The net sum of the Porzingis and Holiday trades so far:

[Kernewek]

Great summary.  Thank you.  I hate to think about salary caps, etc. and the owners "getting cheap" but my God man, $300,000,000 is some serious money even if it isn't mine.

Yes.  For perspective, the $300 million the Celtics will have saved is larger than all but one team is projected to spend, and even after that the Celtics are still currently #8 in payroll + tax.

Agreed - 100 million here, 100 million there doesn't seem like much, but before you know it, it can start to add up to real money.

As boscel said, though, it's not really about the dollar amount - or at least, we shouldn't think about it that way, given the way NBA contracts work - it's about the flexibility. The league has repeatedly made it more and more difficult for owners to throw money at building the most competitive roster that they can: both because of the asymmetry in ownership funds as well as the fact that the NBA is simply too small, in terms of franchise count, for that to be healthy for the league.

It's the same reason why the absolute best player in the league will always be underpaid but the tenth or twelfth (or whatever your fringe supermax number is) is always going to be overpaid.

I think we all broadly know this, but it's good to keep front of mind when you look at these money discussions.

[aefgogreen]

Great summary.  Thank you.  I hate to think about salary caps, etc. and the owners "getting cheap" but my God man, $300,000,000 is some serious money even if it isn't mine.

Yes.  For perspective, the $300 million the Celtics will have saved is larger than all but one team is projected to spend, and even after that the Celtics are still currently #8 in payroll + tax.

Definitely - I just wanted to work in my joke about how outrageous some of the NBA salaries have gotten :-).
Agreed - 100 million here, 100 million there doesn't seem like much, but before you know it, it can start to add up to real money.

As boscel said, though, it's not really about the dollar amount - or at least, we shouldn't think about it that way, given the way NBA contracts work - it's about the flexibility. The league has repeatedly made it more and more difficult for owners to throw money at building the most competitive roster that they can: both because of the asymmetry in ownership funds as well as the fact that the NBA is simply too small, in terms of franchise count, for that to be healthy for the league.

It's the same reason why the absolute best player in the league will always be underpaid but the tenth or twelfth (or whatever your fringe supermax number is) is always going to be overpaid.

I think we all broadly know this, but it's good to keep front of mind when you look at these money discussions.

Absolutely! Just making my little joke about how big the NBA money is :-)

[keevsnick]

Great summary.  Thank you.  I hate to think about salary caps, etc. and the owners "getting cheap" but my God man, $300,000,000 is some serious money even if it isn't mine.

Yes.  For perspective, the $300 million the Celtics will have saved is larger than all but one team is projected to spend, and even after that the Celtics are still currently #8 in payroll + tax.

Agreed - 100 million here, 100 million there doesn't seem like much, but before you know it, it can start to add up to real money.

As boscel said, though, it's not really about the dollar amount - or at least, we shouldn't think about it that way, given the way NBA contracts work - it's about the flexibility. The league has repeatedly made it more and more difficult for owners to throw money at building the most competitive roster that they can: both because of the asymmetry in ownership funds as well as the fact that the NBA is simply too small, in terms of franchise count, for that to be healthy for the league.

It's the same reason why the absolute best player in the league will always be underpaid but the tenth or twelfth (or whatever your fringe supermax number is) is always going to be overpaid.

I think we all broadly know this, but it's good to keep front of mind when you look at these money discussions.

Lets be clear here: It is absolutely, 100%, about the dollar amount. The other stuff like making it harder to aggregate, making it harder to build a team, is mostly just excuses NBA owners use to justify paying less. It's easier for an NBA owner to claim they want to maintain "flexibility" than it is "I am cheap."

Nothing the Celtics did at the deadline is really about flexibility at all, it's about straight cash savings. Getting below the ats apron, getting below the tax, doesn't really effetc them from a team building perspective next year.