crunch (I'm angling for Stanley Johnson from Utah).

Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying that other title contenders also bargain shop, and have done so successfully, so it's perfectly reasonable for the Celtics to do so as well.  It's neither a sign of cheapness or incompetence.

I'd be fine if it a spot or two was used for taking flyers, but Boston has 5 of those on the roster and they had 5 last year.  That is the issue.  It is too much of a roster that is unplayable in meaningful games.  That isn't what contenders should be doing.  Sure a gamble here or there no problem, but using 5 roster spots on fringe NBA players is bad, especially when you have a 17 million dollar TPE that you could have used to bring in a guy or two who would have cost you nothing more than money (and you maybe could have even gotten a draft pick).  That is where cheapness comes in. 

[Vermont Green]

Vonleh couldn't even make a roster last season and played only 11 minutes the year before.  He is basically the text book definition of a fringe NBA player.  Should we start signing guys like Mario Hezonja as well.  You know another guy that is 27 with a bunch of starts (less at 69, but still a real number).  Makes no difference he hasn't been in the league for 2 years, he showed real promise once 5 years ago.

There were a lot of players reportedly available that might not have even cost Boston a draft pick to acquire.  Duncan Robinson, for example, might have come with draft compensation from Miami as they were looking to remove salary and couldn't find anyone to take him.  He is clearly overpaid, but he also would have fit nicely as a wing shooter off the bench.

I don't know what Vonleh is going to give us but I don't put him in the same category as Brodric Thomas or Bruno Caboclo in terms of "fringe-ness" just because he played in China last season.  I think of Theis when we got him from Germany but Theis didn't have 339 NBA games under his belt.  I put Kornet in a different category also but with Kornet closer to Thomas/Caboclo than Vonleh.  Celtics2021 said it well above, I am just not that worried or think we are all that different than most other teams.  In fact, we may be the best in the league 1-10 (or at least were before Gallinari got hurt).  11-15 is going to include some fringe players.  But if our 11-15 include Hauser, Vonleh, maybe Whiteside, that is actually pretty good.

[Vermont Green]

All other things aside, you consider Gallo to be a $20 million player?  Obviously, before the injury.

As to this, Gallinari was a player on a $20M+ contract, just a statement of fact.  Just like Fourier is a player on a $18M contract and Richardson is on a $12M contract.  Clearly, I like Gallinari at $6.5M a whole lot more than at $20M but you criticized the Celtics for not using the TPE (and likely a Pick) to get Fournier and pay him $18M.

I am not sure that the Knicks would have even done this trade back when we could have done it.  Fournier was an asset they had to use in their discussions for Mitchell or Kyrie.  That ship has sailed now but there is no way to know that the Knicks even do that deal in June or July.  And for me, I would rather not have Fourier back in any case.

Fournier wasn't an asset.  He was salary filler.  Now maybe they needed his salary to make a bigger move, but he isn't considered an asset.  He is overpaid and everyone knows it.

Alright, semantics.  I agree on Fournier.  He is overpaid and overrated but still has some level of usefulness as a player for a team like the Lakers.  He would have been filler in for example a Mitchell trade that involved Westbrook.  If they dumped him on us for a draft pick, it would have made it harder for the Knicks to do a trade for Mitchell.  So I am speculating that the Knicks would not have wanted to trade him to us in say July when Mitchell (for example) was still out there.

My point is that I don't just assume that all we needed to do was pick up the phone and we could have had Fournier.  I doubt we wanted Fournier in any case.  I don't anyway.  And if you are saying he was not an asset for the Knicks, what value does he have for us?  To me, even less.  So what exactly did we miss out on?  An overpaid player that has no value in a trade other than filler?  That you can only use if another "no value" player like Westbrook is involved?

[Celtics2021]

Also, people need to stop calling Hauser a scrub or someone the Celtics took a flyer on.  After a year of watching him in the G League and in practices, management clearly saw something they liked a lot.  He was under contract at the minimum this year with a small guarantee.  The Celtics ripped up that contract so they could sign him to multiple years of guaranteed money.  They didn’t need to do that.  Rather, they chose to because they like him so much.  The team clearly views him differently than the rest of the candidates on the back for the roster — even without Gallo’s injury he was going to be on the edge of the rotation/have a chance to crack it.

Just because we haven’t seen it doesn’t mean the team hasn’t, and they’ve had a lot more to look at.