PDA

View Full Version : Deal: Avery Bradley re-signs with the Celtics



ATX
07-02-2014, 10:17 AM
https://twitter.com/BaxterHolmes

4 year/32M

Thought this deserved it's own thread, considering Meeks got one.

jaydubb
07-02-2014, 10:25 AM
Everybody's been getting a good pay day so far..

nycericanguy
07-02-2014, 10:29 AM
I sense another lockout coming...

The whole NBA cap system is so screwed up... garbage players making almost as much as the stars. And the true stars can't get anywhere near their real value.

king4day
07-02-2014, 10:36 AM
I sense another lockout coming...

The whole NBA cap system is so screwed up... garbage players making almost as much as the stars. And the true stars can't get anywhere near their real value.

Either that or they need to seriously raise the cap. If teams are willing to pay decent talent this much, then really good talent should naturally get ore. But the cap doesn't allow it and teams get backed in a corner.

Allow a higher cap but also limit how many 'A' level free agents team can have. That way the big name players can be spread out and it will force GM's to really do their job in surrounding them with talent.

HYFR
07-02-2014, 10:42 AM
I sense another lockout coming...

The whole NBA cap system is so screwed up... garbage players making almost as much as the stars. And the true stars can't get anywhere near their real value.

Either that or they need to seriously raise the cap. If teams are willing to pay decent talent this much, then really good talent should naturally get ore. But the cap doesn't allow it and teams get backed in a corner.

Allow a higher cap but also limit how many 'A' level free agents team can have. That way the big name players can be spread out and it will force GM's to really do their job in surrounding them with talent.

This! I'm sorry but Avery Bradley is just not an 8 million dollar player.

IndyRealist
07-02-2014, 10:44 AM
I sense another lockout coming...

The whole NBA cap system is so screwed up... garbage players making almost as much as the stars. And the true stars can't get anywhere near their real value.

Per Yahoo Sports, the NBAPA is telling players to prepare for a lockout in 2017 by structuring their pay over 18 months instead of 12. I think players are going to demand a return to 57% of revenue. Everyone knows the players got bilked by the owners in this CBA.

scissors
07-02-2014, 10:45 AM
Either that or they need to seriously raise the cap. If teams are willing to pay decent talent this much, then really good talent should naturally get ore. But the cap doesn't allow it and teams get backed in a corner.

Allow a higher cap but also limit how many 'A' level free agents team can have. That way the big name players can be spread out and it will force GM's to really do their job in surrounding them with talent.

I think the way to fix stars not getting paid enough and the way to limit how many "A" level stars a team has is do something like the following:

Each team can have 1 player they are allowed to sign to as big and as long a contract as possible and it doesn't affect their cap at all. These players salary in a trade is the equivalent of any "MAX" contract so teams can trade for this type of signed player but may only have one on the roster without it affecting the cap. Then you actually lower the salary cap by 18 million or so.

nycericanguy
07-02-2014, 10:47 AM
Either that or they need to seriously raise the cap. If teams are willing to pay decent talent this much, then really good talent should naturally get ore. But the cap doesn't allow it and teams get backed in a corner.

Allow a higher cap but also limit how many 'A' level free agents team can have. That way the big name players can be spread out and it will force GM's to really do their job in surrounding them with talent.

The cap needs to go up and abolish the max salary. Let players make their true value. Let a GM offer LBJ $50m per year... if the cap is around $80m and you want to give $50m to LBJ so be it... should be a free market. You can still build a team around LBJ with the remainning $30m if you spend wisely.

This would stop all the super teaming up... or at least make it much harder. I mean it's easy for LBJ to give up 2-3m per year to have his star buddies... but would he leave $30m per year on the table to have a super team? I doubt it.

NYKnickFanatic
07-02-2014, 10:47 AM
I think it's time we just rid of the cap. Let owners spend as much money as they want. **** it.

IndyRealist
07-02-2014, 10:48 AM
I think the way to fix stars not getting paid enough and the way to limit how many "A" level stars a team has is do something like the following:

Each team can have 1 player they are allowed to sign to as big and as long a contract as possible and it doesn't affect their cap at all. These players salary in a trade is the equivalent of any "MAX" contract so teams can trade for this type of signed player but may only have one on the roster without it affecting the cap. Then you actually lower the salary cap by 18 million or so.

