Gant wrote:165bows wrote:Gant wrote:Going over the second apron, even for 2 years is doable and not even a problem. Teams just have to avoid the 3 in 5. All teams do. No team can perpetually be in that seven-year-away draft penalty.
I think the Celtics are only over for one year so far, which means if they won the title again, they'd be tempted to let it ride one more season, but after that they'd have to stay under for years in a row.
Horford won't make enough to be the issue. If he wants to keep playing, they'll have him back.
They'll likely have to move out one substantial salary this offseason or next, plus possibly Hauser depending on other factors. It won't be Tatum, and highly doubtful it's White. Holiday could be the one due to age, or Brown because of salary. If it's Brown, a lower priced talent could come back in return.
This is offseason talk though.
I get what you are saying but there are multiple teams down multiple future unprotected picks deep in the future. Not saying that’s a good strategy but teams do a ton of it and had to actually be prohibited from inside they insisted on doing it to their own detriment.
So the “no team” language doesn’t hold water and is the big tell.
That's a fair point, but those teams traded their picks to get a valuable player. The Celtics already traded for their current players, and now they'd "trade" more picks just to keep them.
That may be even be worth it, but it's much more risky than, for example, trading the 2028 pick swap for Derrick White. Tatum will be 30 in 2028, and the team will still be good, which means the pick won't be worth much. But 7 years from now Tatum will be 34 and Brown will 35. Who knows where the team will be then?
Dropping the 2033 pick to #30 would be a certainty; and you get nothing additional back for it.
Any way you cut it, tough decisions have to be made. The decision to keep the team whole is not an easy one.
Right I get what you are saying, it’s a value play and they want to be on the right side of it. Ie what level of future pick is worth just staying where they are at now? Idk the answer to that question.
But the “no team” language is totally false, teams make the wrong choice on this issue constantly while trying to thread the needle.
This title winner is literally built on the backs of the King/Prok Nets who did exactly that.
So my point isn’t about what level of cost in the future is worth the present but that it’s clear to us their language is saying they aren’t paying it when that time comes (I’m not clear yet if that’s next year or the year after).
Take home being that it’s not true what they are saying no team would do it for the transaction reasons since teams do in fact pay those penalties willingly, but it’s more palatable this way to see where this is headed.
