Tax Payer MLE Options

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,597
Saint Paul, MN
I think you would find zero teams who would take Kanter for nothing more than his salary. If he was a FA, he would get vet minimum offers from several teams though
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
356
I think you would find zero teams who would take Kanter for nothing more than his salary. If he was a FA, he would get vet minimum offers from several teams though
Agreed. He's probably 3 million in dead salary. You should be able to move him for a second. Moving him and Poirer (so 5-6 million in dead salary) probably takes two seconds.

As for complaints about ownership cheaping out, it is one thing to pay the tax. It is a whole other ballpark to expect a team to operate 10 million plus into the tax. At that range, getting off of Poirer's 2.7 million is saving over 9 in actual spend. I do not have a problem spending some draft assets to get off Kanter and Poirer if ownership is using some of that savings to add a guard with the Tax Payer MLE.

Alternatively, you could try to move Kanter and Poirer along with Semi etc. and some draft assets, for someone who is a bit overpaid but could play more meaningful minutes for the Celtics. Nance is someone who I floated before in another thread. I think you could structure such a deal so that it could still get them under the 10 million tax threshold, if got back some non-guaranteed salary as part of the deal. Other ideas: Satoransky? Seemed liked he could play on the Wiz, I confess to not having watched any Bulls games this year. Same thing with Snell in Detroit.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
The only way to hedge against the tax is moving on from Hayward, I don't expect them to trade a first to not fix the problem. I will be unshocked, however, if Hayward gets moved on draft night to give them the flexibility to add lower priced roleplayers into a TPE.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
356
If the Celtics keep all their picks, waive Green, don't resign Wanamaker and decline Semi's option, they will be 13 million into the tax, which equals a tax bill of approximately 23.6 million.

If the Celtics move Kanter and Poirier at the cost of the #30 pick, they are 3.6 Million into the tax and have a tax bill of 5.4 million. I can see a scenario where ownership tells Danny to trade #30 to save them 27 million dollars. I acknowledge that actual savings would be slightly less because Danny would still need to fill a roster spot or two with second rounders/ufda types.

If you do the above and attach Edwards to the deal and then sign someone using the full Taxpayer MLE, the savings would be around 16.4 million.

Hayward is complicated. If he plays well and the Celtics are winning, I can't see Danny moving him. If he is injured or plays poorly, how do you move him without surrendering more valuable assets (i.e. future draft picks in much much better drafts) than the 30th pick in this draft or taking back worse salary. He would have value as an expiring contract, but teams looking to clear cap space would want to send back longer term deals, which means the Celtics don't solve their tax issue. If you are moving him into space, then you are paying with picks or prospects to do so.
 
Jul 15, 2005
2,058
Chicago
Easier said than done, of course.

The pick from Memphis might be Danny’s last chance to draft such a player for a while — guys that even have the potential to develop into what you’re describing are seldom available after the 20th pick. Even drafting wings in the teens, you’re taking a player with at least one obvious hole in his game and gamble he can fix it (or compensate for it, if the deficiency is a lack of length or quickness). Langford is an example of such a gamble; I’ll be happy if Danny lands a similar project in this year’s draft.
Yeah, no thanks. That Kanter deal is awful. Wyc has shown a willingness to spend in the past. I don't think he'll be strong arming Danny into make one of these moves. The only thing I'd be fine with in this scenario is taking a draft and stash at 26. I trust Danny to find a contributor at 14. I don't want to trade that for a '21 1st unless it's a deal that just looks too good to pass up, which I doubt we'll see for the 14th pick.

I'd have to imagine they could move Kanter for a late 1st/early 2nd on his own. He's a useful big off the bench on a 1 year deal. A number of contenders would be more than happy to take him. And I guess they could attach Poirier with him if you don't think he has a role.
Matisse Thybulle looked like a good player. Why did Danny trade him away to the Sixers? Seemed to perform better thanRomeo
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,605
New York, NY
Matisse Thybulle looked like a good player. Why did Danny trade him away to the Sixers? Seemed to perform better thanRomeo
We traded him as part of the moves that led us to be able to unload Baynes (which made it possible to acquire Kemba). In addition to unloading Baynes we got the 33 pick and the Bucks pick this year (30). That’s a pretty good return on the 20 pick, although I did like Thybulle as a prospect.

