NBA Off-Season News

[Celtics2021]

Pritchard + Kornet + Champagnie + #2 for Morris works

Not in a world where stay under the second apron, however.  We’d be a minimum of 1.2 million over, and that assumes we’ve brought over both Yam and Begarin on minimum deals, punted on the TPMLE, and only filled 14 roster spots.

Sure, but we wouldn't be taking on any lousy contracts that would be difficult to move next year, and we'd be getting a consistent rotation player.

I’m all for investing $10 million into a player.  Monte Morris wouldn’t be my choice, but whatever.  You’re the one who has argued it’s imperative the C’s stay under the second apron because of the long-term consequences.  I frankly think that the Porzingis move consigned them to going over if they want any meaningful depth, and accordingly in a year where everyone is looking at that second apron and getting squeamish, the Celtics should blow past it and get talent at a discount.  Combine Pritchard, Kornet, and Champagnie for someone making $10 million, sign Grant or take back salary in a sign-and-trade.  Heck, trade Brogdon for a player that makes more.  This is the only year of the second apron where you can do those things — the Celtics should go big, get a real 10-man rotation with viable depth for spots 11-13, and win #18.  If it takes them an extra year to drop out of the second apron (once Brogdon’s deal expires) and they drop to pick #30 in 2030, oh well.

[Roy H.]

Pritchard + Kornet + Champagnie + #2 for Morris works

Not in a world where stay under the second apron, however.  We’d be a minimum of 1.2 million over, and that assumes we’ve brought over both Yam and Begarin on minimum deals, punted on the TPMLE, and only filled 14 roster spots.

Sure, but we wouldn't be taking on any lousy contracts that would be difficult to move next year, and we'd be getting a consistent rotation player.

I’m all for investing $10 million into a player.  Monte Morris wouldn’t be my choice, but whatever.  You’re the one who has argued it’s imperative the C’s stay under the second apron because of the long-term consequences.  I frankly think that the Porzingis move consigned them to going over if they want any meaningful depth, and accordingly in a year where everyone is looking at that second apron and getting squeamish, the Celtics should blow past it and get talent at a discount.  Combine Pritchard, Kornet, and Champagnie for someone making $10 million, sign Grant or take back salary in a sign-and-trade.  Heck, trade Brogdon for a player that makes more.  This is the only year of the second apron where you can do those things — the Celtics should go big, get a real 10-man rotation with viable depth for spots 11-13, and win #18.  If it takes them an extra year to drop out of the second apron (once Brogdon’s deal expires) and they drop to pick #30 in 2030, oh well.

No, I've argued that we shouldn't bring back Grant on a long term large deal because he's not worth a large deal, and thus will cost assets to dump.

You can't pay an 8/5 guy $12 million+ long-term under the new rules.  It's just stupid cap management.  It's even dumber if the attitude is "oh well" regarding preserving future #1s.

[Vermont Green]

Pritchard + Kornet + Champagnie + #2 for Morris works

Not in a world where stay under the second apron, however.  We’d be a minimum of 1.2 million over, and that assumes we’ve brought over both Yam and Begarin on minimum deals, punted on the TPMLE, and only filled 14 roster spots.

Exactly what I was thinking. This deal is fine if the plan is to sign/match Grant and live with being over the apron. But otherwise, it kind of paints us into a corner.

What corner?  You and C21 are advocating for us not to use the MLE.  What does this change, other than upgrading the team?

You can’t do this trade without going over the apron which as you note, I have been fine with all along.  Just pointing that out. Do this trade, sign Grant, Walsh, and then some vet mins and the team/roster would be pretty solid.  Morris is an upgrade on Pritchard and Kornet and Champagnie can be easily replaced. 

[Who]

I don't see a need for Monte Morris. We already have two PGs better than him. Better by a large margin. In Brogdon and D White.

Morris is too good to be a 3rd stringer and not good enough to justify playing smaller in the backcourt. He is not dynamic enough. He doesn't possess great scoring ability, or great dribble penetration and passing, or great defense. He is just solid at a bunch of things which is useful but not good enough to justify playing smaller. 

[theswitch]

I don't see a need for Monte Morris. We already have two PGs better than him. Better by a large margin. In Brogdon and D White.

Morris is too good to be a 3rd stringer and not good enough to justify playing smaller in the backcourt. He is not dynamic enough. He doesn't possess great scoring ability, or great dribble penetration and passing, or great defense. He is just solid at a bunch of things which is useful but not good enough to justify playing smaller.

I suppose this comes down to whether you view Brogdon and White as point guards. Brogdon has historically been about 50/50 between PG and SG. White spent a little more time this year at point guard but in San Antonio and last year in Boston was almost exclusively shooting guard (per 82 games). Still mostly played shooting guard this year too. Maybe that's semantics depending on if you count Smart as a point guard or if it even matters, but I think it's an open debate which is his natural fit.

There's a real argument that it doesn't matter and that going bigger is our best lineup anyways, and that's probably true. It just puts more pressure on Tatum and others to be facilitators if our point guard isn't a natural point guard.

I'd think of it as a comparison against someone like Hauser. Would you rather play White and Brogdon all the minutes at point guard, then two bigs, and have Hauser in for Jaylen and Tatum's bench minutes? Or would you rather play Morris, bump White and Brogdon to some shooting guard minutes, and have Jaylen or Tatum (whichever is not sitting) play with less Hauser time? Do you want to play two bigs all the time? If not, would you rather have Hauser on the court or Morris?

So for example when Jaylen is sitting would you rather have this:

White / Brogdon - Hauser - Tatum - Porzingis - Williams

or this:

Morris - White / Brogdon - Tatum - Porzingis - Williams

I guess looking at that, I'd rather have the second combination (Morris on the court, Hauser off) but it's a fair point that it's marginal especially when giving up Pritchard. Maybe that changes if you really value Brogdon insurance. If Brogdon goes down, then the need for Morris seriously sticks out in that comparison.

[Roy H.]

I don't see a need for Monte Morris. We already have two PGs better than him. Better by a large margin. In Brogdon and D White.

Morris is too good to be a 3rd stringer and not good enough to justify playing smaller in the backcourt. He is not dynamic enough. He doesn't possess great scoring ability, or great dribble penetration and passing, or great defense. He is just solid at a bunch of things which is useful but not good enough to justify playing smaller.

He's better than Pritchard + the two non-NVA guys we'd be sending out, though, and he's on a cheap, short-term salary.  It beats the alternative of keeping Pritchard in the same role.

[Roy H.]

Anil Gogna: Eric Gordon’s $20.9M contract which becomes Fully GTD on June 28 currently has $0 GTD. If the Clippers replaced his contract with a Rookie Minimum contract, they would save $108M in just their projected Luxury Tax bill for next season. – via Twitter AnilGognaNBA

Wow.  So, effectively, Gordon would cost around $128 million to keep?  I'm an "all in" guy, but that's hard to justify.

[radiohead]

Anil Gogna: Eric Gordon’s $20.9M contract which becomes Fully GTD on June 28 currently has $0 GTD. If the Clippers replaced his contract with a Rookie Minimum contract, they would save $108M in just their projected Luxury Tax bill for next season. – via Twitter AnilGognaNBA

Wow.  So, effectively, Gordon would cost around $128 million to keep?  I'm an "all in" guy, but that's hard to justify.

How can they not guarantee the contract? They just waive him?

[Celtics2021]

Anil Gogna: Eric Gordon’s $20.9M contract which becomes Fully GTD on June 28 currently has $0 GTD. If the Clippers replaced his contract with a Rookie Minimum contract, they would save $108M in just their projected Luxury Tax bill for next season. – via Twitter AnilGognaNBA

Wow.  So, effectively, Gordon would cost around $128 million to keep?  I'm an "all in" guy, but that's hard to justify.

How can they not guarantee the contract? They just waive him?

Correct.  It guarantees if he’s on the roster.

