Projected salary cap and reassessing the Bradley contract

[mmmmm]

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

As part of Bradley's "first two years in the league", are you including games after Jan 20?

Or are you dropping games in which he actually started (which wipes out most games after that point)?

[mmmmm]

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."

I agree with the statement in bold.

Bradley got sent to the D league for very good reasons.

He was injured in pre-draft workouts and missed all of training camp and needed development time.

He was a rookie on a playoff-contending team with Ray Allen, Delonte West, Marquis Daniels, Nate Robinson and even Von Wafer ahead of him for minutes at SG to start the season.  And with Ray playing over 36 mpg for 80 games, that didn't leave many for the rook.     It made perfect sense to send him to the D League.    He got minutes there.   And played pretty darn good.

Unless you watched him play in the D League or attended the few practice workouts the team had (I remember Doc complaining about how that year's schedule made that difficult) I'm impressed with the ability to assess that he was "straight up awful" as a rookie considering otherwise you would have seen him for a grand total of just 162 minutes of playing time (over 26 of those coming in the final game).  He appeared as an eye blink in all but that last game.   And he most certainly didn't look "straight up awful" in that last game -- he scored 20 points, 3 rebounds, 2 assists in that game.

If you DID watch him in the D-League, then again, it would seem ridiculous to say he looked "straight up awful" there ---  in his 9 games there he averaged 32 minutes, 17.1 points, 4.8 rebounds, 5.2 assists and shot 45.2/37.0/85.7.    Yes, it's not the NBA.  But isn't that what NBA players are supposed to do in the D-League?

So, unless you saw him in practice, you must be basing this assessment on the 30 games he appeared in for a grand total of 136 minutes -- just 4.5 minutes per game.   Basically, mop-up time at the end of halves.   I'll agree - those little random tiny appearances were not impressive.   So that must be all that you saw that year.

Well, I won't say you didn't have company in the way you apparently used that to form your opinion.  I do recall a few posters directly equating Bradley to "hot garbage".

[D.o.s.]

I did see him in a Red Claws game or two. My memory is hazy, but I do remember his one-off 20 point game with the C's, which IIRC was against the Wizards while we were sitting everyone for the playoffs?


On the other hand, it's not as if anyone saying that they knew Bradley would be good had any more access to his play during that time, so if we look at this:

So, unless you saw him in practice, you must be basing this assessment on the 30 games he appeared in for a grand total of 136 minutes -- just 4.5 minutes per game.   Basically, mop-up time at the end of halves.   I'll agree - those little random tiny appearances were not impressive.   So that must be all that you saw that year.

You'll see that you're agreeing: there really wasn't anything impressive about Bradley's play during his first two years with the Celtics (nor, really, with the Red Claws, but I doubt you saw any of that so it'd be anecdotal evidence on my behalf). The fact that he panned out was a pleasant surprise, and a cause, apparently, for some hindsight bias in other posters.

I would also kindly suggest that you break down the differences between the phrase "Bradley looked straight up awful during his first two years in the league (my quote)" and " the ability to assess that he was 'straight up awful' as a rookie (your interpretation of my quote)" the next time you try to engage in a half-baked, long-form for a forum takedown. It's unbecoming.

[mmmmm]

I did see him in a Red Claws game or two. My memory is hazy, but I do remember his one-off 20 point game with the C's, which IIRC was against the Wizards while we were sitting everyone for the playoffs?


On the other hand, it's not as if anyone saying that they knew Bradley would be good had any more access to his play during that time, so if we look at this:

So, unless you saw him in practice, you must be basing this assessment on the 30 games he appeared in for a grand total of 136 minutes -- just 4.5 minutes per game.   Basically, mop-up time at the end of halves.   I'll agree - those little random tiny appearances were not impressive.   So that must be all that you saw that year.

You'll see that you're agreeing: there really wasn't anything impressive about Bradley's play during his first two years with the Celtics (nor, really, with the Red Claws, but I doubt you saw any of that so it'd be anecdotal evidence on my behalf). The fact that he panned out was a pleasant surprise, and a cause, apparently, for some hindsight bias in other posters.

I would also kindly suggest that you break down the differences between the phrase "Bradley looked straight up awful during his first two years in the league (my quote)" and " the ability to assess that he was 'straight up awful' as a rookie (your interpretation of my quote)" the next time you try to engage in a half-baked, long-form for a forum takedown. It's unbecoming.

