Hayward Likely to OPT-IN to final year of contract!

[batabatuta]

Hayward has been here for like 3 seasons now. Overall, he isn't worth the money he was paid for. He was really good when he was playing but that's the thing, "if he is playing". All the time he wasn't on the floor we could've gotten one or two players who could've had contributed more than he did for the past 3 years and consistently at that. What will his one year left change that narrative? The team always felt short and had to push more every game to win because he is always out. Not his fault but not our fault either. In the end, we have to move on from him this year when he still has tradeable value. Some things are just not meant to be. The ironic thing here is that maybe when is with playing for another team, he might perform better but are we again going to risk another season for what could be an annual false hope?

[Spin Move]

Healthy Hayward is really good, Taytum is our best player, but our next best 3 are Brown Hayward and Kemba in some order followed by Smart followed by Thies, then a bunch of young kids (cept wannamaker). He has some injury risk but if he resigns for 20-25 million a year over 4 years I do it in a heartbeat and trade Kemba or Smart instead. One of those 3 will go to solve or big man situation. Otherwise Hayward might just play things out.

[BostonCouchGM]

what really sucks about the whole Hayward thing is that he's the perfect player for Brad's system. Almost as if Brad devised it with Hayward running it in mind. People here haven't even had a chance to see it either and it's a shame. The system needs an initiator that can run the PnR, score on all three levels, and pass out of double teams and when defenses collapse on penetration. When he was signed at 26 y/o, just entering his prime, he was coming off an all-star season in the loaded west, and in a completely different system than Brad's, had put up 22-5-4 with great defense and shooting 40% from three. Those numbers, particularly rebounds and assists, would have increased in Boston because we would have cleared out for him to get rebounds (like Mavs do with Luka) so he could start the break and his assists would have gone up because we had excellent catch and shoot guys surrounding him (unlike what he had in Utah). I think it's fair to say he likely would have been one of only a few guys in the league putting up 20-7-7 but unlike the other guys he'd be good on defense and a good shooter.

The injury happens and because of it, Tatum's development is accelerated. Already at 21 y/o he's a 24-7-3 guy. But the difference between he and Hayward intiating the offense is that he can't run the PnR nor create for others as well. But again, he's just 21 y/o. He's clearly capable of giving us what we hoped Hayward would by next season hopefully, and by the following season almost assuredly. So while we lost out on a potential Finals appearance (and loss to the Warriors) when Hayward went down, Tatum in turn has developed quicker and will be the player at 22 y/o we hoped for with Hayward at 27 y/o.

As Tatum becomes that guy, this will allow Kemba to play off ball where he's better suited. So we'll have Kemba and Jaylen as the guys for Tatum to kick out to. To get to be that guy, Tatum must improve his handle, put on another 10 pounds of muscle so he can finish through traffic, develop a floater or quick mid-range below the key jumper, and work on passing out of there when help defense. With very little offseason, it's too much to ask him to be that guy next season. He simply doesn't have enough time to develop with no real offseason. But I think by the 2nd half of next season he'll be exactly what we wanted out of Hayward. And because he's longer and more talented than Hayward, that'll make him a top 5-10 player in the NBA.

As far as Hayward is concerned, he needs to go somewhere where he can be the number 1a or 1b guy instead of the #4 guy here. Brad clearly didn't want to ruffle feathers so he didn't insert him into the lineup and have everything flow through him and he won't now or in the future. So Hayward, our 2nd best player, won't earn his salary and is therefore a detriment to our team. I'd rather trade him for Barnes and Richaun Holmes. Barnes is strictly a 3 and D like Jaylen but he's got length, shoots 40% from three, can defend, and knows his role. Holmes just established himself as a player last season and would be an upgrade over Theis. This would give us better cohesion and a better bench. The only thing that would suck is Holmes is a UFA after next season. But that would buy us a season to develop Robert Williams more or whoever we draft. And Barnes has a few more seasons left on his contract but his salary actually goes down so he'll be a reasonable expense.

