hugepatsfan wrote:CelticsPride18 wrote:SmartWentCrazy wrote:
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.
