Author Topic: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad  (Read 5764 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #60 on: December 20, 2012, 11:06:58 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26867
  • Tommy Points: 1994
When Jeff Green was on his little 5 to 6 game hot streak 10 days ago, this blog boomed with the "Green needs to start", "Time to sit Pierce", "Free Jeff Green" and al sorts of other ridiculous threads.

When I posted in those threads that Pierce was still, even at 35 years old a better all around player than Jeff Green, that Jeff Green was a passive player that would go through wild ups and downs in consistency and that Jeff Green was simply doing what Jeff Green does, which is play well for a few games and then disappear for a few, a lot of Jeff Green fans jumped all over me and some others who said the same thing.

But here we are after 25 games and Jeff Green is going through his normal roller coaster ride through the season. He started off slow and passive. He was a horrid rebounder who couldn't score and who's defense was just plain bad. Then the ball started dropping some, he played with confidence and played much better for a few games.

But that confidence breeds complacency in Jeff Green and now we see the result. Over his last five games he's been back to the passive, non-rebounding, poor shooting, bad defense Jeff Green. In that time he has shot 34% from the field, 30% from 3PT land, he didn't shoot more than one free throw in 4 of those 5 games and averaged just 8 PPG and 3 RPG in his usual 23 MPG.

$9 million a year, 4 year contracts are given out to performers that will give you a consistent, everyday, effort and production. That has never been Jeff Green's calling card. He's playing exactly like Jeff Green has always played. Its the reason OKC would give him the money he wanted and its why Danny Ainge should have given him a large, you have to earn it, one year deal and not the contract he got.

  And if Green said no, Danny should have let him walk?
Absolutely.

  So who's the backup sf, Joseph or Lee?
Honestly don't remember who was available. If the Celtics weren't committed to Jeff early on my guess is after solidifying the SG position after Ray left, back up SF would have been their next priority.

If you remember our cap position at the time it was either get jeff green with his rights or sign some minimum level floopsy. Pietrus wanted more than minimum level money. I would rather Jeff green than some flog that 29 other teams have rejected. This signing was the right move to try and be competitive at small forward this year.
I would rather have Marquis Daniels at next to nothing than Jeff Green at $9 million a year. Same minutes, almost same stats. $8.1 million a year less.
2015 CB HISTORICAL DRAFT: COMING THIS OCTOBER
FORMAT:
3 players from 1960-73
3 players from 1974-86
3 players from 1987-00
3 players from 2001-Pres
1 player from any era

Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #61 on: December 20, 2012, 11:25:33 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11935
  • Tommy Points: 1139
Being over the luxury tax threshold also stops Boston from being able to make sign and trades. That new rule comes into force next summer.

Can't be over the apron after the trade. There's plenty of room still for a sign and trade to be made as it stands. So it's not about being tax payers, but being 4 million above the tax line, since otherwise it would be a circumvention of the hard cap they have set in place.

Quote
No sign and trades + mini-MLE = Minimal opportunities to upgrade team via Free Agency

I think there's still an opportunity we have the Full MLE next year. We'll have to see how the luxury tax line plays out next season.

That said, at the very least, Jeff Green is valued as an MLE player so for all intents and purposes, he's the would be MLE acquisition.

He's still young, and a very tradeable contract with some heft, something that is always needed to facilitate big trades when needed.

The "minimal" opportunities to upgrade the team next year and on I think are very much worth the risk, particularly when considering this year's championship aspirations, and as it is, I'm not sure we're not in a better position right now, with more assets in place, to do a better job upgrading.

Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #62 on: December 21, 2012, 05:12:20 AM »

Offline Galeto

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1263
  • Tommy Points: 71
Being over the luxury tax threshold also stops Boston from being able to make sign and trades. That new rule comes into force next summer.

Can't be over the apron after the trade. There's plenty of room still for a sign and trade to be made as it stands. So it's not about being tax payers, but being 4 million above the tax line, since otherwise it would be a circumvention of the hard cap they have set in place.

Quote
No sign and trades + mini-MLE = Minimal opportunities to upgrade team via Free Agency

I think there's still an opportunity we have the Full MLE next year. We'll have to see how the luxury tax line plays out next season.

That said, at the very least, Jeff Green is valued as an MLE player so for all intents and purposes, he's the would be MLE acquisition.

