Getting back to yesterday's posts, let's tackle the issue of "minutes", which B thought was a specious argument. Maybe my post wasn't clearly articulated, and maybe Danny Ainge is talking out of both sides of his mouth. But here's what I meant, and here's what I think the Celtics brain trust were thinking.
Blount is a lazy player, as evidenced by his dropoff in production between his contract year and the last year and a half. Bob Ryan says as much in his piece today.
What an object lesson [Blount] turned out to be. Here's a guy whose whole shtick was that he had worked and worked and worked to make himself into such a useful and worthy player, so impressing the team that he was rewarded with the proverbial Big Contract at the conclusion of the 2003-04 season. He was never going to be an elite center, but at 28 it looked as if he could be a second-tier guy you could win with, a la, say, Jamaal Magloire or Rasho Nesterovic.So here are the Celtics, stuck with a $7m per year deal and a 7 foot center who rebounds worse than Moochie Norris. On the other hand, they've got two youngsters who essentially play the same positions that Blount plays, and are beginning to develop into legitimate NBA players. How far they'll develop is a legitimate question, but if you don't start playing them more, you're never going to know. So there's a basketball determination -- these guys are going to begin playing at least 20-30 minutes a game. And guys like Brian Scalabrine and Raef LaFrentz, who at least play hard, are going to be getting minutes too. So where does that leave your $7m per year underachieving 7 footer? With the short straw. And $7 million per year for four and a half more years is a lot of dough to pay someone for riding the pine.Of course, there is always a danger in pro sports of handing over the big guaranteed money. What if the guy pockets the money, retires, and never bothers to tell anyone? What if, in other words, he plays the way Blount has for the past year and 42 games?
You get sick to your stomach, that's what. And then you hope you can find someone who will take him and his suddenly ugly contract, which is still good for $28 million, plus a 15 percent trade kicker.
I guess the simplest way of saying it is this -- they didn't trade Blount because otherwise they couldn't find the "minutes" for the pups. They traded him because they had already made the basketball determination that they were going to give minutes to Perkins and Jefferson. And hence, Blount wasn't goint to get a lot of minutes. And given that, shipping him and his $7m deal out the door was a good deal.
2 comments:
The issue of Blount and minutes is a rather minor one, so I'm not going to beat on it too much longer. Your basic argument-- that playing Blount somehow limited the number of minutes available in the future for Jefferson and Perkins-- makes sense in the abstract. Once you look at the Celtics actual rotations this year, however, it makes no sense. This is as simple as 1+1+1 equaling 3.
You say 'Al and Perk are going to begin playing 20-30 minutes a game' and when they do that leaves Blount on the bench. Here's the problem with that: Al and Perk have already been averaging more than 20 minutes a game since the end of September, even with Blount playing 30 minutes a game at the same time. Why hasn't this been a problem? Because there are 96 minutes a game to go around. You could play all three 30 minutes a night and still have time left over for Raef and Veal.
There are less than 10 NBA centers that average much more than 30 minutes a night, partly because when you're as massive as starting PF & Cs need to be in the modern NBA the game really abuses your body. So it's very unlikely that the Celtics have plans to play any of their big men significantly more than 30 minutes a night.
If M. and Ainge want to make the argument that trading Blount opens up minutes for Raef or Veal, go ahead. I don't think Ainge will say that in public because everyone who follows the NBA knows that both players are a big step down from Blount. And I say that knowing that we are in complete agreement about the weaknesses and limits of Blounts game.
Saying you're trading a better player to open up playing time for two worse players really doesn't make sense, unless there are other issues involved. But that's what the Celtics just did, and as we all know there are other issues involved.
This trade had nothing to do with creating minutes for Al and Perk, who were always going to play plenty. As Bob Ryan and Al Jefferson so extensively commented in today's papers (and as you quote on this blog) it was about moving a player that wasn't happy in Boston, on a long-term deal, and that the team didn't like. In the end Danny got to remain diplomatic and tactful about the departed although everyone in town knows what is going on. We on this board, however, shouldn't mistake a white lie for the truth.
