Who are you keeping: Smart or Hayward

[tstorey_97]

Don't think we could expect much in a Smart trade.

Lord knows, might not get anything in a Hayward trade.

As a Celtics fan since the early 60's, I will always go with defense. Smart is really good with the rookies when he is on the floor.

Hayward, if we could trade him, would bring back a big and make Theis the "backup" center he is meant to be.

Smart stays....look at all the highlight reel chasing "offensive teams" in history....Red Auerbach built everything on defense and Ainge did with Kevin and will hopefully do it again with someone almost as good.

[gouki88]

Smart is my favorite player in the NBA. Hayward frustrates me as often as he impresses me. Definitely keep Smart.

It's the opposite for me. I think Smart can be incredibly frustrating to watch, far more than Hayward is. For every good defensive play he makes, he seems to follow it up with dumb shot selection and a stupid turnover from trying to be fancy.

Yeah, I too am the reverse. Infuriated as often as I'm entranced by Smart, but Hayward always pleases me to watch

[RodyTur10]

This is an important dilemma. Assuming Walker (most do, I'd look for trade offers), Brown and Tatum are staying then keeping both Smart and Hayward is probably financially unsustainable. Especially because the cap doesn't look to be increasing in the future as much as was previously projected.

There are rumours that Hayward wants to sign a 'Horford-type-of-deal', which would mean around 100/4. The question whether Hayward is worth such a contract is valid, but I think he is. Due to the salary structure of the team I'd probably wouldn't want to go higher than about 80-90 million.

But in the case the salary cap will basically stay flat in 2022 and 2023 the luxury tax will go through the roof. It will be extremely expensive if we'd resign Smart as well. We could be 25-35 million over the luxury tax cap and be paying a luxury tax of 60 to 100 million both years.

So this is a very difficult situation. On one hand I'd like to persuade Hayward to take a 85/4 descending type of deal, but on the other hand adjusted cap projections could force you to look to trade Smart or let him walk (unless you think Marcus would take a very teamfriendly 10-15 million a year and even then we could have a record breaking tax).

Kemba is a very good player and a good guy, but that contract is going to bite us in the ass. As someone has frequently argued here the signing of Walker implied the end of Hayward's tenure with the Celtics. Letting Hayward walk or sign-and-trade for a lower expiring contract would solve the tax problems though.

[jambr380]

This is an important dilemma. Assuming Walker (most do, I'd look for trade offers), Brown and Tatum are staying then keeping both Smart and Hayward is probably financially unsustainable. Especially because the cap doesn't look to be increasing in the future as much as was previously projected.

There are rumours that Hayward wants to sign a 'Horford-type-of-deal', which would mean around 100/4. The question whether Hayward is worth such a contract is valid, but I think he is. Due to the salary structure of the team I'd probably wouldn't want to go higher than about 80-90 million.

But in the case the salary cap will basically stay flat in 2022 and 2023 the luxury tax will go through the roof. It will be extremely expensive if we'd resign Smart as well. We could be 25-35 million over the luxury tax cap and be paying a luxury tax of 60 to 100 million both years.

So this is a very difficult situation. On one hand I'd like to persuade Hayward to take a 85/4 descending type of deal, but on the other hand adjusted cap projections could force you to look to trade Smart or let him walk (unless you think Marcus would take a very teamfriendly 10-15 million a year and even then we could have a record breaking tax).

Kemba is a very good player and a good guy, but that contract is going to bite us in the ass. As someone has frequently argued here the signing of Walker implied the end of Hayward's tenure with the Celtics. Letting Hayward walk or sign-and-trade for a lower expiring contract would solve the tax problems though.

I'm a fan of what a healthy Hayward brings to our team, but as a 4th or 5th option, I agree that the money we would need to pay may just not be feasible. You remove Kemba or either of the Jays and he immediately becomes worth $25-30M in a 3rd option role; but for a 5th option, a player like Joe Ingles might almost be as effective.

And this isn't a bad thing. When Hayward signed with us, he was 1B to IT's 1A. We then traded for Kyrie and Hayward slid nicely into that 2 slot. Now we have Tatum and Brown undoubtedly taking over the 1 and 2 spots w/ an All-Star starter in Kemba at 3. Things change over the course of a player's contract, and what he signed up for might not be what he had in mind when he first came here. We can always play the what-if game with the ankle injury, but that doesn't change what our future looks like moving forward. And as a 4th-5th option - even though I'd very happily take him on a discount - he is probably considered more of a luxury at this point. Although I do agree that we would need to replace that slot/option, not just let Hayward walk and hope a guy like Romeo/Semi can take his minutes.

[SteveD]

It doesn't matter what we think. Hayward and Stevens are in love, so Hayward's not going anywhere.

[mmmmm]

This is an important dilemma. Assuming Walker (most do, I'd look for trade offers), Brown and Tatum are staying then keeping both Smart and Hayward is probably financially unsustainable. Especially because the cap doesn't look to be increasing in the future as much as was previously projected.

There are rumours that Hayward wants to sign a 'Horford-type-of-deal', which would mean around 100/4. The question whether Hayward is worth such a contract is valid, but I think he is. Due to the salary structure of the team I'd probably wouldn't want to go higher than about 80-90 million.

But in the case the salary cap will basically stay flat in 2022 and 2023 the luxury tax will go through the roof. It will be extremely expensive if we'd resign Smart as well. We could be 25-35 million over the luxury tax cap and be paying a luxury tax of 60 to 100 million both years.

So this is a very difficult situation. On one hand I'd like to persuade Hayward to take a 85/4 descending type of deal, but on the other hand adjusted cap projections could force you to look to trade Smart or let him walk (unless you think Marcus would take a very teamfriendly 10-15 million a year and even then we could have a record breaking tax).

Kemba is a very good player and a good guy, but that contract is going to bite us in the ass. As someone has frequently argued here the signing of Walker implied the end of Hayward's tenure with the Celtics. Letting Hayward walk or sign-and-trade for a lower expiring contract would solve the tax problems though.

I'm not sure why the cap is such a worry here.  We aren't going to be below the cap anytime soon.  If the option between these players is to trade one of them, then we are getting salary back and we stay above the cap.  Unless it is expiring - but Haywards is already expiring.   

I agree that the more important financial concern is that keeping Hayward's (or equivalent traded-for) expiring at his current option-year level for this coming year leaves us over the tax line.

Hoping Hayward walks is the last thing we want, because while it would drop us below the tax line, we would lose his talent, and yet would still be over the cap.  That would only open up the non-taxpayer MLE (compared to the taxpayer MLE instead)-- hardly worth it.  We would have no way of replacing his talent.

The best option for Danny would be to re-sign Hayward on a new multi-year deal with a base-year-compensation in the low 20s.  Give it two 8% raises followed by a decrease in the final year(s) to ease the tax number down the road.   The dropping of the BYC by about 10M would get us under the tax line this year, which pushes off the repeater tax until 2024.  That's a huge deal.

This would keep everybody of significance under contractual control and also have both Smart and Hayward on tradable contracts if needed down the road.

For Hayward, that would lower his money this coming year -- though not by as much as it looks because of the escrow deal would eat into his current 34M significantly -- but give him long-term security.

[RodyTur10]

This is an important dilemma. Assuming Walker (most do, I'd look for trade offers), Brown and Tatum are staying then keeping both Smart and Hayward is probably financially unsustainable. Especially because the cap doesn't look to be increasing in the future as much as was previously projected.

There are rumours that Hayward wants to sign a 'Horford-type-of-deal', which would mean around 100/4. The question whether Hayward is worth such a contract is valid, but I think he is. Due to the salary structure of the team I'd probably wouldn't want to go higher than about 80-90 million.

But in the case the salary cap will basically stay flat in 2022 and 2023 the luxury tax will go through the roof. It will be extremely expensive if we'd resign Smart as well. We could be 25-35 million over the luxury tax cap and be paying a luxury tax of 60 to 100 million both years.

So this is a very difficult situation. On one hand I'd like to persuade Hayward to take a 85/4 descending type of deal, but on the other hand adjusted cap projections could force you to look to trade Smart or let him walk (unless you think Marcus would take a very teamfriendly 10-15 million a year and even then we could have a record breaking tax).

Kemba is a very good player and a good guy, but that contract is going to bite us in the ass. As someone has frequently argued here the signing of Walker implied the end of Hayward's tenure with the Celtics. Letting Hayward walk or sign-and-trade for a lower expiring contract would solve the tax problems though.

I'm not sure why the cap is such a worry here.  We aren't going to be below the cap anytime soon.  If the option between these players is to trade one of them, then we are getting salary back and we stay above the cap.  Unless it is expiring - but Haywards is already expiring.   

I agree that the more important financial concern is that keeping Hayward's (or equivalent traded-for) expiring at his current option-year level for this coming year leaves us over the tax line.

Hoping Hayward walks is the last thing we want, because while it would drop us below the tax line, we would lose his talent, and yet would still be over the cap.  That would only open up the non-taxpayer MLE (compared to the taxpayer MLE instead)-- hardly worth it.  We would have no way of replacing his talent.

The best option for Danny would be to re-sign Hayward on a new multi-year deal with a base-year-compensation in the low 20s.  Give it two 8% raises followed by a decrease in the final year(s) to ease the tax number down the road.   The dropping of the BYC by about 10M would get us under the tax line this year, which pushes off the repeater tax until 2024.  That's a huge deal.

This would keep everybody of significance under contractual control and also have both Smart and Hayward on tradable contracts if needed down the road.

For Hayward, that would lower his money this coming year -- though not by as much as it looks because of the escrow deal would eat into his current 34M significantly -- but give him long-term security.

I agree that getting us under the tax line this year to postpone the repeater tax should be a priority. But even then if you have Walker, Tatum, Brown, Hayward and Smart all under contract you're looking at a 160-170M payroll in 2023 and that will be 30M+ over the tax line if the cap doesn't increase much and that's a 80-100 million luxury tax to pay. That would be unprecedented.

Paying four players close to max contracts like the 76ers (Simmons/Harris/Horford/Embiid) are doing and the Celtics (Walker/Brown/Tatum/Hayward) could be doing is something I don't think has ever been done before and will have massive financial repercussions.

[JBcat]

If Hayward is healthy he is the better player.  Smart’s trade value may never be higher than it is now, and Hayward’s is down at the moment.  In 2 years when Smart’s contract is up he will probably be in high demand and expensive.  So I guess I’d choose to keep Hayward, but that doesn’t mean I’m looking to kick Smart out the door.  Only if we had the right trade offer I’d move him.

[mmmmm]

This is an important dilemma. Assuming Walker (most do, I'd look for trade offers), Brown and Tatum are staying then keeping both Smart and Hayward is probably financially unsustainable. Especially because the cap doesn't look to be increasing in the future as much as was previously projected.

There are rumours that Hayward wants to sign a 'Horford-type-of-deal', which would mean around 100/4. The question whether Hayward is worth such a contract is valid, but I think he is. Due to the salary structure of the team I'd probably wouldn't want to go higher than about 80-90 million.

But in the case the salary cap will basically stay flat in 2022 and 2023 the luxury tax will go through the roof. It will be extremely expensive if we'd resign Smart as well. We could be 25-35 million over the luxury tax cap and be paying a luxury tax of 60 to 100 million both years.

So this is a very difficult situation. On one hand I'd like to persuade Hayward to take a 85/4 descending type of deal, but on the other hand adjusted cap projections could force you to look to trade Smart or let him walk (unless you think Marcus would take a very teamfriendly 10-15 million a year and even then we could have a record breaking tax).

Kemba is a very good player and a good guy, but that contract is going to bite us in the ass. As someone has frequently argued here the signing of Walker implied the end of Hayward's tenure with the Celtics. Letting Hayward walk or sign-and-trade for a lower expiring contract would solve the tax problems though.

I'm not sure why the cap is such a worry here.  We aren't going to be below the cap anytime soon.  If the option between these players is to trade one of them, then we are getting salary back and we stay above the cap.  Unless it is expiring - but Haywards is already expiring.   

I agree that the more important financial concern is that keeping Hayward's (or equivalent traded-for) expiring at his current option-year level for this coming year leaves us over the tax line.

Hoping Hayward walks is the last thing we want, because while it would drop us below the tax line, we would lose his talent, and yet would still be over the cap.  That would only open up the non-taxpayer MLE (compared to the taxpayer MLE instead)-- hardly worth it.  We would have no way of replacing his talent.

The best option for Danny would be to re-sign Hayward on a new multi-year deal with a base-year-compensation in the low 20s.  Give it two 8% raises followed by a decrease in the final year(s) to ease the tax number down the road.   The dropping of the BYC by about 10M would get us under the tax line this year, which pushes off the repeater tax until 2024.  That's a huge deal.

This would keep everybody of significance under contractual control and also have both Smart and Hayward on tradable contracts if needed down the road.

For Hayward, that would lower his money this coming year -- though not by as much as it looks because of the escrow deal would eat into his current 34M significantly -- but give him long-term security.

I agree that getting us under the tax line this year to postpone the repeater tax should be a priority. But even then if you have Walker, Tatum, Brown, Hayward and Smart all under contract you're looking at a 160-170M payroll in 2023 and that will be 30M+ over the tax line if the cap doesn't increase much and that's a 80-100 million luxury tax to pay. That would be unprecedented.

Paying four players close to max contracts like the 76ers (Simmons/Harris/Horford/Embiid) are doing and the Celtics (Walker/Brown/Tatum/Hayward) could be doing is something I don't think has ever been done before and will have massive financial repercussions.

This is an important dilemma. Assuming Walker (most do, I'd look for trade offers), Brown and Tatum are staying then keeping both Smart and Hayward is probably financially unsustainable. Especially because the cap doesn't look to be increasing in the future as much as was previously projected.

There are rumours that Hayward wants to sign a 'Horford-type-of-deal', which would mean around 100/4. The question whether Hayward is worth such a contract is valid, but I think he is. Due to the salary structure of the team I'd probably wouldn't want to go higher than about 80-90 million.

But in the case the salary cap will basically stay flat in 2022 and 2023 the luxury tax will go through the roof. It will be extremely expensive if we'd resign Smart as well. We could be 25-35 million over the luxury tax cap and be paying a luxury tax of 60 to 100 million both years.

So this is a very difficult situation. On one hand I'd like to persuade Hayward to take a 85/4 descending type of deal, but on the other hand adjusted cap projections could force you to look to trade Smart or let him walk (unless you think Marcus would take a very teamfriendly 10-15 million a year and even then we could have a record breaking tax).

Kemba is a very good player and a good guy, but that contract is going to bite us in the ass. As someone has frequently argued here the signing of Walker implied the end of Hayward's tenure with the Celtics. Letting Hayward walk or sign-and-trade for a lower expiring contract would solve the tax problems though.

I'm not sure why the cap is such a worry here.  We aren't going to be below the cap anytime soon.  If the option between these players is to trade one of them, then we are getting salary back and we stay above the cap.  Unless it is expiring - but Haywards is already expiring.   

I agree that the more important financial concern is that keeping Hayward's (or equivalent traded-for) expiring at his current option-year level for this coming year leaves us over the tax line.

Hoping Hayward walks is the last thing we want, because while it would drop us below the tax line, we would lose his talent, and yet would still be over the cap.  That would only open up the non-taxpayer MLE (compared to the taxpayer MLE instead)-- hardly worth it.  We would have no way of replacing his talent.

The best option for Danny would be to re-sign Hayward on a new multi-year deal with a base-year-compensation in the low 20s.  Give it two 8% raises followed by a decrease in the final year(s) to ease the tax number down the road.   The dropping of the BYC by about 10M would get us under the tax line this year, which pushes off the repeater tax until 2024.  That's a huge deal.

This would keep everybody of significance under contractual control and also have both Smart and Hayward on tradable contracts if needed down the road.

For Hayward, that would lower his money this coming year -- though not by as much as it looks because of the escrow deal would eat into his current 34M significantly -- but give him long-term security.

I agree that getting us under the tax line this year to postpone the repeater tax should be a priority. But even then if you have Walker, Tatum, Brown, Hayward and Smart all under contract you're looking at a 160-170M payroll in 2023 and that will be 30M+ over the tax line if the cap doesn't increase much and that's a 80-100 million luxury tax to pay. That would be unprecedented.

Paying four players close to max contracts like the 76ers (Simmons/Harris/Horford/Embiid) are doing and the Celtics (Walker/Brown/Tatum/Hayward) could be doing is something I don't think has ever been done before and will have massive financial repercussions.

But so long as you can kick the repeater penalty down the road, that's manageable.  Kemba, Hayward & Smart will all be tradable contracts.   The bulk of our roster is going to be supported over the next 2-4 years on cheap rookie, minimum & mid-level deals.

After that, yes, some of those cheap support guys will need to get paid or leave.  So it's not sustainable forever.  But that just means Danny will have to morph things around the two Jays.   Trades will happen.

It's difficult to plan too far out beyond 3-4 years anyway due to the limited length of NBA contracts and the way injuries can dramatically change your personnel so quickly.

[IDreamCeltics]

It doesn't matter what we think. Hayward and Stevens are in love, so Hayward's not going anywhere.

Reliable reports have Hayward turning down the option year and leaving the Celtics.

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1jJKMahE7U

Nobody's defended Hayward more than myself, but this will make most actual Celtics fans (read: not just fans of Hayward) want to puke.  Even losing Hayward's massive salary the Celtics will still be above the cap and unable to take in any additional salary. 

After paying him as a top 5 NBA player and never getting a single all-star level performance the Celtics were on the verge of finally turning Hayward's contract into an asset - a trade asset - however it looks like he'll be taking even that away from them.

Kudos to Hayward and his team for outfoxing Danny Ainge at every turn.  Best of luck to him in Indiana or where ever his next stop is. 

. 

[nickagneta]

It's all dependent on the return. If you trade Hayward but get back no difference making players, particularly vets, that's not good. But if you trade Smart and get back a difference making vet, then that is good.

Losing either will affect the team in a small negative manner. What you get back that improves the team is the important aspect of trading either.

I like Hayward as a player more than Smart but if trading Gordon for pieces make the Celtics better....trade him. Same goes for Smart.

[RodyTur10]

All right, this guy thought it through and came to the conclusion that opting out makes sense for Hayward, because according to him teams like Atlanta could take a risk on Hayward and offer him 10 to 15 million annual salary on a longterm contract and that could be appealing to Hayward instead of picking up the 34M player option since then he can't control his destination as an obvious trading piece for the Celtics.

No way Hayward is leaving that much money on the table. Regardless if he's unhappy in Boston or really feels he'd be traded (I'd do it) if he just opts in.

Edit: apparently a lot of neutral NBA fans seem to think that Hayward's market value is around 15M a year due to injury concerns. If that were true I'd have a long talk with Gordon to convince him that Boston is still the right place for him because I'd instantly resign him if he agreed to 70/4 or less.

[SteveD]

All right, this guy thought it through and came to the conclusion that opting out makes sense for Hayward, because according to him teams like Atlanta could take a risk on Hayward and offer him 10 to 15 million annual salary on a longterm contract and that could be appealing to Hayward instead of picking up the 34M player option since then he can't control his destination as an obvious trading piece for the Celtics.

No way Hayward is leaving that much money on the table. Regardless if he's unhappy in Boston or really feels he'd be traded (I'd do it) if he just opts in.

Edit: apparently a lot of neutral NBA fans seem to think that Hayward's market value is around 15M a year due to injury concerns. If that were true I'd have a long talk with Gordon to convince him that Boston is still the right place for him because I'd instantly resign him if he agreed to 70/4 or less.

This is very interesting trying to place an accurate value on Hayward. I think he's worth maybe 3 years/60 million.