celticfan42487 wrote:SMTBSI wrote:so. If the team is shaping up to make a serious run, then you have to figure we wouldn't hesitate to sign helpful players, and wouldn't balk at entering the tax.
The way I look at it, what's being balanced is not:
1.) the ability to add veteran role players and injury replacements
2.) greater flexibility for pulling off seriously impactful midseason trades
It's:
1.) the ability to add veteran role players and injury replacements without going into the tax
2.) greater flexibility for pulling off seriously impactful midseason trades
Yeah I know what you mean.
For lux tax I just want us to avoid it this year. The repeater tax is brutal. So I don't want to start that clock.
Now I'm 100% with you here. All the number crunching I've been doing for the past several months is with an eye towards not starting the clock. I want, and I know the FO wants, this team to contend for a big chunk of years, not just a couple, so pushing that clock back even one additional year could really matter. If everything goes right, we're going to be spending a
ton of money over the next decade, so taking some precautions to not let it get completely out of control is just common sense.
For example, this is why I'm not advocating for giving Smart 12-14mil per year. Under different circumstances (if we had a bit more space below the tax), I would not balk at that for a second, because I value having that mid-range contract on our payroll, which is very sparse with those sort of contracts, highly enough that I won't lose a second of sleep trying to figure out whether I just overpaid Smart by 2 mil or by 4 mil.
So, it's all a balancing act. You can't have everything. But, you can put yourself in a position where you are flexible to go as many different ways as possible. There's a sweet spot to a Smart deal where his contract is highly tradable (and he's more or less not miserable), but we still have options to duck the tax.
What's the
exact dollar amount of that sweet spot?
But, I do think that it's most definitely
not the QO. So, you've got to find a way to offer him at least enough to avoid that outcome, in my view.
celticfan42487 wrote:I also feel like, if Tatum and Brown do grow up... we'll want to resign Al Horford and Hayward.
But how do you do that if you have Irving, Brown, Tatum on maxes. And likely Rozier on a near max?
You go massively into the tax. And I don't 3 year from now want to have to ask the owners to pay 50 million instead of 15 million for a season so we can extend our run and resign say Hayward at 31 because we had the option to trade Smart (whom I doubt is all that valuable and a lincpin in any trade for a star. If it's a star worth having we'll trade them Rozier as a restricted free agent) without him waiving his NTC.
All true. I just personally see many moving parts over the next few seasons. I see Smart as no better than 50/50 to be here long term, even if we give him a long term contract (after all, the only reason I'm advocating giving him enough to coax him off the QO is so that he's most readily tradable). I think we're going to really aggressively ramp up looking for a Horford protégé as time moves forward. I think that any or all of Brown, Tatum, Irving, Rozier, and others could or could not be here in a couple of years.
I may be a bit of an outlier in that, but I'm just not convinced Ainge believes in the concept of "untouchables", no matter how he postures in negotiations.
celticfan42487 wrote:And while I don't trust Smart not to injury himself, and fully believe he won't get better as a player
Agreed, more or less.
).