Smart needs to go, if Hayward is coming

[Beat LA]

You had me at, "Smart needs to go," lol .

[ThePaintedArea]

Reason 1. He's best at point guard. Thomas and Fultz ahead of him on the depth chart, means extremely limiting Minutes for his best position in the floor.

Actually he plays almost all his minutes at one or the other of the wing positions. This allows Thomas to play off the ball; and Rozier is more effective mostly off the ball. Smart gets minutes with Bradley, too, though Avery generally takes the opponent pg on D.

Reason 3. He's a liability on offense. He still can't shoot and can't finish at the rim. This is unlikely to change.

He's a plus on both sides of the ball. Offense is more than shooting.

He had the fifth-most minutes, per game, on the team. He gets crunch-time minutes. Looks like Brad values him higher than the average poster here - the naysayers might take a step back and ask themselves why that is. 

Hate to rain on the parade but Hayward doesn't make sense to me.

[DarkAzcura]

Smart is a better defensive fit with Fultz and IT. Bradley is a better two way player and better offensive fit with Fultz and IT.

If we are running IT, Fultz, and Hayward out there, my initial thought is that we keep Smart because he is a better defensive fit, and his lacking offensive fit won't matter as much with guys like Fultz and Hayward on the roster. He's also younger and most likely much cheaper than Bradley in FA.

[gouki88]

Reason 1. He's best at point guard. Thomas and Fultz ahead of him on the depth chart, means extremely limiting Minutes for his best position in the floor.

Actually he plays almost all his minutes at one or the other of the wing positions. This allows Thomas to play off the ball; and Rozier is more effective mostly off the ball. Smart gets minutes with Bradley, too, though Avery generally takes the opponent pg on D.

Reason 3. He's a liability on offense. He still can't shoot and can't finish at the rim. This is unlikely to change.

He's a plus on both sides of the ball. Offense is more than shooting.

He had the fifth-most minutes, per game, on the team. He gets crunch-time minutes. Looks like Brad values him higher than the average poster here - the naysayers might take a step back and ask themselves why that is. 

Hate to rain on the parade but Hayward doesn't make sense to me.

Agree with all your points on Smart, especially regarding Brad valuing him much more than the average fan.

However, not sure how Hayward doesn't make sense to you. A very strong wing scorer who can shoot the ball and is a decent defender, who is just about to enter his prime and just had the best season of his career to date. Plus, he has a good relationship with Brad. Not sure what's not to like.

[Smartacus]

I'd hate to get rid of Smart. Crowder, I can see trading away to get someone of higher value (because his contract is so attractive). Bradley will eventually be too expensive for us to keep, particularly if we're going to pay IT something like 25-30M. I can see Smart getting paid around 10-12Mn? Which is going to be much cheaper than Bradley or once Crowder renews

That said, until we can get our main guys in line (e.g. Hayward or PG or whoever), the "others", as talking heads like to call them, won't matter as much. So even if Smart is my favorite player, I'd ship him out if he is the requirement to complete a trade for PG.

TP LilRip that's exactly how I read this.

Hehe I always feel I have to be careful defending Marcus Smart too much because of my forum handle but at the risk of being viewed as an MS apologist, this is just how I objectively view it....

Smart will command somewhere between $14-17 million and I could see him taking a bit of a hometown discount to stay in Boston.

Thankful for Avery's contribution but Dunc'd On said the other day the he expects Bradley to command $26 million per on his next deal which is just too much for our team.

If we lose Avery we then need to keep Marcus Smart. Also agree with the above post that bringing in Hayward means Crowder is the odd man out, which works out because he produces and has a top 3 contract in the league. Crowder can be realistically shipped to any of the teams that can put together a strong offer.

On top of all of that though, like Lilrip says I agree that if Smart is the lynchpin of any deal for a max guy then ship him out, I'll pack his bags myself. I just see him as more valuable to us than to other teams.

[ThePaintedArea]

Agree with all your points on Smart, especially regarding Brad valuing him much more than the average fan.