He's still young, and a very tradeable contract with some heft, something that is always needed to facilitate big trades when needed.

The "minimal" opportunities to upgrade the team next year and on I think are very much worth the risk, particularly when considering this year's championship aspirations, and as it is, I'm not sure we're not in a better position right now, with more assets in place, to do a better job upgrading.

If Green is a MLE type player, which I agree with, how does it not hurt his trade value that his contract calls for nearly twice his value?  With three more years left.  Not only might the money be too high for teams to swallow given his production, even projected with starter minutes, but the years make him too risky.

How many teams really need a starting small forward because at 9 million, you better hope he starts even if Ainge doesn't think that's necessary?

Negatives:

Miami
OKC
Chicago
Indiana
Memphis
Lakers
Clippers
Dallas
Portland
Brooklyn
Minnesota
Charlotte
Houston
Golden State (trying to develop Barnes and Green and won't add Green at 9 million to block them)

If you're a team that could start him, would you want to pay him 9 million.  He could start for Atlanta but they've set up their salary cap nicely courtesy of Brooklyn and I doubt they want to use a lot of it on Green.  He might start for Utah but having Marvin Williams and Green at the same time looks like overkill.  Washington's up against the cap so trading for Green would mean taking back bad contracts.  New Orleans could use a small forward but again, 9 million.  Same with Cleveland.  Sacramento's not trading for Green's big contract with their finances.  Phoenix was already burnt by Beasley.

I don't see many good trade candidates.




Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #63 on: December 21, 2012, 06:25:09 AM »

Offline mctyson

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1818
  • Tommy Points: 133
WHY do so many people care so much about what Green got paid???  If we was making $7M, would that be better?  What does that extra $2-3M get us?

Danny and the owners are so much better at running an NBA team than the members of Celticsblog.

Are you trying to assert that in commenting about a league with a salary cap and restrictive trade rules, no one should focus on what individual players have for contracts?

Let's trade for Biedrins.  So what he's going to "earn" $21m the next two years. How about Amare and his uninsured $63m over the next three seasons?

It absolutely does matter that Player A makes $9m x 4 years when you can get the same production from a vetmin making 1/8th that with no long term commitment. It matters that his contract isn't $7m per, which would be a more trade-able slot for his production.

Danny, Doc, Wyc, and the player development group would have jumped all over the opportunity to get a vet min that gives us what Jeff Green gives us.

The fact is - a vet min is not Jeff Green.

People are flipping out about his contract because they think it hurts his trade value.  Well, if he is so desired by other teams such that he is a worthy trade chip....why shouldn't he be paid $9M per?

It just pains me to think that people on this board actually believe his true value is half of what he is paid.  Like Wyc and Danny just gave him an extra $20 million dollars for being a nice guy.  The guy is paid what he is worth on the market in the NBA. 


Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #64 on: December 21, 2012, 06:25:38 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11935
  • Tommy Points: 1139
Being over the luxury tax threshold also stops Boston from being able to make sign and trades. That new rule comes into force next summer.

Can't be over the apron after the trade. There's plenty of room still for a sign and trade to be made as it stands. So it's not about being tax payers, but being 4 million above the tax line, since otherwise it would be a circumvention of the hard cap they have set in place.

Quote
No sign and trades + mini-MLE = Minimal opportunities to upgrade team via Free Agency

I think there's still an opportunity we have the Full MLE next year. We'll have to see how the luxury tax line plays out next season.

That said, at the very least, Jeff Green is valued as an MLE player so for all intents and purposes, he's the would be MLE acquisition.

He's still young, and a very tradeable contract with some heft, something that is always needed to facilitate big trades when needed.

The "minimal" opportunities to upgrade the team next year and on I think are very much worth the risk, particularly when considering this year's championship aspirations, and as it is, I'm not sure we're not in a better position right now, with more assets in place, to do a better job upgrading.

If Green is a MLE type player, which I agree with, how does it not hurt his trade value that his contract calls for nearly twice his value?  With three more years left.  Not only might the money be too high for teams to swallow given his production, even projected with starter minutes, but the years make him too risky.

How many teams really need a starting small forward because at 9 million, you better hope he starts even if Ainge doesn't think that's necessary?

