He hasn't been considered a stud since he was a big time HS and college recruit.

He's been an empty numbers guy when given a big role.

Just going to answer the first part. Staying away from ECF part of question.


Wallace was miss used last year he is still a capable starting SF. With minutes and a coach/PG who want to utilize him he is a 12pt 6rb SF.

Humphries produces numbers when given minutes. Play him 30+ minutes and he is a double double machine. Last year he was down to 18min per game.

just to add to be points above, wallace can score but he can't shoot...at all. his offense has eroded severely and no one bothers to cover him unless he is under that basket. he is a terrible shooter other than layups. other teams basically dare him to shoot from mid-range and are willing to live with the outcome.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=2743&Season=2012-13

for almost $11 million a year, you would expect more than that offensively.

humphries might still be able to play decent ball and might still bring down double digits in scoring and rebounds in the right situation and with the right number of minutes. but his defense is poor.

moreover, his shooting percentage is pretty poor if he shoots from beyond 4 feet from the basket. not wallace-poor, but pretty poor.

humphries makes something along the lines of $12 million next year.

it is not a case that these two will contribute absolutely nothing to a team. but, i think the celtics can get much better return on $23,000,000 than what these two players will offer.

Quote from: Fafnir on July 05, 2013, 02:40:28 PM

He hasn't been considered a stud since he was a big time HS and college recruit.

He's been an empty numbers guy when given a big role.

I highly disagree with that statement.  He was an All-Star a few years ago and deserved that honor.  He's led the league in steal %.  Prior to his cratering last season he was top 50 in career eFG% among active players, and that still took into account the beginning of his decline for the prior two years.  He's still top 50 in true shooting, tied with Iggy at 44.  He has very solid defensive rebounding numbers, just above LeBron and Lamarcus Aldridge for active players.  Hes top 50 in offensive rebounding and total rebounding as well.  He's top 10 in steal%.  Top 30 in block%.  Top 30 in defensve rating.  He's not been a hall of Famer by any means, but he's been a very good basketball player for about a decade, and anything but an empty numbers guy.

I wasn't clear, I was answering the OPs first question, the one about Humphries.

As for Wallace, as recently as two years ago he was considered a very good player, not all-star level but very good. He could bounce back certainly. But no one is going to want his contract after this year. No matter how well he plays imo.

Quote from: saltlover on July 05, 2013, 03:07:35 PM

Quote from: Fafnir on July 05, 2013, 02:40:28 PM

He hasn't been considered a stud since he was a big time HS and college recruit.

He's been an empty numbers guy when given a big role.

I highly disagree with that statement.  He was an All-Star a few years ago and deserved that honor.  He's led the league in steal %.  Prior to his cratering last season he was top 50 in career eFG% among active players, and that still took into account the beginning of his decline for the prior two years.  He's still top 50 in true shooting, tied with Iggy at 44.  He has very solid defensive rebounding numbers, just above LeBron and Lamarcus Aldridge for active players.  Hes top 50 in offensive rebounding and total rebounding as well.  He's top 10 in steal%.  Top 30 in block%.  Top 30 in defensve rating.  He's not been a hall of Famer by any means, but he's been a very good basketball player for about a decade, and anything but an empty numbers guy.

I wasn't clear, I was answering the OPs first question, the one about Humphries.

As for Wallace, as recently as two years ago he was considered a very good player, not all-star level but very good. He could bounce back certainly. But no one is going to want his contract after this year. No matter how well he plays imo.

Got it.  Yes, humphries is completely an empty numbers guy.  Wallace's deal may not be the best, but I'm glad he's got the long deal and Humphries is for one year, and not the other way around.

Quote from: saltlover on July 05, 2013, 03:16:22 PM

Quote from: Fafnir on July 05, 2013, 03:09:24 PM

Quote from: saltlover on July 05, 2013, 03:07:35 PM

Quote from: Fafnir on July 05, 2013, 02:40:28 PM

He hasn't been considered a stud since he was a big time HS and college recruit.


He's been an empty numbers guy when given a big role.

I highly disagree with that statement.  He was an All-Star a few years ago and deserved that honor.  He's led the league in steal %.  Prior to his cratering last season he was top 50 in career eFG% among active players, and that still took into account the beginning of his decline for the prior two years.  He's still top 50 in true shooting, tied with Iggy at 44.  He has very solid defensive rebounding numbers, just above LeBron and Lamarcus Aldridge for active players.  Hes top 50 in offensive rebounding and total rebounding as well.  He's top 10 in steal%.  Top 30 in block%.  Top 30 in defensve rating.  He's not been a hall of Famer by any means, but he's been a very good basketball player for about a decade, and anything but an empty numbers guy.

I wasn't clear, I was answering the OPs first question, the one about Humphries.

As for Wallace, as recently as two years ago he was considered a very good player, not all-star level but very good. He could bounce back certainly. But no one is going to want his contract after this year. No matter how well he plays imo.

Got it.  Yes, humphries is completely an empty numbers guy.  Wallace's deal may not be the best, but I'm glad he's got the long deal and Humphries is for one year, and not the other way around.

Cant say it's too bad of a thing that Sullinger's backup is not exactly gun shy though. I think some may be downplaying the fact this as this team, as currently constructed, may be the greatest situation he's ever found himself in.

Low expectations, young, high energy team that's relativity removed from the fakeness of the West Coast Socialite scene. I'm cautiously optimistic too see what he can do away from the noise.

I'm much more optimistic about Wallace.  And I'm not that optimistic.

Humphries is now a passable backup being paid starter money.

Wallace is a better PF than SF, but probably can't play there due to a history of concussions. As a PF, he is now a passable backup being paid starter money. As an SF, he is not now a passable backup being paid starter money.

Either, or both, could bounce back from down seasons, but I doubt either would ever be worth the money they are currently being paid. Danny will not be able to shift Wallace as other than a contract with other assets attached, nor will he be able to trade Humphries as other than an expiring contract before the trade deadline. At the deadline, Humphries might be a guy that some quasi-contender picks up to help them in their playoff run, that's the only way I see Danny getting much value from him. Same for Wallace...in two years, but not before.

Gee! I'd love to be wrong about these two.

another way to look that these players and their contracts is this:

ainge never intended these two players to be valued members of the future celtics. never. they were simply what was needed to make pierce and KG and herds of salary go away while bringing on board a small herd of draft picks to the celtics.

mission accomplished.

next, these salaries are actually valuable in a way. no one cares about this coming season since the celtics arent going after a free agent anyway. they will stink and are intended to stink so as to pave the way to a bright new tomorrow. let wallace and humphries clog up the celtics salary structure for now. no real harm done to ainge's long-term plan.

but, humphries money will be gone - either a trade or simply gone - within a year. it is an expiring contract.

similarly, wallace's head-throbbing obscenity of a contract will actually have value in a trade in 2 years since it will be an expiring contract then. so when ainge needs a large contract to balance out a possible trade for a star - the small rookie contracts dont do it - voila!!!! wallace's awful-obscene-crappy-ungodly-bad contract to the rescue!

their contracts stink this year. but within a short time the manure heap may give rise to roses. 

geez louise, am i a positive kinda guy or what?