Do we pay Isaiah $20+million or let him walk in 2018?

[saltlover]

I think many of you are looking at this the wrong way.  It depends on two things: 1) how well IT plays the next two years, and 2) how well the team does.  If IT is a top 3 player on a team that wins 55-60 games in 2017 and/or 2018, and at least gets a couple of wins in the conference finals, you, to use his words, "back up the Brinks truck."  Even if IT is the best player on a team that wins 45-50, and makes it to the second round only once, you probably mutually move on, because you need to go a different direction.  Or, if IT really is only a bench player on a top team, then $20 million a year is too much, but $15ish million would be fine.

I happen to think the Celtics will be a top 5 team and that IT will be one of the 3 best players, so I think you pay him.  But time will tell.

[Eddie20]

If Smart/Rozier improve and take the starting job I think we will move on from IT. If we can add Westbrook I think IT is gone.

Don't rule out the Nets pick in 17. DExpress currently has PG's going 1 and 2. Dennis Smith looks especially nasty. Westrbrook/Rose type of crazy athleticism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW1CVy7Un1Y

Fultz is the guy Danny would prob want vs Smith

I like Smith a little more. Both are really talented, but Smith looks like he has the greater foot speed.

Fultz is a better defender , 6'4 plus long wingspan  (Smith does not) and better passer.    Smith  (6'1-6'2) is the more flashy, explosive of the two but Fultz can get to the basket and finish like a Shaun Livingstone. Good athlete, long

But we will see.  Either of these two plus Frank Ntilikina (Rondo like wingspan at 6'5) are considered top calibre pg (all top 5 type talents)

Smith has gotten a lot bigger too.In this video vs Oladipo you'll be hard pressed to find a difference in size:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG5Ib_98ozA

I'll be fine with either, but give the edge to Smith right now.

[Vermont Green]

Isaiah could be traded if that is what it takes to make a big deal like say Westbrook but no reason to trade him if the reason is what you might have to pay him in two years.  Now at the trade deadline 2018, that would be a time to assess where things stand in terms of a contract but not until then.  Who knows what kind of contract he will be in line for by the summer of 2018.  He is going to make nearly $13M between now and then (summer 2018).  I am so far from worrying about what he might make in 2018.

[LooseCannon]

I'll wait and re-evaluate at that time.  Hopefully, the roster is at the point where you should be overpaying a bit to retain talent because the team is capped out and the alternative is replacing him with a rookie or minimum-salary veteran.

It's not my money, so I hope the team is wiling to go deep into the luxury tax to keep IT if doing so makes a championship more likely.

[Tr1boy]

I think many of you are looking at this the wrong way.  It depends on two things: 1) how well IT plays the next two years, and 2) how well the team does.  If IT is a top 3 player on a team that wins 55-60 games in 2017 and/or 2018, and at least gets a couple of wins in the conference finals, you, to use his words, "back up the Brinks truck."  Even if IT is the best player on a team that wins 45-50, and makes it to the second round only once, you probably mutually move on, because you need to go a different direction.  Or, if IT really is only a bench player on a top team, then $20 million a year is too much, but $15ish million would be fine.

I happen to think the Celtics will be a top 5 team and that IT will be one of the 3 best players, so I think you pay him.  But time will tell.

Yes. I think getting past the 1st round would be big for IT and the Celts. Its a step fwd

Just a hypothetical situation IF we cant get past the 1st,  and on draft night we go with the BPA in the top 5 and one of Fultz, Smith or Ntilikina is available. 

The question also may not be to keep or trade IT but Smart instead.

[Tr1boy]

Best to trade IT also next offseason if you are planning to trade him

[Rosco917]

If IT is the starting PG past this year I'd be surprised. Due to his lack of size he is a defensive liability. He's best coming off the bench as a player giving the team shots of energy through out the game.. As a 6th. man he can extend his career, be very valuable on a contender, and still get paid.

4 years at 15 million sounds about right.

If IT insists on being a starting PG, and can't except being a 6th man, he is best being traded. 

