Any Trade Ideas For PF/C Involving Hauser, Simons And/Or Niang + Picks?

[Csfan1984]

Would have absolutely made sense for the Nets. They lack scoring. Simons and Thomas are both combo guards so they could be at either guard spot and offer better switching. Let's face it them switching is better than getting caught on every screen for them. That trio of Simons, Thomas and MPJ would have given them a good mix of offense enough to actually compete for playoffs.

As for salary I already mention not signing the duds before, that would have kept team under second apron and maintain KP.

The biggest issue by all reports is the C's want to fully reset and save money getting under the tax altogether. They still plan on moving Simons as a salary dump. So trading for a big is a moot point anyways as they don't care about this year. If they cared about this year they would have kept KP and moved Simons.

I disagree with the first part, you do not mask a terrible guard defender with another terrible guard defender, that just makes the situation worse. On the whole, I do not believe Simons has any real value to a contending team unless his salary is around the taxpayer mid level. There was some talk of basically getting for Simons what you got for KP - that was not a possibility. KP has value because despite his constant injury status, he is over 7 feet tall with value on both sides of the ball in the most meaningful ways - elite long distance shooting and rim protection. There are maybe a half dozen or so guys in the league who bring what he can when healthy (huge asterisk). Simons brings long distance shooting but negative defense and is a smallish guard by current standards. It would and will be near impossible to trade him for just a salary under 8 figures (like Niang).

But I am more interested in the last paragraph you wrote - what reports are saying the Cs want to get under the tax altogether? They would need to chop $18 million in salary to get there and have not made a serious move in a month. If they were actually trying to get below the tax level, the move is / would be to trade Jaylen. I hate losing Jaylen but it is hard to get below the tax level when you have almost 90% of the cap committed to three guys and one of them - the actual super max guy -  will not be playing.

I fear that the Celtics will have a hard time returning to title contention with so much salary tied up in Brown unless they nail a pick or two. But since the Celtics have chosen not to go that route, I do not see how they can be expecting to get below the tax absent buyouts / waive and stretch. So I have a hard time believing they have been operating with the goal of getting below the tax. I think they just wanted to get below the second apron. They did that and now are just quiet.

To be fair, this was a difficult summer to drop a ton of salary because nobody had meaningful cap space except Brooklyn so there was no opportunity to, say, dangle White to a team with cap space for just picks. And now that much of the major offseason action is done teams are settling in to what they have and they have less - not none, but less - wiggle room to take on a lot of extra salary. That will make it harder to get below the tax if the Celtics find themselves as a .500 or worse team in December / January. But maybe the hope is that at some point a team in contention is willing to take on an extra $5 to 7 million in short term salary (and maybe they happen to have $20-24 in expiring contracts) to add Simons for nothing of substance. And maybe a contender has retained their taxpayer mid level and hard cap space and can acquire Hauser for a couple of seconds or maybe even a late first (I doubt that and do not expect it). And that might get the Celtics close enough to allow one more move that could get them under the tax level. It is just harder to see now, so I have doubts that the front office ever really looked at getting below the tax altogether.

I do hope I am wrong because I see little value in being a bottom tier play in candidate in a very weak conference, I would much prefer they take their chances in the lottery to have a better chance at nailing one of those draft picks they will need to nail to extend the Tatum-Brown competitive window. And if they are doing that, I would rather have at least one year below the tax so they can better decide how to proceed next summer.

Simmons isn't small for a combo guard and he is athletic he wouldn't be a terrible defender if he played in a switch system. A switch system works using quick similar built guys like Thomas. That's not hiding bad defenders it's making a system work for your players. Cs switched a lot and were considered a top defense. There are also reports RFA Thomas may play out the QO year. Given how late on the year we are that looks possible. Having a look at Simmons is a great option for the future decisions of the franchise and still being a decent club today. I never said anything about current existing contending teams that have no cap tading for Simmons either so not sure your point about that.

