Free Agency Frenzy Thread

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,425
Frankly, I'd rather have Kanter over Tacko, Thompson, Kornet, Parker, or Grant Williams. As a third big body behind RWIII and Horford, I'm completely fine with a guy who can rebound the shit out of the ball and provide some buckets on a second unit that needs all the offensive help it can get.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Kanter is fine. Not usable in the playoffs, but you need a lot of bodies to get through the regular season. I'm with KFP on this one.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,530
What the fuck is going on? Monk gets the minimum and you're paying Kanter actual money?
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,484
That seems, well, not well thought out. The Cs dumped a first round pick so that they could get and stay under the luxury tax last year. That saved the team millions of dollars in repeater salaries and assuming the owners are willing to pony up that money during the Jays "window," it seems the opposite of "not good work."
(I actually don't feel strongly about it. If we're paying him a few million for 1 season, whatever...sounds like they're calculating his salary to keep them under the tax)
It will be super interesting to see if the Cs stay under the luxury tax this year. After getting below the tax line last year, it would seem to be a much more difficult sell to stay under the tax this year.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
What the fuck is going on? Monk gets the minimum and you're paying Kanter actual money?
We don't get to add the ring chasers & gamble on themself guys until after we add the 3rd star.
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,370
Kanter in the right role is fine. I'm thrilled with the plan they seem to be executing and at the end of the day this season is about Nesmith and time Lord anyways, and I'm good with that. PBS is good by me.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
It will be super interesting to see if the Cs stay under the luxury tax this year. After getting below the tax line last year, it would seem to be a much more difficult sell to stay under the tax this year.
No point in rushing the clock if you expect/hope to be operating over the tax for years to come. A small, insignificant, signing now would escalate pretty quickly in terms of actual cost.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,668
Kanter is fine. Not usable in the playoffs, but you need a lot of bodies to get through the regular season. I'm with KFP on this one.
Kanter is useable in the playoffs, it is just all matchup dependent. Against teams with more traditional bigs, he is playable and played well in his series last year against the Sixers and Embiid.
 

cardiacs

Admires Neville Chamberlain
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,993
Milford, CT
Frankly, I'd rather have Kanter over Tacko, Thompson, Kornet, Parker, or Grant Williams. As a third big body behind RWIII and Horford, I'm completely fine with a guy who can rebound the shit out of the ball and provide some buckets on a second unit that needs all the offensive help it can get.
I feel generally the same, but motivated, focused and slim GW is much more valuable than Kanter IMO.
Weren't we going to use that part of the MLE if we didn't use it anyways?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,838
What the fuck is going on? Monk gets the minimum and you're paying Kanter actual money?
Monk turned down actual money to ring chase. Kanter is signed into space we’re likely not really going to use otherwise.
 

Rustjive

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2009
1,048
What the fuck is going on? Monk gets the minimum and you're paying Kanter actual money?
Kanter's getting paid the minimum so it's not actual money either. It might be funny to say 'OMG they paid to get rid of him' but at the minimum he's literally anyone. Seems to me to just be a way to be able to rest Al and TL or have a use in case of injury.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
Brad used Kanter really well during the regular season. He wasn't a guy who could play real minutes due to defensive liabilities in the playoffs but had some nice chemistry with the Jays and could grab ass-tons of offensive boards. I like this move.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
If Horford and R. Williams stay healthy, Kanter is perfectly acceptable in the right role.

I do think Ainge flubbed it last season; he probably could have found a better deal than giving up a hypothetical Bane to get out of Kane's contract. Seemed like one of multiple tactical moves Ainge made that missed a strategic big picture.

Now Stevens just has to bring back Rondo. /jk
 

Sox Puppet

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2016
724
Kanter .... is very good offensively but he may have the "heaviest" feet of any athlete ever including race horses.
Dunno if this was an intentional pun, but ... :)

Definition of canter (Entry 3 of 3)
1: a 3-beat gait resembling but smoother and slower than the gallop

Examples of canter in a Sentence
Verb The horses cantered across the grass.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
10,103
If Horford and R. Williams stay healthy, Kanter is perfectly acceptable in the right role.
Yup, it gives a few different looks depending on matchup. Timelord is the rim runner/shotblocker, Horford is the pick and pop/stretch big, Kanter the low post instant offense guy. Other than banging with Embiid in the post or a few other edge cases, you don’t really want Kanter playing much in the playoffs, but he can get run during the regular season to keep old Al and perpetually banged up Timelord fresh. Plus a good locker room guy. Works for me.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,668
Danny Green would be great. I feel like he has been a scapegoat for some other fanbases like Philly, but he is still a good defender, shot 40% from three last year (which is his career average) and he has an insane amount of playoff experience (153 career games and 3 titles with 3 different franchises.)
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,484
No point in rushing the clock if you expect/hope to be operating over the tax for years to come. A small, insignificant, signing now would escalate pretty quickly in terms of actual cost.
That's an understandable sentiment from an owner's perspective. I think we agree that players would rather ownership spend money to win, even if the money isn't "well spent." There's no reason a team with championship aspirations should be under the luxury tax line two years in a row IMO.
 

Rustjive

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2009
1,048
That's an understandable sentiment from an owner's perspective. I think we agree that players would rather ownership spend money to win, even if the money isn't "well spent." There's no reason a team with championship aspirations should be under the luxury tax line two years in a row IMO.
I think when you look at the actual numbers it's understandable and can even be understood by players. The Warriors are ~$40mm over the tax line, and for that they have to pay $173mm in taxes. They're a repeater so that part of it costs them $40mm. Paying the tax this year means they would go into the repeater tax a year earlier. If they get Beal, especially through trade, they'll be a tax team and somewhere down the road it very well could be that a team like the Celtics can't afford the tax, and that's precisely the moment you would want them to swallow that bitter pill. Richer teams are coming up against that reality - just look at the Lakers passing on Caruso because of money. The idea that ownership should go into the tax some right now, to get players that would block your young players from getting playing time, to make moves that are likely only a 1-4 win difference if anything, then pay $40m for it down the road, is bizarre.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
That's an understandable sentiment from an owner's perspective. I think we agree that players would rather ownership spend money to win, even if the money isn't "well spent." There's no reason a team with championship aspirations should be under the luxury tax line two years in a row IMO.
It depends. If you're working collaboratively with a player & their financial people, you should be able to explain a vision for the next few years & explain why it's optimal & will allow them to have the best team around them going forward, and what the opportunity costs are.

Everyone is getting savvier.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
I think when you look at the actual numbers it's understandable and can even be understood by players. The Warriors are ~$40mm over the tax line, and for that they have to pay $173mm in taxes. They're a repeater so that part of it costs them $40mm. Paying the tax this year means they would go into the repeater tax a year earlier. If they get Beal, especially through trade, they'll be a tax team and somewhere down the road it very well could be that a team like the Celtics can't afford the tax, and that's precisely the moment you would want them to swallow that bitter pill. Richer teams are coming up against that reality - just look at the Lakers passing on Caruso because of money. The idea that ownership should go into the tax some right now, to get players that would block your young players from getting playing time, to make moves that are likely only a 1-4 win difference if anything, then pay $40m for it down the road, is bizarre.
If my understanding is correct, the Lakers weren't allowed to pay Caruso that much due to cap rules, not because they chose not to bring him back.

Agree with the rest of the post, though.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,458
It depends. If you're working collaboratively with a player & their financial people, you should be able to explain a vision for the next few years & explain why it's optimal & will allow them to have the best team around them going forward, and what the opportunity costs are.

Everyone is getting savvier.
yeah, but if you're Tatum I have to say I bet "sure you made 3 ECF in 4 years, and you've gotten better since then, and Brown has gotten better, but we also think you aren't good enough to do it again so we're going to take 2 years off trying to be title contenders for financial reasons, see you in 2022" is a tough sell. Guy is an All-NBA type player with an All-Star teammate and you've basically told him you think he has no chance of being competitive this year

Guys are savvier on things like a 1 year dip under the tax, but also, they still usually aren't thrilled about moving backwards 2 years straight.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
very curious what this deal is, I assume 1 and 1 with a player option or 1 year on low money?
It’s reportedly a minimum salary, one-year deal. He’ll rehab on their dime and try for free agency again next summer.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
yeah, but if you're Tatum I have to say I bet "sure you made 3 ECF in 4 years, and you've gotten better since then, and Brown has gotten better, but we also think you aren't good enough to do it again so we're going to take 2 years off trying to be title contenders for financial reasons, see you in 2022" is a tough sell. Guy is an All-NBA type player with an All-Star teammate and you've basically told him you think he has no chance of being competitive this year

Guys are savvier on things like a 1 year dip under the tax, but also, they still usually aren't thrilled about moving backwards 2 years straight.
Who do you people want to sign???

What player who wouldn't lessen our chances for Beal should the Celtics have signed but they potentially chose not to?

Who is Tatum supposed to be upset we didn't get?
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
If my understanding is correct, the Lakers weren't allowed to pay Caruso that much due to cap rules, not because they chose not to bring him back.

Agree with the rest of the post, though.
Yes and no. They couldn’t have matched the total dollars but supposedly they didn’t even provide a counter offer. Starting salary could have been up to $6.2mm I believe.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,458
Who do you people want to sign???

What player who wouldn't lessen our chances for Beal should the Celtics have signed but they potentially chose not to?

Who is Tatum supposed to be upset we didn't get?
I'm talking about the generality, players may be savvy, they still aren't crying for the owners' pockets. My guess is Tatum would want them to spend money in signing or trading. He probably would have preferred they keep Fournier for example, or ponied up whatever it took to get Beal out of WAS. Certainly he'd want them to use their MLE on a player (they still might).

I'm not criticizing their approach, but I think the idea that the players are totally cool with the idea of "we don't want to spend this year to save the owners' money because you guys aren't real contenders" is totally not in keeping with everything we know about NBA players. You can sell an NBA star on one year of not spending to re-set the tax, but in their minds the reason for that is so you can spend the next year.
 

Rustjive

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2009
1,048
If my understanding is correct, the Lakers weren't allowed to pay Caruso that much due to cap rules, not because they chose not to bring him back.
Looking into it, there were 3 different podcasts where the reporters said it was a tax issue.
Ramona Shelburne on the Hoop Collective pod: “Caruso was willing to go back for 3 years 30 million dollars. He gave them that option… the Lakers were willing to go 7 million a year.”

Sam Amick's on the Athletic pod: "There was a sense of disappointment on Alex Caruso's side there wasn't a Lakers push to keep him, like come in at 80% of the Chicago number. It was essentially a 'good luck in Chicago' type of feel to it."
"Amick hypothesizes that the luxury tax was the reason the Lakers weren't willing to match. He mentions how Caruso got the Chicago deal, showed it to the Lakers, and the Lakers didn't even counter. That must be crushing if you're Caruso, it's a tough business. "

and Lowe:
“Well look, the Caruso decision was a tax decision. Even the Russ trade, the tax was not not a consideration. Because Schröder, plus Hield, plus KCP, plus other role players was probably going to end up being more expensive than Russ, even though Russ makes a massive amount of money.
“And look, you can sit here and quibble and say ‘how can you worry about the tax when you have LeBron James approaching 37, like you should be all-in to win now?’ But they worried about it, and that’s their prerogative.”

I don't see a thing about cap rules (but I might not be looking hard enough).

Edit: Silver Screen and Roll says "The luxury tax was certainly a driving factor in the Lakers’ decision, as no rules prohibited them from matching or even exceeding Caruso’s deal with the Bulls, let alone paying him an even lower salary. "
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
I'm talking about the generality, players may be savvy, they still aren't crying for the owners' pockets. My guess is Tatum would want them to spend money in signing or trading. He probably would have preferred they keep Fournier for example, or ponied up whatever it took to get Beal out of WAS.

I'm not criticizing their approach, but I think the idea that the players are totally cool with the idea of "we don't want to spend this year to save the owners' money because you guys aren't real contenders" is totally not in keeping with everything we know about NBA players.
I don't think he would prefer to keep Fournier than to play with Beal.

