Why did we make the Kemba / Horford deal?

[Vermont Green]

People's issues with this trade seem to be that we gave up the 16th pick and that the owners saved money.  I am not worried one bit about the draft pick because we essentially ended up with Josh Richardson for the pick. It is pretty straight forward dot connecting.  We got Horford and Moses Brown for Kemba and the pick, we traded Moses Brown for Josh Richardson.  So we end up with Horford, Richardson and quite a bit of cap savings.  I don't see the problem.  This is much better than what most people thought in terms of getting out from under Kemba's contract.  I see this as working out well.

And as to the owners being cheap or whatever.  Yes, I have no doubt that money was a factor.  But Horford has done more for us than Kemba has done for the Knicks and Richardson has done way more for us than Sengun would have.  Now Sengun may turn out to be the sleeper of the and people can continue complaining about this trade forever but it is a 16th pick.  16th picks don't usually turn out to be impact players.  And the owners, after getting rid of Kemba's contract spent ample money on Smart, RWilliams, and Richardson.  That just seems like good business decisions to me.

I think signing Kemba in the first place is much more questionable than what we had to do to get out of it.  But people love their offense first PGs.  And to be honest, Kemba was better than I thought he would be.  We were pretty good with him for stretch.  But those days are long gone for him.

It's fair to look at the trade like that.  Trading Kemba allowed us to afford Josh Richardson.  I don't personally look at it like that, since the only thing limiting us from having both Kemba and Richardson was Wyc's profit margin, but some fans are more sympathetic to the plight of extraordinarily rich venture capitalists than others.

So, is the #16 pick in the draft worth Richardson?  Since the Mavericks dumped him almost for free, I don't think so.  At best, Richardson had neutral value; he's certainly not worth a cost-controlled asset for the next four years.

Richardson's value currently is as a solid role player who could help a contender.  Unfortunately, that's not us.  Using a first rounder to acquire him is poor value.  And, even after a very good year in Boston, there's no chance we can recoup that value.  Do you think there's any team that would give up a first rounder inside the top-20 for him?

We had all of the following options:

Keep Kemba, keep the #16, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, force feed minutes to Langford and Nesmith

Trade the #16 on draft night for two #1s, flip one of those in a Kemba for Horford deal (while keeping the other pick)

Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson
Trade Kemba and the #16, sign Fournier
Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson and sign Fournier

We obviously went with the bolded, which -- for a non-contender -- was among the worst possible options.

I don't know, you seem to be making up all sorts of hypotheticals to somehow conclude that this was a bad move or the worst possible outcome.  Horford has been a rotation big for us.  Without Horford, Enes Freedom would be in our primary rotation and Bruno Fernando would be seeing some regular minutes.  And you make the argument to sign Fournier while at the same time saying it was a bad move to trade for Richardson because we aren't a contender.  If we apply the "we aren't a contender" logic, how does that get us to you should have overpaid for an inconsistent, one-dimensional player who showed us for a half a season that he isn't really that good?

They managed their money.  They decided to spend money on Horford and Richardson instead of Walker and Fournier, which allowed them to extend Smart and RWill.  We are better off for it and will have more flexibility moving forward.  I don't see this as a mistake or the worst possible outcome.

[Roy H.]

People's issues with this trade seem to be that we gave up the 16th pick and that the owners saved money.  I am not worried one bit about the draft pick because we essentially ended up with Josh Richardson for the pick. It is pretty straight forward dot connecting.  We got Horford and Moses Brown for Kemba and the pick, we traded Moses Brown for Josh Richardson.  So we end up with Horford, Richardson and quite a bit of cap savings.  I don't see the problem.  This is much better than what most people thought in terms of getting out from under Kemba's contract.  I see this as working out well.

And as to the owners being cheap or whatever.  Yes, I have no doubt that money was a factor.  But Horford has done more for us than Kemba has done for the Knicks and Richardson has done way more for us than Sengun would have.  Now Sengun may turn out to be the sleeper of the and people can continue complaining about this trade forever but it is a 16th pick.  16th picks don't usually turn out to be impact players.  And the owners, after getting rid of Kemba's contract spent ample money on Smart, RWilliams, and Richardson.  That just seems like good business decisions to me.

I think signing Kemba in the first place is much more questionable than what we had to do to get out of it.  But people love their offense first PGs.  And to be honest, Kemba was better than I thought he would be.  We were pretty good with him for stretch.  But those days are long gone for him.

It's fair to look at the trade like that.  Trading Kemba allowed us to afford Josh Richardson.  I don't personally look at it like that, since the only thing limiting us from having both Kemba and Richardson was Wyc's profit margin, but some fans are more sympathetic to the plight of extraordinarily rich venture capitalists than others.

