Tax Payer MLE Options

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
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.
I mean great, so we're arguing that they should pay a large tax bill next year, almost certainly not win a title (because with Gordon's Boston luck he's going to blow out his knee debarking a flight to Orlando), then gut the team by letting Hayward walk and not replacing him (because as a taxpayer they'll only have the lesser MLE available), praying that Langford and #14 make major leaps forward? One of either Hayward or Walker is going, and honestly I'd rather it be Walker. But due to circumstance it's going to be Hayward.

Of course, if Kemba's OK with being amnestied, or alternatively traded to the Knicks, I'm fine with that too.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,595
Saint Paul, MN
I think a Oladipo, Brogdon, Hayward, Warren, Sabonis lineup is pretty sweet
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.
My take was that it would indeed put them into the tax, but "only" 10 million, with the thinking that they would have no repeater tax the following year for Hayward or Oladipo would be off the books or back at a lower salary.

They also could find someone to take Jeremy Lamb's 10.5 million dollar two year deal which would get them close
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,605
New York, NY
I mean great, so we're arguing that they should pay a large tax bill next year, almost certainly not win a title (because with Gordon's Boston luck he's going to blow out his knee debarking a flight to Orlando), then gut the team by letting Hayward walk and not replacing him (because as a taxpayer they'll only have the lesser MLE available), praying that Langford and #14 make major leaps forward? One of either Hayward or Walker is going, and honestly I'd rather it be Walker. But due to circumstance it's going to be Hayward.

Of course, if Kemba's OK with being amnestied, or alternatively traded to the Knicks, I'm fine with that too.
I don’t think your fatalistic view of next season is realistic. That said, given that the alternatives being floated to replacing Hayward with a taxpayer MLE player are replacing him with Jae Crowder a year early or a marginal move up in a weak draft, yes, I’d prefer the one year shot with Hayward because I don’t think that type of value justifies making the team worse in a contending season.

I also don’t think letting one player walk is gutting the roster. In fact, not trading Hayward in a way that might overcommit dollars to the next couple years is a way to avoid needing to gut the roster. For example, Hayward may be willing to stay on a discount and Theis is going to need to get paid more than $5 million if we want to keep him on his next contract. Not recommitting Hayward’s salary gives us room to do that, or possibly to adjust to a declining tax limit, in a way that trading him does not.

It’s also hard to reconcile your stance that letting Hayward walk in a year is gutting the roster with a stance that the team should amnesty Kemba.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,122
I mean great, so we're arguing that they should pay a large tax bill next year, almost certainly not win a title (because with Gordon's Boston luck he's going to blow out his knee debarking a flight to Orlando), then gut the team by letting Hayward walk and not replacing him (because as a taxpayer they'll only have the lesser MLE available), praying that Langford and #14 make major leaps forward? One of either Hayward or Walker is going, and honestly I'd rather it be Walker. But due to circumstance it's going to be Hayward.

Of course, if Kemba's OK with being amnestied, or alternatively traded to the Knicks, I'm fine with that too.
Trading Hayward is fine if it's the right deal, but letting him walk is also fine. You'd rather just get nothing for him than tie yourself up in repeater taxes with subpar garbage. I also wouldn't discount the S&T possibilities with Gordon. He's going to make well above the MLE on his next deal, and I would guess he'd like to play for a contender, which likely means an over the cap team, especially if the cap is down with or without smoothing.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
The 2020-21 season won’t be normal from a revenue standpoint. Nobody who is otherwise under the tax threshold is going to make a move that puts them over the threshold unless that move transforms them into a legitimate title contender. Maybe GH was that kind of difference-maker 3 years ago, but he isn’t anymore. So I see an Indiana deal as a nonstarter.

The only way the C’s could swing a GH trade this offseason that makes sense would be to find a team that’s desperate to shed salary and would gladly take Hayward’s expiring deal to offload multiyear commitments. (Obviously, those commitments would have to be palatable to the C’s, and Danny would probably need to move one of them to someone with cap room or a TPE to address the C’s cap needs. I’m not sure offhand which teams might fit that description, but it seems like a tough fit to find. So I’m expecting to see GH back in green next season.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,470
Trading Hayward is fine if it's the right deal, but letting him walk is also fine. You'd rather just get nothing for him than tie yourself up in repeater taxes with subpar garbage. I also wouldn't discount the S&T possibilities with Gordon. He's going to make well above the MLE on his next deal, and I would guess he'd like to play for a contender, which likely means an over the cap team, especially if the cap is down with or without smoothing.
If this is true though, you'd probably have to take back that teams subpar garbage to match salary.

If they're contenders, you won't get back anyone they need that makes money.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
The 2020-21 season won’t be normal from a revenue standpoint. Nobody who is otherwise under the tax threshold is going to make a move that puts them over the threshold unless that move transforms them into a legitimate title contender. Maybe GH was that kind of difference-maker 3 years ago, but he isn’t anymore. So I see an Indiana deal as a nonstarter.

The only way the C’s could swing a GH trade this offseason that makes sense would be to find a team that’s desperate to shed salary and would gladly take Hayward’s expiring deal to offload multiyear commitments. (Obviously, those commitments would have to be palatable to the C’s, and Danny would probably need to move one of them to someone with cap room or a TPE to address the C’s cap needs. I’m not sure offhand which teams might fit that description, but it seems like a tough fit to find. So I’m expecting to see GH back in green next season.
I think the other possible profile of a team is one in need of a star/name. That certainly includes the Knicks and might include (for totally different reasons) the Warriors. I'm not sure I see the deal in either place, but I do think that's an additional viable profile for an acquirer
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,561
Maine
Man reading this thread is depressing. its about 85% we are screwed because of the Tax.
If thats truly the case then the NBA needs to make some serious changes. No way a team who (granted) spent for a couple of all Star caliber FAs and grew practically the entire rest of the roster should be hosed.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,122
If this is true though, you'd probably have to take back that teams subpar garbage to match salary.

If they're contenders, you won't get back anyone they need that makes money.
Not necessarily, you could be looking at for example a team's solid MLE and non-guaranteed deals, or draft picks, or a young player with Hayward going into an existing TPE, last season also saw some 3 way deals where a 3rd team ate money for a 2nd.

Man reading this thread is depressing. its about 85% we are screwed because of the Tax.
If thats truly the case then the NBA needs to make some serious changes. No way a team who (granted) spent for a couple of all Star caliber FAs and grew practically the entire rest of the roster should be hosed.
We're not screwed, and the system works perfectly well, it is set up to make it difficult to have 4 player on near max deals. The Celtics gave out a lot of very big contracts, if they want to do that they need to pay tax.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
For me the big thing that pops out of the analysis is that the Kemba signing was almost surely premised on 1) an assumption about revenue continuing to increase and 2) a commitment from ownership to pay the tax at some point.

What we don't know is the degree to which the change in 1) impacts the commitment in 2)
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
It’s also hard to reconcile your stance that letting Hayward walk in a year is gutting the roster with a stance that the team should amnesty Kemba.
If they let Hayward walk they get zero value. In a trade they at least add picks to take a swing at replacing him. To be brutally frank in any Hayward trade scenario the problem isn't replacing Hayward, because Smart's going to do that just fine. The problem is replacing Smart after he moves into the starting lineup.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,725
Man reading this thread is depressing. its about 85% we are screwed because of the Tax.
If thats truly the case then the NBA needs to make some serious changes. No way a team who (granted) spent for a couple of all Star caliber FAs and grew practically the entire rest of the roster should be hosed.
This team is not hosed in any way shape or form. Most NBA franchises would take the current Celtics roster or, at least one that features control over Tatum and Brown for the next few seasons (Smart too given his contract). We are simply debating how the team gets to the next level and there are different philosophies on roster building.

The added complexity is the uncertainty created by the pandemic but, hey, every single person on earth is dealing with that in some form or another.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
For me the big thing that pops out of the analysis is that the Kemba signing was almost surely premised on 1) an assumption about revenue continuing to increase and 2) a commitment from ownership to pay the tax at some point.

