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.

[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.

Maybe he just doesn't see Brown as a max player.

Absolutely!

If Ainge sees Brown as a max player then Ainge's offer would've been higher than 80m for 4 years.

Hield is averaged 20.7 points per game last season, a career-high, and Hield is not even asking for the max.

Jaylen's best is 14.5 points per game in 2018.

We have to be realistic.

Giving 30m per year on a player that's only averaging 14 points per game is just not practical.

[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.

[gouki88]

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.

[nickagneta]

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.

[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.

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.

[gouki88]

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.

[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.

[gouki88]

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.

That actually makes it a false narrative. Literally countering yourself

[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.

According to Firece it'd be an enticing package of Kevin Love for Brown plus picks to magically shore up our frontcourt and propel us to second round fodder.

[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.

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.

[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.

That actually makes it a false narrative. Literally countering yourself

Just think about it, 4 players getting 30m per year and you're not in a position to win a championship?

Without a quality big man, Celts will not be able to contain Embiid and Giannis.

Reason why Toronto won a championship was because they upgraded from Valanciunas to Marc Gasol.

Without Marc Gasol, the Raptors would not have made it to the Finals.

So it's a false narrative because what I'm talking about is the practicality of the situation.

[gouki88]

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.

Well that trade is financially impossible

[trickybilly]

Maybe I'm overreacting here, but does anyone think it's possible that the market could fall out  by next year if those Chinese $$$ stop flowing? Jaylen might want to lock down money before this situation gets any crazier...

[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.

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.

According to Firece it'd be an enticing package of Kevin Love for Brown plus picks to magically shore up our frontcourt and propel us to second round fodder.

If you don't want Kevin Love then Tristan Thompson is available and he has an expiring contract.

Ainge and the Celts have lots of options.

The point is the Celts will not be close to winning a championship giving 4 players 30m per year and none of them are big men.