Tax Payer MLE Options

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
This. Why would we assume that everything related to cap/tax stays the same? Surely the league hasn't announced that, have they?
BRI is going to get nuked next year, that can't be stopped when games are going to be played at 50% capacity at best. While it sounds good to say "The owners don't want to pay the penalty taxes" that's not necessarily true. The large market/contending teams don't want to pay the luxury taxes on their roster. I guarantee you that the smaller market/non-competitive teams don't give a shit about the luxury tax bills facing the LAs, Golden State, Brooklyn, or Boston. So I'm not sure that the happy talk of a flat cap/tax is realistic.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
4,173
around the way
BRI is going to get nuked next year, that can't be stopped when games are going to be played at 50% capacity at best. While it sounds good to say "The owners don't want to pay the penalty taxes" that's not necessarily true. The large market/contending teams don't want to pay the luxury taxes on their roster. I guarantee you that the smaller market/non-competitive teams don't give a shit about the luxury tax bills facing the LAs, Golden State, Brooklyn, or Boston. So I'm not sure that the happy talk of a flat cap/tax is realistic.
I wouldn't expect the small market teams to shed tears for the taxpayers. But the union and the big market teams have a loud voice at that table. Silver using this financial crisis to drive down salaries is not a very Silver thing to do. It's a Bettman thing to do.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
Silver works for the owners, not the other way around. As much as the Northeast/West Coast nexus might want something, the other owners aren’t just going to rubber stamp it. Silver might cajole them with happy talk about the good of the NBA, but he’s going to need to convince a lot of owners that have nothing to gain from the policy into cutting big market/contenders a break when it’s against their interests to do so.

The cap/tax lines are going down. And you should look at what those repeater taxes look like, they’re pretty punitive. Boston really does need a year beneath the tax line to reset the penalties. And it will happen either this offseason or next.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
4,173
around the way
Silver works for the owners, not the other way around. As much as the Northeast/West Coast nexus might want something, the other owners aren’t just going to rubber stamp it. Silver might cajole them with happy talk about the good of the NBA, but he’s going to need to convince a lot of owners that have nothing to gain from the policy into cutting big market/contenders a break when it’s against their interests to do so.

The cap/tax lines are going down. And you should look at what those repeater taxes look like, they’re pretty punitive. Boston really does need a year beneath the tax line to reset the penalties. And it will happen either this offseason or next.
I have a pretty good idea how punitive it is. I'm not a guy wishcasting that we can keep everyone forever and who cares, it's only cash. I just think that everything is on the table. They bubbled the whole league, shortened the season, arbitrarily picked a number of teams, stopped twice due to stuff happening outside the bubble, etc. They don't even know for sure when the season is going to start.

Maybe you're right that nothing will change in the CBA. Perhaps the revenue simply tanks and everything else is pegged to that, and that's that. I'm just not sure why you're sure of that.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
What I’m sure of is that revenues are going way down and that at the owner level most of the owners aren’t going to prioritize the economic interests of the big market/contending teams. Because the revenues of the smaller market teams are just naturally lower and a lower luxury tax means more money in their wallets.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
What I’m sure of is that revenues are going way down and that at the owner level most of the owners aren’t going to prioritize the economic interests of the big market/contending teams. Because the revenues of the smaller market teams are just naturally lower and a lower luxury tax means more money in their wallets.
Yep, less games + no gate + lower TV ratings mean's less money for the players, less money for big and small market teams. All NBA owners lost $$$ this season

I mean we could be wrong. Maybe Silver can head to DC, get some bailout money from J Powell, and smooth the cap for several years for the benefit of big market owners.

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.
I like Gordon. BUT GH getting dealt has little to do with his talent and everything to do with Tatum/Brown timeline (and the new economics). His salary slot would create all kinds of opportunities (Not just MLE and not just 1yr players). I like my duck boat parades as much as the next spoiled Boston fan. But I'll sacrifice a few 2021 regular-season wins to have several seasons of flexibility when the Jays + others are peaking.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
356
Silver works for the owners, not the other way around. As much as the Northeast/West Coast nexus might want something, the other owners aren’t just going to rubber stamp it. Silver might cajole them with happy talk about the good of the NBA, but he’s going to need to convince a lot of owners that have nothing to gain from the policy into cutting big market/contenders a break when it’s against their interests to do so.

