How To Make A Harrison Barnes Trade Work?

[Moranis]

Jackie Mac on Simmons podcast speculated it would take Pritchard and a 1st to get Barnes. She and Simmons would both do that trade. She said Celtics need to get bigger, that Pritchard size limits his impact.

Wonder if she feels that way about Chris Paul.

I really like Pritchard, but with Smart healthy and Teague not being a total zero, I think we can get by without him. And depending on how you feel about Yam, we may be pretty well stocked in the present and future at the PG position.

But, this trade idea has a giant flaw, and it's that it doesn't have us sending out enough salary to get under the tax. Even adding in Theis, I am not sure we quite get there, so we'd need to likely find a suitor for Thompson and his nearly $10M/yr non-expiring contract. Personally I'd prefer to keep Theis, but understand that he's probably more desirable to another team. I suppose we can just toss in Edwards with Theis to make the numbers work.

Yes, it doesn't work money wise. Would have to include salary. They were just speculating on assets it would take. It's pretty funny how Pritchard at 26th pick probably has more trade value at the moment than our last two late lottery picks in Romeo and Aaron.

Or just pay the tax

Normally I agree, but there's no need to continue down the path to the repeater tax if it can be avoided.  This is the season to reset that.

If Barnes isn't good enough to pay the tax for, then he isn't good enough to acquire imo.

It's not "the tax".  It's needlessly continuing into into the repeater tax, which handcuffs the team going forward.

Dumping a marginal amount of salary to avoid gigantic penalties down the line seems like a reasonable decision to me.  That said, I think if the team pursues Barnes it will be in the off-season.

I'm well aware of the rules regarding the tax, and I say again if Barnes isn't worth paying the tax for, then he isn't worth acquiring.  And that goes for anyone.  If they aren't going to push Boston up a tier either now or in the future, then there is no point in acquiring them.  Barnes is a nice player, but he isn't going to make Boston a contender at any point in time, so he isn't worth acquiring unless Sacramento is almost giving him away. 

[Celtics2021]

Jackie Mac on Simmons podcast speculated it would take Pritchard and a 1st to get Barnes. She and Simmons would both do that trade. She said Celtics need to get bigger, that Pritchard size limits his impact.

Wonder if she feels that way about Chris Paul.

I really like Pritchard, but with Smart healthy and Teague not being a total zero, I think we can get by without him. And depending on how you feel about Yam, we may be pretty well stocked in the present and future at the PG position.

But, this trade idea has a giant flaw, and it's that it doesn't have us sending out enough salary to get under the tax. Even adding in Theis, I am not sure we quite get there, so we'd need to likely find a suitor for Thompson and his nearly $10M/yr non-expiring contract. Personally I'd prefer to keep Theis, but understand that he's probably more desirable to another team. I suppose we can just toss in Edwards with Theis to make the numbers work.

Yes, it doesn't work money wise. Would have to include salary. They were just speculating on assets it would take. It's pretty funny how Pritchard at 26th pick probably has more trade value at the moment than our last two late lottery picks in Romeo and Aaron.

Or just pay the tax

Normally I agree, but there's no need to continue down the path to the repeater tax if it can be avoided.  This is the season to reset that.

If Barnes isn't good enough to pay the tax for, then he isn't good enough to acquire imo.

It's not "the tax".  It's needlessly continuing into into the repeater tax, which handcuffs the team going forward.

Dumping a marginal amount of salary to avoid gigantic penalties down the line seems like a reasonable decision to me.  That said, I think if the team pursues Barnes it will be in the off-season.

I'm well aware of the rules regarding the tax, and I say again if Barnes isn't worth paying the tax for, then he isn't worth acquiring.  And that goes for anyone.  If they aren't going to push Boston up a tier either now or in the future, then there is no point in acquiring them.  Barnes is a nice player, but he isn't going to make Boston a contender at any point in time, so he isn't worth acquiring unless Sacramento is almost giving him away.

Would you pay Harrison Barnes $30 million a year the next two years?  $35 million?  Because pushing Boston into the repeater tax will cost the team an extra $10-15 million in taxes each of the next two seasons beyond what they would pay if they were just in the regular tax.  It's not crazy to say that Harrison Barnes isn't worth $30-$35 million a season, and also not have that be inconsistent with thinking he would be a very good fit on this team and a player we should hope to acquire.  He's worth acquiring if enough payroll can be sent out to keep the Celtics under the tax this season, and not worth acquiring if that can't happen.  And given that the Celtics are moving to a 2-big rotation, it's pretty likely that if Barnes is acquired, one of Theis or Thompson will be dealt, either in that deal or in a separate deal that is lined up in a way to have the Celtics finish under the tax.

