RealGM

The NBA trade deadline is approaching and there are a lot of interesting names (Hinrich, Maggette, Butler, Jamison, Iggy etc.) out there that could be traded. How realistic could one of these players or others be traded to the Boston Celtics?

In 2007-2008, 2008-2009 the Celtics had a total payroll including taxes somewhere around $100 mill. This season their salaries are somewhere around $83.7 mill and $85.2 mill depending on your source. Add in the luxury tax and this year's total payroll is somewhere around $97.5 mill to $100.5 mill. There seems to be a trend here.

Next year (2010-2011) the Celtics have six players (Pierce, KG, Rondo, Perk, Wallace & Davis) under contract for about $63.0 mill. Teams must carry 13 players minimum. The salary cap projection for 2010-2011 is expected to be around $54.5 mill which would put the luxury tax level around $65.0 mill. This would mean the Celtics could spend another $19.5 on 7 players to have a total payroll of $100 mill for the 2010-2011 season. ($63.0 + $19.5 + $17.5 tax = $100.0 mill)

If Pierce opts out of his contract for $21 mill and signs a new deal starting at $16.0 mill then the Celtics would have $24.5 mill to spend on 7 players and still have a total payroll of somewhere around $100 mill.

If Pierce signs a new deal and Ray Allen gets resigned for say $8.0 million then the Celtics would have $16.5 mill to spend on 6 players and still have a total payroll of somewhere around $100 mill.

All these numbers tell me that if the Celtics stick to their plan of having a total payroll of around $100 mill. then it's extremely not likely that they would be trading expiring contracts (House, TA, Scal, Giddens, Walker etc.) this season to add payroll for next season. So you can forget about the Hinrich, Maggette, Butler, Jamison, Iggy etc.

I hope I am wrong but history says otherwise.

I put this together to try to be helpful during our discussions. I welcome your criticism.

Your numbers sound a little drastic to me, but I think you sum up the dilemma well, even with a pay cut for Ray offsetting Rondo's raise, we're pretty close to the limits of the payroll budget because of the luxury tax. A lot of these guys like Hinrich seem like they could be plausibly acquired (not so much the others) and would be very useful, but the salary would be really tough to swallow.

Quite a dilemma because it seems like we really need one more really solid bench guy. Maybe we can still afford someone with the MLE next year. But in an ideal world, we would cash in the expirings for someone, and add someone with the MLE, continually cycling like that to add payroll and talent.

well are you including are two draft picks that don't go against our payroll?
Other than that seems about right to me we will be around that threshold of 100 mill either way we go.

captain green wrote:well are you including are two draft picks that don't go against our payroll?
Other than that seems about right to me we will be around that threshold of 100 mill either way we go.

No Im not.

chakdaddy wrote:Your numbers sound a little drastic to me

I don't make them up, they are what they are. If the Celtics add any payroll for next season in a trade deadline move then Big Baby is almost certain to go because he counts as $3.0 mill next season. He would be hard to move because I think he is a BYC player.

Celts17 u bring up an excellent point and a dose of realism as some of us (including myself) get carried away with all these different trade proposals and forget to look at the economics of such deals.

Ainge and Co. have done all they can to avoid taking on long term salaries at this point. Outside of Rondo Ainge hasn't made any moves taking on long term salary over the last two years. The only hint that we've got over the years that Ainge was willing to take on a multiyear deal is the proposed deal for Marquis (and the rumored Nociono deal if you want to count that).

With that being said I wouldn't totally rule out the possibility of a deal counter to this strategy, but the idea of taking on absurd salaries such as Hinrich don't seem all that likely.

Let me see what seems like a realistic/optimistic projection...

I doubt Pierce takes a cut. Let's count the 6 returnees for 64 million.
Bring back Ray for 10 mil = 74, 7 players.
Bring back house for similar money, 3 mil = 77, 8 players
MLE acquisition 6 mil = 83, 9 players
add a #1 pick for 1 mil = 84, 10 players
fill out the roster with 4 or 5 more guys for around 6 million = 90 mil pay roll.
+25 luxury tax = 115.

Wow, your numbers were pretty much on the money.

We could probably let House go, save a little that way. The choice might be between using the MLE and trading Scal/TA for something.

The thing that throws me off is how much KG's salary keeps increasing. That's why we don't just break even with a pay cut for Ray and a raise for Rondo.

Kind of scary...to really stay competitive will cost the owners a lot more money.

Then, the next summer...Perk will be due for a huge raise - he will be tough to re-sign.

I wonder if anyone will throw a lot of money at Ray once LeBron, Wade, and basically everybody return to their old teams?

what if we did deals a lil different like trade expiring for contracts like under 3 mill a piece?
example: BBD for bj mullens d.j white and kyle weaver? thats deal works puts us up 500 grand more. but give us three roster spots for one.
then instead of trading ray we resign him for the 8 mil do similar deal for scalabrine and t allen and gidden for thornton and collins and craig smith of lac? craig smith walks we don't re sign him nor qualify collins.
example deals not realistic to happen but under provisions they work out to fill roster spots and not alot of payroll these examples gives us this roster

rondo/ 1st rd draft pick/ (HOUSE OR DAINELS EXTRA ROSTER SPOT? FOR UNDER 3 MIL)
ray allen/kyle weaver/bill walker
pp/thornton/ 2nd rd pick
kg/wallace/d.j. white
perk/wallace /b.j mullins
our payroll based on pp not reworking player option would be 77(80 IF SIGNED SOME ONE FOR 3 MIL) mil with one roster spot open.

I KNOW I'M CRUNCHING TO MUCH BUT IT IS POSSIBLE AND ONCE AGAIN IT'S 100 MIL PLUS WITH TAXES TO FILL OUT A TEAM

captain green wrote:I KNOW I'M CRUNCHING TO MUCH BUT IT IS POSSIBLE AND ONCE AGAIN IT'S 100 MIL PLUS WITH TAXES TO FILL OUT A TEAM

Nobody's disputing that it's possible to fill out the roster with minimum salary type guys. The problem is going to be improving, when cashing in expirings or using the MLE will have huge luxury tax impact.

To be specific these Boston's pay roll totals the last three season including taxes
84.26mil in 07-08 (8.2mil in tax)
87.75mil in 08-09 (8.3mil in tax)
98.24mil in 09-10 (13.84mil in tax)

Pierce is clearly the key to what happens in Boston next year as far as Ray and what additions to pay roll can be made.

With the kind of money that is out there this off season my guess would be that Pierce will opt out if he does not get an extension from Boston which would be crazy based on the contract they gave Wallace. Why should he put himself in a situation were he his only option may be Boston? If he opts out he immediately becomes the LeBron consolation prize, Riley would be at his front door at midnight. He may lose 5 or 6 mil for next season but he may never see that back end again. If Baron Davis didn't opt out he would be playing for the MLE right now Ron Artest didn't opt out and he is playing for the MLE and Corey Maggette is making 3 mil a year more than him because he opted out in a year when team's had cap space.

Vince Carter got 4 years 65 mil quaranteed, and a 5th year that is only partially guaranteed signed at 31 years old it avg around a 16 mil a season that will probably be Paul's money whether it is here or somewhere else. Carter's deal is backloaded don't know if Boston would want to do that or not. They can structure it almost anyway they want if he is actually taking less salary.

So using that thinking
Pierce 16mil (could be as low as 13.3 mil)
Garnett 18.8mil
Rondo 9mil
Wallace 6.3mil
Perkins 4.9mil
Davis 2.5mil
Walker .85mil

That is 58.35mil the league is projecting a cap between 50-53mil and a lux tax of 65mil.

So if the plan is to bring Ray back they are going to be looking at 3 contracts Rip Hamilton 3 years 37.5 mil, Steve Nash 2 years 22 mil, and I am sure Boston is going to want to use Kidd's 3 years and 25 mil. Every team in the league could give Ray Sheed's 3 years 18 mil with the MLE and lots of teams would probably give him 8 at 3 years or less. My guess is it is either Nash or Kidd's deal and I will go with Nash.

Ray Allen 10mil and add 1 mil for a 1st rounder.

That puts you at 69.35mil and a 4.35 mil tax hit with an 9 man roster. I think 100 mil is a pipe dream, I think they agreed to do that this season for Wallace because they felt he was the proverbial 10 mil player for 5 mil and they bit the bullet. I would estimate 85 mil including tax give or take maybe up to 90mil.

To add a guy like Hinrich would mean no MLE and slots 11-14 will be minimum guys.

sully00 wrote:That puts you at 69.35mil and a 4.35 mil tax hit with an 9 man roster. I think 100 mil is a pipe dream, I think they agreed to do that this season for Wallace because they felt he was the proverbial 10 mil player for 5 mil and they bit the bullet. I would estimate 85 mil including tax give or take maybe up to 90mil.

To add a guy like Hinrich would mean no MLE and slots 11-14 will be minimum guys.

$85-$90 mill would mean a total payroll of $105-$115 mill. for the Celtics. It's possible but they haven't done that in the past.

Celts17Pride wrote:

sully00 wrote:That puts you at 69.35mil and a 4.35 mil tax hit with an 9 man roster. I think 100 mil is a pipe dream, I think they agreed to do that this season for Wallace because they felt he was the proverbial 10 mil player for 5 mil and they bit the bullet. I would estimate 85 mil including tax give or take maybe up to 90mil.

To add a guy like Hinrich would mean no MLE and slots 11-14 will be minimum guys.

$85-$90 mill would mean a total payroll of $105-$115 mill. for the Celtics. It's possible but they haven't done that in the past.

No what I am saying is 85-90 with the tax. If they added Hinrich at 9mil we are at 78.35mil with a projected tax of 13.35mil with another 2.5 mil in minimum contracts and they will be at 96 all together. At least that way they don't add a contract to an MLE guy that goes passed KG.

sully00 wrote:

Celts17Pride wrote:

sully00 wrote:That puts you at 69.35mil and a 4.35 mil tax hit with an 9 man roster. I think 100 mil is a pipe dream, I think they agreed to do that this season for Wallace because they felt he was the proverbial 10 mil player for 5 mil and they bit the bullet. I would estimate 85 mil including tax give or take maybe up to 90mil.

To add a guy like Hinrich would mean no MLE and slots 11-14 will be minimum guys.

$85-$90 mill would mean a total payroll of $105-$115 mill. for the Celtics. It's possible but they haven't done that in the past.

No what I am saying is 85-90 with the tax. If they added Hinrich at 9mil we are at 78.35mil with a projected tax of 13.35mil with another 2.5 mil in minimum contracts and they will be at 96 all together. At least that way they don't add a contract to an MLE guy that goes passed KG.

I understand your point. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It doesn't matter how I try and turn it though I keep trying to imagine the look on Wyc's face when Ainge comes into the office and says "I have a trade we were get Kirk Hinrich for Scal, TA, and Eddie House."

Wyc says "Really that's great sounds like a steal. I hate watching those friggin guys. Wait a minute how much money does he make?"

"Yeah that's the thing..."