Stevens overpaid Brown that $303M contract, he needs to play like THE second best player on the team and consistently.
I don’t think anyone - Steven’s included - but Brown thinks he’s worth that contract.
But Stevens and ownership have to believe we are so close that not giving him his max isn’t worth the distraction that it would’ve caused. Having that be a distraction all season would be detrimental to the big picture. Giving him his payday while easing his offensive burden with Porzingis and Holiday should allow him to play looser on offense and dig deeper defensively (I firmly believe he’s easily our worst defender of our top-6).
The contract is what it is. I didn’t like it. But I understand it.
I don't like it either, but after another CS member explained all the options and probable outcomes last summer of Brown's signing or not signing, I understood perfectly. Because of all the complex rules of the CBA, the Celts really had no choice but to sign him, unless they were willing to inflict untold damage to the teams chances of winning banners with the current group, who I think are overdue. And they have the much better option of trading Brown after this season if the chemistry and on-court compatibility go south.
I think that was me...I'm sure nobody but Jaylen thinks he is worth $300m. Not anyone in the league, nor his teammates, nor Stevens or the front office. But it was really more an issue of keeping control of him as an asset, since his contract ($31m this season) was due to expire end of this season.
As Tenn says the CBA dictates how players are remunerated, based on their achievements. Based on the CBA player contracts are negotiated on a sliding scale, with a max contract for less than 6 years at 25% of the total cap, 7-9 years at 30%, and 35% for 10+ years. The supermax allows players with less than 10 years to get 35% of the total cap in salary in a 5 year contract as long as they meet one of these criteria, such as a) be named to an All-NBA team in the most recent season or 2 of the last 3; b) be named DPOY in the most recent season or 2 of the last 3; or c) be named MVP in any of the last 3 seasons.
Jaylen met criteria A so he qualified. So the $60m figure didn't get pulled out of the air in negotiation - that is basically the average value of the contract over 5 years, based on a salary cap of $142m for 2024-25, which is when it begins. So for the 5 years he gets paid $49.7m, $53.7m, $57.7m, $61.7m and $63.7m (8% increase approx. each year). It's oversimplifying a bit but the main point is that it is 35% of the cap. The negotiation would have been around, is Jaylen worth 35% of the cap? When he made the All-NBA 2nd team that added a lot of leverage to him in his negotiation.
So knowing that he was eligible for a supermax, which is 35% of the 2024-25 cap of $142m, the Celtics really had 4 choices:
- don't give him an extension, wait till the end of the season, make him play a "prove it" year. Then you have to accept the risk of losing him for nothing end of season when he hits free agency and not being able to replace him because even after losing him they would still be over the cap. Because we were already $44.2m over the cap before this extension was signed, if Jaylen wasn't signed to an extension and he walks away in free agency, his $31m salary coming off still means we are over the salary cap, and so we can't sign some $31m guy out there to replace him. The only players you can exceed the cap to sign are players that you have the Bird rights to. Which makes losing him for nothing an undesirable proposition because you can't replace him like for like;
- refuse to overpay and offer less, offer him "what he's worth" (20% of the cap? 25%, 30%?), risk getting rejected and losing him for nothing in free agency and it would be the same deal;
- trade him midseason before his contract ends. Other teams would know he could be a 1 year rental and would hit free agency end of season which could reduce his market of teams willing to trade for him; or
- give him the 5 year supermax with the risk that it would be an overpay. You take the risk that it may be hard to trade him if they decided to if his perceived value tanked because of injury or playing bad, but on the plus side you still have control of him
These are financial decisions that front offices always have to deal with when it comes to managing financial assets, which players are. I'm guessing if Brad had refused to extend him or lowballed him an offer below what the CBA said he was entitled to by achievement, and he walked for nothing end of season and we couldn't replace him with anyone, we would be calling for his resignation. I'm sure they looked at trading him, maybe for Dame, but my guess is Portland balked because of the fear he would be a rental and wouldn't want to play for a rebuilding team when he hits free agency.
So that leaves signing him to the supermax...sure it was an overpay, but they maintain control of him, and he's a fungible asset that a lot of teams would covet, especially now that whoever trades for him gets him for 5 years. I'm sure if Brad decided to trade him next year (can't trade him this year) he would have his choice of teams, the challenge would be finding a decent enough return for him for us. I just don't see any scenario where we doing anything other than signing him to the supermax gave us better options going forward. The bet is that he's not going to be a bad stock that tanks in value over the life of the contract. And who knows, by the 4th year this contract may end up being a steal for us if he improves enough