Oh should I be interpreting you to mean his rookie year is not part of his first two years in the league?

Or should I be interpreting "looked straight up awful" to mean something wildly different from "assessing" that he was "straight up awful".   If anything is "half baked" there it is trying to draw a distinction there.

Bradley's one big-minute game his rookie year was against the Knicks.  Yes, it was a game where both teams rested starters.  But that still doesn't make it an example of him looking "straight up awful".

What's unbecoming is holding on too tightly to an obviously hyperbolic exaggeration -- he was clearly anything but "straight up awful" in the second half of his second year.   And it is also unbecoming to accuse others of issuing revisionist history while doing just that.

[D.o.s.]

 

I have no dog in this fight.

[BballTim]

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.

  If you're putting up the same numbers as a starter (going against starters, playing with better teammates and playing in crunch time) that you were as a reserve you frequently are playing better.

[MBunge]

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.

He was also a guy who looked like he could barely dribble, couldn't stay on the court because he made one horrible play after another and was clearly looking over his shoulder and just waiting to be yanked by Doc. And when he came back for his second season, he didn't look a whit better until injuries literally forced Doc to let him play without fear of being benched.

Now, maybe you're some sort of basketball savant but go back and read what fans and media were saying when those injuries hit and what they were saying when Bradley started to play so well.

Mike

[pokeKingCurtis]

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.

Is AB truly a smart defender?

Was already a fan of AB in his rookie season. But even now it's more of a case of him overwhelming his opponents with his intensity.

Rondo, much as people knock his defense, funnels defenders to rim-protecting bigs. That's playing within schemes.

BUT. AB is definitely a game changer defensively. He can shut down entire offenses by destroying opposing point guards. Shut down Harden in the latest game vs. Houston.

In an increasingly perimeter oriented NBA, this is huge.

And Marcus Smart has both. Heady and intense. Very exciting.

[crimson_stallion]

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.

He was also a guy who looked like he could barely dribble, couldn't stay on the court because he made one horrible play after another and was clearly looking over his shoulder and just waiting to be yanked by Doc. And when he came back for his second season, he didn't look a whit better until injuries literally forced Doc to let him play without fear of being benched.

Now, maybe you're some sort of basketball savant but go back and read what fans and media were saying when those injuries hit and what they were saying when Bradley started to play so well.

Mike

Jarred Sullinger looked pretty bad as a rookie too.  Everybody on CB was bagging Danny for the decision of drafting a fat guy who cant move, can't defend and can't shoot at what - #21?

Then Olynyk last season - everyone was bagging Ainge for the first half of the season, until KO found his groove after the All Star game and all the haters instantly shut their mouths.  Until now (they have started up again). 

Avery Bradley's Rookie season should be pretty much completely ignored when judging his play.  He came in to the NBA young, raw and injured on a team that had just made it to the NBA finals the two prior years.  It was a given that he would get limited playing time and limited opportunity to get in to anything even resembling a groove.

If you write off his rookie season for the above reasons (which I do, since he practically didn't play in it) then you have a guard who, at 23 years old, has already:

* Shot at least 43/39/79 in two of his three NBA seasons

* Played well enough in his second season to steal the starting SG spot away from a future hall of famer and one of the greatest shooters the game has ever seen

* Contributed significantly to a team's playoff run (as a starter) in only his second season

* Has been voted to two NBA All-Defensive second teams

* Has been so irritating to opposing teams defensively that he's left talented veteran PG's with 5-10 dumbstruck to the point where they had to actually tell him to chill

This is for a guy who is only 2 years older RIGHT NOW (going in to his 5th season) than Kelly Olynyk and Fab Melo were in their rookie years.

It constantly amazes me how much people underrate Bradley.  I don't think anybody on this forum is trying to argue that Bradley has All-Star or superstar potential.  The problem is that every other person is trying to suggest that any young player who DOESN'T have All-Star or Superstar potential is useless and may as well be dumped.

With the way Avery Bradley has shot in two of his past three seasons, he is showing that he has the ability to be a well above average shooter both from three and from midrange.  He's also shown without question that he has the ability to be a well above average defender.  This shows that, at the very least, Bradley has all the tools to be a very good "3 and D" player.  History has well and truly proven that players in that mould (think Derek Fisher, Shane Battier and Bruce Bowen) have the potential to be major contributors as starters on championship teams.

