MrSparkle wrote:TheStig wrote:MrSparkle wrote:I've defended Danny Ainge a lot, but I'm not sure what he was thinking letting Hayward walk without compensation. Could've at least bothered CHA and asked for a return on Rozier, who was very good in green before Kyrie returned and messed up the chemistry. Just letting a max rotation player walk when you're over the cap with a decent contending team, it makes no sense unless ownership demanded a cut in salary. But he gambled too much on over-the-hill bums like Thompson and Teague; these guys are end of bench players; like vet. min. ring chaser types, not 5th-8th rotation pieces. They made a GarPax move by having a contending core and over-relying on pedestrian late picks and bargain bin FAs to fill out the bench. It's not like he has cap-space or lotto picks coming to address the depth chart. That $35m expiring Hayward option was his big chip.
I mean they have 3 max deals on that team in Kemba, Tatum and Brown next year. Clearly lux tax was a concern going forward. Are you going to give your 4th option a near max deal? CHA had no reason to negotiate. They knew Boston wouldn't pay him and made the moves to get the space.
Yeah, I would. When you are 2 wins away from the finals, I think it’s absurd to become frugal. I guess the alternative is taking a step back, but it hasn’t worked out favorably for any teams in the past. Milwaukee the latest example of a team that let their 4th guy (Brogdon) go for fodder and took a big step back.
Maybe he got cold feet with the BRK super-team.
Hayward is getting a near max deal, somewhat injury prone, is over 30 for the whole deal and plays the same position as their 2 best players. Brogdan was their 3rd best player, signed on a deal for 50 mill less and is young and really good 2 way player. I'd much rather have Brogdan than Hayward.






