However, not sure how Hayward doesn't make sense to you. A very strong wing scorer who can shoot the ball and is a decent defender, who is just about to enter his prime and just had the best season of his career to date. Plus, he has a good relationship with Brad. Not sure what's not to like.

I agree with you about those points - he has a lot to offer. 

I'd sum it up slightly differently: Hayward creates shots, doesn't turn it over, gets to the line at a decent clip, and makes his shots - a True Shooting % of .595 is stellar.  He's a decent defender, as you say; the old NBA cliche applies: "he doesn't hurt you on defense", though he's not a stopper and not versatile. As a small-ball 4 he's a matchup problem, though you don't want him guarding bigger players for long stretches; and he's a mediocre defensive rebounder, which was a glaring weakness for Boston this past season - and he's especially poor if you play him as a big.

Here's the thing, though: Boston already has strength at the wings, and in particular a budding star in Jaylen Brown who has the makings of a big-time shot creator who gets to the line a lot - and has the tools and drive to be a stopper.

Crowder is not a star but he's the perfect complementary wing - and you HAVE to have complementary players.  A Big Three and D-Leaguers is not a recipe for success, especially for long-term success.  Jae's TSP% of .613 is even better than Hayward's; he is an excellent defender who can switch up or down; he's a significantly better defensive rebounder than Hayward, and he's on a great contract. Does that mean that he's better than Hayward? Good question, but it's true that Hayward has the rare ability to get the team shots, and that rare talent is absolutely essential in modern basketball.

I would agree that Boston needs a star, a shot creator, but they're better off getting a big who can create shots AND improve their defensive rebounding.

[ETNCeltics]

I would love to get Hayward, but it will severely hamper anything else we want to try to do. Signing Hayward, re-upping IT, and Horford's deal + rookies would be our core with very little flexibility to add much else.

Ultimately, I think we'll go into 2017 with the same team plus 2 or 3 rookies and a veteran big man,  and likely minus Avery Bradley. Beyond that, I think the road forks in several directions based mainly on IT's health, Brown/Fultz's development and how good the BRK 18 pick is.

[Roy H.]

I would love to get Hayward, but it will severely hamper anything else we want to try to do. Signing Hayward, re-upping IT, and Horford's deal + rookies would be our core with very little flexibility to add much else.

Ultimately, I think we'll go into 2017 with the same team plus 2 or 3 rookies and a veteran big man,  and likely minus Avery Bradley. Beyond that, I think the road forks in several directions based mainly on IT's health, Brown/Fultz's development and how good the BRK 18 pick is.

Isn't the real difference in those two scenarios just the ability to add guys via the MLE every season? With or without Hayward we have no real financial flexibility going forward. With him, though, we have a lot more talent.

Our choices are either build with a star, or build with role players.

[Evantime34]

With the team's luxury tax concerns in the future, we will need to save money. Keeping Smart rather than Bradley is going with the less expensive option, which I think makes the most sense long term.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

I would love to get Hayward, but it will severely hamper anything else we want to try to do. Signing Hayward, re-upping IT, and Horford's deal + rookies would be our core with very little flexibility to add much else.

Ultimately, I think we'll go into 2017 with the same team plus 2 or 3 rookies and a veteran big man,  and likely minus Avery Bradley. Beyond that, I think the road forks in several directions based mainly on IT's health, Brown/Fultz's development and how good the BRK 18 pick is.

Isn't the real difference in those two scenarios just the ability to add guys via the MLE every season? With or without Hayward we have no real financial flexibility going forward. With him, though, we have a lot more talent.

Our choices are either build with a star, or build with role players.

sounds like a no brainer to me

[loco_91]

AB is getting overpaid in UFA
Smart is getting underpaid in RFA
-->keep Smart trade Bradley

[Bobshot]

Doubt Smart is going anywhere. If anybody is traded, it will be Bradley.

Smart vs Hayward? Completely different players. Mutually exclusive, you might say. Smart is D and toughness. Hayward is scoring.

[gouki88]

Agree with all your points on Smart, especially regarding Brad valuing him much more than the average fan.

