NBA 2026-27 offseason trades, signings & rumors

[Roy H.]

You said at your season-ending press conference that the second apron wouldn?t prevent you from keeping this version of the Thunder together. But if we saw changes, it would be finances that would force a transaction, like the one we saw with Lu Dort. Is that still the case? Sam Presti: Yes, that?s accurate. We were comfortable being over the second apron with this team and how we were uniquely constructed. We have been consistent with that view for a few years now. This was a financial decision. The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams. Along with other new well-documented revenue streams, this will allow us to make more basketball-related decisions over the next several years.

It's good to see a GM being honest, while also putting pressure on ownership.

Next year it will be about the basketball penalties of the second apron then.  They are already projected to be over it with only 12 players.  Even if they decline the option on Topic (probable) and Sorber (possible if they cannot trade him), they would still be over it with Cason Wallace?s qualifying offer of $10.8 million and only 11 players on the roster, much less the $20+ million he is likely to get with an extension or free agent signing.  They are going to have to give up on more young players next year and lose either a starter or Caruso.

That may be ownership's ultimate decision.  But, Presti is getting it on the record that ownership told him differently, and that he's sacrificing a good player this year because he's been told that the savings will be reinvested to keep the team a contender.  Basically "I saved you $300 million this season and I've kept this team out of the tax, so you have plenty of resources to splurge in the future".

Brad is more of a company man.  He'll save the team $300 million, blow up one version of a contender, trade away a star to ensure that we won't contend over the next couple of seasons -- all to save ownership money -- and then blame it all on the CBA.  He'll sit there and grin when Chisolm says none of the moves the past two seasons were about finances, and he'll lie to the fans and media and say there's no mandate to be under the tax.

If he was Presti, he'd be hinting at least that the team had plenty of resources not only to keep JB, but to add to him as well.  It's kind of nice to see at least one GM that isn't a complete yes man.

Eh, I know last season was about money, but we were always going to blow up that team - especially with Tatum going down.

With the JB trade, Chisolm seemed to put all the responsibility on Brad. He said that he needed to be convinced to do the trade and that while fans will understandably hold him accountable as the owner of the team, Brad is accountable to him. All with Brad sitting right there.

Maybe Brad really is the ultimate company man and would never utter a peep, but that was still pretty bold of Chisolm to say that it was all that guy right there and he'll be on the hot seat if it doesn't work out. I doubt ownership will be willing to go into the 2nd apron again, but I'd be surprised if they just all out continue to duck the tax.

If we are under the tax again next season, I will fully be on board with criticizing ownership. It's not like we saved any money by trading Brown for George. I'd guess that Brad really did want completely out of the Jaylen Brown business and was willing to do anything to get out.

I tend not to take owners at face value, particularly when Chisolm says that the trades over the past two seasons weren't financially driven.  Similarly, Brad lies to us all of the time, saying he doesn't have a budget, that he hasn't been directed to get below the tax, etc.

The Celtics tend to take in more than $100 million per season in profit.  I'm interested to see what that looks like this year and next.  The team has cut expenses, and has gotten a sizeable distribution from the luxury tax pool.  They'll also be getting a nice chunk from the two expansion franchises shortly.

By trading JB, the team has a ready-made excuse for not spending over the second apron:  they're simply not a championship contender, and won't be.  That's a harder argument to make if you retain both JT and JB in their primes.

[Celtics2021]

You said at your season-ending press conference that the second apron wouldn?t prevent you from keeping this version of the Thunder together. But if we saw changes, it would be finances that would force a transaction, like the one we saw with Lu Dort. Is that still the case? Sam Presti: Yes, that?s accurate. We were comfortable being over the second apron with this team and how we were uniquely constructed. We have been consistent with that view for a few years now. This was a financial decision. The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams. Along with other new well-documented revenue streams, this will allow us to make more basketball-related decisions over the next several years.

It's good to see a GM being honest, while also putting pressure on ownership.

Next year it will be about the basketball penalties of the second apron then.  They are already projected to be over it with only 12 players.  Even if they decline the option on Topic (probable) and Sorber (possible if they cannot trade him), they would still be over it with Cason Wallace?s qualifying offer of $10.8 million and only 11 players on the roster, much less the $20+ million he is likely to get with an extension or free agent signing.  They are going to have to give up on more young players next year and lose either a starter or Caruso.

That may be ownership's ultimate decision.  But, Presti is getting it on the record that ownership told him differently, and that he's sacrificing a good player this year because he's been told that the savings will be reinvested to keep the team a contender.  Basically "I saved you $300 million this season and I've kept this team out of the tax, so you have plenty of resources to splurge in the future".

