Trade Ideas Thread

[100proof]

I think he would. But I also think he’d think long and hard about a 4/90 extension as well.

I get confused with extensions. If we do that does that include the 34m for next season or the extension is 4 years on top of his old contract?

Either way works. Extension rules are strict if you're offering a player a raise. It's limited to 120% of what he makes int he last year of his current deal. But for Hayward, not really an issue since his next deal isn't going to be as much as his option. Just as an example, let's say the number they agree on is 4 years, $90M. It could be structured two ways:

1) He opts in and we add on years to his current deal:

'20-21 - $34.2M (player option)
'21-22 - $17.3M
'22-23 - $18.6M
'23-24 - $20.0M

2) He opts out and re-signs for a new deal:

'20-21 - $20.1M
'21-22 - $21.7M
'22-23 - $23.3M
'23-24 - $25.0M

Either way, he gets $90M over 4 years.

I think in the first scenario, Hayward would rather hit FA next year. I think he'd gamble that he can sign for more than 3 years, $56M by waiting it out.

In the second scenario, the same thing applies. However, we can offer him a lot more in this scenario than 4 years, $90M and get below the tax. Let's say we upped the '20-21 salary to $25M. Now he'd have the following salaries:

'20-21 - $25.0M
'21-22 - $27.0M
'22-23 - $29.0M
'23-24 - $31.0M

That's a 4 year, $112M. For Hayward to turn that down, he'd be gambling that he can sign for more than 3 years, $87M next year. I think that'd be enough money for him to take the security.

Now for us, I think that's more than we want to pay Hayward down the line. But it sheds his salary by almost $10M in '20-21 which means we can avoid the luxury tax another year. Down the line that means no repeater tax before Kemba expires. So overall it would save us lots of money vs letting Hayward re-sign for less next year. So there's incentive for us to do this.

The disincentive is that it ruins potential max cap space in the '23-24 offseason. If we avoid committing to Hayward for that year, we should have max cap space to sign a player with Jayson/Jalen/Marcus/rookie scale guys. So it's a balance of if we want ot take the short term hit of letting Hayward walk and really hurting the current window to help us open the next one.

The ideal scenario for us is that Hayward opts out and signs a new THREE year deal. That way we can get below the tax, keep Hayward for the 3-year-Kemba-window and then have max cap space for the next core player. But for only 3 years, not sure we can get enough money for Hayward to opt out. From the numbers I've crunched this is ABOUT the most money we can offer him on a new 3 year deal and stay below the tax:

'20-21 - $28.0M
'21-22 - $30.24M
'22-23 - $32.48M

That's a 3 year, $90.72M deal. I think we can get below the tax if with that if we make some other cost cutting moves. That means relying on young guys off the bench next year (Timelord, Romeo, draft pick). But it would let us keep Hayward for another 3 years with Kemba so we have our core. We won't have to worry about repeater tax. And we have max cap space in the 2023 offseason to add a core piece.

We can also add a partially guaranteed fourth year for Hayward. The total amount on the extension above would be $34.72M in '23-24. But let's say it's guaranteed for $9M. We could then waive Hayward and stretch the $9M over 3 years for the cap. So it'd only count $3M in that offseason which should preserve cap space. But for Hayward, that raises it to a 3 year, $99.72M deal. So it maybe adds that extra juice to push us over the top.

This is all about trying to play best-of-all-worlds of keeping Hayward for the next 3 years with Kemba, not paying repeater tax, adding a max FA to play with Jayson/Jaylen/Marcus down the road.

You put alot of effort into that post, so much respect for that.

My question is, why spend any money on Hayward at all? The arguement can easily be made that 30 million spent on a couple of other pieces would go further towards improving the team overall.

ie: big strong defensive rebounder @ 10 mill per season, a reliable bench scorer @10 million per season, another shot creator @10 mill per season.

***note, I understand that we can resign Hayward at 30 million but that doesnt mean we can sign anyone else at 30 million per season, I am operating under the premise of "trade his ass in a 2 or 3 for one that fills holes on the team in a "committee" that also limits risk of injury derailing team"

[hugepatsfan]

I get confused with extensions. If we do that does that include the 34m for next season or the extension is 4 years on top of his old contract?

Either way works. Extension rules are strict if you're offering a player a raise. It's limited to 120% of what he makes int he last year of his current deal. But for Hayward, not really an issue since his next deal isn't going to be as much as his option. Just as an example, let's say the number they agree on is 4 years, $90M. It could be structured two ways:

1) He opts in and we add on years to his current deal:

'20-21 - $34.2M (player option)
'21-22 - $17.3M
'22-23 - $18.6M
'23-24 - $20.0M

2) He opts out and re-signs for a new deal:

'20-21 - $20.1M
'21-22 - $21.7M
'22-23 - $23.3M
'23-24 - $25.0M

Either way, he gets $90M over 4 years.

I think in the first scenario, Hayward would rather hit FA next year. I think he'd gamble that he can sign for more than 3 years, $56M by waiting it out.

In the second scenario, the same thing applies. However, we can offer him a lot more in this scenario than 4 years, $90M and get below the tax. Let's say we upped the '20-21 salary to $25M. Now he'd have the following salaries:

'20-21 - $25.0M
'21-22 - $27.0M
'22-23 - $29.0M
'23-24 - $31.0M

That's a 4 year, $112M. For Hayward to turn that down, he'd be gambling that he can sign for more than 3 years, $87M next year. I think that'd be enough money for him to take the security.

