Jaylen Brown Supermax

[green_bballers13]

fans complain that Wyc is cheap and wont spend when we lose role-players like Grant williams. but then want Brown shipped off because they dont want Wyc to pay him..

This resonated with me.  I think it is right on.  There are many apparent contradictions in fans.  No judging, it is part of being fans, to be a little irrational at times, but I think you are correct.  We pretty much have to give Brown the extension.  I don't think it will become an albatross contract.  He will seem overpaid at the start, and then he won't.  And Brown is far more than a 3-D guy.  He was second team All-NBA.

He is a really good player, with some flaws, that plays hard every night.  If for whatever reason, it doesn't work out or someone offers us a deal we can't refuse in a trade, we can trade him in a year.  But I think it is going to work out just fine.

I'd give him the extension.

Regarding fans, they're not monolithic.  The fanbase is vast, made up of millions of individuals.  Of course there are inconsistencies within the fan base:  it's people disagreeing with one another.

That said, there's a middle path that accounts for both points of view:  some fans are wary of committing a huge chunk of the salary cap to a flawed player, because they suspect that Wyc won't continue to spend to add or keep talent.  That puts all of our eggs in the Jaylen Brown + Jayson Tatum basket.  If that's going to be Wyc's philosophy, maybe it makes sense to spend on two $30 million players, or three $20 million players, rather than one $60 million player who isn't a tier one superstar.

I don't think 4 quarters=1 dollar in the NBA. I also don't think there's a linear relationship between salaries and performance (ie 50% more pay gets you 50% more performance). The NBA is paying the top talent top money.

We can pretend like JB's flaws are bigger than they are (dribbling), but we likely aren't going to get a #3 pick that can score almost 27pts per game and play defense. Three players that can score 16ppg? That doesn't interest me as much.

[Vermont Green]

fans complain that Wyc is cheap and wont spend when we lose role-players like Grant williams. but then want Brown shipped off because they dont want Wyc to pay him..

This resonated with me.  I think it is right on.  There are many apparent contradictions in fans.  No judging, it is part of being fans, to be a little irrational at times, but I think you are correct.  We pretty much have to give Brown the extension.  I don't think it will become an albatross contract.  He will seem overpaid at the start, and then he won't.  And Brown is far more than a 3-D guy.  He was second team All-NBA.

He is a really good player, with some flaws, that plays hard every night.  If for whatever reason, it doesn't work out or someone offers us a deal we can't refuse in a trade, we can trade him in a year.  But I think it is going to work out just fine.

I'd give him the extension.

Regarding fans, they're not monolithic.  The fanbase is vast, made up of millions of individuals.  Of course there are inconsistencies within the fan base:  it's people disagreeing with one another.

That said, there's a middle path that accounts for both points of view:  some fans are wary of committing a huge chunk of the salary cap to a flawed player, because they suspect that Wyc won't continue to spend to add or keep talent.  That puts all of our eggs in the Jaylen Brown + Jayson Tatum basket.  If that's going to be Wyc's philosophy, maybe it makes sense to spend on two $30 million players, or three $20 million players, rather than one $60 million player who isn't a tier one superstar.

I am not sure what you are trying to say beyond the very clear, "I'd give him the extension".  There is an opportunity cost with any move a team makes.  Sign Brown, and there are a bunch of other things you can't do.  Is the "suspect Wyc won't continue to spend" comment in reference to Grant?  This sounds like exactly what cman88 said.  Kind of knocking them for not spending (or "suspecting they won't continue to spend"), in the context of paying a "flawed" player a super max extension.  How is willingness to spend on Brown a different willingness or less willingness, than if they spend the $60M on 2 or 3 players? 

How to spend is a fair debate, no team will spend perfectly so there will always be opportunities to debate and second guess.  But it seems that you are somehow trying to imply that signing Brown causes fans to "suspect" Wyc won't spend otherwise.  Unless I am misunderstanding, your argument is that overspending on Brown might be bad because the owners aren't willing to spend, and won't spend on other needs, or something, as I said, I don't follow your logic.

[Roy H.]

fans complain that Wyc is cheap and wont spend when we lose role-players like Grant williams. but then want Brown shipped off because they dont want Wyc to pay him..

This resonated with me.  I think it is right on.  There are many apparent contradictions in fans.  No judging, it is part of being fans, to be a little irrational at times, but I think you are correct.  We pretty much have to give Brown the extension.  I don't think it will become an albatross contract.  He will seem overpaid at the start, and then he won't.  And Brown is far more than a 3-D guy.  He was second team All-NBA.

He is a really good player, with some flaws, that plays hard every night.  If for whatever reason, it doesn't work out or someone offers us a deal we can't refuse in a trade, we can trade him in a year.  But I think it is going to work out just fine.

I'd give him the extension.

Regarding fans, they're not monolithic.  The fanbase is vast, made up of millions of individuals.  Of course there are inconsistencies within the fan base:  it's people disagreeing with one another.

That said, there's a middle path that accounts for both points of view:  some fans are wary of committing a huge chunk of the salary cap to a flawed player, because they suspect that Wyc won't continue to spend to add or keep talent.  That puts all of our eggs in the Jaylen Brown + Jayson Tatum basket.  If that's going to be Wyc's philosophy, maybe it makes sense to spend on two $30 million players, or three $20 million players, rather than one $60 million player who isn't a tier one superstar.

I don't think 4 quarters=1 dollar in the NBA. I also don't think there's a linear relationship between salaries and performance (ie 50% more pay gets you 50% more performance). The NBA is paying the top talent top money.

We can pretend like JB's flaws are bigger than they are (dribbling), but we likely aren't going to get a #3 pick that can score almost 27pts per game and play defense. Three players that can score 16ppg? That doesn't interest me as much.

In fairness to those who want to trade Jaylen...  is he truly a "dollar"?  And are $30 million players representative of "quarters"? 

If the choice were to surround JT with either Brown or two additional Porzingis level stars, I think that's a fair debate.

[Roy H.]

fans complain that Wyc is cheap and wont spend when we lose role-players like Grant williams. but then want Brown shipped off because they dont want Wyc to pay him..

This resonated with me.  I think it is right on.  There are many apparent contradictions in fans.  No judging, it is part of being fans, to be a little irrational at times, but I think you are correct.  We pretty much have to give Brown the extension.  I don't think it will become an albatross contract.  He will seem overpaid at the start, and then he won't.  And Brown is far more than a 3-D guy.  He was second team All-NBA.

He is a really good player, with some flaws, that plays hard every night.  If for whatever reason, it doesn't work out or someone offers us a deal we can't refuse in a trade, we can trade him in a year.  But I think it is going to work out just fine.

I'd give him the extension.

Regarding fans, they're not monolithic.  The fanbase is vast, made up of millions of individuals.  Of course there are inconsistencies within the fan base:  it's people disagreeing with one another.

That said, there's a middle path that accounts for both points of view:  some fans are wary of committing a huge chunk of the salary cap to a flawed player, because they suspect that Wyc won't continue to spend to add or keep talent.  That puts all of our eggs in the Jaylen Brown + Jayson Tatum basket.  If that's going to be Wyc's philosophy, maybe it makes sense to spend on two $30 million players, or three $20 million players, rather than one $60 million player who isn't a tier one superstar.

I am not sure what you are trying to say beyond the very clear, "I'd give him the extension".  There is an opportunity cost with any move a team makes.  Sign Brown, and there are a bunch of other things you can't do.  Is the "suspect Wyc won't continue to spend" comment in reference to Grant?  This sounds like exactly what cman88 said.  Kind of knocking them for not spending (or "suspecting they won't continue to spend"), in the context of paying a "flawed" player a super max extension.  How is willingness to spend on Brown a different willingness or less willingness, than if they spend the $60M on 2 or 3 players? 

How to spend is a fair debate, no team will spend perfectly so there will always be opportunities to debate and second guess.  But it seems that you are somehow trying to imply that signing Brown causes fans to "suspect" Wyc won't spend otherwise.  Unless I am misunderstanding, your argument is that overspending on Brown might be bad because the owners aren't willing to spend, and won't spend on other needs, or something, as I said, I don't follow your logic.

Wyc's track record leads fans to suspect that he won't spend beyond a certain point.  Not using the TPEs or the DPE last season, a decade of insane profits without dipping into the tax, trading away second rounders in salary dumps, etc.  It's clear there are budgetary restraints in effect.

[Vermont Green]

Wyc's track record leads fans to suspect that he won't spend beyond a certain point.  Not using the TPEs or the DPE last season, a decade of insane profits without dipping into the tax, trading away second rounders in salary dumps, etc. It's clear there are budgetary restraints in effect.

Of course there are budgetary restraints, it would be irrational for there not to be.  But so far this off season, they traded Smart for Porzingis (added salary), extended Porzingis (more spending), declined to sign Grant for $53M (didn't spend when they could have), and are now almost certainly going to pay Brown with a supermax extension (more spending).  Like every team in the league, they seem to be leery of the second apron, at least so far.  These are all spending choices.  Just like not using the TPE last season was a spending choice.

It seems to me that you are trying, but having hard time reconciling their willingness to spend on Brown with your narrative that they are cheap owners.  It is a choice to spend on Brown and not spend on other opportunities.  Sometimes they spend, sometimes they don't.  Was not spending on Grant a smart business decision or was it being cheap and a missed opportunity to improve the team?  That is just one example of a spending choice that can be debated, but taking things like that in isolation can be misleading.  Not signing Grant will allow them to do other things now and in the future.  If you sign Grant, what are you missing out on down the road?  If we had used the TPE last year, and were stuck with a useless contract, what would that have allowed or prevented?

[green_bballers13]

fans complain that Wyc is cheap and wont spend when we lose role-players like Grant williams. but then want Brown shipped off because they dont want Wyc to pay him..

This resonated with me.  I think it is right on.  There are many apparent contradictions in fans.  No judging, it is part of being fans, to be a little irrational at times, but I think you are correct.  We pretty much have to give Brown the extension.  I don't think it will become an albatross contract.  He will seem overpaid at the start, and then he won't.  And Brown is far more than a 3-D guy.  He was second team All-NBA.

He is a really good player, with some flaws, that plays hard every night.  If for whatever reason, it doesn't work out or someone offers us a deal we can't refuse in a trade, we can trade him in a year.  But I think it is going to work out just fine.

I'd give him the extension.

Regarding fans, they're not monolithic.  The fanbase is vast, made up of millions of individuals.  Of course there are inconsistencies within the fan base:  it's people disagreeing with one another.

That said, there's a middle path that accounts for both points of view:  some fans are wary of committing a huge chunk of the salary cap to a flawed player, because they suspect that Wyc won't continue to spend to add or keep talent.  That puts all of our eggs in the Jaylen Brown + Jayson Tatum basket.  If that's going to be Wyc's philosophy, maybe it makes sense to spend on two $30 million players, or three $20 million players, rather than one $60 million player who isn't a tier one superstar.

I don't think 4 quarters=1 dollar in the NBA. I also don't think there's a linear relationship between salaries and performance (ie 50% more pay gets you 50% more performance). The NBA is paying the top talent top money.

We can pretend like JB's flaws are bigger than they are (dribbling), but we likely aren't going to get a #3 pick that can score almost 27pts per game and play defense. Three players that can score 16ppg? That doesn't interest me as much.

In fairness to those who want to trade Jaylen...  is he truly a "dollar"?  And are $30 million players representative of "quarters"? 

If the choice were to surround JT with either Brown or two additional Porzingis level stars, I think that's a fair debate.

Yes. 2nd Team All NBA. Attempts to try to diminish this demonstrate a bias. I get that people have been frustrated by him at times because I have been as well. I personally think that people are missing the mark here because he still shows potential. He's only 26 and continues to improve. So 2nd team all NBA that has room to grow.

[A Future of Stevens]

I love Jaylen. I understand the arguments against signing him to a 50-60 million contract. The reality is this is the price you are going to pay to have a top 20 ish player in the league that is drafted to your team. I think historically stars win in this league. I believe it is better to go after multiple #1 or #2s than to split a #2 into multiple #3s or 4.

We clamor for stars until we have them, then we clamor for being deep 1-8 but not top heavy.

[keevsnick]

Wyc's track record leads fans to suspect that he won't spend beyond a certain point.  Not using the TPEs or the DPE last season, a decade of insane profits without dipping into the tax, trading away second rounders in salary dumps, etc. It's clear there are budgetary restraints in effect.

Of course there are budgetary restraints, it would be irrational for there not to be.  But so far this off season, they traded Smart for Porzingis (added salary), extended Porzingis (more spending), declined to sign Grant for $53M (didn't spend when they could have), and are now almost certainly going to pay Brown with a supermax extension (more spending).  Like every team in the league, they seem to be leery of the second apron, at least so far.  These are all spending choices.  Just like not using the TPE last season was a spending choice.

It seems to me that you are trying, but having hard time reconciling their willingness to spend on Brown with your narrative that they are cheap owners.  It is a choice to spend on Brown and not spend on other opportunities.  Sometimes they spend, sometimes they don't.  Was not spending on Grant a smart business decision or was it being cheap and a missed opportunity to improve the team?  That is just one example of a spending choice that can be debated, but taking things like that in isolation can be misleading.  Not signing Grant will allow them to do other things now and in the future.  If you sign Grant, what are you missing out on down the road?  If we had used the TPE last year, and were stuck with a useless contract, what would that have allowed or prevented?

In fairness to this the two things aren't as directly connected as people think. Boston could offer Brown a huge contract this summer without an intention of ever actually paying him a majority of that contract. The theory being that its better to have him on that contract for trade purposes than have him as an expiring.

The thing about the Celtics spending in in a vacuum a lot of what they do is reasonable. There's an argument to be made that Grant even at 13 million a year would be bad money if you don't think he's very good. But over the last ten years they've been in the tax twice (the first time just by a few million). They've racked up hundred of millions in profit, team value growth, ect, in a huge sports market and have to this point have really only had one seaosn (last year) where they flexed their spending ability. I wouldn't call them "cheap," but there have been times where they certainly missed opportunities to gather assets, keep players ect almost certainly just for money reasons and I think fans are allowed to be frustrated by that.

[CelticsWhat35]

fans complain that Wyc is cheap and wont spend when we lose role-players like Grant williams. but then want Brown shipped off because they dont want Wyc to pay him..

This resonated with me.  I think it is right on.  There are many apparent contradictions in fans.  No judging, it is part of being fans, to be a little irrational at times, but I think you are correct.  We pretty much have to give Brown the extension.  I don't think it will become an albatross contract.  He will seem overpaid at the start, and then he won't.  And Brown is far more than a 3-D guy.  He was second team All-NBA.

He is a really good player, with some flaws, that plays hard every night.  If for whatever reason, it doesn't work out or someone offers us a deal we can't refuse in a trade, we can trade him in a year.  But I think it is going to work out just fine.

I'd give him the extension.

Regarding fans, they're not monolithic.  The fanbase is vast, made up of millions of individuals.  Of course there are inconsistencies within the fan base:  it's people disagreeing with one another.

That said, there's a middle path that accounts for both points of view:  some fans are wary of committing a huge chunk of the salary cap to a flawed player, because they suspect that Wyc won't continue to spend to add or keep talent.  That puts all of our eggs in the Jaylen Brown + Jayson Tatum basket.  If that's going to be Wyc's philosophy, maybe it makes sense to spend on two $30 million players, or three $20 million players, rather than one $60 million player who isn't a tier one superstar.

I don't think 4 quarters=1 dollar in the NBA. I also don't think there's a linear relationship between salaries and performance (ie 50% more pay gets you 50% more performance). The NBA is paying the top talent top money.

We can pretend like JB's flaws are bigger than they are (dribbling), but we likely aren't going to get a #3 pick that can score almost 27pts per game and play defense. Three players that can score 16ppg? That doesn't interest me as much.

In fairness to those who want to trade Jaylen...  is he truly a "dollar"?  And are $30 million players representative of "quarters"? 

If the choice were to surround JT with either Brown or two additional Porzingis level stars, I think that's a fair debate.

Yes. 2nd Team All NBA. Attempts to try to diminish this demonstrate a bias. I get that people have been frustrated by him at times because I have been as well. I personally think that people are missing the mark here because he still shows potential. He's only 26 and continues to improve. So 2nd team all NBA that has room to grow.

It’s completely fair to state that injuries played a part in Jaylen making All NBA.  I don’t think anyone would put Jaylen as a top 10 player in the league.  It’s also not disrespectful to him if you say he’s top 20-25.  That would still mean he’d be the best player on a handful of teams and a great #2 to have.  The problem is that without being eligible for a super max, the regular max would be much more palatable and easier to handle under the current CBA.  For anyone that says “it’s not our money”, that doesn’t hold water because we know that Jaylen signing a super max is going to lead to cost saving measures elsewhere that could hurt the team construction overall. 