Brad is more of a company man.  He'll save the team $300 million, blow up one version of a contender, trade away a star to ensure that we won't contend over the next couple of seasons -- all to save ownership money -- and then blame it all on the CBA.  He'll sit there and grin when Chisolm says none of the moves the past two seasons were about finances, and he'll lie to the fans and media and say there's no mandate to be under the tax.

If he was Presti, he'd be hinting at least that the team had plenty of resources not only to keep JB, but to add to him as well.  It's kind of nice to see at least one GM that isn't a complete yes man.

They are going to take the same line as the Celtics.  They have already set it up, that the future will be made on basketball decisions.  That is code for the limitations placed on being over the second apron.  Mark my words, the Thunder will not be over the second apron next summer, and will either trade a starter/Caruso or let Wallace walk, in addition to losing prospects recently picked in the mid-1st round.

Like I said, it could be.  Ultimately, Presti doesn't control his own budget.  But when he says "The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams", that's telegraphing something to fans and media.  If it doesn't happen, it's because ownership reneged.

My point of contention is that you think it will be reneging.  It is already decided, and Presti knows.  This is the same ownership group that blew up Durant, Westbrook, and Harden just as they were entering their primes.  They are not keeping the entire core of this team.  The only question is can they backfill enough production with their draft picks to let some guys go.  That is likely why they drafted a junior and senior with their two picks in the teens instead of long-term upside guys, to get guys ready to be immediate replacements as they see higher-salaried players depart.

[Roy H.]

You said at your season-ending press conference that the second apron wouldn?t prevent you from keeping this version of the Thunder together. But if we saw changes, it would be finances that would force a transaction, like the one we saw with Lu Dort. Is that still the case? Sam Presti: Yes, that?s accurate. We were comfortable being over the second apron with this team and how we were uniquely constructed. We have been consistent with that view for a few years now. This was a financial decision. The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams. Along with other new well-documented revenue streams, this will allow us to make more basketball-related decisions over the next several years.

It's good to see a GM being honest, while also putting pressure on ownership.

Next year it will be about the basketball penalties of the second apron then.  They are already projected to be over it with only 12 players.  Even if they decline the option on Topic (probable) and Sorber (possible if they cannot trade him), they would still be over it with Cason Wallace?s qualifying offer of $10.8 million and only 11 players on the roster, much less the $20+ million he is likely to get with an extension or free agent signing.  They are going to have to give up on more young players next year and lose either a starter or Caruso.

That may be ownership's ultimate decision.  But, Presti is getting it on the record that ownership told him differently, and that he's sacrificing a good player this year because he's been told that the savings will be reinvested to keep the team a contender.  Basically "I saved you $300 million this season and I've kept this team out of the tax, so you have plenty of resources to splurge in the future".

Brad is more of a company man.  He'll save the team $300 million, blow up one version of a contender, trade away a star to ensure that we won't contend over the next couple of seasons -- all to save ownership money -- and then blame it all on the CBA.  He'll sit there and grin when Chisolm says none of the moves the past two seasons were about finances, and he'll lie to the fans and media and say there's no mandate to be under the tax.

If he was Presti, he'd be hinting at least that the team had plenty of resources not only to keep JB, but to add to him as well.  It's kind of nice to see at least one GM that isn't a complete yes man.

They are going to take the same line as the Celtics.  They have already set it up, that the future will be made on basketball decisions.  That is code for the limitations placed on being over the second apron.  Mark my words, the Thunder will not be over the second apron next summer, and will either trade a starter/Caruso or let Wallace walk, in addition to losing prospects recently picked in the mid-1st round.

Like I said, it could be.  Ultimately, Presti doesn't control his own budget.  But when he says "The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams", that's telegraphing something to fans and media.  If it doesn't happen, it's because ownership reneged.

My point of contention is that you think it will be reneging.  It is already decided, and Presti knows.  This is the same ownership group that blew up Durant, Westbrook, and Harden just as they were entering their primes.  They are not keeping the entire core of this team.  The only question is can they backfill enough production with their draft picks to let some guys go.  That is likely why they drafted a junior and senior with their two picks in the teens instead of long-term upside guys, to get guys ready to be immediate replacements as they see higher-salaried players depart.

I don't think that's what happened, because otherwise Presti wouldn't say that he's been told the money will be reinvested into the team.

Lying to make ownership look good = standard practice
Lying to make ownership look bad = fireable offense

You're saying he's lying about what ownership has committed to.  Why would he do that?

====

Also, surely you know that the financial landscape for an NBA owner is significantly more favorable now than it was in 2012?