Then small markets will never get an A-list player, because they can't offer $40-50M/yr like the Lakers and Knicks can.

Lo Porto
07-02-2014, 10:48 AM
Anybody remember when these issues didn't exist then MJ thought he should get paid $36 million two years in a row for 96-98? His greed and the NBA's poor salary structure response ever since has really been an epic failure. Weak luxury taxes, max player scales, mid level exception rules, etc.

nycericanguy
07-02-2014, 10:51 AM
I think it's time we just rid of the cap. Let owners spend as much money as they want. **** it.

you gotta have a team cap... otherwise all the stars will just team up in NY & LA... and that wouldnt be any fun.

But this whole max salary thing is silly. Now everyone is getting a max... Gordon freaking Haywood is not a max player...

NYKnickFanatic
07-02-2014, 10:52 AM
you gotta have a team cap... otherwise all the stars will just team up in NY & LA... and that wouldnt be any fun.

But this whole max salary thing is silly. Now everyone is getting a max... Gordon freaking Haywood is not a max player...

Or would it? ;)

bleedprple&gold
07-02-2014, 10:53 AM
I think the way to fix stars not getting paid enough and the way to limit how many "A" level stars a team has is do something like the following:

Each team can have 1 player they are allowed to sign to as big and as long a contract as possible and it doesn't affect their cap at all. These players salary in a trade is the equivalent of any "MAX" contract so teams can trade for this type of signed player but may only have one on the roster without it affecting the cap. Then you actually lower the salary cap by 18 million or so.

Then small markets will never get an A-list player, because they can't offer $40-50M/yr like the Lakers and Knicks can.

They could. They would just have that star player and a bunch of garbage. Stars would go there for the money but not to win.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
07-02-2014, 10:53 AM
wow does overpaying ever stop?

scissors
07-02-2014, 10:54 AM
Anybody remember when these issues didn't exist then MJ thought he should get paid $36 million two years in a row for 96-98? His greed and the NBA's poor salary structure response ever since has really been an epic failure. Weak luxury taxes, max player scales, mid level exception rules, etc.

Yeah, but how much did he get paid the rest of his career dude.

nycericanguy
07-02-2014, 10:55 AM
Or would it? ;)

haha... it gets old and boring though if a team is just buying the stars every year... like the Yankees.

That 2009 team that won the title was just hired guns... it was nothing like the 96-2000 homegrown yankees

i mean look at MIA fans... they don't really care about that team... they show up late, leave during finals' games... it's not really fun when you have lil competition and are EXPECTED to win.

scissors
07-02-2014, 10:56 AM
Then small markets will never get an A-list player, because they can't offer $40-50M/yr like the Lakers and Knicks can.

First of all the Lakers and Knicks can only have 1 player like that. Secondly a player like Lebron would bring that kind of value to the Bucks where they actually could offer him 50 million

Lo Porto
07-02-2014, 10:56 AM
The NBA should use the NFL model. Have a firm salary cap. Every player you have has to fill in that number. If you want to use $40 of your $70 on LBJ, so be it but you've only got $30 left. Every player contract should be only guaranteed for 50% after two years (the NBA will never get to a player waiving league like the NFL).

NYKnickFanatic
07-02-2014, 10:58 AM
wow does overpaying ever stop?

Ask your owner.

Corey
07-02-2014, 10:58 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3J16jtTxUU

He's greatly improved.

His shot chart from 2012-2013:

http://i.imgur.com/uEp9l6w.png

His shot chart from 2013-2014:

http://i.imgur.com/57k2nvr.png




He's arguably a top 3 defensive 1/2 in the league. He's turned into a good offensive player. He's only 23.

I like it.

scissors
07-02-2014, 10:59 AM
Ask your owner.

Says the Knick fan.

IndyRealist
07-02-2014, 11:01 AM
They could. They would just have that star player and a bunch of garbage. Stars would go there for the money but not to win.

First of all the Lakers and Knicks can only have 1 player like that. Secondly a player like Lebron would bring that kind of value to the Bucks where they actually could offer him 50 million


The Lakers, Clippers, Knicks, Celtics, Nets, and to a lesser extent the Warriors and Bulls, operate on a completely different set of rules than the rest of the league. Their media markets are so huge, and their TV deals so profitable, that they can afford to flaunt salaries. The rest of the league can't. There is no way Indiana could have paid Paul George $30-40M/yr, they're losing money as is. They certainly couldn't do it and field a competitive team. So what you want is all the championships to be concentrated in a handful of teams, MORE THAN IT IS NOW?

These ideas only come from fans of large market teams. I shouldn't have to spell out things like this.

Scissors, there is no way the Bucks could recoup $50M for Lebron. MOST OF THE MONEY COMES FROM TV DEALS, and small market teams do not get the billions of dollars that large markets do.

NYKnickFanatic
07-02-2014, 11:01 AM
haha... it gets old and boring though if a team is just buying the stars every year... like the Yankees.

That 2009 team that won the title was just hired guns... it was nothing like the 96-2000 homegrown yankees

i mean look at MIA fans... they don't really care about that team... they show up late, leave during finals' games... it's not really fun when you have lil competition and are EXPECTED to win.

Lol I get what you're saying. I just want to see the Knicks win a championship before I die haha.

NYKnickFanatic
07-02-2014, 11:02 AM
Says the Knick fan.

:cool:

Crackadalic
07-02-2014, 11:07 AM
It's not a bad deal but man it seems like another lockout is coming

scissors
07-02-2014, 11:09 AM
The Lakers, Clippers, Knicks, Celtics, Nets, and to a lesser extent the Warriors and Bulls, operate on a completely different set of rules than the rest of the league. Their media markets are so huge, and their TV deals so profitable, that they can afford to flaunt salaries. The rest of the league can't. There is no way Indiana could have paid Paul George $30-40M/yr, they're losing money as is. They certainly couldn't do it and field a competitive team. So what you want is all the championships to be concentrated in a handful of teams, MORE THAN IT IS NOW?

These ideas only come from fans of large market teams. I shouldn't have to spell out things like this.

Scissors, there is no way the Bucks could recoup $50M for Lebron. MOST OF THE MONEY COMES FROM TV DEALS, and small market teams do not get the billions of dollars that large markets do.

First of all I'm a Dallas fan. We've never landed a big free agent. You aren't paying enough attention. Eventually the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls, Clippers, Nets all have that one player that is getting 50 million a year. Now Paul George has a choice - make 20 mil a year to join Melo in LA OR make 30 mil a year in IND. You won't have the bidding wars you are conjuring because each team can only have one player at a time that fits into that. Maybe you even do something crazy like they have to have been on the team for 3 years before to qualify. I think there is some way to make it fit. To fix the problem completely you would need to contract about 10 teams.

IndyRealist
07-02-2014, 11:14 AM
First of all I'm a Dallas fan. We've never landed a big free agent. You aren't paying enough attention. Eventually the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls, Clippers, Nets all have that one player that is getting 50 million a year. Now Paul George has a choice - make 20 mil a year to join Melo in LA OR make 30 mil a year in IND. You won't have the bidding wars you are conjuring because each team can only have one player at a time that fits into that. Maybe you even do something crazy like they have to have been on the team for 3 years before to qualify. I think there is some way to make it fit. To fix the problem completely you would need to contract about 10 teams.
The problem is simply to solve, hard cap but no individual salary limits. Everyone has to play by the same rules, no matter how much money their market brings in.

I Rock Shaqs
07-02-2014, 11:20 AM
Lmao 8 a year for Bradley XD, guys a borderline scrub, he's like Tony allen except not as good.

king4day
07-02-2014, 11:23 AM
wow does overpaying ever stop?

It'll continue with Lowry, Bledsoe, and Hayward for sure.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
07-02-2014, 11:24 AM
Ask your owner.

lol look who's talking

Corey
07-02-2014, 11:25 AM
Lmao 8 a year for Bradley XD, guys a borderline scrub, he's like Tony allen except not as good.

Awkward that he's as good defensively at the 2 and a better offensive player.

Oh, and 23 years old.

QueensG_718
07-02-2014, 11:38 AM
Ide take avery Bradley over tony allen

Gibby23
07-02-2014, 11:45 AM
Isn't he always hurt?

Aust
07-02-2014, 12:06 PM
He may not be an 8m player now, but he can become one through the life of the contract. The Celtics have cap space and are rebuilding. This makes sense.

Corey
07-02-2014, 12:10 PM
He may not be an 8m player now, but he can become one through the life of the contract. The Celtics have cap space and are rebuilding. This makes sense.

