Free Agent, Trade & Extensions Thread, 2024-25 (i.e. How do we make the Champs even better?)

[Hal14]

Thinking about a Springer salary dump trade and one of the things that sticks out to me is our lack of mid-tier 2nds that could be attached to him to facilitate it. C's apparently gauged trade interest and found out that teams wanted to be paid to take him on. They've not made "showcasing" him a priority so far (he's basically played as much as JD Davison), so I'm guessing that's not changed. I'm fine with them offloading a 2nd to get back a non-guaranteed contract or just a cheaper body to ease the lux tax bill, but we've not got anything middling that seems like it'd do the trick.

We've got two good 2nds:
- '25 2nd from Washington should be somewhere 31-35.
- '26 2nd (best of PDX/NOP/MIN/NYK) likely from PDX in the 30's since they'll want to tank w/ their 1st lotto protected to Chicago

And after that we've just got a fake '27 2nd from Portland and our own 2030/2031 2nds which carry little to no value.

If we trade Springer for nothing and just sign Lonnie, another vet minimum guy or one of our two-ways, I think we save like $7m, which is probably worth considerably more than a 2nd rounder, but still would pain me to give up a pick potentially in the 30's to just get rid of him. If we weren't a 2nd apron team we could buy back a 2nd for cash and split the difference, but that's not possible now.

All that leads me to believe that, if we do trade him, we'll attach the 2026 2nd from PDX and then Brad will likely trade out of, hopefully, the 30th pick to snag few more 2nds like he did in that hilariously Belichick-ian 2023 draft to restock the cupboard.

https://hoopshype.com/lists/top-nba-trade-candidates-for-the-2024-25-season/

According to the article:

Following a strong end to the preseason for Lonnie Walker, the Celtics gauged the trade market on Jaden Springer, league sources told HoopsHype. Teams across the league hoped to pry future draft pick compensation from the Celtics for taking on Springer’s $4 million salary, sources said. However, Boston wasn’t interested in giving up future draft capital to move the 22-year-old former first-round pick. The luxury tax penalties for signing Walker IV to the 15th spot were ultimately too steep for Boston to retain him into the season.

With Springer out of the rotation and given Boston’s luxury tax situation, he’s unlikely to receive a qualifying offer this summer as well.

A couple of key things to note from the article:

-The words I put in bold, which all indicate past tense. All of those past tense words (rather than words which indicate the trade talks are ongoing, up until the deadline) signal that the team shopped him around, didn't move him and that's that. It's over and done with - he's still on the team so he's likely not getting traded

-Also, The part at the end that says Springer is unlikely to receive a qualifying offer this summer - of course implies that the expectation is Springer will still be a Celtic when this summer begins - which means he's unlikely to get traded

Now, you seem to think that the $7 mil (roughly) in tax savings by trading Springer and signing Walker is worth trading away a 2nd round pick that you guess will be in the 30's.

But based on the Scotto article, it seems like perhaps Brad disagrees. If that's all it took - if a team just wanted that 2nd round pick..and if Brad was fine with trading a 2nd rounder to move Springer and then sign Walker..it seems to me like that deal would have already happened - since according to multiple articles now, the Celtics were exploring a deal in preseason to move Springer and backfill the roster spot with (possibly) Walker.

But according to the article, the deal didn't happen because teams wanted draft compensation and Brad didn't want to give up draft compensation to make the deal happen.

Brad talks about the value of 2nd round picks here:

Read on Twitter

Seems like he values 2nd round picks as assets which can be used to acquire a player of value (like how we moved a 2nd rounder to get Tillman..we also moved a 2nd rounder to get Muscala). Or they can be used to move up in the draft..

Brad has not really shown a willingness to just dump draft picks in a deal where he is getting no value back in return (other than some tax savings).. at least not since the new CBA was put in place.

You look at the deals we've done where Brad has traded draft picks. We moved 2nd rounders to get Tillman and Muscala. We moved 1st rounders to get Brogdon, Horford, White and Jrue. We actually *got* draft picks in the deal where we got Porzingis. Brad has not really been making deals where he just salary dumps a guy and doesn't get a decent player back in return.

Because then that asset (the draft compensation) is gone and we're unable to use it later on down the line to either draft a player, move up in the draft, move back in the draft (which would get us more future picks) or acquire a useful player. That would go against the strategy Brad has shown - and it would go against his words in the video.

I suppose it's possible that we could attach a draft pick to Springer and acquire a player in the deal who could actually provide some value - who makes less $4 mil or less. It would kind of be like the Tillman and Muscala deals. We moved a 2nd rounder (and Justin Jackson) for Muscala. We moved a 2nd rounder (and Lamar Stevens) for Tillman.

I think a deal like that is somewhat possible..move a 2nd rounder (and Springer) for a decent player who could contribute a bit, makes $4 mil or less. But if you do that, how much is that player going to really play? We're the defending champs and we have our top 10 guys all back.

