When will JB be appreciated?

[Roy H.]

Hopefully he’ll be selected to an all-NBA team this year and we’ll be good.

This brings up an interesting question. If Jaylen does slip on to the 3rd Team, do we offer him a full supermax extension? Does he accept something a little less (like a regular max extension)? I guess we will know for sure if he intends on staying with the team beyond 2024 if he does make All-NBA, but a supermax is a LOT of money. And we will definitely be paying Tatum the same a year after that.

I brought up this same question in the off-season.  Is it an "insult" to offer him above the normal max, but below the supermax?

The consensus seemed to be that you offer him the supermax and don't think twice about it, particularly with the cap scheduled to rise financially. 

I think I agree with that thinking.  I think that we need JB, and if the supermax is what it takes to get him to stick around, then we pay him.  I wish NBA teams had more freedom in writing contracts, though.  If there are any Kyrie-like behaviors going forward, I'd love for the Celtics to have an avenue to void the contract.

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

Why do people feel the need to “overstate their case” (make stuff up)? Jaylen was awesome last year, but some choose to remember turnovers? A poster wants to trade him for Hield? What is going on here? It doesn’t make sense to me.

that is nonsense and you know it.  don't you do yourself any favors when you do things like that.

I believe the comment was that Hield would be a better fit on the Celtics. Cringe comment.

[Celtics2021]

Hopefully he’ll be selected to an all-NBA team this year and we’ll be good.

This brings up an interesting question. If Jaylen does slip on to the 3rd Team, do we offer him a full supermax extension? Does he accept something a little less (like a regular max extension)? I guess we will know for sure if he intends on staying with the team beyond 2024 if he does make All-NBA, but a supermax is a LOT of money. And we will definitely be paying Tatum the same a year after that.

If Jaylen makes third team All-NBA, we offer the max, he accepts it, and we hope it works out for both sides.  I will put an asterisk there because it’s possible a new CBA will be agreed upon between now and July which might offer an alternative path, but otherwise, if your 26 year-old gets All-NBA in his seventh season, you give him the max deal that he has earned.

The good news for the Celtics is that there will likely be a cap spike AFTER Brown’s deal has gone into effect, and accordingly the cap increase will likely outpace Brown’s annual increases for most or all of the deal.  So he might be a 35% player in year 1, which is tough, but a 30% player by the middle of it, which is more manageable.

[dannyboy35]

  Absolutely give him the Supermax.  No brainer in my opinion. Great player. Great person . We’d be lucky.

[Roy H.]

I know I’m in the minority and it’s especially hard to say with how well they are playing, but I still worry about him as the #2.

This season his defense has been pretty bad, especially one on one. And I can’t shake the Miami series when they literally stripped him every time he took a dribble.

Who would you replace him with?

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

Hopefully he’ll be selected to an all-NBA team this year and we’ll be good.

This brings up an interesting question. If Jaylen does slip on to the 3rd Team, do we offer him a full supermax extension? Does he accept something a little less (like a regular max extension)? I guess we will know for sure if he intends on staying with the team beyond 2024 if he does make All-NBA, but a supermax is a LOT of money. And we will definitely be paying Tatum the same a year after that.

I brought up this same question in the off-season.  Is it an "insult" to offer him above the normal max, but below the supermax?

The consensus seemed to be that you offer him the supermax and don't think twice about it, particularly with the cap scheduled to rise financially. 

I think I agree with that thinking.  I think that we need JB, and if the supermax is what it takes to get him to stick around, then we pay him.  I wish NBA teams had more freedom in writing contracts, though.  If there are any Kyrie-like behaviors going forward, I'd love for the Celtics to have an avenue to void the contract.

I don’t think it’s insulting either way. If you don’t want a player, you can lowball him to try to save face. The Red Sox did this unsuccessfully with Jon Lester and took a PR hit.

If you want to keep Jaylen, pay him more than any other can/will. If you want him to walk, offer him less than the maximum allowed.

[Roy H.]

Hopefully he’ll be selected to an all-NBA team this year and we’ll be good.

This brings up an interesting question. If Jaylen does slip on to the 3rd Team, do we offer him a full supermax extension? Does he accept something a little less (like a regular max extension)? I guess we will know for sure if he intends on staying with the team beyond 2024 if he does make All-NBA, but a supermax is a LOT of money. And we will definitely be paying Tatum the same a year after that.

I brought up this same question in the off-season.  Is it an "insult" to offer him above the normal max, but below the supermax?

The consensus seemed to be that you offer him the supermax and don't think twice about it, particularly with the cap scheduled to rise financially. 

I think I agree with that thinking.  I think that we need JB, and if the supermax is what it takes to get him to stick around, then we pay him.  I wish NBA teams had more freedom in writing contracts, though.  If there are any Kyrie-like behaviors going forward, I'd love for the Celtics to have an avenue to void the contract.

I don’t think it’s insulting either way. If you don’t want a player, you can lowball him to try to save face. The Red Sox did this unsuccessfully with Jon Lester and took a PR hit.

If you want to keep Jaylen, pay him more than any other can/will. If you want him to walk, offer him less than the maximum allowed.

There's a scenario where we offer JB more than any other team can, but still less than the maximum allowed.  My original question was, is there a middle ground, or does JB absolutely require the full maximum allowed?

Very hypothetical numbers that are not based in reality:  let's say the most another team can offer Brown is $35 million per year, with 5% annual raises.  The max we can offer is $40 million per year, with 7.5% annual raises.  If we offer $37.5 million per year with annual raises, does JB reject that offer, and then have hurt feelings that we offered less than we could?

In most negotiations outside the NBA, that's a very reasonable offer by the Celts.  It might be accepted, it might be countered, but it's not "disrespect".  Within the NBA, though, there have been several players who have not been happy when their teams seemed to try to give them less than they could.

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

Hopefully he’ll be selected to an all-NBA team this year and we’ll be good.

This brings up an interesting question. If Jaylen does slip on to the 3rd Team, do we offer him a full supermax extension? Does he accept something a little less (like a regular max extension)? I guess we will know for sure if he intends on staying with the team beyond 2024 if he does make All-NBA, but a supermax is a LOT of money. And we will definitely be paying Tatum the same a year after that.

I brought up this same question in the off-season.  Is it an "insult" to offer him above the normal max, but below the supermax?

The consensus seemed to be that you offer him the supermax and don't think twice about it, particularly with the cap scheduled to rise financially. 

I think I agree with that thinking.  I think that we need JB, and if the supermax is what it takes to get him to stick around, then we pay him.  I wish NBA teams had more freedom in writing contracts, though.  If there are any Kyrie-like behaviors going forward, I'd love for the Celtics to have an avenue to void the contract.

I don’t think it’s insulting either way. If you don’t want a player, you can lowball him to try to save face. The Red Sox did this unsuccessfully with Jon Lester and took a PR hit.

If you want to keep Jaylen, pay him more than any other can/will. If you want him to walk, offer him less than the maximum allowed.

There's a scenario where we offer JB more than any other team can, but still less than the maximum allowed.  My original question was, is there a middle ground, or does JB absolutely require the full maximum allowed?

Very hypothetical numbers that are not based in reality:  let's say the most another team can offer Brown is $35 million per year, with 5% annual raises.  The max we can offer is $40 million per year, with 7.5% annual raises.  If we offer $37.5 million per year with annual raises, does JB reject that offer, and then have hurt feelings that we offered less than we could?

In most negotiations outside the NBA, that's a very reasonable offer by the Celts.  It might be accepted, it might be countered, but it's not "disrespect".  Within the NBA, though, there have been several players who have not been happy when their teams seemed to try to give them less than they could.

I’m not sure that any fan can understand how athletes feel when making tens of millions. Most of us work happily for far less.

I wouldn’t feel disrespected. If Brad had any indication from Jaylen’s agent that they would feel disrespected with such an offer, he should up the offer.

Unless he has a plan to replace Jaylen’s production…..

[keevsnick]

Hopefully he’ll be selected to an all-NBA team this year and we’ll be good.

This brings up an interesting question. If Jaylen does slip on to the 3rd Team, do we offer him a full supermax extension? Does he accept something a little less (like a regular max extension)? I guess we will know for sure if he intends on staying with the team beyond 2024 if he does make All-NBA, but a supermax is a LOT of money. And we will definitely be paying Tatum the same a year after that.

I brought up this same question in the off-season.  Is it an "insult" to offer him above the normal max, but below the supermax?

The consensus seemed to be that you offer him the supermax and don't think twice about it, particularly with the cap scheduled to rise financially. 

I think I agree with that thinking.  I think that we need JB, and if the supermax is what it takes to get him to stick around, then we pay him.  I wish NBA teams had more freedom in writing contracts, though.  If there are any Kyrie-like behaviors going forward, I'd love for the Celtics to have an avenue to void the contract.

I don’t think it’s insulting either way. If you don’t want a player, you can lowball him to try to save face. The Red Sox did this unsuccessfully with Jon Lester and took a PR hit.

If you want to keep Jaylen, pay him more than any other can/will. If you want him to walk, offer him less than the maximum allowed.

There's a scenario where we offer JB more than any other team can, but still less than the maximum allowed.  My original question was, is there a middle ground, or does JB absolutely require the full maximum allowed?

Very hypothetical numbers that are not based in reality:  let's say the most another team can offer Brown is $35 million per year, with 5% annual raises.  The max we can offer is $40 million per year, with 7.5% annual raises.  If we offer $37.5 million per year with annual raises, does JB reject that offer, and then have hurt feelings that we offered less than we could?

In most negotiations outside the NBA, that's a very reasonable offer by the Celts.  It might be accepted, it might be countered, but it's not "disrespect".  Within the NBA, though, there have been several players who have not been happy when their teams seemed to try to give them less than they could.

If the Celtics made that offer and then were to lose Jaylen Brown because they offered 5% lower than his max, that would be one of the biggest self owns a franchise has made in recent memory. That extra 2.5 million isn't doing anything accept saving the owners a little bit of luxury tax, that's it. You have no way of replacing his salary slot.

You already got the guy on the cheap rookie contract. Then you got him on a second contract he outperformed. Pay the guy.

So forget about how Jaylen Brown would feel about it, as a fan I would be extremely annoyed. 

[Moranis]

Hopefully he’ll be selected to an all-NBA team this year and we’ll be good.

This brings up an interesting question. If Jaylen does slip on to the 3rd Team, do we offer him a full supermax extension? Does he accept something a little less (like a regular max extension)? I guess we will know for sure if he intends on staying with the team beyond 2024 if he does make All-NBA, but a supermax is a LOT of money. And we will definitely be paying Tatum the same a year after that.

I brought up this same question in the off-season.  Is it an "insult" to offer him above the normal max, but below the supermax?

The consensus seemed to be that you offer him the supermax and don't think twice about it, particularly with the cap scheduled to rise financially. 

I think I agree with that thinking.  I think that we need JB, and if the supermax is what it takes to get him to stick around, then we pay him.  I wish NBA teams had more freedom in writing contracts, though.  If there are any Kyrie-like behaviors going forward, I'd love for the Celtics to have an avenue to void the contract.

I don’t think it’s insulting either way. If you don’t want a player, you can lowball him to try to save face. The Red Sox did this unsuccessfully with Jon Lester and took a PR hit.

If you want to keep Jaylen, pay him more than any other can/will. If you want him to walk, offer him less than the maximum allowed.

There's a scenario where we offer JB more than any other team can, but still less than the maximum allowed.  My original question was, is there a middle ground, or does JB absolutely require the full maximum allowed?

Very hypothetical numbers that are not based in reality:  let's say the most another team can offer Brown is $35 million per year, with 5% annual raises.  The max we can offer is $40 million per year, with 7.5% annual raises.  If we offer $37.5 million per year with annual raises, does JB reject that offer, and then have hurt feelings that we offered less than we could?

In most negotiations outside the NBA, that's a very reasonable offer by the Celts.  It might be accepted, it might be countered, but it's not "disrespect".  Within the NBA, though, there have been several players who have not been happy when their teams seemed to try to give them less than they could.

If the Celtics made that offer and then were to lose Jaylen Brown because they offered 5% lower than his max, that would be one of the biggest self owns a franchise has made in recent memory. That extra 2.5 million isn't doing anything accept saving the owners a little bit of luxury tax, that's it. You have no way of replacing his salary slot.

You already got the guy on the cheap rookie contract. Then you got him on a second contract he outperformed. Pay the guy.

So forget about how Jaylen Brown would feel about it, as a fan I would be extremely annoyed.

You start getting into real problem if you pay players more than they are worth.  Now maybe Brown is a 5 year, 250 million player, though I'm not sure he is and if he isn't, you've created a real problem for your team. 

I will say, if Boston isn't prepared to pay him the full 35% max, then they should absolutely trade him.  You can't let him walk for nothing.

[SHAQATTACK]

I d pay him whatever max it requires to keep him happy and in Boston. 

He is good for Boston and the team .

The few players that are as good and equal talent or better ; that the Celtics could use all will cost top dollar .   

He deserves max pay though his prime years , and unless he becomes injured he WILL get it .

LA ‘s would max him or Bucks in a blink of an eye.

[footey]

What happens if JB makes all NBA this year?  Say 3rd team.  Not out of realm of possibility.  Isn't he entitled to a super max in that case?  How much more is that than the max we could offer him if he does not?

With that in mind, I kind of secretly hope he doesn't make all NBA. (Sorry, JB).

EDIT:  I see this issue has been addressed, should have read prior posts, sorry!!

[Sophomore]

Hopefully he’ll be selected to an all-NBA team this year and we’ll be good.

This brings up an interesting question. If Jaylen does slip on to the 3rd Team, do we offer him a full supermax extension? Does he accept something a little less (like a regular max extension)? I guess we will know for sure if he intends on staying with the team beyond 2024 if he does make All-NBA, but a supermax is a LOT of money. And we will definitely be paying Tatum the same a year after that.

I brought up this same question in the off-season.  Is it an "insult" to offer him above the normal max, but below the supermax?

The consensus seemed to be that you offer him the supermax and don't think twice about it, particularly with the cap scheduled to rise financially. 

I think I agree with that thinking.  I think that we need JB, and if the supermax is what it takes to get him to stick around, then we pay him.  I wish NBA teams had more freedom in writing contracts, though.  If there are any Kyrie-like behaviors going forward, I'd love for the Celtics to have an avenue to void the contract.

I don’t think it’s insulting either way. If you don’t want a player, you can lowball him to try to save face. The Red Sox did this unsuccessfully with Jon Lester and took a PR hit.

If you want to keep Jaylen, pay him more than any other can/will. If you want him to walk, offer him less than the maximum allowed.

There's a scenario where we offer JB more than any other team can, but still less than the maximum allowed.  My original question was, is there a middle ground, or does JB absolutely require the full maximum allowed?

Very hypothetical numbers that are not based in reality:  let's say the most another team can offer Brown is $35 million per year, with 5% annual raises.  The max we can offer is $40 million per year, with 7.5% annual raises.  If we offer $37.5 million per year with annual raises, does JB reject that offer, and then have hurt feelings that we offered less than we could?

In most negotiations outside the NBA, that's a very reasonable offer by the Celts.  It might be accepted, it might be countered, but it's not "disrespect".  Within the NBA, though, there have been several players who have not been happy when their teams seemed to try to give them less than they could.

If the Celtics made that offer and then were to lose Jaylen Brown because they offered 5% lower than his max, that would be one of the biggest self owns a franchise has made in recent memory. That extra 2.5 million isn't doing anything accept saving the owners a little bit of luxury tax, that's it. You have no way of replacing his salary slot.

You already got the guy on the cheap rookie contract. Then you got him on a second contract he outperformed. Pay the guy.

So forget about how Jaylen Brown would feel about it, as a fan I would be extremely annoyed.

This sounds right. If JB earned that hypothetical $37.5M, don’t nickel and dime him on the last $2.5M. He’s already performed above his first two deals. Also, if the analysts are right, max players are almost always worth more than the ceiling the CBA allows.

[keevsnick]

Hopefully he’ll be selected to an all-NBA team this year and we’ll be good.

This brings up an interesting question. If Jaylen does slip on to the 3rd Team, do we offer him a full supermax extension? Does he accept something a little less (like a regular max extension)? I guess we will know for sure if he intends on staying with the team beyond 2024 if he does make All-NBA, but a supermax is a LOT of money. And we will definitely be paying Tatum the same a year after that.

I brought up this same question in the off-season.  Is it an "insult" to offer him above the normal max, but below the supermax?

The consensus seemed to be that you offer him the supermax and don't think twice about it, particularly with the cap scheduled to rise financially. 

I think I agree with that thinking.  I think that we need JB, and if the supermax is what it takes to get him to stick around, then we pay him.  I wish NBA teams had more freedom in writing contracts, though.  If there are any Kyrie-like behaviors going forward, I'd love for the Celtics to have an avenue to void the contract.

I don’t think it’s insulting either way. If you don’t want a player, you can lowball him to try to save face. The Red Sox did this unsuccessfully with Jon Lester and took a PR hit.

If you want to keep Jaylen, pay him more than any other can/will. If you want him to walk, offer him less than the maximum allowed.

There's a scenario where we offer JB more than any other team can, but still less than the maximum allowed.  My original question was, is there a middle ground, or does JB absolutely require the full maximum allowed?

Very hypothetical numbers that are not based in reality:  let's say the most another team can offer Brown is $35 million per year, with 5% annual raises.  The max we can offer is $40 million per year, with 7.5% annual raises.  If we offer $37.5 million per year with annual raises, does JB reject that offer, and then have hurt feelings that we offered less than we could?

In most negotiations outside the NBA, that's a very reasonable offer by the Celts.  It might be accepted, it might be countered, but it's not "disrespect".  Within the NBA, though, there have been several players who have not been happy when their teams seemed to try to give them less than they could.

If the Celtics made that offer and then were to lose Jaylen Brown because they offered 5% lower than his max, that would be one of the biggest self owns a franchise has made in recent memory. That extra 2.5 million isn't doing anything accept saving the owners a little bit of luxury tax, that's it. You have no way of replacing his salary slot.

You already got the guy on the cheap rookie contract. Then you got him on a second contract he outperformed. Pay the guy.

So forget about how Jaylen Brown would feel about it, as a fan I would be extremely annoyed.

This sounds right. If JB earned that hypothetical $37.5M, don’t nickel and dime him on the last $2.5M. He’s already performed above his first two deals. Also, if the analysts are right, max players are almost always worth more than the ceiling the CBA allows.

Yes, basically this. If you somehow don't think Jaylen is worth a max contract than fine, but there are very few situations in which Jaylen is going to be a good contract at 37.5 million, but a bad one at 40 million. That extra 2.5 million has no real utility on a title contender, so why risk the hurt feelings?

[Roy H.]

That extra 2.5 million has no real utility on a title contender, so why risk the hurt feelings?

You start getting into real problem if you pay players more than they are worth.

These are the two sides to roster management.

So long as Wyc and Pags are happy keeping the team together, I don't care if the team is overpaying or not.  Do whatever it takes to keep this team together as a contender.  I'm an advocate for the team spending money even when it's not necessarily fiscally prudent, so there's no argument from me if we offer JB more than a traditional max.