Didn't know where to ask and didn't want to start a thread. Sorry if I missed an answer to this question posed by someone else.
I want to ask a question that I haven't seen (recently anyway). Why can't one of these players (Blake/Hayward) take less than max so we can build a better team? Why do we assume neither would be open to that? Why not go in saying that we have other things lined up (PG13) but we want to know if you will take less money so we can save on assets/players to add/keep for our roster?
I want to know why they can't take a 2yr deal and have the 2nd year a player option so they can opt out and then allow us to RAIN money on them w/ Bird Rights? Take less to boost the roster for just one season.
How much less would one of them have to take so we don't have to send more than 1 of AB/Crowder/Smart+ to Indy (out in a trade in general)?
I'm asking because I want us to keep AB, I love him. Hehe
I'm not sure exactly how much of a paycut they'd have to take, but it's an interesting thought. Plus, even if Hayward stayed in Utah, he likely would only get 3M more since he would opt out after like the 3rd year and go for another huge contract.
Plus, you already have Isaiah who could command max or close to max, and Smart will be due for a contract (which shouldn't be too hefty, but still a decent one).
I think this is something Ainge could discuss with them at meetings,
but I'm curious if Ainge is willing (or allowed) to talk with George after July 1 about all this. Just to see where his head is at and how he'd feel if the C's landed Hayward.
