redslastlaugh wrote:very short digression from Bill Simmons last night at 1:00:50 Talking about Giannis, Zach says "we all know what teams would be interested in trading for him" & Simmons says, "there's one more: the Brooklyn Nets"
Bill says Nets may use their capspace this summer to bring pieces that will appeal to Giannis and that BRK then tries to go get him not this summer but before the trade deadline.
"Remember in 07, Celts weren't a landing spot for KG but then Celts went and got Ray Allen and now KG was willing to listen. Well, what if Nets acquire Jrue Holiday into their capspace and go sign someone like Naz Reid. This is laying the groundwork of appeal for Giannis"
Sounds good to me they’ve got plenty of assets, cap space and that’s a big ambitious plan to pull off. Make it #19 to start and figure out what else from there.
Would be funny if we make plans all offseason about there being no chance they move salary for nothing coming back and the plan is just move Jrue for picks and nothing else all along.
Would they still have to move Hauser to be able to keep KP?
165bows wrote:Would be funny if we make plans all offseason about there being no chance they move salary for nothing coming back and the plan is just move Jrue for picks and nothing else all along.
Would they still have to move Hauser to be able to keep KP?
If we moveJrue and actually get some picks vs moving Jrue having to give up some of our assets, is a definite home run.
Brad stevens maze surprise, but I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.
2 things need to go.. my lack of spell check and Joe..
165bows wrote:Would be funny if we make plans all offseason about there being no chance they move salary for nothing coming back and the plan is just move Jrue for picks and nothing else all along.
Would they still have to move Hauser to be able to keep KP?
As I just mentioned in another thread, the Celtics goal is not to become the Hawks or the Kings. Celtics are not having a fire sale and start making bad decisions.
Celtics would love to get below the 2nd apron and maybe even below the tax but only with good deals. The Celtics will be below the 2nd apron in 2026/2027.
Celtics making dumb, bad basketball decisions in an all out effort to get below the 2nd apron diminishes your talent base and even though you can now combine salaries, you have nothing of value to trade.
If there are great deals out there I’m sure Brad Stevens will find them otherwise I expect the Celtics to be patient.
Again, the goal is not to become the Hawks or Kings.
165bows wrote:Would be funny if we make plans all offseason about there being no chance they move salary for nothing coming back and the plan is just move Jrue for picks and nothing else all along.
Would they still have to move Hauser to be able to keep KP?
What do you mean "keep KP"? Do you mean keep him this year and avoid the 2nd apron? Keep him this year and avoid the tax altogether? Or keep him next year and avoid one/both of those thresholds.
They have to clear $44M to avoid the tax and $24M to avoid the 2nd apron. That includes their 2 picks to get to 14 players. So backfilling roster spots has to be taken into account for any player moved.
If they moved Jrue's $32.4M for nothing, then that clears about $30M after backfilling the roster spot. So already below the 2nd apron, keeping both Hauser and KP on the books. But still $14M to get below the tax and Hauser only makes $10M so trading him and backfilling his roster spot means you only save $8M. Even if you dealt Pritchard for no much to clear his $7.2M, it's really just $5M of savings if you backfill the roster spot. So the two of them combine leave you a bit short to keep Porzingis and duck the tax.
If they loaded the roster with rookie deals and dealt some guys mid year to replace them with pro rated minimum players then I think they maaaaaaaybe could squeak out keeping Tatum/Brown/White/Porzingis/Pritchard and duck the tax. It's probably not realistic though because it's just too tight.
Celtics are not clearing Holiday or Porzingis and taking no money back, it’s a pipe dream. It’s like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
165bows wrote:Would be funny if we make plans all offseason about there being no chance they move salary for nothing coming back and the plan is just move Jrue for picks and nothing else all along.
Would they still have to move Hauser to be able to keep KP?
I don't think so and be under the 2nd apron realistically and be competitive. They need to get a legitimate guard to replace Jrue some where in the process. Right now the Celts are at $224M. THey need to add 4 more players possibly including possibly Horford and/Kornet. So let's add $15 Million. We're at $239M. We need to get to $207.8M. Jrue's salary is $32M. That gets you close taking back NO salary because you need to get a minimal salary back to replace Jrue's roster spot. See it's hard to keep Hauser. The extra $7-8M you can drop replacing Hauser is likely critical. Staying in the 2nd apron is devastating. That's all saying the Celtics can make a trade sending back next to no salary. Ideally they would want to get below enough to get in a good TPE player AND stay under the 2nd apron
Brad Stevens on fans who want the Celtics to tank: "I don’t think they’ll like me all that much then."
165bows wrote:Would be funny if we make plans all offseason about there being no chance they move salary for nothing coming back and the plan is just move Jrue for picks and nothing else all along.
Would they still have to move Hauser to be able to keep KP?
I don't think so and be under the 2nd apron realistically and be competitive. They need to get a legitimate guard to replace Jrue some where in the process. Right now the Celts are at $224M. THey need to add 4 more players possibly including possibly Horford and/Kornet. So let's add $15 Million. We're at $239M. We need to get to $207.8M. Jrue's salary is $32M. That gets you close taking back NO salary because you need to get a minimal salary back. See it's hard to keep Hauser. The extra $7-8M you can drop replacing Hauser is likely critical. Staying in the 2nd apron is devastating
How is staying in the 2nd apron devastating when the Celtics will be below it in 2026/2027?
I have no idea what the Celtics will do this offseason. I just don’t think the Celtics have the urgency to get below the 2nd apron this season like the people in this forum seem to do.
For example, Celtics could trade Holiday for CJ McCollom or Julius Randle or someone else with an expiring contracts. Keep Porzingis.
In 2026-2027 Celtics will have $175 million in committed salaries with the 2nd apron being projected to be $229 million. Celtics would also have the option of resigning McCollum, Randle or whoever they get for Holiday and potentially resign Porzingis at reduced price and still stay below the 2nd apron.
I think the top priority for the Celtics is getting off of Holiday and potentially Hauser’s future money. They would love to get below the 2nd apron this year but not at all costs.
We will see. Just my thoughts
In this scenario you could have Brown, White, Pritchard, McCollum, Porzingis, maybe even Kornet all there in 2026/2027 when Tatum comes back and still be below the 2nd apron depending how much you could resign MCCollum and Porzingis. Celtics would at least have one of them if they choose
hugepatsfan wrote:Since we ended last year over the 2nd apron, our 2032 pick is now frozen. We cannot trade it. If we end this year over the 2nd apron, it will automatically be moved to the end of the 2032 1st round, no matter our record. Also if we stay over the 2nd apron this year, our 2033 pick gets frozen again next year.
In any of these financially motivated trades, you have to factor those apron penalties. Any combination of trades that gets us below the 2nd apron in addition to whatever we get from the trades themselves, automatically ALSO includes for us:
1) the ability to trade our 2032 pick next year 2) the removal of an automatic pick swap to #30 on our 2032 pick 3) the ability to trade our 2033 pick next year
There's also the financial aspect of not the 2nd apron but the tax. We have to go under for 2 years to reset repeater rates. Each year ownership is going to give Stevens a budget. If you're spending repeater rates, that budget will translate to substantially less salary than a non repeater team. It's just math. By staying over the tax, Stevens will have to build a championship team with substantially less ability to add salary because of fitting the related tax into the budget.
So many people are concerned about how we're going to build a title contending team around Tatum when he's back if we sell off Jrue/KP/Hauser for savings. The thing for me is that even the most optimistic trades I've seen as far as guys coming back, while decent players, are NOT going to be the championship core around Tatum/Brown/White. I still think in the future we're going to need to trade those players for upgrades but if we stay in the tax for them we have less ability to take back money and extend those guys and if it's over the 2nd apron then less/worse picks to attach to them.
We traded Theis/Nesmith/pick for Brogdon then Brogdon/RWIlliams/pick for Jrue to get a title. That's the roadmap. And we still went to the finals that year Theis was here! I wouldn't be afraid if guys like Jared Vanderbilt, Klay Thompson, etc. If it means you get to reset your spending power, keep all of your assets, and maybe even get some small stuff back as opposed to giving that up to get some PJ Washington/WCJ type players instead, I think the former puts us in better position to make the trades we'll need to build a title team around Tatum again. Because in the latter you'll still need to move those guys in the future but less assets to do so.
I'm not saying tear it all down and tank, but if they prioritize savings I think they can get under the tax by dealing off KP/Jrue/Hauser and keeping our 3 best players + Pritchard and having tons of future flexibility.
Not necessarily your main point, but I don’t see how Klay and Vandy gets us under the tax.
yea, it'd be kinda funny that I spend 20 hours on the trade machine over a month looking at Jrue trades that undue the contract and then they just trade him to the Nets for a 1st...and it's like "oh, okay" lol
165bows wrote:Would be funny if we make plans all offseason about there being no chance they move salary for nothing coming back and the plan is just move Jrue for picks and nothing else all along.
Would they still have to move Hauser to be able to keep KP?
Celts17Pride wrote:Celtics are not clearing Holiday or Porzingis and taking no money back, it’s a pipe dream. It’s like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
If the Nets really want proven players for their Giannis dream. What if they ask for Payton + Jrue and offer #8? Or even #8 + #19?
hugepatsfan wrote:Truth often lies in the middle. Early reports were that BOS would have to attach picks to move salary. Now reports are they don't care about moving salary and will get picks? Middle of that to me is that they'll move salary for no picks attached but none back either. Hope I'm underselling but that's just my belief.
Trade 1: Jrue for Klay Trade 2: Porzingis for Jared Vanderbilt Trade 3: Hauser into TPE/MLE somewhere
Obviously 1 and 2 need to be bigger trades but figure that out. Dump money elsewhere. I'm not even saying Porzingis to LAL, just make it work so the end result is you get Vandy back. I think those deals are workable through the million multi team deals we all propose every day. That gets us below the tax for this year and puts us on track to be below the tax in 26-27 as well to reset all repeater penalties.
Play out 2025-26 with that reduced roster while Tatum is out. I know everyone wants better and younger players back but I believe that takes us chipping in additional value. Which is fine, except we're paying that value and essentially wasting one year of what those younger and better players bring since Tatum is out. Save your assets, take back the lesser pieces now, and then next year attack assets to Klay and/or Vandy for those better younger players. You can still avoid the tax that way by trading ~$30M of Klay/Vandy money for $30M worth of younger, better players except now you have that all fully aligned with Tatum/Brown/White/Pritchard and reset your taxes.
I know you're always right on these things, but with numbers I have, that gets super-close on the tax, but not under it and with only 13 players. I have existing guys (Tatum, Brown, White, Pritchard, Baylor, Queta, Walsh, Tillman, JD) => $154.6M for 9 roster spots. Klay and Vandy => $28.2M 28 & 32 => $5.3M (120% scale $3,361,536.00 , $1,955,377.00 for 3 year exception) $188.16M for 13 roster spots.
Lux tax number I've been using is $187.897M. Where are we off?
They list 120% in this table, which is $2,763,960. They list 120% because that's the real world number, but you're taking another 120% of it.
Last year's #33 pick was Tyler Smith to MIL. He signed for $1,157,153 last year, which was the rookie minimum. I'm using that number as opposed to the full rookie exception. Last year's #32 pick (which matches ours) was Utah's Kyle Filipowski signed for 4 years, $12M because Utah used cap space as opposed to an exception. Not really applicable to us. It might cause for rocky negotiations with players to use the minimum, but considering our situation that's what I'm rolling with and #33 signing for it last year on a 2nd apron-pressed team, IMO, sets the president for it. The rookie minimum is $1,272,869.
So that creates an extra $1,260,164 in room from your numbers. There are also some back of the roster moves they can do that I'm leaving out to be more concise:
1) They can waive JD Davison at $2,270,735 (the 2 year minimum salary) and sign Drew Peterson for the 1 year experience minimum salary of $2,048,491. So more savings. Same applies to Walsh, but he has a partial guaranteed they'd need to dump on someone so harder. I think Peterson>Davison anyway from a pure basketball standpoint, especially with Tatum out so I expect this on its own merits.
2) They can trade #28 for an early 2nd and save the difference there. That's the easiest solution. They probably do this anyway to get some future 2nds with it to use in moves. They could even move out of #28 entirely and sign a vet min player for cheaper than the rookie salary.
3) A small salary like Tillman can be dumped midyear and backfilled with a pro rated minimum salary player. That saves about $1.2M, give or take the exact date of signing because proration.
So yes, technically Klay/Vandy and keeping our picks and signed players wouldn't fit, but just for simplicity sake I say it does because of how relatively meaningless those 3 moves are in the grand scheme of things and not to bog big picture posts down with the minutia.
hugepatsfan wrote:Truth often lies in the middle. Early reports were that BOS would have to attach picks to move salary. Now reports are they don't care about moving salary and will get picks? Middle of that to me is that they'll move salary for no picks attached but none back either. Hope I'm underselling but that's just my belief.
Trade 1: Jrue for Klay Trade 2: Porzingis for Jared Vanderbilt Trade 3: Hauser into TPE/MLE somewhere
Obviously 1 and 2 need to be bigger trades but figure that out. Dump money elsewhere. I'm not even saying Porzingis to LAL, just make it work so the end result is you get Vandy back. I think those deals are workable through the million multi team deals we all propose every day. That gets us below the tax for this year and puts us on track to be below the tax in 26-27 as well to reset all repeater penalties.
Play out 2025-26 with that reduced roster while Tatum is out. I know everyone wants better and younger players back but I believe that takes us chipping in additional value. Which is fine, except we're paying that value and essentially wasting one year of what those younger and better players bring since Tatum is out. Save your assets, take back the lesser pieces now, and then next year attack assets to Klay and/or Vandy for those better younger players. You can still avoid the tax that way by trading ~$30M of Klay/Vandy money for $30M worth of younger, better players except now you have that all fully aligned with Tatum/Brown/White/Pritchard and reset your taxes.
I know you're always right on these things, but with numbers I have, that gets super-close on the tax, but not under it and with only 13 players. I have existing guys (Tatum, Brown, White, Pritchard, Baylor, Queta, Walsh, Tillman, JD) => $154.6M for 9 roster spots. Klay and Vandy => $28.2M 28 & 32 => $5.3M (120% scale $3,361,536.00 , $1,955,377.00 for 3 year exception) $188.16M for 13 roster spots.
Lux tax number I've been using is $187.897M. Where are we off?
They list 120% in this table, which is $2,763,960. They list 120% because that's the real world number, but you're taking another 120% of it.
Last year's #33 pick was Tyler Smith to MIL. He signed for $1,157,153 last year, which was the rookie minimum. I'm using that number as opposed to the full rookie exception. Last year's #32 pick (which matches ours) was Utah's Kyle Filipowski signed for 4 years, $12M because Utah used cap space as opposed to an exception. Not really applicable to us. It might cause for rocky negotiations with players to use the minimum, but considering our situation that's what I'm rolling with and #33 signing for it last year on a 2nd apron-pressed team, IMO, sets the president for it. The rookie minimum is $1,272,869.
So that creates an extra $1,260,164 in room from your numbers. There are also some back of the roster moves they can do that I'm leaving out to be more concise:
1) They can waive JD Davison at $2,270,735 (the 2 year minimum salary) and sign Drew Peterson for the 1 year experience minimum salary of $2,048,491. So more savings. Same applies to Walsh, but he has a partial guaranteed they'd need to dump on someone so harder. I think Peterson>Davison anyway from a pure basketball standpoint, especially with Tatum out so I expect this on its own merits.
2) They can trade #28 for an early 2nd and save the difference there. That's the easiest solution. They probably do this anyway to get some future 2nds with it to use in moves. They could even move out of #28 entirely and sign a vet min player for cheaper than the rookie salary.
3) A small salary like Tillman can be dumped midyear and backfilled with a pro rated minimum salary player. That saves about $1.2M, give or take the exact date of signing because proration.
So yes, technically Klay/Vandy and keeping our picks and signed players wouldn't fit, but just for simplicity sake I say it does because of how relatively meaningless those 3 moves are in the grand scheme of things and not to bog big picture posts down with the minutia.
Ok, I figured you were tinkering like that but couldn’t get it to work with my extra 120%. Whoops. Thanks. That’ll make my scenarios have a little extra room.
hugepatsfan wrote:1) They can waive JD Davison at $2,270,735 (the 2 year minimum salary) and sign Drew Peterson for the 1 year experience minimum salary of $2,048,491. So more savings. Same applies to Walsh, but he has a partial guaranteed they'd need to dump on someone so harder. I think Peterson>Davison anyway from a pure basketball standpoint, especially with Tatum out so I expect this on its own merits.
I thought Drew Peterson played well last year. I think his median outcome is higher than Davison's, I think Peterson's ceiling is lower though. And I also think JD brings versality to the team and Drew is just more of the same.
Unless, after the other money moves, they need the $200k, I'd be bummed if they did this. And overall, it really seems like the team has internally leaned into Mazzulla ball concepts that are starting to look antiquated. Thats what Im thinking when Im watching these Finals.