Negatives:

Miami
OKC
Chicago
Indiana
Memphis
Lakers
Clippers
Dallas
Portland
Brooklyn
Minnesota
Charlotte
Houston
Golden State (trying to develop Barnes and Green and won't add Green at 9 million to block them)

If you're a team that could start him, would you want to pay him 9 million.  He could start for Atlanta but they've set up their salary cap nicely courtesy of Brooklyn and I doubt they want to use a lot of it on Green.  He might start for Utah but having Marvin Williams and Green at the same time looks like overkill.  Washington's up against the cap so trading for Green would mean taking back bad contracts.  New Orleans could use a small forward but again, 9 million.  Same with Cleveland.  Sacramento's not trading for Green's big contract with their finances.  Phoenix was already burnt by Beasley.

I don't see many good trade candidates.


I'm in no hurry to trade Jeff Green. If the argument is "hard to trade now", then, no Green means no asset to trade with in the first place. So I really don't see much of a point in pursuing this line of discussion.

Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #65 on: December 21, 2012, 08:58:35 AM »

Offline TripleOT

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1993
  • Tommy Points: 213
WHY do so many people care so much about what Green got paid???  If we was making $7M, would that be better?  What does that extra $2-3M get us?

Danny and the owners are so much better at running an NBA team than the members of Celticsblog.

Are you trying to assert that in commenting about a league with a salary cap and restrictive trade rules, no one should focus on what individual players have for contracts?

Let's trade for Biedrins.  So what he's going to "earn" $21m the next two years. How about Amare and his uninsured $63m over the next three seasons?

It absolutely does matter that Player A makes $9m x 4 years when you can get the same production from a vetmin making 1/8th that with no long term commitment. It matters that his contract isn't $7m per, which would be a more trade-able slot for his production.

Danny, Doc, Wyc, and the player development group would have jumped all over the opportunity to get a vet min that gives us what Jeff Green gives us.

The fact is - a vet min is not Jeff Green.

People are flipping out about his contract because they think it hurts his trade value.  Well, if he is so desired by other teams such that he is a worthy trade chip....why shouldn't he be paid $9M per?

It just pains me to think that people on this board actually believe his true value is half of what he is paid.  Like Wyc and Danny just gave him an extra $20 million dollars for being a nice guy.  The guy is paid what he is worth on the market in the NBA.

Matt Barnes is as productive as Green and he's at the vetmin. 

The point I'm trying to make is that a team can get almost as much production to as much production as Green's been given the Cs at 1/8th the cost.

Why Sign Kris Humphries for $11m x two years when Reggie Evans can give you the same thing for 1/10th the money and less of a yearly commitment? 

Why lock up a middling player like Green for $9m over four years when almost any run of the mill journeyman SF can get you almost that same production?

If I'm  building a roster, I want to use the big money on true stars, and then fill out the roster with vetmin role players who know how to take a reserve role.  Not only is Green pedestrian at best as a starter, he's never shown any ability to be an impact 6th man type. 

 


Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #66 on: December 21, 2012, 09:08:43 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11935
  • Tommy Points: 1139
WHY do so many people care so much about what Green got paid???  If we was making $7M, would that be better?  What does that extra $2-3M get us?

Danny and the owners are so much better at running an NBA team than the members of Celticsblog.

Are you trying to assert that in commenting about a league with a salary cap and restrictive trade rules, no one should focus on what individual players have for contracts?

Let's trade for Biedrins.  So what he's going to "earn" $21m the next two years. How about Amare and his uninsured $63m over the next three seasons?

It absolutely does matter that Player A makes $9m x 4 years when you can get the same production from a vetmin making 1/8th that with no long term commitment. It matters that his contract isn't $7m per, which would be a more trade-able slot for his production.

Danny, Doc, Wyc, and the player development group would have jumped all over the opportunity to get a vet min that gives us what Jeff Green gives us.

The fact is - a vet min is not Jeff Green.

People are flipping out about his contract because they think it hurts his trade value.  Well, if he is so desired by other teams such that he is a worthy trade chip....why shouldn't he be paid $9M per?

It just pains me to think that people on this board actually believe his true value is half of what he is paid.  Like Wyc and Danny just gave him an extra $20 million dollars for being a nice guy.  The guy is paid what he is worth on the market in the NBA.

