Author Topic: Bad Contracts for Assets?  (Read 3427 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bad Contracts for Assets?
« on: June 19, 2019, 11:46:29 AM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5515
  • Tommy Points: 549
So, with Al and Kyrie likely gone the Celtics now project to have around 28 million dollars in cap space if they renounce all free agents, and around 19.5 if they keep Rozier's cap hold on the books. Most Celtics fans would prefer to see them make a run at free agents like Vucevic, D-Rus, ect. And while I d find Russel intriguing lets say the Celtics strike out on him. It may be time to go back into asset accumulation mode and the age old tradition of taking on bad contracts for assets.

This could take a couple forms. First off taking salary into space in order to give teams breathing room against the tax, or to open up cap space. In this case there are several teams the Celtics could keep an eye on.

Charlotte- So many bad contracts, Batum goes two years at 25.5 and 27.1 and is close to dead money. MKG one year at 13. Biyombo one year at 17. If Charlotte is gonna bring back Kemba they may be willing to use assets to dump money. They have the 12th pick, and a couple interesting young guys like Monk who they may be willing to move.

Detroit- Reggie Jackson at 18 million, Galloway at 7.3 and Leur at 9.5 are all potential targets. All are expiring, they have the 15th pick. Not much in the way of young guys.

Portland- Meyers Leonard at 11 million and Evan Turner at 18.6  both expiring but both pretty useless in terms of winning playoff games. They have 126 million in salary committed to 11 guys right now, so no flexibility. They have the 25th pick. Also Zach Collins is interesting.

Miami- Take your pick, Richardson and Winslow are positive value contracts probably so forget them. But Olynyk, Waiters and Johnson are all in the 11-12 million area at 2 more years (including options). They have the 13th pick. If they could free up space to make a run at somebody like Butler maybe we could help.

And there are more teams, depending on exactly how free agency plays out. Another option would be to use Gordon hayward. Now I know what you are thinking "Gordon Hayward has no value!" and thats largely true, but one thing the Celtics could try is trading him for even worse value and getting an asset. he may not be worth 30 million dollars, but he is still an overall largely positive basketball player in terms of on floor impact. Charlotte for example might be willing to swap Batum (who is bad) for Gordon who even if he just repeats his second half from last year can still be a solid passer, defender, shooter and provide a nice wing option for a playoff team. Thats close to net neutral money wise, while being a talent upgrade. or maybe Portland Swaps Turner/Leonard and throws in an asset. Same thinking, two guys who are no help in the playoffs for one guy who would at least be a slid 3/D guy and has upside for more. Hayward is the exact type of player they could use.

One thing to keep in mind is the free agent class next year is week. Assuming most the major guys sign long term deals this offseason, or intend to stay with the team they go to, you are looking at Draymond and not much else. It is probably then not a bad idea to take on even two year contracts to extract maximum value.

We could also use it as a mechanism to move up in the draft. Say Charlotte wants to unload 13 million of MKG and flip the 12th and 22 picks. Is that fair value? Something to consider. Also, the picks we get don't need to be this year if the C's  arent crazy about adding more rookies. New avenues for salary dumping that cannot be foreseen may open up as free agency approaches/progresses. Say hello to lottery protected/ top 10/ top ## 2020 first round picks!

So what do you guys think? Should we focus on free agency and brining in talent? Or given our likely options (we arent getting a veteran max guy) should we be a dumping ground? If so who would you pursue and for what assets?

Re: Bad Contracts for Assets?
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2019, 12:00:48 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
Yes, I’ve thought of this too.  I’d be happy to have Olynyk back on the team, and if we could get a pick (I wouldn’t expect #13 for him, however) that would be fine.  I also wouldn’t mind Evan Turner returning — that worked well the first time around.

Another team you left off is OKC — they’re on pace for a tax bill in excess of $50 million again.  Steven Adams is overpaid, but at the same time is useful.  Take him this year, get multiple picks for him, and next offseason he’s an expiring that can match up one-for-one in terms of salaries with whatever stars come on the trade market before next year’s draft.

Re: Bad Contracts for Assets?
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2019, 12:05:40 PM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
I think I'd rather explore adding a developed young piece like Russell or KP before taking on salary dumps. But if we can't get a high level player with that space I see no reason to settle for the Randle's of the world.

Wouldn't we want to only take on expiring contracts? Next summer is when we pay Brown and potentially our last opportunity to utilise cap space for a while?

Re: Bad Contracts for Assets?
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2019, 12:07:05 PM »

Offline sadleprechaun

  • NCE
  • The Green Kornet
  • Posts: 95
  • Tommy Points: 8
Yep--this is the smart pivot for Danny to make now that Kyrie and Al are gone.  The priority should be the long-term, and we shouldn't worry at all about getting players who add current value.  We don't need to tank, but we do need to sacrifice now and set our sights on 2021/22/23.

Any other approach right now will leave us stuck in the mediocre middle.

Re: Bad Contracts for Assets?
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2019, 12:09:55 PM »

Offline blink

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18040
  • Tommy Points: 1469
Yes, I’ve thought of this too.  I’d be happy to have Olynyk back on the team, and if we could get a pick (I wouldn’t expect #13 for him, however) that would be fine.  I also wouldn’t mind Evan Turner returning — that worked well the first time around.

Another team you left off is OKC — they’re on pace for a tax bill in excess of $50 million again.  Steven Adams is overpaid, but at the same time is useful.  Take him this year, get multiple picks for him, and next offseason he’s an expiring that can match up one-for-one in terms of salaries with whatever stars come on the trade market before next year’s draft.

I like the Adams idea.  He would be valuable to a lot of contending teams at the deadline.  He would also might allow a Smart - Brown - Tatum - Hayward - Adams lineup to be semi workable.

Re: Bad Contracts for Assets?
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2019, 12:10:11 PM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
Yes, I’ve thought of this too.  I’d be happy to have Olynyk back on the team, and if we could get a pick (I wouldn’t expect #13 for him, however) that would be fine.  I also wouldn’t mind Evan Turner returning — that worked well the first time around.

Another team you left off is OKC — they’re on pace for a tax bill in excess of $50 million again.  Steven Adams is overpaid, but at the same time is useful.  Take him this year, get multiple picks for him, and next offseason he’s an expiring that can match up one-for-one in terms of salaries with whatever stars come on the trade market before next year’s draft.

Like the Adams idea, but also get multiple picks from OKC to take him? Did I understand this correctly? 

Re: Bad Contracts for Assets?
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2019, 12:27:29 PM »

Offline tonydelk

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1845
  • Tommy Points: 467
This could be some of the exotic moves Wyc was talking about.  If they don't think they can field a playoff team for next year I can see them going this route.  For instance if Al and Kyrie both leave and they strike out on the FA's they want to sign with their cap space then this leaves this option open but they will get picks next year and the year after.  I don't think that they want 5 rookies from this draft.  You need to space assets out in case you have to draft players and if they pan out you don't have to worry about paying everyone at the same time.

Re: Bad Contracts for Assets?
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2019, 12:28:07 PM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14456
  • Tommy Points: 972
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
Great post, TP keevsnick!  Unfortunately, I didn't see one name bantered about in this thread that is intriguing.  That said, you are saying to throw in the towel on 2019-2020 season and accumulate assets instead.

Re: Bad Contracts for Assets?
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2019, 12:30:43 PM »

Online Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47136
  • Tommy Points: 2401
The MKG and #12 for our #22 and cap space is interesting.

Re: Bad Contracts for Assets?
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2019, 12:46:59 PM »

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417
Yes, I’ve thought of this too.  I’d be happy to have Olynyk back on the team, and if we could get a pick (I wouldn’t expect #13 for him, however) that would be fine.  I also wouldn’t mind Evan Turner returning — that worked well the first time around.

Another team you left off is OKC — they’re on pace for a tax bill in excess of $50 million again.  Steven Adams is overpaid, but at the same time is useful.  Take him this year, get multiple picks for him, and next offseason he’s an expiring that can match up one-for-one in terms of salaries with whatever stars come on the trade market before next year’s draft.

It did???

Re: Bad Contracts for Assets?
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2019, 12:48:17 PM »

Offline JBcat

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3642
  • Tommy Points: 512
The MKG and #12 for our #22 and cap space is interesting.

That would be a very clever move I like. 

Not sure if we could do something similar with Adams.

Re: Bad Contracts for Assets?
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2019, 01:05:18 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
Yes, I’ve thought of this too.  I’d be happy to have Olynyk back on the team, and if we could get a pick (I wouldn’t expect #13 for him, however) that would be fine.  I also wouldn’t mind Evan Turner returning — that worked well the first time around.

Another team you left off is OKC — they’re on pace for a tax bill in excess of $50 million again.  Steven Adams is overpaid, but at the same time is useful.  Take him this year, get multiple picks for him, and next offseason he’s an expiring that can match up one-for-one in terms of salaries with whatever stars come on the trade market before next year’s draft.

Like the Adams idea, but also get multiple picks from OKC to take him? Did I understand this correctly?

Have you looked at Adams’ contract and OKC’s tax situation? 2 years, $53 million left plus a trade kicker.  Meanwhile, OKC just paid $60 million in luxury tax, will likely be near that number again next year with no moves, and have a pretty good chance of being in the tax in 2021 at their current pace.

Moving Adams should be costly to OKC.  I do think that sending Baynes back to OKC as part of the deal would make some sense (Danny’s supposed promise to Baynes notwithstanding) for both sides, but if Ainge just got Adams bloated deal for nothing more than a distant second, I would be disappointed.

Re: Bad Contracts for Assets?
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2019, 01:06:04 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
Yes, I’ve thought of this too.  I’d be happy to have Olynyk back on the team, and if we could get a pick (I wouldn’t expect #13 for him, however) that would be fine.  I also wouldn’t mind Evan Turner returning — that worked well the first time around.

Another team you left off is OKC — they’re on pace for a tax bill in excess of $50 million again.  Steven Adams is overpaid, but at the same time is useful.  Take him this year, get multiple picks for him, and next offseason he’s an expiring that can match up one-for-one in terms of salaries with whatever stars come on the trade market before next year’s draft.

It did???

Yes.

Re: Bad Contracts for Assets?
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2019, 02:13:23 PM »

Offline sadleprechaun

  • NCE
  • The Green Kornet
  • Posts: 95
  • Tommy Points: 8
There's another reason I really like this approach: it plays to Brad's strengths.  He's at his best when he's in underdog mode, and I have total faith that he can add value to both young players that we add through the draft and vets that we repackage as part of bigger deals.

Re: Bad Contracts for Assets?
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2019, 02:16:22 PM »

Offline RodyTur10

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2757
  • Tommy Points: 291
  • Always offline from 9pm till 3am
Yes, I’ve thought of this too.  I’d be happy to have Olynyk back on the team, and if we could get a pick (I wouldn’t expect #13 for him, however) that would be fine.  I also wouldn’t mind Evan Turner returning — that worked well the first time around.

Another team you left off is OKC — they’re on pace for a tax bill in excess of $50 million again.  Steven Adams is overpaid, but at the same time is useful.  Take him this year, get multiple picks for him, and next offseason he’s an expiring that can match up one-for-one in terms of salaries with whatever stars come on the trade market before next year’s draft.

Like the Adams idea, but also get multiple picks from OKC to take him? Did I understand this correctly?

Have you looked at Adams’ contract and OKC’s tax situation? 2 years, $53 million left plus a trade kicker.  Meanwhile, OKC just paid $60 million in luxury tax, will likely be near that number again next year with no moves, and have a pretty good chance of being in the tax in 2021 at their current pace.

Moving Adams should be costly to OKC.  I do think that sending Baynes back to OKC as part of the deal would make some sense (Danny’s supposed promise to Baynes notwithstanding) for both sides, but if Ainge just got Adams bloated deal for nothing more than a distant second, I would be disappointed.

If Baynes is all right with such a move (and in fairness, why wouldn't he rather want to play in Oklahoma) then that would be bloody brilliant. But OKC doesn't have many assets. Ferguson (who scores only 6,9 PPG) is their praised youngster  ;D , and he's below Huerter, Beasley, Shamet or Kennard in talent level. So picks is what we need (and perhaps Abdel Nader back ;) ).

Not much interest in the #21 pick in this draft, we have enough picks this year. (Unprotected) picks for '20 and '22 (without George?!) could be a good haul. Like the Memphis pick we have, very valuable down the road, but you have to wait a while.