If Hayward and Fultz are in, which two are out?

[Roy H.]

Just one: AB

We can't afford to keep him long-term, and we're going to lose him in a year.

I still have not heard any good reason why AB needs to be traded because we can't afford him long term.  They team can go over the salary cap to resign him, and will, if they want to keep him.

If it is your opinion that the team does not want to keep him, or does not think he will be worth his next contract, then fine.  I am not sure Danny agrees.

IT ($30M) / Hayward ($30M) / Brown (rookie deal)/ Fultz (rookie deal).

There's zero chance we prefer Bradley at $25M over any of those guys moving forward. Thus, he's the odd man out sooner than later. Especially considering we have Smart, Rozier and DJax for the bench.

Reckless statement when a thread in these forums has a poll where most of us wouldn't pay Isaiah this salary.

Isn't that an equally reckless statement? CB has several thousand members, and many multiples of that in visitors, but that poll has around 100 responses. I wouldn't call 70 votes out of 10,000 to be a mandate.

[byennie]

I see zero evidence outside of a tiny CBlog poll that the Celtics will hesitate to pay IT the max. He's easily going to make that, he nearly won the scoring title, he made 2nd team All-NBA and he's in his prime. Crazier things have happened, maybe he gets traded for Paul George or some other star, but it's a pretty safe bet we're not letting him walk.

As for Bradley, we're under a larger cap with more spenders than the one that signed Evan Turner to a $70M deal. We shall see what offer he actually gets, but my argument would be the same if he gets $20M instead of $25M. He's going to cash in and much lesser players will make $15M+.

[Ilikesports17]

Just one: AB

We can't afford to keep him long-term, and we're going to lose him in a year.

I still have not heard any good reason why AB needs to be traded because we can't afford him long term.  They team can go over the salary cap to resign him, and will, if they want to keep him.

If it is your opinion that the team does not want to keep him, or does not think he will be worth his next contract, then fine.  I am not sure Danny agrees.

IT ($30M) / Hayward ($30M) / Brown (rookie deal)/ Fultz (rookie deal).

There's zero chance we prefer Bradley at $25M over any of those guys moving forward. Thus, he's the odd man out sooner than later. Especially considering we have Smart, Rozier and DJax for the bench.

Reckless statement when a thread in these forums has a poll where most of us wouldn't pay Isaiah this salary.

Isn't that an equally reckless statement? CB has several thousand members, and many multiples of that in visitors, but that poll has around 100 responses. I wouldn't call 70 votes out of 10,000 to be a mandate.

Theres also a poll where 84% of the responses (54/64) say they dont even see a Thomas trade as a possibility.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=90063.msg2275941#msg2275941

[OldSchoolDude]

I see zero evidence outside of a tiny CBlog poll that the Celtics will hesitate to pay IT the max. He's easily going to make that, he nearly won the scoring title, he made 2nd team All-NBA and he's in his prime. Crazier things have happened, maybe he gets traded for Paul George or some other star, but it's a pretty safe bet we're not letting him walk.

As for Bradley, we're under a larger cap with more spenders than the one that signed Evan Turner to a $70M deal. We shall see what offer he actually gets, but my argument would be the same if he gets $20M instead of $25M. He's going to cash in and much lesser players will make $15M+.

Danny and Co. aren't going to come out and say they wont resign IT.  They'll talk about their commitment to IT right up until they trade him or let him walk.  Then they'll issue a statement like this, except for the banner 17 part since we're not wining a banner 18 with IT as the main guy and he's played to good to accept the type of contract we could reasonably afford to offer him.

''We would not have won Banner 17 without Rajon and will always consider him one of our most valuable Celtics,'' the team's owners said in a joint statement. ''We will always cherish the time he was here.''

http://www.nba.com/2014/news/12/18/ap-rondo-to-dallas-report.ap/

[colincb]

They renounce KO, stick Yabu overseas, trade Rozier and Jackson into someone's cap space, and get rid of the rest not named below. Works under the cap:

 Max FA 30,300,000
Horford, Al 27,734,405
Bradley, Avery 8,808,989
Top Pick at 120% of Scale 7,026,240
Crowder, Jae 6,796,117
Thomas, Isaiah 6,261,395
Brown, Jaylen 4,956,480
Smart, Marcus 4,538,020
Zizic 1,645,200
Nader 815,615
Min Player 815,615
Min Player 815,615
Total 100,513,691

Doubt they can get a max FA though and then it becomes a matter of who they can get in FA and who does the saved money help keep? Doubt there's a trade, but who knows with Danny.

Finally, why anyone would want to get rid of Crowder and his cheap contract is beyond me.

Specifically, the salary scale for first-round picks will climb. Empty roster charges for every open spot under 13 will be the rookie minimum salary of $815,615.

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/projecting-2017-18-nba-cap-room-under-new-deal-terms/

being toying with the numbers for months, can't get under by letting go roz/yab/mic/jac with a cap of $101 mill and 13 roster charges. Have to include also keep him zizic oversease for another year. I rather just let go smart and mickey and trade them for picks

You should be using 12 players, not 13 for the number of contracts requiring an "incomplete roster charge" in computing total team salaries. The BI article says under 13, which is confusing, but the new CBA = the old CBA on this issue (see the following link).

http://www.celticshub.com/2016/12/18/celtics-friendly-guide-new-cba/

My analysis gets you under the cap assuming a max FA with 6+9 years experience signing for 30% of the cap. To get enough free cap to do so the Cs shed Jackson's $650K guarantee with an attached pick, trade Rozier into some other team's cap space for the best pick you can get back, renounce KO instead of offering him a qualifying offer, cut Mickey and Zeller. and renounce GG, JJ, AJ, and JY. They sign the top pick at the going rate of 120% of rookie scale, Zizic (whom I'm assuming is a lock barring something unforeseen), and Nader (if the Cs want) who is at the minimum anyhow. Yabu at $2,247K doesn't fit if you want to get under the cap to sign a MAX FA and not trade one of the core players.

[SHAQATTACK]

Bradley and KO

[RodyTur10]

So even without Hayward I might look to move Thomas this year (I wouldn't just give him away but if the right trade came along, I would move him).

Trading Thomas is just tough. Like you said you can't give him away for peanuts. That would look really bad for our image as how we treat our players and as a trading partner as well. You have to get good value in return to be able to sell it to the public, otherwise it's better to keep him for this season and let him be a mentor to Fultz and let him walk after that.

Out of curiosity, what's the worst possible deal you would accept for IT?

In terms of draft picks, I would want a top 6 draft pick, or a late lottery pick + assets. Trading for a young big like Turner, Porzingis, Saric or Hernangomez is also interesting (have to include some assets in the case of Turner and Porzingis).

When we trade for a proven star like George it's better to keep Thomas.

One note, how many teams (I know it just takes one  ) in 2018 would be willing to pay Thomas a big contract and also have the cap space to do it?

No one can possibly know if he is gonna attract significant interest in a year's time, but here are some teams with enough cap space to go after him :

Dallas
Philly
Brooklyn
Sacramento
Atlanta
Indy

Dallas and Indiana could indeed be interested as they don't have a lot of talent to replace the potential loss of Nowitzki and George.

Would Thomas leave the Celtics for a bottom feeder just to earn more money, as most (semi)-contenders certainly won't have the cap space to offer him that.

IT hasn't made tons of money during his career. This is his only chance for a max contract. My gut feeling is that he is gonna sign with whichever team offers him the most money.

That's pretty cold for a player who says that Boston is the best thing that has ever happened to him in his life.

[RockinRyA]

Just one: AB

We can't afford to keep him long-term, and we're going to lose him in a year.

I still have not heard any good reason why AB needs to be traded because we can't afford him long term.  They team can go over the salary cap to resign him, and will, if they want to keep him.

If it is your opinion that the team does not want to keep him, or does not think he will be worth his next contract, then fine.  I am not sure Danny agrees.

IT ($30M) / Hayward ($30M) / Brown (rookie deal)/ Fultz (rookie deal).

There's zero chance we prefer Bradley at $25M over any of those guys moving forward. Thus, he's the odd man out sooner than later. Especially considering we have Smart, Rozier and DJax for the bench.

Reckless statement when a thread in these forums has a poll where most of us wouldn't pay Isaiah this salary.

Isn't that an equally reckless statement? CB has several thousand members, and many multiples of that in visitors, but that poll has around 100 responses. I wouldn't call 70 votes out of 10,000 to be a mandate.

I also feel that the poll tend to attract the anti rather than the pros. People respond more to things they hate than one they dont mind.