Matt Barnes is as productive as Green and he's at the vetmin. 

The point I'm trying to make is that a team can get almost as much production to as much production as Green's been given the Cs at 1/8th the cost.

Why Sign Kris Humphries for $11m x two years when Reggie Evans can give you the same thing for 1/10th the money and less of a yearly commitment? 

Why lock up a middling player like Green for $9m over four years when almost any run of the mill journeyman SF can get you almost that same production?

If I'm  building a roster, I want to use the big money on true stars, and then fill out the roster with vetmin role players who know how to take a reserve role.  Not only is Green pedestrian at best as a starter, he's never shown any ability to be an impact 6th man type.

We're not building a roster though, the roster is already built.

The big money was used on super stars, Green's money wasn't going to be used for anyone else.

Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #67 on: December 21, 2012, 09:34:15 AM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17980
  • Tommy Points: 636
WHY do so many people care so much about what Green got paid???  If we was making $7M, would that be better?  What does that extra $2-3M get us?

Danny and the owners are so much better at running an NBA team than the members of Celticsblog.

Are you trying to assert that in commenting about a league with a salary cap and restrictive trade rules, no one should focus on what individual players have for contracts?

Let's trade for Biedrins.  So what he's going to "earn" $21m the next two years. How about Amare and his uninsured $63m over the next three seasons?

It absolutely does matter that Player A makes $9m x 4 years when you can get the same production from a vetmin making 1/8th that with no long term commitment. It matters that his contract isn't $7m per, which would be a more trade-able slot for his production.

Danny, Doc, Wyc, and the player development group would have jumped all over the opportunity to get a vet min that gives us what Jeff Green gives us.

The fact is - a vet min is not Jeff Green.

People are flipping out about his contract because they think it hurts his trade value.  Well, if he is so desired by other teams such that he is a worthy trade chip....why shouldn't he be paid $9M per?

It just pains me to think that people on this board actually believe his true value is half of what he is paid.  Like Wyc and Danny just gave him an extra $20 million dollars for being a nice guy.  The guy is paid what he is worth on the market in the NBA.

Matt Barnes is as productive as Green and he's at the vetmin. 

The point I'm trying to make is that a team can get almost as much production to as much production as Green's been given the Cs at 1/8th the cost.

Why Sign Kris Humphries for $11m x two years when Reggie Evans can give you the same thing for 1/10th the money and less of a yearly commitment? 

Why lock up a middling player like Green for $9m over four years when almost any run of the mill journeyman SF can get you almost that same production?

If I'm  building a roster, I want to use the big money on true stars, and then fill out the roster with vetmin role players who know how to take a reserve role.  Not only is Green pedestrian at best as a starter, he's never shown any ability to be an impact 6th man type.

We're not building a roster though, the roster is already built.

The big money was used on super stars, Green's money wasn't going to be used for anyone else.

Well, to play Devils advocate, I would say that the C's may have built the roster for this year, but they still need to build a new core going forward, and signing Green to a big deal like that, does not make it much easier.

On the other hand, I think he is still talented and productive enough to be movable, whether it be for an expiring contract, or if he improves, for positive assets, and as far as this years concerned, you are correct that it doesn't matter what he makes, and as I said before, his large salary slot might actually help the team move him for a better player to help them win now. 

Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #68 on: December 21, 2012, 10:14:47 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26867
  • Tommy Points: 1994
The guy is paid what he is worth on the market in the NBA.
No.

He is paid what someone is willing to pay him. His worth is determined from his performance and his performance thus far says he was vastly overpaid and not worth the contract.
2015 CB HISTORICAL DRAFT: COMING THIS OCTOBER
FORMAT:
3 players from 1960-73
3 players from 1974-86
3 players from 1987-00
3 players from 2001-Pres
1 player from any era

Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #69 on: December 21, 2012, 10:16:14 AM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17980
  • Tommy Points: 636
The guy is paid what he is worth on the market in the NBA.
No.

He is paid what someone is willing to pay him. His worth is determined from his performance and his performance thus far says he was vastly overpaid and not worth the contract.

Semantics.  There is market value, and then there is your version of worth.  Green makes around market value. 

Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #70 on: December 21, 2012, 10:25:25 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11935
  • Tommy Points: 1139
WHY do so many people care so much about what Green got paid???  If we was making $7M, would that be better?  What does that extra $2-3M get us?

