Author Topic: Talk me off the ledge....  (Read 13818 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Talk me off the ledge....
« Reply #90 on: August 23, 2017, 01:24:55 PM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:

1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.

2) IT's hip is really that bad.

The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him.  So hopefully Irving really can be that great.  He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals.  If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.

But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal.  I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.

This echoes my thoughts exactly.

The onus is on Irving now to prove he is or can be a significant upgrade over Thomas.   And by "significant" he has to be better than Thomas by enough to make up the value of losing the Nets pick, Jae & Zizic. 

If he isn't, then this trade won't look good.

With all due respect, that may be a limited way to view this trade.

IT is 28. He'll be 29 before the playoffs next season. I think it's a reasonable assumption that given his height, defensive limitations and style of play that he's a major risk for taking a sharp dropoff in production in the coming years. I think IT's a bit more than just a one year wonder but in some ways I think IT is a bit like Rondo. Both shined in systems that were tailor-made for their talents. Rondo came way back to Earth when he wasn't surrounded by sharpshooters and when his athleticism took a hit because of his injury. It could see the same for IT - he gets exposed in the playoffs and the way he plays he's an awful risk for a max contract in his 30s. In short, IT could be considered a declining asset. In fact, I could see a $30m/yr IT being a negative asset within two years.

Kyrie - and remember, I'm not a big fan of his - simply going to be a better player longer. That's also a very reasonable assumption. He's also better from contract standpoint and assuming he gets resigned his highly productive lifespan is significantly greater than ITs. While he'll get a bigger contract, Danny's counting on him to continue to improve. Even if he doesn't and he signs a max contract in two years, he's not a declining asset.

So it's not just a matter of peak. It's also a matter of volume of production. And in that area the money is on Kyrie to produce far more than IT. Kyrie at 25 creates a great window for years down the road with Tatum and Brown. If you look at normal player development, those two guys won't hit their true stride for 3-4 more years. By that time IT's probably done as a starter but Irving should be still in his prime.

Now to be fair we lose the possible production of the Nets 2018 pick. That could be HUGE. But we are also likely to gain Marcus Smart for another few years. It was a foregone conclusion that Smart would have to leave in FA if we resigned IT. Now that's not going to happen and it opens up the possibility of bringing Smart back. If that happens - and that's now pretty likely - then that also has to be factored in.

Crowder's role in Boston would be severely curtailed with the addition on Hayward and Tatum. His real value was short term (this year) as guys became more familiar with the team. His long term value was only really a decent contract and while it's still good after this year, his value isn't quite as good @ 2 years, $15m. He's also a declining asset and the closer his contract comes to being up, the less of a real asset he is.

To redefine the equation, it's likely to be:

IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie and Smart.

I'm still not saying it's a win. I'm just saying it's not as simple as Irving's peak.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Re: Talk me off the ledge....
« Reply #91 on: August 23, 2017, 01:47:55 PM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14446
  • Tommy Points: 972
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:

1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.

2) IT's hip is really that bad.

The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him.  So hopefully Irving really can be that great.  He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals.  If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.

But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal.  I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.

This echoes my thoughts exactly.

The onus is on Irving now to prove he is or can be a significant upgrade over Thomas.   And by "significant" he has to be better than Thomas by enough to make up the value of losing the Nets pick, Jae & Zizic. 

If he isn't, then this trade won't look good.

With all due respect, that may be a limited way to view this trade.

IT is 28. He'll be 29 before the playoffs next season. I think it's a reasonable assumption that given his height, defensive limitations and style of play that he's a major risk for taking a sharp dropoff in production in the coming years. I think IT's a bit more than just a one year wonder but in some ways I think IT is a bit like Rondo. Both shined in systems that were tailor-made for their talents. Rondo came way back to Earth when he wasn't surrounded by sharpshooters and when his athleticism took a hit because of his injury. It could see the same for IT - he gets exposed in the playoffs and the way he plays he's an awful risk for a max contract in his 30s. In short, IT could be considered a declining asset. In fact, I could see a $30m/yr IT being a negative asset within two years.

Kyrie - and remember, I'm not a big fan of his - simply going to be a better player longer. That's also a very reasonable assumption. He's also better from contract standpoint and assuming he gets resigned his highly productive lifespan is significantly greater than ITs. While he'll get a bigger contract, Danny's counting on him to continue to improve. Even if he doesn't and he signs a max contract in two years, he's not a declining asset.

So it's not just a matter of peak. It's also a matter of volume of production. And in that area the money is on Kyrie to produce far more than IT. Kyrie at 25 creates a great window for years down the road with Tatum and Brown. If you look at normal player development, those two guys won't hit their true stride for 3-4 more years. By that time IT's probably done as a starter but Irving should be still in his prime.

Now to be fair we lose the possible production of the Nets 2018 pick. That could be HUGE. But we are also likely to gain Marcus Smart for another few years. It was a foregone conclusion that Smart would have to leave in FA if we resigned IT. Now that's not going to happen and it opens up the possibility of bringing Smart back. If that happens - and that's now pretty likely - then that also has to be factored in.

Crowder's role in Boston would be severely curtailed with the addition on Hayward and Tatum. His real value was short term (this year) as guys became more familiar with the team. His long term value was only really a decent contract and while it's still good after this year, his value isn't quite as good @ 2 years, $15m. He's also a declining asset and the closer his contract comes to being up, the less of a real asset he is.

To redefine the equation, it's likely to be:

IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie and Smart.

I'm still not saying it's a win. I'm just saying it's not as simple as Irving's peak.
Good post Granath.  Just curious, you sound very different than your post earlier today (see page 5).  Have you warmed up to the trade?

Re: Talk me off the ledge....
« Reply #92 on: August 23, 2017, 01:56:21 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:

1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.

2) IT's hip is really that bad.

The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him.  So hopefully Irving really can be that great.  He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals.  If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.

But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal.  I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.

This echoes my thoughts exactly.

The onus is on Irving now to prove he is or can be a significant upgrade over Thomas.   And by "significant" he has to be better than Thomas by enough to make up the value of losing the Nets pick, Jae & Zizic. 

If he isn't, then this trade won't look good.

With all due respect, that may be a limited way to view this trade.

IT is 28. He'll be 29 before the playoffs next season. I think it's a reasonable assumption that given his height, defensive limitations and style of play that he's a major risk for taking a sharp dropoff in production in the coming years. I think IT's a bit more than just a one year wonder but in some ways I think IT is a bit like Rondo. Both shined in systems that were tailor-made for their talents. Rondo came way back to Earth when he wasn't surrounded by sharpshooters and when his athleticism took a hit because of his injury. It could see the same for IT - he gets exposed in the playoffs and the way he plays he's an awful risk for a max contract in his 30s. In short, IT could be considered a declining asset. In fact, I could see a $30m/yr IT being a negative asset within two years.

Kyrie - and remember, I'm not a big fan of his - simply going to be a better player longer. That's also a very reasonable assumption. He's also better from contract standpoint and assuming he gets resigned his highly productive lifespan is significantly greater than ITs. While he'll get a bigger contract, Danny's counting on him to continue to improve. Even if he doesn't and he signs a max contract in two years, he's not a declining asset.

So it's not just a matter of peak. It's also a matter of volume of production. And in that area the money is on Kyrie to produce far more than IT. Kyrie at 25 creates a great window for years down the road with Tatum and Brown. If you look at normal player development, those two guys won't hit their true stride for 3-4 more years. By that time IT's probably done as a starter but Irving should be still in his prime.

Now to be fair we lose the possible production of the Nets 2018 pick. That could be HUGE. But we are also likely to gain Marcus Smart for another few years. It was a foregone conclusion that Smart would have to leave in FA if we resigned IT. Now that's not going to happen and it opens up the possibility of bringing Smart back. If that happens - and that's now pretty likely - then that also has to be factored in.

Crowder's role in Boston would be severely curtailed with the addition on Hayward and Tatum. His real value was short term (this year) as guys became more familiar with the team. His long term value was only really a decent contract and while it's still good after this year, his value isn't quite as good @ 2 years, $15m. He's also a declining asset and the closer his contract comes to being up, the less of a real asset he is.

To redefine the equation, it's likely to be:

IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie and Smart.

No.  Your math is off.  If the was no intention to sign IT long term, then they would have probably kept Smart anyway.

So your equation becomes:

IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie


And keep in mind, that you don't re-sign Smart for just one year, right?  Assuming he wants a multi-year deal, his salary won't magically evaporate the following year when faced with re-signing Irving in 2019.  In 2019-20, the Celtics will have 63M committed to Hayward and Horford and will likely want to max-out Irving, meaning somewhere around 95-100M on those three.   If they signed Marcus the year before, then you have to add his contract and suddenly you are around 110M on those 4 players.

Horford's contract expires after that year ... but Jaylen's will as well and he will need to get paid in 2020.  And Hayward may or may not re-up on his option.

So the decision next summer (2018) on Smart can't be made just on the basis of having enough room under the tax in 2018.   It has to be made in anticipation of where it puts us in the next few years.

So there is still a significant question as to whether Smart will be re-signed next Summer.

Quote

I'm still not saying it's a win. I'm just saying it's not as simple as Irving's peak.

This is fair.  Though their are lots of mitigating adjustments that one can start to throw in pro/con.  (For example, what is the perception cost around the league for this?)   I still think the onus is on Irving to prove to be quite a bit more valuable than Isaiah in order for this trade to be looked back as a "win".

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Talk me off the ledge....
« Reply #93 on: August 23, 2017, 02:01:28 PM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:

1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.

2) IT's hip is really that bad.

The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him.  So hopefully Irving really can be that great.  He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals.  If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.

But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal.  I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.

This echoes my thoughts exactly.

The onus is on Irving now to prove he is or can be a significant upgrade over Thomas.   And by "significant" he has to be better than Thomas by enough to make up the value of losing the Nets pick, Jae & Zizic. 

If he isn't, then this trade won't look good.

With all due respect, that may be a limited way to view this trade.

IT is 28. He'll be 29 before the playoffs next season. I think it's a reasonable assumption that given his height, defensive limitations and style of play that he's a major risk for taking a sharp dropoff in production in the coming years. I think IT's a bit more than just a one year wonder but in some ways I think IT is a bit like Rondo. Both shined in systems that were tailor-made for their talents. Rondo came way back to Earth when he wasn't surrounded by sharpshooters and when his athleticism took a hit because of his injury. It could see the same for IT - he gets exposed in the playoffs and the way he plays he's an awful risk for a max contract in his 30s. In short, IT could be considered a declining asset. In fact, I could see a $30m/yr IT being a negative asset within two years.

Kyrie - and remember, I'm not a big fan of his - simply going to be a better player longer. That's also a very reasonable assumption. He's also better from contract standpoint and assuming he gets resigned his highly productive lifespan is significantly greater than ITs. While he'll get a bigger contract, Danny's counting on him to continue to improve. Even if he doesn't and he signs a max contract in two years, he's not a declining asset.

So it's not just a matter of peak. It's also a matter of volume of production. And in that area the money is on Kyrie to produce far more than IT. Kyrie at 25 creates a great window for years down the road with Tatum and Brown. If you look at normal player development, those two guys won't hit their true stride for 3-4 more years. By that time IT's probably done as a starter but Irving should be still in his prime.

Now to be fair we lose the possible production of the Nets 2018 pick. That could be HUGE. But we are also likely to gain Marcus Smart for another few years. It was a foregone conclusion that Smart would have to leave in FA if we resigned IT. Now that's not going to happen and it opens up the possibility of bringing Smart back. If that happens - and that's now pretty likely - then that also has to be factored in.

Crowder's role in Boston would be severely curtailed with the addition on Hayward and Tatum. His real value was short term (this year) as guys became more familiar with the team. His long term value was only really a decent contract and while it's still good after this year, his value isn't quite as good @ 2 years, $15m. He's also a declining asset and the closer his contract comes to being up, the less of a real asset he is.

To redefine the equation, it's likely to be:

IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie and Smart.

I'm still not saying it's a win. I'm just saying it's not as simple as Irving's peak.
Good post Granath.  Just curious, you sound very different than your post earlier today (see page 5).  Have you warmed up to the trade?

Surf, much respect.

It's a steep price to pay and carries an awful lot of risk. What happens if Irving isn't as good and Lebron made him better? What happens if he doesn't re-sign? What happens if Zizic turns out to be a stud? What happens if the pick ends up in the top 3 (or even worse, #1) in what looks like a loaded draft?

Plus, I truly hope he makes me eat my words but I'm not Irving's biggest fan.

I understand the trade but it doesn't mean I like it. I was concerned about re-signing IT and losing Smart. I was worried about IT being exposed in the playoffs against bigger players. Danny obviously was concerned about the same things. But I think we paid a King's Ransom and I didn't want to do that unless we got a true superstar. I'm not sure Irving fits that bill. 
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Re: Talk me off the ledge....
« Reply #94 on: August 23, 2017, 02:05:46 PM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:

1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.

2) IT's hip is really that bad.

The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him.  So hopefully Irving really can be that great.  He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals.  If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.

But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal.  I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.

This echoes my thoughts exactly.

The onus is on Irving now to prove he is or can be a significant upgrade over Thomas.   And by "significant" he has to be better than Thomas by enough to make up the value of losing the Nets pick, Jae & Zizic. 

If he isn't, then this trade won't look good.

With all due respect, that may be a limited way to view this trade.

IT is 28. He'll be 29 before the playoffs next season. I think it's a reasonable assumption that given his height, defensive limitations and style of play that he's a major risk for taking a sharp dropoff in production in the coming years. I think IT's a bit more than just a one year wonder but in some ways I think IT is a bit like Rondo. Both shined in systems that were tailor-made for their talents. Rondo came way back to Earth when he wasn't surrounded by sharpshooters and when his athleticism took a hit because of his injury. It could see the same for IT - he gets exposed in the playoffs and the way he plays he's an awful risk for a max contract in his 30s. In short, IT could be considered a declining asset. In fact, I could see a $30m/yr IT being a negative asset within two years.

Kyrie - and remember, I'm not a big fan of his - simply going to be a better player longer. That's also a very reasonable assumption. He's also better from contract standpoint and assuming he gets resigned his highly productive lifespan is significantly greater than ITs. While he'll get a bigger contract, Danny's counting on him to continue to improve. Even if he doesn't and he signs a max contract in two years, he's not a declining asset.

So it's not just a matter of peak. It's also a matter of volume of production. And in that area the money is on Kyrie to produce far more than IT. Kyrie at 25 creates a great window for years down the road with Tatum and Brown. If you look at normal player development, those two guys won't hit their true stride for 3-4 more years. By that time IT's probably done as a starter but Irving should be still in his prime.

Now to be fair we lose the possible production of the Nets 2018 pick. That could be HUGE. But we are also likely to gain Marcus Smart for another few years. It was a foregone conclusion that Smart would have to leave in FA if we resigned IT. Now that's not going to happen and it opens up the possibility of bringing Smart back. If that happens - and that's now pretty likely - then that also has to be factored in.

Crowder's role in Boston would be severely curtailed with the addition on Hayward and Tatum. His real value was short term (this year) as guys became more familiar with the team. His long term value was only really a decent contract and while it's still good after this year, his value isn't quite as good @ 2 years, $15m. He's also a declining asset and the closer his contract comes to being up, the less of a real asset he is.

To redefine the equation, it's likely to be:

IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie and Smart.

No.  Your math is off.  If the was no intention to sign IT long term, then they would have probably kept Smart anyway.

So your equation becomes:

IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie


And keep in mind, that you don't re-sign Smart for just one year, right?  Assuming he wants a multi-year deal, his salary won't magically evaporate the following year when faced with re-signing Irving in 2019.  In 2019-20, the Celtics will have 63M committed to Hayward and Horford and will likely want to max-out Irving, meaning somewhere around 95-100M on those three.   If they signed Marcus the year before, then you have to add his contract and suddenly you are around 110M on those 4 players.

Horford's contract expires after that year ... but Jaylen's will as well and he will need to get paid in 2020.  And Hayward may or may not re-up on his option.

So the decision next summer (2018) on Smart can't be made just on the basis of having enough room under the tax in 2018.   It has to be made in anticipation of where it puts us in the next few years.

So there is still a significant question as to whether Smart will be re-signed next Summer.

Quote

I'm still not saying it's a win. I'm just saying it's not as simple as Irving's peak.

This is fair.  Though their are lots of mitigating adjustments that one can start to throw in pro/con.  (For example, what is the perception cost around the league for this?)   I still think the onus is on Irving to prove to be quite a bit more valuable than Isaiah in order for this trade to be looked back as a "win".

You misunderstand.

I don't think that they would have kept Smart over IT. I think Danny would have signed IT and let Smart go. I think (and it's fairly obvious now) that he had concerns about doing so - but when push comes to shove he'd have done it if he didn't have other options.

So that's why Marcus is on the Irving side of this equation.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Re: Talk me off the ledge....
« Reply #95 on: August 23, 2017, 03:31:21 PM »

Offline No Nickname

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 771
  • Tommy Points: 81
Here take my hand...


...1. We were not paying IT $35 mil a year and 2. He's 29 going on 30 coming off a hip injury. and 3. Kyrie is 25 and not even in his prime yet.

Welcome back.

1. That's true, mostly because the max he can get will be 30% of the cap and the cap isn't rising to $116 million next year.  He literally can't get $35 million per year

2. He's 28 and turns 29 in February.  That is not "29 going on 30"
3. No arguments there

You are one of the cap kings around here so you should know better, BJ.

Just based on this year's $99M cap, a player in the 7-9 year range signing a 5 year max contract with 8% raises would make a total of just over $172M over the course of that contract ($34.4M/yr). There just needs to be a $1M increase in the cap next year for IT to sign a $35M/yr contract.

Personally, I don't think Danny was ever going to sign IT to the max and I don't think Cleveland will either. Cleveland will give it one big last shot this year and then immediately look to rebuild with a prime pick. That is [unfortunately] why the price was so high. I know I was wrong about what we had to give up (overrating IT's value, underrating Kyrie's 'trade demand' value).

He's not signing a 5 year max deal, though. I don't think there was even a chance of getting it from us (3 year max at most, 4 or 5 years only at a discount), and there's definitely no chance he gets it in CLE or elsewhere. A 3 year deal puts him at ~$97.5 million over three years (assuming a modest cap raise next year, which seems likely). But even then 1st year cap hit is what we really need to worry about as far as resigning Smart goes (which should be the only concern this summer since we have no cap space no matter what. And 2019 Morris comes off the cap sheet, which lightens the lead a bit, and 2020 Horford and Hayward should come off)

How did this trade affect our cap room?  Did we bring in more salary with the Irving acquisition?  I'm assuming so since Cleveland supposedly saved a bunch in luxury tax.

Re: Talk me off the ledge....
« Reply #96 on: August 23, 2017, 03:57:28 PM »

Offline BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8902
  • Tommy Points: 1212
Here take my hand...


...1. We were not paying IT $35 mil a year and 2. He's 29 going on 30 coming off a hip injury. and 3. Kyrie is 25 and not even in his prime yet.

Welcome back.

1. That's true, mostly because the max he can get will be 30% of the cap and the cap isn't rising to $116 million next year.  He literally can't get $35 million per year

2. He's 28 and turns 29 in February.  That is not "29 going on 30"
3. No arguments there

You are one of the cap kings around here so you should know better, BJ.

Just based on this year's $99M cap, a player in the 7-9 year range signing a 5 year max contract with 8% raises would make a total of just over $172M over the course of that contract ($34.4M/yr). There just needs to be a $1M increase in the cap next year for IT to sign a $35M/yr contract.

Personally, I don't think Danny was ever going to sign IT to the max and I don't think Cleveland will either. Cleveland will give it one big last shot this year and then immediately look to rebuild with a prime pick. That is [unfortunately] why the price was so high. I know I was wrong about what we had to give up (overrating IT's value, underrating Kyrie's 'trade demand' value).

He's not signing a 5 year max deal, though. I don't think there was even a chance of getting it from us (3 year max at most, 4 or 5 years only at a discount), and there's definitely no chance he gets it in CLE or elsewhere. A 3 year deal puts him at ~$97.5 million over three years (assuming a modest cap raise next year, which seems likely). But even then 1st year cap hit is what we really need to worry about as far as resigning Smart goes (which should be the only concern this summer since we have no cap space no matter what. And 2019 Morris comes off the cap sheet, which lightens the lead a bit, and 2020 Horford and Hayward should come off)

How did this trade affect our cap room?  Did we bring in more salary with the Irving acquisition?  I'm assuming so since Cleveland supposedly saved a bunch in luxury tax.

No matter what, we have no cap room and will have none for the foreseeable future.  That's okay, though, there's still plenty we can do without cap room.

We brought in more salary than we sent out for this season, but for next year we should have significantly less.  We sent out IT's $6.3 million, Jae's $7.8 million, and Zizic's $1.6 million in return for Kyrie's $18.9 million, which adds ~$3.2 million to our cap this year (if we add another vet minimum or 2, that could rise to $6.2 million).  However, we're under the tax line after this trade, meaning that the added salary doesn't really matter.  Next year, though, we'll be swapping IT's $25 million (being conservative), Jae's $7.3 million, Zizic's $2 million, and the salary for the Nets' first rounder (being conservative we'll say $4 million) for Irving's $20.1 million.  This is a savings of ~$18 million next year, which should mean we can bring back Smart without worrying about luxury tax (and, more importantly, delaying when repeater tax rates would start for us by another year)
I'm bitter.

Re: Talk me off the ledge....
« Reply #97 on: August 23, 2017, 04:59:54 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
There are only two things that will make me rationalize this trade:

1) Irving really does have Top-5 NBA talent in him, and getting away from LeBron and under the tutelage of Stevens maximizes his production.

2) IT's hip is really that bad.

The second makes me sad to think about, because I like IT too much to hope for anything bad for him.  So hopefully Irving really can be that great.  He's only 25 -- it's not impossible to believe he has MVP-caliber seasons in his future, and he's already proven himself in the Finals.  If he is, then it's a good trade regardless of the price paid, because those players are very rare.

But unless and until Irving is the best player on a title winning Boston team, I'm going to question this deal.  I think Irving is a great player, but I don't know that he's great.

This echoes my thoughts exactly.

The onus is on Irving now to prove he is or can be a significant upgrade over Thomas.   And by "significant" he has to be better than Thomas by enough to make up the value of losing the Nets pick, Jae & Zizic. 

If he isn't, then this trade won't look good.

With all due respect, that may be a limited way to view this trade.

IT is 28. He'll be 29 before the playoffs next season. I think it's a reasonable assumption that given his height, defensive limitations and style of play that he's a major risk for taking a sharp dropoff in production in the coming years. I think IT's a bit more than just a one year wonder but in some ways I think IT is a bit like Rondo. Both shined in systems that were tailor-made for their talents. Rondo came way back to Earth when he wasn't surrounded by sharpshooters and when his athleticism took a hit because of his injury. It could see the same for IT - he gets exposed in the playoffs and the way he plays he's an awful risk for a max contract in his 30s. In short, IT could be considered a declining asset. In fact, I could see a $30m/yr IT being a negative asset within two years.

Kyrie - and remember, I'm not a big fan of his - simply going to be a better player longer. That's also a very reasonable assumption. He's also better from contract standpoint and assuming he gets resigned his highly productive lifespan is significantly greater than ITs. While he'll get a bigger contract, Danny's counting on him to continue to improve. Even if he doesn't and he signs a max contract in two years, he's not a declining asset.

So it's not just a matter of peak. It's also a matter of volume of production. And in that area the money is on Kyrie to produce far more than IT. Kyrie at 25 creates a great window for years down the road with Tatum and Brown. If you look at normal player development, those two guys won't hit their true stride for 3-4 more years. By that time IT's probably done as a starter but Irving should be still in his prime.

Now to be fair we lose the possible production of the Nets 2018 pick. That could be HUGE. But we are also likely to gain Marcus Smart for another few years. It was a foregone conclusion that Smart would have to leave in FA if we resigned IT. Now that's not going to happen and it opens up the possibility of bringing Smart back. If that happens - and that's now pretty likely - then that also has to be factored in.

Crowder's role in Boston would be severely curtailed with the addition on Hayward and Tatum. His real value was short term (this year) as guys became more familiar with the team. His long term value was only really a decent contract and while it's still good after this year, his value isn't quite as good @ 2 years, $15m. He's also a declining asset and the closer his contract comes to being up, the less of a real asset he is.

To redefine the equation, it's likely to be:

IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie and Smart.

No.  Your math is off.  If the was no intention to sign IT long term, then they would have probably kept Smart anyway.

So your equation becomes:

IT (shorter term) + Nets 2018 + Crowder (shorter term) + Zizic for Kyrie


And keep in mind, that you don't re-sign Smart for just one year, right?  Assuming he wants a multi-year deal, his salary won't magically evaporate the following year when faced with re-signing Irving in 2019.  In 2019-20, the Celtics will have 63M committed to Hayward and Horford and will likely want to max-out Irving, meaning somewhere around 95-100M on those three.   If they signed Marcus the year before, then you have to add his contract and suddenly you are around 110M on those 4 players.

Horford's contract expires after that year ... but Jaylen's will as well and he will need to get paid in 2020.  And Hayward may or may not re-up on his option.

So the decision next summer (2018) on Smart can't be made just on the basis of having enough room under the tax in 2018.   It has to be made in anticipation of where it puts us in the next few years.

So there is still a significant question as to whether Smart will be re-signed next Summer.

Quote

I'm still not saying it's a win. I'm just saying it's not as simple as Irving's peak.

This is fair.  Though their are lots of mitigating adjustments that one can start to throw in pro/con.  (For example, what is the perception cost around the league for this?)   I still think the onus is on Irving to prove to be quite a bit more valuable than Isaiah in order for this trade to be looked back as a "win".

You misunderstand.

I don't think that they would have kept Smart over IT. I think Danny would have signed IT and let Smart go. I think (and it's fairly obvious now) that he had concerns about doing so - but when push comes to shove he'd have done it if he didn't have other options.

So that's why Marcus is on the Irving side of this equation.

My first point is that you put "IT (shorter term)" on the left.  That means you are trading off an assumption of NOT signing IT long term.   If that is what is being traded away, then Smart can't be on the right side.  Because keeping Smart trades off against "IT (long term)".

And my second point is, given that they added Irving (and assuming they will sign him in 2019 to a new max deal), that doesn't really settle the question of whether they will sign Smart in 2018.   The Irving trade only relieves salary pressure by a few million for the one season.  Then it jumps back up and then some.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Talk me off the ledge....
« Reply #98 on: August 23, 2017, 05:09:06 PM »

Offline byennie

  • Webmaster
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2572
  • Tommy Points: 3033
And my second point is, given that they added Irving (and assuming they will sign him in 2019 to a new max deal), that doesn't really settle the question of whether they will sign Smart in 2018.   The Irving trade only relieves salary pressure by a few million for the one season.  Then it jumps back up and then some.

As it stands right now, this trade saves us $25M in 2018-19 versus keeping IT (max deal), Crowder and the pick. Which allows us to have Irving AND Smart if we want. We'll happily eat the luxury tax for 1 year in 2019-20, after which Horford comes off that summer at $30M. Contenders are regularly spending $200M+ including luxury tax and we'll have managed to avoid it for 3 good years already.

Re: Talk me off the ledge....
« Reply #99 on: August 23, 2017, 05:30:12 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
Here take my hand...


...1. We were not paying IT $35 mil a year and 2. He's 29 going on 30 coming off a hip injury. and 3. Kyrie is 25 and not even in his prime yet.

Welcome back.

1. That's true, mostly because the max he can get will be 30% of the cap and the cap isn't rising to $116 million next year.  He literally can't get $35 million per year

2. He's 28 and turns 29 in February.  That is not "29 going on 30"
3. No arguments there

You are one of the cap kings around here so you should know better, BJ.

Just based on this year's $99M cap, a player in the 7-9 year range signing a 5 year max contract with 8% raises would make a total of just over $172M over the course of that contract ($34.4M/yr). There just needs to be a $1M increase in the cap next year for IT to sign a $35M/yr contract.

Personally, I don't think Danny was ever going to sign IT to the max and I don't think Cleveland will either. Cleveland will give it one big last shot this year and then immediately look to rebuild with a prime pick. That is [unfortunately] why the price was so high. I know I was wrong about what we had to give up (overrating IT's value, underrating Kyrie's 'trade demand' value).

He's not signing a 5 year max deal, though. I don't think there was even a chance of getting it from us (3 year max at most, 4 or 5 years only at a discount), and there's definitely no chance he gets it in CLE or elsewhere. A 3 year deal puts him at ~$97.5 million over three years (assuming a modest cap raise next year, which seems likely). But even then 1st year cap hit is what we really need to worry about as far as resigning Smart goes (which should be the only concern this summer since we have no cap space no matter what. And 2019 Morris comes off the cap sheet, which lightens the lead a bit, and 2020 Horford and Hayward should come off)

How did this trade affect our cap room?  Did we bring in more salary with the Irving acquisition?  I'm assuming so since Cleveland supposedly saved a bunch in luxury tax.

We have no cap room and will not have cap room for the foreseeable future unless a trade happens.

The Irving trade added a few million in 2017-18 salary, but it also alleviated some in 2018-19 and forward because we no longer have the 2018 Nets pick, which probably would have cost 4-7M per.  Of course, we won't have that draft pick and will have someone else instead in that roster slot so how much that saves isn't clear.

Our current salary schedule looks roughly like so:

2017-18:  111.5M  15 players with guaranteed contracts, 1 more with non-guaranteed.
2018-19:  107.4M  9 players guaranteed, 2 team options (Brown 5.1M & Rozier 3.0M), Smart & Baynes will be free agents.
2019-20:  105.9M  5 players guaranteed, Al Horford likely to opt-in on 30M, Irving likely to opt-out on 21.3M, 3 team options (Tatum 7.8M, Brown 6.5M, Yabu 3.1M.  Morris, Rozier & Theis will be FAs.

The salary totals are committed money for the players noted.  We obviously have to field more players than currently contracted in the future years so the actual numbers will be much higher.

Assuming the team opts-in on Brown & Rozier, and given that we still have two first round picks in 2018, any contract for Smart over about 13M probably puts us over the tax threshold for that year.

And you have to add that contract plus the ones for the two picks to the salary number for 2019-20 so that is also likely close to or over the tax threshold ... and then you add another ~10M or so for Kyrie's likely salary bump on a new contract.  So plan on being way over the tax threshold in 2019-20.

In 2020, Horford's contract comes off the books.  He either takes a pay cut or walks at that point in his career, so you get some salary relief.  But two things could dramatically affect the budget in that year.  (1) Hayward will have a player option on his 34M salary and (2) Jaylen will be a Restricted Free Agent.

If we don't sign Smart, then we can slip under the luxury tax through 2018-19.   But we'll probably go over regardless in 2019-20, at least for that one year.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Talk me off the ledge....
« Reply #100 on: August 23, 2017, 05:54:01 PM »

Offline mctyson

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5087
  • Tommy Points: 372
I talked myself off the ledge today and am now in favor of the trade.  Here is why:

-- Danny Ainge has a clear track record of not investing in players who have suffered significant lower leg injuries.  Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins, Rajon Rondo - all key contributors to the only championship in 30 years - all either traded just prior to free agency or let go.  IT falls into this category due to his hip issue.  It confirms to me that Danny was never going to resign him, especially for anything resembling max money.  Given this, IT had to be traded or let go.  Coming off his best season of his life, even with the injury, his trade value was too high to not use.

-- Crowder, while incredibly useful and affordable, had to be included to make the salaries match.  I wish that wasn't the case but it is what it is.  However, this now opens up the path for the emergence of Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum (and maybe Semi).  I have to believe that Danny and Brad feel that Jaylen is ready for 25+ minutes a game.  With Crowder and Marcus here, that is not possible.

-- Brooklyn may be a horrible team again next year but they added enough in the offseason to scrap towards 30 wins.  I would not be surprised if that happens given the dumpster fire that is the Eastern Conference.  The unprotected pick Danny gave up may wind up being 6-through-10.  That is worth trading for Kyrie Irving, every time.



Re: Talk me off the ledge....
« Reply #101 on: August 23, 2017, 05:56:59 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15717
  • Tommy Points: 1386
I talked myself off the ledge today and am now in favor of the trade.  Here is why:

-- Danny Ainge has a clear track record of not investing in players who have suffered significant lower leg injuries.  Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins, Rajon Rondo - all key contributors to the only championship in 30 years - all either traded just prior to free agency or let go.  IT falls into this category due to his hip issue.  It confirms to me that Danny was never going to resign him, especially for anything resembling max money.  Given this, IT had to be traded or let go.  Coming off his best season of his life, even with the injury, his trade value was too high to not use.

-- Crowder, while incredibly useful and affordable, had to be included to make the salaries match.  I wish that wasn't the case but it is what it is.  However, this now opens up the path for the emergence of Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum (and maybe Semi).  I have to believe that Danny and Brad feel that Jaylen is ready for 25+ minutes a game.  With Crowder and Marcus here, that is not possible.

-- Brooklyn may be a horrible team again next year but they added enough in the offseason to scrap towards 30 wins.  I would not be surprised if that happens given the dumpster fire that is the Eastern Conference.  The unprotected pick Danny gave up may wind up being 6-through-10.  That is worth trading for Kyrie Irving, every time.

I have managed to talk myself into this somehow too but I am probably just being ridiculous.

Re: Talk me off the ledge....
« Reply #102 on: August 23, 2017, 06:22:32 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
And my second point is, given that they added Irving (and assuming they will sign him in 2019 to a new max deal), that doesn't really settle the question of whether they will sign Smart in 2018.   The Irving trade only relieves salary pressure by a few million for the one season.  Then it jumps back up and then some.

As it stands right now, this trade saves us $25M in 2018-19 versus keeping IT (max deal), Crowder and the pick. Which allows us to have Irving AND Smart if we want. We'll happily eat the luxury tax for 1 year in 2019-20, after which Horford comes off that summer at $30M. Contenders are regularly spending $200M+ including luxury tax and we'll have managed to avoid it for 3 good years already.

Where are you getting $25M?

See my breakdown above.  Yes, it is possible to sign Smart in 2018 and squeeze under the luxury tax, but it depends on (a) what the scale contracts are for the one or two draft picks we still have for that year end up as and (b) how much we sign Smart for.   If the LAL18 pick comes in then that contract (which would be a 2-5 pick) would be between 4.4M and 6M.

If the LAL18 pick does not vest, then that saves that space and pushes that off to the next year as the SAC19 pick.

We already have 107.4M budgeted on 11 players.  Smart plus the two picks would be 13 so we could stop there.   Cheapest case is we don't get the LAL18 pick so we only need to budget room for our own pick and a minimum contract, so that puts us at about 110M before adding Smart.  Based on the estimates I've seen, the tax threshold should be right around 122M.   So that leaves about 12M of room for Smart's contract.

Do we think that any other team will make an offer sheet for that much or more for Smart?

If the LAL18 pick conveys, of course, the budget room is much smaller, perhaps half that.

Of the 11 players already budgeted for, we could free up 3M by declining Rozier's option.  So if Danny really really wants Marcus, he can squeeze a little more room there.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Talk me off the ledge....
« Reply #103 on: August 23, 2017, 07:55:05 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7477
  • Tommy Points: 736
I talked myself off the ledge today and am now in favor of the trade.  Here is why:

-- Danny Ainge has a clear track record of not investing in players who have suffered significant lower leg injuries.  Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins, Rajon Rondo - all key contributors to the only championship in 30 years - all either traded just prior to free agency or let go.  IT falls into this category due to his hip issue.  It confirms to me that Danny was never going to resign him, especially for anything resembling max money.  Given this, IT had to be traded or let go.  Coming off his best season of his life, even with the injury, his trade value was too high to not use.

-- Crowder, while incredibly useful and affordable, had to be included to make the salaries match.  I wish that wasn't the case but it is what it is.  However, this now opens up the path for the emergence of Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum (and maybe Semi).  I have to believe that Danny and Brad feel that Jaylen is ready for 25+ minutes a game.  With Crowder and Marcus here, that is not possible.

-- Brooklyn may be a horrible team again next year but they added enough in the offseason to scrap towards 30 wins.  I would not be surprised if that happens given the dumpster fire that is the Eastern Conference.  The unprotected pick Danny gave up may wind up being 6-through-10.  That is worth trading for Kyrie Irving, every time.

I have managed to talk myself into this somehow too but I am probably just being ridiculous.
The Nets are still going to be bad but the good news is the bottom of the East is going to be worse than it was last year. The Hawks and Bulls are going to be atrocious and depending on what happens with the Pacers, Knicks, and Magic we could wind up seeing 2-4 teams outright tanking in the East. Out West, the Lakers, Suns, and Kings should all be pretty bad too.

I can't convince myself that the Nets will win more than 28 games, at the most, but I can see a universe where there are 5-6 teams that win 27 games or fewer.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008