[action781]

Likely depends on our cap situation at the time.  If we're up to the cap and a 50+ win team, then resigning him (thanks to bird rights) will be virtually a no brainer if he's good enough to command that kind of money elsewhere because if we let him walk, it wouldn't free us the opportunity to use that money elsewhere.

[Timdawgg]

As other people have said, lets see in 2 years, but knowing IT he will perform well as will the Celts so you have to pay him. No need to trade him, he has so much protection on d from all the other defensive guards/wings on this team (AB, Smart, Crowder) and we don't even know the kind of protection Horford will bring. It's also not like Thomas is a siv on d, he holds his own for his size. I think the only way he Doesnt get paid if the celts fail to get out of the first round in the next 2 seasons which is highly unlikely.

[alldaboston]

I still think Isaiah will take a 6th man role to win. With that 6th man role, he might take less. I'd keep him if he's a 6th man for us as he gets older, so we can develop a younger PG (whether that's Smart, Terry, or Smith/Fultz)

[BigDogPitbull]

It all depends in how well Smart and Rozier develop.  If they can score effectively and run the offense it's a no brainier.  Bye Thomas! 

[PhoSita]

I think many of you are looking at this the wrong way.  It depends on two things: 1) how well IT plays the next two years, and 2) how well the team does.  If IT is a top 3 player on a team that wins 55-60 games in 2017 and/or 2018, and at least gets a couple of wins in the conference finals, you, to use his words, "back up the Brinks truck."  Even if IT is the best player on a team that wins 45-50, and makes it to the second round only once, you probably mutually move on, because you need to go a different direction.  Or, if IT really is only a bench player on a top team, then $20 million a year is too much, but $15ish million would be fine.

I happen to think the Celtics will be a top 5 team and that IT will be one of the 3 best players, so I think you pay him.  But time will tell.

Thing is, you want to pay for expected future performance, not past performance.

[saltlover]

I think many of you are looking at this the wrong way.  It depends on two things: 1) how well IT plays the next two years, and 2) how well the team does.  If IT is a top 3 player on a team that wins 55-60 games in 2017 and/or 2018, and at least gets a couple of wins in the conference finals, you, to use his words, "back up the Brinks truck."  Even if IT is the best player on a team that wins 45-50, and makes it to the second round only once, you probably mutually move on, because you need to go a different direction.  Or, if IT really is only a bench player on a top team, then $20 million a year is too much, but $15ish million would be fine.

I happen to think the Celtics will be a top 5 team and that IT will be one of the 3 best players, so I think you pay him.  But time will tell.

Thing is, you want to pay for expected future performance, not past performance.

To a point, yes.  But my point is that, if at the age of 29 he is a top player on a top team, you keep him at pretty much any cost.  If at 29, he is either not a top player, or the team isn't good enough to tie up the money, then you don't.  Because if he's at that level of being a top 3 player on a title-contending team (not necessarily the title, but a team with a reasonable chance to make the finals and thus "contend"), then the odds of him having a sudden and steep decline are low enough to not outweigh the risks of losing a key component of such a team.  That doesn't mean the risk won't be there, but the risk of messing up the very good thing you've already got will be much greater.

[jambr380]

If he is still playing at the level he is now, then I am happy to take him on a decent-sized (but not max) contract. Otherwise, I see what we can get for him, Bradley, and the '17 BKN pick next off-season and try to sign one of the top free agents.

As others have said, we also need to see what Smart/Rozier are giving us and if they are ready to take on a bigger role.

I am just not crazy with paying $20M+ for Bradley and $30M+ for IT. That is how not to win a championship.

[loco_91]

Pay him. If we make a FA signing in 2017, we'll be over the cap anyway (unless we also let AB or Smart walk). He might not be "worth" $20m in some sense by the time he's 33, but (a) he'll be worth it for the first couple years of the contract, (b) he deserves it, and (c) the opportunity cost isn't that high when we're over the cap either way.

If I were Ainge I'd offer IT a 2+1 for the max. 2 years guaranteed at the full max, plus a team option. That's tough to turn down from IT's perspective, and from our perspective it means that his contract expires at the same time as Horford's, and we'll have flexibility.