[Vermont Green]

It is hard to believe Chisholm when he says that the recent purge of Holiday, Porzingis, Horford, Brown, and so, was not financial.  Of course it was.  But that does not mean it was entirely decoupled from basketball reasons.  For example, you can pay Brown, give him an extension meaning you are paying him for several more seasons, or you can trade him and use his salary on different players.

As it stands, they took back George so there really is no additional "optionality" right now, but if they had kept and extended Brown, there would have been no optionality for about 5 more seasons.  Now they have a path to optionality (not saying I like the deal, just offering what I believe the thinking was).  They are going to spend the same in any case though, even after George is gone.  They will stay between the tax line and first apron.  I expect nearly all teams will.  It is just what do you spend it on.

BOS was willing to pay two max deals to Tatum and Giannis, but not Tatum and Brown.  Is that a financial decision or a basketball decision?  I think the difference between Brown and George is that Brown would have expected a max extension, and BOS did not want to go there for both financial and basketball reasons.  If you have (2) max deals, you can't do much else.  You better be sure the (2) max guys are really good.

[Celtics2021]

You said at your season-ending press conference that the second apron wouldn?t prevent you from keeping this version of the Thunder together. But if we saw changes, it would be finances that would force a transaction, like the one we saw with Lu Dort. Is that still the case? Sam Presti: Yes, that?s accurate. We were comfortable being over the second apron with this team and how we were uniquely constructed. We have been consistent with that view for a few years now. This was a financial decision. The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams. Along with other new well-documented revenue streams, this will allow us to make more basketball-related decisions over the next several years.

It's good to see a GM being honest, while also putting pressure on ownership.

Next year it will be about the basketball penalties of the second apron then.  They are already projected to be over it with only 12 players.  Even if they decline the option on Topic (probable) and Sorber (possible if they cannot trade him), they would still be over it with Cason Wallace?s qualifying offer of $10.8 million and only 11 players on the roster, much less the $20+ million he is likely to get with an extension or free agent signing.  They are going to have to give up on more young players next year and lose either a starter or Caruso.

That may be ownership's ultimate decision.  But, Presti is getting it on the record that ownership told him differently, and that he's sacrificing a good player this year because he's been told that the savings will be reinvested to keep the team a contender.  Basically "I saved you $300 million this season and I've kept this team out of the tax, so you have plenty of resources to splurge in the future".

Brad is more of a company man.  He'll save the team $300 million, blow up one version of a contender, trade away a star to ensure that we won't contend over the next couple of seasons -- all to save ownership money -- and then blame it all on the CBA.  He'll sit there and grin when Chisolm says none of the moves the past two seasons were about finances, and he'll lie to the fans and media and say there's no mandate to be under the tax.

If he was Presti, he'd be hinting at least that the team had plenty of resources not only to keep JB, but to add to him as well.  It's kind of nice to see at least one GM that isn't a complete yes man.

They are going to take the same line as the Celtics.  They have already set it up, that the future will be made on basketball decisions.  That is code for the limitations placed on being over the second apron.  Mark my words, the Thunder will not be over the second apron next summer, and will either trade a starter/Caruso or let Wallace walk, in addition to losing prospects recently picked in the mid-1st round.

Like I said, it could be.  Ultimately, Presti doesn't control his own budget.  But when he says "The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams", that's telegraphing something to fans and media.  If it doesn't happen, it's because ownership reneged.

My point of contention is that you think it will be reneging.  It is already decided, and Presti knows.  This is the same ownership group that blew up Durant, Westbrook, and Harden just as they were entering their primes.  They are not keeping the entire core of this team.  The only question is can they backfill enough production with their draft picks to let some guys go.  That is likely why they drafted a junior and senior with their two picks in the teens instead of long-term upside guys, to get guys ready to be immediate replacements as they see higher-salaried players depart.

I don't think that's what happened, because otherwise Presti wouldn't say that he's been told the money will be reinvested into the team.

Lying to make ownership look good = standard practice
Lying to make ownership look bad = fireable offense

You're saying he's lying about what ownership has committed to.  Why would he do that?

====

Also, surely you know that the financial landscape for an NBA owner is significantly more favorable now than it was in 2012?

No, I am not saying he is lying.  I am saying they will use the argument, like other teams have, that the second apron penalties are what they are avoiding, and not any sort of financial issues.  That is what the Celtics have said.  I guess whether or not you believe the second apron penalties are worth avoiding will determine if you think that is lying, but I assure you when he says baseball reasons, the second apron is included in that.

[Roy H.]

You said at your season-ending press conference that the second apron wouldn?t prevent you from keeping this version of the Thunder together. But if we saw changes, it would be finances that would force a transaction, like the one we saw with Lu Dort. Is that still the case? Sam Presti: Yes, that?s accurate. We were comfortable being over the second apron with this team and how we were uniquely constructed. We have been consistent with that view for a few years now. This was a financial decision. The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams. Along with other new well-documented revenue streams, this will allow us to make more basketball-related decisions over the next several years.

