Author Topic: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise  (Read 22470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #60 on: May 08, 2017, 06:40:31 AM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8595
  • Tommy Points: 842
I'd trade AB and Smart for Hayward in a heartbeat!

You wouldn't need to trade both. He's a FA.
No, but I think it makes a lot of sense to trade one this summer.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #61 on: May 08, 2017, 06:45:43 AM »

Offline LatterDayCelticsfan

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2195
  • Tommy Points: 171
  • Community Text
Thought experiment. What if we had given Sully rather than Zeller that 1yr 8 million dollar contract?
Banner 18 please 😍

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #62 on: May 08, 2017, 06:58:15 AM »

Offline biggs

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 806
  • Tommy Points: 71
I keep saying Bradley's defense is essential for this team to be close to a ring. I don't want to lose him to get Hayward when we already have Crowder...

Really bro? Bradley's defense is what makes us closer to a ring? Interesting perception
Truuuuuuuuuth!

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #63 on: May 08, 2017, 07:56:02 AM »

Offline Rida

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 765
  • Tommy Points: 86
Thought experiment. What if we had given Sully rather than Zeller that 1yr 8 million dollar contract?

He would still be injured and fat, plus that wasn't an option.

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #64 on: May 08, 2017, 08:17:05 AM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8595
  • Tommy Points: 842
Thought experiment. What if we had given Sully rather than Zeller that 1yr 8 million dollar contract?

He would still be injured and fat, plus that wasn't an option.
yes, but in a hypothetical world where Sully took Zeller's contract and didnt get hurt, I say he adds at least 3 more wins.

He would have made the Horford concussion less devastating and his rebounding would have won us some games.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #65 on: May 08, 2017, 08:52:13 AM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
If the best players available are Griffin (too many missed games) and Hayward (good not great), it makes sense why you wouldn't want to sign one to a max deal. If Lebron, KD, Kawhi, and Westbrook were all up for FA, no one around here would care about signing them to the max.

I want the Celtics to wait for the next great player to become available before signing another max deal. This might not be possible.

this is the last summer for max cap space (or near max) unless Boston let's Thomas, Bradley, Smart go.

And Boston just signed a max contract player worse than Griffin and Hayward

The only real issue is that, while signing Horford didn't require we have to sacrifice much (we let go of Turner and Sully), signing either Griffin or Hayward would gut A LOT of this team. (Kelly, Jerebko, Amir, Zeller, Mickey, maybe even Bradley/Smart + Green)

Depth becomes important especially late in seasons and in the postseason, as we're seeing this year too.

It becomes a real thin front court if you sign a max-player AND unless Ainge has another trade lined up for a rebounding big, it would be Horford, Zizic, then nada.

And Hayward/Griffin are great players but obviously not at the level of a Durant.

But Griffin would really fill a lot of our needs even with front court depth leaving, BUT his injury history really scares me.
The only player we gave up for Horford was Sully. After that we could have kept Turner and not re-signed Zeller, Amir and JJ. In fact we could still have signed Zeller at $8m. Letting Turner walk was solely because we didn't think he was worth the price tag.

True, but in this case I also think they valued having some depth, because if they lost all of Amir/Zeller/JJ, this front court would be even worse much of the season, even if we kept Turner in the roster.

But yes, Turner was not at all worth his contract (though I'm happy for him).

We'll have to see what KO demands in the market. If it's more than 15M/Year, I think he's definitely gone.

Isn't that exactly the argument around Hayward this summer though? I understand that Hayward is much better than Turner but the principle is the same. For Durant I would give up my depth, for Hayward not a chance.

Where will our "depth" be in 2-3 years? On an NBA bench or out of the league.

What's the fascination with crappy role players? Guys like Zeller, Amir and JJ are completely expendable. How much are they helping against the Wizards? What about their play makes you prefer them to the guy scoring an efficient 24 ppg?

If there's a chance to add a second star, you do it.  Giving contracts to crappy role players won't move the franchise forward.

