Jaylen Brown was offered 4 years $80M

[Kuberski33]

I still think that one of Jaylen, Tatum or Hayward will have to go and I'm not sure who that's going to be. Count me among those not entirely sold yet on Jaylen so I'd like to have another season's look before making that call. 

Many here are forgetting how good an approaching-his-prime Hayward actually was. If Jaylen  has a big time season and someone offers him the max, so be it.  Match if you think he's that good, which means you're committing to him and one of the other two eventually has to go.

Everyone is keeping their options open. 

I'm curious how a contract year Jaylen is going to buy into the team concept and if I'm the Celtics I'm not being forced into any rash decisions without a significant discount.  It was worth the try.

[Fierce1]

I still think that one of Jaylen, Tatum or Hayward will have to go and I'm not sure who that's going to be. Count me among those not entirely sold yet on Jaylen so I'd like to have another season's look before making that call. 

Many here are forgetting how good an approaching-his-prime Hayward actually was. If Jaylen  has a big time season and someone offers him the max, so be it.  Match if you think he's that good, which means you're committing to him and one of the other two eventually has to go.

Everyone is keeping their options open.  I'm curious how a contract year Jaylen is going to buy into the team concept.

If I'm the Celtics I'm not being forced into any rash decisions without a significant discount.  It was worth the try.

If this was last year, where there were lots of big name free-agents, Jaylen wouldn't be asking for the max.

Jaylen is just taking advantage of the situation where the talent level of the free-agent class of 2020 is very low.

You can't blame Jaylen for doing that.

But the Celts will also not bite.
Ainge's offer is very clear, Celts are not going to give Brown the max.

[nickagneta]

Please let's stop with the completely false narrative that the Celtics can't afford to pay him the max. That they are somehow going to scoff at possibly having to pay a few million extra in luxury tax for a year. The Celtics are an extremely profitable team. They can afford paying the max to Brown.

Remember, Hayward would come off the books the year you need to extend Tatum to big bucks. If at the end of Hayward's contract would you rather have Brown, Tatum and Kemba or Kemba, Hayward and Tatum? Of course the answer is Brown, Kemba and Tatum as Brown and Tatum will be entering their primes with old vet Kemba.

And given the lack of any stars looking for free agentt money, teams will offer Brown the max. So, unless Brown somehow stagnates or falls back in quality, he is going to get the max next year and he may as well stay here and be the Celtics now and future with Tatum.

It's not false.

Sure the Celts can afford to pay the max, but it's like the Celts are already a complete team.

How can the Celts get a quality big man if all the money is spent on wing players?

Also, why pay for the luxury tax when you know you won't be able to win a championship?

According to Wyc, they will only pay luxury tax if the Celts are in a position to win a championship.

A Celtics team with 4 players getting at least 30m per year, and none of them are bigs, will be a flawed team.

So yes, in monetary terms, the Celts can afford to pay Brown the max.
But it's not practical because the Celts will be stuck with 3 wing players getting 30m per year.
That's the reason why some of us here are saying Celts can't afford to pay Brown the max.

No they wouldn't be stuck with 3wing players making $30 million because the same year Tatum gets paid, you can let Hayward go. As I said, if when Hayward's contract ends would you rather have Brown for three more years at $30 million at age 25 or a 31 going on 32 Hayward who you would have to pay for 3-4 more years?

The answer is simple: Brown.

So to accomplish that, you give Brown the max and if you have to pay a few million in luxury tax for one year, next year, which is not a guarantee, you pay it. It's also very possible the Celtics could give him max money and still land below the luxury tax line. But there is no year where the team will have to pay three wings over $30 million.

The whole concept of having to move Brown because the team can't afford it or, now this new one, that they will have to pay 3 wings over $30 million in the same year is just a completely false narrative. The Celtics can resign Brown to the max, it won't mess up team salary, it may not even put them into the luxury tax and they would never have to have 3 wings making over $30 million because Tatum's, Brown's and Hayward's contracts are structured in such a way as when Tatum needs to be paid, you can simply just let Hayward go.

[Fierce1]

Please let's stop with the completely false narrative that the Celtics can't afford to pay him the max. That they are somehow going to scoff at possibly having to pay a few million extra in luxury tax for a year. The Celtics are an extremely profitable team. They can afford paying the max to Brown.

Remember, Hayward would come off the books the year you need to extend Tatum to big bucks. If at the end of Hayward's contract would you rather have Brown, Tatum and Kemba or Kemba, Hayward and Tatum? Of course the answer is Brown, Kemba and Tatum as Brown and Tatum will be entering their primes with old vet Kemba.

And given the lack of any stars looking for free agentt money, teams will offer Brown the max. So, unless Brown somehow stagnates or falls back in quality, he is going to get the max next year and he may as well stay here and be the Celtics now and future with Tatum.

It's not false.

Sure the Celts can afford to pay the max, but it's like the Celts are already a complete team.

How can the Celts get a quality big man if all the money is spent on wing players?

Also, why pay for the luxury tax when you know you won't be able to win a championship?

According to Wyc, they will only pay luxury tax if the Celts are in a position to win a championship.

A Celtics team with 4 players getting at least 30m per year, and none of them are bigs, will be a flawed team.

So yes, in monetary terms, the Celts can afford to pay Brown the max.
But it's not practical because the Celts will be stuck with 3 wing players getting 30m per year.
That's the reason why some of us here are saying Celts can't afford to pay Brown the max.

No they wouldn't be stuck with 3wing players making $30 million because the same year Tatum gets paid, you can let Hayward go. As I said, if when Hayward's contract ends would you rather have Brown for three more years at $30 million at age 25 or a 31 going on 32 Hayward who you would have to pay for 3-4 more years?

The answer is simple: Brown.

So to accomplish that, you give Brown the max and if you have to pay a few million in luxury tax for one year, next year, which is not a guarantee, you pay it. It's also very possible the Celtics could give him max money and still land below the luxury tax line. But there is no year where the team will have to pay three wings over $30 million.

The whole concept of having to move Brown because the team can't afford it or, now this new one, that they will have to pay 3 wings over $30 million in the same year is just a completely false narrative. The Celtics can resign Brown to the max, it won't mess up team salary, it may not even put them into the lottery and they would never have to have 3 wings making over $30 million because Tatum's, Brown's and Hayward's contracts are structured in such a way as when Tatum needs to be paid, you can simply just let Hayward go.

You're assuming the Celts will not re-sign Hayward after his contract is up in 2021.

There's a bigger chance of Brown leaving than Brad and Hayward parting ways.

Last season we already saw how Brad gave Hayward special treatment and it upset some of the guys like Jaylen.

So if you're telling me the Celts will choose Brown over Hayward then I think you're right, the Celts will give Brown the max.

But here's the thing, we already saw evidence that Brad and Hayward have a special relationship.
And Ainge's offer of 80m for 4 years is also telling us that the Celts will not go nowhere near the max.

Right now the Celts have more or less 5 days to sign Brown to an extension.
If Brown doesn't get an extension by Oct. 21 then that means Brown will be asking for the max.

Will the Celts give Brown the max?

Highly unlikely.

Will the Celts trade Brown before Brown becomes a free-agent?

Very possible.

Time will tell.

[Fierce1]

From my more than 30 years of watching the Celts and the NBA, I have never seen a team give a player averaging 13-14 points per game 30m per year.

It's just not practical.

[keevsnick]

Please let's stop with the completely false narrative that the Celtics can't afford to pay him the max. That they are somehow going to scoff at possibly having to pay a few million extra in luxury tax for a year. The Celtics are an extremely profitable team. They can afford paying the max to Brown.

Remember, Hayward would come off the books the year you need to extend Tatum to big bucks. If at the end of Hayward's contract would you rather have Brown, Tatum and Kemba or Kemba, Hayward and Tatum? Of course the answer is Brown, Kemba and Tatum as Brown and Tatum will be entering their primes with old vet Kemba.

And given the lack of any stars looking for free agentt money, teams will offer Brown the max. So, unless Brown somehow stagnates or falls back in quality, he is going to get the max next year and he may as well stay here and be the Celtics now and future with Tatum.

It's not false.

Sure the Celts can afford to pay the max, but it's like the Celts are already a complete team.

How can the Celts get a quality big man if all the money is spent on wing players?

Also, why pay for the luxury tax when you know you won't be able to win a championship?

According to Wyc, they will only pay luxury tax if the Celts are in a position to win a championship.

A Celtics team with 4 players getting at least 30m per year, and none of them are bigs, will be a flawed team.

So yes, in monetary terms, the Celts can afford to pay Brown the max.
But it's not practical because the Celts will be stuck with 3 wing players getting 30m per year.
That's the reason why some of us here are saying Celts can't afford to pay Brown the max.

No they wouldn't be stuck with 3wing players making $30 million because the same year Tatum gets paid, you can let Hayward go. As I said, if when Hayward's contract ends would you rather have Brown for three more years at $30 million at age 25 or a 31 going on 32 Hayward who you would have to pay for 3-4 more years?

The answer is simple: Brown.

So to accomplish that, you give Brown the max and if you have to pay a few million in luxury tax for one year, next year, which is not a guarantee, you pay it. It's also very possible the Celtics could give him max money and still land below the luxury tax line. But there is no year where the team will have to pay three wings over $30 million.

The whole concept of having to move Brown because the team can't afford it or, now this new one, that they will have to pay 3 wings over $30 million in the same year is just a completely false narrative. The Celtics can resign Brown to the max, it won't mess up team salary, it may not even put them into the lottery and they would never have to have 3 wings making over $30 million because Tatum's, Brown's and Hayward's contracts are structured in such a way as when Tatum needs to be paid, you can simply just let Hayward go.

You're assuming the Celts will not re-sign Hayward after his contract is up in 2021.

There's a bigger chance of Brown leaving than Brad and Hayward parting ways.

Last season we already saw how Brad gave Hayward special treatment and it upset some of the guys like Jaylen.

So if you're telling me the Celts will choose Brown over Hayward then I think you're right, the Celts will give Brown the max.

But here's the thing, we already saw evidence that Brad and Hayward have a special relationship.
And Ainge's offer of 80m for 4 years is also telling us that the Celts will not go nowhere near the max.

Right now the Celts have more or less 5 days to sign Brown to an extension.
If Brown doesn't get an extension by Oct. 21 then that means Brown will be asking for the max.

Will the Celts give Brown the max?

Highly unlikely.

Will the Celts trade Brown before Brown becomes a free-agent?

