Do you think the Celtics will spend deep into the luxury tax?

[PhoSita]

This to me is the crucial question of the off-season.  I'm interested to see what people think.

Will Brad's first offseason be defined by the goal of finding ways to improve the talent level and/or experience on the roster in the hopes of increasing the team's current competitiveness?

Or will it be defined by the need to cut salary to avoid a huge luxury tax bill for a team coming off a season in which it struggled to stay above .500 and lost in 5 in the first round?


Couple reminders:

Before re-signing any free agents or adding any salary, the Celtics will be within a couple million of the luxury tax line.

The luxury tax penalty begins at $1 for $1, but once a team is $10-20 million into the tax, each additional dollar is taxed at a rate of $3+, which means the bill gets very large very fast. 

For example, if the Celtics give Evan Fournier a $20 million per year deal, that will essentially mean paying an additional $40-50 million (or more) for Fournier.  Fournier may be worth $20 million ... does ownership feel he's worth $60, $70, or $80 million?

The Celtics have paid the luxury tax before, but they have never gone as deep into the tax as will be required for them to, for example, retain Evan Fournier without dumping at least one big contract (e.g. Smart or Kemba). 

[Vermont Green]

I don't think you have posed the question in the right way.  If they spend well into the tax, they will do so with the expectation that they are getting a contending team.  It may not turn out that way, lots of things can happen, but they are going to believe that to be the case.

Another way to look at the question is to ask if this team, even if they spend well into the tax, can it be a contending team (based on whatever you mean by contending team).  There is no guarantee in this business that you can buy your way to a contending team but it can be a reasonable expectation.

I think they will be spending into the tax.  I think based on that, there is a chance that the team can "contend", but no guarantee.  Getting by a healthy Nets will remain very difficult but I think we can get to the Sixers/Buck level with some good moves and some good fortune.  Does that meet your criteria for "contender"?

[jambr380]

They may go into the luxury tax, but not so much that our cap situation will be out of control. If the team doesn't move on from its 3rd best player in Kemba, then I think they look for deals for the expiring Smart and Thompson. I also doubt that Fournier gets $20M/yr. Even though he was expiring, he just went for 2 2nd rounders, I doubt he is that hot of a commodity (even though I do like what he brings to the table and hope we re-sign him).

Honestly, I am a little over people saying what a failure the year was. We went to the ECF with this group minus Fournier last season. Covid, injuries, and lack of continuity destroyed our team. With just a week or two left in the season, we were still in contention for the 4/5 spot, but instead of getting healthy at the right time, we went the opposite direction. If we had just finished off the Knicks in round 1 and were facing an Embiid-less Sixers team, people would probably be a lot higher on the Cs than they are.

[Moranis]

I think they have to unless they just go on a salary dumping spree (which doesn't make sense). 

[Walker Wiggle]

I think the team will seek to get under the tax with a strategy that looks like:

Plan A: See if a team with cap space wants Kemba, even if you have to take back $10-20m in salary.
Plan B: See if a team with cap space wants Thompson.
Plan C: See if a team with cap space is willing to overpay in a trade for Smart.
Plan C: Let Fournier walk.

I am hoping they hit on Plan A.

[Celtics2021]

Even if they let Fournier walk, the Celtics are likely a tax team if they don’t make moves to unwind salary.  That would be a really precarious position for Stevens to be in, forced to shed payroll as he makes a highly scrutinized move to the front office, and I’m not sure he signs up for this transition if that’s what he has to do at the outset.  So I think he’s allowed the tax to some level.  What level I’m not sure, and there’s a real argument for the C’s to avoid long-term deals this summer to position themselves for Beal’s free agency next year.

[Roy H.]

I think they should, but only for the next two years. At that point, Kemba’s salary is off the books, and if we’re smart, we can add a third star.  We should start recruiting Embiid behind the scenes right now.

So, by all means, extend Fornier, but only for two years.  Give him a two year max if necessary. Same thing with Marcus Smart, or any other player:  overpay in the short term, but nothing that eats into post-Kemba space.

[PhoSita]

I think they should, but only for the next two years. At that point, Kemba’s salary is off the books, and if we’re smart, we can add a third star.  We should start recruiting Embiid behind the scenes right now.

So, by all means, extend Fornier, but only for two years.  Give him a two year max if necessary. Same thing with Marcus Smart, or any other player:  overpay in the short term, but nothing that eats into post-Kemba space.

Do you think those players are likely to take two year deals?

I tend to think that following that plan will mean trading guys like Smart and Timelord while they still have value, and then signing stop-gaps a la Amir Johnson and Jonas Jerebko circa 2015. 

The Celtics are not a title contender right now so they can't expect to get guys who are willing to take a discount on money or years.  They will need to overpay veterans who are OK taking a shorter deal.

[PhoSita]

Even if they let Fournier walk, the Celtics are likely a tax team if they don’t make moves to unwind salary.  That would be a really precarious position for Stevens to be in, forced to shed payroll as he makes a highly scrutinized move to the front office, and I’m not sure he signs up for this transition if that’s what he has to do at the outset.  So I think he’s allowed the tax to some level.  What level I’m not sure, and there’s a real argument for the C’s to avoid long-term deals this summer to position themselves for Beal’s free agency next year.