Yeah. Its an overpay for the first year, middle of the road for the second year, hopefully good value for years 3 and 4.

0nekhmer
07-02-2014, 12:27 PM
Why do these idiot GMs do this. It just increases the market value for guys who don't deserve this much

Stinkyoutsider
07-02-2014, 12:34 PM
I kind of thought Bradley could be a mid level player so he's got a good agent if that deal is confirmed.

It always seems that the league makes all these cap/spending rules to protect the clubs from themselves? Not saying that they don't want to limit salaries teams can pay to help out small market teams but it feels like the most important reason to have these rules is to ensure the clubs don't make big mistakes and fold.

IndyRealist
07-02-2014, 12:38 PM
Let's also remember that the salary cap is going up by quite a bit this year, so Bradley will only be making slightly more than the MLE.

bcc
07-02-2014, 02:09 PM
Lmao 8 a year for Bradley XD, guys a borderline scrub, he's like Tony allen except not as good.
---------------------------------------
23 years old, 14.9 PPG and positively as good an on-the-ball defender as there is in the league.
For a developing team like the Celtics, he's a good piece to have.
His principal problem has been staying healthy.
Maybe a million more a season than they would've liked but rather have him than not have him.
The Jodi Meeks contract is the real travesty thufar.
....along with people that still use LMAO...

Lil Rhody
07-02-2014, 02:38 PM
Bye bye rondo

hugepatsfan
07-02-2014, 06:36 PM
His problem is health. If he's healthy this isn't a bad deal at all. 4 years 28 million was kind of what I had been throwing around in my head. This is basically that.

NBA_Starter
07-02-2014, 06:39 PM
Yeah. Its an overpay for the first year, middle of the road for the second year, hopefully good value for years 3 and 4.

That is just the market we are in right now, it is happening to just about any team.

Corey
07-02-2014, 07:04 PM
That is just the market we are in right now, it is happening to just about any team.

Oh Im all for the signing, that's just the most rational way I can explain it to C's fans that are pissed.

bleedprple&gold
07-02-2014, 07:45 PM
I don't understand why teams overpay these role players. And next year they are going to be trying to get rid of his contract like Minny is with Kmart and many others.

hugepatsfan
07-02-2014, 07:49 PM
I don't understand why teams overpay these role players. And next year they are going to be trying to get rid of his contract like Minny is with Kmart and many others.

Those are two totally different animals. Kmart is 30+ and in decline. Bradley is 23. BOS won't be trying to get out of this deal. Bradley is a $6-8 million/year player IMO so this is right on the edge of his range. The problem with him is health. If healthy, this won't be a bad contract at all.

IversonIsKrazy
07-02-2014, 07:54 PM
Like, was another team even going to throw $8M at Bradley? Shouldn't have been higher than $6M. Another overpayment this summer.

hugepatsfan
07-02-2014, 08:03 PM
Like, was another team even going to throw $8M at Bradley? Shouldn't have been higher than $6M. Another overpayment this summer.

Maybe Bradley wouldn't have signed for $6 million though. His tender was $3.5 million. Maybe at $6 million he thought it was worth it to just play out his tender. If he put together a healthy year, he easily could have gotten $8 mil/year as an unrestricted free agent next year. He actually improved A LOT last year as an offensive player. He learned how to create offense for himself and progressed as a shooter. And all that was playing a lot of PG when he's naturally a SG. BOS would have ran the risk of losing him next year without the right to match offers so they decided to spend a little extra now.

PAOboston
07-03-2014, 12:13 AM
This is a good deal imo. Bradley has improved every year he's been in the league. He's an elite defender against pg's and smaller 2's and shot the 3 at a 40% clip last season along with averaging 15 pts a game. If Jodie freaking Meeks gets close to 6.5 mil per, who's a drastically inferior player to Bradley imo (age, defense, shooting, intangibles), what did you think Bradley was gonna get???

As for his health, it is a slight concern. But he's gonna get beat up the way he plays the game/defense. He's up to 200 lbs so he might be better equipped to handle the physical play now but I'd rather have him than not have him. He's gonna be part of an insane defensive backcourt with Smart/Rondo.

KnicksorBust
07-03-2014, 02:18 AM
Avery Bradley $8 million per year.
Tim Duncan $10 million per year.

:laugh:

bcc
07-03-2014, 04:23 PM
NYK
The previous 40 years
:laugh2: