Poll: Yes or No Thomas at 30 million per year

[Roy H.]

  Horford and Hayward are clearly not stars.

What's your definition of "star"?

[obnoxiousmime]

Interesting question but what I find really interesting is that people feel the need to ask it about IT but seem to take it for granted that we should pay Hayward the max if we are lucky enough to be given the chance.  Is this suggesting that people think Hayward is the better player?  Hayward did not have a better year, that is for sure.  Is it because there is a perception that paying big $$ to someone 6'-7" is somehow less risky than to someone 5'-9"?

I feel like if we give out max contracts to Horford, Hayward, and IT, that it would represent fairly low talent for 3 max contracts.  Horford and Hayward are clearly not stars.  Only IT has that potential.  so back to my original question, if Hayward, why not IT?

You make a lot of statements as if they are unassailable facts:

"Hayward is clearly not a star, only IT has that potential."
"Hayward did not have a better year, that is for sure."

You mentioned height. Why does that matter? It matters because the shorter you are, the harder it is to get your shot off. If Thomas loses any athleticism, it could affect his offense dramatically. I'm also worried that Thomas small body will be less able to take a pounding as he ages. 

Thomas is also older than Hayward, that is a factor when you are giving out long term deals. Thomas may also ask for 5 years next year whereas Hayward can only get 4 from us THIS year. That makes their ages and thus primes during their potential deals very different.

They both play different positions. PG is a deep position in the league, and also deep on this team esp. after we draft Fultz.

Hayward played in a slow-it-down offense. It is not unreasonable to assume he could post better numbers in Stevens' system.

And finally, yes his defense is not good. I'm not going to say he's the worst in the league but when considering his overall game you have to include defense. That's why it's not so simple to just say "well isaiah scored more pts, he must of had a better year than hayward."

tp

It isn't really debatable that IT had the better year than Hayward though. IT made all NBA second team and Hayward didn't make a team. IT will finish top 5-6 in the league in MVP race and Hayward will most likely not finish in top 20. Both teams probably have similar levels of talent, but with IT as the best player compared to Hayward as the best player, the Celtics made it further and won more games. You can't just discount all of that.

Some of the other stuff is definitely debatable though.

All I did was ask questions with the one exception being I made the statement that IT had a better season this season than Hayward did.  I don't see how that is debatable.  In fact, in my opinion, I think IT had a better season than Hayward will ever have (that of course is opinion that is debatable).  IT may not ever have a better year either (again, debatable opinion).

I just don't get what appears to be a greater willingness to give a max to Hayward over IT, kind of without discussion.  I am not sure either is worth a max.  We probably over-maxed for Horford, where will we be if we over-max for Hayward too; and than IT on top of  that?

There is another thread where the "who is better, IT or Hayward" question did creep in and the opinions varied so that is definitely a debatable question.  Or maybe a better way to pose it is to say who will do more over the next 3 or 4 seasons.  Still very debatable.  I am not pretending to know.  If they can't get IT's hip ball back into round, it may all be moot.

You bring up the "true max" player debate. Who do you believe are the true max players out there? And how will we acquire them? Because they simply aren't available right now.

Typically I'm all for tanking to get your superstar. But we are in a unique position where we have good draft picks coming regardless. As long as we maintain flexibility, we should be able to have a competitive team while still having a shot at either 1) drafting a "true" max player or 2) trading for one when the current young stars' second contracts expire in a few years.

If we sign Thomas to a max deal, especially the 5 year, we are in danger of losing that flexibility. A long term deal for a player who will be 29.5 years old and who is tremendously short is a contract that will lose value. A 4-year deal for a player who will be 27.5 years old and whose game isn't overly reliant on athleticism and speed is a contract that has an acceptable probability to keep its value.

If you don't think Thomas is a "true" max player then his contract should look even worse. You'd already be paying him max money during his prime years, then the contract will start looking really horrible when he gets past his prime in the latter half of the deal. It's an extremely risky proposition, and meanwhile you will have Fultz sitting there making 7 million/year for three years, someone who will definitely need minutes to develop.

[GreenEnvy]

The fact of the matter is, if Rondo didn't get hurt we never would have gotten past the Bulls.

You know it, I know it, and all of the NBA knows it. They had IT's number, and their game plan was spot on.

Due to the mediocre teams in the East we actually now think IT is an answer. Don't forget, we we're slaughtered by the Cavs, the only game we won, was without him.

30 million dollars a year for a player that is perhaps the least valuable defender in the NBA, a player that is handicapped defensively, (I'm not a hater, I watch the games) a player that requires his teammates on the floor to continually help him cover his defensive assignment, many times leaving their own assignment open to score on them, allowing their own defensive rating to suffer, a player that is the 2nd or 3rd best facilitator on the team.

Yes, he a great scorer, yes, he has a giant heart, and he's a huge Celtic booster. I love the guy, we all do, but don't hand cuff the team for 4 years for a one way player.

First of all, you don't know what a "fact" is. And I love how a team "had his number" in the immediate aftermath of him losing his sister. Who exactly had his number? If the gameplan was spot on, what changed? You think Rondo is that much of a difference-maker? Prime John Wall couldn't do it, but washed-up, 31-year-old Rondo was the key to Hoiberg's master defensive scheme that IT and Brad couldn't crack.

Second, his defensive liability is often greatly exaggerated. Yeah we won a game in Cleveland without him. We also gave up 135 points at home in an elimination game without the "worst defensive player in the league." Let's blame IT for that defensive mess. Let's ignore that we showed the season before we were fully capable of having an elite defense WITH IT on the floor.

The guy had an amazing season. 29ppg for an entire season is rarified air. He's an elite offensive player, plain and simple. His bread and butter was always his offense but this summer I really believe he wants to take the next step and he will work on his defense. When he puts in the effort, the results are there. He often just gets lost on assignments, which I believe is fixable. He'll never be AB on ball, but he can an average defender IMO.

He's a good enough facilitator. I read a stat that for as good as our offense is, we are actually a below average team in wide-open makes. How often do you see them miss wide open shots? All the time? That's because they usually do and the statistics back it up. Isaiah is the only guy on the team who can consistently create his own shot AND offense for others. Al forces his offense, Marcus obviously does. Crowder is a glorified 3-and-D guy. AB is probably our most complete player, to be honest.

[Vermont Green]

  Horford and Hayward are clearly not stars.

What's your definition of "star"?

Fair question but it is kind of like defining p0rn, you just know it when you see it.  To me, what I see when watching a star is a player that can change the course of a game in the biggest moments most of the time (no one does it all the time).  Almost stars like Horford and Hayward get you a round or two in the playoffs (if they are your best players).  There are not all that many stars so some near stars are going to get max money too sometimes (like Horford).  I understand that but my point is that I am not sure we should give out two max contracts to two players who are maybe close but not really stars.

Thomas played like a star this past season (in my opinion based purely what I saw him do during games) but I am not sure that makes him a star, or at least not yet.  Horford and Hayward have never played at that level and in my opinion never will.  I have doubts that IT can continue to play at star level but he has surprised me many times already so maybe I should stop doubting him.

[Moranis]

Interesting question but what I find really interesting is that people feel the need to ask it about IT but seem to take it for granted that we should pay Hayward the max if we are lucky enough to be given the chance.  Is this suggesting that people think Hayward is the better player?  Hayward did not have a better year, that is for sure.  Is it because there is a perception that paying big $$ to someone 6'-7" is somehow less risky than to someone 5'-9"?

I feel like if we give out max contracts to Horford, Hayward, and IT, that it would represent fairly low talent for 3 max contracts.  Horford and Hayward are clearly not stars.  Only IT has that potential.  so back to my original question, if Hayward, why not IT?

You make a lot of statements as if they are unassailable facts:

"Hayward is clearly not a star, only IT has that potential."
"Hayward did not have a better year, that is for sure."

You mentioned height. Why does that matter? It matters because the shorter you are, the harder it is to get your shot off. If Thomas loses any athleticism, it could affect his offense dramatically. I'm also worried that Thomas small body will be less able to take a pounding as he ages. 

Thomas is also older than Hayward, that is a factor when you are giving out long term deals. Thomas may also ask for 5 years next year whereas Hayward can only get 4 from us THIS year. That makes their ages and thus primes during their potential deals very different.

They both play different positions. PG is a deep position in the league, and also deep on this team esp. after we draft Fultz.

Hayward played in a slow-it-down offense. It is not unreasonable to assume he could post better numbers in Stevens' system.

And finally, yes his defense is not good. I'm not going to say he's the worst in the league but when considering his overall game you have to include defense. That's why it's not so simple to just say "well isaiah scored more pts, he must of had a better year than hayward."

tp

It isn't really debatable that IT had the better year than Hayward though. IT made all NBA second team and Hayward didn't make a team. IT will finish top 5-6 in the league in MVP race and Hayward will most likely not finish in top 20. Both teams probably have similar levels of talent, but with IT as the best player compared to Hayward as the best player, the Celtics made it further and won more games. You can't just discount all of that.

Some of the other stuff is definitely debatable though.

All I did was ask questions with the one exception being I made the statement that IT had a better season this season than Hayward did.  I don't see how that is debatable.  In fact, in my opinion, I think IT had a better season than Hayward will ever have (that of course is opinion that is debatable).  IT may not ever have a better year either (again, debatable opinion).

I just don't get what appears to be a greater willingness to give a max to Hayward over IT, kind of without discussion.  I am not sure either is worth a max.  We probably over-maxed for Horford, where will we be if we over-max for Hayward too; and than IT on top of  that?

There is another thread where the "who is better, IT or Hayward" question did creep in and the opinions varied so that is definitely a debatable question.  Or maybe a better way to pose it is to say who will do more over the next 3 or 4 seasons.  Still very debatable.  I am not pretending to know.  If they can't get IT's hip ball back into round, it may all be moot.

You bring up the "true max" player debate. Who do you believe are the true max players out there? And how will we acquire them? Because they simply aren't available right now.

Typically I'm all for tanking to get your superstar. But we are in a unique position where we have good draft picks coming regardless. As long as we maintain flexibility, we should be able to have a competitive team while still having a shot at either 1) drafting a "true" max player or 2) trading for one when the current young stars' second contracts expire in a few years.

If we sign Thomas to a max deal, especially the 5 year, we are in danger of losing that flexibility. A long term deal for a player who will be 29.5 years old and who is tremendously short is a contract that will lose value. A 4-year deal for a player who will be 27.5 years old and whose game isn't overly reliant on athleticism and speed is a contract that has an acceptable probability to keep its value.

If you don't think Thomas is a "true" max player then his contract should look even worse. You'd already be paying him max money during his prime years, then the contract will start looking really horrible when he gets past his prime in the latter half of the deal. It's an extremely risky proposition, and meanwhile you will have Fultz sitting there making 7 million/year for three years, someone who will definitely need minutes to develop.

just beacuse you have room doesn't mean you should waste it and tie up your team long term.  We saw a lot of that last summer. Obviously Hayward is a lot better than many players but Hayward alone doesn't move the needle at all so what is the end game if you sign him. 

[nebist]

I think Hayward "moves the needle".  He is a [dang] good player and gives us significantly more talent and size on the wing than we currently have.  You have to take the opportunities that are there to get significantly better (like with Horford last year).  Did Horford make us a true title contender? No.  But he helped add 5 wins to our regular season record, achieve home court advantage in the playoffs, and advance to the ECF as opposed to getting knocked out in the first round.  Would Hayward make us a better team than the Cavs or Warriors? No.  But he definitely makes us better and starts to incrementally close the gap.  And that opens the door.  What if Fultz or Brown make a leap to stardom earlier than expected?  What if the favorites deal with key injuries?  What if a major big becomes available at the trade deadline for future assets?  Bottom line is Hayward moves the needle because he takes an already very strong team and gets it closer to being a true championship contender without costing the flexibility to continue to improve.

[Moranis]

I think Hayward "moves the needle".  He is a [dang] good player and gives us significantly more talent and size on the wing than we currently have.  You have to take the opportunities that are there to get significantly better (like with Horford last year).  Did Horford make us a true title contender? No.  But he helped add 5 wins to our regular season record, achieve home court advantage in the playoffs, and advance to the ECF as opposed to getting knocked out in the first round.  Would Hayward make us a better team than the Cavs or Warriors? No.  But he definitely makes us better and starts to incrementally close the gap.  And that opens the door.  What if Fultz or Brown make a leap to stardom earlier than expected?  What if the favorites deal with key injuries?  What if a major big becomes available at the trade deadline for future assets?  Bottom line is Hayward moves the needle because he takes an already very strong team and gets it closer to being a true championship contender without costing the flexibility to continue to improve.

so what is the end game by signing Hayward? What other moves are you making to make the team better, alleviate the future cap issues, and get proper development of the young players? After signing Hayward what do you do next?

[crimcartel]

3 years 30 mil is ok with me.. he has 3 more good years IMO. add in one more allstar this year and draft fultz.. I think jaylen takes a big leap next year

[LilRip]

I can understand the concerns defensively. He's one of the worst defenders in the league. But given what he's accomplished? He deserves the max! From: https://sports.yahoo.com/news/isaiah-thomas-wrote-celtics-masterpiece-boston-took-2-0-lead-031842858.html

These last few weeks have thrown everything they could at Isaiah Thomas. His heart is wrenching, and his face is wearing the pain in more ways than one. But he is still standing, still fighting, still winning. He will live with these last 17 days for the rest of his life, and he’s making sure we won’t forget, either.

The dude is all heart and embodies Celtic culture.

[Jvalin]

I bet some desperate GM offers him crazy money in an attempt to save his job. If we are not willing to pay him, it's highly likely that we are gonna lose him for nothing.

[mmmmm]

I'm hoping he takes whatever keeps us out of the tax.

I'm also hoping to find a way to get Hayward and keep Olynyk.

And that Santa is really good to me this year. Hey, what can I say.

Why are you concerned about saving Wyc money?

Oh -- are you expecting him to buy you a Christmas present?  LOL!

More seriously:  Fans shouldn't really get too hung up on the luxury tax.  It is a cost of doing business.  It doesn't really factor into roster construction other than as an expense for the owners.

And sure, I'm not advocating spending foolishly.  But I see no reason to cry tears if the owners have to spend some of their massive profits in order to pay the players that have earned so much $$ for them.

Another way to put it is:  Why be concerned about saving the owner's money here and not be concerned about the player getting paid fair market value for his services?   Because THAT is the trade off here.

[mmmmm]

If we sign Thomas to a max deal, especially the 5 year, we are in danger of losing that flexibility. A long term deal for a player who will be 29.5 years old and who is tremendously short is a contract that will lose value. A 4-year deal for a player who will be 27.5 years old and whose game isn't overly reliant on athleticism and speed is a contract that has an acceptable probability to keep its value.

Explain this.  Explain in detail just how signing Thomas to a max deal interferes in any way with possible roster moves.

Signing IT to a max next summer has zero bearing on who we can sign this summer (unless you advocate trading IT's salary now in a dump to get it off the books for cap room).

By next summer, whether we sign a max free agent now (i.e., Hayward/Millsap/other) or instead just re-sign our own free agents (i.e., Olynyk, Jerebko) we will be over the cap either way.

At that point, whether we sign Isaiah to a max contract or to another rookie-level deal has ZERO impact on whether we can or will re-sign any of our other free agents (AB, MS) or new rookies (BKN 18, BOS 18).   We won't be able to sign any external FA because we will be over the cap anyway.

The only trade-off in consideration regarding Isaiah's, Avery's & Marcus' contracts will be how much Wyc is willing to pay luxury tax.

Otherwise, no CBA roster rule prevents signing all three of them.   (Though possibly one might have been traded this summer already in order to create cap room now.  That just relaxes the tax constraint but doesn't really change things much.)

Horford's deal would still be in effect for the first two years of an IT contract so Boston would be carrying three max deals (Horford, Isaiah and presumably Hayward) for two years before they would drop back below the luxury tax threshold (though they would still likely be above the salary cap).  They would at that point need to start re-signing guys like Jaylen Brown to his first post-rookie deal.  That may or may not push us back up above the luxury tax, but nothing will prevent us from doing so other than a desire to save luxury tax.

The following year, 'Hayward's contract would come off the books.  At that point he may or may not be re-signed to a new contract. It would likely still be a large contract, but probably a smaller percentage of cap than a max deal.   Fultz, Zizic and possibly Yabusele might also need to be re-signed at that point.

Where in this are we restricted from doing something that we would be able to do if we DON'T sign Thomas to a 'max' contract?   

What would be different if we signed him to say, a 12M per year contract?  Or if we let him WALK and only decide to pay Avery & Marcus.   I'll tell you the answer: 

Only one major thing changes -- how much luxury tax is paid. (Oh, and loss of IT if we let him walk, of course)

Now, if your overriding concern is to save Wyc's pocketbook, then that should be important to you.

If you believe we should pay fair market value for our players and that our focus should be on constructing the roster based on basketball reasons, then it should not.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

No, not for me. I always think it's $25 million per.

That's about the price I want us to pay him. He needs to be compensated for what he has brought us last season, and for what he's going to bring in the next ones. But he is a defensive liability and he has to know that. If he can get that price tag somewhere else, then he should go there. I just don't think we should pay more than $25 million for a guy who has a big limitation.

[kozlodoev]

I can understand the concerns defensively. He's one of the worst defenders in the league. But given what he's accomplished? He deserves the max! From: https://sports.yahoo.com/news/isaiah-thomas-wrote-celtics-masterpiece-boston-took-2-0-lead-031842858.html

These last few weeks have thrown everything they could at Isaiah Thomas. His heart is wrenching, and his face is wearing the pain in more ways than one. But he is still standing, still fighting, still winning. He will live with these last 17 days for the rest of his life, and he’s making sure we won’t forget, either.

The dude is all heart and embodies Celtic culture.

The dude might be all heart, but he needs both of his legs to play. Until we see how his hip panned out (surgery still hasn't been ruled out), all contract talk is premature.

[dreamgreen]

I said yes not because he's worth it (nobody is in the real world) but if that's the market rate than you pay it.