What we don't know is the degree to which the change in 1) impacts the commitment in 2)
Most teams probably had it going from $109MM to $117MM in their 2020-21 models last Summer. Then people got a little uncomfortable after the Morey tweet. Obviously, the Pandemic is the game-changer.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I think the other possible profile of a team is one in need of a star/name. That certainly includes the Knicks and might include (for totally different reasons) the Warriors. I'm not sure I see the deal in either place, but I do think that's an additional viable profile for an acquirer
Yeah, if the Knicks were better run and had two or three rotational players on reasonable contracts who were collectively a cap match for GH, you could see them doing that deal to get a marquee player in 2020-21 and cap room in the 2021 offseason. The C’s would flip one of those pieces to a third team, throwing in a late 1st rounder as sweetener if necessary, and get under the tax threshold. But the Knicks don’t have anyone we want, and I don’t know if anyone with pieces to trade might have a similar motivation.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
I think the other possible profile of a team is one in need of a star/name. That certainly includes the Knicks and might include (for totally different reasons) the Warriors. I'm not sure I see the deal in either place, but I do think that's an additional viable profile for an acquirer
New York has been discussing two different types of deals, a trade up in search of a player, or a trade for a name vet. My suspicion is that they just want a name to sell the public to convince them that there's hope for the future. They do have a collection of PGs, but they either suck (DSJ), can't shoot (Payton), or are Wanamaker level players (Frankie Smokes). Hence all the talk about a CP3 trade.

Put another way, they're certainly a possibility for a Kemba Walker deal because he is a regular season closer that can help their good young guys (Barrett and Robinson) to the postseason. I'm also still relatively high on Kevin Knox if they could change the culture there. If New York could sell Kemba on their future, and he were OK with a deal, then Walker for #8 makes some sense. I mean, yes, he's getting up there for guys his size, but if he can help Barrett make that jump, there'd be hope there. And in this draft the odds of finding anyone as good as Walker are slim (and, honestly, as likely at #25 as #8).

For me the big thing that pops out of the analysis is that the Kemba signing was almost surely premised on 1) an assumption about revenue continuing to increase and 2) a commitment from ownership to pay the tax at some point.

What we don't know is the degree to which the change in 1) impacts the commitment in 2)
It's not about a one year dip so much as it's about avoiding the escalating taxes for being over the tax line three years in four and four years in five. At some point you need to reset the tax.

Man reading this thread is depressing. its about 85% we are screwed because of the Tax.
If thats truly the case then the NBA needs to make some serious changes. No way a team who (granted) spent for a couple of all Star caliber FAs and grew practically the entire rest of the roster should be hosed.
See Ben Hogan below. This last year everything that could possibly go wrong for Boston did. Based on pre-2019 revenue projections Boston was only slated to be a bit above the '21 tax line. But close enough to get under it. Then came the China kerfuffle followed by covid19 and the world changed.

Boston's original planning left them the ability to reset the tax next year if they had to. Unfortunately collapsing revenues have forced their hands here. Tatum will be getting the immediate second max deal as a designated rookie extension. Thanks to imploding revenues Brown's contract actually is a max one now. Amusingly he might actually be getting more than the max because he signed a sub-max extension with a set dollar amount whereas a lot of players just signed for 25% of the cap, which might not be be $100 million next year.

Most teams probably had it going from $109MM to $117MM in their 2020-21 models last Summer. Then people got a little uncomfortable after the Morey tweet. Obviously, the Pandemic is the game-changer.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
Yeah, if the Knicks were better run and had two or three rotational players on reasonable contracts who were collectively a cap match for GH, you could see them doing that deal to get a marquee player in 2020-21 and cap room in the 2021 offseason. The C’s would flip one of those pieces to a third team, throwing in a late 1st rounder as sweetener if necessary, and get under the tax threshold. But the Knicks don’t have anyone we want, and I don’t know if anyone with pieces to trade might have a similar motivation.
The Knicks don't need to match, they only have fifty million and change in real payroll for '21. They can take Hayward or Walker outright.

EDIT: Also, meant to add, that bringing in Leon Rose has gone some ways towards improving the Knicks' profile. Certainly it got Utah's Walt Perrin to sign on board (and he's been a pretty good talent evaluator for the Jazz). They do need a culture change, but Rose seems to understand that and has been looking at ways to do it.
 
Last edited:

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,595
Saint Paul, MN
BOS is not trading Kemba Walker for the #8 pick in a shitty draft. That is nonsense. They signed him to that contract knowing that he was 30 years old and 6 feet tall.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
It's not about a one year dip so much as it's about avoiding the escalating taxes for being over the tax line three years in four and four years in five. At some point you need to reset the tax.
You are misunderstanding the sequencing.I was highlighting.

At the time they signed Walker they knew every other pieces of the puzzle including the tax escalation---it is most assuredly not that they are now worried about the repeater but weren't when Kemba was signed UNLESS (as I said) the impact of reduced revenue caused a change in when they'll be over the lux tax line.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
You are misunderstanding the sequencing.I was highlighting.

At the time they signed Walker they knew every other pieces of the puzzle including the tax escalation---it is most assuredly not that they are now worried about the repeater but weren't when Kemba was signed UNLESS (as I said) the impact of reduced revenue caused a change in when they'll be over the lux tax line.
We're not arguing here, I pointed out that their original planning left them the option of going either way in '21 as they were only just over the tax line and could easily get under it. But they had no way of planning for the yet-to-happen China brouhaha or covid19. As I said earlier in the thread, if a time traveler could go back to June of '19 and show Boston the future they would never have signed Kemba in the first place. But, life comes at you quickly and covid19 has demolished everyones economic models and forecasts.

BOS is not trading Kemba Walker for the #8 pick in a shitty draft. That is nonsense. They signed him to that contract knowing that he was 30 years old and 6 feet tall.
If the options are
  1. Play out the string and watch Hayward walk at year's end for nothing and pray that Romeo Langford makes a huge leap, or...
  2. Trade Hayward to get under the tax line and hope you recoup enough value that you land a long term partner for the J Crew or...
  3. Trade Walker and extend Hayward on a team friendly deal...
then I'm choosing #3 twelve times out of ten.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,373
Yeah, if Ainge could actually turn Kemba's remaining 3/108 into Tyrese Haliburton or whatever, he should absolutely do it. There would obviously be a short-term hit but it would give this team so much more flexibility going forward. I don't think NYK would give up a mid-lotto pick, even in a weak draft, for Kemba's decline years but one can dream.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
Yeah, if Ainge could actually turn Kemba's remaining 3/108 into Tyrese Haliburton or whatever, he should absolutely do it. There would obviously be a short-term hit but it would give this team so much more flexibility going forward. I don't think NYK would give up a mid-lotto pick, even in a weak draft, for Kemba's decline years but one can dream.
The only reason that I think it's even a possibility is that Rose seems focused on getting New York into the playoffs as part of a long term play to attract free agents (and as a former agent that approach makes sense). Because they pretty much are discussing that deal to get CP3 to get Barrett and Robinson some postseason run.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
Yeah, if Ainge could actually turn Kemba's remaining 3/108 into Tyrese Haliburton or whatever, he should absolutely do it. There would obviously be a short-term hit but it would give this team so much more flexibility going forward. I don't think NYK would give up a mid-lotto pick, even in a weak draft, for Kemba's decline years but one can dream.
+1

be prepared to compare Kemba's body of work vs Brad Wannamaker :rolleyes:

because we'll pretend that Marcus Smart doesn't exist
 

shoelace

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 24, 2019
53
We're not arguing here, I pointed out that their original planning left them the option of going either way in '21 as they were only just over the tax line and could easily get under it. But they had no way of planning for the yet-to-happen China brouhaha or covid19. As I said earlier in the thread, if a time traveler could go back to June of '19 and show Boston the future they would never have signed Kemba in the first place. But, life comes at you quickly and covid19 has demolished everyones economic models and forecasts.



If the options are
  1. Play out the string and watch Hayward walk at year's end for nothing and pray that Romeo Langford makes a huge leap, or...
  2. Trade Hayward to get under the tax line and hope you recoup enough value that you land a long term partner for the J Crew or...
  3. Trade Walker and extend Hayward on a team friendly deal...
then I'm choosing #3 twelve times out of ten.
Agreed 100%. Walker said he was considering the Knicks as a free agent this past off-season, he's from New York, I don't think this is an outlandish idea. I love Kemba and would be thrilled to see him win a title in Boston, but Hayward is a better two way player at a more valuable position, regardless of injury history.

Honestly I'm not even sure how much it hurts them in the short term, depending on who they drafted and who they bring in as a short term placeholder PG. It would likely have more of an impact in the regular season, and Brad wouldn't be forced to give Kemba minutes in crunch time during the playoffs. You could close with Smart, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, Theis.

And you'd still be able to walk away with like Devin Vassell and RJ Hampton at 8 and 14 in the draft. I don't really think this is an outlandish proposal in terms of talent or fit or whatever for both teams, it's more just like a question of the politics of trading Kemba after his first year.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
A Walker trade only happens if he's on board with it, which is why I think a Hayward trade more likely. But if Leon Rose thought that Walker could help him get to phase two of his plan, then I expect that he could get Walker to approve it.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,470
Not necessarily, you could be looking at for example a team's solid MLE and non-guaranteed deals, or draft picks, or a young player with Hayward going into an existing TPE, last season also saw some 3 way deals where a 3rd team ate money for a 2nd.
Non-guaranteed deals have to be guaranteed now to count as matching salary. Seems kinda unlikely a contending team would include their solid MLE, they'd probably need that guy themselves.

Feels like trying to thread a very small needle to hope a contender would be over the cap, Hayward would choose them, that team to either have good salary you'd want and/or have a third team willing to eat bad salary to help you out, and you still get something useful out of it.

Especially when there will be pretty good teams (probably at least Miami, Dallas and Toronto) that will have cap space they're saving for Giannis(if he doesn't extend now) that at least some of them will have available when Giannis opts to sign elsewhere.

It could happen, but it's a risk. A risk I don't think I'd take because if he just signs elsewhere, you have no real way to improve your team for at least the next two seasons outside of hitting a late first round draft pick, or finding a guy for the taxpayer midlevel when you'll have to fight for those guys with more desirable markets and teams that have more money to offer.

I hate to trade Hayward. But the Celtics have only six guys they can count on in the playoffs. They probably need two more guys to have enough to have any shot and they don't have a ton of assets or matching salary to get them. That's even assuming the Celtics owners want to pay the tax. They're in a tricky spot. They're a really good team, borderline contender for me, but I think they can give themselves a better chance to win the whole thing say somewhere in the next five years if they make a tough call to make a move now.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
6,924
Kiev, Ukraine
Wait, there are people who would turn down a lottery pick for Kemba's remaining contract?

It's unlikely that contract is even a positive value at this point. It was when it was signed, but the lingering knee issues change absolutely everything.

I'm pessimistic that Kemba would approve a Knicks deal, even with his NYC pride. He wants to win a title, and it's not happening that way.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
4,173
around the way
If they let Hayward walk they get zero value. In a trade they at least add picks to take a swing at replacing him. To be brutally frank in any Hayward trade scenario the problem isn't replacing Hayward, because Smart's going to do that just fine. The problem is replacing Smart after he moves into the starting lineup.
I love this. We saw exactly this in the playoffs this year. Smart's backfill was a problem.

I'm being converted.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,373
If we could trade Hayward for Turner/filler, I would personally drive to the airport, bump Fitzgerald out of the Hertz rental car line, and rent the sweetest but economical 4 door sedan I could find to drive Turner back to the Celtics’ facility.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
4,173
around the way
If we could trade Hayward for Turner/filler, I would personally drive to the airport, bump Fitzgerald out of the Hertz rental car line, and rent the sweetest but economical 4 door sedan I could find to drive Turner back to the Celtics’ facility.
Sending hugs your way also.

Make it happen Danny. Then we can amnesty the filler and some of our own filler, when that magically happens and be right as rain.

This is usually the time that my alarm clock goes off and I wake up.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,605
New York, NY
Sending hugs your way also.

Make it happen Danny. Then we can amnesty the filler and some of our own filler, when that magically happens and be right as rain.

This is usually the time that my alarm clock goes off and I wake up.
The problem with this is we don’t really have filler and this doesn’t solve the long term problem.

Even if you assume modest growth in the cap for 2021, adding Tatum to the Kemba/Smart/Brown trio and accounting for the $10M that Langford, Williams, Williams, and Edwards will make leaves us with only about $15M to spend until we hit the luxury tax and seven roster spots to fill. If you add in cost for this year and next year’s draft picks, we have about $5M left (although that also eats up a lot of the roster space). Even if we are willing to be in the tax in 2021, it’s unlikely we are willing to be $10 million deeper into it for the upgrade from Theis to Turner (and after next year having Turner means letting Theis go).

The above is a significant part of why I don’t think trading Hayward makes sense, except maybe for sufficient draft value. We don’t really have room for whoever we get for Hayward to be here after he is gone anyway. (One exception to this is that a trade for sufficient draft pick value could make sense but is a challenge because as a contender, someone would have to want to overpay for Hayward to make it worth selling his short term value for a long term asset).
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
574
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
You have made repeated statements minimizing the effects of a potential Hayward departure while offering no clear plan for replacing his minutes or production. I think we’d all agree that the C’s did not have enough talent or depth to win a championship this last year. I don’t see how subtracting one of the team’s best 4-5 players, and one of the only 6-7 that you can trust on the floor of an ECF game, is a path to improvement.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
4,173
around the way
The problem with this is we don’t really have filler and this doesn’t solve the long term problem.

Even if you assume modest growth in the cap for 2021, adding Tatum to the Kemba/Smart/Brown trio and accounting for the $10M that Langford, Williams, Williams, and Edwards will make leaves us with only about $15M to spend until we hit the luxury tax and seven roster spots to fill. If you add in cost for this year and next year’s draft picks, we have about $5M left (although that also eats up a lot of the roster space). Even if we are willing to be in the tax in 2021, it’s unlikely we are willing to be $10 million deeper into it for the upgrade from Theis to Turner (and after next year having Turner means letting Theis go).

The above is a significant part of why I don’t think trading Hayward makes sense, except maybe for sufficient draft value. We don’t really have room for whoever we get for Hayward to be here after he is gone anyway. (One exception to this is that a trade for sufficient draft pick value could make sense but is a challenge because as a contender, someone would have to want to overpay for Hayward to make it worth selling his short term value for a long term asset).
I like the idea of Turner over Hayward next year, if we can amnesty the filler that comes back (say Lamb). Even more so if we can also amnesty VP.

But I get your point. Then we have a couple more years of Turner at over 20, and we're over still.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,373
Speaking with the full benefit of hindsight...that Kemba contract really is a bummer. Really hope his knees aren't shot.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,354
I for one was happy to have anybody who could fill the talent void when Kyrie left, but there were friends of mine who were worried about spending so much on another ball dominant PG with (their words) defensive issues. In his defense :) I do think Kemba's defense has been much better than advertised. But, the durability issue seems to have come out of nowhere, which is rather unfortunately.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
You have made repeated statements minimizing the effects of a potential Hayward departure while offering no clear plan for replacing his minutes or production. I think we’d all agree that the C’s did not have enough talent or depth to win a championship this last year. I don’t see how subtracting one of the team’s best 4-5 players, and one of the only 6-7 that you can trust on the floor of an ECF game, is a path to improvement.
Gordon Hayward is a good player...Replacing his production is a combination of things that I've already written about above in posts #163 and #179. No need to repeat myself.

If you don't agree with my position that's fine, maybe I have a longer-term vision than yourself? or maybe I'm just plain wrong.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
You have made repeated statements minimizing the effects of a potential Hayward departure while offering no clear plan for replacing his minutes or production. I think we’d all agree that the C’s did not have enough talent or depth to win a championship this last year. I don’t see how subtracting one of the team’s best 4-5 players, and one of the only 6-7 that you can trust on the floor of an ECF game, is a path to improvement.
The problem isn’t replacing Hayward’s production, as I’ve said. Smart will do that just fine in the starting lineup. The problem is replacing Smart’s production as the sixth man, but that’s something that’s theoretically possible using the MLE.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
574
The problem isn’t replacing Hayward’s production, as I’ve said. Smart will do that just fine in the starting lineup. The problem is replacing Smart’s production as the sixth man, but that’s something that’s theoretically possible using the MLE.
I agree with you (and benhogan) that Smart can largely replace Hayward in the starting lineup. My concern is replacing one of our 4-5 best players and 6-7 trustworthy ones from within or via the draft. Who do you envision being available with the MLE that could be our fifth best player in 2021?
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,605
New York, NY
The problem isn’t replacing Hayward’s production, as I’ve said. Smart will do that just fine in the starting lineup. The problem is replacing Smart’s production as the sixth man, but that’s something that’s theoretically possible using the MLE.
This is like saying the problem isn’t replacing our second starter, we’d bump up our third starter, it’s replacing our third starter.

At the end of the day, the problem is replacing a player that, if our team is healthy, is playing 30+ mpg in the playoffs and is one of the 5 best players on the team, just like in the analogy above the problem is replacing a starting pitcher that will be a key part of the playoff rotation.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
I agree with you (and benhogan) that Smart can largely replace Hayward in the starting lineup. My concern is replacing one of our 4-5 best players and 6-7 trustworthy ones from within or via the draft. Who do you envision being available with the MLE that could be our fifth best player in 2021?
No MLE player is close to Gordon right now.

BUT Smart would take Gordon's starting role as he did in the playoffs. Grant/Romeo could fill some of Smart's bench void. Tatum and Brown will become a bigger part of the offense. Kemba will need shots or he's really useless

So I'm banking on improvement from 4 young players (Smart could be the same player), while also expecting a slight decline from 31yr Gordon (30months after that devastating left ankle injury and it was still hurting this year makes me queasy).

The TPE could open up options next season. Losses incurred by owners for 2 straight years + a flat or declining CAP would lead to potentially aggressive sellers of quality players (just to get their $8-15MM off the books).
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
This is like saying the problem isn’t replacing our second starter, we’d bump up our third starter, it’s replacing our third starter.

At the end of the day, the problem is replacing a player that, if our team is healthy, is playing 30+ mpg in the playoffs and is one of the 5 best players on the team, just like in the analogy above the problem is replacing a starting pitcher that will be a key part of the playoff rotation.
Except that you’re not replacing on of Boston’s top 3 options, you’re replacing one of the other guys. Hayward may be the best “one of the other guys” in the league, but he’s largely squandered here as they just don’t have enough possessions here for him to maximize his production.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
574
No MLE player is close to Gordon right now.
nighthob was suggesting that an MLE player might be close to Smart.

BUT Smart would take Gordon's starting role as he did in the playoffs. Grant/Romeo could fill some of Smart's bench void. Tatum and Brown will become a bigger part of the offense. Kemba will need shots or he's really useless
I already have Grant penciled in as #7 in the rotation even with Hayward remaining, and I think a lot of us are wondering if he’ll be picking up more minutes at the center position in 2021, particularly if Kanter opts out of his contract.

So I'm banking on improvement from 4 young players (Smart could be the same player), while also expecting a slight decline from 31yr Gordon (30months after that devastating left ankle injury and it was still hurting this year makes me queasy).
I’m hoping on the same improvement to take the rotation minutes of potentially Kanter, Ojeleye, and Wanamaker, just not the starter’s minutes of Hayward.

The TPE could open up options next season. Losses incurred by owners for 2 straight years + a flat or declining CAP would lead to potentially aggressive sellers of quality players (just to get their $8-15MM off the books).
The potential that a TPE “could” open up options of $8-15M players is not enticing enough to sacrifice the production that Hayward likely ”would” offer.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
574
Hayward may be the best “one of the other guys” in the league, but he’s largely squandered here as they just don’t have enough possessions here for him to maximize his production.
I get the narrative, but looking at Hayward’s production this past season, is it accurate to say that he was “largely squandered” here?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
Yes, he’s a guy that can produce, when healthy, 20/5/5 lines. Only here he won’t because he’s fourth in the pecking order. While it’s a nice luxury, they have, literally, one year of it before losing him and, literally, not replacing him because Jayson Tatum’s extension will kick in and they have to plan for Walker’s continuing decline. So, yes, a marginal reduction in their title chances for one year in order to create a longer window of contention is entirely rational.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
nighthob was suggesting that an MLE player might be close to Smart.

that a TPE “could” open up options of $8-15M players is not enticing enough to sacrifice the production that Hayward likely ”would” offer.
I don't think nighthob was all that thrilled with the MLE players available.

IMO the TPE player has the potential to make up for the difference between Haywards 2021 decline and the combined improvement from Jay Crew + Granite + RL... YMMV

I really have no idea who will be sellers next year, but you have to admit some NBA owners will be taking staggering losses 2yrs in a row. Paying a luxury tax to be in purgatory will not be appealing to a dozen owners.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,595
Saint Paul, MN
Wait, there are people who would turn down a lottery pick for Kemba's remaining contract?
Yes, I would most assuredly not trade Kemba for the # 8 pick. Has there ever been a max player signed to a deal, who puts up his most efficient year of his career, only to then be traded for a middling lottery pick in a lousy draft?
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,344
Santa Monica
Yes, I would most assuredly not trade Kemba for the # 8 pick. Has there ever been a max player signed to a deal, who puts up his most efficient year of his career, only to then be traded for a middling lottery pick in a lousy draft?
Kumbaya was a nice attitude change for the org after the tire fire Kyrie tried to leave behind

His knee + the Pandemic has changed the equation from the past and for several years in the future.

I keep reading: has the TPE ever had any value? or has this ever happened? Things have changed massively revenue-wise, like never before. There will be cause and effect. Dad can't keep writing the checks if the gates are shut to the factory.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,347
Except that you’re not replacing on of Boston’s top 3 options, you’re replacing one of the other guys. Hayward may be the best “one of the other guys” in the league, but he’s largely squandered here as they just don’t have enough possessions here for him to maximize his production.
I don't agree with that. I think he's a very valuable guy here.

Whatever games one plays with the 'who' the problem doesn't change: they'd be losing a 30ish minute a game player they don't have a quality replacement for.

One can hope on Romeo and perhaps even Grant (in a different lineup configuration) stepping up into that. One can hope 14th pick is ready quick. But odds are, in crunch time they are worse off trading Hayward and their biggest problem already is not being able to execute in crunch time.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,303
Again, they actually have to replace Hayward’s production as he is literally in his last year here. They really don’t have a choice. It’s replace him now with whatever they can acquire in trade(s), or replace him with Romeo Langford in ‘22. Those are literally the options. As much as I like Romeo, more options are better than less.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,373
Yes, I would most assuredly not trade Kemba for the # 8 pick. Has there ever been a max player signed to a deal, who puts up his most efficient year of his career, only to then be traded for a middling lottery pick in a lousy draft?
Who cares about precedent? There’s never been a pandemic that has impacted the league as much as COVID. We’re in uncharted territory here and the simple reality is Kemba turns 31 next year and has legitimate concerns about his longterm health and effectiveness. His 3/108 is a bad contract and if I can get a mid lotto pick to get rid of it, allowing me to extend Hayward and make other moves, I do it 10 times out of 10.

I like Kemba the player and the person has been everything we could have wanted. I want nothing more than for 2021 Kemba to look like 2019 Kemba but...I’m worried. I don’t blame you or others for taking the opposite side of this argument. If he can shake off his knee issue, none of us will have much of an issue with the contract. But when the GM is already talking about load management months before the season even begins, well, color me concerned.