Poll: Do you expect us to use the TPE this season?

[Jvalin]

As things stand right now, the C's are $6,608,558 over the tax line. If the season ended today, Wyc would have to pay $10,314,978 in luxury tax. I have a hard time believing we'll use the TPE this season unless we dump some salary first. I mean, if Wyc were willing to pay a hefty tax bill, I guess we would have kept Fournier.

Another scenario would be to use the TPE as part of a bigger deal for a star. For instance, let's say Beal becomes available at the deadline. Obviously, Beal's salary doesn't fit under the TPE. That said, we can try to entice the Wizards to trade Beal by absorbing Bertans' contract with our TPE. Again, would Wyc pay the necessary tax? I'll believe it when I see it.

What do you guys think? Do you expect us to use the TPE this season?

[hpantazo]

I think if someone is available that looks worthwhile we will go for it, otherwise Brad will keep his options open for next summer. He did say today that he has the green light from Wyc to go deeper into the tax if he thinks the opportunity is worth it.

[sgrogan]

As things stand right now, the C's are $6,608,558 over the tax line. If the season ended today, Wyc would have to pay $10,314,978 in luxury tax. I have a hard time believing we'll use the TPE this season unless we dump some salary first. I mean, if Wyc were willing to pay a hefty tax bill, I guess we would have kept Fournier.

Another scenario would be to use the TPE as part of a bigger deal for a star. For instance, let's say Beal becomes available at the deadline. Obviously, Beal's salary doesn't fit under the TPE. That said, we can try to entice the Wizards to trade Beal by absorbing Bertans' contract with our TPE. Again, would Wyc pay the necessary tax? I'll believe it when I see it.

What do you guys think? Do you expect us to use the TPE this season?

For the first part it would need to be two separate deals. wink, wink, nod, nod.

I think that the TPE could be maximized at the deadline to take on a real PF, hopefully with at least another year on the contract. Some other team that is trying to get under the tax.

But alas, I don't think it will happen. We've milked the picks and salary slots into this revolving TPE. I don't think Wyc will spend the money/tax to build to a tax worthy team.
I'm somewhat resigned to the fact that by "paying the tax for a contender" Wyc means, spending some money on keeping the roster together after a championship. I hope I'm wrong.

[Celtics2021]

I think it’s more likely they use them next year.  Not because of cheapness, but just there’s always more opportunities around the draft and free agency.  And the Tristan Thompson trade signals this — they completed the deal in the new year, which let us keep the TPE into next years free agency period.  They could have made it when the deal was first announced, which would have given us an additional larger TPE (Kemba Walker), as we could have used the Kanter and Theis TPE’s to take on Dunn and Fernando.  Instead, we have an exception that runs into next year’s free agency.

[Jvalin]

I think if someone is available that looks worthwhile we will go for it, otherwise Brad will keep his options open for next summer. He did say today that he has the green light from Wyc to go deeper into the tax if he thinks the opportunity is worth it.

Yeah, I watched the interview. What did you expect him to say? Of course he'd say ''yes''. Can't throw your boss under the bus in a public interview.

Not saying that Brad was necessarily lying. Just that it was probably a diplomatic response.

[Vermont Green]

To me, once you are a tax payer, and the clock has started on the repeater status, I don't think the Celtics will hamstring themselves about the money.  I don't know how much profit they make in a year but I think it is enough that $10M up or down doesn't make that much difference (hard as that is to contemplate for us non 0.1%ers.). 

Since it is inevitable that they will pay the tax this season, I do think they will use the TPE or otherwise spend for the right deal.  But they are not going to spend just to spend, understandably.

As I understand it, the tax is calculated based on the salary at the end of the season.  So whether we add a $10M player now or at the trade deadline, the tax bill is the same.
 But if we add the player now, we get the player the whole season vs. half the season.

Seems like you get more for your tax money (not necessarily salary cash money) to make the move and have the player for the whole season. 

[Moranis]

I think there is almost a 0% chance they use it during the season.  Pretty good chance they use it next offseason though.

[sgrogan]

To me, once you are a tax payer, and the clock has started on the repeater status, I don't think the Celtics will hamstring themselves about the money.  I don't know how much profit they make in a year but I think it is enough that $10M up or down doesn't make that much difference (hard as that is to contemplate for us non 0.1%ers.). 

Since it is inevitable that they will pay the tax this season, I do think they will use the TPE or otherwise spend for the right deal.  But they are not going to spend just to spend, understandably.

As I understand it, the tax is calculated based on the salary at the end of the season.  So whether we add a $10M player now or at the trade deadline, the tax bill is the same.
 But if we add the player now, we get the player the whole season vs. half the season.

Seems like you get more for your tax money (not necessarily salary cash money) to make the move and have the player for the whole season.

I think it is the opposite. They can dump salary at this years deadline and get under the tax.

I've argued in the past for fiscal responsibility and not starting the repeater clock. Given the assets we are left with, I'm changing my tune. I can see some logic in pushing the repeater out one more year (Trade Dunn and another to get under), but I think that dilutes our current assets.

