Celtics free agent pick ups:

[Who]

Also, isn't an aspect of the CBA now that teams can use the MLE like a trade exception?  If so, again, there's more flexibility in $5.0 million than $3.4 million or less.

Does this mean teams can trade their MLE slot for a $5mil player under contract on another team?

[Who]

A lot may depend on what we do with Grant.  If we keep Grant, then I think we are fine with the big (PF/C) rotation of Porzingis, Horford, RWill, Grant, Kornet, and maybe a 2-way player to add.  If we sign Grant, the focus should be a Richardson or Oubre type of player, a G/F wing type.  But if we don't sign Grant, we may need to address back up PF first. 

Free agency is going to be interesting.  Oubre for example is coming off of a $12.6M contract, essentially a non-taxpayer MLE.  Is he going to be happy with some or all of the taxpayer MLE ($5M or less)?  Is he going to have any other options?  I don't see where the money is going to come from for players like this (Grant included).

As to the Celtics, we probably are not even going to be able to offer the full non-taxpayer MLE.  There will be fill out the roster holds added to our current salary of about $173M (the second apron I believe is $179.5M).  We got out of having a first round pick (and guaranteed contract) but we still have so little room to maneuver, basically all we can do is sign/match Grant and offer min contracts, and of course sign draft picks.

I am not sure how it works for Begarin.  Can we sign him even if we are over the second apron?  And how about Davison, can we sign him if we are over?  I guess we can to min contracts?

Yes, we can sign any player we have rights to, within certain parameters.  We can actually give Davison a small raise over the minimum, because we have his non-Bird rights.  With Begarin, Walsh, and Madar, there is rumor of an exception for second-round picks in the new CBA, but I’ve yet to find details of how much that exception is for.

Thanks, that makes sense.  I know you have said this also that I think people should prepare for signing Grant and then rounding out with Walsh, Davison, Bergarin, and maybe Griffin or some other very much at the end of their career vet min guys.

Grant is better than anyone we can realistically get to replace him at PF. I hope he stays. His perimeter defense at PF could be very valuable to have if slower bigs like Porzingis and Timelord struggle to defend high quality PFs.

The problem is, if we sign Grant:

1) We pay a level of tax Wyc probably isn't comfortable with;

2) We enter year one of the 2nd apron repeater tax;

3) We lose the MLE to upgrade at wing

4) We'd have to trade him or another chunk salary next season to get under the more punitive second apron.

I've made this point before, but I continue to think the c's should, for this year, not be afraid to go over the second apron.

1) Losing the MLE doesn't really matter. Its a 5.0 million salary vs the 10 year vet min of 3.2 million. The difference in player you'll get with the tax MLE is minimal, maybe nonexistent.

2) There are no other team building penalties this year for being over, but in the following years there are. The C's, really any team, are pretty unlikely to go over the 2nd apron for more than a year or two at most once those kick in. With that in mind I'd not sure the "repeater" status really matters, because in effect I expect the c's will treat the 2nd apron as more or less a hard cap once the penalties kick in.

3) The only REAL reason not to go over the 2nd apron this year is your point #4, which is you'd have to dump a salary next year to avoid the 2nd apron. Thats a fair point. But whether that's a good idea all depends on the contract grant signs. If you sign him to a contract that you think will have value a year from now then you should be able to move him pretty easily to some rebuilding team with cap space becasue he's only 24 years old and a great shooter and teams always want.

I don't think Grant should automatically be gone, if the contract he gets is reasonable match it.

I lean towards there being a bigger drop-off from Grant Williams at PF to a minimum contract PF replacement versus an TMLE wing vs a minimum contract wing.

That is why I am increasingly interested in keeping Grant. I also believe his contract should be tradable so long as it is kept in the full MLE type price range. If it goes beyond that, I probably let him walk.

[Roy H.]

Losing the MLE doesn't really matter. Its a 5.0 million salary vs the 10 year vet min of 3.2 million. The difference in player you'll get with the tax MLE is minimal, maybe nonexistent.

I'm not sure this is true.  And, reportedly, the team doesn't think this is true, if the rumors of them dealing out of #25 to allow them to use the MLE are true.  I'm not 100% sold that was the reason -- I think they wanted to replenish their stockpile for future trades -- but that's the report.

But, more based on logic than reporting, $1.8 million isn't nothing.  $3.2 million is only 64% of $5 million; I'd assume most people would want to maximize earnings.  If one team is offering $5 million and we're offering $3.4 million (less than that if the player has less than 10 years service time), we're unlikely to land the player. 

Also, isn't an aspect of the CBA now that teams can use the MLE like a trade exception?  If so, again, there's more flexibility in $5.0 million than $3.4 million or less.

I think having the flexibility to use the MLE was valued, but I don’t think that means it’s their first plan.  Maybe someone they like can’t get a bigger offer, and now they have it.  Maybe Grant gets an offer that is far higher than anything the C’s would match.  Now they have access to an alternative in case that proves to be a better option, but it doesn’t mean they’ve made their decision already.

We’ll have more info, of course, in a few days when the Celtics either do or don’t extend Grant a QO.

Am I right that we can technically extend Grant the QO, and then revoke the QO if we want to sign somebody with the TMLE?

Am I also right that if we use the TMLE, we're hard-capped at the second apron?

[Vermont Green]

Losing the MLE doesn't really matter. Its a 5.0 million salary vs the 10 year vet min of 3.2 million  is. The difference in player you'll get with the tax MLE is minimal, maybe nonexistent.

I'm not sure this is true.  And, reportedly, the team doesn't think this is true, if the rumors of them dealing out of #25 to allow them to use the MLE are true.  I'm not 100% sold that was the reason -- I think they wanted to replenish their stockpile for future trades -- but that's the report.

But, more based on logic than reporting, $1.8 million isn't nothing.  $3.2 million is only 64% of $5 million; I'd assume most people would want to maximize earnings.  If one team is offering $5 million and we're offering $3.4 million (less than that if the player has less than 10 years service time), we're unlikely to land the player. 

Also, isn't an aspect of the CBA now that teams can use the MLE like a trade exception?  If so, again, there's more flexibility in $5.0 million than $3.4 million or less.

I think having the flexibility to use the MLE was valued, but I don’t think that means it’s their first plan.  Maybe someone they like can’t get a bigger offer, and now they have it.  Maybe Grant gets an offer that is far higher than anything the C’s would match.  Now they have access to an alternative in case that proves to be a better option, but it doesn’t mean they’ve made their decision already.

We’ll have more info, of course, in a few days when the Celtics either do or don’t extend Grant a QO.

Am I right that we can technically extend Grant the QO, and then revoke the QO if we want to sign somebody with the TMLE?

Am I also right that if we use the TMLE, we're hard-capped at the second apron?

Don’t know for sure, but that seems logical. Consistent with other hard cap rules. By the time we sign a couple of the vet min contracts and then maybe sign a couple of rookies we are going to be over the apron anyways.  I am not sure there is a scenario where we can use all of the MLE anyways.

[Roy H.]

Losing the MLE doesn't really matter. Its a 5.0 million salary vs the 10 year vet min of 3.2 million  is. The difference in player you'll get with the tax MLE is minimal, maybe nonexistent.

I'm not sure this is true.  And, reportedly, the team doesn't think this is true, if the rumors of them dealing out of #25 to allow them to use the MLE are true.  I'm not 100% sold that was the reason -- I think they wanted to replenish their stockpile for future trades -- but that's the report.

But, more based on logic than reporting, $1.8 million isn't nothing.  $3.2 million is only 64% of $5 million; I'd assume most people would want to maximize earnings.  If one team is offering $5 million and we're offering $3.4 million (less than that if the player has less than 10 years service time), we're unlikely to land the player. 

Also, isn't an aspect of the CBA now that teams can use the MLE like a trade exception?  If so, again, there's more flexibility in $5.0 million than $3.4 million or less.

I think having the flexibility to use the MLE was valued, but I don’t think that means it’s their first plan.  Maybe someone they like can’t get a bigger offer, and now they have it.  Maybe Grant gets an offer that is far higher than anything the C’s would match.  Now they have access to an alternative in case that proves to be a better option, but it doesn’t mean they’ve made their decision already.

We’ll have more info, of course, in a few days when the Celtics either do or don’t extend Grant a QO.

Am I right that we can technically extend Grant the QO, and then revoke the QO if we want to sign somebody with the TMLE?

Am I also right that if we use the TMLE, we're hard-capped at the second apron?

Don’t know for sure, but that seems logical. Consistent with other hard cap rules. By the time we sign a couple of the vet min contracts and then maybe sign a couple of rookies we are going to be over the apron anyways.  I am not sure there is a scenario where we can use all of the MLE anyways.

See the thread I started.  I think it's possible, but it only allows for a 14 man roster and no real flexibility.

[jay]

If we end up using the $5 million TPE - maybe a shooter like Joe Ingles. Or a 3 and D guy like Torrey Craig.

For a veteran minimum spot a Justice Winslow or Stanley Johnson might be good bench depth.

[Vermont Green]

Losing the MLE doesn't really matter. Its a 5.0 million salary vs the 10 year vet min of 3.2 million  is. The difference in player you'll get with the tax MLE is minimal, maybe nonexistent.

I'm not sure this is true.  And, reportedly, the team doesn't think this is true, if the rumors of them dealing out of #25 to allow them to use the MLE are true.  I'm not 100% sold that was the reason -- I think they wanted to replenish their stockpile for future trades -- but that's the report.

But, more based on logic than reporting, $1.8 million isn't nothing.  $3.2 million is only 64% of $5 million; I'd assume most people would want to maximize earnings.  If one team is offering $5 million and we're offering $3.4 million (less than that if the player has less than 10 years service time), we're unlikely to land the player. 

Also, isn't an aspect of the CBA now that teams can use the MLE like a trade exception?  If so, again, there's more flexibility in $5.0 million than $3.4 million or less.

I think having the flexibility to use the MLE was valued, but I don’t think that means it’s their first plan.  Maybe someone they like can’t get a bigger offer, and now they have it.  Maybe Grant gets an offer that is far higher than anything the C’s would match.  Now they have access to an alternative in case that proves to be a better option, but it doesn’t mean they’ve made their decision already.

We’ll have more info, of course, in a few days when the Celtics either do or don’t extend Grant a QO.

Am I right that we can technically extend Grant the QO, and then revoke the QO if we want to sign somebody with the TMLE?

Am I also right that if we use the TMLE, we're hard-capped at the second apron?

Don’t know for sure, but that seems logical. Consistent with other hard cap rules. By the time we sign a couple of the vet min contracts and then maybe sign a couple of rookies we are going to be over the apron anyways.  I am not sure there is a scenario where we can use all of the MLE anyways.

See the thread I started.  I think it's possible, but it only allows for a 14 man roster and no real flexibility.

But that is my point. If we are at $179.4999M, we are trapped by the second apron anyway.  Whether we get there with the MLE or vet min/ rookie contracts, it doesn’t matter.  The only thing is starting the clock as a repeater. But once se sign Brown and Tatum, aren’t we going to be over anyway?   

[gouki88]

Several names of varying interest. In no particular order, here are some (relatively attainable) guys I like.

- Blake Griffin
- Cory Joseph
- Biyombo
- Plumlee
- Dieng
- Ingles
- Josh Richardson
- Lyles
- Saric
- Torrey Craig
- Dennis Smith Jr.
- Damion Lee
- Hamidou Diallo
- Watanabe
- Bates-Diop
- Terence Davis
- Javonte Green

[footey]

Delon Wright would be nice add. Not a free agent but Wiz cleaning house.

[obnoxiousmime]

Several names of varying interest. In no particular order, here are some (relatively attainable) guys I like.

- Blake Griffin
- Cory Joseph
- Biyombo
- Plumlee
- Dieng
- Ingles
- Josh Richardson
- Lyles
- Saric
- Torrey Craig
- Dennis Smith Jr.
- Damion Lee
- Hamidou Diallo
- Watanabe
- Bates-Diop
- Terence Davis
- Javonte Green

I'd be OK with Trey Lyles or Torrey Craig. It would also be nice to have another guard because I don't think you can rely on Pritchard and Davison. Maybe that means you have to deal Pritchard, but I don't think you can go into the playoffs with Pritchard and Davison as the only reserves in case anything happens to White or Brogdon. The previous poster who suggested Delon Wright has the right idea, though I'm not sure how much/who it would cost in a trade and how you fit his 10m contract.

[keevsnick]

Losing the MLE doesn't really matter. Its a 5.0 million salary vs the 10 year vet min of 3.2 million. The difference in player you'll get with the tax MLE is minimal, maybe nonexistent.

I'm not sure this is true. And, reportedly, the team doesn't think this is true, if the rumors of them dealing out of #25 to allow them to use the MLE are true.  I'm not 100% sold that was the reason -- I think they wanted to replenish their stockpile for future trades -- but that's the report.

But, more based on logic than reporting, $1.8 million isn't nothing.  $3.2 million is only 64% of $5 million; I'd assume most people would want to maximize earnings.  If one team is offering $5 million and we're offering $3.4 million (less than that if the player has less than 10 years service time), we're unlikely to land the player. 

Also, isn't an aspect of the CBA now that teams can use the MLE like a trade exception?  If so, again, there's more flexibility in $5.0 million than $3.4 million or less.

Look, I'm not saying there is no difference between 5.0 and 3 million. There is, its two million. there just isn't any difference in the overall impact that guy is going to make. That guy will be the 10th man, regardless, behind White/PP/Brogdon/Brown/Tatum/Hauser/Rob/Al/KP and in all likelihood isn't going to be a big part of your playoff rotation. So ya, you may lose a guy who wants 5.0 if you can only pay 3.0, but my point is that guy doesn't matter.

Bottom line I can't foresee a circumstance where a player is good enough that it would be a better idea to let Grant walk for nothing, hardcap yourself at the 2nd apron before the season even starts AND where the 5.0 tax MLE vs the min is the difference between getting that player. That narrow lane DOES exist, but very rarely.

Seriously, the list of guys making between like 3.5-5.5 million (and not a rookie deal guy) who even helped a truly contending team last year is soooo small. The list is like Jeff Green, Torey Craig, Donte Divencenzo and thats kind of it. Three guys. Everyone else in that range was a rookie, on a bad team, or didn't end up playing in the playoffs. And Torey Craig had a lot to do with the complete lack of depth on the Suns. Maybe there's some 10 million a year guy who they are targeting who is willing to come here for 5 and they know it, but beyond that scenario they should avoid using the tax MLE.

Also I want to clear something up. The idea that they traded out of 25 for money reasons is probably just not true. Its not actual reporting. There were a few minutes between where they traded 25 and when the return was announced that some people thought they had just flipped 25 for 31, so a bunch of reporters speculated that they did it to save money. But it turns out they actually got 2 future seconds just to move back 6 spots which was probably a far bigger part of their analysis than saving 200K on a rookie contract.

And no, the ability to use the MLE as a trade exception doesn't kick in until next year if I remember correct. But even if it does it's fairly easy to throw together two minimum contracts to match that kind of contract anyway. Not much utility there.

Really Grant aside the big thing here is flexibility. I really just can't foresee the C's hard capping themselves because they want to bringing in some 10th man making 5.0 million. It would be kind of crazy to me. They may very well stay under the 2nd apron, but they should 100% leave the option of going over over if some name that puts them over the top becomes available mid season.

They just spent the last week slipping draft picks to restore their draft stock, I'm not sure why they would follow that up by handicapping their ability to use those draft picks for a mid season trade.

[Roy H.]

Seriously, the list of guys making between like 3.5-5.5 million (and not a rookie deal guy) who even helped a truly contending team last year is soooo small. The list is like Jeff Green, Torey Craig, Donte Divencenzo and thats kind of it. Three guys. Everyone else in that range was a rookie, on a bad team, or didn't end up playing in the playoffs. And Torey Craig had a lot to do with the complete lack of depth on the Suns.

I think in terms of impact you need to look at the guys who have signed with the TMLE in recent seasons, rather than $5 million.  And, some of those guys have been important pieces, most notably Bruce Brown. 

[BASS_THUMPER]

Bruce Bruce BROWN is solid tho..

*sippin*

[keevsnick]

Seriously, the list of guys making between like 3.5-5.5 million (and not a rookie deal guy) who even helped a truly contending team last year is soooo small. The list is like Jeff Green, Torey Craig, Donte Divencenzo and thats kind of it. Three guys. Everyone else in that range was a rookie, on a bad team, or didn't end up playing in the playoffs. And Torey Craig had a lot to do with the complete lack of depth on the Suns.

I think in terms of impact you need to look at the guys who have signed with the TMLE in recent seasons, rather than $5 million.  And, some of those guys have been important pieces, most notably Bruce Brown.

See I think this is the wrong way to look at it. The tax MLE has been nuked, it was worth like 6.5 last year for Galo but has been downgraded to 5.0 million this year. You very well might not be able to get a guy like Bruce Brown with it anymore. There were a total of 6 guys who signed for the taxpayer MLE last year, shrinking the taxpayer MLE this year isn't going to lead to that quality of player signing for less its just going to lead to that quality of playing signing elsewhere as the use of non-tax MLE expands (due to lower bottom end tax rates, larger tax bands, staggering tax payouts ect).
 
But far more importantly: Using the tax MLE didn't previously hard cap you. The tax payer MLE did at the first apron, but that was always large enough to be useful. There was no reason NOT to use the tax MLE, it was just extra tax vs a vet min. But the hard capping has a significant downside now. Especially this year

In essence the new CBA lowered the penalty for being in the tax a little, but dramatically lowered the utility of exceptions and rules that can put you in a lot.

To put this in context: The c's almost certainly would not have used the tax MLE last year if these rules were is place. Because their team salary was 178 million, well over the 124 million cap. They spent 1.435x the cap, well over the 1.34x 2nd apron. Again, I think its kind of silly to hardcap yourself this year.

[jmen788]

I'd like a couple of these guys for vet bench and a couple of young guys:

A Rivers

Taj Gibson

Wenyen Gabriel

Ty Jerome

Sandro Mamukelashvili

Saric

Bruce Brown (of course)

Naji Marshall

Lamar Stevens

Donte DiVincenzo

Kessler Edwards

Juan Toscano-Anderson

Drew Eubanks

Robin Lopez

T.J. Warren

Yuta Watanabe

Good list. Don't think Brown wants to be here nor can we get him. But TJ Warren would be a great, great pickup. Not sure of his status but would love that.