Danny and the owners are so much better at running an NBA team than the members of Celticsblog.

Are you trying to assert that in commenting about a league with a salary cap and restrictive trade rules, no one should focus on what individual players have for contracts?

Let's trade for Biedrins.  So what he's going to "earn" $21m the next two years. How about Amare and his uninsured $63m over the next three seasons?

It absolutely does matter that Player A makes $9m x 4 years when you can get the same production from a vetmin making 1/8th that with no long term commitment. It matters that his contract isn't $7m per, which would be a more trade-able slot for his production.

Danny, Doc, Wyc, and the player development group would have jumped all over the opportunity to get a vet min that gives us what Jeff Green gives us.

The fact is - a vet min is not Jeff Green.

People are flipping out about his contract because they think it hurts his trade value.  Well, if he is so desired by other teams such that he is a worthy trade chip....why shouldn't he be paid $9M per?

It just pains me to think that people on this board actually believe his true value is half of what he is paid.  Like Wyc and Danny just gave him an extra $20 million dollars for being a nice guy.  The guy is paid what he is worth on the market in the NBA.

Matt Barnes is as productive as Green and he's at the vetmin. 

The point I'm trying to make is that a team can get almost as much production to as much production as Green's been given the Cs at 1/8th the cost.

Why Sign Kris Humphries for $11m x two years when Reggie Evans can give you the same thing for 1/10th the money and less of a yearly commitment? 

Why lock up a middling player like Green for $9m over four years when almost any run of the mill journeyman SF can get you almost that same production?

If I'm  building a roster, I want to use the big money on true stars, and then fill out the roster with vetmin role players who know how to take a reserve role.  Not only is Green pedestrian at best as a starter, he's never shown any ability to be an impact 6th man type.

We're not building a roster though, the roster is already built.

The big money was used on super stars, Green's money wasn't going to be used for anyone else.

Well, to play Devils advocate, I would say that the C's may have built the roster for this year, but they still need to build a new core going forward, and signing Green to a big deal like that, does not make it much easier.

On the other hand, I think he is still talented and productive enough to be movable, whether it be for an expiring contract, or if he improves, for positive assets, and as far as this years concerned, you are correct that it doesn't matter what he makes, and as I said before, his large salary slot might actually help the team move him for a better player to help them win now. 

On the contrary. We, I think we're better off. I would've preferred a 3 year deal, but 4 is not a deal breaker, considering that year we're way under the cap, plus Green with Lee combine for a good expiring trade package.


Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #71 on: December 21, 2012, 10:31:06 AM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8332
  • Tommy Points: 838
The guy is paid what he is worth on the market in the NBA.
No.

He is paid what someone is willing to pay him. His worth is determined from his performance and his performance thus far says he was vastly overpaid and not worth the contract.

Jeff Green is not in a position on this team to give us $8 or $9 million worth of production as long as Paul Pierce is the starting small forward.  That's just reality, as far as I can see it.

That's not a negative comment towards Jeff or towards Doc or even towards Danny.  I'm still happy with the signing.  I just think we need to be patient.  I understand that patience is not something that sports fans generally do well.  It's "give me $9 million worth of basketball today, or you're a bum!!!"

Depending on how long the captain can keep playing like an all star,  Jeff's time will come either next season or the following season.  Until then, he'll have to keep learning how to play as a 20-25 mpg sub.  He's shown some signs that he can play that role really well, and he's had some other nights that have been stinkers.  That's how it goes for bench guys. 

I'm willing to wait. 

Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #72 on: December 21, 2012, 11:55:02 AM »

Offline action781

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3679
  • Tommy Points: 273
A $40 mil back-up for PP?

This is what dumb teams do. And why they stink in many cases for decades, not years. Because typically, smart organizations don't ever go where you just went. You sign impact players to big deals, and role players to intelligent short reasonable contracts.... because they're replaceable.

And if you're not really good, let it go -- you're more likely to get good by being bad then you are by being mediocre. 

Only All-stars are worth >mid-level. No Bargnanis. No Ty Thomases. No Villenuevas. For Pete's sake, Barbosa is a better basketball player than Green.

