There's probably no market. Teams can just wait until tomorrow to make an offer without giving up anything.There is zero reporting around this today, is there? No idea whether that means anything but annoying!
There's probably no market. Teams can just wait until tomorrow to make an offer without giving up anything.There is zero reporting around this today, is there? No idea whether that means anything but annoying!
Not if they’re over the cap or can’t clear at least $20 million in cap space.There's probably no market. Teams can just wait until tomorrow to make an offer without giving up anything.
Thing is there won't be anything to report until one of two things happens:There is zero reporting around this today, is there? No idea whether that means anything but annoying!
I am sure there is a robust market of teams interested.There's probably no market. Teams can just wait until tomorrow to make an offer without giving up anything.
That's often the case and part of why I mentioned it. But, as we know, many times there are not leaks and so not really much we can conclude.I would think if there was active trade talks they would have leaked.
This just feels like an eventual departure. I say opt in and S&T. Feel like an extension would have happened already.
Opt-in and sign and trade are mutually exclusive.If he opts in, he can still work out a new deal (with the Celtics or S&T) right?
By opting in, the only thing he loses is the choice to sign with whatever team can pay him (which is almost nobody)
After the Bucks/Kings fiasco I think it will be a while before future sign & trades get leaked before they're legal to discuss.I would think if there was active trade talks they would have leaked.
Nope.If he opts in, I assume he and the Celtics can rip up the deal and sign a new one, right? Or is that not possible in the NBA?
And in both circumstances, why couldn't he be traded afterwards?
Yep. Basically the only thing off the table is a 1 year stay in BOS, which seemed clear that he didn't wantKeith Smith
@KeithSmithNBA
9s
Now that Gordon Hayward has opted out, here are the paths forward:
-Re-signs with Boston
-Signs with ATL, CHA or NY outright
-Boston and Hayward work a sign and trade deal to a team over the cap
I think Turner would be getting 18M a year to be the 3rd best C on the roster. He's definitely worse than Theis, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Time Lord is better next yearHayward may be better than Myles Turner, but am I the only person who would be very happy with that trade? Adding an athletic big who can shoot and is still developing and is owed I believe 3 for $54 is a huge win for us in my book. And we add what seems like a legitimate shooter in Nesmith who also adds size to our backcourt? Celtics fans need to buck the hell up. If Tommy can find happiness cheering on Waltah we can damn sure find it cheering on a team led by Jaylen Brown and Jayson freaking Tatum.
Honestly Indiana isn't close to contending either, so I don't think it's that important to him. I think he wants Indiana because it's home. But it's going to be tough to get there if Pritchard's offering pigshit to Boston to help the Pacers out. And while I don't doubt that GMs do each other favors from time to time, I also doubt that anyone does them to Pritchard because he's totally the type to welch.Maybe I’m off-base but I find it hard to believe that Hayward just walks outright to Atlanta, Charlotte, or NY. I know Hayward wants to maximize the earnings left in his career but none of those teams are even close to contending. My guess is that Boston will work hard to find a sign-and-trade that works for everyone but if they can’t find that they’ll just re-sign him themselves (unless they’re really worried about luxury tax or Hayward’s demands are just ridiculous).
Not really. The NBA doesn't work that way, the guy is a free agent, he's not going to sign with you. He'd either sign with a team with space, or a team will salary dump to a team with space to make the room for him.It seems like he could be quite stuck now, though. I find it hard to believe he wants to go to those 3 teams. So, the Celtics can play hardball with whoever wants to acquire him, if they want.
That's right.To me the big piece of this - if I'm understanding things correctly, which I may not be - is that if Hayward signs elsewhere, the Celtics really lose a ton of financial capital. Because they'd not be able to sign a guy of Hayward's stature. The only reason they can overpay these guys is because the NBA rules allow you to re-sign your own guys and put you over the cap, and once there, you can trade with other teams as long as the salaries match. But if they lose Hayward, they no longer have that "over the cap" money to spend.
Do I understand this right?
It wouldn't be disastrous, but yes it would be not great.Hayward signing with another team as a free agent would be disastrous for the Celtics. Pray for a sign-and-trade.
Ok so to me, worse than losing a good player, is this. If he goes, they really have no way of replacing him. They don't have the money.That's right.
This is basically correct, though a clean opt-out with no salary coming back is better for the bottom line re: luxury tax, with Tatum's impending extension.To me the big piece of this - if I'm understanding things correctly, which I may not be - is that if Hayward signs elsewhere, the Celtics really lose a ton of financial capital. Because they'd not be able to sign a guy of Hayward's stature. The only reason they can overpay these guys is because the NBA rules allow you to re-sign your own guys and put you over the cap, and once there, you can trade with other teams as long as the salaries match. But if they lose Hayward, they no longer have that "over the cap" money to spend.
Do I understand this right?
He can just walk if hardball holds up a sign & trade.It seems like he could be quite stuck now, though. I find it hard to believe he wants to go to those 3 teams. So, the Celtics can play hardball with whoever wants to acquire him, if they want.
The Celtics have no middle-market contracts they can use for additional moves outside of Smart who is valuable in his own right. Their salary distribution is imbalanced and they won't have cap space for a couple of years if they lose Hayward for nothing. This will create a scenario where Ainge has less flexibility. Not to mention the talent drain. It's one less asset.It wouldn't be disastrous, but yes it would be not great.
Are you reporting a story you saw? If so, please provide a link.He gone.
I've seen this a lot, and I don't quite get it. Compared to Theis, Turner is:I think Turner would be getting 18M a year to be the 3rd best C on the roster. He's definitely worse than Theis, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Time Lord is better next year
Last 2 years, I think it's clear Theis is better, and Turner is 6 years in and not showing any signs that he's improving.I've seen this a lot, and I don't quite get it. Compared to Theis, Turner is:
-3 inches taller
-4 years younger
-A stronger shot blocker
-A slightly better 3 point shooter, on more volume
-More durable (3400 minutes over the last. 3 years for Theis vs. 5800 minutes for Turner)
-Much better at avoiding fouls
Theis certainly has his advantages, but considering his age and other attributes, it's pretty easy to see Turner being far more valuable going forward.
This isn’t really true. The Celtics have 2 max contracts (starting next year) and a near max emerging young players in Brown. They also have a very good underpaid starter in Smart. If Hayward walks outright, they also have the full MLE available and will be pressed up against the luxury tax with a pretty good distribution of salaries. They don’t need Hayward’s salary slot and never could commit to it long term.The Celtics have no middle-market contracts they can use for additional moves outside of Smart who is valuable in his own right. Their salary distribution is imbalanced and they won't have cap space for a couple of years if they lose Hayward for nothing. This will create a scenario where Ainge has less flexibility. Not to mention the talent drain. It's one less asset.
He could still re-sign, which would be great as well.
Counterpoint: Turner is 24 and has played most of his career under Nate McMillan.Last 2 years, I think it's clear Theis is better, and Turner is 6 years in and not showing any signs that he's improving.
It's telling that you don't have per game numbers up here, because it's pretty slanted in Turner's favor. The fact that Turner played more than 50% more minutes than Theis over the last two years makes rate states close to useless. Two reasons why he played so few minutes:Last 2 years, I think it's clear Theis is better, and Turner is 6 years in and not showing any signs that he's improving.
View attachment 36515
Agreed. I think the opt-out extends the window — they avoid the luxury tax this season, and maybe in 2021-22, but they can contemplate giving Smart the near-max deal he’ll command in two years, which would be off the table if GH’s salary slot was tied up in other talent and the C’s had already been over the tax threshold in 2021-22.This isn’t really true. The Celtics have 2 max contracts (starting next year) and a near max emerging young players in Brown. They also have a very good underpaid starter in Smart. If Hayward walks outright, they also have the full MLE available and will be pressed up against the luxury tax with a pretty good distribution of salaries. They don’t need Hayward’s salary slot and never could commit to it long term.
He can also play 30 minutes per game without fouling out. How many times in the playoffs did Brad need to go with some funky lineup becasue Theis had 5 fouls in the 3rd or whatever?Counterpoint: Turner is 24 and has played most of his career under Nate McMillan.
I love Theis, but the thing that leaped off the page in that comparison to me was the fouls per 36. Turner stays on the floor and he gives them another body to throw at Embiid, Bam and AD. He would be a reasonable consolation prize if Gordon bolts.It's telling that you don't have per game numbers up here, because it's pretty slanted in Turner's favor. The fact that Turner played more than 50% more minutes than Theis over the last two years makes rate states close to useless. Two reasons why he played so few minutes:
-The Celtics got him off the floor quickly in unfavorable matchups. If we had Turner, he'd be less exposed against larger players due to his size advantage and we wouldn't be forced to give his minutes to players who are inferior in other ways.
-Theis fouls at an incredibly high rate. If you want to say he gets a harsh whistle I won't argue, but the fact remains, he averages 5.5 fouls per 36 minutes. He will always struggle to play more than 25 minutes per game with those numbers.
Turner averaged a full 10 mpg more than Theis over the last two years. Theis is the Celtics' best center, but his size and foul issues ensure that another player has to take his spot for at least half of the game. Turner would decrease the amount of time we'd be forced to turn to the backups significantly, and that has to be factored into a comparison between the two players.
Theis averaged 28 minutes a game in the playoffs this year and 4 fouls a game so probably not very many. Also if you traded Hayward for Turner today Turner still isn't playing 30 minutes a game with this team.He can also play 30 minutes per game without fouling out. How many times in the playoffs did Brad need to go with some funky lineup becasue Theis had 5 fouls in the 3rd or whatever?
Again, only to those three teams. Some other team can’t sign and trade him, right?He can just walk if hardball holds up a sign & trade.
Which would be blech.
That does happen.He can also play 30 minutes per game without fouling out. How many times in the playoffs did Brad need to go with some funky lineup becasue Theis had 5 fouls in the 3rd or whatever?
If you ask for too much someone will jump in and take less to eat a contract to open up a TPE or cap roomAgain, only to those three teams. Some other team can’t sign and trade him, right?
What in the world is this? The guy who played starter minutes over three seasons, is more durable than a guy who was a bench player for two seasons and a starter for one, because he played more minutes?I've seen this a lot, and I don't quite get it. Compared to Theis, Turner is:
-3 inches taller
-4 years younger
-A stronger shot blocker
-A slightly better 3 point shooter, on more volume
-More durable (3400 minutes over the last. 3 years for Theis vs. 5800 minutes for Turner)
-Much better at avoiding fouls
Theis certainly has his advantages, but considering his age and other attributes, it's pretty easy to see Turner being far more valuable going forward.
It's not about "starter" minutes. Theis can't stay on the court, either because of matchup issues or because of foul trouble. He isn't getting any bigger, and he isn't getting any better at avoiding fouls (Turner has less of an issue on both fronts). Certainly Theis at $5M is more valuable, but the fact that he's an unbelievable discount doesn't mean he's actually a better player. It is a major point in his favor that Turner is able to stay about as effective as Theis while playing 50% more minutes. Maybe durability isn't the right word here, but we've got a pretty large body of evidence that Turner can be relied on to spend more time on the court without being exposed or getting deep in foul trouble.What in the world is this? The guy who played starter minutes over three seasons, is more durable than a guy who was a bench player for two seasons and a starter for one, because he played more minutes?
Even if you want to make the case Turner is more valuable than Theis, is he 3 years at 54 million vs 1 year at 5 million better?
It's a bad outcome for the Celtics if Hayward walks away for nothing. I think it's an even worse outcome if you take back a longterm contract you don't want to facilitate him leaving.
I'd make the case the Celtics might be able to get a better player for the full midlevel that would likely be available to them if Hayward walks than Myles Turner.
To the first bolded: That's not "durability" you're talking about then. And again, comparing a starters minutes to a guy who was a backup for 2 out of 3 years. is silly. Theis played 24 minutes a game this year as a starter to Turners 29.5 And Theis bumped it up to 28 in the playoffs. I see zero minutes issue with him, durability or otherwise.It's not about "starter" minutes. Theis can't stay on the court, either because of matchup issues or because of foul trouble. He isn't getting any bigger, and he isn't getting any better at avoiding fouls (Turner has less of an issue on both fronts). Certainly Theis at $5M is more valuable, but the fact that he's an unbelievable discount doesn't mean he's actually a better player. It is a major point in his favor that Turner is able to stay about as effective as Theis while playing 50% more minutes. Maybe durability isn't the right word here, but we've got a pretty large body of evidence that Turner can be relied on to spend more time on the court without being exposed or getting deep in foul trouble.
Fair enough, not durability. I won't quibble with valuable (although that can mean more than money), but the rest I'll stand by. Turner is a better player because he's bigger, is better at staying on the court (for a couple of reasons), is a better three point shooter, is a better shot blocker (yes there's more to defense than shot blocking), and is significantly younger. I'm also pretty confident Theis has been put in a position to succeed the last few years playing fewer minutes against more favorable matchups with good coaching. I'm not sure the same can be said for Turner. Theis is absolutely as good as he's going to get, based on his age and limited minutes. Put him in a new system and Turner still has upside (and he's pretty solid right now).To the first bolded: That's not "durability" you're talking about then. And again, comparing a starters minutes to a guy who was a backup for 2 out of 3 years. is silly. Theis played 24 minutes a game this year as a starter to Turners 29.5 And Theis bumped it up to 28 in the playoffs. I see zero minutes issue with him, durability or otherwise.
To the second bolded: You original post said "it's pretty easy to see Turner being far more valuable going forward." So yes, I included each of their contracts in a discussion of who's more valuable. Because it matters. A lot.