What does paying for a contender mean?

[sgrogan]

Wyc consistently says they will pay the tax for a contender.
They have paid the tax in the past.

I've come to believe that this means they will pay the tax to "keep the band together" after a championship.
Conference finals appearances don't seem to qualify as a contender. Not that I necessarily disagree.
I don't think they will pay the tax to build a contender.

I don't care about the owners money, but I can't spend it for them.

I understand the repeater tax and the incentive to avoid it. But, if you won't spend until you are a contender, and you can't become a contender until you spend?

[Kiorrik]

I'd say it also includes "building a contender" - but only if it's a surefire contender.

That's what happened in 07/08 I do believe.

[Donoghus]

Paying for a team whose realistic ceiling is an NBA champion.

Of course, that can certainly be subjective.

[droopdog7]

Paying for a team whose realistic ceiling is an NBA champion.

Of course, that can certainly be subjective.

Yup

[liam]

I don't think it really means anything more than smoke... If we had any kind of bench during the lockout The Celtics would've made the finals.

[Celtics2021]

I don't think it really means anything more than smoke... If we had any kind of bench during the lockout The Celtics would've made the finals.

You mean the 2011-2012 season?  The C’s were poised to spend a lot more, having signed Jeff Green for I think $10 million that year, but then he failed his physical with the heart issue.  The plan was to have one more expensive player — then he got hurt in a way that prevented his salary from being easily replaced (contract was void so he couldn’t be traded like some injured players).

[sgrogan]

Paying for a team whose realistic ceiling is an NBA champion.

Of course, that can certainly be subjective.

Yup

But what does this mean to Wyc, and when does he loosen the purse strings?

I agree it means building a (realistic) contender, I'm not sure Wyc does. Or maybe our definition of realistic is different.
Can we go into the tax minimally for multiple years, before we are true contenders and the repeater kicks in.

My issue is I think this team needs to use the TPE's etc, to get there. By the time we get there we are in the repeater range. Then does the team have 1 shot and then break it up/reset the repeater.

[Who]

Sometimes teams get a lucky run to the Conference Finals. Like Portland a few years ago. Or our runs with IT or injured Kyrie.

I view Championship caliber by the talent on the roster rather than whether they by their playoff run which can be heavily influenced by good luck or bad luck.

I do not consider this current Celtics team Championship caliber but I would if they could get (1) one more All-Star caliber player, or, (2) two sub All-Star caliber guys like a Jalen Brunson & Harrison Barnes.

I would pay the tax for that. Or even one of those two guys with the aim of getting the 2nd guy in the summer. I wouldn't pay the tax for a smaller marginal improvement like swapping Kanter for some other more expensive slightly better backup center. It would need to be a real difference maker.

This is how I view it and how I believe Wyc views given his luxury tax spending in the past.

[PhoSita]

I think it's mostly empty words, to be honest.

But the scenario I envision this statement applying to is something like this:

- The team, under the tax or only a little bit over the tax, wins 55-60 games and makes a deep playoff run

- Keeping the core of the team together the following off-season requires going deeper into the luxury tax, or incurring the repeater tax

I assume that Wyc means that in this type of scenario, the owners would suck it up and pay the tax.


The quintessential example, I assume, is that the team has just won a title and needs to pay a premium to keep key role players entering UFA or RFA.  What comes to mind for me is something like the Warriors coming off a title in 2015.  The Warriors had a team salary of $73.6 million in 14-15.  In 15-16 that jumped to $93.7 million.


Of course, the idea with the above examples is that the team must first demonstrate that it is a top contender, either by having a great regular season and playoffs or by actually making the Finals / winning a title before ownership would happily reach deep into their pockets (read: profit margin) to pay a large tax bill.


More charitably, maybe the idea is that if it would be necessary to pay boo koo bucks to put together a star core in the first place (e.g. if acquiring Ray Allen & KG in 07 had somehow immediately put the team deep in the tax), then ownership would recognize that the team was obviously going to be a contender after said moves and would therefore sign off on paying the necessary cost.

I'm actually a bit skeptical that they really would happily pay big money for the core of a team that hadn't yet proven to be a contender, though.

[sgrogan]

Sometimes teams get a lucky run to the Conference Finals. Like Portland a few years ago. Or our runs with IT or injured Kyrie.

I view Championship caliber by the talent on the roster rather than whether they by their playoff run which can be heavily influenced by good luck or bad luck.

I do not consider this current Celtics team Championship caliber but I would if they could get (1) one more All-Star caliber player, or, (2) two sub All-Star caliber guys like a Jalen Brunson & Harrison Barnes.

I would pay the tax for that. Or even one of those two guys with the aim of getting the 2nd guy in the summer. I wouldn't pay the tax for a smaller marginal improvement like swapping Kanter for some other more expensive slightly better backup center. It would need to be a real difference maker.

This is how I view it and how I believe Wyc views given his luxury tax spending in the past.

This is my point exactly. You would pay the tax for the first guy, that doesn't make us a contender yet. Of course if we can't get the second guy we look to reset. I think Wyc doesn't approve the first move. Subjective of course, but that's what I see.

[sgrogan]

I think it's mostly empty words, to be honest.

But the scenario I envision this statement applying to is something like this:

- The team, under the tax or only a little bit over the tax, wins 55-60 games and makes a deep playoff run

- Keeping the core of the team together the following off-season requires going deeper into the luxury tax, or incurring the repeater tax

I assume that Wyc means that in this type of scenario, the owners would suck it up and pay the tax.


The quintessential example, I assume, is that the team has just won a title and needs to pay a premium to keep key role players entering UFA or RFA.  What comes to mind for me is something like the Warriors coming off a title in 2015.  The Warriors had a team salary of $73.6 million in 14-15.  In 15-16 that jumped to $93.7 million.


Of course, the idea with the above examples is that the team must first demonstrate that it is a top contender, either by having a great regular season and playoffs or by actually making the Finals / winning a title before ownership would happily reach deep into their pockets (read: profit margin) to pay a large tax bill.


More charitably, maybe the idea is that if it would be necessary to pay boo koo bucks to put together a star core in the first place (e.g. if acquiring Ray Allen & KG in 07 had somehow immediately put the team deep in the tax), then ownership would recognize that the team was obviously going to be a contender after said moves and would therefore sign off on paying the necessary cost.

I'm actually a bit skeptical that they really would happily pay big money for the core of a team that hadn't yet proven to be a contender, though.

Agreed

[liam]

Sometimes teams get a lucky run to the Conference Finals. Like Portland a few years ago. Or our runs with IT or injured Kyrie.

I view Championship caliber by the talent on the roster rather than whether they by their playoff run which can be heavily influenced by good luck or bad luck.

I do not consider this current Celtics team Championship caliber but I would if they could get (1) one more All-Star caliber player, or, (2) two sub All-Star caliber guys like a Jalen Brunson & Harrison Barnes.

I would pay the tax for that. Or even one of those two guys with the aim of getting the 2nd guy in the summer. I wouldn't pay the tax for a smaller marginal improvement like swapping Kanter for some other more expensive slightly better backup center. It would need to be a real difference maker.

This is how I view it and how I believe Wyc views given his luxury tax spending in the past.

If you won the championship because of other teams' injuries like Golden state that one year then you weren't a contender because other teams had injuries? Doesn't that happen every year? If Miami had beaten The Lakers two years ago they weren't still a contender?

[Who]

I think it's mostly empty words, to be honest.

But the scenario I envision this statement applying to is something like this:

- The team, under the tax or only a little bit over the tax, wins 55-60 games and makes a deep playoff run

- Keeping the core of the team together the following off-season requires going deeper into the luxury tax, or incurring the repeater tax

I assume that Wyc means that in this type of scenario, the owners would suck it up and pay the tax.


The quintessential example, I assume, is that the team has just won a title and needs to pay a premium to keep key role players entering UFA or RFA. 


Of course, the idea with the above examples is that the team must first demonstrate that it is a top contender, either by having a great regular season and playoffs or by actually making the Finals / winning a title before ownership would happily reach deep into their pockets (read: profit margin) to pay a large tax bill.


More charitably, maybe the idea is that if it would be necessary to pay boo koo bucks to put together a star core in the first place (e.g. if acquiring Ray Allen & KG in 07 had somehow immediately put the team deep in the tax), then ownership would recognize that the team was obviously going to be a contender after said moves and would therefore sign off on paying the necessary cost.

I'm actually a bit skeptical that they really would happily pay big money for the core of a team that hadn't yet proven to be a contender, though.

Yeah, I think Wyc 100% pays the tax if he can land a Kevin Garnett caliber player.

But would he pay the tax for a CJ McCollum level player? I am not so sure. I am doubtful to be honest. Probably not. He would probably need to see another move as well to be convinced that new-look team could compete for a title.

Or how about someone in between McCollum (sub All-Star) and KG (MVP candidate), like Bradley Beal (All-Star)? Hmm, close call. Probably so. Not 100% but probably.

Or in between Beal and KG like Damian Lillard (All NBA, borderline top 10 player)? Yeah, I believe Wyc pays the tax for Lillard.

[Who]

Sometimes teams get a lucky run to the Conference Finals. Like Portland a few years ago. Or our runs with IT or injured Kyrie.

I view Championship caliber by the talent on the roster rather than whether they by their playoff run which can be heavily influenced by good luck or bad luck.

I do not consider this current Celtics team Championship caliber but I would if they could get (1) one more All-Star caliber player, or, (2) two sub All-Star caliber guys like a Jalen Brunson & Harrison Barnes.

I would pay the tax for that. Or even one of those two guys with the aim of getting the 2nd guy in the summer. I wouldn't pay the tax for a smaller marginal improvement like swapping Kanter for some other more expensive slightly better backup center. It would need to be a real difference maker.

This is how I view it and how I believe Wyc views given his luxury tax spending in the past.

If you won the championship because of other teams' injuries like Golden state that one year then you weren't a contender because other teams had injuries? Doesn't that happen every year? If Miami had beaten The Lakers two years ago they weren't still a contender?

Yeah, you can be unlucky that way too --- I mean, you can have more of an opening than you realize or your team may be better than you realize.

And the East might be that way this year too. Very weak at the top of the conference.

[sgrogan]

Sometimes teams get a lucky run to the Conference Finals. Like Portland a few years ago. Or our runs with IT or injured Kyrie.

I view Championship caliber by the talent on the roster rather than whether they by their playoff run which can be heavily influenced by good luck or bad luck.

I do not consider this current Celtics team Championship caliber but I would if they could get (1) one more All-Star caliber player, or, (2) two sub All-Star caliber guys like a Jalen Brunson & Harrison Barnes.

I would pay the tax for that. Or even one of those two guys with the aim of getting the 2nd guy in the summer. I wouldn't pay the tax for a smaller marginal improvement like swapping Kanter for some other more expensive slightly better backup center. It would need to be a real difference maker.

This is how I view it and how I believe Wyc views given his luxury tax spending in the past.

If you won the championship because of other teams' injuries like Golden state that one year then you weren't a contender because other teams had injuries? Doesn't that happen every year? If Miami had beaten The Lakers two years ago they weren't still a contender?

Yeah, you can be unlucky that way too --- I mean, you can have more of an opening than you realize or your team may be better than you realize.

And the East might be that way this year too. Very weak at the top of the conference.

The downside risk is always there. There is no such thing as a lock. KG+Ray got 1 chip.
So far Durant, Harden, and Kyrie don't have any.

Interesting point about the opportunity cost, don't think we could have predicted preseason how open it was.