In hindsight, do we keep Grant?

[obnoxiousmime]

We always should have kept Grant at that money.

Even if he annoyed the other players? I'm not sure if this actually happened, but there were rumors.

He admitted to being immature for "two weeks" when he wasn't happy with his role or the benching, I forget the exact reason. I felt like even though he's an intelligent guy and usually a fun personality, he also seems stubborn and baby-ish if he disagrees on something with you. I can see him pouting or even talking back to Joe if he was in a particularly emotional moment. That's just a guess, though.

[gouki88]

I wanted to keep Grant. I thought he would maybe get 12M a year (he obviously did better). But, I am no cap expert, and now we are so top-loaded even though he would be a very helpful 3rd big (even though he is maybe 6 foot 6), idk how we could make it work money wise. I really would love the Jrue trade if he was 3 years younger. 34 for a guard... yikes.

How about 2 years younger?  He is actually 33, will turn 34 next June.

Sorry, sir-- unclear what your point is. He will be 34 during this season. I would prefer he was turning 30. He may only have 1 or 2 good years left (hope I'm wrong). You splitting hairs over a few months in age may be green tinted glassed at play. I'm a Homer too but I look at things objectively. The big 3 (with pierce kg ray) was basically cooked after 2 years together. Most don't age like LeBron.

It’s not splitting hairs, he won’t be 34 until the next Finals.

We’ve been well served by the fossil that is Al Horford

To each their own but to me it is splitting hairs. Dude has a lot of miles under him and most PGs donr get better at 34, 35, 36.

I suppose, but he's shown no signs of decline, isn't a small guard, and has a strong & versatile skill base

[Neurotic Guy]

I wanted to keep Grant. I thought he would maybe get 12M a year (he obviously did better). But, I am no cap expert, and now we are so top-loaded even though he would be a very helpful 3rd big (even though he is maybe 6 foot 6), idk how we could make it work money wise. I really would love the Jrue trade if he was 3 years younger. 34 for a guard... yikes.

How about 2 years younger?  He is actually 33, will turn 34 next June.

Sorry, sir-- unclear what your point is. He will be 34 during this season. I would prefer he was turning 30. He may only have 1 or 2 good years left (hope I'm wrong). You splitting hairs over a few months in age may be green tinted glassed at play. I'm a Homer too but I look at things objectively. The big 3 (with pierce kg ray) was basically cooked after 2 years together. Most don't age like LeBron.

It’s not splitting hairs, he won’t be 34 until the next Finals.

We’ve been well served by the fossil that is Al Horford

To each their own but to me it is splitting hairs. Dude has a lot of miles under him and most PGs donr get better at 34, 35, 36.

I suppose, but he's shown no signs of decline, isn't a small guard, and has a strong & versatile skill base

The obvious hope is that he’s solid through 35 - meaning a 3 year window.  One can be overly optimistic or overly pessimistic about it. Some decline is probable, but also very possible he maintains pretty well. He doesn’t need to be a top 3 player on this team. Good genes in that Holiday family - 3 long NBA careers and Jrue’s older brother (never as good as Jrue of course) is still in the league.

[Kernewek]

I wanted to keep Grant. I thought he would maybe get 12M a year (he obviously did better). But, I am no cap expert, and now we are so top-loaded even though he would be a very helpful 3rd big (even though he is maybe 6 foot 6), idk how we could make it work money wise. I really would love the Jrue trade if he was 3 years younger. 34 for a guard... yikes.

How about 2 years younger?  He is actually 33, will turn 34 next June.

Sorry, sir-- unclear what your point is. He will be 34 during this season. I would prefer he was turning 30. He may only have 1 or 2 good years left (hope I'm wrong). You splitting hairs over a few months in age may be green tinted glassed at play. I'm a Homer too but I look at things objectively. The big 3 (with pierce kg ray) was basically cooked after 2 years together. Most don't age like LeBron.

It’s not splitting hairs, he won’t be 34 until the next Finals.