Now for us, I think that's more than we want to pay Hayward down the line. But it sheds his salary by almost $10M in '20-21 which means we can avoid the luxury tax another year. Down the line that means no repeater tax before Kemba expires. So overall it would save us lots of money vs letting Hayward re-sign for less next year. So there's incentive for us to do this.

The disincentive is that it ruins potential max cap space in the '23-24 offseason. If we avoid committing to Hayward for that year, we should have max cap space to sign a player with Jayson/Jalen/Marcus/rookie scale guys. So it's a balance of if we want ot take the short term hit of letting Hayward walk and really hurting the current window to help us open the next one.

The ideal scenario for us is that Hayward opts out and signs a new THREE year deal. That way we can get below the tax, keep Hayward for the 3-year-Kemba-window and then have max cap space for the next core player. But for only 3 years, not sure we can get enough money for Hayward to opt out. From the numbers I've crunched this is ABOUT the most money we can offer him on a new 3 year deal and stay below the tax:

'20-21 - $28.0M
'21-22 - $30.24M
'22-23 - $32.48M

That's a 3 year, $90.72M deal. I think we can get below the tax if with that if we make some other cost cutting moves. That means relying on young guys off the bench next year (Timelord, Romeo, draft pick). But it would let us keep Hayward for another 3 years with Kemba so we have our core. We won't have to worry about repeater tax. And we have max cap space in the 2023 offseason to add a core piece.

We can also add a partially guaranteed fourth year for Hayward. The total amount on the extension above would be $34.72M in '23-24. But let's say it's guaranteed for $9M. We could then waive Hayward and stretch the $9M over 3 years for the cap. So it'd only count $3M in that offseason which should preserve cap space. But for Hayward, that raises it to a 3 year, $99.72M deal. So it maybe adds that extra juice to push us over the top.

This is all about trying to play best-of-all-worlds of keeping Hayward for the next 3 years with Kemba, not paying repeater tax, adding a max FA to play with Jayson/Jaylen/Marcus down the road.

You put alot of effort into that post, so much respect for that.

My question is, why spend any money on Hayward at all? The arguement can easily be made that 30 million spent on a couple of other pieces would go further towards improving the team overall.

ie: big strong defensive rebounder @ 10 mill per season, a reliable bench scorer @10 million per season, another shot creator @10 mill per season.

***note, I understand that we can resign Hayward at 30 million but that doesnt mean we can sign anyone else at 30 million per season, I am operating under the premise of "trade his ass in a 2 or 3 for one that fills holes on the team in a "committee" that also limits risk of injury derailing team"

Your trade idea holds lots of merit. My argument against it would be that you could just sign one of the 3 players you mention on MLE money (rebounder/bench scorer/creator). So then it's just Hayward for 2 of those guys. I just don't think 2 mid/low end rotation players equal one top of the rotation player in the NBA. I think our odds of winning a title are much better with Hayward. So if we can financially make that work with a 3 year window alongside Kemba and set ourselves up to replace them with a max FA in 3 years to run with Tatum/Brown for the future, I think that's a best of both worlds plan. Gives us the best chance of competing in the current and long term IMO.

Now, I'm not totally opposed to your idea. Like let's say we could trade Hayward to Dallas for Tim Hardaway, Delon Wright, pick (that we then use to move up). It could work.

[hugepatsfan]

I get confused with extensions. If we do that does that include the 34m for next season or the extension is 4 years on top of his old contract?

Either way works. Extension rules are strict if you're offering a player a raise. It's limited to 120% of what he makes int he last year of his current deal. But for Hayward, not really an issue since his next deal isn't going to be as much as his option. Just as an example, let's say the number they agree on is 4 years, $90M. It could be structured two ways:

1) He opts in and we add on years to his current deal:

'20-21 - $34.2M (player option)
'21-22 - $17.3M
'22-23 - $18.6M
'23-24 - $20.0M

2) He opts out and re-signs for a new deal:

'20-21 - $20.1M
'21-22 - $21.7M
'22-23 - $23.3M
'23-24 - $25.0M

Either way, he gets $90M over 4 years.

I think in the first scenario, Hayward would rather hit FA next year. I think he'd gamble that he can sign for more than 3 years, $56M by waiting it out.

In the second scenario, the same thing applies. However, we can offer him a lot more in this scenario than 4 years, $90M and get below the tax. Let's say we upped the '20-21 salary to $25M. Now he'd have the following salaries:

'20-21 - $25.0M
'21-22 - $27.0M
'22-23 - $29.0M
'23-24 - $31.0M

That's a 4 year, $112M. For Hayward to turn that down, he'd be gambling that he can sign for more than 3 years, $87M next year. I think that'd be enough money for him to take the security.

Now for us, I think that's more than we want to pay Hayward down the line. But it sheds his salary by almost $10M in '20-21 which means we can avoid the luxury tax another year. Down the line that means no repeater tax before Kemba expires. So overall it would save us lots of money vs letting Hayward re-sign for less next year. So there's incentive for us to do this.

The disincentive is that it ruins potential max cap space in the '23-24 offseason. If we avoid committing to Hayward for that year, we should have max cap space to sign a player with Jayson/Jalen/Marcus/rookie scale guys. So it's a balance of if we want ot take the short term hit of letting Hayward walk and really hurting the current window to help us open the next one.

The ideal scenario for us is that Hayward opts out and signs a new THREE year deal. That way we can get below the tax, keep Hayward for the 3-year-Kemba-window and then have max cap space for the next core player. But for only 3 years, not sure we can get enough money for Hayward to opt out. From the numbers I've crunched this is ABOUT the most money we can offer him on a new 3 year deal and stay below the tax:

'20-21 - $28.0M
'21-22 - $30.24M
'22-23 - $32.48M

That's a 3 year, $90.72M deal. I think we can get below the tax if with that if we make some other cost cutting moves. That means relying on young guys off the bench next year (Timelord, Romeo, draft pick). But it would let us keep Hayward for another 3 years with Kemba so we have our core. We won't have to worry about repeater tax. And we have max cap space in the 2023 offseason to add a core piece.

We can also add a partially guaranteed fourth year for Hayward. The total amount on the extension above would be $34.72M in '23-24. But let's say it's guaranteed for $9M. We could then waive Hayward and stretch the $9M over 3 years for the cap. So it'd only count $3M in that offseason which should preserve cap space. But for Hayward, that raises it to a 3 year, $99.72M deal. So it maybe adds that extra juice to push us over the top.

This is all about trying to play best-of-all-worlds of keeping Hayward for the next 3 years with Kemba, not paying repeater tax, adding a max FA to play with Jayson/Jaylen/Marcus down the road.

I get what youre saying, but I dont think theres a chance in hell we offer Hayward a deal above what Jaylen is making from an AAV perspective. Yes, this stuff shouldnt matter, but players are human and I’m willing to bet most wouldnt take kindly to Hayward exceeding Brown.

Never considered that perspective before. I could see the sting at first, but Brown is a pretty intelligent guy. I'm sure Ainge could have a conversation with him and explain the scenario of how it saves the tax and what the long-term vision is. Would Brown really rather they just let Hayward walk and hurt the chances he has to win. It's definitely a human element to be considered but I think the long term implications would be clear enough.

[keevsnick1]

Either way works. Extension rules are strict if you're offering a player a raise. It's limited to 120% of what he makes int he last year of his current deal. But for Hayward, not really an issue since his next deal isn't going to be as much as his option. Just as an example, let's say the number they agree on is 4 years, $90M. It could be structured two ways:

1) He opts in and we add on years to his current deal:

'20-21 - $34.2M (player option)
'21-22 - $17.3M
'22-23 - $18.6M
'23-24 - $20.0M

2) He opts out and re-signs for a new deal:

'20-21 - $20.1M
'21-22 - $21.7M
'22-23 - $23.3M
'23-24 - $25.0M

Either way, he gets $90M over 4 years.

I think in the first scenario, Hayward would rather hit FA next year. I think he'd gamble that he can sign for more than 3 years, $56M by waiting it out.

In the second scenario, the same thing applies. However, we can offer him a lot more in this scenario than 4 years, $90M and get below the tax. Let's say we upped the '20-21 salary to $25M. Now he'd have the following salaries:

'20-21 - $25.0M
'21-22 - $27.0M
'22-23 - $29.0M
'23-24 - $31.0M

That's a 4 year, $112M. For Hayward to turn that down, he'd be gambling that he can sign for more than 3 years, $87M next year. I think that'd be enough money for him to take the security.

Now for us, I think that's more than we want to pay Hayward down the line. But it sheds his salary by almost $10M in '20-21 which means we can avoid the luxury tax another year. Down the line that means no repeater tax before Kemba expires. So overall it would save us lots of money vs letting Hayward re-sign for less next year. So there's incentive for us to do this.

The disincentive is that it ruins potential max cap space in the '23-24 offseason. If we avoid committing to Hayward for that year, we should have max cap space to sign a player with Jayson/Jalen/Marcus/rookie scale guys. So it's a balance of if we want ot take the short term hit of letting Hayward walk and really hurting the current window to help us open the next one.

The ideal scenario for us is that Hayward opts out and signs a new THREE year deal. That way we can get below the tax, keep Hayward for the 3-year-Kemba-window and then have max cap space for the next core player. But for only 3 years, not sure we can get enough money for Hayward to opt out. From the numbers I've crunched this is ABOUT the most money we can offer him on a new 3 year deal and stay below the tax:

'20-21 - $28.0M
'21-22 - $30.24M
'22-23 - $32.48M

That's a 3 year, $90.72M deal. I think we can get below the tax if with that if we make some other cost cutting moves. That means relying on young guys off the bench next year (Timelord, Romeo, draft pick). But it would let us keep Hayward for another 3 years with Kemba so we have our core. We won't have to worry about repeater tax. And we have max cap space in the 2023 offseason to add a core piece.

We can also add a partially guaranteed fourth year for Hayward. The total amount on the extension above would be $34.72M in '23-24. But let's say it's guaranteed for $9M. We could then waive Hayward and stretch the $9M over 3 years for the cap. So it'd only count $3M in that offseason which should preserve cap space. But for Hayward, that raises it to a 3 year, $99.72M deal. So it maybe adds that extra juice to push us over the top.

This is all about trying to play best-of-all-worlds of keeping Hayward for the next 3 years with Kemba, not paying repeater tax, adding a max FA to play with Jayson/Jaylen/Marcus down the road.

I get what youre saying, but I dont think theres a chance in hell we offer Hayward a deal above what Jaylen is making from an AAV perspective. Yes, this stuff shouldnt matter, but players are human and I’m willing to bet most wouldnt take kindly to Hayward exceeding Brown.

Never considered that perspective before. I could see the sting at first, but Brown is a pretty intelligent guy. I'm sure Ainge could have a conversation with him and explain the scenario of how it saves the tax and what the long-term vision is. Would Brown really rather they just let Hayward walk and hurt the chances he has to win. It's definitely a human element to be considered but I think the long term implications would be clear enough.

Is Hayward actually worth 30 million a year over the next three, his ages 30, 31, 32 seasons now with two traumatic ankle injuries?

Like he is really important, but with two young wings ahead of him you do kind of get to a point where his value added is capped. Like sure, he's a good playmaker, but lets be honest I think we'll be to a point by next years playoffs where Tatum/Brown are THE guys who need the ball in their hands which makes Hayward a 30 million dollar spot up guy.

It may not matter at all, because without cap space its not like losing Hayward really gives the C's more flexibility so I guess you just sign him. But it kind of is a bad look that you'd be paying Hayward 28 million dollars and Jaylen 22.9 million next year.

I mean that's Beal, booker, Jokic, Davis, Towns money. I guess part of the issue is you already owe him 34 next year, so part of it is paying a little to move the money around next year.

Anyway I'm all for resigning him, one of these years he'll be healthy for a playoff run.

[hugepatsfan]

I get what youre saying, but I dont think theres a chance in hell we offer Hayward a deal above what Jaylen is making from an AAV perspective. Yes, this stuff shouldnt matter, but players are human and I’m willing to bet most wouldnt take kindly to Hayward exceeding Brown.

Never considered that perspective before. I could see the sting at first, but Brown is a pretty intelligent guy. I'm sure Ainge could have a conversation with him and explain the scenario of how it saves the tax and what the long-term vision is. Would Brown really rather they just let Hayward walk and hurt the chances he has to win. It's definitely a human element to be considered but I think the long term implications would be clear enough.

Is Hayward actually worth 30 million a year over the next three, his ages 30, 31, 32 seasons now with two traumatic ankle injuries?

Like he is really important, but with two young wings ahead of him you do kind of get to a point where his value added is capped. Like sure, he's a good playmaker, but lets be honest I think we'll be to a point by next years playoffs where Tatum/Brown are THE guys who need the ball in their hands which makes Hayward a 30 million dollar spot up guy.

It may not matter at all, because without cap space its not like losing Hayward really gives the C's more flexibility so I guess you just sign him. But it kind of is a bad look that you'd be paying Hayward 28 million dollars and Jaylen 22.9 million next year.

I mean that's Beal, booker, Jokic, Davis, Towns money. I guess part of the issue is you already owe him 34 next year, so part of it is paying a little to move the money around next year.

Anyway I'm all for resigning him, one of these years he'll be healthy for a playoff run.

The bolded is exactly my thinking. In a vacuum, of course it's not ideal to pay Hayward that money. But keeping him at his $34.2M option puts us in the luxury tax for '20-21 which means we have to let him walk or pay huge repeater rate luxury tax bills the line, because even re-signing him to a modest deal next offseason will leave us over the tax once Tatum's extension kicks in. And then the way bird rights function in the NBA, it's not like we'd be able to replace him even if we let him walk.

I agree that as Tatum/Brown progress, hopefully as playmakers, you're going to see Hayward's responsibility decrease there (along with Kemba). But as we make deep playoff runs like we hope, the defenses will get better. Having guys like Hayward and Kemba give us the ability to have our #3 and #4 players dominate their matchups Tatum/Brown face tougher defensive matchups as the #1/#2 guys.

Having Hayward opt out and re-sign avoids the repeater tax is a loss on his individual deal. You're paying him more than you would by just letting him play out the year and re-sign. But it means staying at the entry tax rates over repeater rates down the line. Repeater rates are 4 times as much as entry level rates. So while you end up paying more money to Hayward on this deal, you pay less money overall. Yo're just sending it all to Hayward rather than a bunch of it to the non-tax teams in the league. So if repeater rates put Wyc in a spot where he tells Ainge to let Hayward walk for nothing, I think this is a better alternative that keeps the top of our roster good enough to win it all.

[100proof]

Either way works. Extension rules are strict if you're offering a player a raise. It's limited to 120% of what he makes int he last year of his current deal. But for Hayward, not really an issue since his next deal isn't going to be as much as his option. Just as an example, let's say the number they agree on is 4 years, $90M. It could be structured two ways:

1) He opts in and we add on years to his current deal:

'20-21 - $34.2M (player option)
'21-22 - $17.3M
'22-23 - $18.6M
'23-24 - $20.0M

2) He opts out and re-signs for a new deal:

'20-21 - $20.1M
'21-22 - $21.7M
'22-23 - $23.3M
'23-24 - $25.0M

Either way, he gets $90M over 4 years.

I think in the first scenario, Hayward would rather hit FA next year. I think he'd gamble that he can sign for more than 3 years, $56M by waiting it out.

In the second scenario, the same thing applies. However, we can offer him a lot more in this scenario than 4 years, $90M and get below the tax. Let's say we upped the '20-21 salary to $25M. Now he'd have the following salaries:

'20-21 - $25.0M
'21-22 - $27.0M
'22-23 - $29.0M
'23-24 - $31.0M

That's a 4 year, $112M. For Hayward to turn that down, he'd be gambling that he can sign for more than 3 years, $87M next year. I think that'd be enough money for him to take the security.

Now for us, I think that's more than we want to pay Hayward down the line. But it sheds his salary by almost $10M in '20-21 which means we can avoid the luxury tax another year. Down the line that means no repeater tax before Kemba expires. So overall it would save us lots of money vs letting Hayward re-sign for less next year. So there's incentive for us to do this.

The disincentive is that it ruins potential max cap space in the '23-24 offseason. If we avoid committing to Hayward for that year, we should have max cap space to sign a player with Jayson/Jalen/Marcus/rookie scale guys. So it's a balance of if we want ot take the short term hit of letting Hayward walk and really hurting the current window to help us open the next one.

The ideal scenario for us is that Hayward opts out and signs a new THREE year deal. That way we can get below the tax, keep Hayward for the 3-year-Kemba-window and then have max cap space for the next core player. But for only 3 years, not sure we can get enough money for Hayward to opt out. From the numbers I've crunched this is ABOUT the most money we can offer him on a new 3 year deal and stay below the tax:

'20-21 - $28.0M
'21-22 - $30.24M
'22-23 - $32.48M

That's a 3 year, $90.72M deal. I think we can get below the tax if with that if we make some other cost cutting moves. That means relying on young guys off the bench next year (Timelord, Romeo, draft pick). But it would let us keep Hayward for another 3 years with Kemba so we have our core. We won't have to worry about repeater tax. And we have max cap space in the 2023 offseason to add a core piece.

We can also add a partially guaranteed fourth year for Hayward. The total amount on the extension above would be $34.72M in '23-24. But let's say it's guaranteed for $9M. We could then waive Hayward and stretch the $9M over 3 years for the cap. So it'd only count $3M in that offseason which should preserve cap space. But for Hayward, that raises it to a 3 year, $99.72M deal. So it maybe adds that extra juice to push us over the top.

This is all about trying to play best-of-all-worlds of keeping Hayward for the next 3 years with Kemba, not paying repeater tax, adding a max FA to play with Jayson/Jaylen/Marcus down the road.

You put alot of effort into that post, so much respect for that.

My question is, why spend any money on Hayward at all? The arguement can easily be made that 30 million spent on a couple of other pieces would go further towards improving the team overall.

ie: big strong defensive rebounder @ 10 mill per season, a reliable bench scorer @10 million per season, another shot creator @10 mill per season.

***note, I understand that we can resign Hayward at 30 million but that doesnt mean we can sign anyone else at 30 million per season, I am operating under the premise of "trade his ass in a 2 or 3 for one that fills holes on the team in a "committee" that also limits risk of injury derailing team"

Your trade idea holds lots of merit. My argument against it would be that you could just sign one of the 3 players you mention on MLE money (rebounder/bench scorer/creator). So then it's just Hayward for 2 of those guys. I just don't think 2 mid/low end rotation players equal one top of the rotation player in the NBA. I think our odds of winning a title are much better with Hayward. So if we can financially make that work with a 3 year window alongside Kemba and set ourselves up to replace them with a max FA in 3 years to run with Tatum/Brown for the future, I think that's a best of both worlds plan. Gives us the best chance of competing in the current and long term IMO.

Now, I'm not totally opposed to your idea. Like let's say we could trade Hayward to Dallas for Tim Hardaway, Delon Wright, pick (that we then use to move up). It could work.

I get your argument, I would only add the, imo, the flexibility of smaller contracts makes the future uncertainty of the cap easier to navigate, and if able to, increase the chances of really poaching a team or 2.

3 contracts around MLE money is easier to move than 1 contract at 25+ mill

[100proof]

I believe, especially after this ankle thing, that Hayward gets shopped in the offeseason

[keevsnick1]

Never considered that perspective before. I could see the sting at first, but Brown is a pretty intelligent guy. I'm sure Ainge could have a conversation with him and explain the scenario of how it saves the tax and what the long-term vision is. Would Brown really rather they just let Hayward walk and hurt the chances he has to win. It's definitely a human element to be considered but I think the long term implications would be clear enough.

Is Hayward actually worth 30 million a year over the next three, his ages 30, 31, 32 seasons now with two traumatic ankle injuries?

Like he is really important, but with two young wings ahead of him you do kind of get to a point where his value added is capped. Like sure, he's a good playmaker, but lets be honest I think we'll be to a point by next years playoffs where Tatum/Brown are THE guys who need the ball in their hands which makes Hayward a 30 million dollar spot up guy.

It may not matter at all, because without cap space its not like losing Hayward really gives the C's more flexibility so I guess you just sign him. But it kind of is a bad look that you'd be paying Hayward 28 million dollars and Jaylen 22.9 million next year.

I mean that's Beal, booker, Jokic, Davis, Towns money. I guess part of the issue is you already owe him 34 next year, so part of it is paying a little to move the money around next year.

Anyway I'm all for resigning him, one of these years he'll be healthy for a playoff run.

The bolded is exactly my thinking. In a vacuum, of course it's not ideal to pay Hayward that money. But keeping him at his $34.2M option puts us in the luxury tax for '20-21 which means we have to let him walk or pay huge repeater rate luxury tax bills the line, because even re-signing him to a modest deal next offseason will leave us over the tax once Tatum's extension kicks in. And then the way bird rights function in the NBA, it's not like we'd be able to replace him even if we let him walk.

I agree that as Tatum/Brown progress, hopefully as playmakers, you're going to see Hayward's responsibility decrease there (along with Kemba). But as we make deep playoff runs like we hope, the defenses will get better. Having guys like Hayward and Kemba give us the ability to have our #3 and #4 players dominate their matchups Tatum/Brown face tougher defensive matchups as the #1/#2 guys.

Having Hayward opt out and re-sign avoids the repeater tax is a loss on his individual deal. You're paying him more than you would by just letting him play out the year and re-sign. But it means staying at the entry tax rates over repeater rates down the line. Repeater rates are 4 times as much as entry level rates. So while you end up paying more money to Hayward on this deal, you pay less money overall. Yo're just sending it all to Hayward rather than a bunch of it to the non-tax teams in the league. So if repeater rates put Wyc in a spot where he tells Ainge to let Hayward walk for nothing, I think this is a better alternative that keeps the top of our roster good enough to win it all.

II think its possible you can get him even a little lower than 30 million, but I'd be fine paying that if you can keep it to three years and align Kemba+Hayward to free up another shot at cap space after Tatums 6th and Browns 7th year.

Beyond that tho I think you have to consider deals that breaks Hayward contract (i'm assuming he opts in if we can't agree on a deal). Turn Hayward into 2 10-15 million dollar deals that adds depth to our team and/or saves enough money to open up the full MLE.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Either way works. Extension rules are strict if you're offering a player a raise. It's limited to 120% of what he makes int he last year of his current deal. But for Hayward, not really an issue since his next deal isn't going to be as much as his option. Just as an example, let's say the number they agree on is 4 years, $90M. It could be structured two ways:

1) He opts in and we add on years to his current deal:

'20-21 - $34.2M (player option)
'21-22 - $17.3M
'22-23 - $18.6M
'23-24 - $20.0M

2) He opts out and re-signs for a new deal:

'20-21 - $20.1M
'21-22 - $21.7M
'22-23 - $23.3M
'23-24 - $25.0M

Either way, he gets $90M over 4 years.

I think in the first scenario, Hayward would rather hit FA next year. I think he'd gamble that he can sign for more than 3 years, $56M by waiting it out.

In the second scenario, the same thing applies. However, we can offer him a lot more in this scenario than 4 years, $90M and get below the tax. Let's say we upped the '20-21 salary to $25M. Now he'd have the following salaries:

'20-21 - $25.0M
'21-22 - $27.0M
'22-23 - $29.0M
'23-24 - $31.0M

That's a 4 year, $112M. For Hayward to turn that down, he'd be gambling that he can sign for more than 3 years, $87M next year. I think that'd be enough money for him to take the security.

Now for us, I think that's more than we want to pay Hayward down the line. But it sheds his salary by almost $10M in '20-21 which means we can avoid the luxury tax another year. Down the line that means no repeater tax before Kemba expires. So overall it would save us lots of money vs letting Hayward re-sign for less next year. So there's incentive for us to do this.

The disincentive is that it ruins potential max cap space in the '23-24 offseason. If we avoid committing to Hayward for that year, we should have max cap space to sign a player with Jayson/Jalen/Marcus/rookie scale guys. So it's a balance of if we want ot take the short term hit of letting Hayward walk and really hurting the current window to help us open the next one.

The ideal scenario for us is that Hayward opts out and signs a new THREE year deal. That way we can get below the tax, keep Hayward for the 3-year-Kemba-window and then have max cap space for the next core player. But for only 3 years, not sure we can get enough money for Hayward to opt out. From the numbers I've crunched this is ABOUT the most money we can offer him on a new 3 year deal and stay below the tax:

'20-21 - $28.0M
'21-22 - $30.24M
'22-23 - $32.48M

That's a 3 year, $90.72M deal. I think we can get below the tax if with that if we make some other cost cutting moves. That means relying on young guys off the bench next year (Timelord, Romeo, draft pick). But it would let us keep Hayward for another 3 years with Kemba so we have our core. We won't have to worry about repeater tax. And we have max cap space in the 2023 offseason to add a core piece.

We can also add a partially guaranteed fourth year for Hayward. The total amount on the extension above would be $34.72M in '23-24. But let's say it's guaranteed for $9M. We could then waive Hayward and stretch the $9M over 3 years for the cap. So it'd only count $3M in that offseason which should preserve cap space. But for Hayward, that raises it to a 3 year, $99.72M deal. So it maybe adds that extra juice to push us over the top.

This is all about trying to play best-of-all-worlds of keeping Hayward for the next 3 years with Kemba, not paying repeater tax, adding a max FA to play with Jayson/Jaylen/Marcus down the road.

I get what youre saying, but I dont think theres a chance in hell we offer Hayward a deal above what Jaylen is making from an AAV perspective. Yes, this stuff shouldnt matter, but players are human and I’m willing to bet most wouldnt take kindly to Hayward exceeding Brown.

Never considered that perspective before. I could see the sting at first, but Brown is a pretty intelligent guy. I'm sure Ainge could have a conversation with him and explain the scenario of how it saves the tax and what the long-term vision is. Would Brown really rather they just let Hayward walk and hurt the chances he has to win. It's definitely a human element to be considered but I think the long term implications would be clear enough.

Again, you’d think these things wouldnt matter, but they do. Players are prideful, Jaylen included. Id wager some of Jaylens struggles last year were pride related due to the previous playoffs and role last year.

Hayward isnt worth rocking the boat for. I’ve learned that lesson from last season.

[Ernest]

The old expiring contract. Less valuable now than it was in the 90s and 2000s. So we'd be looking for a team under the cap or a team with a long term contract they want to get rid of. It just almost never works out these days that anyone trades a good player for a good player. When was the last time a top 10 sf was traded for a top 10 center?

[100proof]

Hayward and Edwards to Dallas

THJ, Wright and their pick to us.

Then package #14 and #19 to move up into top 10. (Chicago, Knicks, Detroit, Washington all potential targets here) allowing team to fill holes left in roster, AND use the full MLE. (assuming no more Wannamaker, Kanter, Semi)

Kemba/Wright/Edwards
Hardaway/Smart/Green
Brown/MLE/Draft
Tatum/Grant Williams/
Theis/Timelord/Poirier

Draft targets: Pat Williams, Deni Avdiji, Okoro, Nesmith, The Beys and of course Jahmius Ramsay

[bucknersrevenge]

I get what youre saying, but I dont think theres a chance in hell we offer Hayward a deal above what Jaylen is making from an AAV perspective. Yes, this stuff shouldnt matter, but players are human and I’m willing to bet most wouldnt take kindly to Hayward exceeding Brown.

Never considered that perspective before. I could see the sting at first, but Brown is a pretty intelligent guy. I'm sure Ainge could have a conversation with him and explain the scenario of how it saves the tax and what the long-term vision is. Would Brown really rather they just let Hayward walk and hurt the chances he has to win. It's definitely a human element to be considered but I think the long term implications would be clear enough.

Again, you’d think these things wouldnt matter, but they do. Players are prideful, Jaylen included. Id wager some of Jaylens struggles last year were pride related due to the previous playoffs and role last year.

Hayward isnt worth rocking the boat for. I’ve learned that lesson from last season.

Agreed. I'm just really not comfortable playing Hayward that kind of money as a 31 year old low Usage 4th option for this team. After next season the FA market should be much better. That's Danny's job as a GM. Find us a less expensive option that does at least some of what he did.

[djFan71]

Hayward and Edwards to Dallas

THJ, Wright and their pick to us.

Then package #14 and #19 to move up into top 10. (Chicago, Knicks, Detroit, Washington all potential targets here) allowing team to fill holes left in roster, AND use the full MLE. (assuming no more Wannamaker, Kanter, Semi)

Kemba/Wright/Edwards
Hardaway/Smart/Green
Brown/MLE/Draft
Tatum/Grant Williams/
Theis/Timelord/Poirier

Draft targets: Pat Williams, Deni Avdiji, Okoro, Nesmith, The Beys and of course Jahmius Ramsay

Not sure DAL can trade their pick due to Stepien rule (they owe NYK multiple for Porzingis).
Nor would they include it for this deal.
But, even without it, that's a good basis. Wright's a good asset, Hardaway is also an expiring and can shoot.

[100proof]

Hayward and Edwards to Dallas

THJ, Wright and their pick to us.

Then package #14 and #19 to move up into top 10. (Chicago, Knicks, Detroit, Washington all potential targets here) allowing team to fill holes left in roster, AND use the full MLE. (assuming no more Wannamaker, Kanter, Semi)

Kemba/Wright/Edwards
Hardaway/Smart/Green
Brown/MLE/Draft
Tatum/Grant Williams/
Theis/Timelord/Poirier

Draft targets: Pat Williams, Deni Avdiji, Okoro, Nesmith, The Beys and of course Jahmius Ramsay

Not sure DAL can trade their pick due to Stepien rule (they owe NYK for Porzingis).
Nor would they include it for this deal.
But, even without it, that's a good basis. Wright's a good asset, Hardaway is also an expiring and can shoot.

I am not sure about if they can trade it either, I feel like its technically a pick swap that there would be a work around of sorts that could happen.

I posted it on Dallas' forum, but only 1 response so far. And the poster claimed that Dallas makes out like bandits and would need to include the 31st at least.

[djFan71]

Hayward and Edwards to Dallas

THJ, Wright and their pick to us.

Then package #14 and #19 to move up into top 10. (Chicago, Knicks, Detroit, Washington all potential targets here) allowing team to fill holes left in roster, AND use the full MLE. (assuming no more Wannamaker, Kanter, Semi)

Kemba/Wright/Edwards
Hardaway/Smart/Green
Brown/MLE/Draft
Tatum/Grant Williams/
Theis/Timelord/Poirier

Draft targets: Pat Williams, Deni Avdiji, Okoro, Nesmith, The Beys and of course Jahmius Ramsay

Not sure DAL can trade their pick due to Stepien rule (they owe NYK for Porzingis).
Nor would they include it for this deal.
But, even without it, that's a good basis. Wright's a good asset, Hardaway is also an expiring and can shoot.

I am not sure about if they can trade it either, I feel like its technically a pick swap that there would be a work around of sorts that could happen.

I posted it on Dallas' forum, but only 1 response so far. And the poster claimed that Dallas makes out like bandits and would need to include the 31st at least.

If we sent 30 & got 31, then it would be fine. They just need to have an actual first round pick this year.

If they want to include 19, too, great. I just am assuming a lowish value on Hayward due to being expiring. But, maybe it's an extend and trade, etc, to keep his value up.

[hugepatsfan]

Hayward and Edwards to Dallas

THJ, Wright and their pick to us.

Then package #14 and #19 to move up into top 10. (Chicago, Knicks, Detroit, Washington all potential targets here) allowing team to fill holes left in roster, AND use the full MLE. (assuming no more Wannamaker, Kanter, Semi)

Kemba/Wright/Edwards
Hardaway/Smart/Green
Brown/MLE/Draft
Tatum/Grant Williams/
Theis/Timelord/Poirier

Draft targets: Pat Williams, Deni Avdiji, Okoro, Nesmith, The Beys and of course Jahmius Ramsay

Not sure DAL can trade their pick due to Stepien rule (they owe NYK multiple for Porzingis).
Nor would they include it for this deal.
But, even without it, that's a good basis. Wright's a good asset, Hardaway is also an expiring and can shoot.

Wouldn't be an issue. Technically, Dallas would make their pick on draft night and trade us the rights to him once the new league year starts. They'd be making their pick and thus the deal works. NBA CBA is so weird like that haha

[djFan71]

Hayward and Edwards to Dallas

THJ, Wright and their pick to us.

Then package #14 and #19 to move up into top 10. (Chicago, Knicks, Detroit, Washington all potential targets here) allowing team to fill holes left in roster, AND use the full MLE. (assuming no more Wannamaker, Kanter, Semi)

Kemba/Wright/Edwards
Hardaway/Smart/Green
Brown/MLE/Draft
Tatum/Grant Williams/
Theis/Timelord/Poirier

Draft targets: Pat Williams, Deni Avdiji, Okoro, Nesmith, The Beys and of course Jahmius Ramsay

Not sure DAL can trade their pick due to Stepien rule (they owe NYK multiple for Porzingis).
Nor would they include it for this deal.
But, even without it, that's a good basis. Wright's a good asset, Hardaway is also an expiring and can shoot.

Wouldn't be an issue. Technically, Dallas would make their pick on draft night and trade us the rights to him once the new league year starts. They'd be making their pick and thus the deal works. NBA CBA is so weird like that haha

Doh, right! Thanks. Forgot about that. That's why I couched it in "not sure"....

[hugepatsfan]

Hayward and Edwards to Dallas

THJ, Wright and their pick to us.

Then package #14 and #19 to move up into top 10. (Chicago, Knicks, Detroit, Washington all potential targets here) allowing team to fill holes left in roster, AND use the full MLE. (assuming no more Wannamaker, Kanter, Semi)

Kemba/Wright/Edwards
Hardaway/Smart/Green
Brown/MLE/Draft
Tatum/Grant Williams/
Theis/Timelord/Poirier

Draft targets: Pat Williams, Deni Avdiji, Okoro, Nesmith, The Beys and of course Jahmius Ramsay

Not sure DAL can trade their pick due to Stepien rule (they owe NYK for Porzingis).
Nor would they include it for this deal.
But, even without it, that's a good basis. Wright's a good asset, Hardaway is also an expiring and can shoot.

I am not sure about if they can trade it either, I feel like its technically a pick swap that there would be a work around of sorts that could happen.

I posted it on Dallas' forum, but only 1 response so far. And the poster claimed that Dallas makes out like bandits and would need to include the 31st at least.

It's absolutely highway robbery for them. Hayward for two role players and a mid 1st is an absolutely terrible deal for us basketball wise. If it weren't for the financial aspect of it, none of us would be remotely interested. So I do think a deal with Dallas could be worked out in that sense because their financial structure allows it since they don't have the same top of the payroll as we do.

Now, the issue for us is getting the deal to actually work. Wright/Hardaway/#19 pick make a combined $30M next year. That's only marginally less than Hayward's $34.2M. If we aren't shedding enough money to get below the tax next year, not a ton of incentive to make a deal. You'd have to do it with an eye towards making another deal over the next couple of years to avoid repeater rates. Because the only reason to deal Hayward rather than just re-sign is to avoid those rates so a deal that doesn't accomplish that makes no sense.

[hugepatsfan]

Not sure DAL can trade their pick due to Stepien rule (they owe NYK multiple for Porzingis).
Nor would they include it for this deal.
But, even without it, that's a good basis. Wright's a good asset, Hardaway is also an expiring and can shoot.

Wouldn't be an issue. Technically, Dallas would make their pick on draft night and trade us the rights to him once the new league year starts. They'd be making their pick and thus the deal works. NBA CBA is so weird like that haha

Doh, right! Thanks. Forgot about that. That's why I couched it in "not sure"....

NBA salary cap is literally more complicated than my CPA exam books. For someone who's a nerdy accountant and also a huge sports fan though, NBA trades/transactions is like the best puzzle ever though lol

[djFan71]

Not sure DAL can trade their pick due to Stepien rule (they owe NYK for Porzingis).
Nor would they include it for this deal.
But, even without it, that's a good basis. Wright's a good asset, Hardaway is also an expiring and can shoot.

I am not sure about if they can trade it either, I feel like its technically a pick swap that there would be a work around of sorts that could happen.

I posted it on Dallas' forum, but only 1 response so far. And the poster claimed that Dallas makes out like bandits and would need to include the 31st at least.

It's absolutely highway robbery for them. Hayward for two role players and a mid 1st is an absolutely terrible deal for us basketball wise. If it weren't for the financial aspect of it, none of us would be remotely interested. So I do think a deal with Dallas could be worked out in that sense because their financial structure allows it since they don't have the same top of the payroll as we do.

Now, the issue for us is getting the deal to actually work. Wright/Hardaway/#19 pick make a combined $30M next year. That's only marginally less than Hayward's $34.2M. If we aren't shedding enough money to get below the tax next year, not a ton of incentive to make a deal. You'd have to do it with an eye towards making another deal over the next couple of years to avoid repeater rates. Because the only reason to deal Hayward rather than just re-sign is to avoid those rates so a deal that doesn't accomplish that makes no sense.

Yeah, you'd have to finesse the financials. Get Poirier in there (after they sign 19 if need be). Trade up/out of some of the other picks, etc. You definitely just keep Gordon if you don't get under the tax here.