Falk: "Green could've gotten more from other clubs"

[Fan from VT]

I agree that Minny is the only club I can think of with both the capspace and the positional desire to sign Green.

However, it's hard to use the Batum offer as a surrogate for a Green offer because most non-celtic fans agree that batum is slightly to significantly better across the board (defense, younger, much more efficient scorer, shooting, rebounding), and he was an RFA which means you have to overbid more than for a UFA. So the Batum offer was higher than the Green offer would be for the talent gap and the RFA "tax."

[Snakehead]

Batum is going to be making 4-5 million more with the same numbers.  He is two years younger.

So yes I believe this.

[mctyson]

Green made $9M on the 1-year he signed with us before the heart surgery.  So let's please put to rest the idea that somehow Danny overpaid him now, when he paid him just as much (on a per year basis) as his last contract.  In other words: he is not getting a raise, and he didn't deserve one.

Now...you can argue that there should have been a discount because of the heart surgery.  I think Danny probably did argue that, as any sane GM would.  Having said that, everything I have read about Green's condition is that he is "as good as new."  Thus, we are getting the same Jeff Green that was signed originally to a 1-year, $9M deal.  That is the crux of Falk's argument.

Falk is clearly saying that his client was due no medical discount from his previous contract, and indeed could have gotten a significant raise from that level based on what other teams are doling out this season (read: Fields, Landry.)  Falk is also probably trying to protect his client a bit since there was some criticism about the size of Green's deal.

I don't get the fuss over it either way.  If Green had signed for $8M per year, would we be doing backflips?  How about $7M? Was it the years?  The guy is just 26 years old.  A 4-year deal for someone in that age bracket should be a no-brainer.  How do we as fans know what this guy is worth?  Further, why do we care if it doesn't impact our ability to sign other players (which, at least this year, it did not)?  

[KG Living Legend]

 "IF" he really left money on the table somewhere else to play here it would be 1 maybe 2 per Max.

[European NBA fan]

According to Bill Simmons, Jeff Green gets 32M $ for the four years, not the 36M reported. If true, I'm pretty sure the Celtics got a discount.

[kp4000]

Falk: "Green could've gotten more from other clubs"

[Roy H.]

According to Bill Simmons, Jeff Green gets 32M $ for the four years, not the 36M reported. If true, I'm pretty sure the Celtics got a discount.

I'm wondering if this is just a case of Simmons not fact checking.  It seems unlikely he'd have different financials for the deal that he'd just mention in passing.

[ItStaysYang]

Green made $9M on the 1-year he signed with us before the heart surgery.  So let's please put to rest the idea that somehow Danny overpaid him now, when he paid him just as much (on a per year basis) as his last contract.  In other words: he is not getting a raise, and he didn't deserve one.

Now...you can argue that there should have been a discount because of the heart surgery.  I think Danny probably did argue that, as any sane GM would.  Having said that, everything I have read about Green's condition is that he is "as good as new."  Thus, we are getting the same Jeff Green that was signed originally to a 1-year, $9M deal.  That is the crux of Falk's argument.

Falk is clearly saying that his client was due no medical discount from his previous contract, and indeed could have gotten a significant raise from that level based on what other teams are doling out this season (read: Fields, Landry.)  Falk is also probably trying to protect his client a bit since there was some criticism about the size of Green's deal.

I don't get the fuss over it either way.  If Green had signed for $8M per year, would we be doing backflips?  How about $7M? Was it the years?  The guy is just 26 years old.  A 4-year deal for someone in that age bracket should be a no-brainer.  How do we as fans know what this guy is worth?  Further, why do we care if it doesn't impact our ability to sign other players (which, at least this year, it did not)?  

Great answer, thanks

[spinz]

There probably was a team crazy enough to pay more than 36m to a guy who has yet to "pan out" who just came off of heart surgery.
But that team is crazy... and i reaaallly doubt there was more than 1.

But dont get me wrong, i like jeff green and i like his chances of being really good. But paying any more would require a totally nuts gm.

[European NBA fan]

According to Bill Simmons, Jeff Green gets 32M $ for the four years, not the 36M reported. If true, I'm pretty sure the Celtics got a discount.

I'm wondering if this is just a case of Simmons not fact checking.  It seems unlikely he'd have different financials for the deal that he'd just mention in passing.

Well, he kind of does that (mention stuff in passing). And he used the number a couple of times, so it wasn't a typo. But he usually includes his source, if it newsworthy, so you might be right about the fact checking.

[Fan from VT]

Green made $9M on the 1-year he signed with us before the heart surgery.  So let's please put to rest the idea that somehow Danny overpaid him now, when he paid him just as much (on a per year basis) as his last contract.  In other words: he is not getting a raise, and he didn't deserve one.

Now...you can argue that there should have been a discount because of the heart surgery.  I think Danny probably did argue that, as any sane GM would.  Having said that, everything I have read about Green's condition is that he is "as good as new."  Thus, we are getting the same Jeff Green that was signed originally to a 1-year, $9M deal.  That is the crux of Falk's argument.

