2020 NBA Draft Thread

[Bleeding Green]

Yeah they're just going to have to pay the tax for a decade while Tatum rips down MVP trophies and hoists championship banners. I'm sure they'll be fine.

[SMTBSI]

Just to illustrate how implausible it is to get below the tax without a Hayward re-negotiation, consider this extreme scenario:

- All potential FAs but Hayward depart. Kanter opts out and goes elsewhere. Wanamaker walks. Ojeleye is not retained. Waters and Fall are not signed.
- All picks are either traded into the future, or used to clear flotsam salaries. Let's say Poirier and Edwards are moved.
- We only fill the roster up to the minimum of 12 players, using only 0 years-of-service vet min contracts to do it.

34.379100 - Walker
34.187085 - Hayward
23.883928 - Brown
13.446428 - Smart
09.897120 - Tatum
05.000000 - Theis
03.631200 - Langford
02.489760 - G.Williams
02.029920 - R.Williams
00.898310 - 0YOS min
00.898310 - 0YOS min
00.898310 - 0YOS min

01.039080 - Yabusele
00.092857 - Jackson

132.780408 - Total
132.627000 - Flat tax

So you're still not even under yet. And, if you want to roster more than 12 players, now you need to start selling off the likes of Theis, Langford, or the WIlliamses. It would just be a complete nuking of the team.

[djFan71]

Well you said you can get there, but you can only get there if you sell off young players and picks. 3/80 puts Hayward at ~24.5million the first year assuming usual 8% raises. And if you aren't selling off players and picks, you can't get below the lux tax unless I'm using all fake numbers here. Poirier, Edwards, 14, 26, 30 accounts for 12.1 million.

I interpreted "selling off" as dumping for no return like the original proposal from snowman. That I don't do. Trading for future picks / lower salary players that are fair trades are on the table. With that you CAN get there. But I doubt we do.

I think the most likely scenario is probably something like 3/80ish for Hayward.
Keep all the guys with guarantees and all 3 picks. That's 15 and you're done.

You're still slightly over the tax (~$5M), but you've decreased the burden quite a bit from Hayward at $34M and stay in the first rate tier. Then at the deadline you buy, sell or do nothing. Probably nothing.

If you want to sign Waters or Wanamaker or a 2nd or whatever, you either eat (maybe stretch) Poirier or trade 30 for a future pick, etc.

[bucknersrevenge]

Kevin O'Connor has the Celtics taking Cole Anthony at 14 and Isaiah Stewart at 26.

I would love both those picks to be completely honest. Both would be upgrades over the current bench.

I read his scouting report on Cole Anthony. I thought it was interesting to not just look at the strengths, but the weaknesses. Not to nitpick, but to see if there were any red flags of why he wouldn't work here:

1) Shot selection: He forces too many contested looks instead of looking to pass, which causes bouts with streakiness.

Does this come down to who he is, or the situation he was in? Playing with Tatum/Brown/Kemba/Hayward/Smart, would he feel the need to force shots like he did on that terrible UNC team? You'd think not, though some people are just wired that way.

2) Not a pure playmaker, nor does he naturally make his teammates better. He needs to work on making advanced reads, but even on the simple passes his accuracy is underwhelming.

Through the years, Stevens has never gravitated towards the 10 assist per game type of guy. Just not how he runs his offense. The type of playmaking he seems to prefer is getting into the paint off of the P&R to break the defense down. So the fact that he's not a "pure playmaker" doesn't really seem to be much of a weakness in this system. Weak accuracy on simple passes would be a concern because you do need to be able to do that. But our system gravitates more towards scoring lead guards than playmakers.

3) Defensive versatility: He plays hard and smart, but he’s still undersized and likely to be targeted by opponents on switches or against elite guards.

IT, Kyrie, Kemba... all we've ever had are guards who need to be helped on that end. This weaknees just seems like more of the same and something the system is used to. As long as you play hard, which Cole Anthony does, it works fine for us. Obviously you'd prefer Smart level defenders everywhere but that's not practical and this seems to be a sacrifice we're willing to make in our lead guards.

4) Underwent surgery in 2019 for a partially torn meniscus in his right knee.

Hard to comment on medicals. Gotta have team docs look at the records/examine him and decide if it's a concern. Can't really assess how much of a concern this is or isn't as a fan.



