Avery Bradley & Celtics Agree to 4-year, $32 million contract

[Jailan34]

Wow, overpaying for n injury prone undersized guard that doesn't rebound, pass or handle the ball well for his position. I wanted to keep Avery, but 6 million was a fair offer IMO. He got his contract, I hope to see a great deal of improvement in other areas besides shooting.

Couldn't you have also described Ray Allen like this during his career? With the exception Ray was 6'5 Avery 6'2, not saying Avery is Ray...but

I don't know about Ray's time in Seattle but in the 6 years he was in Boston, he stayed fairly healthy and didn't really miss any time at all.

The only exception was that final season in 2011-12 because of the bone spurs in his ankles.

Not only was Ray Allen the better shooter, he has the height advantage and was and still is a proven guy when the game was on the line.

[saltlover]

I'm not surprised by the reaction of most fans here, thinking this is an overpay, but I don't agree.  Shaun Livingston got $5.5 mil a year.  He's a guard who's 10-49 from 3 over his 10 year career, has more injury trouble than Bradley, is 29, and plays worse defense.  He's a better ballhandler, and that's it.  Jodie Meeks got $6.7 million per year.  His offense might be slightly better, but only because he's a better finisher at the rim and takes most of his shots there.  They're about equal from 3, and Bradley is much more proficient on mid-range jumpers.  Bradley's defense is better.

Anyway, those were the first two guard contracts of free agency -- it was pretty clear that the rumors of Bradley's range of $7-9 million was correct, and $7 million was likely very conservative.  Wait for Gordon Hayward to get $12-13 million per year, or Isaiah Thomas to get at least as much as AB, and we can talk about how overpaid Bradley is.

[DraftSmart33]

We started to see why he was ranked similarly to John Wall in high school. He's finally developing deeper jumpers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3J16jtTxUU

He's greatly improved.

His shot chart from 2012-2013:



His shot chart from 2013-2014:

TP.  Great contribution to the discussion.

[TheBig3]

I don't understand why we made him become a RFA if we were going to outbid the market anyway. Defeats the whole purpose of making someone a RFA. This puzzles me to no end.

If another team was dumb enough to offer him a contract like this, let him walk. Otherwise, you'll sign him for cheaper. How is this so difficult, DA? I'm really starting to have my doubts with Danny incessantly overpaying role players, i.e. Bass, Green, and now Bradley.

Doing stuff stupid like this is how you get mired in mediocrity and become a treadmill team like the Hawks.

We offered him 24 mil he turned that down, so you let him become a RFA and watch what kind of money is being thrown around then make the offer.

from hoops rumors:

Executives who spoke recently to Chris Mannix of SI.com believed Bradley would end up with annual salaries between $7MM and $9MM.

So we paid in the ball park....I don't believe you were going to get anything of quality for 6 mil or less...

[oldtype]

This is really hard to swallow though. I thought rule 1 in the new CBA was to not create unmovable contracts.

This contract is now unmovable.

[chambers]

This is really hard to swallow though. I thought rule 1 in the new CBA was to not create unmovable contracts.

This contract is now unmovable.

I think we've overpaid, but if teams are willing to take Jodie Meeks for 6.5 million then moving Avery locked in for 3 or 4 years at 8 million shouldn't be too hard. If he didn't have the injury history he'd be worth this much, I'm just amazed that no one signed an offer sheet and we still gave him this much.

Anyway, I gotta politely disagree that the contract is 'unmovable'.

[bhbf08]

This is really hard to swallow though. I thought rule 1 in the new CBA was to not create unmovable contracts.

This contract is now unmovable.

If you are signing a good player who you have in your plans, then the point is not to sign a moveable contract.  If you just want to sign and move him, then what's the point?  We could find someone cheaper, but they won't play defense like Avery.  He has gotten better every single year.  A slight increase this year and he's well worth what he just got paid. 

[boscel33]

too much to pay for him.  besides, he's not a rim protector.  why isn't that priority #1?

[sed522002]

Jay King ?@ByJayKing 
One league source on whether another team might have offered more than $8 million per year to Bradley: "Not a chance in hell."

[BudweiserCeltic]

Jay King @ByJayKing 
One league source on whether another team might have offered more than $8 million per year to Bradley: "Not a chance in hell."

LOL, Jay King doesn't have any "league" sources.

[hwangjini_1]

actually, this may help explain the overpay for bradley, at least a little...

Zach Lowe @ZachLowe_NBAFollow
Teams are paranoid about the glut of cap space around the league, and fearful of waiting for other teams to strike out on bigger FAs.

plus, jodie meeks just got an offer of $6,500,000 i think. jodie meeks!! ainge may be responding to a new market, wherein teams have a lot of cap space and will use it on middling players.

[zerophase]

Good signing... fair contract. People forget that Rondo's contract is essential a heist right now. AB got the market value of his abilities, especially when you think about the long history of terrible contracts in the NBA.

[Jailan34]

This is really hard to swallow though. I thought rule 1 in the new CBA was to not create unmovable contracts.

This contract is now unmovable.

If you are signing a good player who you have in your plans, then the point is not to sign a moveable contract.  If you just want to sign and move him, then what's the point?  We could find someone cheaper, but they won't play defense like Avery.  He has gotten better every single year.  A slight increase this year and he's well worth what he just got paid. 

You're stretching yourself pretty thin to agree with whatever Ainge does if you truly believe this. It's always to your benefit to leave yourself as many options as possible to make the correct decision and not be forced one way or the other. That being said, this isn't an unmoveable contract. Just another disappointing overpayed role player signed by Ainge.

[saltlover]

This is really hard to swallow though. I thought rule 1 in the new CBA was to not create unmovable contracts.

This contract is now unmovable.

No.  Rule #1 is that you can't get three max contracts using cap room.  That's what the CBA did.  It was designed to keep stars from conglomerating, which is what we're seeing this offseason, as Melo can't team up in South Beach, and Houston is going to have a costly time adding him to their duo.

This actually pushes money towards the 3rd-5th players on the roster, which is what Bradley is.  His contract is only "unmovable" if his production nosedives, which is true with most any contract, be it a rookie deal or one for a mutliple-time All-Star.

The Celtics are always going to be a team near the luxury tax line, sometimes above, sometimes below.  Bradley's deal is about 10% of the luxury tax -- he's not clogging up any flexibility.

[zerophase]

Wow, overpaying for n injury prone undersized guard that doesn't rebound, pass or handle the ball well for his position. I wanted to keep Avery, but 6 million was a fair offer IMO. He got his contract, I hope to see a great deal of improvement in other areas besides shooting.

Couldn't you have also described Ray Allen like this during his career? With the exception Ray was 6'5 Avery 6'2, not saying Avery is Ray...but

I don't know about Ray's time in Seattle but in the 6 years he was in Boston, he stayed fairly healthy and didn't really miss any time at all.

The only exception was that final season in 2011-12 because of the bone spurs in his ankles.

Not only was Ray Allen the better shooter, he has the height advantage and was and still is a proven guy when the game was on the line.

..except Ray Allen played no defense and went on month long cold spells..