Trade Ideas Thread

[24istheLAW]

The Nuggets aren't gonna let Grant get away. He defends 4 and 5 and they need him to hide Jokic defensively.

[24istheLAW]

Here's my Orlando idea that doesnt involve Aaron Gordon.

Isaac, Fournier, Ross for Hayward, Romeo, and Edwards, Memphis 1st

If Hayward opts in, Orl probably doesnt give up Isaac for a rental. Fournier probably doesnt opt in either, having a great year. But if Hayward opts in for the one year deal, I think hes gone soon and we should get something for him.

We could start kemba, JB, JT, Isaac, Theis with a bench of Smart, Ross, Fournier, Grant, Bob Williams, etc. Also it breaks Haywards contract into smaller tradeable mid sized pieces.

Orlando has two 4s and moves on from Isaac to give Gordon his minutes, gets Hayward who is a better playmaker than Fournier and picks up Langford and a pick to add some upside.

Dizzy

Definitely won’t happen but damn I’d love Isaac here. Not only the perfect 4 for us but keeps Tatum at the 3 too.

IMO Isaac is off-limits. Only keeper on that team's roster. You need to be getting THE MAN back.

Dude is only 22 and looked like a DPOY contender. He's got Smart-like hands digging the ball out. Athletically he's good enough laterally to close games and stay on the floor in the playoffs, unlike other franchise F/C players.

Orlando isn't a good developmental environment, and I don't know if he has the makeup/support to develop his offensive game, but he really doesn't have to be that great offensively to be a top NBA player. Pascal Siakam is a top impact guy and Isaac could do the same.

[hugepatsfan]

Imagine this won't be popular for people who love Bob Williams' upside but hear me out...

BOS gives: F Gordon Hayward, F Semi Ojeleye, C Robert Williams
BOS gets: F Jerami Grant (3 year deal via S&T), trade exception

DEN gives: F Jerami Grant (3 year deal via S&T), G Gary Harris, future 2nd rounder
DEN gets: F Gordon Hayward

ATL gives: nothing
ATL gets: G Gary Harris, F Semi Ojeleye, C Robert Williams, future DEN 2nd rounder

This deal frees us up to use the FULL MLE this year. We could target a C like Serge Ibaka who brings that 3&D play to the C spot - give him a 3 year deal to lock him in. Grant takes Hayward's place in the lineup and would be a great stretch 4 to move Tatum to the SF spot. We create a trade exception that would be worth anywhere from $20-25M depending on what Grant's 1st year salary is. We wouldn't be able to use it this year because we'd want to stay under the tax, but next year we'd go over it. Sign a guy like DJ Augustine with the bi-annual exception. Kanter either gets traded or stretch provision-ed to free up a little spending room under the tax, same with Poirier. Our 10 man rotation would be:

Kemba / Augustine
Brown / Smart
Tatum / Langford
Grant / G. Williams
Ibaka / Theis

On the "third unit" you still have #17/#26/#30. Carsen Edwards you keep around for another year and then sign Waters to an NBA deal. You use the #46 pick on a 2-way deal and bring Tacko back for another year.

We'd have Grant's middle-tier salary, Ibaka's middle tier salary, and then the trade exception next year to use in trades. Theis would be a FA but you look to sign him to a 2 year deal. With all of the rookie scale players we'd be able to facilitate trades, which we don't really have the ability to do now.

I specifically chose 3 years for Ibaka/Grant because it lines them up to expire with Kemba. This means in 3 years we'll have max cap space to build around Tatum/Brown/Smart and all the rookie scale players left over the next few drafts.

Doubt that DEN will want to take on that $66M left on Haywards contract, while also giving up their PFOTF. MPJ is slotted for the SF position so this trade would diminish his role, not happening. I do see the benefits for BOS though.

Hayward would only be one year for them at his $34 option. This is a trade to take place in the offseason for next year. Denver's depth chart this past year was:

Murray / Monte Morris
Gary Harris / Torrey Craig
Barton / MPJ
Millsap / Grant
Jokic / Plumlee

In this scenario, I would think they try to bring back Millsap and Plumlee on 1 year deals.

Gary Harris played 31.8 minutes per game for them this past season. That's the role Hayward would take. They would insert him at SF and move Barton to SG. This upgrades their starting lineup a lot because Hayward is a much better player than Harris. They're a top seed in the West looking for improvement in their #2/3/4 option spots to take another leap. Hayward helps them accomplish that for a year.

MPJ played 14 minutes per game for them off the bench. Grant played 26.2 minutes. They would "graduate" MPJ to Grant's minute load and maybe retain some of his own from this past year if he's ready for it. So he still takes another step in his development. There's room for him to go up to 30 minutes if he earns it and can stay healthy.

After next season, Hayward would be a FA. So would Millsap/Plumlee since I signed them to 1 year deals. The fact that they would have shed the second year of Harris' deal means they'd have max cap space to go along with Jokic/Murray/Barton/MPJ. So they can go get a stud young player, or a few solid pieces.

I think this gives them a better '20-21 roster with Hayward as their #2 player behind Jokic while giving them upside to sign better players in 2021 than keeping Harris/extending Grant. And in the event that they can't sign a better player with that max slot, a max salary slot should definitely be able to be split up and land comparable players to Harris/Grant. So I think this creates great upside for them to take that next step without really going "all in" for it.

[skywalker33]

Hayward would only be one year for them at his $34 option.

Hayward's deal is Still $34MM for next year, we can keep Harris and still sign Grant for that total amt. And then, he;s a one-yeart rental ?? No incentive for us to give up our PFOTF for a one year of 17ppg. Hayward has never lived up to the MAX contract

In this scenario, I would think they try to bring back Millsap and Plumlee on 1 year deals.

Plumlee is likely to move on and if we bring Millsap back it will be on a much lower contract and probably as a backup given his age and diminishing skillset.

Gary Harris played 31.8 minutes per game for them this past season. That's the role Hayward would take. They would insert him at SF and move Barton to SG. This upgrades their starting lineup a lot because Hayward is a much better player than Harris. They're a top seed in the West looking for improvement in their #2/3/4 option spots to take another leap. Hayward helps them accomplish that for a year.

MPJ played 14 minutes per game for them off the bench. Grant played 26.2 minutes. They would "graduate" MPJ to Grant's minute load and maybe retain some of his own from this past year if he's ready for it. So he still takes another step in his development. There's room for him to go up to 30 minutes if he earns it and can stay healthy.

Minute distributions can be be tweeked, but we're looking at playing MPJ at the SF because of the mismatches he creates there, something Hayward doesn't provide. Also, GHarris provides much better defense than Hayward and given we have Murray, Jokic and MPJ providing the offense, we need the defensive presence both Harris and Grant provide more than the offense Hayward brings.

After next season, Hayward would be a FA. So would Millsap/Plumlee since I signed them to 1 year deals. The fact that they would have shed the second year of Harris' deal means they'd have max cap space to go along with Jokic/Murray/Barton/MPJ. So they can go get a stud young player, or a few solid pieces.

I do like this train of though but even w/o this trade and resigning Grant to an avg $16M contract extension we're still likely to have around $35M before exceeding the luxury cap while keeping a solid young core of: Jokic/Murray/MPJ/Grant/Barton/Harris/Morris/Bol/KBD/Dozier/2020 1st

I think this gives them a better '20-21 roster with Hayward as their #2 player behind Jokic while giving them upside to sign better players in 2021 than keeping Harris/extending Grant. And in the event that they can't sign a better player with that max slot, a max salary slot should definitely be able to be split up and land comparable players to Harris/Grant. So I think this creates great upside for them to take that next step without really going "all in" for it.

Overrating Hayward to the "#2 player" on this team isn't going to be true, maybe #4 IMO. And next year Harris's and Barton's trade value go up because they can be view as expirings. And you are overlooking the fact that while Harris did have a couple down offensive years, he was still healing from some core injuries, which could impact his shooting.

I get your thought process, better than most from a non-Nuggets fans perspective but still doesn't help us as much in the long run as you'd like to project, especially given he'd be a one-year rental.

[hugepatsfan]

Hayward would only be one year for them at his $34 option.

Hayward's deal is Still $34MM for next year, we can keep Harris and still sign Grant for that total amt. And then, he;s a one-yeart rental ?? No incentive for us to give up our PFOTF for a one year of 17ppg. Hayward has never lived up to the MAX contract

In this scenario, I would think they try to bring back Millsap and Plumlee on 1 year deals.

Plumlee is likely to move on and if we bring Millsap back it will be on a much lower contract and probably as a backup given his age and diminishing skillset.

Gary Harris played 31.8 minutes per game for them this past season. That's the role Hayward would take. They would insert him at SF and move Barton to SG. This upgrades their starting lineup a lot because Hayward is a much better player than Harris. They're a top seed in the West looking for improvement in their #2/3/4 option spots to take another leap. Hayward helps them accomplish that for a year.

MPJ played 14 minutes per game for them off the bench. Grant played 26.2 minutes. They would "graduate" MPJ to Grant's minute load and maybe retain some of his own from this past year if he's ready for it. So he still takes another step in his development. There's room for him to go up to 30 minutes if he earns it and can stay healthy.

Minute distributions can be be tweeked, but we're looking at playing MPJ at the SF because of the mismatches he creates there, something Hayward doesn't provide. Also, GHarris provides much better defense than Hayward and given we have Murray, Jokic and MPJ providing the offense, we need the defensive presence both Harris and Grant provide more than the offense Hayward brings.

After next season, Hayward would be a FA. So would Millsap/Plumlee since I signed them to 1 year deals. The fact that they would have shed the second year of Harris' deal means they'd have max cap space to go along with Jokic/Murray/Barton/MPJ. So they can go get a stud young player, or a few solid pieces.

I do like this train of though but even w/o this trade and resigning Grant to an avg $16M contract extension we're still likely to have around $35M before exceeding the luxury cap while keeping a solid young core of: Jokic/Murray/MPJ/Grant/Barton/Harris/Morris/Bol/KBD/Dozier/2020 1st

I think this gives them a better '20-21 roster with Hayward as their #2 player behind Jokic while giving them upside to sign better players in 2021 than keeping Harris/extending Grant. And in the event that they can't sign a better player with that max slot, a max salary slot should definitely be able to be split up and land comparable players to Harris/Grant. So I think this creates great upside for them to take that next step without really going "all in" for it.

Overrating Hayward to the "#2 player" on this team isn't going to be true, maybe #4 IMO. And next year Harris's and Barton's trade value go up because they can be view as expirings. And you are overlooking the fact that while Harris did have a couple down offensive years, he was still healing from some core injuries, which could impact his shooting.

I get your thought process, better than most from a non-Nuggets fans perspective but still doesn't help us as much in the long run as you'd like to project, especially given he'd be a one-year rental.

I view Harris/Grant as C level players and Hayward as a B level. So I figured for a team who has great depth but lacks top-of-the-roster talent it'd be a good chance to get upgrade the top 3rd of your rotation without really giving up any of the young players/draft picks it takes to do so.

I think we have a fundamental difference in opinion on Hayward. I agree he's not worth a max deal but I don't think it's even debatable that he'd be the #2 player on DEN's roster. I think Harris/Barton are decent but not a huge fan of Murray. Not that I don't like him but I just don't see him as great. Again, I don't think

Maybe I'm underrating Harris. I loved him 2 years ago but right now the shooting has just droppd off a cliff. If it's part of a core injury recovery. I would say that if a core injury has impacted for 2 years now that it might be something chronic to worry about into the future. But if we assume the shooting will bounce back then that makes WORLDS of difference in the quality of player he is. A key point of my idea is that if Hayward walked, you could use the cap space to replicate the talent that Grant/Harris bring. If Harris is back to his old shooting ways he becomes drastically more valuable and alters the equation. Big difference between a strong shooter like he was compared to the bad one he's been.

One more point... you mention that if Grant re-signs that you guys have $35M to the luxury tax. That's true. But basically nothing to the salary cap. So you have no flexibility to add a major FA. It would have to be through trade, where the expiring deals of Harris/Barton could be chips like you mentioned. However, it's not like DEN has any super valuable tradable assets outside of MPJ to package though.

My overall, big picture of Denver is that if they really want to take that next step they need to add probably 2 more players behind Jokic but better than Murray. That's just the type of star power it takes to win in the NBA. I definitely think MPJ has the POTENTIAL to be one of those guys, which is a huge part of Denver's development. It's also why I said above I don't view him as a trade chip.

Hayward I think gives you guys one of those players for a year, albeit on the very low end of what you need. But then the contractual status of things opened up another avenue to add a long term answer for one of those players. So kind of a double whammy there.

[skywalker33]

I view Harris/Grant as C level players and Hayward as a B level. So I figured for a team who has great depth but lacks top-of-the-roster talent it'd be a good chance to get upgrade the top 3rd of your rotation without really giving up any of the young players/draft picks it takes to do so.

I can agree with your thought process, but I don't agree that Wayward is such an upgrade, especially on the defensive side of the ball, in fact I see him as a downgrade...and again, offense isn't the Nuggets problem.

I think we have a fundamental difference in opinion on Hayward. I agree he's not worth a max deal but I don't think it's even debatable that he'd be the #2 player on DEN's roster. I think Harris/Barton are decent but not a huge fan of Murray. Not that I don't like him but I just don't see him as great. Again, I don't think

Well, I'm not a big fan of Brown either but doesn't make him a bad player. Murray ISN'T and All-Star yet (he's only 23 yet going at 19/5/4) but he fits immensely well next to Jokic, better than most IMO. And let's be honest, most all BOS players hate him for torching you with 49 points a while back, I don't see much love from any C's fan.

Maybe I'm underrating Harris. I loved him 2 years ago but right now the shooting has just droppd off a cliff. If it's part of a core injury recovery. I would say that if a core injury has impacted for 2 years now that it might be something chronic to worry about into the future. But if we assume the shooting will bounce back then that makes WORLDS of difference in the quality of player he is. A key point of my idea is that if Hayward walked, you could use the cap space to replicate the talent that Grant/Harris bring. If Harris is back to his old shooting ways he becomes drastically more valuable and alters the equation. Big difference between a strong shooter like he was compared to the bad one he's been.

If you look at Harris history, you'll see he had several stints in 2019 where the injury occured, re-occurred putting him on IR. Tough as the bastard is, he tried to comi=e back to support his team but eventually backfired. He then had surgery which realistically had impact on THIS season so your " 2 year chronic" comment is really showing where your underestimation comes from.This restart should be very interesting to see where Gary is at this point, he's had more time to recover...did he ??

One more point... you mention that if Grant re-signs that you guys have $35M to the luxury tax. That's true. But basically nothing to the salary cap. So you have no flexibility to add a major FA. It would have to be through trade, where the expiring deals of Harris/Barton could be chips like you mentioned. However, it's not like DEN has any super valuable tradable assets outside of MPJ to package though. {/quote]

A fair point but since when has the Nuggets EVER been an FA destination spot ?? We've always had to build through the draft and trades. And it's easier to trade two smaller assets in Barton ($17M) and Harris ($20M) than to try with one HUGE asset at ($34M). Even trading one of those for a draft pick(s) or part of an upgrade is easier IMO !

My overall, big picture of Denver is that if they really want to take that next step they need to add probably 2 more players behind Jokic but better than Murray. That's just the type of star power it takes to win in the NBA. I definitely think MPJ has the POTENTIAL to be one of those guys, which is a huge part of Denver's development. It's also why I said above I don't view him as a trade chip.

Hayward I think gives you guys one of those players for a year, albeit on the very low end of what you need. But then the contractual status of things opened up another avenue to add a long term answer for one of those players. So kind of a double whammy there.

Not hard to disagree but we are happy with the slower upgrade were doing rather than make a mistake. And if Hayward were "One of those Players (are you suggesting he's a star ? ), BOS wouldn't be trading such a player for a role player IMO. Seems more like salary dump which you want to get for a smaller asset to boot.

Guess we'll just agree to disagree (because it really doesn't benefit the Nuggets)

[hugepatsfan]

I view Harris/Grant as C level players and Hayward as a B level. So I figured for a team who has great depth but lacks top-of-the-roster talent it'd be a good chance to get upgrade the top 3rd of your rotation without really giving up any of the young players/draft picks it takes to do so.

I can agree with your thought process, but I don't agree that Wayward is such an upgrade, especially on the defensive side of the ball, in fact I see him as a downgrade...and again, offense isn't the Nuggets problem.

I think we have a fundamental difference in opinion on Hayward. I agree he's not worth a max deal but I don't think it's even debatable that he'd be the #2 player on DEN's roster. I think Harris/Barton are decent but not a huge fan of Murray. Not that I don't like him but I just don't see him as great. Again, I don't think

Well, I'm not a big fan of Brown either but doesn't make him a bad player. Murray ISN'T and All-Star yet (he's only 23 yet going at 19/5/4) but he fits immensely well next to Jokic, better than most IMO. And let's be honest, most all BOS players hate him for torching you with 49 points a while back, I don't see much love from any C's fan.

Maybe I'm underrating Harris. I loved him 2 years ago but right now the shooting has just droppd off a cliff. If it's part of a core injury recovery. I would say that if a core injury has impacted for 2 years now that it might be something chronic to worry about into the future. But if we assume the shooting will bounce back then that makes WORLDS of difference in the quality of player he is. A key point of my idea is that if Hayward walked, you could use the cap space to replicate the talent that Grant/Harris bring. If Harris is back to his old shooting ways he becomes drastically more valuable and alters the equation. Big difference between a strong shooter like he was compared to the bad one he's been.

If you look at Harris history, you'll see he had several stints in 2019 where the injury occured, re-occurred putting him on IR. Tough as the bastard is, he tried to comi=e back to support his team but eventually backfired. He then had surgery which realistically had impact on THIS season so your " 2 year chronic" comment is really showing where your underestimation comes from.This restart should be very interesting to see where Gary is at this point, he's had more time to recover...did he ??

One more point... you mention that if Grant re-signs that you guys have $35M to the luxury tax. That's true. But basically nothing to the salary cap. So you have no flexibility to add a major FA. It would have to be through trade, where the expiring deals of Harris/Barton could be chips like you mentioned. However, it's not like DEN has any super valuable tradable assets outside of MPJ to package though. {/quote]

A fair point but since when has the Nuggets EVER been an FA destination spot ?? We've always had to build through the draft and trades. And it's easier to trade two smaller assets in Barton ($17M) and Harris ($20M) than to try with one HUGE asset at ($34M). Even trading one of those for a draft pick(s) or part of an upgrade is easier IMO !

My overall, big picture of Denver is that if they really want to take that next step they need to add probably 2 more players behind Jokic but better than Murray. That's just the type of star power it takes to win in the NBA. I definitely think MPJ has the POTENTIAL to be one of those guys, which is a huge part of Denver's development. It's also why I said above I don't view him as a trade chip.

Hayward I think gives you guys one of those players for a year, albeit on the very low end of what you need. But then the contractual status of things opened up another avenue to add a long term answer for one of those players. So kind of a double whammy there.

Not hard to disagree but we are happy with the slower upgrade were doing rather than make a mistake. And if Hayward were "One of those Players (are you suggesting he's a star ? ), BOS wouldn't be trading such a player for a role player IMO. Seems more like salary dump which you want to get for a smaller asset to boot.

Guess we'll just agree to disagree (because it really doesn't benefit the Nuggets)

Honestly had no idea Murray scored 49 in a game against us lol

I would put Brown as a similar player to Murray. I don't think either of them are top 1 or 2 players on a title team. I think both are probably #4 players but I could be convinced they're #3 players with some future development. Murray seemed to have steady ascension years 1-3 then flat line this year. Brown had a big leap in year 2, big drop in year 3, now huge leap in year 4. So both kind of have some herky jerky-ness to their development to see how they shake out in the coming years. I'd be surprised if either ever developed past #3 player though.

I think Hayward is a capable #3 player on an upper echelon team which is what he is this year behind Tatum/Kemba. Issue for Boston is that we don't have a #1 player. Kemba's not that guy and one great month for Tatum doesn't make him that guy yet. Hopefully Tatum can be in the next year or two, which there are definitely strong signs of.

Also, I don't WANT to move Hayward. If you read back through this thread I've been adamant that the best case scenario for Boston is keeping Hayward. I just don't assume that our owner will sign off on us being a tax team in '20-21, '21-22 and then repeater tax in '22-23. If we keep Hayward on his option year and then try to re-sign him that's what our tax situation will be. Maybe he would, but any Hayward trade I've proposed is in response to the idea that he wouldn't. My overarching "plan A" is that we try to get him to opt out and "overpay" him on a 3 year but in the process of doing so drop his '20-21 by $6-8M. If we do that, and the use one of our later 1sts to salary dump Enes Kanter, then we should be able to squeak under the tax for one more year if the NBA works something out to hold it flat to this past year.

Any of my Hayward deals are absolutely not a reflection of me not thinking he's a #3 player because he is. From a purely financial perspective, my preference would actually be to deal Brown for a pick and a rookie scale player to save the money over moving Hayward. But, Brown's prime will extend beyond Hayward's and losing him would be a potentially big hit to the core we'll have in place when it comes time for Tatum to make his FA decision after this first extension. So not worth the risk. Hence, if financial limitations are set by ownership, it's Hayward that has to go.

If Hayward has to go, there's definitely an argument to keep him for one more year where he's a huge asset to a title push. But even letting him walk next year, because Tatum's extension kicks in to offset it, we might still have to pinch some pennies to stay below the tax if we want to make a few mid-level exception type signings/trades. So if the long term financial vision doesn't have him in it then I'd rather cut the cord now in a deal that gets us below the tax now that way we can remove any worry about it in the next few years. If we can just get past it this year we won't ever have to worry about repeater rates since Kemba's deal would expire before we hit it.

[Curmudgeon]

I would deal Kemba long before I would deal Brown. And don't get me wrong: I love the way Kemba has improved the togetherness of this team. He's been fantastic. But he's got a bad knee and he's pushing 30.

As for Hayward, the best result for the Celtics would be to have Hayward opt in, then sign him to a 3-4 year extension for about what Marcus Smart is making. I don't think anyone is going to pay him more than that as a free agent.

[hugepatsfan]

I would deal Kemba long before I would deal Brown. And don't get me wrong: I love the way Kemba has improved the togetherness of this team. He's been fantastic. But he's got a bad knee and he's pushing 30.

As for Hayward, the best result for the Celtics would be to have Hayward opt in, then sign him to a 3-4 year extension for about what Marcus Smart is making. I don't think anyone is going to pay him more than that as a free agent.

Hayward is definitely getting more than Smart makes. If he plays out his option year and then hits FA in '21 he's going to get $20-25M if he repeats this past year. Smart is a great glue guy while Hayward is a legit #3/#4 player on a competitive team. Those are two different categories of value.

[Curmudgeon]

I think the current version of Smart is more valuable than the current version of Hayward, and I don't think it's particularly close.

[snowman]

I don't see the problem with letting Hayward opt in and then offering him an extension for 20 mil a season for 2 seasons, with a player option on each season, starting after his opt in season ends, or just letting him walk after next season.

Would I rather him opt in and then take a new contract for 25 mill a year for 3 years to replace the 34 mil this coming season, sure. But that 9 mil next year is a big hit to take. Ask Al Horford. I am pretty sure that he is going to opt in to the 34 mil next year. It's what we do after that is the question, and I think Danny and the owners have to be ready to let him walk as opposed to having 3 30+ year old guys each on 34+ mil contracts hamstringing Tatum, Brown and Smart's best years.

[celticfan42487]

From the Celtics perspective what would y'all think of a

resigned Hayward for a Horford.

Kemba
Smart / Langford
Brown
Tatum
Horford / Theis

Then see what G. Williams, Carsen, Timelord, Green, vets, our 5 picks this draft can do to fill out the roster.

[hugepatsfan]

From the Celtics perspective what would y'all think of a

resigned Hayward for a Horford.

Kemba
Smart / Langford
Brown
Tatum
Horford / Theis

Then see what G. Williams, Carsen, Timelord, Green, vets, our 5 picks this draft can do to fill out the roster.

Good... 1) sheds some salary for us and makes getting under the tax realistic if it holds flat year over year 2) allows us to play our 5 best players at the same time 3) preserves the current status of a 3 year window with the current group and then max cap space around Tatum/Brown/possibly Smart depending on nxt deal.

Bad... 1) lowers our overall talent level because Hayward > Horford now that he's healthy. 2) helps rescue a rival atop the conference from the mismatched roster they have

Ultimately, if Horford were on Orlando and this were being offered I would do it. But I think the upside it brings for us is less than the upside it brings for PHI. So therefore, it would hurt our playoff chances. So I'd pass because of that

[hugepatsfan]

I don't see the problem with letting Hayward opt in and then offering him an extension for 20 mil a season for 2 seasons, with a player option on each season, starting after his opt in season ends, or just letting him walk after next season.

Would I rather him opt in and then take a new contract for 25 mill a year for 3 years to replace the 34 mil this coming season, sure. But that 9 mil next year is a big hit to take. Ask Al Horford. I am pretty sure that he is going to opt in to the 34 mil next year. It's what we do after that is the question, and I think Danny and the owners have to be ready to let him walk as opposed to having 3 30+ year old guys each on 34+ mil contracts hamstringing Tatum, Brown and Smart's best years.

It's about the luxury tax and our title chances in the immediate future. If you go into the tax for the 3rd time in 4 years, you pay the repeater rates. Here's our current timeline for the tax:

If Hayward is here on his option year, we will be a tax team in '20-21. There's really no avoiding that. It would be our first year in it so we start our repeater rate clocl

Looking ahead to the next year ('21-22), projecting contracts for our 3 picks this year and our 2021, as well as a Tatum extension, we will be at about $130M in salary headng into free agency. That's with Hayward, Theis and Kanter all off the books. The luxury tax line for '21-22 was projected to be $151M before COVID. Realistically there will be some residual COVID impact so it's likely lower. That means you're proposed idea of $20M (which I think is light for what he'd get, in free agency anyway) is already taking us to the tax. And that's before even re-signing Theis if we want to. The other alternative if we want to stay below the tax would be to let Hayward walk. Then we can probably stay under the tax by re-signing Theis and adding a MLE type player to replace Hayward.

Flash forward to the following year, and if we were in the tax each of the 2 years prior, it's repeater tax time. That quadruples the luxury tax payment vs being at the normal rate. There's a reason teams avoid this like the plague. The only salary coming off the books would be Smart. I think we all agree we don't want to have to let Smart go for luxury tax reasons. So if we re-sign him, being under the tax this year would be likely impossible combined with other players on the book.

So to summarize, I think it's imperative we get under the tax either this coming year '20-21 or the following year '21-22 to avoid repeater rate tax in '22-23. Hayward on the option takes getting under in 20-21 out of the cards. And even re-signing him after the year to a $20M deal, which is on the low end of what he'll likely be offered, would ruin it for '21-22. So if we don't work out a new deal now, it either means letting him walk or paying repeater rate tax (which I don't count on Wyc signing off on because pretty much no owner ever does).

Hayward is our 3rd/4th best player. Letting him walk for nothing is a HUGE hit to our playoff chances in the short term. I know you mention "having 3 30+ year old guys each on 34+ mil contracts hamstringing Tatum, Brown and Smart's best years" but I think your plan is actually doing the opposite. It's failing to capitalize on their best years. You'd be taking a huge

I keep mentioning 3 years because that's a huge part of the long term flexibility. If you line Hayward up to expire in 3 years that's the same time as Kemba. That means that offseason we will have significant cap space to add young talent in free agency around a core of Taum/Brown/Smart/rookie scale contract guys. It gives you the exact flexibility you want to rebuild around them with youth. And you get a 3 year window with Kemba/Hayward in their early 30s where they're still great to keep pushing for titles in the meantime. IMO, it's a perfect blend of short term and long term.

Having Hayward opt out and "overpaying" him in total contract value would still lower his '20-21 cap number in the process. Combined with a salary dump of Kanter and then some financially conscious back end roster moves, and staying under the luxury tax in '20-21 is now a possibility. That in turn means avoiding the repeater tax down the line, except now you don't ever have to lose your third/fourth best player to do so.

If you look at it as an individual contract for Hayward, it probably makes the most sense to let him play out the option and then re-sign. But bigger picture, looking at the luxury tax and the implications of it, I think a new 3 year deal for him this offseason even though we'd have to "overpay" creates the best immediate future for us and at the same time sets us up for a better long-term future.

[snowman]

What do you guys think of this?

FRP # 30 from Boston

Vincent Poirier
26 year old, 7-0, 235 lb C from
1.9 ppg, 1.6 rpg, 0.3 apg in 5.4 minutes in 2019-2020

Semi Ojeleye
25 year old, 6-7, 241 lb SF from Southern Methodist
3.1 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 0.5 apg in 14.6 minutes in 2019-2020

Carsen Edwards
22 year old, 6-1, 200 lb PG from Purdue
3.0 ppg, 1.2 rpg, 0.6 apg in 9.0 minutes in 2019-2020

Outgoing Players

Derrick Rose
31 year old, 6-3, 200 lb PG from Memphis
18.1 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 5.6 apg in 26.0 minutes in 2019-2020

gives us bench scoring we need, on an ending contract and opens up a couple roster spots. All it costs us is the 39th pick, Ojeleye, who may not have his option picked up, Edwards, who hasn't found his shot yet, and Poirier, who couldn't find the floor, even when Kanter and R. Will were hurt. I like it better than having to draft and stash players over seas, considering that worked so well for us last time in Yabu and Zizic.

[hugepatsfan]

What do you guys think of this?

FRP # 30 from Boston

Vincent Poirier
26 year old, 7-0, 235 lb C from
1.9 ppg, 1.6 rpg, 0.3 apg in 5.4 minutes in 2019-2020

Semi Ojeleye
25 year old, 6-7, 241 lb SF from Southern Methodist
3.1 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 0.5 apg in 14.6 minutes in 2019-2020

Carsen Edwards
22 year old, 6-1, 200 lb PG from Purdue
3.0 ppg, 1.2 rpg, 0.6 apg in 9.0 minutes in 2019-2020

Outgoing Players

Derrick Rose
31 year old, 6-3, 200 lb PG from Memphis
18.1 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 5.6 apg in 26.0 minutes in 2019-2020

gives us bench scoring we need, on an ending contract and opens up a couple roster spots. All it costs us is the 39th pick, Ojeleye, who may not have his option picked up, Edwards, who hasn't found his shot yet, and Poirier, who couldn't find the floor, even when Kanter and R. Will were hurt. I like it better than having to draft and stash players over seas, considering that worked so well for us last time in Yabu and Zizic.

I don't love a 1st rounder for Rose but we have extra to use and he'd be a high level bench scorer. Contending teams can consider a late pick for a rental, especially if it's their third pick in the draft.

I have my hopes up for DJ Augustine as a backup PG. I think he could be had for the minimum, and he wouldn't cost a pick.

You mention the roster spots. Poirier is only partially guaranteed for $1.4M that we could waive. Semi has a team option we could just decline. And then I imagine there's some team out there would take a flier on Edwards for free if we gave him away. So I don't think this deal clears any roster spots we couldn't otherwise clear.

Don't hate it, don't love it. I think it's definitely realistic and something to consider. Tough to say without seeing any of the other roster moves but in a vacuum it makes logical sense.

[celticfan42487]

I don't hate getting Rose either other than we already don't have many minutes for Langford who could be legit.

With Rose we'd have none between a backup PG/SG combo of Rose and Smart.

[Curmudgeon]

There is no way the pistons would trade Rose for that package.

[VCfor3]

From the Celtics perspective what would y'all think of a

resigned Hayward for a Horford.

Kemba
Smart / Langford
Brown
Tatum
Horford / Theis

Then see what G. Williams, Carsen, Timelord, Green, vets, our 5 picks this draft can do to fill out the roster.

Good... 1) sheds some salary for us and makes getting under the tax realistic if it holds flat year over year 2) allows us to play our 5 best players at the same time 3) preserves the current status of a 3 year window with the current group and then max cap space around Tatum/Brown/possibly Smart depending on nxt deal.

Bad... 1) lowers our overall talent level because Hayward > Horford now that he's healthy. 2) helps rescue a rival atop the conference from the mismatched roster they have

Ultimately, if Horford were on Orlando and this were being offered I would do it. But I think the upside it brings for us is less than the upside it brings for PHI. So therefore, it would hurt our playoff chances. So I'd pass because of that

I'd think that Philly would need to add incentive to that deal. I'm not sure what all you could get out of them, but maybe you could flip those assets for something that makes the deal worth it to you guys.

[bucknersrevenge]

From the Celtics perspective what would y'all think of a

resigned Hayward for a Horford.

Kemba
Smart / Langford
Brown
Tatum
Horford / Theis

Then see what G. Williams, Carsen, Timelord, Green, vets, our 5 picks this draft can do to fill out the roster.

Good... 1) sheds some salary for us and makes getting under the tax realistic if it holds flat year over year 2) allows us to play our 5 best players at the same time 3) preserves the current status of a 3 year window with the current group and then max cap space around Tatum/Brown/possibly Smart depending on nxt deal.

Bad... 1) lowers our overall talent level because Hayward > Horford now that he's healthy. 2) helps rescue a rival atop the conference from the mismatched roster they have

Ultimately, if Horford were on Orlando and this were being offered I would do it. But I think the upside it brings for us is less than the upside it brings for PHI. So therefore, it would hurt our playoff chances. So I'd pass because of that

I'd think that Philly would need to add incentive to that deal. I'm not sure what all you could get out of them, but maybe you could flip those assets for something that makes the deal worth it to you guys.

Throw in Thybulle I might consider it.