Projected salary cap and reassessing the Bradley contract

[obnoxiousmime]

Let's be honest, is Bradley really going to develop into a difference-maker in this league? You guys say he's only 23, but that's not really young by NBA standards in terms of showing whether you are a player in this league or just a bench guy. I would use the age thing for a guy maybe 20, 21 years old, but not a four-year veteran.

When Aaron Afflalo was 23, he averaged less than 5 points and under 2 rebounds a game.

Mike

When Afflalo got his deal he had a larger body of evidence than Bradley. He had 2 seasons of being a starter where he played 82 and 69 games, as opposed to Bradley's 2 seasons with 50 and 60 games.  He also established himself as a 3-pt. threat, that element of Bradley's game really just appeared last year. Afflalo also has 3 inches on Bradley.

I don't think Bradley can be a great defensive player and not get hurt or let it decrease his offensive efficiency due to fatigue. If he's going to produce enough offense for the contract to be worthwhile, he needs to up his percentages somewhat and of course, stay healthy.

I think that Bradley will improve but he will probably also get hurt again. It seemed that his regression on D last year was due to his concern about being hurt in a contract year and focus on putting up offensive numbers for a bigger payday. He needs to refocus on D and continue to up his percentages. Can his brittle body handle both tasks? I don't know, because he's a small guy. He's not tough and strong like Tony Allen, nor is he lean and long like a Bruce Bowen. Maybe it just takes too much out of him?

I guess I'm just not willing to blindly assume because a player is 23 he will continue to improve and his numbers will naturally go up. If that were true, we'd never have a bad contract in this league for any player under 25.

Brad Stevens told Bradley to focus less on pressuring opponents, presumably because he wanted Bradley to focus on offense. Bradley already has a All NBA Defense team under his belt and he's shown that he could be a good offensive and he's 23 years old not even in his prime yet. I think you're being too harsh on Bradley, sure there are players who haven't shown improvement after 23 but Bradley has improved and has the work ethic and athleticism to show for it.

He needs to stay healthy though.

I don't mean to be overly hard on Bradley, because I think he's a good player. I object more to the overall philosophy Ainge has of "keeping all my assets and paying fair value" and "neither fully tanking or contending." If everybody is making a fair salary, that's all lollipops but the good teams are the ones with guys making less. That means superstars constrained by the max or veterans taking discounts or signing young guys whose value dipped before FA (like Turner or Stephenson). I wish we were a smart team like the Spurs who can sign Patty Mills for 3 yr, 12 million. Instead, we're a bad team that needs to pay guys fair market value because they won't hesitate to leave if we don't. 

If it's true that teams were willing to give Bradley 8 million/year, he shouldn't be hard to deal in the future if a situation arises where we need to match salaries to get a star. Hopefully that is the case.

I just don't want to be on a mediocrity loop where everybody on the team is a B player making 8-12 million/year. I am perfectly willing to suck and take my chances in the lottery.

Tanking was the right strategy last year. If we had won a top two pick OR if Miami had won the title and LeBron stayed OR if Cleveland had not luckily overcome the 1.7% chance at the top pick, we would have still had the best offer on the table for Kevin Love. Basically everything bounced right for Cleveland.

[CelticsFanFromNYC]

Let's be honest, is Bradley really going to develop into a difference-maker in this league? You guys say he's only 23, but that's not really young by NBA standards in terms of showing whether you are a player in this league or just a bench guy. I would use the age thing for a guy maybe 20, 21 years old, but not a four-year veteran.

When Aaron Afflalo was 23, he averaged less than 5 points and under 2 rebounds a game.

Mike

When Afflalo got his deal he had a larger body of evidence than Bradley. He had 2 seasons of being a starter where he played 82 and 69 games, as opposed to Bradley's 2 seasons with 50 and 60 games.  He also established himself as a 3-pt. threat, that element of Bradley's game really just appeared last year. Afflalo also has 3 inches on Bradley.

I don't think Bradley can be a great defensive player and not get hurt or let it decrease his offensive efficiency due to fatigue. If he's going to produce enough offense for the contract to be worthwhile, he needs to up his percentages somewhat and of course, stay healthy.

I think that Bradley will improve but he will probably also get hurt again. It seemed that his regression on D last year was due to his concern about being hurt in a contract year and focus on putting up offensive numbers for a bigger payday. He needs to refocus on D and continue to up his percentages. Can his brittle body handle both tasks? I don't know, because he's a small guy. He's not tough and strong like Tony Allen, nor is he lean and long like a Bruce Bowen. Maybe it just takes too much out of him?

I guess I'm just not willing to blindly assume because a player is 23 he will continue to improve and his numbers will naturally go up. If that were true, we'd never have a bad contract in this league for any player under 25.

Brad Stevens told Bradley to focus less on pressuring opponents, presumably because he wanted Bradley to focus on offense. Bradley already has a All NBA Defense team under his belt and he's shown that he could be a good offensive and he's 23 years old not even in his prime yet. I think you're being too harsh on Bradley, sure there are players who haven't shown improvement after 23 but Bradley has improved and has the work ethic and athleticism to show for it.

He needs to stay healthy though.

I don't mean to be overly hard on Bradley, because I think he's a good player. I object more to the overall philosophy Ainge has of "keeping all my assets and paying fair value" and "neither fully tanking or contending." If everybody is making a fair salary, that's all lollipops but the good teams are the ones with guys making less. That means superstars constrained by the max or veterans taking discounts or signing young guys whose value dipped before FA (like Turner or Stephenson). I wish we were a smart team like the Spurs who can sign Patty Mills for 3 yr, 12 million. Instead, we're a bad team that needs to pay guys fair market value because they won't hesitate to leave if we don't. 

If it's true that teams were willing to give Bradley 8 million/year, he shouldn't be hard to deal in the future if a situation arises where we need to match salaries to get a star. Hopefully that is the case.

I just don't want to be on a mediocrity loop where everybody on the team is a B player making 8-12 million/year. I am perfectly willing to suck and take my chances in the lottery.

Tanking was the right strategy last year. If we had won a top two pick OR if Miami had won the title and LeBron stayed OR if Cleveland had not luckily overcome the 1.7% chance at the top pick, we would have still had the best offer on the table for Kevin Love. Basically everything bounced right for Cleveland.

Agreed. Im not much of a conspiracy theorist at all but, its funny how Lebron leaves,does "The Decision", then Cavs get set up in a perfect position to have an Army ready for Lebrons comeback. What a picture perfect story for a legend. He said he didnt want the Jordan Legacy and the story lien fits perfect for their newest superstar. IF tCavs had a 1.7% chance of getting Wiggins, then getting Love & Lebron must of been like .0013

[MBunge]

I guess I'm just not willing to blindly assume because a player is 23 he will continue to improve and his numbers will naturally go up. If that were true, we'd never have a bad contract in this league for any player under 25.

Did you SEE Bradley as a rookie?  How about his second year in the league?  He frequently looked like hot garbage that was going to be out of the NBA before he got a second contract.  Literally all he could do on the court was pressure the ball.  Bradley's improvement  has been tremendous.

Now, it's fair to look at Bradley today and says it's highly unlikely he's going to become a hall of famer or perennial all-star.  But there's every indication he's going to become a very good player and pretending otherwise is foolish.

Mike

[MBunge]

Let's be honest, is Bradley really going to develop into a difference-maker in this league? You guys say he's only 23, but that's not really young by NBA standards in terms of showing whether you are a player in this league or just a bench guy. I would use the age thing for a guy maybe 20, 21 years old, but not a four-year veteran.

When Aaron Afflalo was 23, he averaged less than 5 points and under 2 rebounds a game.

Mike

...on 4 shots per game in 16 MPG on a team with Rip Hamilton and Chauncey Billups. Now, shooting three times as much in double the time, he's scoring more. It's like magic.

Which makes it a good thing Afflalo wasn't judged a failure because of that.  And if you think Afflalo at 23 would automatically have been as good as he was at 26 or 27, you must not watch a lot of basketball.

Mike

[D.o.s.]

Let's be honest, is Bradley really going to develop into a difference-maker in this league? You guys say he's only 23, but that's not really young by NBA standards in terms of showing whether you are a player in this league or just a bench guy. I would use the age thing for a guy maybe 20, 21 years old, but not a four-year veteran.

When Aaron Afflalo was 23, he averaged less than 5 points and under 2 rebounds a game.

Mike

...on 4 shots per game in 16 MPG on a team with Rip Hamilton and Chauncey Billups. Now, shooting three times as much in double the time, he's scoring more. It's like magic.

Which makes it a good thing Afflalo wasn't judged a failure because of that.  And if you think Afflalo at 23 would automatically have been as good as he was at 26 or 27, you must not watch a lot of basketball.

Mike

I'm not saying anything of the sort, just pointing out that "player improvement" is very often correlated to an increase in playing time and, subsequently, a greater role in the offense. The yearly MIP awards would also bear that out.

[Vermont Green]

I'm not saying anything of the sort, just pointing out that "player improvement" is very often correlated to an increase in playing time and, subsequently, a greater role in the offense. The yearly MIP awards would also bear that out.

This is the age old argument about whether to extrapolate a player who is doing well in 10 mpg and then saying based on per36 that the player would be a  star if given the chance, isn't it?  Those extrapolations come to fruition sometimes but I am not sure you can assume "very often".

I think Bradley is a unique case in that he was emotionally very immature when he came into the league.  Every player has a different development curve and I think Bradley's curve still has more upside left in it than a typical player.

I don't think Bradley is going to leap forward and win the most improved player award or anything like that but I do think he has upside which is going to show up over 3 or 4 more seasons at least.  He is still learning the game and he is still growing up, physically and mentally.  And I am fine with the contract.  Contracts always seem too high at first and then you see over the next year or so other contracts that are much higher and higher.

[D.o.s.]

I'm not saying anything of the sort, just pointing out that "player improvement" is very often correlated to an increase in playing time and, subsequently, a greater role in the offense. The yearly MIP awards would also bear that out.

This is the age old argument about whether to extrapolate a player who is doing well in 10 mpg and then saying based on per36 that the player would be a  star if given the chance, isn't it?  Those extrapolations come to fruition sometimes but I am not sure you can assume "very often".

You're misinterpreting what I mean, although that could be my fault. Players often look like they're improving when, in fact, they're not actually playing any better, just getting more minutes. Ryan Anderson's a good example of that, his per 36 numbers from 2011 to 2012 (when he won the MIP) are nearly identical:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/anderry01.html#per_minute::none
But he went from playing 22MPG to 32 and everyone got all "oh man, he's soooo much better." That sort of stuff happens all the time.

[nickagneta]

Tried reading the thread but it got bogged down so just let me say that in my opinion its not that people have to reassess Bradley's contract based on the new salary caps that may be coming into play to determine if its a good contract. I think people need to reassess their entire way of looking at what is and is not fair market value in a new spending environment as a total and then Bradley's contract will fit into whatever area people deem necessary.


For instance, in last year's market where salary caps were in the $57+ million area, an MLE contract or mid range contract for an average player coming off of their rookie contract would be in the $5 million area for MLE and $6.5 million for the player coming off that rookie contract. So Bradley's contract, whether you think highly of him or poorly looks to be a bit of an overspend. In this year's market where the salary cap is in the $63+ million area and Bradley's first year only being about $7.5 million then it appears to be about an average payout.

But if over the next two years salary caps jump up into the mid to high $70 millions then Bradley's contract is going to appear to be a below average payout

And remember none of this is actually taking into consideration his performance. Its just a comparison of dollars. This year Bradley's salary is about 12-13% of the salary cap. By the end of the contract it could be under 10% of the salary cap and the guy is going to be getting raises every year.

If Bradley just plays like last year with better defense for the rest of the contract, I gotta think that's a preety great return on the investment overall especially given the new manner in which I have to perceive all contracts now based on the new financial environment.

[DarkAzcura]

I guess I'm just not willing to blindly assume because a player is 23 he will continue to improve and his numbers will naturally go up. If that were true, we'd never have a bad contract in this league for any player under 25.

Did you SEE Bradley as a rookie?  How about his second year in the league?  He frequently looked like hot garbage that was going to be out of the NBA before he got a second contract.  Literally all he could do on the court was pressure the ball.  Bradley's improvement  has been tremendous.

Now, it's fair to look at Bradley today and says it's highly unlikely he's going to become a hall of famer or perennial all-star.  But there's every indication he's going to become a very good player and pretending otherwise is foolish.

Mike

I agree that Bradley will continue to improve, but let's relax on the hot garbage comment. I think people need to start looking at rookie players differently. Too many see poor numbers and assume they suck. When I watched Bradley his rookie year, I saw a guy who understood defensive schemes incredibly well and a guy who knew how to move without the ball. The form on his jumpshot also looked really, really good. His shot just wasn't falling for him.

Now guys like Fab, JJJ, Pruitt, etc. Those guys were hot garbage. They looked clueless. They had no idea how to run a play or do anything out there. Pruitt just hung out in the corner for the most part. Surprisingly the only guy I'm surprised didn't turn into a decent rotation level player at the least was Lester Hudson. I was wrong about that guy, lol.

Just a pet peeve of mine..

I guess I'm just not willing to blindly assume because a player is 23 he will continue to improve and his numbers will naturally go up. If that were true, we'd never have a bad contract in this league for any player under 25.

See you just aren't understanding the context, I think then. Before Bradley's rookie year, he was out the whole summer with ankle injuries. He had no time to train for his rookie year. Then before his second year, the NBA went through a lock-out so while practiced, training camp was shortened and delayed. He still showed a huge improvement by the second half of the season despite barely having any offseason time with his NBA team. After the lock-out season, Bradley had double-shoulder surgery once again sidelining his off-season plans. It wasn't until after the 2012-2013 season that Bradley finally had his first, full, real NBA off-season. This matters for young players. If you want to speak to the point that he is injury prone, that's fine. He definitely has been, but let's not pretend Bradley has had a ton of time to develop in his time in the NBA. He might as well be entering his third NBA season with the amount of time he has had to train and prepare for NBA seasons. He's young, and he's improved tremendously with his range and confidence with little time to do so.

[D.o.s.]

No, Mike's right -- Bradley looked straight up awful during his first two years in the league.

[DarkAzcura]

No, Mike's right -- Bradley looked straight up awful during his first two years in the league.

This is another topic but anyone who thinks Bradley looked awful other than "production wise"..well I dunno what to say to you. When I think awful, I think of Gerald Green, Pruitt, JJJ. Guys who literally couldn't even move on the court without disrupting the flow of the offensive set. Bradley didn't do that. He just couldn't hit shots, which comes with time with form like his.

It's like people who think Olynyk was awful in the first half of the season. Hell no he wasn't. He kept the ball moving, ran sets well, and moved his feet well. His shot wasn't dropping but who cares. I just want rookies to look like they understand how to play the game. Production is overrated for rookies. Just see Tyreke Evans.

Maybe I never called him awful because I understand he literally didn't train whatsoever with the team and was coming off ankle injuries. He was thrown into the fire and no mid-round rookie will look good in that situation unless you are as crazy awesome as Delonte West.

[D.o.s.]

No, Mike's right -- Bradley looked straight up awful during his first two years in the league.

This is another topic but anyone who thinks Bradley looked awful other than "production wise"..well I question if they understand anything about defensive schemes, off-ball movement, and shooting form. When I think awful, I think of Gerald Green, Pruitt, JJJ. Guys who literally couldn't even move on the court without disrupting the flow of the offensive set. Bradley didn't do that. He just couldn't hit shots, which comes with time with form like his.

Or dribble the ball. He couldn't do that either. Or contribute anything to the team on the floor.

His shooting form has always been good, and his defensive instincts have always been on point, but there's some seriously revisionist history going on in this thread. There's a reason he got sent to the D-League, and there's a reason doc didn't give him playing time until he started to show that he was NBA ready -- and there was a lot more to it than "he just couldn't hit shots."

[DarkAzcura]

No, Mike's right -- Bradley looked straight up awful during his first two years in the league.

This is another topic but anyone who thinks Bradley looked awful other than "production wise"..well I question if they understand anything about defensive schemes, off-ball movement, and shooting form. When I think awful, I think of Gerald Green, Pruitt, JJJ. Guys who literally couldn't even move on the court without disrupting the flow of the offensive set. Bradley didn't do that. He just couldn't hit shots, which comes with time with form like his.

Or dribble the ball. He couldn't do that either. Or contribute anything to the team on the floor.

His shooting form has always been good, and his defensive instincts have always been on point, but there's some seriously revisionist history going on in this thread. There's a reason he got sent to the D-League, and there's a reason doc didn't give him playing time until he started to show that he was NBA ready -- and there was a lot more to it than "he just couldn't hit shots."

He still can't dribble, lol. His main utility is cutting and shooting. He could cut his rookie year, and he couldn't hit shots his rookie year. He was sent to the D-League because he couldn't hit shots in game, he didn't train in the off-season, and we were a contender. That's not revisionist history, and it doesn't make him awful. It's just circumstance. NBA ready as a rookie for contender =/= being awful...I doubt Andrew Wiggins would have played more than 10 MPG on a contending Celtics team. Doesn't make him awful.

[D.o.s.]

"Not NBA ready" and "awful" are largely synonymous when it comes to evaluating someone's play in the NBA. 

[gpap]

No, Mike's right -- Bradley looked straight up awful during his first two years in the league.

This is another topic but anyone who thinks Bradley looked awful other than "production wise"..well I dunno what to say to you. When I think awful, I think of Gerald Green, Pruitt, JJJ. Guys who literally couldn't even move on the court without disrupting the flow of the offensive set. Bradley didn't do that. He just couldn't hit shots, which comes with time with form like his.

It's like people who think Olynyk was awful in the first half of the season. Hell no he wasn't. He kept the ball moving, ran sets well, and moved his feet well. His shot wasn't dropping but who cares. I just want rookies to look like they understand how to play the game. Production is overrated for rookies. Just see Tyreke Evans.

Maybe I never called him awful because I understand he literally didn't train whatsoever with the team and was coming off ankle injuries. He was thrown into the fire and no mid-round rookie will look good in that situation unless you are as crazy awesome as Delonte West.

I don't get it.

I interpert that as saying that player X went "0 for 100" but he's actually pretty good because even though he can't score, he "understands" the game.

Well, if he's not going to contribute on offense or defense, then what good is he?