Falk is clearly saying that his client was due no medical discount from his previous contract, and indeed could have gotten a significant raise from that level based on what other teams are doling out this season (read: Fields, Landry.)  Falk is also probably trying to protect his client a bit since there was some criticism about the size of Green's deal.

I don't get the fuss over it either way.  If Green had signed for $8M per year, would we be doing backflips?  How about $7M? Was it the years?  The guy is just 26 years old.  A 4-year deal for someone in that age bracket should be a no-brainer.  How do we as fans know what this guy is worth?  Further, why do we care if it doesn't impact our ability to sign other players (which, at least this year, it did not)?  

Don't forget that when you are talking about non-Max players, usually there is a premium payed for SHORTER contracts. Players want the security of the total dollars of the contract, so usually if they want 40 million for 4 years, they are NOT going to take 1 year 10 million if the team wants to maintain cap flexibility, because they are sacrificing 3 years 30 mil of their 'value.' They will, however, allow the team to "buy" a short contract by taking 1 year 14-15 million, because now the next offseason they only need a 3 year 25 million dollar deal to fulfill their earning goal.

So a 1 year 9 million dollar deal is NOT equivalent to 4 years 36, because the 9 million is an overpay for that 1 year to 'buy' a short term committment; the player accepts the overpay for 1 year but to do so is gambling on their health, etc. for longer term earning. 1 year 9 mil is more like the equivalent of 4 years 26-28 or so.

[cman88]

Lets not also forget that Gerald wallace is making 10million$ as well...this may just be the going rate for quality SF's in the league.

Maybe Danny overpaid, but I dont really see the big deal in the contract....green is only 26

at worst Green never goes beyond what he was in OKC...a decent player who can average 15ppg...you dont think if the C's wanted to unload that in 2-3years some team wouldnt take a chance on a 28,29 y/o who averages 15ppg?

like I said...30Y/o gerald wallace is making 10million$

[European NBA fan]

Green made $9M on the 1-year he signed with us before the heart surgery.  So let's please put to rest the idea that somehow Danny overpaid him now, when he paid him just as much (on a per year basis) as his last contract.  In other words: he is not getting a raise, and he didn't deserve one.

Now...you can argue that there should have been a discount because of the heart surgery.  I think Danny probably did argue that, as any sane GM would.  Having said that, everything I have read about Green's condition is that he is "as good as new."  Thus, we are getting the same Jeff Green that was signed originally to a 1-year, $9M deal.  That is the crux of Falk's argument.

Falk is clearly saying that his client was due no medical discount from his previous contract, and indeed could have gotten a significant raise from that level based on what other teams are doling out this season (read: Fields, Landry.)  Falk is also probably trying to protect his client a bit since there was some criticism about the size of Green's deal.

I don't get the fuss over it either way.  If Green had signed for $8M per year, would we be doing backflips?  How about $7M? Was it the years?  The guy is just 26 years old.  A 4-year deal for someone in that age bracket should be a no-brainer.  How do we as fans know what this guy is worth?  Further, why do we care if it doesn't impact our ability to sign other players (which, at least this year, it did not)?  

Don't forget that when you are talking about non-Max players, usually there is a premium payed for SHORTER contracts. Players want the security of the total dollars of the contract, so usually if they want 40 million for 4 years, they are NOT going to take 1 year 10 million if the team wants to maintain cap flexibility, because they are sacrificing 3 years 30 mil of their 'value.' They will, however, allow the team to "buy" a short contract by taking 1 year 14-15 million, because now the next offseason they only need a 3 year 25 million dollar deal to fulfill their earning goal.

So a 1 year 9 million dollar deal is NOT equivalent to 4 years 36, because the 9 million is an overpay for that 1 year to 'buy' a short term committment; the player accepts the overpay for 1 year but to do so is gambling on their health, etc. for longer term earning. 1 year 9 mil is more like the equivalent of 4 years 26-28 or so.

That's true for vets, not for younger guys hitting their prime. They take a discount to get a significant role and the chance for a big contract. Green was not that attached to Boston before his heart surgery and was probably looking for a way to get a 10M+ $ contract.

[Boris Badenov]

Batum is going to be making 4-5 million more with the same numbers.  He is two years younger.

So yes I believe this.

Initially I didn't think your claim was true, so I looked at them side-by-side comparison in their last full seasons:

http://bkref.com/tiny/qrioG

They are fairly similar indeed.

Batum fares much better in advanced metrics due to one thing: his superior 3 pt shooting (39% vs. 30% on slightly higher volume). This gives him a much better TS%.

Other than that, there's some evidence that Batum is a better defender. He certainly looks more athletic and active on that end, as well.

But looking at these numbers, there is not a clear difference. If Green can improve his 3pt numbers (and he did shoot 39% on high volume in his second year, so it's possible), then he looks virtually identical to Batum.

[cman88]

Even if Green is overpaid, we are in win-now mode and his years pretty much equal out with everyone-elses on the roster....without him, we have no chance of matching up with Miami's small ball lineup.

I think hes going to have a good year this year..probably wont average more than he did in OKC(due to the sheer talent on the team this year) but i'm expecting better efficiency and starters minutes