We’ve been well served by the fossil that is Al Horford

To each their own but to me it is splitting hairs. Dude has a lot of miles under him and most PGs donr get better at 34, 35, 36.

I suppose, but he's shown no signs of decline, isn't a small guard, and has a strong & versatile skill base

He's declining, but it's measured. Same with someone like Al.

[ChillyWilly]

I think part of the issue wasn’t just money but playing time as well. Grant was gonna get like $15 mil to be 4th string guy (Horford/Porzingis/Williams)? Think he wanted to get paid and get minutes. Also didn’t think he jived with Mazzulla.

Brad clearly cleaned up an issue he saw with over active voices in the lockerroom. I'm glad he did.

[Moranis]

We always should have kept Grant at that money.

Even if he annoyed the other players? I'm not sure if this actually happened, but there were rumors.

Yes.  His contract would be easily moveable.  I just don't like wasting assets.   His contract would be very valuable even if you didn't like his fit or role.  I mean even before trading Rob they said a swing player was a target.  Grant is a swing player.  He is the exact thing they were looking for.  There was no reason to move him other than being cheap.

[Roy H.]

We always should have kept Grant at that money.

Even if he annoyed the other players? I'm not sure if this actually happened, but there were rumors.

Yes.  His contract would be easily moveable.  I just don't like wasting assets.   His contract would be very valuable even if you didn't like his fit or role.  I mean even before trading Rob they said a swing player was a target.  Grant is a swing player.  He is the exact thing they were looking for.  There was no reason to move him other than being cheap.

The issue of "easily moveable" was the one I was hung up on.  I didn't want to be forced to keep Grant on the books heading into next season and the second apron penalties, in case he under-performed and became non-tradeable.  That's why I suggested a very large one year contract, to get him to sign here with no long-term commitments.

But, in hindsight, we're all-in.  We could really use that salary slot.  It's another reason why I wanted us to use the TPEs last year on guys who had a year left (ideally a club option year left).  We could have used those guys as salary ballast, whether that be in the Jrue trade or in a move to add another big.

[Vermont Green]

I have my doubts on this idea of a player under contract being an asset, just due to the contract.  That was the narrative around Nerlens Noel last season, but he ended up just being dumped.  This off season, you can look at John Collins, a superior player to Grant.  His contract did not end up being an asset that allowed ATL to do a trade to upgrade their team.  They ended up with Rudy Gay.  It was just a dead weight contract that was dumped for another dead weight contract.

Another issue with Grant was that he ended up a base year compensation (BYC) contract.  That means it only counts 50% as an outgoing salary but the team taking him has to count it as the full value.  In a larger trade, that difference gets diluted but it makes his contract harder to trade.  In the end, we got the $6.2M TPE which is at least as valuable in a trade as Grant's contract.  So it ended up being exactly an allocation of cap space to use in a trade.  Grant's contract was never going to be able to be used for its full value.

Now if you want to argue this from a team or roster standpoint, that is fair.  Right now, there would be a role for Grant.  He would be the 3rd big, similar to his role at the start of last season.  From this standpoint, I have no regrets that we did not keep Grant.  He has some value as a bench player, but also some major limitations and possibly some lingering baggage.  I feel that role can be backfilled without having to commit to a bad contract with BYC limitations on it, we'll see.

[Celtics4ever]

No,  we would have not.   I actually thinking this will help a lot with whining to the refs problems across the board as a Grant was bigtime offender in that regard.

He, also despite what many thin,k was one of our worst defenders against Giannis and Embiid if you look at Defensive Rating against them.  Stats do not lie.

He was not really a big, nor a wing.   Big guys shot over him and he did better against wings.   Horrible rebounder for his build and strength level

[Phantom255x]

G-Will, Brogdon and Smart seemed to be the more outspoken ones in the locker room against Mazzulla, but at times they also disappointed with their play and just didn't back it up. 