[themoneyteam2]

Sunday - "THIS TEAM IS WAY BETTER WITH HAYWARD AND I'LL FIGHT YOU ABOUT IT"

Monday - "WE'VE GOT TO TRADE HAYWARD"

This forum needs to consume more fiber for consistency

the Hayward experiment is over. For multiple reasons it just hasn't worked out. has anyone ever considered that maybe it's Hayward that would like to move on? It isn't a knock on Boston. It just hasn't worked out. Not to mention the 2 main foundation pieces in Boston play the same position as him. Hayward respects Boston and obviously loves Brad Stevens....And he would be an idiot to opt out because he isn't even sniffing 34 million next season elsewhere as a FA. So his best bet is to help the Celtics by opting in and then getting traded. Respectfully move on. Peaceful break-up

Agreed. Have you heard anything about this from your connections or is it just your opinion?

[SmartWentCrazy]

Celtics would have swept Toronto and beat Miami in 6 or 7 with a healthy Hayward. I'm really not sure why people are making things up in regards to the guy just to get rid of him. He's a keeper, plain and simple.

Only way I'm trading GH is if you got yourself a Bradley Beal type incoming..

What’s being made up? is he injury prone? Yes. Is he in the last year of a contract? Yes. Are our avenues to improve the team limited? Yes. Is a 34 million expiring contract an intriguing trade piece? Yes. Is this team better with a healthy Hayward? Yes.

There’s no lies being made up....Hayward was great when he played this year. He’s a very good player when he plays and I enjoy watching him but you must listen to trades for him and see what the return is.

Bradley Beal will cost u brown....Hayward doesn’t fetch that return w his injury history

He isn't exactly Romeo Langford getting injured in practice or 16 seconds into a game. His injuries are pretty freak ones that can happen to anybody. I'm a lot more concerned for Kemba injury wise than I am with Gordo. Small guard who is awful offensively and has a 4 month knee problem even when he didn't play a game for 3 months is pretty concerning.

Stuff like 'JT/JB/Kemba probably choose Smart over him' or that there's a 'car crash coming next season because Smart won't want the bench'. I mean if Smart is the problem than ship him out. If you love him then you ship Kemba out. I'm sure we will survive without his 8 for 22 shooting in a decisive game 6 anyways.

If you choose to ignore recent history, thats on you. We literally just saw this exact same scenario play out— if you want to hope it ends differently this time, be my guest. I’ll just bring up that insanity is doing the same things but expecting different results.

The above was just one part of a longer post I made on why we should deal Hayward:

Just the opposite— with Tatum maxed [likely at 30%], Kemba, Brown and Smart, the Celtics will have north of 100M in salary commitments after Hayward expires. Re-signing him likely forces us way too deep in the tax and the owners likely balk. It basically comes down to a Smart vs Hayward with respect to who we keep long term and Haywards contract and injury history make the decision relatively easy IMO.

So then it comes down to, what do we want to do? Let him walk for nothing, while not being able to have any cap room to sign another good player? Or add something else in return for him. I know what I’d choose.

Finally, we literally just saw this exact same scenario play out two years ago. Hayward goes down, he gets replaced and we go on an ECF run. Im willing to bet that Smart isnt eager to return to the bench as he’ll want to get paid in two years and — again — we literally just saw this exact scenario play out.

The long term play is to move on from Hayward. The short term view is to keep him, force Smart to the bench and pray that doing the exact same thing miraculously leads to different results this time cuz ‘talent’.

We have no avenue towards retaining him unless you want to punt Smart or Jaylen. Punting Jaylen would be beyond myopic and I shouldnt have to defend that. Punting the 26 year old heart and soul of our team to commit 4 more years to a guy that will be 31 next offseason generally feels like bad business to me. Especially when Smart will be 10M a year cheaper.

Re-signing him to even 20M a year [which feels light by a good 5M+] means that our top 5 take up 120M a year. If we pay the remaining 10 roster spots with minimum salary players [say 2M a year], were already into the tax with a roster that completely lacks depth.

This is all a consequence of Tatum becoming an all-NBA caliber player and getting a 30% max instead of a 25% max. Its the unfortunate side of hitting a home run on a draft pick.

With all that said, we cannot just let Hayward walk for nothing. We are over the cap and will lose the ability to add more than one player per year at the MLE. Piecing him out in advance of this allows us to actually have depth and prevent us from running our players into the ground early in the playoff.

I get it though, ‘talent’. Short term thinking at its best.

[Triple7]

What’s being made up? is he injury prone? Yes. Is he in the last year of a contract? Yes. Are our avenues to improve the team limited? Yes. Is a 34 million expiring contract an intriguing trade piece? Yes. Is this team better with a healthy Hayward? Yes.

