Master "win later" plan

[Chris]

Small quibble with the Cleveland trade.  If the C's trade for Bynum, I think they would hold on to him, not cut him, unless the trade put them over the luxury tax.  While saving Wyc $6 million is nice, having Bynum's non-guaranteed deal to trade of draft night is much better.  That would be a very valuable asset at that point.

Having the ability to absorb 35 million in salary makes that irrelevant.   Teams would rather get back a trade exception that they could actually use.  You get what I'm saying?

You can't absorb it on draft night though, and that is where the contract is so valuable.  On draft night, we would still be over the cap, because Gordon, Humphries, etc. etc. would still be on the cap for this year.  We would be going into draft night with a ton of assets, but no contracts to trade.

I am not a fan of a longterm rebuild.  I could get on board with a complete blow-up, but only if it also leads to a quick reload with all of the accumulated assets, and other than the trade deadline and the first day of free agency, the best day to rebuild a team is on draft day, via trades.

If we have Bynum's non-guaranteed contract to combine with draft picks and a young guy or two, we would be a player for any impact player who is on the market.  OR we could take on a salary for next year from a team that wants to dump it (perhaps a team that wants to be a player in the free agent market), and get an extra asset or two for our troubles.  You can't do that if you cut Bynum. 

[LarBrd33]

If the "rent cap space" thing isn't making sense for people, I'll try to explain it better.

Doing these trades would dump all of our salary commitments.  We'd be left with something like 23 million on the books dedicated to rookie contract players like Sully, Oly, MKG, Biyombo, Waiters... and our huge 2014 tanked #1 pick.  We'd have roughly 35 million dollars in cap space.

The Lakers are looking at roughly 23 million in cap space.  Enough to sign Melo, but not much else.  Steve Nash makes 10 million next year.  Perhaps if they could rid themselves of Steve Nash, they could sign 2 impact players with the 33 million in cap space.   So perhaps they say, "Boston... please take Nash off our hands... we'll give you a protected 1st rounder for your trouble".  Since Boston would have 35 million dollars in cap space, they'd have no trouble absorbing Nash's salary.    OF course, this would facilitate the Lakers signing two max contracts stars, but you get the point.

Or the Bulls for example. They are on Melo's short list.  Maybe the Bulls desperately want to sign Melo as a free agent, but they unfortunately have no cap space.  If only someone would absorb Boozer's 16 million in salary next season...  Maybe they give up a late 1st rounder to do it.

Or the THunder... what if they get over the luxury tax and need to get under it.  Maybe they are sick of paying Perk 10 mil a year to rot.  If only someone would absorb Perk's 10 million in salary... maybe they'd give up a late 1st rounder to do it.

Stuff like that is plausible.  And since all those contracts are expiring... they really have no effect on Boston's big picture.  You just stick the bum on your bench for a year and let him expire.

[LarBrd33]

Small quibble with the Cleveland trade.  If the C's trade for Bynum, I think they would hold on to him, not cut him, unless the trade put them over the luxury tax.  While saving Wyc $6 million is nice, having Bynum's non-guaranteed deal to trade of draft night is much better.  That would be a very valuable asset at that point.

Having the ability to absorb 35 million in salary makes that irrelevant.   Teams would rather get back a trade exception that they could actually use.  You get what I'm saying?

You can't absorb it on draft night though, and that is where the contract is so valuable.

Yeah that doesn't matter.  Teams wouldn't be looking to desperately free up salary until free agency began.  And at that point, Boston's 35 million in cap space would become very appealing for teams that actually stand a shot at landing the LeBrons and Melos of the world.   Granted, theoretically Boston itself would have enough cap space to sign 2 max superstars... but more likely those guys want to go to destinations like the Lakers.

But I mean... having 35 mil in cap space could come in super handy for trades if you're targeting a super-star.  Say Minnesota decides they have no shot at resigning Love in the summer of 2015.  Offer them Sully and some picks straight up for Love.  Sully makes 2 mil.  Love makes like 18 mil.  We'd have no trouble absorbing Love's salary... which makes trading with us appealing since they'd gain a fatty trade exception from us.

[Chris]

Small quibble with the Cleveland trade.  If the C's trade for Bynum, I think they would hold on to him, not cut him, unless the trade put them over the luxury tax.  While saving Wyc $6 million is nice, having Bynum's non-guaranteed deal to trade of draft night is much better.  That would be a very valuable asset at that point.

Having the ability to absorb 35 million in salary makes that irrelevant.   Teams would rather get back a trade exception that they could actually use.  You get what I'm saying?

You can't absorb it on draft night though, and that is where the contract is so valuable.

Yeah that doesn't matter.  Teams wouldn't be looking to desperately free up salary until free agency began.  And at that point, Boston's 35 million in cap space would become very appealing for teams that actually stand a shot at landing the LeBrons and Melos of the world.   Granted, theoretically Boston itself would have enough cap space to sign 2 max superstars... but more likely those guys want to go to destinations like the Lakers.

It absolutely matters.  Draft night is when trades are made, and trades are the best way for the C's to reload, since as you say, they are not a prime free agent location...particularly after trading away their best players.

In this scenario, the C's will go into draft night with 2 first rounders this year (at least), and a number of solid young prospects, as well as another handful of draft picks in future drafts.  One of the picks this year would also be a mid to high lottery pick. 

If the guy they want is not on the board when they are picking, that pick, along with Bynum's contract would make for a very good start to a trade for an All-Star caliber player.  A trade that would be harder to do after draft night. 

And yes, teams would be looking to desperately free up salary before free agency begins, because the longer they wait, the more of a premium they have to pay, and it begins to become cost prohibitive. 

So, for example, if the Lakers wanted to dump Nash on Draft night, they might be willing to give up their 2014 pick to do it, and there would be very few teams in the position the C's would be to make that deal happen. 

[BballTim]

I don't see the point of gutting the roster to clear cap room to try and attract a FA to come play with Waiters, Sullinger, and a top pick.

I prefer the situation more as it stands now, and don't see moving Wallace's contract as really all that much of a priority given the state of the franchise.

And I like our chance of landing a top pick as is.

In that situation, you probably wouldn't attract a superstar free agent, but teams rarely do.   You'd use the flexibility in other ways. You'd use your insane amount of cap space to rent out cap room for draft picks.  Teams would unload their bad contracts on us and give us draft picks to do it.  That's what the Thunder did.  You could also take on lopsided salary.  Send out Oly's 2 mil for a player making 8 mil.  Tons of flexibility.  Since you have cap room, teams have incentive to trade with you, because you can absorb contracts and send back trade exceptions.

Granted, you would likely end up with a top 5 pick in this draft... who is probably going to be the cornerstone of your franchise.  Along with the #20 pick from Atlanta.  + all those MANY picks coming up over the next 5 years... you'll have plenty of shots to nab talent organically and grow them up through the system with Brad Stevens leadership.

Summer plan:  In order to get above the minimun salary floor,  Sign Paul Pierce as a free agent.  If you can't land a stud with your 35 mil in cap space (lance stephensen, for example)... give Paul 5-6 mil to come off our bench and be a leader.   Do you still have 30 mil in cap space left?... Tell the Nets we'll take KG's salary off their hands for a draft pick.   Kg and a 1st to the Celtics for a 2nd rounder.  By next year, KG is basically going to be useless.  Just a towel-waiver who makes 12 million dollars.  Kg and Paul can retire as Boston Celtics. 

  Good plan, burn the franchise to the ground in order to try and convince PP and KG to come back. Good luck trying to get KG to sign on with that flotsam. In fact I'd be fairly surprised if PP even considered it, opting to go to a contender and signing that one day contract when the time came.

Timmy, it has nothing to do with KG and Pierce.  I threw that in to be silly.  You'd do these trades to bring in some young assets, develop your young assets, bottom out for a superstar pick, free up 35 million in cap space that you can use in a multitude of ways.

  You say "bottom out for a superstar pick" like you're going to get a superstar if you bottom out. That doesn't happen very often. We're not desperate enough for the Hail Mary play yet.

[BballTim]

If the "rent cap space" thing isn't making sense for people, I'll try to explain it better.

Doing these trades would dump all of our salary commitments.  We'd be left with something like 23 million on the books dedicated to rookie contract players like Sully, Oly, MKG, Biyombo, Waiters... and our huge 2014 tanked #1 pick.  We'd have roughly 35 million dollars in cap space.

The Lakers are looking at roughly 23 million in cap space.  Enough to sign Melo, but not much else.  Steve Nash makes 10 million next year.  Perhaps if they could rid themselves of Steve Nash, they could sign 2 impact players with the 33 million in cap space.   So perhaps they say, "Boston... please take Nash off our hands... we'll give you a protected 1st rounder for your trouble".  Since Boston would have 35 million dollars in cap space, they'd have no trouble absorbing Nash's salary.    OF course, this would facilitate the Lakers signing two max contracts stars, but you get the point.

Or the Bulls for example. They are on Melo's short list.  Maybe the Bulls desperately want to sign Melo as a free agent, but they unfortunately have no cap space.  If only someone would absorb Boozer's 16 million in salary next season...  Maybe they give up a late 1st rounder to do it.

Or the THunder... what if they get over the luxury tax and need to get under it.  Maybe they are sick of paying Perk 10 mil a year to rot.  If only someone would absorb Perk's 10 million in salary... maybe they'd give up a late 1st rounder to do it.

Stuff like that is plausible.  And since all those contracts are expiring... they really have no effect on Boston's big picture.  You just stick the bum on your bench for a year and let him expire.

  People understand the concept. But other than the Clips being complete idiots it generally results in late draft picks. That's fine if you have the extra cap space, but not much of an incentive for gutting your team.

[More Banners]

Success breeds success.  The best plan to "win later" is to win now, and just keep going.