Report: Celtics still looking to utilize trade exception?

[Vermont Green]

Someone suggested in another post that we shouldn't necessarily attribute all of the tax that is created by adding one player, solely to that player since the tax is really the result of the aggregate of all salaries.  That is true and that is fair but it is also hard to do.  Horford is for example as much responsible for the tax as Gallinari is, more actually.  So it isn't fair to say Gallinari is really costing the team $6.4M X 3 or however it works.  But I get it that it feels that way.
...

I was going to bring this up in my post just above.  While it's true that all salaries contribute to the tax in a pro-rated manner, the stark reality is that ownership is trying to decide NOW on adding more salary (via TPE).  The incremental tax of using the TPE MUST BE part of the consideration in spite of the fact that all salaries contribute to the total team salary.

One thing to keep in mind though is that the tax is calculated based on your salary at the end of the season.  So we could for example bring in a player but trade White at the deadline and reduce our salary and not have to pay tax on White's salary.  This seems like a loop hole but I am pretty sure this is how it works.  It would be a risky move as you might not be able to dump salary at the deadline but it is a way to work around this.

I actually expect that White will get traded or at a minimum, he is at high risk.  Probably to bring back something, not just to dump.  But it doesn't have to happen all at the same time.  We could have brought in someone now and traded White at the deadline and ended up paying the same tax as if we had done the trade all at once now.

[Moranis]

Someone suggested in another post that we shouldn't necessarily attribute all of the tax that is created by adding one player, solely to that player since the tax is really the result of the aggregate of all salaries.  That is true and that is fair but it is also hard to do.  Horford is for example as much responsible for the tax as Gallinari is, more actually.  So it isn't fair to say Gallinari is really costing the team $6.4M X 3 or however it works.  But I get it that it feels that way.
...

I was going to bring this up in my post just above.  While it's true that all salaries contribute to the tax in a pro-rated manner, the stark reality is that ownership is trying to decide NOW on adding more salary (via TPE).  The incremental tax of using the TPE MUST BE part of the consideration in spite of the fact that all salaries contribute to the total team salary.

But they can shed salary later if they need to.  What if White is playing 12 mpg at the deadline?  Do we need to keep his salary on the books, or might the team be better off shaving his salary (or at least part of it) off the books and picking up some assets in the process.  The reason you needed to use the TPE now, was it was expiring.  Now the team can't use it and it lost the asset.  And there are still 3 or 4 open roster spots, so the team does have to add at least a couple of more people. 

[Vermont Green]

Someone suggested in another post that we shouldn't necessarily attribute all of the tax that is created by adding one player, solely to that player since the tax is really the result of the aggregate of all salaries.  That is true and that is fair but it is also hard to do.  Horford is for example as much responsible for the tax as Gallinari is, more actually.  So it isn't fair to say Gallinari is really costing the team $6.4M X 3 or however it works.  But I get it that it feels that way.
...

I was going to bring this up in my post just above.  While it's true that all salaries contribute to the tax in a pro-rated manner, the stark reality is that ownership is trying to decide NOW on adding more salary (via TPE).  The incremental tax of using the TPE MUST BE part of the consideration in spite of the fact that all salaries contribute to the total team salary.

But they can shed salary later if they need to.  What if White is playing 12 mpg at the deadline?  Do we need to keep his salary on the books, or might the team be better off shaving his salary (or at least part of it) off the books and picking up some assets in the process.  The reason you needed to use the TPE now, was it was expiring.  Now the team can't use it and it lost the asset.  And there are still 3 or 4 open roster spots, so the team does have to add at least a couple of more people.

Moranis, I agree in principle and tried to describe a similar scenario but it is still not worth preserving the asset unless the player you bring in is worth the money, more value than White who you are going to have to "shave" later.  Or if it costs us a pick or two, are we still really preserving the asset?  I think the team was open to doing exactly what you describe but for that to work, we would need to get a player that is better than White (likely to be in our top 6 or 7), and available for a second round pick.  So yes, the scenario you describe is accurate, it is just highly unlikely that a deal that fits all of that was available.

If we send out a draft pick and take back a player that slots as say the 12th man on the roster and costs say $15M, is that really worth it?  What exactly have we preserved?  I don't think the Celtics needed to get this "cute".  They have other avenues to bring in players and in fact brought in Brogdon without using the TPE.  I hope they did look at this kind of a deal and I expect they did but it was a long shot to pull it off.

I find it hard to be critical of the team based on the roster they now have to go into the season with.

[Surferdad]

Someone suggested in another post that we shouldn't necessarily attribute all of the tax that is created by adding one player, solely to that player since the tax is really the result of the aggregate of all salaries.  That is true and that is fair but it is also hard to do.  Horford is for example as much responsible for the tax as Gallinari is, more actually.  So it isn't fair to say Gallinari is really costing the team $6.4M X 3 or however it works.  But I get it that it feels that way.
...

I was going to bring this up in my post just above.  While it's true that all salaries contribute to the tax in a pro-rated manner, the stark reality is that ownership is trying to decide NOW on adding more salary (via TPE).  The incremental tax of using the TPE MUST BE part of the consideration in spite of the fact that all salaries contribute to the total team salary.

But they can shed salary later if they need to.  What if White is playing 12 mpg at the deadline?  Do we need to keep his salary on the books, or might the team be better off shaving his salary (or at least part of it) off the books and picking up some assets in the process.  The reason you needed to use the TPE now, was it was expiring.  Now the team can't use it and it lost the asset.  And there are still 3 or 4 open roster spots, so the team does have to add at least a couple of more people.

Moranis, I agree in principle and tried to describe a similar scenario but it is still not worth preserving the asset unless the player you bring in is worth the money, more value than White who you are going to have to "shave" later.  Or if it costs us a pick or two, are we still really preserving the asset?  I think the team was open to doing exactly what you describe but for that to work, we would need to get a player that is better than White (likely to be in our top 6 or 7), and available for a second round pick. So yes, the scenario you describe is accurate, it is just highly unlikely that a deal that fits all of that was available.

If we send out a draft pick and take back a player that slots as say the 12th man on the roster and costs say $15M, is that really worth it?  What exactly have we preserved?  I don't think the Celtics needed to get this "cute".  They have other avenues to bring in players and in fact brought in Brogdon without using the TPE.  I hope they did look at this kind of a deal and I expect they did but it was a long shot to pull it off.

I find it hard to be critical of the team based on the roster they now have to go into the season with.

Moranis, this is my point too.  There's no guarantee that a mid-season deal will actually take place.

[Yuckabuck33]

I think using a TPE just to preserve it for a later is like going for a 2 for 1 at the end of a period. If it's a good shot, take it. But don't just use so you can say you did.

[Moranis]

Someone suggested in another post that we shouldn't necessarily attribute all of the tax that is created by adding one player, solely to that player since the tax is really the result of the aggregate of all salaries.  That is true and that is fair but it is also hard to do.  Horford is for example as much responsible for the tax as Gallinari is, more actually.  So it isn't fair to say Gallinari is really costing the team $6.4M X 3 or however it works.  But I get it that it feels that way.
...

I was going to bring this up in my post just above.  While it's true that all salaries contribute to the tax in a pro-rated manner, the stark reality is that ownership is trying to decide NOW on adding more salary (via TPE).  The incremental tax of using the TPE MUST BE part of the consideration in spite of the fact that all salaries contribute to the total team salary.

But they can shed salary later if they need to.  What if White is playing 12 mpg at the deadline?  Do we need to keep his salary on the books, or might the team be better off shaving his salary (or at least part of it) off the books and picking up some assets in the process.  The reason you needed to use the TPE now, was it was expiring.  Now the team can't use it and it lost the asset.  And there are still 3 or 4 open roster spots, so the team does have to add at least a couple of more people.

Moranis, I agree in principle and tried to describe a similar scenario but it is still not worth preserving the asset unless the player you bring in is worth the money, more value than White who you are going to have to "shave" later.  Or if it costs us a pick or two, are we still really preserving the asset?  I think the team was open to doing exactly what you describe but for that to work, we would need to get a player that is better than White (likely to be in our top 6 or 7), and available for a second round pick.  So yes, the scenario you describe is accurate, it is just highly unlikely that a deal that fits all of that was available.

If we send out a draft pick and take back a player that slots as say the 12th man on the roster and costs say $15M, is that really worth it?  What exactly have we preserved?  I don't think the Celtics needed to get this "cute".  They have other avenues to bring in players and in fact brought in Brogdon without using the TPE.  I hope they did look at this kind of a deal and I expect they did but it was a long shot to pull it off.