Very possible.

Time will tell.

This idea that Stevens and Haywards bond will mean the Celtics will never part with Hayward just doesn't hold up to me. Stevens doesn't make personnel decisions. Its up to Ainge to decide who he wants to keep, its not out of the realm of possibility that by the end of the year its Brown you'd rather have out of him and Hayward. It may even be more likely than not.

The bolded is not 100% true. It just means Brown wants more than what the Celtics heve offered. Theres a lot of room between the 80/4 rumored to have been offered and his max contract of 29 million starting.

[nickagneta]

Please let's stop with the completely false narrative that the Celtics can't afford to pay him the max. That they are somehow going to scoff at possibly having to pay a few million extra in luxury tax for a year. The Celtics are an extremely profitable team. They can afford paying the max to Brown.

Remember, Hayward would come off the books the year you need to extend Tatum to big bucks. If at the end of Hayward's contract would you rather have Brown, Tatum and Kemba or Kemba, Hayward and Tatum? Of course the answer is Brown, Kemba and Tatum as Brown and Tatum will be entering their primes with old vet Kemba.

And given the lack of any stars looking for free agentt money, teams will offer Brown the max. So, unless Brown somehow stagnates or falls back in quality, he is going to get the max next year and he may as well stay here and be the Celtics now and future with Tatum.

It's not false.

Sure the Celts can afford to pay the max, but it's like the Celts are already a complete team.

How can the Celts get a quality big man if all the money is spent on wing players?

Also, why pay for the luxury tax when you know you won't be able to win a championship?

According to Wyc, they will only pay luxury tax if the Celts are in a position to win a championship.

A Celtics team with 4 players getting at least 30m per year, and none of them are bigs, will be a flawed team.

So yes, in monetary terms, the Celts can afford to pay Brown the max.
But it's not practical because the Celts will be stuck with 3 wing players getting 30m per year.
That's the reason why some of us here are saying Celts can't afford to pay Brown the max.

No they wouldn't be stuck with 3wing players making $30 million because the same year Tatum gets paid, you can let Hayward go. As I said, if when Hayward's contract ends would you rather have Brown for three more years at $30 million at age 25 or a 31 going on 32 Hayward who you would have to pay for 3-4 more years?

The answer is simple: Brown.

So to accomplish that, you give Brown the max and if you have to pay a few million in luxury tax for one year, next year, which is not a guarantee, you pay it. It's also very possible the Celtics could give him max money and still land below the luxury tax line. But there is no year where the team will have to pay three wings over $30 million.

The whole concept of having to move Brown because the team can't afford it or, now this new one, that they will have to pay 3 wings over $30 million in the same year is just a completely false narrative. The Celtics can resign Brown to the max, it won't mess up team salary, it may not even put them into the lottery and they would never have to have 3 wings making over $30 million because Tatum's, Brown's and Hayward's contracts are structured in such a way as when Tatum needs to be paid, you can simply just let Hayward go.

You're assuming the Celts will not re-sign Hayward after his contract is up in 2021.

There's a bigger chance of Brown leaving than Brad and Hayward parting ways.

Last season we already saw how Brad gave Hayward special treatment and it upset some of the guys like Jaylen.

So if you're telling me the Celts will choose Brown over Hayward then I think you're right, the Celts will give Brown the max.

But here's the thing, we already saw evidence that Brad and Hayward have a special relationship.
And Ainge's offer of 80m for 4 years is also telling us that the Celts will not go nowhere near the max.

Right now the Celts have more or less 5 days to sign Brown to an extension.
If Brown doesn't get an extension by Oct. 21 then that means Brown will be asking for the max.

Will the Celts give Brown the max?

Highly unlikely.

Will the Celts trade Brown before Brown becomes a free-agent?

Very possible.

Time will tell.

Danny makes the personnel decisions not Brad. And Danny doesn't care a hoot about sentimentality or special relationships. He trade Paul Pierce and KG and Perk and Rondo and Avery Bradley and IT and tried to trade Doc. He also tried to trade Ray Allen. All those people had special relationships with Danny, the team and in some cases with the city of Boston. All gone.

The smart move is you retain Brown and his ability to grow at 25 years old over re-signing a 31-32 year old Hayward for 3-4 years when his game will most likely shrinking. Danny almost always makes the smart, non-sentimental move. That move will be bring back Brown at a price as far under max as he can but if he has to, at max.

And then you deal with Hayward later. Like maybe moving him at the 2021 trade deadline. Or just not renewing his deal.

[Fierce1]

keevsnick

Yes, maybe it means Brown just wants more than what the Celts are offering.
But that will only last until Oct. 21.

Once Oct. 21 has come and gone, it's max or nothing for Brown.

Why?

You really believe no team will offer Jaylen the max in the summer of 2020?

Jaylen knows there will be a team out there will offer him the max.

[keevsnick]

Its a very good deal for Brown but surprise he turned it down..i wouldnt budge..if he goes in the future, oh well, theres alot of better players out there

can you provide some examples of players you think are better than Brown considering what he can do now, his remaining upside (expected improvements) AND is cheaper than what Danny offered AND will be available?

I suspect you'll have difficulty finding an example with 3 of those qualities, never mind all 4.

If Terry Rozier got what he got then this is pretty terrible for Brown. Especially if Brown continues to show what he's displayed in pre-season - improved handling and offensive decision-making.

