An extension for Celtics’ Grant Williams considered likely

dboss wrote:

Ktron wrote:

dboss wrote:

Ktron wrote:

dboss wrote:

worcester wrote:If I were a player on the brink of signing an extension, I'd factor in the risk of sustaining a career-ending injury. Sign now and you have 4 years of a guaranteed high income. Play out this one year and you risk financial security, even without an injury if other players chew up your minutes. Think about Dennis Schroder's bad move.

I think the Clarke signing sets the market for Grant although I think $13.75 million is still on the high side for a PF that cannot rebound worth a damn.  

If he scoffs at the Celtics offer he better hope that he has a really strong year.  It would have to be better than his prior season.  With added depth on this team he may actually take a step back especially once Rob returns.

Anyways, I hope he stays with us because he has carved out a nice niche for himself on this team.

Dboss, comparing Clark and Grant’s numbers is only one part of an evaluation. Prudence dictates that you have to take those numbers into account but you also have to look beyond the numbers. Like, what level of impact does Brandon Clark have on his team as opposed to Grant’s level of impact on the Celtics. Applying the numbers only and not measuring other factors can more often than not lead to miscalculation. We can’t only look at the quantitative and ignore the qualitative.
In this case, from what i have seen of Clark, I don't think Brandon has as much impact on his team then Grant with ours. Grant may not be the greatest rebounder but if you factor in his versatility, his ability to play more than one position and how he meshes with the rest of the team on the court we may see that he is worth more than what Brandon got. I think he ends up with more but I would not be surprised if we low ball him and he accepts.

Ktron no two player are exactly alike even if they play the same position (PF) and even if both have been in the league for 3 years and even if their draft positions are just 1 above the other.  But there are measurebles  to consider as it relates to how much each guy is worth.

One player (Clarke) is decidedly more athletic and has big hops.  The other player (G Will) has no hops.  One player has become a very reliable knock down shooter from deep (Grant) The other player hardly ever takes a 3 point shot.   One player shoots 64% from the field (Clarke) and the other shoots 47% Which player has the biggest impact on their respective teams on offense and on defense?  Hint...it is not Grant.

To find the answer to that question I think you have to look at their ratings on offense and defense.

What I found is that Clarke has an offensive rating of 113.2 and Grant is at 112.5.   Pretty close.  On defense Clarke is 105.7 and Grant is 108.8  Those numbers translate into a net rating for Clarke of 7.5 and 4.5 for Grant.

Those numbers measure their individual impact on the floor per 100 possessions.

Clarke has been a double digit scorer in each of his 3 years in the league.  His career averages are
10.9 PPG and 5.6 rebounds and 1.4 assist.

I see Clarke as a pretty good measuring stick as it relates to Grant.  

Last year Clarke only played 19.5 MPG while Grant logged 24.5 MPG.   Clarke is more productive than Grant at both ends of the floor in less time.  

At this point I would be surprised if we see a last minute deal although it could happen.  I think Grant's value is somewhere between $10.5 - 12 Million per.

Dboss,
Your initial post on this was strictly based on numbers and thats what I responded to. In this post You expounded on my qualitative point than immediately resorted back to the quantitative.
Of course they are different players and that was my point. Would Brandon have the same impact on the C’s as he does on his current team? Would he have more or less impact on our team than Grant currently does? Would you trade Brandon for Grant straight up? If you would, thats fine. Not sure if I would. Ive seen more of Grant with his current teammates and not much of Clark with his current team and none as a Celtic.
its no secret that I look at numbers differently than you do. I don't discount them but there’s more intangibles that go into an evaluation than numbers. These ratings are with their current teammates so I don't put much weight on it.

ktron

I would not trade Grant for Clarke straight up.  I do not know if Brandon's impact would be the same.  Guys have different strengths that can be transferrable from one team to another.  

I agree that teams are all different but they can also be quite similar.  Players can have different roles on different teams or very similar roles on different teams.  I fully understand intangibles.  I do not agree that they carry more weight then numbers as you do.   Numbers are provable while intangibles are more subjective.  An Intangible can be supported by numbers but when isolated as a singular  idea or thought, is nothing more than a perception.