Brad is probably thinking that it would be more wise to hold on to that draft pick, knowing it (as an asset) could come in more handy down the road, when we could use it to acquire a player who is more likely to actually get minutes..or you use it to move up in the draft, move back in the draft. Rather than wasting that asset on a guy who's not gonna play. Which is probably why the Scotto article is implying that these Springer trade talks are something that happened but it's not an ongoing thing - it's over and done with..teams wanted draft capital but Boston didn't want to move draft capital. And the article implies Springer will still be here when the summer begins.

Plus, even if we did a deal like that (move a 2nd rounder + Springer for a decent player who makes $4mil or less) depending on who that player is, if they're making like $3 or $4 mil, well now we're not even really saving on the tax bill (since that player would be making basically the same amount as Springer), which seems to be the main reason why you proposed this trade idea in the 1st place (you mentioned the $7 mil tax savings by moving Springer).

Sure, we might upgrade the roster a little bit but again, where's the playing time for a new player here? Sure, we used a 2nd rounder to acquire guys who were further down the roster (outside of our top 8 rotation players who were locked in) when we acquired Tillman and Muscala. But Muscala was before the new CBA - not sure if Brad makes that move to give up a 2nd rounder for a guy so far down on the bench with the new CBA..also, Time Lord was injured so we had more of a need for Muscala at the time - we got Muscala and almost immediately put him out there to play like 40 mins in a game..which is probably why he got hurt and barely did anything for the rest of his tenure here.

Tillman, we had a pretty clear need for another big last season when we acquired him. This team right now has plenty of bigs. We don't really need anything. Especially with Walsh and Peterson doing a decent job as deep bench wings.

There was also more urgency to make those small moves to shore up the end of the bench to get Tillman and Muscala because we hadn't won the championship yet. We were doing everything we could to get the best roster in place to finally win banner 18 - our first title since 2008..but we accomplished that. Again, we're defending champs and have our top 10 guys all back (top 11 if you count Queta who seems to be ahead of Tillman and possibly Kornet on the depth chart now). So there's really no urgency to trade away draft capital right now..

[phincsfan]

Thinking about a Springer salary dump trade and one of the things that sticks out to me is our lack of mid-tier 2nds that could be attached to him to facilitate it. C's apparently gauged trade interest and found out that teams wanted to be paid to take him on. They've not made "showcasing" him a priority so far (he's basically played as much as JD Davison), so I'm guessing that's not changed. I'm fine with them offloading a 2nd to get back a non-guaranteed contract or just a cheaper body to ease the lux tax bill, but we've not got anything middling that seems like it'd do the trick.

We've got two good 2nds:
- '25 2nd from Washington should be somewhere 31-35.
- '26 2nd (best of PDX/NOP/MIN/NYK) likely from PDX in the 30's since they'll want to tank w/ their 1st lotto protected to Chicago

And after that we've just got a fake '27 2nd from Portland and our own 2030/2031 2nds which carry little to no value.

If we trade Springer for nothing and just sign Lonnie, another vet minimum guy or one of our two-ways, I think we save like $7m, which is probably worth considerably more than a 2nd rounder, but still would pain me to give up a pick potentially in the 30's to just get rid of him. If we weren't a 2nd apron team we could buy back a 2nd for cash and split the difference, but that's not possible now.

All that leads me to believe that, if we do trade him, we'll attach the 2026 2nd from PDX and then Brad will likely trade out of, hopefully, the 30th pick to snag few more 2nds like he did in that hilariously Belichick-ian 2023 draft to restock the cupboard.

https://hoopshype.com/lists/top-nba-trade-candidates-for-the-2024-25-season/

According to the article:

Following a strong end to the preseason for Lonnie Walker, the Celtics gauged the trade market on Jaden Springer, league sources told HoopsHype. Teams across the league hoped to pry future draft pick compensation from the Celtics for taking on Springer’s $4 million salary, sources said. However, Boston wasn’t interested in giving up future draft capital to move the 22-year-old former first-round pick. The luxury tax penalties for signing Walker IV to the 15th spot were ultimately too steep for Boston to retain him into the season.

With Springer out of the rotation and given Boston’s luxury tax situation, he’s unlikely to receive a qualifying offer this summer as well.

A couple of key things to note from the article:

-The words I put in bold, which all indicate past tense. All of those past tense words (rather than words which indicate the trade talks are ongoing, up until the deadline) signal that the team shopped him around, didn't move him and that's that. It's over and done with - he's still on the team so he's likely not getting traded

-Also, The part at the end that says Springer is unlikely to receive a qualifying offer this summer - of course implies that the expectation is Springer will still be a Celtic when this summer begins - which means he's unlikely to get traded

Now, you seem to think that the $7 mil (roughly) in tax savings by trading Springer and signing Walker is worth trading away a 2nd round pick that you guess will be in the 30's.

