I don't get the folks freaking out over the idea of having Horford, Hayward and Thomas all on max contracts. Chronologically, that looks like so:
2016-17: Horford@max
2017-18: Horford@max + Hayward@max
2018-19: Horford@max + Hayward@max + Thomas@max
2019-20: Horford@max + Hayward@max + Thomas@max
2020-21: Hayward@max + Thomas@max
2021-22: Thomas@max + Hayward on new contract?
That means, that their three contracts only push you near or into the luxury tax for two years before we probably sink back below it. If Wyc isn't willing to pay that, he's a cheapskate.
It gets harder to project after 2021. Jaylen Brown becomes eligible for a new contract as an RFA in 2020-21 and Fultz the year after, so it's possible they would be on baby max contracts in those years. But it isn't as if the Horford, Hayward + Thomas contracts we are talking about as of next summer interfere with those.
These contracts don't really interfere with any team building other than that we will have to let go of a lot of the 'role player' pieces we currently have.
Adding Hayward means, yes, letting go of Amir, Zeller, Kelly & Jonas. Jae may or may not have to be moved.
Signing Isaiah to a max means we either let go of one or both of Avery and/or Marcus or Wyc forks over extra luxury tax money.
Seriously, ultimately it all comes down to just how badly you as a fan are desperate to save Wyc Grousbeck from having to reach into his wallet. Because these moves do not really have _any_ real negative impact on team building unless he forces us to let go of both Avery and Marcus in order to save $$ for his own pocket. And that isn't the end of the world given that if Fultz meets his projections, you are talking about letting go of bench guys down the road.
Frankly, given that Thomas and Avery (_especially_ Thomas) have delivered massive excess Win Share $$ value over their current contracts, it would not reflect all that well on Wyc to not be willing to go into the tax.
Also, consider that an NBA team -- especially a big market team like the Celtics -- makes a huge amount of $$ out of any playoff run, the ROI for investing in the luxury tax is probably pretty high.
"Seriously, ultimately it all comes down to just how badly you as a fan are desperate to save Wyc Grousbeck from having to reach into his wallet."
I don't think it's fair to imply that this has anything to do with the ownership's money. They have proven before that they are willing to spend in order to contend for a championship.
But does signing IT to a max deal, given we will have a #1 overall pick who happens to play PG in Fultz, truly the best way to ration our limited cap? With Fultz is PG really the position we should be maxing out or would the money be more wisely spent at another position and possibly down the road...
I think it is a realistic and self-evident concern.
No, it is not a realistic and self-evident concern. Because what I think you don't realize is that this money we are talking about - the money used to pay IT a max contract - CANNOT BE USED FOR ANYBODY ELSE. It is money we have access to by virtue of his Bird Rights. We will be over the cap when we make that contract and for the foreseeable future. This is not cap room that can be use to sign some free agent with.
And it doesn't have anything to do with our ability to sign any of our free agents this year.
The ONLY trade-offs associated with signing IT to a max are Avery and Marcus. And that's ONLY because of the luxury tax.
So again, it comes back to Wyc's pocket book because THAT is where luxury tax money comes out of.
It is right to say that that is potentially a limiting concern. But if so, it will be because Wyc doesn't want to spend the money. And that is certainly his right.
But as a fan, it is not my thing to worry about Wyc saving a few bucks after raking in massive excess value on a low budget roster that has made the playoffs the last 3 seasons straight.
I also think you pushing a limited understanding of the modern trends with guards and Fultz in particular. I'm a UW alum and I have followed this kid for a long time. You keep trying to insist he is just a PG.
He is able to play PG, sure. But that sells him short. He played SG for long stretches of his high school career. Also, at Washington, he was very often used off-the-ball in ways very similar to the way the Celtics have used Thomas off-the-ball. And for the same basic reasons: Defenses would otherwise load up on him. So, like Thomas, Fultz would move off the ball, play spot-up shooter, pick up a live ball off screens, take dribble-hand-offs and such. And like Thomas, he is really good at that role as well as playing on the ball.
There is no positional clash here. Fultz can fit in with any of our current guards because he can play either guard role on offense and he's big and athletic enough to play either spot on defense (though he has a TON to learn on defense and is likely to be pretty bad his first year or two). So Fultz' position is not a factor on the subject of whether we re-sign Thomas.
Whether we sign Thomas to a max is going to be dependent pretty much on Thomas himself. If he doesn't come back strong from his injury, then the likelihood of him getting a max contract drops. If he comes back strong and plays anywhere near the level he did this last couple of years, he will get a max contract.
Poll
Topic: Poll: Yes or No Thomas at 30 million per year (Read 12724 times)