So, is the #16 pick in the draft worth Richardson?  Since the Mavericks dumped him almost for free, I don't think so.  At best, Richardson had neutral value; he's certainly not worth a cost-controlled asset for the next four years.

Richardson's value currently is as a solid role player who could help a contender.  Unfortunately, that's not us.  Using a first rounder to acquire him is poor value.  And, even after a very good year in Boston, there's no chance we can recoup that value.  Do you think there's any team that would give up a first rounder inside the top-20 for him?

We had all of the following options:

Keep Kemba, keep the #16, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, force feed minutes to Langford and Nesmith

Trade the #16 on draft night for two #1s, flip one of those in a Kemba for Horford deal (while keeping the other pick)

Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson
Trade Kemba and the #16, sign Fournier
Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson and sign Fournier

We obviously went with the bolded, which -- for a non-contender -- was among the worst possible options.

I don't know, you seem to be making up all sorts of hypotheticals to somehow conclude that this was a bad move or the worst possible outcome.  Horford has been a rotation big for us.  Without Horford, Enes Freedom would be in our primary rotation and Bruno Fernando would be seeing some regular minutes.  And you make the argument to sign Fournier while at the same time saying it was a bad move to trade for Richardson because we aren't a contender.  If we apply the "we aren't a contender" logic, how does that get us to you should have overpaid for an inconsistent, one-dimensional player who showed us for a half a season that he isn't really that good?

They managed their money.  They decided to spend money on Horford and Richardson instead of Walker and Fournier, which allowed them to extend Smart and RWill.  We are better off for it and will have more flexibility moving forward.  I don't see this as a mistake or the worst possible outcome.

How are we better off for it?  Is being the 10th seed instead of the 11th or 12th seed in the short term worth a first rounder?

And what additional flexibility do we have?

[footey]

People's issues with this trade seem to be that we gave up the 16th pick and that the owners saved money.  I am not worried one bit about the draft pick because we essentially ended up with Josh Richardson for the pick. It is pretty straight forward dot connecting.  We got Horford and Moses Brown for Kemba and the pick, we traded Moses Brown for Josh Richardson.  So we end up with Horford, Richardson and quite a bit of cap savings.  I don't see the problem.  This is much better than what most people thought in terms of getting out from under Kemba's contract.  I see this as working out well.

And as to the owners being cheap or whatever.  Yes, I have no doubt that money was a factor.  But Horford has done more for us than Kemba has done for the Knicks and Richardson has done way more for us than Sengun would have.  Now Sengun may turn out to be the sleeper of the and people can continue complaining about this trade forever but it is a 16th pick.  16th picks don't usually turn out to be impact players.  And the owners, after getting rid of Kemba's contract spent ample money on Smart, RWilliams, and Richardson.  That just seems like good business decisions to me.

I think signing Kemba in the first place is much more questionable than what we had to do to get out of it.  But people love their offense first PGs.  And to be honest, Kemba was better than I thought he would be.  We were pretty good with him for stretch.  But those days are long gone for him.

It's fair to look at the trade like that.  Trading Kemba allowed us to afford Josh Richardson.  I don't personally look at it like that, since the only thing limiting us from having both Kemba and Richardson was Wyc's profit margin, but some fans are more sympathetic to the plight of extraordinarily rich venture capitalists than others.

So, is the #16 pick in the draft worth Richardson?  Since the Mavericks dumped him almost for free, I don't think so.  At best, Richardson had neutral value; he's certainly not worth a cost-controlled asset for the next four years.

Richardson's value currently is as a solid role player who could help a contender.  Unfortunately, that's not us.  Using a first rounder to acquire him is poor value.  And, even after a very good year in Boston, there's no chance we can recoup that value.  Do you think there's any team that would give up a first rounder inside the top-20 for him?

We had all of the following options:

Keep Kemba, keep the #16, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, force feed minutes to Langford and Nesmith

Trade the #16 on draft night for two #1s, flip one of those in a Kemba for Horford deal (while keeping the other pick)

Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson
Trade Kemba and the #16, sign Fournier
Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson and sign Fournier



We obviously went with the bolded, which -- for a non-contender -- was among the worst possible options.

IIRC, you slotted Horford to be our starting center going into the season, and valued him over Rob Williams. So it would seem you thought that we were acquiring a very decent asset in the Kemba trade, worth more than an injury prone Kemba Walker, even more so when you look at their respective contracts and Kemba's injury history.  My guess is that management thought so too.  The fact that Al has underperformed, particularly from the 3 point line, is causing second guessing. 

You also assume we would have drafted Seguin.  There is no proof in that. In fact, given this front office history of valuing wings and guards over bigs, it is more likely than not that they would have not drafted Seguin.

[Roy H.]

