Jaylen Brown Supermax

[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.

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.

That's a whole lot of nothing you just said there.  And, Wyc is being judged by his historical cheapness as judged against other contenders.  That has nothing to do with the second apron's penalties that take effect in the future.

[green_bballers13]

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.

Regarding this list, I think that only Denver has a brighter future. Golden State is paying big $ for past performances, as are LAC, PHX, and maybe even Miami (Butler isn't getting younger).

I think Wyc/Brad are doing something right. The next move is to sign JB. They can always trade him later if they want to.

[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.

That's a whole lot of nothing you just said there.  And, Wyc is being judged by his historical cheapness as judged against other contenders. That has nothing to do with the second apron's penalties that take effect in the future.

Why not compare him to the other teams in the same league in the same year?

[Moranis]

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.

Is that now, or always?

Prior to the current CBA, I had thought that you and I were on the same page that "bad" contracts can be useful for adding salary.  For instance, it's better to have a bad contract than an expired TPE for trading purposes.  Under the old CBA, it was better to be as far above the cap as possible to enable maximum flexibility.  Thus (I assumed) why you wanted a guy like Duncan Robinson:  despite being a bad contract, we would have gotten back draft compensation and a tradeable salary.

Did I misinterpret this?  Or are you modifying your position based upon the very real penalties related to the second apron?

I thought letting the tpe expire was worse than taking on an overpaid player that came with an asset. I thought if we got a 1st for taking on Robinson, we then could have just traded him and that pick later on if we needed to, but maybe he would have worked out or would have been needed in a larger trade (thus netting an asset).  For me it was about the asset that was going to go away and never return.  I don't know that Robinson with a 1st would have been worthwhile in a vacuum, but that was a better alternate than letting a giant tpe expire for nothing
  Also there is a big difference between 19 million and 50 million.  One can cripple a franchise, the other cannot.

[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.

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.

In the current climate even ‘an lot easier’ is underselling it, it’s very possibly the difference between remaining employed (a generous term for most journos these days) and being replaced entirely.

[Moranis]

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.

Not at all.  I don't want an owner that says there is no budget and then everything the team does says there is a budget.  Last year, Boston let 3 tpe's expire without using them.  That is just wasting assets and the team clearly had roster spots open and available.  Boston, despite being a top 3 team all season, cut salary during the year and carried open roster spots for months.

Consistently wasting assets that you can't get back is the problem.  It is one thing if someone were to wildly overpay Grant, but it sounds like Boston didn't even make him an offer and was fine letting him walk.  He signed a contract for slightly above the mle, which is pretty reasonable for a player like him.  Another wasted asset. 

And Boston has to trade Brown or give him the supermax.  There really isn't another option, but giving him the supermax is a mistake.  He isn't worth that contract and a contract that big can devastate your franchise if you get it wrong.  To this team, Brown isn't even worth the 30% max, let alone the 35%.  He is going to be dramatically overpaid.

The Zinger actually took a rather large paycut on the extension.  Paying him 30 million a year may be a slight overpay for the production, but if he can play in the 60+ game range it should be ok.  I think there was too big a risk in letting him play out the final year, so while I would have liked a bit less from him on the contract, that was a risk worth taking.

And even with bringing in Zinger, the team has a nearly identical salary, which is actually a lot less when you factor in the normal percentage increase built into contracts and the nearly 50 million less in tax. 

[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.

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.

That's a whole lot of nothing you just said there.  And, Wyc is being judged by his historical cheapness as judged against other contenders. That has nothing to do with the second apron's penalties that take effect in the future.

Why not compare him to the other teams in the same league in the same year?

That's the comparison.  The Celts are top five in valuation and top four in profit.  And yet, they get outspent by the Bucks.

The richest teams should spend the most, particularly when contenders.  Allowing assets to dissolve for financial reasons is cheap.

I don't understand the concept of ignoring profit or valuation in the analysis.  Look up the numbers.  The Celtics have historically avoided the tax despite being one of the very richest teams in the NBA.

[BitterJim]

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.

MIL is "outspending" us by a whopping $86,484, and Miami by less than a rookie minimum. If you want to be mad that we refuse to spend over the 2nd apron then by all means go ahead (I'm still mad about letting Grant walk too), but acting like Miami and Milwaukee have higher salaries than us by anything more than rounding error is pretty disingenuous.

[BitterJim]

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.

The cap and tax lines rise based on how much money the league brings in. In percent of team income spent, we cut payroll this year.

[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.

MIL is "outspending" us by a whopping $86,484, and Miami by less than a rookie minimum. If you want to be mad that we refuse to spend over the 2nd apron then by all means go ahead (I'm still mad about letting Grant walk too), but acting like Miami and Milwaukee have higher salaries than us by anything more than rounding error is pretty disingenuous.

I disagree.  Those teams are on the same level as us, despite bringing in significantly less operating income.

I mean, imagine a budget where the US, Canada and Mexico were all spending the same.  Nobody would say that you ignore spending relative to revenue or other factors, just because they're all countries.

[celticsclay]

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.

That's a whole lot of nothing you just said there.  And, Wyc is being judged by his historical cheapness as judged against other contenders. That has nothing to do with the second apron's penalties that take effect in the future.

Why not compare him to the other teams in the same league in the same year?

That's the comparison.  The Celts are top five in valuation and top four in profit.  And yet, they get outspent by the Bucks.

The richest teams should spend the most, particularly when contenders.  Allowing assets to dissolve for financial reasons is cheap.

I don't understand the concept of ignoring profit or valuation in the analysis.  Look up the numbers.  The Celtics have historically avoided the tax despite being one of the very richest teams in the NBA.

Is there a way of easily seeing these figures for operating income? Like I found that bucks had 50 million operating income for season before last but Celtics had 137. How did we have so much more than them? Especially with national tv deals. I get we are a bigger city but we really make three times as much as them?

[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.

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.

That's a whole lot of nothing you just said there.  And, Wyc is being judged by his historical cheapness as judged against other contenders. That has nothing to do with the second apron's penalties that take effect in the future.

Why not compare him to the other teams in the same league in the same year?

That's the comparison.  The Celts are top five in valuation and top four in profit.  And yet, they get outspent by the Bucks.

The richest teams should spend the most, particularly when contenders.  Allowing assets to dissolve for financial reasons is cheap.

I don't understand the concept of ignoring profit or valuation in the analysis.  Look up the numbers.  The Celtics have historically avoided the tax despite being one of the very richest teams in the NBA.

Is there a way of easily seeing these figures for operating income? Like I found that bucks had 50 million operating income for season before last but Celtics had 137. How did we have so much more than them? Especially with national tv deals. I get we are a bigger city but we really make three times as much as them?

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

Look up the Forbes numbers cited earlier for the financials for each team.

[Donoghus]

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.

That's a whole lot of nothing you just said there.  And, Wyc is being judged by his historical cheapness as judged against other contenders. That has nothing to do with the second apron's penalties that take effect in the future.

Why not compare him to the other teams in the same league in the same year?

That's the comparison.  The Celts are top five in valuation and top four in profit.  And yet, they get outspent by the Bucks.

The richest teams should spend the most, particularly when contenders.  Allowing assets to dissolve for financial reasons is cheap.

I don't understand the concept of ignoring profit or valuation in the analysis.  Look up the numbers.  The Celtics have historically avoided the tax despite being one of the very richest teams in the NBA.

Is there a way of easily seeing these figures for operating income? Like I found that bucks had 50 million operating income for season before last but Celtics had 137. How did we have so much more than them? Especially with national tv deals. I get we are a bigger city but we really make three times as much as them?

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

Look up the Forbes numbers cited earlier for the financials for each team.

The revenue was pretty online btw the two organizations $361M (Boston) to $352M (Milwaukee).  Bucks seemingly paying a lot more in operating expenses.  Not sure of Fiserv was financed but that may play a significant role in the operating income differentiation. 

[Kernewek]

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.

That's a whole lot of nothing you just said there.  And, Wyc is being judged by his historical cheapness as judged against other contenders. That has nothing to do with the second apron's penalties that take effect in the future.

Why not compare him to the other teams in the same league in the same year?

That's the comparison.  The Celts are top five in valuation and top four in profit.  And yet, they get outspent by the Bucks.

The richest teams should spend the most, particularly when contenders.  Allowing assets to dissolve for financial reasons is cheap.

I don't understand the concept of ignoring profit or valuation in the analysis.  Look up the numbers.  The Celtics have historically avoided the tax despite being one of the very richest teams in the NBA.

Is there a way of easily seeing these figures for operating income? Like I found that bucks had 50 million operating income for season before last but Celtics had 137. How did we have so much more than them? Especially with national tv deals. I get we are a bigger city but we really make three times as much as them?

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

Look up the Forbes numbers cited earlier for the financials for each team.

Not sure I would trust Forbes. But also, are we attributing this spike from the Statistica link to Covid?

The operating income of the Boston Celtics, franchise of the National Basketball Association, amounted to 137 million U.S. dollars in 2022. This denoted an increase of nearly 200 percent over the previous year, when the operating income of the Boston Celtics was at 46 million U.S. dollars.

Even pre-pandemic, the jump is from 86 mil in 2019-20 and 88 mil in 2018-2019 to 137 in 2022?

[Donoghus]

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.

That's a whole lot of nothing you just said there.  And, Wyc is being judged by his historical cheapness as judged against other contenders. That has nothing to do with the second apron's penalties that take effect in the future.

Why not compare him to the other teams in the same league in the same year?

That's the comparison.  The Celts are top five in valuation and top four in profit.  And yet, they get outspent by the Bucks.

The richest teams should spend the most, particularly when contenders.  Allowing assets to dissolve for financial reasons is cheap.

I don't understand the concept of ignoring profit or valuation in the analysis.  Look up the numbers.  The Celtics have historically avoided the tax despite being one of the very richest teams in the NBA.

Is there a way of easily seeing these figures for operating income? Like I found that bucks had 50 million operating income for season before last but Celtics had 137. How did we have so much more than them? Especially with national tv deals. I get we are a bigger city but we really make three times as much as them?

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

Look up the Forbes numbers cited earlier for the financials for each team.

Not sure I would trust Forbes. But also, are we attributing this spike from the Statistica link to Covid?

The operating income of the Boston Celtics, franchise of the National Basketball Association, amounted to 137 million U.S. dollars in 2022. This denoted an increase of nearly 200 percent over the previous year, when the operating income of the Boston Celtics was at 46 million U.S. dollars.

Even pre-pandemic, the jump is from 86 mil in 2019-20 and 88 mil in 2018-2019 to 137 in 2022?

Revenue jumped $150M from the prior year which is pretty ridiculous but you have to imagine operating expenses weren't increasing at the same rate so the increase is operating income could be legit.

This is where I really wish we could find the actual financials and drill into them.