The thing is, the way the tax works there is a very big difference between being $5-10 million into the tax versus being $20-30 million into the tax.

[Roy H.]

I think they should, but only for the next two years. At that point, Kemba’s salary is off the books, and if we’re smart, we can add a third star.  We should start recruiting Embiid behind the scenes right now.

So, by all means, extend Fornier, but only for two years.  Give him a two year max if necessary. Same thing with Marcus Smart, or any other player:  overpay in the short term, but nothing that eats into post-Kemba space.

Do you think those players are likely to take two year deals?

I tend to think that following that plan will mean trading guys like Smart and Timelord while they still have value, and then signing stop-gaps a la Amir Johnson and Jonas Jerebko circa 2015. 

The Celtics are not a title contender right now so they can't expect to get guys who are willing to take a discount on money or years.  They will need to overpay veterans who are OK taking a shorter deal.

No idea.  Should Fournier prefer two years, $50 million or four years, $80 million?  I suspect he'd bet on himself.  Would Marcus take a one year, $30 million extension?  I suspect he would.  But, I'm fine with trading guys, too.  If you're not part of the future, you're expendable over the next two years.  We are blessed with greatly talented youth.  We have the perfect opportunity to reset and add another star to create a big three.

And, after the obscene profits and growth in franchise valuation that Wyc has seen, he should absolutely go as deep as necessary into the tax the next two seasons.  Then, go under the cap, reset the repeater tax, and properly build around the Jays.

[Celtics2021]

Even if they let Fournier walk, the Celtics are likely a tax team if they don’t make moves to unwind salary.  That would be a really precarious position for Stevens to be in, forced to shed payroll as he makes a highly scrutinized move to the front office, and I’m not sure he signs up for this transition if that’s what he has to do at the outset.  So I think he’s allowed the tax to some level.  What level I’m not sure, and there’s a real argument for the C’s to avoid long-term deals this summer to position themselves for Beal’s free agency next year.

The thing is, the way the tax works there is a very big difference between being $5-10 million into the tax versus being $20-30 million into the tax.

Indeed.  I misread the question as spending into the tax, vs. deep into the tax.

That said, I think they’ll be in the $10-15 million range (pending Tatum’s All-NBA status).  As far as I’m concerned, anything over the apron is deep into the tax, so I’d consider that deep, but I understand others may think that doesn’t qualify.

I do think the Celtics have a target in mind for this year/next offseason.  My gut says Beal, but I’m sure there’s a max-level player they’d like to pair with Tatum and Brown.  This summer the goal would be to trade for him using Kemba’s salary, but next summer they can create max room (the cap will likely jump by 10%) without too much difficulty if they don’t take on future money this year.  Maybe Kemba opts out (I think this possibility is discounted too much — no one thought Hayward would opt out and have the type of offer he found available), or maybe he becomes an expiring that is much easier to move, either to create the cap room or to pursue a sign-and-trade.

[slamtheking]

'deep'?  no.

some luxury tax?  probably, if the team is on the upswing to contention and spending gets them there.

no team with smart management would go deep into the luxury tax unless they were serious contenders.

[Roy H.]

no team with smart management would go deep into the luxury tax unless they were serious contenders.

I'm not sure that I agree.  The Warriors, for instance, are extraordinarily deep into the tax, and they weren't contenders last year.  It didn't stop them from adding Kelly Oubre.

I think that fans let the owners whining about profits affect their judgment with this stuff.  The Celtics are making $90 million in profit per year.  The owners are sitting on a $2 billion increase in franchise value.  And yet, ownership has spent a total of $51 million in tax over 18 years.  The Warriors drop that in one season, plus more.  Don't let Wyc cry poverty and use that as an excuse to put an inferior product on the floor.

[Celtics4ever]

I hope I am wrong but I voted nope.   They are businessmen and will run the C's like a business.

[PhoSita]

no team with smart management would go deep into the luxury tax unless they were serious contenders.

I'm not sure that I agree.  The Warriors, for instance, are extraordinarily deep into the tax, and they weren't contenders last year.  It didn't stop them from adding Kelly Oubre.

I think that fans let the owners whining about profits affect their judgment with this stuff.  The Celtics are making $90 million in profit per year.  The owners are sitting on a $2 billion increase in franchise value.  And yet, ownership has spent a total of $51 million in tax over 18 years.  The Warriors drop that in one season, plus more.  Don't let Wyc cry poverty and use that as an excuse to put an inferior product on the floor.

I want to be clear about something --- I'm not an apologist for the owners and I don't care about their finances.  They have so much money, they ought to be willing to spend exorbitantly. 

But as fans I don't think it does us any good to be precious or naive about what the owners are likely to do and what the owners are likely to consider reasonable when it comes to spending.

I totally agree with the idea that the owners should spend as much as it takes, and the complaints about profits are largely BS given how rapidly the actual value of the franchise continues to increase.  That doesn't mean we have much evidence to suggest that we should believe that they are going to do that.