2024 NBA Draft Thread, part 2 – (June 26 & 27)

[Fierce1]

No more projects.Please use the 30 draft pick or trade up... **** financial flexibility.. We have our core and our core will not be traded.. We just need to add first round talent.. Someone who can step in and contribute right away While protecting our core from injuries.. Projects may not get that chance for Years...

Quite a few teams.looking to trade down.. They are definitely more impactful.Players in the late teens and early 20s.Then anything in the second round..

Cs are not trying to have financial flexibility.

That option went away when they became a 2nd apron team.

What they want to do is keep the core intact for as long as possible.

Having a 1st rnd pick will have an effect on achieving that goal.

[ConstableGeneva]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[keevsnick1]

Honestly I think Brad Stevens is going to be very active in free agency with vet min. contracts that he doesn't want to add a 1st round pick that will spend 95% of their time in Maine and take up a roster spot.

TBH this wouldn't make much sense to me. The min guys you get probably aren't going to contribute much given that the C's top 8 is pretty locked down.

If your options are "vet who doesn't play much" or "young guy who doesn't play much" then take the young guy and develop him. They have 1 of those guys in Walsh, its okay to have 2 of those guys.

I don't think it's an either/or thing. I think it's both.

Our top 8 guys are locked down. Which leaves 7 other roster spots + 3 2-way spots so that's 10 spots total. Of course, they're not all gonna be young development guys and they're not all gonna be vet min ring chasers. You can put a vet ring chaser on a 2-way anyways.

I think what CelticsPride17 is saying is that since any rookie we get (regardless of whether they're drafted 30th or somewhere in the 2nd round) is probably not gonna play much at all in year 1, we mine as well prioritize vets for those end of bench slots..

You still draft a guy..but drafting someone in the 2nd round (rather than the 1st round), has the following advantages:
-Lower salary
-Flexibility of being able to put them on a 2-way contract (or possibly even stash them overseas) which would mean even bigger $ savings and not having to use a standard roster spot on a guy who won't play much
-Less pressure on the player to produce on a team that is the deepest/most talented team in the league
-Less backlash for the front office if the player doesn't produce
-Less pressure on the coach to give playing time to a kid who might not be ready yet or isn't as good (yet) as the vets on the team
-Plus by trading out of the 1st round, you acquire assets that you didn't have before..which can be used later on to make a pick or to trade the pick(s) to acquire quality vets..

1) The salary is only lower by a very small amount. Its like around 800K for the 30th pick vs the 35th pick. Its not nothing, but it shouldn't be why you make a deal.
2) They should be looking for a guy who WILL be on the roster, because they are very good an can afford to play a young guy during the regular season to develop him.
3) I don't think there's much difference in pressure between a guy who is the 30th pick, and a guy who is the 37th pick. Fans won't care, they just won the title. That buys you a lot of good will..
4) There's arguably more potential backlash to trading back if the guys who get picked ahead of you end up being good and you decided to trade back to save some money. That's a really bad look. Like what if the 30th pick ends up being Desmond Bane and you trade back to 35 for Xavier Tillman? Tillman isn't bad at 35, but that would still be a bad look.
5) Again, there SHOULD be pressure on the coach to play some young guys this year. They finished 14 games ahead of second place, they just won the title, play some younger guys 15 minutes a game. it won't really hurt the team, it might help a lot long term.
6) This is a good point, but at the same time this team needs some young talent in the medium to long term. If they can't develop cost controlled cheap guys their window will be shorter than we think.

Look, I'm not really all that concerned about whether they draft at 30th, 35, 38th ect. Ultimately in expected future value there's really not all that much difference. I just hope if they do trade back/out its for the rights reasons, either because they truly believe they can get just as good of a player a few spots later or because they get great value in future picks. It should not be to save a few dollars or keep another vet roster spot open.

They have a great top 8, they have 4 open roster spots, they should use at least one of those on a guy taken in the 20-40 range then give that guy some minutes next year along with Walsh.

[keevsnick1]

No more projects.Please use the 30 draft pick or trade up... **** financial flexibility.. We have our core and our core will not be traded.. We just need to add first round talent.. Someone who can step in and contribute right away While protecting our core from injuries.. Projects may not get that chance for Years...

Quite a few teams.looking to trade down.. They are definitely more impactful.Players in the late teens and early 20s.Then anything in the second round..

Cs are not trying to have financial flexibility.

That option went away when they became a 2nd apron team.

What they want to do is keep the core intact for as long as possible.

Having a 1st rnd pick will have an effect on achieving that goal.[/quote]

Ultimately a first round pick guaranteed salary has zero chance of being why the C's have to break up their core, in fact a first round pick hitting, being very good, helping them 2-4 years down the line open a cheap deal may be a reason they can keep the core together.

If they think they can get the same guy at 35 as they want at 30, then a trade down is fine. Good even, becasue you get extra picks. But they should take at least one player somewhere between 20-40.

[Fierce1]

It's not about the difference in the amount of money, it's about 1st round picks will get guaranteed contracts.

Teams are not obligated to give 2nd picks guaranteed contracts.

[Fierce1]

No more projects.Please use the 30 draft pick or trade up... **** financial flexibility.. We have our core and our core will not be traded.. We just need to add first round talent.. Someone who can step in and contribute right away While protecting our core from injuries.. Projects may not get that chance for Years...

Quite a few teams.looking to trade down.. They are definitely more impactful.Players in the late teens and early 20s.Then anything in the second round..

Cs are not trying to have financial flexibility.

That option went away when they became a 2nd apron team.

What they want to do is keep the core intact for as long as possible.

Having a 1st rnd pick will have an effect on achieving that goal.[/quote]

Ultimately a first round pick guaranteed salary has zero chance of being why the C's have to break up their core, in fact a first round pick hitting, being very good, helping them 2-4 years down the line open a cheap deal may be a reason they can keep the core together.

If they think they can get the same guy at 35 as they want at 30, then a trade down is fine. Good even, becasue you get extra picks. But they should take at least one player somewhere between 20-40.

I agree if there's a guy too good to pass up then the Cs should use the 1st rnd pick.

But if there's really no clear cut too good to pass up guy then trade down.

[keevsnick1]

It's not about the difference in the amount of money, it's about 1st round picks will get guaranteed contracts.

Teams are not obligated to give 2nd picks guaranteed contracts.

An end of first round pick does get guaranteed money, but so will most players draft in the 30's, pretty much everybody drafted 31-39 got guaranteed money last year. You don't HAVE TO give those guys a guarantee, but they usually get one.

But the guaranteed money thing just doesn't matter. The contract's for end of first round picks are very small, if you decided a year later that a guy is a bust it won't take much to drop him. You'd probably still get some team to take a flier and give you a second even, like what Phili did with Jaden Springer.

A guy at pick 30 starts out at 2.4 million in year one, 2.55 in year two and 2.7 in year three. That's basically minimum contract money. Its not something that should scare a team.

Again, all I'll say is the money here shouldn't matter. The C's are over the tax, over the apron. This pick should be about adding talent to the team.

[Celts17Pride]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

That's what I want to hear. They are not all going to work out but maybe you find a few that can stick around.

[ConstableGeneva]

Watch on YouTube

[keevsnick1]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

That's what I want to hear. They are not all going to work out but maybe you find a few that can stick around.

The aggregation stuck is a good point. With the Celtics top 8 guys all locked in there's really nobody to trade that can bring you back any sort of salary about the minimum. The 2nd apron is basically going to force them to run it back next year.

But also yes, i agree, finding some young guys who can play is important.

[Fierce1]

It's not about the difference in the amount of money, it's about 1st round picks will get guaranteed contracts.

Teams are not obligated to give 2nd picks guaranteed contracts.

An end of first round pick does get guaranteed money, but so will most players draft in the 30's, pretty much everybody drafted 31-39 got guaranteed money last year. You don't HAVE TO give those guys a guarantee, but they usually get one.

But the guaranteed money thing just doesn't matter. The contract's for end of first round picks are very small, if you decided a year later that a guy is a bust it won't take much to drop him. You'd probably still get some team to take a flier and give you a second even, like what Phili did with Jaden Springer.

A guy at pick 30 starts out at 2.4 million in year one, 2.55 in year two and 2.7 in year three. That's basically minimum contract money. Its not something that should scare a team.

Again, all I'll say is the money here shouldn't matter. The C's are over the tax, over the apron. This pick should be about adding talent to the team.

2.4 or 2.55 without tax penalties.

But tax penalty starts at 1.5 and goes up to 2.5.

So 2.4m × 1.5 = 3.6m

That's the problem with a luxury tax paying team, the penalty really hurts financially.

[ConstableGeneva]

How lucky can you get. You wait almost 50 years to pick 1st again and there's no surefire All-NBA talent at #1.

Read on Twitter

[playa-hater]

No more projects.Please use the 30 draft pick or trade up... **** financial flexibility.. We have our core and our core will not be traded.. We just need to add first round talent.. Someone who can step in and contribute right away While protecting our core from injuries.. Projects may not get that chance for Years...

Quite a few teams.looking to trade down.. They are definitely more impactful.Players in the late teens and early 20s.Then anything in the second round..

Cs are not trying to have financial flexibility.

That option went away when they became a 2nd apron team.

What they want to do is keep the core intact for as long as possible.

Having a 1st rnd pick will have an effect on achieving that goal.

How does adding a first round talent not keep our core in tact.. Getting someone like K Ware, Filipowsk or T Da Silva Not only helps us protect against injuries which will happen, But can take our team to a other level..

Other contenders will be trying to improve to better themselves against us.. Standing Pat may not be good enough.We have to keep improving..getting a talented player who can step in seamlessly when one of.our core is out goes along way..2ND rd projects will not be able to do that.

[Fierce1]

No more projects.Please use the 30 draft pick or trade up... **** financial flexibility.. We have our core and our core will not be traded.. We just need to add first round talent.. Someone who can step in and contribute right away While protecting our core from injuries.. Projects may not get that chance for Years...

Quite a few teams.looking to trade down.. They are definitely more impactful.Players in the late teens and early 20s.Then anything in the second round..

Cs are not trying to have financial flexibility.

That option went away when they became a 2nd apron team.

What they want to do is keep the core intact for as long as possible.

Having a 1st rnd pick will have an effect on achieving that goal.

How does adding a first round talent not keep our core in tact.. Getting someone like K Ware, Filipowsk or T Da Silva Not only helps us protect against injuries which will happen, But can take our team to a other level..

Other contenders will be trying to improve to better themselves against us.. Standing Pat may not be good enough.We have to keep improving..getting a talented player who can step in seamlessly when one of.our core is out goes along way..2ND rd projects will not be able to do that.

The problem with a luxury tax paying team is the penalty really hurts financially.

For example, the #30 pick will be guaranteed 2.4m in his 1st year.

But because of the penalty, that 2.4m would become 3.6m.

Tax penalty starts at 1.5 then goes up to 2.5.

JB's 60m for 1 year would become 60m × 1.5 = 90m.

And that's just the 1st year of the penalty.

[Fierce1]

The goal of the new CBA is to force the great teams, like the Celtics, to stand pat.

If you study the new CBA, you'll understand why even a #30 pick is very expensive for a luxury tax paying team.

[keevsnick1]

It's not about the difference in the amount of money, it's about 1st round picks will get guaranteed contracts.

Teams are not obligated to give 2nd picks guaranteed contracts.

An end of first round pick does get guaranteed money, but so will most players draft in the 30's, pretty much everybody drafted 31-39 got guaranteed money last year. You don't HAVE TO give those guys a guarantee, but they usually get one.

But the guaranteed money thing just doesn't matter. The contract's for end of first round picks are very small, if you decided a year later that a guy is a bust it won't take much to drop him. You'd probably still get some team to take a flier and give you a second even, like what Phili did with Jaden Springer.

A guy at pick 30 starts out at 2.4 million in year one, 2.55 in year two and 2.7 in year three. That's basically minimum contract money. Its not something that should scare a team.

Again, all I'll say is the money here shouldn't matter. The C's are over the tax, over the apron. This pick should be about adding talent to the team.

2.4 or 2.55 without tax penalties.

But tax penalty starts at 1.5 and goes up to 2.5.

So 2.4m × 1.5 = 3.6m

That's the problem with a luxury tax paying team, the penalty really hurts financially.

Its not actually an extra 3.6 million tho, because that spot it going to go to somebody. if they sign somebody to a vet min instead at 2.1 million they are saving a grand total of 300K in salary. Probably about an extra million total in salary+tax this year. Its nothing. hell, even 3.6 million should not matter. That would just be ownership being cheap.

Again, money should not matter in this decision.

[keevsnick1]

The goal of the new CBA is to force the great teams, like the Celtics, to stand pat.

If you study the new CBA, you'll understand why even a #30 pick is very expensive for a luxury tax paying team.

But the thing is its just not.

Again, the first pick will start at roughly 2.4 million this year. A vet min guy will start at around 2.1 million. That's 300K in extra salary. We are talking about less than a 1.5 million dollars in extra salary+taxes.

Lats year the 32 pick got a starting salary year one of 1.7 million. That's 700K less in salary, so probably less than three million dollars difference in salary/tax for a team already paying 45 million in tax.

The difference in salary/tax for the 30th pick between either a vet minimum or an early second round pick just isn't that much. Again, it should not be the reason you trade out of the first round.

[Fierce1]

An end of first round pick does get guaranteed money, but so will most players draft in the 30's, pretty much everybody drafted 31-39 got guaranteed money last year. You don't HAVE TO give those guys a guarantee, but they usually get one.

But the guaranteed money thing just doesn't matter. The contract's for end of first round picks are very small, if you decided a year later that a guy is a bust it won't take much to drop him. You'd probably still get some team to take a flier and give you a second even, like what Phili did with Jaden Springer.

A guy at pick 30 starts out at 2.4 million in year one, 2.55 in year two and 2.7 in year three. That's basically minimum contract money. Its not something that should scare a team.

Again, all I'll say is the money here shouldn't matter. The C's are over the tax, over the apron. This pick should be about adding talent to the team.

2.4 or 2.55 without tax penalties.

But tax penalty starts at 1.5 and goes up to 2.5.

So 2.4m × 1.5 = 3.6m

That's the problem with a luxury tax paying team, the penalty really hurts financially.

Its not actually an extra 3.6 million tho, because that spot it going to go to somebody. if they sign somebody to a vet min instead at 2.1 million they are saving a grand total of 300K in salary and 450 k in taxes, so roughly 750K. Its nothing. hell, even 3.6 million should not matter. That would just be ownership being cheap.

Again, money should not matter in this decision.

I actually agree with you about money should not matter.

But what I'm hearing from Celtic beat writers and Celtic podcasts is the Cs will save all the money they can save for the extensions of Tatum and White.

Guess we'll know for sure in Day 1 of the draft.

I think Cs will only use the #30 pick if there's a guy too good to pass up.

But most likely the Cs will trade down and avoid the 1st round pick guaranteed contract.

[keevsnick1]

2.4 or 2.55 without tax penalties.

But tax penalty starts at 1.5 and goes up to 2.5.

So 2.4m × 1.5 = 3.6m

That's the problem with a luxury tax paying team, the penalty really hurts financially.

Its not actually an extra 3.6 million tho, because that spot it going to go to somebody. if they sign somebody to a vet min instead at 2.1 million they are saving a grand total of 300K in salary and 450 k in taxes, so roughly 750K. Its nothing. hell, even 3.6 million should not matter. That would just be ownership being cheap.

Again, money should not matter in this decision.

I actually agree with you about money should not matter.

But what I'm hearing from Celtic beat writers and Celtic podcasts is the Cs will save all the money they can save for the extensions of Tatum and White.

Guess we'll know for sure in Day 1 of the draft.

I think Cs will only use the #30 pick if there's a guy too good to pass up.

But most likely the Cs will trade down and avoid the 1st round pick guaranteed contract.

I don't think what the C's do with their draft pick is all that connected with any extension, in really any way. The two don't effect each other at all.

As for the guaranteed money stuff, i just don't think that matters. The $$$ amounts for 1st vs 2nd round picks are very small and are pretty easy to dump if they don't work out. Moving down JUST to save a million dollars on a team with a 50 million dollar tax bill is, if anything, short sighted, and might even end up costing you MORE money in the long term.

If they do trade down my guess is it's becasue they get a good offer value wise. like if some team wants to offer the c's a straight up first round pick next year for 30 then sure, that's interesting because any pick they good get would for sure be better than 30 this year.

[Fierce1]

The goal of the new CBA is to force the great teams, like the Celtics, to stand pat.

If you study the new CBA, you'll understand why even a #30 pick is very expensive for a luxury tax paying team.

But the thing is its just not.

Again, the first pick will start at roughly 2.4 million this year. A vet min guy will start at around 2.1 million. That's 300K in extra salary. We are talking about less than a 1.5 million dollars in extra salary+taxes.

Lats year the 32 pick got a starting salary year one of 1.7 million. That's 700K less in salary, so probably less than three million dollars difference in salary/tax for a team already paying 45 million in tax.

The difference in salary/tax for the 30th pick between either a vet minimum or an early second round pick just isn't that much.

Again, it's not the amount of money, it's the guaranteed contract.

A 2nd rnd pick can be given a non-guaranteed contract while a 1st rnd pick will get a 3-year guaranteed contract.