Jaylen Brown Supermax

[Kernewek]

Sadly, we don't have any critical media voices in Boston that understand the issues enough to point this out.  The Celts have had both a top-5 valuation and top-5 in operating income for many years, and yet the team cut payroll during the season last year, and has *significantly* cut payroll this year.

Well, it's either that or there's no good outcome for any member of the local sports media who chooses to go down this route.

[Roy H.]

Sadly, we don't have any critical media voices in Boston that understand the issues enough to point this out.  The Celts have had both a top-5 valuation and top-5 in operating income for many years, and yet the team cut payroll during the season last year, and has *significantly* cut payroll this year.

Well, it's either that or there's no good outcome for any member of the local sports media who chooses to go down this route.

Fair enough.  It's a lot easier to operate as a member of local media if you don't make waves.  Access has a price, and it's usually paid in journalistic integrity.

[Vermont Green]

Wyc is cheap and doesn't spend like he should, but that doesn't mean the team should overpay and enter into bad contracts. There is nothing contradictory in that sentiment.  The team should have kept Grant at that price and the team should trade Brown and not give him that huge contract.

So Wyc is cheap because he didn't overpay Grant and reckless because he is overpaying for Brown.  Sounds like you disagree with their choices but you have not demonstrated that they are cheap, just the opposite really.  How about trading for and extending Porzingis?  Another reckless overpay by a cheap owner?  (In case you missed it, that is kind of an oxymoron).

You, and some others, took one thing, primarily, that they didn't use the Fournier TPE, and went all in on the Wyc is cheap narrative.  Based on that, I feel you have lost some objectivity regarding judging subsequent moves.  As I have said many times, debating the choice to use or not use the TPE is fair enough.  Continuously trying to prove that you were right that Wyc is cheap is a different thing. 

As a fan, you can feel that way if you want.  I don't.  I look at all this and come to a different conclusion.  You seem to only give them credit for spending when they spend in the way you want them to spend.  Spending on Brown doesn't count somehow, they are still cheap owners.  Not spending on Grant or the TPE proves they are cheap.  I can't follow this.

[footey]

Brad's decisions (e.g., trading Grant) may have less to do with being cheap, and more to do with avoiding, or at least minimizing the risk of, the consequences of hitting the 2nd apron.  It would diminish his options significantly as GM to make trades, would devalue his draft picks, just all around impair his ability as a GM. 

Also maybe Brad feels that Grant is pretty replaceable by a min contract signing, such as the Indy guy.


Seems like the bet he is taking is to construct a team that can win a championship in the next year of two.  If after 2 seasons, when Tatum super max kicks in, we have not won a championship, JB and/or Porzingis will likely be traded.  If we do win, likely to be happy to hit the 2nd apron. 

[Roy H.]

Wyc is cheap and doesn't spend like he should, but that doesn't mean the team should overpay and enter into bad contracts. There is nothing contradictory in that sentiment.  The team should have kept Grant at that price and the team should trade Brown and not give him that huge contract.

So Wyc is cheap because he didn't overpay Grant and reckless because he is overpaying for Brown.  Sounds like you disagree with their choices but you have not demonstrated that they are cheap, just the opposite really.  How about trading for and extending Porzingis?  Another reckless overpay by a cheap owner?  (In case you missed it, that is kind of an oxymoron).

You, and some others, took one thing, primarily, that they didn't use the Fournier TPE, and went all in on the Wyc is cheap narrative.  Based on that, I feel you have lost some objectivity regarding judging subsequent moves.  As I have said many times, debating the choice to use or not use the TPE is fair enough.  Continuously trying to prove that you were right that Wyc is cheap is a different thing. 

As a fan, you can feel that way if you want.  I don't.  I look at all this and come to a different conclusion.  You seem to only give them credit for spending when they spend in the way you want them to spend.  Spending on Brown doesn't count somehow, they are still cheap owners.  Not spending on Grant or the TPE proves they are cheap.  I can't follow this.

We're scheduled to cut over $40 million in payroll according to Spotrac, maybe as much as $48 to $49 million.  That's in a year where there are no second apron penalties other than losing the MLE.  Is that meaningless?

[tonydelk]

Wyc is cheap and doesn't spend like he should, but that doesn't mean the team should overpay and enter into bad contracts. There is nothing contradictory in that sentiment.  The team should have kept Grant at that price and the team should trade Brown and not give him that huge contract.

