With trading Jaylen for a lesser playsr I think most would agree we are not a true challenge for the top teams like the Spurs etc. I know most teams are not do we are not alone .
But with this ? optionality? that Brad kept repeating ,are there any players in the future you dream of us acquiring in some way?
Or is this in reality just being an able to keep the players we already have and pay them as they improve?
Can anyone that understands the financials ( to some degree because I truthfully do not) ? I know we aren?t taking about another Supermax guy.
But with all this optionality talk I?m surprised people are not talking about the future . Are we just accepting that this may be outdated as being an also ran team? Maybe that?s the case. I know only one team can win it but we are not contending for a title obviously.
I don't think there's a player that they are targeting right now. I think Brad is defining "optionality" as being in a position where you have enough financial flexibility to a) pay your upcoming players (like PP, Baylor, Hugo, etc.) and also b) pull the trigger on a player if someone becomes available, because you're not constrained by existing contracts, by luxury tax repeater raters, or anything like that. It means having multiple contracts that can be aggregated if you need to chase a big star, rather than being constrained (like the JB trade) of trading a supermax guy with another supermax guy. It means avoiding the apron roster penalties until you build your team that you're going to roll with, then doubling down on it.
What he is/was avoiding is being in a position where you have Tatum taking up 35% of the cap for the next 8-9 years (assuming he signs an extension in 2028 for when his current supermax ends in 2029-30, for another 5 years or less), and then having another player (Jaylen) with a supermax taking up another 35% of the cap for the next 5 years when they have the following committed spend vs the tax and aprons:
Year Committed $ Salary Cap Tax 1st Apron 2nd Apron
26-27 $198.7m $165m $200.4m $209m $221.7m
27-28 $219.7m $176m $213m $223m $236m
28-29 $183.2m $184.8m $224.5m 234.2m $248.3m
29-30 $124m $194m $235.8m $245.8m $260.8mPG13 is on a max but his ends after next season, and it's a player option so presumably they could agree on an extension that pays him less a year but more overall, which might make him more tradeable than he is now. So the way I saw Brad's move is that he didn't think it was worth extending Jaylen a second time, it was validated by the sluggish market for him that only brought back PG13, and he saw that contract as becoming an albatross around the Celtics for the next 5 seasons.
As fans we all want the best players, always be competing for championships, etc. but in today's NBA the only way to do that is to be financially flexible and choosy with who you issue out max contracts to, because if the market decides they're not worth that money it's very hard to offload them, you have to give up assets and things (like what the Suns had to do). We see it now with KAT's contract with the Knicks, they aren't just going to give him a supermax, same with the Pistons and Duren. Maybe 5-10 years ago they would have done it and just figured out how to trade them later on.
It also helps to have a lot of promising young players that are overperforming their deals, like rookies or players on vet mins or team friendly deals like PP, Garza, Queta, etc. But eventually when those guys do overperform they have to get paid, now you can exceed the cap to pay them, but it doesn't leave much to bring in high priced free agents. But having a decent mix of contract sizes makes it easier to trade for a superstar if someone becomes available - but if you don't have the financial flexibility to do so when the situation arises, then you're not in the game.
This isn't the best analogy but it's kind of like an NBA GM is someone who owns multiple cars, has loans on all of them, so he's already heavily leveraged. If a great Ferrari or Lambo deal becomes available the only way he can pull the trigger on it quickly is if he has enough liquidity (cash) to buy it outright, or if someone doesn't think he's too much in debt and offers to finance it for him, or if he can sell one of his existing cars or trade them in for it. If not then he's stuck. But it gets worse - say the dealer of the Ferrari for sale says "you have too many cars, because the total value of your collection is over $2m we won't let you trade 2 cars for this Ferrari, you need to have one of equal value to trade". Or they say "you can't buy a car from us for a year until you sell one of yours".
This isn't really answering your question, but to me optionality is how easily you can buy, sell, or trade cars quickly because you aren't legally hamstrung by your existing financial obligations. Brad Stevens wants 'optionality' so his hands aren't legally tied by massive contracts, allowing him to pounce the second a star player becomes available or easily re-sign his own young talent without triggering those penalties. It doesn't necessarily mean he has a dream addition in mind (of if he does I have no clue who it is
).
Topic: What dream addition have you thought about ? (Read 1160 times)