If Avery Bradley asked for 5 mil for 4 years, would you do it?

[CelticG1]

I think the monta ellis and  kevin martin comps are ridculous. Those guys are proven nba players ho have pretty much been the best players on their respectiv teams for consecutive years with much less injury history.

You surely haven't followed them very closely.

Kevin Martin has been in the league for 10+ seasons and has played in 80 games twice (never in the full 82). Actually, he's aveaged about 57 games a season (excluding the lockout-shortened one from tha count, where he played only 40 games, too).

Monta Ellis is pretty much the same story: he has played 82 games once, and 80 games once; 9+ seasons, average of 57 games per full season.

Id have to delve in a little deeper on some of that. AB hasnt been healthy literally simce the day he was drafted though right? And hes had what 2 surgeries since then?

I think at least the perceived value is definitely lower than those guys. At one point in time those guys were looked at as possibly special players.

I really cant see people thinking that of AB at least not right now and not willing to invest that type of money.

[LooseCannon]

Henderson is the best comp I've seen.  He's also fairly injury prone, and has a suspect outside shot.  Henderson is significantly bigger than Bradley, however.

Are you so fixated on size that you would like Bradley better if you could add three inches of height at the cost of decreased production on the floor?

[PhoSita]

Henderson is the best comp I've seen.  He's also fairly injury prone, and has a suspect outside shot.  Henderson is significantly bigger than Bradley, however.

Are you so fixated on size that you would like Bradley better if you could add three inches of height at the cost of decreased production on the floor?

Yes, because size matters in the NBA.  If Bradley were 6'5'' he would have an easier time covering bigger 2s and switching onto 3s.  He doesn't have nearly the versatility that Tony Allen does defensively because of his lack of size.  Bradley's lack of size also makes him more likely to break down so long as he's playing on the wing against generally larger players.

Ideally, Bradley could spent time at the point coming off the bench, but we know that's just not his skillset.



I look around the league and I see a lot of decent guys you could plug in at the SG position for less than 6 per year, and probably for fewer than 3 years.  Why over-extend just to keep Bradley?

Here's what I mean --

Belinelli - 2.75
Gerald Green - 2.5
Meeks - 1.5
Carter - 1.5
Lee - 5
Morrow - 1

Korver makes 6.7, but he's perhaps the best outside shooter in the game, and he can play both wing positions.

[LooseCannon]

I'd rather have Bradley as the long-term starter at SG than any of those guys.

[PhoSita]

I'd rather have Bradley as the long-term starter at SG than any of those guys.

And that's perhaps a defensible position, though personally I'd prefer to have a guy who is a more reliable outside shooter.

But if the difference between keeping Bradley and plugging in one of those guys is 4-5 million a year, and a contract that is 2-3 years longer, is it worth it?

[LooseCannon]

But if the difference between keeping Bradley and plugging in one of those guys is 4-5 million a year, and a contract that is 2-3 years longer, is it worth it?

I think Bradley has trade value on his next contract as a young player who is likely to improve.  I would like to re-sign him because I am thinking beyond next season.

[bucknersrevenge]

But if the difference between keeping Bradley and plugging in one of those guys is 4-5 million a year, and a contract that is 2-3 years longer, is it worth it?

I think Bradley has trade value on his next contract as a young player who is likely to improve.  I would like to re-sign him because I am thinking beyond next season.

If you feel that way, why not just go for the sign & trade straight away?

[PhoSita]

But if the difference between keeping Bradley and plugging in one of those guys is 4-5 million a year, and a contract that is 2-3 years longer, is it worth it?

I think Bradley has trade value on his next contract as a young player who is likely to improve.  I would like to re-sign him because I am thinking beyond next season.

That's where we differ, then.

I said it after the trade deadline -- in the current CBA climate, it doesn't make sense to sign a role player to a deal longer than 1-2 years for greater than MLE money unless you plan to keep them for the length of the contract. 

I'm not confident that Avery would have much trade value with an annual salary at 6-7+.  That would be fine if I saw him as a keeper, long-term starting SG, but I don't.


Perhaps we'll get Exum, Smart, or some other shooting guard in the draft and this conversation will be moot, anyhow.

[BballTim]

Henderson is the best comp I've seen.  He's also fairly injury prone, and has a suspect outside shot.  Henderson is significantly bigger than Bradley, however.

Are you so fixated on size that you would like Bradley better if you could add three inches of height at the cost of decreased production on the floor?

Yes, because size matters in the NBA.  If Bradley were 6'5'' he would have an easier time covering bigger 2s and switching onto 3s.  He doesn't have nearly the versatility that Tony Allen does defensively because of his lack of size.  Bradley's lack of size also makes him more likely to break down so long as he's playing on the wing against generally larger players.

  Size matters in the nba, but it obviously doesn't matter more than production. Bass might be better if he was taller, but he wouldn't be better if he was taller but less productive. AB doesn't defend like TA but when he's healthy he's one of the better defensive shooting guards in the league. Again, in that regard, taller players that don't defend as well as Bradley aren't inherently better.

[PhoSita]

  Size matters in the nba, but it obviously doesn't matter more than production.

You're absolutely right.  Size alone doesn't have inherent value, but my feeling is that Bradley would be a more effective, more durable player if he were a few inches taller.  That would make me feel better about investing in him.

Regardless of Avery's height, though, I stand by everything else I've said.  Avery is not a can't-miss player, and he's not even the sort of role player I especially value at his position.  The Celtics can find somebody else to put in that spot without locking up a significant amount of money long term.

[mgent]

Henderson is the best comp I've seen.  He's also fairly injury prone, and has a suspect outside shot.  Henderson is significantly bigger than Bradley, however.

Are you so fixated on size that you would like Bradley better if you could add three inches of height at the cost of decreased production on the floor?

Yes, because size matters in the NBA.  If Bradley were 6'5'' he would have an easier time covering bigger 2s and switching onto 3s.  He doesn't have nearly the versatility that Tony Allen does defensively because of his lack of size.  Bradley's lack of size also makes him more likely to break down so long as he's playing on the wing against generally larger players.

Ideally, Bradley could spent time at the point coming off the bench, but we know that's just not his skillset.



I look around the league and I see a lot of decent guys you could plug in at the SG position for less than 6 per year, and probably for fewer than 3 years.  Why over-extend just to keep Bradley?

Here's what I mean --

Belinelli - 2.75
Gerald Green - 2.5
Meeks - 1.5
Carter - 1.5
Lee - 5
Morrow - 1

Korver makes 6.7, but he's perhaps the best outside shooter in the game, and he can play both wing positions.

This is absolutely ridiculous.  Lack of size can be overcome, lack of production can not.  I would never sacrifice some of the skill or talent of a Leon Powe just for an extra 3 inches.  He simply didn't need to be the same size as everyone else, it didn't stop him from stealing all those rebounds.

It should go without saying that the difference between Tony Allen and Avery Bradley goes much deeper than 3 inches.  Tony is just so ridiculously better at fighting through screens, not fouling, and has spent much more time in the weight room to only name a few.  Bradley would not magically become as versatile as Tony Allen if he gained a couple inches.  Believe it or not it's actually extremely rare for a player to be able to guard SFs and PGs like that.

[PhoSita]

This is absolutely ridiculous.  Lack of size can be overcome, lack of production can not.  I would never sacrifice some of the skill or talent of a Leon Powe just for an extra 3 inches.  He simply didn't need to be the same size as everyone else, it didn't stop him from stealing all those rebounds.

I don't see what's ridiculous about saying that Bradley would be capable of doing a lot more if he were a few inches taller.

If Brandon Bass or Glen Davis were 4 inches taller, they'd be All-Stars.

Bradley would be a better bet to stay healthy and / or improve his game if he were bigger, simply because it would allow him to do more without taking as much of a beating.

[vjcsmoke]

I'd offer him 2 years/11m.  Kind of a prove it short term deal.  If he plays well and stays healthy, he boosts his value and can become a free agent in just 2 years and look for the big $$.  But right now he has barely been on the court.  Hasn't proved enough to me for a long term deal.

[crimson_stallion]

Not sure folks here really understand what the market comps are for a player like Bradley.

I would not be surprised if he gets an offer north of 7M per.  As Crimson points out, that's kind of the going rate for that kind of player.

Can you provide some examples?

Marcus Thornton got $8 million per a few years back, but that was a deal from the previous CBA.  I'm pretty sure that players like AB (tweener guard, significant injury history, spotty track record as a scorer, not a playmaker) are not commanding big salary these days.

In any case, I'd rather roll with Johnson at SG for next season than pay Avery more than the Full MLE.  We could probably keep Bayless for half the MLE (2.5 per), and while he's not the defender Avery is, he's a better playmaker, and comparable offensively.

On the other hand, you do have to pay somebody.

The Sixers beg to differ.  No sense in paying somebody just to pay somebody.

My feeling with Avery is he is thoroughly replaceable.  Unless securing him is the finishing touch on the rebuild, I don't really see the sense in it.  I'm not confident that he would be easily moved if he were making over 5 million a season.

Ok, in that case please name me 5 guards in this league who:

1) Average over 16 points per 36 minutes
2) Shoot around 45% from the field
3) Shoot approx 35% from three
4) Shoot Approx 75% from the line
5) Average over 16 points per 36 minutes
6) Have made an All-Defensive team
7) Are above average athletes
Have good work ethic, a great motor and are highly coachable
9) Make less than $6M / year (while not on a rookie deal)

I get the feeling I will be waiting a long time for that list...

[crimson_stallion]

Not sure folks here really understand what the market comps are for a player like Bradley.

I would not be surprised if he gets an offer north of 7M per.  As Crimson points out, that's kind of the going rate for that kind of player.

Can you provide some examples?

If you are looking at shooting guards who got contracts last off-season:
Kevin Martin - 4 years (including player option), starting at $6.5m
Monta Ellis - 3 years (including player option), starting at $8m
Gerald Henderson - 3 years (including player option), starting at $6m

I know some people disagree with me, but I would rather have Avery Bradley starting at SG rather than Henderson.  It's more controversial that I would take Bradley over Ellis.  A lot of people here who think Martin is better than Bradley would probably prefer Bradley because he is younger with upside (and I think you are just flat-out wrong and almost not worth debating with if you think that Bradley has plateaued and there is no way he gets better).

Henderson was also a restricted free agent supposedly looking for more and reportedly gave up a million per year to get that third year to be a player option.

I think the options regarding Bradley look something this:
lowball fully guaranteed four-year deal
four years for more money, but the fourth year guaranteed for no more than $1m (or a team option)
three years
three years for more money with a team option for the third year
three years for less money with a player option for the third year

I think the monta ellis and  kevin martin comps are ridculous. Those guys are proven nba players ho have pretty much been the best players on their respectiv teams for consecutive years with much less injury history.

Its undeterminable if Bradley is a bust yet or not.

Has he had one healthy season? Do you not think this is much of a factor?

I think this season alone brought his stock way down.

Comps that ive seen closer to him would be Tony Allen.

Kevin Martin and Monta Ellis have both spent their careers being the 'best player' on a lot of really terrible teams.  They are also just as much a liability on defense as they are productive on offense.

They are also both getting up around the 30 year old mark, meaning any contract they get signed to will always factor in the decline that is almost certain to come in the near future.

Lets compare stats

Monta Ellis in his past three seasons has averaged:
*  17.6, 18.5 and 18.4 points per 36 minutes
* 43%, 42% and 45% shooting from the field
* 27%, 29% and 31% from three
* 76%, 77% and 79% on free throws

Gerald Henderson has averaged:
* 16.3, 17.8 and 16.1 Points Per 36
* 46%, 45% and 45% FG
* 23%, 33% and 33% 3PT
* 76%, 82% and 76% FT

Kevin Martin has averaged:
* 19.4, 18.2 and 21.7 PP36
* 41%, 45% and 43% FG
* 35%, 43% and 39% 3P
* 89%, 89% and 89% FT

Avery Bradley this season is averaging:
* 16.7 Points Per 36
* 43% FG
* 35% 3PT
* 76% FT

Avery Bradley's offensive production (if you factor in both scoring and efficiency) is pretty much up there with Monta Ellis and Gerald Henderson.  He has been a FAR better offensive player then Celtics Bloggers give him credit for - no surprise given that CB fans always seem to either dramatically overrate or dramatically underrate players on Boston rosters.

Kevin Martin's offensive numbers have been the best of that three and a legit step above that of Bradley.

Looking at those stats above you now need to factor in the fact that not one of those three guys is considered an above average defender - Martin and Ellis are actually a liability on defense.  Bradley is a former All-Defense selection and probably one of the top 3-5 perimeter defenders in the entire league. 

Martin and Ellis are also both up around their 30's so they have zero upside - potential suitors know exactly what they are getting, there are no surprises.  If you have two identical players but one is 30 and the other 23, then of course the younger player will always have higher value due to percieved potential/upside.

I can tell you right now, if you think Bradley is worth less than $5M a year you are dreaming.  Bradley was made a starter on this team because our team was better with him on the court than it was with Ray Allen (one of the greatest shooters of all time) on the court.  Ray Allen at that time was a better offensive player than Henderson, Ellis or Martin.  Why was the team better with Bradley out there?  Because of his defense.

You all sit here dreaming of letting Avery Bradley go and picking up and far superior replacement on a bargain contract...it's not going to happen.  If you want to replace Bradley with a player who is better right now than he is, then you're going to need to spend upwards of $10M for that privelage.

If you want to replace Bradley with a guy on a <$5M contract who has SOME chance of being better right now, then you had better pray to the lord that the lottery balls fall in your favour and you manage to score Exum or Smart with a top 5 pick...because that's the only way you are going to get a player close to Bradley's level on a $5M budget.  Even then there's to guarantees that either of those two guys will turn out better than Bradley.

Basically you all want AB gone, but if he does go you will all be complaining forever once his (either far inferior, or drastically more expensive) replacement comes in to town.

AB is one of the hardest working players I've ever seen on this team.  He is a guy who plays with 150% effort every single night, and I can't think of a single guy outside of KG that plays harder than he does every single game and never quits on a play.  He's an elite perimeter defender who can (and has) win games with his defense and hustle alone.  He's developed into an above average scorer who can put points on the board when asked to, and can do so at a relatively efficient rate.  He is a poor passer, but rarely turns the ball over (1.8 turnovers per 36 minutes).

These are the types of players most coaches would dream of having on their team, and looking at both his age and his rate of development on offense, he is only going to get better.

My prediction is that one of three things will happen this offseason:
1) Danny will draft Exum
2) Danny will draft Smart
3) Danny will re-sign Bradley

Why?  Because he knows that if neither 1 nor 2 are possible, he will not find a better player on his budget.

Why did I leave Wiggins off this list?  Firstly because we probably have a slim chance of getting him, secondly because I personally think that if Danny DID score Wiggins, he would be trading Green rather than putting Wiggins at the SG spot.   A defensive rotation of Rondo, Bradley and Wiggins would be absolutely phenomenal.