State of our cap

[goCeltics]

it's 3 out of the 5 years, starting after next year, I still think it is a bit early to start to worry about it, especially as the cap could rise as much as 10% each of the next few years.

If the Celtics were in blow-up mode, you be trying to trade salary for ending contracts, so long as the contract held value they should still be able to dump it.

[goCeltics]

I do not see the point in trading for Zinger to give Al a rest and then dumping Grant. Counterproductive.

[Roy H.]

I do not see the point in trading for Zinger to give Al a rest and then dumping Grant. Counterproductive.

It's not like Grant is the only guy capable of playing 4th big, though.  You're acting like our choices are Grant or nobody.

[goCeltics]

Can't see they will get a guy as good as Grant with the vet's min, this is all premature, I think it is given that c's will offer the 8-mill option, then they will wait for what offers will come in.

[Moranis]

it's 3 out of the 5 years, starting after next year, I still think it is a bit early to start to worry about it, especially as the cap could rise as much as 10% each of the next few years.

If the Celtics were in blow-up mode, you be trying to trade salary for ending contracts, so long as the contract held value they should still be able to dump it.

This is it exactly.  It isn't time to worry. It is time to go all in and try to win.  There is a window, but thay window won't last long.  Open it and go through it. Don't just stare out it.

[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.

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.

Tatum and Brown collectively outscored Butler and Bam and it wasn't close (they out rebounded them as well).  Obviously the Jay's did not shoot particularly well, but their overall production was ok.  Martin and Vincent were much better than White and Smart, Robinson and Strus were the 9th and 10th leading scorers in the series.  That was the difference. I'm not going to claim Tatum and Brown were good, but the much larger problem is no one else was good either.  There was no one capable of coming in and having a big game.  Thst is why I was fine shipping  Smart out.  He couldn't step up when the team needed him to and no one else did either.

[Vermont Green]

I have read all of this and I am sure I still don't understand all the rules and nuances of the second apron penalties.  To me, one category of penalties is things like no MLE and not able to take back 125% more in a trade.  Also not being able to sign mid season buy outs (but we can still as I understand it sign vet min contracts).  These are all measures to prevent you from getting around the cap and adding salary.  But if we are at 99% if the apron, we won't be able to do any of these things anyway as it will put us over the apron.  Roy said the apron value is $182.5M.  If we are at $182.4M, we are under the apron, but we still can't do anything that would add any salary.

The draft pick thing is what I really don't understand.  I have seen:

      you can't trade a pick that is 7 years out
      that your pick goes to the end of the first round if you are a repeater.

I am not that worried about trading a pick 7 years out or not and the idea that your pick goes to the end of the first round, if you are a top team, that may only be dropping a few spots in the draft.  What if you are the top team, there would be no penalty at all?  If things turn bad for your team, you will then clear out the salary and get back under, as part of rebuilding.  The rebuilding "process" may take a little longer but teams are still going to make their runs at championships.  And also, what if you have traded your picks and you have other team's picks (or it is a pick swap that you have control of)?  I assume that the penalty would apply to the team that ends up with your pick.  A team may take a Celtics pick in a trade and would not expect it to be a high pick anyway.  Like I said, I probably don't fully understand the rules around the pick penalties.

As to Grant Williams, it still seems like we are going to be right at the apron this season no matter what we do with Grant and definitely over the apron once the Brown and Tatum extensions kick in, no matter what.  Plus, we just did a trade that added about $7M to our cap.  That does not seem like a team trying to stay under the apron.  Brogdon is the guy who would probably be sent out if we wanted to dump salary.  That would be a shame as he is a useful player.

[Roy H.]

I am not that worried about trading a pick 7 years out or not and the idea that your pick goes to the end of the first round, if you are a top team, that may only be dropping a few spots in the draft.  What if you are the top team, there would be no penalty at all?  If things turn bad for your team, you will then clear out the salary and get back under, as part of rebuilding.  The rebuilding "process" may take a little longer but teams are still going to make their runs at championships.  And also, what if you have traded your picks and you have other team's picks (or it is a pick swap that you have control of)?  I assume that the penalty would apply to the team that ends up with your pick.  A team may take a Celtics pick in a trade and would not expect it to be a high pick anyway.  Like I said, I probably don't fully understand the rules around the pick penalties.