I would not trade Langford for Thybulle straight up though. He performed better than Langford as a healthy player who was a 22 year old rookie. But Langford showed significant defensive progression despite his injuries and has real offensive upside. Thybulle has no offensive game to speak of. He’s basically a better version of Semi Ojeleye, which makes him a useful 8-10 option, but without much of a ceiling. I also wouldn’t trade Thybulle for Grant Williams either, which is a more apt comparison.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
39,356
We traded him as part of the moves that led us to be able to unload Baynes (which made it possible to acquire Kemba). In addition to unloading Baynes we got the 33 pick and the Bucks pick this year (30). That’s a pretty good return on the 20 pick, although I did like Thybulle as a prospect.

I would not trade Langford for Thybulle straight up though. He performed better than Langford as a healthy player who was a 22 year old rookie. But Langford showed significant defensive progression despite his injuries and has real offensive upside. Thybulle has no offensive game to speak of. He’s basically a better version of Semi Ojeleye, which makes him a useful 8-10 option, but without much of a ceiling. I also wouldn’t trade Thybulle for Grant Williams either, which is a more apt comparison.
Yep, there are zero-offense wing defenders in every draft, and most are more likely to be the next Semi than they are to be the next Batum (or whoever).

Now maybe there are Grants in every draft too, but the value of those guys is the higher floor, and greater likelihood of reaching it, which is pretty nice once you hit the 20s and are a team that needs cheap contributors.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
9,302
Hayward is complicated.
A lot comes down to this. You have the injury issues, the emergence of Tatum/Brown, and his relationship with Stevens. Plus, I do think there is some desire to "do right" by him given he was a big FA acquisition and all the unfortunate injuries.

I don't mean they wouldn't move him in the right deal, but my sense is that if he is traded they will do something mutually beneficial if at all possible.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,727
If the Celtics keep all their picks, waive Green, don't resign Wanamaker and decline Semi's option, they will be 13 million into the tax, which equals a tax bill of approximately 23.6 million.

If the Celtics move Kanter and Poirier at the cost of the #30 pick, they are 3.6 Million into the tax and have a tax bill of 5.4 million. I can see a scenario where ownership tells Danny to trade #30 to save them 27 million dollars. I acknowledge that actual savings would be slightly less because Danny would still need to fill a roster spot or two with second rounders/ufda types.

If you do the above and attach Edwards to the deal and then sign someone using the full Taxpayer MLE, the savings would be around 16.4 million.

Hayward is complicated. If he plays well and the Celtics are winning, I can't see Danny moving him. If he is injured or plays poorly, how do you move him without surrendering more valuable assets (i.e. future draft picks in much much better drafts) than the 30th pick in this draft or taking back worse salary. He would have value as an expiring contract, but teams looking to clear cap space would want to send back longer term deals, which means the Celtics don't solve their tax issue. If you are moving him into space, then you are paying with picks or prospects to do so.
Thank you for sharing this.

I suspect this is the direction Danny will head as well. The Warriors roster building into their first ring was the template. Keep a talented core together while ruthlessly recycling the bottom half of the roster.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
19,084
Joe Harris is an unrestricted free agent, so he’s a definite possibility.
I can’t imagine Harris or the Nets ever parting ways. He’s the ideal 3rd wheel for that offense.....I’d guess both sides recognize that and he’s going to get paid by the Nets.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
I can’t imagine Harris or the Nets ever parting ways. He’s the ideal 3rd wheel for that offense.....I’d guess both sides recognize that and he’s going to get paid by the Nets.
Don’t we need to know whether Kyrie likes him though? I’m only partially kidding.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
I mean didn’t Irving already leave Harris off the list of guys that he considered contender quality material?
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
1,724
Joe Harris and I have mutual friends from his UVA days, and today I asked one who knows Joe well how he thought this would play out. His reply: I think his heart wants to stay in Brooklyn, but he is unsure with KD, Kyrie and potentially could get more money elsewhere.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
Yeah, I remember that interview that Kyrie gave here he listed the guys that Brooklyn had to build around, and Harris was noticeably absent from it. I think he’s eminently available this offseason.
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,451
If there is enough of a market for Kanter that a team would give up a first to acquire him, then Kanter does not exercise it and becomes a free agent because such a team would surely be willing to guarantee him more than 5 million.
I would think there are plenty of teams over the cap that would take him for $5M & 1 year to help off the bench. Those teams wouldn't be able to guarantee him more than $5M, unless you're talking about a multi-year deal. And if I'm Danny, I'd be looking for a late 1st in the next draft, since they already have enough late 1sts this year. And maybe they can't get a late 1st for him, but that original deal was so bad I'd rather just keep Kanter for the season.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,727
The Athletic: Celtics may stick with current roster. That’s not necessarily a bad thing

