Was extending Hayward’s opt out deadline a mistake?

[Roy H.]

Right before the draft, Danny was faced with a decision: should he voluntarily agree to extend Hayward’s opt in deadline for a few days?  Originally Gordon’s decision was due the day before the draft; a proposal was made to push it until after draft night.

Danny agreed to do so.  His reasoning was understandable: it is usually a good idea to cooperate with players and agents, and if Hayward opted in before the draft, teams could have more leverage over the Celtics, knowing that they were in the luxury tax and had to move salary.

The rest is history. The team operated under the apparent expectation that Hayward would opt in, dumping salary and moving a 1st rounder.  In hindsight, there was no reason to do so, as we are well under the tax line. 

If we had kept to Hayward’s original opt in date, how do you think things would have played out? Would we have still traded him to Charlotte? To Indiana? Or would we have kept him?  Would we have kept our third first rounder?

[PhoSita]

The mistake was not trading Hayward for some kind of value at the deadline last season. 

If the team had reason to think Hayward was going to opt out and get a good offer, they should have traded him.

If the team was completely surprised by Hayward's decision and/or the fact that other teams were willing to offer more, then that was a failure of a different sort.



Hindsight is 20/20 obviously ... this would look different if Hayward had been healthy for the playoff run and the Celtics had made the Finals because of his strong play, for example.  In that case you might say well, it was worth holding on to him despite the risk of losing him because the Celts made a Finals run.

Then again, Hayward was injured for most of the important games that happened during his time under contract with the Celtics.  So you could argue it was foolish to expect him to contribute to a deep playoff run.



Anytime we second guess the coach or management, it's important to keep in mind that we don't know what they did or did not know or when they knew it.  We don't know what they tried to do or what any of the people involved said.

Still, between Kyrie, Horford, and Hayward it seems like you have three guys that the team at least had some thought might want to stick around at a price the team would be willing to pay, and in each instance that turned out not to be true.  I don't buy that there's something "wrong" with the Celtics organization that caused those players to want to leave.

I do wonder if there's something wrong with the organization insofar as gathering internal intelligence on their own players to have some idea of what the players are going to do when they hit free agency.

[Tr1boy]

The mistake was not trading Hayward for some kind of value at the deadline last season. 

If the team had reason to think Hayward was going to opt out and get a good offer, they should have traded him.

If the team was completely surprised by Hayward's decision and/or the fact that other teams were willing to offer more, then that was a failure of a different sort.

Makes no sense

Team was trying to "go" for it

At least try to make the finals

[PhoSita]

The mistake was not trading Hayward for some kind of value at the deadline last season. 

If the team had reason to think Hayward was going to opt out and get a good offer, they should have traded him.

If the team was completely surprised by Hayward's decision and/or the fact that other teams were willing to offer more, then that was a failure of a different sort.

Makes no sense

Team was trying to "go" for it

At least try to make the finals

Sure, but a couple of things

(a) Hayward was constantly in and out of the lineup.  Expecting him to be healthy for a full playoff run seems foolish to me

(b) In part because the team kept Hayward, they're now left with minimal assets to improve the team now that he's gone.  That's also partly because Ainge has used all of these first round picks he gathered and so far none of the players he's selected has turned into a major tradeable asset.

The asset management over the last few seasons has left something to be desired.  Ainge "went for it" with Kyrie / Hayward / Horford and it collapsed.  You can trace it all back to Hayward's ankle injury and then AD's unwillingness to consider an alternative destination to LA.  But it feels like Ainge never really came up with a good plan to pivot away from that one once his AD dream died.

[Jiri Welsch]

The transcript is going to read "INCOMPLETE" for this whole Hayward-to-Charlotte situation until we know what happens with the TPE.

I think if we'd forced his hand, Hayward would have just opted out and signed with Charlotte like he ultimately did.

[slamtheking]

The mistake was not trading Hayward for some kind of value at the deadline last season. 

If the team had reason to think Hayward was going to opt out and get a good offer, they should have traded him.

If the team was completely surprised by Hayward's decision and/or the fact that other teams were willing to offer more, then that was a failure of a different sort.

Makes no sense

Team was trying to "go" for it

At least try to make the finals

Sure, but a couple of things

(a) Hayward was constantly in and out of the lineup.  Expecting him to be healthy for a full playoff run seems foolish to me

(b) In part because the team kept Hayward, they're now left with minimal assets to improve the team now that he's gone.  That's also partly because Ainge has used all of these first round picks he gathered and so far none of the players he's selected has turned into a major tradeable asset.

The asset management over the last few seasons has left something to be desired.  Ainge "went for it" with Kyrie / Hayward / Horford and it collapsed.  You can trace it all back to Hayward's ankle injury and then AD's unwillingness to consider an alternative destination to LA.  But it feels like Ainge never really came up with a good plan to pivot away from that one once his AD dream died.

I think this is becoming apparent.  it's looking more and more like Danny was going after AD like he went after KG to build a superteam.  when that fell through, everything else went to hell because he didn't have a plan B to add another great player based on how things have played out.

