Choose Your Own Adventure: Celtics 2020 Offseason

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
6,044
Is there any rule in the NBA CBA that precludes signing a player to a stupid long contract to spread out AAV when you realize that some chunk of that time would be post-retirement (i.e. "a Bobby Bonilla contract)? It seems to me that people are putting a LOT of weight on two freak injuries in minimizing Hayward's value. Those injuries aside, he seems to me to be the type of player whose game would age well. Hayward is currently 30; Kyle Korver is currently 39. Hayward doesn't shoot the 3 as well as Korver, but he seems to do most everything else better. Could they sign Hayward to a new contract for something like 7 years/$105M or 9/$120M?
Can only sign up to a five year deal for players for whom you have Bird rights, fewer years depending on how you sign them (e.g., up to four years if signed using cap space, three years for taxpayer MLE, etc.).
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
4,154
around the way
Thanks, DD.

Yuck, that Cleveland package is the worst of the bunch...I'd rather get the TPE and upgraded draft stock. Reset and gamble there will be desperate sellers of a high-quality player, between the start of the season and the trade deadline, looking for cap relief.
They're all dreadful, except for the one with my guy Turner.

For a second I didn't realize that "after he signs for 4x25" referred to GH and not Leaf.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,390
It's hard to think of a feasible Hayward deal that actually makes the team better, rather than the ones that worsen the team the least while providing some cap flexibility in the coming years.

Anyone know if it would be possible (at least in theory) under the CBA to structure a deal with a player in which one of the years of the deal pays substantially less than the other for the purposes of avoiding the repeater tax? Say Hayward's looking for 3/75- could the Celtics offer him something like 32/11/32 over the next 3 years? I'm assuming not, as I don't recall ever hearing about it, but if a team wanted to take the corresponding luxury tax bump for the first year and the player was open to it, I'm wondering if it's even possible?
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
356
It's hard to think of a feasible Hayward deal that actually makes the team better, rather than the ones that worsen the team the least while providing some cap flexibility in the coming years.

Anyone know if it would be possible (at least in theory) under the CBA to structure a deal with a player in which one of the years of the deal pays substantially less than the other for the purposes of avoiding the repeater tax? Say Hayward's looking for 3/75- could the Celtics offer him something like 32/11/32 over the next 3 years? I'm assuming not, as I don't recall ever hearing about it, but if a team wanted to take the corresponding luxury tax bump for the first year and the player was open to it, I'm wondering if it's even possible?
No. The amount a contract can decrease, year to year is the same as the amount it can increase. In the case of Hayward, I believe that is 8%.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,343
Here is some more thoughts/detail on the Celtics off-season options w/ Gordon Hayward.

Yech. I absolutely hate the idea of trading away draft picks just to get rid of players. I'm not saying it isn't the best move, necessarily, it just really sucks and seems like the epitome of poor management.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,337
If the theory on getting rid of Hayward is getting under the luxury tax and avoiding repeater penalties then trading for Gobert is not the answer.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,353
If the theory on getting rid of Hayward is getting under the luxury tax and avoiding repeater penalties then trading for Gobert is not the answer.
It's possible ownership is ready to pay some steep bills because they feel the team is really close and just watched the hated Lakers celebrate but, yeah, on the surface, this wouldn't make fiscal sense at all. Leaving that aside, Gobert and Ingles would certainly be useful pieces for the team. Gobert would give the Celtics a real defensive presence down low and Ingles could provide the bench shooting that this team currently lacks. It's not my money so this is a trade I would do if #14 isn't involved.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,713
It's possible ownership is ready to pay some steep bills because they feel the team is really close and just watched the hated Lakers celebrate but, yeah, on the surface, this wouldn't make fiscal sense at all. Leaving that aside, Gobert and Ingles would certainly be useful pieces for the team. Gobert would give the Celtics a real defensive presence down low and Ingles could provide the bench shooting that this team currently lacks. It's not my money so this is a trade I would do if #14 isn't involved.
I was just about to chime in with essentially this - setting aside the logic around the economics, there is a basketball fit here. A starting five of Tatum, Brown, Smart, Gobert and Walker is pretty sound offensively but defense is where you get your biggest delta. Good luck trying to score in isolation against that line-up, even if you are keying on Kemba.

If you are losing Hayward, Ingles is a damn good replacement assuming he doesn't fall off a cliff. He is long, a decent defender, a crafty scorer and he is, perhaps, a better playmaker than GH. His status as one of the NBA's elite agitators would also make him an even bigger lightning rod in Boston.

If money weren't an issue, this would be an interesting deal for the Celtics.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
4,383
If the theory on getting rid of Hayward is getting under the luxury tax and avoiding repeater penalties then trading for Gobert is not the answer.
But if the theory is to address the team's biggest flaw, trading for Gobert is 100% the answer.

Ingles is in the deal strictly to make the total salaries match. If the Celtics don't want to keep him around, they can probably find a third team to take him, although honestly the team can use a guy who shoots 40% from 3 for his career.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,343
Is it really possible for the Celtics to trade Hayward back to the Jazz? That seems awkward.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,080
I don't get the Gobert Trade for either side without extensions. The Jazz particularly doesn't make sense, if you want to move Gobert for a win now piece it has to be multiple years.

I also don't love the Gobert fit. The Celtics offense is built on playing 5 out. Gobert not only can't hit 3s, he can't even hit jumpers.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,713
I don't get the Gobert Trade for either side without extensions. The Jazz particularly doesn't make sense, if you want to move Gobert for a win now piece it has to be multiple years.

I also don't love the Gobert fit. The Celtics offense is built on playing 5 out. Gobert not only can't hit 3s, he can't even hit jumpers.
I agree the fit isn't ideal but given the C's cap/tax issues, they have to be creative in improving the team and adding defense is probably cheaper than chasing above average+ scoring. Gobert is a negative as an offensive floor spacer but his rim protection as well as his decent perimeter defense make him a better fit than a lot of other one dimensional bigs.

The NBA’s stingiest defenders against isolation possessions, per that same tracking data (minimum 75 possessions defended, a sample of 130 players):
1. Rudy Gobert: 0.688 points per chance allowed
2. Jerami Grant: 0.702 points per chance
3. Jrue Holiday: 0.709 points per chance
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,080
I agree the fit isn't ideal but given the C's cap/tax issues, they have to be creative in improving the team and adding defense is probably the cheaper route. Gobert is a negative as an offensive floor spacer but his rim protection as well as his decent perimeter defense make him a better fit than a lot of other one dimensional bigs.
Sure, you can rebuild your whole offense to accomodate him, but that's a big ask, and additionally.... is he signing an extension? If so for how much? If not, are you really rebuilding the whole system for 1 year of Gobert?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
47,042
deep inside Guido territory
[
I don't get the Gobert Trade for either side without extensions. The Jazz particularly doesn't make sense, if you want to move Gobert for a win now piece it has to be multiple years.

I also don't love the Gobert fit. The Celtics offense is built on playing 5 out. Gobert not only can't hit 3s, he can't even hit jumpers.
Gobert is dominant defensively and a similar player to Kanter offensively. He can also shake free for a few alley-oop dunks a game as well. You don't have to rebuild the system for Gobert. In fact, he can add a post-up game that hasn't existed when the starters are in.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,080
If the Celtics are trading Hayward for a center, I wonder what the interest level in him in Orlando is?

Hayward (who extends at a lower number) and picks for Vucevic works from a money standpoint.


Edit-


Gobert is dominant defensively and a similar player to Kanter offensively. He can also shake free for a few alley-oop dunks a game as well. You don't have to rebuild the system for Gobert. In fact, he can add a post-up game that hasn't existed when the starters are in.
Kanter played limited minutes mostly with the bench because they thought his advanced post-game was worth the fact that it didn't fit the 5 out system. Gobert is decidedly not Kanter, he has essentially no post game to speak of, he's more an advanced version of Time Lord, hard crashes, dump offs, rim running. He's not posting up and drawing doubles, or exploiting mismatches. Now, if you could sign him long-term on a decent contract, sure maybe the increased defense makes it worth it for Brad to scrap his system and build around this new version of the team, but for 1 year.... meh. And Gobert is being traded in part because he isn't willing to sign long-term on a decent deal until he explores the market.


Go look at his page.
He's like 1,000 other of these fake twitter insiders, he throws things people are speculating about at the wall all the time, then when one hit he trumpets that he was "first". I mean honestly people had been discussing KD and Kyrie in Brooklyn as a possibility months before he posted about it. The dude is just another twitter hack, there is a reason none of the reputable NBA writers follow him.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,333
Santa Monica
I agree the fit isn't ideal but given the C's cap/tax issues, they have to be creative in improving the team and adding defense is probably cheaper than chasing above average+ scoring. Gobert is a negative as an offensive floor spacer but his rim protection as well as his decent perimeter defense make him a better fit than a lot of other one dimensional bigs.
Adding defense to the starting lineup isn't a bad idea since the Jay Crew offensive usage is only going in one direction.

and Kemba has to get his shots or he's basically useless

I'm not sure Gobert makes complete sense Cap wise. BUT offensively he's perfectly capable of setting PnR (& snake screens) for J's/Kemba/MS.
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,279
Go look at his page.
I did, his prediction was in June of 2019, about six months after people were discussing that. Given that we now know that Irving made his deal with the Nets in December of 2018, it's no wonder the rumors were rampant pre-ASG. When Irving was filmed talking to Durant about Brooklyn. And it became an ESPN story. So, yeah, when you "break" a story months after ESPN you're not credible.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
47,042
deep inside Guido territory
If the Celtics are trading Hayward for a center, I wonder what the interest level in him in Orlando is?

Hayward (who extends at a lower number) and picks for Vucevic works from a money standpoint.


Edit-
Kanter played limited minutes mostly with the bench because they thought his advanced post-game was worth the fact that it didn't fit the 5 out system. Gobert is decidedly not Kanter, he has essentially no post game to speak of, he's more an advanced version of Time Lord, hard crashes, dump offs, rim running. He's not posting up and drawing doubles, or exploiting mismatches. Now, if you could sign him long-term on a decent contract, sure maybe the increased defense makes it worth it for Brad to scrap his system and build around this new version of the team, but for 1 year.... meh. And Gobert is being traded in part because he isn't willing to sign long-term on a decent deal until he explores the market.
I was saying he's Kanter in that you can get easy baskets around the rim with Gobert whether it's post up's, lobs, etc and he finishes given his FG% is in the high 60's. They need a way to get more easy points around the rim . You don't have to scrap whatever system they were running to fit Gobert into it. He can be a screen and lob guy in this system. If I'm choosing which player on an expiring deal I'd have on this team to improve it's chances to win a title, it's Gobert. Defensively, they need someone to go against guys like Embiid, Adebayo, AD, etc. and Gobert is one of the guys who can do that. Unless you want to get destroyed in the playoffs by someone like Adebayo again, there needs to be a serious upgrade.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
39,344
While it would be amazing to have a Celtic with my surname (well, homophone but close enough), I would be pretty surprised by this from the Jazz side.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,080
I was saying he's Kanter in that you can get easy baskets around the rim with Gobert whether it's post up's, lobs, etc and he finishes given his FG% is in the high 60's. They need a way to get more easy points around the rim . You don't have to scrap whatever system they were running to fit Gobert into it. He can be a screen and lob guy in this system. If I'm choosing which player on an expiring deal I'd have on this team to improve it's chances to win a title, it's Gobert. Defensively, they need someone to go against guys like Embiid, Adebayo, AD, etc. and Gobert is one of the guys who can do that. Unless you want to get destroyed in the playoffs by someone like Adebayo again, there needs to be a serious upgrade.
Nobody is disputing Gobert's defense (though why we would want expiring is a separate question), but on offense.... you keep saying they won't have to change the system, when people have pointed out.... OF COURSE THEY WILL. The whole system is built with the assumption that your 5 can space the floor, Theis, Horford, Baynes. A key component on all of them was spacing the floor with 3s. Kanter was allowed short minutes without that, usually with bench guys because he is really really good at creating his own offense on the block.

Now, you can restructure the offense... one assumes Brad would do it, but that needs to be a consideration, particularly if you are only getting a Gobert for 1 year. Now I guess one argument would be that if Time Lord isn't going back in a deal you are building the offense that also works well for him.

Still, the Gobert deal doesn't make much sense to me for the Celtics unless they think they can extend at a good price, and honestly the bigger issue is....


Why are the Jazz doing this deal?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,279
The rumors have been that the Jazz are thinking of moving on because Gobert wants to get maxed and they're not sure he's worth that. And they're obviously afraid that someone's going to lay a 4/140ish deal on the table. I sure as heck wouldn't want my team carrying that freight.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,337
But if the theory is to address the team's biggest flaw, trading for Gobert is 100% the answer.

Ingles is in the deal strictly to make the total salaries match. If the Celtics don't want to keep him around, they can probably find a third team to take him, although honestly the team can use a guy who shoots 40% from 3 for his career.
No, I don't think it's the answer to that either. Gobert plays a very different defensive role than Stevens' centers typically play and he really doesn't fit on the offensive end. He is not like Kanter offensively---he doesn't really have a post-up game and he doesn't offensive rebound. I like Gobert's game, and sure maybe both sides can adjust to make it work in some way, but he's a really odd fit for Celtics. And for that you completely blow up your luxury tax situation, likely necessitating trading Smart? I don't get it at all. It is a talk-radio, "hey, they need a center and nothing else matters" trade to me.

I don't see the logic for Jazz either. If you want to add someone around Mitchell you'd be asking for Jaylen, not for Hayward who clearly is willing to leave Utah. You also lose two quality players to get back one year of one player. For a team unable to compete in free agency that's exceedingly unlikely choice.

This is the somewhat rare deal that is a bad idea in both directions. I hope it is not at all serious.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,279
No, I don't think it's the answer to that either. Gobert plays a very different defensive role than Stevens' centers typically play and he really doesn't fit on the offensive end. He is not like Kanter offensively---he doesn't really have a post-up game and he doesn't offensive rebound. I like Gobert's game, and sure maybe both sides can adjust to make it work in some way, but he's a really odd fit for Celtics. And for that you completely blow up your luxury tax situation, likely necessitating trading Smart? I don't get it at all. It is a talk-radio, "hey, they need a center and nothing else matters" trade to me.

I don't see the logic for Jazz either. If you want to add someone around Mitchell you'd be asking for Jaylen, not for Hayward who clearly is willing to leave Utah. You also lose two quality players to get back one year of one player. For a team unable to compete in free agency that's exceedingly unlikely choice.

This is the somewhat rare deal that is a bad idea in both directions. I hope it is not at all serious.
I wouldn't worry about it, his "inside source" was probably the rumblings that Utah is leery of paying Gobert his contract demands and the stories about how Boston needs to shore up the C spot.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,333
Santa Monica
No, I don't think it's the answer to that either. Gobert plays a very different defensive role than Stevens' centers typically play and he really doesn't fit on the offensive end. He is not like Kanter offensively---he doesn't really have a post-up game and he doesn't offensive rebound. I like Gobert's game, and sure maybe both sides can adjust to make it work in some way, but he's a really odd fit for Celtics. And for that you completely blow up your luxury tax situation, likely necessitating trading Smart? I don't get it at all. It is a talk-radio, "hey, they need a center and nothing else matters" trade to me.

I don't see the logic for Jazz either. If you want to add someone around Mitchell you'd be asking for Jaylen, not for Hayward who clearly is willing to leave Utah. You also lose two quality players to get back one year of one player. For a team unable to compete in free agency that's exceedingly unlikely choice.

This is the somewhat rare deal that is a bad idea in both directions. I hope it is not at all serious.
Fake trades have a less than 1% chance of happening. PLUS I'm dead set against paying 5's and would never max Gobert. I'm not a huge fan of this trade but it does have some merits.

In theory, Danny would gain CAP flexibility by building a trade around

Utah: Hayward ($34MM) + Theis ($5MM) + #14 ($3.5MM) FOR
Celtics: Gobert ($26MM) + Utah's 2021 1st

(you'd have to include a 3rd team for this work for UTAH or GH agree on an extended/new S&T deal)

Maybe the wonks for the C's see the delta between Gobert/Theis being great enough to make up for the difference between Hayward/Smart + Smart/bench players. We did just witness the C's, without Hayward in the playoffs. Add Gobert (subtract Theis) to the mix and Bam isn't running wild on the Celtics.
The Celtics offense was good with Theis, and it wouldn't be any worse with Gobert next season.

Utah might be motivated to build around Donovan (wasn't their friction between Gobert/Mitchell?). Maybe they feel that Hayward/Theis + #14 makes them better next season? They may be able to get GH to go 4 X $25/MM, while having no interest in MAXing Gobert. So they'd be adding an asset. Conley comes off next season so they'll have room, even w/ a Mitchell raise coming.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,343
Again, wouldn't the Jazz trading one of their star players for (potentially) one year of a player who already left them as a free agent be a bit odd?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,337
Fake trades have a less than 1% chance of happening. PLUS I'm dead set against paying 5's and would never max Gobert. I'm not a huge fan of this trade but it does have some merits.

In theory, Danny would gain CAP flexibility by building a trade around

Utah: Hayward ($34MM) + Theis ($5MM) + #14 ($3.5MM) FOR
Celtics: Gobert ($26MM) + Utah's 2021 1st

(you'd have to include a 3rd team for this work for UTAH or GH agree on an extended/new S&T deal)

Maybe the wonks for the C's see the delta between Gobert/Theis being great enough to make up for the difference between Hayward/Smart + Smart/bench players. We did just witness the C's, without Hayward in the playoffs. Add Gobert (subtract Theis) to the mix and Bam isn't running wild on the Celtics.
The Celtics offense was good with Theis, and it wouldn't be any worse with Gobert next season.

Utah might be motivated to build around Donovan (wasn't their friction between Gobert/Mitchell?). Maybe they feel that Hayward/Theis + #14 makes them better next season? They may be able to get GH to go 4 X $25/MM, while having no interest in MAXing Gobert. So they'd be adding an asset. Conley comes off next season so they'll have room, even w/ a Mitchell raise coming.
What you describe above doesn't work under the cap, and if you add in Ingles (as the earlier proposal did) then you don't have cap flexibility anymore...especially once you extend Gobert. You are actually in worse luxury tax shape.

I don't think there's any chance Utah would feel any of what you say above.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,333
Santa Monica
What you describe above doesn't work under the cap, and if you add in Ingles (as the earlier proposal did) then you don't have cap flexibility anymore...especially once you extend Gobert. You are actually in worse luxury tax shape.

I don't think there's any chance Utah would feel any of what you say above.
1. the C's wouldn't extend Gobert, as noted

2. you'd have to include a 3rd team, as noted, to make it work

3. we're both guessing on how Utah feels about maxing Gobert. If they deal him, then they probably didn't want to MAX him
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,337
1. the C's wouldn't extend Gobert, as noted

2. you'd have to include a 3rd team, as noted, to make it work

3. we're both guessing on how Utah feels about maxing Gobert. If they deal him, then they probably didn't want to MAX him
You did not note Gobert would not be extended, though I think that only makes the deal worse for the Celtics anyway. I am not sure this is an upgrade for the coming year overall, but I recognize one can focus on the C position and conclude it is. If so, I'd argue that losing Theis and 14 to get whatever that upgrade is doesn't work for me, but YMMV.

It is hard to imagine fixing the cap problem by involving a third team, but if you have one that works, I'd share that and use the trade machine to check.

As others have noted, it is very hard to see how Utah both wants to move Gobert and not get a longer-term asset than Hayward. Their motivation would need to be more than just not maxing Gobert. If they simply want to move on from Gobert (which I agree is conceivable) they can get an asset who will stay longer. The idea of a S&T for Hayward would at least solve for this, though still not clear to me Utah wants a Mitchell-Hayward core.

As several have noted in the overall Hayward discusison, once you extend Tatum you largely lose the cap flexibility you imagine as the benefit of this deal. You may get the benefit of ducking under luxury tax this year, though, so that's something.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,333
Santa Monica
You did not note Gobert would not be extended, though I think that only makes the deal worse for the Celtics anyway. I am not sure this is an upgrade for the coming year overall, but I recognize one can focus on the C position and conclude it is. If so, I'd argue that losing Theis and 14 to get whatever that upgrade is doesn't work for me, but YMMV.

It is hard to imagine fixing the cap problem by involving a third team, but if you have one that works, I'd share that and use the trade machine to check.

As others have noted, it is very hard to see how Utah both wants to move Gobert and not get a longer-term asset than Hayward. Their motivation would need to be more than just not maxing Gobert. If they simply want to move on from Gobert (which I agree is conceivable) they can get an asset who will stay longer. The idea of a S&T for Hayward would at least solve for this, though still not clear to me Utah wants a Mitchell-Hayward core.

As several have noted in the overall Hayward discusison, once you extend Tatum you largely lose the cap flexibility you imagine as the benefit of this deal. You may get the benefit of ducking under luxury tax this year, though, so that's something.
The above fake trade would be a 1yr move for the C's, but I don't love the trade. I'm just trying to rationalize some of the generic rumors. Losing GH is happening this year or next, along with most/all of his salary slot. It feels like some fans are in denial, want to match salaries, and extend/pretend. With Tatum max looming, that's not happening.

At the moment my #1 choice is for the Cs is to move GH this off-season. The return would be draft stock improvement, gain a TPE (partially use it to add a longer-term asset by mid-season), and have future flexibility around the Jays timeline. But I know that has been shot down by you/others before, which is fine.

The C's could easily run it back with the same crew, hope for health, and have a shot at playing in the Finals. Pay a big tax, lose GH for nothing, and crimp their cap flexibility the following season(s). Maybe that's appealing to some?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,080
The above fake trade would be a 1yr move for the C's, but I don't love the trade. I'm just trying to rationalize some of the generic rumors. Losing GH is happening this year or next, along with most/all of his salary slot. It feels like some fans are in denial, want to match salaries, and extend/pretend. With Tatum max looming, that's not happening.

At the moment my #1 choice is for the Cs is to move GH this off-season. The return would be draft stock improvement, gain a TPE (partially use it to add a longer-term asset by mid-season), and have future flexibility around the Jays timeline. But I know that has been shot down by you/others before, which is fine.

The C's could easily run it back with the same crew, hope for health, and have a shot at playing in the Finals. Pay a big tax, lose GH for nothing, and crimp their cap flexibility the following season(s). Maybe that's appealing to some?
So I have issues with both of these. I don't know that it's all that certain losing GH is happening, and certain not losing all of his draft slot. Hayward won't be making 30M+ here for sure, and it's unlikely the Celtics lock up 30M+ long term in a deal involving Hayward. I do think however that whether it is Hayward or a trade return, the Celtics will want to bring in someone between 12 and 20M AAV going forward over just losing the talent and not replacing it.

As to the second highlight...
What team is eating Hayward's salary into cap space and giving up future picks to do it? Very few teams have space, and I don't see them trading picks for 1 year of Hayward. Maybe and opt-out S&T? Even then though, using up your cap space and getting hard capped, and giving up picks? Why bother with a S&T in that situation, why not just tell Hayward he can get the deal and have him opt out?

If the Celtics trade Hayward, the return is going to be at least some players, whether expiring or multi-year contracts.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,333
Santa Monica
So I have issues with both of these. I don't know that it's all that certain losing GH is happening, and certain not losing all of his draft slot. Hayward won't be making 30M+ here for sure, and it's unlikely the Celtics lock up 30M+ long term in a deal involving Hayward. I do think however that whether it is Hayward or a trade return, the Celtics will want to bring in someone between 12 and 20M AAV going forward over just losing the talent and not replacing it.

As to the second highlight...
What team is eating Hayward's salary into cap space and giving up future picks to do it? Very few teams have space, and I don't see them trading picks for 1 year of Hayward. Maybe and opt-out S&T? Even then though, using up your cap space and getting hard capped, and giving up picks? Why bother with a S&T in that situation, why not just tell Hayward he can get the deal and have him opt out?

If the Celtics trade Hayward, the return is going to be at least some players, whether expiring or multi-year contracts.
1. Fine. We'll keep Hayward. Just get back to me with the player Danny ships out: Kemba, JB or Tatum? Unfortunately, the Celtics can't keep all 4 after next season

2. the 3-team (NYK, C's, GSW) trade that's been discussed around here 100x over the last 6mths. Pedro and others hated it

3. I'd like for Danny to use the TPE to add that $10-18MM/yr player(s) during the season, so we don't lose GH for "nothing"
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,279
Spending waaaay too much time on NBA twitter and Spotrac, there are two real possibilities I can see, but they do need to be sign & trade transactions. Indiana has been linked to Hayward, so they’d be the top of the list. The problem is that they have ugly contracts to trade. My unfandom of Myles Turner is well known. But if the Pacers could turn Turner into a decentish pick and Boston get a large TPE then it’s something to look at.

The second option is Dallas, they’re looking for a third wheel to add to Luka and ‘Zingas. Hayward is a pretty good player to put between their two stars. But the transaction would definitely need to be a sign & trade. The problem is that their assets amount to #18 and #33 and they would need someone like Detroit or Atlanta to absorb Tim Hardaway Jr. into capspace. You only get a moderate TPE, but on the other hand you do get the ability to use the full MLE. You also get the ability to trade up to secure whatever player they’re looking for. Maybe Okongwu if he floats.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,333
Santa Monica
Spending waaaay too much time on NBA twitter and Spotrac, there are two real possibilities I can see, but they do need to be sign & trade transactions. Indiana has been linked to Hayward, so they’d be the top of the list. The problem is that they have ugly contracts to trade. My unfandom of Myles Turner is well known. But if the Pacers could turn Turner into a decentish pick and Boston get a large TPE then it’s something to look at.

The second option is Dallas, they’re looking for a third wheel to add to Luka and ‘Zingas. Hayward is a pretty good player to put between their two stars. But the transaction would definitely need to be a sign & trade. The problem is that their assets amount to #18 and #33 and they would need someone like Detroit or Atlanta to absorb Tim Hardaway Jr. into capspace. You only get a moderate TPE, but on the other hand you do get the ability to use the full MLE. You also get the ability to trade up to secure whatever player they’re looking for. Maybe Okongwu if he floats.
exactly this.

1. Get the C's under the cap, so Danny has flexibility in future seasons
2. Slightly improve the C's draft position (Halliburton is my guy, as Kemba enters load management palooza)
3. Use the full MLE or partial TPE to replace a 1/3 of GH's salary slot. Add a veteran bench piece
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,279
I think Hampton’s a better long term prospect than Halliburton, but your mileage may vary.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,333
Santa Monica
I think Hampton’s a better long term prospect than Halliburton, but your mileage may vary.
If Hampton's shot is fixed then either would be great. RH is ~ a year younger

Having a longer +ballhandler that can distribute, defend 1-3 and shoot will see rotational minutes next season
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,073
Spending waaaay too much time on NBA twitter and Spotrac, there are two real possibilities I can see, but they do need to be sign & trade transactions. Indiana has been linked to Hayward, so they’d be the top of the list. The problem is that they have ugly contracts to trade. My unfandom of Myles Turner is well known. But if the Pacers could turn Turner into a decentish pick and Boston get a large TPE then it’s something to look at.

