|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 23, 2017 7:59:19 GMT -5
Wick Grosbeck (spelling?), the owner of the Celtics has gone on record to saying money is never a issue when trying to put a team together in any given certain year trying to go for a championship. I don't think he'd go this much over all the time but for one year, he'll do it. It's not a one year issue - this coming year they wouldn't be over. It's when you go to extend George and Thomas and Smart after this year that they would get crushed going forward. Ohh Yeah, good point. It depends on how much they like IT and Smart, which I think they love to death. I think it'd be worth it to them to keep both. You lose IT, you're talking about maybe a rebuild all over again, which would result in a lot less profit then the actual price of the luxury tax threshold. I could be wrong though. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 23, 2017 8:01:31 GMT -5
This would make perfect sense into why the Paul George talks "stalled" though. Maybe they have a deal lined up with Indiana and the Celtics are just waiting for free agency to come.
Maybe the deal isn't stalled, it might be just "delayed."
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 23, 2017 8:08:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 23, 2017 8:13:45 GMT -5
Boom. Called it. Makes a lot of sense for the Celtics. It'd put the Celtics back into promiseland. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 8:30:40 GMT -5
I'm still trying to play around with the numbers to see how this works. Once you get to max space and sign your FA, you'll be at the CAP.
To trade for a player, the rules for matching salaries depend on 2 things: How much salary you're sending out and tax status post trade.
Assuming non-tax, there are 3 possibilities:
1. 150% + 100K if outgoing is less than 9.8
2. Matching + $5Mn if outgoing is between 9.8 and 19.6
3. 125% + 100K if greater than 19.6
George makes 19.5 so you can't get there with 150% of something less than 9.8
3 wouldn't need to apply so it's Matching Salaries plus $5Mn which means you're coming up with $14Mn outgoing.
So Bradley and Crowder? I guess, if George is signing an extension, do you include Tatum instead?
It can be done, of course, but it'll be interesting.
EDIT: For completeness, you'd have to sign Tatum first for he to be included in salary matching bc unsigned 1st rounders have cap holds but count as $0 in trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 23, 2017 8:35:29 GMT -5
Lol Tex. You just explained why I wasn't trying to wrap my head around how everything could come together.
I'd hope Brown is the guy going back in the trade. Not Tatum but I don't think the Celtics will hold back if the Pacers asked for one of either player.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 9:01:24 GMT -5
I didn't realize the complications of matching salaries until recently (heck, I didn't even know 150% was possible in any scenario until UMass mentioned it regarding his plan for a Favors trade).
My ideal is that it would be neither (again, I'm probably irrational in my love for Brown).
Ignoring the matching salaries piece, you're probably giving up that LAL/SAC/PHI pick. Hoping to keep BRK. Not sure how much an extension changes my opinion of what I'd give up. It certainly would make the deal to IND have to be sweeter but, if he's only going to sign an extension with a couple of teams, Indy still doesn't have a ton of leverage.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 23, 2017 9:07:10 GMT -5
You can't sign Tatum then trade him because you have to wait 90 days.
The salaries that make it work are definitely Bradley and Crowder.
Besides that, I don't think Danny is trading any of the Brooklyn pick bounty for George.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 9:12:13 GMT -5
Why can't you wait 90 days?
I agree though, Bradley/Crowder would make more sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 23, 2017 9:21:41 GMT -5
Why can't you wait 90 days? I agree though, Bradley/Crowder would make more sense. Because then the season has started and everyone missed camp and Tatum summer league etc.. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 9:29:27 GMT -5
Trying to find out how Cleveland did it with Wiggins bc I'm pretty sure he was signed first.
EDIT: Unless something changed with the new CBA, it's only 30 days. Wiggins signed on July 24th and was eligible to be traded on Aug 23rd.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 23, 2017 9:29:46 GMT -5
He did not
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 9:33:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Jun 23, 2017 9:55:22 GMT -5
ESPN seems to have most of their analysis content behind the Insider wall...what is their assessment of how we did in the draft (if anyone here has access and wants to share the highlights)?
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 9:55:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 9:58:05 GMT -5
ESPN seems to have most of their analysis content behind the Insider wall...what is their assessment of how we did in the draft (if anyone here has access and wants to share the highlights)? Gave the draft a B. - Tatum can be great if he learns how to defend and get others involved. - Ojeleye is C's Type - As is Allen - Bird considered a 1st rounder as a FR and SO (pre-injury, I believe) |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 11:19:17 GMT -5
The more I'm reading the more this extend-and-trade George scenario doesn't make sense. He'd only be allowed raises of 4.5%, if I'm reading things correctly. Why would he agree to do that?