[NHHillbilly]

I think if someone is available that looks worthwhile we will go for it, otherwise Brad will keep his options open for next summer. He did say today that he has the green light from Wyc to go deeper into the tax if he thinks the opportunity is worth it.

Yeah, I watched the interview. What did you expect him to say? Of course he'd say ''yes''. Can't throw your boss under the bus in a public interview.

Not saying that Brad was necessarily lying. Just that it was probably a diplomatic response.

But Brad did give a some evidence that the TPE was open: they played hardball with Schroeder and offered only the mid-level taxpayer so that they would not be hard capped. If using the TPE was off the table, they probably would have made a higher salary offer to Schroeder. Any contending team could have offered Schroeder what we did (though some were too late and already used their exception).

[Jvalin]

I think if someone is available that looks worthwhile we will go for it, otherwise Brad will keep his options open for next summer. He did say today that he has the green light from Wyc to go deeper into the tax if he thinks the opportunity is worth it.

Yeah, I watched the interview. What did you expect him to say? Of course he'd say ''yes''. Can't throw your boss under the bus in a public interview.

Not saying that Brad was necessarily lying. Just that it was probably a diplomatic response.

But Brad did give a some evidence that the TPE was open: they played hardball with Schroeder and offered only the mid-level taxpayer so that they would not be hard capped. If using the TPE was off the table, they probably would have made a higher salary offer to Schroeder. Any contending team could have offered Schroeder what we did (though some were too late and already used their exception).

Not true. We literally couldn't have offered Schroder more than the taxpayer MLE without dumping ~3.9M first. To put it another way, we would have had to somehow dump Dunn.

You said it yourself. Using the full TPE would have hard capped us at the apron. As things stand right now, we are $212,558 over the apron.

[Vermont Green]

To me, once you are a tax payer, and the clock has started on the repeater status, I don't think the Celtics will hamstring themselves about the money.  I don't know how much profit they make in a year but I think it is enough that $10M up or down doesn't make that much difference (hard as that is to contemplate for us non 0.1%ers.). 

Since it is inevitable that they will pay the tax this season, I do think they will use the TPE or otherwise spend for the right deal.  But they are not going to spend just to spend, understandably.

As I understand it, the tax is calculated based on the salary at the end of the season.  So whether we add a $10M player now or at the trade deadline, the tax bill is the same.
 But if we add the player now, we get the player the whole season vs. half the season.

Seems like you get more for your tax money (not necessarily salary cash money) to make the move and have the player for the whole season.

I think it is the opposite. They can dump salary at this years deadline and get under the tax.

I've argued in the past for fiscal responsibility and not starting the repeater clock. Given the assets we are left with, I'm changing my tune. I can see some logic in pushing the repeater out one more year (Trade Dunn and another to get under), but I think that dilutes our current assets.

If Jabari Parker becomes guaranteed (I think that happens at the start of the season), it makes it that much harder to get under the cap at the deadline.  We are around $6M to $7M over currently but that includes some incentives for Brown and Smart that may not  happen giving potentially some additional head room (Example for Brown, $1.44M if he is an all star is included).

Dunn is expendable also of course so there are avenues if they decide to go that route.

[Moranis]

To me, once you are a tax payer, and the clock has started on the repeater status, I don't think the Celtics will hamstring themselves about the money.  I don't know how much profit they make in a year but I think it is enough that $10M up or down doesn't make that much difference (hard as that is to contemplate for us non 0.1%ers.). 

Since it is inevitable that they will pay the tax this season, I do think they will use the TPE or otherwise spend for the right deal.  But they are not going to spend just to spend, understandably.

As I understand it, the tax is calculated based on the salary at the end of the season.  So whether we add a $10M player now or at the trade deadline, the tax bill is the same.
 But if we add the player now, we get the player the whole season vs. half the season.

Seems like you get more for your tax money (not necessarily salary cash money) to make the move and have the player for the whole season.

I think it is the opposite. They can dump salary at this years deadline and get under the tax.

I've argued in the past for fiscal responsibility and not starting the repeater clock. Given the assets we are left with, I'm changing my tune. I can see some logic in pushing the repeater out one more year (Trade Dunn and another to get under), but I think that dilutes our current assets.

I think they will try to move Dunn and/or others at the deadline to get below the tax line if they aren't able to swing a much bigger trade.  Obviously some of that depends on how the team is playing, but if it performs as expected, I don't think they will pay the tax if they can fairly easy avoid doing so.  For example, a team with space or an exception, might be willing to absorb Dunn if they liked Grant Williams or Romeo Langford or something like that (Nesmith and maybe Pritchard appear to be a different class of prospect so I wouldn't include them).  Or a team might have have a guy like Edwards signed to multiple years that doesn't make very much that they want to move so they acquire Dunn and give us that player.  Then maybe we can move a young player for a future draft pick or something to get the rest of the way below the tax line.  Lots of options exist, but they are going to keep the varying ranges of expiring contracts for more flexibility to improve the team during the year.

[sgrogan]

I think if someone is available that looks worthwhile we will go for it, otherwise Brad will keep his options open for next summer. He did say today that he has the green light from Wyc to go deeper into the tax if he thinks the opportunity is worth it.

Yeah, I watched the interview. What did you expect him to say? Of course he'd say ''yes''. Can't throw your boss under the bus in a public interview.

Not saying that Brad was necessarily lying. Just that it was probably a diplomatic response.

But Brad did give a some evidence that the TPE was open: they played hardball with Schroeder and offered only the mid-level taxpayer so that they would not be hard capped. If using the TPE was off the table, they probably would have made a higher salary offer to Schroeder. Any contending team could have offered Schroeder what we did (though some were too late and already used their exception).

Not true. Like you said, using the full MLE would have hard capped us at the apron. We literally couldn't have offered Schroder more than the taxpayer MLE without dumping ~3.9M first. To pit it another way, we'd have to somehiw dymp Dunn. As things stand right now, we are $212,558 over the apron.

Can you explain further?
The full tax payer MLE hardcaps us?
Can't use the non-taxpayer MLE because we would be in the tax?
We use a portion of the tax payer MLE =< the non-tax payer MLE to not be hardcapped?

[Vermont Green]

I think if someone is available that looks worthwhile we will go for it, otherwise Brad will keep his options open for next summer. He did say today that he has the green light from Wyc to go deeper into the tax if he thinks the opportunity is worth it.

Yeah, I watched the interview. What did you expect him to say? Of course he'd say ''yes''. Can't throw your boss under the bus in a public interview.

Not saying that Brad was necessarily lying. Just that it was probably a diplomatic response.

But Brad did give a some evidence that the TPE was open: they played hardball with Schroeder and offered only the mid-level taxpayer so that they would not be hard capped. If using the TPE was off the table, they probably would have made a higher salary offer to Schroeder. Any contending team could have offered Schroeder what we did (though some were too late and already used their exception).

Not true. Like you said, using the full MLE would have hard capped us at the apron. We literally couldn't have offered Schroder more than the taxpayer MLE without dumping ~3.9M first. To pit it another way, we'd have to somehiw dymp Dunn. As things stand right now, we are $212,558 over the apron.

Can you explain further?
The full tax payer MLE hardcaps us?
Can't use the non-taxpayer MLE because we would be in the tax?
We use a portion of the tax payer MLE =< the non-tax payer MLE to not be hardcapped?

At the time we signed Schroder, his contract at $5.9M put us over the tax so there was no way that we could spend any more than that amount.  That then became the Tax Payer MLE, and we used all of it on Schroder.

If we had dumped Dunn before signing Schroder, for example, we could have signed Schroder for more and stayed below the tax (roughly, don't get too hung up on the exact math).  Say we were $8M below the tax after dumping Dunn, we could have signed him for $7.9M and it would have counted as a portion of the non Taxpayer MLE.  Had we done that, we would have been hard capped.

As it stands, we are not hard capped, we can bring in more salary with TPEs (we have several of them) or do regular trades that result in increased salary where we bring back up to 1.25X what we send out.  But we cannot do a S&T, due to an obscure rule related to having used the tax payer MLE.

[Jvalin]

I think if someone is available that looks worthwhile we will go for it, otherwise Brad will keep his options open for next summer. He did say today that he has the green light from Wyc to go deeper into the tax if he thinks the opportunity is worth it.

Yeah, I watched the interview. What did you expect him to say? Of course he'd say ''yes''. Can't throw your boss under the bus in a public interview.

Not saying that Brad was necessarily lying. Just that it was probably a diplomatic response.

But Brad did give a some evidence that the TPE was open: they played hardball with Schroeder and offered only the mid-level taxpayer so that they would not be hard capped. If using the TPE was off the table, they probably would have made a higher salary offer to Schroeder. Any contending team could have offered Schroeder what we did (though some were too late and already used their exception).

Not true. Like you said, using the full MLE would have hard capped us at the apron. We literally couldn't have offered Schroder more than the taxpayer MLE without dumping ~3.9M first. To pit it another way, we'd have to somehiw dymp Dunn. As things stand right now, we are $212,558 over the apron.

The full tax payer MLE hardcaps us?

No, the full taxpayer MLE does not hard cap us. Any amount over the full taxpayer MLE hard caps us. If it helps, here are the actual figures.

Can't use the non-taxpayer MLE because we would be in the tax?

Non-taxpayer MLE = Standard MLE = Full MLE. We couldn't have used it cause it hard caps us. We would have had to somehow dump ~3.9M in order to end up below the hard cap after finalizing the transaction.

We use a portion of the tax payer MLE =< the non-tax payer MLE to not be hardcapped?

We used the whole taxpayer MLE which is a portion of the non-taxpayer MLE. In order to gain access to the remaining part of the non-taxpayer MLE, we have to dump some salary first (again, because of the hard cap).