It's good to see a GM being honest, while also putting pressure on ownership.

Next year it will be about the basketball penalties of the second apron then.  They are already projected to be over it with only 12 players.  Even if they decline the option on Topic (probable) and Sorber (possible if they cannot trade him), they would still be over it with Cason Wallace?s qualifying offer of $10.8 million and only 11 players on the roster, much less the $20+ million he is likely to get with an extension or free agent signing.  They are going to have to give up on more young players next year and lose either a starter or Caruso.

That may be ownership's ultimate decision.  But, Presti is getting it on the record that ownership told him differently, and that he's sacrificing a good player this year because he's been told that the savings will be reinvested to keep the team a contender.  Basically "I saved you $300 million this season and I've kept this team out of the tax, so you have plenty of resources to splurge in the future".

Brad is more of a company man.  He'll save the team $300 million, blow up one version of a contender, trade away a star to ensure that we won't contend over the next couple of seasons -- all to save ownership money -- and then blame it all on the CBA.  He'll sit there and grin when Chisolm says none of the moves the past two seasons were about finances, and he'll lie to the fans and media and say there's no mandate to be under the tax.

If he was Presti, he'd be hinting at least that the team had plenty of resources not only to keep JB, but to add to him as well.  It's kind of nice to see at least one GM that isn't a complete yes man.

They are going to take the same line as the Celtics.  They have already set it up, that the future will be made on basketball decisions.  That is code for the limitations placed on being over the second apron.  Mark my words, the Thunder will not be over the second apron next summer, and will either trade a starter/Caruso or let Wallace walk, in addition to losing prospects recently picked in the mid-1st round.

Like I said, it could be.  Ultimately, Presti doesn't control his own budget.  But when he says "The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams", that's telegraphing something to fans and media.  If it doesn't happen, it's because ownership reneged.

My point of contention is that you think it will be reneging.  It is already decided, and Presti knows.  This is the same ownership group that blew up Durant, Westbrook, and Harden just as they were entering their primes.  They are not keeping the entire core of this team.  The only question is can they backfill enough production with their draft picks to let some guys go.  That is likely why they drafted a junior and senior with their two picks in the teens instead of long-term upside guys, to get guys ready to be immediate replacements as they see higher-salaried players depart.

I don't think that's what happened, because otherwise Presti wouldn't say that he's been told the money will be reinvested into the team.

Lying to make ownership look good = standard practice
Lying to make ownership look bad = fireable offense

You're saying he's lying about what ownership has committed to.  Why would he do that?

====

Also, surely you know that the financial landscape for an NBA owner is significantly more favorable now than it was in 2012?

No, I am not saying he is lying.  I am saying they will use the argument, like other teams have, that the second apron penalties are what they are avoiding, and not any sort of financial issues.  That is what the Celtics have said.  I guess whether or not you believe the second apron penalties are worth avoiding will determine if you think that is lying, but I assure you when he says baseball reasons, the second apron is included in that.

He said that he was told the money saved this year, and from the last several years, would be reinvested into the team.

Either that's the truth, or that's a lie.

You're saying it's not true.  Therefore, it's a lie.

If so, either Presti is lying about what ownership told him, or ownership is lying to Presti.

There doesn't seem to be much future in a GM lying to make ownership look bad, so I'd say that Presti really was told that.

[Vermont Green]

Paying luxury taxes is a financial thing.  The aprons introduce other penalties that relate to draft picks and ability to trade and hard caps and so on.  I think what owners are trying to say is that staying under the second apron is not a financial decision, which is partly but not entirely true.  So Chisholm can say they didn't dump Holiday for financial reasons, they dumped him for second apron reasons.  I don't entirely buy it, but there is enough truth to it that they are trying to use the reasoning as cover.

Of course, BOS went entirely under the tax line which is a financial decision.  They are hard capped at the first apron.  The only discretion that they have is up to the first apron.  I think most teams will be willing to spend over the tax under certain circumstances, maybe some will spend over the 1st apron (those not hard capped).  But it is clear that all the owners are aligned in not spending over the 2nd apron.

[Who]

Tim McMahon said 23 teams in the league are hard capped right now at either the 1st or 2nd apron.

He was talking about how difficult it was to make a sign and trade (with Kuminga or P Watson) as a result of this.

[Celtics2021]

You said at your season-ending press conference that the second apron wouldn?t prevent you from keeping this version of the Thunder together. But if we saw changes, it would be finances that would force a transaction, like the one we saw with Lu Dort. Is that still the case? Sam Presti: Yes, that?s accurate. We were comfortable being over the second apron with this team and how we were uniquely constructed. We have been consistent with that view for a few years now. This was a financial decision. The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams. Along with other new well-documented revenue streams, this will allow us to make more basketball-related decisions over the next several years.

It's good to see a GM being honest, while also putting pressure on ownership.

Next year it will be about the basketball penalties of the second apron then.  They are already projected to be over it with only 12 players.  Even if they decline the option on Topic (probable) and Sorber (possible if they cannot trade him), they would still be over it with Cason Wallace?s qualifying offer of $10.8 million and only 11 players on the roster, much less the $20+ million he is likely to get with an extension or free agent signing.  They are going to have to give up on more young players next year and lose either a starter or Caruso.

That may be ownership's ultimate decision.  But, Presti is getting it on the record that ownership told him differently, and that he's sacrificing a good player this year because he's been told that the savings will be reinvested to keep the team a contender.  Basically "I saved you $300 million this season and I've kept this team out of the tax, so you have plenty of resources to splurge in the future".

Brad is more of a company man.  He'll save the team $300 million, blow up one version of a contender, trade away a star to ensure that we won't contend over the next couple of seasons -- all to save ownership money -- and then blame it all on the CBA.  He'll sit there and grin when Chisolm says none of the moves the past two seasons were about finances, and he'll lie to the fans and media and say there's no mandate to be under the tax.

If he was Presti, he'd be hinting at least that the team had plenty of resources not only to keep JB, but to add to him as well.  It's kind of nice to see at least one GM that isn't a complete yes man.

They are going to take the same line as the Celtics.  They have already set it up, that the future will be made on basketball decisions.  That is code for the limitations placed on being over the second apron.  Mark my words, the Thunder will not be over the second apron next summer, and will either trade a starter/Caruso or let Wallace walk, in addition to losing prospects recently picked in the mid-1st round.

Like I said, it could be.  Ultimately, Presti doesn't control his own budget.  But when he says "The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams", that's telegraphing something to fans and media.  If it doesn't happen, it's because ownership reneged.

My point of contention is that you think it will be reneging.  It is already decided, and Presti knows.  This is the same ownership group that blew up Durant, Westbrook, and Harden just as they were entering their primes.  They are not keeping the entire core of this team.  The only question is can they backfill enough production with their draft picks to let some guys go.  That is likely why they drafted a junior and senior with their two picks in the teens instead of long-term upside guys, to get guys ready to be immediate replacements as they see higher-salaried players depart.

I don't think that's what happened, because otherwise Presti wouldn't say that he's been told the money will be reinvested into the team.

Lying to make ownership look good = standard practice
Lying to make ownership look bad = fireable offense

You're saying he's lying about what ownership has committed to.  Why would he do that?

====

Also, surely you know that the financial landscape for an NBA owner is significantly more favorable now than it was in 2012?

No, I am not saying he is lying.  I am saying they will use the argument, like other teams have, that the second apron penalties are what they are avoiding, and not any sort of financial issues.  That is what the Celtics have said.  I guess whether or not you believe the second apron penalties are worth avoiding will determine if you think that is lying, but I assure you when he says baseball reasons, the second apron is included in that.

He said that he was told the money saved this year, and from the last several years, would be reinvested into the team.

Either that's the truth, or that's a lie.

You're saying it's not true.  Therefore, it's a lie.

If so, either Presti is lying about what ownership told him, or ownership is lying to Presti.

There doesn't seem to be much future in a GM lying to make ownership look bad, so I'd say that Presti really was told that.

Is it?  This year they are $6 million under the second apron.  If they spend up to it next year, and this pay $6 million more in salary plus $15 million more in taxes, does that not mean they have reinvested money into next year?  If they do that the next three years, so that they even pay the repeater tax, that would be over $100 million in salaries and taxes.  If the original budget Presti was given was the first apron, and his new budget is the second apron, is he lying that he is getting to reinvest in the team?

He did not say he would have no budget.  Nor did he say he was spending it all next season, as he said future teams, plural.

[Roy H.]

You said at your season-ending press conference that the second apron wouldn?t prevent you from keeping this version of the Thunder together. But if we saw changes, it would be finances that would force a transaction, like the one we saw with Lu Dort. Is that still the case? Sam Presti: Yes, that?s accurate. We were comfortable being over the second apron with this team and how we were uniquely constructed. We have been consistent with that view for a few years now. This was a financial decision. The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams. Along with other new well-documented revenue streams, this will allow us to make more basketball-related decisions over the next several years.

It's good to see a GM being honest, while also putting pressure on ownership.

Next year it will be about the basketball penalties of the second apron then.  They are already projected to be over it with only 12 players.  Even if they decline the option on Topic (probable) and Sorber (possible if they cannot trade him), they would still be over it with Cason Wallace?s qualifying offer of $10.8 million and only 11 players on the roster, much less the $20+ million he is likely to get with an extension or free agent signing.  They are going to have to give up on more young players next year and lose either a starter or Caruso.

That may be ownership's ultimate decision.  But, Presti is getting it on the record that ownership told him differently, and that he's sacrificing a good player this year because he's been told that the savings will be reinvested to keep the team a contender.  Basically "I saved you $300 million this season and I've kept this team out of the tax, so you have plenty of resources to splurge in the future".

Brad is more of a company man.  He'll save the team $300 million, blow up one version of a contender, trade away a star to ensure that we won't contend over the next couple of seasons -- all to save ownership money -- and then blame it all on the CBA.  He'll sit there and grin when Chisolm says none of the moves the past two seasons were about finances, and he'll lie to the fans and media and say there's no mandate to be under the tax.

If he was Presti, he'd be hinting at least that the team had plenty of resources not only to keep JB, but to add to him as well.  It's kind of nice to see at least one GM that isn't a complete yes man.

They are going to take the same line as the Celtics.  They have already set it up, that the future will be made on basketball decisions.  That is code for the limitations placed on being over the second apron.  Mark my words, the Thunder will not be over the second apron next summer, and will either trade a starter/Caruso or let Wallace walk, in addition to losing prospects recently picked in the mid-1st round.

Like I said, it could be.  Ultimately, Presti doesn't control his own budget.  But when he says "The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams", that's telegraphing something to fans and media.  If it doesn't happen, it's because ownership reneged.

My point of contention is that you think it will be reneging.  It is already decided, and Presti knows.  This is the same ownership group that blew up Durant, Westbrook, and Harden just as they were entering their primes.  They are not keeping the entire core of this team.  The only question is can they backfill enough production with their draft picks to let some guys go.  That is likely why they drafted a junior and senior with their two picks in the teens instead of long-term upside guys, to get guys ready to be immediate replacements as they see higher-salaried players depart.

I don't think that's what happened, because otherwise Presti wouldn't say that he's been told the money will be reinvested into the team.

Lying to make ownership look good = standard practice
Lying to make ownership look bad = fireable offense

You're saying he's lying about what ownership has committed to.  Why would he do that?

====

Also, surely you know that the financial landscape for an NBA owner is significantly more favorable now than it was in 2012?

No, I am not saying he is lying.  I am saying they will use the argument, like other teams have, that the second apron penalties are what they are avoiding, and not any sort of financial issues.  That is what the Celtics have said.  I guess whether or not you believe the second apron penalties are worth avoiding will determine if you think that is lying, but I assure you when he says baseball reasons, the second apron is included in that.

He said that he was told the money saved this year, and from the last several years, would be reinvested into the team.

Either that's the truth, or that's a lie.

You're saying it's not true.  Therefore, it's a lie.

If so, either Presti is lying about what ownership told him, or ownership is lying to Presti.

There doesn't seem to be much future in a GM lying to make ownership look bad, so I'd say that Presti really was told that.

Is it?  This year they are $6 million under the second apron.  If they spend up to it next year, and this pay $6 million more in salary plus $15 million more in taxes, does that not mean they have reinvested money into next year?  If they do that the next three years, so that they even pay the repeater tax, that would be over $100 million in salaries and taxes.  If the original budget Presti was given was the first apron, and his new budget is the second apron, is he lying that he is getting to reinvest in the team?

He did not say he would have no budget.  Nor did he say he was spending it all next season, as he said future teams, plural.

Since he was talking about the Lu Dort trade, he's talking about that financial savings.  $17 million in salary, and much, much more in luxury tax.  Presti's moves saved the Thunder over $300 million this off-season.

It amazes me how much some people will ignore context, plain language, etc., to argue.

[Celtics2021]

You said at your season-ending press conference that the second apron wouldn?t prevent you from keeping this version of the Thunder together. But if we saw changes, it would be finances that would force a transaction, like the one we saw with Lu Dort. Is that still the case? Sam Presti: Yes, that?s accurate. We were comfortable being over the second apron with this team and how we were uniquely constructed. We have been consistent with that view for a few years now. This was a financial decision. The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams. Along with other new well-documented revenue streams, this will allow us to make more basketball-related decisions over the next several years.

It's good to see a GM being honest, while also putting pressure on ownership.

Next year it will be about the basketball penalties of the second apron then.  They are already projected to be over it with only 12 players.  Even if they decline the option on Topic (probable) and Sorber (possible if they cannot trade him), they would still be over it with Cason Wallace?s qualifying offer of $10.8 million and only 11 players on the roster, much less the $20+ million he is likely to get with an extension or free agent signing.  They are going to have to give up on more young players next year and lose either a starter or Caruso.

That may be ownership's ultimate decision.  But, Presti is getting it on the record that ownership told him differently, and that he's sacrificing a good player this year because he's been told that the savings will be reinvested to keep the team a contender.  Basically "I saved you $300 million this season and I've kept this team out of the tax, so you have plenty of resources to splurge in the future".

Brad is more of a company man.  He'll save the team $300 million, blow up one version of a contender, trade away a star to ensure that we won't contend over the next couple of seasons -- all to save ownership money -- and then blame it all on the CBA.  He'll sit there and grin when Chisolm says none of the moves the past two seasons were about finances, and he'll lie to the fans and media and say there's no mandate to be under the tax.

If he was Presti, he'd be hinting at least that the team had plenty of resources not only to keep JB, but to add to him as well.  It's kind of nice to see at least one GM that isn't a complete yes man.

They are going to take the same line as the Celtics.  They have already set it up, that the future will be made on basketball decisions.  That is code for the limitations placed on being over the second apron.  Mark my words, the Thunder will not be over the second apron next summer, and will either trade a starter/Caruso or let Wallace walk, in addition to losing prospects recently picked in the mid-1st round.

Like I said, it could be.  Ultimately, Presti doesn't control his own budget.  But when he says "The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams", that's telegraphing something to fans and media.  If it doesn't happen, it's because ownership reneged.

My point of contention is that you think it will be reneging.  It is already decided, and Presti knows.  This is the same ownership group that blew up Durant, Westbrook, and Harden just as they were entering their primes.  They are not keeping the entire core of this team.  The only question is can they backfill enough production with their draft picks to let some guys go.  That is likely why they drafted a junior and senior with their two picks in the teens instead of long-term upside guys, to get guys ready to be immediate replacements as they see higher-salaried players depart.

I don't think that's what happened, because otherwise Presti wouldn't say that he's been told the money will be reinvested into the team.

Lying to make ownership look good = standard practice
Lying to make ownership look bad = fireable offense

You're saying he's lying about what ownership has committed to.  Why would he do that?

====

Also, surely you know that the financial landscape for an NBA owner is significantly more favorable now than it was in 2012?

No, I am not saying he is lying.  I am saying they will use the argument, like other teams have, that the second apron penalties are what they are avoiding, and not any sort of financial issues.  That is what the Celtics have said.  I guess whether or not you believe the second apron penalties are worth avoiding will determine if you think that is lying, but I assure you when he says baseball reasons, the second apron is included in that.

He said that he was told the money saved this year, and from the last several years, would be reinvested into the team.

Either that's the truth, or that's a lie.

You're saying it's not true.  Therefore, it's a lie.

If so, either Presti is lying about what ownership told him, or ownership is lying to Presti.

There doesn't seem to be much future in a GM lying to make ownership look bad, so I'd say that Presti really was told that.

Is it?  This year they are $6 million under the second apron.  If they spend up to it next year, and this pay $6 million more in salary plus $15 million more in taxes, does that not mean they have reinvested money into next year?  If they do that the next three years, so that they even pay the repeater tax, that would be over $100 million in salaries and taxes.  If the original budget Presti was given was the first apron, and his new budget is the second apron, is he lying that he is getting to reinvest in the team?

He did not say he would have no budget.  Nor did he say he was spending it all next season, as he said future teams, plural.

Since he was talking about the Lu Dort trade, he's talking about that financial savings.  $17 million in salary, and much, much more in luxury tax.  Presti's moves saved the Thunder over $300 million this off-season.

It amazes me how much some people will ignore context, plain language, etc., to argue.

I, also, am amazed how much people will ignore context and plain language. 

When OKC caps themselves at the second apron next year, you are welcome to believe whomever you like was lying.  Certainly if you, a non-fan, will feel lied to, their fans will as well, so I hope they settle on a better word than optionality.  But it is happening, and nothing that Presti said makes me think it will not, as I in fact think he already previewed his talking points.

[Roy H.]

You said at your season-ending press conference that the second apron wouldn?t prevent you from keeping this version of the Thunder together. But if we saw changes, it would be finances that would force a transaction, like the one we saw with Lu Dort. Is that still the case? Sam Presti: Yes, that?s accurate. We were comfortable being over the second apron with this team and how we were uniquely constructed. We have been consistent with that view for a few years now. This was a financial decision. The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams. Along with other new well-documented revenue streams, this will allow us to make more basketball-related decisions over the next several years.

It's good to see a GM being honest, while also putting pressure on ownership.

Next year it will be about the basketball penalties of the second apron then.  They are already projected to be over it with only 12 players.  Even if they decline the option on Topic (probable) and Sorber (possible if they cannot trade him), they would still be over it with Cason Wallace?s qualifying offer of $10.8 million and only 11 players on the roster, much less the $20+ million he is likely to get with an extension or free agent signing.  They are going to have to give up on more young players next year and lose either a starter or Caruso.

That may be ownership's ultimate decision.  But, Presti is getting it on the record that ownership told him differently, and that he's sacrificing a good player this year because he's been told that the savings will be reinvested to keep the team a contender.  Basically "I saved you $300 million this season and I've kept this team out of the tax, so you have plenty of resources to splurge in the future".

Brad is more of a company man.  He'll save the team $300 million, blow up one version of a contender, trade away a star to ensure that we won't contend over the next couple of seasons -- all to save ownership money -- and then blame it all on the CBA.  He'll sit there and grin when Chisolm says none of the moves the past two seasons were about finances, and he'll lie to the fans and media and say there's no mandate to be under the tax.

If he was Presti, he'd be hinting at least that the team had plenty of resources not only to keep JB, but to add to him as well.  It's kind of nice to see at least one GM that isn't a complete yes man.

They are going to take the same line as the Celtics.  They have already set it up, that the future will be made on basketball decisions.  That is code for the limitations placed on being over the second apron.  Mark my words, the Thunder will not be over the second apron next summer, and will either trade a starter/Caruso or let Wallace walk, in addition to losing prospects recently picked in the mid-1st round.

Like I said, it could be.  Ultimately, Presti doesn't control his own budget.  But when he says "The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams", that's telegraphing something to fans and media.  If it doesn't happen, it's because ownership reneged.

My point of contention is that you think it will be reneging.  It is already decided, and Presti knows.  This is the same ownership group that blew up Durant, Westbrook, and Harden just as they were entering their primes.  They are not keeping the entire core of this team.  The only question is can they backfill enough production with their draft picks to let some guys go.  That is likely why they drafted a junior and senior with their two picks in the teens instead of long-term upside guys, to get guys ready to be immediate replacements as they see higher-salaried players depart.

I don't think that's what happened, because otherwise Presti wouldn't say that he's been told the money will be reinvested into the team.

Lying to make ownership look good = standard practice
Lying to make ownership look bad = fireable offense

You're saying he's lying about what ownership has committed to.  Why would he do that?

====

Also, surely you know that the financial landscape for an NBA owner is significantly more favorable now than it was in 2012?

No, I am not saying he is lying.  I am saying they will use the argument, like other teams have, that the second apron penalties are what they are avoiding, and not any sort of financial issues.  That is what the Celtics have said.  I guess whether or not you believe the second apron penalties are worth avoiding will determine if you think that is lying, but I assure you when he says baseball reasons, the second apron is included in that.

He said that he was told the money saved this year, and from the last several years, would be reinvested into the team.

Either that's the truth, or that's a lie.

You're saying it's not true.  Therefore, it's a lie.

If so, either Presti is lying about what ownership told him, or ownership is lying to Presti.

There doesn't seem to be much future in a GM lying to make ownership look bad, so I'd say that Presti really was told that.

Is it?  This year they are $6 million under the second apron.  If they spend up to it next year, and this pay $6 million more in salary plus $15 million more in taxes, does that not mean they have reinvested money into next year?  If they do that the next three years, so that they even pay the repeater tax, that would be over $100 million in salaries and taxes.  If the original budget Presti was given was the first apron, and his new budget is the second apron, is he lying that he is getting to reinvest in the team?

He did not say he would have no budget.  Nor did he say he was spending it all next season, as he said future teams, plural.

Since he was talking about the Lu Dort trade, he's talking about that financial savings.  $17 million in salary, and much, much more in luxury tax.  Presti's moves saved the Thunder over $300 million this off-season.

It amazes me how much some people will ignore context, plain language, etc., to argue.

I, also, am amazed how much people will ignore context and plain language. 

When OKC caps themselves at the second apron next year, you are welcome to believe whomever you like was lying.  Certainly if you, a non-fan, will feel lied to, their fans will as well, so I hope they settle on a better word than optionality.  But it is happening, and nothing that Presti said makes me think it will not, as I in fact think he already previewed his talking points.

You would be making the exact same argument no matter what Presti had said.  I mean, you've ignored his words here (or, at best, twisted them into a meaningless jumble).

You can feel strongly that OKC will be below the second apron.  That's the position that every owner has taken this season, so it's not like it's an outlier.  But, if they do, that's in basic, explicit conflict with what Presti is saying he's been told here.