Now, there are two things that Bradley has that neither of those three guys ever had:
1) Above average athleticism
2) Ability to score at the basket of drives and cuts

Fisher, Battier and Bowen all had zero offensive game outside of spot up threes.  Bradley is an above average cutter, a good midrange shooter, and will occasionally drive to the basket for layups / dunks. 

Even if he never develops from who he is now, he still has the ability to be a VERY important contributor as a starter on a playoff team.

Factor in Bradley's age combined with the huge offensive improvement he made last year, and potential / upside becomes a significant factor to throw in to the argument.  Suddenly his value skyrockets way beyond those guys.

So DA gives Bradley an $8M contract. 

Worst case scenario (assuming he stays healthy) is that he doesn't improve, and that he becomes another Derek Fisher / Bruce Bowen / Shane Battier - all guys who would have been worth at least a midlevel exception in their primes.  So basically worse case is you end up overpaying by $2-$3 million...big deal. 

Best case is that AB makes use of his opportunity and improves significantly, develops in to a guy who gives you a consistent >18/5/2 on 45/40/80 shooting combined with elite, game changing defence.  Suddenly you've paid $8M for a guy who is worth max contract money.  Bargain.   

If you end up half way in the middle, then you've got a guy who gives you 14/4/2 on 45/40/80 shooting with above average defence - in this case you've paid fair money so no loss, no gain.

I really don't get the issue.  Looking at what other teams paid for guys like Gordon Hayward and Chadler Parsons...the AB signing looks like an outright bargain.

[obnoxiousmime]

I really don't get the issue.  Looking at what other teams paid for guys like Gordon Hayward and Chadler Parsons...the AB signing looks like an outright bargain.

Just because one team overpays for a player doesn't justify your own signing. Also, every team is different in what position or strategy they're employing.

Hayward had a disappointing year, but he's a wing and optimistically projects as the third best player on a good team. Since Utah has been rebuilding awhile, they can't afford to reset again and lose Hayward for nothing. Utah also has to keep any talent that is willing to stick around because their market is even less popular than Boston's. They also have oodles of cap space right now, so this is an expenditure they can afford.

The Mavericks have decided they have to compete during Nowitzki's twilight and since they haven't been able to attract any top talent the last few years after their title run, they pretty much had to get SOMEONE. That ended up being Parsons, who probably also projects as the third best player on a good team. Did they overpay? Maybe, but they didn't have any other choices and Parsons is young and will play beyond Nowitzki.

These two players have shown more offensive potential in their careers and have prototypical or above average size for their position. They both have always averaged more assists/game than Bradley as well. Parsons has the name recognition as a minor star (non-basketball factors should also be considered; Parsons is also big in China from playing in Houston) while Bradley would probably have a tough time being recognized most places in Boston.

The one skill that Bradley is superior at is defense, which is not something teams pay a premium for (unless it's interior defense of course). Offensive skill is a lot rarer and thus costs more. If individual defense was so important, Tony Allen would be making more than 4.5 mil/year (his highest contract ever).

Put it this way: if the Celtics offered two Avery Bradleys for Chandler Parsons or Gordon Hayward, the other team would probably say "no." Even if Bradley offers more on-court value per that 8 million salary, teams think they can find Bradleys more easily than a Parsons or Hayward.

The 8 million/year is really a projection of Bradley's shot continuing to improve so he can become a better version of a 3 and D guy. I don't think his offensive game will ever be more diverse because he just doesn't have the vision or coordination with the ball in his hands.

Finally, I have to admit that besides health questions, ultimately I may just really biased against his size. He just doesn't have the preferred size for a SG, which is one of the reasons they kept trying to make him a PG. He doesn't fit my idealized "championship starting lineup" that I dream about in my mind. I know it's unfair but I can't help it. Does anybody else feel this way?

I think Ainge decided keeping Bradley at that price was better than losing him for nothing, and I accept that. Since the team is going to be rebuilding for awhile, by the time they are ready to make their move Bradley's deal will be a few years in and moveable if needs be. However, I don't think that losing Bradley in FA would have been a great blow either. Yes you lose the player but you could have spent that money down the road on another player(s) who offerred similar value per dollar.

