Report: C's unlikely to return to 4-year, $24mill deal for Bradley

[PhoSita]

Good.  I'd be happy with Avery returning for annual value below $5 million.

4 years / $18 million would be a decent deal, I think.

[wdleehi]

I think I am in the minority here, but if DA can bring back Bradley for 4/24 it is a no brainier. That isn't suffocating money and he still has upside and trade value. We need more talent on this squad - not less - so I hope to see him stay.

In a vacuum, such a deal is not a suffocating deal.  But when added up with other role players making this and more for the Celtics (Green, Bass, Wallace) it starts choking the cap. 



Other teams are facing the same issue. 

[clover]

I think I am in the minority here, but if DA can bring back Bradley for 4/24 it is a no brainier. That isn't suffocating money and he still has upside and trade value. We need more talent on this squad - not less - so I hope to see him stay.

I'm not sure how Bradley has much trade value at whatever Danny might resign him for, considering that a team could simply make a greater offer this offseason.

[mgent]

...  I can't say I was overwhelmed with Bradley's performance last year, but he's a 23 year old kid that's increased his scoring average every year, has been one of the best defensive guards in the league, and who hit 40% of his three pointers last year.  He also seems like a good kid, who doesn't get himself in trouble off the court and who seemed to respond well to coaching.

He's got flaws, notable the injuries.  He looked to be jacking some shots last year, but it's hard to know if that was something he was forcing or something the coaching staff wanted him to do (he was one of the C's best offensive players). 

But, if you think you're getting this kid for 3/$12....  forget about that.  Too young, too talented, too much upside.  He'd fit on a young team like the C's looking to rebuild, or as a bulldog defensive combo guard for contenders.  If he'd sign a 3/$12M deal, you'd sign him to that in a cocaine heartbeat, but that's irrelevant because that's not happening.  The question is whether Danny wants to match when the offers start coming in at the full MLE or above.

What team is offering that type of money?

Let me hit my Rolodex and I'll let you know.

I don't see any reason that AB would only get about half of Tony Allen's contract (TA was what, 4/$20?).  TA's more valuable defensively because he's bigger and can match up against more players, but he's also eight years older, has no real "upside" at this point, has had his own injury issues over the years...  and shot 12% and 23% from deep these past two years.  AB's a flawed player, but AB >>> TA offensively.

And...  pretty much any team in the league can use a player like AB, either in a starting role like for the C's last year, or as a third guard who can be a game-changer defensively.

3/$12 is a pipe dream.

Don't forget TA had to slog through a few contracts at about $3M per year before he got this latest pay day . .. which was years in the making. He may have a $20M deal now, but his career earnings to date after 10 years are only $23M. Young dudes have to pay their dues . .. Perk's 2nd contract was a reasonable 4 years / $16M. TA's was much smaller. . .maybe a 1 or 2 year deal at $2.5M per w/ the Celtics.

Avery is nearly on the level with TA defensively, but much slighter. TA is a true stud on D. Avery's offense has gaping holes, but is crafty with the cuts (like TA) and much better mid and longer range shots. Give him the nod there. Both cannot handle the ball at all. I think the $4M per year rate for 2-4 years is where Avery should go at this point given development to date and injury history. Once he shows more, he'll get paid for it. No question.

How do you figure?  Young players are the ONLY players who are paid before they pay their dues/reach their potential.

TA only couldn't get a contract because he had bad luck with injuries every year.  We HAD to give Perk 4mil to keep him because of his size.

[LooseCannon]

I suspect that Ainge would match a full MLE contract, but his goal is to try to get Bradley on something shorter than four years or with the fourth year unguaranteed.  If I were Ainge, I would consider overpaying a bit to get the final year unguaranteed or mostly unguaranteed.

Bradley's next contract should be based on the premise that he can raise his 3P% to 41-42% and add 1-3 ppg.

[D.o.s.]

I suspect that Ainge would match a full MLE contract, but his goal is to try to get Bradley on something shorter than four years or with the fourth year unguaranteed.  If I were Ainge, I would consider overpaying a bit to get the final year unguaranteed or mostly unguaranteed.

Bradley's next contract should be based on the premise that he can raise his 3P% to 41-42% and add 1-3 ppg.

And that he'll only play about 50-60 games before his next surgery. I figure 4 years $18/m with the last year unguaranteed (plus health incentives) will work for the C's front office, and that other teams won't pay Bradley much more than that.

[PhoSita]

I think I am in the minority here, but if DA can bring back Bradley for 4/24 it is a no brainier. That isn't suffocating money and he still has upside and trade value. We need more talent on this squad - not less - so I hope to see him stay.

In a vacuum, such a deal is not a suffocating deal.  But when added up with other role players making this and more for the Celtics (Green, Bass, Wallace) it starts choking the cap. 



Other teams are facing the same issue.

Yeah.  Zach Lowe's article about the value of middle-class players is well taken, but I think that teams are realizing that it's best to get your 2-4 key guys in place and figure out how much of the cap they're going to occupy, then determine the best way to allocate the rest.  You don't want to be in a position where you can't acquire core talent, or hold onto the core talent you have, because you've committed to a handful of middle of the road players. 

Once upon a time, moving those players wasn't so hard because there were often playoff teams willing to take on some extra salary and pay luxury tax in order to "go for it."  Far fewer teams are willing to go above the luxury tax just to add a role player, these days.  So now, if you commit more than a few million a season to a role player, you should assume that he's sticking around for the duration of the contract.

[D.o.s.]

I think I am in the minority here, but if DA can bring back Bradley for 4/24 it is a no brainier. That isn't suffocating money and he still has upside and trade value. We need more talent on this squad - not less - so I hope to see him stay.

In a vacuum, such a deal is not a suffocating deal.  But when added up with other role players making this and more for the Celtics (Green, Bass, Wallace) it starts choking the cap. 



Other teams are facing the same issue.

Yeah.  Zach Lowe's article about the value of middle-class players is well taken, but I think that teams are realizing that it's best to get your 2-4 key guys in place and figure out how much of the cap they're going to occupy, then determine the best way to allocate the rest.  You don't want to be in a position where you can't acquire core talent, or hold onto the core talent you have, because you've committed to a handful of middle of the road players. 

Once upon a time, moving those players wasn't so hard because there were often playoff teams willing to take on some extra salary and pay luxury tax in order to "go for it."  Far fewer teams are willing to go above the luxury tax just to add a role player, these days.  So now, if you commit more than a few million a season to a role player, you should assume that he's sticking around for the duration of the contract.

Excellent point here.

[mgent]

I believe when TA left he took a 3 year, 9 million dollar deal. Lets call that for what it was...a mistake

well, they did make the finals after allen left, with legitimate shots at winning another title. so i'll say ainge just had a different vision than you.

I felt they should have kept him but it made me think they had faith in AB filling that tony allen role.

What's your point?  We almost won a title without him, but Ainge's flawless vision saw that Tony would have provided absolutely nothing vs. LeBron and Wade either year in place of Dooling/Pietrus (2012) and Delonte West (2011), so good thing Ainge didn't waste that extra one year and 3 million dollars on him?

I don't see how, in the hindsight of giving up that cap space to resign the Big 3 anyway, that Ainge wouldn't call that a mistake (regardless of the fact that he became twice the player he was).

[Mr October]

I think I am in the minority here, but if DA can bring back Bradley for 4/24 it is a no brainier. That isn't suffocating money and he still has upside and trade value. We need more talent on this squad - not less - so I hope to see him stay.

In a vacuum, such a deal is not a suffocating deal.  But when added up with other role players making this and more for the Celtics (Green, Bass, Wallace) it starts choking the cap. 



Other teams are facing the same issue.

Yeah. If Bradley signs for 6 million per year, and rondo extends for 15 million per year, and the C's are paying about 5 million or so to this summer's rookies, the Celtics lose the ability to offer a max contract to a free agent in 2015. They would only be able to offer a deal starting around 15 million per year or less. An established big star is not coming here for that kind of money. Suddenly a slight over pay to Bradley or Rondo becomes a problem.

As with all our speculating, let's see what happens in the draft first. If the Celtics get Wiggins for example, Bradley's value to the team drops a ton.

Right now i see trying to keep Bradley in the 16-18 range over 4 years. Right now i have reservations going any higher than that.

[LooseCannon]

Yeah. If Bradley signs for 6 million per year, and rondo extends for 15 million per year, and the C's are paying about 5 million or so to this summer's rookies, the Celtics lose the ability to offer a max contract to a free agent in 2015. They would only be able to offer a deal starting around 15 million per year or less. An established big star is not coming here for that kind of money. Suddenly a slight over pay to Bradley or Rondo becomes a problem.

I think the plan is to acquire via trade (including sign-and-trade) rather than free agency.  If a big name comes to the Celtics in the summer of 2015, it will probably involve trading the expiring contract of Gerald Wallace as part of the deal.

I'm interested in having Bradley sign a contract that expires after 2016-2017 (or effectively does so because 2017-2018 is unguaranteed) to preserve a salary slot that allows the flexibility for possible future trades.

[Eja117]

I think I am in the minority here, but if DA can bring back Bradley for 4/24 it is a no brainier. That isn't suffocating money and he still has upside and trade value. We need more talent on this squad - not less - so I hope to see him stay.

In a vacuum, such a deal is not a suffocating deal.  But when added up with other role players making this and more for the Celtics (Green, Bass, Wallace) it starts choking the cap. 



Other teams are facing the same issue.

Yeah. If Bradley signs for 6 million per year, and rondo extends for 15 million per year, and the C's are paying about 5 million or so to this summer's rookies, the Celtics lose the ability to offer a max contract to a free agent in 2015. They would only be able to offer a deal starting around 15 million per year or less. An established big star is not coming here for that kind of money. Suddenly a slight over pay to Bradley or Rondo becomes a problem.

As with all our speculating, let's see what happens in the draft first. If the Celtics get Wiggins for example, Bradley's value to the team drops a ton.

Right now i see trying to keep Bradley in the 16-18 range over 4 years. Right now i have reservations going any higher than that.

Right, but a big free agent doesn't come here without Rondo. You'd have to draft Exum or Smart and pray that they instantly become as good as Rondo. Good luck with that

[Mr October]

I think I am in the minority here, but if DA can bring back Bradley for 4/24 it is a no brainier. That isn't suffocating money and he still has upside and trade value. We need more talent on this squad - not less - so I hope to see him stay.

In a vacuum, such a deal is not a suffocating deal.  But when added up with other role players making this and more for the Celtics (Green, Bass, Wallace) it starts choking the cap. 



Other teams are facing the same issue.

Yeah. If Bradley signs for 6 million per year, and rondo extends for 15 million per year, and the C's are paying about 5 million or so to this summer's rookies, the Celtics lose the ability to offer a max contract to a free agent in 2015. They would only be able to offer a deal starting around 15 million per year or less. An established big star is not coming here for that kind of money. Suddenly a slight over pay to Bradley or Rondo becomes a problem.

As with all our speculating, let's see what happens in the draft first. If the Celtics get Wiggins for example, Bradley's value to the team drops a ton.

Right now i see trying to keep Bradley in the 16-18 range over 4 years. Right now i have reservations going any higher than that.

Right, but a big free agent doesn't come here without Rondo. You'd have to draft Exum or Smart and pray that they instantly become as good as Rondo. Good luck with that

Yup, an in his prime Rondo would be the number one draw for a free agent to come here (or a forced trade). That makes me more hesitant to resign Bradley. I want to remove middle class contracts in order to pay a Rondo and hopefully another star player a year or 2 from now.

Another scenario could involve the Celtics drafting a small forward like Parker or Gordon, and then trading Jeff Green away. Then there is money to keep Bradley if he requires a full 6 per year.

[Mr October]

Yeah. If Bradley signs for 6 million per year, and rondo extends for 15 million per year, and the C's are paying about 5 million or so to this summer's rookies, the Celtics lose the ability to offer a max contract to a free agent in 2015. They would only be able to offer a deal starting around 15 million per year or less. An established big star is not coming here for that kind of money. Suddenly a slight over pay to Bradley or Rondo becomes a problem.

I think the plan is to acquire via trade (including sign-and-trade) rather than free agency.  If a big name comes to the Celtics in the summer of 2015, it will probably involve trading the expiring contract of Gerald Wallace as part of the deal.

I'm interested in having Bradley sign a contract that expires after 2016-2017 (or effectively does so because 2017-2018 is unguaranteed) to preserve a salary slot that allows the flexibility for possible future trades.

If you want to make a trade, or sign and trade, Gerald Wallace hurts trade negotiations. No one wants to pay him 10 million dollars. Including him in a trade will cost the Celtics yet another draft pick.

I am very interested in flexibility right now, and acquiring assets to help land the next star. Having cap space helps you in free agency and in trades. I think Bradley at 6 million per year would not be a very tradable player, especially if he gets injured again.

So much depends on draft night. Who will the Celtics draft? Will they trade Rondo?

[KJ33]

I believe when TA left he took a 3 year, 9 million dollar deal. Lets call that for what it was...a mistake

well, they did make the finals after allen left, with legitimate shots at winning another title. so i'll say ainge just had a different vision than you.

I felt they should have kept him but it made me think they had faith in AB filling that tony allen role.

What's your point?  We almost won a title without him, but Ainge's flawless vision saw that Tony would have provided absolutely nothing vs. LeBron and Wade either year in place of Dooling/Pietrus (2012) and Delonte West (2011), so good thing Ainge didn't waste that extra one year and 3 million dollars on him?

I don't see how, in the hindsight of giving up that cap space to resign the Big 3 anyway, that Ainge wouldn't call that a mistake (regardless of the fact that he became twice the player he was).

In fact, Ainge has admitted that it indeed was a mistake.  In an interview he gave he was asked what regrets he might have had about the things he did in the Big 3 era and he immediately said he shouldn't have let Tony Allen leave.