I don't think we should be so cavalier about potentially devaluing future picks if the net result of exceeding the apron is pretty marginal (i.e., bringing Williams back versus Torrey Craig).

I'm shocked by how many people have taken the "eh, no worries, we'll be contending" approach.  How many NBA teams are still contenders seven years after their peak?  In 2030, both JT and JB could be gone, for all we know.

[Vermont Green]

I am not that worried about trading a pick 7 years out or not and the idea that your pick goes to the end of the first round, if you are a top team, that may only be dropping a few spots in the draft.  What if you are the top team, there would be no penalty at all?  If things turn bad for your team, you will then clear out the salary and get back under, as part of rebuilding.  The rebuilding "process" may take a little longer but teams are still going to make their runs at championships.  And also, what if you have traded your picks and you have other team's picks (or it is a pick swap that you have control of)?  I assume that the penalty would apply to the team that ends up with your pick.  A team may take a Celtics pick in a trade and would not expect it to be a high pick anyway.  Like I said, I probably don't fully understand the rules around the pick penalties.

I don't think we should be so cavalier about potentially devaluing future picks if the net result of exceeding the apron is pretty marginal (i.e., bringing Williams back versus Torrey Craig).

I'm shocked by how many people have taken the "eh, no worries, we'll be contending" approach.  How many NBA teams are still contenders seven years after their peak?  In 2030, both JT and JB could be gone, for all we know.

I guess it all comes down to what you think that "net result" is.  I am not suggesting that we match Grant at $20M (I know that some are going that far, but not most).  But I would rather have Grant than Torrey Craig, for example.  And even if we squeeze under this season, we are going to be over next and for the next several, if we keep the core (Tatum, Brown, Porzingis, White, etc.) intact.  There will be a hangover due to these draft penalties after what is hopefully a multiyear title run, but what can you do to avoid that entirely?

[Roy H.]

I am not that worried about trading a pick 7 years out or not and the idea that your pick goes to the end of the first round, if you are a top team, that may only be dropping a few spots in the draft.  What if you are the top team, there would be no penalty at all?  If things turn bad for your team, you will then clear out the salary and get back under, as part of rebuilding.  The rebuilding "process" may take a little longer but teams are still going to make their runs at championships.  And also, what if you have traded your picks and you have other team's picks (or it is a pick swap that you have control of)?  I assume that the penalty would apply to the team that ends up with your pick.  A team may take a Celtics pick in a trade and would not expect it to be a high pick anyway.  Like I said, I probably don't fully understand the rules around the pick penalties.

I don't think we should be so cavalier about potentially devaluing future picks if the net result of exceeding the apron is pretty marginal (i.e., bringing Williams back versus Torrey Craig).

I'm shocked by how many people have taken the "eh, no worries, we'll be contending" approach.  How many NBA teams are still contenders seven years after their peak?  In 2030, both JT and JB could be gone, for all we know.

I guess it all comes down to what you think that "net result" is.  I am not suggesting that we match Grant at $20M (I know that some are going that far, but not most).  But I would rather have Grant than Torrey Craig, for example.  And even if we squeeze under this season, we are going to be over next and for the next several, if we keep the core (Tatum, Brown, Porzingis, White, etc.) intact.  There will be a hangover due to these draft penalties after what is hopefully a multiyear title run, but what can you do to avoid that entirely?

You can't avoid the second apron in every season, but in those you can, it's probably prudent to do so unless you're losing a difference maker.

My opinion (which is obvious by now) is that I don't think Grant is a difference maker.  And, unlike in past seasons, I don't think that it makes a ton of sense to absolutely maximize our chances this year.  That's because, unlike prior seasons, there is a future cost to bad roster decisions that extends beyond money.

The one exception I'd make (also noted above and elsewhere) is massively overpaying Grant now on a 1-and-1 deal, with that second year a team option.  That way we'd get the benefit of Grant, while still maintaining him as an easily tradeable player who won't impact our cap next season.