[footey]

Anil Gogna: Eric Gordon’s $20.9M contract which becomes Fully GTD on June 28 currently has $0 GTD. If the Clippers replaced his contract with a Rookie Minimum contract, they would save $108M in just their projected Luxury Tax bill for next season. – via Twitter AnilGognaNBA

Wow.  So, effectively, Gordon would cost around $128 million to keep?  I'm an "all in" guy, but that's hard to justify.

How can they not guarantee the contract? They just waive him?

Correct.  It guarantees if he’s on the roster.

What happens if they guaranty contract then trade it to a team with cap space for a trade exception? Still owe the tax?

[Celtics2021]

Anil Gogna: Eric Gordon’s $20.9M contract which becomes Fully GTD on June 28 currently has $0 GTD. If the Clippers replaced his contract with a Rookie Minimum contract, they would save $108M in just their projected Luxury Tax bill for next season. – via Twitter AnilGognaNBA

Wow.  So, effectively, Gordon would cost around $128 million to keep?  I'm an "all in" guy, but that's hard to justify.

How can they not guarantee the contract? They just waive him?

Correct.  It guarantees if he’s on the roster.

What happens if they guaranty contract then trade it to a team with cap space for a trade exception? Still owe the tax?

Nope, the tax bill is calculated at the end of the next season.  But it’s a bad space to be in, needing to trade someone to save $120 million.

[Who]

I don't see a need for Monte Morris. We already have two PGs better than him. Better by a large margin. In Brogdon and D White.

Morris is too good to be a 3rd stringer and not good enough to justify playing smaller in the backcourt. He is not dynamic enough. He doesn't possess great scoring ability, or great dribble penetration and passing, or great defense. He is just solid at a bunch of things which is useful but not good enough to justify playing smaller.

I suppose this comes down to whether you view Brogdon and White as point guards. Brogdon has historically been about 50/50 between PG and SG. White spent a little more time this year at point guard but in San Antonio and last year in Boston was almost exclusively shooting guard (per 82 games). Still mostly played shooting guard this year too. Maybe that's semantics depending on if you count Smart as a point guard or if it even matters, but I think it's an open debate which is his natural fit.

There's a real argument that it doesn't matter and that going bigger is our best lineup anyways, and that's probably true. It just puts more pressure on Tatum and others to be facilitators if our point guard isn't a natural point guard.

I'd think of it as a comparison against someone like Hauser. Would you rather play White and Brogdon all the minutes at point guard, then two bigs, and have Hauser in for Jaylen and Tatum's bench minutes? Or would you rather play Morris, bump White and Brogdon to some shooting guard minutes, and have Jaylen or Tatum (whichever is not sitting) play with less Hauser time? Do you want to play two bigs all the time? If not, would you rather have Hauser on the court or Morris?

So for example when Jaylen is sitting would you rather have this:

White / Brogdon - Hauser - Tatum - Porzingis - Williams

or this:

Morris - White / Brogdon - Tatum - Porzingis - Williams

I guess looking at that, I'd rather have the second combination (Morris on the court, Hauser off) but it's a fair point that it's marginal especially when giving up Pritchard. Maybe that changes if you really value Brogdon insurance. If Brogdon goes down, then the need for Morris seriously sticks out in that comparison.

My main issue is with how good Monte Morris is. Is he individually good enough / does he add enough to the team for the team to go small?

Morris is a below average defender. He makes us smaller. So how much offense does he provide to make up for that? Not that much. He is a solid ball carrier and distributor but he is not a shot creator and not much of a playmaker. He just takes care of the ball and makes open shots. Useful but not creating much. So you are not gaining much offensive creation while you are taking a loss on defense by going smaller.

I would rather play big on the wing and use Hauser instead. Hauser is a high level shooter and he doesn't compromise our defense as much as Monte Morris would. A bigger gain on both ends of the floor.


The idea of a real PG and the makeshift PG I believe over-estimates Monte Morris' creative abilities.

