What's the smallest contract offer that would get Hayward to opt out?

[Phantom255x]

Could a 4 year $110 million contract do it? It's basically a 3 year $75 million extension for a guy that would be 30-33 years old in that time. Seems reasonable given his last three years.

That'd be what I do. We do have his Bird Rights, correct?

[mmmmm]

Could a 4 year $110 million contract do it? It's basically a 3 year $75 million extension for a guy that would be 30-33 years old in that time. Seems reasonable given his last three years.

That'd be what I do. We do have his Bird Rights, correct?

Yes, we have his Bird Rights.

[footey]

Could a 4 year $110 million contract do it? It's basically a 3 year $75 million extension for a guy that would be 30-33 years old in that time. Seems reasonable given his last three years.

That'd be what I do. We do have his Bird Rights, correct?

Yes, we have his Bird Rights.

That would be a commitment to go into major luxury tax territory, with the advent of Tatum going max, and Smart renewal easily approaching 15-20 mm per, no?  If they are going to delve into that territory, I think management would want to feel more confident they can compete for championships. Not sure they currently can feel confident of that, trailing the Bucks by 9 plus games! Will depend on how far we advance in playoffs. If we lose in 1st or 2nd round, I doubt we will give Hayward that big an extension, unless we feel the contract would have value in a future trade, which is kind of a dumb reason in my book.

[Walker Wiggle]

I wonder if the Celtics would be willing to give him a 4-year deal worth big money (let's say in the 30s per year), knowing that you've got one more year of Tatum on his rookie deal. That is, the real luxury tax catastrophe wouldn't kick in until after year 1 of the new Hayward deal, which would be the 2022-23 season. So at that juncture you could make a decision, with the possibility of trading Hayward with three years left on his deal a reasonable option.

[jambr380]

It was mentioned in another thread, but we will need to be under the luxury tax one more season in order for the clock to completely restart on the repeater tax penalty (3 out of 4 years - we were in it the previous 2). I would think that if the Cs are truly interested in keeping Hayward, they would do everything they can to get him re-signed on a longer term deal this off-season instead of him picking up that hefty $34M option. That would give us a little more wiggle room to maybe use the full MLE and not worry about rookie contracts pushing us over the line.

If he does simply pick up the option, we are either destined for the repeater tax in 21-22 - Tatum's 1st max year - or we will have very few options to improve the team next season.

I'd have to think Danny is thinking strongly about staying under again, but, what do I know? I thought he would do so in 18-19, too.

[LilRip]

Hayward isn’t coming cheap and it seems crazy (to me at least) that any player takes a huge hometown discount, esp. in this day and age. I mean, a bunch of us assumed that with Horford last year right?

But back to Hayward. Any team that signs him will likely improve and plus, many teams are looking for highly capable wings. Meanwhile, we have so much wing depth that losing him for nothing won’t cripple us (but it’d certainly make us worse). What “worries” me, in a way, is that we’ll likely end up paying Hayward for a price based on his value on another team. Not his value on our team.

I don’t think he’ll command max money, but I’m fairly sure it’ll be near it. Will the C’s be willing to pay him another ~33m/yr (assuming max players make about 40m/yr)?