[NKY fan]

The mistake was not trading Hayward for some kind of value at the deadline last season. 

If the team had reason to think Hayward was going to opt out and get a good offer, they should have traded him.

If the team was completely surprised by Hayward's decision and/or the fact that other teams were willing to offer more, then that was a failure of a different sort.



Hindsight is 20/20 obviously ... this would look different if Hayward had been healthy for the playoff run and the Celtics had made the Finals because of his strong play, for example.  In that case you might say well, it was worth holding on to him despite the risk of losing him because the Celts made a Finals run.

Then again, Hayward was injured for most of the important games that happened during his time under contract with the Celtics.  So you could argue it was foolish to expect him to contribute to a deep playoff run.



Anytime we second guess the coach or management, it's important to keep in mind that we don't know what they did or did not know or when they knew it.  We don't know what they tried to do or what any of the people involved said.

Still, between Kyrie, Horford, and Hayward it seems like you have three guys that the team at least had some thought might want to stick around at a price the team would be willing to pay, and in each instance that turned out not to be true.  I don't buy that there's something "wrong" with the Celtics organization that caused those players to want to leave.

I do wonder if there's something wrong with the organization insofar as gathering internal intelligence on their own players to have some idea of what the players are going to do when they hit free agency.

That would have been tough. Hayward had a big 4th year contract option .. he was assumed to be slightly overpaid. We wouldn't have gotten much for him. Maybe Utah for Gobert if Danny, Hayward and Utah had no history.
Now if he picked his option I think he would have been traded on Draft night to Indy (maybe ) plus Bane for Brogdon or Oladipo or something like that. Danny would proabably dangle him to Knick - our 26+30 pick plus GH for their draft pick. not a bad plan in retrospect. But given that Wyc was unwilling to pay up for GH means they were not sold on him being here long term answer.

[Moranis]

I think he would have opted out anyway and then you don't have the goodwill and maybe he doesn't work out a sign and trade and then just leaves Boston with nothing.

[Roy H.]

I think he would have opted out anyway and then you don't have the goodwill and maybe he doesn't work out a sign and trade and then just leaves Boston with nothing.

But we would probably still have the 30th pick in that scenario, right?

And I still think he would do the sign and trade.

[Moranis]

I think he would have opted out anyway and then you don't have the goodwill and maybe he doesn't work out a sign and trade and then just leaves Boston with nothing.

But we would probably still have the 30th pick in that scenario, right?

And I still think he would do the sign and trade.

I don't think the trade of the 30th pick was solely about the tax, I just don't think Danny wanted another young player on the team.  There are too many of them as is.

[philr13]

I thought the extended period was done by Hayward as a favor to the Celtics, not the other way around. It didn't matter to Hayward, but the Celtics needed to work on other things at the time, as I recall.

[Csfan1984]

I said it at trade deadline last year Hayward and the two first should have been traded then to round out the roster if you weren't going to resign Hayward. Letting another guy walk for nothing was going to set the team back.

[Roy H.]

I thought the extended period was done by Hayward as a favor to the Celtics, not the other way around. It didn't matter to Hayward, but the Celtics needed to work on other things at the time, as I recall.

Somebody may have tweeted that, but it doesn't make much sense.  The Celtics didn't have a huge incentive to put the deadline off; it's not like it presented them with a longer period in which to sign-and-trade Hayward.  It was done so that Hayward's agent could assess the market and to make a determination whether it made sense to opt out.

Unfortunately, Danny made multiple moves based upon the assumption that we were going to be a taxpayer.  He dumped Poirier, Kanter and the guaranteed salary of the 30th pick for a couple of small trade exceptions and two future second rounders.  In hindsight, that's terrible value, and those moves weren't even necessary to make.  (And, I still don't get the Kanter deal...  Why give up a first rounder when Portland accepted Kanter for no assets?  Memphis made out like bandits, as there was absolutely no need to include them in the deal.)

[SparzWizard]

I think the mistake was not trading him for McDermott and Turner

[celticsclay]

Right before the draft, Danny was faced with a decision: should he voluntarily agree to extend Hayward’s opt in deadline for a few days?  Originally Gordon’s decision was due the day before the draft; a proposal was made to push it until after draft night.

Danny agreed to do so.  His reasoning was understandable: it is usually a good idea to cooperate with players and agents, and if Hayward opted in before the draft, teams could have more leverage over the Celtics, knowing that they were in the luxury tax and had to move salary.

The rest is history. The team operated under the apparent expectation that Hayward would opt in, dumping salary and moving a 1st rounder.  In hindsight, there was no reason to do so, as we are well under the tax line. 

If we had kept to Hayward’s original opt in date, how do you think things would have played out? Would we have still traded him to Charlotte? To Indiana? Or would we have kept him?  Would we have kept our third first rounder?

I have heard a lot of the NBA insiders basically say that Hayward just wanted out of boston. That there were chirping back and forth between Jaylen's people and Haywards people (although the two themselves never had any direct beef). I have heard this from enough of them, including J Mac to believe there was some truth to it. That raises the question, was there a reason Brad/Ainge didn't know this and thought he would come back?