How much would you be willing to shake up this team?

[droopdog7]

The C's need one more piece.  Someone to pick up the offensive slack when it's just not working with one of JB and JT.  If the C's had one more scorer it would have been a whole different series.  I don't think they need a star but they need someone who can come in off the bench and be a microwave scorer.  Someone who can average 15pts off the bench per night and blow up at any given point.  Someone like Jordan Pool was for the GSW this year.  The don't necessarily need to be a star on Defense.  Just someone who can hold their own and score at will.

They also need a young big to develop.  Al is gone after next year and that's a big gap to fill.  They also could use this young big this year to develop and rest Al.  I'd rather have Al fresh for the playoffs then play 30mpg for 75 regular season games.

Agree on the scorer; disagree on the big as a second priority.  I think theis is fine for next year as the emergency big.  PP is the guy that needs to be supplanted.  We need a pure PG off the bench at the very least.  Would take pressure off both smart and white and the Jays.

[jambr380]

Probably more than most. The only 'must keeps' are: Tatum, Brown, Smart, and Rob. To a much lesser extent, I'd probably add Grant, PP, and Hauser to the list since they are so cheap and actually legitimately playable. The bottom of the roster needs a total overhaul, or at least a couple of legit minimum veterans. With no picks, I'd bring over whoever is more ready between Madar and Begarin.

That means I am perfectly okay - and even desire trading - Horford, White, Theis, and Nesmith. Those guys add up to quite a lot of salary and could give us options to improve our offense. If Horford were a few years younger, of course I'd be in favor of keeping him, but this is really our last chance to keep that salary slot.

[nebist]

I assume this means the Fournier TPE and the Tax Payer exemption for starters.

Jared Weiss @JaredWeissNBA now

Brad Stevens says ownership has given him the "Okay to do whatever we need to do."

I suspect that this is GM speak.  I'd be shocked if Wyc gave Brad an unlimited (or very minimally restricted) budget.  But, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

It is impossible for ownership to give Stevens an unlimited budget under the CBA.

Otherwise, despite your reservations, this is very good news.

Unlimited = let Brad spend as much as permitted under the CBA

That would include the Fournier TPE ($17.1 million); the Schroder TPE ($5.89 million); the Taxpayer MLE ($6.34 million); allowing Brad to make trades that bring back 125% + $100k of outgoing salary; and signing veterans to the minimum

Let's say that adds $33 million in salary.  Our current cap situation is reportedly about $7 million above the tax.  So, let's call it $40 million, not subject to the repeated tax.

The first $20 million of that would add $44.75 million in tax. 

Spending $25 million above the tax would be $44.75 million + $18.75 million = $63.5 million

$30 million above the tax would be $63.5 million + $21.25 million = $84.75 million

$35 million above the tax would be $84.75 million + $23.75 million = $108.5 million

$40 million above the tax would be $108.5 million + $26.25 million = $134.75 million

So, assuming a tax line of around $149 million, we'd spend $40 million beyond that in salaries, reaching $189 million.  We'd add roughly $135 million in tax.

That would put the team's expenditures at about $324 million.

Do you think Wyc has authorized a budget of $324 million?  If not, then Brad isn't telling the entire truth.

I don't think they'll max out their spending in every way possible. However, I will be content as long as they use a good chunk of the Fournier TPE and the TMLE. Those two tools should allow us to add capable veterans. If they acquire a big with one of those tools and want to move Theis for a more cost-effective option, that is okay too. The only thing that would truly frustrate me is not taking advantage of the Fournier TPE to add a rotation player.

[slamtheking]

I assume this means the Fournier TPE and the Tax Payer exemption for starters.

Jared Weiss @JaredWeissNBA now

Brad Stevens says ownership has given him the "Okay to do whatever we need to do."

I suspect that this is GM speak.  I'd be shocked if Wyc gave Brad an unlimited (or very minimally restricted) budget.  But, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

It is impossible for ownership to give Stevens an unlimited budget under the CBA.

Otherwise, despite your reservations, this is very good news.

Unlimited = let Brad spend as much as permitted under the CBA

That would include the Fournier TPE ($17.1 million); the Schroder TPE ($5.89 million); the Taxpayer MLE ($6.34 million); allowing Brad to make trades that bring back 125% + $100k of outgoing salary; and signing veterans to the minimum

Let's say that adds $33 million in salary.  Our current cap situation is reportedly about $7 million above the tax.  So, let's call it $40 million, not subject to the repeated tax.

