Author Topic: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?  (Read 4675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« on: January 21, 2021, 11:17:39 AM »

Offline Yonkers332

  • Neemias Queta
  • Posts: 11
  • Tommy Points: 4
I was watching Felger and Mazz and Felger was trolling Celtics fans by saying you have spent all of your money and you are unable to add to your roster.  So I looked into it.  Did you know the Celtics are actually 25th of 30 teams in payroll in the NBA?  Do you know how many teams have won a championship spending in the bottom 5 teams?  You are correct NONE.  I also learned we have a $28.5 million dollar trade exception, a $5 million dollar trade exception, and a $2.5 million dollar trade exception.  We have a big 3.  What other teams have that we don’t is a bench. Players that can come in and score. Shooters.  The other contenders have them.  We bring in Grant, Semi, Javonte, etc.  They are OK but are they rotational players on a championship team?  I remember when we had KG and Ray Allen and Pierce.  Danny went out and got James Posey, Eddie House, Sam Cassell, etc. They all contributed to that championship.  Why doesn’t Danny do that for this team? Are his hands tied?  We don’t need to trade our Big 3.  Put something around them.  Then watch us take a big step forward. So Wick and Sal why are we 25th in payroll?

Re: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2021, 11:20:21 AM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
He brought in two vets in Thompson and Teague.  The early returns on them is pretty disappointing IMO. Tried to get Milsap but he elected to stay in Denver.  Some had hoped we had figured out how to get Wood, but not sure we had the $$ to sign him. I was intrigued by Josh Jackson, but he signed for 2 years with Pistons.

Re: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2021, 11:22:09 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Boston isn't winning the title this year.  Never had a real shot with the Big 3 the team has.  So why hamstring the team by adding big money role players that aren't going to do anything.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2021, 11:25:32 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
Season is still young and there is a TPE to be used.   

This is what happens when FA's leave the team.  Unless it is a sign and trade, you can't make up the missing money because of cap room.

Re: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2021, 11:27:55 AM »

Offline Birdman

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9170
  • Tommy Points: 412
Poor drafting has hurt this team..Yes, had some very few good ones in Tatum & Brown recently but overall it hurt us..still nags me about Mitchell Robinson to name one..wanted him so badly and thought Ainge would pick him
C/PF-Horford, Baynes, Noel, Theis, Morris,
SF/SG- Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Smart, Semi, Clark
PG- Irving, Rozier, Larkin

Re: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2021, 11:30:55 AM »

Offline DefenseWinsChamps

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6043
  • Tommy Points: 766
Boston isn't winning the title this year.  Never had a real shot with the Big 3 the team has.  So why hamstring the team by adding big money role players that aren't going to do anything.

I do think Boston has an outside shot to win the title this year, but the Nets, Lakers, and Clippers are all ahead of them. Still, when you are in the second tier of contenders, a bench doesn't vault you into the first tier. Top-end players do that. I don't think the bench really improves the Cs chances that much.

On top of that, if Ainge goes all out on a bench this year, it restricts his ability and options in future years, when this team may be more legitimate contenders.

Give it another year and enjoy being a dark horse contender.

Re: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2021, 11:33:48 AM »

Offline 18isGREATERthan72

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 469
  • Tommy Points: 34
Only reason their payroll is so low is because Brown's contract has just started, and Tatum's massive contract doesn't start until next season.  They will have three players making around $90 million dollars next season.

Felger is one of the most clueless people when it comes to the NBA.  I can't listen to that show at all anymore because the amount of disinformation regarding the NBA they spew out is astronomical.

Re: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2021, 11:50:12 AM »

Offline td450

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2330
  • Tommy Points: 254
Boston isn't winning the title this year.  Never had a real shot with the Big 3 the team has.  So why hamstring the team by adding big money role players that aren't going to do anything.

There is no big three. We have a big two. Jayson and Jaylen. And it appears to be quite obvious that no one knows what they are going to be by the end of the year, much less in the next couple of years. No one. Not even them. I've been watching pro ball for several decades and I've rarely seen two players improve this fast.

That means no one knows what the C's can or cannot do. If they plateau shortly, then yes, you are correct. They also might end the year as two of the top 10 players in the league, and might even steal a title with a lucky break or two.

I would be very disappointed in Ainge if he didn't think it was worth taking a shot this year. We certainly aren't the favorites, but we have a real chance.




Re: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2021, 11:53:27 AM »

Offline Chief

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21216
  • Tommy Points: 2450
Boston isn't winning the title this year.  Never had a real shot with the Big 3 the team has.  So why hamstring the team by adding big money role players that aren't going to do anything.

Sounds like they need to make a trade.
Once you are labeled 'the best' you want to stay up there, and you can't do it by loafing around.
 
Larry Bird

Re: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2021, 11:59:54 AM »

Offline Smartacus

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2112
  • Tommy Points: 318
My 3 Goals of this year are continued internal development of our core(Tatum, Brown, Smart, Timelord?) find out who could one day become a part of the core (Pritchard, Langford, Carsen, and Nesmith) and resetting the clock on the repeater tax.

I have no doubt that Wyc and Co. will spend every year of Tatum's prime as long as we can re-set the repeater tax this year. Players will want to play with Tatum and Brown. A star will become disgruntled. We just need to put ourselves in a position to be in the mix when it happens and that is not possible if we're paying a $500 Million+ tax bill every year.

Re: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2021, 12:02:15 PM »

Offline michigan adam

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 214
  • Tommy Points: 17
I was watching Felger and Mazz and Felger was trolling Celtics fans by saying you have spent all of your money and you are unable to add to your roster.  So I looked into it.  Did you know the Celtics are actually 25th of 30 teams in payroll in the NBA?  Do you know how many teams have won a championship spending in the bottom 5 teams?  You are correct NONE.  I also learned we have a $28.5 million dollar trade exception, a $5 million dollar trade exception, and a $2.5 million dollar trade exception.  We have a big 3.  What other teams have that we don’t is a bench. Players that can come in and score. Shooters.  The other contenders have them.  We bring in Grant, Semi, Javonte, etc.  They are OK but are they rotational players on a championship team?  I remember when we had KG and Ray Allen and Pierce.  Danny went out and got James Posey, Eddie House, Sam Cassell, etc. They all contributed to that championship.  Why doesn’t Danny do that for this team? Are his hands tied?  We don’t need to trade our Big 3.  Put something around them.  Then watch us take a big step forward. So Wick and Sal why are we 25th in payroll?

They are also hard capped and are trying to eliminate the repeater tax for the next few years of paying the tax.  I hope to spend right up to the tax threshold at the dead line.  If the right deal comes up they will spend to the hard cap...

Re: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2021, 12:47:13 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
The way the luxury tax is set up, it's important to stay under the tax until you're ready to go all-in.  When you do go all-in, you have to manage your long term cap so that you're not in the luxury tax for too many years in a row.

Spending a lot of money and going into the luxury tax year after year severely limits your options for building a roster.


This is the kind of nuance that Felger and Mazz never bother to discover, let alone articulate.

Much easier to dump on the Celtics because their audience tends to skew towards the Sox, Bruins, and Patriots, and not like basketball so much.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2021, 12:59:27 PM »

Offline NKY fan

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2349
  • Tommy Points: 106
The way the luxury tax is set up, it's important to stay under the tax until you're ready to go all-in.  When you do go all-in, you have to manage your long term cap so that you're not in the luxury tax for too many years in a row.

Spending a lot of money and going into the luxury tax year after year severely limits your options for building a roster.


This is the kind of nuance that Felger and Mazz never bother to discover, let alone articulate.

Much easier to dump on the Celtics because their audience tends to skew towards the Sox, Bruins, and Patriots, and not like basketball so much.
When will be the “right” time to go all in?
As long as you have 9 players on rookie deals (that number seems to be constant the last few seasons and going fwd) why not wait and avoid the tax? It’s the same thing year after year

Re: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2021, 02:16:00 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
The way the luxury tax is set up, it's important to stay under the tax until you're ready to go all-in.  When you do go all-in, you have to manage your long term cap so that you're not in the luxury tax for too many years in a row.

Spending a lot of money and going into the luxury tax year after year severely limits your options for building a roster.


This is the kind of nuance that Felger and Mazz never bother to discover, let alone articulate.

Much easier to dump on the Celtics because their audience tends to skew towards the Sox, Bruins, and Patriots, and not like basketball so much.

When will be the “right” time to go all in?

As long as you have 9 players on rookie deals (that number seems to be constant the last few seasons and going fwd) why not wait and avoid the tax? It’s the same thing year after year

That's a fair question.

I think Ryan Bernardoni has done good writing talking about this exact question over at his site

https://www.dangerc.art/

I think the short answer is you go all-in when you think that the doing so will make a big enough difference that it will boost your title odds significantly.  I think it's also a matter of keeping your eye on your long term cap sheet so that you manage your ability to maintain / add assets to your supporting cast.

If you go all-in one year but then you lose a few guys in free agency and don't have the ability to replace them, you've kind of undermined your ability to compete the next year.  Unless you're in a roster situation where you NEED to put all your chips in for the current season, it makes more sense to have multiple relatively lesser opportunities to make a title run than to maximize a single year at the expense of the following year or two.


Hard to really put accurate or scientific numbers on this, but if you look at your team and you think you maybe have a 5-10% chance of winning the title, and maybe a 20% chance of making the Finals, does it make sense to leverage your cap space and assets to increase your odds to 15%?  20%?  What if you know that doing so will decrease your odds the following year to 1-5%?


Right now the Celts are a second tier contender.  Their stars are not in the 28-33 window of "gotta win now before you lose your fastball" range.  It is reasonable to expect that Tatum and Brown are going to be even better 2-3 years from now than they are this season.  Meanwhile, you've got teams like the Lakers, Nets, and Clippers who are leveraged much more for the near term, and whose stars are more experienced, older, more established, and generally better than Tatum / Brown.

Does it make sense to go all-in right now?  Probably not.  I doubt that doing whatever it takes to maximize this roster would change the Celts from a second tier / dark horse team to one of the favorites.  Given that, it probably makes more sense to try to maximize the team's ability to compete 2-3 years from now when Tatum and Brown are nearing their apex and some of the younger guys on the roster are more seasoned.


With all of that said, the counter is that Kemba probably only has a couple years left at his current level, if that.  He's only under contract for another year or two, anyway.  Then you have Marcus Smart, who is only under contract for a couple more years and might also age somewhat quickly due to all of the wear and tear he's put on his body over the years, even though he's still relatively young.

Also, you've still an elite build-around player in Tatum who has shown he can carry a team in the playoffs, even if he isn't at that LeBron / Durant level yet, and you've got a very good second star in Brown.  It's still a very talented core that has shown the ability to go deep in the playoffs.  It doesn't make sense to say "Well we're not all-in this year so let's go super young and not even try to compete this season."  Because you never know what might happen in the playoffs.  Maybe Tatum gets super hot at just the right time and the Celts get lucky.  You need to leave that option open even if you're not all-in for the current season.



My belief is that it makes sense to mostly keep the powder dry while still showing Tatum and Brown that you're trying to put a competitive supporting cast around them without compromising the ability to improve the roster in the future.  Both guys are still at a stage in their career where they're proving how good they can be, rather than feeling that desperation of "I've got to win to secure my legacy and if I can't do it here I need to go elsewhere." 

We will doubtless reach that point soon enough, and Ainge and co. need to be ready to be aggressive when that happens.  Look at what Milwaukee did recently to convince Giannis they were serious and get him to sign an extension.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Are your BostonCeltics Cheap?
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2021, 02:28:05 PM »

Offline NKY fan

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2349
  • Tommy Points: 106
The way the luxury tax is set up, it's important to stay under the tax until you're ready to go all-in.  When you do go all-in, you have to manage your long term cap so that you're not in the luxury tax for too many years in a row.