People's issues with this trade seem to be that we gave up the 16th pick and that the owners saved money.  I am not worried one bit about the draft pick because we essentially ended up with Josh Richardson for the pick. It is pretty straight forward dot connecting.  We got Horford and Moses Brown for Kemba and the pick, we traded Moses Brown for Josh Richardson.  So we end up with Horford, Richardson and quite a bit of cap savings.  I don't see the problem.  This is much better than what most people thought in terms of getting out from under Kemba's contract.  I see this as working out well.

And as to the owners being cheap or whatever.  Yes, I have no doubt that money was a factor.  But Horford has done more for us than Kemba has done for the Knicks and Richardson has done way more for us than Sengun would have.  Now Sengun may turn out to be the sleeper of the and people can continue complaining about this trade forever but it is a 16th pick.  16th picks don't usually turn out to be impact players.  And the owners, after getting rid of Kemba's contract spent ample money on Smart, RWilliams, and Richardson.  That just seems like good business decisions to me.

I think signing Kemba in the first place is much more questionable than what we had to do to get out of it.  But people love their offense first PGs.  And to be honest, Kemba was better than I thought he would be.  We were pretty good with him for stretch.  But those days are long gone for him.

It's fair to look at the trade like that.  Trading Kemba allowed us to afford Josh Richardson.  I don't personally look at it like that, since the only thing limiting us from having both Kemba and Richardson was Wyc's profit margin, but some fans are more sympathetic to the plight of extraordinarily rich venture capitalists than others.

So, is the #16 pick in the draft worth Richardson?  Since the Mavericks dumped him almost for free, I don't think so.  At best, Richardson had neutral value; he's certainly not worth a cost-controlled asset for the next four years.

Richardson's value currently is as a solid role player who could help a contender.  Unfortunately, that's not us.  Using a first rounder to acquire him is poor value.  And, even after a very good year in Boston, there's no chance we can recoup that value.  Do you think there's any team that would give up a first rounder inside the top-20 for him?

We had all of the following options:

Keep Kemba, keep the #16, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, force feed minutes to Langford and Nesmith

Trade the #16 on draft night for two #1s, flip one of those in a Kemba for Horford deal (while keeping the other pick)

Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson
Trade Kemba and the #16, sign Fournier
Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson and sign Fournier



We obviously went with the bolded, which -- for a non-contender -- was among the worst possible options.

IIRC, you slotted Horford to be our starting center going into the season, and valued him over Rob Williams. So it would seem you thought that we were acquiring a very decent asset in the Kemba trade, worth more than an injury prone Kemba Walker, even more so when you look at their respective contracts and Kemba's injury history.  My guess is that management thought so too.  The fact that Al has underperformed, particularly from the 3 point line, is causing second guessing. 

You also assume we would have drafted Seguin.  There is no proof in that. In fact, given this front office history of valuing wings and guards over bigs, it is more likely than not that they would have not drafted Seguin.

Yes, I thought Horford would be better than he is.  I also thought he'd be more impactful than Kemba, which he has been.  That doesn't suggest that the difference between Horford and Kemba is worth a first rounder.  The guy who is actually paid to lead the franchise -- Brad Stevens -- is the one who is the supposed expert in making these decisions.

And, again, the "we probably wouldn't have drafted the center with sky high potential" isn't a good argument.  It's just another way of saying, "Our management sucks at drafting and would have missed anyway, so what's the big deal?"

[footey]

People's issues with this trade seem to be that we gave up the 16th pick and that the owners saved money.  I am not worried one bit about the draft pick because we essentially ended up with Josh Richardson for the pick. It is pretty straight forward dot connecting.  We got Horford and Moses Brown for Kemba and the pick, we traded Moses Brown for Josh Richardson.  So we end up with Horford, Richardson and quite a bit of cap savings.  I don't see the problem.  This is much better than what most people thought in terms of getting out from under Kemba's contract.  I see this as working out well.

And as to the owners being cheap or whatever.  Yes, I have no doubt that money was a factor.  But Horford has done more for us than Kemba has done for the Knicks and Richardson has done way more for us than Sengun would have.  Now Sengun may turn out to be the sleeper of the and people can continue complaining about this trade forever but it is a 16th pick.  16th picks don't usually turn out to be impact players.  And the owners, after getting rid of Kemba's contract spent ample money on Smart, RWilliams, and Richardson.  That just seems like good business decisions to me.

I think signing Kemba in the first place is much more questionable than what we had to do to get out of it.  But people love their offense first PGs.  And to be honest, Kemba was better than I thought he would be.  We were pretty good with him for stretch.  But those days are long gone for him.

It's fair to look at the trade like that.  Trading Kemba allowed us to afford Josh Richardson.  I don't personally look at it like that, since the only thing limiting us from having both Kemba and Richardson was Wyc's profit margin, but some fans are more sympathetic to the plight of extraordinarily rich venture capitalists than others.

So, is the #16 pick in the draft worth Richardson?  Since the Mavericks dumped him almost for free, I don't think so.  At best, Richardson had neutral value; he's certainly not worth a cost-controlled asset for the next four years.

Richardson's value currently is as a solid role player who could help a contender.  Unfortunately, that's not us.  Using a first rounder to acquire him is poor value.  And, even after a very good year in Boston, there's no chance we can recoup that value.  Do you think there's any team that would give up a first rounder inside the top-20 for him?

We had all of the following options:

Keep Kemba, keep the #16, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, force feed minutes to Langford and Nesmith

Trade the #16 on draft night for two #1s, flip one of those in a Kemba for Horford deal (while keeping the other pick)

Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson
Trade Kemba and the #16, sign Fournier
Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson and sign Fournier



We obviously went with the bolded, which -- for a non-contender -- was among the worst possible options.

IIRC, you slotted Horford to be our starting center going into the season, and valued him over Rob Williams. So it would seem you thought that we were acquiring a very decent asset in the Kemba trade, worth more than an injury prone Kemba Walker, even more so when you look at their respective contracts and Kemba's injury history.  My guess is that management thought so too.  The fact that Al has underperformed, particularly from the 3 point line, is causing second guessing. 

You also assume we would have drafted Seguin.  There is no proof in that. In fact, given this front office history of valuing wings and guards over bigs, it is more likely than not that they would have not drafted Seguin.

Yes, I thought Horford would be better than he is.  I also thought he'd be more impactful than Kemba, which he has been.  That doesn't suggest that the difference between Horford and Kemba is worth a first rounder.  The guy who is actually paid to lead the franchise -- Brad Stevens -- is the one who is the supposed expert in making these decisions.

And, again, the "we probably wouldn't have drafted the center with sky high potential" isn't a good argument.  It's just another way of saying, "Our management sucks at drafting and would have missed anyway, so what's the big deal?"

Honestly, I think our talent evaluators deserve poor grades for the last several seasons, and wish Brad would rebuild it from the ground up. 

[Celtics2021]

People's issues with this trade seem to be that we gave up the 16th pick and that the owners saved money.  I am not worried one bit about the draft pick because we essentially ended up with Josh Richardson for the pick. It is pretty straight forward dot connecting.  We got Horford and Moses Brown for Kemba and the pick, we traded Moses Brown for Josh Richardson.  So we end up with Horford, Richardson and quite a bit of cap savings.  I don't see the problem.  This is much better than what most people thought in terms of getting out from under Kemba's contract.  I see this as working out well.

And as to the owners being cheap or whatever.  Yes, I have no doubt that money was a factor.  But Horford has done more for us than Kemba has done for the Knicks and Richardson has done way more for us than Sengun would have.  Now Sengun may turn out to be the sleeper of the and people can continue complaining about this trade forever but it is a 16th pick.  16th picks don't usually turn out to be impact players.  And the owners, after getting rid of Kemba's contract spent ample money on Smart, RWilliams, and Richardson.  That just seems like good business decisions to me.

I think signing Kemba in the first place is much more questionable than what we had to do to get out of it.  But people love their offense first PGs.  And to be honest, Kemba was better than I thought he would be.  We were pretty good with him for stretch.  But those days are long gone for him.

It's fair to look at the trade like that.  Trading Kemba allowed us to afford Josh Richardson.  I don't personally look at it like that, since the only thing limiting us from having both Kemba and Richardson was Wyc's profit margin, but some fans are more sympathetic to the plight of extraordinarily rich venture capitalists than others.

So, is the #16 pick in the draft worth Richardson?  Since the Mavericks dumped him almost for free, I don't think so.  At best, Richardson had neutral value; he's certainly not worth a cost-controlled asset for the next four years.

Richardson's value currently is as a solid role player who could help a contender.  Unfortunately, that's not us.  Using a first rounder to acquire him is poor value.  And, even after a very good year in Boston, there's no chance we can recoup that value.  Do you think there's any team that would give up a first rounder inside the top-20 for him?

We had all of the following options:

Keep Kemba, keep the #16, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, force feed minutes to Langford and Nesmith

Trade the #16 on draft night for two #1s, flip one of those in a Kemba for Horford deal (while keeping the other pick)

Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson
Trade Kemba and the #16, sign Fournier
Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson and sign Fournier



We obviously went with the bolded, which -- for a non-contender -- was among the worst possible options.

IIRC, you slotted Horford to be our starting center going into the season, and valued him over Rob Williams. So it would seem you thought that we were acquiring a very decent asset in the Kemba trade, worth more than an injury prone Kemba Walker, even more so when you look at their respective contracts and Kemba's injury history.  My guess is that management thought so too.  The fact that Al has underperformed, particularly from the 3 point line, is causing second guessing. 

You also assume we would have drafted Seguin.  There is no proof in that. In fact, given this front office history of valuing wings and guards over bigs, it is more likely than not that they would have not drafted Seguin.

Yes, I thought Horford would be better than he is.  I also thought he'd be more impactful than Kemba, which he has been.  That doesn't suggest that the difference between Horford and Kemba is worth a first rounder.  The guy who is actually paid to lead the franchise -- Brad Stevens -- is the one who is the supposed expert in making these decisions.

And, again, the "we probably wouldn't have drafted the center with sky high potential" isn't a good argument.  It's just another way of saying, "Our management sucks at drafting and would have missed anyway, so what's the big deal?"

I honestly think the grade still needs to be incomplete until this offseason is finished.  Horford's contract should be easier to trade than Kemba's this summer, due to it being $23 million less.  And if he's not traded, stretching $14.5 million is a lot less limiting long-term than stretching $37.5 million.  Any of the choices you presented that involved keeping Kemba would have put the Celtics above the hard cap this summer, limiting the moves the team could make while having an even worse team than they do now.

No clue where it will end up, and honestly there's no good answers when you owe two years, $70+ million to a guy who can't even perform at a reserve level.  Given what has happened in the last season, my preference would have been trading Kemba and a lotto-protected 1st for Horford at the deadline last year, and skipped getting Fournier.  Then we could have had a max-level trade exception ($34.4 million) this year, and otherwise ended up in a similar place.  Seems like getting Fournier was Ainge's last bet to go out a winner.  Given how quickly Stevens made the trade upon taking over, he might have pivoted faster.

[Roy H.]

I honestly think the grade still needs to be incomplete until this offseason is finished.  Horford's contract should be easier to trade than Kemba's this summer, due to it being $23 million less.  And if he's not traded, stretching $14.5 million is a lot less limiting long-term than stretching $37.5 million.  Any of the choices you presented that involved keeping Kemba would have put the Celtics above the hard cap this summer, limiting the moves the team could make while having an even worse team than they do now.

No clue where it will end up, and honestly there's no good answers when you owe two years, $70+ million to a guy who can't even perform at a reserve level.  Given what has happened in the last season, my preference would have been trading Kemba and a lotto-protected 1st for Horford at the deadline last year, and skipped getting Fournier.  Then we could have had a max-level trade exception ($34.4 million) this year, and otherwise ended up in a similar place.  Seems like getting Fournier was Ainge's last bet to go out a winner.  Given how quickly Stevens made the trade upon taking over, he might have pivoted faster.

This is largely true, although with the path we chose, I don't foresee circumstances that would justify giving up the #16 pick.  I think it's unlikely we acquire anybody in sign-and-trade, but I guess time will tell.

One thing on the Horford contract that you understand, but I think many don't:  only the amount of salary that we guarantee is used for salary matching purposes.  A lot of folks seem to be under the impression that we can trade Horford's $26.5 million for a player making $33 million, with that player's team immediately waiving Horford and only having to pay him $14.5 million guaranteed (or $4.83 million per year for three seasons.)  Under that scenario, a team could immediately clear $28.17 million in salary.

But, that's not how it works.  Only the guaranteed salary counts.  So, as is, we can bring back somebody making $18.225 million ($14.5 million x 1.25 + $100k).  A team only saves $3.725 million unless it stretches Horford.  And, that's if they cut Horford, meaning they're trading a player who would have played for a player who won't be on their roster.  Now, presumably the team and Horford could renegotiate to guarantee more of his salary, but that also results in less savings for the acquiring team.

[Celtics2021]

I honestly think the grade still needs to be incomplete until this offseason is finished.  Horford's contract should be easier to trade than Kemba's this summer, due to it being $23 million less.  And if he's not traded, stretching $14.5 million is a lot less limiting long-term than stretching $37.5 million.  Any of the choices you presented that involved keeping Kemba would have put the Celtics above the hard cap this summer, limiting the moves the team could make while having an even worse team than they do now.

No clue where it will end up, and honestly there's no good answers when you owe two years, $70+ million to a guy who can't even perform at a reserve level.  Given what has happened in the last season, my preference would have been trading Kemba and a lotto-protected 1st for Horford at the deadline last year, and skipped getting Fournier.  Then we could have had a max-level trade exception ($34.4 million) this year, and otherwise ended up in a similar place.  Seems like getting Fournier was Ainge's last bet to go out a winner.  Given how quickly Stevens made the trade upon taking over, he might have pivoted faster.

This is largely true, although with the path we chose, I don't foresee circumstances that would justify giving up the #16 pick.  I think it's unlikely we acquire anybody in sign-and-trade, but I guess time will tell.

One thing on the Horford contract that you understand, but I think many don't:  only the amount of salary that we guarantee is used for salary matching purposes.  A lot of folks seem to be under the impression that we can trade Horford's $26.5 million for a player making $33 million, with that player's team immediately waiving Horford and only having to pay him $14.5 million guaranteed (or $4.83 million per year for three seasons.)  Under that scenario, a team could immediately clear $28.17 million in salary.

But, that's not how it works.  Only the guaranteed salary counts.  So, as is, we can bring back somebody making $18.225 million ($14.5 million x 1.25 + $100k).  A team only saves $3.725 million unless it stretches Horford.  And, that's if they cut Horford, meaning they're trading a player who would have played for a player who won't be on their roster.  Now, presumably the team and Horford could renegotiate to guarantee more of his salary, but that also results in less savings for the acquiring team.

This is correct, but his full salary counts for deals made through June 30th, so in the early part of the offseason his contract has special value for matching purposes.  (I'm admittedly only 98% sure about this, but this has been my understanding and I haven't found anything saying I'm wrong about this).

I also think you're underestimating the potential value of your last sentence.  Horford can be paid anywhere from $14.5 to $26.5 million next season, if extra salary is needed to make a deal work.  Yes, the new team gets less savings relative to $14.5 million, but they get more savings relative to taking on any contracts they don't want, but would otherwise be included to get to a dollar amount that works).  Horford's contract is a lot more flexible than Kemba's.

[Roy H.]

This is correct, but his full salary counts for deals made through June 30th, so in the early part of the offseason his contract has special value for matching purposes.  (I'm admittedly only 98% sure about this, but this has been my understanding and I haven't found anything saying I'm wrong about this).

Hmm...  Somebody get Larry Coon on the phone!

Your thinking is that from the time the Celts are eliminated from the playoffs until the new league year, the Celtics would trade Horford based upon his 2022 salary?  And because it's non-guaranteed salary rather than a team option, the full salary would count for matching purposes?

So, in theory we could trade for somebody making up to $33.875 million (just using Horford's salary).  The new team could then waive him on July 1 (or after the moratorium) only paying him the $14.5 million guaranteed?

I had thought the NBA had eliminated that loophole, but on the face of it, it looks like they left an exploit.  If that is indeed the case, then that contract is worth more than I thought, if only for a relatively short time.

[smokeablount]

People's issues with this trade seem to be that we gave up the 16th pick and that the owners saved money.  I am not worried one bit about the draft pick because we essentially ended up with Josh Richardson for the pick. It is pretty straight forward dot connecting.  We got Horford and Moses Brown for Kemba and the pick, we traded Moses Brown for Josh Richardson.  So we end up with Horford, Richardson and quite a bit of cap savings.  I don't see the problem.  This is much better than what most people thought in terms of getting out from under Kemba's contract.  I see this as working out well.

And as to the owners being cheap or whatever.  Yes, I have no doubt that money was a factor.  But Horford has done more for us than Kemba has done for the Knicks and Richardson has done way more for us than Sengun would have.  Now Sengun may turn out to be the sleeper of the and people can continue complaining about this trade forever but it is a 16th pick.  16th picks don't usually turn out to be impact players.  And the owners, after getting rid of Kemba's contract spent ample money on Smart, RWilliams, and Richardson.  That just seems like good business decisions to me.

I think signing Kemba in the first place is much more questionable than what we had to do to get out of it.  But people love their offense first PGs.  And to be honest, Kemba was better than I thought he would be.  We were pretty good with him for stretch.  But those days are long gone for him.

It's fair to look at the trade like that.  Trading Kemba allowed us to afford Josh Richardson.  I don't personally look at it like that, since the only thing limiting us from having both Kemba and Richardson was Wyc's profit margin, but some fans are more sympathetic to the plight of extraordinarily rich venture capitalists than others.

So, is the #16 pick in the draft worth Richardson?  Since the Mavericks dumped him almost for free, I don't think so.  At best, Richardson had neutral value; he's certainly not worth a cost-controlled asset for the next four years.

Richardson's value currently is as a solid role player who could help a contender.  Unfortunately, that's not us.  Using a first rounder to acquire him is poor value.  And, even after a very good year in Boston, there's no chance we can recoup that value.  Do you think there's any team that would give up a first rounder inside the top-20 for him?

We had all of the following options:

Keep Kemba, keep the #16, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, keep Fournier, trade for Richardson
Keep Kemba, keep the #16, force feed minutes to Langford and Nesmith

Trade the #16 on draft night for two #1s, flip one of those in a Kemba for Horford deal (while keeping the other pick)

Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson
Trade Kemba and the #16, sign Fournier
Trade Kemba and the #16, trade for Richardson and sign Fournier



We obviously went with the bolded, which -- for a non-contender -- was among the worst possible options.

IIRC, you slotted Horford to be our starting center going into the season, and valued him over Rob Williams. So it would seem you thought that we were acquiring a very decent asset in the Kemba trade, worth more than an injury prone Kemba Walker, even more so when you look at their respective contracts and Kemba's injury history.  My guess is that management thought so too.  The fact that Al has underperformed, particularly from the 3 point line, is causing second guessing. 

You also assume we would have drafted Seguin.  There is no proof in that. In fact, given this front office history of valuing wings and guards over bigs, it is more likely than not that they would have not drafted Seguin.

Yes, I thought Horford would be better than he is.  I also thought he'd be more impactful than Kemba, which he has been.  That doesn't suggest that the difference between Horford and Kemba is worth a first rounder.  The guy who is actually paid to lead the franchise -- Brad Stevens -- is the one who is the supposed expert in making these decisions.

And, again, the "we probably wouldn't have drafted the center with sky high potential" isn't a good argument.  It's just another way of saying, "Our management sucks at drafting and would have missed anyway, so what's the big deal?"

Honestly, I think our talent evaluators deserve poor grades for the last several seasons, and wish Brad would rebuild it from the ground up.

Liam for Head of Scouting! Who’s with me??!

[Roy H.]

I honestly think the grade still needs to be incomplete until this offseason is finished.  Horford's contract should be easier to trade than Kemba's this summer, due to it being $23 million less.  And if he's not traded, stretching $14.5 million is a lot less limiting long-term than stretching $37.5 million.  Any of the choices you presented that involved keeping Kemba would have put the Celtics above the hard cap this summer, limiting the moves the team could make while having an even worse team than they do now.

No clue where it will end up, and honestly there's no good answers when you owe two years, $70+ million to a guy who can't even perform at a reserve level.  Given what has happened in the last season, my preference would have been trading Kemba and a lotto-protected 1st for Horford at the deadline last year, and skipped getting Fournier.  Then we could have had a max-level trade exception ($34.4 million) this year, and otherwise ended up in a similar place.  Seems like getting Fournier was Ainge's last bet to go out a winner.  Given how quickly Stevens made the trade upon taking over, he might have pivoted faster.

This is largely true, although with the path we chose, I don't foresee circumstances that would justify giving up the #16 pick.  I think it's unlikely we acquire anybody in sign-and-trade, but I guess time will tell.

One thing on the Horford contract that you understand, but I think many don't:  only the amount of salary that we guarantee is used for salary matching purposes.  A lot of folks seem to be under the impression that we can trade Horford's $26.5 million for a player making $33 million, with that player's team immediately waiving Horford and only having to pay him $14.5 million guaranteed (or $4.83 million per year for three seasons.)  Under that scenario, a team could immediately clear $28.17 million in salary.

But, that's not how it works.  Only the guaranteed salary counts.  So, as is, we can bring back somebody making $18.225 million ($14.5 million x 1.25 + $100k).  A team only saves $3.725 million unless it stretches Horford.  And, that's if they cut Horford, meaning they're trading a player who would have played for a player who won't be on their roster.  Now, presumably the team and Horford could renegotiate to guarantee more of his salary, but that also results in less savings for the acquiring team.

This is correct, but his full salary counts for deals made through June 30th, so in the early part of the offseason his contract has special value for matching purposes.  (I'm admittedly only 98% sure about this, but this has been my understanding and I haven't found anything saying I'm wrong about this).

I also think you're underestimating the potential value of your last sentence.  Horford can be paid anywhere from $14.5 to $26.5 million next season, if extra salary is needed to make a deal work.  Yes, the new team gets less savings relative to $14.5 million, but they get more savings relative to taking on any contracts they don't want, but would otherwise be included to get to a dollar amount that works).  Horford's contract is a lot more flexible than Kemba's.

Looks like the loophole may be a no-go.  Here's Hooprumors' summary:

Complicating matters further is that a team can’t simply circumvent the new rules by trading a player before a league year ends on June 30, then having his new team waive him when his non-guaranteed salary goes into effect on July 1. After the end of the regular season, a player’s outgoing salary for trade purposes is the lesser of his current-year salary and the guaranteed portion of his salary for the following season.

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2018/07/how-non-guaranteed-contract-rules-have-affected-recent-trades.html

That's crappy.  You gave me hope for a moment.

EDIT:  And Larry Coon's FAQ confirms:

Starting January 10 all base salary becomes fully guaranteed for the remainder of that season, so the player's full base salary is used for trade purposes. After a team's season ends (and through June 30), they use the lesser of the full salary for the current season and the guaranteed base salary for the upcoming season.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q85

[Celtics2021]

I honestly think the grade still needs to be incomplete until this offseason is finished.  Horford's contract should be easier to trade than Kemba's this summer, due to it being $23 million less.  And if he's not traded, stretching $14.5 million is a lot less limiting long-term than stretching $37.5 million.  Any of the choices you presented that involved keeping Kemba would have put the Celtics above the hard cap this summer, limiting the moves the team could make while having an even worse team than they do now.

No clue where it will end up, and honestly there's no good answers when you owe two years, $70+ million to a guy who can't even perform at a reserve level.  Given what has happened in the last season, my preference would have been trading Kemba and a lotto-protected 1st for Horford at the deadline last year, and skipped getting Fournier.  Then we could have had a max-level trade exception ($34.4 million) this year, and otherwise ended up in a similar place.  Seems like getting Fournier was Ainge's last bet to go out a winner.  Given how quickly Stevens made the trade upon taking over, he might have pivoted faster.

This is largely true, although with the path we chose, I don't foresee circumstances that would justify giving up the #16 pick.  I think it's unlikely we acquire anybody in sign-and-trade, but I guess time will tell.

One thing on the Horford contract that you understand, but I think many don't:  only the amount of salary that we guarantee is used for salary matching purposes.  A lot of folks seem to be under the impression that we can trade Horford's $26.5 million for a player making $33 million, with that player's team immediately waiving Horford and only having to pay him $14.5 million guaranteed (or $4.83 million per year for three seasons.)  Under that scenario, a team could immediately clear $28.17 million in salary.

But, that's not how it works.  Only the guaranteed salary counts.  So, as is, we can bring back somebody making $18.225 million ($14.5 million x 1.25 + $100k).  A team only saves $3.725 million unless it stretches Horford.  And, that's if they cut Horford, meaning they're trading a player who would have played for a player who won't be on their roster.  Now, presumably the team and Horford could renegotiate to guarantee more of his salary, but that also results in less savings for the acquiring team.

This is correct, but his full salary counts for deals made through June 30th, so in the early part of the offseason his contract has special value for matching purposes.  (I'm admittedly only 98% sure about this, but this has been my understanding and I haven't found anything saying I'm wrong about this).

I also think you're underestimating the potential value of your last sentence.  Horford can be paid anywhere from $14.5 to $26.5 million next season, if extra salary is needed to make a deal work.  Yes, the new team gets less savings relative to $14.5 million, but they get more savings relative to taking on any contracts they don't want, but would otherwise be included to get to a dollar amount that works).  Horford's contract is a lot more flexible than Kemba's.

Looks like the loophole may be a no-go.  Here's Hooprumors' summary:

Complicating matters further is that a team can’t simply circumvent the new rules by trading a player before a league year ends on June 30, then having his new team waive him when his non-guaranteed salary goes into effect on July 1. After the end of the regular season, a player’s outgoing salary for trade purposes is the lesser of his current-year salary and the guaranteed portion of his salary for the following season.

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2018/07/how-non-guaranteed-contract-rules-have-affected-recent-trades.html

That's crappy.  You gave me hope for a moment.

EDIT:  And Larry Coon's FAQ confirms:

Starting January 10 all base salary becomes fully guaranteed for the remainder of that season, so the player's full base salary is used for trade purposes. After a team's season ends (and through June 30), they use the lesser of the full salary for the current season and the guaranteed base salary for the upcoming season.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q85

Thanks for the link to Coon.  His internal links on the CBA pointed to Question 86 for this issue, not 85.

[droopdog7]

I did a poll last year asking folks which move they preferred to try and help the celtics and as I recall, trading Kemba for a root canal won by a landslide. 

Yet here we are, "concerned" about why we traded kemba.

[Roy H.]

I did a poll last year asking folks which move they preferred to try and help the celtics and as I recall, trading Kemba for a root canal won by a landslide. 

Yet here we are, "concerned" about why we traded kemba.

Nobody cares about trading Kemba in the abstract.

It's that we packaged a #1 for Kemba, even though the trade didn't make us better in the short term, and (to date) doesn't look like it will benefit us in the long-term, either.

[droopdog7]

I did a poll last year asking folks which move they preferred to try and help the celtics and as I recall, trading Kemba for a root canal won by a landslide. 

Yet here we are, "concerned" about why we traded kemba.

Nobody cares about trading Kemba in the abstract.

It's that we packaged a #1 for Kemba, even though the trade didn't make us better in the short term, and (to date) doesn't look like it will benefit us in the long-term, either.

Trading kemba was a root canal is the equivalent, or indeed worse, of taking up you know what to get it done.  I think giving up a first round pick, which was my assumption the whole time, qualifies as taking it up…

The idea is what the majority of people here wanted to trade kemba no matter what.  Well, no matter what happened.

Edit to add: and then the same people turn around and make trade proposals that were unrealistic. So there is definitely a disconnect between willing to do whatever and what is actually realistic.