[BitterJim]

I am not that worried about trading a pick 7 years out or not and the idea that your pick goes to the end of the first round, if you are a top team, that may only be dropping a few spots in the draft.  What if you are the top team, there would be no penalty at all?  If things turn bad for your team, you will then clear out the salary and get back under, as part of rebuilding.  The rebuilding "process" may take a little longer but teams are still going to make their runs at championships.  And also, what if you have traded your picks and you have other team's picks (or it is a pick swap that you have control of)?  I assume that the penalty would apply to the team that ends up with your pick.  A team may take a Celtics pick in a trade and would not expect it to be a high pick anyway.  Like I said, I probably don't fully understand the rules around the pick penalties.

I don't think we should be so cavalier about potentially devaluing future picks if the net result of exceeding the apron is pretty marginal (i.e., bringing Williams back versus Torrey Craig).

I'm shocked by how many people have taken the "eh, no worries, we'll be contending" approach.  How many NBA teams are still contenders seven years after their peak?  In 2030, both JT and JB could be gone, for all we know.

I guess it all comes down to what you think that "net result" is.  I am not suggesting that we match Grant at $20M (I know that some are going that far, but not most).  But I would rather have Grant than Torrey Craig, for example.  And even if we squeeze under this season, we are going to be over next and for the next several, if we keep the core (Tatum, Brown, Porzingis, White, etc.) intact.  There will be a hangover due to these draft penalties after what is hopefully a multiyear title run, but what can you do to avoid that entirely?

You can't avoid the second apron in every season, but in those you can, it's probably prudent to do so unless you're losing a difference maker.

My opinion (which is obvious by now) is that I don't think Grant is a difference maker.  And, unlike in past seasons, I don't think that it makes a ton of sense to absolutely maximize our chances this year.  That's because, unlike prior seasons, there is a future cost to bad roster decisions that extends beyond money.

The one exception I'd make (also noted above and elsewhere) is massively overpaying Grant now on a 1-and-1 deal, with that second year a team option.  That way we'd get the benefit of Grant, while still maintaining him as an easily tradeable player who won't impact our cap next season.

That 1-and-1 option for Grant is growing on me. It lets us go for it this year, without committing to being over the second apron next year (and giving us an awesome salary to try and combine with some draft picks at either the trade deadline or next summer if we find the right deal). I think one of the unintended consequences of the new trade rules is gonna be short-term Bird right contracts like that that teams sign just to use as tradeable salary. It's really the only way to significantly add to the team once you're over the 2nd apron.

[Roy H.]

I am not that worried about trading a pick 7 years out or not and the idea that your pick goes to the end of the first round, if you are a top team, that may only be dropping a few spots in the draft.  What if you are the top team, there would be no penalty at all?  If things turn bad for your team, you will then clear out the salary and get back under, as part of rebuilding.  The rebuilding "process" may take a little longer but teams are still going to make their runs at championships.  And also, what if you have traded your picks and you have other team's picks (or it is a pick swap that you have control of)?  I assume that the penalty would apply to the team that ends up with your pick.  A team may take a Celtics pick in a trade and would not expect it to be a high pick anyway.  Like I said, I probably don't fully understand the rules around the pick penalties.

I don't think we should be so cavalier about potentially devaluing future picks if the net result of exceeding the apron is pretty marginal (i.e., bringing Williams back versus Torrey Craig).

I'm shocked by how many people have taken the "eh, no worries, we'll be contending" approach.  How many NBA teams are still contenders seven years after their peak?  In 2030, both JT and JB could be gone, for all we know.

I guess it all comes down to what you think that "net result" is.  I am not suggesting that we match Grant at $20M (I know that some are going that far, but not most).  But I would rather have Grant than Torrey Craig, for example.  And even if we squeeze under this season, we are going to be over next and for the next several, if we keep the core (Tatum, Brown, Porzingis, White, etc.) intact.  There will be a hangover due to these draft penalties after what is hopefully a multiyear title run, but what can you do to avoid that entirely?

You can't avoid the second apron in every season, but in those you can, it's probably prudent to do so unless you're losing a difference maker.

My opinion (which is obvious by now) is that I don't think Grant is a difference maker.  And, unlike in past seasons, I don't think that it makes a ton of sense to absolutely maximize our chances this year.  That's because, unlike prior seasons, there is a future cost to bad roster decisions that extends beyond money.

The one exception I'd make (also noted above and elsewhere) is massively overpaying Grant now on a 1-and-1 deal, with that second year a team option.  That way we'd get the benefit of Grant, while still maintaining him as an easily tradeable player who won't impact our cap next season.

That 1-and-1 option for Grant is growing on me. It lets us go for it this year, without committing to being over the second apron next year (and giving us an awesome salary to try and combine with some draft picks at either the trade deadline or next summer if we find the right deal). I think one of the unintended consequences of the new trade rules is gonna be short-term Bird right contracts like that that teams sign just to use as tradeable salary. It's really the only way to significantly add to the team once you're over the 2nd apron.

Yep.  If we can get Grant to do it in this last year of the "phase in" of rules, it provides significant advantages to us, while the only downsides are money and loss of the MLE. 

[Vermont Green]

I am not that worried about trading a pick 7 years out or not and the idea that your pick goes to the end of the first round, if you are a top team, that may only be dropping a few spots in the draft.  What if you are the top team, there would be no penalty at all?  If things turn bad for your team, you will then clear out the salary and get back under, as part of rebuilding.  The rebuilding "process" may take a little longer but teams are still going to make their runs at championships.  And also, what if you have traded your picks and you have other team's picks (or it is a pick swap that you have control of)?  I assume that the penalty would apply to the team that ends up with your pick.  A team may take a Celtics pick in a trade and would not expect it to be a high pick anyway.  Like I said, I probably don't fully understand the rules around the pick penalties.

I don't think we should be so cavalier about potentially devaluing future picks if the net result of exceeding the apron is pretty marginal (i.e., bringing Williams back versus Torrey Craig).

I'm shocked by how many people have taken the "eh, no worries, we'll be contending" approach.  How many NBA teams are still contenders seven years after their peak?  In 2030, both JT and JB could be gone, for all we know.

I guess it all comes down to what you think that "net result" is.  I am not suggesting that we match Grant at $20M (I know that some are going that far, but not most).  But I would rather have Grant than Torrey Craig, for example.  And even if we squeeze under this season, we are going to be over next and for the next several, if we keep the core (Tatum, Brown, Porzingis, White, etc.) intact.  There will be a hangover due to these draft penalties after what is hopefully a multiyear title run, but what can you do to avoid that entirely?

You can't avoid the second apron in every season, but in those you can, it's probably prudent to do so unless you're losing a difference maker.

My opinion (which is obvious by now) is that I don't think Grant is a difference maker.  And, unlike in past seasons, I don't think that it makes a ton of sense to absolutely maximize our chances this year.  That's because, unlike prior seasons, there is a future cost to bad roster decisions that extends beyond money.

The one exception I'd make (also noted above and elsewhere) is massively overpaying Grant now on a 1-and-1 deal, with that second year a team option.  That way we'd get the benefit of Grant, while still maintaining him as an easily tradeable player who won't impact our cap next season.

I am fine with Grant on a 1 + 1 deal.  That may work well for Grant also.  The FA market might be more favorable in a season or two, once all this second apron business has settled down.  But why do you think that this would imply "massively overpaying" Grant.  Or that massively overpaying Grant is going to be necessary?  I am not in favor of "massively overpaying" Grant in any case.

I see this going much like the Porzingis trade.  Plan A, the preferred path, was to trade Brogdon.  That fell through and they went to Plan B, trade Smart.  They ended up trading a more valuable player but got more back.  Grant is going to be the same.  I believe Plan A is to sign/match him, but that depends on what offers he gets.  If it gets too rich, they will go to Plan B or C, which could be sign and trade or just letting him walk and get what you can with some or all of the MLE.  If along the way, a really good player becomes available for the MLE (which I doubt) then maybe they pivot and that becomes Plan A.

I define "too rich" for Grant to mean a contract above his tradeable or market value, even if the contract is short (of course shorter deals can remain tradeable at higher values).  I can't say exactly what the threshold is but I think at $10M, sure, $15M, meh, $20M, no way.  I am not sure where an offer North of $10M is going to come from.  I guess a team might go higher just to scare off a match but if that is the case, I am fine with passing on Grant.

[Surferdad]

I do not see the point in trading for Zinger to give Al a rest and then dumping Grant. Counterproductive.

It's not like Grant is the only guy capable of playing 4th big, though.  You're acting like our choices are Grant or nobody.

Right. Two cheaper options for a 4th big from the 2022-23 roster are Kabengele or Griffin. I think Blake would do fine as a 4th big and a vet presence. His performance against the C's in the 21-22 playoffs is still ringing in my ears.

[BitterJim]

I am not that worried about trading a pick 7 years out or not and the idea that your pick goes to the end of the first round, if you are a top team, that may only be dropping a few spots in the draft.  What if you are the top team, there would be no penalty at all?  If things turn bad for your team, you will then clear out the salary and get back under, as part of rebuilding.  The rebuilding "process" may take a little longer but teams are still going to make their runs at championships.  And also, what if you have traded your picks and you have other team's picks (or it is a pick swap that you have control of)?  I assume that the penalty would apply to the team that ends up with your pick.  A team may take a Celtics pick in a trade and would not expect it to be a high pick anyway.  Like I said, I probably don't fully understand the rules around the pick penalties.

I don't think we should be so cavalier about potentially devaluing future picks if the net result of exceeding the apron is pretty marginal (i.e., bringing Williams back versus Torrey Craig).

I'm shocked by how many people have taken the "eh, no worries, we'll be contending" approach.  How many NBA teams are still contenders seven years after their peak?  In 2030, both JT and JB could be gone, for all we know.

I guess it all comes down to what you think that "net result" is.  I am not suggesting that we match Grant at $20M (I know that some are going that far, but not most).  But I would rather have Grant than Torrey Craig, for example.  And even if we squeeze under this season, we are going to be over next and for the next several, if we keep the core (Tatum, Brown, Porzingis, White, etc.) intact.  There will be a hangover due to these draft penalties after what is hopefully a multiyear title run, but what can you do to avoid that entirely?

You can't avoid the second apron in every season, but in those you can, it's probably prudent to do so unless you're losing a difference maker.

My opinion (which is obvious by now) is that I don't think Grant is a difference maker.  And, unlike in past seasons, I don't think that it makes a ton of sense to absolutely maximize our chances this year.  That's because, unlike prior seasons, there is a future cost to bad roster decisions that extends beyond money.

The one exception I'd make (also noted above and elsewhere) is massively overpaying Grant now on a 1-and-1 deal, with that second year a team option.  That way we'd get the benefit of Grant, while still maintaining him as an easily tradeable player who won't impact our cap next season.

I am fine with Grant on a 1 + 1 deal.  That may work well for Grant also.  The FA market might be more favorable in a season or two, once all this second apron business has settled down.  But why do you think that this would imply "massively overpaying" Grant.  Or that massively overpaying Grant is going to be necessary?  I am not in favor of "massively overpaying" Grant in any case.

I see this going much like the Porzingis trade.  Plan A, the preferred path, was to trade Brogdon.  That fell through and they went to Plan B, trade Smart.  They ended up trading a more valuable player but got more back.  Grant is going to be the same.  I believe Plan A is to sign/match him, but that depends on what offers he gets.  If it gets too rich, they will go to Plan B or C, which could be sign and trade or just letting him walk and get what you can with some or all of the MLE.  If along the way, a really good player becomes available for the MLE (which I doubt) then maybe they pivot and that becomes Plan A.

I define "too rich" for Grant to mean a contract above his tradeable or market value, even if the contract is short (of course shorter deals can remain tradeable at higher values).  I can't say exactly what the threshold is but I think at $10M, sure, $15M, meh, $20M, no way.  I am not sure where an offer North of $10M is going to come from.  I guess a team might go higher just to scare off a match but if that is the case, I am fine with passing on Grant.

Getting Grant to accept a shorter deal (especially one that would have a team option) would require paying him more per year (when compared to a longer term deal). So on a year-by-year basis you're "overpaying" him, even if you aren't on a total contract basis