I think you would find zero teams who would take Kanter for nothing more than his salary. If he was a FA, he would get vet minimum offers from several teams though
Agreed. He's probably 3 million in dead salary. You should be able to move him for a second. Moving him and Poirer (so 5-6 million in dead salary) probably takes two seconds.I think you would find zero teams who would take Kanter for nothing more than his salary. If he was a FA, he would get vet minimum offers from several teams though
Easier said than done, of course.
The pick from Memphis might be Danny’s last chance to draft such a player for a while — guys that even have the potential to develop into what you’re describing are seldom available after the 20th pick. Even drafting wings in the teens, you’re taking a player with at least one obvious hole in his game and gamble he can fix it (or compensate for it, if the deficiency is a lack of length or quickness). Langford is an example of such a gamble; I’ll be happy if Danny lands a similar project in this year’s draft.
Matisse Thybulle looked like a good player. Why did Danny trade him away to the Sixers? Seemed to perform better thanRomeoYeah, no thanks. That Kanter deal is awful. Wyc has shown a willingness to spend in the past. I don't think he'll be strong arming Danny into make one of these moves. The only thing I'd be fine with in this scenario is taking a draft and stash at 26. I trust Danny to find a contributor at 14. I don't want to trade that for a '21 1st unless it's a deal that just looks too good to pass up, which I doubt we'll see for the 14th pick.
I'd have to imagine they could move Kanter for a late 1st/early 2nd on his own. He's a useful big off the bench on a 1 year deal. A number of contenders would be more than happy to take him. And I guess they could attach Poirier with him if you don't think he has a role.
We traded him as part of the moves that led us to be able to unload Baynes (which made it possible to acquire Kemba). In addition to unloading Baynes we got the 33 pick and the Bucks pick this year (30). That’s a pretty good return on the 20 pick, although I did like Thybulle as a prospect.Matisse Thybulle looked like a good player. Why did Danny trade him away to the Sixers? Seemed to perform better thanRomeo
Yep, there are zero-offense wing defenders in every draft, and most are more likely to be the next Semi than they are to be the next Batum (or whoever).We traded him as part of the moves that led us to be able to unload Baynes (which made it possible to acquire Kemba). In addition to unloading Baynes we got the 33 pick and the Bucks pick this year (30). That’s a pretty good return on the 20 pick, although I did like Thybulle as a prospect.
I would not trade Langford for Thybulle straight up though. He performed better than Langford as a healthy player who was a 22 year old rookie. But Langford showed significant defensive progression despite his injuries and has real offensive upside. Thybulle has no offensive game to speak of. He’s basically a better version of Semi Ojeleye, which makes him a useful 8-10 option, but without much of a ceiling. I also wouldn’t trade Thybulle for Grant Williams either, which is a more apt comparison.
A lot comes down to this. You have the injury issues, the emergence of Tatum/Brown, and his relationship with Stevens. Plus, I do think there is some desire to "do right" by him given he was a big FA acquisition and all the unfortunate injuries.Hayward is complicated.
Thank you for sharing this.If the Celtics keep all their picks, waive Green, don't resign Wanamaker and decline Semi's option, they will be 13 million into the tax, which equals a tax bill of approximately 23.6 million.
If the Celtics move Kanter and Poirier at the cost of the #30 pick, they are 3.6 Million into the tax and have a tax bill of 5.4 million. I can see a scenario where ownership tells Danny to trade #30 to save them 27 million dollars. I acknowledge that actual savings would be slightly less because Danny would still need to fill a roster spot or two with second rounders/ufda types.
If you do the above and attach Edwards to the deal and then sign someone using the full Taxpayer MLE, the savings would be around 16.4 million.
Hayward is complicated. If he plays well and the Celtics are winning, I can't see Danny moving him. If he is injured or plays poorly, how do you move him without surrendering more valuable assets (i.e. future draft picks in much much better drafts) than the 30th pick in this draft or taking back worse salary. He would have value as an expiring contract, but teams looking to clear cap space would want to send back longer term deals, which means the Celtics don't solve their tax issue. If you are moving him into space, then you are paying with picks or prospects to do so.
I can’t imagine Harris or the Nets ever parting ways. He’s the ideal 3rd wheel for that offense.....I’d guess both sides recognize that and he’s going to get paid by the Nets.Joe Harris is an unrestricted free agent, so he’s a definite possibility.
Don’t we need to know whether Kyrie likes him though? I’m only partially kidding.I can’t imagine Harris or the Nets ever parting ways. He’s the ideal 3rd wheel for that offense.....I’d guess both sides recognize that and he’s going to get paid by the Nets.
I'm not sure if Kyrie even knows his name. Kyrie has an opinion on KD and the coaching staff. Everyone else is roster filler.Don’t we need to know whether Kyrie likes him though? I’m only partially kidding.
I was thinking the same thing. Harris probably isn't long for the Nets.I mean didn’t Irving already leave Harris off the list of guys that he considered contender quality material?
I would think there are plenty of teams over the cap that would take him for $5M & 1 year to help off the bench. Those teams wouldn't be able to guarantee him more than $5M, unless you're talking about a multi-year deal. And if I'm Danny, I'd be looking for a late 1st in the next draft, since they already have enough late 1sts this year. And maybe they can't get a late 1st for him, but that original deal was so bad I'd rather just keep Kanter for the season.If there is enough of a market for Kanter that a team would give up a first to acquire him, then Kanter does not exercise it and becomes a free agent because such a team would surely be willing to guarantee him more than 5 million.
In the NBA that isn’t entirely wrong.I'm not sure if Kyrie even knows his name. Kyrie has an opinion on KD and the coaching staff. Everyone else is roster filler.
King is excellent imo and seems to have a good line on the Celtics thinking. That said, Swedgin already walked through a trade scenario where they can get out from under some of their tax bill so they can improve the roster via a signing. Furthermore, Ainge has shown the tendency to be bloodless with his rosters so its hard to see him not trying to do something here when its clear to everyone Boston needs more weapons.The Athletic: Celtics may stick with current roster. That’s not necessarily a bad thing
If the Celtics are $10 million over the cap, using the TPMLE will cost the team $20 million to acquire a $5.7 million player who'd be the 7-8th best player on the roster. That is a tough ask for the owners.
Yes, but that involved stapling picks to existing players to get rid of them.King is excellent imo and seems to have a good line on the Celtics thinking. That said, Swedgin already walked through a trade scenario where they can get out from under some of their tax bill so they can improve the roster via a signing. Furthermore, Ainge has shown the tendency to be bloodless with his rosters so its hard to see him not trying to do something here when its clear to everyone Boston needs more weapons.
On the other hand, its the midst of a pandemic and the league is laboring under even more uncertainty than usual so maybe they do just run it back.
It makes perfect sense to do this given where they are in their development cycle - picks are worth far less to Boston than, say, the Knicks or Charlotte or some other rebuilding team.Yes, but that involved stapling picks to existing players to get rid of them.
To be clear, I think his value has been established. The problem, as spelled out upthread, is that the C's luxury tax situation is essentially untenable. Its conceivable that they may keep Kanter around for the reasons you cite but the state of the NBA is such that if they have an opportunity to lighten the tax bill as well as add depth, they almost have to do it given that the core is a contender.I feel like Kanter’s value to this team is getting minimized due to a bit of recency bias. He is the epitome of role player, with a specific role that he fills very well (as low-post scorer/ offensive rebounded on the second unit). And as with any role player, you need that guy to blend well off the court, which I think Kanter does EXTREMELY well.
A different sport, but to me, the perfect comp for Kanter is Kevin (“Don’t let us win tonight”) Millar. Grade A clubhouse guy who can fill a marginally useful on-field/court role, while having a bunch of holes in his overall game.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Kanter does not fill that role exceptionally well. The issue is how much is that role worth to the Celtics relative to other options given their 1) cap sheet/luxury tax situation and 2) playoff aspirations - both of which are obviously intertwined. The math is up the thread. As to the aspirations, the Celtics want to win a title. They do not need floor raisers or regular season role players.I feel like Kanter’s value to this team is getting minimized due to a bit of recency bias. He is the epitome of role player, with a specific role that he fills very well (as low-post scorer/ offensive rebounded on the second unit). And as with any role player, you need that guy to blend well off the court, which I think Kanter does EXTREMELY well.
A different sport, but to me, the perfect comp for Kanter is Kevin (“Don’t let us win tonight”) Millar. Grade A clubhouse guy who can fill a marginally useful on-field/court role, while having a bunch of holes in his overall game.
I don’t think that Dudley meant a big who would come off the bench for the MLE.Jared Dudley was on the Simmons pod yesterday (highlighted in the Simmons thread) and essentially stated that Boston was a big away from getting to the next level. I am not sure that is the piece they lack but if a veteran on the current champ is saying they are close, they are likely close.
Put another way, does anyone honestly believe that the 30th pick will be worth more to the team next season than a veteran who can come off the bench and provide production?
You are correct - I was unclear. I don't agree that a good big is what they lack - though I think Boston would jump at the opportunity to add one.I don’t think that Dudley meant a big who would come off the bench for the MLE.
Yep. The owners may try to smooth it, but revenue #s will be hideous. The rating #s in the Finals were bleak (yes football/baseball/etc)The cap and luxury tax are imploding and will for the next two years (local TV revenues decreased, attendance revenues plunged, BRI is going down). Next year attendance revenues are going to be nearly non-existent, so BRI’s going down again. I’ll be stunned if he gets more than vet min offers in the offseason.
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.Yep. The owners may try to smooth it, but revenue #s will be hideous. The rating #s in the Finals were bleak (yes football/baseball/etc)
FA centers thought it was bad last year, wait until they get a load of this offseason. You have about 10 Centers coming via the draft and another dozen available in free agency.
Kanter on a 1yr deal for $5MM is a couple million rich....Gordon/Kemba @ $68MM combined is where the owner's money is getting smoked. If they could deal Gordon, Danny could probably find some superb undervalued talent to surround the Js by midseason for the 2021 Championship run.
You didn't hear the news: the first large scale, post-CoVid public event in Boston will be the Payroll Efficiency Title parade down Causeway St.I just don't get this. Gordon Hayward is a much better player than anyone you can get with any part of the MLE---I mean, better by orders of magnitude. Trading him to replcae with inferior guys does not help the team in the short term in any way. People are underrating him and overrating the benefit of dealing him.
No one's underrating him. Their options are a giant luxury tax bill next year followed by Hayward walking for nothing, or trading him now, recouping some talent for him, and avoiding the hideous repeater tax. The covid19 era did accidentally help them, because Tatum's first post-rookie deal is going to be relatively cheap in this collapsing cap environment.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.
That's not really true; some are underrating him, and some are assuming they won't pay the tax. The first is just silly; the second is uncertain. I'd much rather take the trimming moves outlined in various places (swap out Kanter and Poirer, stash a pick, don't use MLE, let Wanna go) than trade Hayward for returns projected to be salary dump-level and sub-MLE. Yes, it is imperfect and the repeater tax is a challenge they need to manage carefully. But you only get so many shots and the odds are the team's best chance is in fact next year with HaywardNo one's underrating him. Their options are a giant luxury tax bill next year followed by Hayward walking for nothing, or trading him now, recouping some talent for him, and avoiding the hideous repeater tax. The covid19 era did accidentally help them, because Tatum's first post-rookie deal is going to be relatively cheap in this collapsing cap environment.
The downside, however is that Boston's planning was based on the pre-covid19 BRI projections and those are probably about 30% too high now. So one of Hayward or Walker has to go. Boston has no intentions of spending $300+ in payroll expenses.
Correct. The only possibility would be the extremely remote possibility of some blockbuster style trade where we are acquiring a high salaried impact player who is signed for multiple years, and sending along a boat load of draft capital with Hayward to make the salaries match up. I think that is not very likely, but that'd be the only way where the team gets better by dealing Hayward.However given the payroll constraints as well as the market for above average two way wings, its highly unlikely that a Hayward departure results in an improved Celtics roster.
The problem is that the trimming moves bloggers have suggested won't actually get them under the luxury tax line. It would see them squandering assets to marginally reduce the luxury tax bill, while putting them in the precarious position of being over the tax three years in four. Put another way, one more tax year after that and they hit the maximum penalty rate, which would turn even a moderately over the tax payroll into a sinkhole.That's not really true; some are underrating him, and some are assuming they won't pay the tax. The first is just silly; the second is uncertain. I'd much rather take the trimming moves outlined in various places (swap out Kanter and Poirer, stash a pick, don't use MLE, let Wanna go) than trade Hayward for returns projected to be salary dump-level and sub-MLE. Yes, it is imperfect and the repeater tax is a challenge they need to manage carefully. But you only get so many shots and the odds are the team's best chance is in fact next year with Hayward.
But the team knew this last year at this time when Kanter and Kemba and others were signed. So I guess I fail to see why the luxury tax is now suddenly the concern that tops all others for this team. Not sure Tatum and Brown would be thrilled to see talent traded away for JAGs just so Wyc's hedge funds can earn more money.The problem is that the trimming moves bloggers have suggested won't actually get them under the luxury tax line. It would see them squandering assets to marginally reduce the luxury tax bill, while putting them in the precarious position of being over the tax three years in four. Put another way, one more tax year after that and they hit the maximum penalty rate, which would turn even a moderately over the tax payroll into a sinkhole.
Ultimately they need to move either the two way wing on an expiring deal (and given that two way wings are the currency of the pace & space era, that's not hard) or the 6' PG with two or three more max years to go (depending on when they trade him).
As I said before, though, it's a question of what the owners are willing to do. I don't know whether a smaller payment in year 1 (which is the year we know there will be a covid impact) is enough, or they need to manage the repeater tax out over time.The problem is that the trimming moves bloggers have suggested won't actually get them under the luxury tax line. It would see them squandering assets to marginally reduce the luxury tax bill, while putting them in the precarious position of being over the tax three years in four. Put another way, one more tax year after that and they hit the maximum penalty rate, which would turn even a moderately over the tax payroll into a sinkhole.
Ultimately they need to move either the two way wing on an expiring deal (and given that two way wings are the currency of the pace & space era, that's not hard) or the 6' PG with two or three more max years to go (depending on when they trade him).
Because the expectations for future cap increases are sharply diminished because there was kind of a significant economic change that took place this year.But the team knew this last year at this time when Kanter and Kemba and others were signed. So I guess I fail to see why the luxury tax is now suddenly the concern that tops all others for this team. Not sure Tatum and Brown would be thrilled to see talent traded away for JAGs just so Wyc's hedge funds can earn more money.
In the summer of 2019 covid19 wasn't a thing. I guarantee you that if a time traveler from 2020 had been able to convince them that 25% of the season's attendance revenues were getting nuked and that attendance revenues in '21 were going old school thanks to a pandemic that Kemba would never have been signed and they would have found a Rondo-like guy to plug in at the 1.But the team knew this last year at this time when Kanter and Kemba and others were signed. So I guess I fail to see why the luxury tax is now suddenly the concern that tops all others for this team. Not sure Tatum and Brown would be thrilled to see talent traded away for JAGs just so Wyc's hedge funds can earn more money.
Myles Turner (and send the Hayward’s home to Indiana)? Rudy Gobert (and send them back to familiar Utah)?Obviously, if you can deal him and get quality back that's a different story. I would shot around a pick and Hayward but I haven't seen a viable deal like that which improves the team.
This. Why would we assume that everything related to cap/tax stays the same? Surely the league hasn't announced that, have they?The other reason I note the Hayward salary slot is that there is a non-zero chance the CBA changes due to the pandemic.
The working assumption is there will be a negotiated cap and tax line for 20/21 which is basically the same as this year. By negotiated, I mean it will not actually reflect anticipated BRI. In exchange for an artificially high cap this year, the owners will want a higher escrow amount.This. Why would we assume that everything related to cap/tax stays the same? Surely the league hasn't announced that, have they?