So overall, it seems that all of the knocks on Cole Anthony are the things Stevens' system has historically accepted as weaknesses of its lead guards. The things he struggles with are the things Stevens hasn't historically asked his point guards to do. So in conclusion, the things he CAN'T do don't seem to be dealbreakers for us. So if the things he projects to be able to do he can actually do, I think he'd be a nice fit here.

I do still prefer Kira Lewis because I think the speed is just a can't teach thing that's going to increase the odds his skills translate of getting into the paint and breaking the defense down. But I've always felt Anthony is a good fit here.

Couldn't agree more. Your breakdown here is precisely the reason I'm high on Anthony. Add in that Danny typically keeps his eye on highly ranked high schoolers, and you have a real case for Anthony. He plays with a swag and shot-making ability that Brad tends to love from his ballhandlers. Tyrell Terry fits as a shotmaker as well. Both guys are willing rebounders too. Now I won't let myself consider Killian Hayes who I think checks even more boxes but if he drops, all bets are off.

[hugepatsfan]

Well you said you can get there, but you can only get there if you sell off young players and picks. 3/80 puts Hayward at ~24.5million the first year assuming usual 8% raises. And if you aren't selling off players and picks, you can't get below the lux tax unless I'm using all fake numbers here. Poirier, Edwards, 14, 26, 30 accounts for 12.1 million.

I interpreted "selling off" as dumping for no return like the original proposal from snowman. That I don't do. Trading for future picks / lower salary players that are fair trades are on the table. With that you CAN get there. But I doubt we do.

I think the most likely scenario is probably something like 3/80ish for Hayward.
Keep all the guys with guarantees and all 3 picks. That's 15 and you're done.

You're still slightly over the tax (~$5M), but you've decreased the burden quite a bit from Hayward at $34M and stay in the first rate tier. Then at the deadline you buy, sell or do nothing. Probably nothing.

If you want to sign Waters or Wanamaker or a 2nd or whatever, you either eat (maybe stretch) Poirier or trade 30 for a future pick, etc.

I don’t think a 3 for 80 makes sense. If you have Hayward opt out and lower his ‘20-21 cap number you’re going to have to give him more than he expects to get in the out years to justify it to him.

The further over the tax you are, the higher tax rate you pay. It’s a ladder scale. For ‘20-21, we’ll have Hayward/Kemba/Brown on big money deals. Starting in ‘21-22, it will be those guys plus Tatum’s new deal. And then in ‘22-23 you’ll also have to extend Smart at likely a raise. And this is the year repeater rates will kick in.

In summary, we’ll be a lot higher over the tax in future years then we will in ‘20-21. So it’d be extremely counter productive to preemptively extend Hayward because that would push money back into future years when it will be taxed at much higher rates. Unless it’s part of an overall strategy to avoid the tax entirely for ‘20-21, it doesn’t make sense to reduce Hayward’s option number. Any extension you would just tack on years to his current deal that way you’re paying less tax because it would be less.

[djFan71]

Well you said you can get there, but you can only get there if you sell off young players and picks. 3/80 puts Hayward at ~24.5million the first year assuming usual 8% raises. And if you aren't selling off players and picks, you can't get below the lux tax unless I'm using all fake numbers here. Poirier, Edwards, 14, 26, 30 accounts for 12.1 million.

I interpreted "selling off" as dumping for no return like the original proposal from snowman. That I don't do. Trading for future picks / lower salary players that are fair trades are on the table. With that you CAN get there. But I doubt we do.

I think the most likely scenario is probably something like 3/80ish for Hayward.
Keep all the guys with guarantees and all 3 picks. That's 15 and you're done.

You're still slightly over the tax (~$5M), but you've decreased the burden quite a bit from Hayward at $34M and stay in the first rate tier. Then at the deadline you buy, sell or do nothing. Probably nothing.

If you want to sign Waters or Wanamaker or a 2nd or whatever, you either eat (maybe stretch) Poirier or trade 30 for a future pick, etc.

I don’t think a 3 for 80 makes sense. If you have Hayward opt out and lower his ‘20-21 cap number you’re going to have to give him more than he expects to get in the out years to justify it to him.

The further over the tax you are, the higher tax rate you pay. It’s a ladder scale. For ‘20-21, we’ll have Hayward/Kemba/Brown on big money deals. Starting in ‘21-22, it will be those guys plus Tatum’s new deal. And then in ‘22-23 you’ll also have to extend Smart at likely a raise. And this is the year repeater rates will kick in.

