Jaylen Brown Supermax

[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?

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.

Yeah these numbers are kind of hard to make sense of for me.

[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.

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.

Yeah these numbers are kind of hard to make sense of for me.

I'm sure they cashed in big time on the Finals run.

[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.

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.

If you want to be mad about spending the same as them, that's fine (and I'm there with you, though I'd also say that it's the same as being mad about not spending over the second apron since that seems to be the limit for what all 3 teams plus the Nuggets are willing to spend). My only issue is acting like there's a significant drop from MIA/MIL to us.

[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.

If you want to be mad about spending the same as them, that's fine (and I'm there with you, though I'd also say that it's the same as being mad about not spending over the second apron since that seems to be the limit for what all 3 teams plus the Nuggets are willing to spend). My only issue is acting like there's a significant drop from MIA/MIL to us.

Well, I mentioned outspent, not significantly outspent.

But, yes, on the greater point we agree.  The team has the resources to spend in excess of the second apron.

[Moranis]

The wasting of assets is the issue for me not the dollars spent. Boston just isn't maximizing it's opportunity by wasting its finite assets and resources.  There are only so many things a team can do and when it wastes the opportunity that is when it is frustrating as a fan.

[Moranis]

Put another way, the only reason Grant Williams isn't currently on the team is because Boston didn't want to go into the 2nd apron.  Grant didn't sign some massive contract.  He didn't ask for anything unreasonable.  He was a rotation player that knew his role and was seemingly well liked by teammates.  He provides a role not otherwise on the team.  He isn't here because ownership is cheap.  That is my complaint.  Cheapness wasted yet another asset.  Just like cheapness wasted several assets last year.  All just continuing the pattern long established by this ownership group.

[Celtics4ever]

What do you think about the Celtics management forcing Jaylen and Jason to lead.   We got rid of two vocal guys with grit in Grant and Marcus.    Is there something to  this or is is just a reporters made up theory to get clicks.

[green_bballers13]

Put another way, the only reason Grant Williams isn't currently on the team is because Boston didn't want to go into the 2nd apron.  Grant didn't sign some massive contract.  He didn't ask for anything unreasonable. He was a rotation player that knew his role and was seemingly well liked by teammates.  He provides a role not otherwise on the team.  He isn't here because ownership is cheap.  That is my complaint.  Cheapness wasted yet another asset.  Just like cheapness wasted several assets last year.  All just continuing the pattern long established by this ownership group.

Where did you read that Grant was well liked by his teammates? I haven't read that.

So on this forum, we have two people that are very upset by Wyc (even willing to call him cheap), and mostly everyone else seems fine with them?

[tonydelk]

Put another way, the only reason Grant Williams isn't currently on the team is because Boston didn't want to go into the 2nd apron.  Grant didn't sign some massive contract.  He didn't ask for anything unreasonable. He was a rotation player that knew his role and was seemingly well liked by teammates.  He provides a role not otherwise on the team.  He isn't here because ownership is cheap.  That is my complaint.  Cheapness wasted yet another asset.  Just like cheapness wasted several assets last year.  All just continuing the pattern long established by this ownership group.

Where did you read that he was well liked by his teammates? I haven't seen that.

It was stated he was Tatum's best friend on the team so there's that at least.

Also, for the new CBA the only reason to go over the 2nd apron IMO is if the player is a difference maker and will put you over the top to win a chip.  I feel ownership will go over the 2nd apron for the right player.  A role player playing 15-20 minutes a game at full strength is not a player you go over the 2nd apron for.

[Roy H.]

Put another way, the only reason Grant Williams isn't currently on the team is because Boston didn't want to go into the 2nd apron.  Grant didn't sign some massive contract.  He didn't ask for anything unreasonable. He was a rotation player that knew his role and was seemingly well liked by teammates.  He provides a role not otherwise on the team.  He isn't here because ownership is cheap.  That is my complaint.  Cheapness wasted yet another asset.  Just like cheapness wasted several assets last year.  All just continuing the pattern long established by this ownership group.

Where did you read that he was well liked by his teammates? I haven't seen that.

It was stated he was Tatum's best friend on the team so there's that at least.

Also, for the new CBA the only reason to go over the 2nd apron IMO is if the player is a difference maker and will put you over the top to win a chip.  I feel ownership will go over the 2nd apron for the right player.  A role player playing 15-20 minutes a game at full strength is not a player you go over the 2nd apron for.

The penalties of the second apron don't really apply until next year, so there's no good reason not to attempt to upgrade the roster, even if that's only with using the TPE on a one year rental.

[Roy H.]

So on this forum, we have two people that are very upset by Wyc (even willing to call him cheap), and mostly everyone else seems fine with them?

One thing I can guarantee:  neither Moranis nor I are particularly concerned about other people's wrong-minded opinions, haha.  We're not going to be convinced by the "everybody else thinks it's cool" argument. 

[liam]

So on this forum, we have two people that are very upset by Wyc (even willing to call him cheap), and mostly everyone else seems fine with them?

One thing I can guarantee:  neither Moranis nor I are particularly concerned about other people's wrong-minded opinions, haha.  We're not going to be convinced by the "everybody else thinks it's cool" argument.

I think Wyc is cheap. I also think you have to pay to win it all. There's just no way around it.

[keevsnick]

So on this forum, we have two people that are very upset by Wyc (even willing to call him cheap), and mostly everyone else seems fine with them?

One thing I can guarantee:  neither Moranis nor I are particularly concerned about other people's wrong-minded opinions, haha. We're not going to be convinced by the "everybody else thinks it's cool" argument.

FWIW I don't think Wyc is "cheap," but he certainly isn't as big a spender as I would like given the market and team success. Partly that's because he's not as purely rich as some owners and doesn't own the building the c's play in.

[keevsnick]

Put another way, the only reason Grant Williams isn't currently on the team is because Boston didn't want to go into the 2nd apron.  Grant didn't sign some massive contract.  He didn't ask for anything unreasonable. He was a rotation player that knew his role and was seemingly well liked by teammates.  He provides a role not otherwise on the team.  He isn't here because ownership is cheap.  That is my complaint.  Cheapness wasted yet another asset.  Just like cheapness wasted several assets last year.  All just continuing the pattern long established by this ownership group.

Where did you read that he was well liked by his teammates? I haven't seen that.

It was stated he was Tatum's best friend on the team so there's that at least.

Also, for the new CBA the only reason to go over the 2nd apron IMO is if the player is a difference maker and will put you over the top to win a chip.  I feel ownership will go over the 2nd apron for the right player.  A role player playing 15-20 minutes a game at full strength is not a player you go over the 2nd apron for.

The penalties of the second apron don't really apply until next year, so there's no good reason not to attempt to upgrade the roster, even if that's only with using the TPE on a one year rental.

Yes. With Grant Williams you can make the case you don't want the long-term money you'd have to move next summer to get under the 2nd apron, hence the reason not to match. But there is literally no reason not to go above the 2nd apron this year on an expiring player (except higher tax).

[Roy H.]

So on this forum, we have two people that are very upset by Wyc (even willing to call him cheap), and mostly everyone else seems fine with them?

One thing I can guarantee:  neither Moranis nor I are particularly concerned about other people's wrong-minded opinions, haha. We're not going to be convinced by the "everybody else thinks it's cool" argument.

FWIW I don't think Wyc is "cheap," but he certainly isn't as big a spender as I would like given the market and team success. Partly that's because he's not as purely rich as some owners and doesn't own the building the c's play in.

I'd like to know what Wyc's actual net worth is.  He's been estimated at $400 million for about 15 years now, which would make him perhaps the world's worst businessman.