[johnnygreen]

I admit, I've been in the trade Brown camp for a few years now. The "skill" he lacks, is something he will never figure out at this point. He lacks basketball instincts, which to me, is a major red flag. I just don't think a player that lacks this skill set, should account for 35% of the teams salary. He essentially needs other players to help him, when it should be the other way around since he will be paid like a superstar player.

I think we take players like Smart, Brogdon and White for granted when the Jays have been surrounded by really talented players since they came into the league. Things are going to change quickly when the Jays suddenly account for 70% of the cap (90% when you include Porzingis now). Because of that second apron, guys like Brogdon and White won't be able to make up for Brown's lack of basketball instincts.

[Who]

I admit, I've been in the trade Brown camp for a few years now. The "skill" he lacks, is something he will never figure out at this point. He lacks basketball instincts, which to me, is a major red flag. I just don't think a player that lacks this skill set, should account for 35% of the teams salary. He essentially needs other players to help him, when it should be the other way around since he will be paid like a superstar player.

I think we take players like Smart, Brogdon and White for granted when the Jays have been surrounded by really talented players since they came into the league. Things are going to change quickly when the Jays suddenly account for 70% of the cap (90% when you include Porzingis now). Because of that second apron, guys like Brogdon and White won't be able to make up for Brown's lack of basketball instincts.

Well said. This is my concern too.

[Moranis]

Wyc is cheap and doesn't spend like he should, but that doesn't mean the team should overpay and enter into bad contracts. There is nothing contradictory in that sentiment.  The team should have kept Grant at that price and the team should trade Brown and not give him that huge contract. 

[green_bballers13]

Wyc is cheap and doesn't spend like he should, but that doesn't mean the team should overpay and enter into bad contracts. There is nothing contradictory in that sentiment.  The team should have kept Grant at that price and the team should trade Brown and not give him that huge contract.

Interesting... I disagree based on supply/demand. I think it is much harder to find guys like Jaylen Brown (you need the 3rd pick in the draft) than Grant Williams. Jaylen could make $100m per year and Grant could make $3m. I'd still prefer one Jaylen Brown to 33 Grant Williams. I just don't see the linear relationship between payment and performance that others are seeing.

edit: Complaining about ownership is kind of like complaining about the weather, is it not? We can't control either without protests, legal action, etc. Are people that dissatisfied with Wyc?

[Roy H.]

Wyc is cheap and doesn't spend like he should, but that doesn't mean the team should overpay and enter into bad contracts. There is nothing contradictory in that sentiment.  The team should have kept Grant at that price and the team should trade Brown and not give him that huge contract.

Is that now, or always?

Prior to the current CBA, I had thought that you and I were on the same page that "bad" contracts can be useful for adding salary.  For instance, it's better to have a bad contract than an expired TPE for trading purposes.  Under the old CBA, it was better to be as far above the cap as possible to enable maximum flexibility.  Thus (I assumed) why you wanted a guy like Duncan Robinson:  despite being a bad contract, we would have gotten back draft compensation and a tradeable salary.

Did I misinterpret this?  Or are you modifying your position based upon the very real penalties related to the second apron?

[Roy H.]

edit: Complaining about ownership is kind of like complaining about the weather, is it not? We can't control either without protests, legal action, etc. Are people that dissatisfied with Wyc?

Isn't any argument on this blog similar to complaining about the weather?  Absent mass boycotts, we're not getting anything changed, whether it's Wyc's spending or Jaylen's dribbling or Pritchard's haircut.  All we do is debate or complain about things we have no say in.  And, it's not just this blog, it's most of life.

As for Wyc...  Yes, I'm dissatisfied.  I don't like the fake puffery about no spending limits, and I don't like trading draft picks for TPEs that we don't use, or using draft picks to dump contracts, etc.  I don't like that we brought in a bargain basement coach last year, and refused to fill out the coaching staff with real assistants.
 We could have gone "all in" a lot of different ways last year, and we chose not to, all the while bragging about spending and lying to the fan base.

It's like this year's marketing:  "green light to spend".  Meanwhile, our committed salaries are almost exactly the same as they were last year, with the luxury tax bill going way, way down.

In other words, "green light to spend" equates to an approximately "$48 million spending cut".

Sadly, we don't have any critical media voices in Boston that understand the issues enough to point this out.  The Celts have had both a top-5 valuation and top-5 in operating income for many years, and yet the team cut payroll during the season last year, and has *significantly* cut payroll this year.