Author Topic: Hayward sign-and-trade completed  (Read 30854 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Hayward sign-and-trade completed
« Reply #450 on: December 01, 2020, 08:50:41 PM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4219
  • Tommy Points: 1002
to help those among us who love to propose trades, here is a list of nba salaries over the next few years. have fun.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html

The only player that makes any sense for both teams is Beal (imagine a lineup of Beal/Brown/Tatum?!?). But we canít get to Beal without a third team. And then finding a player who has a salary we can get and then flip for Bealís is very tricky. I canít find a player who would get dumped for a TPE and picks.

And would a S&T next offseason hard cap us again next year? If so, we wonít be able to do that. I feel like ultimately we may find a good player, but no max/superstar, with the TPE.
I AM A CELTIC

Re: Hayward sign-and-trade completed
« Reply #451 on: December 01, 2020, 09:38:14 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21089
  • Tommy Points: 892
There's a really good series of tweets from Bulpett discussing Hayward's role on the team after Tatum and Brown's emergence, and why he was interested in leaving. Here's the start of the series:

https://twitter.com/SteveBHoop/status/1333907919373561867


It's basically something I've been wondering about for a while. Hayward signed on to be a featured player together with IT. Then suddenly we had Kyrie, which still could have worked for him as a duo. Once he went down though in his first game and Tatum  broke out, and then Tatum and Brown carried that group to the ECFs, everything changed. In retrospect according to Bulpett if the Celtics knew what they had in Tatum they would have never committed 128 million dollars to him:

https://twitter.com/SteveBHoop/status/1333907921223241728


Bulpett goes on to speculate that Hayward's value to the current group was to keep the ball moving and keep them from falling into iso ball. He believes that Tatum and Brown's continued maturation and improved playmaking should be able to compensate for that.

Re: Hayward sign-and-trade completed
« Reply #452 on: December 08, 2020, 10:02:46 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6188
  • Tommy Points: 658
There's a really good series of tweets from Bulpett discussing Hayward's role on the team after Tatum and Brown's emergence, and why he was interested in leaving. Here's the start of the series:

https://twitter.com/SteveBHoop/status/1333907919373561867


It's basically something I've been wondering about for a while. Hayward signed on to be a featured player together with IT. Then suddenly we had Kyrie, which still could have worked for him as a duo. Once he went down though in his first game and Tatum  broke out, and then Tatum and Brown carried that group to the ECFs, everything changed. In retrospect according to Bulpett if the Celtics knew what they had in Tatum they would have never committed 128 million dollars to him:

https://twitter.com/SteveBHoop/status/1333907921223241728


Bulpett goes on to speculate that Hayward's value to the current group was to keep the ball moving and keep them from falling into iso ball. He believes that Tatum and Brown's continued maturation and improved playmaking should be able to compensate for that.

When I think about Tatum's development as both a scorer and passer plus Kemba's abilities with the ball, and how much I like Smart's intensity in the starting unit, the more I thought that Hayward's best role this season would've been as a 6th man. Come off the bench as the the primary ballhandler for the second unit, tearing up other team's benches.

Because when the best 5 is on the floor, Hayward is the 3rd or 4th scoring option, the 3rd or 4th ballhandling option, and there is positional overlap with guys who are better than him. The bench would've made sense but he's overqualified and overpaid for that. So now he's gone.

Oh well.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Hayward sign-and-trade completed
« Reply #453 on: December 08, 2020, 10:38:41 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5204
  • Tommy Points: 438
There's a really good series of tweets from Bulpett discussing Hayward's role on the team after Tatum and Brown's emergence, and why he was interested in leaving. Here's the start of the series:

https://twitter.com/SteveBHoop/status/1333907919373561867


It's basically something I've been wondering about for a while. Hayward signed on to be a featured player together with IT. Then suddenly we had Kyrie, which still could have worked for him as a duo. Once he went down though in his first game and Tatum  broke out, and then Tatum and Brown carried that group to the ECFs, everything changed. In retrospect according to Bulpett if the Celtics knew what they had in Tatum they would have never committed 128 million dollars to him:

https://twitter.com/SteveBHoop/status/1333907921223241728


Bulpett goes on to speculate that Hayward's value to the current group was to keep the ball moving and keep them from falling into iso ball. He believes that Tatum and Brown's continued maturation and improved playmaking should be able to compensate for that.

When I think about Tatum's development as both a scorer and passer plus Kemba's abilities with the ball, and how much I like Smart's intensity in the starting unit, the more I thought that Hayward's best role this season would've been as a 6th man. Come off the bench as the the primary ballhandler for the second unit, tearing up other team's benches.

Because when the best 5 is on the floor, Hayward is the 3rd or 4th scoring option, the 3rd or 4th ballhandling option, and there is positional overlap with guys who are better than him. The bench would've made sense but he's overqualified and overpaid for that. So now he's gone.

Oh well.

You are right, Hayward would have been a great 6th man for this team.  It is just hard to justify paying $30M for that role with all the other contracts that we have.  In reality, Hayward or Kemba had to go.  They might have been willing to pay the tax for one year but no way long term.  As you said, Oh Well.

Re: Hayward sign-and-trade completed
« Reply #454 on: December 08, 2020, 10:45:05 AM »

Offline NKY fan

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1780
  • Tommy Points: 82
There's a really good series of tweets from Bulpett discussing Hayward's role on the team after Tatum and Brown's emergence, and why he was interested in leaving. Here's the start of the series:

https://twitter.com/SteveBHoop/status/1333907919373561867


It's basically something I've been wondering about for a while. Hayward signed on to be a featured player together with IT. Then suddenly we had Kyrie, which still could have worked for him as a duo. Once he went down though in his first game and Tatum  broke out, and then Tatum and Brown carried that group to the ECFs, everything changed. In retrospect according to Bulpett if the Celtics knew what they had in Tatum they would have never committed 128 million dollars to him:

https://twitter.com/SteveBHoop/status/1333907921223241728


Bulpett goes on to speculate that Hayward's value to the current group was to keep the ball moving and keep them from falling into iso ball. He believes that Tatum and Brown's continued maturation and improved playmaking should be able to compensate for that.

When I think about Tatum's development as both a scorer and passer plus Kemba's abilities with the ball, and how much I like Smart's intensity in the starting unit, the more I thought that Hayward's best role this season would've been as a 6th man. Come off the bench as the the primary ballhandler for the second unit, tearing up other team's benches.

Because when the best 5 is on the floor, Hayward is the 3rd or 4th scoring option, the 3rd or 4th ballhandling option, and there is positional overlap with guys who are better than him. The bench would've made sense but he's overqualified and overpaid for that. So now he's gone.

Oh well.

You are right, Hayward would have been a great 6th man for this team.  It is just hard to justify paying $30M for that role with all the other contracts that we have.  In reality, Hayward or Kemba had to go.  They might have been willing to pay the tax for one year but no way long term.  As you said, Oh Well.
There are owners that are ready to pay such salaries for depth.. see Brooklyn and Warriors..
Iím a little worried that Wyc (while declaring they are ready to pay tax) has never come out and said that they are willing to pay what it takes to contend... if Hayward being a sixth man @30$mill per is what it takes to contend they should have been ready to pay that .