The first $20 million of that would add $44.75 million in tax. 

Spending $25 million above the tax would be $44.75 million + $18.75 million = $63.5 million

$30 million above the tax would be $63.5 million + $21.25 million = $84.75 million

$35 million above the tax would be $84.75 million + $23.75 million = $108.5 million

$40 million above the tax would be $108.5 million + $26.25 million = $134.75 million

So, assuming a tax line of around $149 million, we'd spend $40 million beyond that in salaries, reaching $189 million.  We'd add roughly $135 million in tax.

That would put the team's expenditures at about $324 million.

Do you think Wyc has authorized a budget of $324 million?  If not, then Brad isn't telling the entire truth.

I don't think they'll max out their spending in every way possible. However, I will be content as long as they use a good chunk of the Fournier TPE and the TMLE. Those two tools should allow us to add capable veterans. If they acquire a big with one of those tools and want to move Theis for a more cost-effective option, that is okay too. The only thing that would truly frustrate me is not taking advantage of the Fournier TPE to add a rotation player.

I would hope the Schroder TPE would be in play as well.  would come in handy to grab a vet that may have to settle for the vet min elsewhere but we could offer more than that with that MLE (not necessarily all of it but enough of it to look attractive versus the minimum).

[colincb]

I assume this means the Fournier TPE and the Tax Payer exemption for starters.

Jared Weiss @JaredWeissNBA now

Brad Stevens says ownership has given him the "Okay to do whatever we need to do."

I suspect that this is GM speak.  I'd be shocked if Wyc gave Brad an unlimited (or very minimally restricted) budget.  But, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

It is impossible for ownership to give Stevens an unlimited budget under the CBA.

Otherwise, despite your reservations, this is very good news.

Unlimited = let Brad spend as much as permitted under the CBA

That would include the Fournier TPE ($17.1 million); the Schroder TPE ($5.89 million); the Taxpayer MLE ($6.34 million); allowing Brad to make trades that bring back 125% + $100k of outgoing salary; and signing veterans to the minimum

Let's say that adds $33 million in salary.  Our current cap situation is reportedly about $7 million above the tax.  So, let's call it $40 million, not subject to the repeated tax.

The first $20 million of that would add $44.75 million in tax. 

Spending $25 million above the tax would be $44.75 million + $18.75 million = $63.5 million

$30 million above the tax would be $63.5 million + $21.25 million = $84.75 million

$35 million above the tax would be $84.75 million + $23.75 million = $108.5 million

$40 million above the tax would be $108.5 million + $26.25 million = $134.75 million

So, assuming a tax line of around $149 million, we'd spend $40 million beyond that in salaries, reaching $189 million.  We'd add roughly $135 million in tax.

That would put the team's expenditures at about $324 million.

Do you think Wyc has authorized a budget of $324 million?  If not, then Brad isn't telling the entire truth.

They have three sizable TPEs, not two, + the MLE. The third TPE is from Juancho Hernangomez: ($6.9 million). IOW, $36 million without trades and vet mins. I believe that Stevens isn't lying, but that doesn't mean they'll use them all this summer because two of them don't expire then.

Brian Robb today:

“I think the trade exception, there’s a reason why a lot of the trade exceptions go unused,” Stevens said. “We have a bunch of them right now. We have one that expires, obviously, the big one expires in July, we’ve got a couple of others that expire later, they’re all reasonable amounts that we can take good players in with, so you balance that on, OK, what’s the cost that you’re going to have to pay, are you going to bring somebody in that’s going to add to – not necessarily take away, which you obviously don’t want to do. So it’s still about being prudent and thoughtful about what the deal is.”

“But we’re going through the whole list and we’re trying to find guys that fit what we need and will fit into how we want to play and how Ime wants to coach and makes it so that this train can take off from the get-go next year. I thought one of the things that caught up with us was that we started so poorly last year. And there were obviously a variety of reasons for that. But when you start off 18-21 you’ve gotta fight, scratch and claw to get into the playoffs, get into the seeds, get home court – you’ve gotta do all that stuff and there’s no margin for error. And as a result, you play a lot of minutes on the way. And so we’ve gotta start better next year. So adding people that add to our group is, again, the major focus however we do that.”

Brian Robb Monday:

That reality along with a likely willingness by team ownership per league sources to significantly expand Boston’s payroll for next season will place a greater sense of urgency on the offseason for Boston’s front office in the next few weeks.

[Roy H.]

I assume this means the Fournier TPE and the Tax Payer exemption for starters.

Jared Weiss @JaredWeissNBA now

Brad Stevens says ownership has given him the "Okay to do whatever we need to do."

I suspect that this is GM speak.  I'd be shocked if Wyc gave Brad an unlimited (or very minimally restricted) budget.  But, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

It is impossible for ownership to give Stevens an unlimited budget under the CBA.

Otherwise, despite your reservations, this is very good news.

Unlimited = let Brad spend as much as permitted under the CBA

That would include the Fournier TPE ($17.1 million); the Schroder TPE ($5.89 million); the Taxpayer MLE ($6.34 million); allowing Brad to make trades that bring back 125% + $100k of outgoing salary; and signing veterans to the minimum

Let's say that adds $33 million in salary.  Our current cap situation is reportedly about $7 million above the tax.  So, let's call it $40 million, not subject to the repeated tax.

The first $20 million of that would add $44.75 million in tax. 

Spending $25 million above the tax would be $44.75 million + $18.75 million = $63.5 million

$30 million above the tax would be $63.5 million + $21.25 million = $84.75 million

$35 million above the tax would be $84.75 million + $23.75 million = $108.5 million

$40 million above the tax would be $108.5 million + $26.25 million = $134.75 million

So, assuming a tax line of around $149 million, we'd spend $40 million beyond that in salaries, reaching $189 million.  We'd add roughly $135 million in tax.

That would put the team's expenditures at about $324 million.

Do you think Wyc has authorized a budget of $324 million?  If not, then Brad isn't telling the entire truth.

They have three sizable TPEs, not two, + the MLE. The third TPE is from Juancho Hernangomez: ($6.9 million). IOW, $36 million without trades and vet mins. I believe that Stevens isn't lying, but that doesn't mean they'll use them all this summer because two of them don't expire.

Brian Robb today:

“I think the trade exception, there’s a reason why a lot of the trade exceptions go unused,” Stevens said. “We have a bunch of them right now. We have one that expires, obviously, the big one expires in July, we’ve got a couple of others that expire later, they’re all reasonable amounts that we can take good players in with, so you balance that on, OK, what’s the cost that you’re going to have to pay, are you going to bring somebody in that’s going to add to – not necessarily take away, which you obviously don’t want to do. So it’s still about being prudent and thoughtful about what the deal is.”

“But we’re going through the whole list and we’re trying to find guys that fit what we need and will fit into how we want to play and how Ime wants to coach and makes it so that this train can take off from the get-go next year. I thought one of the things that caught up with us was that we started so poorly last year. And there were obviously a variety of reasons for that. But when you start off 18-21 you’ve gotta fight, scratch and claw to get into the playoffs, get into the seeds, get home court – you’ve gotta do all that stuff and there’s no margin for error. And as a result, you play a lot of minutes on the way. And so we’ve gotta start better next year. So adding people that add to our group is, again, the major focus however we do that.”

Brian Robb Monday:

That reality along with a likely willingness by team ownership per league sources to significantly expand Boston’s payroll for next season will place a greater sense of urgency on the offseason for Boston’s front office in the next few weeks.

"Significantly expand" and "Okay to do whatever we need to do" are vastly different, though.

A significant expansion of spending would be $10 million into the tax.  That's not the same as carte blanche spending authority to do whatever Brad wants.

[colincb]

I assume this means the Fournier TPE and the Tax Payer exemption for starters.

Jared Weiss @JaredWeissNBA now

Brad Stevens says ownership has given him the "Okay to do whatever we need to do."

I suspect that this is GM speak.  I'd be shocked if Wyc gave Brad an unlimited (or very minimally restricted) budget.  But, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

It is impossible for ownership to give Stevens an unlimited budget under the CBA.

Otherwise, despite your reservations, this is very good news.

Unlimited = let Brad spend as much as permitted under the CBA

That would include the Fournier TPE ($17.1 million); the Schroder TPE ($5.89 million); the Taxpayer MLE ($6.34 million); allowing Brad to make trades that bring back 125% + $100k of outgoing salary; and signing veterans to the minimum

Let's say that adds $33 million in salary.  Our current cap situation is reportedly about $7 million above the tax.  So, let's call it $40 million, not subject to the repeated tax.

The first $20 million of that would add $44.75 million in tax. 

Spending $25 million above the tax would be $44.75 million + $18.75 million = $63.5 million

$30 million above the tax would be $63.5 million + $21.25 million = $84.75 million

$35 million above the tax would be $84.75 million + $23.75 million = $108.5 million

$40 million above the tax would be $108.5 million + $26.25 million = $134.75 million

So, assuming a tax line of around $149 million, we'd spend $40 million beyond that in salaries, reaching $189 million.  We'd add roughly $135 million in tax.

That would put the team's expenditures at about $324 million.

Do you think Wyc has authorized a budget of $324 million?  If not, then Brad isn't telling the entire truth.

They have three sizable TPEs, not two, + the MLE. The third TPE is from Juancho Hernangomez: ($6.9 million). IOW, $36 million without trades and vet mins. I believe that Stevens isn't lying, but that doesn't mean they'll use them all this summer because two of them don't expire.

Brian Robb today:

“I think the trade exception, there’s a reason why a lot of the trade exceptions go unused,” Stevens said. “We have a bunch of them right now. We have one that expires, obviously, the big one expires in July, we’ve got a couple of others that expire later, they’re all reasonable amounts that we can take good players in with, so you balance that on, OK, what’s the cost that you’re going to have to pay, are you going to bring somebody in that’s going to add to – not necessarily take away, which you obviously don’t want to do. So it’s still about being prudent and thoughtful about what the deal is.”

“But we’re going through the whole list and we’re trying to find guys that fit what we need and will fit into how we want to play and how Ime wants to coach and makes it so that this train can take off from the get-go next year. I thought one of the things that caught up with us was that we started so poorly last year. And there were obviously a variety of reasons for that. But when you start off 18-21 you’ve gotta fight, scratch and claw to get into the playoffs, get into the seeds, get home court – you’ve gotta do all that stuff and there’s no margin for error. And as a result, you play a lot of minutes on the way. And so we’ve gotta start better next year. So adding people that add to our group is, again, the major focus however we do that.”

Brian Robb Monday:

That reality along with a likely willingness by team ownership per league sources to significantly expand Boston’s payroll for next season will place a greater sense of urgency on the offseason for Boston’s front office in the next few weeks.

"Significantly expand" and "Okay to do whatever we need to do" are vastly different, though.

A significant expansion of spending would be $10 million into the tax.  That's not the same as carte blanche spending authority to do whatever Brad wants.

$10 million is not significant.

[liam]

I assume this means the Fournier TPE and the Tax Payer exemption for starters.

Jared Weiss @JaredWeissNBA now

Brad Stevens says ownership has given him the "Okay to do whatever we need to do."

I suspect that this is GM speak.  I'd be shocked if Wyc gave Brad an unlimited (or very minimally restricted) budget.  But, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

It is impossible for ownership to give Stevens an unlimited budget under the CBA.

Otherwise, despite your reservations, this is very good news.

Unlimited = let Brad spend as much as permitted under the CBA

That would include the Fournier TPE ($17.1 million); the Schroder TPE ($5.89 million); the Taxpayer MLE ($6.34 million); allowing Brad to make trades that bring back 125% + $100k of outgoing salary; and signing veterans to the minimum

Let's say that adds $33 million in salary.  Our current cap situation is reportedly about $7 million above the tax.  So, let's call it $40 million, not subject to the repeated tax.

The first $20 million of that would add $44.75 million in tax. 

Spending $25 million above the tax would be $44.75 million + $18.75 million = $63.5 million

$30 million above the tax would be $63.5 million + $21.25 million = $84.75 million

$35 million above the tax would be $84.75 million + $23.75 million = $108.5 million

$40 million above the tax would be $108.5 million + $26.25 million = $134.75 million

So, assuming a tax line of around $149 million, we'd spend $40 million beyond that in salaries, reaching $189 million.  We'd add roughly $135 million in tax.

That would put the team's expenditures at about $324 million.

Do you think Wyc has authorized a budget of $324 million?  If not, then Brad isn't telling the entire truth.

They have three sizable TPEs, not two, + the MLE. The third TPE is from Juancho Hernangomez: ($6.9 million). IOW, $36 million without trades and vet mins. I believe that Stevens isn't lying, but that doesn't mean they'll use them all this summer because two of them don't expire.

Brian Robb today:

“I think the trade exception, there’s a reason why a lot of the trade exceptions go unused,” Stevens said. “We have a bunch of them right now. We have one that expires, obviously, the big one expires in July, we’ve got a couple of others that expire later, they’re all reasonable amounts that we can take good players in with, so you balance that on, OK, what’s the cost that you’re going to have to pay, are you going to bring somebody in that’s going to add to – not necessarily take away, which you obviously don’t want to do. So it’s still about being prudent and thoughtful about what the deal is.”

“But we’re going through the whole list and we’re trying to find guys that fit what we need and will fit into how we want to play and how Ime wants to coach and makes it so that this train can take off from the get-go next year. I thought one of the things that caught up with us was that we started so poorly last year. And there were obviously a variety of reasons for that. But when you start off 18-21 you’ve gotta fight, scratch and claw to get into the playoffs, get into the seeds, get home court – you’ve gotta do all that stuff and there’s no margin for error. And as a result, you play a lot of minutes on the way. And so we’ve gotta start better next year. So adding people that add to our group is, again, the major focus however we do that.”

Brian Robb Monday:

That reality along with a likely willingness by team ownership per league sources to significantly expand Boston’s payroll for next season will place a greater sense of urgency on the offseason for Boston’s front office in the next few weeks.

"Significantly expand" and "Okay to do whatever we need to do" are vastly different, though.

A significant expansion of spending would be $10 million into the tax.  That's not the same as carte blanche spending authority to do whatever Brad wants.

$10 million is not significant.

Bringing in another Max guy would be the move.

[celticinorlando]

Chris Forsberg: Brad Stevens on offseason needs: “Little bit more scoring, consistent scoring off the bench, and I think we have some short-term needs there, but I believe in a couple of the guys that didn’t get to play as much, that they will improve.”

Hmm.  I wonder who the "couple" of guys who didn't get to play were.  Nesmith is obvious.  The rest of that bench is pure crap, with the possible exception of Hauser and Theis.

I'm going to hope that Brad isn't relying on Hauser, Theis and Nesmith to be our consistent scorers off the pine.

Agree 100 percent. Pinning hopes on those three guys would be foolish.

[droopdog7]

I assume this means the Fournier TPE and the Tax Payer exemption for starters.

Jared Weiss @JaredWeissNBA now

Brad Stevens says ownership has given him the "Okay to do whatever we need to do."

I suspect that this is GM speak.  I'd be shocked if Wyc gave Brad an unlimited (or very minimally restricted) budget.  But, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

It is impossible for ownership to give Stevens an unlimited budget under the CBA.

Otherwise, despite your reservations, this is very good news.

Unlimited = let Brad spend as much as permitted under the CBA

That would include the Fournier TPE ($17.1 million); the Schroder TPE ($5.89 million); the Taxpayer MLE ($6.34 million); allowing Brad to make trades that bring back 125% + $100k of outgoing salary; and signing veterans to the minimum

Let's say that adds $33 million in salary.  Our current cap situation is reportedly about $7 million above the tax.  So, let's call it $40 million, not subject to the repeated tax.

The first $20 million of that would add $44.75 million in tax. 

Spending $25 million above the tax would be $44.75 million + $18.75 million = $63.5 million

$30 million above the tax would be $63.5 million + $21.25 million = $84.75 million

$35 million above the tax would be $84.75 million + $23.75 million = $108.5 million

$40 million above the tax would be $108.5 million + $26.25 million = $134.75 million

So, assuming a tax line of around $149 million, we'd spend $40 million beyond that in salaries, reaching $189 million.  We'd add roughly $135 million in tax.

That would put the team's expenditures at about $324 million.

Do you think Wyc has authorized a budget of $324 million?  If not, then Brad isn't telling the entire truth.

They have three sizable TPEs, not two, + the MLE. The third TPE is from Juancho Hernangomez: ($6.9 million). IOW, $36 million without trades and vet mins. I believe that Stevens isn't lying, but that doesn't mean they'll use them all this summer because two of them don't expire.

Brian Robb today:

“I think the trade exception, there’s a reason why a lot of the trade exceptions go unused,” Stevens said. “We have a bunch of them right now. We have one that expires, obviously, the big one expires in July, we’ve got a couple of others that expire later, they’re all reasonable amounts that we can take good players in with, so you balance that on, OK, what’s the cost that you’re going to have to pay, are you going to bring somebody in that’s going to add to – not necessarily take away, which you obviously don’t want to do. So it’s still about being prudent and thoughtful about what the deal is.”

“But we’re going through the whole list and we’re trying to find guys that fit what we need and will fit into how we want to play and how Ime wants to coach and makes it so that this train can take off from the get-go next year. I thought one of the things that caught up with us was that we started so poorly last year. And there were obviously a variety of reasons for that. But when you start off 18-21 you’ve gotta fight, scratch and claw to get into the playoffs, get into the seeds, get home court – you’ve gotta do all that stuff and there’s no margin for error. And as a result, you play a lot of minutes on the way. And so we’ve gotta start better next year. So adding people that add to our group is, again, the major focus however we do that.”

Brian Robb Monday:

That reality along with a likely willingness by team ownership per league sources to significantly expand Boston’s payroll for next season will place a greater sense of urgency on the offseason for Boston’s front office in the next few weeks.

"Significantly expand" and "Okay to do whatever we need to do" are vastly different, though.

A significant expansion of spending would be $10 million into the tax.  That's not the same as carte blanche spending authority to do whatever Brad wants.

I feel like the idea of using every possible avenue to expand is theoretical though.  Even if we wanted to use them all, I’m not sure we could and have it make sense for a variety of reasons.

I feel comfortable that BS will be allowed to do what is possible if it takes us over the hump.  That’s all I need.

[johnnygreen]

Chris Forsberg: Brad Stevens on offseason needs: “Little bit more scoring, consistent scoring off the bench, and I think we have some short-term needs there, but I believe in a couple of the guys that didn’t get to play as much, that they will improve.”

Hmm.  I wonder who the "couple" of guys who didn't get to play were.  Nesmith is obvious.  The rest of that bench is pure crap, with the possible exception of Hauser and Theis.

I'm going to hope that Brad isn't relying on Hauser, Theis and Nesmith to be our consistent scorers off the pine.

Agree 100 percent. Pinning hopes on those three guys would be foolish.

He didn't play much this season, but I wonder if Brodric Thomas is on that list. I think I remember him playing in one game with some of the regular rotation players, and I thought he had a great feel for the game as a facilitator. I know, this guy is far away from being a possible contributor.

[Roy H.]

I assume this means the Fournier TPE and the Tax Payer exemption for starters.

Jared Weiss @JaredWeissNBA now

Brad Stevens says ownership has given him the "Okay to do whatever we need to do."

I suspect that this is GM speak.  I'd be shocked if Wyc gave Brad an unlimited (or very minimally restricted) budget.  But, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

It is impossible for ownership to give Stevens an unlimited budget under the CBA.

Otherwise, despite your reservations, this is very good news.

Unlimited = let Brad spend as much as permitted under the CBA

That would include the Fournier TPE ($17.1 million); the Schroder TPE ($5.89 million); the Taxpayer MLE ($6.34 million); allowing Brad to make trades that bring back 125% + $100k of outgoing salary; and signing veterans to the minimum

Let's say that adds $33 million in salary.  Our current cap situation is reportedly about $7 million above the tax.  So, let's call it $40 million, not subject to the repeated tax.

The first $20 million of that would add $44.75 million in tax. 

Spending $25 million above the tax would be $44.75 million + $18.75 million = $63.5 million

$30 million above the tax would be $63.5 million + $21.25 million = $84.75 million

$35 million above the tax would be $84.75 million + $23.75 million = $108.5 million

$40 million above the tax would be $108.5 million + $26.25 million = $134.75 million

So, assuming a tax line of around $149 million, we'd spend $40 million beyond that in salaries, reaching $189 million.  We'd add roughly $135 million in tax.

That would put the team's expenditures at about $324 million.

Do you think Wyc has authorized a budget of $324 million?  If not, then Brad isn't telling the entire truth.

They have three sizable TPEs, not two, + the MLE. The third TPE is from Juancho Hernangomez: ($6.9 million). IOW, $36 million without trades and vet mins. I believe that Stevens isn't lying, but that doesn't mean they'll use them all this summer because two of them don't expire.

Brian Robb today:

“I think the trade exception, there’s a reason why a lot of the trade exceptions go unused,” Stevens said. “We have a bunch of them right now. We have one that expires, obviously, the big one expires in July, we’ve got a couple of others that expire later, they’re all reasonable amounts that we can take good players in with, so you balance that on, OK, what’s the cost that you’re going to have to pay, are you going to bring somebody in that’s going to add to – not necessarily take away, which you obviously don’t want to do. So it’s still about being prudent and thoughtful about what the deal is.”

“But we’re going through the whole list and we’re trying to find guys that fit what we need and will fit into how we want to play and how Ime wants to coach and makes it so that this train can take off from the get-go next year. I thought one of the things that caught up with us was that we started so poorly last year. And there were obviously a variety of reasons for that. But when you start off 18-21 you’ve gotta fight, scratch and claw to get into the playoffs, get into the seeds, get home court – you’ve gotta do all that stuff and there’s no margin for error. And as a result, you play a lot of minutes on the way. And so we’ve gotta start better next year. So adding people that add to our group is, again, the major focus however we do that.”

Brian Robb Monday:

That reality along with a likely willingness by team ownership per league sources to significantly expand Boston’s payroll for next season will place a greater sense of urgency on the offseason for Boston’s front office in the next few weeks.

"Significantly expand" and "Okay to do whatever we need to do" are vastly different, though.

A significant expansion of spending would be $10 million into the tax.  That's not the same as carte blanche spending authority to do whatever Brad wants.

$10 million is not significant.

Prepare to be disappointed.  $10 million over the tax means a luxury tax penalty of $16.25 million.  That modest amount is more than the Celtics have ever spent in tax in any season.

Folks thinking we're going to exceed the tax by $25 million+ are fooling themselves.  Wyc isn't increasing payroll by close to $100 million.

[droopdog7]

I assume this means the Fournier TPE and the Tax Payer exemption for starters.

Jared Weiss @JaredWeissNBA now

Brad Stevens says ownership has given him the "Okay to do whatever we need to do."

I suspect that this is GM speak.  I'd be shocked if Wyc gave Brad an unlimited (or very minimally restricted) budget.  But, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

It is impossible for ownership to give Stevens an unlimited budget under the CBA.

Otherwise, despite your reservations, this is very good news.

Unlimited = let Brad spend as much as permitted under the CBA

That would include the Fournier TPE ($17.1 million); the Schroder TPE ($5.89 million); the Taxpayer MLE ($6.34 million); allowing Brad to make trades that bring back 125% + $100k of outgoing salary; and signing veterans to the minimum

Let's say that adds $33 million in salary.  Our current cap situation is reportedly about $7 million above the tax.  So, let's call it $40 million, not subject to the repeated tax.

The first $20 million of that would add $44.75 million in tax. 

Spending $25 million above the tax would be $44.75 million + $18.75 million = $63.5 million

$30 million above the tax would be $63.5 million + $21.25 million = $84.75 million

$35 million above the tax would be $84.75 million + $23.75 million = $108.5 million

$40 million above the tax would be $108.5 million + $26.25 million = $134.75 million

So, assuming a tax line of around $149 million, we'd spend $40 million beyond that in salaries, reaching $189 million.  We'd add roughly $135 million in tax.

That would put the team's expenditures at about $324 million.

Do you think Wyc has authorized a budget of $324 million?  If not, then Brad isn't telling the entire truth.

They have three sizable TPEs, not two, + the MLE. The third TPE is from Juancho Hernangomez: ($6.9 million). IOW, $36 million without trades and vet mins. I believe that Stevens isn't lying, but that doesn't mean they'll use them all this summer because two of them don't expire.

Brian Robb today:

“I think the trade exception, there’s a reason why a lot of the trade exceptions go unused,” Stevens said. “We have a bunch of them right now. We have one that expires, obviously, the big one expires in July, we’ve got a couple of others that expire later, they’re all reasonable amounts that we can take good players in with, so you balance that on, OK, what’s the cost that you’re going to have to pay, are you going to bring somebody in that’s going to add to – not necessarily take away, which you obviously don’t want to do. So it’s still about being prudent and thoughtful about what the deal is.”

“But we’re going through the whole list and we’re trying to find guys that fit what we need and will fit into how we want to play and how Ime wants to coach and makes it so that this train can take off from the get-go next year. I thought one of the things that caught up with us was that we started so poorly last year. And there were obviously a variety of reasons for that. But when you start off 18-21 you’ve gotta fight, scratch and claw to get into the playoffs, get into the seeds, get home court – you’ve gotta do all that stuff and there’s no margin for error. And as a result, you play a lot of minutes on the way. And so we’ve gotta start better next year. So adding people that add to our group is, again, the major focus however we do that.”

Brian Robb Monday:

That reality along with a likely willingness by team ownership per league sources to significantly expand Boston’s payroll for next season will place a greater sense of urgency on the offseason for Boston’s front office in the next few weeks.

"Significantly expand" and "Okay to do whatever we need to do" are vastly different, though.

A significant expansion of spending would be $10 million into the tax.  That's not the same as carte blanche spending authority to do whatever Brad wants.

$10 million is not significant.

Prepare to be disappointed.  $10 million over the tax means a luxury tax penalty of $16.25 million.  That modest amount is more than the Celtics have ever spent in tax in any season.

Folks thinking we're going to exceed the tax by $25 million+ are fooling themselves.  Wyc isn't increasing payroll by close to $100 million.

This will have to be a wait and see.  Obviously it depends on what is available but IMO the minimum should be the mle (which should be relatively easy to fill) and a significant portion of the one of the trade exceptions (which will be harder to do as value would need to be attached).  So I'm thinking thinking 15-17 mil at least (and yes, I know the actual cost is much bigger).  If we don't do that then you are absolutely right, the team isn't serious about winning.

Of course, the moves could be completely different, sending substantive guys in and out.  At that point, we'll just have to judge it.

[liam]

Chris Forsberg: Brad Stevens on offseason needs: “Little bit more scoring, consistent scoring off the bench, and I think we have some short-term needs there, but I believe in a couple of the guys that didn’t get to play as much, that they will improve.”

Hmm.  I wonder who the "couple" of guys who didn't get to play were.  Nesmith is obvious.  The rest of that bench is pure crap, with the possible exception of Hauser and Theis.

I'm going to hope that Brad isn't relying on Hauser, Theis and Nesmith to be our consistent scorers off the pine.

Agree 100 percent. Pinning hopes on those three guys would be foolish.

He didn't play much this season, but I wonder if Brodric Thomas is on that list. I think I remember him playing in one game with some of the regular rotation players, and I thought he had a great feel for the game as a facilitator. I know, this guy is far away from being a possible contributor.

Both Thomas and Hauser need to get some early season minutes and see what you have. Thomas looked good except for his shot as I remember.  Hauser barely got on the floor but shot 43% from 3. That's instant offense something we could use. Miami develops their young guys and so can we or we can cut them loose and pick up some vets. I was frustrated all year with the short rotation. It really came back to bite us in the finals. Our team looked totally gassed. Golden State did much better in this respect all year.

[Moranis]

Chris Forsberg: Brad Stevens on offseason needs: “Little bit more scoring, consistent scoring off the bench, and I think we have some short-term needs there, but I believe in a couple of the guys that didn’t get to play as much, that they will improve.”

Hmm.  I wonder who the "couple" of guys who didn't get to play were.  Nesmith is obvious.  The rest of that bench is pure crap, with the possible exception of Hauser and Theis.

I'm going to hope that Brad isn't relying on Hauser, Theis and Nesmith to be our consistent scorers off the pine.

This is one of the two reasons I was griping about the rotation at the end of the year.  The team wasn't establishing a bench or figuring out what we had.  I understand why Ime was playing for wins, but the downside is, Boston has no idea on nearly half the roster and got nothing out of it in the playoffs. 

The other reason I was griping about the rotation ended up not mattering all that much as I just wasn't sure how good Boston was since they were playing a playoff rotation against teams that weren't.  The team obviously performed very well in the playoffs on the whole, though I do wonder if Tatum was overly tired in the Finals perhaps in part as a result of the significant regular season work.  Sometimes teams are a bit better off resting more even if it hurts the record.