In summary, we’ll be a lot higher over the tax in future years then we will in ‘20-21. So it’d be extremely counter productive to preemptively extend Hayward because that would push money back into future years when it will be taxed at much higher rates. Unless it’s part of an overall strategy to avoid the tax entirely for ‘20-21, it doesn’t make sense to reduce Hayward’s option number. Any extension you would just tack on years to his current deal that way you’re paying less tax because it would be less.

The increasing tax later is definitely an issue. I haven't run all the numbers that far out, but time value of money and ever changing future as opposed to sure tax next year come into play, imo.

3/$80M is $25.5/$26.8/$28.1 roughly.
As an extension you're talking $34.2/$23/$23 (last 2 years same just to keep it simple). So, $3.8M more in 2022, $5.1M in 2023.

If we keep Hayward at $34M next year and sign all 3 picks, keep all the guaranteed guys for a 15 man roster, we're ~$145M next year => ~$13M over. Which is the third tier of the lux tax at $2.50. So, ~$23M in tax. If you redo Hayward and stay in that first tier, you're max $7.5M. So, call it $15M more next year by not reducing Haywards 2021 salary. Next year. During the pandemic with no live fans. Plus, you are within $5M at the deadline, so if the season has all gone to hell then due to injuries, you can do deals to duck then.

For the future, if you assume a static roster and just re-upping guys into the future, the you surely pay a lot more in total tax. No argument there. But, even at the simplest level, Kanter comes off next year. Replace him with vet min and that's the majority of the incremental $ difference in Hayward's 2022 salary. Poirier too. Replace both with vet mins and you're past the Hayward difference. Or don't replace Poirier and stay at 14 slots.

By 2023, you have probably had at least some roster changes. If not, you're probably letting Smart go and hoping that one of the bazillion picks you've had the last few years panned out and can take his place. Or you deal Hayward or Kemba as an expiring. Or you trade Smart/Jaylen for the next disgruntled star before then. Who knows? Point is there are a lot of different roster decisions that may dwarf the incremental difference in Hayward salary for 2022 and beyond.

Also, by 2023, you would assume the cap will rise more than $5.1M from today's value. Just assuming fans by the 2021-22 season would get you there, most likely.

You may be right and they don't offer him a new deal. But, I don't think the math is as overwhelming against 3/$80M as you laid out. What is sure is that a new deal saves them ~$15M next year if they stay in the tax. Or, if you go full to the duck the tax, $22M. Which we both agree isn't possible without a new Hayward deal.

[snowman]

Would we give up the 30th pick and 3 mil cash to a team to take Poirier and Edwards ? Would it take that much to move them? I know Boston can replace them with the 14th and 26th pick. This little bit of savings would free up 2 roster spots, and clear some off the lux tax. It could also help in the negotiating with Hayward's extension.

No. Why are we giving up 3 players and three million dollars?! Would that really get them below the luxury tax? You still have to sign players with the extra roster spots and you're gonna be hard pressed to find players much cheaper than Carsen Edwards.

I think they're over the luxury tax no matter what unless Kanter backs out and they just sell all their draft picks.

All depends on Hayward. If he just opts in, no way. If he opts out and walks or resigns starting in the mid-20s, you can get there. Depends on if he wants 3/70, 3/80, etc. But, either way, I agree you don't sell them off. If you can punt them down the road and not lose value, great. If you can use them and salary & better player back at a lower salary, great. But, not just a sale. I think they'll try to minimize the tax, but aren't going to waste assets just to duck it.

This is my reason for the post. In defense, folks are ready to give up Gordon Hayward for anything they can get, to go under the tax, and delay the repeater tax. But are the same ones who act like I would be selling their mother to give away the last pick in the first round to move a couple of bench scrubs. Not that this move would make much difference, and I do not advocate doing it, simply a question to see the plausibility.

[hugepatsfan]

Just to illustrate how implausible it is to get below the tax without a Hayward re-negotiation, consider this extreme scenario:

- All potential FAs but Hayward depart. Kanter opts out and goes elsewhere. Wanamaker walks. Ojeleye is not retained. Waters and Fall are not signed.
- All picks are either traded into the future, or used to clear flotsam salaries. Let's say Poirier and Edwards are moved.
- We only fill the roster up to the minimum of 12 players, using only 0 years-of-service vet min contracts to do it.

34.379100 - Walker
34.187085 - Hayward
23.883928 - Brown
13.446428 - Smart
09.897120 - Tatum
05.000000 - Theis
03.631200 - Langford
02.489760 - G.Williams
02.029920 - R.Williams
00.898310 - 0YOS min
00.898310 - 0YOS min
00.898310 - 0YOS min

01.039080 - Yabusele
00.092857 - Jackson

132.780408 - Total
132.627000 - Flat tax

So you're still not even under yet. And, if you want to roster more than 12 players, now you need to start selling off the likes of Theis, Langford, or the WIlliamses. It would just be a complete nuking of the team.

Very telling illustration and puts things in context. I'll just add on one more nugget. Before COVID, the tax line was projected to be about $139M. So you can see how getting under the tax with Hayward on his extension would have been extremely plausible. Still would have had to use the late 1sts to maybe clear some money (Kanter if he opted in, Poirier), but that extra $6M would have the cushion needed to the numbers above to fill out the roster and sign the MEM pick).

So all offseason long and through the deadline we've heard that they want to keep Hayward. But this shows how doing so is now VERY MATERIALLY different. Re-signing Hayward will definitely have us in the tax for '21-22 and '22-23 once Tatum's extension is added. If we now go over in '20-21 as well, that means not just more tax for that season, but repeater tax down the line, which is about 4 times as much as normal tax. Over the next 3 years, keeping Hayward is pushing $100M more expensive if we're over the tax in '20-21 vs not being over. I would love if Wyc said "money ain't no thing, go get banner 18!!!". I just find it a little naive to think there's no ramifications of that. Even if it doesn't mean Wyc says we have to let Hayward go, it might mean he says we can't use the MLE in '21-22 and/or '22-23 to help save some of that incremental cost. He might not let us re-sign Theis. He might not sign off on rookie scale for proven vet deals that add salary (i.e. sending out $8M of salary for a player making $13M). By getting under the tax in '20-21, I think we make moves like that more plausible on top of a Hayward extension.

Just like you're graphic illustrates that it's not realistic to get under the tax with Hayward at his current deal, I think it does show the feasibility of getting under if we do rework it some. If we gave him a deal starting at $28M, I think a 3 or 4 year deal we could make it work under the tax. That frees up $8.2M vs what he's at on the current deal. That $8.2M should open things up to round out the roster, sign picks, etc.

But no doubt that's going light on the bench. You're talking about going with low cost options for a year. Maybe letting guys like Wanamaker and/or Semi go to replace with an unproven rookie. Using #26 and/or #30 to clear some back end salary (Kanter, Poirier, possibly Edwards). Maybe letting Tacko and/or Waters sign with another team to save some money on a 1 year minimum vs the 2 year minimum. It would be a tight salary crunch and require some sacrifice. But in the grand scheme of things I think it's small sacrifices to make if the alternative is some of the things I mentioned earlier.

My hope would be that if Wyc says we need to get under the tax in '20-21 to keep Hayward so he doesn't have to pay repeater tax to do it, he balances it out by saying that we can spend whatever we want in '21-22 and '22-23 to make up for it since it won't be raxed at repeater rates So next offseason (going into '21-22), we can re-sign Theis and sign a MLE guy. Use the MLE again in '22-23. Trade rookie scale guys for vets making more if the opportunity arises.

[BostonCouchGM]

WYC gives lip service when it comes to the luxury tax but unless we're legitimately one of the five best teams in the NBA with a chance to win a championship, he's not going to pay. And we're not. Though I'm sure many here would disagree. We have to pay Tatum and that gives us our Big Three of Kemba, Tatum and Brown. Clearly that's not good enough. Which is why it was imperative Danny draft extremely well last draft. That unfortunately didn't happen. But thankfully, he's got three more shots at it in a draft that has player's values all over the place thus likely to enable great players to fall to our picks. He HAS to hit big on one of these selections with the other two being huge upgrades over what we have on the bench, if we're to have any hope of winning a championship.

[Bleeding Green]

The Celtics have been one of the final 4 teams twice in the last four years and if they win against the Raptors they will be one of the final 4 teams again. But they aren't a top 5 team. Makes sense. They have Kemba, Brown, and one of the premier under-25 players in the league who gets better every week. Not a top 5 team. I swear they could sweep the Lakers in the finals and some would call it fake news. They've had opportunities to shed salary before and done nothing. They probably aren't going to go insane like the Warriors have with the tax (unless they win multiple championships and go to the Finals every year for 5 years I suppose), but they've shown no signs of caring about money til now. If they win, the franchise goes up in value like 100% per championship.

[SMTBSI]

If we now go over in '20-21 as well, that means not just more tax for that season, but repeater tax down the line, which is about 4 times as much as normal tax.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this is not true. The repeater tax is painful, but not quite that painful.

The lux tax is a marginal tax, with the following brackets:


Non-repeater:

$ above tax line --- tax rate
$00mil - $05mil --- $1.50
$05mil - $10mil --- $1.75
$10mil - $15mil --- $2.50
$15mil - $20mil --- $3.25
$20mil - $25mil --- $3.75
+$.50 for each additional $5mil

Repeater:

$ above tax line --- tax rate
$00mil - $05mil --- $2.50
$05mil - $10mil --- $2.75
$10mil - $15mil --- $3.50
$15mil - $20mil --- $4.25
$20mil - $25mil --- $4.75
+$.50 for each additional $5mil

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q18

So the repeater actually just taxes you an extra dollar for every dollar you are over the taxline. I.E. a $5mil contract is exactly $5mil more expensive for a repeater team than a non-repeater team.


This doesn't invalidate any of your points. Just wanted to put down the actual tax numbers for anyone's reference.

[hugepatsfan]

If we now go over in '20-21 as well, that means not just more tax for that season, but repeater tax down the line, which is about 4 times as much as normal tax.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this is not true. The repeater tax is painful, but not quite that painful.

The lux tax is a marginal tax, with the following brackets:


Non-repeater:

$ above tax line --- tax rate
$00mil - $05mil --- $1.50
$05mil - $10mil --- $1.75
$10mil - $15mil --- $2.50
$15mil - $20mil --- $3.25
$20mil - $25mil --- $3.75
+$.50 for each additional $5mil

Repeater:

$ above tax line --- tax rate
$00mil - $05mil --- $2.50
$05mil - $10mil --- $2.75
$10mil - $15mil --- $3.50
$15mil - $20mil --- $4.25
$20mil - $25mil --- $4.75
+$.50 for each additional $5mil

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q18

So the repeater actually just taxes you an extra dollar for every dollar you are over the taxline. I.E. a $5mil contract is exactly $5mil more expensive for a repeater team than a non-repeater team.


This doesn't invalidate any of your points. Just wanted to put down the actual tax numbers for anyone's reference.

Hmm interesting. I had read that it was 475% in the highest bucket and took it to mean that it was 475% of the normal tax but looks like it just means 475% of the overage. That definitely reduces how much the impact of being over the repeater tax is.

The fact that Wyc didn't mandate we get under the luxury tax in '18-19 is a good sign. Remember, going into that year we had hoped to re-sign Kyrie and keep Horford. So it's not like we weren't planning to get into the luxury tax in the future. Yet we didn't make relatively minor moves to dip it and push off rates.

I post lots of trade ideas but I can't stress enough that plan A is to just keep Hayward. And if Wyc isn't worried about repeater tax then that's even more ability to add. And even if he is worried about tax my plan A then would still be keeping Hayward with other moves that facilitate it. I just post the trade ideas as contingencies because those are the ideas that actually are interesting to post for me. Otherwise it's just "keep everyone, use the MLE". No trade ideas to discuss there in a trade ideas thread haha

[3D Chess]

Which is why it was imperative Danny draft extremely well last draft. That unfortunately didn't happen..

Both of Danny's first round picks were positive contributors in our first round sweep. Not sure you can ask for much more out of rookies in the #14 and #22 draft slots.

[Pharaoh]

What's your organisation's plans for these 2 late picks?

Looking to move up?

Looking to sell them both?

Looking to clear some salary?

This Piston fan wants both picks

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

You can have one, but you gotta take Enes Kanter too

[SLCceltic]

In a perfect world DA gladly moves these picks as we have more than enough youth !! That said, if DA does not like the return for these picks he will keep them and add three more rookies ...

[Cuban Pete]

Kevin O'Connor has the Celtics taking Cole Anthony at 14 and Isaiah Stewart at 26.

I would love both those picks to be completely honest. Both would be upgrades over the current bench.

I read his scouting report on Cole Anthony. I thought it was interesting to not just look at the strengths, but the weaknesses. Not to nitpick, but to see if there were any red flags of why he wouldn't work here:

1) Shot selection: He forces too many contested looks instead of looking to pass, which causes bouts with streakiness.

Does this come down to who he is, or the situation he was in? Playing with Tatum/Brown/Kemba/Hayward/Smart, would he feel the need to force shots like he did on that terrible UNC team? You'd think not, though some people are just wired that way.

2) Not a pure playmaker, nor does he naturally make his teammates better. He needs to work on making advanced reads, but even on the simple passes his accuracy is underwhelming.

Through the years, Stevens has never gravitated towards the 10 assist per game type of guy. Just not how he runs his offense. The type of playmaking he seems to prefer is getting into the paint off of the P&R to break the defense down. So the fact that he's not a "pure playmaker" doesn't really seem to be much of a weakness in this system. Weak accuracy on simple passes would be a concern because you do need to be able to do that. But our system gravitates more towards scoring lead guards than playmakers.

3) Defensive versatility: He plays hard and smart, but he’s still undersized and likely to be targeted by opponents on switches or against elite guards.

IT, Kyrie, Kemba... all we've ever had are guards who need to be helped on that end. This weaknees just seems like more of the same and something the system is used to. As long as you play hard, which Cole Anthony does, it works fine for us. Obviously you'd prefer Smart level defenders everywhere but that's not practical and this seems to be a sacrifice we're willing to make in our lead guards.

4) Underwent surgery in 2019 for a partially torn meniscus in his right knee.

Hard to comment on medicals. Gotta have team docs look at the records/examine him and decide if it's a concern. Can't really assess how much of a concern this is or isn't as a fan.



So overall, it seems that all of the knocks on Cole Anthony are the things Stevens' system has historically accepted as weaknesses of its lead guards. The things he struggles with are the things Stevens hasn't historically asked his point guards to do. So in conclusion, the things he CAN'T do don't seem to be dealbreakers for us. So if the things he projects to be able to do he can actually do, I think he'd be a nice fit here.

I do still prefer Kira Lewis because I think the speed is just a can't teach thing that's going to increase the odds his skills translate of getting into the paint and breaking the defense down. But I've always felt Anthony is a good fit here.

Couldn't agree more. Your breakdown here is precisely the reason I'm high on Anthony. Add in that Danny typically keeps his eye on highly ranked high schoolers, and you have a real case for Anthony. He plays with a swag and shot-making ability that Brad tends to love from his ballhandlers. Tyrell Terry fits as a shotmaker as well. Both guys are willing rebounders too. Now I won't let myself consider Killian Hayes who I think checks even more boxes but if he drops, all bets are off.

Anthony isn't a true freshman. He's a year older than his class. His 75% FT% is pedestrian. That, on top of the cons mentioned above. Kira Lewis isn't a true sophomore. He's a year YOUNGER than his class. His upside as a great shooter and PG is high. I keep going back and forth between him and Terry as my #1 PGs.

[BostonCouchGM]

In a perfect world DA gladly moves these picks as we have more than enough youth !! That said, if DA does not like the return for these picks he will keep them and add three more rookies ...

lots of youth. Not a lot of good youth beyond Tatum and Brown. It shouldn't be too hard to draft upgrades over the 2019 picks or simply to replace FA losses since we'll be cap strapped

[sully00]

WYC gives lip service when it comes to the luxury tax but unless we're legitimately one of the five best teams in the NBA with a chance to win a championship, he's not going to pay. And we're not. Though I'm sure many here would disagree. We have to pay Tatum and that gives us our Big Three of Kemba, Tatum and Brown. Clearly that's not good enough. Which is why it was imperative Danny draft extremely well last draft. That unfortunately didn't happen. But thankfully, he's got three more shots at it in a draft that has player's values all over the place thus likely to enable great players to fall to our picks. He HAS to hit big on one of these selections with the other two being huge upgrades over what we have on the bench, if we're to have any hope of winning a championship.

This is a weak take. Wyc paid lux tax for years while Danny rebuilt this club. Then paid it for years when the Celts were competing for championships, and then paid to take crappy salaries to rebuild again it is just a fact. Nobody pays more than they have to but Wyc has throughout his ownership paid 10 mil for a 5 mil guy. If anything Ainge is reluctant to put himself in sucky cap situation not ownership.

[sully00]

What's your organisation's plans for these 2 late picks?

Looking to move up?

Looking to sell them both?

Looking to clear some salary?

This Piston fan wants both picks

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

S&T of Wood could probably get you all 3