Report: Celtics still looking to utilize trade exception?

[Moranis]

What originally started this entire conversation was that the Celtics would not be competing like the "big boys" if they don't utilize the TPE.

Does anybody (Moranis) still think that's the case, when comparing the team to other "big boys"?

Even among the bigger spenders, have they used every resource available to improve the team?  The Clippers have a TPE expiring on 7/18.  If they don't use it, are they not "big boys", either?  Did the Warriors lose "big boy" status when they let their free agents walk, and didn't spend the entire MLE?

Do those other teams have 3 open roster spots?  Boston has to add at least 2 people to the team.  They should do that with the TPE as opposed to minimum level players.  That is the heart of the argument.  The Clippers have 14 players under contract I believe.  That isn't the same level of flexibility Boston has.  If Boston was sitting there with a full roster (or nearly full roster), this discussion wouldn't be taking place, but Boston has a ton of room to add players and has acknowledged they are going to be adding at least 1 more player.  That guy should absolutely come from the TPE if they can find someone available whose cost is reasonable (and not just contract value, but also acquisition cost).  Boston shouldn't be giving up a 1st round pick to acquire someone who isn't worth a 1st round pick just to use the TPE, but if you could get someone like McDermott, Noel, or Crowder for a protected 2nd rounder, then you should do that.  You can always reduce the tax load later in the year if the team isn't performing and you need to lower the burden. 

[Roy H.]

What originally started this entire conversation was that the Celtics would not be competing like the "big boys" if they don't utilize the TPE.

Does anybody (Moranis) still think that's the case, when comparing the team to other "big boys"?

Even among the bigger spenders, have they used every resource available to improve the team?  The Clippers have a TPE expiring on 7/18.  If they don't use it, are they not "big boys", either?  Did the Warriors lose "big boy" status when they let their free agents walk, and didn't spend the entire MLE?

Do those other teams have 3 open roster spots?  Boston has to add at least 2 people to the team.  They should do that with the TPE as opposed to minimum level players.  That is the heart of the argument.  The Clippers have 14 players under contract I believe.  That isn't the same level of flexibility Boston has.  If Boston was sitting there with a full roster (or nearly full roster), this discussion wouldn't be taking place, but Boston has a ton of room to add players and has acknowledged they are going to be adding at least 1 more player.  That guy should absolutely come from the TPE if they can find someone available whose cost is reasonable (and not just contract value, but also acquisition cost).  Boston shouldn't be giving up a 1st round pick to acquire someone who isn't worth a 1st round pick just to use the TPE, but if you could get someone like McDermott, Noel, or Crowder for a protected 2nd rounder, then you should do that.  You can always reduce the tax load later in the year if the team isn't performing and you need to lower the burden.

Yes, Golden State has multiple roster spots open.

If the Clippers are trying to compete with the "big boys", why not fill their roster?  Why not upgrade from a rookie scrub like Jason Preston?

It seems like you have evolving standards and caveats that don't apply to any team other than the Celtics.  No other team is maximizing their chances by using every possible financial resource.  Why hold Boston to that standard, and then say they're not competing with their peers?

[mrceltics2013]

What originally started this entire conversation was that the Celtics would not be competing like the "big boys" if they don't utilize the TPE.

Does anybody (Moranis) still think that's the case, when comparing the team to other "big boys"?

Even among the bigger spenders, have they used every resource available to improve the team?  The Clippers have a TPE expiring on 7/18.  If they don't use it, are they not "big boys", either?  Did the Warriors lose "big boy" status when they let their free agents walk, and didn't spend the entire MLE?

Do those other teams have 3 open roster spots?  Boston has to add at least 2 people to the team.  They should do that with the TPE as opposed to minimum level players.  That is the heart of the argument.  The Clippers have 14 players under contract I believe.  That isn't the same level of flexibility Boston has.  If Boston was sitting there with a full roster (or nearly full roster), this discussion wouldn't be taking place, but Boston has a ton of room to add players and has acknowledged they are going to be adding at least 1 more player.  That guy should absolutely come from the TPE if they can find someone available whose cost is reasonable (and not just contract value, but also acquisition cost).  Boston shouldn't be giving up a 1st round pick to acquire someone who isn't worth a 1st round pick just to use the TPE, but if you could get someone like McDermott, Noel, or Crowder for a protected 2nd rounder, then you should do that.  You can always reduce the tax load later in the year if the team isn't performing and you need to lower the burden.

Yes, Golden State has multiple roster spots open.

If the Clippers are trying to compete with the "big boys", why not fill their roster?  Why not upgrade from a rookie scrub like Jason Preston?

It seems like you have evolving standards and caveats that don't apply to any team other than the Celtics.  No other team is maximizing their chances by using every possible financial resource.  Why hold Boston to that standard, and then say they're not competing with their peers?

I mean why not go all in when you’re so close? You can focus on shredding and consolidating salaries next offseason. Why waste such a valuable asset when you could use it on a salary, then combine that salary and another asset to upgrade at the trade deadline.

Either way… I wouldn’t be too upset with whatever decision that they make because these summer league guys are pretty entertaining.

[Vermont Green]

What originally started this entire conversation was that the Celtics would not be competing like the "big boys" if they don't utilize the TPE.

Does anybody (Moranis) still think that's the case, when comparing the team to other "big boys"?

Even among the bigger spenders, have they used every resource available to improve the team?  The Clippers have a TPE expiring on 7/18.  If they don't use it, are they not "big boys", either?  Did the Warriors lose "big boy" status when they let their free agents walk, and didn't spend the entire MLE?

Do those other teams have 3 open roster spots?  Boston has to add at least 2 people to the team.  They should do that with the TPE as opposed to minimum level players.  That is the heart of the argument.  The Clippers have 14 players under contract I believe.  That isn't the same level of flexibility Boston has.  If Boston was sitting there with a full roster (or nearly full roster), this discussion wouldn't be taking place, but Boston has a ton of room to add players and has acknowledged they are going to be adding at least 1 more player.  That guy should absolutely come from the TPE if they can find someone available whose cost is reasonable (and not just contract value, but also acquisition cost).  Boston shouldn't be giving up a 1st round pick to acquire someone who isn't worth a 1st round pick just to use the TPE, but if you could get someone like McDermott, Noel, or Crowder for a protected 2nd rounder, then you should do that.  You can always reduce the tax load later in the year if the team isn't performing and you need to lower the burden.

Yes, Golden State has multiple roster spots open.

If the Clippers are trying to compete with the "big boys", why not fill their roster?  Why not upgrade from a rookie scrub like Jason Preston?

It seems like you have evolving standards and caveats that don't apply to any team other than the Celtics.  No other team is maximizing their chances by using every possible financial resource.  Why hold Boston to that standard, and then say they're not competing with their peers?

Guys, good debate but my suggestion is to wait until these roster spots are actually filled and then we can all second guess the moves.

[droopdog7]

Regarding this back and forth big boy talk, all I can say is that I'm very happy with the moves.  I think ownership has come through and would not blame them for not spending an additional 25 million for an 11th man.  I mean, sanity has to come into play at some point.

[Celtics2021]

Regarding this back and forth big boy talk, all I can say is that I'm very happy with the moves.  I think ownership has come through and would not blame them for not spending an additional 25 million for an 11th man.  I mean, sanity has to come into play at some point.

Yes, this is where I’m at too.  Brogdon came out of left field, and the price was far lower than any of us imagined here.  I’m not a huge Gallo fan, but he’s fair value at the MLE, and certainly fills a role.  We certainly have one (Brogdon) and maybe two (Gallo) more players that can actually be used in the late rounds of the playoffs, at the cost of players who were not.  The team is distinctly better, and the large tax bill reflects that.

[Moranis]

What originally started this entire conversation was that the Celtics would not be competing like the "big boys" if they don't utilize the TPE.

Does anybody (Moranis) still think that's the case, when comparing the team to other "big boys"?

Even among the bigger spenders, have they used every resource available to improve the team?  The Clippers have a TPE expiring on 7/18.  If they don't use it, are they not "big boys", either?  Did the Warriors lose "big boy" status when they let their free agents walk, and didn't spend the entire MLE?

Do those other teams have 3 open roster spots?  Boston has to add at least 2 people to the team.  They should do that with the TPE as opposed to minimum level players.  That is the heart of the argument.  The Clippers have 14 players under contract I believe.  That isn't the same level of flexibility Boston has.  If Boston was sitting there with a full roster (or nearly full roster), this discussion wouldn't be taking place, but Boston has a ton of room to add players and has acknowledged they are going to be adding at least 1 more player.  That guy should absolutely come from the TPE if they can find someone available whose cost is reasonable (and not just contract value, but also acquisition cost).  Boston shouldn't be giving up a 1st round pick to acquire someone who isn't worth a 1st round pick just to use the TPE, but if you could get someone like McDermott, Noel, or Crowder for a protected 2nd rounder, then you should do that.  You can always reduce the tax load later in the year if the team isn't performing and you need to lower the burden.

Yes, Golden State has multiple roster spots open.

If the Clippers are trying to compete with the "big boys", why not fill their roster?  Why not upgrade from a rookie scrub like Jason Preston?

It seems like you have evolving standards and caveats that don't apply to any team other than the Celtics.  No other team is maximizing their chances by using every possible financial resource.  Why hold Boston to that standard, and then say they're not competing with their peers?

Golden State lost players in free agency and then replaced 1 of them in free agency (and another with Wiseman).  That is no where near the same thing as letting a 17.1 million dollar TPE expire nor a 8.25 million dollar one that LA has.  And as I said, LA should use the TPE if they find a good value deal, but they have less a need since they already have a 12 deep roster (Jackson, Wall, George, Kennard, Powell, Leonard, Mann, Coffey, Morris, Batum, Covington, Zubac).  Even 12 deep, they could use a center, but the options under their TPE aren't really any better than the veteran minimum guys they can sign.

The Celtics have 10 playable guys on the roster.  They need at least 2 more, if not 3 more, to really make it through the season.  That just isn't comparable to the other contenders who are all a lot deeper.  And they are the only "contender" that has the ability to add 17 million dollars in contracts without sending anyone away.

[Roy H.]

What originally started this entire conversation was that the Celtics would not be competing like the "big boys" if they don't utilize the TPE.

Does anybody (Moranis) still think that's the case, when comparing the team to other "big boys"?

Even among the bigger spenders, have they used every resource available to improve the team?  The Clippers have a TPE expiring on 7/18.  If they don't use it, are they not "big boys", either?  Did the Warriors lose "big boy" status when they let their free agents walk, and didn't spend the entire MLE?

Do those other teams have 3 open roster spots?  Boston has to add at least 2 people to the team.  They should do that with the TPE as opposed to minimum level players.  That is the heart of the argument.  The Clippers have 14 players under contract I believe.  That isn't the same level of flexibility Boston has.  If Boston was sitting there with a full roster (or nearly full roster), this discussion wouldn't be taking place, but Boston has a ton of room to add players and has acknowledged they are going to be adding at least 1 more player.  That guy should absolutely come from the TPE if they can find someone available whose cost is reasonable (and not just contract value, but also acquisition cost).  Boston shouldn't be giving up a 1st round pick to acquire someone who isn't worth a 1st round pick just to use the TPE, but if you could get someone like McDermott, Noel, or Crowder for a protected 2nd rounder, then you should do that.  You can always reduce the tax load later in the year if the team isn't performing and you need to lower the burden.

Yes, Golden State has multiple roster spots open.

If the Clippers are trying to compete with the "big boys", why not fill their roster?  Why not upgrade from a rookie scrub like Jason Preston?

It seems like you have evolving standards and caveats that don't apply to any team other than the Celtics.  No other team is maximizing their chances by using every possible financial resource.  Why hold Boston to that standard, and then say they're not competing with their peers?

Golden State lost players in free agency and then replaced 1 of them in free agency (and another with Wiseman).  That is no where near the same thing as letting a 17.1 million dollar TPE expire nor a 8.25 million dollar one that LA has.  And as I said, LA should use the TPE if they find a good value deal, but they have less a need since they already have a 12 deep roster (Jackson, Wall, George, Kennard, Powell, Leonard, Mann, Coffey, Morris, Batum, Covington, Zubac).  Even 12 deep, they could use a center, but the options under their TPE aren't really any better than the veteran minimum guys they can sign.

The Celtics have 10 playable guys on the roster.  They need at least 2 more, if not 3 more, to really make it through the season.  That just isn't comparable to the other contenders who are all a lot deeper.  And they are the only "contender" that has the ability to add 17 million dollars in contracts without sending anyone away.

Golden State just lost Otto Porter, Gary Payton II, Damion Lee, Nemanja Bjelica, and Juan Toscano-Anderson. 

Yet, they're doing what it takes, and we're not?  The combined impact of those guys walking is most likely more than anything we'll get for the TPE.

We need to add another two players, but I don't see the difference between two veteran additions via the minimum and two veteran additions via the TPE as making a difference.  Heck, you yourself are onboard with adding at least one minimum player (Howard).

I hope we use the TPE, but if the team doesn't I don't see a huge amount of fault with that.  We're going to be roughly $25 million into the tax, which is a reasonable amount for a contender to spend.  It's in line with the vast majority of our peers. 

The only counter-argument I'm willing to listen to:  Milwaukee's payroll is $17 million higher than ours, and they're in a smaller market.  If they can have a $177 million budget, perhaps we should, too.  They're our direct competitor in the East, and they've paid tax (as far as I can tell) in 2021 and 2022, and will be doing so this season, as well.  So, maybe there's a legit argument that the Celtics are being cheap compared to the Bucks, a "lesser" franchise.

[Celtics2021]

What originally started this entire conversation was that the Celtics would not be competing like the "big boys" if they don't utilize the TPE.

Does anybody (Moranis) still think that's the case, when comparing the team to other "big boys"?

Even among the bigger spenders, have they used every resource available to improve the team?  The Clippers have a TPE expiring on 7/18.  If they don't use it, are they not "big boys", either?  Did the Warriors lose "big boy" status when they let their free agents walk, and didn't spend the entire MLE?

Do those other teams have 3 open roster spots?  Boston has to add at least 2 people to the team.  They should do that with the TPE as opposed to minimum level players.  That is the heart of the argument.  The Clippers have 14 players under contract I believe.  That isn't the same level of flexibility Boston has.  If Boston was sitting there with a full roster (or nearly full roster), this discussion wouldn't be taking place, but Boston has a ton of room to add players and has acknowledged they are going to be adding at least 1 more player.  That guy should absolutely come from the TPE if they can find someone available whose cost is reasonable (and not just contract value, but also acquisition cost).  Boston shouldn't be giving up a 1st round pick to acquire someone who isn't worth a 1st round pick just to use the TPE, but if you could get someone like McDermott, Noel, or Crowder for a protected 2nd rounder, then you should do that.  You can always reduce the tax load later in the year if the team isn't performing and you need to lower the burden.

Yes, Golden State has multiple roster spots open.

If the Clippers are trying to compete with the "big boys", why not fill their roster?  Why not upgrade from a rookie scrub like Jason Preston?

It seems like you have evolving standards and caveats that don't apply to any team other than the Celtics.  No other team is maximizing their chances by using every possible financial resource.  Why hold Boston to that standard, and then say they're not competing with their peers?

Golden State lost players in free agency and then replaced 1 of them in free agency (and another with Wiseman).  That is no where near the same thing as letting a 17.1 million dollar TPE expire nor a 8.25 million dollar one that LA has.  And as I said, LA should use the TPE if they find a good value deal, but they have less a need since they already have a 12 deep roster (Jackson, Wall, George, Kennard, Powell, Leonard, Mann, Coffey, Morris, Batum, Covington, Zubac).  Even 12 deep, they could use a center, but the options under their TPE aren't really any better than the veteran minimum guys they can sign.

The Celtics have 10 playable guys on the roster.  They need at least 2 more, if not 3 more, to really make it through the season.  That just isn't comparable to the other contenders who are all a lot deeper.  And they are the only "contender" that has the ability to add 17 million dollars in contracts without sending anyone away.

Golden State just lost Otto Porter, Gary Payton II, Damion Lee, Nemanja Bjelica, and Juan Toscano-Anderson. 

Yet, they're doing what it takes, and we're not?  The combined impact of those guys walking is most likely more than anything we'll get for the TPE.

We need to add another two players, but I don't see the difference between two veteran additions via the minimum and two veteran additions via the TPE as making a difference.  Heck, you yourself are onboard with adding at least one minimum player (Howard).

I hope we use the TPE, but if the team doesn't I don't see a huge amount of fault with that.  We're going to be roughly $25 million into the tax, which is a reasonable amount for a contender to spend.  It's in line with the vast majority of our peers. 

The only counter-argument I'm willing to listen to:  Milwaukee's payroll is $17 million higher than ours, and they're in a smaller market.  If they can have a $177 million budget, perhaps we should, too.  They're our direct competitor in the East, and they've paid tax (as far as I can tell) in 2021 and 2022, and will be doing so this season, as well.  So, maybe there's a legit argument that the Celtics are being cheap compared to the Bucks, a "lesser" franchise.

Roy, not quite sure where you've got Milwaukee's payroll so high.  It's around $182 million with 15 players, while the Celtics are at $170 million with 12, so it will probably be $5-7 million higher when the roster is filled, or approximately the amount of the TPEs we could use at the deadline.

[Roy H.]

What originally started this entire conversation was that the Celtics would not be competing like the "big boys" if they don't utilize the TPE.

Does anybody (Moranis) still think that's the case, when comparing the team to other "big boys"?

Even among the bigger spenders, have they used every resource available to improve the team?  The Clippers have a TPE expiring on 7/18.  If they don't use it, are they not "big boys", either?  Did the Warriors lose "big boy" status when they let their free agents walk, and didn't spend the entire MLE?

Do those other teams have 3 open roster spots?  Boston has to add at least 2 people to the team.  They should do that with the TPE as opposed to minimum level players.  That is the heart of the argument.  The Clippers have 14 players under contract I believe.  That isn't the same level of flexibility Boston has.  If Boston was sitting there with a full roster (or nearly full roster), this discussion wouldn't be taking place, but Boston has a ton of room to add players and has acknowledged they are going to be adding at least 1 more player.  That guy should absolutely come from the TPE if they can find someone available whose cost is reasonable (and not just contract value, but also acquisition cost).  Boston shouldn't be giving up a 1st round pick to acquire someone who isn't worth a 1st round pick just to use the TPE, but if you could get someone like McDermott, Noel, or Crowder for a protected 2nd rounder, then you should do that.  You can always reduce the tax load later in the year if the team isn't performing and you need to lower the burden.

Yes, Golden State has multiple roster spots open.

If the Clippers are trying to compete with the "big boys", why not fill their roster?  Why not upgrade from a rookie scrub like Jason Preston?

It seems like you have evolving standards and caveats that don't apply to any team other than the Celtics.  No other team is maximizing their chances by using every possible financial resource.  Why hold Boston to that standard, and then say they're not competing with their peers?

Golden State lost players in free agency and then replaced 1 of them in free agency (and another with Wiseman).  That is no where near the same thing as letting a 17.1 million dollar TPE expire nor a 8.25 million dollar one that LA has.  And as I said, LA should use the TPE if they find a good value deal, but they have less a need since they already have a 12 deep roster (Jackson, Wall, George, Kennard, Powell, Leonard, Mann, Coffey, Morris, Batum, Covington, Zubac).  Even 12 deep, they could use a center, but the options under their TPE aren't really any better than the veteran minimum guys they can sign.

The Celtics have 10 playable guys on the roster.  They need at least 2 more, if not 3 more, to really make it through the season.  That just isn't comparable to the other contenders who are all a lot deeper.  And they are the only "contender" that has the ability to add 17 million dollars in contracts without sending anyone away.

Golden State just lost Otto Porter, Gary Payton II, Damion Lee, Nemanja Bjelica, and Juan Toscano-Anderson. 

Yet, they're doing what it takes, and we're not?  The combined impact of those guys walking is most likely more than anything we'll get for the TPE.

We need to add another two players, but I don't see the difference between two veteran additions via the minimum and two veteran additions via the TPE as making a difference.  Heck, you yourself are onboard with adding at least one minimum player (Howard).

I hope we use the TPE, but if the team doesn't I don't see a huge amount of fault with that.  We're going to be roughly $25 million into the tax, which is a reasonable amount for a contender to spend.  It's in line with the vast majority of our peers. 

The only counter-argument I'm willing to listen to:  Milwaukee's payroll is $17 million higher than ours, and they're in a smaller market.  If they can have a $177 million budget, perhaps we should, too.  They're our direct competitor in the East, and they've paid tax (as far as I can tell) in 2021 and 2022, and will be doing so this season, as well.  So, maybe there's a legit argument that the Celtics are being cheap compared to the Bucks, a "lesser" franchise.

Roy, not quite sure where you've got Milwaukee's payroll so high.  It's around $182 million with 15 players, while the Celtics are at $170 million with 12, so it will probably be $5-7 million higher when the roster is filled, or approximately the amount of the TPEs we could use at the deadline.

Just looking at the Hoopshype numbers:

https://hoopshype.com/salaries/

Are those wrong?

EDIT:  No Gallo or Hauser salary.

[Celtics2021]

What originally started this entire conversation was that the Celtics would not be competing like the "big boys" if they don't utilize the TPE.

Does anybody (Moranis) still think that's the case, when comparing the team to other "big boys"?

Even among the bigger spenders, have they used every resource available to improve the team?  The Clippers have a TPE expiring on 7/18.  If they don't use it, are they not "big boys", either?  Did the Warriors lose "big boy" status when they let their free agents walk, and didn't spend the entire MLE?

Do those other teams have 3 open roster spots?  Boston has to add at least 2 people to the team.  They should do that with the TPE as opposed to minimum level players.  That is the heart of the argument.  The Clippers have 14 players under contract I believe.  That isn't the same level of flexibility Boston has.  If Boston was sitting there with a full roster (or nearly full roster), this discussion wouldn't be taking place, but Boston has a ton of room to add players and has acknowledged they are going to be adding at least 1 more player.  That guy should absolutely come from the TPE if they can find someone available whose cost is reasonable (and not just contract value, but also acquisition cost).  Boston shouldn't be giving up a 1st round pick to acquire someone who isn't worth a 1st round pick just to use the TPE, but if you could get someone like McDermott, Noel, or Crowder for a protected 2nd rounder, then you should do that.  You can always reduce the tax load later in the year if the team isn't performing and you need to lower the burden.

Yes, Golden State has multiple roster spots open.

If the Clippers are trying to compete with the "big boys", why not fill their roster?  Why not upgrade from a rookie scrub like Jason Preston?

It seems like you have evolving standards and caveats that don't apply to any team other than the Celtics.  No other team is maximizing their chances by using every possible financial resource.  Why hold Boston to that standard, and then say they're not competing with their peers?

Golden State lost players in free agency and then replaced 1 of them in free agency (and another with Wiseman).  That is no where near the same thing as letting a 17.1 million dollar TPE expire nor a 8.25 million dollar one that LA has.  And as I said, LA should use the TPE if they find a good value deal, but they have less a need since they already have a 12 deep roster (Jackson, Wall, George, Kennard, Powell, Leonard, Mann, Coffey, Morris, Batum, Covington, Zubac).  Even 12 deep, they could use a center, but the options under their TPE aren't really any better than the veteran minimum guys they can sign.

The Celtics have 10 playable guys on the roster.  They need at least 2 more, if not 3 more, to really make it through the season.  That just isn't comparable to the other contenders who are all a lot deeper.  And they are the only "contender" that has the ability to add 17 million dollars in contracts without sending anyone away.

Golden State just lost Otto Porter, Gary Payton II, Damion Lee, Nemanja Bjelica, and Juan Toscano-Anderson. 

Yet, they're doing what it takes, and we're not?  The combined impact of those guys walking is most likely more than anything we'll get for the TPE.

We need to add another two players, but I don't see the difference between two veteran additions via the minimum and two veteran additions via the TPE as making a difference.  Heck, you yourself are onboard with adding at least one minimum player (Howard).

I hope we use the TPE, but if the team doesn't I don't see a huge amount of fault with that.  We're going to be roughly $25 million into the tax, which is a reasonable amount for a contender to spend.  It's in line with the vast majority of our peers. 

The only counter-argument I'm willing to listen to:  Milwaukee's payroll is $17 million higher than ours, and they're in a smaller market.  If they can have a $177 million budget, perhaps we should, too.  They're our direct competitor in the East, and they've paid tax (as far as I can tell) in 2021 and 2022, and will be doing so this season, as well.  So, maybe there's a legit argument that the Celtics are being cheap compared to the Bucks, a "lesser" franchise.

Roy, not quite sure where you've got Milwaukee's payroll so high.  It's around $182 million with 15 players, while the Celtics are at $170 million with 12, so it will probably be $5-7 million higher when the roster is filled, or approximately the amount of the TPEs we could use at the deadline.

Just looking at the Hoopshype numbers:

https://hoopshype.com/salaries/

Are those wrong?

Yeah, mostly they're too low for the Celtics, as they don't have Gallo's $6.5 million yet.  They also have Kornet with some weird 4-year deal that's below the minimum salary in future years.

[sgrogan]

What originally started this entire conversation was that the Celtics would not be competing like the "big boys" if they don't utilize the TPE.

Does anybody (Moranis) still think that's the case, when comparing the team to other "big boys"?

Even among the bigger spenders, have they used every resource available to improve the team?  The Clippers have a TPE expiring on 7/18.  If they don't use it, are they not "big boys", either?  Did the Warriors lose "big boy" status when they let their free agents walk, and didn't spend the entire MLE?

Do those other teams have 3 open roster spots?  Boston has to add at least 2 people to the team.  They should do that with the TPE as opposed to minimum level players.  That is the heart of the argument.  The Clippers have 14 players under contract I believe.  That isn't the same level of flexibility Boston has.  If Boston was sitting there with a full roster (or nearly full roster), this discussion wouldn't be taking place, but Boston has a ton of room to add players and has acknowledged they are going to be adding at least 1 more player.  That guy should absolutely come from the TPE if they can find someone available whose cost is reasonable (and not just contract value, but also acquisition cost).  Boston shouldn't be giving up a 1st round pick to acquire someone who isn't worth a 1st round pick just to use the TPE, but if you could get someone like McDermott, Noel, or Crowder for a protected 2nd rounder, then you should do that.  You can always reduce the tax load later in the year if the team isn't performing and you need to lower the burden.

Yes, Golden State has multiple roster spots open.

If the Clippers are trying to compete with the "big boys", why not fill their roster?  Why not upgrade from a rookie scrub like Jason Preston?

It seems like you have evolving standards and caveats that don't apply to any team other than the Celtics.  No other team is maximizing their chances by using every possible financial resource.  Why hold Boston to that standard, and then say they're not competing with their peers?

Golden State lost players in free agency and then replaced 1 of them in free agency (and another with Wiseman).  That is no where near the same thing as letting a 17.1 million dollar TPE expire nor a 8.25 million dollar one that LA has.  And as I said, LA should use the TPE if they find a good value deal, but they have less a need since they already have a 12 deep roster (Jackson, Wall, George, Kennard, Powell, Leonard, Mann, Coffey, Morris, Batum, Covington, Zubac).  Even 12 deep, they could use a center, but the options under their TPE aren't really any better than the veteran minimum guys they can sign.

The Celtics have 10 playable guys on the roster.  They need at least 2 more, if not 3 more, to really make it through the season.  That just isn't comparable to the other contenders who are all a lot deeper.  And they are the only "contender" that has the ability to add 17 million dollars in contracts without sending anyone away.

Golden State just lost Otto Porter, Gary Payton II, Damion Lee, Nemanja Bjelica, and Juan Toscano-Anderson. 

Yet, they're doing what it takes, and we're not?  The combined impact of those guys walking is most likely more than anything we'll get for the TPE.

We need to add another two players, but I don't see the difference between two veteran additions via the minimum and two veteran additions via the TPE as making a difference.  Heck, you yourself are onboard with adding at least one minimum player (Howard).

I hope we use the TPE, but if the team doesn't I don't see a huge amount of fault with that.  We're going to be roughly $25 million into the tax, which is a reasonable amount for a contender to spend.  It's in line with the vast majority of our peers. 

The only counter-argument I'm willing to listen to:  Milwaukee's payroll is $17 million higher than ours, and they're in a smaller market.  If they can have a $177 million budget, perhaps we should, too.  They're our direct competitor in the East, and they've paid tax (as far as I can tell) in 2021 and 2022, and will be doing so this season, as well.  So, maybe there's a legit argument that the Celtics are being cheap compared to the Bucks, a "lesser" franchise.

For me I just don't want a basketball move that makes sense squashed over money the C's could spend.
Not interested in spending money for the sake of spending money.
 

[td450]

How about just agreeing that the matter isn't closed? As a general principle, the league will see some personnel realignment before the start of the season. Once this is used, its over. I think it makes a lot of sense to wait on larger moves elsewhere. That's probably true of other teams too.

The C's may very well spend every penny they can before the season starts.

[Vermont Green]

What originally started this entire conversation was that the Celtics would not be competing like the "big boys" if they don't utilize the TPE.

Does anybody (Moranis) still think that's the case, when comparing the team to other "big boys"?

Even among the bigger spenders, have they used every resource available to improve the team?  The Clippers have a TPE expiring on 7/18.  If they don't use it, are they not "big boys", either?  Did the Warriors lose "big boy" status when they let their free agents walk, and didn't spend the entire MLE?

Do those other teams have 3 open roster spots?  Boston has to add at least 2 people to the team.  They should do that with the TPE as opposed to minimum level players.  That is the heart of the argument.  The Clippers have 14 players under contract I believe.  That isn't the same level of flexibility Boston has.  If Boston was sitting there with a full roster (or nearly full roster), this discussion wouldn't be taking place, but Boston has a ton of room to add players and has acknowledged they are going to be adding at least 1 more player.  That guy should absolutely come from the TPE if they can find someone available whose cost is reasonable (and not just contract value, but also acquisition cost).  Boston shouldn't be giving up a 1st round pick to acquire someone who isn't worth a 1st round pick just to use the TPE, but if you could get someone like McDermott, Noel, or Crowder for a protected 2nd rounder, then you should do that.  You can always reduce the tax load later in the year if the team isn't performing and you need to lower the burden.

Yes, Golden State has multiple roster spots open.

If the Clippers are trying to compete with the "big boys", why not fill their roster?  Why not upgrade from a rookie scrub like Jason Preston?

It seems like you have evolving standards and caveats that don't apply to any team other than the Celtics.  No other team is maximizing their chances by using every possible financial resource.  Why hold Boston to that standard, and then say they're not competing with their peers?

Golden State lost players in free agency and then replaced 1 of them in free agency (and another with Wiseman).  That is no where near the same thing as letting a 17.1 million dollar TPE expire nor a 8.25 million dollar one that LA has.  And as I said, LA should use the TPE if they find a good value deal, but they have less a need since they already have a 12 deep roster (Jackson, Wall, George, Kennard, Powell, Leonard, Mann, Coffey, Morris, Batum, Covington, Zubac).  Even 12 deep, they could use a center, but the options under their TPE aren't really any better than the veteran minimum guys they can sign.

The Celtics have 10 playable guys on the roster.  They need at least 2 more, if not 3 more, to really make it through the season.  That just isn't comparable to the other contenders who are all a lot deeper.  And they are the only "contender" that has the ability to add 17 million dollars in contracts without sending anyone away.

Golden State just lost Otto Porter, Gary Payton II, Damion Lee, Nemanja Bjelica, and Juan Toscano-Anderson. 

Yet, they're doing what it takes, and we're not?  The combined impact of those guys walking is most likely more than anything we'll get for the TPE.

We need to add another two players, but I don't see the difference between two veteran additions via the minimum and two veteran additions via the TPE as making a difference.  Heck, you yourself are onboard with adding at least one minimum player (Howard).

I hope we use the TPE, but if the team doesn't I don't see a huge amount of fault with that.  We're going to be roughly $25 million into the tax, which is a reasonable amount for a contender to spend.  It's in line with the vast majority of our peers. 

The only counter-argument I'm willing to listen to:  Milwaukee's payroll is $17 million higher than ours, and they're in a smaller market.  If they can have a $177 million budget, perhaps we should, too.  They're our direct competitor in the East, and they've paid tax (as far as I can tell) in 2021 and 2022, and will be doing so this season, as well.  So, maybe there's a legit argument that the Celtics are being cheap compared to the Bucks, a "lesser" franchise.

Roy, not quite sure where you've got Milwaukee's payroll so high.  It's around $182 million with 15 players, while the Celtics are at $170 million with 12, so it will probably be $5-7 million higher when the roster is filled, or approximately the amount of the TPEs we could use at the deadline.

They resigned Ibaka, right? Is his salary going to be the vet min for 10+ years experience ($2.7M)?

It is still to be seen who we pick up for the last few spots but their 11-15 doesn't look all that hard to beat.

I think everyone is saying the same thing here.  If we add a player that is slated for one of the 11-15 slots, there is no reason to pay more than the minimum.  Since our 1-10 is pretty well set, this seems the most likely.  We shouldn't need to pay anymore to fill those 3 or so remaining slots.  To me, it would be bad business to pay more to fill those slots.

If there is a player that becomes available to us that would slot in to say 6-8, then maybe it is worth spending more on that level of player.  I don't see it as a need to add that type of player at this point.  If something happens to one of our 1-10, then there will be more of a need to do something.  But if a good deal presents itself, we should take advantage.

I think it was Roy H who said that we could pick up a higher cost player, even is they project to one of the 11-15 slots but do this to kind of preserve the salary availability we have with the TPE.  The idea being that we then trade the salary later for a more useful player.  I don't see the team taking this risk.  There really is no need to.

[Roy H.]

How about just agreeing that the matter isn't closed? As a general principle, the league will see some personnel realignment before the start of the season. Once this is used, its over. I think it makes a lot of sense to wait on larger moves elsewhere. That's probably true of other teams too.

The C's may very well spend every penny they can before the season starts.

Well, we have five more days to use the $17.1 million TPE.