Predicting Which Boston Celtics Players Won't Be Back Next Season

Bleacher Report

BY BRYAN SHAFFER (FEATURED COLUMNIST)
The Boston Celtics can expect a roster shakeup during the 2013 NBA offseason.

The Celtics, who seem to be settling into the No. 7 seed in the Eastern Conference, have a lot of work to do with their roster. Though they have control over essentially all their current players, their two biggest stars, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett, are entering the latter half of their 30's. With their impending retirements looming in the not-too-distant future, the Celtics must make some changes over the summer.

Both Pierce and Garnett are under contract for the 2013-14 season, so this offseason's moves will likely be more tune-ups than some kind of face lift. However, some of those tweaks might be bigger than people expect.

A low-seeded playoff team has areas to improve, and there are certainly subtractions the Celtics can make to improve their club, with an eye on the short and long terms.



Rajon Rondo

Rajon Rondo, the Celtics superstar point guard, will not be playing his home games in the TD Bank Garden next season.

At the beginning of this season, such a statement would have been greeted with scoffs.

What a difference a couple of months make.

Before Rondo went down with a season-ending ACL injury on January 15, the Celtics were nursing a poor 20-23 record, and looked to be in the middle of a lost season.

To the surprise of most, the Rondo-less Celtics outperformed the early-season model, having gone 20-15 in games since the injury.

That is not to say that losing a talented ball distributor like Rondo has made the Celtics a better team. But it has shown fans and management alike that they need not be reliant on his wizardry to compete in their conference.

It seems very feasible that the Celtics' President of Basketball Operations, Danny Ainge, could make a push to move Rondo in the offseason.

Ainge has shown that he is willing to pull the trigger on risky trades in the past, such as the 2011 midseason trade that sent Kendrick Perkins to the Oklahoma City Thunder in exchange for Jeff Green.

In fact, just last season Ainge tried to deal Rondo for Chris Paul, so he is clearly not reluctant to move the popular point guard.

Even with Rondo coming off a major injury, there will be a favorable market for him. The league suffers a scarcity of truly dynamic ball distributors, and Rondo heads that prestigious list; he has averaged over 11 assists per game over the past three seasons. Remarkably, despite his playing in just 38 games this season, his five triple-doubles still lead the NBA.

That is not to mention his relatively cheap salary of $12 million next season, which ups his trade value more.

The Celtics, who are currently second-to-last in rebounds per game, are in desperate need of some front-court help. For a player like Rondo, there will be teams out there willing to part with a great player with some size.

Who is most likely to not be on the Celtics roster in 2013-14?

Rajon Rondo
12.7%
Jason Terry
33.8%
Jordan Crawford
25.8%
Other
27.7%
Total votes: 260


Jason Terry

Jason Terry might find himself as a one-season wonder in Boston.

With last offseason's loss of Ray Allen, Celtics fans looked to Terry to provide the roster with the sharp-shooter they have grown accustomed to watching.

No one expected Terry to be as good as Allen, but his inconsistent play this year has been disappointing, to say the least.

Terry's 10.2 points-per-game this season is just the most recent number in a disconcerting downward spiral in the shooting guard's scoring production over the past couple of seasons. His average points-per-game totals have dropped every season since 2008-09.

Boston will definitely be looking to fill their roster with young talent that can take the reins when the Pierce-Garnett era finally comes to a close. At 35 years old, Terry is not a player that can be penciled in to future plans.

There will still be some market for Terry's services. Teams that are on the precipice of championship contention would love to reap the benefits of a shooter like Terry off the bench. But with his age and recent lack of elite scoring, he won't command top value.

Terry is not the player for the Celtics next season, and they should try and get a solid young player in exchange for his services.

Jordan Crawford

The acquisition of Jordan Crawford at this year's trade deadline seemed to be a reasonable move.

When Rondo and Leandro Barbosa both suffered season-ending knee injuries within a month of each other, the Celtics' list of quality back-court players grew thin.

So, obtaining Crawford from the Washington Wizards for just Jason Collins and the injured Barbosa seemed like a solid trade.

But Crawford has not really meshed with the Celtics. In 2010-11 and 2011-12, Crawford was a quality scorer off the bench for the Wizards, averaging 16.3 and 14.7 points per game, respectively.

In Boston, however, he is averaging just 8.1 points per game on 39.3 percent shooting. Additionally, his mediocre defensive play doesn't fit well on a team that prides itself on defensive excellence.

Crawford may be just 24 years of age, but it is clear he is not going to be a long-term fit in Boston. With his $2.1 million salary next season, Crawford has some trade value.

Based on the quality of player that Crawford is, the Celtics might not be able to get a ton back for him. Whatever they can muster, though, will be worth it, because it is nonsensical to retain a player who doesn't fit well with the team.

112288

not a very well written article.

Guy says that Crawford has not "meshed" with the Celtics - and uses the example that his scoring is down to prove the point?

Crawford has been a great distributor of the ball, works very hard on D (he isnt a good defender, but his effort is there) and has shown flashes of a scoring touch that they dont have coming off the bench. For 2 million dollars, there is NO ONE in the NBA who could fill his role better. If he doesnt want to be here, that is one thing. But to suggest he doesnt fit after a 15 or 20 game audition - shows a real lack of understanding.

Terry has been less than we had hoped he would be...but the divide isnt as great as this guy claims. Terry and Ray Allen's numbers are nearly identical....with Terry proving to be a slightly better defender. Not sure that Jet is the guy for this team next year....but it is pretty easy to forget that he is being asked to play a role that was a lot different than the one he was brought here to fill.

Another reason the Bleacher Report is only marginally better than nothing.

MrK,

For $2M Crawford is a cheap experiment. I think with a dose of Celtic mentality over the summer and training camp should help the kid become a more rounded player, so I agree he is not as bad as reported. Terry on the other hand is someone we can replace if the right player shows up in a possible trade. Two knocks on Terry, he does turn the ball over in crunch time more often, and he is very inconsistent in his shooting......either hot or cold.

112288

I really wanted Terry to work out. I am not totally ready to throw in the towel, as he is still a better scorer than almost anyone else off the bench. But not quite the splash I was expecting.

Then again, as I said. Ray Allen is shell of his former self as well...so maybe that is the MO for 35+ year old SG.

Absolutely Kleen!

112288

mrkleen09 wrote:I really wanted Terry to work out. I am not totally ready to throw in the towel, as he is still a better scorer than almost anyone else off the bench. But not quite the splash I was expecting.

Then again, as I said. Ray Allen is shell of his former self as well...so maybe that is the MO for 35+ year old SG.

A shell who is hitting 42% of his three point shots and matching his career FG % of 45.

Do Terry and Crawford really have anything to do with another hit piece on Rondo and a reminder of the age of KG and PP? I can see an article like this in June, after the C's win their last game, but now? Pathetic!

steve3344 wrote:

mrkleen09 wrote:I really wanted Terry to work out. I am not totally ready to throw in the towel, as he is still a better scorer than almost anyone else off the bench. But not quite the splash I was expecting.

Then again, as I said. Ray Allen is shell of his former self as well...so maybe that is the MO for 35+ year old SG.

A shell who is hitting 42% of his three point shots and matching his career FG % of 45.

Both are on the downside of their careers. Ray is on a very steep decline in every nearly offensive category over the last 3 seasons.

steve3344 wrote: Steep decline?? No. His minutes are down.

Almost all of his stats - FG% / Assists / Rebounds as an average (which has nothing to do with his minutes per game) are down in each of the last 4 years. That is the definition of a decline.

mrkleen09 wrote:

steve3344 wrote: Steep decline?? No. His minutes are down.

Almost all of his stats - FG% / Assists / Rebounds as an average (which has nothing to do with his minutes per game) are down in each of the last 4 years. That is the definition of a decline.

If any stats other than shooting are in a slight decline (it's definitely not a STEEP decline), Miami could give a crap.

mrkleen09 wrote:

steve3344 wrote: Steep decline?? No. His minutes are down.

Almost all of his stats - FG% / Assists / Rebounds as an average (which has nothing to do with his minutes per game) are down in each of the last 4 years. That is the definition of a decline.

You listed FG% as one of the things was in STEEP decline for Ray. He shot 47% his five years for Boston And 41% on threes. This year he's shooting 45% - overall on Fg% - down only 2% - and BETTER (42%) on threes.

How is that a STEEP decline? Miami is very happy with his production.

And his rebounds are BETTER this year not worse. With Boston for five years Ray got a rebound every 10.15 minutes. With Miami he's getting one every 9.17 minutes.

Check your stats first before saying someone is in a steep decline. His assists are slightly down per minute because this year he's coming off the bench to just hit some bombs. As a starter for Boston for five years his role was much different and he was expected to be an all-around contributer.

steve3344 wrote:

You listed FG% as one of the things was in STEEP decline for Ray. He shot 47% his five years for Boston And 41% on threes. This year he's shooting 45% - overall on Fg% - down only 2% - and BETTER (42%) on threes.

How is that a STEEP decline? Miami is very happy with his production.

Ray Allen shot FG at 49% two years ago - 46% last year - 45% this year. He is losing ground every season.

steve3344 wrote:And his rebounds are BETTER this year not worse.

NOPE. Go check your stats again. Ray averaged 3.4 RPG two years ago - 3.1 RPG last year - 2.8 RPG this year. In what world is 2.8 better than 3.1? That is clearly not better than last year, in fact that is -18%

steve3344 wrote: His assists are slightly down per minute because this year he's coming off the bench to just hit some bombs. As a starter for Boston for five years his role was much different and he was expected to be an all-around contributer.

His Assists are down 38% since 2010-11.

In reality, Ray Allen stats aren't down at all this year from previous years.
He is playing 8+ fewer minutes per game then last year and 10+ fewer from 2 years ago. His points, rebounds and steals are up from last season on a per minute basis.

Ray's production is still the same, it's the coach who dictates how many minutes per game he plays.

tjmakz wrote:In reality, Ray Allen stats aren't down at all this year from previous years.
He is playing 8+ fewer minutes per game then last year and 10+ fewer from 2 years ago. His points, rebounds and steals are up from last season on a per minute basis.

Per minute basis is about as nonsensical as those per 48 or per 36 stats. His stats are what they are...and he plays the number of minutes his coach thinks best maximize his effectiveness. Anyone that watched Ray Allen last season in Boston saw - as he logged expanded minutes, his numbers went down. 25 mpg is the best he will ever get - and next year, that number will decrease again.

If Ray played 48 mpg - he would be averaging X. Yeah, SO WHAT...he isnt going to play 48 mpg ever again. So claiming some false number like - per minutes is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Sorry, I disagree.
How many minutes did anyone expect Ray to play when Dwayne Wade is the starting SG and since Ray doesn't have the ability to play PG?

You said his stats are in "deep decline".
To be more accurate, you should say that his minutes are in "deep decline".

tjmakz wrote:Sorry, I disagree.
How many minutes did anyone expect Ray to play when Dwayne Wade is the starting SG and since Ray doesn't have the ability to play PG?

You said his stats are in "deep decline".
To be more accurate, you should say that his minutes are in "deep decline".

His minutes are in decline because he can no longer play defense against any front line players, and offers very little help on the boards or in the assist category.

One of us is operating on a hypothesis of what if - "if Ray played more he would score more etc" - the other is working off facts that say at this point Ray is a 25 mpg player - and his stats are what they are.

He will never again average 35 mpg...so any allusion to what might happen at that level is pure fantasy.

If the Lakers said that Kobe was only going to play 30 mpg this season and followed through on that, would you say that his stats are in deep decline?

tjmakz wrote:If the Lakers said that Kobe was only going to play 30 mpg this season and followed through on that, would you say that his stats are in deep decline?

If he was playing 30 MPG because he was incapable of being effective in extended minutes...yes.

Jordan Hill plays 15 mpg and averages 7 points and 5 RPG. Are you suggesting he would be a 20 /15 guy if he played 45 mpg?

Have you guys heard of the "per 36 minutes" stat? That basically takes the number of minutes played per game out of the equation and puts stats like points, assists and rebounds in a proper context. Just a thought.

Sam

Sam

I mentioned it here, and elsewhere and why I think it is a stat that only makes sense when evaluating young players - or players on the way back from an injury or such. Someone who is not talented enough to sustain their effort over 36 mpg will often perform well in short stints...but simple cannot sustain over the long haul. Others are past their prime and their bodies cannot hold up for that many minutes per night.

For example. Ray Allen will never play 36 MPG again in his career. So honestly , who cares what his per 36 is?

The current Top 5 NBA players on the Per 36 list include the following barn burners

1 Quincy Acy
2 Jeff Adrien
3 Arron Afflalo
4 Josh Akognon
5 Cole Aldrich

An utterly useless stat.

TO NO ONE ON THE BOARD

Funny thread, everyone has their own interpretation on stats, I like Reds take "Stats are for losers"

I agree with Mrkleen in regards to the "per 36" stat.

The better NBA players log at least 36 minutes per game. The "per 36" statistic is more useful here because it can bring us insight into the true production of the league’s primary players.

With players who average 20 minutes or less, especially older guys on the end of their careers, it is often times a dangerous thing to assume that they can carry the same production over greater minutes.

Here is a article from a couple years ago that discusses the "per 36" and how it is used to find "future statistical heroes".

Take a young player seeing limited minutes, project his stats over 36 minutes, hope he gets something near those minutes and laugh all the way to the bank.

The execution of this plan isn't nearly that simple. First and foremost, it's rare that a player sees such a significant bump in minutes from year to year. Second, many players are not able to produce in 32-36 minutes like they can in short bursts off the bench -- the idea of diminishing returns. And finally, fantasy value can be compromised by other owners being aware of per-36 minute upside (see Randolph, Anthony).

That said, when looking for future statistical heroes, playing the per-36 minute game is a valuable tool. Previously, I looked at guys that may land permanent starting gigs next season. As we continue to look back on the 2010-11 season, here are six candidates that have exciting per-36 minute potential:

For the rest, see:

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nba/37836/266/playing-the-per-36-minute-game

gyso

Mrkleen,

I understand your point, but I think you're comparing apples and oranges. The purest way to compare stats for different players is on a standardized basis for all players. It could be per 36
minutes or per 1 minute; the rankings would be the same.

Comparisons on a per game basis can be too easily skewed by extraneous factors that can affect the parceling out of minutes (such as the depth of a team, matchups, foul trouble, health issues, overtimes, etc.). One sound rule of statistics is that the more variables inherent in the compilation of a statistic, the less definitive the statistic usually becomes.

So much for the apples.

The oranges that you're worried about involve a player's ability to sustain an effort over an extended period. That's obviously important as well. It's very appropriate to question why a coach won't give someone more minutes. But it's a separate issue and is best evaluated independently.

There's no question that the stats of guys who play relatively little can be volatile. But that's why most good statisticians will often specify that a comparison is taking place "among players with a minimum of 400 minutes this season" or "among players with a minimum of 75 free throw attempts this season," etc.

The per game measurement is certainly a time-honored device that certainly has its place as long as the variables comprising the stat are somehow dealt with. But the per unit of time measurement also has various forms of value, the greatest of which may be its lack of clutter by extraneous variables..

Sam