Celtics inquired about Lowry?

[ssspence]

I think a good expiring player is better than one that can be setup to be waiveable for another year if you don't want him to expire this year.

Expiring deals are overrated in value.

As it pertains to Bogans, I think an immediately waivable $5.3mil deal is a very nice asset to have on NBA Draft day, particularly considering the Cs will have 2 1st round picks to trade as well.

Just saying I really don't see giving up that for Lowry, not that I think the Raps would do that anyway.
 
I just don't see how Lowry coming to the Cs makes any real sense at all.

[D.o.s.]

I just don't see how Lowry coming to the Cs makes any real sense at all.

As far as the players on the floor go, it's only "weird" if you think that the team would be worse with Lowry + whatever Rondo can bring in as a trade asset than just keeping Rondo.

Right. If Danny is thinking about moving Rondo, this move is a no-brainer, especially if its only costing us the TPE or an expiring.

[indeedproceed]

In addition to the Lakers, Knicks and Nets, the Timberwolves, Warriors and Celtics are among the teams that have inquired about a deal with the Raptors for Lowry, league sources say. Raptors GM Masai Ujiri has been encouraged by the team's recent play, as Toronto has gone 9-3 since the trade with two of the losses coming against the Spurs But despite the Raptors' fourth-place status in the pitiful East, Ujiri is determined to take the long-term view. With the deadline less than seven weeks away, Ujiri is said to have multiple deals he could do for Lowry that would involve receiving an expiring contract in return or slotting him into another team's trade exception. Taking back future salary would come at a high price, i.e. a first-round pick.

I'm sure Ainge views Lowry as a chip, if not a stopgap at PG while Rondo remains out.

Beyond a simple swap of expirings (Bogans?), I wonder what else Ainge would be willing to part with to get Lowry. I doubt he'd attach a 1st, but Ujiri would probably demand some additional sweetener to part with Lowry, who's playing quite well.

If you see the bolded part, I think ideally Danny is using the TPE.

Which would put us over the cap unless there's another moving part, I believe.

THat's true, but is that a big deal? This is my CBA ignorance showing but if we use the TPE and get over the cap but not over the tax line, is that a big deal?

Should've been more clear with my verbiage--we're well over the salary cap right now, and according to hoopshype we're right under the tax line, which is 71.7 mill, with a payroll of $71,631,723

The cap is something like 58 million.

Duh-doy. I was looking at the 14-15 #'s on shamsports.

Yeah being over the tax this season even if it means getting under it next season is a big deal, because every year we're over it, not only does it mean that Wyc gets a wee bit more broke, it also means that the Celtics will almost 100% be under it the following year, so as not to be a repeat offender.

[D.o.s.]

Right. Since, starting the year after next, the repeater penalty only cares about the last four seasons.

From the FAQ, for the curious:

For 2013-14 teams pay an incremental rate based on their team salary. There is no repeater rate.

For 2014-15 teams pay an incremental rate based on their team salary. They pay the repeater rate if they also were taxpayers in all of the previous three seasons.

For 2015-16 and all subsequent seasons, teams pay an incremental rate based on their team salary. They pay the repeater rate if they were taxpayers in at least three of the four previous seasons.

[indeedproceed]

Right. Since, starting the year after next, the repeater penalty only cares about the last four seasons.

From the FAQ, for the curious:

For 2013-14 teams pay an incremental rate based on their team salary. There is no repeater rate.

For 2014-15 teams pay an incremental rate based on their team salary. They pay the repeater rate if they also were taxpayers in all of the previous three seasons.

For 2015-16 and all subsequent seasons, teams pay an incremental rate based on their team salary. They pay the repeater rate if they were taxpayers in at least three of the four previous seasons.

Wow that's the actual rule? I'd been looking at the CBAFAQ for a lot of reasons lately but I never bothered delving into the 'repeater' part of it because it seemed so self-explanatory.

[jc3celticsphan]

didnt stevens say he liked having multiple pg's

hes on an expiring deal makes sense

rondos not going to play 48 minutes and as you can tell this team has no capable ball handlers or distributors so wouldnt it make sense?

[D.o.s.]

Right. Since, starting the year after next, the repeater penalty only cares about the last four seasons.

From the FAQ, for the curious:

For 2013-14 teams pay an incremental rate based on their team salary. There is no repeater rate.

For 2014-15 teams pay an incremental rate based on their team salary. They pay the repeater rate if they also were taxpayers in all of the previous three seasons.

For 2015-16 and all subsequent seasons, teams pay an incremental rate based on their team salary. They pay the repeater rate if they were taxpayers in at least three of the four previous seasons.

Wow that's the actual rule? I'd been looking at the CBAFAQ for a lot of reasons lately but I never bothered delving into the 'repeater' part of it because it seemed so self-explanatory.

Yeah, it's in question #21 right before the first table:

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q21