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

[Homerclease]

Extend Hayward, run it back and deal Kemba next offseason before his knee completely gives way. Hayward has had rotten luck with freak injuries, Kembas knee is a time bomb

[SmartWentCrazy]

From the oft mentioned hawks fan insider:

He is hearing the same thing others are about Gordon Hayward. He is looking to opt-out. He is looking to resign or find an SnT deal to Dallas. This one is Boston's to lose. He seems to want to resign but with more years and a less competitive market than 2021.

Can get re-signing for a 4/80 type. Dont think he’d do it, but understand the long term certainty itd give him. Also think a deal to Dallas to clear their books makes sense. They have a lot of good bench pieces and could look to bring in Hayward and another max guy.

Maybe THJ and Curry for Hayward and a first or two? Could make sense for both sides.

Guessing they’d want to keep THJ’s expiring. Maybe some combo of Curry, Kleber and Wright with Powell. We could include Poirier and Kanter to them as well.

[BillTheGOAT]

It would be such a typical move from that dude. Play like ****, useless contract, then leaves without anything in return for the franchise. At least Horford was useful his three years in Boston.

[Captain_Caveman]

This link explains most of every possibility concerning GH.
https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/celtics-offseason-preview-one-gordon-hayward-trade-destination-stands-out-but-his-fate-is-still-in-question/

One big thing there is that the tax threshold seems likely to come in at $139m, not $132m. Big difference, if so.

[Captain_Caveman]

Read on Twitter

Bernadoni is completely on point here. Can anyone explain why an opt-out and resign for like 3y/85-90m is not the move for both sides here? It saves us $6-7m on the cap this year, without actually costing him $6-7m this year. It increases his trade value, and eliminates his flight risk this offseason or next. And a guy with an injury history gets some more financial security, rather than rolling the dice to wait a year for free agency.

Even if the eventual move is to flip him or depth or a big, or to reduce payroll to make room for Tatum's extension next year, you do that IMO.

Because a 28-30M AAV for the next three years leaves us with nearly 130M locked up in Hayward, Tatum, Brown and Kemba and would ultimately cost us Smart while still resulting in us having a ~40 to 50M tax bill after this season? And people would recognize how **** we were [much like with Philly now] and demand a pound of flesh to take on our salaries?

It reduces our cap number this year significantly, and makes it easier to trade him — even if that trade is a cap dump of sorts.

[Captain_Caveman]

The argument is that an apparent $10 million reduction in one year's pay, for example, might wind up being a true $6-7 million reduction instead.

I'm not sure how much difference that actually makes to Hayward's calculations.

I hear you, but it doesn't need to be much with the numbers I am talking about. Bigger question is what he feels his earning potential is next offseason. I think the chances are pretty good that he can make more money by taking the $34m and waiting than signing a 3y/85-90m now, but he's not Giannis and there is a lot of risk for him on that dice roll.

Well, it's about escrow and how players get paid. They might be on a deal that pays 34m, but it's about % of profits, so the league guesses on what profits might be worst case and holds some salary from all players, usualy 5-10% in escrow. It gets paid out at league end if they made all the money expected, if not it's held and paid to owners to get that actual BRI split.

Because of huge loss in money that 34m might have 30% removed this year he won't get back. So 24m is actual pay out this year on 1 year. Now what if next year we get fans back, profits go way up and they have 0% back to owners. And he signs 3 years at 70m. he ends up with 94m actual money but risks injury and ending with a 3 year 45m contract or worse.

If he opts out and goes 4 years 25m with increased money each year. 22m, 24m, 26m, 28m. And the 22 only gives 15m, he ends up with 15 plus 24 plus 26 plus 28 = 93m. Same as above basically with security against another injury.

Boston saves money and avoids tax. He gets same long term money opting out because this year so much is going back to owners where in the future it's unlikely that high.

Understood, but the 4/100 numbers are not enough here. He’s not opting out to take a salary of 22m next year. At 27-28m, he might, especially in light of the escrow thing. But I personally would only go there for a 3yr deal and not 4. Hence suggesting 3/85-90.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Bernadoni is completely on point here. Can anyone explain why an opt-out and resign for like 3y/85-90m is not the move for both sides here? It saves us $6-7m on the cap this year, without actually costing him $6-7m this year. It increases his trade value, and eliminates his flight risk this offseason or next. And a guy with an injury history gets some more financial security, rather than rolling the dice to wait a year for free agency.

