Jaylen Brown was offered 4 years $80M

[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.

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.

So? They still took four draft picks. That about as "rebuilding" as you can get.

[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.

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.

Yep letting Doc go was a disaster. All they did was end up replacing him with Brad Stevens who before last year many thought was the best coach in the NBA.

Ainge traded IT after his sister died, Ainge will trade anybody if it makes the team better.

And just to be clear, none f us actually know that trading Hayward would upset Stevens. Thats an assumption we just dont know.

[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.

So? They still took four draft picks. That about as "rebuilding" as you can get.

Not necessarily.

You don't give a player, Kemba, 34m per year, so that you can rebuild.

If a team spends that kind of money, that means the team is gunning for a playoff run.

When the Celts were rebuilding in 2013, Ainge never went after big name free-agents in 2013, 2014, and 2015.

It was only in 2016 that Ainge started going after big name free-agents.

If Celts wanted a rebuild, they would not have signed Kemba.
Celts would just have to give Brown the max and build around Tatum and Brown.

[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.

Yep letting Doc go was a disaster. All they did was end up replacing him with Brad Stevens who before last year many thought was the best coach in the NBA.

Ainge traded IT after his sister died, Ainge will trade anybody if it makes the team better.

And just to be clear, none f us actually know that trading Hayward would upset Stevens. Thats an assumption we just dont know.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

It's not like Ainge didn't try to hold on to Doc.
In fact, the Celts asked for a draft pick from the Clips because they stole Doc from the Celts.

And IT was traded because he was damaged goods.

Ainge would not have traded IT if IT was healthy.

Also, we already saw evidence from last season that part of the Celtics problem was Brad giving Hayward special treatment.
That already gives you a preview of the Brad-Hayward relationship.

[Somebody]

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.

Why would a team offer "significant value" if they have the ability to pay him? Also, if the whole HK/China thing does cost the league a lot of money, then that number of teams will dwindle even further.

For example, a team like the Cavs know they can offer Brown the max.

But will the Cavs risk losing out on Brown in free-agency?

By trading for Brown now, you have the right to match.

If you wait for the summer, it will come down to the highest bidder and the risk of the Celtics matching.

What would the Cavs offer?

And yes, I think the Cavs would be fine with taking that risk.

An offer like Tristan Thompson, who has an expiring contract, and a protected pick would be a good trade for the Celts.

That would help the Celts in the short-term.

A compromise would be if the Celts are not in a position to go far in the playoffs, no need to trade Brown.

But if the Celts are in a position to go deep in the playoffs this season, Ainge must upgrade the team because 2020 could be the season the Celts will return to the Finals.

Wow it's somehow even worse than what I guessed LOL

[Kuberski33]

I really think the strategy here is very straightforward. After this season you evaluate Jaylen, Tatum and Hayward (if he stays) and decide which 2 of those 3 give you the best value over the next 3-4 years moving forward.

Then you address the 4-5 situation.

I'm all for not paying $30 million to a 13-15 ppg scorer.  This team has had some bad overpays in the past that looked like OK deals when they were made - fortunately not on Danny's watch.

[blink]

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.

I agree 100% with you.  I don't think there is anything for sure with Gordon and the C's in the future.  The C's have done right by him, and it he doesn't improve a lot this year I don't think there is anyway the C's are giving him the max no matter what.  I think DA will end up paying Jaylen what he needs to pay him to keep a Celtic, and he will pay Tatum the same.

[vjcsmoke]

Could you sign him for fewer years at similar dollars?  For example 3/63?  It would get him to free agency a year sooner.
Then again we could give him the RFA tender for 8.5m next year and he wouldn't be able to get a max deal until 2021.
A bridge 3 year contract might not be bad for Brown and the Celtics.

[Somebody]

Could you sign him for fewer years at similar dollars?  For example 3/63?  It would get him to free agency a year sooner.
Then again we could give him the RFA tender for 8.5m next year and he wouldn't be able to get a max deal until 2021.
A bridge 3 year contract might not be bad for Brown and the Celtics.

That's even more unattractive for Brown. Why would he accept less money for a shorter period of time? If anything he'd want the 4 year rookie extension so he gets the chance to opt out for the 7 year max or opt in if he doesn't reach his potential for some weird reason. The Celtics aren't going to get away with anything less than 24-27M per annum for Brown in a 3+PO deal.

[Moranis]

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.

But it was a unique circumstance and not Rozier's actual value.  Everyone knows this.  And yes Rozier is worse than Brown, but let's not pretend Brown has shown even all star potential.  He hasn't.  At least not on a basketball court for any extended period of time.  He had a nice run a couple of seasons back in the playoffs (though Rozier was right there with him), but he has never really strung it together for long stretches of time.

Yeah, everyone is aware of that, but I also think everyone is pretty aware of the fact that letting Brown go for nothing is stupid asset management. I get if people want to trade him to try and balance the roster more (for a big-man, for example), but letting him walk for nothing would be foolish in my book.

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

Hield is also a much better offensive player and offense is more important than defense.  Right now, Hield is worth more than Brown.  Now maybe Brown takes a huge leap and puts his offensive game together better and surpasses Hield, or maybe he is who has been for the last couple of seasons i.e. a good defender who is incredibly inconsistent on offense.

I'm completely okay with putting my money on the guy who is 4 years younger, with a better athletic profile, who has also shown offensive poise in the playoffs.

Brown is a restricted free agent.  They don't have to lose him for nothing. 

[Celtics4ever]

Honestly, I think it was  a fair offer, Brown is not a max player.

[Somebody]

Honestly, I think it was  a fair offer, Brown is not a max player.

He's also not worth so little that he should be earning Rozier money. Even if he doesn't improve much he's worth around 24-27M depending on how the soft cap fluctuates, a few million below the max.

[Celtics4ever]

He's also not worth so little that he should be earning Rozier money. Even if he doesn't progress much he's worth around 24-27M depending on how the soft cap fluctuates, a few million below the max.

But only a fool would give his top offer as the initial one, right?

[jambr380]

Hindsight is always 20/20.

It's not like Ainge didn't try to hold on to Doc.
In fact, the Celts asked for a draft pick from the Clips because they stole Doc from the Celts.

And IT was traded because he was damaged goods.

Ainge would not have traded IT if IT was healthy.

Also, we already saw evidence from last season that part of the Celtics problem was Brad giving Hayward special treatment.
That already gives you a preview of the Brad-Hayward relationship.

I know this isn't the point of the thread, but this narrative has always bothered me. I get that Hayward was coming off of a major injury, but he was hardly given special treatment. Any coach of any team that had signed a max FA entering his prime would give that player some level of preference and let them ease back in with heavy rotation minutes. It has a lot more to do with Rozier and Morris(?) being babies than with this special Stevens/Hayward bond.

[Somebody]

He's also not worth so little that he should be earning Rozier money. Even if he doesn't progress much he's worth around 24-27M depending on how the soft cap fluctuates, a few million below the max.

But only a fool would give his top offer as the initial one, right?

For sure, but only a fool would lowball a young player who's part of the team's young core by 25-35% in an initial offer.