& if you sell it as "you're not real contenders" then you've already lost the battle. If there is a specific player who they could sign for a 1 year deal who would be a great fit & make a significant difference in winning & the Celtics said naw, we're too cheap, then there's an issue. Otherwise, you just have to trust the plan.

Until it turns out such a guy was available, I'm not concerned.
 

terrynever

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2005
21,717
pawtucket
Danny Green would be great. I feel like he has been a scapegoat for some other fanbases like Philly, but he is still a good defender, shot 40% from three last year (which is his career average) and he has an insane amount of playoff experience (153 career games and 3 titles with 3 different franchises.)
The knock on Green’s defense is his lack of lateral mobility. He is smart, deflects and steals passes, but can be isolated and broken down. Philly would like him back. He was popular in Philly, a pro’s pro. Played for two straight title teams in Toronto and LA. His playoff injury was an underrated sidebar to Philly falling short against Atlanta. One less body to throw at Trae, who ate Green up in Game 1 before the injury.

https://www.inquirer.com/sixers/76ers-danny-green-nba-free-agency-20210803.html
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,279
Looking into it, there were 3 different podcasts where the reporters said it was a tax issue.
Ramona Shelburne on the Hoop Collective pod: “Caruso was willing to go back for 3 years 30 million dollars. He gave them that option… the Lakers were willing to go 7 million a year.”

Sam Amick's on the Athletic pod: "There was a sense of disappointment on Alex Caruso's side there wasn't a Lakers push to keep him, like come in at 80% of the Chicago number. It was essentially a 'good luck in Chicago' type of feel to it."
"Amick hypothesizes that the luxury tax was the reason the Lakers weren't willing to match. He mentions how Caruso got the Chicago deal, showed it to the Lakers, and the Lakers didn't even counter. That must be crushing if you're Caruso, it's a tough business. "

and Lowe:
“Well look, the Caruso decision was a tax decision. Even the Russ trade, the tax was not not a consideration. Because Schröder, plus Hield, plus KCP, plus other role players was probably going to end up being more expensive than Russ, even though Russ makes a massive amount of money.
“And look, you can sit here and quibble and say ‘how can you worry about the tax when you have LeBron James approaching 37, like you should be all-in to win now?’ But they worried about it, and that’s their prerogative.”

I don't see a thing about cap rules (but I might not be looking hard enough).

Edit: Silver Screen and Roll says "The luxury tax was certainly a driving factor in the Lakers’ decision, as no rules prohibited them from matching or even exceeding Caruso’s deal with the Bulls, let alone paying him an even lower salary. "
Yeah, I must have been wrong. I just remember when someone was talking on a pod about how the Lakers were going to fill out their roster I was under the impression that they could pay THT whatever they wanted, but they could only pay Caruso $X because of maximum raise rules & so they didn't expect him to be back. & then when he didn't come back I wasn't surprised so I didn't look into it.

I probably was doing something dumb like working at the time, though, as it seems like THT is the one with the max salary to resign ($10.5m in 1st year).
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,458
I don't think he would prefer to keep Fournier than to play with Beal.

& if you sell it as "you're not real contenders" then you've already lost the battle. If there is a specific player who they could sign for a 1 year deal who would be a great fit & make a significant difference in winning & the Celtics said naw, we're too cheap, then there's an issue. Otherwise, you just have to trust the plan.

Until it turns out such a guy was available, I'm not concerned.
I'm not too concerned either, but I do think Tatum has shown some disappointment in this offseason. His quote to Washburn about it being tough to see guys you've built a relationship with leave, and how all he can do is show up to camp and play with whoever is there.... that to me read as some disappointment, likely with the TT trade given they were friends and TT got straight dumped to save luxury tax money. To Tatum's POV, plenty of teams spend now with the intent of moving off the money if someone better becomes available. And it doesn't matter how you frame it.... if you tell a guy like Tatum to trust you, that this year is all about setting up FA money for next year... you're telling him that you don't think this year is a year you can win a Championship (now that's true, but SuperStars don't like to hear that).
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
I suspect Kelly Oubre is going to wind up being a steal for someone if he's forced to settle for a one-year prove-it deal.
Danny Green would be great. I feel like he has been a scapegoat for some other fanbases like Philly, but he is still a good defender, shot 40% from three last year (which is his career average) and he has an insane amount of playoff experience (153 career games and 3 titles with 3 different franchises.)
Agree with both of these. In re the latter, Green would be one of those quiet but great signings that would take this off-season for the Celts into very positive rather than treading water/waiting a year on Beal or whomever else might emerge.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
yeah, but if you're Tatum I have to say I bet "sure you made 3 ECF in 4 years, and you've gotten better since then, and Brown has gotten better, but we also think you aren't good enough to do it again so we're going to take 2 years off trying to be title contenders for financial reasons, see you in 2022" is a tough sell. Guy is an All-NBA type player with an All-Star teammate and you've basically told him you think he has no chance of being competitive this year

Guys are savvier on things like a 1 year dip under the tax, but also, they still usually aren't thrilled about moving backwards 2 years straight.
If you're Tatum you say "Oh this is the best chance for me to play with my buddy another star who I've been wanting to play with for years? Sounds good to me" Doubt he'd be too thrilled if signing Gay or Green or whoever cost them Beal
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,204
I'm not too concerned either, but I do think Tatum has shown some disappointment in this offseason. His quote to Washburn about it being tough to see guys you've built a relationship with leave, and how all he can do is show up to camp and play with whoever is there.... that to me read as some disappointment, likely with the TT trade given they were friends and TT got straight dumped to save luxury tax money. To Tatum's POV, plenty of teams spend now with the intent of moving off the money if someone better becomes available. And it doesn't matter how you frame it.... if you tell a guy like Tatum to trust you, that this year is all about setting up FA money for next year... you're telling him that you don't think this year is a year you can win a Championship (now that's true, but SuperStars don't like to hear that).
CD is right that the team wants to do everything in their power to keep Tatum happy as they position for whatever moves they are planning to make. The other factor here is that Tatum is currently spending a lot of time with veteran NBA superstars. Its entirely natural if he is taking counsel from those who came before him and have experienced what is almost certainly a very unique experience. Given what we've seen about this generation of superstars, they aren't afraid to wield their power to get what they want or go elsewhere - Tatum is now in this club.

That said, the C's almost certainly operating on information that isn't public. Whether its reliable or not is another story.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
I'm not too concerned either, but I do think Tatum has shown some disappointment in this offseason. His quote to Washburn about it being tough to see guys you've built a relationship with leave, and how all he can do is show up to camp and play with whoever is there.... that to me read as some disappointment, likely with the TT trade given they were friends and TT got straight dumped to save luxury tax money. To Tatum's POV, plenty of teams spend now with the intent of moving off the money if someone better becomes available. And it doesn't matter how you frame it.... if you tell a guy like Tatum to trust you, that this year is all about setting up FA money for next year... you're telling him that you don't think this year is a year you can win a Championship (now that's true, but SuperStars don't like to hear that).
If you're Tatum you say "Oh this is the best chance for me to play with my buddy another star who I've been wanting to play with for years? Sounds good to me" Doubt he'd be too thrilled if signing Gay or Green or whoever cost them Beal
As someone who is in favor of the Celtics approach this offseason, it is admittedly a tightrope that Stevens is walking. Tatum certainly doesn't care about the tax implications (nor should he), and he may indeed feel that between him and Brown and Smart they would have a chance of competing if the Celtics can bring in some veteran role players. He's not going to want to hear that the Celtics would have resigned Fournier for less money, or that they were in on another player but that player decided to stay with his current team.

Wyc and Brad can use the "trust the process" approach, but that is a bullet that can be fired but once, maybe twice if you're lucky. It's clear that Stevens is putting his chips all in for 2022-23. It's fine if Beal comes and it all works out. Who knows, maybe Tatum got a promise from Beal that he will come to Boston no matter what. But I can understand why fans may be uneasy and be worried about how Tatum feels about it.