Even if the eventual move is to flip him or depth or a big, or to reduce payroll to make room for Tatum's extension next year, you do that IMO.

Because a 28-30M AAV for the next three years leaves us with nearly 130M locked up in Hayward, Tatum, Brown and Kemba and would ultimately cost us Smart while still resulting in us having a ~40 to 50M tax bill after this season? And people would recognize how **** we were [much like with Philly now] and demand a pound of flesh to take on our salaries?

It reduces our cap number this year significantly, and makes it easier to trade him — even if that trade is a cap dump of sorts.

I just worry teams eyes would light up and look to really gouge us there

[celtxman]

Read on Twitter

Bernadoni is completely on point here. Can anyone explain why an opt-out and resign for like 3y/85-90m is not the move for both sides here? It saves us $6-7m on the cap this year, without actually costing him $6-7m this year. It increases his trade value, and eliminates his flight risk this offseason or next. And a guy with an injury history gets some more financial security, rather than rolling the dice to wait a year for free agency.

Even if the eventual move is to flip him or depth or a big, or to reduce payroll to make room for Tatum's extension next year, you do that IMO.

Agreed. The Celtics cannot afford to let him go for nothing. He is ty too good of a player whether he is kept or traded

[floyd]

The argument is that an apparent $10 million reduction in one year's pay, for example, might wind up being a true $6-7 million reduction instead.

I'm not sure how much difference that actually makes to Hayward's calculations.

That said, the whole confusion could help push Hayward to a mindset that:
-- He can't accurately optimize his future income.
-- He has vastly more money than he and his kids will ever spend anyway.
-- He should just do what feels right to him across multiple considerations and accept whatever the financial ramifications turn out to be.

I thought the article actually made no sense at all. “It’s better to lose 30% of 20 million than 34 million”. Said another way “it’s better to make 14 million than 23.8 million” which no one would agree with.

I get opting out for long term security but the escrow doesn’t factor in much imo. He’s going to opt out for 90 over 3 years just so he puts 9 million in escrow this year instead of 10.2? He’d do it for the long term security (if he did it).

The point is that future money is more than current money in a deal. It may not make a difference, but that is all this is really trying to say. The math is different. Lets say we offered 4/100 (I'm making that number up). The starting point in team Hayward's thinking would usually be, would i do significantly better than 3/66 next year? It isn't that simple. If you could chose when to have your biggest number, it would be a future year.

So 34,22,22,22 is less than 25,25,25,25. It isn't a massive difference. You are probably talking only 3 to 4 million less in that example. If it is an escalating contract, it would be slightly more. It may not be a big enough difference to really matter, but it is a factor. Security would be a bigger factor.

If he drops his salary this year by 9 million and the escrow eats up 30% that’s 2.7 million. So a small difference in a pretty optimistic scenario. The article threw out 20 million this year. Given the assumed (but not guaranteed) 30% escrow hit he’d have to make up 9.8 million over the rest of his new deal just to break even. So, while I’m sure there are scenarios where he has some marginal extras incentive, the scenario in the article made no sense.

[ConstableGeneva]

Read on Twitter

[RondoToKG]

If we could get something worthwhile for Hayward I'm all for it.. he's not the same after that injury. We see glimpses here and there, and that's it.

[BostonCouchGM]

I'm confused as to why people feel like we have any leverage in this situation. He can opt out and sign with a number of teams without having anything to do with BOS. As others have said, deals are happening before the official dates due to uncertainty with start up dates and the CBA. You have to assume Hayward has been given a wink wink nod deal for 4-5 years so he'll opt out and accept leaving us with nothing. Most of the teams that need him the most have the space to just sign him without having to give up any assets to us. Yes, I understand that by opting in with us it increases the chance he could go to a contender but at this point in his career, I feel like he'd rather be the reason a bad team got better and wants his last long-term lucrative contract so he can have some stability for his family.

[Parliament10]

I'm confused as to why people feel like we have any leverage in this situation. He can opt out and sign with a number of teams without having anything to do with BOS. As others have said, deals are happening before the official dates due to uncertainty with start up dates and the CBA. You have to assume Hayward has been given a wink wink nod deal for 4-5 years so he'll opt out and accept leaving us with nothing. Most of the teams that need him the most have the space to just sign him without having to give up any assets to us. Yes, I understand that by opting in with us it increases the chance he could go to a contender but at this point in his career, I feel like he'd rather be the reason a bad team got better and wants his last long-term lucrative contract so he can have some stability for his family.

You have a point. He could leave us, with nothing.
I don't think he'll get that $34.2M anywhere in Free Agency, though.

He's never won a Championship, and being over 30, that must weigh on his mind.
As far as financially, he's all set.

[Banks2Pierce]

I'm confused as to why people feel like we have any leverage in this situation.

Th leverage is the teams that actually have money are bad. His career earnings are in the stratosphere at this point so he'd only really want out if he can't stand being option 3 or 4 on most nights, isn't into his teammates, or hates the city. All possible, but I am not sure they're likely. Might pull a Horford and get his feelings hurt if we don't go heavy on a fourth year. He might use it still to try to get to a s&t destination. Feel like it's a bunch of 15-20% scenarios.

[Ernest]

Horford is an interesting name to think about when thinking about Hayward. Before he left it seemed like it would really hurt to lose him. flashforward a year and I think we are all ok with him being gone.

[ConstableGeneva]

Horford is an interesting name to think about when thinking about Hayward. Before he left it seemed like it would really hurt to lose him. flashforward a year and I think we are all ok with him being gone.

I think it's a credit to the leaps the Jays have made and also Theis making an improvement. He was able to patrol that big position after the team lost Horford. Oh, and credit to Stevens to seemingly making it work whoever he has on the roster (people will deny him this credit though haha). Anyway, imagine if we had Horford against the Heat and their zone. Experienced bigs like him who can facilitate from the post or in the middle are zone-busters. And he could've settled down our guys late in games when we couldn't execute for **** on both ends. Sure he stunk in Philly and may already be declining for real, but we could have used Horford (or someone like him) to get over the hump. In a similar manner, I could argue that having a healthy Hayward would've shortened the Toronto series and wouldn't have left us gassed and unprepared for the Miami series (esp first two games).

We did ok, but still didn't reach our goal. I think we'll also do ok this coming season even without Hayward. But moving him would be more a financial decision than a basketball one imo.

[SmartWentCrazy]

From the Hawks guy:

I do think Atlanta has interest in moving up, depending on the cost. Atlanta also been talking to agents like crazy and the player who has gotten interest from Atlanta is Gordon Hayward.

Atlanta has no reason not to help us get a 20M+ TE if he leaves. We could use that to try and convince Det to S&T Wood to us. Not ideal, but if we have to lose Hayward for financial reasons, Wood is the ideal choice for us to add to replace him IMO.

[MagicBagley18]

From the Hawks guy:

I do think Atlanta has interest in moving up, depending on the cost. Atlanta also been talking to agents like crazy and the player who has gotten interest from Atlanta is Gordon Hayward.

Atlanta has no reason not to help us get a 20M+ TE if he leaves. We could use that to try and convince Det to S&T Wood to us. Not ideal, but if we have to lose Hayward for financial reasons, Wood is the ideal choice for us to add to replace him IMO.

Tpe can’t be combined with salary correct?

[SmartWentCrazy]

From the Hawks guy:

I do think Atlanta has interest in moving up, depending on the cost. Atlanta also been talking to agents like crazy and the player who has gotten interest from Atlanta is Gordon Hayward.

Atlanta has no reason not to help us get a 20M+ TE if he leaves. We could use that to try and convince Det to S&T Wood to us. Not ideal, but if we have to lose Hayward for financial reasons, Wood is the ideal choice for us to add to replace him IMO.

Tpe can’t be combined with salary correct?

Correct

[GoCeltics123]

Gonna be real, but if Hayward really wants to go to Atlanta, he clearly doesn't care about winning and cares more about his contract.