There’s no lies being made up....Hayward was great when he played this year. He’s a very good player when he plays and I enjoy watching him but you must listen to trades for him and see what the return is.

Bradley Beal will cost u brown....Hayward doesn’t fetch that return w his injury history

He isn't exactly Romeo Langford getting injured in practice or 16 seconds into a game. His injuries are pretty freak ones that can happen to anybody. I'm a lot more concerned for Kemba injury wise than I am with Gordo. Small guard who is awful offensively and has a 4 month knee problem even when he didn't play a game for 3 months is pretty concerning.

Stuff like 'JT/JB/Kemba probably choose Smart over him' or that there's a 'car crash coming next season because Smart won't want the bench'. I mean if Smart is the problem than ship him out. If you love him then you ship Kemba out. I'm sure we will survive without his 8 for 22 shooting in a decisive game 6 anyways.

If you choose to ignore recent history, thats on you. We literally just saw this exact same scenario play out— if you want to hope it ends differently this time, be my guest. I’ll just bring up that insanity is doing the same things but expecting different results.

The above was just one part of a longer post I made on why we should deal Hayward:

Just the opposite— with Tatum maxed [likely at 30%], Kemba, Brown and Smart, the Celtics will have north of 100M in salary commitments after Hayward expires. Re-signing him likely forces us way too deep in the tax and the owners likely balk. It basically comes down to a Smart vs Hayward with respect to who we keep long term and Haywards contract and injury history make the decision relatively easy IMO.

So then it comes down to, what do we want to do? Let him walk for nothing, while not being able to have any cap room to sign another good player? Or add something else in return for him. I know what I’d choose.

Finally, we literally just saw this exact same scenario play out two years ago. Hayward goes down, he gets replaced and we go on an ECF run. Im willing to bet that Smart isnt eager to return to the bench as he’ll want to get paid in two years and — again — we literally just saw this exact scenario play out.

The long term play is to move on from Hayward. The short term view is to keep him, force Smart to the bench and pray that doing the exact same thing miraculously leads to different results this time cuz ‘talent’.

We have no avenue towards retaining him unless you want to punt Smart or Jaylen. Punting Jaylen would be beyond myopic and I shouldnt have to defend that. Punting the 26 year old heart and soul of our team to commit 4 more years to a guy that will be 31 next offseason generally feels like bad business to me. Especially when Smart will be 10M a year cheaper.

Re-signing him to even 20M a year [which feels light by a good 5M+] means that our top 5 take up 120M a year. If we pay the remaining 10 roster spots with minimum salary players [say 2M a year], were already into the tax with a roster that completely lacks depth.

This is all a consequence of Tatum becoming an all-NBA caliber player and getting a 30% max instead of a 25% max. Its the unfortunate side of hitting a home run on a draft pick.

With all that said, we cannot just let Hayward walk for nothing. We are over the cap and will lose the ability to add more than one player per year at the MLE. Piecing him out in advance of this allows us to actually have depth and prevent us from running our players into the ground early in the playoff.

I get it though, ‘talent’. Short term thinking at its best.

Exactly my sentiments with Brad Stevens. His case fits the narrative of insanity. Same offensive schemes as last years, just slightly different guys. Same 3 pt chuckfest offensive system. Anyways, i agree we have to deal Gordon. His expiring contract would be an ideal trade bait to some teams needing to clear. Plus his soft ass performance in game 6 is inexcusable. Missing wide open shots over and over is just frustrating to watch.

[BRUNiNHO91]

What’s being made up? is he injury prone? Yes. Is he in the last year of a contract? Yes. Are our avenues to improve the team limited? Yes. Is a 34 million expiring contract an intriguing trade piece? Yes. Is this team better with a healthy Hayward? Yes.

There’s no lies being made up....Hayward was great when he played this year. He’s a very good player when he plays and I enjoy watching him but you must listen to trades for him and see what the return is.

Bradley Beal will cost u brown....Hayward doesn’t fetch that return w his injury history

He isn't exactly Romeo Langford getting injured in practice or 16 seconds into a game. His injuries are pretty freak ones that can happen to anybody. I'm a lot more concerned for Kemba injury wise than I am with Gordo. Small guard who is awful offensively and has a 4 month knee problem even when he didn't play a game for 3 months is pretty concerning.

Stuff like 'JT/JB/Kemba probably choose Smart over him' or that there's a 'car crash coming next season because Smart won't want the bench'. I mean if Smart is the problem than ship him out. If you love him then you ship Kemba out. I'm sure we will survive without his 8 for 22 shooting in a decisive game 6 anyways.

If you choose to ignore recent history, thats on you. We literally just saw this exact same scenario play out— if you want to hope it ends differently this time, be my guest. I’ll just bring up that insanity is doing the same things but expecting different results.

The above was just one part of a longer post I made on why we should deal Hayward:

Just the opposite— with Tatum maxed [likely at 30%], Kemba, Brown and Smart, the Celtics will have north of 100M in salary commitments after Hayward expires. Re-signing him likely forces us way too deep in the tax and the owners likely balk. It basically comes down to a Smart vs Hayward with respect to who we keep long term and Haywards contract and injury history make the decision relatively easy IMO.

So then it comes down to, what do we want to do? Let him walk for nothing, while not being able to have any cap room to sign another good player? Or add something else in return for him. I know what I’d choose.

Finally, we literally just saw this exact same scenario play out two years ago. Hayward goes down, he gets replaced and we go on an ECF run. Im willing to bet that Smart isnt eager to return to the bench as he’ll want to get paid in two years and — again — we literally just saw this exact scenario play out.

The long term play is to move on from Hayward. The short term view is to keep him, force Smart to the bench and pray that doing the exact same thing miraculously leads to different results this time cuz ‘talent’.

We have no avenue towards retaining him unless you want to punt Smart or Jaylen. Punting Jaylen would be beyond myopic and I shouldnt have to defend that. Punting the 26 year old heart and soul of our team to commit 4 more years to a guy that will be 31 next offseason generally feels like bad business to me. Especially when Smart will be 10M a year cheaper.

Re-signing him to even 20M a year [which feels light by a good 5M+] means that our top 5 take up 120M a year. If we pay the remaining 10 roster spots with minimum salary players [say 2M a year], were already into the tax with a roster that completely lacks depth.

This is all a consequence of Tatum becoming an all-NBA caliber player and getting a 30% max instead of a 25% max. Its the unfortunate side of hitting a home run on a draft pick.

With all that said, we cannot just let Hayward walk for nothing. We are over the cap and will lose the ability to add more than one player per year at the MLE. Piecing him out in advance of this allows us to actually have depth and prevent us from running our players into the ground early in the playoff.

I get it though, ‘talent’. Short term thinking at its best.

Did you see how well we played with him this year in a near 60 win pace season, one where we are probably still playing today if not for that **** injury against Philly? Does that count as recent history?

Listen.. I'm all for trading ANYBODY on the team if the move helps us win a chip next year. If you can show me that trade, I'm listening. But some people would move Hayward for a piece of chicken just ebcause the 'long term' thing is to get something and not lose him for nothing or ebcause they care so much about Wyc's money. I won't trade the guy if it lowers my chance this coming season. We been playing 'not this season, next season' for so long.. Time to play for 'now'. Next time we step foot on a court it better be with a championship or bust mentality.

[SmartWentCrazy]

He isn't exactly Romeo Langford getting injured in practice or 16 seconds into a game. His injuries are pretty freak ones that can happen to anybody. I'm a lot more concerned for Kemba injury wise than I am with Gordo. Small guard who is awful offensively and has a 4 month knee problem even when he didn't play a game for 3 months is pretty concerning.

Stuff like 'JT/JB/Kemba probably choose Smart over him' or that there's a 'car crash coming next season because Smart won't want the bench'. I mean if Smart is the problem than ship him out. If you love him then you ship Kemba out. I'm sure we will survive without his 8 for 22 shooting in a decisive game 6 anyways.

If you choose to ignore recent history, thats on you. We literally just saw this exact same scenario play out— if you want to hope it ends differently this time, be my guest. I’ll just bring up that insanity is doing the same things but expecting different results.

The above was just one part of a longer post I made on why we should deal Hayward:

Just the opposite— with Tatum maxed [likely at 30%], Kemba, Brown and Smart, the Celtics will have north of 100M in salary commitments after Hayward expires. Re-signing him likely forces us way too deep in the tax and the owners likely balk. It basically comes down to a Smart vs Hayward with respect to who we keep long term and Haywards contract and injury history make the decision relatively easy IMO.

So then it comes down to, what do we want to do? Let him walk for nothing, while not being able to have any cap room to sign another good player? Or add something else in return for him. I know what I’d choose.

Finally, we literally just saw this exact same scenario play out two years ago. Hayward goes down, he gets replaced and we go on an ECF run. Im willing to bet that Smart isnt eager to return to the bench as he’ll want to get paid in two years and — again — we literally just saw this exact scenario play out.

The long term play is to move on from Hayward. The short term view is to keep him, force Smart to the bench and pray that doing the exact same thing miraculously leads to different results this time cuz ‘talent’.

We have no avenue towards retaining him unless you want to punt Smart or Jaylen. Punting Jaylen would be beyond myopic and I shouldnt have to defend that. Punting the 26 year old heart and soul of our team to commit 4 more years to a guy that will be 31 next offseason generally feels like bad business to me. Especially when Smart will be 10M a year cheaper.

Re-signing him to even 20M a year [which feels light by a good 5M+] means that our top 5 take up 120M a year. If we pay the remaining 10 roster spots with minimum salary players [say 2M a year], were already into the tax with a roster that completely lacks depth.

This is all a consequence of Tatum becoming an all-NBA caliber player and getting a 30% max instead of a 25% max. Its the unfortunate side of hitting a home run on a draft pick.

With all that said, we cannot just let Hayward walk for nothing. We are over the cap and will lose the ability to add more than one player per year at the MLE. Piecing him out in advance of this allows us to actually have depth and prevent us from running our players into the ground early in the playoff.

I get it though, ‘talent’. Short term thinking at its best.

Did you see how well we played with him this year in a near 60 win pace season, one where we are probably still playing today if not for that **** injury against Philly? Does that count as recent history?

Listen.. I'm all for trading ANYBODY on the team if the move helps us win a chip next year. If you can show me that trade, I'm listening. But some people would move Hayward for a piece of chicken just ebcause the 'long term' thing is to get something and not lose him for nothing or ebcause they care so much about Wyc's money. I won't trade the guy if it lowers my chance this coming season. We been playing 'not this season, next season' for so long.. Time to play for 'now'. Next time we step foot on a court it better be with a championship or bust mentality.

And some people would prefer to starve than eat chicken because chicken is beneath them.

[BRUNiNHO91]

If you choose to ignore recent history, thats on you. We literally just saw this exact same scenario play out— if you want to hope it ends differently this time, be my guest. I’ll just bring up that insanity is doing the same things but expecting different results.

The above was just one part of a longer post I made on why we should deal Hayward:



We have no avenue towards retaining him unless you want to punt Smart or Jaylen. Punting Jaylen would be beyond myopic and I shouldnt have to defend that. Punting the 26 year old heart and soul of our team to commit 4 more years to a guy that will be 31 next offseason generally feels like bad business to me. Especially when Smart will be 10M a year cheaper.

Re-signing him to even 20M a year [which feels light by a good 5M+] means that our top 5 take up 120M a year. If we pay the remaining 10 roster spots with minimum salary players [say 2M a year], were already into the tax with a roster that completely lacks depth.

This is all a consequence of Tatum becoming an all-NBA caliber player and getting a 30% max instead of a 25% max. Its the unfortunate side of hitting a home run on a draft pick.

With all that said, we cannot just let Hayward walk for nothing. We are over the cap and will lose the ability to add more than one player per year at the MLE. Piecing him out in advance of this allows us to actually have depth and prevent us from running our players into the ground early in the playoff.

I get it though, ‘talent’. Short term thinking at its best.

Did you see how well we played with him this year in a near 60 win pace season, one where we are probably still playing today if not for that **** injury against Philly? Does that count as recent history?

Listen.. I'm all for trading ANYBODY on the team if the move helps us win a chip next year. If you can show me that trade, I'm listening. But some people would move Hayward for a piece of chicken just ebcause the 'long term' thing is to get something and not lose him for nothing or ebcause they care so much about Wyc's money. I won't trade the guy if it lowers my chance this coming season. We been playing 'not this season, next season' for so long.. Time to play for 'now'. Next time we step foot on a court it better be with a championship or bust mentality.

And some people would prefer to starve than eat chicken because chicken is beneath them.

Lol I mean we could just let the steak we currently have pick up his option, wait til the trade deadline to see if we are being offered 3 chickens intead of one.. If not, cross the free agency bridge when we get there..what's the rush?

[SmartWentCrazy]

Did you see how well we played with him this year in a near 60 win pace season, one where we are probably still playing today if not for that **** injury against Philly? Does that count as recent history?

Listen.. I'm all for trading ANYBODY on the team if the move helps us win a chip next year. If you can show me that trade, I'm listening. But some people would move Hayward for a piece of chicken just ebcause the 'long term' thing is to get something and not lose him for nothing or ebcause they care so much about Wyc's money. I won't trade the guy if it lowers my chance this coming season. We been playing 'not this season, next season' for so long.. Time to play for 'now'. Next time we step foot on a court it better be with a championship or bust mentality.

And some people would prefer to starve than eat chicken because chicken is beneath them.

Lol I mean we could just let the steak we currently have pick up his option, wait til the trade deadline to see if we are being offered 3 chickens intead of one.. If not, cross the free agency bridge when we get there..what's the rush?

A) a deal now provides us with flexibility to take multiple players without having to cut anyone opposed to if we do a trade during next season
B) a deal now allows us to trade with teams that have cap space and have unbalanced trades as a result
C) his trade value isnt going to go up at next deadline
D) unless you expect out ownership group to pay Prokhorov levels of tax, we cannot afford to re-sign him. Even if we somehow convince him to take 20M [guessing thats south by 5-8M], our top 5 will take up 120M in cap space. There is no ‘lets see what happens’ — its either lose him for nothing or trade Smart or Jaylen to make room for the 31 year old Hayward.

[djFan71]

D) unless you expect out ownership group to pay Prokhorov levels of tax, we cannot afford to re-sign him. Even if we somehow convince him to take 20M [guessing thats south by 5-8M], our top 5 will take up 120M in cap space. There is no ‘lets see what happens’ — its either lose him for nothing or trade Smart or Jaylen to make room for the 31 year old Hayward.

Didn't we have that convo with taking Wiggins' salary back? That was my objection to a Wiggins deal is I thought it would ultimately be a lose Smart scenario after this year. But, I thought you'd run the #s and said it was OK to deal with that for a year or 2 even with his salary which would be more than a resigned Hayward. Might be remembering all of that wrong, though.

[BRUNiNHO91]

And some people would prefer to starve than eat chicken because chicken is beneath them.

Lol I mean we could just let the steak we currently have pick up his option, wait til the trade deadline to see if we are being offered 3 chickens intead of one.. If not, cross the free agency bridge when we get there..what's the rush?

A) a deal now provides us with flexibility to take multiple players without having to cut anyone opposed to if we do a trade during next season
B) a deal now allows us to trade with teams that have cap space and have unbalanced trades as a result
C) his trade value isnt going to go up at next deadline
D) unless you expect out ownership group to pay Prokhorov levels of tax, we cannot afford to re-sign him. Even if we somehow convince him to take 20M [guessing thats south by 5-8M], our top 5 will take up 120M in cap space. There is no ‘lets see what happens’ — its either lose him for nothing or trade Smart or Jaylen to make room for the 31 year old Hayward.

You talk money as if you were paying. I really don't give two craps about what they pay tbf.. It's their responsibility to put out the best team possible. Ten teams in the NBA had 130+ million payrolls this year. I'm sure we would survive being one of the 10 for a year or two.

Waiting also allows you to make a choice between him and Kemba. Give him his 28 millie and trade Kemba for the chicken pieces instead. Maybe a S & T?

There are a billion ways we can play this out..

[CelticsPride18]

He isn't exactly Romeo Langford getting injured in practice or 16 seconds into a game. His injuries are pretty freak ones that can happen to anybody. I'm a lot more concerned for Kemba injury wise than I am with Gordo. Small guard who is awful offensively and has a 4 month knee problem even when he didn't play a game for 3 months is pretty concerning.

Stuff like 'JT/JB/Kemba probably choose Smart over him' or that there's a 'car crash coming next season because Smart won't want the bench'. I mean if Smart is the problem than ship him out. If you love him then you ship Kemba out. I'm sure we will survive without his 8 for 22 shooting in a decisive game 6 anyways.

If you choose to ignore recent history, thats on you. We literally just saw this exact same scenario play out— if you want to hope it ends differently this time, be my guest. I’ll just bring up that insanity is doing the same things but expecting different results.

The above was just one part of a longer post I made on why we should deal Hayward:

Just the opposite— with Tatum maxed [likely at 30%], Kemba, Brown and Smart, the Celtics will have north of 100M in salary commitments after Hayward expires. Re-signing him likely forces us way too deep in the tax and the owners likely balk. It basically comes down to a Smart vs Hayward with respect to who we keep long term and Haywards contract and injury history make the decision relatively easy IMO.

So then it comes down to, what do we want to do? Let him walk for nothing, while not being able to have any cap room to sign another good player? Or add something else in return for him. I know what I’d choose.

Finally, we literally just saw this exact same scenario play out two years ago. Hayward goes down, he gets replaced and we go on an ECF run. Im willing to bet that Smart isnt eager to return to the bench as he’ll want to get paid in two years and — again — we literally just saw this exact scenario play out.

The long term play is to move on from Hayward. The short term view is to keep him, force Smart to the bench and pray that doing the exact same thing miraculously leads to different results this time cuz ‘talent’.

We have no avenue towards retaining him unless you want to punt Smart or Jaylen. Punting Jaylen would be beyond myopic and I shouldnt have to defend that. Punting the 26 year old heart and soul of our team to commit 4 more years to a guy that will be 31 next offseason generally feels like bad business to me. Especially when Smart will be 10M a year cheaper.

Re-signing him to even 20M a year [which feels light by a good 5M+] means that our top 5 take up 120M a year. If we pay the remaining 10 roster spots with minimum salary players [say 2M a year], were already into the tax with a roster that completely lacks depth.

This is all a consequence of Tatum becoming an all-NBA caliber player and getting a 30% max instead of a 25% max. Its the unfortunate side of hitting a home run on a draft pick.

With all that said, we cannot just let Hayward walk for nothing. We are over the cap and will lose the ability to add more than one player per year at the MLE. Piecing him out in advance of this allows us to actually have depth and prevent us from running our players into the ground early in the playoff.

I get it though, ‘talent’. Short term thinking at its best.

Exactly my sentiments with Brad Stevens. His case fits the narrative of insanity. Same offensive schemes as last years, just slightly different guys. Same 3 pt chuckfest offensive system. Anyways, i agree we have to deal Gordon. His expiring contract would be an ideal trade bait to some teams needing to clear. Plus his soft ass performance in game 6 is inexcusable. Missing wide open shots over and over is just frustrating to watch.

So you want to stop the 3 point chuck fest but want to trade the player that unlocks ball movement on our lineup.

[SmartWentCrazy]

D) unless you expect out ownership group to pay Prokhorov levels of tax, we cannot afford to re-sign him. Even if we somehow convince him to take 20M [guessing thats south by 5-8M], our top 5 will take up 120M in cap space. There is no ‘lets see what happens’ — its either lose him for nothing or trade Smart or Jaylen to make room for the 31 year old Hayward.

Didn't we have that convo with taking Wiggins' salary back? That was my objection to a Wiggins deal is I thought it would ultimately be a lose Smart scenario after this year. But, I thought you'd run the #s and said it was OK to deal with that for a year or 2 even with his salary which would be more than a resigned Hayward. Might be remembering all of that wrong, though.

I was wrong on everything. Cap hits after Hayward expires:

Kemba: 36
Brown: 25
Smart: 14
Tatum at 30%: 33

Total: 108.

We re-sign Hayward? Will balloon above 130. Tax will be 135 or so. Its just untenable.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Our team had to do a PowerPoint presentation before the KG trade and signing to convince the group of owners to sign off on it. Wyc also had to mortgage his house to be able to afford putting a down payment on the Celtics. Our owners aren't cheap, but they aren't billionaires either. I'd do anything to get under the luxury tax now so we avoid the repeater tax down the road when Jayson and Jaylen are in their primes. If that move includes trading Hayward, then so be it.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Lol I mean we could just let the steak we currently have pick up his option, wait til the trade deadline to see if we are being offered 3 chickens intead of one.. If not, cross the free agency bridge when we get there..what's the rush?

A) a deal now provides us with flexibility to take multiple players without having to cut anyone opposed to if we do a trade during next season
B) a deal now allows us to trade with teams that have cap space and have unbalanced trades as a result
C) his trade value isnt going to go up at next deadline
D) unless you expect out ownership group to pay Prokhorov levels of tax, we cannot afford to re-sign him. Even if we somehow convince him to take 20M [guessing thats south by 5-8M], our top 5 will take up 120M in cap space. There is no ‘lets see what happens’ — its either lose him for nothing or trade Smart or Jaylen to make room for the 31 year old Hayward.

You talk money as if you were paying. I really don't give two craps about what they pay tbf.. It's their responsibility to put out the best team possible. Ten teams in the NBA had 130+ million payrolls this year. I'm sure we would survive being one of the 10 for a year or two.

Waiting also allows you to make a choice between him and Kemba. Give him his 28 millie and trade Kemba for the chicken pieces instead. Maybe a S & T?

There are a billion ways we can play this out..

And you talk money like this is monopoly. I dont care what they pay but I’m realistic in my expectations. Expecting Wyc to shell out 200M is bananas.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Our team had to do a PowerPoint presentation before the KG trade and signing to convince the group of owners to sign off on it. Wyc also had to mortgage his house to be able to afford putting a down payment on the Celtics. Our owners aren't cheap, but they aren't billionaires either. I'd do anything to get under the luxury tax now so we avoid the repeater tax down the road when Jayson and Jaylen are in their primes. If that move includes trading Hayward, then so be it.

Agreed. Theres a difference between expecting ownership to pay a tax with some of their operating profit and expecting ownership to take a loss in the 10’s of millions of dollars due to the tax.

[djFan71]

D) unless you expect out ownership group to pay Prokhorov levels of tax, we cannot afford to re-sign him. Even if we somehow convince him to take 20M [guessing thats south by 5-8M], our top 5 will take up 120M in cap space. There is no ‘lets see what happens’ — its either lose him for nothing or trade Smart or Jaylen to make room for the 31 year old Hayward.

Didn't we have that convo with taking Wiggins' salary back? That was my objection to a Wiggins deal is I thought it would ultimately be a lose Smart scenario after this year. But, I thought you'd run the #s and said it was OK to deal with that for a year or 2 even with his salary which would be more than a resigned Hayward. Might be remembering all of that wrong, though.

I was wrong on everything. Cap hits after Hayward expires:

Kemba: 36
Brown: 25
Smart: 14
Tatum at 30%: 33

Total: 108.

We re-sign Hayward? Will balloon above 130. If we re-sign Hayward. Tax will be 135 or so. Its just untenable.

OK, gotcha. Wasn't trying to call ya out, just wanted to make sure. I agree that any Wiggins/Hayward/etc contract when Tatum's max kicks in is going to cause some pain.

That's why I like the idea of the DAL based trade getting THJ and only one of the Wright/Powell deals with 18 & 31. Use the lower picks to upgrade and pawn off Wright on a 3rd team to a useful expiring: Fournier, Bjelica, etc, types. Then keep 14, 18 to add 2 good young guys. Or one if you're a tradeup fan, but either way works. THJ you either keep or send elsewhere too.

If you can get: 18, good expiring player for next year and no long term commitments out of some combo of Hayward and non-14 picks, that's a pretty good return. And you usually end up with the full non-tax MLE to spend as well.

[ConstableGeneva]

Just a hunch -- Hayward's gonna opt in but a deal's already in place to ship him out to a destination he's willing to re-sign/extend with. Return's not gonna be great but we will duck the tax by $750.00.

(My hunches change everyday.)

[BRUNiNHO91]

Our team had to do a PowerPoint presentation before the KG trade and signing to convince the group of owners to sign off on it. Wyc also had to mortgage his house to be able to afford putting a down payment on the Celtics. Our owners aren't cheap, but they aren't billionaires either. I'd do anything to get under the luxury tax now so we avoid the repeater tax down the road when Jayson and Jaylen are in their primes. If that move includes trading Hayward, then so be it.

Agreed. Theres a difference between expecting ownership to pay a tax with some of their operating profit and expecting ownership to take a loss in the 10’s of millions of dollars due to the tax.

We can get under the tax next year by letting Hayward leave and making other moves. That's not the problem. The problem is trading Hayward for C level pieces THIS year and possibly **** up our chances at competing THIS year out of tax fears for the future.

These guys knew the financial issues they had coming when they signed Kemba. It's not like this is a surprise situation.. We knew JB and JT were max guys and we would eventually have 4..surely there is a plan in place to save it without having to trade our key guy for Seth Curry, Dwight Powell and a late 1st.