State of our cap

[Roy H.]

Right now, we've got 11 players under contract (along with Demetrius Jackson's dead money) for $173,274,420.

Nine of those contracts are guaranteed:  KP, Tatum, Brown, Brogdon, White, Timelord, Horford, Pritchard, Hauser

Two are non-guaranteed / partially guaranteed:  Champagnie, Kornet

The luxury tax is projected to be around $165,000,000.  The second apron is around $182,500,000.

That leaves us only $9,225,580 if we want to stay below the second apron.  Note:  if we exceed the second apron, we lose the $5.0 million Taxpayer MLE.

Grant's qualifying offer is $8,486,620.  Davidson and Kabengele both have qualifying offers of $1,801,491.

We need to have 14 guys on the roster; for each empty spot below that number there is a "roster charge" of slightly more than $1 million.

That all leaves us in a tight spot:  If we just sign Davidson, use Kabengele's rough salary for Walsh (no idea how much the second round exception will be), and use the $5 million MLE, we'd only have roughly $600k under the second apron, and we'd be hard-capped.  There's a bit of flexibility:  we can dump Champagnie and replace him with a real player, and there are cost savings from replacing Kornet with a vet minimum guy.  But still, total flexibility will be around just over $1 million, with only 14 roster spots.

On the other hand, if we don't use the MLE, we'd be allowed to exceed the second apron without a hard cap concern, and could potentially retain Grant while adding vet minimum players.

For the cap experts -- particularly the new cap experts -- does that look right?

As a practical matter, to maintain max flexibility, it may make sense to extend Grant the qualifying offer and forego the MLE.

[jmen788]

Right now, we've got 11 players under contract (along with Demetrius Jackson's dead money) for $173,274,420.

Nine of those contracts are guaranteed:  KP, Tatum, Brown, Brogdon, White, Timelord, Horford, Pritchard, Hauser

Two are non-guaranteed / partially guaranteed:  Champagnie, Kornet

The luxury tax is projected to be around $165,000,000.  The second apron is around $182,500,000.

That leaves us only $9,225,580 if we want to stay below the second apron.  Note:  if we exceed the second apron, we lose the $5.0 million Taxpayer MLE.

Grant's qualifying offer is $8,486,620.  Davidson and Kabengele both have qualifying offers of $1,801,491.

We need to have 14 guys on the roster; for each empty spot below that number there is a "roster charge" of slightly more than $1 million.

That all leaves us in a tight spot:  If we just sign Davidson, use Kabengele's rough salary for Walsh (no idea how much the second round exception will be), and use the $5 million MLE, we'd only have roughly $600k under the second apron, and we'd be hard-capped.  There's a bit of flexibility:  we can dump Champagnie and replace him with a real player, and there are cost savings from replacing Kornet with a vet minimum guy.  But still, total flexibility will be around just over $1 million, with only 14 roster spots.

On the other hand, if we don't use the MLE, we'd be allowed to exceed the second apron without a hard cap concern, and could potentially retain Grant while adding vet minimum players.

For the cap experts -- particularly the new cap experts -- does that look right?

As a practical matter, to maintain max flexibility, it may make sense to extend Grant the qualifying offer and forego the MLE.

Opposite of a cap expert here... but I think I prefer the latter option, especially if we cannot get anyone as good as Gallo last year with the MLE this year.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

My understanding is that not all the second apron issues apply this year, but I'm not sure which ones do (like giving up the TPMLE) and which ones don't.

Either way, I don't think you are getting a better player than Grant Williams with the TPMLE. I'd keep him and trade him later.

[Moranis]

As long as Grant doesn't get a really high offer from someone, you re-sign him.  Boston wasting assets last summer cost them a shot at the title this year.  At some point the team needs to stop acting like they are rebuilding and start acting like they actually want to win a championship.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

As long as Grant doesn't get a really high offer from someone, you re-sign him.  Boston wasting assets last summer cost them a shot at the title this year.  At some point the team needs to stop acting like they are rebuilding and start acting like they actually want to win a championship.

I agree with your first sentence, but I don't with your last two.

[Roy H.]

As long as Grant doesn't get a really high offer from someone, you re-sign him.  Boston wasting assets last summer cost them a shot at the title this year.  At some point the team needs to stop acting like they are rebuilding and start acting like they actually want to win a championship.

While in general I agree about maintaining assets, that's counterproductive if we have to give up assets to dump Grant in a year.  He's just not that good.

That's why signing him to a two year deal with a team option might be our best bet.   Give him well more than he deserves to use him as an expiring contract this year or next.  Say, 2 years, $40 million, 2nd year is a team option.  That's much better than, say, 4 years, $60 million.

[Moranis]

As long as Grant doesn't get a really high offer from someone, you re-sign him.  Boston wasting assets last summer cost them a shot at the title this year.  At some point the team needs to stop acting like they are rebuilding and start acting like they actually want to win a championship.

While in general I agree about maintaining assets, that's counterproductive if we have to give up assets to dump Grant in a year.  He's just not that good.

That's why signing him to a two year deal with a team option might be our best bet.   Give him well more than he deserves to use him as an expiring contract this year or next.  Say, 2 years, $40 million, 2nd year is a team option.  That's much better than, say, 4 years, $60 million.

Why would you dump him in a year?  There are plenty of roster spots long term and he isn't old.  I'd have no problem trading him, but dumping him, that is just silly. 

Boston is the favorite to win the title next year in Vegas.  The team needs to act like it and spend money.  Don't get cheap and end up losing a series you should have won because you were cheap the prior summer.  That happened this year, it can't happen again or what is the point of rooting for the team.  If ownership doesn't care, why should the fans.  Ownership needs to prove it cares and open the checkbook.  The team is on the verge, stop wasting assets.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

As long as Grant doesn't get a really high offer from someone, you re-sign him.  Boston wasting assets last summer cost them a shot at the title this year.  At some point the team needs to stop acting like they are rebuilding and start acting like they actually want to win a championship.

While in general I agree about maintaining assets, that's counterproductive if we have to give up assets to dump Grant in a year.  He's just not that good.

That's why signing him to a two year deal with a team option might be our best bet.   Give him well more than he deserves to use him as an expiring contract this year or next.  Say, 2 years, $40 million, 2nd year is a team option.  That's much better than, say, 4 years, $60 million.

Why would you dump him in a year?  There are plenty of roster spots long term and he isn't old.  I'd have no problem trading him, but dumping him, that is just silly. 

Boston is the favorite to win the title next year in Vegas.  The team needs to act like it and spend money.  Don't get cheap and end up losing a series you should have won because you were cheap the prior summer.  That happened this year, it can't happen again or what is the point of rooting for the team.  If ownership doesn't care, why should the fans.  Ownership needs to prove it cares and open the checkbook.  The team is on the verge, stop wasting assets.

We didn't lose this year because we didn't have some random bench player. We lost because our top players weren't as good as they needed to be. We were largely considered to be one of the deepest teams in the league. I don't agree with the narrative you are trying to form.

However, I generally agree with your philosophy here. I'd rather they didn't lose Grant Williams for nothing.

[Roy H.]

As long as Grant doesn't get a really high offer from someone, you re-sign him.  Boston wasting assets last summer cost them a shot at the title this year.  At some point the team needs to stop acting like they are rebuilding and start acting like they actually want to win a championship.

While in general I agree about maintaining assets, that's counterproductive if we have to give up assets to dump Grant in a year.  He's just not that good.

That's why signing him to a two year deal with a team option might be our best bet.   Give him well more than he deserves to use him as an expiring contract this year or next.  Say, 2 years, $40 million, 2nd year is a team option.  That's much better than, say, 4 years, $60 million.

Why would you dump him in a year?  There are plenty of roster spots long term and he isn't old.  I'd have no problem trading him, but dumping him, that is just silly. 

Boston is the favorite to win the title next year in Vegas.  The team needs to act like it and spend money.  Don't get cheap and end up losing a series you should have won because you were cheap the prior summer.  That happened this year, it can't happen again or what is the point of rooting for the team.  If ownership doesn't care, why should the fans.  Ownership needs to prove it cares and open the checkbook.  The team is on the verge, stop wasting assets.

At some point, the Celts will basically be forced to get below the second apron.  An NBA team can't survive without the ability to add talent.  Next season, assuming we don't shed salary, we won't be able to aggregate players in trade, we won't be able to add salary via trade, we won't be able to use the MLE, and we'll potentially be in the second year of a repeater tax that ultimately results in not being able to trade future picks / having those picks sent to the end of the round.

The rules have changed, literally.  We're going to be in a tough salary spot next season, and trade partners will take advantage of that.  That's why teams with heavy salary commitments can't hand out careless contracts anymore.

[Roy H.]

As long as Grant doesn't get a really high offer from someone, you re-sign him.  Boston wasting assets last summer cost them a shot at the title this year.  At some point the team needs to stop acting like they are rebuilding and start acting like they actually want to win a championship.

While in general I agree about maintaining assets, that's counterproductive if we have to give up assets to dump Grant in a year.  He's just not that good.

That's why signing him to a two year deal with a team option might be our best bet.   Give him well more than he deserves to use him as an expiring contract this year or next.  Say, 2 years, $40 million, 2nd year is a team option.  That's much better than, say, 4 years, $60 million.

Why would you dump him in a year?  There are plenty of roster spots long term and he isn't old.  I'd have no problem trading him, but dumping him, that is just silly. 

Boston is the favorite to win the title next year in Vegas.  The team needs to act like it and spend money.  Don't get cheap and end up losing a series you should have won because you were cheap the prior summer.  That happened this year, it can't happen again or what is the point of rooting for the team.  If ownership doesn't care, why should the fans.  Ownership needs to prove it cares and open the checkbook.  The team is on the verge, stop wasting assets.

We didn't lose this year because we didn't have some random bench player. We lost because our top players weren't as good as they needed to be. We were largely considered to be one of the deepest teams in the league. I don't agree with the narrative you are trying to form.

However, I generally agree with your philosophy here. I'd rather they didn't lose Grant Williams for nothing.

Losing Grant Williams for nothing would be better than having to give up a 1st rounder to dump GW to get below the second apron next year.

We've seen two salary dumps so far this year.  One was Dallas falling from #10 to #12 to dump Bertans.  The other was Sacramento giving up a #1 to dump Holmes.

I'd prefer that not be us next year.

[RPGenerate]

People are still of the mindset of the previous CBA and not the current one. You won't be able to survive in the second apron for very long under the current rules. It's just not as simple as "owners just need to pay up!" anymore. I have a feeling salary dumps are gonna be a lot more expensive in the coming years.

[goCeltics]

The extra penalty is that you that your pick to the end of the draft, if you're a tax-paying team are you really concerned that your pick moves down?

[goCeltics]

Also, bear in mind that they have that pick swap with the Spurs, and you achieve a level of cost control as you are unable to trade for extra salary and you are limited to the veteran's minimum and your own players.

[Roy H.]

The extra penalty is that you that your pick to the end of the draft, if you're a tax-paying team are you really concerned that your pick moves down?

We should be.  The pick is in 2030.  A lot can happen in seven years.  Not only can we not trade that pick, but if we have a bad year, we can see a top-10 pick fall to the end of the round.

For instance, assume we do indeed want to trade Grant.  We won't be able to package him with another player.  We won't be able to trade him for somebody who makes more than him.  An already tough trade market becomes much tougher.

But, that's far from the only penalty.   

[keevsnick]

The extra penalty is that you that your pick to the end of the draft, if you're a tax-paying team are you really concerned that your pick moves down?

We should be.  The pick is in 2030.  A lot can happen in seven years.  Not only can we not trade that pick, but if we have a bad year, we can see a top-10 pick fall to the end of the round.

For instance, assume we do indeed want to trade Grant.  We won't be able to package him with another player.  We won't be able to trade him for somebody who makes more than him.  An already tough trade market becomes much tougher.

But, that's far from the only penalty.   

Its worth noting that going into the second apron doesn't GUARANTEE your pick will be 30, teams will have the opportunity to "reset" their draft pick by getting back under the second apron in 3 out of the following 4 years to reset their pick. In essence this means its possible to go into the second apron for two straight years then out for three straight years and suffer no long-term draft pick drop.

The main penalties are:

1) Not being able to take back more money in trades then you send out.
2) No MLE.
3) No signing buyout guys.
4) Not being able to trade a pick 7 years out and getting it sent to the back of the first round.
5) Even higher luxury tax rates than previously.

Given those rules I can see situations in which teams will go over the second apron, but probably not for more than the two consecutive years before dropping under for three years to avoid the draft pick getting pushed to #30. Some of these like no MLE or buyout guys are relatively minor deals, while others like the trade restrictions are bigger issues but may be worth tolerating if you think you more or less have your team locked up for the next two years anyway. Its going to depend on where teams thin k they are in their building cycle (and on willingess of an owner to spend).