Author Topic: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable  (Read 1917 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« on: November 11, 2017, 12:10:45 PM »

Offline triboy16f

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19102
  • Tommy Points: 452
From 1 to 10 is he??

Chris Gasper thinks even if he keeps shooting less than 40 percent from the field (which is a clown show now btw) . Smart will be able to still command 20 million a year due to his defense, intangibles and 4th quarter intensity.

At this price tag, it will be very difficult to keep him long term.  Any NBA team can only really pay 3 max players .  Don't forget we will need to worry about Brown and Tatum next contract sooner than later

So the question is, is Smart replaceable?  (via Semi, Rozier etc)  .  If not how does this all play out?

Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2017, 12:13:55 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9407
  • Tommy Points: 1044
Smart isn't going to get offers anywhere near $20mil per year. Maybe half that.

Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2017, 12:24:07 PM »

Offline CelticD

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 625
  • Tommy Points: 100
  • Forever LIT
There's no way this guy could command 20m a year for just his defense alone. He has no defensive accolades, and his only notable accolade is the 2nd All-rookie team in a weak draft class.

He's shooting under 30% from both the 3-point line AND the field so far this season. Is there any precedent for a wing player that only plays defense to get that kind of money despite shooting THIS historically bad?

In terms of "Is he replaceable"? I'd say he'd be irreplaceable if he didn't maximize his weaknesses by shooting so dang much, but as of right now, if the C's don't re-sign him I wouldn't shed a tear.

Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2017, 12:27:20 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16300
  • Tommy Points: 1155
Chris Gasper thinks even if he keeps shooting less than 40 percent from the field (which is a clown show now btw) . Smart will be able to still command 20 million a year due to his defense, intangibles and 4th quarter intensity.
Chris Gasper pays attention to basketball? But it's not the NBA finals yet...

Also, it's worth noting that Smart's "new and improved" shooting this season has him struggling to reach the 30%, not the 40% mark. That's from the field, not from three.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2017, 12:32:13 PM »

Offline RJ87

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5840
  • Tommy Points: 311
  • Let's Go Celtics!
I think Phoenix is gonna throw a lot of money at him, will it be $20m? Idk. But he makes sense from a basketball standpoint and they will have the money to spend.
Thank you, Isaiah!!!

Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2017, 12:33:39 PM »

Offline triboy16f

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19102
  • Tommy Points: 452
Chris Gasper thinks even if he keeps shooting less than 40 percent from the field (which is a clown show now btw) . Smart will be able to still command 20 million a year due to his defense, intangibles and 4th quarter intensity.
Chris Gasper pays attention to basketball? But it's not the NBA finals yet...

Also, it's worth noting that Smart's "new and improved" shooting this season has him struggling to reach the 30%, not the 40% mark. That's from the field, not from three.

he "looks" better shooting the ball though

when he is wide open he looks like he makes it more often than not

in the past you didn't know what was coming

but yes, overall stat wise its the same broken record

Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2017, 12:35:32 PM »

Offline GreenGoggles

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 325
  • Tommy Points: 76
Smart is averaging the most shots per game of his career and shooting a career low. He is not an NBA player on offense.

Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2017, 12:36:50 PM »

Offline triboy16f

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19102
  • Tommy Points: 452
There's no way this guy could command 20m a year for just his defense alone. He has no defensive accolades, and his only notable accolade is the 2nd All-rookie team in a weak draft class.

He's shooting under 30% from both the 3-point line AND the field so far this season. Is there any precedent for a wing player that only plays defense to get that kind of money despite shooting THIS historically bad?

In terms of "Is he replaceable"? I'd say he'd be irreplaceable if he didn't maximize his weaknesses by shooting so dang much, but as of right now, if the C's don't re-sign him I wouldn't shed a tear.

First for everything lol

Dummy Memphis threw millions at a guy riding a wheelchair pretty much (Parsons)

I think a team like Brooklyn will have no problems throwing this money at smart. Also be a nice revenge type signing.   I can see them try to pry off Smart, Rozier, Brown, Tatum etc.


Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2017, 12:38:18 PM »

Offline IDreamCeltics

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 671
  • Tommy Points: 75
I actually think this is a great opportunity to resign Smart. 

Yes, defense first point guard is the most replaceable position, BUT Smart is 3 years into his NBA career.  That's 3 years of playing competitive NBA basketball.  While the statistics aren't bearing out his improvement you can see in his game a lot of minor adjustments and improvements that are going to eventually add up.

It's not like he's a joke, he was just ALWAYS a long term project on offense.  People who are tired of waiting now just made the mistake of overhyping his potential.  If, and I mean IF, the Celtics can resign him at an all time low in what the league accepts as his value and "potential" I'm all for it.  Guys like Smart find ways to stay relevant in the NBA, maybe his offense won't bloom until he can't take over games defensively anymore, but at some point it will and suddenly you'll have a good defensive guard with strong passing skills and some offense who has spent half a decade under the best coach in the NBA.

Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2017, 12:39:57 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16300
  • Tommy Points: 1155
Chris Gasper thinks even if he keeps shooting less than 40 percent from the field (which is a clown show now btw) . Smart will be able to still command 20 million a year due to his defense, intangibles and 4th quarter intensity.
Chris Gasper pays attention to basketball? But it's not the NBA finals yet...

Also, it's worth noting that Smart's "new and improved" shooting this season has him struggling to reach the 30%, not the 40% mark. That's from the field, not from three.

he "looks" better shooting the ball though

when he is wide open he looks like he makes it more often than not

in the past you didn't know what was coming

but yes, overall stat wise its the same broken record
Nope.

His EFG hovers around 45% when open/wide open (no-one within 4 feet). Virtually the same as last season.

The new NBA advanced stats are a wonderful thing.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2017, 12:48:25 PM »

Offline triboy16f

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19102
  • Tommy Points: 452
I actually think this is a great opportunity to resign Smart. 

Yes, defense first point guard is the most replaceable position, BUT Smart is 3 years into his NBA career.  That's 3 years of playing competitive NBA basketball.  While the statistics aren't bearing out his improvement you can see in his game a lot of minor adjustments and improvements that are going to eventually add up.

It's not like he's a joke, he was just ALWAYS a long term project on offense.  People who are tired of waiting now just made the mistake of overhyping his potential.  If, and I mean IF, the Celtics can resign him at an all time low in what the league accepts as his value and "potential" I'm all for it.  Guys like Smart find ways to stay relevant in the NBA, maybe his offense won't bloom until he can't take over games defensively anymore, but at some point it will and suddenly you'll have a good defensive guard with strong passing skills and some offense who has spent half a decade under the best coach in the NBA.

Danny tried

If Danny offered him 10 million a season and he said no..... understandable

if Danny was closer to 13-14 million per season and he said no....

well he must be confident he can get closer to 20 million per season from some foolish team


Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2017, 12:50:26 PM »

Offline positivitize

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2260
  • Tommy Points: 572
  • Puns of steel
Nope, he's not replaceable. Resigning both Smart and Baynes need to be the #1 and #2 priorities this offseason. Hopefully, his low percentages will make it possible.

I read http://celticsgreen.blogspot.com's Comments from the Other Side after almost every game. 100% of the time, there are comments about how the opposing team hates playing against Smart. 80% of the time, there's a response saying that Smart's the kind of guy you hate to play against but love to have on your team. 75% of the time there's a comment saying "I wish Smart were on our team" or something like that. Smart is a coveted player, no matter how bad his offense is.

So my answer to your question is 2 or 9, depending on if high or low is Irreplaceable.

Biasies:
Pro-Smart, Pro-Brown, Pro-Irving, Pro-Baynes

Anti-Nader, Anti-Yabu, Anti-Rozier, Anti-Morris

Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2017, 12:50:44 PM »

Offline DefenseWinsChamps

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1347
  • Tommy Points: 252
Why do you think we have Rozier, Bird, and Allen?

To make smart expendable. Iím almost ready to sell my smart stock.

Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2017, 12:56:46 PM »

Offline ImShakHeIsShaq

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7167
  • Tommy Points: 730
I actually think this is a great opportunity to resign Smart. 

Yes, defense first point guard is the most replaceable position, BUT Smart is 3 years into his NBA career.  That's 3 years of playing competitive NBA basketball.  While the statistics aren't bearing out his improvement you can see in his game a lot of minor adjustments and improvements that are going to eventually add up.

It's not like he's a joke, he was just ALWAYS a long term project on offense.  People who are tired of waiting now just made the mistake of overhyping his potential.  If, and I mean IF, the Celtics can resign him at an all time low in what the league accepts as his value and "potential" I'm all for it.  Guys like Smart find ways to stay relevant in the NBA, maybe his offense won't bloom until he can't take over games defensively anymore, but at some point it will and suddenly you'll have a good defensive guard with strong passing skills and some offense who has spent half a decade under the best coach in the NBA.


This is year 4 but it is still early and he is young.
It takes me 3hrs to get to Miami and 1hr to get to Orlando... but I *SPIT* on their NBA teams! "Bless God and bless the (Celts)"-Lady GaGa (she said gays but she really meant Celts)

Re: Objective thinking: Is Smart replaceable
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2017, 12:57:03 PM »

Offline BringToughnessBack

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1489
  • Tommy Points: 261
He brings so much to the table on the Defensive and intensity side. He is the kind of guy you want going into war with you and for playoffs, an important piece of our cog. However, I would not let him be shooting the canyon in the war. We do need a few stoppers on our side for playoffs though to put on opposing team stars. Those kind of players don't grow on trees.

When a horrible shooter has a shooters mentality, think A. Walker with threes but a thousand times worse, we have a problem. I wish he would focus on improving his passing even more to increase assists and lower shots per game. His value could approach 15M for us if he did that.

Only shoot when he is wide, wide open and that is if there another player who is not also wide open who shoots better for him to pass to.

AT 20M with current offensive shooting problems, that would be a crippling signing and not one I want any part of right now. At least with Avery Bradley and even Tony Allen from years ago, there was potential for improvement in shooting. I have not seen that yet and that is most likely because he is shooting some wild shots and not showing discipline.