Nic Batum

[todd_days_41]

I raised it at the time of the Hayward S-n-T: (since it's not my money)..... why not take Batum back in trade? After all, bench shooting was considered a weakness at the time.

I believe the conditions would have been:

1) We'd not have had to give up two second round picks in the deal;
2) We'd have received back at least one pick for taking Batum's salary off Charlotte's hands (so they'd not have had to stretch him);
3) We'd not have been able to sign T Thompson (which I'd also be fine with);
4) We'd have a long wing whose made more left corner 3s than any player in the NBA this season;

Batum would still be a very large expiring contract to trade if needed, which yes, is less flexible / valuable than the TPE -- but TBD whether that proves to be of any consequence. Cs have two smaller TPEs from Kanter and Poirier to begin with.

It's a lot of money but Wyc's never been cheap in the past, and you could subtract Thompson's salary from Batum's money, essentially.

I'd rather have Batum + a bunch of picks over Thompson.

[wdleehi]

If the Celtics wanted him, they could have offered him more the the vet min to get him once he was waived. 

[todd_days_41]

If the Celtics wanted him, they could have offered him more the the vet min to get him once he was waived.

Possibly. Maybe he'd have preferred to sign with the Clippers. They're pretty good. And the dude's already made a fortune.

If you trade for him, he's yours -- and you get assets instead of giving them.

[Roy H.]

If the Celtics wanted him, they could have offered him more the the vet min to get him once he was waived.

Possibly. Maybe he'd have preferred to sign with the Clippers. They're pretty good. And the dude's already made a fortune.

If you trade for him, he's yours -- and you get assets instead of giving them.

You’d also be paying him $27 million, which would take us well over the luxury tax.

[wdleehi]

If the Celtics wanted him, they could have offered him more the the vet min to get him once he was waived.

Possibly. Maybe he'd have preferred to sign with the Clippers. They're pretty good. And the dude's already made a fortune.

If you trade for him, he's yours -- and you get assets instead of giving them.

The fact that you have to be paid to take that contract, do the Celtics really want that contract?   It's not like they could then turn around and use it to get another piece. 

[todd_days_41]

If the Celtics wanted him, they could have offered him more the the vet min to get him once he was waived.

Possibly. Maybe he'd have preferred to sign with the Clippers. They're pretty good. And the dude's already made a fortune.

If you trade for him, he's yours -- and you get assets instead of giving them.

The fact that you have to be paid to take that contract, do the Celtics really want that contract?   It's not like they could then turn around and use it to get another piece.

It's impossible to use an expiring contract to get another piece? Most of the speculation about the resulting TPE has been about guys making $20-28MM..... not a huge difference between that and Batum's expiring if that's how it's used. And I believe Batum would have had his Bird Rights after this season, as well.

Regardless, if Wyc's OK with the money, i'd rather pay Batum for a season than give Thompson $19MM for two.

Re: the luxury tax, I believe it would be been very close had they taken Batum back -- or they'd not have offered Hayward $26.5MM per over 4 years. And remember, Hayward opted out of $34.2MM for this season to begin with.

If in fact they'd have been slightly over (even without Thompson) -- fine. Danny's an excellent transactional GM. Dump Edwards or Green, or the like, to get under.

[wdleehi]

If the Celtics wanted him, they could have offered him more the the vet min to get him once he was waived.

Possibly. Maybe he'd have preferred to sign with the Clippers. They're pretty good. And the dude's already made a fortune.

If you trade for him, he's yours -- and you get assets instead of giving them.

The fact that you have to be paid to take that contract, do the Celtics really want that contract?   It's not like they could then turn around and use it to get another piece.

It's impossible to use an expiring contract to get another piece? Most of the speculation about the resulting TPE has been about guys making $20-28MM..... not a huge difference between that and Batum's expiring if that's how it's used.

And i'd rather pay Batum for a season than give Thompson $19MM for two.

Re: the luxury tax, I believe it would be been very close had they taken Batum back -- or they'd not have offered Hayward $26.5MM per over 4 years. If in fact they'd have been slightly over (even without Thompson) -- fine. Danny's an excellent transactional GM. Dump Edwards or Green, or the like, to get under.

Here is the huge difference, Batum counts against the cap and towards the tax, the TPE doesn't.   

Batum takes extra pieces for teams to take the contract (on top of what needs to be given to get the piece), the TPE doesn't

Finally, Charlotte couldn't find a team to take the contract, why would we expect the Celtics could?

[todd_days_41]

If the Celtics wanted him, they could have offered him more the the vet min to get him once he was waived.

Possibly. Maybe he'd have preferred to sign with the Clippers. They're pretty good. And the dude's already made a fortune.

If you trade for him, he's yours -- and you get assets instead of giving them.

The fact that you have to be paid to take that contract, do the Celtics really want that contract?   It's not like they could then turn around and use it to get another piece.

It's impossible to use an expiring contract to get another piece? Most of the speculation about the resulting TPE has been about guys making $20-28MM..... not a huge difference between that and Batum's expiring if that's how it's used. And I believe Batum would have had his Bird Rights after this season, as well.

Regardless, if Wyc's OK with the money, i'd rather pay Batum for a season than give Thompson $19MM for two.

Re: the luxury tax, I believe it would be been very close had they taken Batum back -- or they'd not have offered Hayward $26.5MM per over 4 years. And remember, Hayward opted out of $34.2MM for this season to begin with.

If in fact they'd have been slightly over (even without Thompson) -- fine. Danny's an excellent transactional GM. Dump Edwards or Green, or the like, to get under.