If the Celtics are $10 million over the cap, using the TPMLE will cost the team $20 million to acquire a $5.7 million player who'd be the 7-8th best player on the roster. That is a tough ask for the owners.
King is excellent imo and seems to have a good line on the Celtics thinking. That said, Swedgin already walked through a trade scenario where they can get out from under some of their tax bill so they can improve the roster via a signing. Furthermore, Ainge has shown the tendency to be bloodless with his rosters so its hard to see him not trying to do something here when its clear to everyone Boston needs more weapons.

On the other hand, its the midst of a pandemic and the league is laboring under even more uncertainty than usual so maybe they do just run it back.
 
Jul 15, 2005
2,058
Chicago
also who knows what next season looks like. if it's a shortened season or a different looking playoff setup, may want to fill gap for a season instead of midterm contract for a vet
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,357
King is excellent imo and seems to have a good line on the Celtics thinking. That said, Swedgin already walked through a trade scenario where they can get out from under some of their tax bill so they can improve the roster via a signing. Furthermore, Ainge has shown the tendency to be bloodless with his rosters so its hard to see him not trying to do something here when its clear to everyone Boston needs more weapons.

On the other hand, its the midst of a pandemic and the league is laboring under even more uncertainty than usual so maybe they do just run it back.
Yes, but that involved stapling picks to existing players to get rid of them.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,727
Yes, but that involved stapling picks to existing players to get rid of them.
It makes perfect sense to do this given where they are in their development cycle - picks are worth far less to Boston than, say, the Knicks or Charlotte or some other rebuilding team.

Jared Dudley was on the Simmons pod yesterday (highlighted in the Simmons thread) and essentially stated that Boston was a big away from getting to the next level. I am not sure that is the piece they lack but if a veteran on the current champ is saying they are close, they are likely close.

Put another way, does anyone honestly believe that the 30th pick will be worth more to the team next season than a veteran who can come off the bench and provide production? They already have a bunch of young players who are still on a development track - they need more depth that can help right now.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I feel like Kanter’s value to this team is getting minimized due to a bit of recency bias. He is the epitome of role player, with a specific role that he fills very well (as low-post scorer/ offensive rebounded on the second unit). And as with any role player, you need that guy to blend well off the court, which I think Kanter does EXTREMELY well.

A different sport, but to me, the perfect comp for Kanter is Kevin (“Don’t let us win tonight”) Millar. Grade A clubhouse guy who can fill a marginally useful on-field/court role, while having a bunch of holes in his overall game.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,727
I feel like Kanter’s value to this team is getting minimized due to a bit of recency bias. He is the epitome of role player, with a specific role that he fills very well (as low-post scorer/ offensive rebounded on the second unit). And as with any role player, you need that guy to blend well off the court, which I think Kanter does EXTREMELY well.

A different sport, but to me, the perfect comp for Kanter is Kevin (“Don’t let us win tonight”) Millar. Grade A clubhouse guy who can fill a marginally useful on-field/court role, while having a bunch of holes in his overall game.
To be clear, I think his value has been established. The problem, as spelled out upthread, is that the C's luxury tax situation is essentially untenable. Its conceivable that they may keep Kanter around for the reasons you cite but the state of the NBA is such that if they have an opportunity to lighten the tax bill as well as add depth, they almost have to do it given that the core is a contender.

Having another veteran wing who can create their own shot and distribute the ball would have been hugely valuable during the Miami series. Some of their younger players should be able to grow into helping in that capacity but if you can turn a situational piece like Kanter into that player by stapling some other stuff to him, it feels like an obvious move.

But to be clear, Kanter is a good player in the right circumstances. Kanter the teammate seems like he has universal value. That part seems undeniable and it makes him easy to root for when his leaden feet aren't putting the Celtics in harms way.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
356
I feel like Kanter’s value to this team is getting minimized due to a bit of recency bias. He is the epitome of role player, with a specific role that he fills very well (as low-post scorer/ offensive rebounded on the second unit). And as with any role player, you need that guy to blend well off the court, which I think Kanter does EXTREMELY well.

A different sport, but to me, the perfect comp for Kanter is Kevin (“Don’t let us win tonight”) Millar. Grade A clubhouse guy who can fill a marginally useful on-field/court role, while having a bunch of holes in his overall game.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Kanter does not fill that role exceptionally well. The issue is how much is that role worth to the Celtics relative to other options given their 1) cap sheet/luxury tax situation and 2) playoff aspirations - both of which are obviously intertwined. The math is up the thread. As to the aspirations, the Celtics want to win a title. They do not need floor raisers or regular season role players.

If the were no luxury tax issue, of course the you want to keep Kanter. He is certainly worth a roster spot. But that's not the reality in which Danny is operating. Given that we are talking about 25-30 millions dollars, I do not believe ownership is going to let Danny keep Kanter, all the draft picks and sign someone using the Taxpayer MLE. So the real question is "Who is provides more value to the roster, the MLE signee or Kanter + some draft capital?".

Kanter played a grand total of 7 minutes in the Toronto series. He averaged under 6 minutes against Miami. In the playoffs, when matchups matter there are few good ones for Kanter outside of Philly.

My guess is that when Ainge does this calculus, he concludes that the team will benefit more from adding a wing shooter with some or all of the MLE, than from retaining Kanter.

EDIT: wasn't trying to pile on. DeJesus posted as I was typing and he says it more succinctly and eloquently.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
2,241
Cultural hub of the universe
I'm not arguing the value of a wing shooter over Kanter, but if in the playoffs matchups do really matter, having versatility on your bench really also matters. Kanter may have been of little value against Miami, but he had great value against Philly. You need someone with his skillset to maintain that versatility, imo.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
574
Jared Dudley was on the Simmons pod yesterday (highlighted in the Simmons thread) and essentially stated that Boston was a big away from getting to the next level. I am not sure that is the piece they lack but if a veteran on the current champ is saying they are close, they are likely close.

Put another way, does anyone honestly believe that the 30th pick will be worth more to the team next season than a veteran who can come off the bench and provide production?
I don’t think that Dudley meant a big who would come off the bench for the MLE.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,727
I don’t think that Dudley meant a big who would come off the bench for the MLE.
You are correct - I was unclear. I don't agree that a good big is what they lack - though I think Boston would jump at the opportunity to add one.

The reality is that they cannot afford one and will have to do what they did this past off-season in finding flawed bigs out by the curb with the rest of the trash.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,153
I think Kanter may opt out and get 2/8 or the MLE elsewhere. If he opts in there is a good chance he gets traded, given he'd be one of the most moveable pieces and one of the best utility contracts to bulk up the kids with. I think he wants to know where he'll be.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
The cap and luxury tax are imploding and will for the next two years (local TV revenues decreased, attendance revenues plunged, BRI is going down). Next year attendance revenues are going to be nearly non-existent, so BRI’s going down again. I’ll be stunned if he gets more than vet min offers in the offseason.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,346
Santa Monica
The cap and luxury tax are imploding and will for the next two years (local TV revenues decreased, attendance revenues plunged, BRI is going down). Next year attendance revenues are going to be nearly non-existent, so BRI’s going down again. I’ll be stunned if he gets more than vet min offers in the offseason.
Yep. The owners may try to smooth it, but revenue #s will be hideous. The rating #s in the Finals were bleak (yes football/baseball/etc)

FA centers thought it was bad last year, wait until they get a load of this offseason. You have about 10 Centers coming via the draft and another dozen available in free agency.

Kanter on a 1yr deal for $5MM is a couple million rich....Gordon/Kemba @ $68MM combined is where the owner's money is getting smoked. If they could deal Gordon, Danny could probably find some superb undervalued talent to surround the Js by midseason for the 2021 Championship run.
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
Yep. The owners may try to smooth it, but revenue #s will be hideous. The rating #s in the Finals were bleak (yes football/baseball/etc)

FA centers thought it was bad last year, wait until they get a load of this offseason. You have about 10 Centers coming via the draft and another dozen available in free agency.

Kanter on a 1yr deal for $5MM is a couple million rich....Gordon/Kemba @ $68MM combined is where the owner's money is getting smoked. If they could deal Gordon, Danny could probably find some superb undervalued talent to surround the Js by midseason for the 2021 Championship run.
I just don't get this. Gordon Hayward is a much better player than anyone you can get with any part of the MLE---I mean, better by orders of magnitude. Trading him to replcae with inferior guys does not help the team in the short term in any way. People are underrating him and overrating the benefit of dealing him.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
10,923
I just don't get this. Gordon Hayward is a much better player than anyone you can get with any part of the MLE---I mean, better by orders of magnitude. Trading him to replcae with inferior guys does not help the team in the short term in any way. People are underrating him and overrating the benefit of dealing him.
You didn't hear the news: the first large scale, post-CoVid public event in Boston will be the Payroll Efficiency Title parade down Causeway St.

I mean, there's probably a theoretical trade to be made that could have the Celtics getting back a couple of strong bench players that could mask the team's weaknesses that were exposed in the Miami series. I think the likelihood of Danny being able to thread that needle is really slim; the unused TPE will be as satisfying as an unused timeout.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
In addition to it not helping next year's team, his salary slot is also an asset in that the team has no other vehicle to add anything above the MLE realistically either. So even if you felt dumping him were wise (which is unlikely to be the case), you also have to figure in that his salary slot has some value too.

Someone threw out an Aldridge-Hayward swap. I don't like that deal, but at least there you fill a gap (though not defensively) and retain the slot for an additional year.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
I just don't get this. Gordon Hayward is a much better player than anyone you can get with any part of the MLE---I mean, better by orders of magnitude. Trading him to replcae with inferior guys does not help the team in the short term in any way. People are underrating him and overrating the benefit of dealing him.
No one's underrating him. Their options are a giant luxury tax bill next year followed by Hayward walking for nothing, or trading him now, recouping some talent for him, and avoiding the hideous repeater tax. The covid19 era did accidentally help them, because Tatum's first post-rookie deal is going to be relatively cheap in this collapsing cap environment.

The downside, however is that Boston's planning was based on the pre-covid19 BRI projections and those are probably about 30% too high now. So one of Hayward or Walker has to go. Boston has no intentions of spending $300+ in payroll expenses.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,727
Your first point is the most valid.

Aspiring contenders don't typically send players like Hayward out. They keep adding more of them when the opportunity arises.

Hayward seems to be the new Horford in the sense that the raw rate stats aren't eye popping and that leads to a conclusion that he isn't producing. Add his Celtics injury history in and you can see why people are ready to move on.

However given the payroll constraints as well as the market for above average two way wings, its highly unlikely that a Hayward departure results in an improved Celtics roster.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
No one's underrating him. Their options are a giant luxury tax bill next year followed by Hayward walking for nothing, or trading him now, recouping some talent for him, and avoiding the hideous repeater tax. The covid19 era did accidentally help them, because Tatum's first post-rookie deal is going to be relatively cheap in this collapsing cap environment.

The downside, however is that Boston's planning was based on the pre-covid19 BRI projections and those are probably about 30% too high now. So one of Hayward or Walker has to go. Boston has no intentions of spending $300+ in payroll expenses.
That's not really true; some are underrating him, and some are assuming they won't pay the tax. The first is just silly; the second is uncertain. I'd much rather take the trimming moves outlined in various places (swap out Kanter and Poirer, stash a pick, don't use MLE, let Wanna go) than trade Hayward for returns projected to be salary dump-level and sub-MLE. Yes, it is imperfect and the repeater tax is a challenge they need to manage carefully. But you only get so many shots and the odds are the team's best chance is in fact next year with Hayward

Obviously, if you can deal him and get quality back that's a different story. I would shot around a pick and Hayward but I haven't seen a viable deal like that which improves the team.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,357
However given the payroll constraints as well as the market for above average two way wings, its highly unlikely that a Hayward departure results in an improved Celtics roster.
Correct. The only possibility would be the extremely remote possibility of some blockbuster style trade where we are acquiring a high salaried impact player who is signed for multiple years, and sending along a boat load of draft capital with Hayward to make the salaries match up. I think that is not very likely, but that'd be the only way where the team gets better by dealing Hayward.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
That's not really true; some are underrating him, and some are assuming they won't pay the tax. The first is just silly; the second is uncertain. I'd much rather take the trimming moves outlined in various places (swap out Kanter and Poirer, stash a pick, don't use MLE, let Wanna go) than trade Hayward for returns projected to be salary dump-level and sub-MLE. Yes, it is imperfect and the repeater tax is a challenge they need to manage carefully. But you only get so many shots and the odds are the team's best chance is in fact next year with Hayward.
The problem is that the trimming moves bloggers have suggested won't actually get them under the luxury tax line. It would see them squandering assets to marginally reduce the luxury tax bill, while putting them in the precarious position of being over the tax three years in four. Put another way, one more tax year after that and they hit the maximum penalty rate, which would turn even a moderately over the tax payroll into a sinkhole.

Ultimately they need to move either the two way wing on an expiring deal (and given that two way wings are the currency of the pace & space era, that's not hard) or the 6' PG with two or three more max years to go (depending on when they trade him).
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
10,923
The problem is that the trimming moves bloggers have suggested won't actually get them under the luxury tax line. It would see them squandering assets to marginally reduce the luxury tax bill, while putting them in the precarious position of being over the tax three years in four. Put another way, one more tax year after that and they hit the maximum penalty rate, which would turn even a moderately over the tax payroll into a sinkhole.

Ultimately they need to move either the two way wing on an expiring deal (and given that two way wings are the currency of the pace & space era, that's not hard) or the 6' PG with two or three more max years to go (depending on when they trade him).
But the team knew this last year at this time when Kanter and Kemba and others were signed. So I guess I fail to see why the luxury tax is now suddenly the concern that tops all others for this team. Not sure Tatum and Brown would be thrilled to see talent traded away for JAGs just so Wyc's hedge funds can earn more money.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
The problem is that the trimming moves bloggers have suggested won't actually get them under the luxury tax line. It would see them squandering assets to marginally reduce the luxury tax bill, while putting them in the precarious position of being over the tax three years in four. Put another way, one more tax year after that and they hit the maximum penalty rate, which would turn even a moderately over the tax payroll into a sinkhole.

Ultimately they need to move either the two way wing on an expiring deal (and given that two way wings are the currency of the pace & space era, that's not hard) or the 6' PG with two or three more max years to go (depending on when they trade him).
As I said before, though, it's a question of what the owners are willing to do. I don't know whether a smaller payment in year 1 (which is the year we know there will be a covid impact) is enough, or they need to manage the repeater tax out over time.

Your assumption is not unreasonable, but it is only an assumption.

Also, as Hollinger outlined, you can do as suggested for year one and then skate under it in future years even if you are worried about the repeater. It simply is all a bit more subtle and less black and white than you describe.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,605
New York, NY
But the team knew this last year at this time when Kanter and Kemba and others were signed. So I guess I fail to see why the luxury tax is now suddenly the concern that tops all others for this team. Not sure Tatum and Brown would be thrilled to see talent traded away for JAGs just so Wyc's hedge funds can earn more money.
Because the expectations for future cap increases are sharply diminished because there was kind of a significant economic change that took place this year.

That said, I don’t think it is likely that getting under this year is realistic. Next year is with Hayward off the books. (Note: replacing or using Hayward’s salary slot is entirely unrealistic. The actual cost of doing so might be upwards of $100 million per season.) The year after is much harder to predict, but I think a realistic short term plan has to acknowledge that with no increase to the cap this year, the organization is stuck above the cap unless they want to sabotage a potentially championship roster.