I find it hard to be critical of the team based on the roster they now have to go into the season with.

the player has to be worth whatever the cost is to acquire, but it has been rumored a bunch of players could be had for a 2nd round pick or even getting picks with them (like Robinson may have come with a pick from the Heat).  If Boston was giving up a 1st or two to acquire someone in the TPE then that player wouldn't have been a 12th man because you don't give up a 1st for a 12th man.

[boscel33]

I was disappointed that management couldn't find a player and let the TPE expire.  That said, a 17M TPE should be a starter on your team and last time I looked, we're not looking for that.  Matter of fact, we're 9 deep at this time (thanks Vermont Green):

Starters:    Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford, RWill
Core:         Brogdon, Gallinari, White, Grant

Add in Pritchard, Kornete, Hauser and on two-ways, Davison and Kabengele, where would the addition land. 

They still have a 6.9M (1/19/2023) and a 5.9M (2/10/2023) to use to add to this.  Looking at Spotrac, there are some serviceable players available for both; Bruce Brown, Tyler Herro, Trey Lyles, and more if you want to spend time to look.

Still, not thrilled though, after all of the "do whatever it takes" talk, heck, KO would have been a nice #10 and insurance against injury.

[Neurotic Guy]

I was disappointed that management couldn't find a player and let the TPE expire.  That said, a 17M TPE should be a starter on your team and last time I looked, we're not looking for that.  Matter of fact, we're 9 deep at this time (thanks Vermont Green):

Starters:    Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford, RWill
Core:         Brogdon, Gallinari, White, Grant

Add in Pritchard, Kornete, Hauser and on two-ways, Davison and Kabengele, where would the addition land. 

They still have a 6.9M (1/19/2023) and a 5.9M (2/10/2023) to use to add to this.  Looking at Spotrac, there are some serviceable players available for both; Bruce Brown, Tyler Herro, Trey Lyles, and more if you want to spend time to look.

Still, not thrilled though, after all of the "do whatever it takes" talk, heck, KO would have been a nice #10 and insurance against injury.

If I thought this was it in terms of final roster for the entire season, I'd be mostly excited with perhaps some marginal disappointment that it could have been even better.  As is, this looks like a championship contending roster.  Add another quality player or 2, obviously it looks even better.  I'm not convinced there will be no more additions but I'm already chomping at the bit to watch this team play in 2022-23.   

[Sketch5]

I was disappointed that management couldn't find a player and let the TPE expire.  That said, a 17M TPE should be a starter on your team and last time I looked, we're not looking for that.  Matter of fact, we're 9 deep at this time (thanks Vermont Green):

Starters:    Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford, RWill
Core:         Brogdon, Gallinari, White, Grant

Add in Pritchard, Kornete, Hauser and on two-ways, Davison and Kabengele, where would the addition land. 

They still have a 6.9M (1/19/2023) and a 5.9M (2/10/2023) to use to add to this.  Looking at Spotrac, there are some serviceable players available for both; Bruce Brown, Tyler Herro, Trey Lyles, and more if you want to spend time to look.

Still, not thrilled though, after all of the "do whatever it takes" talk, heck, KO would have been a nice #10 and insurance against injury.

Thats if KO was available.

Unfortunately the KD/Irving/Mitchell stuff has teams kinda on hold with final moves. I figured thats were we could have jumped on in using the TPE to take back some one for a team that didn't want to take additional salary.

We also don't know what remaining FA's are in talks, maybe whos thinking of coming here are slightly worse than what teams were offering. So a cheaper options. Also we don't know what additional picks teams were asking for. Stevens has used picks in deals which is nice, but you do have to hold onto some for down the road trades.

Mo Bamba may be available at the deadline Or Mo Wagner. Maybe Noel is getting bought out. Melo is still out there, even at his age he's producing pretty good, and I'm hearing his D actually got better.

It would have been nice to get some thing good, but we can't be too mad, Stevens went and got Two of our needs in really good moves. Anything after this is icing on the cake.

[Roy H.]

There are currently 11 teams over the NBA’s luxury tax line (listed by amount over the tax line): LAC: $41.7M GSW: $36.5M BKN: $31.2M MIL: $23.6M BOS: $20.1M PHX: $16.2M LAL: $16.1M DAL: $14.6M DEN: $10.5M POR: $1.5M ATL: $1.2M 3 hours ago – via Twitter KeithSmithNBA

I want us at at least Milwaukee's level.  I think that we'll get there just by filling out the roster.

[droopdog7]

Someone suggested in another post that we shouldn't necessarily attribute all of the tax that is created by adding one player, solely to that player since the tax is really the result of the aggregate of all salaries.  That is true and that is fair but it is also hard to do.  Horford is for example as much responsible for the tax as Gallinari is, more actually.  So it isn't fair to say Gallinari is really costing the team $6.4M X 3 or however it works.  But I get it that it feels that way.
...

I was going to bring this up in my post just above.  While it's true that all salaries contribute to the tax in a pro-rated manner, the stark reality is that ownership is trying to decide NOW on adding more salary (via TPE).  The incremental tax of using the TPE MUST BE part of the consideration in spite of the fact that all salaries contribute to the total team salary.

Yeah, I'm not buying the initial argument (even though the thought has crossed my mind).  There really is an order to this.  Even though everyone contributes to the cap and tax proportional to their salary, you really are asking yourself whether it is worth X amount for the 10-11th guy on the roster.  The owners made the decision to pay Al's entire salary.  The added salary with Gallo and Brogdon.  But there is a limit and I completely get it.

[droopdog7]

Someone suggested in another post that we shouldn't necessarily attribute all of the tax that is created by adding one player, solely to that player since the tax is really the result of the aggregate of all salaries.  That is true and that is fair but it is also hard to do.  Horford is for example as much responsible for the tax as Gallinari is, more actually.  So it isn't fair to say Gallinari is really costing the team $6.4M X 3 or however it works.  But I get it that it feels that way.
...

I was going to bring this up in my post just above.  While it's true that all salaries contribute to the tax in a pro-rated manner, the stark reality is that ownership is trying to decide NOW on adding more salary (via TPE).  The incremental tax of using the TPE MUST BE part of the consideration in spite of the fact that all salaries contribute to the total team salary.

One thing to keep in mind though is that the tax is calculated based on your salary at the end of the season.  So we could for example bring in a player but trade White at the deadline and reduce our salary and not have to pay tax on White's salary.  This seems like a loop hole but I am pretty sure this is how it works.  It would be a risky move as you might not be able to dump salary at the deadline but it is a way to work around this.

I actually expect that White will get traded or at a minimum, he is at high risk.  Probably to bring back something, not just to dump.  But it doesn't have to happen all at the same time.  We could have brought in someone now and traded White at the deadline and ended up paying the same tax as if we had done the trade all at once now.

I know it's a hypothetical but I see people still looking to trade white.  With brogdon's injury history, I'm thinking White will still be a very important part of this team.  I'm not trading anyone.

[Roy H.]

Someone suggested in another post that we shouldn't necessarily attribute all of the tax that is created by adding one player, solely to that player since the tax is really the result of the aggregate of all salaries.  That is true and that is fair but it is also hard to do.  Horford is for example as much responsible for the tax as Gallinari is, more actually.  So it isn't fair to say Gallinari is really costing the team $6.4M X 3 or however it works.  But I get it that it feels that way.
...

I was going to bring this up in my post just above.  While it's true that all salaries contribute to the tax in a pro-rated manner, the stark reality is that ownership is trying to decide NOW on adding more salary (via TPE).  The incremental tax of using the TPE MUST BE part of the consideration in spite of the fact that all salaries contribute to the total team salary.

One thing to keep in mind though is that the tax is calculated based on your salary at the end of the season.  So we could for example bring in a player but trade White at the deadline and reduce our salary and not have to pay tax on White's salary.  This seems like a loop hole but I am pretty sure this is how it works.  It would be a risky move as you might not be able to dump salary at the deadline but it is a way to work around this.

I actually expect that White will get traded or at a minimum, he is at high risk.  Probably to bring back something, not just to dump.  But it doesn't have to happen all at the same time.  We could have brought in someone now and traded White at the deadline and ended up paying the same tax as if we had done the trade all at once now.

I know it's a hypothetical but I see people still looking to trade white.  With brogdon's injury history, I'm thinking White will still be a very important part of this team.  I'm not trading anyone.

Yeah.  My guess is that if we're looking to trade White at the deadline it means that something has gone wrong, and he won't have a lot of value.  I think that dumping a multi-year contract  is harder than some think.

[Vermont Green]

Someone suggested in another post that we shouldn't necessarily attribute all of the tax that is created by adding one player, solely to that player since the tax is really the result of the aggregate of all salaries.  That is true and that is fair but it is also hard to do.  Horford is for example as much responsible for the tax as Gallinari is, more actually.  So it isn't fair to say Gallinari is really costing the team $6.4M X 3 or however it works.  But I get it that it feels that way.
...

I was going to bring this up in my post just above.  While it's true that all salaries contribute to the tax in a pro-rated manner, the stark reality is that ownership is trying to decide NOW on adding more salary (via TPE).  The incremental tax of using the TPE MUST BE part of the consideration in spite of the fact that all salaries contribute to the total team salary.

One thing to keep in mind though is that the tax is calculated based on your salary at the end of the season.  So we could for example bring in a player but trade White at the deadline and reduce our salary and not have to pay tax on White's salary.  This seems like a loop hole but I am pretty sure this is how it works.  It would be a risky move as you might not be able to dump salary at the deadline but it is a way to work around this.

I actually expect that White will get traded or at a minimum, he is at high risk.  Probably to bring back something, not just to dump.  But it doesn't have to happen all at the same time.  We could have brought in someone now and traded White at the deadline and ended up paying the same tax as if we had done the trade all at once now.

I know it's a hypothetical but I see people still looking to trade white.  With brogdon's injury history, I'm thinking White will still be a very important part of this team.  I'm not trading anyone.

Yeah.  My guess is that if we're looking to trade White at the deadline it means that something has gone wrong, and he won't have a lot of value.  I think that dumping a multi-year contract  is harder than some think.

I specifically said trade him to get something back, not just to dump.  I agree that White is a valuable player.  For example, if Horford suffers a serious injury, we may need a big more than we need White.

[Roy H.]

Someone suggested in another post that we shouldn't necessarily attribute all of the tax that is created by adding one player, solely to that player since the tax is really the result of the aggregate of all salaries.  That is true and that is fair but it is also hard to do.  Horford is for example as much responsible for the tax as Gallinari is, more actually.  So it isn't fair to say Gallinari is really costing the team $6.4M X 3 or however it works.  But I get it that it feels that way.
...

I was going to bring this up in my post just above.  While it's true that all salaries contribute to the tax in a pro-rated manner, the stark reality is that ownership is trying to decide NOW on adding more salary (via TPE).  The incremental tax of using the TPE MUST BE part of the consideration in spite of the fact that all salaries contribute to the total team salary.

One thing to keep in mind though is that the tax is calculated based on your salary at the end of the season.  So we could for example bring in a player but trade White at the deadline and reduce our salary and not have to pay tax on White's salary.  This seems like a loop hole but I am pretty sure this is how it works.  It would be a risky move as you might not be able to dump salary at the deadline but it is a way to work around this.

I actually expect that White will get traded or at a minimum, he is at high risk.  Probably to bring back something, not just to dump.  But it doesn't have to happen all at the same time.  We could have brought in someone now and traded White at the deadline and ended up paying the same tax as if we had done the trade all at once now.

I know it's a hypothetical but I see people still looking to trade white.  With brogdon's injury history, I'm thinking White will still be a very important part of this team.  I'm not trading anyone.

Yeah.  My guess is that if we're looking to trade White at the deadline it means that something has gone wrong, and he won't have a lot of value.  I think that dumping a multi-year contract  is harder than some think.

I specifically said trade him to get something back, not just to dump.  I agree that White is a valuable player.  For example, if Horford suffers a serious injury, we may need a big more than we need White.

My comment wasn't aimed at you.  Throughout the forums, some have made an argument of "add salary now, dump salary later", as if it's a given that we're able to do that.  If we find ourselves in a situation where we need to dump salary at the deadline, it's probably going to cost us something of value.

I suppose the best case scenario (to bring the guy up again) would have been to trade for an expiring player like Josh Richardson.  If he helps the team, fantastic.  If he doesn't, then it's likely that other teams will be okay adding him at the deadline.  But, even then, it would be hard to find another team that could absorb that contract without sending salary back.