Author Topic: No extension for Bradley  (Read 7737 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2013, 11:12:51 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
You know what I really really do not want to see? I don't want to see us draft a young Dante Exum and then watch Bradley in some other uniform traumatize him. I do not want to see Avery Bradley guarding our guys. 

Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2013, 11:14:59 AM »

Offline CelticG1

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4201
  • Tommy Points: 288
Is this really a surprise? Bradley had a sucky season and wasn't playing with rondo. Celtics clearly tried to get a nice deal for themselves. Bradley in turn says no thanks I'd rather play almost a full season with Rondo and become more of a focal point of this team to maximize his value.

As for Gordon Hayward? Oh my barf. Seriously what is the fasination with him? Its like the type of people that foam or at least used to foam at the mouth for tyler hansborough

Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2013, 11:23:46 AM »

Offline sed522002

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2280
  • Tommy Points: 221
This makes sense for both parties.

For Ainge,if the contract was based off recent performance it wouldn't be that high (even though he's playing out of position)

For AB he can play the full season and increase his value that would warrant a larger contract (whether or not it's with the C's).

We don't know when Rondo is coming back or how long AB will have to be the PG..can't tie up money in uncertainties.

Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2013, 11:25:05 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182

As for Gordon Hayward? Oh my barf. Seriously what is the fasination with him? Its like the type of people that foam or at least used to foam at the mouth for tyler hansborough

17 pts 4 ast 4 reb 1 stl 1 blk on 43% / 41% / 82% shooting.

Those are the numbers Hayward put up on a per-minute basis last season, playing 28 minutes a game.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2013, 11:31:33 AM »

Offline moiso

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7691
  • Tommy Points: 447

As for Gordon Hayward? Oh my barf. Seriously what is the fasination with him? Its like the type of people that foam or at least used to foam at the mouth for tyler hansborough

17 pts 4 ast 4 reb 1 stl 1 blk on 43% / 41% / 82% shooting.

Those are the numbers Hayward put up on a per-minute basis last season, playing 28 minutes a game.
Wow!  17pts per minute! He's better than I thought!  :D

Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2013, 11:32:36 AM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 643
  And when he leaves and the defense goes off a cliff just remember for an extra million or so you coulda had him for years. But someone got stingy.

I have a feeling they were never that close.  My guess is Bradley's agent still sees him as a potential star.  A gamechanger as you said.  But as a team, it is hard to project him as much more than a role player. 

My guess is they were a long ways apart.

Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2013, 11:37:26 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182

As for Gordon Hayward? Oh my barf. Seriously what is the fasination with him? Its like the type of people that foam or at least used to foam at the mouth for tyler hansborough

17 pts 4 ast 4 reb 1 stl 1 blk on 43% / 41% / 82% shooting.

Those are the numbers Hayward put up on a per-minute basis last season, playing 28 minutes a game.
Wow!  17pts per minute! He's better than I thought!  :D

Yeah, by "per-minute basis" I mean the standard 36.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2013, 11:38:33 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
  And when he leaves and the defense goes off a cliff just remember for an extra million or so you coulda had him for years. But someone got stingy.

I have a feeling they were never that close.  My guess is Bradley's agent still sees him as a potential star.  A gamechanger as you said.  But as a team, it is hard to project him as much more than a role player. 

My guess is they were a long ways apart.

Agree.  I imagine the team had a max offer around 4 years / 15 million and the agent wanted at least 4 years / 30 million.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2013, 11:38:48 AM »

Offline mgent

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7567
  • Tommy Points: 1962
I expect them to go hard after Gordon Hayward this offseason , then go back to Bradley if it doesn't work out.
The C's will have the TE and what around 6+ million of room under the salary cap? Plus whatever salary their draft pick is slotted to get.

The C's will have to make additional salary moves to make a run at high level FAs.

Yeah, the TE would probably be irrelevant in a chase for Hayward, who will be looking for something over $10 million per year, if Utah won't match.

But I do think Danny is going to work hard to dump salary this year if he can.  Wallace, Lee and Bass will all be available for expiring contracts, and Green may be too (although he would require more of a premium).

I don't really think there is a connection between Bradley and Hayward though.  Bradley wasn't signed, because he is still too unproven to warrant what his agent would ask for.
This is why I'm not at all scared of having to match an offer.  He might try out FA and strike out like Big Baby, leaving him with a similar 6mil over 2 years contract.

I doubt Ainge will accept Bradley's agent's likely request for a one year contract to prove he's worth more, like he had to do with Green.
Philly:

Anderson Varejao    Tiago Splitter    Matt Bonner
David West    Kenyon Martin    Brad Miller
Andre Iguodala    Josh Childress    Marquis Daniels
Dwyane Wade    Leandro Barbosa
Kirk Hinrich    Toney Douglas   + the legendary Kevin McHale

Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2013, 11:49:05 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
I wouldn't be surprised if Bradley ended up playing for the QO if Ainge offered it. Though I'm sure he'd like to work out a multi-year extension.

Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2013, 12:02:14 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34128
  • Tommy Points: 1612
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
Bradley still has to prove he can stay healthy for a full NBA season being a small SG. 




Until he does, he isn't going to see large offers for a role player. 



Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2013, 12:20:42 PM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6846
  • Tommy Points: 448
Bradley still has to prove he can stay healthy for a full NBA season being a small SG. 




Until he does, he isn't going to see large offers for a role player.

Plus his offense has to come along.

But I think it will probably.  Anyways this was the right move even as someone who is a big Bradley fan.
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2013, 04:07:03 PM »

Offline ScoobyDoo

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2649
  • Tommy Points: 447
Bradley is untouchable to me, provided I';m able to sign him for reasonable money. Reasonable to me means $3 to $5 million per year.

He has incredible value as a defensive stopper off the bench at the 1 and the 2 spots. He's a Tony Allen, James Posey, Bruce Bowen type of impact player and a great, great piece to a championship team.
 
However, he is not a long term solution at the two spot. if he were 6' 4" or 6' 5" that statement would not apply. Although he's 100% heart, grit and hustle I think he will simply get beaten up over time as a long term starter at the two.

But I love him as part of my guard rotation. he can play a little two, a little point on offense and he can D up anyone in the opposing team's back court who is on fire.       

But bottom line is we need a legit sized sharp shooting two guard on this squad - and then Bradley as part of the back up mix behind that guy and behind Rondo as well.

Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2013, 04:11:14 PM »

Offline ScoobyDoo

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2649
  • Tommy Points: 447
Ainge regretted letting Tony Allen go. I'd be very surprised if he let Bradley go for the same reasons.

You need the dirty work guys.


Re: No extension for Bradley
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2013, 04:28:07 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
Ainge regretted letting Tony Allen go. I'd be very surprised if he let Bradley go for the same reasons.

You need the dirty work guys.

I don't think Ainge let TA go.  I think it was more that TA was never one of Doc's "guys" and never thought he'd get a chance to play more than 15 minutes a game while Ray was around.

Mike