An important addition to the above is that I would be shocked if we add any multi year contracts that are not draft picks or minimum salary players this offseason. The margin on getting under next year is already pretty thin. I could, however see a one year MLE deal being signed if ownership is willing to pay the premium on it.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
The other reason I note the Hayward salary slot is that there is a non-zero chance the CBA changes due to the pandemic. Without knowing the changes and implications, you'd rather preserve that asset than not. I think fair to note as JakeRae does that it is not especially likely to be used, but I think as we saw last summer there's lots of surprising things that develop and the smart teams are always trying to remain flexible.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,357
I also feel like the Celtics have a short window of 1 more year with Hayward, and 2 more years before Smart needs a new contract to hang a banner with this current core. So, I don't really want to see them trade Hayward as it is extremely unlikely they get a player even close to as good in return. Such a shame they couldn't put the Heat away this year. A trip to the Finals was so within their grasp.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
But the team knew this last year at this time when Kanter and Kemba and others were signed. So I guess I fail to see why the luxury tax is now suddenly the concern that tops all others for this team. Not sure Tatum and Brown would be thrilled to see talent traded away for JAGs just so Wyc's hedge funds can earn more money.
In the summer of 2019 covid19 wasn't a thing. I guarantee you that if a time traveler from 2020 had been able to convince them that 25% of the season's attendance revenues were getting nuked and that attendance revenues in '21 were going old school thanks to a pandemic that Kemba would never have been signed and they would have found a Rondo-like guy to plug in at the 1.

Based on the projections then they were at the tax line for '21. Now they're way over it. So they need one year under the tax to reset the time clock. That means that they let Hayward walk next offseason, replace him with vet min guys, and pray that Langford makes a huge leap, or they find a way to move him now for expirings and picks that have at least a chance of producing a replacement for him.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
574
Obviously, if you can deal him and get quality back that's a different story. I would shot around a pick and Hayward but I haven't seen a viable deal like that which improves the team.
Myles Turner (and send the Hayward’s home to Indiana)? Rudy Gobert (and send them back to familiar Utah)?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
The league has announced that they have extended to date for either side to opt out of CBA because of COVID, I believe. So, it is quite likely they are negotiating adjustments right now.

I have no idea what they will change, though I can imagine creating some short-term space around luxury tax might be interesting for both sides (owners won't want to pay the penalties and will worry less about over-spending for the next year or two; players want the barrier to wealthy teams spending what they are willing to gone). Which would of course impact this overall discussion
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
356
This. Why would we assume that everything related to cap/tax stays the same? Surely the league hasn't announced that, have they?
The working assumption is there will be a negotiated cap and tax line for 20/21 which is basically the same as this year. By negotiated, I mean it will not actually reflect anticipated BRI. In exchange for an artificially high cap this year, the owners will want a higher escrow amount.

As for Hayward, I am firmly in the camp of they should not move him and I don't think they will unless 1) he's hurt again and/or 2) the season goes off the rails and its clear this is not a title contender. If they move him in a pure salary dump, that is more likely to happen at the deadline, since the receiving team does not actually have to pay him his whole salary, but the celtics do remove his entire salary from their cap sheet.

If I am wrong and they do want to move him, several folks have mentioned Buddy Hield as a candidate. He's certainly not a two way player, but he can shoot. He wants out of SacTown and he makes 10 million less.

While the repeater tax is a real concern, they have plenty of time to address it. If they don't move Hayward and instead make trades to trim the tax bill, then they would pay a modest amount of tax next year. In 2021-2022 the pandemic should (hopefully) be a thing of the past. If Hayward leaves as a UFA, then Danny would have 20-15 million under the tax after extending Tatum, with Theis to resign (or more likely replace with a cheaper option). By 2022-2023, China may have warmed back up to the NBA, you will have had a full year of fans back in the stands and the tax line should be higher. Then the Celtics will have Jaylen and Tatum on the max/near max rookie extensions. Kemba will be a 37 million dollar expiring. Langford, Williams and whomever they select in the next few years will still be on rookie deals. Smart would be unrestricted and Timelord would be an RFA. Danny would have a lot of options to duck the tax at that point.
 
Last edited: