Late August Bookkeeping - BOS/LAL/BRK

[BK_2020]

Not legal, as is. LA ends up only $527k under their hard cap at the 1st apron and 2 players under the roster minimum. They have to clear more salary to try and make it legal, which would currently require either Maxi, Rui, or one of their big 3 (Lebron, Luka, or Reaves) as everyone else is guaranteed, but trade restricted, or makes too little to make a difference if traded (Bronnie).

The extra layers of trade rules in the new CBA has zapped all the joy out of life, lol ...

The owners wanted a hard cap and limitations on adding salary to the rosters, and this is what they came up with...

NBA needs to embrace the free market like MLB so we can get a Wemby on 20 year contract with $1 billion deferred 30 years.

[Scoot McGroot]

The extra layers of trade rules in the new CBA has zapped all the joy out of life, lol ...

The owners wanted a hard cap and limitations on adding salary to the rosters, and this is what they came up with...

NBA needs to embrace the free market like MLB so we can get a Wemby on 20 year contract with $1 billion deferred 30 years.

Kings would still be paying off Jason Thompson, huh…..but they’d probably have Jayson Tatum because of it!!!

[Golabki]

Vando is a bad contract, but bad contract is better than dead money, next year the Celtics will likely want to trade for a player to retool around Tatum, Brown and White, and Vando can be a filler salary, Simons dead money can't be used, it'll just sit there.
Yes, Simons for 1 year at 27M is better than Vando on 34M/3, but there is a reason the trade was proposed, it helps Celtics duck tax and start repeater tax reset.

I understand they want to get under the tax, but they can do that by stretching him too.

If they're getting Gabe Vincent or Maxi Kleber, I think it's an easy "yes". Even if Vando was on a 2 year deal, I'd feel better about it. But this is bad enough on value that if this is the best you can do, you may just want to stretch him instead... which I agree is a terrible option.

I get not wanting to make the deal, everyone is entitled to his opinion, but the deal is much better than waiving and stretching Simons.

Assuming the Celts have zero interest in Vando (which I think is probably true) the benefit of the trade is that you keep that salary slot on the books for a future trade.

The benefit of the stretch would be that you save a couple extra million per year over the course of the deal and you keep a bit more flexibility in terms of the extra roster spot.

Would you rather have a 13M non-expiring to move next offseason, or a little extra space and an extra roster spot? I can see your argument for not burning the salary slot, but it doesn't strike me as obviously way better. So that's maybe where I'm missing your point.

Again, not claiming Simons is a big value. If you flip Maxi in for Vando in this deal, it's an easy yes for the Celtics.

[Scoot McGroot]

I understand they want to get under the tax, but they can do that by stretching him too.

If they're getting Gabe Vincent or Maxi Kleber, I think it's an easy "yes". Even if Vando was on a 2 year deal, I'd feel better about it. But this is bad enough on value that if this is the best you can do, you may just want to stretch him instead... which I agree is a terrible option.

I get not wanting to make the deal, everyone is entitled to his opinion, but the deal is much better than waiving and stretching Simons.

Assuming the Celts have zero interest in Vando (which I think is probably true) the benefit of the trade is that you keep that salary slot on the books for a future trade.

The benefit of the stretch would be that you save a couple extra million per year over the course of the deal and you keep a bit more flexibility in terms of the extra roster spot.

Would you rather have a 13M non-expiring to move next offseason, or a little extra space and an extra roster spot? I can see your argument for not burning the salary slot, but it doesn't strike me as obviously way better. So that's maybe where I'm missing your point.

Again, not claiming Simons is a big value. If you flip Maxi in for Vando in this deal, it's an easy yes for the Celtics.

If this is he argument, you could still do the swap proposed and just stretch Vando? It’d either be a $5m per year cap hit over 5 years, or a $5.5m cap hit over 7 years, depending on how his player option is contractually negotiated. That would be less than Simons’s $9.2 per annum cap hit?


But I tend to think that Boston wouldn’t necessarily view Vandy as a worthless player. In fact, at least this year, he’d be their best defensive option at the forwards spot? He seems like he’d be in line for solid minutes at the forwards, for sure, as he provides a defensive presence at those spots that Boston doesn’t otherwise have on the roster?

As for the Maxi swap, I’m sure Boston would love that. I don’t know they’d love it enough to pay the first round pick or so of value it would cost though?

[djFan71]

I'm on board with the BOS and BKN side.
Agree that the Lakers don't really benefit as much. I've done MIL as a 3rd/4th team to route Kuz back to LAL, but that gets hard cuz MIL has no assets to grease that upgrade to Simons with.

[Golabki]

I get not wanting to make the deal, everyone is entitled to his opinion, but the deal is much better than waiving and stretching Simons.

Assuming the Celts have zero interest in Vando (which I think is probably true) the benefit of the trade is that you keep that salary slot on the books for a future trade.

The benefit of the stretch would be that you save a couple extra million per year over the course of the deal and you keep a bit more flexibility in terms of the extra roster spot.

Would you rather have a 13M non-expiring to move next offseason, or a little extra space and an extra roster spot? I can see your argument for not burning the salary slot, but it doesn't strike me as obviously way better. So that's maybe where I'm missing your point.

Again, not claiming Simons is a big value. If you flip Maxi in for Vando in this deal, it's an easy yes for the Celtics.

If this is he argument, you could still do the swap proposed and just stretch Vando? It’d either be a $5m per year cap hit over 5 years, or a $5.5m cap hit over 7 years, depending on how his player option is contractually negotiated. That would be less than Simons’s $9.2 per annum cap hit?


But I tend to think that Boston wouldn’t necessarily view Vandy as a worthless player. In fact, at least this year, he’d be their best defensive option at the forwards spot? He seems like he’d be in line for solid minutes at the forwards, for sure, as he provides a defensive presence at those spots that Boston doesn’t otherwise have on the roster?

As for the Maxi swap, I’m sure Boston would love that. I don’t know they’d love it enough to pay the first round pick or so of value it would cost though?

As a C's fan I'd rather not have the stretch out that far... but you're right... it's debatable.

I don't think he's worthless, like he deserves to be in the league. But if he was a FA this offseason he'd been on a 1 year vet min deal. The Celtics have Walsh, MInott and Tillman as cheap no-shoot defensive forwards, and I don't really see Vando is a big upgrade on any of them. He's better than Walsh and MInott, but I'd prefer to have the younger guys who still have more of a chance to develop a semi-consistent 3. And he's better than Tillman if healthy, but he always seems to be hurt, and the Celts seem to like Tillman as a culture guy, so I don't really see it as a big upgrade.

Put a different way... I look at what the Lakers are giving up for Simons in this deal, and it looks to good for them because of how bad the Vando contract is. Could they trade Vando, Dalton and a distant second for a tire fire on an expiring?

[Golabki]

I'm on board with the BOS and BKN side.
Agree that the Lakers don't really benefit as much. I've done MIL as a 3rd/4th team to route Kuz back to LAL, but that gets hard cuz MIL has no assets to grease that upgrade to Simons with.

Simons isn't a good fit on the lakers, but he'd still be probably be one of their 7 best players.

But the real benefit is that they are getting off of almost 17M in 2026 and almost 20M in 2027. The genius of this for the Lakers is that while it does make them better this year, they are also improving their cap situation for the next 2 offseasons, which is what they really care about. All at the cost of a crappy 2nd and a prospect who's maybe worth a decent 2nd.

[djFan71]

I'm on board with the BOS and BKN side.
Agree that the Lakers don't really benefit as much. I've done MIL as a 3rd/4th team to route Kuz back to LAL, but that gets hard cuz MIL has no assets to grease that upgrade to Simons with.

Simons isn't a good fit on the lakers, but he'd still be probably be one of their 7 best players.

But the real benefit is that they are getting off of almost 17M in 2026 and almost 20M in 2027. The genius of this for the Lakers is that while it does make them better this year, they are also improving their cap situation for the next 2 offseasons, which is what they really care about. All at the cost of a crappy 2nd and a prospect who's maybe worth a decent 2nd.

If they're on board, great, but I'd probably rather have Vincent and Vandy around LeBron & Luka this year. Simons to me is best on ball, so you're taking it out of the hands of 2 all-time greats with it. Or you're not getting full value from Simons. Not to mention you also have Reeves.

Same problem I have with Simons around Tatum & Brown in 26-27, but to a lesser level, obviously. There's definitely the hope that he gets better and thrives off-ball with less attention, but I'd try to do something else with those assets/salaries if I was LAL.

[Scoot McGroot]

Assuming the Celts have zero interest in Vando (which I think is probably true) the benefit of the trade is that you keep that salary slot on the books for a future trade.

The benefit of the stretch would be that you save a couple extra million per year over the course of the deal and you keep a bit more flexibility in terms of the extra roster spot.

Would you rather have a 13M non-expiring to move next offseason, or a little extra space and an extra roster spot? I can see your argument for not burning the salary slot, but it doesn't strike me as obviously way better. So that's maybe where I'm missing your point.

Again, not claiming Simons is a big value. If you flip Maxi in for Vando in this deal, it's an easy yes for the Celtics.

If this is he argument, you could still do the swap proposed and just stretch Vando? It’d either be a $5m per year cap hit over 5 years, or a $5.5m cap hit over 7 years, depending on how his player option is contractually negotiated. That would be less than Simons’s $9.2 per annum cap hit?


But I tend to think that Boston wouldn’t necessarily view Vandy as a worthless player. In fact, at least this year, he’d be their best defensive option at the forwards spot? He seems like he’d be in line for solid minutes at the forwards, for sure, as he provides a defensive presence at those spots that Boston doesn’t otherwise have on the roster?

As for the Maxi swap, I’m sure Boston would love that. I don’t know they’d love it enough to pay the first round pick or so of value it would cost though?

As a C's fan I'd rather not have the stretch out that far... but you're right... it's debatable.

I don't think he's worthless, like he deserves to be in the league. But if he was a FA this offseason he'd been on a 1 year vet min deal. The Celtics have Walsh, MInott and Tillman as cheap no-shoot defensive forwards, and I don't really see Vando is a big upgrade on any of them. He's better than Walsh and MInott, but I'd prefer to have the younger guys who still have more of a chance to develop a semi-consistent 3. And he's better than Tillman if healthy, but he always seems to be hurt, and the Celts seem to like Tillman as a culture guy, so I don't really see it as a big upgrade.

Put a different way... I look at what the Lakers are giving up for Simons in this deal, and it looks to good for them because of how bad the Vando contract is. Could they trade Vando, Dalton and a distant second for a tire fire on an expiring?

I think Vando is just different from all of those guys? Tillman is a guy who's an undersized 5. Add in that he's not very good, and not very good defensively, and I don't see a conflict? Minott and Walsh are definitely 2/3 kind of players, while Vando is really a 3/4?

As for the valuation differences, I think it's all pretty close as, in theory, LA is eating a large amount of immediate salary, while Boston is shaving a TON of immediate salary? But, change it to have it legal from an apron perspective, and LA would definitely be paying more as they'd have to include Kleber or something larger to Brooklyn, so the cost would be higher in that regard.

Just, cutting almost a full MLE of salary immediately off the books, while ALSO getting under the tax line completely is a TON of value. And Boston is paying essentially nothing here in doing so? Seems pretty solid value. And for a guy that Boston will likely bring off the bench anyway? So the whole concept of trading for Vandy to come off the bench probably isn't a big issue?

It's not sexy, for sure. But when you're getting a ton of value and paying nothing, it makes sense?

[Golabki]

If this is he argument, you could still do the swap proposed and just stretch Vando? It’d either be a $5m per year cap hit over 5 years, or a $5.5m cap hit over 7 years, depending on how his player option is contractually negotiated. That would be less than Simons’s $9.2 per annum cap hit?


But I tend to think that Boston wouldn’t necessarily view Vandy as a worthless player. In fact, at least this year, he’d be their best defensive option at the forwards spot? He seems like he’d be in line for solid minutes at the forwards, for sure, as he provides a defensive presence at those spots that Boston doesn’t otherwise have on the roster?

As for the Maxi swap, I’m sure Boston would love that. I don’t know they’d love it enough to pay the first round pick or so of value it would cost though?

As a C's fan I'd rather not have the stretch out that far... but you're right... it's debatable.

I don't think he's worthless, like he deserves to be in the league. But if he was a FA this offseason he'd been on a 1 year vet min deal. The Celtics have Walsh, MInott and Tillman as cheap no-shoot defensive forwards, and I don't really see Vando is a big upgrade on any of them. He's better than Walsh and MInott, but I'd prefer to have the younger guys who still have more of a chance to develop a semi-consistent 3. And he's better than Tillman if healthy, but he always seems to be hurt, and the Celts seem to like Tillman as a culture guy, so I don't really see it as a big upgrade.

Put a different way... I look at what the Lakers are giving up for Simons in this deal, and it looks to good for them because of how bad the Vando contract is. Could they trade Vando, Dalton and a distant second for a tire fire on an expiring?

I think Vando is just different from all of those guys? Tillman is a guy who's an undersized 5. Add in that he's not very good, and not very good defensively, and I don't see a conflict? Minott and Walsh are definitely 2/3 kind of players, while Vando is really a 3/4?

As for the valuation differences, I think it's all pretty close as, in theory, LA is eating a large amount of immediate salary, while Boston is shaving a TON of immediate salary? But, change it to have it legal from an apron perspective, and LA would definitely be paying more as they'd have to include Kleber or something larger to Brooklyn, so the cost would be higher in that regard.

Just, cutting almost a full MLE of salary immediately off the books, while ALSO getting under the tax line completely is a TON of value. And Boston is paying essentially nothing here in doing so? Seems pretty solid value. And for a guy that Boston will likely bring off the bench anyway? So the whole concept of trading for Vandy to come off the bench probably isn't a big issue?

It's not sexy, for sure. But when you're getting a ton of value and paying nothing, it makes sense?

I disagree with your characterization of Walsh/Minott/Tillman. But that's not really the point. My point is that Vanderbilt is kinda on the level of these fringe roster guys.

"LA is eating a large amount of immediate salary" - this isn't true. The Laker's send out almost exactly what they get back in dollars for this year, and save ~35M over the following 2 years. Which again, I think they really care about that flexibility in '26 and '27. And get the best player in the deal. Seems like a no brainer, even if Simons isn't a perfect fit.

The Celtics are giving up essentially a decent firsts worth of value, even if you are saying Simons has zero value as a player. Because I think that's what it would take to turn Vando into an expiring.

[Scoot McGroot]

As a C's fan I'd rather not have the stretch out that far... but you're right... it's debatable.

I don't think he's worthless, like he deserves to be in the league. But if he was a FA this offseason he'd been on a 1 year vet min deal. The Celtics have Walsh, MInott and Tillman as cheap no-shoot defensive forwards, and I don't really see Vando is a big upgrade on any of them. He's better than Walsh and MInott, but I'd prefer to have the younger guys who still have more of a chance to develop a semi-consistent 3. And he's better than Tillman if healthy, but he always seems to be hurt, and the Celts seem to like Tillman as a culture guy, so I don't really see it as a big upgrade.

Put a different way... I look at what the Lakers are giving up for Simons in this deal, and it looks to good for them because of how bad the Vando contract is. Could they trade Vando, Dalton and a distant second for a tire fire on an expiring?

I think Vando is just different from all of those guys? Tillman is a guy who's an undersized 5. Add in that he's not very good, and not very good defensively, and I don't see a conflict? Minott and Walsh are definitely 2/3 kind of players, while Vando is really a 3/4?

As for the valuation differences, I think it's all pretty close as, in theory, LA is eating a large amount of immediate salary, while Boston is shaving a TON of immediate salary? But, change it to have it legal from an apron perspective, and LA would definitely be paying more as they'd have to include Kleber or something larger to Brooklyn, so the cost would be higher in that regard.

Just, cutting almost a full MLE of salary immediately off the books, while ALSO getting under the tax line completely is a TON of value. And Boston is paying essentially nothing here in doing so? Seems pretty solid value. And for a guy that Boston will likely bring off the bench anyway? So the whole concept of trading for Vandy to come off the bench probably isn't a big issue?

It's not sexy, for sure. But when you're getting a ton of value and paying nothing, it makes sense?

I disagree with your characterization of Walsh/Minott/Tillman. But that's not really the point. My point is that Vanderbilt is kinda on the level of these fringe roster guys.

"LA is eating a large amount of immediate salary" - this isn't true. The Laker's send out almost exactly what they get back in dollars for this year, and save ~35M over the following 2 years. Which again, I think they really care about that flexibility in '26 and '27. And get the best player in the deal. Seems like a no brainer, even if Simons isn't a perfect fit.

The Celtics are giving up essentially a decent firsts worth of value, even if you are saying Simons has zero value as a player. Because I think that's what it would take to turn Vando into an expiring.

I think if Simons had “decent first” worth of value, he’d have already been traded…

But yeah, if you think Simons has first round value, there’s just no salvaging any sort of deal like this. Even though cutting $14m in salary immediately is usually viewed as 1st round value? LA is paying to turn Vando into expiring Simons. It’s just that Boston is shopping that to Brooklyn to save money.

[brackdan70]

I think Vando is just different from all of those guys? Tillman is a guy who's an undersized 5. Add in that he's not very good, and not very good defensively, and I don't see a conflict? Minott and Walsh are definitely 2/3 kind of players, while Vando is really a 3/4?

As for the valuation differences, I think it's all pretty close as, in theory, LA is eating a large amount of immediate salary, while Boston is shaving a TON of immediate salary? But, change it to have it legal from an apron perspective, and LA would definitely be paying more as they'd have to include Kleber or something larger to Brooklyn, so the cost would be higher in that regard.

Just, cutting almost a full MLE of salary immediately off the books, while ALSO getting under the tax line completely is a TON of value. And Boston is paying essentially nothing here in doing so? Seems pretty solid value. And for a guy that Boston will likely bring off the bench anyway? So the whole concept of trading for Vandy to come off the bench probably isn't a big issue?

It's not sexy, for sure. But when you're getting a ton of value and paying nothing, it makes sense?

I disagree with your characterization of Walsh/Minott/Tillman. But that's not really the point. My point is that Vanderbilt is kinda on the level of these fringe roster guys.

"LA is eating a large amount of immediate salary" - this isn't true. The Laker's send out almost exactly what they get back in dollars for this year, and save ~35M over the following 2 years. Which again, I think they really care about that flexibility in '26 and '27. And get the best player in the deal. Seems like a no brainer, even if Simons isn't a perfect fit.

The Celtics are giving up essentially a decent firsts worth of value, even if you are saying Simons has zero value as a player. Because I think that's what it would take to turn Vando into an expiring.

I think if Simons had “decent first” worth of value, he’d have already been traded…

But yeah, if you think Simons has first round value, there’s just no salvaging any sort of deal like this. Even though cutting $14m in salary immediately is usually viewed as 1st round value? LA is paying to turn Vando into expiring Simons. It’s just that Boston is shopping that to Brooklyn to save money.

I think he was not saying Simons has 1st round value, but saying the difference between Simons as an expiring and Vando for two additional years is first round value.
I personally think that’s probably a bit rich in a vacuum, but the hinderance to the Celtics flexibility is significant.
I think if Simons was on Vandos contract he would be solid positive value.

[Golabki]

I disagree with your characterization of Walsh/Minott/Tillman. But that's not really the point. My point is that Vanderbilt is kinda on the level of these fringe roster guys.

"LA is eating a large amount of immediate salary" - this isn't true. The Laker's send out almost exactly what they get back in dollars for this year, and save ~35M over the following 2 years. Which again, I think they really care about that flexibility in '26 and '27. And get the best player in the deal. Seems like a no brainer, even if Simons isn't a perfect fit.

The Celtics are giving up essentially a decent firsts worth of value, even if you are saying Simons has zero value as a player. Because I think that's what it would take to turn Vando into an expiring.

I think if Simons had “decent first” worth of value, he’d have already been traded…

But yeah, if you think Simons has first round value, there’s just no salvaging any sort of deal like this. Even though cutting $14m in salary immediately is usually viewed as 1st round value? LA is paying to turn Vando into expiring Simons. It’s just that Boston is shopping that to Brooklyn to save money.

I think he was not saying Simons has 1st round value, but saying the difference between Simons as an expiring and Vando for two additional years is first round value.
I personally think that’s probably a bit rich in a vacuum, but the hinderance to the Celtics flexibility is significant.
I think if Simons was on Vandos contract he would be solid positive value.

Exactly... I think Simons is a decent player, but I'm saying if Simons was in freak yachting accident resulting in the amputation of both of his legs... this would still be pretty good for the Lakers because they turn Vando into an expiring.

[Scoot McGroot]

I think if Simons had “decent first” worth of value, he’d have already been traded…

But yeah, if you think Simons has first round value, there’s just no salvaging any sort of deal like this. Even though cutting $14m in salary immediately is usually viewed as 1st round value? LA is paying to turn Vando into expiring Simons. It’s just that Boston is shopping that to Brooklyn to save money.

I think he was not saying Simons has 1st round value, but saying the difference between Simons as an expiring and Vando for two additional years is first round value.
I personally think that’s probably a bit rich in a vacuum, but the hinderance to the Celtics flexibility is significant.
I think if Simons was on Vandos contract he would be solid positive value.

Exactly... I think Simons is a decent player, but I'm saying if Simons was in freak yachting accident resulting in the amputation of both of his legs... this would still be pretty good for the Lakers because they turn Vando into an expiring.

Yes.

It would also (theoretically, if we ignore the ability to exclude a contract for medical reasons since you suppose he’d be traded to LA) be solid value for Boston as they’d save a TON of cash, get under the tax toward possibly resetting the luxury tax repeater penalties, and still get a usable forward in Vando. There’s clearly benefits for both teams.

[Scoot McGroot]

I think he was not saying Simons has 1st round value, but saying the difference between Simons as an expiring and Vando for two additional years is first round value.
I personally think that’s probably a bit rich in a vacuum, but the hinderance to the Celtics flexibility is significant.
I think if Simons was on Vandos contract he would be solid positive value.

Exactly... I think Simons is a decent player, but I'm saying if Simons was in freak yachting accident resulting in the amputation of both of his legs... this would still be pretty good for the Lakers because they turn Vando into an expiring.

Yes.

It would also (theoretically, if we ignore the ability to exclude a contract for medical reasons since you suppose he’d be traded to LA) be solid value for Boston as they’d save a TON of cash, get under the tax toward possibly resetting the luxury tax repeater penalties, and still get a usable forward in Vando. There’s clearly benefits for both teams.

To be clear, I also think Simons is a decent player. And agree that if he was on a contract half his size, he’d have much more value. Those are major material differences though.