[Roy H.]

If they aren't going to push Boston up a tier either now or in the future, then there is no point in acquiring them.

I don’t think that you can really look at player acquisition in such a limited manner. For instance, it might make sense to acquire a good bench player, even though he isn’t going to elevate the team by himself.

Barnes is a very good player on a good contract. He also has a salary that is easily included in future trades.

[td450]

Jackie Mac on Simmons podcast speculated it would take Pritchard and a 1st to get Barnes. She and Simmons would both do that trade. She said Celtics need to get bigger, that Pritchard size limits his impact.

Wonder if she feels that way about Chris Paul.

I really like Pritchard, but with Smart healthy and Teague not being a total zero, I think we can get by without him. And depending on how you feel about Yam, we may be pretty well stocked in the present and future at the PG position.

But, this trade idea has a giant flaw, and it's that it doesn't have us sending out enough salary to get under the tax. Even adding in Theis, I am not sure we quite get there, so we'd need to likely find a suitor for Thompson and his nearly $10M/yr non-expiring contract. Personally I'd prefer to keep Theis, but understand that he's probably more desirable to another team. I suppose we can just toss in Edwards with Theis to make the numbers work.

Yes, it doesn't work money wise. Would have to include salary. They were just speculating on assets it would take. It's pretty funny how Pritchard at 26th pick probably has more trade value at the moment than our last two late lottery picks in Romeo and Aaron.

Or just pay the tax

Normally I agree, but there's no need to continue down the path to the repeater tax if it can be avoided.  This is the season to reset that.

If Barnes isn't good enough to pay the tax for, then he isn't good enough to acquire imo.

It's not "the tax".  It's needlessly continuing into into the repeater tax, which handcuffs the team going forward.

Dumping a marginal amount of salary to avoid gigantic penalties down the line seems like a reasonable decision to me.  That said, I think if the team pursues Barnes it will be in the off-season.

I'm well aware of the rules regarding the tax, and I say again if Barnes isn't worth paying the tax for, then he isn't worth acquiring.  And that goes for anyone.  If they aren't going to push Boston up a tier either now or in the future, then there is no point in acquiring them.  Barnes is a nice player, but he isn't going to make Boston a contender at any point in time, so he isn't worth acquiring unless Sacramento is almost giving him away.

Would you pay Harrison Barnes $30 million a year the next two years?  $35 million?  Because pushing Boston into the repeater tax will cost the team an extra $10-15 million in taxes each of the next two seasons beyond what they would pay if they were just in the regular tax.  It's not crazy to say that Harrison Barnes isn't worth $30-$35 million a season, and also not have that be inconsistent with thinking he would be a very good fit on this team and a player we should hope to acquire.  He's worth acquiring if enough payroll can be sent out to keep the Celtics under the tax this season, and not worth acquiring if that can't happen.  And given that the Celtics are moving to a 2-big rotation, it's pretty likely that if Barnes is acquired, one of Theis or Thompson will be dealt, either in that deal or in a separate deal that is lined up in a way to have the Celtics finish under the tax.

So, for any quality player we can acquire, we just need to find a way to offload Thompson's contract, and replace him with a budget big, which isn't that hard to find these days.

It seems to be a obvious move anyway, now that it's pretty clear that Rob Williams deserves more minutes. That was always the trap of the Thompson signing, that if RWill turned out to be a real player, that Thompson was a waste of money.

It's time to move him out, regardless.

[jambr380]

Jackie Mac on Simmons podcast speculated it would take Pritchard and a 1st to get Barnes. She and Simmons would both do that trade. She said Celtics need to get bigger, that Pritchard size limits his impact.

Wonder if she feels that way about Chris Paul.

I really like Pritchard, but with Smart healthy and Teague not being a total zero, I think we can get by without him. And depending on how you feel about Yam, we may be pretty well stocked in the present and future at the PG position.

But, this trade idea has a giant flaw, and it's that it doesn't have us sending out enough salary to get under the tax. Even adding in Theis, I am not sure we quite get there, so we'd need to likely find a suitor for Thompson and his nearly $10M/yr non-expiring contract. Personally I'd prefer to keep Theis, but understand that he's probably more desirable to another team. I suppose we can just toss in Edwards with Theis to make the numbers work.

Yes, it doesn't work money wise. Would have to include salary. They were just speculating on assets it would take. It's pretty funny how Pritchard at 26th pick probably has more trade value at the moment than our last two late lottery picks in Romeo and Aaron.

Or just pay the tax

Normally I agree, but there's no need to continue down the path to the repeater tax if it can be avoided.  This is the season to reset that.

If Barnes isn't good enough to pay the tax for, then he isn't good enough to acquire imo.

It's not "the tax".  It's needlessly continuing into into the repeater tax, which handcuffs the team going forward.

Dumping a marginal amount of salary to avoid gigantic penalties down the line seems like a reasonable decision to me.  That said, I think if the team pursues Barnes it will be in the off-season.

I'm well aware of the rules regarding the tax, and I say again if Barnes isn't worth paying the tax for, then he isn't worth acquiring.  And that goes for anyone.  If they aren't going to push Boston up a tier either now or in the future, then there is no point in acquiring them.  Barnes is a nice player, but he isn't going to make Boston a contender at any point in time, so he isn't worth acquiring unless Sacramento is almost giving him away.

Would you pay Harrison Barnes $30 million a year the next two years?  $35 million?  Because pushing Boston into the repeater tax will cost the team an extra $10-15 million in taxes each of the next two seasons beyond what they would pay if they were just in the regular tax.  It's not crazy to say that Harrison Barnes isn't worth $30-$35 million a season, and also not have that be inconsistent with thinking he would be a very good fit on this team and a player we should hope to acquire.  He's worth acquiring if enough payroll can be sent out to keep the Celtics under the tax this season, and not worth acquiring if that can't happen.  And given that the Celtics are moving to a 2-big rotation, it's pretty likely that if Barnes is acquired, one of Theis or Thompson will be dealt, either in that deal or in a separate deal that is lined up in a way to have the Celtics finish under the tax.

So, for any quality player we can acquire, we just need to find a way to offload Thompson's contract, and replace him with a budget big, which isn't that hard to find these days.

It seems to be a obvious move anyway, now that it's pretty clear that Rob Williams deserves more minutes. That was always the trap of the Thompson signing, that if RWill turned out to be a real player, that Thompson was a waste of money.

It's time to move him out, regardless.

I don't mind Thompson, but if it's a matter of moving Thompson to keep us under the tax or moving Theis to keep us barely in it, then it's a no-brainer. Personally, I like Theis better anyway, but we would be so close to getting under the tax in a Barnes trade that it would make no sense not to do it.

Either way, both Thompson and Theis are too good to be relegated to 3rd Center on this team. It would make a lot more sense to pick up Cousins or even Dedmon to cover that role if it means we can stay out of the tax.

[Moranis]

If they aren't going to push Boston up a tier either now or in the future, then there is no point in acquiring them.

I don’t think that you can really look at player acquisition in such a limited manner. For instance, it might make sense to acquire a good bench player, even though he isn’t going to elevate the team by himself.

Barnes is a very good player on a good contract. He also has a salary that is easily included in future trades.

Sure if he doesn't cost much to acquire or move the team in the tax.  You see you lose the context of my entire post when you pull just a sentence out.  I'd be fine acquiring bench players.  heck, I've posted pretty heavily about how I would have signed Kevin Porter because he is better than a lot of the bench players on the bench and wouldn't have cost anything to acquire.  But if you are giving up real assets and going into the tax to do so, the player better be worth paying the tax for.  I don't think Barnes is good enough now or in the future to go into the tax for and it isn't that easy to acquire him without significantly overpaying to avoid the tax (like moving thompson would cost more assets as he has no value to the Kings and has a contract passed this year).  Now I suppose if you could find a team to send Thompson to that would give up an expiring contract, then maybe you can make the trade work.  The Clippers and Lou Williams spring to mind, but Thompson for Williams doesn't work for the Clippers and their hard cap, so they'd have to send more out.  Those trades are just really complicated to swing and when you start adding all sorts of moveable parts it becomes even more difficult.   

[Roy H.]

