Free Agent/Trade/Waiver Thread, 2025-26, part 2

[Cricket23]

Clippers won't trade Zubac, I don't think. They don't have their picks for several years and Zu is only 28 and signed to a good salary. Why trade him?

FVV has an implied no trade clause because of his contract, so he can veto any trade. If he moves from Texas to Mass, he loses a good amount in the income tax difference between the states, so I don't know if he'd sign off.

I do like the idea of Brad and the front office being aggressive. But also, it's really hard to make trades now with some teams restricted by being in the aprons, some teams hardcapped, etc so I don't want to expect no miracles, lol

When trade restrictions are gone, how about something along the lines of White and Hauser to Houston, VanVleet and picks from hopefully Houston to the Clips, and Zubac and Jabari Smith to Boston? Add small filler. Jabari is poison pilled but fits into the KP TPE.

Pritch
JB
JT
Jabari
Zubac

Same general idea, how about Zubac and Kuminga, and whatever other asset you could get?

Add Simons and a couple of picks and make it Sabonis plus Jabari or Kuminga, if they can afford it.

I've been hoping for a complete tank but it's not going well so far.

Either way, I want Brad Stevens to be aggressive and I believe he will be.

In my scenario, VanVleet goes to the Clips rather than Mass. He could veto that as well, but then take out Hauser and send Reed Sheppard to LA, if in fact they rebuild. It doesn't have to be Houston, or White going out, just saying there's ways for Boston to be creative, and I think Brad needs to and will.

[Fierce1]

I want Brad to be daring. If he finds a good trade for White, and the return makes sense age-wise and money-wise, it could make sense to trade Derrick.

For instance, Derrick will be earning an average salary of $32M/per for the 3 yrs after this. If we could land a better player or a comparable player who is younger & earning less, a trade might make sense.

But... I think Brad values continuity and stability. I don't think he'd make a risky trade with someone as valuable as D White. If the deal wasn't a clear upside deal that increased our championship odds, I don't think Brad would entertain the offer

Yeah, if a trade like Josh Giddey for DWhite is on the table then Brad will do it.

But not for Jabari Smith and Zubac.

I would not trade White for Giddey but I would for Jabari and Zubac. This team needs to add a quality starter or 2.

Jabari is playing the same position as Tatum.

Zubac is good, but not great.

You sacrifice speed, ball handling, and shooting by trading White.

There are other ways to get a starter.

Besides, we only need 1 starter once Tatum returns.

Trading White at this point in time is just too much change.

[redslastlaugh]

I want Brad to be daring. If he finds a good trade for White, and the return makes sense age-wise and money-wise, it could make sense to trade Derrick.

For instance, Derrick will be earning an average salary of $32M/per for the 3 yrs after this. If we could land a better player or a comparable player who is younger & earning less, a trade might make sense.

But... I think Brad values continuity and stability. I don't think he'd make a risky trade with someone as valuable as D White. If the deal wasn't a clear upside deal that increased our championship odds, I don't think Brad would entertain the offer

The chemistry will be disrupted if DWhite is traded.

JT, JB, and White should be off limits.

Only trade PP if the return is really good.

Chemistry and continuity are vital elements of a championship team.

Being BFFs with JT on top of being really good probably makes it a non-starter. I think JB, White, PP are basically locks to stay unless some crazy can't pass it up deal comes along. Everyone else is the opposite - open for business. Maybe Neemy is closer to the first group, but not in it.

Yea, White is probably off limits in trades. I do wonder if a "big 3" salary structure of Tatum, Brown, & White is gonna be good enough to win another title if theres limited money to build out the depth.

To me, and obviously I'm not dealing with the human relationships and uprooting families ... but to me, if the reports that Toronto offered RJ Barrett and #9 for Derrick White were accurate, that trade would look really interesting to me if Brad would've taken Cedric Coward at #9

If we'd selected Coward at #9, he'd be the White replacement making $6-7 million for the next 4 yrs and we'd have RJ's $28 million expiring to go get more pieces this summer. Reports were that the Celts laughed off that offer, so they didn't think it was close to meeting the asking price, which tells me White's not going anywhere short of 4 firsts, 3 swaps type of windfall... which I get it, you've got a great piece in White but also Derrick hasn't even made an all star team and I wouldnt label him an untouchable piece

[Fierce1]

Brad is a coward for not taking Barrett and Cedric.

[redslastlaugh]

Zarren said, "Brad we should trade for Barret and Coward."

Brad said, "Coward is not the guy."
Zarren said, "Why not?"

Brad said, "Minott."
Zarren said, "Minott?"

"Why not?" - Brad

Brad is a coward for not taking Barrett and Cedric.

[Fierce1]

It has already been proven that the Celtics can win a championship with Derrick White as one of the top 5 players on the team.
Why fix something that isn't broken?

Go back to the 2024 championship season and we see the supporting cast as White, Jrue, and Al.
KP only gave us 1 great game and that was in Game 1 of the Finals.
It was basically White, Jrue, and Al that helped the Cs dominate the playoffs and finals that season.
So it's not like the Cs had an All-Star caliber big when they won a championship.
It was a 38-year old Al carrying the load in the playoffs and finals.

IMO, it's one step forward and one step backward if the Cs trade DWhite.

If it's an offer they can't refuse, like Giannis for White or Booker for White then do it.
But not for guys like Zubac and Jabari Smith.

[Fierce1]

Zarren said, "Brad we should trade for Barret and Coward."

Brad said, "Coward is not the guy."
Zarren said, "Why not?"

Brad said, "Minott."
Zarren said, "Minott?"

"Why not?" - Brad

Brad is a coward for not taking Barrett and Cedric.

[hugepatsfan]

I think it hurts us that he has 3 yrs left after this year, because that limits his value. Some contenders are going to have to pay big extensions coming up and Hauser $10 million is fine this year, but his $12.5 million owed in 2028-29 is a problem for other teams' cap planning.

I think its the exact opposite actually. Knowing that number is locked in is a massive benefit to teams ability to budget and plan around the cap. A BIG number on a long term deal may be a hindrance, but a small number on a long term deal is literally the ideal contract.

I really hope so. At the end of the day its just hard to build a 14-15 man roster if Tatum + Brown are two players comprising $107 million this year just between them and we are also (maybe) trying to stay beneath the tax line ($189 million). So 14 man roster, 2 guys take up almost $110 million and you have $80 or so for 12-13 more players ... you just really start scrutinizing every dollar and players like Sam get put under the money microscope

In general, it is hard because most teams can't do what they've actually already managed to do which is get so many rotation worthy players on cheap multi year deals. They're getting a lot of production from Pritchard on his value extension and then the group of Queta/Walsh/Minott/Garza/Hugo/Scheierman all making sub $3M salaries each for this season and next. Add those 7 players to Tatum/Brown/White and you have a full 10 man rotation really, albeit one that needs an upgrade at center.

Those 10 guys make $157.4M this season against the $187.9M tax line. They make $169.8M next year against the projected $201.0M tax line. For both years, that leaves enough room to fit in Simons' salary slot and then fill out the rest of the 14 man roster while staying below the tax. Obviously at some point between now and the offseason you want to turn Simons' salary slot into a starting center, but the salary slot fits so that's not really a money issue it's a trade value/finding a partner issue. And if it waits until the offseason then Simons' salary slot gets filled via Porzingis TPE rather than a trade with him, unless maybe a S&T.

So yeah, Sam is the odd man out if they want to avoid the tax. That's the salary slot that doesn't fit under the tax. But as much as I like him, I do think it's a reasonable trade off to make to keep the rest of the roster because Tatum/Brown/White/Pritchard are all better players and they have reasonable perimeter depth behind them.

And to be clear, keeping Hauser doesn't push payroll to unreasonable levels either this year or next. They could still keep his salary and just be a reasonably-in-the-tax team. The issue comes beyond next season (26-27) when all of Queta/Minott/Walsh/Garza are FAs. You have to retain or replace those players and if you're paying repeater rates, it becomes insanely expensive to go further in the tax to keep them if they keep playing well. And then after (27-28) Pritchard is a FA and would be due for a HUGE raise or need to be replaced. Schierman a FA as well which would create a need if he becomes a contributor. And then after 28-29, Hugo is a FA. It just goes on and on. They're set to have to pay all time record payrolls just to keep their bench players in 27-28 and beyond if they don't reset these next two years because those repeater rate hike ups are fierce. If they manage to reset, they're set up terrifically for the rest of Tatum/Brown prime.

Trading Hauser to reset the repeater rates these next two years wouldn't be about actually saving money those two years. Keeping him still means their payroll would still be well within reason to what ownership should be willing to pay, and by all accounts appears willing to. HOWEVER, the way we are set up right now is a ticking time bomb beyond those two seasons. If we're at repeater rates, there's going to be an insane amount of pressure on Stevens to hit on tons of minimum signings and late picks to replace the great depth level production we're already getting from that group now. On the one hand, he already did it with this team so maybe he could do it again. But IMO Hauser just isn't a good enough player to force yourself into that situation. On the court it's a loss these next two years but not an excessive one and it makes building around Tatum/Brown for the rest of their prime actually feasible.

[Spotter]

I’m drinking the kool-aid hugepatsfan is making. Time to trade Hauser and start resetting the tax this year and next.

[Fierce1]

Resetting the tax would require trading Simons and Hauser.

Hauser alone won't get it done.

[Hal14]

I think it hurts us that he has 3 yrs left after this year, because that limits his value. Some contenders are going to have to pay big extensions coming up and Hauser $10 million is fine this year, but his $12.5 million owed in 2028-29 is a problem for other teams' cap planning.

I think its the exact opposite actually. Knowing that number is locked in is a massive benefit to teams ability to budget and plan around the cap. A BIG number on a long term deal may be a hindrance, but a small number on a long term deal is literally the ideal contract.

I really hope so. At the end of the day its just hard to build a 14-15 man roster if Tatum + Brown are two players comprising $107 million this year just between them and we are also (maybe) trying to stay beneath the tax line ($189 million). So 14 man roster, 2 guys take up almost $110 million and you have $80 or so for 12-13 more players ... you just really start scrutinizing every dollar and players like Sam get put under the money microscope

But right now Sam is only our 5th highest paid player. Your 5th highest paid player making only like $11mil a year is not bad at all..especially considering most people are probably assuming Simons either a) gets traded or b) walks as a FA next summer or c) resigns as a FA for less than what Hauser is making

So then Hauser would be our 4th highest paid player at only like $11mil a year..so not bad at all.

With that being said, Hauser has never really been more than just a 7th man..and if he ends up being our 7th man..it might not make sense to have your 7th man as your 5th (or even 4th) highest paid player so perhaps he does get traded at some point.

I could see it either way.

[djFan71]

I want Brad to be daring. If he finds a good trade for White, and the return makes sense age-wise and money-wise, it could make sense to trade Derrick.

For instance, Derrick will be earning an average salary of $32M/per for the 3 yrs after this. If we could land a better player or a comparable player who is younger & earning less, a trade might make sense.

But... I think Brad values continuity and stability. I don't think he'd make a risky trade with someone as valuable as D White. If the deal wasn't a clear upside deal that increased our championship odds, I don't think Brad would entertain the offer

Being BFFs with JT on top of being really good probably makes it a non-starter. I think JB, White, PP are basically locks to stay unless some crazy can't pass it up deal comes along. Everyone else is the opposite - open for business. Maybe Neemy is closer to the first group, but not in it.

Yea, White is probably off limits in trades. I do wonder if a "big 3" salary structure of Tatum, Brown, & White is gonna be good enough to win another title if theres limited money to build out the depth.

To me, and obviously I'm not dealing with the human relationships and uprooting families ... but to me, if the reports that Toronto offered RJ Barrett and #9 for Derrick White were accurate, that trade would look really interesting to me if Brad would've taken Cedric Coward at #9

If we'd selected Coward at #9, he'd be the White replacement making $6-7 million for the next 4 yrs and we'd have RJ's $28 million expiring to go get more pieces this summer. Reports were that the Celts laughed off that offer, so they didn't think it was close to meeting the asking price, which tells me White's not going anywhere short of 4 firsts, 3 swaps type of windfall... which I get it, you've got a great piece in White but also Derrick hasn't even made an all star team and I wouldnt label him an untouchable piece

I get the concern, but I feel like that TOR deal almost eliminates a title chance. Coward will probably be good, but not 3rd player on a title team good for a bit. RJ isn't, and yeah the salary could be handy, but it'll be easier to just use the Simons TPE (futurecasting...) than it will be to pay extra for someone to take him back.

I just watched the game, and Mann is solid. I've liked him before and his ball-handling/passing seems better. Not worth his full salary, but if you move Simons and Hauser and get just Mann back, you "only" add less than $5M in next year salary over keeping Sam. Take Mann and Highsmith to save BKN future money. Highsmith expires, Hauser somewhere for free (DET has a TPE and tax space) and you duck the tax this year.

Based on hpf numbers, you'd have ~$16M with 11 guys. Draft pick, min, and one ~TPMLE guy and you can stay below the tax again. Or move Mann while taking a higher priced guy back, etc. Or go up to the apron using the TPE, etc.

[Dogen]

Simons and Hauser + non-2026 first for Gafford and Christie

[brackdan70]

Simons and Hauser + non-2026 first for Gafford and Christie

Take it to the Texas Chuck on the trade board. I think he is the new Mavs GM.
I don’t mind the trade idea, but would rather aim higher than Gafford. Is he really that much better than Queta? Not much if any.

[Fierce1]

Simons and Hauser + non-2026 first for Gafford and Christie

Take it to the Texas Chuck on the trade board. I think he is the new Mavs GM.
I don’t mind the trade idea, but would rather aim higher than Gafford. Is he really that much better than Queta? Not much if any.

That trade won't work.

Mavs are also a 1st apron team.

Too much salary going to Dallas.

[hugepatsfan]

Resetting the tax would require trading Simons and Hauser.

Hauser alone won't get it done.

You're correct that Hauser alone doesn't get it done, but it does not require moving Simons. They would have to dump Tillman and Boucher.

They are currently $12,086,489 over the tax line. Clearing those 3 takes them to $2,801,104 under but they do have to fill roster spots.

The trade deadline is 2/5/2026. So at the deadline, we will have played 56 out of 82 games, so 26 out of 82 to go.

The vet min this year is $2,048,494. Pro rated for 26 out of 82 games would be $649,523.

3 signings at that number is $1,948,568, which is within the wiggle room we have under the tax.

It would be reminiscent of the 2022 trade deadline where Stevens made a ton of moves at the deadline to acquire White/Theis but then dumped some 3rd unit guys and backfilled the roster with prorated minimum deals for Malik Fitts, Juwan Morgan and Nik Stauskas in addition to converting Hauser's 2-way deal to an NBA deal so that they could juuuuuuuuuuust duck the tax and delay repeater penalty clock by a year.

And then for next year (since we also have to be under to reset repeater tax) we'd be $31,270,215 under the tax line with 10 players signed:

White / Pritchard
Brown / Hugo
Walsh / Scheierman
Tatum / Minott
Queta / Garza

$31.3M is enough to sign our pick, acquire a starting caliber center with the Porzingis TPE and sign 2 minimums (though depending on the center it may take dumping those minimum guys midyear and backfilling with pro rated minimums again). So they'd be able to stay under both years and reset tax without having to trade Simons, just letting him walk after the year so the salary slot can go to a center.

[Fierce1]

The Bulls have so many good guards, I don't believe they can keep them all.

Coby White would vastly upgrade the guard position for the Cs.

White and White duo.

[Fierce1]

Resetting the tax would require trading Simons and Hauser.

Hauser alone won't get it done.

You're correct that Hauser alone doesn't get it done, but it does not require moving Simons. They would have to dump Tillman and Boucher.

They are currently $12,086,489 over the tax line. Clearing those 3 takes them to $2,801,104 under but they do have to fill roster spots.

The trade deadline is 2/5/2026. So at the deadline, we will have played 56 out of 82 games, so 26 out of 82 to go.

The vet min this year is $2,048,494. Pro rated for 26 out of 82 games would be $649,523.

3 signings at that number is $1,948,568, which is within the wiggle room we have under the tax.

It would be reminiscent of the 2022 trade deadline where Stevens made a ton of moves at the deadline to acquire White/Theis but then dumped some 3rd unit guys and backfilled the roster with prorated minimum deals for Malik Fitts, Juwan Morgan and Nik Stauskas in addition to converting Hauser's 2-way deal to an NBA deal so that they could juuuuuuuuuuust duck the tax and delay repeater penalty clock by a year.

Yeah, that's really a possibility.

Guess we'll have to wait until Brad takes action on Simons.

[hugepatsfan]

Just want to briefly correct my last post. The vet min this year is $2,296,274 rather than the $2,048,494 I used in that post. That means the pro rated minimum for us at the deadline would be $728,087 per player vs. the $649,522 I posted so the total of the 3 roster spots would be $2,184,261 rather than the $1,948,568 I posted. Still fits below the tax so conclusion doesn't change, but I like to be thoroughly correct with my numbers haha

[redslastlaugh]

Trading Hauser into another team's exception for cap savings is understandable, but are we getting something for the asset or are we paying assets to get off the money?

If another team wants our 2027 or 2031 1st round pick to take Hauser off our hands, I'd try to find another way to meet the salary cap objectives.

You wonder if we could trade Simons straight up for longer money but less this yr like Terance Mann, and then manuever to drop under, keep Sam and then come back to the problem in the offseason.

If have to send picks, I'd rather package Simons + Hauser + picks together and try to get something we actually want.

You look at Giannis in Milwaukee and how that team's front office burned so many draft picks adding talent and dumping bad money, that they are now so depleted, they may have to trade Giannis in the next 12 mos, because they have so few avenues to improve the team

I don't want to spend out picks without getting on court impact coming back.

I wonder even if Giannis decides he wants out this year, if MKE trades Giannis before the deadline. If that occurs could we even look at Simons + Hauser + draft capital and go get Myles Turner ... I don't even love Myles Turner, he always seems to come up short, even though he seems like a good dude and he went to my college ... but I just want to get something if we are gonna spend assets more than just getting salary cap relief.

In general, it is hard because most teams can't do what they've actually already managed to do which is get so many rotation worthy players on cheap multi year deals. They're getting a lot of production from Pritchard on his value extension and then the group of Queta/Walsh/Minott/Garza/Hugo/Scheierman all making sub $3M salaries each for this season and next. Add those 7 players to Tatum/Brown/White and you have a full 10 man rotation really, albeit one that needs an upgrade at center.

Those 10 guys make $157.4M this season against the $187.9M tax line. They make $169.8M next year against the projected $201.0M tax line. For both years, that leaves enough room to fit in Simons' salary slot and then fill out the rest of the 14 man roster while staying below the tax. Obviously at some point between now and the offseason you want to turn Simons' salary slot into a starting center, but the salary slot fits so that's not really a money issue it's a trade value/finding a partner issue. And if it waits until the offseason then Simons' salary slot gets filled via Porzingis TPE rather than a trade with him, unless maybe a S&T.

So yeah, Sam is the odd man out if they want to avoid the tax. That's the salary slot that doesn't fit under the tax. But as much as I like him, I do think it's a reasonable trade off to make to keep the rest of the roster because Tatum/Brown/White/Pritchard are all better players and they have reasonable perimeter depth behind them.

And to be clear, keeping Hauser doesn't push payroll to unreasonable levels either this year or next. They could still keep his salary and just be a reasonably-in-the-tax team. The issue comes beyond next season (26-27) when all of Queta/Minott/Walsh/Garza are FAs. You have to retain or replace those players and if you're paying repeater rates, it becomes insanely expensive to go further in the tax to keep them if they keep playing well. And then after (27-28) Pritchard is a FA and would be due for a HUGE raise or need to be replaced. Schierman a FA as well which would create a need if he becomes a contributor. And then after 28-29, Hugo is a FA. It just goes on and on. They're set to have to pay all time record payrolls just to keep their bench players in 27-28 and beyond if they don't reset these next two years because those repeater rate hike ups are fierce. If they manage to reset, they're set up terrifically for the rest of Tatum/Brown prime.

Trading Hauser to reset the repeater rates these next two years wouldn't be about actually saving money those two years. Keeping him still means their payroll would still be well within reason to what ownership should be willing to pay, and by all accounts appears willing to. HOWEVER, the way we are set up right now is a ticking time bomb beyond those two seasons. If we're at repeater rates, there's going to be an insane amount of pressure on Stevens to hit on tons of minimum signings and late picks to replace the great depth level production we're already getting from that group now. On the one hand, he already did it with this team so maybe he could do it again. But IMO Hauser just isn't a good enough player to force yourself into that situation. On the court it's a loss these next two years but not an excessive one and it makes building around Tatum/Brown for the rest of their prime actually feasible.