There's no need to be worried about CBA changes yet

[keevsnick]

Why would we trade Brogdon over Grant?

We wouldn't

A lot of reasons. Age, injury history, probably cheaper, plays a position the C's have less depth at.

The point of this new CBA is to keep teams from just paying whatever to keep talent. How good player x is vs player y is not going to be the only consideration in who is on the c's roster going forward. It kind of stinks, but that's the situation.

[cman88]

Why would we trade Brogdon over Grant?

We wouldn't

A lot of reasons. Age, injury history, probably cheaper, plays a position the C's have less depth at.

The point of this new CBA is to keep teams from just paying whatever to keep talent. How good player x is vs player y is not going to be the only consideration in who is on the c's roster going forward. It kind of stinks, but that's the situation.

thats assuming that keeping the MLE and option to have buyout candidates is more valuable than someone like Brogdan/Grant. at best its a lateral move that the guy you get with the MLE is the same talent as brogdan/grant

For a team with the celtics age and current roster the new CBA shouldn't concern them much much. Other than another backup big who can defend there really isn't much they need talent wise. their issues this year have all been mental/coaching/injuries. It's more a problem for teams that need that "extra piece" to get to the next level or are ageing.

But its all relative to the situation the team is in at that point. if i'm the Bucks or Sixers I might start thinking long and hard about who to pay. For Milwaukee because they are getting old and guys like Middleton/holiday are looking their age. and sixers are trying to still find that combination that gets them out of the second round and could be losing Harden. so they are limited in how they can improve

[Kernewek]

Good post cman, but I think the worrying thing, or at least a thing people are aware of as a concern on the horizon, is how ownership and Stevens are taking the long view with the Jays when - according to some - we should be swinging for a championship.

In other words, even if I am on board with  ‘our two best players have us outsized success relative to their ages, no need to worry’, when I look at the new rules and restrictions I think the road to building a championship team gets more difficult, not less, as the seasons progress.

It’s not difficult to envision a world where the best team we can put around the Jays was the team we just watched.

[cman88]

Good post cman, but I think the worrying thing, or at least a thing people are aware of as a concern on the horizon, is how ownership and Stevens are taking the long view with the Jays when - according to some - we should be swinging for a championship.

In other words, even if I am on board with  ‘our two best players have us outsized success relative to their ages, no need to worry’, when I look at the new rules and restrictions I think the road to building a championship team gets more difficult, not less, as the seasons progress.

It’s not difficult to envision a world where the best team we can put around the Jays was the team we just watched.

It could be, but I think thats the point of why maybe they should just run it back with this core and add some defensive bigs. Lets not forget we are adding Gallinari who didn't play last year as well off the bench. I think Brad's mindset is get some guys back, have a full offseason with a filled out coaching staff and bank on Tatum/Brown making another key jump as they get closer to their primes (jaylen about to enter his).

[Kernewek]

Good post cman, but I think the worrying thing, or at least a thing people are aware of as a concern on the horizon, is how ownership and Stevens are taking the long view with the Jays when - according to some - we should be swinging for a championship.

In other words, even if I am on board with  ‘our two best players have us outsized success relative to their ages, no need to worry’, when I look at the new rules and restrictions I think the road to building a championship team gets more difficult, not less, as the seasons progress.

It’s not difficult to envision a world where the best team we can put around the Jays was the team we just watched.

It could be, but I think thats the point of why maybe they should just run it back with this core and add some defensive bigs. Lets not forget we are adding Gallinari who didn't play last year as well off the bench. I think Brad's mindset is get some guys back, have a full offseason with a filled out coaching staff and bank on Tatum/Brown making another key jump as they get closer to their primes (jaylen about to enter his).

Well-known defensive specialist Danilo Gallinari 

I am with you, by the way - I think running it back is fine, and even better if we can find someone to fill Al's role. But I can also see why some folks might be upset at this approach.

[Celtics4ever]

A lot of reasons. Age, injury history, probably cheaper, plays a position the C's have less depth at.

On the other hand, there is a big time talent difference with Brogdon vs. Grant.   Brogdon is more productive, can shoot better., and can rebound almost as good as Grant as a guard.  He can create his own shot,  and pass better.  He is more of leader and doesn't rile up the refs with constant whining.  Another caveat is Mazulla will play Malcolm and trusts him.

[wdleehi]

Is there a better way? 

Trade Gallo and Pritchard taking back little in money (looking for a draft pick).

[Roy H.]

Is there a better way? 

Trade Gallo and Pritchard taking back little in money (looking for a draft pick).

Certainly Gallo should be on the block if it can upgrade the team. 

I think the concern is more about long-term salary that will be on our books, though.  Even if the salary cap jumps 10% every year (the maximum), and even when Gallo/Pritchard/Muscala are off the books, it's going to be tough to afford all of Brown, Smart, White, Brogdon and Grant.

[wdleehi]

Is there a better way? 

Trade Gallo and Pritchard taking back little in money (looking for a draft pick).

Certainly Gallo should be on the block if it can upgrade the team. 

I think the concern is more about long-term salary that will be on our books, though.  Even if the salary cap jumps 10% every year (the maximum), and even when Gallo/Pritchard/Muscala are off the books, it's going to be tough to afford all of Brown, Smart, White, Brogdon and Grant.

Long term, yes.   


But for next year, can such moves get the Celtics under some of the long term penalties thresholds while keeping the best possible team?   

[Kernewek]

Is there a better way? 

Trade Gallo and Pritchard taking back little in money (looking for a draft pick).

Certainly Gallo should be on the block if it can upgrade the team. 

I think the concern is more about long-term salary that will be on our books, though.  Even if the salary cap jumps 10% every year (the maximum), and even when Gallo/Pritchard/Muscala are off the books, it's going to be tough to afford all of Brown, Smart, White, Brogdon and Grant.

To me, the logic has to be that Grant is the worst player of the group and Brogdon is the wrong side of 30.

[Vermont Green]

Is there a better way? 

Trade Gallo and Pritchard taking back little in money (looking for a draft pick).

Certainly Gallo should be on the block if it can upgrade the team. 

I think the concern is more about long-term salary that will be on our books, though.  Even if the salary cap jumps 10% every year (the maximum), and even when Gallo/Pritchard/Muscala are off the books, it's going to be tough to afford all of Brown, Smart, White, Brogdon and Grant.

Once Brown is on the books for $50M and up and Tatum is on the books for $60M and up, the team is going to have cap issues almost no matter what they do with the rest of the roster.  I don't see how they can have a team with Brown and Tatum plus 12 others all making under $5M, which is about what it would need to be to be under the second apron.  I have not crunched the numbers in any detail but I think that is how it is going to work out.  The Celtics are going to be over the second apron and will have a really good team, but will have to accept the limitations on trades and signings that come with it.

The option will be to have a good team but few options to improve it or a not so good team that you may be able to make a little better.

[keevsnick]

Is there a better way? 

Trade Gallo and Pritchard taking back little in money (looking for a draft pick).

Certainly Gallo should be on the block if it can upgrade the team. 

I think the concern is more about long-term salary that will be on our books, though.  Even if the salary cap jumps 10% every year (the maximum), and even when Gallo/Pritchard/Muscala are off the books, it's going to be tough to afford all of Brown, Smart, White, Brogdon and Grant.

Once Brown is on the books for $50M and up and Tatum is on the books for $60M and up, the team is going to have cap issues almost no matter what they do with the rest of the roster.  I don't see how they can have a team with Brown and Tatum plus 12 others all making under $5M, which is about what it would need to be to be under the second apron.  I have not crunched the numbers in any detail but I think that is how it is going to work out.  The Celtics are going to be over the second apron and will have a really good team, but will have to accept the limitations on trades and signings that come with it.

The option will be to have a good team but few options to improve it or a not so good team that you may be able to make a little better.

Lets put some actual numbers to it. In 24-25 the cap is projected to be 143 million, if Browns signs for 35% that would start at 50 million. The next year his salary would increase to 54 million (50 with 8% raise). Assuming the cap rises 10% (due to new TV deal) in 25-26 that would put the cap that year at about 157 and Tatum's 35% max starting at about 55 million. The only other player under contract for that year are Smart at 21.4 and Rob at 13.6. So thats a total of 144 million for 4 guys.

The 2nd apron will be 134% of the cap, so that's 210 million roughly on a 157 million dollar cap. That leaves 66 million for 11 roster spots. Again, this assumes a 10% cap rise the first year of Tatum's extension which is the first year of the new TV deal, as well as Tatum and Brown at max numbers. 

So its not quite Tatum+Brown and 12 guys making under five. Its Tatum/Brown/Smart/Rob and 11 guys making an average of roughly 6, at least that first year. All this also assumes the C"s are willing to spend up to the second apron, even between the first and second apron the penalties money wise get pretty tough.

[footey]

If given choice to trade Gallo, Grant or Brogdon, trade Grant. I’d rather have more offensive versatility than defensive versatility. Gallo Brogdon can each do different things well on the offensive side. Grant is 3 and D, that’s it.

[Vermont Green]

Is there a better way? 

Trade Gallo and Pritchard taking back little in money (looking for a draft pick).

Certainly Gallo should be on the block if it can upgrade the team. 

I think the concern is more about long-term salary that will be on our books, though.  Even if the salary cap jumps 10% every year (the maximum), and even when Gallo/Pritchard/Muscala are off the books, it's going to be tough to afford all of Brown, Smart, White, Brogdon and Grant.

Once Brown is on the books for $50M and up and Tatum is on the books for $60M and up, the team is going to have cap issues almost no matter what they do with the rest of the roster.  I don't see how they can have a team with Brown and Tatum plus 12 others all making under $5M, which is about what it would need to be to be under the second apron.  I have not crunched the numbers in any detail but I think that is how it is going to work out.  The Celtics are going to be over the second apron and will have a really good team, but will have to accept the limitations on trades and signings that come with it.

The option will be to have a good team but few options to improve it or a not so good team that you may be able to make a little better.

Lets put some actual numbers to it. In 24-25 the cap is projected to be 143 million, if Browns signs for 35% that would start at 50 million. The next year his salary would increase to 54 million (50 with 8% raise). Assuming the cap rises 10% (due to new TV deal) in 25-26 that would put the cap that year at about 157 and Tatum's 35% max starting at about 55 million. The only other player under contract for that year are Smart at 21.4 and Rob at 13.6. So thats a total of 144 million for 4 guys.

The 2nd apron will be 134% of the cap, so that's 210 million roughly on a 157 million dollar cap. That leaves 66 million for 11 roster spots. Again, this assumes a 10% cap rise the first year of Tatum's extension which is the first year of the new TV deal, as well as Tatum and Brown at max numbers. 

So its not quite Tatum+Brown and 12 guys making under five. Its Tatum/Brown/Smart/Rob and 11 guys making an average of roughly 6, at least that first year. All this also assumes the C"s are willing to spend up to the second apron, even between the first and second apron the penalties money wise get pretty tough.

Thanks for the added analysis.  You proved my guess wasn't far off.  You assumed 13 players, I assumed 14 players.  You came up with Tatum + Brown plus 11 more at $6M each.  I guessed Tatum + Brown plus 12 more at $5M each.

My point is if you build the roster that way, you still can't really do anything to improve the team with trades or signings and stay under the second apron.   Maybe you can sign a min contract vet in one case but not the other.  How much does that change things?  I am saying the team will be better if you resign who you can, even if you end up over the second apron, and then have to live with the restrictions.

[Moranis]

It is not smart team building or cap management to pay a guy that is around the 25th best player in the sport 35% of the cap.  It is too much money for a guy that simply isn't good enough.  But unless Boston trades him, they have to do that as they can't let him leave.  That is why I'd trade Brown.  You just have to maximize the dollars and cap room and that isn't Brown.