CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: JSD on June 25, 2018, 01:11:09 AM
-
In 2010, Ainge convinced Paul Pierce to opted out of his $21M/1 year contract and sign a $61M/4 years deal. Pierce took the long term money and gave the Celtics short-term flexibility, then they all sold it to the fan base as a "paycut", which technically it was. Rather brilliant marketing for the player as the Boston faithful ate it up. Now, does Ainge employ the same method with Horford? What would it take? After next season, Horford will have the option to pick up his $30M/1 year deal or decline it for a long term deal. What do you think that long term deal would look like? It would have to be significant enough to entice Horford to rip up $30M of guaranteed money. Would $75M/4 years get it done? How far would you go?
1. http://www.patriotledger.com/x2071996479/Celtics-Pierce-reportedly-becomes-unrestricted-free-agent
2. https://boston.sbnation.com/2010/6/29/1543785/paul-pierce-opt-out-free-agent-celtics-contract
-
Al leaving Atlanta started because they initially offered a few million less than his Max. As long as Al is playing at the level he is, there is no way he accepts 4yr/75M. Lowry got 3yr/100M.
-
2 years from now, at age 34, what will his market value be? It’s tough to really know, but I think Horford would be happy to sign a $45 million/3 year deal.
That’s essentially what he’s doing here if he opted out and took what I’m proposing.
-
Maybe if you’re the Celtics, you are just okay letting Horford walk after 2020. Maybe that’s the play here. I’m really trying to sort out how Ainge is going to pull off keeping all these guys
-
There might be a few teams offering two year deals at max money if he opts out
-
I wouldn't sign Horford to a big contract in a year or 2. Just won't be enough money to go around
-
I expect Horford, if healthy, to opt out next year and sign the last contract of his career, for 4-5 seasons. If we’ve made it to the finals or won a title, I also expect a discount to help keep the core together for the rest of his career. If we’ve disappointed, I still expect an opt out, but maybe with less charity during negotiations.
-
I expect Horford, if healthy, to opt out next year and sign the last contract of his career, for 4-5 seasons. If we’ve made it to the finals or won a title, I also expect a discount to help keep the core together for the rest of his career. If we’ve disappointed, I still expect an opt out, but maybe with less charity during negotiations.
This is where I'm at too. Let's hope we raise #18 and he signs for cheaper
-
It all comes down to how Horford wants to spend the rest of his career. Typically, contending teams don't have max contract space to give out for a borderline max guy like Horford - especially when he will be well into his 30s.
If he likes the continuity of playing for Brad and competing for championships, then he will give the Cs a [significant] discount on his current deal. If he wants to continue to make big money (and who can blame him if he does?), then he will have the option to sign one last break-the-bank contract with a lesser team and mentor their young players.
There is always the trade option with Al, which would allow a good team at or near the cap to offer him a max deal, but communication would have to be pretty open between him and management for that to occur.
-
I expect Al to opt out as well and I do not expect him to get a max contract. I do expect him to get 20-23m per year for 3-4 years though. No one is going to pay a 34/35 year old Al Horford 30m per year. Also you have to take Kyrie into account. Hey I'll resign but Al has to be here or I'm gone. Not sure what kind of relationship they have but nothing surprises me anymore with NBA players.
-
If we win a ring...will Al’s number go up the rafters?
-
If we win a ring...will Al’s number go up the rafters?
If he signs a second deal with us, I would expect so.
-
Would be awesome if we could negotiate that extension with declining numbers. To take your 4/75 deal.
Year 1: 25 mil
2: 20
3: 15
4: 15
Something like that I would imagine could help ease some future tax crunch b
-
If we win a ring...will Al’s number go up the rafters?
If he signs a second deal with us, I would expect so.
