Tax Payer MLE Options

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,345
Santa Monica
The lack of viable, specific trades people are able to identify is rather glaring in making this point...
List the teams that will be sellers at the midpoint next season that will be looking to add young players and get under the cap?

I think we can both agree there will be sellers. Potentially many more SELLERS then in past seasons due to the losses incurred by the owners
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,373
Someone mentioned that the opt in deadlines have been pushed back. Do we know the new deadline? Can trades be made yet?
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,345
Santa Monica
Yet you have been comparing 5-6 players in a vacuum, and the comparison is silly.
sorry, I'm not clutching my purse strings at the loss of 31yr old Gordon Hayward.

and think 21/22yr olds are going to improve

the gap in losing your 4th offensive option will be small especially with Tatum's extreme emergence.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
List the teams that will be sellers at the midpoint next season that will be looking to add young players and get under the cap?

I think we can both agree there will be sellers. Potentially many more SELLERS then in past seasons due to the losses incurred by the owners
I was talking about the options to deal Hayward and even get back the TPE and an asset. I agree that, if you get a TPE, there are potential deals out there in the future for it---but agree with Devizier that historically it is hard to actually turn the TPE into a deal with one of them, too.

You keep saying "I want to win championships" as if that is different than what anyone else here wants. The real discussion is not that, but how the move you propose helps us get there--which requires specifics and also recognizing some tricky aspects of the cap/tax system that are uncertain right now.

As noted before, you also haven't explained how keeping Hayward gets in the way of Grant/Romeo/pick getting development. Surely you don't think the right plan is to assume 30 mpg from one of those guys, do you? There's 15 or more for a pick and 20 for each of the others even with Hayward so it feels like you are thinking of a false choice here.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,345
Santa Monica
I was talking about the options to deal Hayward and even get back the TPE and an asset. I agree that, if you get a TPE, there are potential deals out there in the future for it---but agree with Devizier that historically it is hard to actually turn the TPE into a deal with one of them, too.

You keep saying "I want to win championships" as if that is different than what anyone else here wants. The real discussion is not that, but how the move you propose helps us get there--which requires specifics and also recognizing some tricky aspects of the cap/tax system that are uncertain right now.

As noted before, you also haven't explained how keeping Hayward gets in the way of Grant/Romeo/pick getting development. Surely you don't think the right plan is to assume 30 mpg from one of those guys, do you? There's 15 or more for a pick and 20 for each of the others even with Hayward so it feels like you are thinking of a false choice here.
the only trade that has been tossed around for months in regards to GH/TPE was a 3-way Celtics/GSW/NYK based around Wiggins/Pick swaps/TPE. Like all fake trades, the odds of that happening are remote.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
Right, but as noted by a couple of us trading Hayward, 14, and 26 for 8 and a TPE is a terrible idea. So if that's the sum of the ways to move Hayward for a TPE/pick it seems clear this discussion is silly.

So, we need a better fake trade or to acknowledge the concept is flawed
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
nope, never said anything close to that
You haven't been able to formulate any response at all on minutes played, which was the point being made. If you don't think 20ish minutes is the right number, what do you think?
 

DGreenwood

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2003
1,329
Seattle
Someone mentioned that the opt in deadlines have been pushed back. Do we know the new deadline? Can trades be made yet?
No, trades can't be made yet. They want to settle the cap situation first so teams know the financial ramifications of their moves. I'm assuming player options are on hold for the same reason.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,345
Santa Monica
You haven't been able to formulate any response at all on minutes played, which was the point being made
Do I really need to formulate minutes 4 months before the start of next season?

You could start with how Brad handled the playoffs with Smart starting and work backwards from there
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,373
No, trades can't be made yet. They want to settle the cap situation first so teams know the financial ramifications of their moves. I'm assuming player options are on hold for the same reason.
Ah, thanks. Feels like that needs to be decided prior to draft though, right?
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,345
Santa Monica
Right, but as noted by a couple of us trading Hayward, 14, and 26 for 8 and a TPE is a terrible idea. So if that's the sum of the ways to move Hayward for a TPE/pick it seems clear this discussion is silly.

So, we need a better fake trade or to acknowledge the concept is flawed
I said "You can play with picks, Frankie Smokes, Tre/Carsen etc", right?

The basic "form" of the trade was:

1. Celtics get the TPE, upgrade draft pick, maybe bench talent in Ntilikina

2. GSW get rid of Wiggins 3yr albatross, improve their rotation by replacing Wiggins with Hayward. Gordon becomes their 3rd offensive option. They lose a #2 pick in weak draft.

3. NYK try to solve a young Wiggins and upgrade this year's draft pick because they love Ball/Wiseman (whomever)


BUT it sounds like you don't value the TPE and believe Gordon is an important player for them to win a 2021 Championship. That's fine.

My point is the C's could do a lot with the TPE by midseason next year. I liked what I saw from Romeo/Grant, and expect them to improve. I was also fine with Smart in the starting line-up in lieu of Gordon. The most important point is the usage/emergence of Tatum and Brown going forward, which diminishes the importance of Gordon Hayward (esp with Kemba needing shots) next season.

Agreed, there is a lot up in the air in regards to the CAP. My position is lost revenue in 2020 from China/COVID and lower revenue in 2021 will have a greater impact on player salaries, CAP, repeater tax than in past years.

Having flexibility at the moment the J Crew are ascending (maybe Bron will finally decline) will lead to a multi-year Championship run. Which could start in 2021, with shrewd (by using the TPE) additions at the 2021 trade deadline.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
574
the gap in losing your 4th offensive option will be small especially with Tatum's extreme emergence.
Your 4th offensive option averaged 17.5 ppg last year on 50/38/86 shooting.
Romeo Langford scored 79 points last year on 35/18/72 shooting.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,345
Santa Monica
Your 4th offensive option averaged 17.5 ppg last year on 50/38/86 shooting.
Romeo Langford scored 79 points last year on 35/18/72 shooting.
Just stop dude. For some reason, you have a hard-on for misrepresenting my position. Just read #163 from above.

I never said anywhere that Romeo would replace Gordon straight up.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
574
Just stop dude. For some reason, you have a hard-on for misrepresenting my position. Just read #163 from above.

I never said anywhere that Romeo would replace Gordon straight up.
No, you said that the loss of Hayward would be offset by the growth of Tatum and Brown. When that statement was challenged, you invoked a 5th player and said that the increase of efficiency in Tatum/Brown would make up for the loss of efficiency in Langford/Grant Williams. When that statement was challenged, you moved the goalposts again to focus on the fourth scoring option. Now when that statement is challenged, you claim that your ever-shifting position is being misrepresented although I have quoted your post every step of the way. I look forward to how you re-represent your position next rather than accept that your initial statement, and every subsequent defense of it, was dubious at best.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Friendly reminder that personal attacks aren’t ok, and that each post should represent a good-faith effort to advance the discussion. I deleted a post that did not meet these standards.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,470
Right, but as noted by a couple of us trading Hayward, 14, and 26 for 8 and a TPE is a terrible idea. So if that's the sum of the ways to move Hayward for a TPE/pick it seems clear this discussion is silly.

So, we need a better fake trade or to acknowledge the concept is flawed
It's hard to figure out right now since the league financials are up in the air. Let's go with the idea that the NBA will keep the cap right around where it is now, even though the financials don't support that.

Under the assumption that Gordon Hayward won't be with the Celtics after next year, and the Celtics ownership doesn't want to spend gobs of money going over the luxury tax next season, you have to decide are the Celtics good enough as presently constituted to win the title? Because they're probably not going to be able to add much to this roster with their top 6 guys making a combined 120M, when the luxury tax line would be around 132M. I think it's more likely they'll have to subtract, like give up assets to dump Poirier/Kanter, then they are to add to this team.

I would hate to move Hayward, I'm probably higher on him than 90% of fans, but if they can't figure out a way to keep him longterm, I think they have to move him. If he just walks after next season, the Celtics still won't have cap space with new Jaylen and Tatum deals on the books, so unless they somehow were able to sign and trade him for anything of value their flexibility just disappears with him.

Two things could open the door for the Celtics to move Hayward now and, while not getting full value for him, still help the team now and going forward. One has already happened unfortunately, Covid. Teams will likely be looking to move some salaries. The second, which could happen, is Giannis not extending with Milwaukee this offseason. If he doesn't, there are teams rumored to be trying to hoard cap space waiting for him before the 2021-22 season.

Word is Miami will hold cap space for Giannis. Rather than sign Jae Crowder to the multi-year deal he surely will want, would they rather have Hayward for one year, have that much more space open for Giannis in 2021 and if they can't get him, maybe re-sign Hayward. They were one of his finalists when he signed in Boston.

So, with all that said, I'll offer this fake trade if that happens.

Would Boston/Miami do a Hayward and one or both of Kanter/Poirier for old friends Kelly Olynyk and a sign and traded Jae Crowder for 3/33ish contract?

Miami gets the best player, upgrade from Jae to Hayward in the lineup, sacrifice one depth piece and keep their books clean for Giannis. The Celtics downgrade their top five, but add a desperately needed rotation player, get two players on mid-tier salaries that could be used in deals going forward, move 12-17 million in salary off their 2020-21 cap, get a massive trade exception they could use to add more to the team, or if they don't use the TPE right away possibly open up the full midlevel rather than the taxpayer MLE. Also would let hem duck the tax this year and open up some shopping opportunities from teams looking to move salary.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
[
It's hard to figure out right now since the league financials are up in the air. Let's go with the idea that the NBA will keep the cap right around where it is now, even though the financials don't support that.

Under the assumption that Gordon Hayward won't be with the Celtics after next year, and the Celtics ownership doesn't want to spend gobs of money going over the luxury tax next season, you have to decide are the Celtics good enough as presently constituted to win the title? Because they're probably not going to be able to add much to this roster with their top 6 guys making a combined 120M, when the luxury tax line would be around 132M. I think it's more likely they'll have to subtract, like give up assets to dump Poirier/Kanter, then they are to add to this team.

I would hate to move Hayward, I'm probably higher on him than 90% of fans, but if they can't figure out a way to keep him longterm, I think they have to move him. If he just walks after next season, the Celtics still won't have cap space with new Jaylen and Tatum deals on the books, so unless they somehow were able to sign and trade him for anything of value their flexibility just disappears with him.

Two things could open the door for the Celtics to move Hayward now and, while not getting full value for him, still help the team now and going forward. One has already happened unfortunately, Covid. Teams will likely be looking to move some salaries. The second, which could happen, is Giannis not extending with Milwaukee this offseason. If he doesn't, there are teams rumored to be trying to hoard cap space waiting for him before the 2021-22 season.

Word is Miami will hold cap space for Giannis. Rather than sign Jae Crowder to the multi-year deal he surely will want, would they rather have Hayward for one year, have that much more space open for Giannis in 2021 and if they can't get him, maybe re-sign Hayward. They were one of his finalists when he signed in Boston.

So, with all that said, I'll offer this fake trade if that happens.

Would Boston/Miami do a Hayward and one or both of Kanter/Poirier for old friends Kelly Olynyk and a sign and traded Jae Crowder for 3/33ish contract?

Miami gets the best player, upgrade from Jae to Hayward in the lineup, sacrifice one depth piece and keep their books clean for Giannis. The Celtics downgrade their top five, but add a desperately needed rotation player, get two players on mid-tier salaries that could be used in deals going forward, move 12-17 million in salary off their 2020-21 cap, get a massive trade exception they could use to add more to the team, or if they don't use the TPE right away possibly open up the full midlevel rather than the taxpayer MLE. Also would let hem duck the tax this year and open up some shopping opportunities from teams looking to move salary.
That wouldn't get them below the tax would it? Not if you take Olynyk and Crowder back. You're sending out $34 and taking back $23 or so between Olynyk and Crowder. You'd be better off simply offering Hayward an extension to cut his AAV---he's much better than those guys and will have more trade utility going forward. Olynyk would be fine as a role player (as we know from the past) and Crowder might be (Crowder, much more than Hayward, will gum up Grant's development)...but you've worsened your closing 5 in order to improve the back of the rotation and neither of those guys is a tradeable asset going forward. And going forward, you don't have picks to staple to them anymore. How much flexibility do you think that is?

As nighthob notes, if Miami attaches enough picks to it I guess I'd think about it but it seems like a quarter for a dime and two nickels deal to me.

If the goal is to cut $10 mil I'd rather just staple 30 to Poirer/Kanter and go without Wanna and Semi.

I get the luxury tax issues. But I think what smart teams have done in the NBA for years is focus on the top 6-7 guys, not the rest of the rotation which gets filled in as you go. Some of you are building out the back end of the rotation first.

All that said, we're all guessing at where ownership is on cost---if they simply aren't willing to pay the tax next year than I imagine Gordon is gone and it'll be a bad deal. But they are going to dictate that and we can't do much about it
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
17,852
I read through most of this thread but might have missed it. Did you guys discuss Windhorst on Russilo’s podcast. He said the owners wants fans in the seats or there will not be a season. He painted a bleaker picture than I heard elsewhere. Said the TV money is not enough.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,373
I read through most of this thread but might have missed it. Did you guys discuss Windhorst on Russilo’s podcast. He said the owners wants fans in the seats or there will not be a season. He painted a bleaker picture than I heard elsewhere. Said the TV money is not enough.
That doesn’t make any sense to me. The national and local TV deals is where these teams make the bulk of their revenue.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
17,852
That doesn’t make any sense to me. The national and local TV deals is where these teams make the bulk of their revenue.
Lakers do but not true for many of the teams is what he said.

This is from his column (this doesn’t read as bleakly as his interview):

Will teams be able to have fans at games?

Silver has said multiple times, including as recently as during the Finals, that the league wants to have a full 82-game season with fans in arenas. It might not be at full capacity in many places and it's possible it won't be in all 28 NBA cities at the start.

Arena-based revenue makes up 40% of the league's income. Every game most teams play without it, even with local and national television revenue, could be a money-loser.

Some contingency plans have been discussed -- such as reforming a bubble or multiple bubbles, sources said -- but that is not the first option at the moment.

The league is not currently planning to wait for a COVID-19 vaccine. To instead assure fan safety, there are hopes rapid testing will have enough reliability and availability -- while being cost-effective. Several NBA owners as well as the league itself have made investments in companies developing these types of tests.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,470
[


That wouldn't get them below the tax would it? Not if you take Olynyk and Crowder back. You're sending out $34 and taking back $23 or so between Olynyk and Crowder. You'd be better off simply offering Hayward an extension to cut his AAV---he's much better than those guys and will have more trade utility going forward. Olynyk would be fine as a role player (as we know from the past) and Crowder might be (Crowder, much more than Hayward, will gum up Grant's development)...but you've worsened your closing 5 in order to improve the back of the rotation and neither of those guys is a tradeable asset going forward. And going forward, you don't have picks to staple to them anymore. How much flexibility do you think that is?

As nighthob notes, if Miami attaches enough picks to it I guess I'd think about it but it seems like a quarter for a dime and two nickels deal to me.

If the goal is to cut $10 mil I'd rather just staple 30 to Poirer/Kanter and go without Wanna and Semi.

I get the luxury tax issues. But I think what smart teams have done in the NBA for years is focus on the top 6-7 guys, not the rest of the rotation which gets filled in as you go. Some of you are building out the back end of the rotation first.

All that said, we're all guessing at where ownership is on cost---if they simply aren't willing to pay the tax next year than I imagine Gordon is gone and it'll be a bad deal. But they are going to dictate that and we can't do much about it
In this scenario, I was sending out Hayward plus Kanter or Poirier, or both. Olynyk at 13M, and Jae around 10M, would put them around 117M if they use all three picks and both Kanter and Poirier gone. My luxury tax guess was at 132M, so well under if both guys were moved.

To answer how much flexibility that is going forward. A lot more than if I'm over the cap going into 2021-22 with only Kemba, Tatum, Jaylen and Smart on the books making more than 5 million, while still having no cap space, only kids and the taxpayer midlevel to fill out my roster going forward.

Celtics should not facilitate a path for the Heat to sign Giannis.
The Celtics wouldn't be facilitating a path for the Heat to sign Giannis They're going to have that path with or without the Celtics.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
You haven't accounted for the bench or the picks though.

I think the reality is that if you take back $23 mil in salary you're going to be over the cap---or right at it wtihout a full roster. Hollinger's assessmnt is that with a filled-out roster (but no MLE) and Hayward/Kanter you'd be at $146 mil. If you save $11 mil on the Hayward-Crowder/Kelly O swap and $5 on Kanter you're at $131 mil. So you might be under and might not but you're a lot worse team (and no back up PG). If that is a desparate move to get under the tax line, ok...I get the play I just don't know that you need to take on questionable contracts to get there.

In terms of flexibility, would you rather be trying to trade Hayward at $20 mil or Crowder at $11 after next year? Seems clear to me you're better off flexibility-wise with Hayward.

I acknowledge that we don't know what Gordon will take, or what the owners will pay. But these scenarios where you trade an asset for negative contracts to keep flexibility simply don't make sense.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,470
You haven't accounted for the bench or the picks though.

I think the reality is that if you take back $23 mil in salary you're going to be over the cap---or right at it wtihout a full roster. Hollinger's assessmnt is that with a filled-out roster (but no MLE) and Hayward/Kanter you'd be at $146 mil. If you save $11 mil on the Hayward-Crowder/Kelly O swap and $5 on Kanter you're at $131 mil. So you might be under and might not but you're a lot worse team (and no back up PG). If that is a desparate move to get under the tax line, ok...I get the play I just don't know that you need to take on questionable contracts to get there.

In terms of flexibility, would you rather be trying to trade Hayward at $20 mil or Crowder at $11 after next year? Seems clear to me you're better off flexibility-wise with Hayward.

I acknowledge that we don't know what Gordon will take, or what the owners will pay. But these scenarios where you trade an asset for negative contracts to keep flexibility simply don't make sense.
bench would basically be Smart(or Jae if you start Smart instead), Olynyk, the guy(s) you add with the $under the tax, then the kids and rookies.

here's what I had in that scenario.

Kemba 34.4
Jaylen 22.9
Smart 12.9
Olynyk 12.8(assuming he doesnt waive trade kicker)
Jae 10 (estimating here obviously)
Tatum 9.9
Theis 5
Romeo 3.6
#14 3.5
Grant 2.5
RobWill 2.0
#26 2.0
#30 1.9
Carsen 1.5
dead money 1.1 (Yabusele and Demetrius Jackson)


So if they actually used all three picks(unlikely), and kept every guaranteed contract(I cut Semi and Javonte non-guaranteed deals here), they'd be at 126Mish with 14 players. So 6Mish under to add one more bench piece, even if you used all three picks and kept all your young players. More if you moved off of some of them.

Of course I'd rather have Hayward at 20M after next year than Jae at 11M. Is Hayward taking 20M here to be a sidecar? I don't think he is. If he does, great. I'd do that then. I started the idea by saying, "Under the assumption that Gordon Hayward won't be with the Celtics after next year ", because I don't see him extending here.

And I don't think Jae at 3/33ish of Olynyk at 1/12.8 are negative contracts. Probably around neutral contracts, which with NBA rules, you probably need.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
To get there you're also assuming Kanter opts out or goes to Miami and Poirer goes to Miami with Hayward. I think Miami can do that into space and still re-sign Dragic but would have to check the numbers. So Hayward/Poirer/Kanter (if he opts in) for Olynyk and Crowder? I think that's still a bad deal though it could get you under luxury tax. Not sure a Miami pick does a lot for me, though if you put it 2-3 years out that's a little interesting.

You asked earlier where the $20 mil for Hayward came from---multiple analysts have said a 4/$80 kind of deal with Hayward post-opt out is in the ballpark for both sides. Obviously, we don't know and one can believe he'd want more.

Saw a deal posted elsewhere I thought was interesting if one is on the "trade Hayward" path (either because ownership makes you or you feel it's preferable): Hayward, Waters, Tacko, and multiple 1sts to Orlando for Fournier and Ross. I tend to think Orlando wouldn't do this---but those are the kind of players I think you want to target if you're going to make the move.
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,345
Santa Monica
Now when that statement is challenged, you claim that your ever-shifting position is being misrepresented although I have quoted your post every step of the way. I look forward to how you re-represent your position next rather than accept that your initial statement, and every subsequent defense of it, was dubious at best.
What a joke. No "goalposts" have been moved based on your insipid questioning (I initially tried to make light of them).

Below has been my stance for 3 months when the idea of moving GH (due to CAP issues) was first floated.

I'll break it out from #163:

"My point is the C's could do a lot with the TPE by midseason next year. I liked what I saw from Romeo/Grant, and expect them to improve. I was also fine with Smart in the starting line-up in lieu of Gordon. The most important point is the usage/emergence of Tatum and Brown going forward, which diminishes the importance of Gordon Hayward (esp with Kemba needing shots) next season."

Nowhere did I ever state Romeo would be playing 30mpg or would replace Gordon Hayward, that was a strawman created by you and another
 
Last edited:

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
356
What a joke. No "goalposts" have been moved based on your insipid questioning (I initially tried to make light of them).

Below has been my stance for 3 months when the idea of moving GH (due to CAP issues) was first floated.

I'll break it out from #163:

"My point is the C's could do a lot with the TPE by midseason next year. I liked what I saw from Romeo/Grant, and expect them to improve. I was also fine with Smart in the starting line-up in lieu of Gordon. The most important point is the usage/emergence of Tatum and Brown going forward, which diminishes the importance of Gordon Hayward (esp with Kemba needing shots) next season.".

Nowhere did I ever state Romeo would be playing 30mpg or would replace Gordon Hayward, that was a strawman created by you and another
I think examining some of the underlying assumptions/view points might advance the discussion. As I understand the move GH viewpoint, the argument is this:

The Celtics will have face the repeater tax two and three seasons from now, when the J's will be peaking. Danny should be planning on maximizing the roster in those years. So Danny should move GH now. His loss will be offset by the acquisition of a player at the deadline via a TPE. It will also be offset by continued growth from the J's, a larger role for Smart and some improvement from Romeo/Grant.

While I understand the logic of that position, here is where I differ: THE FUTURE IS UNPREDICTABLE.

I think we all agree that the Celtics are now in the business of winning playoff games and titles. The Celtics have a reasonable chance at winning the East and making the Finals next year. I do not believe that moving GH so that they can acquire someone at the deadline with a TPE maximizes the changes for winning the East next year.
  1. A team can sustain in the regular season by replacing 85% of a departed player. In the playoffs, that missing 15% is magnified. A healthy GH may be a regular season luxury, but he can be a playoff necessity. E.g. we just watched a playoffs where GH's absence/return to the lineup was seen as the key to beating the Heat.
  2. A healthy GH's skill is particularly hard to replace. He is a two way wing, who can make plays for others
  3. I am less sanguine than you about how many teams will be sellers. There will not be that many teams in the tax. In the West, no one appears to be tanking other than (probably) OKC. Everyone will be competing for 7, 8 and 9 and there may be a play in.
  4. Re internal improvement: Tatum just made a massive leap. Improvement tends to happen in fits and starts. Having just jumped a whole level, it is not reasonable to expect Tatum to make significant gains in the next 6 months. I expect Brown to continue to improve. Second year players tend to make substantial jumps. So Grant Williams should have a larger role. But's he taking Kanter's minutes not Haywards. Langford has shown he can defend - that's it. I have hopes too, but there is no basis to assume he's going to be a real offensive contributor in the playoffs.
Back to the future. Any reasonable person would have looked at the Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka Thunder that had just lot to the Heat in the Finals and concluded that that roster was going to dominate the West for the next 5 years. The Heatles were going to win how many rings? The Warriors were light years ahead?

Shit happens. Tatum or Brown get hurt and is never the same (GH says hi). Giannis goes to the Heat and forms a super team that no one can get past for 3-4 years. We get a vaccine by January, stadiums are full again and the cap continues to rise. Bottom line, we can far far more certainty about the Celtics ability to compete for the title next year, then we can in 2021-22 or 2022-23.

If moving GH was the only path to avoiding the repeater tax, I would agree with the pro trade GH crowd. But its not. While none of us can predict the future, we can look at the cap sheet and see that the Celtics will have optionality in 2021-22 to duck the tax.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
There are going to be a lot of teams over the luxury tax line next year. The cap/tax is a CBA issue and based on current BRI will be crashing by $25 million or so. There will ultimately be CBA modifications to smooth out the crash, but the small market teams aren’t going to vote to maintain the current cap figure and force themselves to spend millions in this environment, The cap/tax lines will be going down. It’s one reason that emergency amnesty measures are being discussed.
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,373
There are going to be a lot of teams over the luxury tax line next year. The cap/tax is a CBA issue and based on current BRI will be crashing by $25 million or so. There will ultimately be CBA modifications to smooth out the crash, but th small market teams aren’t going to vote to maintain the current cap figure and force themselves to spend millions in this environment, The cap/tax lines will be going down. It’s one reason that emergency amnesty measures are being discussed.
The Sixers are especially screwed on that front...yikes. $147M committed to 8 guys in 2021-2022, assuming Richardson exercises his $11.6M option. There is going to need to be some kind of amnesty measure.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
Yeah, the Sixers are definitely having buyer’s remorse on that Horford contract today. If the amnesty measure is implemented he’d be a great target for Boston to add to their C rotation. Especially as they have the bodies to protect him during the regular season.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
Nowhere did I ever state Romeo would be playing 30mpg or would replace Gordon Hayward, that was a strawman created by you and another
There is no strawman which was created. You put forward the idea that there was a trade-off between Hayward's time and the development of Grant and Romeo. I shared where the minutes would come from to provide them appropriate development (which in my view would be in the low 20s) and asked if you had a different assumption about the right level of minutes (which could be up to 30). You neither responded to the question nor explained your assumptions. You in fact said "it's four months out I can't project minutes". No one claimed you said 30 minutes---I asked a question which you ducked and then mischaracterized multiple times. Since you put forward the idea there was a tradeoff it's pretty ridiculous not to then be able to explain how you got there. And beyond ridiculous to then claim anyone trying to have a discussion that involves data is doing something wrong.

If you want to take the time to respond specifically, with research and thinking as others have, that is more than welcome. But please stop lying about what was posted previously.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,595
Saint Paul, MN
Does anyone know whether most TPE's get used? And if they get used, do they actually result in a menaingful upgrade?

DAL had the largest TPE ever when they traded Harrison Barnes to SAC. It was worth 21.3 million. Looks like they used less than half of it to get Delon Wright. Did they use more of it at the deadline this year?

Is GSW going to use theirs that they got in the Iguodala trade?

OKC has two large ones from their trading of George and Grant. Doubtful that they use them though.

Just trying to gauage how valuable a TPE actually is
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
This article was interesting on all the challenges using a TPE

https://247sports.com/nba/mavericks/Article/Mavs-own-biggest-Trade-Exception-in-NBA-history-Whats-that-mean-as-an-asset-129487736/

One thing I did not realize (and am not sure is correct): the TPE counts against your cap. If so, the idea of getting rid of Hayward to get under the tax while maintaining salary slot likely does not work (since it is Hayward's salary that generates the TPE, no?) Anyone know whether the article is correct about that speciifc item or not?

This article notes what Devizier and I have each shared as our subjective assesment, which is that "most" TPEs expire unused

 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,345
Santa Monica
I think examining some of the underlying assumptions/view points might advance the discussion. As I understand the move GH viewpoint, the argument is this:

The Celtics will have face the repeater tax two and three seasons from now, when the J's will be peaking. Danny should be planning on maximizing the roster in those years. So Danny should move GH now. His loss will be offset by the acquisition of a player at the deadline via a TPE. It will also be offset by continued growth from the J's, a larger role for Smart and some improvement from Romeo/Grant.

While I understand the logic of that position, here is where I differ: THE FUTURE IS UNPREDICTABLE.

I think we all agree that the Celtics are now in the business of winning playoff games and titles. The Celtics have a reasonable chance at winning the East and making the Finals next year. I do not believe that moving GH so that they can acquire someone at the deadline with a TPE maximizes the changes for winning the East next year.
  1. A team can sustain in the regular season by replacing 85% of a departed player. In the playoffs, that missing 15% is magnified. A healthy GH may be a regular season luxury, but he can be a playoff necessity. E.g. we just watched a playoffs where GH's absence/return to the lineup was seen as the key to beating the Heat.
  2. A healthy GH's skill is particularly hard to replace. He is a two way wing, who can make plays for others
  3. I am less sanguine than you about how many teams will be sellers. There will not be that many teams in the tax. In the West, no one appears to be tanking other than (probably) OKC. Everyone will be competing for 7, 8 and 9 and there may be a play in.
  4. Re internal improvement: Tatum just made a massive leap. Improvement tends to happen in fits and starts. Having just jumped a whole level, it is not reasonable to expect Tatum to make significant gains in the next 6 months. I expect Brown to continue to improve. Second year players tend to make substantial jumps. So Grant Williams should have a larger role. But's he taking Kanter's minutes not Haywards. Langford has shown he can defend - that's it. I have hopes too, but there is no basis to assume he's going to be a real offensive contributor in the playoffs.
Back to the future. Any reasonable person would have looked at the Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka Thunder that had just lot to the Heat in the Finals and concluded that that roster was going to dominate the West for the next 5 years. The Heatles were going to win how many rings? The Warriors were light years ahead?

Shit happens. Tatum or Brown get hurt and is never the same (GH says hi). Giannis goes to the Heat and forms a super team that no one can get past for 3-4 years. We get a vaccine by January, stadiums are full again and the cap continues to rise. Bottom line, we can far far more certainty about the Celtics ability to compete for the title next year, then we can in 2021-22 or 2022-23.

If moving GH was the only path to avoiding the repeater tax, I would agree with the pro trade GH crowd. But its not. While none of us can predict the future, we can look at the cap sheet and see that the Celtics will have optionality in 2021-22 to duck the tax.
Thank you, you nailed my stance. And just for the record, I like Gordon Hayward. When healthy he's a very efficient player.

Agree the future is more unpredictable now more than ever (hence my increase in volatility comment and why TPEs are worth more now than in previous seasons). My sense is the owners/players will have to agree to some sort of flattening of the Cap for several years. Owners are going to have to underwrite losses from 2020 and beyond. I'm speculating after 2 consecutive years of losses, some owners of teams in purgatory (ie. Tilman Fertitta comes to mind) are going to put their thumbs on their GMs. This could lead to good veteran players being offered for young, cheap controllable players at the deadline next season. There won't be many contending teams with cap space, young controllable players or TPE to take advantage of that scenario.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,595
Saint Paul, MN
If you want to take the time to respond specifically, with research and thinking as others have, that is more than welcome. But please stop lying about what was posted previously.
In reading through these exchanges, I can't seem to find out why some of y'all are arguing with each other. I don't see malice or mischaracterizations from either side.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,725
It might be helpful to frame a discussion on the Celtics plans by looking at whom they trotted out during the ECF versus the other three conference finalists. To do this quickly and easily, I simply used the PIPM for from last season for each player in the ECF "rotation". I understand that PIPM is flawed and the overall data from last season is messy due to the restart (and change in players health, development etc.) but its all we've got.

Setting aside whether the metrics make sense for a given player (lets just assume they do for this exercise) what leaps out at is that of the four teams, the drop-off from their sixth rotation player to their eighth is the most significant.

Its reasonable to expect Williams to improve some though as we know, development is not linear. But if you are moving Hayward, you not only have to account for his production but the knock on effect of what that does to rotations etc. Even if they move Hayward in a deal, Boston almost certainly has to improve their depth or they are going to continue to struggle to find buckets/defend when starters are resting (or injured) in these playoff games.

Its really hard to see how Boston trades Hayward while improving the team to the point where they have enough firepower to compete with these teams as well as the other contenders, many of whom also have deeper rotations.

Lakers PIPM Miami PIPM Boston PIPM Denver PIPM
Davis 4.55 Butler 3.54 Tatum 4.38 Grant -2.85
James 6.10 Crowder -0.29 Brown 0.60 Milsap 2.40
Howard 0.68 Adebayo 2.81 Theis 2.01 Jokic 3.72
KCP -0.70 Robinson 3.21 Smart 1.23 Murray 1.75
Green 1.51 Dragic -1.00 Walker 2.25 Harris -0.33
Rondo -1.79 Herro -3.04 Hayward 1.94 Morris -1.16
Caruso 0.59 Nunn -0.32 Wanmaker -1.99 Plumlee -0.54
Kuzma -1.54 Iguodala -0.77 Grant Williams -1.26 Porter Jr -0.70
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
The improvement comes from not having to gut your team and fill it with rookie and vet min salaries to account for the four max deals, three of them being of the 30% max variety.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,725
The improvement comes from not having to gut your team and fill it with rookie and vet min salaries to account for the four max deals, three of them being of the 30% max variety.
Are you really arguing that getting rid of any of the players who aren't in the rotation is gutting your team? Frankly, aside from the Williamses and Langford, there isn't one player on the Celtics bench who anyone should worry about losing. And none of those guys are untouchable in the right deal either.

Again, it may well make sense to move Hayward in the right trade. However, most contenders Marie Kondo the hell out of the bottom half of their roster before attempting to move more valuable players simply given the complexity of any deal.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,373
A Gordon Hayward to IND for Myles Turner does the trick in getting BOS below the tax and improving their team, IMO.
We've been trying to will a Myles Turner trade into existence for a few years now with no luck. I would like that swap and would add additional assets to make it happen. Not sure Indiana really needs Hayward though now that they have Brogdon.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,605
New York, NY
As this has become the Hayward thread, I think we are all dancing past the key question, which is whether the current Celtics roster is a true contender next year. I start from two premises: (1) any Hayward trade almost certainly makes this team worse next year and (2) any Hayward trade likely makes this team better at some point in the future (different trades might be more helpful in years 2-3 v. further out depending if the focus is acquiring quality depth for multiple years or draft picks). The impact of a trade on resetting the tax is wrapped up in 2 and I’m not breaking it out as a separate benefit.

I’m largely against trading Hayward because I think this year’s roster proved we are almost, if not already, a championship level team. We were almost in the finals despite hobbled versions of Kemba and Hayward. With ongoing development of our young core (Tatum, Brown, Smart) and our younger supporting cast (Williams x 2, Langford), and hopefully improved health from at least one of Kemba or Hayward, we should be one of the top 2-3 teams next year and the best team in the East.

I would not blow that up for a marginal future improvement. So far, the trades I’m seeing fall into that bucket. Moving up six spots in this draft or adding Jae Crowder on basically a full MLE deal doesn’t add near enough long term value to give up a top 5 player on this roster. If that is the best we can do, we should take the shot we have in hand with the current core, reset the tax next offseason when Hayward comes off the books, and use existing tools like the MLE to add veteran role players in the future.

Framed differently, adding Jae and subtracting Hayward probably leaves us about where we were with a hobbled Hayward, which we saw wasn’t good enough. A healthy Hayward in the playoffs very well could have put us over the top and might be the key to doing so next year.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
Are you really arguing that getting rid of any of the players who aren't in the rotation is gutting your team? Frankly, aside from the Williamses and Langford, there isn't one player on the Celtics bench who anyone should worry about losing. And none of those guys are untouchable in the right deal either.

Again, it may well make sense to move Hayward in the right trade. However, most contenders Marie Kondo the hell out of the bottom half of their roster before attempting to move more valuable players simply given the complexity of any deal.
I mean if you have to remove everyone, including Marcus Smart and Theis, to account for paying your top 4 $120 million, are you really upgrading your team? The drop off from Hayward to Smart isn't actually this immense unbridgeable gap.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
356
A Gordon Hayward to IND for Myles Turner does the trick in getting BOS below the tax and improving their team, IMO.
It would also put the Pacers 12 million (more if Nighthob is right and I am wrong) into the tax, which is not happening. That ownership group is extremely tax hostile.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,605
New York, NY
I mean if you have to remove everyone, including Marcus Smart and Theis, to account for paying your top 4 $120 million, are you really upgrading your team? The drop off from Hayward to Smart isn't actually this immense unbridgeable gap.
You are arguing against a straw man. Next year, Tatum is still on the rookie scale. After that, Hayward is either gone or will have agreed to stay on a discounted deal (I wouldn’t bank on this but it’s the one way he stays). There is no foreseeable season where Tatum and Hayward are both on this roster and are both making $30+ million.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,470
To get there you're also assuming Kanter opts out or goes to Miami and Poirer goes to Miami with Hayward.


Yes, I am. That's the trade I'm proposing.

Saw a deal posted elsewhere I thought was interesting if one is on the "trade Hayward" path (either because ownership makes you or you feel it's preferable): Hayward, Waters, Tacko, and multiple 1sts to Orlando for Fournier and Ross. I tend to think Orlando wouldn't do this---but those are the kind of players I think you want to target if you're going to make the move.
Waters and Tacko aren't under contract. I can't imagine they have any real value to anyone, anyway. Every team has their own versions of them. To be in a deal, they'd have to agree to be signed and traded under three year deals at the minimum, probably only the first year guaranteed. If they were willing to do that, they wouldn't have to be included in a trade. They could just sign an offer sheet with Orlando or anyone, assuming Boston even qualifies them. It's possible Fournier will also be a free agent. He can opt out, if his agent sniffs out a good longterm deal for him.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
It would also put the Pacers 12 million (more if Nighthob is right and I am wrong) into the tax, which is not happening. That ownership group is extremely tax hostile.
Yeah, you haven't seen me make happy talk about a Pacers trade for that reason, they're very tax averse there and they're probably going to let Oladipo walk to maintain discipline.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,470
This article was interesting on all the challenges using a TPE

https://247sports.com/nba/mavericks/Article/Mavs-own-biggest-Trade-Exception-in-NBA-history-Whats-that-mean-as-an-asset-129487736/

One thing I did not realize (and am not sure is correct): the TPE counts against your cap. If so, the idea of getting rid of Hayward to get under the tax while maintaining salary slot likely does not work (since it is Hayward's salary that generates the TPE, no?) Anyone know whether the article is correct about that speciifc item or not?

This article notes what Devizier and I have each shared as our subjective assesment, which is that "most" TPEs expire unused

It counts as a cap hold against your cap. Not against your cap as if it's salary, and doesn't count towards luxury tax calculations. All exceptions work that way.

Basically, if you're a team operating under the cap, you can't say oh we're 30M under, we'll sign 30M worth of contracts as free agents then use our 20M TPE.