The second option is Dallas, they’re looking for a third wheel to add to Luka and ‘Zingas. Hayward is a pretty good player to put between their two stars. But the transaction would definitely need to be a sign & trade. The problem is that their assets amount to #18 and #33 and they would need someone like Detroit or Atlanta to absorb Tim Hardaway Jr. into capspace. You only get a moderate TPE, but on the other hand you do get the ability to use the full MLE. You also get the ability to trade up to secure whatever player they’re looking for. Maybe Okongwu if he floats.
Who would you suggest the Celtics going after with the proposed TPE’s?
Because without a concrete idea of a player or the type of player you would be able to get, both of those trades make the Celtics significantly worse next year.
So while I like the idea in theory, and if the Celtics get another late lottery type pick they can pretty much control the board and get 2 top 12 guys to add to the rotation, the whole trade hinges on what the TPE would be used for.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
47,042
deep inside Guido territory
Who would you suggest the Celtics going after with the proposed TPE’s?
Because without a concrete idea of a player or the type of player you would be able to get, both of those trades make the Celtics significantly worse next year.
So while I like the idea in theory, and if the Celtics get another late lottery type pick they can pretty much control the board and get 2 top 12 guys to add to the rotation, the whole trade hinges on what the TPE would be used for.
They need to add veteran talent to this core rather than more young guys.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,279
Who would you suggest the Celtics going after with the proposed TPE’s?
Because without a concrete idea of a player or the type of player you would be able to get, both of those trades make the Celtics significantly worse next year.
So while I like the idea in theory, and if the Celtics get another late lottery type pick they can pretty much control the board and get 2 top 12 guys to add to the rotation, the whole trade hinges on what the TPE would be used for.
It's a practical matter, unless Hayward is willing to sign for low money Boston can't afford to bring him back. Which means losing him for nothing. And Hayward might force their hand by opting out of his deal to sign a long term extension (and the buzz is that his agent, Mark Bartelstein, is looking to do exactly that). So their options might be really limited here. So it's about making the best of a bad situation.

If Indiana could convert Oladipo and Turner into a roughly $40 million TPE, allowing them to absorb Hayward into cap space for picks, then that might be the best for Boston, because with a $34 million TPE they could simply look at the market as it shakes out next year and then add whoever they want, while also having the ability to use the full MLE this offseason to add a useful vet.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,333
Santa Monica
Who would you suggest the Celtics going after with the proposed TPE’s?
Because without a concrete idea of a player or the type of player you would be able to get, both of those trades make the Celtics significantly worse next year.
So while I like the idea in theory, and if the Celtics get another late lottery type pick they can pretty much control the board and get 2 top 12 guys to add to the rotation, the whole trade hinges on what the TPE would be used for.
Losing GH would stink BUT

You'd be betting that NBA revenues (arenas not being full + fewer games) don't recover to pre-pandemic levels over the next 8 months. If revenues continue to be a problem, there should be talent available from non-contenders. Then the TPE is very valuable BUT we don't really know who the non-contenders/sellers will be right now. So player speculation is next to impossible.

BUT we can all agree the absolute worst-case scenario would be:
1. TPE expires worthless a year from now
2. CAP is re-set
3. Draft stock added
4. The C's we saw in the 2020 playoffs is a year more experienced and doesn't play so poorly in crunch time.
 
Last edited:

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,604
New York, NY
Losing GH would stink BUT

You'd be betting that NBA revenues (arenas not being full + fewer games) don't recover to pre-pandemic levels over the next 8 months. If revenues continue to be a problem, there should be talent available from non-contenders. Then the TPE is very valuable BUT we don't really know who the non-contenders/sellers will be right now. So player speculation is next to impossible.

BUT we can all agree the absolute worst-case scenario would be:
1. TPE expires worthless a year from now
2. CAP is re-set
3. Draft stock added
3. The C's we saw in the 2020 playoffs is a year more experienced and doesn't play so poorly in crunch time.
I think the worst case scenario is pretty obviously “Celtics don’t win a championship they would have won if they still had Hayward and that all they have to show for it is a draft pick that busts.”
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,279
Unfortunately for Boston if Hayward were here he'd be injured in another freak accident.