The cap/tax lines are going down. And you should look at what those repeater taxes look like, they’re pretty punitive. Boston really does need a year beneath the tax line to reset the penalties. And it will happen either this offseason or next.
If the league does not come up with a negotiated cap/increased escrow it would be a tremendous failure. It is in everyone's interest to have an artificially high cap next year, not just large market/contending teams.

Woj and others have reported that if the cap were set by the standard BRI metric in the CBA, it and tax line would fall by 25-30 million dollars. Even in small markets, GMs of competitive teams are usually allowed to spend up to the tax line. As a result, a plummet of 25-30 million would place over 75% of the league into the tax (WOJ reported 25 out of 30). Not only would those small market teams suddenly find themselves paying tax, as Woj reported "Included in the most dire league scenarios, sources from some small-market teams told ESPN they are fearful of losing more than $20 million in revenue-sharing payouts from big-market teams next season."

The concept of a negotiated cap is not just wish-casting, its what every reporter/analyst is reporting, at least so far as I have seen. From Sham's piece in the Athletic yesterday "NBPA executive director Michele Roberts told The Athletic last week she predicts a resolution soon on the salary cap and tax levels and that free agency is anticipated to be no later than Dec. 1, with the cap not expected to deviate too much from $115 million."
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
Yep, less games + no gate + lower TV ratings mean's less money for the players, less money for big and small market teams. All NBA owners lost $$$ this season

I mean we could be wrong. Maybe Silver can head to DC, get some bailout money from J Powell, and smooth the cap for several years for the benefit of big market owners.


I like Gordon. BUT GH getting dealt has little to do with his talent and everything to do with Tatum/Brown timeline (and the new economics). His salary slot would create all kinds of opportunities (Not just MLE and not just 1yr players). I like my duck boat parades as much as the next spoiled Boston fan. But I'll sacrifice a few 2021 regular-season wins to have several seasons of flexibility when the Jays + others are peaking.
That's a different formulation than you stated before, and as I said I'm open to hearing the trades that generate both cost-savings and similar talent. What are they?

The flexibility you imagine may or may not be real---that's the challenge here. We don't know the tax line or repeater provisions going forward, and we don't know ownership's willingness to spend. The payroll will rise as guys get extensions (or, they'll have issues with talent if picks don't merit extensions) so the flexibility is pretty limited either way. They are looking at mostly over the cap choices and managing tax bills for years.

The other takeaway on this discussion is that there's a lot of logic to Hayward opting out for purpose of signing a several-year extension if he's interested. Which he very well might be, but we can't know for sure. That's a mechanism to get under now (combined with other moves) but impacts you in future years too....while preserving his salary slot.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
That's a different formulation than you stated before, and as I said I'm open to hearing the trades that generate both cost-savings and similar talent. What are they?

The flexibility you imagine may or may not be real---that's the challenge here. We don't know the tax line or repeater provisions going forward, and we don't know ownership's willingness to spend. The payroll will rise as guys get extensions (or, they'll have issues with talent if picks don't merit extensions) so the flexibility is pretty limited either way. They are looking at mostly over the cap choices and managing tax bills for years.

The other takeaway on this discussion is that there's a lot of logic to Hayward opting out for purpose of signing a several-year extension if he's interested. Which he very well might be, but we can't know for sure. That's a mechanism to get under now (combined with other moves) but impacts you in future years too....while preserving his salary slot.
Everything the Celtics do should be balanced around Tatum/Brown peak timeline, that's obvious, been saying that since last summer. I'll add that disclaimer from now on.

The trade market is fluid from now until the trade deadline next season. I'm not about to guess which teams will be buyers/sellers in the next 6-7mths. But I'm guessing the CAP and salary will be an even bigger issue going forward. Talent will be available outside of MLE players during the course of next season.

The Celtics should be stocked with cheap, young, controlled players unless of course, you start packaging them away now with Kanter, Poirier, etc. Which is short term thinking IMO. What does that accomplish? Saving the owners a bit of $$$ in 2021 but still, live in repeater hell.

GH will be on a 1yr deal, on the other side of 30, has trouble staying healthy and whose role will continue to diminish with the emergence of Tatum/Brown. Extending him for big money($20MM +++) is even more silly. 32yr old Gordon costing us 28yr old Marcus Smart in 2 seasons is again, short-sighted. Right when Jaylen and Tatum will start peaking.

I get that trading Gordon before next season isn't exactly selling high. And agree that the present class of MLE is next to useless. BUT I value the CAP flexibility to add talent over the next 6 months over GH's expected contributions in 2021. I also value Romeo/Grants' development curves more than most so I'm probably guilty of thinking they can step into larger roles next season.

As far as GH trade ideas, the Nighthob suggestion of a 3-team GS/Knicks/C's has always intrigued me and makes some sense for all involved.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
Everything the Celtics do should be balanced around Tatum/Brown peak timeline, that's obvious, been saying that since last summer. I'll add that disclaimer from now on.

The trade market is fluid from now until the trade deadline next season. I'm not about to guess which teams will be buyers/sellers in the next 6-7mths. But I'm guessing the CAP and salary will be an even bigger issue going forward. Talent will be available outside of MLE players during the course of next season.

The Celtics should be stocked with cheap, young, controlled players unless of course, you start packaging them away now with Kanter, Poirier, etc. Which is short term thinking IMO. What does that accomplish? Saving the owners a bit of $$$ in 2021 but still, live in repeater hell.

GH will be on a 1yr deal, on the other side of 30, has trouble staying healthy and whose role will continue to diminish with the emergence of Tatum/Brown. Extending him for big money($20MM +++) is even more silly. 32yr old Gordon costing us 28yr old Marcus Smart in 2 seasons is again, short-sighted. Right when Jaylen and Tatum will start peaking.

I get that trading Gordon before next season isn't exactly selling high. And agree that the present class of MLE is next to useless. BUT I value the CAP flexibility to add talent over the next 6 months over GH's expected contributions in 2021. I also value Romeo/Grants' development curves more than most so I'm probably guilty of thinking they can step into larger roles next season.

As far as GH trade ideas, the Nighthob suggestion of a 3-team GS/Knicks/C's has always intrigued me and makes some sense for all involved.
As others have noted, you and nighthob have a set of assumptions about the cap, the CBA, and the owners that are just that.

The short-term thinking is a problem, and seems to me that dumping an asset and a salary now because of theoretical future concerns is short-term thinking. It also is not how Ainge has ever behaved. The long-term approach is to preserve players and contract assets while you assess the cap and CBA environment, see what trade options emerge, and explore whether you can afford to keep all the pieces. Which is what Ainge has always done. There is MORE cap flexibility keeping Hayward than dumping him now unless you get a specific kind of asset (again why I ask about a specific deal), so to degree you value cap flexibility you want to keep Hayward's slot as long as possible. If you get a deal where you create a TPE, or you get a player at a number low enough to drop under the lux tax line AND keep that salary out over time that's terrific---but requires just the right fit across a couple dimensions.

The credible argument for dumping Hayward is 100% about tax concerns, not cap flexibility. As noted, that is one we simply can't really assess fully until we know about the new CBA. I tend to think keeping Hayward and worrying about it later is also the best balance of tax, cap, and talent managemetn but we can't say until we see the new agreement. I agree with nighthob that a 'bad' outcome of the CBA increases the benefit of dumping Hayward, though I don't think it will reach the point where that's overall the right choice.
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
As others have noted, you and nighthob have a set of assumptions about the cap, the CBA, and the owners that you should have a lot less confidence in than you do.

The short-term thinking is a problem, but it is in fact your problem---dumping an asset and a salary now because of theoretical future concerns is short-term thinking. It also is not how Ainge has ever behaved. The long-term approach is to preserve players and contract assets while you assess the cap and CBA environment, see what trade options emerge, and explore whether you can afford to keep all the pieces. Which is what Ainge has always done. There is MORE cap flexibility keeping Hayward than dumping him now unless you get a specific kind of asset (again why I ask you for specifics), so your comment that you value cap flexibility is inconsistent with your plan.

The credible argument for dumping Hayward is 100% about tax concerns, not cap flexibility. As noted, that is one we simply can't really assess fully until we know about the new CBA. I tend to think keeping Hayward and worrying about it later is also the best balance of tax, cap, and talent managemetn but we can't say until we see the new agreement. I agree with nighthob that a 'bad' outcome of the CBA increases the benefit of dumping Hayward, though I don't think it will reach the point where that's overall the right choice.
Forget about my assumptions that the CAP will be a bigger issue than ever next season (Since ZERO teams banked on it being FLAT for 2021 at this time last season :eek: )

How many wins does 2021 GH create over Grant/Romeo bigger roles?

With no Gordon, a healthy Kemba and the C's probably go to the Finals this year. I just witnessed that.

The only thing I'm 100% convinced about is that 2021 JT/JB will be bigger, stronger, and better than last season's version.

Sitting tight and doing nothing is taking the position that the Cap will continue on its upward trajectory. see Stockton, Ca 2007
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
I agree with you on Grant/Romeo but simply don't see the trade-off you do about them. It's not Hayward or more of them---it's are you better with both of those or not. I think clearly you are.

Let's assume Jayson, Jaylen, Smart, Hayward, Walker all play between 28-32 minutes a game. Theis was at 24 last year, so let's assume same.

Grant averaged 15 MPG last year. We want him to play I think 5 more; that in my mind comes ideally from Kanter's 17 mpg (with TL picking up the rest)
Semi played 15 MPG last year. Those all go to Romeo in my mind, to build on Romeo's existing minutes (11.6, but only half the games).

That still leaves Wannamaker's 19 MPG to be redeployed among this year's pick, Waters/MLE signing, etc. and then a few odds-and-end minutes from the depth guys. We also should assume Kemba will play fewer games and less than 31 MPG next year. I know all of that is imprecise and doesn't fully account for guys missing games, but high-level i just don't see the trade-off between Hayward and stepping up Grant/Romeo you do. What do you see differently, specifically (not theoretically)?
 
Last edited:

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,605
New York, NY
Forget about my assumptions that the CAP will be a bigger issue than ever next season (Since ZERO teams banked on it being FLAT for 2021 at this time last season :eek: )

How many wins does 2021 GH create over Grant/Romeo bigger roles?

With no Gordon, a healthy Kemba and the C's probably go to the Finals this year. I just witnessed that.

The only thing I'm 100% convinced about is that 2021 JT/JB will be bigger, stronger, and better than last season's version.

Sitting tight and doing nothing is taking the position that the Cap will continue on its upward trajectory. see Stockton, Ca 2007
I think this is the disconnect. Sitting tight is the thing to do because the cap might not go up. The Celtics have committed basically up to the tax threshold already for 2 years from now (assuming Tatum is on a max deal). Trading Hayward only works if we can afford to use his salary slot going forward and that seems unlikely.

I would also note that keeping Hayward this year doesn’t kill future flexibility. If they end up under the tax because the cap rebounds (unlikely), they would be able to re-sign Hayward or use the full MLE to bring in talent and would also have the potential space to keep Theis. If the cap is stagnant or down, they may have to choose between those options.

Trading Hayward reduces flexibility (and probably talent) because it would almost certainly involve taking back long term deals we might not be able to afford.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
I think this is the disconnect. Sitting tight is the thing to do because the cap might not go up. The Celtics have committed basically up to the tax threshold already for 2 years from now (assuming Tatum is on a max deal). Trading Hayward only works if we can afford to use his salary slot going forward and that seems unlikely.

I would also note that keeping Hayward this year doesn’t kill future flexibility. If they end up under the tax because the cap rebounds (unlikely), they would be able to re-sign Hayward or use the full MLE to bring in talent and would also have the potential space to keep Theis. If the cap is stagnant or down, they may have to choose between those options.

Trading Hayward reduces flexibility (and probably talent) because it would almost certainly involve taking back long term deals we might not be able to afford.
the Hayward trade we've been talking about for months would create a TPE

A flat cap is really bad for many NBA teams, flat cap for 2 yrs is a disaster. We talked about this before the pandemic when Morey twittered his way to less NBA revenue from China
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
the Hayward trade we've been talking about for months would create a TPE

A flat cap is really bad for many NBA teams, flat cap for 2 yrs is a disaster. We talked about this before the pandemic when Morey twittered his way to less NBA revenue from China
Again, you have to specify the deal. Otherwise it’s not helpful to the discussion.

As has been noted, trading Hayward for a TPE might have a case for it. But, it also places a window on the flexibility while harming this years team. And that TPE either needs to be paired with an asset (Celts assets will mostly be recent picks) or take back a salary dump. It delays the tax problem a year (which is of value, depending on what CBA looks like) but only so much. If we really could get 8th pick and a TPE (which might be deal you have in your head) that’s a deal to seriously consider. But if you aren’t getting an asset like that plus the TPE it’s better to stay with Hayward
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
I agree with you on Grant/Romeo but simply don't see the trade-off you do about them. It's not Hayward or more of them---it's are you better with both of those or not. I think clearly you are.

Let's assume Jayson, Jaylen, Smart, Hayward, Walker all play between 28-32 minutes a game. Theis was at 24 last year, so let's assume same.

Grant averaged 15 MPG last year. We want him to play I think 5 more; that in my mind comes ideally from Kanter's 17 mpg (with TL picking up the rest)
Semi played 15 MPG last year. Those all go to Romeo in my mind, to build on Romeo's existing minutes (11.6, but only half the games).

That still leaves Wannamaker's 19 MPG to be redeployed among this year's pick, Waters/MLE signing, etc. and then a few odds-and-end minutes from the depth guys. We also should assume Kemba will play fewer games and less than 31 MPG next year. I know all of that is imprecise and doesn't fully account for guys missing games, but high-level i just don't see the trade-off between Hayward and stepping up Grant/Romeo you do. What do you see differently, specifically (not theoretically)?
I specifically see Hayward as the 4th offensive option and he's so passive that Smart sometimes makes him the 5th. 4th/5th offensive options that aren't defensive savants in the middle is a bad way to spend $34MM, especially when they will be 31 and have his injury issues (he was feeling pain in his foot earlier in the season, didn't he get a shot to manage the pain?)

JT/JB will pick up any lost Hayward production. While giving Grant/Romeo minutes to grow.

Teams that will be out of contention by the halfway point will be sellers. The Celtics sitting there with 1st and 2nd year players and a huge TPE will be buyers of talent with $10-15MM/yr salaries. There is zero way I can get into specific players unless you can tell me which teams are out of it. But I guarantee there will be sellers next season

A form of "the trade" that's been kicked around here for months (signed off by our Warriors expert SRN) is

Celtics get #8 + TPE
GSW get Hayward + #26
NYK get Wiggins + #2 + #14

You can play with picks, Frankie Smokes, Tre/Carsen etc
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
574
I specifically see Hayward as the 4th offensive option and he's so passive that Smart sometimes makes him the 5th. 4th/5th offensive options that aren't defensive savants in the middle is a bad way to spend $34MM, especially when they will be 31 and have his injury issues (he was feeling pain in his foot earlier in the season, didn't he get a shot to manage the pain?)
You don’t get extra wins for salary cap efficiency. Would you feel better if Tatum and Brown were the ones getting Hayward and Walker’s salaries and vice-versa?

JT/JB will pick up any lost Hayward production. While giving Grant/Romeo minutes to grow.
This statement is simply not true, unless you expect the Jays to average 60 points per game.

A form of "the trade" that's been kicked around here for months (signed off by our Warriors expert SRN) is

Celtics get #8 + TPE
GSW get Hayward + #26
NYK get Wiggins + #2 + #14

You can play with picks, Frankie Smokes, Tre/Carsen etc
Trading one of the best five players on an ECF team for a #8 pick and an undefined hope sounds like a step backwards.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,605
New York, NY
You don’t get extra wins for salary cap efficiency. Would you feel better if Tatum and Brown were the ones getting Hayward and Walker’s salaries and vice-versa?



This statement is simply not true, unless you expect the Jays to average 60 points per game.



Trading one of the best five players on an ECF team for a #8 pick and an undefined hope sounds like a step backwards.
The proposed trade is so much worse than that. It is Hayward, the 14 pick, and the 26 pick for the 8 pick in a draft where the gap between 8 and 14 probably isn’t that significant.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
Yeah, Hayward/26 for 8/TPE is a bad deal (likely for both teams) but one with a theory to it, at least. So worth pondering depending on where cap and tax land and what owners say. Putting 14 in there is nuts...I am surprised there’s Celtics fans who would do it.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
Yeah, Hayward/26 for 8/TPE is a bad deal (likely for both teams) but one with a theory to it, at least. So worth pondering depending on where cap and tax land and what owners say. Putting 14 in there is nuts...I am surprised there’s Celtics fans who would do it.
yep, it's all how you value TPE optionality...I see a lot of volatility from the unknowns. I want the C's to be long-tail risk here

So attaching #26 to get rid of Kanter and his $5MM is a good idea?
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
I suspect not. Of course, that’s irrelevant in regard to your previous statement.
any chance that the guy playing GH's minutes will score a bucket? come on man :rolleyes:

whatever the efficiency downgrade from GH to Grant/Romeo would be overwhelmed by efficiency upgrade in 2021 in JB/JT...
 
Last edited:

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
574
any chance that the guy playing GH's minutes will score a bucket? come on man
Again, that’s not what you said. Is your contention simply that the improvement in Tatum and Brown will offset the drop off from Hayward to Langford? If so, I find that position to be highly dubious as well.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
Again, that’s not what you said. Is your contention simply that the improvement in Tatum and Brown will offset the drop off from Hayward to Langford? If so, I find that position to be highly dubious as well.
yea I usually don't discuss players production in terms of pts/gm
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
574
yea I usually don't discuss players production in terms of pts/gm
Choose the terms in which you would like to discuss players’ production. Is your contention that the improvement in Tatum and Brown will offset the drop off from Hayward to Langford?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
If the league does not come up with a negotiated cap/increased escrow it would be a tremendous failure. It is in everyone's interest to have an artificially high cap next year, not just large market/contending teams.
Yes, there is going to be a deal, we've been discussing this since the spring when it first became a story. But do you what isn't going to happen? The money's not going to stay the same as revenue sharing isn't going to produce any money for the smaller market teams next and the only benefit they're likely to receive will be whatever's distributed as a result of the luxury tax. Next year's tax number is going to be lower than this year's. The only question is where it's set. And Boston is going to need to reset their tax timeline with another subtax year. It will happen either this year or next.

And this has nothing to do with the cries of people discussing moving on from Hayward because they allegedly don't think he's good. He's the ultimate third wheel player, and if they hadn't signed Kemba Walker we'd be discussing what his extension would look like. Unfortunately Tatum's getting the designated rookie extension of five years at 30% of the cap. And there just isn't room for three of those guys and Jaylen. And the jay Crew is the future.

The one possible change here is that one of the discussion items between the owners and NBAPA has been an emergency amnesty system to allow teams to flush contracts from their payroll. If that measure is approved Boston could theoretically amnesty Walker and sign Hayward to an extension. Or another team that he might have interest in playing for might be able to make a trade for Walker palatable by flushing some wasted money off their payroll.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
Choose the terms in which you would like to discuss players’ production. Is your contention that the improvement in Tatum and Brown will offset the drop off from Hayward to Langford?
I'm not comparing 5 players in a vacuum that's silly. Just expect much, much more of Brown and Tatum, the league is going to be spoon-fed a heaping amount of it. And we should rejoice, it's going to be beautiful.

Smart would start post-GH, so Marcus would see an uptick in minutes along with Romeo/Grant. Its a chain reaction.

You could do on/off/efficiency/PIPM whatever you like from the past season (s) but that's not going to tell you much. If you think the Jays will see a spike in usage, you'll want the complimentary players to be more defensively efficient. I like Smart, Grant and Romeo defensively
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
The proposed trade is so much worse than that. It is Hayward, the 14 pick, and the 26 pick for the 8 pick in a draft where the gap between 8 and 14 probably isn’t that significant.
That depends on whether or not there are players coming back to Boston. If it's a strict TPE then Hayward for #8 is doable in a three team scenario. The Knicks are apparently trying to trade for a top 3 pick, so they have someone they want. My guess is LaMelo Ball. They also have a practical payroll for FY '21 of $50 million and change. So a Wiggins/#2 for #8/future#1 trade seems straightforward enough.

But the Warriors do want people paying the huge licensing fees for those prime seats. So they need to add a third option player to Steph and Klay. Having a Minnesota #1 in one of the double drafts and a future NYK #1 gives them transitional security, so adding Boston to the deal to land that player at the cost of a mid lottery pick in an uncertain draft also seems pretty logical. But if Boston were taking guys like Frankie Smokes and/or Kevin Knox then some adjustments might be necessary.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,725
That depends on whether or not there are players coming back to Boston. If it's a strict TPE then Hayward for #8 is doable in a three team scenario. The Knicks are apparently trying to trade for a top 3 pick, so they have someone they want. My guess is LaMelo Ball. They also have a practical payroll for FY '21 of $50 million and change. So a Wiggins/#2 for #8/future#1 trade seems straightforward enough.

But the Warriors do want people paying the huge licensing fees for those prime seats. So they need to add a third option player to Steph and Klay. Having a Minnesota #1 in one of the double drafts and a future NYK #1 gives them transitional security, so adding Boston to the deal to land that player at the cost of a mid lottery pick in an uncertain draft also seems pretty logical. But if Boston were taking guys like Frankie Smokes and/or Kevin Knox then some adjustments might be necessary.
Just so I am clear, you are suggesting that a Gordon Hayward acquisition will be the tipping point for selling seat licenses at the Chase Center?

I live in San Francisco and setting aside the pandemic impact where those seats are going to be discounted to compensate for the exodus of tech bros and sisters who aren't likely to return in the numbers we saw at peak dotcom 2.0, Hayward simply isn't a well known enough name for that market (mostly corporate, mostly casual at best fans and very superstar focused).

Prior to the stoppage, I thought your trade idea made some sense for both side even if it was a bit of a stretch. Since then, I am convinced that the Warriors are pretty much Giannis focused.

We shall see but I think if the Warriors are interested in Hayward, its purely a basketball fit thing. Hayward simply isnt likely to bring in marginal fans to Warriors games.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,373
I don’t think there’s any chance GS gives up a #2 pick for a 30 year-old Hayward. Gordo is a nice player who would fit well in GS but I would riot if I were a GS fan and my team made that deal.

Like DeJesus, I think they’re focused on Giannis and if he’s not available yet, you simply make the pick on #2 and see if someone else becomes available later on.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
Just so I am clear, you are suggesting that a Gordon Hayward acquisition will be the tipping point for selling seat licenses at the Chase Center?
No, I'm saying that the Warriors want to be in that first contender tier as a selling point and they're going to need one more guy to get there. Hayward is a decent option for that guy that doesn't cost much. Giannis would be a better option, but so far I've seen no indication that the Bucks are going to move him any time soon. But, even if Milwaukee were to change tack at the trade deadline, with Hayward the Wrriors could still make a palatable deal for the Bucks (because Hayward's expiring deal has to look a lot better than Wiggins' albatross).
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
I don’t think there’s any chance GS gives up a #2 pick for a 30 year-old Hayward. Gordo is a nice player who would fit well in GS but I would riot if I were a GS fan and my team made that deal.
I mean you're getting a lottery pick from New York in a better draft (to be brutally frank, if Boston held #2 I'd want them to exchange it for a lower pick and one in the 2021-2023 range). I'll actually be shocked if the best player in this draft is taken in the top 3, and be completely unsurprised if it turned out to be someone drafted 20-40.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,725
No, I'm saying that the Warriors want to be in that first contender tier as a selling point and they're going to need one more guy to get there. Hayward is a decent option for that guy that doesn't cost much. Giannis would be a better option, but so far I've seen no indication that the Bucks are going to move him any time soon. But, even if Milwaukee were to change tack at the trade deadline, with Hayward the Wrriors could still make a palatable deal for the Bucks (because Hayward's expiring deal has to look a lot better than Wiggins' albatross).
I understand your point but I don't agree with it. The Warriors are only likely to see a meaningful increase in ticket purchases with another superstar. The fans who aren't already bought in aren't waiting to see if the Warriors are contenders - they want to be where its happening and you can generate good socials content. Awkward, wooden Gordon Hayward in the background of a Chase Center selfie isn't likely to generate many likes.

Again, the only motivation for Golden State to acquire Hayward would be a basketball fit. I find it hard to see Myers or even the business side of the house using "another star" as justification to make a trade.

Edit: also, I love the logic that Hayward isn't valuable enough as a player to stay in Boston -and its clear it comes with a cost- but he instantly makes another team seeking more skill a contender. Doggy doggy what now?
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
No one’s saying that he isn’t valuable enough to stay in Boston. They’re saying that he’s overkill as the fourth option and that he looks worse as a result. Last year in games when one of the top three were out, he looked really good in using the extra possessions. So in a third option role on another squad he’s going to look good.

And still, in a mid season Giannis quest he has to look a lot better to the Bucks than three years and $95 million worth of inefficient volume shooting.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,725
No one’s saying that he isn’t valuable enough to stay in Boston. They’re saying that he’s overkill as the fourth option and that he looks worse as a result. Last year in games when one of the top three were out, he looked really good in using the extra possessions. So in a third option role on another squad he’s going to look good.

And still, in a mid season Giannis quest he has to look a lot better to the Bucks than three years and $95 million worth of inefficient volume shooting.
Let me ask you this.

Do you think Miami would have been better during the finals with Dragic? I do.

Furthermore, the best trade of any made during the season was the Crowder and Iguodala deal. Riley added two veteran wings - because the Heat know you really cannot have too many.

Also, I think the Miami series is different if Hayward is healthy. Its clear to me, at least, that Boston does not have enough depth to compete with the other contenders. I understand that Hayward's deal is painful for Boston but as discussed in the other thread, they don't necessarily have to move him now. Why would they do that again?

This is not to say that Hayward won't be moved but we should probably expect Ainge to explore other options. You don't improve your team by actively trying to deal one of your best players when you don't have to. At least I haven't seen ascendant teams dealing away talent unless they were getting back equal value or it allows for other moves. The latter is certainly a possibility but it seems incredibly unlikely given all the parameters the Cs would need to satisfy.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
Do you need help moving those goalposts? Iguodala and Crowder were valuable pieces of Miami’s run. But it’s because they were in the other guy on the floor role. If they were forced into a real scoring role they wouldn’t look so good. Hayward, by default, plays that role in Boston, which is why some casual fans might not understand how good he is. Unlike Iguodala and Crowder, however, Hayward can function as a secondary or tertiary offensive option.

In any event, it doesn’t matter, next year is Hayward’s final Boston season one way or another. There’s just no room for he and Walker after Tatum inks his extension. Boston can either recoup value for him or let him go for nothing and pray that Langford makes a huge leap.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,725
No goalposts are being moved. I have been consistent in this thread and in this forum that in my view that a contending team cannot have enough wing depth, and preferably veterans, in today's NBA.

Hayward is a very good two way player with great playmaking skills. Those players get max deals for a reason. Teams looking to make a leap competitively tend to add those players rather than deal them away.

The Miami trade illustrates how important having wing depth is - they could effectively match up with anyone until the finals. And the Dragic injury shows how that can evaporate quickly.

We aren't going to agree on this so we should move on. Golden State is certainly a possibility but I just don't see it. And I don't see Boston worrying about two seasons from now when Hayward's own history shows that things can change in an instant and the complexity around any deal that makes sense is extremely high.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
19,083
No goalposts are being moved. I have been consistent in this thread and in this forum that in my view that a contending team cannot have enough wing depth, and preferably veterans, in today's NBA.

Hayward is a very good two way player with great playmaking skills. Those players get max deals for a reason. Teams looking to make a leap competitively tend to add those players rather than deal them away.

The Miami trade illustrates how important having wing depth is - they could effectively match up with anyone until the finals. And the Dragic injury shows how that can evaporate quickly.
The Hayward case is similar to the one I beat down years ago with Ray Allen and his role with the Big 3. Yes, you need a knock down shooter on the floor to play in this role next to KG and Pierce.....no, you don’t need to have a max player be reduced into this role. Allen’s greatest value to our championship was being the guy acquired to convince KG to accept the trade to Boston. Out of all the talk about individual players sacrifices back then it was Allen whose game was limited the most in the role he was asked to play. This isn’t that dissimilar to Hayward and his role around the J’s as you can replace him with a role player like Crowder/Iggy/veteran wing without taking much of a hit on the floor.......just as you could replace Allen with a Korver/Redick-type since Allen’s other abilities are not put to use in the role he’s asked to play on that particular team.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
For me part of the reason Hayward is more valuable than I read people implying is that he is also the secondary playmaker I n a post-Wanna setup. You have Waters or whoever defensively but you can run the offense through Hayward in a way that’s tough to replace.

For those who feel it’s a financial question, what’s the number at which the basketball skill merits the financial impact—is it $20 mil a year? $17 mil? $15 mil? Cap-wise we just don’t know all the pieces and lux tax implications of course, but when I read “overpaid for fourth guy” it makes me wonder relative to what?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
Agreed. It has value for Celtics in that it preserves value of Hayward's contract, but only so much. And has been noted, you generally can do two things with the TPE: take back a bad contract, or package assets with it to get a good player. Not clear the Celtics will want to do the first (since the TPE comes in this scenario from the desire to reduce salary) and the second is likely complicated to find a fit.

I just don't think likely the TPE/pick scenario provides either better value or flexibility than simply keeping Hayward. The lack of viable, specific trades people are able to identify is rather glaring in making this point...
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
I don’t value it much as a fan. Usually the TPEs expire.
The CAP has continuously gone up for 7 straight seasons (it was @$58MM 2013-14)

It was expected to go from $109MM to 117MM at the end of FA last season.

I'd expect TPEs to have more value now than in past seasons. YMMV

As a Celtics fan, I want them to win numerous Championships. The better Danny balances flexibility to add talent around the Jays, when they are peaking, the better chance the C's have of winning Championships.

But I get it, I'm a fan and it's not my money. SPEND SPEND SPEND