I challenge anyone to suggest what they feel the Celtics would be missing without Green. If the only answer is "a back-up to Pierce", or even worse "a SF once Pierce heads towards retirement", then you know how bad the signing is.

Plenty of non all-stars are worth more than the mid level.  I'll throw out a ton:  Tyson chandler, zach randolph, al jefferson, david west, ibaka, david lee, joakim noah, nic batum, varejao, kevin martin, milsap, ryan anderson, brandon jennings, ty lawson, kyle lowry, gortat, mike conley, carlos boozer, brook lopez, monta ellis,......

Those players would mostly be considered bargains in the 7-12 mil range.  I think the hope in the signing was that jeff green could become that caliber of player and be worth his contract.  So far he has not lived up to that of course, but i think there's still a chance he could be in the lower tier of that caliber player in a year or 2.
.................to the
Assistant ^ General Manager for the Pawnee Pacers

Tony Parker, Courtney Lee, Rudy Gay, Zach Randolph, Marc Gasol
Jeff Teague, Paul George, Trevor Ariza, Chuck Hayes, Channing Frye
Kemba Walker, Andres Nocioni, Jason Collins

Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #73 on: December 21, 2012, 12:15:00 PM »

Offline moiso

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4258
  • Tommy Points: 120
The guy is paid what he is worth on the market in the NBA.
No.

He is paid what someone is willing to pay him. His worth is determined from his performance and his performance thus far says he was vastly overpaid and not worth the contract.

Jeff Green is not in a position on this team to give us $8 or $9 million worth of production as long as Paul Pierce is the starting small forward.  That's just reality, as far as I can see it.

That's not a negative comment towards Jeff or towards Doc or even towards Danny.  I'm still happy with the signing.  I just think we need to be patient.  I understand that patience is not something that sports fans generally do well.  It's "give me $9 million worth of basketball today, or you're a bum!!!"

Depending on how long the captain can keep playing like an all star,  Jeff's time will come either next season or the following season.  Until then, he'll have to keep learning how to play as a 20-25 mpg sub.  He's shown some signs that he can play that role really well, and he's had some other nights that have been stinkers.  That's how it goes for bench guys. 

I'm willing to wait.
Does a player really have to learn how to play a certain amount of minutes?  I don't get it.  Why can't he just learn to play better and give a better effort whenever he's on the court?

Re: This is why Jeff Green's contract is so bad
« Reply #74 on: December 21, 2012, 12:30:30 PM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8332
  • Tommy Points: 838
The guy is paid what he is worth on the market in the NBA.
No.

He is paid what someone is willing to pay him. His worth is determined from his performance and his performance thus far says he was vastly overpaid and not worth the contract.

Jeff Green is not in a position on this team to give us $8 or $9 million worth of production as long as Paul Pierce is the starting small forward.  That's just reality, as far as I can see it.

That's not a negative comment towards Jeff or towards Doc or even towards Danny.  I'm still happy with the signing.  I just think we need to be patient.  I understand that patience is not something that sports fans generally do well.  It's "give me $9 million worth of basketball today, or you're a bum!!!"

Depending on how long the captain can keep playing like an all star,  Jeff's time will come either next season or the following season.  Until then, he'll have to keep learning how to play as a 20-25 mpg sub.  He's shown some signs that he can play that role really well, and he's had some other nights that have been stinkers.  That's how it goes for bench guys. 

I'm willing to wait.
Does a player really have to learn how to play a certain amount of minutes?  I don't get it.  Why can't he just learn to play better and give a better effort whenever he's on the court?

I guess my point is that it's hard to expect consistency even from players getting starter's minutes in the NBA.  When you are coming off the bench for short stretches, getting @ 20 minutes a game, it's even harder to be consistent.  This isn't just the case for Jeff Green, but for almost all NBA players. 

He's had some good nights and he's had some bad nights.  The same can be said for Jason Terry, Courtney Lee, Brandon Bass, Jared Sullinger, and Chris Wilcox.  Those guys are the role players.  I don't expect them to play like top flight NBA players every night. 

The thing about Jeff Green is that I do think he has 35+ minute a night type talent.  We've seen flashes of it, but we won't see it consistently until he can get those minutes.  And, that probably won't be this year (maybe not even next year). 

Again, I'm willing to be patient, but I understand the predilection not to be.


 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog