There's no need to be worried about CBA changes yet

[BitterJim]

Right now, we have the following players under contract:

Tatum
Brown
Brogdon
Smart
White
Williams III
Horford
Gallinari
Pritchard
Muscula
Kornet
Champagnie
Hauser

Those salaries, plus the dead cap hit of Demetrius Jackson, total $166,144,883.  That's only $4,144,883 above the tax. 

If we waive Kornet and Champagnie, that saves roughly $4 million (I'm not sure how much of Kornet's guaranteed amount is).

So, with the following roster, we'd be at right about the tax line:

Tatum
Brown
Brogdon
Smart
White
Williams III
Horford
Gallinari
Pritchard
Muscula
Kornet
Champagnie
Hauser

We'd be approximately $16.5 million below the "second apron", with 11 players under contract.  We'd need to fill out at least three spots.  And, if we trade Pritchard, we'd save another $4 million, and would have $20.5 million below the second apron to fill out four spots. 

(Note:  this is largely theoretical, because most, if not all, of the penalties regarding the second apron don't come into affect yet.)

Now, all that said, what we do with Grant Williams will decide whether we're comfortably below the second apron, or if we're close to it.  If Grant plays for his $8.5 qualifying offer, we're golden.  If he receives closer to his cap hold -- $12.9 million -- it's a finer shave.

Personally, I think the team might be better off trading Grant if he won't play for the QO (which he likely wouldn't).  We'd then have plenty of room to use the Taxpayer MLE to add somebody to the rotation.

Who do you see us getting in return for Grant that would be better than keeping him (after adding a taxpayer-MLE player)? We would have to sign-and-trade him (which would hard cap the team acquiring him), and how many teams 1. want to pay him significantly more than us, 2. don't have the cap space to sign him outright, and 3. want to give up a useful player to bring him in?

I think we can all agree that Grant is more useful than anyone we could sign with the taxpayer MLE. And others might not agree, but I think it would take more than 2 mini-MLE level players to offset Grant. Can we get back a player above the level of the mini-MLE in a Grant sign-and-trade?

In the future, if the team is worried about chunk salaries harming our financial flexibility, Grant would seem to be a guy who is replaceable.

Personally, I'm fine with the backup PF being Muscula and/or Gallo.  I'd be inclined to move him for an expiring contract / TPE and a #2.  Or, if he didn't take the QO and there was no S&T in place, I'd let him walk unless he was signed to a bargain contract.

Between Muscula, Gallo and a TMLE guy, I think we can more than adequately replace Williams.

That prevents us from filling the hole at wing, though. Unless he gets a super high contract, I'd rather see us re-sign him and use the mini-MLE on a backup wing (which we've needed for a long time). As long as Grant's salary isn't ridiculous, we'd be able to use him as a tradable asset for him later. He might not be worth a first, but a second+a TPE would be an awful return

[DefenseWinsChamps]

CBA changes, from what I understand, don't go into full effect this year. From what I've heard, the main "penalty" for 2nd apron offenders this year is the tax-payer MLE.

It'd be more worth it to keep Grant at whatever his price tag is this year than to let him walk so we can use a tax-payer MLE on a player that likely won't be as good.

The main problem is next year when Brown's new contract kicks in. I'm a proponent of making trades this year only if it makes our team better and ignoring the new CBA changes for this year. Then next year, we will need to figure stuff out.

In other words, forget the cap issues and go all-in this year. If staying with our current roster is the best option to win in 2023-2024, then fine. If consolidating our guards for a better player will help us win better, great. Go all-in one more year. Make the best use of Brown's good contract for one more year. Then figure it out moving forward.

[Kernewek]

CBA changes, from what I understand, don't go into full effect this year. From what I've heard, the main "penalty" for 2nd apron offenders this year is the tax-payer MLE.

It'd be more worth it to keep Grant at whatever his price tag is this year than to let him walk so we can use a tax-payer MLE on a player that likely won't be as good.

The main problem is next year when Brown's new contract kicks in. I'm a proponent of making trades this year only if it makes our team better and ignoring the new CBA changes for this year. Then next year, we will need to figure stuff out.

In other words, forget the cap issues and go all-in this year. If staying with our current roster is the best option to win in 2023-2024, then fine. If consolidating our guards for a better player will help us win better, great. Go all-in one more year. Make the best use of Brown's good contract for one more year. Then figure it out moving forward.

The new CBA comes into effect on July 1st.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

CBA changes, from what I understand, don't go into full effect this year. From what I've heard, the main "penalty" for 2nd apron offenders this year is the tax-payer MLE.

It'd be more worth it to keep Grant at whatever his price tag is this year than to let him walk so we can use a tax-payer MLE on a player that likely won't be as good.

The main problem is next year when Brown's new contract kicks in. I'm a proponent of making trades this year only if it makes our team better and ignoring the new CBA changes for this year. Then next year, we will need to figure stuff out.

In other words, forget the cap issues and go all-in this year. If staying with our current roster is the best option to win in 2023-2024, then fine. If consolidating our guards for a better player will help us win better, great. Go all-in one more year. Make the best use of Brown's good contract for one more year. Then figure it out moving forward.

The new CBA comes into effect on July 1st.

Yes, I know. But I also have heard there's a ramp up for the new 2nd apron "penalties." The only one this year from what I've heard is the loss of the tax payer MLE. Future years they will have the additional penalties.

[Roy H.]

Right now, we have the following players under contract:

Tatum
Brown
Brogdon
Smart
White
Williams III
Horford
Gallinari
Pritchard
Muscula
Kornet
Champagnie
Hauser

Those salaries, plus the dead cap hit of Demetrius Jackson, total $166,144,883.  That's only $4,144,883 above the tax. 

If we waive Kornet and Champagnie, that saves roughly $4 million (I'm not sure how much of Kornet's guaranteed amount is).

So, with the following roster, we'd be at right about the tax line:

Tatum
Brown
Brogdon
Smart
White
Williams III
Horford
Gallinari
Pritchard
Muscula
Kornet
Champagnie
Hauser

We'd be approximately $16.5 million below the "second apron", with 11 players under contract.  We'd need to fill out at least three spots.  And, if we trade Pritchard, we'd save another $4 million, and would have $20.5 million below the second apron to fill out four spots. 

(Note:  this is largely theoretical, because most, if not all, of the penalties regarding the second apron don't come into affect yet.)

Now, all that said, what we do with Grant Williams will decide whether we're comfortably below the second apron, or if we're close to it.  If Grant plays for his $8.5 qualifying offer, we're golden.  If he receives closer to his cap hold -- $12.9 million -- it's a finer shave.

Personally, I think the team might be better off trading Grant if he won't play for the QO (which he likely wouldn't).  We'd then have plenty of room to use the Taxpayer MLE to add somebody to the rotation.

Who do you see us getting in return for Grant that would be better than keeping him (after adding a taxpayer-MLE player)? We would have to sign-and-trade him (which would hard cap the team acquiring him), and how many teams 1. want to pay him significantly more than us, 2. don't have the cap space to sign him outright, and 3. want to give up a useful player to bring him in?

I think we can all agree that Grant is more useful than anyone we could sign with the taxpayer MLE. And others might not agree, but I think it would take more than 2 mini-MLE level players to offset Grant. Can we get back a player above the level of the mini-MLE in a Grant sign-and-trade?

In the future, if the team is worried about chunk salaries harming our financial flexibility, Grant would seem to be a guy who is replaceable.

Personally, I'm fine with the backup PF being Muscula and/or Gallo.  I'd be inclined to move him for an expiring contract / TPE and a #2.  Or, if he didn't take the QO and there was no S&T in place, I'd let him walk unless he was signed to a bargain contract.

Between Muscula, Gallo and a TMLE guy, I think we can more than adequately replace Williams.

That prevents us from filling the hole at wing, though. Unless he gets a super high contract, I'd rather see us re-sign him and use the mini-MLE on a backup wing (which we've needed for a long time). As long as Grant's salary isn't ridiculous, we'd be able to use him as a tradable asset for him later. He might not be worth a first, but a second+a TPE would be an awful return

Let's say Grant gets $12m per year.  Spotrac has the TMLE at $5 million, so maybe that's accurate; last year it was $6.479 million.

Combining those puts us along with filling out the rest of the roster probably puts us above the Second Apron.  I'm not sure if it's completely clear how we'd be affected in 2023, but one concept is a repeater penalty.  So, even if this is a phase in year, there could be consequences.

But more importantly, Grant is just a redundancy, and I don't think it's a given that his contract will be easily tradeable going forward, particularly if he stays stagnant again.  Per possession, he declined both offensively and defensively from last year, and lost his role in the rotation for awhile.  His most memorable moments from the season are getting curb-stomped by Embiid and jawing with Jimmy Butler. 

If he has another slight decline or remains the same, what team in 2024 is going to want to take on an undersized tweener with relatively low production who runs his mouth a lot?

If people are worried about future CBA complications now, our options are trade Grant, let him walk, or sign him to a bargain contract.  Anything close to the discussed "market value" is too dangerous, as it will require harsher changes going forward.

[keevsnick]

All of this is well and good, but the CBA concerns haven't really ever been about this coming season.

When you see people saying the C's might need to dump Brogdon they aren't doing so because the second apron is an issue next year. There's actually not even much reason to stay below the second apron next year, most of the 2nd apron penalties don't actually kick in until the 24-25 season. The only penalties fort next year are a bigger tax payment and losing the MLE.

The issue is AFTER next year. If you bring back Grant at about 12-16 million, give Jaylen the 35% max and roll it forward all of a sudden you are likely above the second apron for 24-25 when the stiff monetary and team building penalties kick in. The worry is at that point it will likely be more difficult to dump a salary like Brogdon if there are multiple teams trying to get below the 2nd apron. You may end up having to pay draft capital just to get off the money. The thinking is its better to get ahead of that and do the move this year when maybe you can move his for value, or at east as a neutral asset, rather than risk getting screwed a year from now.

[Roy H.]

All of this is well and good, but the CBA concerns haven't really ever been about this coming season.

When you see people saying the C's might need to dump Brogdon they aren't doing so because the second apron is an issue next year. There's actually not even much reason to stay below the second apron next year, most of the 2nd apron penalties don't actually kick in until the 24-25 season. The only penalties fort next year are a bigger tax payment and losing the MLE.

The issue is AFTER next year. If you bring back Grant at about 12-16 million, give Jaylen the 35% max and roll it forward all of a sudden you are likely above the second apron for 24-25 when the stiff monetary and team building penalties kick in. The worry is at that point it will likely be more difficult to dump a salary like Brogdon if there are multiple teams trying to get below the 2nd apron. You may end up having to pay draft capital just to get off the money. The thinking is its better to get ahead of that and do the move this year when maybe you can move his for value, or at east as a neutral asset, rather than risk getting screwed a year from now.

Why would we trade Brogdon over Grant?

[keevsnick]

All of this is well and good, but the CBA concerns haven't really ever been about this coming season.

When you see people saying the C's might need to dump Brogdon they aren't doing so because the second apron is an issue next year. There's actually not even much reason to stay below the second apron next year, most of the 2nd apron penalties don't actually kick in until the 24-25 season. The only penalties fort next year are a bigger tax payment and losing the MLE.

The issue is AFTER next year. If you bring back Grant at about 12-16 million, give Jaylen the 35% max and roll it forward all of a sudden you are likely above the second apron for 24-25 when the stiff monetary and team building penalties kick in. The worry is at that point it will likely be more difficult to dump a salary like Brogdon if there are multiple teams trying to get below the 2nd apron. You may end up having to pay draft capital just to get off the money. The thinking is its better to get ahead of that and do the move this year when maybe you can move his for value, or at east as a neutral asset, rather than risk getting screwed a year from now.

Why would we trade Brogdon over Grant?

The thinking would be that there's more redundancy at guard between White/Smart/Brogdon than there is a the wing/swing position. Also Brogdon is going to in all likelihood make more money per year (22.5 next two years) than Grant, and is significantly older with a fairly extensive injury history. His contract seems less likely to hold value going forward. All of that would seem to make it a better plan to get Grant back on a mid teens level contract and deal Brogdon before you get pressured into having to dump it at a cost.

But obviously you can make counter arguments to that. Brogdon is a good player. It just doesn't seem likely that both those guys are back next year and maybe even neither neither by end of summer 25' when Tatum's extension kicks in. A lot will just depend on how unknowable market forces shake out. What offers does Grant  get? What's the market for Brogdon? Does the team think Pritchard or JD Davidson can be a decent enough third guard at a tiny fraction of Brogdon's price? Who do they draft? Ect.

To be clear I'm not saying I think they SHOULD trade Brogdon, I'm just giving you the rationale for it. I think its totally possible the c's run it back and hope they can move somebody next summer, after all they have a title window right now. But it is a risk. It might depend on what they can get back for him now.

[obnoxiousmime]

Brogdon's a better offensive player than White, but White showed enough this year to solidify his role as a starter or sixth man. While we still could use Brogdon as a bench scorer, his defensive limitations hurt in the playoffs and he never actually was used as a playmaker that we thought would help Brown/Tatum, for whatever reason. A move for a player with size, whether it be a reliable big or hybrid PF/big wing, is now a bigger priority than a bench scoring guard since Horford is rapidly declining.

There's also the case to be made that the Cs were relatively lucky to have a mostly healthy Brogdon season and that you're playing with fire if you keep him. If he has a more serious injury and his value tanks, you might be stuck another year with him when Brown's new deal kicks in.

[Roy H.]

All of this is well and good, but the CBA concerns haven't really ever been about this coming season.

When you see people saying the C's might need to dump Brogdon they aren't doing so because the second apron is an issue next year. There's actually not even much reason to stay below the second apron next year, most of the 2nd apron penalties don't actually kick in until the 24-25 season. The only penalties fort next year are a bigger tax payment and losing the MLE.

The issue is AFTER next year. If you bring back Grant at about 12-16 million, give Jaylen the 35% max and roll it forward all of a sudden you are likely above the second apron for 24-25 when the stiff monetary and team building penalties kick in. The worry is at that point it will likely be more difficult to dump a salary like Brogdon if there are multiple teams trying to get below the 2nd apron. You may end up having to pay draft capital just to get off the money. The thinking is its better to get ahead of that and do the move this year when maybe you can move his for value, or at east as a neutral asset, rather than risk getting screwed a year from now.

Why would we trade Brogdon over Grant?

The thinking would be that there's more redundancy at guard between White/Smart/Brogdon than there is a the wing/swing position. Also Brogdon is going to in all likelihood make more money per year (22.5 next two years) than Grant, and is significantly older with a fairly extensive injury history. His contract seems less likely to hold value going forward. All of that would seem to make it a better plan to get Grant back on a mid teens level contract and deal Brogdon before you get pressured into having to dump it at a cost.

But obviously you can make counter arguments to that. Brogdon is a good player. It just doesn't seem likely that both those guys are back next year and maybe even neither neither by end of summer 25' when Tatum's extension kicks in. A lot will just depend on how unknowable market forces shake out. What offers does Grant  get? What's the market for Brogdon? Does the team think Pritchard or JD Davidson can be a decent enough third guard at a tiny fraction of Brogdon's price? Who do they draft? Ect.

To be clear I'm not saying I think they SHOULD trade Brogdon, I'm just giving you the rationale for it. I think its totally possible the c's run it back and hope they can move somebody next summer, after all they have a title window right now. But it is a risk. It might depend on what they can get back for him now.

Yes, my counter-argument is that Brogdon is a very good player, and Grant Williams isn't, haha.  Grant is an 8th or 9th man, and Brogdon is starting caliber on a good contract.

[RodyTur10]

All of this is well and good, but the CBA concerns haven't really ever been about this coming season.

When you see people saying the C's might need to dump Brogdon they aren't doing so because the second apron is an issue next year. There's actually not even much reason to stay below the second apron next year, most of the 2nd apron penalties don't actually kick in until the 24-25 season. The only penalties fort next year are a bigger tax payment and losing the MLE.

The issue is AFTER next year. If you bring back Grant at about 12-16 million, give Jaylen the 35% max and roll it forward all of a sudden you are likely above the second apron for 24-25 when the stiff monetary and team building penalties kick in. The worry is at that point it will likely be more difficult to dump a salary like Brogdon if there are multiple teams trying to get below the 2nd apron. You may end up having to pay draft capital just to get off the money. The thinking is its better to get ahead of that and do the move this year when maybe you can move his for value, or at east as a neutral asset, rather than risk getting screwed a year from now.

Why would we trade Brogdon over Grant?

The thinking would be that there's more redundancy at guard between White/Smart/Brogdon than there is a the wing/swing position. Also Brogdon is going to in all likelihood make more money per year (22.5 next two years) than Grant, and is significantly older with a fairly extensive injury history. His contract seems less likely to hold value going forward. All of that would seem to make it a better plan to get Grant back on a mid teens level contract and deal Brogdon before you get pressured into having to dump it at a cost.

But obviously you can make counter arguments to that. Brogdon is a good player. It just doesn't seem likely that both those guys are back next year and maybe even neither neither by end of summer 25' when Tatum's extension kicks in. A lot will just depend on how unknowable market forces shake out. What offers does Grant  get? What's the market for Brogdon? Does the team think Pritchard or JD Davidson can be a decent enough third guard at a tiny fraction of Brogdon's price? Who do they draft? Ect.

To be clear I'm not saying I think they SHOULD trade Brogdon, I'm just giving you the rationale for it. I think its totally possible the c's run it back and hope they can move somebody next summer, after all they have a title window right now. But it is a risk. It might depend on what they can get back for him now.

Yes, my counter-argument is that Brogdon is a very good player, and Grant Williams isn't, haha.  Grant is an 8th or 9th man, and Brogdon is starting caliber on a good contract.

Indeed and I think few people will disagree with your assertion. Grant isn't going to be an average starting wing.
With the new CBA we're probably going back to the salary structures of a decade ago. Where the stars get paid, a smaller middle class and the rest on small contracts.

For your 7-10th best players of your roster they're were paying about 3-6% of the cap. So if you wanna keep Grant then you go in the 4-8 million range. Pay him more than that and you can be sure that you'll have a liability on your sheet and not an asset.

[Celtics4ever]

Why would we trade Brogdon over Grant?

We wouldn't

[obnoxiousmime]

I don't know why you guys are not including injury risk, contract size, and the current roster situation as part of the equation here. Of course all things being equal, Brogdon is a better player than Grant. Nobody would ever dispute that.

I would love to deal Grant (sign and trade?) for a more traditional 4 with height, but it's just not common to deal guys straight up for each other when they play similar positions. It just seems logical that Brogdon is the piece that might be good trade bait for that, and finding a guard that can score a little bit for cheap feels more do-able.

[cman88]

Besides monetary penalties doesn't the new CBA penalties basically just limit how these spending teams can improve? i.e. no use of the MLE and no buyout candidates? and all you can do is offer vet min contracts?

so I really dont see why you get rid of grant or Brogdon to keep an MLE to get someone who might not even be as good as either of them.

In the end if it was in effect today I read we wouldn't have Gallo (didn't play anyway) and wouldn't have signed Muscala (didn't do anything anyway).

So honestly other than monetary penalties If you are bucks or Celtics or sixers it just becomes more important in the future to just develop your own talent and guys like Hauser into producers and role-players. And identifying good trades and undervalued guys.

[Celtics2021]

Besides monetary penalties doesn't the new CBA penalties basically just no use of the MLE and no buyout candidates?

In the end if it was in effect we wouldn't have Gallo (didn't play anyway) and wouldn't have signed muscala (didn't do anything anyway).

So honestly other than monetary penalties If you are bucks or Celtics or sixers it just becomes more important to just develop your own talent and guys like Hauser into producers and roleplayers. And identifying good trades and undervalued guys.

It makes trades more difficult, because you can no longer aggregate salaries to bring back players, nor take back more in salary than you send, nor send out 1sts quite as far into the future.  There is also a draft pick penalty.  That said, I generally agree that if you have a title contending team, the new rules merely make it a little more difficult to figure out how best to allocate salary to someone in the 8-10th spot of your rotation.  Most teams at that salary aren't making blockbuster moves to get them to a title -- they've already made those moves in getting them to that salary threshold to begin with.