However, not sure how Hayward doesn't make sense to you. A very strong wing scorer who can shoot the ball and is a decent defender, who is just about to enter his prime and just had the best season of his career to date. Plus, he has a good relationship with Brad. Not sure what's not to like.

I agree with you about those points - he has a lot to offer. 

I'd sum it up slightly differently: Hayward creates shots, doesn't turn it over, gets to the line at a decent clip, and makes his shots - a True Shooting % of .595 is stellar.  He's a decent defender, as you say; the old NBA cliche applies: "he doesn't hurt you on defense", though he's not a stopper and not versatile. As a small-ball 4 he's a matchup problem, though you don't want him guarding bigger players for long stretches; and he's a mediocre defensive rebounder, which was a glaring weakness for Boston this past season - and he's especially poor if you play him as a big.

Here's the thing, though: Boston already has strength at the wings, and in particular a budding star in Jaylen Brown who has the makings of a big-time shot creator who gets to the line a lot - and has the tools and drive to be a stopper.

Crowder is not a star but he's the perfect complementary wing - and you HAVE to have complementary players.  A Big Three and D-Leaguers is not a recipe for success, especially for long-term success.  Jae's TSP% of .613 is even better than Hayward's; he is an excellent defender who can switch up or down; he's a significantly better defensive rebounder than Hayward, and he's on a great contract. Does that mean that he's better than Hayward? Good question, but it's true that Hayward has the rare ability to get the team shots, and that rare talent is absolutely essential in modern basketball.

I would agree that Boston needs a star, a shot creator, but they're better off getting a big who can create shots AND improve their defensive rebounding.

TP. Very solid response.

I happen to agree with you, a big who can create shots for himself would be far more desirable, and that Hayward would be quite a slight upgrade over Crowder - his offensive ability more than making up for Crowder being better on the defensive end.

However, the top free agent bigs are Paul Millsap and Blake Griffin, followed by Serge Ibaka. Millsap is a bit of a question mark because of his age, and whether or not he can keep producing at such a high level as he has been. Yet he would address our rebounding problem tremendously without us losing considerable floor spacing ability. Whether or not he's deserving of a max contract, which he is more than likely to be offered, is the key question.
Blake would be huge for us if it wasn't for the injury concerns - only playing 163 regular season games in the past 3 seasons is very hard to justify a max contract on.
And Serge Ibaka is simply inferior and probably a third option at best on a championship contender (although the last time he was considered that highly he was playing with KD and Westbrook).

I don't mind Boston not pursuing any max worthy free agents this offseason if DA is planning for something else, but I'd still like to see more star (or thereabouts) players in green 

[rochrist]

1. Fultz and Thomas can both play off-ball really well and Marcus is very versatile. He played a lot at the 1,2, and 3 and can credibly defend all 3 of those positions.

2.You can't equate paying smart to paying Bradley.

Marcus will be much cheaper.

3. Yeah he sucks on offense

 Smart will get 15 million per year. Now.

Yeah and Bradleys gonna get 25.

Bradley won't get 25. If he does, the GM that gave it to him should be fired on the spot.

[keevsnick]

Reason 1. He's best at point guard. Thomas and Fultz ahead of him on the depth chart, means extremely limiting Minutes for his best position in the floor.

Actually he plays almost all his minutes at one or the other of the wing positions. This allows Thomas to play off the ball; and Rozier is more effective mostly off the ball. Smart gets minutes with Bradley, too, though Avery generally takes the opponent pg on D.

Reason 3. He's a liability on offense. He still can't shoot and can't finish at the rim. This is unlikely to change.

He's a plus on both sides of the ball. Offense is more than shooting.

He had the fifth-most minutes, per game, on the team. He gets crunch-time minutes. Looks like Brad values him higher than the average poster here - the naysayers might take a step back and ask themselves why that is. 

Hate to rain on the parade but Hayward doesn't make sense to me.

He is not a plus on offense. Does that mean he's not valuable? No. But lets not get silly.