One reason I’d be on board with landing Barnes:  his contract could easily be combined with another mid-size contract in the off-season to land a star like Beal.

For instance, Barnes plus Smart is a great starting point for Beal.

[Ilikesports17]

One reason I’d be on board with landing Barnes:  his contract could easily be combined with another mid-size contract in the off-season to land a star like Beal.

For instance, Barnes plus Smart is a great starting point for Beal.

That's true. The issue is just how many of those secondary assets do you have to give up in order to get Barnes.

Say Barnes costs you 2021 1st, 2023 1st and Langford. Now you can't trade your 2022 or 2024 firsts for Beal. Washington, if theyre trading Beal isn't gonna have any interest in your 2022 pick swap. Nor will they likely get anything out of the 2024 pick swap.

So while Nesmith-Smart-Barnes is a great start. Is Washington gonna be all that enamored with the picks you can offer them that won't begin to convey until likely 2025?

[Roy H.]

Say Barnes costs you 2021 1st, 2023 1st and Langford.

Too much.

[Moranis]

Say Barnes costs you 2021 1st, 2023 1st and Langford.

Too much.

I think it is Nesmith and the 21 1st as a starting point for Barnes.  Boston is ~5 million over the tax line doing that trade and then can't trade a 1st until 2023, which significantly limits the assets necessary for Beal (or someone like Beal) or to move off salary to get under the tax line. 

That is why I wouldn't acquire Barnes unless it is a component of a much larger trade where someone like Smart is going out in it. 

[Celtics2021]

Say Barnes costs you 2021 1st, 2023 1st and Langford.

Too much.

I think it is Nesmith and the 21 1st as a starting point for Barnes.  Boston is ~5 million over the tax line doing that trade and then can't trade a 1st until 2023, which significantly limits the assets necessary for Beal (or someone like Beal) or to move off salary to get under the tax line. 

That is why I wouldn't acquire Barnes unless it is a component of a much larger trade where someone like Smart is going out in it.

If trading for Beal in the offseason (which is the only time to trade for him in this scenario) they could trade 2022.  The rule is you can’t trade consecutive future draft picks, but once the 2021 draft is over, a pick this year would be in the past, enabling a pick to be moved in 2022.

[Sophomore]

One reason I’d be on board with landing Barnes:  his contract could easily be combined with another mid-size contract in the off-season to land a star like Beal.

For instance, Barnes plus Smart is a great starting point for Beal.

That's true. The issue is just how many of those secondary assets do you have to give up in order to get Barnes.

Say Barnes costs you 2021 1st, 2023 1st and Langford. Now you can't trade your 2022 or 2024 firsts for Beal. Washington, if theyre trading Beal isn't gonna have any interest in your 2022 pick swap. Nor will they likely get anything out of the 2024 pick swap.

So while Nesmith-Smart-Barnes is a great start. Is Washington gonna be all that enamored with the picks you can offer them that won't begin to convey until likely 2025?

Management would have to be far-sighted, but maybe they should be. That Celtics team could be entering a rebuild.

[footey]

Latest report from Sam Amick is that SAC not really motivated to trade Barnes.  Posturing? Who knows.

[Celtics2021]

Latest report from Sam Amick is that SAC not really motivated to trade Barnes.  Posturing? Who knows.

With SAC, it could either be posturing or another sign of a complete lack of direction.  More likely posturing, but I also think that posture makes them more likely to want prospects than future picks, so they can use what they have right away rather than down the road.

[Roy H.]

One reason I’d be on board with landing Barnes:  his contract could easily be combined with another mid-size contract in the off-season to land a star like Beal.

For instance, Barnes plus Smart is a great starting point for Beal.

That's true. The issue is just how many of those secondary assets do you have to give up in order to get Barnes.

Say Barnes costs you 2021 1st, 2023 1st and Langford. Now you can't trade your 2022 or 2024 firsts for Beal. Washington, if theyre trading Beal isn't gonna have any interest in your 2022 pick swap. Nor will they likely get anything out of the 2024 pick swap.

So while Nesmith-Smart-Barnes is a great start. Is Washington gonna be all that enamored with the picks you can offer them that won't begin to convey until likely 2025?

Management would have to be far-sighted, but maybe they should be. That Celtics team could be entering a rebuild.

Yeah, I’m not sure if Danny would mortgage our future like that, but future unprotected picks are the gold standard.