keevsnick1 wrote: hugepatsfan wrote:
Darth Celtic wrote:cold day in hell when Danny drops assets to save money without a signing in mind. i mean, even bradley got us morris. He's not going to trade his golden late round money controlled first round picks and players on near min contracts for worse picks. None of those make sense and make me realize why trade threads on the boston forum are the worst of just about any forum. Either we are trading wannamake for chirs paul or trading hayward for drummond.
Pre-COVID reports were that we wanted to re-sign Hayward past his option year. Before COVID hit, the tax line was projected to be $139M. Now people are saying the NBA might borrow future cap space to hold it steady to this year at $132.5M. That means
1) Getting under the tax in '20-21 becomes much harder and would require the type of money saving moves I noted above.
2) If they borrow money from future years to keep the tax line steady vs a big drop then those future years will have a lower luxury tax line than anticipated so you'd be paying more tax.
Based on COVID, Wyc and the ownership group are already losing lots of money. And with those luxury tax ramifications, re-signing Hayward will probably be about $100M more expensive than anticipated due to extra luxury tax payments. That's because previously it would project to be no tax in '20-21, tax in '21-22 and tax again in '22-23. Now it projects to be tax in '20-21, tax in '21-22, repeater tax in '22-23. And the tax lines themselves will all be lower in future years so it's even more tax than anticipated previously. NBA luxury tax is pretty heavy to begin with and the repeater rates are brutal.
I'm just anticipating that adding an extra $100M to the total cost of Hayward (salary + luxury tax) is going to make Wyc more hesitant. That's a lot of extra money to spend on what would already be an expensive cost for your #4 player. Based on the new CBA, the luxury tax implications of re-signing Gordon Hayward long term will cost Wyc probably over $100M in luxury tax. That's in addition to whatever he signs for. I find it very plausible that he tells Ainge he doesn't want to spend up to $200M on Hayward over the next 3-4 years. So in that event, what do you think would be a more difficult pill for Ainge to swallow...
1) Let a top ~40 player in the game walk for nothing after this season because he has to avoid the tax and triggering repeater rates
2) Moving down from pick 26 to 38 and 30 to 44 like I had in my post so he can keep that top 40 player and make the money work.
Just looking at it realistically from a financial side of things I don't see how Wyc signs off on keeping Hayward as things stand right now. So if I gotta move some 12th-15th men and slide down some late 1sts to the second I think that's a small cost to keep a top 40 player.
I don't really think hayward is walking away this offseason for the simple reason that there just isnt going to be that many, if any, teams with the correct amount of "good team looking for a final piece" and "actually has money." So maybe he opts outt to sign a longer term deal with the C's, but I wouldn't be comfortable extending him and his sore foot two more post prime years at 28/per year.
I think there's a decent chance he opts in and then ends up getting traded, maybe for something like a starting defensive anchor at center and a 3+D wing. There's just diminishing returns to paying a 4th option 30 million a year going forward.
As for the roster crunch you could see a draft and stash euro, you could flip a first this year into a future first, you could even see a move up.
While the tax situation is an issue any solution that gets the C's under the tax likely means they have a horrible bench, and I'd bet the C's consider themselves enough of a contender that they'd like to improve the bench going into next year.
I should clarify, I don't mean losing Hayward this offseason, I mean losing him next year after he plays out the option.
Right now we projected to be a luxury tax team in '20-21 with Hayward on his option. Looking ahead to next offseason going into the '21-22, projecting a max extension for Tatum and considering the draft picks we own this year and next, we're at about $130M heading into FA. That's with Hayward and Theis both entering free agency and needing new deals if we want to keep them. The '21-22 tax line before COVID was projected to be $151M, and that's expected to drop if they borrow money from future years to reduce the impact in '20-21, as has been reported by some (not set in stone though). So keeping Hayward and staying below the tax isn't really an option. You can probably re-sign Theis and use the MLE (or a piece of it) on a Hayward replacement.
If we were to re-sign Hayward we'd be a tax team again in '21-22 after being over in '20-21. And then with all of Hayward/Walker/Brown/Tatum and hopefully Smart re-signed, we'd be a tax team again in '22-23. That triggers massive repeater tax penalties which is what I'm nervous Wyc won't sign off on.
If Wyc tells Ainge he won't sign off on that, which is a hypothetical but I'm just posting ideas for it as a possibility because it's a realistic scenario, we can avoid the repeater tax with the moves I made. If you just avoid it for one more year by making those tough calls this offseason, you don't have to worry about it at all. You can keep Hayward long term, re-sign Theis, use your MLE each year. It doesn't matter. You avoid the tax for one more year and we'll never have to pay repeater rates in the near-term because before they would kick in Kemba's deal would expire.
Ina scenario where avoiding repeater tax rates is the financial reality Ainge has to deal with, I'd rather he do it in a plan like I proposed earlier. Because yeah, those trades all suck to make, but we're talking late picks and back of the roster guys. I'd rather have to be financially motivated there than at the top of the roster with guys like Hayward, Theis.
Hopefully it's a non issue and Wyc will sign off on repeater tax if that's what it takes. I just think that the best version of this team is with Hayward on it. Or even if it's just re-signing him to move him for a different high level piece down the road (don't think he has much trade value on his current 1 year deal but on a longer term deal I think teams would give comparable value). I just look at it from the financial perspective and see it as extremely plausible that it might be an issue so that was a plan to alleviate in a way that I think reduced the impact on our competitiveness over the next few years.