So this goes back to what we are giving up for him. 100% it's KO, Amir, Zeller, JJ, Young, Mickey. Only KO moves the needle and that's fine to give up. Then depending on draft position we may have to give up Rozier as well to make the cap room. That hurts, but lets go with it. Once Hayward is signed, the cap maths does not lend itself towards keeping all our current core, paying a luxury tax bill of $50m. So Bradley most likely goes too. That's unacceptable to me.

I don't think Zizic is a starter the moment he enters the league so you have to find a starting calibre big for the vet min. Perhaps you trade Bradley for one to minimise the loss? But then you may have the luxury tax issues again... We're still 2 deep at guards and SF, at PF we need a backup to Al.

I also don't think Hayward keeps his numbers up in Boston and I question if he can become more efficient with that lower usage.

If we do let go of Bradley to ease the luxury tax concerns I'm not so sure where an IT, Smart, Hayward, Al, ? lineup gets us. Unless your center can shoot 3s the spacing isn't great.

I d think that someone of the calibre of Paul George could take us to the next level. We'd have similar luxury tax concerns past 2018 but you could legitimately say you have a big 3 that would challenge the Cavs and GS on a talent level. IT, Bradley, George, Al, ? is an excellent lineup. Furthermore you could renegotiate IT this summer before trading for George so that the luxury tax concerns minimise. Or do the same with Bradley.

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #66 on: May 08, 2017, 11:18:38 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58559
  • Tommy Points: -25635
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
If the best players available are Griffin (too many missed games) and Hayward (good not great), it makes sense why you wouldn't want to sign one to a max deal. If Lebron, KD, Kawhi, and Westbrook were all up for FA, no one around here would care about signing them to the max.

I want the Celtics to wait for the next great player to become available before signing another max deal. This might not be possible.

this is the last summer for max cap space (or near max) unless Boston let's Thomas, Bradley, Smart go.

And Boston just signed a max contract player worse than Griffin and Hayward

The only real issue is that, while signing Horford didn't require we have to sacrifice much (we let go of Turner and Sully), signing either Griffin or Hayward would gut A LOT of this team. (Kelly, Jerebko, Amir, Zeller, Mickey, maybe even Bradley/Smart + Green)

Depth becomes important especially late in seasons and in the postseason, as we're seeing this year too.

It becomes a real thin front court if you sign a max-player AND unless Ainge has another trade lined up for a rebounding big, it would be Horford, Zizic, then nada.

And Hayward/Griffin are great players but obviously not at the level of a Durant.

But Griffin would really fill a lot of our needs even with front court depth leaving, BUT his injury history really scares me.
The only player we gave up for Horford was Sully. After that we could have kept Turner and not re-signed Zeller, Amir and JJ. In fact we could still have signed Zeller at $8m. Letting Turner walk was solely because we didn't think he was worth the price tag.

True, but in this case I also think they valued having some depth, because if they lost all of Amir/Zeller/JJ, this front court would be even worse much of the season, even if we kept Turner in the roster.

But yes, Turner was not at all worth his contract (though I'm happy for him).

We'll have to see what KO demands in the market. If it's more than 15M/Year, I think he's definitely gone.

Isn't that exactly the argument around Hayward this summer though? I understand that Hayward is much better than Turner but the principle is the same. For Durant I would give up my depth, for Hayward not a chance.

Where will our "depth" be in 2-3 years? On an NBA bench or out of the league.

What's the fascination with crappy role players? Guys like Zeller, Amir and JJ are completely expendable. How much are they helping against the Wizards? What about their play makes you prefer them to the guy scoring an efficient 24 ppg?

If there's a chance to add a second star, you do it.  Giving contracts to crappy role players won't move the franchise forward.

So this goes back to what we are giving up for him. 100% it's KO, Amir, Zeller, JJ, Young, Mickey. Only KO moves the needle and that's fine to give up. Then depending on draft position we may have to give up Rozier as well to make the cap room. That hurts, but lets go with it. Once Hayward is signed, the cap maths does not lend itself towards keeping all our current core, paying a luxury tax bill of $50m. So Bradley most likely goes too. That's unacceptable to me.

I don't think Zizic is a starter the moment he enters the league so you have to find a starting calibre big for the vet min. Perhaps you trade Bradley for one to minimise the loss? But then you may have the luxury tax issues again... We're still 2 deep at guards and SF, at PF we need a backup to Al.

I also don't think Hayward keeps his numbers up in Boston and I question if he can become more efficient with that lower usage.

If we do let go of Bradley to ease the luxury tax concerns I'm not so sure where an IT, Smart, Hayward, Al, ? lineup gets us. Unless your center can shoot 3s the spacing isn't great.

I d think that someone of the calibre of Paul George could take us to the next level. We'd have similar luxury tax concerns past 2018 but you could legitimately say you have a big 3 that would challenge the Cavs and GS on a talent level. IT, Bradley, George, Al, ? is an excellent lineup. Furthermore you could renegotiate IT this summer before trading for George so that the luxury tax concerns minimise. Or do the same with Bradley.

Hayward is "of the calibre of Paul George".

What are our alternatives? Pay the luxury tax for a good team, or stick with what we have while handing out multi-year contacts to Amir, Jerebko, KO, etc.? Without any cap room for the foreseeable future?

I don't think the argument is that difficult. Sign Hayward, and then trade two of AB / Crowder / Rozier to add a decent big man. Use the room exception to add some depth. Depending on how much salary we dump, we could conceivably keep KO.

Bringing back mediocre role players over a star is the complete opposite of how the NBA works.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #67 on: May 08, 2017, 11:54:44 AM »

Offline JBcat

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3642
  • Tommy Points: 512
If the best players available are Griffin (too many missed games) and Hayward (good not great), it makes sense why you wouldn't want to sign one to a max deal. If Lebron, KD, Kawhi, and Westbrook were all up for FA, no one around here would care about signing them to the max.

I want the Celtics to wait for the next great player to become available before signing another max deal. This might not be possible.

this is the last summer for max cap space (or near max) unless Boston let's Thomas, Bradley, Smart go.

And Boston just signed a max contract player worse than Griffin and Hayward

The only real issue is that, while signing Horford didn't require we have to sacrifice much (we let go of Turner and Sully), signing either Griffin or Hayward would gut A LOT of this team. (Kelly, Jerebko, Amir, Zeller, Mickey, maybe even Bradley/Smart + Green)

Depth becomes important especially late in seasons and in the postseason, as we're seeing this year too.

It becomes a real thin front court if you sign a max-player AND unless Ainge has another trade lined up for a rebounding big, it would be Horford, Zizic, then nada.

And Hayward/Griffin are great players but obviously not at the level of a Durant.

But Griffin would really fill a lot of our needs even with front court depth leaving, BUT his injury history really scares me.
The only player we gave up for Horford was Sully. After that we could have kept Turner and not re-signed Zeller, Amir and JJ. In fact we could still have signed Zeller at $8m. Letting Turner walk was solely because we didn't think he was worth the price tag.

True, but in this case I also think they valued having some depth, because if they lost all of Amir/Zeller/JJ, this front court would be even worse much of the season, even if we kept Turner in the roster.

But yes, Turner was not at all worth his contract (though I'm happy for him).

We'll have to see what KO demands in the market. If it's more than 15M/Year, I think he's definitely gone.

Isn't that exactly the argument around Hayward this summer though? I understand that Hayward is much better than Turner but the principle is the same. For Durant I would give up my depth, for Hayward not a chance.

Where will our "depth" be in 2-3 years? On an NBA bench or out of the league.

What's the fascination with crappy role players? Guys like Zeller, Amir and JJ are completely expendable. How much are they helping against the Wizards? What about their play makes you prefer them to the guy scoring an efficient 24 ppg?

If there's a chance to add a second star, you do it.  Giving contracts to crappy role players won't move the franchise forward.

So this goes back to what we are giving up for him. 100% it's KO, Amir, Zeller, JJ, Young, Mickey. Only KO moves the needle and that's fine to give up. Then depending on draft position we may have to give up Rozier as well to make the cap room. That hurts, but lets go with it. Once Hayward is signed, the cap maths does not lend itself towards keeping all our current core, paying a luxury tax bill of $50m. So Bradley most likely goes too. That's unacceptable to me.

I don't think Zizic is a starter the moment he enters the league so you have to find a starting calibre big for the vet min. Perhaps you trade Bradley for one to minimise the loss? But then you may have the luxury tax issues again... We're still 2 deep at guards and SF, at PF we need a backup to Al.

I also don't think Hayward keeps his numbers up in Boston and I question if he can become more efficient with that lower usage.

If we do let go of Bradley to ease the luxury tax concerns I'm not so sure where an IT, Smart, Hayward, Al, ? lineup gets us. Unless your center can shoot 3s the spacing isn't great.

I d think that someone of the calibre of Paul George could take us to the next level. We'd have similar luxury tax concerns past 2018 but you could legitimately say you have a big 3 that would challenge the Cavs and GS on a talent level. IT, Bradley, George, Al, ? is an excellent lineup. Furthermore you could renegotiate IT this summer before trading for George so that the luxury tax concerns minimise. Or do the same with Bradley.

Hayward is "of the calibre of Paul George".

What are our alternatives? Pay the luxury tax for a good team, or stick with what we have while handing out multi-year contacts to Amir, Jerebko, KO, etc.? Without any cap room for the foreseeable future?

I don't think the argument is that difficult. Sign Hayward, and then trade two of AB / Crowder / Rozier to add a decent big man. Use the room exception to add some depth. Depending on how much salary we dump, we could conceivably keep KO.

Bringing back mediocre role players over a star is the complete opposite of how the NBA works.

What "decent" big man do you propose we trade for?  If we trade for a big I hope he is more than decent since we are giving up at least 2 solid players.  I think it's easier said than done though when looking around the league when you factor in matching salaries, and teams generally reluctant to trade good bigs.

One big that would work salary wise is Derrick Favors.  One of Crowder/Bradley and one of Smart/Rozier for Favors.  Maybe throw in someone like Mickey where we would be renouncing him anyway.  If we sign Hayward the Jazz will need wing help.  That would be ironic if we got both.

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #68 on: May 08, 2017, 11:38:28 PM »

Offline Phantom255x

  • Larry Bird
  • *****************************
  • Posts: 29510
  • Tommy Points: 2923
  • On To Banner 18!
Thought experiment. What if we had given Sully rather than Zeller that 1yr 8 million dollar contract?

He would still be injured and fat, plus that wasn't an option.
yes, but in a hypothetical world where Sully took Zeller's contract and didnt get hurt, I say he adds at least 3 more wins.

He would have made the Horford concussion less devastating and his rebounding would have won us some games.

We'd still be the #1 seed but still have our rebounding problems.

Sully didn't help a ton last year in the playoffs either.

That being said our rebounding would be much better but it would still be 2-2 because Sully isn't a legit go-to scorer which is what this team has clearly lacked recently.
"Tough times never last, but tough people do." - Robert H. Schuller

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #69 on: May 09, 2017, 02:06:03 AM »

Offline Somebody

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7816
  • Tommy Points: 560
  • STAND FIRM, SAY NO TO VIBE MEN
If the best players available are Griffin (too many missed games) and Hayward (good not great), it makes sense why you wouldn't want to sign one to a max deal. If Lebron, KD, Kawhi, and Westbrook were all up for FA, no one around here would care about signing them to the max.

I want the Celtics to wait for the next great player to become available before signing another max deal. This might not be possible.

this is the last summer for max cap space (or near max) unless Boston let's Thomas, Bradley, Smart go.

And Boston just signed a max contract player worse than Griffin and Hayward

The only real issue is that, while signing Horford didn't require we have to sacrifice much (we let go of Turner and Sully), signing either Griffin or Hayward would gut A LOT of this team. (Kelly, Jerebko, Amir, Zeller, Mickey, maybe even Bradley/Smart + Green)

Depth becomes important especially late in seasons and in the postseason, as we're seeing this year too.

It becomes a real thin front court if you sign a max-player AND unless Ainge has another trade lined up for a rebounding big, it would be Horford, Zizic, then nada.

And Hayward/Griffin are great players but obviously not at the level of a Durant.

But Griffin would really fill a lot of our needs even with front court depth leaving, BUT his injury history really scares me.
The only player we gave up for Horford was Sully. After that we could have kept Turner and not re-signed Zeller, Amir and JJ. In fact we could still have signed Zeller at $8m. Letting Turner walk was solely because we didn't think he was worth the price tag.

True, but in this case I also think they valued having some depth, because if they lost all of Amir/Zeller/JJ, this front court would be even worse much of the season, even if we kept Turner in the roster.

But yes, Turner was not at all worth his contract (though I'm happy for him).

We'll have to see what KO demands in the market. If it's more than 15M/Year, I think he's definitely gone.

Isn't that exactly the argument around Hayward this summer though? I understand that Hayward is much better than Turner but the principle is the same. For Durant I would give up my depth, for Hayward not a chance.

Where will our "depth" be in 2-3 years? On an NBA bench or out of the league.

What's the fascination with crappy role players? Guys like Zeller, Amir and JJ are completely expendable. How much are they helping against the Wizards? What about their play makes you prefer them to the guy scoring an efficient 24 ppg?

If there's a chance to add a second star, you do it.  Giving contracts to crappy role players won't move the franchise forward.

So this goes back to what we are giving up for him. 100% it's KO, Amir, Zeller, JJ, Young, Mickey. Only KO moves the needle and that's fine to give up. Then depending on draft position we may have to give up Rozier as well to make the cap room. That hurts, but lets go with it. Once Hayward is signed, the cap maths does not lend itself towards keeping all our current core, paying a luxury tax bill of $50m. So Bradley most likely goes too. That's unacceptable to me.

I don't think Zizic is a starter the moment he enters the league so you have to find a starting calibre big for the vet min. Perhaps you trade Bradley for one to minimise the loss? But then you may have the luxury tax issues again... We're still 2 deep at guards and SF, at PF we need a backup to Al.

I also don't think Hayward keeps his numbers up in Boston and I question if he can become more efficient with that lower usage.

If we do let go of Bradley to ease the luxury tax concerns I'm not so sure where an IT, Smart, Hayward, Al, ? lineup gets us. Unless your center can shoot 3s the spacing isn't great.

I d think that someone of the calibre of Paul George could take us to the next level. We'd have similar luxury tax concerns past 2018 but you could legitimately say you have a big 3 that would challenge the Cavs and GS on a talent level. IT, Bradley, George, Al, ? is an excellent lineup. Furthermore you could renegotiate IT this summer before trading for George so that the luxury tax concerns minimise. Or do the same with Bradley.

Hayward is "of the calibre of Paul George".

What are our alternatives? Pay the luxury tax for a good team, or stick with what we have while handing out multi-year contacts to Amir, Jerebko, KO, etc.? Without any cap room for the foreseeable future?

I don't think the argument is that difficult. Sign Hayward, and then trade two of AB / Crowder / Rozier to add a decent big man. Use the room exception to add some depth. Depending on how much salary we dump, we could conceivably keep KO.

Bringing back mediocre role players over a star is the complete opposite of how the NBA works.

What "decent" big man do you propose we trade for?  If we trade for a big I hope he is more than decent since we are giving up at least 2 solid players.  I think it's easier said than done though when looking around the league when you factor in matching salaries, and teams generally reluctant to trade good bigs.

One big that would work salary wise is Derrick Favors.  One of Crowder/Bradley and one of Smart/Rozier for Favors.  Maybe throw in someone like Mickey where we would be renouncing him anyway.  If we sign Hayward the Jazz will need wing help.  That would be ironic if we got both.
If Porzingis is available I'd go for him, I'd give New York Rozier, Crowder and the 18 Brooklyn pick with some minor assets like a couple of seconds for him.
Jaylen Brown for All-NBA

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #70 on: May 09, 2017, 04:45:45 AM »

Offline obnoxiousmime

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2421
  • Tommy Points: 258
Even if we don't sign a max FA, it will be difficult to keep both Thomas and Bradley and still have good veteran depth. Thomas will definitely demand the max and Bradley will be in that 15-20 range. That's why you need to use the max FA space while you can before those two players deals are up, then you can go over the cap to re-sign your own guys. That's why not signing somebody into that space this offseason would be a huge mistake.

I think that they go after Hayward and if he turns them down, depending on where their pick ends up they look into dealing it. Personally, I would like them to keep the pick if Fultz is there. If they end up at 3-4, however, I'd be OK with dealing it for a star.

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #71 on: May 09, 2017, 08:22:06 AM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
If the best players available are Griffin (too many missed games) and Hayward (good not great), it makes sense why you wouldn't want to sign one to a max deal. If Lebron, KD, Kawhi, and Westbrook were all up for FA, no one around here would care about signing them to the max.

I want the Celtics to wait for the next great player to become available before signing another max deal. This might not be possible.

this is the last summer for max cap space (or near max) unless Boston let's Thomas, Bradley, Smart go.

And Boston just signed a max contract player worse than Griffin and Hayward

The only real issue is that, while signing Horford didn't require we have to sacrifice much (we let go of Turner and Sully), signing either Griffin or Hayward would gut A LOT of this team. (Kelly, Jerebko, Amir, Zeller, Mickey, maybe even Bradley/Smart + Green)

Depth becomes important especially late in seasons and in the postseason, as we're seeing this year too.

It becomes a real thin front court if you sign a max-player AND unless Ainge has another trade lined up for a rebounding big, it would be Horford, Zizic, then nada.

And Hayward/Griffin are great players but obviously not at the level of a Durant.

But Griffin would really fill a lot of our needs even with front court depth leaving, BUT his injury history really scares me.
The only player we gave up for Horford was Sully. After that we could have kept Turner and not re-signed Zeller, Amir and JJ. In fact we could still have signed Zeller at $8m. Letting Turner walk was solely because we didn't think he was worth the price tag.

True, but in this case I also think they valued having some depth, because if they lost all of Amir/Zeller/JJ, this front court would be even worse much of the season, even if we kept Turner in the roster.

But yes, Turner was not at all worth his contract (though I'm happy for him).

We'll have to see what KO demands in the market. If it's more than 15M/Year, I think he's definitely gone.

Isn't that exactly the argument around Hayward this summer though? I understand that Hayward is much better than Turner but the principle is the same. For Durant I would give up my depth, for Hayward not a chance.

Where will our "depth" be in 2-3 years? On an NBA bench or out of the league.

What's the fascination with crappy role players? Guys like Zeller, Amir and JJ are completely expendable. How much are they helping against the Wizards? What about their play makes you prefer them to the guy scoring an efficient 24 ppg?

If there's a chance to add a second star, you do it.  Giving contracts to crappy role players won't move the franchise forward.

So this goes back to what we are giving up for him. 100% it's KO, Amir, Zeller, JJ, Young, Mickey. Only KO moves the needle and that's fine to give up. Then depending on draft position we may have to give up Rozier as well to make the cap room. That hurts, but lets go with it. Once Hayward is signed, the cap maths does not lend itself towards keeping all our current core, paying a luxury tax bill of $50m. So Bradley most likely goes too. That's unacceptable to me.

I don't think Zizic is a starter the moment he enters the league so you have to find a starting calibre big for the vet min. Perhaps you trade Bradley for one to minimise the loss? But then you may have the luxury tax issues again... We're still 2 deep at guards and SF, at PF we need a backup to Al.

I also don't think Hayward keeps his numbers up in Boston and I question if he can become more efficient with that lower usage.

If we do let go of Bradley to ease the luxury tax concerns I'm not so sure where an IT, Smart, Hayward, Al, ? lineup gets us. Unless your center can shoot 3s the spacing isn't great.

I d think that someone of the calibre of Paul George could take us to the next level. We'd have similar luxury tax concerns past 2018 but you could legitimately say you have a big 3 that would challenge the Cavs and GS on a talent level. IT, Bradley, George, Al, ? is an excellent lineup. Furthermore you could renegotiate IT this summer before trading for George so that the luxury tax concerns minimise. Or do the same with Bradley.

Hayward is "of the calibre of Paul George".

What are our alternatives? Pay the luxury tax for a good team, or stick with what we have while handing out multi-year contacts to Amir, Jerebko, KO, etc.? Without any cap room for the foreseeable future?

I don't think the argument is that difficult. Sign Hayward, and then trade two of AB / Crowder / Rozier to add a decent big man. Use the room exception to add some depth. Depending on how much salary we dump, we could conceivably keep KO.

Bringing back mediocre role players over a star is the complete opposite of how the NBA works.

We'll agree to disagree on that. It's been discussed so many times but one guy has gone up against Lebron and won the matchup and the other hasn't done the same to any top names in the past. To me Paul George is a game changer in the same way that Steph Curry or Klay Thompson or John Wall are, whereas Gordon Hayward is more like a LaMarcus Aldridge/Demar DeRozan type.

I mean the alternative is to continue with this core and add the Brooklyn picks into the mix. In terms of timelines the contracts line up pretty nicely for that. In my fantasy summer we use 1 Brooklyn pick to get Paul George, which would leave 2 remaining. Even in a no trade scenario we are in a good financial position to make a trade at the 1028 deadline or beyond. Just adding Hayward isn't enough and unless you then move some other guys you probably stifle the development of 2 of the Brooklyn picks.

KO and the room exception cannot mix, if you go over the cap for KO you can't then use the room exception, it has to be the last thing used. Rozier is gone already if you sign Hayward. It's a straight choice between keeping Bradley or KO as they have very similar cap holds. In fact depending on the Brk pick you could say its Bradley vs KO and Rozier.

Whatever way it's cut there is little opportunity for big men once you sign Hayward. As I say you could trade e.g. Bradley for Vuc? but the same cap problems exist. You would be competing with Cleveland and GS and the Spurs for the vet min ring chasers. Pretty much the best hope is Amir comes back for the min and we draft a 2nd round experienced big man.

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #72 on: May 09, 2017, 08:43:00 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58559
  • Tommy Points: -25635
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Quote
In my fantasy summer we use 1 Brooklyn pick to get Paul George, which would leave 2 remaining

We've only got two BRK picks left.

Quote
KO and the room exception cannot mix, if you go over the cap for KO you can't then use the room exception, it has to be the last thing used.

I don't believe this is true. The Celtics can use cap space (accounting for Kelly's cap hold), go over the cap to sign KO, and then use the room exception.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #73 on: May 09, 2017, 08:49:41 AM »

Offline obnoxiousmime

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2421
  • Tommy Points: 258
Quote
In my fantasy summer we use 1 Brooklyn pick to get Paul George, which would leave 2 remaining

We've only got two BRK picks left.

Quote
KO and the room exception cannot mix, if you go over the cap for KO you can't then use the room exception, it has to be the last thing used.

I don't believe this is true. The Celtics can use cap space (accounting for Kelly's cap hold), go over the cap to sign KO, and then use the room exception.

The way James Young's career has turned out, we should be awarded an extra BKN pick.

Re: Warming To The Idea That Not Signing A MAX-FA Would Be Wise
« Reply #74 on: May 09, 2017, 10:17:10 AM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
Quote
In my fantasy summer we use 1 Brooklyn pick to get Paul George, which would leave 2 remaining

We've only got two BRK picks left.

Quote
KO and the room exception cannot mix, if you go over the cap for KO you can't then use the room exception, it has to be the last thing used.

I don't believe this is true. The Celtics can use cap space (accounting for Kelly's cap hold), go over the cap to sign KO, and then use the room exception.
I'm counting Jaylen as one of the 3. I mean that we would have 2 of the 3 picks in our roster for the coming years. Jaylen plus whoever we pick in the 2018 draft. The 2017 pick would be used for the George trade.

On the room exception, you might be right, I checked cbafaq but it doesn't make it clear to me. I thought it was for use for teams who begin below the cap with no exceptions and then fall within $2.5m either side of the cap. So KO would take us away from that. However it only says it's available to teams who go so far below the cap that they don't get any of the exceptions in the first place.