Here is the huge difference, Batum counts against the cap and towards the tax, the TPE doesn't.   

Batum takes extra pieces for teams to take the contract (on top of what needs to be given to get the piece), the TPE doesn't

Finally, Charlotte couldn't find a team to take the contract, why would we expect the Celtics could?

I made some edits to my post above on this topic -- included them in our thread.

"Why would we expect the Cs could?" I mean, they could have, couldn't they? Couldn't they have taken Batum back in the S&T for Hayward? If ownership agreed to the money (and i've never seen a report of Grousbeck saying 'no' to a deal over money), why couldn't they have?

Would you rather have Batum and 3-4 second round picks, or Thompson?

[Roy H.]

Re: the luxury tax, I believe it would be been very close had they taken Batum back -- or they'd not have offered Hayward $26.5MM per over 4 years. If in fact they'd have been slightly over (even without Thompson) -- fine. Danny's an excellent transactional GM. Dump Edwards or Green, or the like, to get under.

Our payroll without Thompson and with Batum would be around $136 million.  We would be about $3.4 million above the tax.  That’s without adding a third center.

[todd_days_41]

Re: the luxury tax, I believe it would be been very close had they taken Batum back -- or they'd not have offered Hayward $26.5MM per over 4 years. If in fact they'd have been slightly over (even without Thompson) -- fine. Danny's an excellent transactional GM. Dump Edwards or Green, or the like, to get under.

Our payroll without Thompson and with Batum would be around $136 million.  We would be about $3.4 million above the tax.  That’s without adding a third center.

OK. How would we have managed the tax if Hayward had opted in? I'm not sure I saw that covered in the media, etc.

[wdleehi]

Re: the luxury tax, I believe it would be been very close had they taken Batum back -- or they'd not have offered Hayward $26.5MM per over 4 years. If in fact they'd have been slightly over (even without Thompson) -- fine. Danny's an excellent transactional GM. Dump Edwards or Green, or the like, to get under.

Our payroll without Thompson and with Batum would be around $136 million.  We would be about $3.4 million above the tax.  That’s without adding a third center.

OK. How would we have managed the tax if Hayward had opted in? I'm not sure I saw that covered in the media, etc.

I imagine the team is ok with the tax for a player the level of Hayward.

Batum is not that level of player.

[NKY fan]

Batum would have taken us over the luxury tax by about a million or two. But if we received a draft pick swap that would have been worth it. I think I would have also done that deal if we were getting a draft asset that had a high perceived value around the league.
Then batums expiring plus a couple draft picks could get us a star like vuchevich or Gordon plus Ross.
I assume that if batums deal was something around 23-24 mill Danny would have done it (with a draft pick swap).

Edit :
Another thing Danny could have done is dump Poirier and Kanter on Charlotte to take on Batum plus a swap ... instead of paying teams to take those two off our hands. He didn’t know at the time though

[Roy H.]

Re: the luxury tax, I believe it would be been very close had they taken Batum back -- or they'd not have offered Hayward $26.5MM per over 4 years. If in fact they'd have been slightly over (even without Thompson) -- fine. Danny's an excellent transactional GM. Dump Edwards or Green, or the like, to get under.

Our payroll without Thompson and with Batum would be around $136 million.  We would be about $3.4 million above the tax.  That’s without adding a third center.

OK. How would we have managed the tax if Hayward had opted in? I'm not sure I saw that covered in the media, etc.

Well, you already saw some of the cost cutting moves the team was prepared to make. We gave up a number one pick to clear that salary along with Kanter’s, for instance.  I assume that we would have looked into some other cost cutting moves.

In theory, Hayward is worth paying the tax for. Batum is not. But even with Hayward, I think that the team would have tried very hard to get below the tax somehow, because avoiding the “repeater tax” a couple years down the road is worth it.

Edit :
Another thing Danny could have done is dump Poirier and Kanter on Charlotte to take on Batum plus a swap ... instead of paying teams to take those two off our hands. He didn’t know at the time though

We can only say that with the benefit of hindsight.  Danny wanted to make those moves at the time because he was probably pretty convinced that Hayward was going to opt in.

[todd_days_41]

Re: the luxury tax, I believe it would be been very close had they taken Batum back -- or they'd not have offered Hayward $26.5MM per over 4 years. If in fact they'd have been slightly over (even without Thompson) -- fine. Danny's an excellent transactional GM. Dump Edwards or Green, or the like, to get under.

Our payroll without Thompson and with Batum would be around $136 million.  We would be about $3.4 million above the tax.  That’s without adding a third center.

OK. How would we have managed the tax if Hayward had opted in? I'm not sure I saw that covered in the media, etc.

I imagine the team is ok with the tax for a player the level of Hayward.

Batum is not that level of player.

Well, he's better than guys we have playin' now...

~~~~~~

So the Cs would have paid about $20MM in luxury tax this year if Hayward had opted in, before they'd signed anyone else? Ouch.

[johnnygreen]

This seems like way too much of a hindsight 20/20 topic. No team was going take on a guy making $27M, after only averaging 3.6 PPG in the prior season. Would the conversion about Batum this season be as positive if the Clippers were paying him that same $27M, while he is averaging 10.3 PPG? Absolutely not. He's a great story this early season, because everyone thought he was done but is still able to contribute. And the Clippers were able to acquire a guy who was gong to make $27M this season for only the veteran minimum.

If Danny acquired Batum and took on that $27M salary this season, we'd be on at least page 50 of the Danny Ainge needs to be fired thread on this same topic. I'd rather have Tristian Thompson and Daniel Theis as the main 1-2 punch at center.