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 23, 2017 12:14:20 GMT -5
Do people believe Ainge when he says he would have taken Tatum number 1? Yes, not a doubt in my mind. I really wonder if the Celtics are the team Ford said had Tatum rated number one all year. They might never have been taking Fultz, just playing it that way for a trade. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 12:23:12 GMT -5
I look at it as more of semantics game. Would he have taken him #1 vs was he #1 on C's board.
The latter I absolutely believe is true. The former is what led to Danny trading back and picking up an asset.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 12:24:02 GMT -5
Danny saying they basically hang up when Brown is mentioned in trade talks.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 23, 2017 13:00:53 GMT -5
Ojeleye reminds me of two players Larry Johnson and Crowder. ESPN analyst said when you watch tape he looks like a top 10 pick. Thing is he's a tweener. Went onto say he just thinks he'll be a player and might surprise a lot of people.
If you look at pictures and measurables, Ojeleye and Crowder look almost the same. Ojeleye is a little taller, bigger wingspan, a littler heavier but not by much. They were both very ripped coming out of College. Crowder was more of a D and energy guy. Ojeleye looks to be a better scorer. Thing is Crowder is an ok athlete. Ojeleye ranks in the top 95% of all athletes ever tested per draft express. He has tools that Crowder can only dream about.
I think he's a lock to make the team. At worst he's a small ball four. At best he could be a starter down the line. I really don't get why he didn't get drafted higher. It's like everyone wants to call the NBA positionless expect when it comes to draft night. Then it's he's a tweener. The thing is usually a tweener is too slow to guard SFs and not big enough to guard PFs. I don't see how an elite athlete fits the bill on that one. He really seems like a perfect player for the way the NBA is going. The type of player that gives other teams fits and allows you to match up against teams like the Warriors.
Danny after you make all your moves, give Ojeleye a 4 year deal, paying him late first round money. It will be well worth the money down the road.
On a side note. The Cavs could have drafted Ojeleye instead they traded for Korver. That's why they are in trouble. Korver made almost no difference to the Cavs last year. They were making the finals without him and he didn't make any difference in finals. Ojeleye is exactly the type of athlete and shooter they need to add and can't. The Cavs needs a GM that doesn't listen to LeBron, because he is his own worst enemy! The Warriors keep stocking up on good young players like McCaw, Jones and now Bell. The Cavs get nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 23, 2017 13:12:34 GMT -5
I look at it as more of semantics game. Would he have taken him #1 vs was he #1 on C's board. The latter I absolutely believe is true. The former is what led to Danny trading back and picking up an asset. If he's #1 on your board and you couldn't trade down, they would have taken him #1. For example what if the Sixers were like we will trade for #1, but we are only giving you two second round picks. We like the top 3 equally, but wouldn't mind first choice. Danny did the smart thing and picked up another huge asset, while getting his guy. Still think he would have taken him #1 if things worked out differently. You only gamble on not getting your #1 player if you get a big return. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 13:17:14 GMT -5
There IS value in late 1st rounders and why they aren't just expendable assets.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 23, 2017 13:27:31 GMT -5
ESPN seems to have most of their analysis content behind the Insider wall...what is their assessment of how we did in the draft (if anyone here has access and wants to share the highlights)? Gave the draft a B. - Tatum can be great if he learns how to defend and get others involved. - Ojeleye is C's Type - As is Allen - Bird considered a 1st rounder as a FR and SO (pre-injury, I believe) The one issue I have is taking Allen and Bird. I could see them making teams like the Pelicans, but they have no chance at making our team. They both play the deepest positions on team. We should have went with a PF, there were 3 good ones on the board. It seems to me like wasted picks. Like they drafted good team guys to play on the Summer league team. On a side note the Warriors were going to take Oliver with pick #38, but couldn't pass up Bell when he dropped there. I think that says a lot about Olivers talent. The Warriors are very good at drafting. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2017 13:32:24 GMT -5
I look at it as more of semantics game. Would he have taken him #1 vs was he #1 on C's board. The latter I absolutely believe is true. The former is what led to Danny trading back and picking up an asset. If he's #1 on your board and you couldn't trade down, they would have taken him #1. For example what if the Sixers were like we will trade for #1, but we are only giving you two second round picks. We like the top 3 equally, but wouldn't mind first choice. Danny did the smart thing and picked up another huge asset, while getting his guy. Still think he would have taken him #1 if things worked out differently. You only gamble on not getting your #1 player if you get a big return. While I like what Danny did, if he hadn't made the pre-draft trade, he could've taken Fultz and then made a deal with whomever took Tatum. He got more for it going the way he did but, if you truly would've taken him 1, then getting him plus ANYTHING is better than just getting him. The only caveat to this would be if Tatum and Fultz were THAT far apart (and there is no indication that is true). |
|