I don't know about that. I mean we could assume that if we win a ring with Al, he is at best the 3rd best player and maybe even 4th or 5th best. Are we really going to put 3 numbers in the rafters for 1 ring? What if at the time he is the 3rd best, still ahead of Tatum and Brown, but they both go on to a decade long career with peaks higher than Al. Is that 1 ring going to get 5 numbers in the rafters? At some point, Boston needs to stop putting everyone in the rafters. It just cheapens it for those that are truly deserving.
-
2 years from now, at age 34, what will his market value be? It’s tough to really know, but I think Horford would be happy to sign a $45 million/3 year deal.
That’s essentially what he’s doing here if he opted out and took what I’m proposing.
That may be true, but it's also an issue of pride. I doubt that he'll do that. Most wouldn't.
-
If we win a ring...will Al’s number go up the rafters?
No chance. He's not that caliber of player.
-
Without thinking about what Al would choose to do, would it not be better for us if he opts in?
We'll be in the tax that year anyway (hopefully for the first time). If Al opts out he would presumably want to recoup the money he is opting out of over the length of the contract. If he instead opts in and gets that $30m, would he be more inclined to take much less in the following years?
Say it was opt out and sign $80m over 4 years vs opt in earn $30m then sign $50m over 3 years. Which would we prefer?
-
I feel like Big Al is the kind of guy who wouldn't mind taking a "team-friendly deal" once his current deal is up. He actually seems to love playing here and enjoys the atmosphere (city, fans, etc.). Also, I know it's not my money and maybe Al himself thinks otherwise, but after his current deal is up, he'd have made about 200M from the contracts from his entire Hawks tenure and Boston one combined. My hope is, he'd stay on some sort of "discount" like 3/54M, or 4/72M with some 4th year option. Horford is the saavy veteran who could play some extra years IMO because of his style of play (not solely being predicated on speed, athleticism, etc.)
-
Without thinking about what Al would choose to do, would it not be better for us if he opts in?
We'll be in the tax that year anyway (hopefully for the first time). If Al opts out he would presumably want to recoup the money he is opting out of over the length of the contract. If he instead opts in and gets that $30m, would he be more inclined to take much less in the following years?
Say it was opt out and sign $80m over 4 years vs opt in earn $30m then sign $50m over 3 years. Which would we prefer?
It is not 100% impossible that the Celtics could slip under the tax next year if Al resigned for a deal that started at around $20 million in year 1. Unlikely, but depending on what Smart signs for and if Baynes is signed to a long-term deal (or not, which would be helpful), it is conceivable. Obviously the position and number of our 1sts next year also has an impact. So I’m definitely pro opt-out in your scenario, as this would mean we wouldn’t hit the tax until Jaylen’s extension kicked in (after which, it is unavoidable so long as we have the core together).
-
I think Al will help with his contract and stay. And if the C's win a title or 2, Al staying all the time, his number will go up.
-
Without thinking about what Al would choose to do, would it not be better for us if he opts in?
We'll be in the tax that year anyway (hopefully for the first time). If Al opts out he would presumably want to recoup the money he is opting out of over the length of the contract. If he instead opts in and gets that $30m, would he be more inclined to take much less in the following years?
Say it was opt out and sign $80m over 4 years vs opt in earn $30m then sign $50m over 3 years. Which would we prefer?
It is not 100% impossible that the Celtics could slip under the tax next year if Al resigned for a deal that started at around $20 million in year 1. Unlikely, but depending on what Smart signs for and if Baynes is signed to a long-term deal (or not, which would be helpful), it is conceivable. Obviously the position and number of our 1sts next year also has an impact. So I’m definitely pro opt-out in your scenario, as this would mean we wouldn’t hit the tax until Jaylen’s extension kicked in (after which, it is unavoidable so long as we have the core together).
It would also make a trade of Smart for a reduced salary player far more likely, which Boston could avoid the tax that way.
-
Without thinking about what Al would choose to do, would it not be better for us if he opts in?
We'll be in the tax that year anyway (hopefully for the first time). If Al opts out he would presumably want to recoup the money he is opting out of over the length of the contract. If he instead opts in and gets that $30m, would he be more inclined to take much less in the following years?
Say it was opt out and sign $80m over 4 years vs opt in earn $30m then sign $50m over 3 years. Which would we prefer?
It is not 100% impossible that the Celtics could slip under the tax next year if Al resigned for a deal that started at around $20 million in year 1. Unlikely, but depending on what Smart signs for and if Baynes is signed to a long-term deal (or not, which would be helpful), it is conceivable. Obviously the position and number of our 1sts next year also has an impact. So I’m definitely pro opt-out in your scenario, as this would mean we wouldn’t hit the tax until Jaylen’s extension kicked in (after which, it is unavoidable so long as we have the core together).
It would also make a trade of Smart for a reduced salary player far more likely, which Boston could avoid the tax that way.
I would not expect this to be how things would occur. If Al were to opt out and accept less, it would be to help keep the core together, and I’m quite sure that includes Smart from Horford’s vantage point.
-
Without thinking about what Al would choose to do, would it not be better for us if he opts in?
We'll be in the tax that year anyway (hopefully for the first time). If Al opts out he would presumably want to recoup the money he is opting out of over the length of the contract. If he instead opts in and gets that $30m, would he be more inclined to take much less in the following years?
Say it was opt out and sign $80m over 4 years vs opt in earn $30m then sign $50m over 3 years. Which would we prefer?
It is not 100% impossible that the Celtics could slip under the tax next year if Al resigned for a deal that started at around $20 million in year 1. Unlikely, but depending on what Smart signs for and if Baynes is signed to a long-term deal (or not, which would be helpful), it is conceivable. Obviously the position and number of our 1sts next year also has an impact. So I’m definitely pro opt-out in your scenario, as this would mean we wouldn’t hit the tax until Jaylen’s extension kicked in (after which, it is unavoidable so long as we have the core together).
It would also make a trade of Smart for a reduced salary player far more likely, which Boston could avoid the tax that way.
I would not expect this to be how things would occur. If Al were to opt out and accept less, it would be to help keep the core together, and I’m quite sure that includes Smart from Horford’s vantage point.
I have a hard time finding at best the 6th most important player a core player.
-
In 2010, Ainge convinced Paul Pierce to opted out of his $21M/1 year contract and sign a $61M/4 years deal. Pierce took the long term money and gave the Celtics short-term flexibility, then they all sold it to the fan base as a "paycut", which technically it was. Rather brilliant marketing for the player as the Boston faithful ate it up. Now, does Ainge employ the same method with Horford? What would it take? After next season, Horford will have the option to pick up his $30M/1 year deal or decline it for a long term deal. What do you think that long term deal would look like? It would have to be significant enough to entice Horford to rip up $30M of guaranteed money. Would $75M/4 years get it done? How far would you go?
1. http://www.patriotledger.com/x2071996479/Celtics-Pierce-reportedly-becomes-unrestricted-free-agent
2. https://boston.sbnation.com/2010/6/29/1543785/paul-pierce-opt-out-free-agent-celtics-contract
Are we sure it would be beneficial for the Celtics for him to opt out in 2019-20 and spread out his money over 4 years? I think the key things to figure will be:
1. How this affects entering the luxury tax, particularly for repeater status.
2. how tradeable Horford's contract will be towards the end
For #1, I'm not sure until we see what happens with Marcus Smart. If this can avoid us paying any tax in 2019-20 season, then absolutely. My guess now is that it will likely make no difference though.
For #2, his contract will obviously be more tradeable if we let him play out his player option, then sign him for less per annum for the following 3 years.
-
To answer the central question of what size deal he would opt out for, you’ve gotta figure out what his agent thinks he can get for a contract in the Summer of 2020 at age 34. It’s hard to find recent players to compare him to who got contracts around his skill level at that age, but I’ve got:
Pau Gasol got $49/3 years mil at age 37.
D Wade got $40/2 years mil at age 34.
Iguodala got $48/3 years at age 33.
Paul Milsap got 390/3 years mil at age 32.
Lamarcus Aldridge tacked 50/2 years mil on to the end of a player option at age 32.
That said, assuming no more cap spikes, I’d imagine his agent probably thinks he can find $50 mil/3 years or $40 mil/2 years in the Summer of 2020 at age 34. (Which would not be team friendly deals.) So for him to turn down the $30 mil player option, you’d have to extend him to $80 mil/4 years. You might be able to shave $5-10 mil off of that in total for the long-term security you’re giving him which everyone will claim to be a “home team discount”. So I’d say $70-75 mil/4 years in the summer of 2019 would be the ballpark of what to expect. Anything less than that is a blessing and anything more would not be a good deal.
-
Too early to speculate about this stuff
-
Without thinking about what Al would choose to do, would it not be better for us if he opts in?
We'll be in the tax that year anyway (hopefully for the first time). If Al opts out he would presumably want to recoup the money he is opting out of over the length of the contract. If he instead opts in and gets that $30m, would he be more inclined to take much less in the following years?
Say it was opt out and sign $80m over 4 years vs opt in earn $30m then sign $50m over 3 years. Which would we prefer?
It is not 100% impossible that the Celtics could slip under the tax next year if Al resigned for a deal that started at around $20 million in year 1. Unlikely, but depending on what Smart signs for and if Baynes is signed to a long-term deal (or not, which would be helpful), it is conceivable. Obviously the position and number of our 1sts next year also has an impact. So I’m definitely pro opt-out in your scenario, as this would mean we wouldn’t hit the tax until Jaylen’s extension kicked in (after which, it is unavoidable so long as we have the core together).
It would also make a trade of Smart for a reduced salary player far more likely, which Boston could avoid the tax that way.
I would not expect this to be how things would occur. If Al were to opt out and accept less, it would be to help keep the core together, and I’m quite sure that includes Smart from Horford’s vantage point.
I have a hard time finding at best the 6th most important player a core player.
It's not without precedent though.
Durant supposedly took less so the Warriors could re-sign Iguodala and Livingston. (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/why-kevin-durant-took-a-10-million-pay-cut-to-play-for-the-warriors.html)
Kerr says Durant's generous pay cut allowed the team to keep Andre Iguodala and Shaun Livingston, which will hopefully lead to Durant and the team winning more titles.
Wade/Bosh/LeBron supposedly took less so the Heat could re-sign Haslem. (https://www.slamonline.com/uncategorized/how-miamis-stars-sacrificed-for-udonis-haslem/)
Wade called Bosh and asked him to cut $15 million off his salary for Haslem. Wade called James and asked him to do the same. Bosh and James barely knew Haslem. Just a few short conversations here and there. But Wade told them this team needed someone hungry and gritty and unselfish like Haslem, and promised to cut $17 million out of his own contract to make it happen, too.
I think those guys are definitely in the Smart range when it comes to roster importance. (Iggy and Livingston finished 5th/6th and 5th/7th in playoff mpg the last 2 years, while Haslem finished 6th in playoff mpg for the Heat in both '11 and '12, though if you wanted to argue Haslem was expected to be the 4th best player going into that first season, I wouldn't disagree).
-
Without thinking about what Al would choose to do, would it not be better for us if he opts in?
We'll be in the tax that year anyway (hopefully for the first time). If Al opts out he would presumably want to recoup the money he is opting out of over the length of the contract. If he instead opts in and gets that $30m, would he be more inclined to take much less in the following years?
Say it was opt out and sign $80m over 4 years vs opt in earn $30m then sign $50m over 3 years. Which would we prefer?
It is not 100% impossible that the Celtics could slip under the tax next year if Al resigned for a deal that started at around $20 million in year 1. Unlikely, but depending on what Smart signs for and if Baynes is signed to a long-term deal (or not, which would be helpful), it is conceivable. Obviously the position and number of our 1sts next year also has an impact. So I’m definitely pro opt-out in your scenario, as this would mean we wouldn’t hit the tax until Jaylen’s extension kicked in (after which, it is unavoidable so long as we have the core together).
It would also make a trade of Smart for a reduced salary player far more likely, which Boston could avoid the tax that way.
I would not expect this to be how things would occur. If Al were to opt out and accept less, it would be to help keep the core together, and I’m quite sure that includes Smart from Horford’s vantage point.
I have a hard time finding at best the 6th most important player a core player.
That’s fine. Horford has gone out of his way to praise Smart over the last two years, often bringing him up unprompted, has called him the “soul of the team” more than once, etc. I would be willing to bet the Horford thinks Smart is more of the core than Brown, and that’s not an insult to Jaylen.
-
Without thinking about what Al would choose to do, would it not be better for us if he opts in?
We'll be in the tax that year anyway (hopefully for the first time). If Al opts out he would presumably want to recoup the money he is opting out of over the length of the contract. If he instead opts in and gets that $30m, would he be more inclined to take much less in the following years?
Say it was opt out and sign $80m over 4 years vs opt in earn $30m then sign $50m over 3 years. Which would we prefer?
It is not 100% impossible that the Celtics could slip under the tax next year if Al resigned for a deal that started at around $20 million in year 1. Unlikely, but depending on what Smart signs for and if Baynes is signed to a long-term deal (or not, which would be helpful), it is conceivable. Obviously the position and number of our 1sts next year also has an impact. So I’m definitely pro opt-out in your scenario, as this would mean we wouldn’t hit the tax until Jaylen’s extension kicked in (after which, it is unavoidable so long as we have the core together).
That's interesting. That would obviously be a massive coup for the franchise if we could get under the tax then. Is that inclusive of Irving signing a max contract?
-
Without thinking about what Al would choose to do, would it not be better for us if he opts in?
We'll be in the tax that year anyway (hopefully for the first time). If Al opts out he would presumably want to recoup the money he is opting out of over the length of the contract. If he instead opts in and gets that $30m, would he be more inclined to take much less in the following years?
Say it was opt out and sign $80m over 4 years vs opt in earn $30m then sign $50m over 3 years. Which would we prefer?
It is not 100% impossible that the Celtics could slip under the tax next year if Al resigned for a deal that started at around $20 million in year 1. Unlikely, but depending on what Smart signs for and if Baynes is signed to a long-term deal (or not, which would be helpful), it is conceivable. Obviously the position and number of our 1sts next year also has an impact. So I’m definitely pro opt-out in your scenario, as this would mean we wouldn’t hit the tax until Jaylen’s extension kicked in (after which, it is unavoidable so long as we have the core together).
That's interesting. That would obviously be a massive coup for the franchise if we could get under the tax then. Is that inclusive of Irving signing a max contract?
Yes.
-
I go back and forth on Al. I generally think he's vastly overpaid but think there's also a team that will throw him a ton of money if he opts out next summer. Next summer there will be a lot of cash being thrown around.And we have Kyrie and Rozier to worry about..
-
Without thinking about what Al would choose to do, would it not be better for us if he opts in?
We'll be in the tax that year anyway (hopefully for the first time). If Al opts out he would presumably want to recoup the money he is opting out of over the length of the contract. If he instead opts in and gets that $30m, would he be more inclined to take much less in the following years?
Say it was opt out and sign $80m over 4 years vs opt in earn $30m then sign $50m over 3 years. Which would we prefer?
If they’re already in LT territory than the latter. I think that’s where I am at this point too. Hopefully Al opts in...
-
I really don't believe that "discount" and "pay cut" are appropriate terms in/for any context/discussion that includes/involves the contracts of NBA players.