But based on the Scotto article, it seems like perhaps Brad disagrees. If that's all it took - if a team just wanted that 2nd round pick..and if Brad was fine with trading a 2nd rounder to move Springer and then sign Walker..it seems to me like that deal would have already happened - since according to multiple articles now, the Celtics were exploring a deal in preseason to move Springer and backfill the roster spot with (possibly) Walker.

But according to the article, the deal didn't happen because teams wanted draft compensation and Brad didn't want to give up draft compensation to make the deal happen.

Brad talks about the value of 2nd round picks here:

Read on Twitter

Seems like he values 2nd round picks as assets which can be used to acquire a player of value (like how we moved a 2nd rounder to get Tillman..we also moved a 2nd rounder to get Muscala). Or they can be used to move up in the draft..

Brad has not really shown a willingness to just dump draft picks in a deal where he is getting no value back in return (other than some tax savings).. at least not since the new CBA was put in place.

You look at the deals we've done where Brad has traded draft picks. We moved 2nd rounders to get Tillman and Muscala. We moved 1st rounders to get Brogdon, Horford, White and Jrue. We actually *got* draft picks in the deal where we got Porzingis. Brad has not really been making deals where he just salary dumps a guy and doesn't get a decent player back in return.

Because then that asset (the draft compensation) is gone and we're unable to use it later on down the line to either draft a player, move up in the draft, move back in the draft (which would get us more future picks) or acquire a useful player. That would go against the strategy Brad has shown - and it would go against his words in the video.

I suppose it's possible that we could attach a draft pick to Springer and acquire a player in the deal who could actually provide some value - who makes less $4 mil or less. It would kind of be like the Tillman and Muscala deals. We moved a 2nd rounder (and Justin Jackson) for Muscala. We moved a 2nd rounder (and Lamar Stevens) for Tillman.

I think a deal like that is somewhat possible..move a 2nd rounder (and Springer) for a decent player who could contribute a bit, makes $4 mil or less. But if you do that, how much is that player going to really play? We're the defending champs and we have our top 10 guys all back.

Brad is probably thinking that it would be more wise to hold on to that draft pick, knowing it (as an asset) could come in more handy down the road, when we could use it to acquire a player who is more likely to actually get minutes..or you use it to move up in the draft, move back in the draft. Rather than wasting that asset on a guy who's not gonna play. Which is probably why the Scotto article is implying that these Springer trade talks are something that happened but it's not an ongoing thing - it's over and done with..teams wanted draft capital but Boston didn't want to move draft capital. And the article implies Springer will still be here when the summer begins.

Plus, even if we did a deal like that (move a 2nd rounder + Springer for a decent player who makes $4mil or less) depending on who that player is, if they're making like $3 or $4 mil, well now we're not even really saving on the tax bill (since that player would be making basically the same amount as Springer), which seems to be the main reason why you proposed this trade idea in the 1st place (you mentioned the $7 mil tax savings by moving Springer).

Sure, we might upgrade the roster a little bit but again, where's the playing time for a new player here? Sure, we used a 2nd rounder to acquire guys who were further down the roster (outside of our top 8 rotation players who were locked in) when we acquired Tillman and Muscala. But Muscala was before the new CBA - not sure if Brad makes that move to give up a 2nd rounder for a guy so far down on the bench with the new CBA..also, Time Lord was injured so we had more of a need for Muscala at the time - we got Muscala and almost immediately put him out there to play like 40 mins in a game..which is probably why he got hurt and barely did anything for the rest of his tenure here.

Tillman, we had a pretty clear need for another big last season when we acquired him. This team right now has plenty of bigs. We don't really need anything. Especially with Walsh and Peterson doing a decent job as deep bench wings.

I'll give you an And 10 for this write up. Totally agree with Stevens valuing 2nd's and the fact that playing time will play a big factor if a move is made.

If they go back to back the one big move to be made is asking AL to lace em up for one more year and maybe re-signing Luke. If you let Luke walk and bring AL back the roster is at 13 if you sign Peterson. Not too many minutes to go around.

Unless a Stevens target falls to the C's in the 1st I'd like to move out and pick up some more picks. I said in the Draft subject to get Charlotte's 2nd and maybe the rights to the Den/Philly 2nd AND I would really like the rights to Dallas's 27' 1st.

[redslastlaugh]

Thinking about a Springer salary dump trade and one of the things that sticks out to me is our lack of mid-tier 2nds that could be attached to him to facilitate it. C's apparently gauged trade interest and found out that teams wanted to be paid to take him on. They've not made "showcasing" him a priority so far (he's basically played as much as JD Davison), so I'm guessing that's not changed. I'm fine with them offloading a 2nd to get back a non-guaranteed contract or just a cheaper body to ease the lux tax bill, but we've not got anything middling that seems like it'd do the trick.

We've got two good 2nds:
- '25 2nd from Washington should be somewhere 31-35.
- '26 2nd (best of PDX/NOP/MIN/NYK) likely from PDX in the 30's since they'll want to tank w/ their 1st lotto protected to Chicago

And after that we've just got a fake '27 2nd from Portland and our own 2030/2031 2nds which carry little to no value.

If we trade Springer for nothing and just sign Lonnie, another vet minimum guy or one of our two-ways, I think we save like $7m, which is probably worth considerably more than a 2nd rounder, but still would pain me to give up a pick potentially in the 30's to just get rid of him. If we weren't a 2nd apron team we could buy back a 2nd for cash and split the difference, but that's not possible now.

All that leads me to believe that, if we do trade him, we'll attach the 2026 2nd from PDX and then Brad will likely trade out of, hopefully, the 30th pick to snag few more 2nds like he did in that hilariously Belichick-ian 2023 draft to restock the cupboard.

Good post. I would quibble with the idea that the 2030/31 seconds have little to no value because they have time value, in that nobody knows what any teams roster will look like in 5 or 6 years. It’s like trading options on stocks, time-to-expiration matters.

The big question for me, relative to the issue you are raising, is are we going to have to pay draft picks to dump salary this summer? Or are we gonna add picks to dump salary? I’ve seen NBA media people saying Jrue Holiday, age 35 with a hundred million owed, is we’re gonna have to spend picks to unload him. And I’ve seen people say teams will pay us picks to take Jrue (or Derrick or KP) if we move money.

So this two completely different scenarios. Are we trade our high end talent and receive picks back. Or are teams going to require pick(s) to take our high dollar contracts?

[Celts17Pride]

Brad Stevens is not trading any future 2nd or 1st round picks, especially to move Jaden Springer. Brad Stevens is probably going to have to attach a number of picks to Jrue Holiday in order to move him (probably this summer).

[cl2117]

Thinking about a Springer salary dump trade and one of the things that sticks out to me is our lack of mid-tier 2nds that could be attached to him to facilitate it. C's apparently gauged trade interest and found out that teams wanted to be paid to take him on. They've not made "showcasing" him a priority so far (he's basically played as much as JD Davison), so I'm guessing that's not changed. I'm fine with them offloading a 2nd to get back a non-guaranteed contract or just a cheaper body to ease the lux tax bill, but we've not got anything middling that seems like it'd do the trick.

We've got two good 2nds:
- '25 2nd from Washington should be somewhere 31-35.
- '26 2nd (best of PDX/NOP/MIN/NYK) likely from PDX in the 30's since they'll want to tank w/ their 1st lotto protected to Chicago

And after that we've just got a fake '27 2nd from Portland and our own 2030/2031 2nds which carry little to no value.

If we trade Springer for nothing and just sign Lonnie, another vet minimum guy or one of our two-ways, I think we save like $7m, which is probably worth considerably more than a 2nd rounder, but still would pain me to give up a pick potentially in the 30's to just get rid of him. If we weren't a 2nd apron team we could buy back a 2nd for cash and split the difference, but that's not possible now.

All that leads me to believe that, if we do trade him, we'll attach the 2026 2nd from PDX and then Brad will likely trade out of, hopefully, the 30th pick to snag few more 2nds like he did in that hilariously Belichick-ian 2023 draft to restock the cupboard.

https://hoopshype.com/lists/top-nba-trade-candidates-for-the-2024-25-season/

According to the article:

Following a strong end to the preseason for Lonnie Walker, the Celtics gauged the trade market on Jaden Springer, league sources told HoopsHype. Teams across the league hoped to pry future draft pick compensation from the Celtics for taking on Springer’s $4 million salary, sources said. However, Boston wasn’t interested in giving up future draft capital to move the 22-year-old former first-round pick. The luxury tax penalties for signing Walker IV to the 15th spot were ultimately too steep for Boston to retain him into the season.

With Springer out of the rotation and given Boston’s luxury tax situation, he’s unlikely to receive a qualifying offer this summer as well.

A couple of key things to note from the article:

-The words I put in bold, which all indicate past tense. All of those past tense words (rather than words which indicate the trade talks are ongoing, up until the deadline) signal that the team shopped him around, didn't move him and that's that. It's over and done with - he's still on the team so he's likely not getting traded

-Also, The part at the end that says Springer is unlikely to receive a qualifying offer this summer - of course implies that the expectation is Springer will still be a Celtic when this summer begins - which means he's unlikely to get traded

Now, you seem to think that the $7 mil (roughly) in tax savings by trading Springer and signing Walker is worth trading away a 2nd round pick that you guess will be in the 30's.

But based on the Scotto article, it seems like perhaps Brad disagrees. If that's all it took - if a team just wanted that 2nd round pick..and if Brad was fine with trading a 2nd rounder to move Springer and then sign Walker..it seems to me like that deal would have already happened - since according to multiple articles now, the Celtics were exploring a deal in preseason to move Springer and backfill the roster spot with (possibly) Walker.

But according to the article, the deal didn't happen because teams wanted draft compensation and Brad didn't want to give up draft compensation to make the deal happen.

Brad talks about the value of 2nd round picks here:

Read on Twitter

Seems like he values 2nd round picks as assets which can be used to acquire a player of value (like how we moved a 2nd rounder to get Tillman..we also moved a 2nd rounder to get Muscala). Or they can be used to move up in the draft..

Brad has not really shown a willingness to just dump draft picks in a deal where he is getting no value back in return (other than some tax savings).. at least not since the new CBA was put in place.

You look at the deals we've done where Brad has traded draft picks. We moved 2nd rounders to get Tillman and Muscala. We moved 1st rounders to get Brogdon, Horford, White and Jrue. We actually *got* draft picks in the deal where we got Porzingis. Brad has not really been making deals where he just salary dumps a guy and doesn't get a decent player back in return.

Because then that asset (the draft compensation) is gone and we're unable to use it later on down the line to either draft a player, move up in the draft, move back in the draft (which would get us more future picks) or acquire a useful player. That would go against the strategy Brad has shown - and it would go against his words in the video.

I suppose it's possible that we could attach a draft pick to Springer and acquire a player in the deal who could actually provide some value - who makes less $4 mil or less. It would kind of be like the Tillman and Muscala deals. We moved a 2nd rounder (and Justin Jackson) for Muscala. We moved a 2nd rounder (and Lamar Stevens) for Tillman.

I think a deal like that is somewhat possible..move a 2nd rounder (and Springer) for a decent player who could contribute a bit, makes $4 mil or less. But if you do that, how much is that player going to really play? We're the defending champs and we have our top 10 guys all back.

Brad is probably thinking that it would be more wise to hold on to that draft pick, knowing it (as an asset) could come in more handy down the road, when we could use it to acquire a player who is more likely to actually get minutes..or you use it to move up in the draft, move back in the draft. Rather than wasting that asset on a guy who's not gonna play. Which is probably why the Scotto article is implying that these Springer trade talks are something that happened but it's not an ongoing thing - it's over and done with..teams wanted draft capital but Boston didn't want to move draft capital. And the article implies Springer will still be here when the summer begins.

Plus, even if we did a deal like that (move a 2nd rounder + Springer for a decent player who makes $4mil or less) depending on who that player is, if they're making like $3 or $4 mil, well now we're not even really saving on the tax bill (since that player would be making basically the same amount as Springer), which seems to be the main reason why you proposed this trade idea in the 1st place (you mentioned the $7 mil tax savings by moving Springer).

Sure, we might upgrade the roster a little bit but again, where's the playing time for a new player here? Sure, we used a 2nd rounder to acquire guys who were further down the roster (outside of our top 8 rotation players who were locked in) when we acquired Tillman and Muscala. But Muscala was before the new CBA - not sure if Brad makes that move to give up a 2nd rounder for a guy so far down on the bench with the new CBA..also, Time Lord was injured so we had more of a need for Muscala at the time - we got Muscala and almost immediately put him out there to play like 40 mins in a game..which is probably why he got hurt and barely did anything for the rest of his tenure here.

Tillman, we had a pretty clear need for another big last season when we acquired him. This team right now has plenty of bigs. We don't really need anything. Especially with Walsh and Peterson doing a decent job as deep bench wings.

I think you're off base on a couple things here.

Firstly, just because they gauged the market and didn't decide to make any moves does not mean they've completely closed the book on it. They obviously are open to trading him, they just didn't like the market and they've pulled back probably in hopes that the landscape changes. I am pretty confident you'll see more talk in the new year about the C's testing the waters again on a Springer trade. Although to my earlier point about him not getting any run, I doubt things will have changed, but maybe teams will be more willing to settle for lesser compensation if there isn't much else out there or Brad is more willing to make a move to save cash due to ownership pressure (only time will tell).

Secondly, the fact that they're saying they don't expect his Qualifying Offer to be extended doesn't exactly mean that he is expected to be here in the summer. It's just saying that he's obviously not worth the money and that he'll be a UFA. They're not saying that he's definitely sticking around all season, just that he's not part of their plans for the future (at that price at least).

And then in terms of my take, I think you've got it backwards. I'm saying I don't think that paying a pick in the 30's is worth dumping Springer. That being said I'm realistic that one of the directives from ownership might be to reduce the luxury tax bill if Springer doesn't factor into our rotation or future, even if it costs some draft capital. $7m is the max value you can send in a trade, so it's akin to getting paid max cash for the pick, which probably falls a bit short of it's true value but not wildly off. But that's where the rub is, it's hard not to overpay a bit given the draft capital we have available to get it done.

Although Brad hasn't traded any picks in the past to dump salary, we've never been in the kind of luxury tax territory that we are currently, so it's not necessarily indicative of what's to come. I don't think for a second that Brad would willingly pay to dump Springer, but again it may be a decision above his pay grade. And he may be on board anyway with it conceptually if it means that he'll get some more leeway in the future to keep as many of the current pieces on the roster as possible when they're looking at truly crazy tax numbers next year. Saving $7m now can go part of the way to footing the bill next year, even if it seems like a drop in the ocean it's still $7m (for context I would gladly give you my right or left testicle for 7 million dollars, you can take your pick).

I wouldn't really expect to get any sort of player back in return that would actually be expected to contribute, it's purely a savings move. If they could get Lonnie back from Europe great, but converting a two-way or just a random cheap body to satisfy the minimum roster requirements would be just fine (even better actually as rookie salary slots are lower than vet minimum). To your point, we don't actually need anything (and that includes Springer), so anyone will really do.

It's a tough pill to swallow to have paid a pair of seconds to acquire and then dump Jaden, but alternatively if you frame it as being paid $7m for that 2026 2nd round pick it's not as egregious.

[phincsfan]

Luka Garza would be an interesting addition. Minny seems to have buried him on the depth chart. 6'11, 25 and not a terrible 3pt shooter.

Would Minny want Maine points leader JD to back-up Conley??

[keevsnick1]

Trading away what seems likely to be the #31 pick in the 2025 draft just so you can move off a little salary would be a pretty cheap move on ownership's part. The c's don't have an empty cupboard draft asset wise moving forward, but they are down quite a few seconds and that first in 2029.

It would also be short-sited. You could draft a early second rounder and maybe develop him which may save you a lot more money in the long run if that player hits or spin that draft pick into a future pick you could use to help dump a bigger salary in the future. Given that your tax rate will be MUCH higher in the future due to the repeater tax it makes more sense to save your assets for salary dumps in those years (if necessary).

I think if they attach the Washington 2nd to Springer its to bring back a young guy on a rookie deal they like who they think can actually play. If they use the potential #31 pick to just dump a guy that move should be VERY harshly criticized.

[Parliament10]

How Every Team Should Approach 2024-25 NBA Trade Season
Eric Pincus | X.com | December 5, 2024

Boston Celtics (17-4)


https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10145621-how-every-team-should-approach-2024-25-nba-trade-season

Goal: Minor tax savings
Name(s) to watch: Jaden Springer

The Celtics have a massive payroll, as they opted to essentially bring back the roster that won in 2023-24. The team values continuity and may have to make some decisions over the offseason with luxury taxes in mind, but in the short term, they may look to clean up on the margins.

That could lead to a Springer trade, perhaps with second-round draft compensation to shed his $4 million expiring salary. Boston wouldn't want anyone back, instead looking to drop its projected tax bill from about $66 million to about $51 million. That would climb slightly with the Celtics needing a 14th player . . .

$15M is a big difference, in the tax bill.
Too bad that we can't get under the 2nd Apron.

[keevsnick1]

How Every Team Should Approach 2024-25 NBA Trade Season
Eric Pincus | X.com | December 5, 2024

Boston Celtics (17-4)


https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10145621-how-every-team-should-approach-2024-25-nba-trade-season

Goal: Minor tax savings
Name(s) to watch: Jaden Springer

The Celtics have a massive payroll, as they opted to essentially bring back the roster that won in 2023-24. The team values continuity and may have to make some decisions over the offseason with luxury taxes in mind, but in the short term, they may look to clean up on the margins.

That could lead to a Springer trade, perhaps with second-round draft compensation to shed his $4 million expiring salary. Boston wouldn't want anyone back, instead looking to drop its projected tax bill from about $66 million to about $51 million. That would climb slightly with the Celtics needing a 14th player . . .

$15M is a big difference, in the tax bill.
Too bad that we can't get under the 2nd Apron.

It wouldn't really be 15 million, because that's only if you bring back nobody in return. Bringing back a minimum guy for the 14th roster spot means you save like 7 million. The C's are already running with an open roster spot, I don't think they'd want to run the entire second half of the season with 13 guys.

[Fierce1]

Sounds about right.

Trade Spring then sign a minimum guy.

[Parliament10]

Sounds about right.

Trade Spring then sign a minimum guy.

Get Lonnie Walker back.

[Patsfan1081]

Brad and his second round picks….Feels like a double edge. The idea that they are valuable is def true however I cannot remember him ever getting good use out of them. He hasn’t hit on any second rounder. I understand that the chances of landing a impactful player there are very slim however that’s even more so a reason why I’ve wanted him to move up in the draft more so than using picks on reclamation projects like Springer. Maybe teams are unwilling to move back but you would think other teams value them and you have teams like Brooklyn and Okc who have/had three or four firsts on a single draft. I really hope he saves Washington’s pick and uses it to move up a bit and grab a young big.

[redslastlaugh]

I think if they attach the Washington 2nd to Springer its to bring back a young guy on a rookie deal they like who they think can actually play. If they use the potential #31 pick to just dump a guy that move should be VERY harshly criticized.

Exactly.

First, the #31 pick is highly valuable because contracts for guys picked second round are more team friendly than late first. Over the four years a pick #30 makes $13 million and a #31 pick makes $8.5 million. So #31 can be seen as MORE valuable than a late first to luxury tax teams.

Springer has only one year & $4 million dollars left. The #31 pick would be a high price to move off so little in yrs/money. But our Front Office JUST paid a mid-second to acquire him like nine months ago, now we pay again to dump him. So it’d be crazy bad, dumb costly round trip for no production from Springer.

People are saying 2025 will be the deepest draft since 2018, and that also makes #31 really valuable. In 2018 Jalen Brunson, Mitch Robinson, Gary Trent, Bruce Brown, etc all went early 2nd round… you can’t just give away a pick that good to dump Jaden Springer, for crying out loud.

[redslastlaugh]

Sounds about right.

Trade Spring then sign a minimum guy.

Get Lonnie Walker back.

The article speculated signing Anton Watson to 14th roster spot because he’d be the cheapest as second round exception let’s teams sign their own second rd draft picks at $1.1 million. Lonnie Walker would be a $2.6 million deal, if I remember right

[redslastlaugh]

I think Brad still looks at the draft more as a coach than as a GM. A coach is always looking for players right now to win tonight’s game whereas the GM is looking at what the player might be in 3-4 years.

When you’re picking at #30, it’s hard to get a player for sure who is RIGHT NOW with NBA plus shooting, plus size, plus defense and plus athleticism because the prospects with all that were already taken off the board before pick 30. So Brad flipped our previous 1sts for Jrue, Brogdon, Derrick and Horford, and those are four surefire NBA players. But when you have no productive players on a rookie scale contract, all your rotation players are making $10-60 million bucks/year each … and that’s why we have such a luxury tax problem and like OKC, for instance, does not ie, OKC has like six guys on their books still making rookie scale.

And this is not a criticism of Brads past work as he brought a legit great team to Boston and raised banner #18 … and the new CBA was just somewhat thrust on all front offices with little warning in 2023… but it’d be a nice if Brad can hit on some picks in the next couple of drafts, or that Baylor and Anton work out as rotation players. Like if Baylor Scheierman has Joe Ingles career and Anton Watson has Boris Diaw’s career we are completely set, that’s for sure, because we’ll have them for four years on rookie deals.

Brad and his second round picks….Feels like a double edge. The idea that they are valuable is def true however I cannot remember him ever getting good use out of them. He hasn’t hit on any second rounder. I understand that the chances of landing a impactful player there are very slim however that’s even more so a reason why I’ve wanted him to move up in the draft more so than using picks on reclamation projects like Springer. Maybe teams are unwilling to move back but you would think other teams value them and you have teams like Brooklyn and Okc who have/had three or four firsts on a single draft. I really hope he saves Washington’s pick and uses it to move up a bit and grab a young big.

[Smart2Nesmith43]

I think Brad still looks at the draft more as a coach than as a GM. A coach is always looking for players right now to win tonight’s game whereas the GM is looking at what the player might be in 3-4 years.

When you’re picking at #30, it’s hard to get a player for sure who is RIGHT NOW with NBA plus shooting, plus size, plus defense and plus athleticism because the prospects with all that were already taken off the board before pick 30. So Brad flipped our previous 1sts for Jrue, Brogdon, Derrick and Horford, and those are four surefire NBA players. But when you have no productive players on a rookie scale contract, all your rotation players are making $10-60 million bucks/year each … and that’s why we have such a luxury tax problem and like OKC, for instance, does not ie, OKC has like six guys on their books still making rookie scale.

And this is not a criticism of Brads past work as he brought a legit great team to Boston and raised banner #18 … and the new CBA was just somewhat thrust on all front offices with little warning in 2023… but it’d be a nice if Brad can hit on some picks in the next couple of drafts, or that Baylor and Anton work out as rotation players. Like if Baylor Scheierman has Joe Ingles career and Anton Watson has Boris Diaw’s career we are completely set, that’s for sure, because we’ll have them for four years on rookie deals.

Brad Stevens has picked five guys in the draft: Juhann Begarin, JD Davison, Jordan Walsh, Baylor Scheierman and Anton Watson. 60% of those were projects so I'm not sure the evidence supports your claim he picks win now players in the draft.

[ConstableGeneva]

I think Brad still looks at the draft more as a coach than as a GM. A coach is always looking for players right now to win tonight’s game whereas the GM is looking at what the player might be in 3-4 years.

When you’re picking at #30, it’s hard to get a player for sure who is RIGHT NOW with NBA plus shooting, plus size, plus defense and plus athleticism because the prospects with all that were already taken off the board before pick 30. So Brad flipped our previous 1sts for Jrue, Brogdon, Derrick and Horford, and those are four surefire NBA players. But when you have no productive players on a rookie scale contract, all your rotation players are making $10-60 million bucks/year each … and that’s why we have such a luxury tax problem and like OKC, for instance, does not ie, OKC has like six guys on their books still making rookie scale.

And this is not a criticism of Brads past work as he brought a legit great team to Boston and raised banner #18 … and the new CBA was just somewhat thrust on all front offices with little warning in 2023… but it’d be a nice if Brad can hit on some picks in the next couple of drafts, or that Baylor and Anton work out as rotation players. Like if Baylor Scheierman has Joe Ingles career and Anton Watson has Boris Diaw’s career we are completely set, that’s for sure, because we’ll have them for four years on rookie deals.

Brad Stevens has picked five guys in the draft: Juhann Begarin, JD Davison, Jordan Walsh, Baylor Scheierman and Anton Watson. 60% of those were projects so I'm not sure the evidence supports your claim he picks win now players in the draft.

Trading a first round pick for 5 2nd round picks (or however many that was) can also be classified as NOT picking a win-now player.

[Hal14]

How Every Team Should Approach 2024-25 NBA Trade Season
Eric Pincus | X.com | December 5, 2024

Boston Celtics (17-4)


https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10145621-how-every-team-should-approach-2024-25-nba-trade-season

Goal: Minor tax savings
Name(s) to watch: Jaden Springer

The Celtics have a massive payroll, as they opted to essentially bring back the roster that won in 2023-24. The team values continuity and may have to make some decisions over the offseason with luxury taxes in mind, but in the short term, they may look to clean up on the margins.

That could lead to a Springer trade, perhaps with second-round draft compensation to shed his $4 million expiring salary. Boston wouldn't want anyone back, instead looking to drop its projected tax bill from about $66 million to about $51 million. That would climb slightly with the Celtics needing a 14th player . . .

$15M is a big difference, in the tax bill.
Too bad that we can't get under the 2nd Apron.

It wouldn't really be 15 million, because that's only if you bring back nobody in return. Bringing back a minimum guy for the 14th roster spot means you save like 7 million. The C's are already running with an open roster spot, I don't think they'd want to run the entire second half of the season with 13 guys.

You're not allowed to do that anyways. 14 is the minimum. I think the rule is you're allowed to drop down to just 13 players for a maximum of only like a week or 2 (to give the team enough time to find another player to sign)..

Again, as we were just discussing the other day on here, obviously we know the move the celtics might make is trading Springer to save the tax bill.

But rumor is, we already tried doing that in the preseason but teams around the league were asking for draft capital in order to take Springer's contract but Brad did not want to do that - he doesn't want to do that - he wants to keep his picks and not just dump valuable draft picks to offload a guy on a rookie contract who we just traded for.

So we'll see..maybe as the deadline gets closer, a deal gets done. It'll come down to a) how badly does Brad want to trade Springer just to save the $7 mil or so on the tax bill? How much is he willing to give up in terms of draft capital to do it? and b) will the other teams around the league budge? How much will they be looking for in draft capital? Will they cave in and give Brad a good deal?

Either way, whether we trade Springer to save some $ on the tax bill or we keep him till end of season and then he leaves as a FA this summer (there's also the slim chance that he ends up contributing a bit as this season goes on and gets resigned on a cheap deal) it has basically zero impact on our chances to win the 2025 NBA title.

[Fierce1]

A guy like Javonte might be available for Spring and a not so valuable 2nd rnd pick.

[cl2117]

I think the Wizards 2nd needs to be off the table in terms of salary dump. It could be just a few spots behind our own pick and I just couldn't stomach that.

That 2026 2nd that's likely to be from Portland is tough to give up on as well because, if not for some Banton heroics, they could be a bottom 3 team. Their team is likely to be pretty static between this year and the next, if not getting a little worse as they sell off useful vets, so could be high 30's as well. Maybe you trade the PDX 2nd and get another mid-tier one back in return, so ultimately it'd be like moving from the early 30's into the mid-late 40's.

If it only cost one of our own 2nds from 2030/2031 I think the deal might have already happened. Brad's gotta be pretty confident that those are still going to be late 50's seconds and he could easily recoup that value by trading out of the 1st round by only a couple slots (like how he trade 25 for 31 and two seconds and then 31 for 34 and 39 in the 2023 draft). So my assumption is that teams are holding out for both our 2nds or either of the WAS/PDX 2nds.

It'll be interesting, a lot of teams I feel like are going to be in a similar situation where they want to trim costs and teams that historically have been willing to take on unwanted players for a pittance are going to be holding out for more because they know how onerous the penalties can be and are gonna take advantage.