Now we can certainly criticize Mazzulla as well for some things and understand the players' complaints, but it wasn't like they were backing it up with their play either. G-Will was super hesitant with his shot and barely contributed. Smart definitely regressed on defense compared to previous years. It also felt weird that we heard at times Smart was "coaching" the team even in-game with substitutions and such. Umm...? Brogdon overall was awesome off the bench, but he really wasn't as good defensively as I'd hope and he got hurt. Plus he was outspoken about Mazzulla not preaching defense, but as others have mentioned I thought Brogdon himself wasn't good on that end either. Then as we saw this offseason it sounded like Brogdon wanted a bigger role which he probably wasn't getting here.

Feels like CBS purged that group. I guess we could have kept G-Will but I'm not losing sleep over it. I think G-Will will do well with Dallas and is a good fit there. Good opportunity for him

[Roy H.]

I have my doubts on this idea of a player under contract being an asset, just due to the contract.

I'm not sure how you're not seeing the value of having building block salaries on the books.  The lack of such a salary is why we're currently limited to the TPE or the minimum when trading for upgrades.  You need salaries to put together to "match".

Having such salaries is a good thing; not having such salaries is a detriment to improving via trade.

[johnnygreen]

I'm curious to find out if the Celtics get a more favorable whistle this season, now that their two biggest complainers (Smart and Grant) are no longer on the team.

[Roy H.]

I'm curious to find out if the Celtics get a more favorable whistle this season, now that their two biggest complainers (Smart and Grant) are no longer on the team.

Tatum is a pretty big whiner, too. 



He was late getting back on defense way too many times because he was griping (sometimes legitimately, sometimes less so).

The difference between Tatum and Grant is that Tatum drives winning, so we overlook that flaw.  Grant was just a role player, and him picking up technicals or not getting back on D was less forgivable.

[Moranis]

We always should have kept Grant at that money.

Even if he annoyed the other players? I'm not sure if this actually happened, but there were rumors.

Yes.  His contract would be easily moveable.  I just don't like wasting assets.   His contract would be very valuable even if you didn't like his fit or role.  I mean even before trading Rob they said a swing player was a target.  Grant is a swing player.  He is the exact thing they were looking for.  There was no reason to move him other than being cheap.

The issue of "easily moveable" was the one I was hung up on.  I didn't want to be forced to keep Grant on the books heading into next season and the second apron penalties, in case he under-performed and became non-tradeable.  That's why I suggested a very large one year contract, to get him to sign here with no long-term commitments.

But, in hindsight, we're all-in.  We could really use that salary slot.  It's another reason why I wanted us to use the TPEs last year on guys who had a year left (ideally a club option year left).  We could have used those guys as salary ballast, whether that be in the Jrue trade or in a move to add another big.

I mean his contract average was 13 million.  It isn't like it was 15-17 million as many were projecting.  His skill set and production is valued around his contract.  There was absolutely no reason other than being cheap to not sign him to that contract.  Same thing with the TPE's.  Ownership just keeps getting cheap and wasting assets, and then they go out and make moves where the being cheap has cost them.

[Vermont Green]

I have my doubts on this idea of a player under contract being an asset, just due to the contract.

I'm not sure how you're not seeing the value of having building block salaries on the books.  The lack of such a salary is why we're currently limited to the TPE or the minimum when trading for upgrades.  You need salaries to put together to "match".

Having such salaries is a good thing; not having such salaries is a detriment to improving via trade.

I guess the difference is what you define as a building block contract.  Was the Richaun Holmes contract a building block?  SAC ended up attaching a first round pick to it and sending it to DAL.  His contract was $12M and not a BYC.  How did that contract help SAC build a trade?

I understand that in theory, it is possible that if we had kept Grant, it may have been possible to trade him.  Grant to me at $12M or whatever was a bad contract but not a terrible one.  Same for Holmes at $12M.  But Holmes ended up just being a bad contract that had to be dumped.  Same for Noel, same for Collins.