Spending a lot of money and going into the luxury tax year after year severely limits your options for building a roster.


This is the kind of nuance that Felger and Mazz never bother to discover, let alone articulate.

Much easier to dump on the Celtics because their audience tends to skew towards the Sox, Bruins, and Patriots, and not like basketball so much.

When will be the “right” time to go all in?

As long as you have 9 players on rookie deals (that number seems to be constant the last few seasons and going fwd) why not wait and avoid the tax? It’s the same thing year after year

That's a fair question.

I think Ryan Bernardoni has done good writing talking about this exact question over at his site

https://www.dangerc.art/

I think the short answer is you go all-in when you think that the doing so will make a big enough difference that it will boost your title odds significantly.  I think it's also a matter of keeping your eye on your long term cap sheet so that you manage your ability to maintain / add assets to your supporting cast.

If you go all-in one year but then you lose a few guys in free agency and don't have the ability to replace them, you've kind of undermined your ability to compete the next year.  Unless you're in a roster situation where you NEED to put all your chips in for the current season, it makes more sense to have multiple relatively lesser opportunities to make a title run than to maximize a single year at the expense of the following year or two.


Hard to really put accurate or scientific numbers on this, but if you look at your team and you think you maybe have a 5-10% chance of winning the title, and maybe a 20% chance of making the Finals, does it make sense to leverage your cap space and assets to increase your odds to 15%?  20%?  What if you know that doing so will decrease your odds the following year to 1-5%?


Right now the Celts are a second tier contender.  Their stars are not in the 28-33 window of "gotta win now before you lose your fastball" range.  It is reasonable to expect that Tatum and Brown are going to be even better 2-3 years from now than they are this season.  Meanwhile, you've got teams like the Lakers, Nets, and Clippers who are leveraged much more for the near term, and whose stars are more experienced, older, more established, and generally better than Tatum / Brown.

Does it make sense to go all-in right now?  Probably not.  I doubt that doing whatever it takes to maximize this roster would change the Celts from a second tier / dark horse team to one of the favorites.  Given that, it probably makes more sense to try to maximize the team's ability to compete 2-3 years from now when Tatum and Brown are nearing their apex and some of the younger guys on the roster are more seasoned.


With all of that said, the counter is that Kemba probably only has a couple years left at his current level, if that.  He's only under contract for another year or two, anyway.  Then you have Marcus Smart, who is only under contract for a couple more years and might also age somewhat quickly due to all of the wear and tear he's put on his body over the years, even though he's still relatively young.

Also, you've still an elite build-around player in Tatum who has shown he can carry a team in the playoffs, even if he isn't at that LeBron / Durant level yet, and you've got a very good second star in Brown.  It's still a very talented core that has shown the ability to go deep in the playoffs.  It doesn't make sense to say "Well we're not all-in this year so let's go super young and not even try to compete this season."  Because you never know what might happen in the playoffs.  Maybe Tatum gets super hot at just the right time and the Celts get lucky.  You need to leave that option open even if you're not all-in for the current season.



My belief is that it makes sense to mostly keep the powder dry while still showing Tatum and Brown that you're trying to put a competitive supporting cast around them without compromising the ability to improve the roster in the future.  Both guys are still at a stage in their career where they're proving how good they can be, rather than feeling that desperation of "I've got to win to secure my legacy and if I can't do it here I need to go elsewhere." 

We will doubtless reach that point soon enough, and Ainge and co. need to be ready to be aggressive when that happens.  Look at what Milwaukee did recently to convince Giannis they were serious and get him to sign an extension.
All these are reasonable points .. it’s just when you have now three different youngish teams in 7 years making deep runs in the playoffs it seems like we will never go all in because of: repeaters tax penalty ... do we have the right stars.. are the second tier all stars we signed good enough to compete ... there is always something that justifies not going all in while you have teams achieving more than us with less... see raptors , heat and possibly nets.

Hmm time might be ticking faster than we think. Jaylen only has 3 years left on his deal after this one. How confident we are he’s happy to be the second star?