OK we are creating all this cap space in the future BUT

[chlldaddy]

In my opinion it has to be for a trade or hopefully sign someone we draft that turns out to be a star to a long term contact.  I can't remember a star free agent we have signed in the past. If you can think of one in the past please post. I know once someone gets here like KG we can sign them to an extension but he didnt get to Boston from being a free agent and wanting to sign here.

[Birdman]

I been saying the same thing.

[chlldaddy]

Bird man can you remember one?

[Donoghus]

When have the Celtics ever had the cap space to sign a star free agent?

[CelticsWest714]

Celtics will have to make moves before the trade dead line, during the draft, and this summer to keep Rondo happy. He's going to want to contend while he is still in his prime. Hopefully DA is cooking something up and not just waiting until 2016/17 to become relevant.

[JOMVP]

The Celtics have never really had cap space as a luxury to go after any top tier players. If the money is right and the Celtics would end up as a competitive team, there are very few players who probably wouldn't want to sign in Boston.

[lon3lytoaster]

When have the Celtics ever had the cap space to sign a star free agent?

When there wasn't a salary cap.

[Celtics4ever]

, there are very few players who probably wouldn't want to sign in Boston.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTZ76vhnKk&feature=kp

[Donoghus]

When have the Celtics ever had the cap space to sign a star free agent?

When there wasn't a salary cap.

Ha....touche.

[bruinsandceltics]

Just for he record, creating cap space makes trading for said unknown star easier as well.

[syfy9]

Name a premier free agent the Miami Heat had signed before Lebron/Bosh.

That was really the first time they made a free agent signing of that caliber. They had the cap space to get Bosh and a surplus to entice Lebron. If they didn't have flexibility, they wouldn't have been able to create such a powerhouse team.



It's true that Boston had seldom, if ever, signed a star free agent. The fact of the matter is that the same is true for the majority of the NBA. 

[guava_wrench]

The money will be used on a lot of rookie scale deals it seems. 

While the cap is one season at a time, the organization isn't. There is continuity in the franchise. So savings while the team is bad is money that can be spent in years when we are competing.

Even better, if you are under the cap, you can trade for guys teams don't want anymore without sending back salary. For example, if NJ was under the cap, we would not have had to take Wallace's contract. Perhaps they would have been able to send one less first rounder in that scenario.

I'm not so interesting in cap space. I am interested in getting rid of contracts that are excessive for us. Lee fit that mold. I'm not sure Green does. But if we get good return for Green, go ahead. Reminds of Seattle letting Lewis and Ray walk in the same season after both tore it up. If you make the decision to rebuild, do it with gusto.

[mmmmm]

Who, exactly, would we be targeting to use this space on?

Without a target to acquire with the space, there is not great advantage to dropping way below the cap.

Yes, it allows you to take in salary in trade without having to send matching salary out.  But that's rarely an impediment if your roster has multiple small and mid-size contracts because you can usually find a third-party to facilitate moving parts around.

The negative of going way under the cap is that it then 'caps' you on how much you can spend on talent.  You can only buy your way back up to the cap.    If you stay over the cap, you can trade contracts to stay over, and maintain a 'talent budget' all the way up to the luxury tax threshold.   The tricks are to (a) not go over the LT threshold and (b) to maintain that roster with a portfolio of tradable pieces.

Obviously, a contract like Wallace's is not what you want.  But most of Danny's other contracts are fairly movable.

[slamtheking]

Who, exactly, would we be targeting to use this space on?

Without a target to acquire with the space, there is not great advantage to dropping way below the cap.

Yes, it allows you to take in salary in trade without having to send matching salary out.  But that's rarely an impediment if your roster has multiple small and mid-size contracts because you can usually find a third-party to facilitate moving parts around.

The negative of going way under the cap is that it then 'caps' you on how much you can spend on talent.  You can only buy your way back up to the cap.    If you stay over the cap, you can trade contracts to stay over, and maintain a 'talent budget' all the way up to the luxury tax threshold.   The tricks are to (a) not go over the LT threshold and (b) to maintain that roster with a portfolio of tradable pieces.

Obviously, a contract like Wallace's is not what you want.  But most of Danny's other contracts are fairly movable.

well said mmmmm -- tp

[droopdog7]

Cap space gives you flexibility.  And options.  So, while signing a superstar may or may not be in the cards, being under the cap can still be a good thing.