Rozier got a 3 year contract that decreases every season with an average of 18.9 million (again decreasing every year) and went to a team that had no way to add him, without a trade and since they were trading out a max player had to have a high initial salary.  That is a worse offer than 4 years, 80 million and was only offered because of the weird trade situation the two teams found themselves in.

Yeah, it is a worse offer, but Rozier is a considerably worse player, who is older, who has shown to be nothing more than an average NBA starter.

Buddy Hield apparently just got offered $90m/4yrs for comparison.

Hield is worth more

Hield wants 110m.

I meant Hield is worth more than Brown.

True.

Hield averaged 20.7 points per game last season.

Jaylen has never averaged more than 14.5 points per game his career.
That's why I don't think he's a max player.

Buddy Hield is also turning 27 in two months, and is a much worse defender than Brown.

Celts are win now mode.

By signing Kemba, Celts are trying to win now.

I don't know what happened to Ainge's plan of building around Tatum and Brown when Kyrie left.

Celts would've been able to sign Brown the max if Ainge didn't give Kemba 34m per year.

Regarding Hield's age, Hield is not asking for the max.
He's only asking for 110m for 4 years.
Simmons and Murray got the max.
So Hield is not being unreasonable.

 I don't think signing Kemba  means the Celtics are in win now mode so  much as it means they were in "can't lose a max contract slot for nothing mode."

The Celtics can still sign Brown to the max since Hayward deal has only one overlapping  year with Browns extension (if Hayward opts in), and Tatum will still be cheap for that year. So financials really aren't a concern, its more like is he worth it? And if you believe somebody  else will offer him the max then the market has determined he is.

I doubt the Celtics are gonna trade Brown, mostly because the value won't be there. I mean the idea of trading a former top 3rd pick for some middling draft pick(s) is so underwhelming  when he was off the table in Butler, George and Kawhi talks. Its almost better just to  take a risk on his next contract. Now if someone makes a really good offer then sure.

I think the way this pays out is Brown bets on himself, plays the season (I think he has a really good one), and the Celtics match whatever offer he gets or works something out next summer. he's still a perfect fit next to Tatum, and Kemba and Hayward will both be 30 by next summer so it seems kind of silly to be building with those guys next to a 22 year old Tatum.

Signing Kemba for the max has lots of implications for the Celts.

The Celts are risking being in luxury tax territory by giving Kemba the max.

And Celts will be risking losing a player like Brown by giving Kemba the max.

The Celts would've been able to start a quasi rebuild with Horford and Kyrie gone.
Hayward would've been the only big contract the Celts would have to deal with.

It's not like the Celts still had Horford when Kyrie left.

If Horford stayed then it would've made sense to replace Kyrie with Kemba.

Losing your 2 best players, Horford and Kyrie, meant the Celts would have to rebuild.
But Ainge refused to rebuild.
That's why he signed Kemba.

And the Celts can get significant value for Brown if the Celts trade Brown to a team who can pay Brown the max.

Literally nothing in this post has to be true, some of it could be but none of it has to be. The Celtics aren't in the luxury tax, so they sacrificed nothing there. The loss of Rozier, Morris, and Kyrie means the young guys will still get increased roles so no sacrifice there. Kemba getting the max doesn't effect  Browns next contract.

And whether they signed Kemba or not they are still in a quasi rebuild, we know that because they drafted 4 rookies 3 of which will get time on the team this team and 2 of which will probably be in the rotation. Teams going for it right now don't do that.

[saltlover]

Please let's stop with the completely false narrative that the Celtics can't afford to pay him the max. That they are somehow going to scoff at possibly having to pay a few million extra in luxury tax for a year. The Celtics are an extremely profitable team. They can afford paying the max to Brown.

Remember, Hayward would come off the books the year you need to extend Tatum to big bucks. If at the end of Hayward's contract would you rather have Brown, Tatum and Kemba or Kemba, Hayward and Tatum? Of course the answer is Brown, Kemba and Tatum as Brown and Tatum will be entering their primes with old vet Kemba.

And given the lack of any stars looking for free agentt money, teams will offer Brown the max. So, unless Brown somehow stagnates or falls back in quality, he is going to get the max next year and he may as well stay here and be the Celtics now and future with Tatum.

It's not false.

Sure the Celts can afford to pay the max, but it's like the Celts are already a complete team.

How can the Celts get a quality big man if all the money is spent on wing players?

Also, why pay for the luxury tax when you know you won't be able to win a championship?

According to Wyc, they will only pay luxury tax if the Celts are in a position to win a championship.

A Celtics team with 4 players getting at least 30m per year, and none of them are bigs, will be a flawed team.

So yes, in monetary terms, the Celts can afford to pay Brown the max.
But it's not practical because the Celts will be stuck with 3 wing players getting 30m per year.
That's the reason why some of us here are saying Celts can't afford to pay Brown the max.

No they wouldn't be stuck with 3wing players making $30 million because the same year Tatum gets paid, you can let Hayward go. As I said, if when Hayward's contract ends would you rather have Brown for three more years at $30 million at age 25 or a 31 going on 32 Hayward who you would have to pay for 3-4 more years?

The answer is simple: Brown.

So to accomplish that, you give Brown the max and if you have to pay a few million in luxury tax for one year, next year, which is not a guarantee, you pay it. It's also very possible the Celtics could give him max money and still land below the luxury tax line. But there is no year where the team will have to pay three wings over $30 million.

The whole concept of having to move Brown because the team can't afford it or, now this new one, that they will have to pay 3 wings over $30 million in the same year is just a completely false narrative. The Celtics can resign Brown to the max, it won't mess up team salary, it may not even put them into the lottery and they would never have to have 3 wings making over $30 million because Tatum's, Brown's and Hayward's contracts are structured in such a way as when Tatum needs to be paid, you can simply just let Hayward go.

You're assuming the Celts will not re-sign Hayward after his contract is up in 2021.

There's a bigger chance of Brown leaving than Brad and Hayward parting ways.

Last season we already saw how Brad gave Hayward special treatment and it upset some of the guys like Jaylen.

So if you're telling me the Celts will choose Brown over Hayward then I think you're right, the Celts will give Brown the max.

But here's the thing, we already saw evidence that Brad and Hayward have a special relationship.
And Ainge's offer of 80m for 4 years is also telling us that the Celts will not go nowhere near the max.

Right now the Celts have more or less 5 days to sign Brown to an extension.
If Brown doesn't get an extension by Oct. 21 then that means Brown will be asking for the max.

Will the Celts give Brown the max?

Highly unlikely.

Will the Celts trade Brown before Brown becomes a free-agent?

Very possible.

Time will tell.

Danny makes the personnel decisions not Brad. And Danny doesn't care a hoot about sentimentality or special relationships. He trade Paul Pierce and KG and Perk and Rondo and Avery Bradley and IT and tried to trade Doc. He also tried to trade Ray Allen. All those people had special relationships with Danny, the team and in some cases with the city of Boston. All gone.

The smart move is you retain Brown and his ability to grow at 25 years old over re-signing a 31-32 year old Hayward for 3-4 years when his game will most likely shrinking. Danny almost always makes the smart, non-sentimental move. That move will be bring back Brown at a price as far under max as he can but if he has to, at max.

And then you deal with Hayward later. Like maybe moving him at the 2021 trade deadline. Or just not renewing his deal.

I don’t understand why it’s fait accompli that Hayward is getting a significant sum of money his next contract.  It seems far more likely he is entering the MLE stage of his career after this deal.  I don’t know if that will be in Boston or not, but I don’t see mega deals for Brown and Tatum getting too much in the way of affording Hayward.

[Fierce1]

Please let's stop with the completely false narrative that the Celtics can't afford to pay him the max. That they are somehow going to scoff at possibly having to pay a few million extra in luxury tax for a year. The Celtics are an extremely profitable team. They can afford paying the max to Brown.

Remember, Hayward would come off the books the year you need to extend Tatum to big bucks. If at the end of Hayward's contract would you rather have Brown, Tatum and Kemba or Kemba, Hayward and Tatum? Of course the answer is Brown, Kemba and Tatum as Brown and Tatum will be entering their primes with old vet Kemba.

And given the lack of any stars looking for free agentt money, teams will offer Brown the max. So, unless Brown somehow stagnates or falls back in quality, he is going to get the max next year and he may as well stay here and be the Celtics now and future with Tatum.

It's not false.

Sure the Celts can afford to pay the max, but it's like the Celts are already a complete team.

How can the Celts get a quality big man if all the money is spent on wing players?

Also, why pay for the luxury tax when you know you won't be able to win a championship?

According to Wyc, they will only pay luxury tax if the Celts are in a position to win a championship.

A Celtics team with 4 players getting at least 30m per year, and none of them are bigs, will be a flawed team.

So yes, in monetary terms, the Celts can afford to pay Brown the max.
But it's not practical because the Celts will be stuck with 3 wing players getting 30m per year.
That's the reason why some of us here are saying Celts can't afford to pay Brown the max.

No they wouldn't be stuck with 3wing players making $30 million because the same year Tatum gets paid, you can let Hayward go. As I said, if when Hayward's contract ends would you rather have Brown for three more years at $30 million at age 25 or a 31 going on 32 Hayward who you would have to pay for 3-4 more years?

The answer is simple: Brown.

So to accomplish that, you give Brown the max and if you have to pay a few million in luxury tax for one year, next year, which is not a guarantee, you pay it. It's also very possible the Celtics could give him max money and still land below the luxury tax line. But there is no year where the team will have to pay three wings over $30 million.

The whole concept of having to move Brown because the team can't afford it or, now this new one, that they will have to pay 3 wings over $30 million in the same year is just a completely false narrative. The Celtics can resign Brown to the max, it won't mess up team salary, it may not even put them into the lottery and they would never have to have 3 wings making over $30 million because Tatum's, Brown's and Hayward's contracts are structured in such a way as when Tatum needs to be paid, you can simply just let Hayward go.

You're assuming the Celts will not re-sign Hayward after his contract is up in 2021.

There's a bigger chance of Brown leaving than Brad and Hayward parting ways.

Last season we already saw how Brad gave Hayward special treatment and it upset some of the guys like Jaylen.

So if you're telling me the Celts will choose Brown over Hayward then I think you're right, the Celts will give Brown the max.

But here's the thing, we already saw evidence that Brad and Hayward have a special relationship.
And Ainge's offer of 80m for 4 years is also telling us that the Celts will not go nowhere near the max.

Right now the Celts have more or less 5 days to sign Brown to an extension.
If Brown doesn't get an extension by Oct. 21 then that means Brown will be asking for the max.

Will the Celts give Brown the max?

Highly unlikely.

Will the Celts trade Brown before Brown becomes a free-agent?

Very possible.

Time will tell.

Danny makes the personnel decisions not Brad. And Danny doesn't care a hoot about sentimentality or special relationships. He trade Paul Pierce and KG and Perk and Rondo and Avery Bradley and IT and tried to trade Doc. He also tried to trade Ray Allen. All those people had special relationships with Danny, the team and in some cases with the city of Boston. All gone.

The smart move is you retain Brown and his ability to grow at 25 years old over re-signing a 31-32 year old Hayward for 3-4 years when his game will most likely shrinking. Danny almost always makes the smart, non-sentimental move. That move will be bring back Brown at a price as far under max as he can but if he has to, at max.

And then you deal with Hayward later. Like maybe moving him at the 2021 trade deadline. Or just not renewing his deal.

Danny Ainge learned his lesson after he traded Perk in 2011.

After that trade, the relationship of Doc Rivers and Danny Ainge got strained.

Doc was against trading Perk.

When it was Danny's turn to tell Doc to stay and not leave, Doc left for the Clippers.

So underestimate the relationship of the coach and the front office.

Also, when Ray Allen learned he was supposed to be traded, look at what happened in 2012, Ray left the Celts for the Heat.

Ray ended up having the last laugh as he won another ring in Miami.

Relationships matter in the NBA.

Just like McHale gifting Ainge with KG in 2007.

[Fierce1]

Its a very good deal for Brown but surprise he turned it down..i wouldnt budge..if he goes in the future, oh well, theres alot of better players out there

can you provide some examples of players you think are better than Brown considering what he can do now, his remaining upside (expected improvements) AND is cheaper than what Danny offered AND will be available?

I suspect you'll have difficulty finding an example with 3 of those qualities, never mind all 4.

If Terry Rozier got what he got then this is pretty terrible for Brown. Especially if Brown continues to show what he's displayed in pre-season - improved handling and offensive decision-making.

Rozier got a 3 year contract that decreases every season with an average of 18.9 million (again decreasing every year) and went to a team that had no way to add him, without a trade and since they were trading out a max player had to have a high initial salary.  That is a worse offer than 4 years, 80 million and was only offered because of the weird trade situation the two teams found themselves in.

Yeah, it is a worse offer, but Rozier is a considerably worse player, who is older, who has shown to be nothing more than an average NBA starter.

Buddy Hield apparently just got offered $90m/4yrs for comparison.

Hield is worth more

Hield wants 110m.

I meant Hield is worth more than Brown.

True.

Hield averaged 20.7 points per game last season.

Jaylen has never averaged more than 14.5 points per game his career.
That's why I don't think he's a max player.

Buddy Hield is also turning 27 in two months, and is a much worse defender than Brown.

Celts are win now mode.

By signing Kemba, Celts are trying to win now.

I don't know what happened to Ainge's plan of building around Tatum and Brown when Kyrie left.

Celts would've been able to sign Brown the max if Ainge didn't give Kemba 34m per year.

Regarding Hield's age, Hield is not asking for the max.
He's only asking for 110m for 4 years.
Simmons and Murray got the max.
So Hield is not being unreasonable.

 I don't think signing Kemba  means the Celtics are in win now mode so  much as it means they were in "can't lose a max contract slot for nothing mode."

The Celtics can still sign Brown to the max since Hayward deal has only one overlapping  year with Browns extension (if Hayward opts in), and Tatum will still be cheap for that year. So financials really aren't a concern, its more like is he worth it? And if you believe somebody  else will offer him the max then the market has determined he is.

I doubt the Celtics are gonna trade Brown, mostly because the value won't be there. I mean the idea of trading a former top 3rd pick for some middling draft pick(s) is so underwhelming  when he was off the table in Butler, George and Kawhi talks. Its almost better just to  take a risk on his next contract. Now if someone makes a really good offer then sure.

I think the way this pays out is Brown bets on himself, plays the season (I think he has a really good one), and the Celtics match whatever offer he gets or works something out next summer. he's still a perfect fit next to Tatum, and Kemba and Hayward will both be 30 by next summer so it seems kind of silly to be building with those guys next to a 22 year old Tatum.

Signing Kemba for the max has lots of implications for the Celts.

The Celts are risking being in luxury tax territory by giving Kemba the max.

And Celts will be risking losing a player like Brown by giving Kemba the max.

The Celts would've been able to start a quasi rebuild with Horford and Kyrie gone.
Hayward would've been the only big contract the Celts would have to deal with.

It's not like the Celts still had Horford when Kyrie left.

If Horford stayed then it would've made sense to replace Kyrie with Kemba.

Losing your 2 best players, Horford and Kyrie, meant the Celts would have to rebuild.
But Ainge refused to rebuild.
That's why he signed Kemba.

And the Celts can get significant value for Brown if the Celts trade Brown to a team who can pay Brown the max.

Literally nothing in this post has to be true, some of it could be but none of it has to be. The Celtics aren't in the luxury tax, so they sacrificed nothing there. The loss of Rozier, Morris, and Kyrie means the young guys will still get increased roles so no sacrifice there. Kemba getting the max doesn't effect  Browns next contract.

And whether they signed Kemba or not they are still in a quasi rebuild, we know that because they drafted 4 rookies 3 of which will get time on the team this team and 2 of which will probably be in the rotation. Teams going for it right now don't do that.

Only reason why the Celts ended up with 4 rookies is because the Cavs didn't want to trade the #5 pick to the Celts.

Here:
https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/celtics/nba-rumors-celtics-interested-trading-cavs-no-5-draft-pick

NBA rumors: Celtics interested in trading for Cavs' No. 5 draft pick
By Nick Goss June 20, 2019 6:46 PM


Chris Fedor
✔
@ChrisFedor
 #Cavs have had inquiries now from Minnesota, Chicago and Boston for the fifth pick, according to league sources. The price hasn't been right. Yet.

[keevsnick]

Please let's stop with the completely false narrative that the Celtics can't afford to pay him the max. That they are somehow going to scoff at possibly having to pay a few million extra in luxury tax for a year. The Celtics are an extremely profitable team. They can afford paying the max to Brown.

Remember, Hayward would come off the books the year you need to extend Tatum to big bucks. If at the end of Hayward's contract would you rather have Brown, Tatum and Kemba or Kemba, Hayward and Tatum? Of course the answer is Brown, Kemba and Tatum as Brown and Tatum will be entering their primes with old vet Kemba.

And given the lack of any stars looking for free agentt money, teams will offer Brown the max. So, unless Brown somehow stagnates or falls back in quality, he is going to get the max next year and he may as well stay here and be the Celtics now and future with Tatum.

It's not false.

Sure the Celts can afford to pay the max, but it's like the Celts are already a complete team.

How can the Celts get a quality big man if all the money is spent on wing players?

Also, why pay for the luxury tax when you know you won't be able to win a championship?

According to Wyc, they will only pay luxury tax if the Celts are in a position to win a championship.

A Celtics team with 4 players getting at least 30m per year, and none of them are bigs, will be a flawed team.

So yes, in monetary terms, the Celts can afford to pay Brown the max.
But it's not practical because the Celts will be stuck with 3 wing players getting 30m per year.
That's the reason why some of us here are saying Celts can't afford to pay Brown the max.

That actually makes it a false narrative. Literally countering yourself

Just think about it, 4 players getting 30m per year and you're not in a position to win a championship?

Without a quality big man, Celts will not be able to contain Embiid and Giannis.

Reason why Toronto won a championship was because they upgraded from Valanciunas to Marc Gasol.

Without Marc Gasol, the Raptors would not have made it to the Finals.

So it's a false narrative because what I'm talking about is the practicality of the situation.

I guess what it comes down to is

A) Brown will get a contract bigger than 80/4, but that doesn't mean it has to be the max.
B) if he is worth the max next offseason its because he played very well this coming year, and in that case the Celtics will be happy to give him that money.
C) If Brown is worth the max this coming year then he's played well enough that  you'd rather have him than a 31-33 year old Hayward.
D) So this idea that they will have 4 maxes is easy to solve, you move one of the older max guys.
E) But you don't need to since the Celtics make a lot of money and have only been in the LT once in recent seasons.
F) And there's not reason to trade Brown this season since as we saw with MIL and Bledsoe you can always get something for a guy if a team makes an offer you don't want to match.

In short Brown not signing an extension doesn't mean much, the play has always been to play out the year and see what happens next summer.

[Fierce1]

Please let's stop with the completely false narrative that the Celtics can't afford to pay him the max. That they are somehow going to scoff at possibly having to pay a few million extra in luxury tax for a year. The Celtics are an extremely profitable team. They can afford paying the max to Brown.

Remember, Hayward would come off the books the year you need to extend Tatum to big bucks. If at the end of Hayward's contract would you rather have Brown, Tatum and Kemba or Kemba, Hayward and Tatum? Of course the answer is Brown, Kemba and Tatum as Brown and Tatum will be entering their primes with old vet Kemba.

And given the lack of any stars looking for free agentt money, teams will offer Brown the max. So, unless Brown somehow stagnates or falls back in quality, he is going to get the max next year and he may as well stay here and be the Celtics now and future with Tatum.

It's not false.

Sure the Celts can afford to pay the max, but it's like the Celts are already a complete team.

How can the Celts get a quality big man if all the money is spent on wing players?

Also, why pay for the luxury tax when you know you won't be able to win a championship?

According to Wyc, they will only pay luxury tax if the Celts are in a position to win a championship.

A Celtics team with 4 players getting at least 30m per year, and none of them are bigs, will be a flawed team.

So yes, in monetary terms, the Celts can afford to pay Brown the max.
But it's not practical because the Celts will be stuck with 3 wing players getting 30m per year.
That's the reason why some of us here are saying Celts can't afford to pay Brown the max.

No they wouldn't be stuck with 3wing players making $30 million because the same year Tatum gets paid, you can let Hayward go. As I said, if when Hayward's contract ends would you rather have Brown for three more years at $30 million at age 25 or a 31 going on 32 Hayward who you would have to pay for 3-4 more years?

The answer is simple: Brown.

So to accomplish that, you give Brown the max and if you have to pay a few million in luxury tax for one year, next year, which is not a guarantee, you pay it. It's also very possible the Celtics could give him max money and still land below the luxury tax line. But there is no year where the team will have to pay three wings over $30 million.

The whole concept of having to move Brown because the team can't afford it or, now this new one, that they will have to pay 3 wings over $30 million in the same year is just a completely false narrative. The Celtics can resign Brown to the max, it won't mess up team salary, it may not even put them into the lottery and they would never have to have 3 wings making over $30 million because Tatum's, Brown's and Hayward's contracts are structured in such a way as when Tatum needs to be paid, you can simply just let Hayward go.

You're assuming the Celts will not re-sign Hayward after his contract is up in 2021.

There's a bigger chance of Brown leaving than Brad and Hayward parting ways.

Last season we already saw how Brad gave Hayward special treatment and it upset some of the guys like Jaylen.

So if you're telling me the Celts will choose Brown over Hayward then I think you're right, the Celts will give Brown the max.

But here's the thing, we already saw evidence that Brad and Hayward have a special relationship.
And Ainge's offer of 80m for 4 years is also telling us that the Celts will not go nowhere near the max.

Right now the Celts have more or less 5 days to sign Brown to an extension.
If Brown doesn't get an extension by Oct. 21 then that means Brown will be asking for the max.

Will the Celts give Brown the max?

Highly unlikely.

Will the Celts trade Brown before Brown becomes a free-agent?

Very possible.

Time will tell.

Danny makes the personnel decisions not Brad. And Danny doesn't care a hoot about sentimentality or special relationships. He trade Paul Pierce and KG and Perk and Rondo and Avery Bradley and IT and tried to trade Doc. He also tried to trade Ray Allen. All those people had special relationships with Danny, the team and in some cases with the city of Boston. All gone.

The smart move is you retain Brown and his ability to grow at 25 years old over re-signing a 31-32 year old Hayward for 3-4 years when his game will most likely shrinking. Danny almost always makes the smart, non-sentimental move. That move will be bring back Brown at a price as far under max as he can but if he has to, at max.

And then you deal with Hayward later. Like maybe moving him at the 2021 trade deadline. Or just not renewing his deal.

I don’t understand why it’s fait accompli that Hayward is getting a significant sum of money his next contract.  It seems far more likely he is entering the MLE stage of his career after this deal.  I don’t know if that will be in Boston or not, but I don’t see mega deals for Brown and Tatum getting too much in the way of affording Hayward.

Hayward is only 29 years old.

That's very far from MLE stage of his career.

A lot of Celtic fans will change their mind about Hayward if Hayward averages 16-18 points per game this season.

[Fierce1]

Please let's stop with the completely false narrative that the Celtics can't afford to pay him the max. That they are somehow going to scoff at possibly having to pay a few million extra in luxury tax for a year. The Celtics are an extremely profitable team. They can afford paying the max to Brown.

Remember, Hayward would come off the books the year you need to extend Tatum to big bucks. If at the end of Hayward's contract would you rather have Brown, Tatum and Kemba or Kemba, Hayward and Tatum? Of course the answer is Brown, Kemba and Tatum as Brown and Tatum will be entering their primes with old vet Kemba.

And given the lack of any stars looking for free agentt money, teams will offer Brown the max. So, unless Brown somehow stagnates or falls back in quality, he is going to get the max next year and he may as well stay here and be the Celtics now and future with Tatum.

It's not false.

Sure the Celts can afford to pay the max, but it's like the Celts are already a complete team.

How can the Celts get a quality big man if all the money is spent on wing players?

Also, why pay for the luxury tax when you know you won't be able to win a championship?

According to Wyc, they will only pay luxury tax if the Celts are in a position to win a championship.

A Celtics team with 4 players getting at least 30m per year, and none of them are bigs, will be a flawed team.

So yes, in monetary terms, the Celts can afford to pay Brown the max.
But it's not practical because the Celts will be stuck with 3 wing players getting 30m per year.
That's the reason why some of us here are saying Celts can't afford to pay Brown the max.

That actually makes it a false narrative. Literally countering yourself

Just think about it, 4 players getting 30m per year and you're not in a position to win a championship?

Without a quality big man, Celts will not be able to contain Embiid and Giannis.

Reason why Toronto won a championship was because they upgraded from Valanciunas to Marc Gasol.

Without Marc Gasol, the Raptors would not have made it to the Finals.

So it's a false narrative because what I'm talking about is the practicality of the situation.

I guess what it comes down to is

A) Brown will get a contract bigger than 80/4, but that doesn't mean it has to be the max.
B) if he is worth the max next offseason its because he played very well this coming year, and in that case the Celtics will be happy to give him that money.
C) If Brown is worth the max this coming year then he's played well enough that  you'd rather have him than a 31-33 year old Hayward.
D) So this idea that they will have 4 maxes is easy to solve, you move one of the older max guys.
E) But you don't need to since the Celtics make a lot of money and have only been in the LT once in recent seasons.
F) And there's not reason to trade Brown this season since as we saw with MIL and Bledsoe you can always get something for a guy if a team makes an offer you don't want to match.

In short Brown not signing an extension doesn't mean much, the play has always been to play out the year and see what happens next summer.

Looks like this issue will be resolved once and for all in January or February.

So let's wait and see.