Owners willing to pay luxury tax to win

[Moranis]

There's legit losing money then there are paper losses.  I doubt they were legit losing money at any point.

too bad Boston isn't going to win

Then CLE should probably stop burning money then b/c they won't either.

I don't see anyone beating Golden State if they stay healthy, if Durant or Curry is hurt during the playoffs though, that would make a bunch of their potential matchups a lot more interesting and any of Cleveland, San Antonio, or Houston might beat them.

Sure.  And by continuing to play the hypothetical game, the Celtics are probably only Lebron & Durant injuries from winning it all.

Nope.  Lebron getting hurt should put the C's into the Finals, but this C's team is not better than Golden State without Durant and if Durant gets hurt before the Finals, the C's aren't better than San Antonio or Houston (who might beat GS without Durant) and maybe not even better than Minnesota or Oklahoma City.

Boston just isn't a realistic championship level team.  They are 1 player away, which is consistent with management's statements for months now (it was 2 players away before Hayward), and why I don't believe for a second they are going to be willing to pay the luxury tax on this version of the team. 

[TheSundanceKid]

There's legit losing money then there are paper losses.  I doubt they were legit losing money at any point.

too bad Boston isn't going to win

Then CLE should probably stop burning money then b/c they won't either.

I don't see anyone beating Golden State if they stay healthy, if Durant or Curry is hurt during the playoffs though, that would make a bunch of their potential matchups a lot more interesting and any of Cleveland, San Antonio, or Houston might beat them.

Maybe not in the next few years, although matchups in the playoffs are really going to matter for them in terms of fatigue. In recent years I think they have had the easier paths, though being the 1st seed is meant to give you that benefit.
However once deals start to come up for renewal it is going to be very tough to keep paying these guys. The owners have deep pockets so maybe they will keep them together but the punitive luxury tax is designed to stop teams like this from forming or staying together. Golden State caught lightning in a bottle with timing.

I took it as willing to pay tax "if we win" or get really close. not to win

we should get to the finals in a year or two. Then to beat GS he may have to open up the bank. Maybe he wants to see us get there first and prove we can beat lebron and the cavs.

I don't think we should assume that we are the heir apparent to the Cavs. The Wizards are still a serious contender and should Wall or Beal take the next step they are a tough out. Milwaukee certainly have the potential to beat us, as do the 76ers in a few years if Embiid can be healthy over his career. The East won't be a cakewalk and we should take opportunities to improve ourselves where we can.

[Moranis]

There's legit losing money then there are paper losses.  I doubt they were legit losing money at any point.

too bad Boston isn't going to win

Then CLE should probably stop burning money then b/c they won't either.

I don't see anyone beating Golden State if they stay healthy, if Durant or Curry is hurt during the playoffs though, that would make a bunch of their potential matchups a lot more interesting and any of Cleveland, San Antonio, or Houston might beat them.

Maybe not in the next few years, although matchups in the playoffs are really going to matter for them in terms of fatigue. In recent years I think they have had the easier paths, though being the 1st seed is meant to give you that benefit.
However once deals start to come up for renewal it is going to be very tough to keep paying these guys. The owners have deep pockets so maybe they will keep them together but the punitive luxury tax is designed to stop teams like this from forming or staying together. Golden State caught lightning in a bottle with timing.

Oh I agree with GS not being around forever, but Boston will likely have to pay the tax next summer to keep Thomas at a max level contract, and I just don't think that is all that likely.  3 years of tax and you enter the repeater tax area and that just isn't manageable.  No way Boston starts the clock on repeater taxes without being a real and legit contender and Boston just isn't a real and legit contender. 

[Granath]

Boston just isn't a realistic championship level team.  They are 1 player away, which is consistent with management's statements for months now (it was 2 players away before Hayward), and why I don't believe for a second they are going to be willing to pay the luxury tax on this version of the team.

You keep spouting this except you're wrong.

This is Danny from May 2017:

“Just because you’re one piece away doesn’t mean you can get it,” Ainge told the Boston Herald’s Steve Bulpett. “And if you force yourself to get it, and if you force a deal or force yourself to get the second best available or the third or fourth best available player at that position that you need, then it might not make you that much better or make you still not good enough, and you’re stuck. So, yeah, we’re not that far away, but we’re still a ways away. We still know we need to get better. Everybody in our organization knows we need to get better. We need to add.” Ainge acknowledged “that next step is by far the hardest,” and that he knows the team is good but not great.

Now that one piece doesn't guarantee a Championship but they are a contender. But it goes to show how cloudy your opinion is when you think a 31 team win is on par with the Celtics.

Furthermore, they specifically told Hayward they WERE willing to go into the tax. For cryin' out loud, here's a link from today about it! http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19975645/nba-brad-stevens-re-recruitment-gordon-hayward-boston-celtics

So is it your assertion that ownership, Brad and Danny flat out lied to Gordon Hayward regarding this issue? Yes or no?

[Beat LA]

Just like they were "willing to spend" during our three year window, right?

[saltlover]

There's legit losing money then there are paper losses.  I doubt they were legit losing money at any point.

too bad Boston isn't going to win

Then CLE should probably stop burning money then b/c they won't either.

I don't see anyone beating Golden State if they stay healthy, if Durant or Curry is hurt during the playoffs though, that would make a bunch of their potential matchups a lot more interesting and any of Cleveland, San Antonio, or Houston might beat them.

Maybe not in the next few years, although matchups in the playoffs are really going to matter for them in terms of fatigue. In recent years I think they have had the easier paths, though being the 1st seed is meant to give you that benefit.
However once deals start to come up for renewal it is going to be very tough to keep paying these guys. The owners have deep pockets so maybe they will keep them together but the punitive luxury tax is designed to stop teams like this from forming or staying together. Golden State caught lightning in a bottle with timing.

Oh I agree with GS not being around forever, but Boston will likely have to pay the tax next summer to keep Thomas at a max level contract, and I just don't think that is all that likely.  3 years of tax and you enter the repeater tax area and that just isn't manageable.  No way Boston starts the clock on repeater taxes without being a real and legit contender and Boston just isn't a real and legit contender.

Boston will pay the tax next year.  That's a given.  They will retain one of IT or Smart, and either will push them over.  If they get two top five picks next summer their payroll will already be approaching $110 million.  They have too much invested to just let a player like IT walk, and he could take far less than a max deal and the team will hit the tax. Management knows this, and they pursued Hayward knowing this.  They'll hedge a little bit, because career-altering injuries happen, and complete lack of team chemistry can happen too.  But terrible injuries are thankfully rare, and the likelihood of this team functioning exceptionally poorly is low.  So I'd count on the tax.

The repeater tax may be avoidable.  Horford's deal ends when they'd hit that 3rd year, as do Crowder and Jaylen.  At any rate they'd be able to make the decision to be a repeater with much more information on the development of their top draftees, and how much of a contender they are at that point.  If the team has been competitive in the Finals for a season or two, I wouldn't be surprised if Horford opted out of year four of his deal and signed a new contract at a lower salary to give room to keep the young studs.  He'll be on his fourth contract at that point, and if he's happy in Boston he could prioritize finishing out his career competing for championships over salary maximization.  Or maybe not --but even then it's unclear what the free agent market would look like for a center in his mid-30s.

[Donoghus]

Just like they were "willing to spend" during our three year window, right?

You mean like they did every season from '07-08 to '12-13?

[Moranis]

Boston just isn't a realistic championship level team.  They are 1 player away, which is consistent with management's statements for months now (it was 2 players away before Hayward), and why I don't believe for a second they are going to be willing to pay the luxury tax on this version of the team.

You keep spouting this except you're wrong.

This is Danny from May 2017:

“Just because you’re one piece away doesn’t mean you can get it,” Ainge told the Boston Herald’s Steve Bulpett. “And if you force yourself to get it, and if you force a deal or force yourself to get the second best available or the third or fourth best available player at that position that you need, then it might not make you that much better or make you still not good enough, and you’re stuck. So, yeah, we’re not that far away, but we’re still a ways away. We still know we need to get better. Everybody in our organization knows we need to get better. We need to add.” Ainge acknowledged “that next step is by far the hardest,” and that he knows the team is good but not great.

Now that one piece doesn't guarantee a Championship but they are a contender. But it goes to show how cloudy your opinion is when you think a 31 team win is on par with the Celtics.

Furthermore, they specifically told Hayward they WERE willing to go into the tax. For cryin' out loud, here's a link from today about it! http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19975645/nba-brad-stevens-re-recruitment-gordon-hayward-boston-celtics

So is it your assertion that ownership, Brad and Danny flat out lied to Gordon Hayward regarding this issue? Yes or no?

No.  I fully believe the Celtics will pay "the luxury tax to field a championship-caliber team".  I just don't believe this is a championship-caliber team.


here is Wyc from February 24th explaining why Boston didn't make any moves at the deadline.

http://www.csnne.com/boston-celtics/grousbeck-cs-two-stars-away-so-giving-everything-one-didnt-make-sense

“We figure we’re probably two guys away from being a really, really good team; probably two significant guys away, and if we put all the chips in yesterday on one guy, we’re getting rid of draft pick -- or picks -- and we’re getting rid of free agency this summer, so it’s sort of like one step forward, two steps back. It just didn’t make sense.”

Unless you think Tatum, Morris, or Baynes is a significant guy next season, then Boston is still 1 significant piece away, unless of course you think Wyc was being disingenuous and lying about the team being 2 significant guys away.


And I'm confused what 31 win team you think I believe is on par with the Celtics, unless you are referring to the Wolves who added Butler, Teague, and Gibson (and thus upgraded 2 starting spots and the 6th man) and thus aren't a 31 win team.

[Beat LA]

Just like they were "willing to spend" during our three year window, right?

You mean like they did every season from '07-08 to '12-13?

So why did they attempt to do it on the cheap, which never works, during 08-09 instead of retaining Posey?

[Granath]

Boston just isn't a realistic championship level team.  They are 1 player away, which is consistent with management's statements for months now (it was 2 players away before Hayward), and why I don't believe for a second they are going to be willing to pay the luxury tax on this version of the team.

You keep spouting this except you're wrong.

This is Danny from May 2017:

“Just because you’re one piece away doesn’t mean you can get it,” Ainge told the Boston Herald’s Steve Bulpett. “And if you force yourself to get it, and if you force a deal or force yourself to get the second best available or the third or fourth best available player at that position that you need, then it might not make you that much better or make you still not good enough, and you’re stuck. So, yeah, we’re not that far away, but we’re still a ways away. We still know we need to get better. Everybody in our organization knows we need to get better. We need to add.” Ainge acknowledged “that next step is by far the hardest,” and that he knows the team is good but not great.

Now that one piece doesn't guarantee a Championship but they are a contender. But it goes to show how cloudy your opinion is when you think a 31 team win is on par with the Celtics.

Furthermore, they specifically told Hayward they WERE willing to go into the tax. For cryin' out loud, here's a link from today about it! http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19975645/nba-brad-stevens-re-recruitment-gordon-hayward-boston-celtics

So is it your assertion that ownership, Brad and Danny flat out lied to Gordon Hayward regarding this issue? Yes or no?

No.  I fully believe the Celtics will pay "the luxury tax to field a championship-caliber team".  I just don't believe this is a championship-caliber team.


here is Wyc from February 24th explaining why Boston didn't make any moves at the deadline.

http://www.csnne.com/boston-celtics/grousbeck-cs-two-stars-away-so-giving-everything-one-didnt-make-sense

“We figure we’re probably two guys away from being a really, really good team; probably two significant guys away, and if we put all the chips in yesterday on one guy, we’re getting rid of draft pick -- or picks -- and we’re getting rid of free agency this summer, so it’s sort of like one step forward, two steps back. It just didn’t make sense.”

Unless you think Tatum, Morris, or Baynes is a significant guy next season, then Boston is still 1 significant piece away, unless of course you think Wyc was being disingenuous and lying about the team being 2 significant guys away.

No, but Wyc's comment was made at the trade deadline. Danny's comment which was from late May reflects the current situation - the playoffs, best record in the East and winning the lottery (and getting the guy he wanted most). A lot happened between those two comments. Maybe you should update your information and assumptions.

It also doesn't matter if you think the Cs are a Championship team. You wouldn't think they were Championship-caliber until they were holding the trophy...and perhaps not even then. It matters what management thinks. It's also a GIVEN that they'll go into the tax next year when they sign IT. Or are you now assuming that they won't resign IT and - again - lied to Hayward? 

[saltlover]

Just like they were "willing to spend" during our three year window, right?

You mean like they did every season from '07-08 to '12-13?

So why did they attempt to do it on the cheap, which never works, during 08-09 instead of retaining Posey?

Because they determined Posey wasn't worth a 4-year, $28 million deal, regardless of the luxury tax.  He dropped off a cliff after year 1 of that new deal, so essentially they'd have paid him $28 million for one year of production similar to what he'd given them before.

It's funny to see you argue that they should have massively overpaid a player instead of signing an undrafted free agent.

[Donoghus]

Just like they were "willing to spend" during our three year window, right?

You mean like they did every season from '07-08 to '12-13?

So why did they attempt to do it on the cheap, which never works, during 08-09 instead of retaining Posey?

Look at what Posey got and how that contract worked out.   It wasn't a matter of being cheap.  It was a matter of not overpaying a 32 year old role player with a long term deal.

Which was the right decision in the long run.

Not resigning Posey isn't what did the '08-09 Celtics in.  It was the KG injury.  Simple as that.

[Granath]

Just like they were "willing to spend" during our three year window, right?

You mean like they did every season from '07-08 to '12-13?

So why did they attempt to do it on the cheap, which never works, during 08-09 instead of retaining Posey?

There's about 5-10 of you who aren't happy unless the Celtics are losing. Why are you even here?

[Moranis]

Boston just isn't a realistic championship level team.  They are 1 player away, which is consistent with management's statements for months now (it was 2 players away before Hayward), and why I don't believe for a second they are going to be willing to pay the luxury tax on this version of the team.

You keep spouting this except you're wrong.

This is Danny from May 2017:

“Just because you’re one piece away doesn’t mean you can get it,” Ainge told the Boston Herald’s Steve Bulpett. “And if you force yourself to get it, and if you force a deal or force yourself to get the second best available or the third or fourth best available player at that position that you need, then it might not make you that much better or make you still not good enough, and you’re stuck. So, yeah, we’re not that far away, but we’re still a ways away. We still know we need to get better. Everybody in our organization knows we need to get better. We need to add.” Ainge acknowledged “that next step is by far the hardest,” and that he knows the team is good but not great.

Now that one piece doesn't guarantee a Championship but they are a contender. But it goes to show how cloudy your opinion is when you think a 31 team win is on par with the Celtics.

Furthermore, they specifically told Hayward they WERE willing to go into the tax. For cryin' out loud, here's a link from today about it! http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19975645/nba-brad-stevens-re-recruitment-gordon-hayward-boston-celtics

So is it your assertion that ownership, Brad and Danny flat out lied to Gordon Hayward regarding this issue? Yes or no?

No.  I fully believe the Celtics will pay "the luxury tax to field a championship-caliber team".  I just don't believe this is a championship-caliber team.


here is Wyc from February 24th explaining why Boston didn't make any moves at the deadline.

http://www.csnne.com/boston-celtics/grousbeck-cs-two-stars-away-so-giving-everything-one-didnt-make-sense

“We figure we’re probably two guys away from being a really, really good team; probably two significant guys away, and if we put all the chips in yesterday on one guy, we’re getting rid of draft pick -- or picks -- and we’re getting rid of free agency this summer, so it’s sort of like one step forward, two steps back. It just didn’t make sense.”

Unless you think Tatum, Morris, or Baynes is a significant guy next season, then Boston is still 1 significant piece away, unless of course you think Wyc was being disingenuous and lying about the team being 2 significant guys away.

No, but Wyc's comment was made at the trade deadline. Danny's comment which was from late May reflects the current situation - the playoffs, best record in the East and winning the lottery (and getting the guy he wanted most). A lot happened between those two comments. Maybe you should update your information and assumptions.

It also doesn't matter if you think the Cs are a Championship team. You wouldn't think they were Championship-caliber until they were holding the trophy...and perhaps not even then. It matters what management thinks. It's also a GIVEN that they'll go into the tax next year when they sign IT. Or are you now assuming that they won't resign IT and - again - lied to Hayward? 

Come on February 24th, Boston was firmly entrenched as the 2 seed and was looking pretty clearly as the 2nd best team in the East.  It should have been in the ECF in that scenario. 

And for the record, you left off Ainge's concluding quote to Bulprett “We have a lot of good players,” he added, “but we need some great ones.”

Strange that Ainge used the plural on great ones if the team was only 1 great player away, why wouldn't he just say that.  Maybe just maybe because the team was more than just 1 great player away.  Nah that couldn't be it.

C's management knows this isn't a championship-caliber team.  That is why they were pushing hard for acquiring both Hayward and George.  That would have made Boston a championship-caliber team. 

I don't think Boston gives Thomas a max contract.  I don't think they believe he is worth that sort of contract, especially on a team that isn't a championship-caliber team.  I'm sure they would gladly bring him back at a reasonable price, and might just go into the tax to do it, but they aren't going to give out a 3rd max contract when they don't have a single transcendent player on the team.  I mean in 2008 every single one of the big 3 was a better and more complete player than the 3 max level players on the current team (the 08 guys were obviously older and were much closer to be out of their prime though). 

[Beat LA]

Just like they were "willing to spend" during our three year window, right?

You mean like they did every season from '07-08 to '12-13?

So why did they attempt to do it on the cheap, which never works, during 08-09 instead of retaining Posey?

Because they determined Posey wasn't worth a 4-year, $28 million deal, regardless of the luxury tax.  He dropped off a cliff after year 1 of that new deal, so essentially they'd have paid him $28 million for one year of production similar to what he'd given them before.

It's funny to see you argue that they should have massively overpaid a player instead of signing an undrafted free agent.

1). In no way was that a massive overpay, imo.

2). Even if he did drop off after that season, another good year out of him could have yielded another title, you never know.

3). Really? He was our glue guy, our Michael Cooper, and, with the possible exception of Peaches , Posey's contributions proved to be impossible to replace, and besides, there weren't any undrafted free agents that year who could have assumed the mantle as our 6th man, imo. 

Now, if you want to talk about Wesley Matthews, who we should have taken at 58 in 2009, that's another story.  I'd also argue that we would have been better off resigning Posey and drafting Chalmers to give us the backup point guard that we always lacked, while also providing great defense and clutch performances, not to mention the ability to save money by letting Eddie House walk.  Maybe do a sign and trade with him and Scal for somebody, idk.