Report: Celtics still looking to utilize trade exception?

[sgrogan]

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.

So your on the clock.
Best deal is Kelly Olynik for a heavily protected 2nd.

[JSD]

John Karalis: Asked Brad Stevens if there’s a limit to the spending to round out the roster considering the current tax bill, and he says no. There are mutliple TPEs to use and he says he hs clearance to use them 1 day ago

I think it’s a good sign and I hope they do something with the TPE. The time is now!

[JSD]

I would take anyone with a $13+ million dollar expiring at this point.  It buys time and gives us an asset at the next deadline

[sgrogan]

I would take anyone with a $13+ million dollar expiring at this point.  It buys time and gives us an asset at the next deadline

Kelly is 12.1M
Everyone else wants a first.

[Vermont Green]

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.

When the TPE expires, that will certainly close the book on one option to add to the roster but until they are done with the off season and the roster is final, wouldn't it still be early to criticize?  Say for example we sign Whiteside instead of trading for Olynyk, and Whiteside plays great.  Are people still going to say "well, they should have used the TPE"?

I think the need or pressure to use the TPE was overcome when we traded for Brogdon.  We got or big money vet, impact player for a bunch of expendable players instead of using the TPE.  Depending on how the rest of the roster rounds out, we fans may still look back and grumble about why didn't they use the TPE for player X or Y but I assume that we are going to sign a couple of useful vets to min contracts or otherwise and that the roster is going to be just fine.

I also think we end up trading White at the deadline for a player at another position that emerges as a need based on injury or other circumstances.  And it won't be what we think we need right now.

[Vermont Green]

I would take anyone with a $13+ million dollar expiring at this point.  It buys time and gives us an asset at the next deadline

Kelly is 12.1M
Everyone else wants a first.

But we got Gallinari who is a superior player for $6.4M.  If the idea is to bring in Olynyk just to flip him, isn't that risky?  Will we get anything back at the deadline for him or will we have to give up a pick to dump him?

If we hadn't gotten Gallinari, there would be a lot more pressure to trade for Olynyk (assuming he is even available at a reasonable trade cost).  But now?  I would rather just sign a vet big to a min contract.

Now if the Celtics don't even sign a vet min big and round out the roster with G-Leaguers, then you will have to question the team.

[Celtic]

JSD has the right answer. It's a temporary asset, you use it or you lose it. The money means nothing to me. Just look at how it worked out for Golden State, this gives you a financial advantage that can resonate for years.

In sports you fight for every advantage, this is one that's sitting on a platter.

[sgrogan]

I would take anyone with a $13+ million dollar expiring at this point.  It buys time and gives us an asset at the next deadline

Kelly is 12.1M
Everyone else wants a first.

But we got Gallinari who is a superior player for $6.4M.  If the idea is to bring in Olynyk just to flip him, isn't that risky?  Will we get anything back at the deadline for him or will we have to give up a pick to dump him?

If we hadn't gotten Gallinari, there would be a lot more pressure to trade for Olynyk (assuming he is even available at a reasonable trade cost).  But now?  I would rather just sign a vet big to a min contract.

Now if the Celtics don't even sign a vet min big and round out the roster with G-Leaguers, then you will have to question the team.

That's the point.
Roy, perhaps hyperbolicly, wants to preserve some portion of the MLE.
I gave him a player that I think is better than Kornet, and overpaid.
Kelly probably wouldn't be a distraction if he didn't play, they may get a better vet min guy.
He's not expiring but only 3M guaranteed next year. Contract would be useful in a trade.
You could probably give him away if necessary, or dump him with small out going compensation.

Does using all your assets to compete with the "big boys" justify this?

[JSD]

I would take anyone with a $13+ million dollar expiring at this point.  It buys time and gives us an asset at the next deadline

Kelly is 12.1M
Everyone else wants a first.

I’m with you my friend, check my post history, I’ve been saying grab Kelly for months

[sgrogan]

I would take anyone with a $13+ million dollar expiring at this point.  It buys time and gives us an asset at the next deadline

Kelly is 12.1M
Everyone else wants a first.

I’m with you my friend, check my post history, I’ve been saying grab Kelly for months

My point isn't to argue for Kelly. The argument is 30M in tax worth it?

[nickagneta]

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?

Rhetorical question, but, you're just figuring this out now? 😉😂🤣

[JSD]

I would take anyone with a $13+ million dollar expiring at this point.  It buys time and gives us an asset at the next deadline

Kelly is 12.1M
Everyone else wants a first.

I’m with you my friend, check my post history, I’ve been saying grab Kelly for months

My point isn't to argue for Kelly. The argument is 30M in tax worth it?

Yes. It opens up future trade possibility, and the Celtics front office needs to do everything they can to put this team in position to add to this title contending group.

Utilizing this large TPE is a must. Lacob would do it without question. This Celtics team is worth billions, this group bought the C’s for a fraction of what it’s worth now. Do it!

[Vermont Green]

I would take anyone with a $13+ million dollar expiring at this point.  It buys time and gives us an asset at the next deadline

Kelly is 12.1M
Everyone else wants a first.

I’m with you my friend, check my post history, I’ve been saying grab Kelly for months

My point isn't to argue for Kelly. The argument is 30M in tax worth it?

Yes. It opens up future trade possibility, and the Celtics front office needs to do everything they can to put this team in position to add to this title contending group.

Utilizing this large TPE is a must. Lacob would do it without question. This Celtics team is worth billions, this group bought the C’s for a fraction of what it’s worth now. Do it!

So bring in a player you don't need on a $12M contract so that maybe you can trade him again (at a cost of something) and get a TPE that you may not ever use?

Now if Detroit is offering Olynyk and a first for a second, that is potentially different.  And I get that this type of transaction could allow the Celtics to reset the TPE (well, it would be down to $12M).

I do not blame the owners for not doing this though, assuming that they do bring in a reasonably useful big on a min contract (or use a much smaller TPE).  If they don't do anything or only add G-Leaguers, then maybe I complain.

[nickagneta]

If Detroit is moving a big, I would get Nerlens, not Kelly. I think either could be had.

[Moranis]

I would take anyone with a $13+ million dollar expiring at this point.  It buys time and gives us an asset at the next deadline

Kelly is 12.1M
Everyone else wants a first.

I’m with you my friend, check my post history, I’ve been saying grab Kelly for months

My point isn't to argue for Kelly. The argument is 30M in tax worth it?

He isn't 30 million in tax though because you can always reduce salary later and reduce that.  What if a player becomes available that is absolutely worth acquiring and using draft picks to acquire.  If you have KO or someone like him, that is a huge salary chunk of whatever that player costs.  KO + White gets you awful close to a max contract, as an example (whereas without a KO or McDermott type contract, you need 2 key pieces instead of just 1).  Having that sort of salary on the roster, just gives you flexibility to make additional moves.  Plus, KO is absolutely better than Kornet, so KO would actually give you regular minutes.  So could McDermott.  So could Crowder.  So could Green.  So could a bunch of other guys that fit into the TPE and are basically available for not much cost to acquire other than just taking on the money.