So three years from now, you might have a luxury tax problem if Brown and Tatum sign max deals and Hayward gets renewed at big bucks.
Wyc will never agree to any deal with Jaylen that takes him into luxury tax unless he is confident that the team as constructed is championship caliber.
Thatís fine and dandy, but the Celtics can give Jaylen the max and still avoid luxury tax next year, so itís pretty moot.
Yes, assume Hayward renews, and Jayson gets max, the year after will be luxury tax, no?
But if you don't want luxury tax problems in three years the answer is not passing on a 22 year old with star potential now, it to re-evaluate Hayward after two more years here and either paying him significantly less for his 32-35 years old years or let him go. Luxury tax problem solved.
Correct. Or, if Hayward has returned to a level of play that deserves a max or near max contract in his 30s, pay the tax for the title contender you almost assuredly have.
The luxury tax is not the problem.
Right now the Celts don't have a quality big man.
Celts will never get past the Bucks or Sixers if the Celts don't have a big man to use against the likes of Embiid and Giannis.
Spending lots of money on wing players is just not practical.
That's the main reason why I'm against keeping all 3, Tatum, Hayward, and Brown.
A compromise would be for Brown to agree to a 4-year 100m deal.
Brown is not a max player.
He can be an All-Star, but I just don't see Brown as a player like Kawhi or Jimmy Butler.
If Brown and the Celts can agree to a contract extension, Langford will never get playing time.
So if the Celts and Brown agree to an extension, Langford needs to go.
That will solve the problem of having too many players that play the same position.