Trade Post-Mortem 2017: Eight is Enough

[Banks2Pierce]

And let's face it, the only way that a huge salary for an aging IT can even begin to be justified is he is the teams leading scorer and getting 25+ PPG.

I don't get the logic of a statement like this. It's about the team's whole salary structure and not just zooming in on one piece. Cleveland is paying Tristan 17m a year because the alternative was that he would walk and leave them with vet mins/buyouts. You can justify paying a guy over market or for his decline if you have the right situation. It's not a vacuum argument. Also very dependent on ownership's tax willingness. They have no doubt been banking the last 5+ seasons, but that doesn't always mean they'll cut big checks if/when we're a repeat tax team.

I think it's likely that Isaiah's next contract is in Boston, but that's still dependent on this FA/draft/trades. Just think the deck's stacked in our favor to be the next contender and IT's probably the 1b offensive option from 2017-2019 in most of those scenarios. Will fall off, but I think we can manage it.

[robdog_5]

IT on the MAX I've been a firm NO for a long time. I've never wavered, but now my answer is simply it depends on what else is on the roster. IF you feel you have the roster to compete in years 1-3 of IT's MAX you do it, even if years 4-5 are dead years. IF you feel like you won't be able to compete until years 4-5 you don't do it, because by then you will need money for a player who will be better (By then IT will be a bench scorer at best).

Basically we keep putting deadlines and claiming this is the year/deadline/offseason, etc, but this off-season and next season are the end of compete now and later narrative. You have to make a decision within the next 14 months what the plan is going forward.

[soxfan2003]

And let's face it, the only way that a huge salary for an aging IT can even begin to be justified is he is the teams leading scorer and getting 25+ PPG.

I don't get the logic of a statement like this. It's about the team's whole salary structure and not just zooming in on one piece. Cleveland is paying Tristan 17m a year because the alternative was that he would walk and leave them with vet mins/buyouts. You can justify paying a guy over market or for his decline if you have the right situation. It's not a vacuum argument. Also very dependent on ownership's tax willingness. They have no doubt been banking the last 5+ seasons, but that doesn't always mean they'll cut big checks if/when we're a repeat tax team.

I think it's likely that Isaiah's next contract is in Boston, but that's still dependent on this FA/draft/trades. Just think the deck's stacked in our favor to be the next contender and IT's probably the 1b offensive option from 2017-2019 in most of those scenarios. Will fall off, but I think we can manage it.

Cleveland has Lebron James which is a player that gives them about 85-100 million of value for an average of 34 million or whatever he is paid. They have a few lowly paid ring chasers. Irving/Love are not truly great players IMHO but are on team friendly deals right now. Tristan is actually a good role player who signed a 5 year deal paying him 16.4 million a year. It did seem high at the time but thanks to the cap increase is a reasonable deal. In building a championship team, I'd rather have TT at 16.4 million a year on a 5 year deal when he was signed than IT at 30 million on his next one. TT was signed for his prime/peak years and IT will be on his decline years during his next deal.

I don't think Boston can take down Cavs and GS within the next 3 years unless they trade away IT or get him on a deal that pays him as a bench guy. Math doesn't add up.

Fans have to acknowledge Wyc won't pay a huge tax luxury tax. Very few owner's nowadays do. This means signing IT to max slot or even near max slot for 2017-18 season has immediate real consequences. Realistically it means getting rid of a couple of rotation players not named Crowder. Bradley and Smart haven't played that well in this series but Boston probably not even in this series without them helping out against Bulls. Realistically speaking they would have to be gone if they get could offers from other teams. Or C's could choose to get rid of KO/Smart and choose to go into next year without Amir as well. KO played well vs Bulls.

I agree with you that its about the teams whole salary structure but Horford the year after next year probably won't be as good as he is now. Same with IT.

60 million for IT/Horford in 2017-18 is roughly half the cap before the luxury tax kicks in. Even factoring in the rookies and possible signing of someone like Hayward, really makes it close to impossible to compete for a championship unless that last max roster spot is filled with a Lebron clone or K Leonard.

IT may want a 4 year deal and it would run from 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-2021 and 2022-23. Horford's deal if he opts in and I believe he will should pay him a max slot until 2020-21 when he will be 33.

It is to early to tell for sure but I see J Brown's realistic upside capped at perhaps the level of current J. Butler. And he obviously may not reach that if he ever does for another 3-4 years.

I am not the first to state it on this forum and I am no genius basketball analysis for suggesting it but just chances are the contributions of the 2016-2018 picks won't be high enough in the _short term_ to put the Celtics over the top while IT/Horford are leading the Celtics. Ainge will probably be drafting college freshman and not college junior/seniors that historically have been more able to make significant immediate contributions.

If K. Leonard was the Celtics best player and George was the 2nd best player more realistic that those picks put the Celtics over the top against Cavs and allow the C's to compete with the Warriors.

Celtics current plan may work in a league without Lebron and in a league without Golden State but I don't see it working against those teams without a ridiculous amount of luck.

76ers in all honestly probably have a better chance to win a championship in the next 5-6 years than the Celtics do if they sign IT at the max.

It is not Ainge's fault or at least not a huge fault of his that KD signed with Golden State but it is his fault if he pretends that teams like Golden State and Cavs are both likely to go away over the next 2 years.

And if the Celtics are seriously competing over the next two years, it does beg the question, why keep IT when his trade value is probably at an all time high?

I don't think the Celtics should be playing to become the 3rd to 5th best team in the mid 80's when teams like LA and Boston are dominating.

[165bows]

And let's face it, the only way that a huge salary for an aging IT can even begin to be justified is he is the teams leading scorer and getting 25+ PPG.

I don't get the logic of a statement like this. It's about the team's whole salary structure and not just zooming in on one piece. Cleveland is paying Tristan 17m a year because the alternative was that he would walk and leave them with vet mins/buyouts. You can justify paying a guy over market or for his decline if you have the right situation. It's not a vacuum argument. Also very dependent on ownership's tax willingness. They have no doubt been banking the last 5+ seasons, but that doesn't always mean they'll cut big checks if/when we're a repeat tax team.

I think it's likely that Isaiah's next contract is in Boston, but that's still dependent on this FA/draft/trades. Just think the deck's stacked in our favor to be the next contender and IT's probably the 1b offensive option from 2017-2019 in most of those scenarios. Will fall off, but I think we can manage it.

Cleveland has Lebron James which is a player that gives them about 85-100 million of value for an average of 34 million or whatever he is paid. They have a few lowly paid ring chasers. Irving/Love are not truly great players IMHO but are on team friendly deals right now. Tristan is actually a good role player who signed a 5 year deal paying him 16.4 million a year. It did seem high at the time but thanks to the cap increase is a reasonable deal. In building a championship team, I'd rather have TT at 16.4 million a year on a 5 year deal when he was signed than IT at 30 million on his next one. TT was signed for his prime/peak years and IT will be on his decline years during his next deal.

I don't think Boston can take down Cavs and GS within the next 3 years unless they trade away IT or get him on a deal that pays him as a bench guy. Math doesn't add up.

Fans have to acknowledge Wyc won't pay a huge tax luxury tax. Very few owner's nowadays do. This means signing IT to max slot or even near max slot for 2017-18 season has immediate real consequences. Realistically it means getting rid of a couple of rotation players not named Crowder. Bradley and Smart haven't played that well in this series but Boston probably not even in this series without them helping out against Bulls. Realistically speaking they would have to be gone if they get could offers from other teams. Or C's could choose to get rid of KO/Smart and choose to go into next year without Amir as well. KO played well vs Bulls.

I agree with you that its about the teams whole salary structure but Horford the year after next year probably won't be as good as he is now. Same with IT.

60 million for IT/Horford in 2017-18 is roughly half the cap before the luxury tax kicks in. Even factoring in the rookies and possible signing of someone like Hayward, really makes it close to impossible to compete for a championship unless that last max roster spot is filled with a Lebron clone or K Leonard.

IT may want a 4 year deal and it would run from 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-2021 and 2022-23. Horford's deal if he opts in and I believe he will should pay him a max slot until 2020-21 when he will be 33.

It is to early to tell for sure but I see J Brown's realistic upside capped at perhaps the level of current J. Butler. And he obviously may not reach that if he ever does for another 3-4 years.

I am not the first to state it on this forum and I am no genius basketball analysis for suggesting it but just chances are the contributions of the 2016-2018 picks won't be high enough in the _short term_ to put the Celtics over the top while IT/Horford are leading the Celtics. Ainge will probably be drafting college freshman and not college junior/seniors that historically have been more able to make significant immediate contributions.

If K. Leonard was the Celtics best player and George was the 2nd best player more realistic that those picks put the Celtics over the top against Cavs and allow the C's to compete with the Warriors.

Celtics current plan may work in a league without Lebron and in a league without Golden State but I don't see it working against those teams without a ridiculous amount of luck.

76ers in all honestly probably have a better chance to win a championship in the next 5-6 years than the Celtics do if they sign IT at the max.

It is not Ainge's fault or at least not a huge fault of his that KD signed with Golden State but it is his fault if he pretends that teams like Golden State and Cavs are both likely to go away over the next 2 years.

And if the Celtics are seriously competing over the next two years, it does beg the question, why keep IT when his trade value is probably at an all time high?

I don't think the Celtics should be playing to become the 3rd to 5th best team in the mid 80's when teams like LA and Boston are dominating.

I think everyone agrees the odds of the Celtics being significant competitors over the next two years is fairly low. What do they trade him for though? Good young players that will need to be paid top dollar at the same time as Brown and the upcoming (hopefully successful) Brooklyn picks? And what do they do with that money in the meantime?

That's certainly an option but I'm just not sure who much better it is than keeping the Celtics 'brand' high while being in the on-deck circle to try to steal a title if a couple of guys slip up.

[LarryBirdsFingr]

BBP has already stated publicly and privately that they are willing to pay the luxury tax to keep a competitive team together. I have no idea where that line of thinking started that they wouldn't be, but it certainly hasn't been said, anywhere.

[soxfan2003]

BBP has already stated publicly and privately that they are willing to pay the luxury tax to keep a competitive team together. I have no idea where that line of thinking started that they wouldn't be, but it certainly hasn't been said, anywhere.

I don't doubt Wyc is willing to pay some tax for the right team but I think the level of tax would vary significantly based upon the quality of the team.

Wyc has a history of paying a little luxury tax but it was an era with a different less crippling tax structure and thus just a moderate amount of tax.

Big difference in paying 5-12 million in luxury tax which I certainly 100% believe Wyc would do to keep a very fringe contender in place then paying 30 million in tax to perhaps be the 4th best team in the NBA if everything goes right and then perhaps 40 million the next year when repeater tax I believe kicks in.

I thought the 2008 Celtic were going to be the best team in the NBA right after they signed KG. If C's are truly looking like best team in NBA and can jack up season ticket prices to reflect that, I can see Wyc paying $30 million in tax. If that team won the championship or made the finals and was extremely competitive, I could see him paying 40 million in tax the next year. But just to go into the year to be a team let's say halfway between the Rockets/Spurs, I don't see Wyc or many other NBA owners paying that amount of tax. It is one thing if its just a one year temporary thing to keep a significant star but another if its to keep a Bradley/Smart/KO/Crowder et cetera.

[LarryBirdsFingr]

BBP has already stated publicly and privately that they are willing to pay the luxury tax to keep a competitive team together. I have no idea where that line of thinking started that they wouldn't be, but it certainly hasn't been said, anywhere.

I don't doubt Wyc is willing to pay some tax for the right team but I think the level of tax would vary significantly based upon the quality of the team.

Wyc has a history of paying a little luxury tax but it was an era with a different less crippling tax structure and thus just a moderate amount of tax.

Big difference in paying 5-12 million in luxury tax which I certainly 100% believe Wyc would do to keep a very fringe contender in place then paying 30 million in tax to perhaps be the 4th best team in the NBA if everything goes right and then perhaps 40 million the next year when repeater tax I believe kicks in.

I thought the 2008 Celtic were going to be the best team in the NBA right after they signed KG. If C's are truly looking like best team in NBA and can jack up season ticket prices to reflect that, I can see Wyc paying $30 million in tax. If that team won the championship or made the finals and was extremely competitive, I could see him paying 40 million in tax the next year. But just to go into the year to be a team let's say halfway between the Rockets/Spurs, I don't see Wyc or many other NBA owners paying that amount of tax. It is one thing if its just a one year temporary thing to keep a significant star but another if its to keep a Bradley/Smart/KO/Crowder et cetera.

Right, i think we are in agreement here. I believe the original statements were mostly in conjunction with the horford signing, and we all know they expected this team to look a lot different than it does right now.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Wyc is a partner at Bain Capital, and the Boston Celtics pretty much print money due to their brand. I highly doubt he cares about the luxury tax if he's making the ECF

[soxfan2003]

Wyc is a partner at Bain Capital, and the Boston Celtics pretty much print money due to their brand. I highly doubt he cares about the luxury tax if he's making the ECF

Celtics really don't print money from what I have seen. More money than Bucks and many other small market teams but Lakers TV contract has been estimated at 200 million a year and even if that is an exaggeration by 50 million that is ridiculous. Probably only a few teams like Lakers and Knicks print money because their local tv contracts are probably worth a fortune.

On the other hand from what I can gather C's after a recent major increase 5 years ago just make 35-40 million a year from local TV but the Celtics do own a 20% equity stake in the cable tv station that covers the games.

I doubt Wyc cares about 5-6 million of tax since going an extra round in playoffs and being able to charge more for season tickets makes up for it

But unless I am gravely mistake Wyc appears to be one the less affluent NBA owners and is certainly not deep pocketed like even a Cuban never mind Paul Allen or a Ballmer who makes Cuban with his couple of billion look like he is broke. Granted franchise values have gone up in the last 4 years but it was estimated back then Wyc's overall net worth was 400 million. Even if he is actually worth 1 billion spending 40-50 million a year in luxury tax hurts.

I actually like that Wyc appears to be a genuine fan of the team and I suspect as a big fan of the team, I would run things like him in terms of paying well into luxury tax if I had around his level of modest money by nba owners standards. Worth it for KG, PP, RA but not worth lots of luxury tax spending for the typical 4-5th place team, he isn't in the financial position to justify it. Most of his worth seems tied up in the Celtics and so he isn't like Ballmer with tens of billions and he can afford to lose money on the Clippers year after year.

Wyc pays 50 million in luxury tax and he feels it. Ballmer pays 50 million in tax and its a rounding error in his wealth. An exaggeration but you get the point.

There is a reason I believe Wyc was strongly in favor of the current tax system/CBA since he actually knows that if the league becomes all about just spending tough for him to keep up. Probably at least 10 owners have a hell of a lot more money and/or are just in bigger markets with more attractive local TV deals.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Wyc is a partner at Bain Capital, and the Boston Celtics pretty much print money due to their brand. I highly doubt he cares about the luxury tax if he's making the ECF

Celtics really don't print money from what I have seen. More money than Bucks and many other small market teams but Lakers TV contract has been estimated at 200 million a year and even if that is an exaggeration by 50 million that is ridiculous. Probably only a few teams like Lakers and Knicks print money because their local tv contracts are probably worth a fortune.

On the other hand from what I can gather C's after a recent major increase 5 years ago just make 35-40 million a year from local TV but the Celtics do own a 20% equity stake in the cable tv station that covers the games.

I doubt Wyc cares about 5-6 million of tax since going an extra round in playoffs and being able to charge more for season tickets makes up for it

https://www.forbes.com/teams/boston-celtics/

Per Forbes, they have an operating income a little north of $60M[edit- 5th in the league and not including the GE jersey deal which should bump them to fourth behind just the Knicks, Lakers and Warriors]. The value of the franchise has gone up nearly 700% since it was originally purchased and currently employs little leverage.

They print money. Their owners have earned capital gains of nearly $2 billion in 15 years. If they're seriously competing, I doubt a luxury tax bill of even $30M matters to them.

But unless I am gravely mistake Wyc appears to be one the less affluent NBA owners and is certainly not deep pocketed like even a Cuban never mind Paul Allen or a Ballmer who makes Cuban with his couple of billion look like he is broke. Granted franchise values have gone up in the last 4 years but it was estimated back then Wyc's overall net worth was 400 million. Even if he is actually worth 1 billion spending 40-50 million a year in luxury tax hurts.

He's a billionaire. Even if he breaks even running the Celtics, he's still pulling in 8 figures a year from his equity in Bain. Sure, relative to the Microsoft guys he's poor, but he's still insanely wealthy.

I actually like that Wyc appears to be a genuine fan of the team and I suspect as a big fan of the team, I would run things like him in terms of paying well into luxury tax if I had around his level of modest money by nba owners standards. Worth it for KG, PP, RA but not worth lots of luxury tax spending for the typical 4-5th place team, he isn't in the financial position to justify it. Most of his worth seems tied up in the Celtics and so he isn't like Ballmer with tens of billions and he can afford to lose money on the Clippers year after year.

Wyc pays 50 million in luxury tax and he feels it. Ballmer pays 50 million in tax and its a rounding error in his wealth. An exaggeration but you get the point.

There is a reason I believe Wyc was strongly in favor of the current tax system/CBA since he actually knows that if the league becomes all about just spending tough for him to keep up. Probably at least 10 owners have a hell of a lot more money and/or are just in bigger markets with more attractive local TV deals.

If we can make the ECF and have 15+ playoff games a year, Wyc will have no problem paying the tax. Those 15 games greatly expand his revenue base while player costs only increase marginally due to the way playoff salaries are structured.

[LarryBirdsFingr]

Wyc is a partner at Bain Capital, and the Boston Celtics pretty much print money due to their brand. I highly doubt he cares about the luxury tax if he's making the ECF

Celtics really don't print money from what I have seen. More money than Bucks and many other small market teams but Lakers TV contract has been estimated at 200 million a year and even if that is an exaggeration by 50 million that is ridiculous. Probably only a few teams like Lakers and Knicks print money because their local tv contracts are probably worth a fortune.

On the other hand from what I can gather C's after a recent major increase 5 years ago just make 35-40 million a year from local TV but the Celtics do own a 20% equity stake in the cable tv station that covers the games.

I doubt Wyc cares about 5-6 million of tax since going an extra round in playoffs and being able to charge more for season tickets makes up for it

https://www.forbes.com/teams/boston-celtics/

Per Forbes, they have an operating income a little north of $60M[edit- 5th in the league and not including the GE jersey deal which should bump them to fourth behind just the Knicks, Lakers and Warriors]. The value of the franchise has gone up nearly 700% since it was originally purchased and currently employs little leverage.

They print money. Their owners have earned capital gains of nearly $2 billion in 15 years. If they're seriously competing, I doubt a luxury tax bill of even $30M matters to them.

But unless I am gravely mistake Wyc appears to be one the less affluent NBA owners and is certainly not deep pocketed like even a Cuban never mind Paul Allen or a Ballmer who makes Cuban with his couple of billion look like he is broke. Granted franchise values have gone up in the last 4 years but it was estimated back then Wyc's overall net worth was 400 million. Even if he is actually worth 1 billion spending 40-50 million a year in luxury tax hurts.

He's a billionaire. Even if he breaks even running the Celtics, he's still pulling in 8 figures a year from his equity in Bain. Sure, relative to the Microsoft guys he's poor, but he's still insanely wealthy.

I actually like that Wyc appears to be a genuine fan of the team and I suspect as a big fan of the team, I would run things like him in terms of paying well into luxury tax if I had around his level of modest money by nba owners standards. Worth it for KG, PP, RA but not worth lots of luxury tax spending for the typical 4-5th place team, he isn't in the financial position to justify it. Most of his worth seems tied up in the Celtics and so he isn't like Ballmer with tens of billions and he can afford to lose money on the Clippers year after year.

Wyc pays 50 million in luxury tax and he feels it. Ballmer pays 50 million in tax and its a rounding error in his wealth. An exaggeration but you get the point.

There is a reason I believe Wyc was strongly in favor of the current tax system/CBA since he actually knows that if the league becomes all about just spending tough for him to keep up. Probably at least 10 owners have a hell of a lot more money and/or are just in bigger markets with more attractive local TV deals.

If we can make the ECF and have 15+ playoff games a year, Wyc will have no problem paying the tax. Those 15 games greatly expand his revenue base while player costs only increase marginally due to the way playoff salaries are structured.

this

[CelticsLV]

I would go to Bulls one more time this summer and offer Bradley + Smart + BK17 (add also Mickey and Jackson) for Bulter. Then let Olynyk go and offer max to Griffin. In addition we avoid overpaying Smart, Olynyk and Bradley.

Thomas/Rozier/
Butler/Brown/
Crowder/Nader/
Griffin/Yabusele/
Horford/Zizič/

Butler is locked on a very team friendly deal and is perfect 1st/2nd option + secondary playmaker we need. Crowder now can do what he's supposed to do - only defend, hustle and shoot threes. We also upgrade front court with a perfect fit for Stevens system and next to Horford.

We still have 8,4 million MLE + 3,3 million BAE to bolster our bench with some cheap, undervalued players and veterans (Tucker, Korver, Carter, Randolph, Dedmon, Speights, Jerebko etc.)

No more huge lux tax issues even if we resign Thomas. Tons of young talent on the bench with one more Nets pick to come + other picks.

[DK-All Day]

I would go to Bulls one more time this summer and offer Bradley + Smart + BK17 (add also Mickey and Jackson) for Bulter. Then let Olynyk go and offer max to Griffin. In addition we avoid overpaying Smart, Olynyk and Bradley.

Thomas/Rozier/
Butler/Brown/
Crowder/Nader/
Griffin/Yabusele/
Horford/Zizič/

Butler is locked on a very team friendly deal and is perfect 1st/2nd option + secondary playmaker we need. Crowder now can do what he's supposed to do - only defend, hustle and shoot threes. We also upgrade front court with a perfect fit for Stevens system and next to Horford.

We still have 8,4 million MLE + 3,3 million BAE to bolster our bench with some cheap, undervalued players and veterans (Tucker, Korver, Carter, Randolph, Dedmon, Speights, Jerebko etc.)

No more huge lux tax issues even if we resign Thomas. Tons of young talent on the bench with one more Nets pick to come + other picks.

Wouldn't offer the Nets pick for Butler now. Bulls had their shot and they blew it.

Keep the pick!

[165bows]

Some reason I keep coming back to a Marcus Smart/LaMarcus Aldridge trade. I don't know if I even like that trade that much but it has a certain symmetry to it.

Spurs clear some more space and sign a point guard, Lowry maybe, and Smart plays the 3rd guard role like he does here.

Celtics could do something like sign and trade Olynyk and parts for Hayward, then trade for Aldridge. They'd have their win-now team without giving up any of the BRK picks.

It would probably end up a steal for the Spurs, but hell, everything is a steal for them.

[TheOGJabroni]

I can't believe there are people willing to let the Brooklyn pick go for Butler at this point. It was one thing (arguably) at the trade deadline but after seeing what Bradley was able to do against him, I'd have reservations. Don't get me wrong, I'd still love to add Butler but not for this pick. Maybe I'd change my mind if doom's day happens and it lands #4.

[GoCeltics123]

Some reason I keep coming back to a Marcus Smart/LaMarcus Aldridge trade. I don't know if I even like that trade that much but it has a certain symmetry to it.

Spurs clear some more space and sign a point guard, Lowry maybe, and Smart plays the 3rd guard role like he does here.

Celtics could do something like sign and trade Olynyk and parts for Hayward, then trade for Aldridge. They'd have their win-now team without giving up any of the BRK picks.

It would probably end up a steal for the Spurs, but hell, everything is a steal for them.

Spurs won't do that IMO unless they lose again in the playoffs and can't get a Chris Paul/Kyle Lowry in free agency. Smart's contract is up soon so they'd have to pay him along with a Lowry/Paul

[165bows]

Some reason I keep coming back to a Marcus Smart/LaMarcus Aldridge trade. I don't know if I even like that trade that much but it has a certain symmetry to it.

Spurs clear some more space and sign a point guard, Lowry maybe, and Smart plays the 3rd guard role like he does here.

Celtics could do something like sign and trade Olynyk and parts for Hayward, then trade for Aldridge. They'd have their win-now team without giving up any of the BRK picks.

It would probably end up a steal for the Spurs, but hell, everything is a steal for them.

Spurs won't do that IMO unless they lose again in the playoffs and can't get a Chris Paul/Kyle Lowry in free agency. Smart's contract is up soon so they'd have to pay him along with a Lowry/Paul

They don't have space as is. They've got to ship out significant cash to sign anyone.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Let's not trade the pick. Davis, with two years left on his deal, will be available next offseason if Boogie bolts. Let's hoard our assets for the best offer when that time comes.

[Slartibartfast]

And let's face it, the only way that a huge salary for an aging IT can even begin to be justified is he is the teams leading scorer and getting 25+ PPG.

I don't get the logic of a statement like this. It's about the team's whole salary structure and not just zooming in on one piece. Cleveland is paying Tristan 17m a year because the alternative was that he would walk and leave them with vet mins/buyouts. You can justify paying a guy over market or for his decline if you have the right situation. It's not a vacuum argument. Also very dependent on ownership's tax willingness. They have no doubt been banking the last 5+ seasons, but that doesn't always mean they'll cut big checks if/when we're a repeat tax team.

I think it's likely that Isaiah's next contract is in Boston, but that's still dependent on this FA/draft/trades. Just think the deck's stacked in our favor to be the next contender and IT's probably the 1b offensive option from 2017-2019 in most of those scenarios. Will fall off, but I think we can manage it.

TT's contract seemed ridiculous then he proved himself as a 2-way smallball 5 (dynamite offensive rebounder on one end, excellent pick and roll defender on the other) and the cap jumped so high he became a fair value.

A max for IT is less palatable because I don't think the cap has another huge jump in it and he's not a 2-way player. So he's hard to fit both from an expense standpoint and a skill-balance standpoint.

We are getting DESTROYED defensively this playoffs (obviously by Washington but even by Chicago pre-Rondo injury) and IT is the biggest reason for that. Not just his own defensive issues but the way the roster is constructed around his strengths (lightweight skilled bigs to space the floor) so that they can't defend with him and they can't score without him so they can't bench him when the exploitation is too bad.

Obviously we're struggling with that 5th starter role with Amir imploding and everyone else too green or too Green (see what I did there) but the Green/Amir yo-yo is pretty illustrative of the IT-as-superstar dilemma. Do you go super small to get the most out of IT offensively, or do you play a non-scoring big to mitigate how small/weak we already are to maximize IT offensively? Or do you add enough defensively competent shot creators that you can afford to bench IT, put some rebounding on the floor and still function offensively?

[Slartibartfast]

Some reason I keep coming back to a Marcus Smart/LaMarcus Aldridge trade. I don't know if I even like that trade that much but it has a certain symmetry to it.

Spurs clear some more space and sign a point guard, Lowry maybe, and Smart plays the 3rd guard role like he does here.

Celtics could do something like sign and trade Olynyk and parts for Hayward, then trade for Aldridge. They'd have their win-now team without giving up any of the BRK picks.

It would probably end up a steal for the Spurs, but hell, everything is a steal for them.

IT/Hayward/LMA/Horford is a pretty shoddy defensive group. And a lot of diminishing returns with IT/Hayward/LMA in terms of scoring the ball. LMA in particular has seen a massive drop in productivity in a system that gives most of the iso workload to Kawhi.

If we bring in Hayward, we need to be targeting a dynamite defensive presence at the 3/4 or the 4/5, not an iso high post scorer.