Brogdon is the best playmaker on the ball of the three of them and D White is about as good a passer & playmaker as Monte Morris is. So we are not gaining much of anything in terms of passing with Morris in there instead of one of them. You will gain something by playing a two PG backcourt with Monte Morris at PG and one of the other two at SG.

Morris is a solid backup PG but we already have a much much better backup PG than him in Brogdon (or D White).

Maybe that changes if you really value Brogdon insurance. If Brogdon goes down, then the need for Morris seriously sticks out in that comparison.

Yeah, I see that as the main calling card for Morris. A break glass in case of emergency option. A terrific one at that. Rare to have a 3rd string PG as accomplished as and in his prime in M Morris.

[Who]

Anil Gogna: Eric Gordon’s $20.9M contract which becomes Fully GTD on June 28 currently has $0 GTD. If the Clippers replaced his contract with a Rookie Minimum contract, they would save $108M in just their projected Luxury Tax bill for next season. – via Twitter AnilGognaNBA

Wow.  So, effectively, Gordon would cost around $128 million to keep?  I'm an "all in" guy, but that's hard to justify.

Haha, that is ridiculous.

And they have Norman Powell who already does much the same thing as Eric Gordon. And a wonderful backup SG/SF in T Mann who is bigger, more athletic, better defender and doesn't get enough playing time.

Gotta waive Eric Gordon.


Actually, Eric would be pretty interesting for us (if / when waived).

A small SG but strong and sturdy. Keeps that small backcourt option alive but provides a different skill-set in terms of a more off ball scoring option. Major shooting threat. Explosive scorer.

G - D White, Brogdon
G - Jaylen, E Gordon

That is a darn fine backcourt. Highly talented and physically imposing backcourt. Can all play in different combos. Jaylen can even slide to SF where desired.

Add Tatum at SF and you have a strong 5 man perimeter rotation with Jaylen providing the backup SF minutes.

[cman88]

Anil Gogna: Eric Gordon’s $20.9M contract which becomes Fully GTD on June 28 currently has $0 GTD. If the Clippers replaced his contract with a Rookie Minimum contract, they would save $108M in just their projected Luxury Tax bill for next season. – via Twitter AnilGognaNBA

Wow.  So, effectively, Gordon would cost around $128 million to keep?  I'm an "all in" guy, but that's hard to justify.

they were saying on ESPN yesterday that golden state keeping Draymond would cost them a net difference of $180million not sure how accurate that is.

but they were also saying they might have to because they don't have anyone to fill his void.

[Goldstar88]

Couple interesting points here…

There certainly were a few eyebrows raised this week when Trail Blazers general manager Joe Cronin publicly doubled down on Portland’s desire to build a team around Damian Lillard. Still, there is a belief among rival execs that the Blazers will not be able to do enough in the coming days to satisfy Lillard’s stated desire to play for a winner, and the two sides will eventually decide its best for both to move on.

Don’t expect a quick resolution. Lillard doesn’t want to request a trade, and the Blazers don’t love the optics of trading away their franchise player. But Portland, correctly, pushed ahead with its youth movement when it used the third pick on Scoot Henderson last week. When the dust settles on free agency, they may have to double down on it. Lillard averaged a career-best 32.2 points last season but at 32 and with $216 million left on his contract over the next four seasons, he’s an injury away from his value bottoming out. The risk of not trading Lillard before next season is enormous.

So where will Portland look? While any trade will be a collaborative effort between the team and Lillard, the Blazers will, understandably, want the best possible return [for Damian Lillard]. Portland is lukewarm on Tyler Herro, sources told Sports Illustrated. He is entering the first year of a four-year, $130 million contract.

Brooklyn, armed with a collection of Suns picks that stretch deep into the decade, can offer the most draft capital. And the Blazers could take a flyer on Ben Simmons, whose contract ($77 million over the next two seasons) isn’t as onerous as it used to be. Several other Eastern Conference contenders, including Boston, New York and Philadelphia, could jump into the mix.  – via Sports Illustrated