The comments that I have made in this thread are related to Grant William and his extension that he did not get.  Money and how it impacts the Celtics flexibility is one reason why he did not get the extension, YET.  I introduced Clarke's situation for comparison purposes.

when all is said and done "I think as Grant continues to expand his game off the bounce he could flirt with becoming a double digit scorer.  He is at 7.8 PPG.  2.2 PPG more gets him to 10.   I think he can do that and if he can become at least a 5 RPG power forward his productivity may help him get a better offer."

I think we somewhat agree on some of the points but numbers can be deceiving and when applied incorrectly can be more harmful than good.
EX: When I was working as a Media Specialist for the Dept. Of Commerce during the Dicennial Census the agency hired an outside ad agency to place all of the media buys for the 2020 Census. One of the criteria’s that the Ad agency used for print media was circulation.
If a newspaper did not have a circulation above 50,000, that newspaper was to be eliminated from any media buys. This subjective number would eliminate just about every African American Newspaper in the country.
During a workshop I put together a presentation that eventually changed that policy.
I pointed out that you cannot use numbers to equate the impact of what specific newspapers have on their communities.
For instance, the Dallas Examiner had a circulation below 50k but they were one of my media partners. The Dallas Examiner was engaged and involved with nearly every event that took place in the community. They were heavily engaged and involved in political races and hosted weekly forums which included candidates running for office. Despite having a circulation below 50k, this newspaper for years has been top of mind and a very reliable source for the community it serves for decades.
When I was done zeroing in on everything outside of the numbers, the agency began to take a deeper dive beyond the numbers and revamped the policy.
I’m not saying you discount numbers I am just pointing out the weight that at times is put on said numbers. The outside parameters weigh heavily when you are measuring effect.
Its just an example and that example extends to viewer and audience ratings as well as athletics and the players involved.

Here’s one other ex: We had a morning show host who had a 5 share rating and Ranked # 8 in morning drive amongst the com petition. Our evening personality had 12 share rating and ranked number 2 in his time slot.
Some would look at that and think that guy in the evening is kicking ass. He’s kicking that morning shows guy ass too. He has double the share of our morning guy. True but- Wrong!
The number of people listening during morning drive was much greater than the number of people listening in the evening.
Our morning guy had over 200,000 listeners our evening had slightly less than 75,000. Evenings share was larger but the number of listeners paled in comparison to our morning drive. Even though mornings had 5 share that 5% equated to more because there are more people listening during the morning as opposed to evening. The deep dive is revealing.

Agree. An intangible can be supported by numbers and numbers without the inclusion of important intangibles delivers false and misleading perceptions. They’re both very important. I look at both and put a lot on the intangibles because numbers alone can be tricky and misleading.

Ktron, you are a remarkable intellect, and we are lucky to have you on this board.

Thanks Worcester and I learn a great deal from others like yourself on this board.
The Intellect here is wide and covers so much. Its a joy. I learn more here than any of the outside blogs and podcasts.

Me too.

With Al Horford signing a team friendly 2 year extension, it provides the Celtics with the type of flexibility that they need to retain Grant Williams.

I have been tracking his production and he is having a career year.  28.3 MPG -  8.8 PPG/4.6 rebounds/2 assists. His shooting splits, 52%/44.2%/84.6%.  Those are very solid numbers but I do not think they translate into a mid-teens payday.

Once RW returns I think he may play fewer minutes which is likely to impact Grant's playing time.  

Despite all that, he is having an impactful contribution for the team.

In this older thread I reference grant as being an UFA.

However, if the Celtics make him the QO of $6.235 million, it will give them the right to match any offer that he gets.  He would be a RFA.  The deadline for the Celtics to make the QO is 6/20/2023

Grant has played in 56 games.  His availability is a favorable attribute.

As I continue to watch his play on the court and the resulting statistical production he still looks to me like a guy that may get the estimated MLE for non=tax paying teams.  I believe it will be around $11.2 million.

His numbers are better than last year but going from being a 7.8 PPG player to a 8.7 PPG player is less than 1 more point per game. I suspect that his minutes will be reduced as the team gets healthy and guys like Muscala in particular fit in at the stretch 4 position.  

Grant is a middle class guy but definitely not an upper middle class guy like Smart, White and Brogdon.