As for reports it's been said and hinted at by numerous outlets and coverage reporters. That "the C's are considering it" . Look at that Center group, the signings they made and the long wait to complete trades. They obviously aren't happy with where they are and the only thing they improved this year is their profit margin.

Trading Brown is a whole other thing. Everyone one goes right to Brown to get under the cap but there is a reason White trade offer was reported and I'll leave it at that.

[Vermont Green]

Claxton is a career 54% FT shooter, he was 51% last season so not getting better.  To me, that disqualifies him from being a core player on a title contending team.

Bill Russell's career free throw percentage in the NBA was 56.1%.  Now Claxton, is no Bill Russell, but my point is, having one low FT shooter does not make you a non contending team.

https://www.espn.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/4152/bill-russell

Bill Russell retired over 55 years ago

I do think you can survive awful free throw shooting. But we saw first hand how hard it was for NYK to keep Mitchell Robinson on the floor in the playoffs.

This is my concern exactly.  Bill Russell did it in a different era and he was way better on the plus side of things that either Claxton or Mitchell.  But Mitchell was limited even as a bench player.  Claxton could be a bench player and shoot 50% FT but I don't see how you could have him as a starter/core player.

[Celtics4ever]

Shaquille O'Neal's career free throw percentage was 52.7%

He was more recent but definitely a throw back big.  Claxton is no Shaq either.

Tatum and Brown would be taking a lot of the clutch shots.   You can avoid passing to the big guy in crunch time or play someone else.  The main area of concern is the offensive rebounds.

As for Mitchell Robinson these stats were found using AI google search results.

. In the 2025 playoffs, a series where the Knicks faced the Celtics, Robinson averaged 7.1 rebounds, 4.7 points, and 0.9 steals in 18 games. While playing against the Celtics in that specific series, his presence significantly impacted the Knicks' performance, with the team outscoring the Celtics by 35 points when he was on the court and improving their offensive possessions by 38 points per 100 possessions when he played.

So a big can still make an impact,  and a positive one at that.  All that fouling didn't help us win the series and we were down and losing before Tatum went out.  This article makes this point.

https://www.nba.com/news/the-athletic-mitchell-robinson-has-been-knicks-surprise-x-factor-against-celtics

I think with the CBA, a team is not going to have optimal perfect teams, more than a year or two as the CBA was meant for parity.  You're going to have guys with obvious weaknesses to a larger degree in the past.  He is better than any of our bigs, if he is available, I would pull the trigger.    It still is going to a down year without Tatum.   But he aligns nicely with the Jays timeline and is a decent big albeit with a weakness at FT%.

[paintitgreen]

Simmons isn't small for a combo guard and he is athletic he wouldn't be a terrible defender if he played in a switch system. A switch system works using quick similar built guys like Thomas. That's not hiding bad defenders it's making a system work for your players. Cs switched a lot and were considered a top defense. There are also reports RFA Thomas may play out the QO year. Given how late on the year we are that looks possible. Having a look at Simmons is a great option for the future decisions of the franchise and still being a decent club today. I never said anything about current existing contending teams that have no cap tading for Simmons either so not sure your point about that.

As for reports it's been said and hinted at by numerous outlets and coverage reporters. That "the C's are considering it" . Look at that Center group, the signings they made and the long wait to complete trades. They obviously aren't happy with where they are and the only thing they improved this year is their profit margin.

Trading Brown is a whole other thing. Everyone one goes right to Brown to get under the cap but there is a reason White trade offer was reported and I'll leave it at that.

At 6 foot 3 he is not short, especially with the wingspan, but I said smallish because he is so light he gets pushed around with ease, part of why he has been so bad on defense. Maybe being on a different team in a contract year will light a fire under him on that end but we just have not seen it yet and he is not old but he has played a prominent role in Portland for around five years. I have seen some Blazers fans on reddit and elsewhere saying he played better defense last year but he still was near the bottom of the league in every way that defense can be measured, and on a team that really improved into a pretty high level defense by the end of the year. Maybe a switching style helps a bit but my point was specifically that putting Simons and Thomas on the court together will not make either player or their team better defensively regardless of style.