Regarding B's comment on minutes:
Agreed that this is a minor point, and I also agree (as I did earlier) that this may well be a convenient excuse for (and polite way of) shoving Blount out the door. But I beg to differ on a few points.
First, if you played Blount, Perkins and Jefferson 30 minutes a night each, using your formula of 96 minutes for the center and PF position, you'd have exactly 6 minutes to split between Raef and Veal, as you call him. And that would mean nothing at all for any of the other big men on the roster.
So let's work with some real numbers. Thus far this year, Perkins is averaging 17 minutes a game. Jefferson is averaging 18. But let's take your figures of 20+ minutes per game since the end of September for each. Let's say 22.5 apiece just for the sake of argument. That's a total of 45 minutes per game between the pups. Raef is pulling in 23, so that brings us up to 68. Scalabrine is averaging 10. That brings us to 78. So right now, if we increase Perkins and Jefferson and leave everyone else the same, that would leave us with 18 minutes per game for Blount. (And that doesn't include Ryan Gomes, who averages 9 minutes at the PF/SF positions.)
Now admittedly, increasing Perkins and Jefferson's minutes doesn't have to translate directly into a reduction in Blount's numbers. You certainly could reduce Raef or Scalabrine or Gomes or all three, or even all four if you include Blount. But given what we know about Blount, both from his declining production over the last few years and from what's come out in the last few days, it's safe to say that the Celtics (both players and management) didn't much care for Blount and thought he was lazy. So, given that, the Celtics figured playing the pups more would translate into fewer minutes for Blount. So let's stick with 18 minutes per game as the final resting number for Blount.
So the question becomes, is $7m per year for 4.5 years a reasonable number to pay a veteran who plays 18 minutes a game? If he scores 12 points and pulls in 4 boards, as Blount is doing this year, maybe. But to put this in perspective, consider that under our new formula, his minutes were going to drop 30%. If his scoring and rebounding dropped accordingly, he'd be scoring 8 points per game and pulling in 3 boards. And assuming the pups stay healthy and continue to develop, his minutes, and therefore production, are going to decrease even futher in the next few years. Suddenly, $7m per starts to look pretty ugly.
Again, I'm not saying that jettisoning Blount "frees up" minutes. It's simply that there was a baskteball determination that the youngsters were going to play more, and that for a variety of reasons, Blount was the odd man out. His minutes would decrease, as would his production, and $7m was a lot of money to pay him.
But that's not the only consideration. As Blount's minutes and production decreased, his trade value would lessen as well. So the time was now to trade him. Especially when you can trade for an expiring contract (Kandi) and a youngster who might develop down the road (Dwayne Jones).
In the end, I agree with you, B, that the increase in minutes for the youngsters wasn't the whole reason Blount's minutes were decreased or the whole reason he got traded. They could have played the pups more, kept Blount's minutes, and reduced other people's minutes. But the Celtics made a basketball decision -- they were going to play the pups more, and reduce Blount's minutes (because he was lazy and had an attitude.) Once they made that determination, Blount became expendable. His value would only decrease as his playing time decreased, and his contract would begin to look uglier and uglier. And thus his minutes were a key part of the reason they traded him.
By the way, with the overhaul of the roster, the C/PF rotation begins to make a lot more sense. Perkins and Jefferson can continue to play 20+ minutes per game, maybe even as many as 25 if they really come into their own. Raef continues to play about 23. Scalabrine can play a little more if needed (he averaged 20 minutes last year with New Jersey, so could easily move up to about 15 minutes per game if needed -- and by the way, when he played 20 minutes per game, he averaged the exact same number of rebounds that Blount does at 27 minutes per game). But you also have Kandi, Gomes and Jones to split the rest . In the bargain, the Celtics shed a bad contract that was only going to get worse over the course of time, and rid their club of a major headache.
Post a Comment