[chambers]

Yeah it's becoming more apparent that Ainge potentially made out like a bandit in this new Bradley deal.
The risk is obviously his injury history.
When I first saw Bradley's new contract terms I was quite angry with Ainge, and had trouble understanding the move. (were we going to sign and trade him?).
I had no idea the cap would probably go up that much.
Ainge and the NBA were all over it though. If worse comes to worse he'd be like a current $5 Million MLE player locked in like the Tony Allen we lost as he hit his prime.
Could be an enormous trade chip if he takes another step to being a legitimate starting SG in the NBA of an Aron Afflalo level.

[Rondo9]

I really don't get the issue.  Looking at what other teams paid for guys like Gordon Hayward and Chadler Parsons...the AB signing looks like an outright bargain.

Just because one team overpays for a player doesn't justify your own signing. Also, every team is different in what position or strategy they're employing.

Hayward had a disappointing year, but he's a wing and optimistically projects as the third best player on a good team. Since Utah has been rebuilding awhile, they can't afford to reset again and lose Hayward for nothing. Utah also has to keep any talent that is willing to stick around because their market is even less popular than Boston's. They also have oodles of cap space right now, so this is an expenditure they can afford.

The Mavericks have decided they have to compete during Nowitzki's twilight and since they haven't been able to attract any top talent the last few years after their title run, they pretty much had to get SOMEONE. That ended up being Parsons, who probably also projects as the third best player on a good team. Did they overpay? Maybe, but they didn't have any other choices and Parsons is young and will play beyond Nowitzki.

These two players have shown more offensive potential in their careers and have prototypical or above average size for their position. They both have always averaged more assists/game than Bradley as well. Parsons has the name recognition as a minor star (non-basketball factors should also be considered; Parsons is also big in China from playing in Houston) while Bradley would probably have a tough time being recognized most places in Boston.

The one skill that Bradley is superior at is defense, which is not something teams pay a premium for (unless it's interior defense of course). Offensive skill is a lot rarer and thus costs more. If individual defense was so important, Tony Allen would be making more than 4.5 mil/year (his highest contract ever).

Put it this way: if the Celtics offered two Avery Bradleys for Chandler Parsons or Gordon Hayward, the other team would probably say "no." Even if Bradley offers more on-court value per that 8 million salary, teams think they can find Bradleys more easily than a Parsons or Hayward.

The 8 million/year is really a projection of Bradley's shot continuing to improve so he can become a better version of a 3 and D guy. I don't think his offensive game will ever be more diverse because he just doesn't have the vision or coordination with the ball in his hands.

Finally, I have to admit that besides health questions, ultimately I may just really biased against his size. He just doesn't have the preferred size for a SG, which is one of the reasons they kept trying to make him a PG. He doesn't fit my idealized "championship starting lineup" that I dream about in my mind. I know it's unfair but I can't help it. Does anybody else feel this way?

I think Ainge decided keeping Bradley at that price was better than losing him for nothing, and I accept that. Since the team is going to be rebuilding for awhile, by the time they are ready to make their move Bradley's deal will be a few years in and moveable if needs be. However, I don't think that losing Bradley in FA would have been a great blow either. Yes you lose the player but you could have spent that money down the road on another player(s) who offerred similar value per dollar.

Really?! You don't think Bradley can't improve on his game, have you seen him this year? He improved on his 3 point shot and is shown to have signs of a diverse offense, with his pull up mid-range jump shot. His next step in his development is his ballhandling and it looks like he's working hard on it. Just because he doesn't fit your ideal size doesn't mean you should discard him, he still has a lot of potential left. One thing that Bradley has that Hayward and Parsons don't have is a All NBA defensive team under his belt. And considering there a lot of good point  guards right now, Bradley would be really valuable to have.

[Eddie20]

It is a small sample size, but Bradley has been brilliant since the All-Star break. In the last three games, his assists-to-turnovers average was 6, up from the 1.1 he averaged in the season’s opening half. His effective field-goal percentage — a metric that gives added weight to 3-pointers — increased from 48.9 to 57.1. Bradley is averaging 23.7 points and 4.3 steals per game since the break.

Bradley's game has improved yet again. His dribbling is much improved and he's showing the ability to generate offense on pick and rolls, not just by scoring, but by finding the open man. In addition, he's been really clutch in the 4Q and has hit a number of big shots.

The point of rehashing this thread is how his steal of a contract, along with Thomas', shakes out the next few years, especially with the rise of the cap. Perhaps some of the initial pessimists have now changed their stance.


This is the combined contracts of Bradley and Thomas over the next 3 seasons:

15/16 = 14.6M
16/17 = 14.7M
17/18 = 15M