I have not been big on the idea of Simons with this team long term because I do not think he can contribute to a winning team outside of a sixth man (or starter not finisher) role which is to me a $15 million salary tops. That said, it was not a bad return for a seemingly declining 35 year old with $104 million coming to him over the next three years. I expect it to be an overall downgrade even from what Jrue was last season but it does give some things the Celtics could use.

That, combined with the fact that I do not see a current market for Simons, leads me to tend to agree at this point that the Celtics might as well just try to get him into the system defensively and roll the dice over the first half of the season with him starting next to White and Brown with Pritchard maintaining the sixth man role but being much more likely than Simons to finish close games. Even with Tatum and KP gone, the presence of Brown, White, and shooters could give Simons some more room to operate than he had in Portland. If he can use that to increase his three point percentage back up to the 40 he was at a couple of years ago, then I can see him becoming an asset a contender might be willing to chase mid season. I just cannot envision his defense getting good enough to want to keep Simons at a number above $12 million (which I do not expect he would accept) so I still do not expect him to be a long term Celtic but at this point, unless a Claxton or Kessler can be pried with Simons as a primary piece (though I cannot see why Utah or Brooklyn would want Simons) I am content to see if Simons can increase his trade value.

[Roy H.]

Right now, the Celtics are projected at $12,086,489 above the luxury tax.

There are two main routes to getting there:  dealing Sam Hauser + dumping minimum salary guys for cheaper minimum salary guys at the deadline, while hoping that Derrick White misses incentives in his contract; or trading Simons.

Simons salary is $27,678,571.  To get below the tax, we'd need to trade him and bring back no more than $15,592,081 in salary.

To "match" salaries, another team would need to send out $22,062,857 in salary.  So, the ideal trade is us taking back around $15.5 million, and another team absorbing around $6.6 million.

No idea what's out there.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Right now, the Celtics are projected at $12,086,489 above the luxury tax.

There are two main routes to getting there:  dealing Sam Hauser + dumping minimum salary guys for cheaper minimum salary guys at the deadline, while hoping that Derrick White misses incentives in his contract; or trading Simons.

Simons salary is $27,678,571.  To get below the tax, we'd need to trade him and bring back no more than $15,592,081 in salary.

To "match" salaries, another team would need to send out $22,062,857 in salary.  So, the ideal trade is us taking back around $15.5 million, and another team absorbing around $6.6 million.

No idea what's out there.

I don't think the tax line is a relevant goal. Possibly getting out of the 1st apron, but any moves made from here won't be about alleviating the tax line.

[Roy H.]

Right now, the Celtics are projected at $12,086,489 above the luxury tax.

There are two main routes to getting there:  dealing Sam Hauser + dumping minimum salary guys for cheaper minimum salary guys at the deadline, while hoping that Derrick White misses incentives in his contract; or trading Simons.

Simons salary is $27,678,571.  To get below the tax, we'd need to trade him and bring back no more than $15,592,081 in salary.

To "match" salaries, another team would need to send out $22,062,857 in salary.  So, the ideal trade is us taking back around $15.5 million, and another team absorbing around $6.6 million.

No idea what's out there.

I don't think the tax line is a relevant goal. Possibly getting out of the 1st apron, but any moves made from here won't be about alleviating the tax line.

I don't think that's right.  Who cares about the first apron?  We are paying giant penalties by being in the repeater tax.

Shedding $12 million in salary saves ownership roughly $51.5 million, plus gets them a distribution of luxury tax paid by other teams.

[Celtics4ever]

Right now, the Celtics are projected at $12,086,489 above the luxury tax.

There are two main routes to getting there:  dealing Sam Hauser + dumping minimum salary guys for cheaper minimum salary guys at the deadline, while hoping that Derrick White misses incentives in his contract; or trading Simons.

Simons salary is $27,678,571.  To get below the tax, we'd need to trade him and bring back no more than $15,592,081 in salary.

To "match" salaries, another team would need to send out $22,062,857 in salary.  So, the ideal trade is us taking back around $15.5 million, and another team absorbing around $6.6 million.

No idea what's out there.

Guys in that Salary range, who might be obtainable, all the guys are worse players than Simons.


Terance Mann     $15,500,000   

N. Alexander-Walker    $15,161,800   

Isaiah Stewart    $15,000,000      

Onyeka Okongwu    $15,000,000   

Jonathan Isaac    $15,000,000   

Banchero was in the cost area too, but they would not trade him.    I think  Okongwu is not going to be traded as well.

[Vermont Green]

Right now, the Celtics are projected at $12,086,489 above the luxury tax.

There are two main routes to getting there:  dealing Sam Hauser + dumping minimum salary guys for cheaper minimum salary guys at the deadline, while hoping that Derrick White misses incentives in his contract; or trading Simons.

Simons salary is $27,678,571.  To get below the tax, we'd need to trade him and bring back no more than $15,592,081 in salary.

To "match" salaries, another team would need to send out $22,062,857 in salary.  So, the ideal trade is us taking back around $15.5 million, and another team absorbing around $6.6 million.

No idea what's out there.

I don't think the tax line is a relevant goal. Possibly getting out of the 1st apron, but any moves made from here won't be about alleviating the tax line.

I don't think that's right.  Who cares about the first apron?  We are paying giant penalties by being in the repeater tax.

Shedding $12 million in salary saves ownership roughly $51.5 million, plus gets them a distribution of luxury tax paid by other teams.

We'll see but I will say that I do not expect them to target getting under the tax.  I believe they would have to be under for 2 seasons to fully reset from the repeater status.  They would still save this season, of course, even if they don't fully reset.

It is also not out of the question in my mind that they do kind of surrender and get themselves under the tax.  Find a team who likes Simons and can send out a package of players with some of them redirected to other teams to limit what BOS has to take back.  That might result in a decent TPE that they could then use next season to build the team back up (albeit then hard-capped at the first apron for 2026-27).

At this point, I think it is more likely they either trade Simons this off season for actual players (with an eye towards 2026-27) or start the season with him and let him showcase himself for BOS and other teams.  Then either decide he has a role moving forward or trade him at the deadline, either for actual players or to reduce salary.

[Roy H.]

Right now, the Celtics are projected at $12,086,489 above the luxury tax.

There are two main routes to getting there:  dealing Sam Hauser + dumping minimum salary guys for cheaper minimum salary guys at the deadline, while hoping that Derrick White misses incentives in his contract; or trading Simons.

Simons salary is $27,678,571.  To get below the tax, we'd need to trade him and bring back no more than $15,592,081 in salary.

To "match" salaries, another team would need to send out $22,062,857 in salary.  So, the ideal trade is us taking back around $15.5 million, and another team absorbing around $6.6 million.

No idea what's out there.

I don't think the tax line is a relevant goal. Possibly getting out of the 1st apron, but any moves made from here won't be about alleviating the tax line.

I don't think that's right.  Who cares about the first apron?  We are paying giant penalties by being in the repeater tax.

Shedding $12 million in salary saves ownership roughly $51.5 million, plus gets them a distribution of luxury tax paid by other teams.

We'll see but I will say that I do not expect them to target getting under the tax.  I believe they would have to be under for 2 seasons to fully reset from the repeater status.  They would still save this season, of course, even if they don't fully reset.

It is also not out of the question in my mind that they do kind of surrender and get themselves under the tax.  Find a team who likes Simons and can send out a package of players with some of them redirected to other teams to limit what BOS has to take back.  That might result in a decent TPE that they could then use next season to build the team back up (albeit then hard-capped at the first apron for 2026-27).

At this point, I think it is more likely they either trade Simons this off season for actual players (with an eye towards 2026-27) or start the season with him and let him showcase himself for BOS and other teams.  Then either decide he has a role moving forward or trade him at the deadline, either for actual players or to reduce salary.

Is there a reason they *wouldn't* want to get out of the tax this season?  Teams only pay repeater tax if they've been above the tax for 4 out of 5 seasons, I believe.  Making this one of those seasons would seem to be a reasonable goal.

Also, is there a point in showcasing Simons?  Don't teams know who he is at this point?  A better version of him just got traded for Nurkic, and an older version of him just got traded for Jordan Poole.  That's a couple of data points to tell us that his value is a pure salary dump.

[Vermont Green]

Right now, the Celtics are projected at $12,086,489 above the luxury tax.

There are two main routes to getting there:  dealing Sam Hauser + dumping minimum salary guys for cheaper minimum salary guys at the deadline, while hoping that Derrick White misses incentives in his contract; or trading Simons.

Simons salary is $27,678,571.  To get below the tax, we'd need to trade him and bring back no more than $15,592,081 in salary.

To "match" salaries, another team would need to send out $22,062,857 in salary.  So, the ideal trade is us taking back around $15.5 million, and another team absorbing around $6.6 million.

No idea what's out there.

I don't think the tax line is a relevant goal. Possibly getting out of the 1st apron, but any moves made from here won't be about alleviating the tax line.

I don't think that's right.  Who cares about the first apron?  We are paying giant penalties by being in the repeater tax.

Shedding $12 million in salary saves ownership roughly $51.5 million, plus gets them a distribution of luxury tax paid by other teams.

We'll see but I will say that I do not expect them to target getting under the tax.  I believe they would have to be under for 2 seasons to fully reset from the repeater status.  They would still save this season, of course, even if they don't fully reset.

It is also not out of the question in my mind that they do kind of surrender and get themselves under the tax.  Find a team who likes Simons and can send out a package of players with some of them redirected to other teams to limit what BOS has to take back.  That might result in a decent TPE that they could then use next season to build the team back up (albeit then hard-capped at the first apron for 2026-27).

At this point, I think it is more likely they either trade Simons this off season for actual players (with an eye towards 2026-27) or start the season with him and let him showcase himself for BOS and other teams.  Then either decide he has a role moving forward or trade him at the deadline, either for actual players or to reduce salary.

Is there a reason they *wouldn't* want to get out of the tax this season?  Teams only pay repeater tax if they've been above the tax for 4 out of 5 seasons, I believe.  Making this one of those seasons would seem to be a reasonable goal.

They lose salary slots for 2026-27 and also could end up hard capping themselves at the first apron.  Getting under for one season doesn't get them out of the 4 of 5 criteria for being a repeater.

We'll see, I just don't expect it.

[Roy H.]

Right now, the Celtics are projected at $12,086,489 above the luxury tax.

There are two main routes to getting there:  dealing Sam Hauser + dumping minimum salary guys for cheaper minimum salary guys at the deadline, while hoping that Derrick White misses incentives in his contract; or trading Simons.

Simons salary is $27,678,571.  To get below the tax, we'd need to trade him and bring back no more than $15,592,081 in salary.

To "match" salaries, another team would need to send out $22,062,857 in salary.  So, the ideal trade is us taking back around $15.5 million, and another team absorbing around $6.6 million.

No idea what's out there.

I don't think the tax line is a relevant goal. Possibly getting out of the 1st apron, but any moves made from here won't be about alleviating the tax line.

I don't think that's right.  Who cares about the first apron?  We are paying giant penalties by being in the repeater tax.

Shedding $12 million in salary saves ownership roughly $51.5 million, plus gets them a distribution of luxury tax paid by other teams.

We'll see but I will say that I do not expect them to target getting under the tax.  I believe they would have to be under for 2 seasons to fully reset from the repeater status.  They would still save this season, of course, even if they don't fully reset.

It is also not out of the question in my mind that they do kind of surrender and get themselves under the tax.  Find a team who likes Simons and can send out a package of players with some of them redirected to other teams to limit what BOS has to take back.  That might result in a decent TPE that they could then use next season to build the team back up (albeit then hard-capped at the first apron for 2026-27).

At this point, I think it is more likely they either trade Simons this off season for actual players (with an eye towards 2026-27) or start the season with him and let him showcase himself for BOS and other teams.  Then either decide he has a role moving forward or trade him at the deadline, either for actual players or to reduce salary.

Is there a reason they *wouldn't* want to get out of the tax this season?  Teams only pay repeater tax if they've been above the tax for 4 out of 5 seasons, I believe.  Making this one of those seasons would seem to be a reasonable goal.

They lose salary slots for 2026-27 and also could end up hard capping themselves at the first apron.  Getting under for one season doesn't get them out of the 4 of 5 criteria for being a repeater.

We'll see, I just don't expect it.

I think that you're miscalculating how those "salary slots" are going to be used going forward.  I don't think the team has any interest in going over the second apron absent extraordinary circumstances, so those salary slots are way less important.

That said, Brad can still take back about $15 million in salary for Simons, perhaps a bit more once he starts tinkering with the back end of the roster (trading Tilman at the deadline and signing a guy to a pro-rated contract saves about $1.5 million, cutting Jordan Walsh and signing Williams would save another $1 million, DWhite missing incentives saves $1.7 million, although the team won't gamble with that.  So, maybe we get up into the $18 million range we can take back.

But, I think there's a 0% chance that Simons is on the roster by the end of the season.  If he is, Hauser will be gone.

[Vermont Green]

I don't think there is any way a team can contend without being above the tax threshold.  In particular, if the Celtics have Tatum and Brown on max contracts, plus White, it is going to be really hard to assemble a title contending team without paying the tax.  For the Celtics, this is not so much about 2025-26 as it is about 2026-27.

Once you shed salary to the point of being under the tax threshold, it can hard to build it back up.  You can extend your own players, including those coming off rookie contracts, but that doesn't help the Celtics so much.  You can use TPEs and try to trade for players but if you use a TPE generated in 2025-26 in the following season, you are hard capped.  BOS has a nice one from Porzingis that expires on July 7, 2026 and if they trade Simons they could generate one from that trade that would expire later.

The best chance for the best team in 2026-27 is for them spend on players that gets them just below the second apron.  Say you trade for a player like Kessler, and then resign him.  Use the MLE.  Use as much of the available money as you can right up to the second apron.

If you use 2025-26 TPE in 2026-27, you become hard capped at the first apron.  Not necessarily the end of the world, but you are leaving some apron space on the table if you do that.  There is really very little strategic advantage to getting under the tax this season.  The tax bill has already been reduced significantly and they will still be a repeater next season in any case if they want to contend.

[Celtics4ever]

I don't think there is any way a team can contend without being above the tax threshold.  In particular, if the Celtics have Tatum and Brown on max contracts, plus White, it is going to be really hard to assemble a title contending team without paying the tax.  For the Celtics, this is not so much about 2025-26 as it is about 2026-27.

I agree, Vermont.  It is going to take spending money to contend.


That being said, we are not contending this year.   I am for getting under the first apron this year.  We are not going anywhere in the playoffs and I want a decent pick.  Hopefully, some of these signings work for us and we will have role players in place when Tatum comes back next year.

[Roy H.]

I don't think there is any way a team can contend without being above the tax threshold.  In particular, if the Celtics have Tatum and Brown on max contracts, plus White, it is going to be really hard to assemble a title contending team without paying the tax.  For the Celtics, this is not so much about 2025-26 as it is about 2026-27.

I agree, Vermont.  It is going to take spending money to contend.


That being said, we are not contending this year.   I am for getting under the first apron this year.  We are not going anywhere in the playoffs and I want a decent pick.  Hopefully, some of these signings work for us and we will have role players in place when Tatum comes back next year.

Counterpoint:  both OKC and Indy were below the luxury tax last year.  It's certainly possible. 

I think only 10 teams paid tax last year.  Of the nine teams that won 50 games, 4 paid tax, 5 didn't.