Apparently Bradley is not good enough...

[TheSundanceKid]

Quick update, in the small forward list we are listed as needing a backup but not a starter. Whilst I agree, the logic doesn't follow from the shooting guard list. If Crowder is considered a starter so should Bradley. Both would be complementary players on a championship team, 3+D type players

[crimson_stallion]

Bradley is not good enough.  He is best suited for the 6th man role.

I don't think he is at all suited for a 6th man role at all, since he is very strict "SG" and can't really play other positions. 

In order to get enough minutes off the bench, I find sixth man guys are usually guys who are versatile enough to play multiple positions.  Turner is a perfect example, as his ability to play PG / SG / SF allows him to get starter like minutes despite coming off the bench.

Bradley isn't that type of guy.  He's a strict shooting guard with a very focussed skill set as a scorer/shooter and defender.  Yet he does those two important things well enough that he can be on the court 25-30 minutes a night, and I think that makes qualifies him for a stating role.

The whole argument that he's not starting calibre is a crock of poop IMHO.  You don't have to be a star to be a starter.  You just need to do what you do well, and do contribute on a nightly basis in a way that greatly helps your other starters.  Bradley brings consistent effort every night on both ends, he contributes on D at a consistently high level, and his offense is good enough for him to be a 3rd scoring option who can light it up from time to time when the first couple of guys are struggling. 

I don't see how he is any less starting calibre then somebody like Andrew Bogut, JJ Reddick, Timofey Mosgov/Tristan Thompson, etc.  Even the top 5 teams in the NBA had starters who are not stars, but they are still good enough to start on contenders and so they are obviously starting calibre players. Bradley is as good as those guys, so IMHO he's starting calibre too. 

[trickybilly]

Is turner in the running for 6th man of the year? Or is that mental? JCraw I guess..

[Moranis]

So the top five players on the list are on teams who are all on the list; does this mean that those particular teams need a SG because their players are about to hit FA?

If so, that whittles the teams who have a SG under contract, but who isn't 'good enough' down to just a few teams. This I don't agree with. Bradley is at least average and actually proves his worth more on a good team than a bad one since he can adjust his game around other ball dominant players. When you also consider his defense, it makes the article a bit perplexing.

Yeah they include those teams on the list because in the event that their player leaves they would be in need. So I guess technically they are in need until they re-sign the player.

He seems fine to me.

Bradley isn't a superstar but he worked out nicely for being the 19th overall pick. He's signed to a very reasonable contract, plays good defense and has made himself into a respectable offensive weapon. Seriously, what more could someone want or reasonably expect?

Now if the Cs happen to draft a potential superstar as SG this offseason, or a great FA falls into their  lap then I'm all for upgrading. But if they don't I'm more than comfortable continuing to stick with Bradley.

All of what you say about Bradley is true, but that doesn't make him a championship level starting SG (unless the other positions include multiple HOF type players - I mean he would be fine starting on the Cavs for example).  He is on a reasonable contract and has more than lived up to his draft position, but that doesn't mean he should be the starting SG on Boston.  He shouldn't.  He should be the 6th man. 

Well what you say is confusing. He's not a starting SG on a championship team...unless he has other championship level players on the team? Are you saying he's not a number 1 option on a championship team? You'll find no argument here!
Bruce Bowen was a starting SG, Perkins was a starting C, DeShawn Stevenson started for the Mavs title run.

It's stating the obvious that you need some top level players on a team to win a championship. That doesn't make Bradley inadequate for starting

Well pretty much anyone can start on a title team if the other players are good enough.  Bradley isn't quite in that category, but he isn't a guy you would just pencil in as a starter on a title team.   He is like Ron Harper on the Bulls or more recently a guy like Mario Chalmers on the Heat (Bradley is better than Chalmers, but that type of player).  Good quality player, does some nice things but easily upgradeable and probably better suited for the bench. 

Put this way, how many players are better than Bradley on the Warriors, Spurs, Cavs, and Thunder.  Heck how many players are better than Bradley on the Raptors or Clippers?  Most of those teams Bradley wouldn't even crack the top 5.

I think a lot of the players who look so good on those teams, do so because they're surrounded by so much Talent. Even so, I only really agree in terms of Golden State. Every other team has a starter I like less than Bradley.

I'd take Bradley over Danny Green in a heartbeat this year.
I'd take him over JR smith or anyone else the Cavs would start at SG
Jeff Green?
Andre Roberson?

It's very possible to contend with a worse Wing player starting than Bradley.

Edit: If it's about the skill set, I want a 6th man to be a dynamic scorer and preferably a ball handler, Bradley is neither.

I didn't limit it to starters.