So Wyc is cheap because he didn't overpay Grant and reckless because he is overpaying for Brown.  Sounds like you disagree with their choices but you have not demonstrated that they are cheap, just the opposite really.  How about trading for and extending Porzingis?  Another reckless overpay by a cheap owner?  (In case you missed it, that is kind of an oxymoron).

You, and some others, took one thing, primarily, that they didn't use the Fournier TPE, and went all in on the Wyc is cheap narrative.  Based on that, I feel you have lost some objectivity regarding judging subsequent moves.  As I have said many times, debating the choice to use or not use the TPE is fair enough.  Continuously trying to prove that you were right that Wyc is cheap is a different thing. 

As a fan, you can feel that way if you want.  I don't.  I look at all this and come to a different conclusion.  You seem to only give them credit for spending when they spend in the way you want them to spend.  Spending on Brown doesn't count somehow, they are still cheap owners.  Not spending on Grant or the TPE proves they are cheap.  I can't follow this.

We're scheduled to cut over $40 million in payroll according to Spotrac, maybe as much as $48 to $49 million.  That's in a year where there are no second apron penalties other than losing the MLE.  Is that meaningless?

I have to agree.  Ownership is not cheap.  They are just not stupid.  Grant Williams contract may have been for 13m per year but add the extra 20m in taxes and the 2nd apron penalties.  Grant costing 33m for next year does not win the Celtics a championship.  He's a 15mpg player next year unless someone gets hurt.  Grant just doesn't move the needle that much to spend that kind of money.  I consider that smart not cheap. 

[Vermont Green]

Wyc is cheap and doesn't spend like he should, but that doesn't mean the team should overpay and enter into bad contracts. There is nothing contradictory in that sentiment.  The team should have kept Grant at that price and the team should trade Brown and not give him that huge contract.

So Wyc is cheap because he didn't overpay Grant and reckless because he is overpaying for Brown.  Sounds like you disagree with their choices but you have not demonstrated that they are cheap, just the opposite really.  How about trading for and extending Porzingis?  Another reckless overpay by a cheap owner?  (In case you missed it, that is kind of an oxymoron).

You, and some others, took one thing, primarily, that they didn't use the Fournier TPE, and went all in on the Wyc is cheap narrative.  Based on that, I feel you have lost some objectivity regarding judging subsequent moves.  As I have said many times, debating the choice to use or not use the TPE is fair enough.  Continuously trying to prove that you were right that Wyc is cheap is a different thing. 

As a fan, you can feel that way if you want.  I don't.  I look at all this and come to a different conclusion.  You seem to only give them credit for spending when they spend in the way you want them to spend.  Spending on Brown doesn't count somehow, they are still cheap owners.  Not spending on Grant or the TPE proves they are cheap.  I can't follow this.

We're scheduled to cut over $40 million in payroll according to Spotrac, maybe as much as $48 to $49 million.  That's in a year where there are no second apron penalties other than losing the MLE.  Is that meaningless?

I think it is meaningless actually but maybe I don't understand what you are referencing.  In the end, our total cap for 2022-23 was $176,784,331 according to Spotrac.  The taxable cap was a little lower than this.  Right now, for 2023-24, we are at $177,366,269 with 14 roster spots filled.

What exactly is the $40M we are cutting from payroll?  I don't understand what this represents.

[Roy H.]

Wyc is cheap and doesn't spend like he should, but that doesn't mean the team should overpay and enter into bad contracts. There is nothing contradictory in that sentiment.  The team should have kept Grant at that price and the team should trade Brown and not give him that huge contract.

So Wyc is cheap because he didn't overpay Grant and reckless because he is overpaying for Brown.  Sounds like you disagree with their choices but you have not demonstrated that they are cheap, just the opposite really.  How about trading for and extending Porzingis?  Another reckless overpay by a cheap owner?  (In case you missed it, that is kind of an oxymoron).

You, and some others, took one thing, primarily, that they didn't use the Fournier TPE, and went all in on the Wyc is cheap narrative.  Based on that, I feel you have lost some objectivity regarding judging subsequent moves.  As I have said many times, debating the choice to use or not use the TPE is fair enough.  Continuously trying to prove that you were right that Wyc is cheap is a different thing. 

As a fan, you can feel that way if you want.  I don't.  I look at all this and come to a different conclusion.  You seem to only give them credit for spending when they spend in the way you want them to spend.  Spending on Brown doesn't count somehow, they are still cheap owners.  Not spending on Grant or the TPE proves they are cheap.  I can't follow this.

We're scheduled to cut over $40 million in payroll according to Spotrac, maybe as much as $48 to $49 million.  That's in a year where there are no second apron penalties other than losing the MLE.  Is that meaningless?

I think it is meaningless actually but maybe I don't understand what you are referencing.  In the end, our total cap for 2022-23 was $176,784,331 according to Spotrac.  The taxable cap was a little lower than this.  Right now, for 2023-24, we are at $177,366,269 with 14 roster spots filled.

What exactly is the $40M we are cutting from payroll?  I don't understand what this represents.

Luxury tax savings.

Last year, the team had $176,795,764 in taxable salary.  They paid $70,198,661 in luxury tax.  Total payroll, then, was $246,994,425.  (All numbers from Spotrac).

This season, we have $177,459,126 in taxable salary.  We are projected to pay $21,662,818 in luxury tax.  That is $199,121,944 in total payroll.

Last year ($246,994,425) minus this year ($199,121,944) is $47,872,481.

If an owner cuts spending by roughly $48 million, while significantly raising ticket prices despite turning a profit last year, is it fair to criticize? 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/286033/operating-income-of-the-boston-celtics-national-basketball-association/

https://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/list/

The Celtics are wildly profitable and are wildly valued.  We're a top tier contender.  And yet, we cut corners (and payroll) in terms of maximizing the team's chances.

[Vermont Green]

Wyc is cheap and doesn't spend like he should, but that doesn't mean the team should overpay and enter into bad contracts. There is nothing contradictory in that sentiment.  The team should have kept Grant at that price and the team should trade Brown and not give him that huge contract.

So Wyc is cheap because he didn't overpay Grant and reckless because he is overpaying for Brown.  Sounds like you disagree with their choices but you have not demonstrated that they are cheap, just the opposite really.  How about trading for and extending Porzingis?  Another reckless overpay by a cheap owner?  (In case you missed it, that is kind of an oxymoron).

You, and some others, took one thing, primarily, that they didn't use the Fournier TPE, and went all in on the Wyc is cheap narrative.  Based on that, I feel you have lost some objectivity regarding judging subsequent moves.  As I have said many times, debating the choice to use or not use the TPE is fair enough.  Continuously trying to prove that you were right that Wyc is cheap is a different thing. 

As a fan, you can feel that way if you want.  I don't.  I look at all this and come to a different conclusion.  You seem to only give them credit for spending when they spend in the way you want them to spend.  Spending on Brown doesn't count somehow, they are still cheap owners.  Not spending on Grant or the TPE proves they are cheap.  I can't follow this.

We're scheduled to cut over $40 million in payroll according to Spotrac, maybe as much as $48 to $49 million.  That's in a year where there are no second apron penalties other than losing the MLE.  Is that meaningless?

I think it is meaningless actually but maybe I don't understand what you are referencing.  In the end, our total cap for 2022-23 was $176,784,331 according to Spotrac.  The taxable cap was a little lower than this.  Right now, for 2023-24, we are at $177,366,269 with 14 roster spots filled.

What exactly is the $40M we are cutting from payroll?  I don't understand what this represents.

Luxury tax savings.

Last year, the team had $176,795,764 in taxable salary.  They paid $70,198,661 in luxury tax.  Total payroll, then, was $246,994,425.  (All numbers from Spotrac).

This season, we have $177,459,126 in taxable salary.  We are projected to pay $21,662,818 in luxury tax.  That is $199,121,944 in total payroll.

Last year ($246,994,425) minus this year ($199,121,944) is $47,872,481.

If an owner cuts spending by roughly $48 million, while significantly raising ticket prices despite turning a profit last year, is it fair to criticize?

So we are paying more in salary but less in tax, and that means the owners are cheap?  To me, that is twisting into a pretzel to support your Wyc is cheap narrative.

[cman88]

Wyc is cheap and doesn't spend like he should, but that doesn't mean the team should overpay and enter into bad contracts. There is nothing contradictory in that sentiment.  The team should have kept Grant at that price and the team should trade Brown and not give him that huge contract.

Talent and stars wins in this league. A lot easier to find a grant Williams than a Jaylen Brown.

The IT team was full of gritty grant Williams type players. Yet in the end we got beaten by teams with more talent.

Glad you are not the GM.

Fans need to come to the realization that this is the new going rate for someone of Jaylen Brown s caliber. Just because he's the first to get that money doesn't mean it's going to be an outlier.

Anyone else we get who is of the same talent level is going to cost just as much. Heck LaMelo ball is going to be paid $53million.

And I just don't believe the NBA is a sport where you can trade one 30ppg player for two 15ppg players and it's the same value

[Roy H.]

Wyc is cheap and doesn't spend like he should, but that doesn't mean the team should overpay and enter into bad contracts. There is nothing contradictory in that sentiment.  The team should have kept Grant at that price and the team should trade Brown and not give him that huge contract.

So Wyc is cheap because he didn't overpay Grant and reckless because he is overpaying for Brown.  Sounds like you disagree with their choices but you have not demonstrated that they are cheap, just the opposite really.  How about trading for and extending Porzingis?  Another reckless overpay by a cheap owner?  (In case you missed it, that is kind of an oxymoron).

You, and some others, took one thing, primarily, that they didn't use the Fournier TPE, and went all in on the Wyc is cheap narrative.  Based on that, I feel you have lost some objectivity regarding judging subsequent moves.  As I have said many times, debating the choice to use or not use the TPE is fair enough.  Continuously trying to prove that you were right that Wyc is cheap is a different thing. 

As a fan, you can feel that way if you want.  I don't.  I look at all this and come to a different conclusion.  You seem to only give them credit for spending when they spend in the way you want them to spend.  Spending on Brown doesn't count somehow, they are still cheap owners.  Not spending on Grant or the TPE proves they are cheap.  I can't follow this.

We're scheduled to cut over $40 million in payroll according to Spotrac, maybe as much as $48 to $49 million.  That's in a year where there are no second apron penalties other than losing the MLE.  Is that meaningless?

I think it is meaningless actually but maybe I don't understand what you are referencing.  In the end, our total cap for 2022-23 was $176,784,331 according to Spotrac.  The taxable cap was a little lower than this.  Right now, for 2023-24, we are at $177,366,269 with 14 roster spots filled.

What exactly is the $40M we are cutting from payroll?  I don't understand what this represents.

Luxury tax savings.

Last year, the team had $176,795,764 in taxable salary.  They paid $70,198,661 in luxury tax.  Total payroll, then, was $246,994,425.  (All numbers from Spotrac).

This season, we have $177,459,126 in taxable salary.  We are projected to pay $21,662,818 in luxury tax.  That is $199,121,944 in total payroll.

Last year ($246,994,425) minus this year ($199,121,944) is $47,872,481.

If an owner cuts spending by roughly $48 million, while significantly raising ticket prices despite turning a profit last year, is it fair to criticize?

So we are paying more in salary but less in tax, and that means the owners are cheap?  To me, that is twisting into a pretzel to support your Wyc is cheap narrative.

Aren't you in an analytical field?  Total spending is way down, regardless of salary versus tax.  By $48 million.

I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse. 

[Roy H.]

Wyc is cheap and doesn't spend like he should, but that doesn't mean the team should overpay and enter into bad contracts. There is nothing contradictory in that sentiment.  The team should have kept Grant at that price and the team should trade Brown and not give him that huge contract.

Talent and stars wins in this league. A lot easier to find a grant Williams than a Jaylen Brown.

The IT team was full of gritty grant Williams type players. Yet in the end we got beaten by teams with more talent.

Glad you are not the GM.

Fans need to come to the realization that this is the new going rate for someone of Jaylen Brown s caliber. Just because he's the first to get that money doesn't mean it's going to be an outlier.

Anyone else we get who is of the same talent level is going to cost just as much. Heck LaMelo ball is going to be paid $53million.

And I just don't believe the NBA is a sport where you can trade one 30ppg player for two 15ppg players and it's the same value

Yes, keep Brown. 

The sad thing to me:  if the team had either kept Fournier or used the Fournier TPE, we could have flipped that salary to the Wizards and kept Marcus Smart.  The only practical difference is that Wyc would have had to have accepted wild profits for a couple of years, rather than Scrooge McDuck profits. 

[Vermont Green]

Here is the list of the top 2023-24 spenders currently based on Spotrac Active Cap:

1.   GSW    $206M
2.   LAC     $194M
3.   PHX     $190M
4.   MIA     $178M
5.   MIL     $177M
6.   BOS    $177M
7.   DEN    $175M

These are not final numbers but give a pretty representative indication of relative spending of these top teams.  It does not account for taxes paid but I am not sure that really matters in terms of ranking willingness to spend.  BOS is currently ranked 6th in spending and depending how things go, could end up anywhere form 4-8.  I don't think any of the teams who are spending more than BOS have better rosters. In fact the top 3 are probably going to have difficulties moving forward, BOS is in a much better financial position than the top 3, in terms of ability to maintain a title contending roster.

[green_bballers13]

Wyc is cheap and doesn't spend like he should, but that doesn't mean the team should overpay and enter into bad contracts. There is nothing contradictory in that sentiment.  The team should have kept Grant at that price and the team should trade Brown and not give him that huge contract.

So Wyc is cheap because he didn't overpay Grant and reckless because he is overpaying for Brown.  Sounds like you disagree with their choices but you have not demonstrated that they are cheap, just the opposite really.  How about trading for and extending Porzingis?  Another reckless overpay by a cheap owner?  (In case you missed it, that is kind of an oxymoron).

You, and some others, took one thing, primarily, that they didn't use the Fournier TPE, and went all in on the Wyc is cheap narrative.  Based on that, I feel you have lost some objectivity regarding judging subsequent moves.  As I have said many times, debating the choice to use or not use the TPE is fair enough.  Continuously trying to prove that you were right that Wyc is cheap is a different thing. 

As a fan, you can feel that way if you want.  I don't.  I look at all this and come to a different conclusion.  You seem to only give them credit for spending when they spend in the way you want them to spend.  Spending on Brown doesn't count somehow, they are still cheap owners.  Not spending on Grant or the TPE proves they are cheap.  I can't follow this.

We're scheduled to cut over $40 million in payroll according to Spotrac, maybe as much as $48 to $49 million.  That's in a year where there are no second apron penalties other than losing the MLE.  Is that meaningless?

I think it is meaningless actually but maybe I don't understand what you are referencing.  In the end, our total cap for 2022-23 was $176,784,331 according to Spotrac.  The taxable cap was a little lower than this.  Right now, for 2023-24, we are at $177,366,269 with 14 roster spots filled.

What exactly is the $40M we are cutting from payroll?  I don't understand what this represents.

Luxury tax savings.

Last year, the team had $176,795,764 in taxable salary.  They paid $70,198,661 in luxury tax.  Total payroll, then, was $246,994,425.  (All numbers from Spotrac).

This season, we have $177,459,126 in taxable salary.  We are projected to pay $21,662,818 in luxury tax.  That is $199,121,944 in total payroll.

Last year ($246,994,425) minus this year ($199,121,944) is $47,872,481.

If an owner cuts spending by roughly $48 million, while significantly raising ticket prices despite turning a profit last year, is it fair to criticize?

So we are paying more in salary but less in tax, and that means the owners are cheap?  To me, that is twisting into a pretzel to support your Wyc is cheap narrative.

Aren't you in an analytical field?  Total spending is way down, regardless of salary versus tax.  By $48 million.

I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse.

I think you're leaning in a little over your skis when discussing tax strategies and spending. I'm sure you read up on the CBA, etc. but I wouldn't agree that you are a subject matter expert. From what I've read/heard, owners are looking to save money because of the implications of this second apron. Others have mentioned this on this forum.

I'm with Vermont Green here- you haven't been able to prove that Wyc is cheap compared to other NBA owners.

[Roy H.]

Here is the list of the top 2023-24 spenders currently based on Spotrac Active Cap:

1.   GSW    $206M
2.   LAC     $194M
3.   PHX     $190M
4.   MIA     $178M
5.   MIL     $177M
6.   BOS    $177M
7.   DEN    $175M

These are not final numbers but give a pretty representative indication of relative spending of these top teams.  It does not account for taxes paid but I am not sure that really matters in terms of ranking willingness to spend.  BOS is currently ranked 6th in spending and depending how things go, could end up anywhere form 4-8.  I don't think any of the teams who are spending more than BOS have better rosters. In fact the top 3 are probably going to have difficulties moving forward, BOS is in a much better financial position than the top 3, in terms of ability to maintain a title contending roster.

I don't find it encouraging when we're being outspend by the 12th (MIA) and 15th (MIL) most valuable franchises.  Milwaukee ranks 20th in operating income (profit) and Miami ranks 26th.  Boston ranks 4th.