Celtics Hub article on cap options and tax concerns

[More Banners]

Okay, I know it's not my money but I don't see the luxury tax as the issue.  Rather, the actual cap is the problem.  How do we fit free agents into the space BEFORE we run out of room by paying our own players?  That's the trickiest part of all this I think.

And yeah, look like some guys just have to go if we're going to preserve space.  If we can sign Hayward and somehow keep Avery this summer (letting KO walk), then that's what I would go for.  I'm still not worried about the short term (i.e., next year).  Then I would actually prioritize Avery over IT at that time because I think he would be cheaper and be a better trade chip down the line. 

Ultimately, we probably need to cash in on either the 18' Brooklyn pick or Brown or both to get another very good player in here.  Hopefully Brown continues to show promise and Brooklyn continues to suck.  At that time, we'd be looking at Avery, Fultz, Hayward, Al, and Crowder as sure starters plus whatever we can get back for Brown/Brooklyn 18 (hopefully a good player that is a big). 

The I guess we try and keep Smart and Rozier and fill in the rest.

People are sleeping on Jaylen Brown. He is a different form of Jimmy Butler and has legitimate potential for exponential growth.

I agree. When people are making their ideal future line-ups it's really befulddling to me that they prefer Crowder over Brown. There are a lot of difficult decisions to be made for the team, but after this year (to me) it's clear that Crowder is an average SF who isn't able to consistently defend the elite forwards in the league.

His primarily value comes of his bargain contract. But that contract will ultimately expire and then he will obviously ask for a lot more money. Besides that, form what we've seen from his body language and talk in the media we can safely assume that Crowder will not accept a minor role from the bench.

On the other hand, Brown has shown flashes of huge potential. I find his rookie season quite surprising as the expectation were that it would take years for him to make noteworthy contributions to the team. But instead he was the best player on the team in a playoff game in the NBA-conference finals. I wonder what would happen if Brown got the trust from Stevens to play 30+ minutes on nightly basis.

Holding on to Crowder because he gives you good value for his contract and is pretty solid overall is exactly the kind of choice that gets you into trouble. It seems like a safe bet, but it's just not good enough. And that's all that matters. Of course you could view him as a role player from the bench, but as I said he won't accept that. His biggest value to the Celtics would be brought in a trade.

Here's the thing.  In a vacuum, I don't prefer Crowder over Brown.  But fans have it all wrong.  They only ever want to trade bad over good.  No one ever wants to trade good players.  ever.  I live in a world where you have to give to get. 

I like Brown.  I think he has potential but yeah, he's far from a surefire star.  But, I don't have time to wait for him.  And he may never get there.  And in my scenario,Crowder is now my bench guy because we have Hayward.  Thus we don't need Brown and I would welcome what he can bring back.  If he's as good as some people think, it should be significant no?

 What I'm trying to do is lay out a possible plan given the circumstances.  I would love to keep them all but that won't be possible.

Start by letting go of the non-shooters. That's Smart (like Turner and Sully before him).

Then, let go of role players if they can be replaced with stars, less expensive versions, rookie contract guys, or need to be included in a trade. That's Crowder. Maybe Bradley (less likely).

And then be willing to let go of retained draftee rights and future non-top 10 draft picks if needed.

And I think we can put together a package that doesn't break our core-du-jour but draws a very good but  not "special" player. Crowder/Smart/picks/rights to whomever would  keep a conversation going.

[droopdog7]

Okay, I know it's not my money but I don't see the luxury tax as the issue.  Rather, the actual cap is the problem.  How do we fit free agents into the space BEFORE we run out of room by paying our own players?  That's the trickiest part of all this I think.

And yeah, look like some guys just have to go if we're going to preserve space.  If we can sign Hayward and somehow keep Avery this summer (letting KO walk), then that's what I would go for.  I'm still not worried about the short term (i.e., next year).  Then I would actually prioritize Avery over IT at that time because I think he would be cheaper and be a better trade chip down the line. 

Ultimately, we probably need to cash in on either the 18' Brooklyn pick or Brown or both to get another very good player in here.  Hopefully Brown continues to show promise and Brooklyn continues to suck.  At that time, we'd be looking at Avery, Fultz, Hayward, Al, and Crowder as sure starters plus whatever we can get back for Brown/Brooklyn 18 (hopefully a good player that is a big). 

The I guess we try and keep Smart and Rozier and fill in the rest.

People are sleeping on Jaylen Brown. He is a different form of Jimmy Butler and has legitimate potential for exponential growth.

I agree. When people are making their ideal future line-ups it's really befulddling to me that they prefer Crowder over Brown. There are a lot of difficult decisions to be made for the team, but after this year (to me) it's clear that Crowder is an average SF who isn't able to consistently defend the elite forwards in the league.

His primarily value comes of his bargain contract. But that contract will ultimately expire and then he will obviously ask for a lot more money. Besides that, form what we've seen from his body language and talk in the media we can safely assume that Crowder will not accept a minor role from the bench.

On the other hand, Brown has shown flashes of huge potential. I find his rookie season quite surprising as the expectation were that it would take years for him to make noteworthy contributions to the team. But instead he was the best player on the team in a playoff game in the NBA-conference finals. I wonder what would happen if Brown got the trust from Stevens to play 30+ minutes on nightly basis.

Holding on to Crowder because he gives you good value for his contract and is pretty solid overall is exactly the kind of choice that gets you into trouble. It seems like a safe bet, but it's just not good enough. And that's all that matters. Of course you could view him as a role player from the bench, but as I said he won't accept that. His biggest value to the Celtics would be brought in a trade.

Here's the thing.  In a vacuum, I don't prefer Crowder over Brown.  But fans have it all wrong.  They only ever want to trade bad over good.  No one ever wants to trade good players.  ever.  I live in a world where you have to give to get. 

I like Brown.  I think he has potential but yeah, he's far from a surefire star.  But, I don't have time to wait for him.  And he may never get there.  And in my scenario,Crowder is now my bench guy because we have Hayward.  Thus we don't need Brown and I would welcome what he can bring back.  If he's as good as some people think, it should be significant no?

 What I'm trying to do is lay out a possible plan given the circumstances.  I would love to keep them all but that won't be possible.

Start by letting go of the non-shooters. That's Smart (like Turner and Sully before him).

Then, let go of role players if they can be replaced with stars, less expensive versions, rookie contract guys, or need to be included in a trade. That's Crowder. Maybe Bradley (less likely).

And then be willing to let go of retained draftee rights and future non-top 10 draft picks if needed.

And I think we can put together a package that doesn't break our core-du-jour but draws a very good but  not "special" player. Crowder/Smart/picks/rights to whomever would  keep a conversation going.

Wow, your proposal is, um, not all that realistic.  And it's the extreme example of what I said in my post; wanting to move only the worst players on the roster (in that order).  And you somehow want to turn our role players into less expensive stars?  How so?  And I guess you'll want to let KO go too? 

[No Nickname]

Yeah, every feasible option has Kelly Olynyk a goner which I think the consensus is out on that one. Whether we get Hayward or not, I think most of us prefer not to pay him.

Is there any way to trade Kelly and get something in return for him that won't impact the FA signing of Hayward?  I'd hate to just see Kelly walk.

If he's traded, would it be at his current 2016-17 salary?  Would it work to trade him to a team with an UFA like Indiana's Aaron Brooks plus get a pick from the Pacers too?  Then just waive Brooks after the deal wiping away his salary?

You'd get $3M in savings and a pick in exchange for Kelly. 

Just trying to find an UFA within 150% + $100,000 of Kelly's $3,094,000 salary is tough.  There aren't too many out there at that salary, who are a UFA, that their team doesn't really value them that much, and they'd have a pick to offer. 

Randy Foye for the Nets would qualify as I don't think the Nets want him, but the last thing they want to do is give the Celtics another pick.

Kris Humphries in Atlanta might fit the bill.  But you're looking at getting a pick in the 20s in exchange for Kelly.  Same with the Indiana option I mentioned above.

Still, it's better than nothing!

[droopdog7]

Yeah, every feasible option has Kelly Olynyk a goner which I think the consensus is out on that one. Whether we get Hayward or not, I think most of us prefer not to pay him.

Is there any way to trade Kelly and get something in return for him that won't impact the FA signing of Hayward?  I'd hate to just see Kelly walk.

If he's traded, would it be at his current 2016-17 salary?  Would it work to trade him to a team with an UFA like Indiana's Aaron Brooks plus get a pick from the Pacers too?  Then just waive Brooks after the deal wiping away his salary?

You'd get $3M in savings and a pick in exchange for Kelly. 

Just trying to find an UFA within 150% + $100,000 of Kelly's $3,094,000 salary is tough.  There aren't too many out there at that salary, who are a UFA, that their team doesn't really value them that much, and they'd have a pick to offer. 

Randy Foye for the Nets would qualify as I don't think the Nets want him, but the last thing they want to do is give the Celtics another pick.

Kris Humphries in Atlanta might fit the bill.  But you're looking at getting a pick in the 20s in exchange for Kelly.  Same with the Indiana option I mentioned above.

Still, it's better than nothing!

Most nba contracts are guaranteed.  So unless there is explicit language that a part of the contract is not guaranteed, then you can't simply cut them to remove salary.  Otherwise, teams would be doing that left and right to clear space.

[The Oracle]

Yeah, every feasible option has Kelly Olynyk a goner which I think the consensus is out on that one. Whether we get Hayward or not, I think most of us prefer not to pay him.

Is there any way to trade Kelly and get something in return for him that won't impact the FA signing of Hayward?  I'd hate to just see Kelly walk.

If he's traded, would it be at his current 2016-17 salary?  Would it work to trade him to a team with an UFA like Indiana's Aaron Brooks plus get a pick from the Pacers too?  Then just waive Brooks after the deal wiping away his salary?

You'd get $3M in savings and a pick in exchange for Kelly. 

Just trying to find an UFA within 150% + $100,000 of Kelly's $3,094,000 salary is tough.  There aren't too many out there at that salary, who are a UFA, that their team doesn't really value them that much, and they'd have a pick to offer. 

Randy Foye for the Nets would qualify as I don't think the Nets want him, but the last thing they want to do is give the Celtics another pick.

Kris Humphries in Atlanta might fit the bill.  But you're looking at getting a pick in the 20s in exchange for Kelly.  Same with the Indiana option I mentioned above.

Still, it's better than nothing!

You cannot trade free agents whether they are restricted or unrestricted.  K.O., Amir and Jerebko are not under contract and can't be traded.

[No Nickname]

Most nba contracts are guaranteed.  So unless there is explicit language that a part of the contract is not guaranteed, then you can't simply cut them to remove salary.  Otherwise, teams would be doing that left and right to clear space.

Sorry, I meant just let their deals expire before the season starts.  But as the other post above says, you can't trade players not under contract.  Even if they are a RFA I guess.

[RodyTur10]

Okay, I know it's not my money but I don't see the luxury tax as the issue.  Rather, the actual cap is the problem.  How do we fit free agents into the space BEFORE we run out of room by paying our own players?  That's the trickiest part of all this I think.

And yeah, look like some guys just have to go if we're going to preserve space.  If we can sign Hayward and somehow keep Avery this summer (letting KO walk), then that's what I would go for.  I'm still not worried about the short term (i.e., next year).  Then I would actually prioritize Avery over IT at that time because I think he would be cheaper and be a better trade chip down the line. 

Ultimately, we probably need to cash in on either the 18' Brooklyn pick or Brown or both to get another very good player in here.  Hopefully Brown continues to show promise and Brooklyn continues to suck.  At that time, we'd be looking at Avery, Fultz, Hayward, Al, and Crowder as sure starters plus whatever we can get back for Brown/Brooklyn 18 (hopefully a good player that is a big). 

The I guess we try and keep Smart and Rozier and fill in the rest.

People are sleeping on Jaylen Brown. He is a different form of Jimmy Butler and has legitimate potential for exponential growth.

I agree. When people are making their ideal future line-ups it's really befulddling to me that they prefer Crowder over Brown. There are a lot of difficult decisions to be made for the team, but after this year (to me) it's clear that Crowder is an average SF who isn't able to consistently defend the elite forwards in the league.

His primarily value comes of his bargain contract. But that contract will ultimately expire and then he will obviously ask for a lot more money. Besides that, form what we've seen from his body language and talk in the media we can safely assume that Crowder will not accept a minor role from the bench.

On the other hand, Brown has shown flashes of huge potential. I find his rookie season quite surprising as the expectation were that it would take years for him to make noteworthy contributions to the team. But instead he was the best player on the team in a playoff game in the NBA-conference finals. I wonder what would happen if Brown got the trust from Stevens to play 30+ minutes on nightly basis.

Holding on to Crowder because he gives you good value for his contract and is pretty solid overall is exactly the kind of choice that gets you into trouble. It seems like a safe bet, but it's just not good enough. And that's all that matters. Of course you could view him as a role player from the bench, but as I said he won't accept that. His biggest value to the Celtics would be brought in a trade.

Here's the thing.  In a vacuum, I don't prefer Crowder over Brown.  But fans have it all wrong.  They only ever want to trade bad over good.  No one ever wants to trade good players.  ever.  I live in a world where you have to give to get. 

I like Brown.  I think he has potential but yeah, he's far from a surefire star.  But, I don't have time to wait for him.  And he may never get there.  And in my scenario,Crowder is now my bench guy because we have Hayward.  Thus we don't need Brown and I would welcome what he can bring back.  If he's as good as some people think, it should be significant no?

 What I'm trying to do is lay out a possible plan given the circumstances.  I would love to keep them all but that won't be possible.

You did name Crowder in your first proposed starting line up. And out of position at PF. That seems to be the exact decision where you don't make a hard call to let a good player go. Benching Crowder behind Hayward is perfectly reasonable, but it seems like Crowder sees that differently.

But we are on different tracks as I am willing to wait for Brown to get there. Also I'm not sure if other teams value Brown appropriately. An offer of Brown + Brooklyn pick should get you a superstar. 

Anyhow I just don't see a way to build a contender with the Celtics within 3 years and also make it sustainable for a few years salarywise. And Bradley, Fultz, Hayward, ?, Horford looks nice but who is going to carry that team to contention?

[KGBirdBias]

Great article...very in depth and very sobering.

It's looking like signing Horford and NOT getting KD set us back.

It's looking like we can only get 1 All Star Free Agent. This team could look drastically different in 2 years.

It looks like winning this year only made it worse because this isn't a team that can beat the Cavs but we have some pieces that played well.

I'm willing to gut the team to have 4 All Star level players and fill in with role players that are willing to take less money. That's the only way to win now. If not, we're looking at a long plan of 3-5 years to let a young team grow led by Fultz, Brown and next year's #1 pick.

[More Banners]

Okay, I know it's not my money but I don't see the luxury tax as the issue.  Rather, the actual cap is the problem.  How do we fit free agents into the space BEFORE we run out of room by paying our own players?  That's the trickiest part of all this I think.

And yeah, look like some guys just have to go if we're going to preserve space.  If we can sign Hayward and somehow keep Avery this summer (letting KO walk), then that's what I would go for.  I'm still not worried about the short term (i.e., next year).  Then I would actually prioritize Avery over IT at that time because I think he would be cheaper and be a better trade chip down the line. 

Ultimately, we probably need to cash in on either the 18' Brooklyn pick or Brown or both to get another very good player in here.  Hopefully Brown continues to show promise and Brooklyn continues to suck.  At that time, we'd be looking at Avery, Fultz, Hayward, Al, and Crowder as sure starters plus whatever we can get back for Brown/Brooklyn 18 (hopefully a good player that is a big). 

The I guess we try and keep Smart and Rozier and fill in the rest.

People are sleeping on Jaylen Brown. He is a different form of Jimmy Butler and has legitimate potential for exponential growth.

I agree. When people are making their ideal future line-ups it's really befulddling to me that they prefer Crowder over Brown. There are a lot of difficult decisions to be made for the team, but after this year (to me) it's clear that Crowder is an average SF who isn't able to consistently defend the elite forwards in the league.

His primarily value comes of his bargain contract. But that contract will ultimately expire and then he will obviously ask for a lot more money. Besides that, form what we've seen from his body language and talk in the media we can safely assume that Crowder will not accept a minor role from the bench.

On the other hand, Brown has shown flashes of huge potential. I find his rookie season quite surprising as the expectation were that it would take years for him to make noteworthy contributions to the team. But instead he was the best player on the team in a playoff game in the NBA-conference finals. I wonder what would happen if Brown got the trust from Stevens to play 30+ minutes on nightly basis.

Holding on to Crowder because he gives you good value for his contract and is pretty solid overall is exactly the kind of choice that gets you into trouble. It seems like a safe bet, but it's just not good enough. And that's all that matters. Of course you could view him as a role player from the bench, but as I said he won't accept that. His biggest value to the Celtics would be brought in a trade.

Here's the thing.  In a vacuum, I don't prefer Crowder over Brown.  But fans have it all wrong.  They only ever want to trade bad over good.  No one ever wants to trade good players.  ever.  I live in a world where you have to give to get. 

I like Brown.  I think he has potential but yeah, he's far from a surefire star.  But, I don't have time to wait for him.  And he may never get there.  And in my scenario,Crowder is now my bench guy because we have Hayward.  Thus we don't need Brown and I would welcome what he can bring back.  If he's as good as some people think, it should be significant no?

 What I'm trying to do is lay out a possible plan given the circumstances.  I would love to keep them all but that won't be possible.

Start by letting go of the non-shooters. That's Smart (like Turner and Sully before him).

Then, let go of role players if they can be replaced with stars, less expensive versions, rookie contract guys, or need to be included in a trade. That's Crowder. Maybe Bradley (less likely).

And then be willing to let go of retained draftee rights and future non-top 10 draft picks if needed.

And I think we can put together a package that doesn't break our core-du-jour but draws a very good but  not "special" player. Crowder/Smart/picks/rights to whomever would  keep a conversation going.

Wow, your proposal is, um, not all that realistic.  And it's the extreme example of what I said in my post; wanting to move only the worst players on the roster (in that order).  And you somehow want to turn our role players into less expensive stars?  How so?  And I guess you'll want to let KO go too?

Well, you take a team that needs to rebuild and just doesn't have enough pieces, then offer a bunch of  "bites at the apple" in draft picks, add matching salary in players that could play for them, and that's pretty much how it goes. Our 2018, MEM and LAC picks, Yabu and Zizic can be arranged in a package that would keep teams talking. Voila.

Worrying about sustainability is not the first problem. Fielding a team worth sustaining is.

[ETNCeltics]

The luxury tax is destructive. Few teams can afford to pay it. Look at what some of you are suggesting. You've got the Celtics with a payroll + cap penalty greater than the team's revenues. There's no way the organization would do that. Not even the Knicks would do that.

It's killing some of you, but pretty much our only reasonable course of action is patience, unless an Anthony Davis or Kevin Durant somehow becomes available.

[RodyTur10]

The luxury tax is destructive. Few teams can afford to pay it. Look at what some of you are suggesting. You've got the Celtics with a payroll + cap penalty greater than the team's revenues. There's no way the organization would do that. Not even the Knicks would do that.

It's killing some of you, but pretty much our only reasonable course of action is patience, unless an Anthony Davis or Kevin Durant somehow becomes available.

Not only is the luxury tax destructive, but players/agents/teams/fans went completely of the road to what 'normal' salaries are. The players that signed big contracts the last two years are not overpaid. They are severely overpaid! They took all that money that was flying around and the next group of free agents are the ones who will pay for that. Maybe not this summer as teams still seem to be struggling to make rational decisions, but certainly in 2018.

Because of the luxury tax teams can't maintain a super expensive roster like the Lakers, the Heat or the Nets had in previous years. So I looked at what common salaries were for contenders in the past that had a reasonable team payroll. I took the season of 2012/2013 because the cap had been stable for years and no big cap explosion was to be expected. During those years the cap was around 60 million and the projected salary cap for upcoming years seems to be around 110 million. So let's take those salaries from 2012/2013 and multiply them by the factor 110/60=1,83.

Examples:

Chicago Bulls

Derrick Rose *injured (star) 16.4 => 30.1
Carlos Boozer (starter) 15 => 27,5
Luol Deng   (star) 13,3 => 24,4
Joakim Noah (star) 11,3 => 20,7
Richard Hamilton (role) 5 => 9,2
Kirk Hinrich (6th man)   3,9 => 7,2
Taj Gibson (role)   2,2 => 4,0
Marco Belinelli (role) 2 => 3,7
Jimmy Butler (starter) 1,1 => 2,0
Nate Robinson (role) 0,9 => 1,7
Rest 3,3 => 6,1

San Antonio Spurs

Manu Ginobili (6th man) 14,1 => 25,9
Tony Parker (star) 12,5 => 22,9
Stephen Jackson   (role) 10,1 => 18,5
Tim Duncan (star) 9,6 => 17,6
Boris Diaw   (role) 4,5 => 8,3
Tiago Splitter (starter) 3,9 => 7,2
Matt Bonner (role) 3,6 => 6,6
Danny Green (starter)   3,5 => 6,4
Kawhi Leonard (starter) 1,8 => 3,3
Cory Joseph (role) 1,1 => 2,0
Gary Neal (role) 0,9 => 1,7
Rest 3,8 => 7,0

Oklahoma City Thunder

Kevin Durant (star) 16,7 => 30,6
Russell Westbrook (star) 13,7 => 25,1
Kevin Martin (6th man) 12,4 => 22,7
Kendrick Perkins   (starter) 8,3 => 15,2
Thabo Sefolosha   (starter) 3,6 => 6,6
Nick Collison (role) 2,9 =>5,3
Serge Ibaka (starter) 2,3 => 4,2
Reggie Jackson (role) 1,2 => 2,2
Derek Fisher (role) 0,3 => 0,6
Rest 6,8 => 12,5

So after the adjustment all the teams have only four players that earn over 10 million! Every player that earns 6 million or more is at least a very valuable role player or a starter. And if you pay a player a contract over 20 million it needs to be a star/superstar if you want a good return for your money. If we ignore the rookie contracts, then we can see what are reasonable salaries to be paid for the role on the team you want your player to be:

Average star/superstar: 13,4 => 24,5
Average starter/6th man: 7,4 => 13,6
Average role player: 3,2 => 5,9

As we can see the stars are generally maxed out or at least close to that. We see that regular starters or sixth man (on a contender!) would be paid around 12 to 15 million. Then there's a big drop off. Valuable role players who play around 15-20 minutes a game only get paid 6 million on average. It was and will be a star driven league.

The reason that Cleveland and Golden State are able to afford their stars in the short term is because Irving, Curry, Thompson and Green are now underpaid because they signed their contracts under the old salary cap. And they're already maneuvering in very tight spaces, so to speak.

In the future no team will be able to keep such loaded rosters as the Cavs and Warriors, unless players are willing to take paycuts. The Celtics have no stars locked up for cheap, so we really have to be patient so we can anticipate on the mistakes other teams make and profit from that.

So if we discuss what salaries we want to pay for our upcoming free agents. Please look at what you should expect in return for that. If we pay Olynyk 12 million, then you can't be satisfied with a role player, but you'd need to expect that he can at least be a 6th man. Same goes for Smart, if you pay him 15 million and want to compete, then he has to be able to be a good starter. And a 20+ contract for Bradley means that you're convinced that he's a star in this league.

[TheSundanceKid]

Good points Rody. The last few years have given a distorted image of who can get the max. Hayward would be earning the equivalent to Durant or pre injury Rose which is obscene.

It also illustrates that it would be difficult for us to have more than 4 players averaging $25m, especially given the high picks we are getting. You could still sign KO to a market rate deal and look to love him in a couple of years though. We don't have to think about it as re-signing someone for​ the life of their contract. To me it is about keeping them until the young guy can fill the role.
Yab for KO
Fultz for Thomas
Brown for Bradley/Crowder
But until they are ready we need someone in place and the guys we have are that.