SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 7, 2020 15:19:15 GMT -5
By the way, the Celtics would probably have to take back a second player if they tried to trade Hyward for Turner because salaries won’t match. That’s not ideal and it’d probably be someone not that good with a lousy multi year salary like Jeremy Lamb. That's fine for me, I'd make sure it was equal though. Like we also send VP back to them. That gives you many more trade options. You could turn around and flip Lamb and Theis for something else. It addresses a huge problem in not having contracts to trade. Danny is going to have to make some tough choices. Especially if Kanter opts in. What are the future roles for guys like Edwards, Waters, etc? It's going to be interesting that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 7, 2020 16:31:26 GMT -5
By the way, the Celtics would probably have to take back a second player if they tried to trade Hyward for Turner because salaries won’t match. That’s not ideal and it’d probably be someone not that good with a lousy multi year salary like Jeremy Lamb. That's fine for me, I'd make sure it was equal though. Like we also send VP back to them. That gives you many more trade options. You could turn around and flip Lamb and Theis for something else. It addresses a huge problem in not having contracts to trade. Danny is going to have to make some tough choices. Especially if Kanter opts in. What are the future roles for guys like Edwards, Waters, etc? It's going to be interesting that's for sure. So it depends on your perspective. Your premise that he’s not a perfect fit goes to you thinking you can swap him for a Center. Maybe that’s not true, maybe Indiana wouldn’t trade Turner for him, then what? Hayward actually is a perfect fit next to Brown and Tatum. He showed this year when healthy he doesn’t need a lot of touches and he can be a highly efficient scorer in that situation. We probably have to manage Walkers minutes so having Walker, Smart, Brown, Tatum and Hayward is great. Is it a luxury? Maybe, might be a luxury you could really need though. I’m ok with trading him and would be excited about Turner so this isn’t about that. What I don’t want, is losing that salary slot to free agency and not being able to replace it. So I’d have no issues with an extension of Hayward if you can’t deal him at 4/80. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 7, 2020 17:03:30 GMT -5
Playing together and perfect fit are totally different no? If you can't play your five best players together all the time, it's not a perfect fit. Hayward needs the ball, otherwise he loses a ton of value. I'd much rather Tatum and Brown create and play that role. With Hayward they don't have Brown do that and your just stunting his growth in my opinion. Nevermind Brown and Tatum love fast break Basketball and that's not Hayward. I don't like his D. I think you can make a good case Hield fits better with Tatum and Brown. He'd open the paint up, same way Turner will. Now he's not perfect, still can't play your five best players together. Yet if it's him or Hayward based on your four years 80 million I'll take Hield. He's a much better shooter than Hayward and he doesn't need the ball. It's the Horford vs Reddick thing with the Sixers. Horford is the better overall player, yet Reddick was easily the better fit.
Who knows what the Pacers want to do, yet they basically have to trade Turner or Sabonis. They both play better without the other one, they are both centers in today's NBA. Sabonis is the better offensive guy, Turner the better defensive guy. Move Warren to PF, insert Hayward. That makes sense, that trade likely makes both teams better. Plus that's Haywards home state.
I agree with your overall point, you don't want to lose him for nothing. Yet I think there are many trades out there that make sense. A lot of teams that need a guy like him to be a primary creator, when we don't. I like Smart starting and playing big minutes, I value his D over Haywards. Heck when Smart wants to create he's darn good at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 7, 2020 17:50:38 GMT -5
Playing together and perfect fit are totally different no? If you can't play your five best players together all the time, it's not a perfect fit. Hayward needs the ball, otherwise he loses a ton of value. I'd much rather Tatum and Brown create and play that role. With Hayward they don't have Brown do that and your just stunting his growth in my opinion. Nevermind Brown and Tatum love fast break Basketball and that's not Hayward. I don't like his D. I think you can make a good case Hield fits better with Tatum and Brown. He'd open the paint up, same way Turner will. Now he's not perfect, still can't play your five best players together. Yet if it's him or Hayward based on your four years 80 million I'll take Hield. He's a much better shooter than Hayward and he doesn't need the ball. It's the Horford vs Reddick thing with the Sixers. Horford is the better overall player, yet Reddick was easily the better fit. Who knows what the Pacers want to do, yet they basically have to trade Turner or Sabonis. They both play better without the other one, they are both centers in today's NBA. Sabonis is the better offensive guy, Turner the better defensive guy. Move Warren to PF, insert Hayward. That makes sense, that trade likely makes both teams better. Plus that's Haywards home state. I agree with your overall point, you don't want to lose him for nothing. Yet I think there are many trades out there that make sense. A lot of teams that need a guy like him to be a primary creator, when we don't. I like Smart starting and playing big minutes, I value his D over Haywards. Heck when Smart wants to create he's darn good at it. Buddy is a better 3 point shooter that’s true but Hayward is a good 3 point shooter himself. It’s literally the only thing Hield does better than Hayward though. It’s almost like you think Hayward is a bad fit because he’s too good. It’s only a problem if he makes it a problem which he hasn’t to this point. He was very good last year as a low usage player so I don’t buy he hurts Brown or Tatum. The Horford and Reddick comp is was off but I get what you are going for. I also question why Sacramento would trade for Hayward in the final year of his deal. Turner or John Collins makes more sense. Collins should play as a center more than a PF in today’s NBA |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 7, 2020 23:23:11 GMT -5
Who do you want creating? I want Tatum, Brown and Walker, Hayward limits that, he turns Brown into just a scorer. Heck Tatum's leap as a creator only happened after Hayward went down. I also don't count 21.1% usage rate as a low usage player.
The difference in Hield shooting and Haywards is massive. One guy took 9.6 per game, the other 4.3. The question is really how efficient does Hield get going from being a #1 type guy to being a #4. From trying to create offense, taking tough shots, to getting wide open looks? I'm a little surprised you aren't high on Hield given you want shooting big time. I'll admit this takes projection and what you want players doing. Yet I can see it, I can see Hield being the better fit in today's NBA given Brown, Tatum and Walker all get to the basket and create open looks.
The King's need winning players. They need good team players, to create good team ball not iso crap. If it works they'll throw a ton of money on him. Heck I could see them giving him max money. The veteran to show the young guys how to win. New owner wants to win.
I 100% agree Turner is my #1 choice and it's not close. John Collins can't play D, it's why the Hawks can't just stick him at center. I'd have to think about that one, it likely makes sense yet isn't close to perfect. Why would the Hawks do that? Pacers have two high priced centers, the King's have two crazy good SGs, both really need to trade one of them. The Hawks don't have a Collins clone and are like year three of a rebuild, not wanting to win badly like the King's and Pacers. I don't see that one, yet it's interesting if it's available.
|
|
|
|
Post by dangermike on Oct 8, 2020 0:20:49 GMT -5
i am probably being naive but i hope that by not trading gh, we get a sweetheart extension bc i think hes a perfect fit for this team. when i think of my ideal finishing lineup, he's for sure in it bc of his efficiency. there's been so much talk about players like tatum being able to go 1v1 and "create" his own shot but a lot of times at the end of the game, i think thats a detriment to our success. we dont have lbj or harden. our strength lies in our depth of high-level talent. yes, we need more overall depth, but you wont find too many teams with 4 legitimate scorers like we have. gh doesnt cry when he doesnt get touches- he plays complimentary ball. dealing him now would be a mistake and selling low on him. i would much rather move kemba bc he literally can't defend and imagining us (even at full strength) playing against the lakers right now is a fucking nightmare. what on earth do we do when lebron just hunts kemba the entire 2nd half? gh could run the offense, put similar pressure on the middle of the defense as walker but add rebounding while not being a complete defensive liability. you talk of kemba's drives- gordon does that. dealing an old player for a young player on sacremento seems like wishcasting. and if gh is a winning player................lets just keep him and he can lead our young players so we can win? right? right???
i think it's in our strength to deal smart or kemba (if we have to make a deal)(and i know it's suicide to deal kemba based on optics alone) bc one of brad's best abilities is getting a lot out of point guards. i would love to spend our money elsewhere. larkin was very good for us as a backup and he doesn't even play on this continent anymore... wanamaker is the same but reversed. don't wanna sound like a hater but smart, for all of his winning plays, makes a lot of losing plays- stops runs, ruins momentum, does things that lose games more than anyone else right now, save for timelord but he's a 2nd year player who is improving even though he's gotten derailed by injuries and covid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 8, 2020 0:44:29 GMT -5
This ONLY makes sense if you are trading for a Center so Heild talk makes no sense if this is your stance. Absolutely. I'm only trading Hayward for a big, I don't even think they should consider other options. I'm going to put up a very off the top of my head Top 5 guys I'd target with the Hayward contract just to drive umass mad: 1- Myles Turner 2- Kevin Love 3- LaMarcus Aldridge 4- Jusuf Nurkić 5- Nemanja Bjelica Anything else I'm not sure is realistic. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 8, 2020 5:43:16 GMT -5
Who do you want creating? I want Tatum, Brown and Walker, Hayward limits that, he turns Brown into just a scorer. Heck Tatum's leap as a creator only happened after Hayward went down. I also don't count 21.1% usage rate as a low usage player. The difference in Hield shooting and Haywards is massive. One guy took 9.6 per game, the other 4.3. The question is really how efficient does Hield get going from being a #1 type guy to being a #4. From trying to create offense, taking tough shots, to getting wide open looks? I'm a little surprised you aren't high on Hield given you want shooting big time. I'll admit this takes projection and what you want players doing. Yet I can see it, I can see Hield being the better fit in today's NBA given Brown, Tatum and Walker all get to the basket and create open looks. The King's need winning players. They need good team players, to create good team ball not iso crap. If it works they'll throw a ton of money on him. Heck I could see them giving him max money. The veteran to show the young guys how to win. New owner wants to win. I 100% agree Turner is my #1 choice and it's not close. John Collins can't play D, it's why the Hawks can't just stick him at center. I'd have to think about that one, it likely makes sense yet isn't close to perfect. Why would the Hawks do that? Pacers have two high priced centers, the King's have two crazy good SGs, both really need to trade one of them. The Hawks don't have a Collins clone and are like year three of a rebuild, not wanting to win badly like the King's and Pacers. I don't see that one, yet it's interesting if it's available. This isn’t me not liking Hield, it’s me thinking Hayward is a better player. Nothing is getting in the way of Tatum and his playmaking at this point. He’s in control of that and the team will put the ball in his hands. I do want more shooting but I’m not trading Marcus Smart for JJ Reddick just to get more shooting. If you think the team is worse with Hayward on it, or if you don’t think Hayward can make it thru a season anymore I totally get it. I just disagree on the first part but I am concerned on the second part. If we could guarantee that the Hield that shows up to play against the Celtics is the Hield we’d get then it’s a no brainer but there’s a reason he got benched in Sacramento. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 8, 2020 12:54:05 GMT -5
This ONLY makes sense if you are trading for a Center so Heild talk makes no sense if this is your stance. Absolutely. I'm only trading Hayward for a big, I don't even think they should consider other options. I'm going to put up a very off the top of my head Top 5 guys I'd target with the Hayward contract just to drive umass mad: 1- Myles Turner 2- Kevin Love 3- LaMarcus Aldridge 4- Jusuf Nurkić 5- Nemanja Bjelica Anything else I'm not sure is realistic. I like all those guys besides Love because his D is that bad. Yet Aldridge is crazy old, Nurkic has too good of a contract and Blazers don't have any other contracts to add, Bjeclica also has a small contract. If you're talking Hield and Bjeclica for Hayward. Maybe add in Kanter if he opts in or VP. Now that starts to make a bunch of sense. You add two very good shooters. I'd add a pick to that offer. Yet Turner is still far and away the best option. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 8, 2020 13:24:42 GMT -5
Who do you want creating? I want Tatum, Brown and Walker, Hayward limits that, he turns Brown into just a scorer. Heck Tatum's leap as a creator only happened after Hayward went down. I also don't count 21.1% usage rate as a low usage player. The difference in Hield shooting and Haywards is massive. One guy took 9.6 per game, the other 4.3. The question is really how efficient does Hield get going from being a #1 type guy to being a #4. From trying to create offense, taking tough shots, to getting wide open looks? I'm a little surprised you aren't high on Hield given you want shooting big time. I'll admit this takes projection and what you want players doing. Yet I can see it, I can see Hield being the better fit in today's NBA given Brown, Tatum and Walker all get to the basket and create open looks. The King's need winning players. They need good team players, to create good team ball not iso crap. If it works they'll throw a ton of money on him. Heck I could see them giving him max money. The veteran to show the young guys how to win. New owner wants to win. I 100% agree Turner is my #1 choice and it's not close. John Collins can't play D, it's why the Hawks can't just stick him at center. I'd have to think about that one, it likely makes sense yet isn't close to perfect. Why would the Hawks do that? Pacers have two high priced centers, the King's have two crazy good SGs, both really need to trade one of them. The Hawks don't have a Collins clone and are like year three of a rebuild, not wanting to win badly like the King's and Pacers. I don't see that one, yet it's interesting if it's available. This isn’t me not liking Hield, it’s me thinking Hayward is a better player. Nothing is getting in the way of Tatum and his playmaking at this point. He’s in control of that and the team will put the ball in his hands. I do want more shooting but I’m not trading Marcus Smart for JJ Reddick just to get more shooting. If you think the team is worse with Hayward on it, or if you don’t think Hayward can make it thru a season anymore I totally get it. I just disagree on the first part but I am concerned on the second part. If we could guarantee that the Hield that shows up to play against the Celtics is the Hield we’d get then it’s a no brainer but there’s a reason he got benched in Sacramento. I think Hayward is currently the better more complete player. Yet I can see Hield being the better fit, yet that takes projection. How you think Hield does going from #1 option to #4 option. Another way of looking at it, who's better over the next four years? Hield is two years younger and Hayward has aged a ton due to his injury. He's not close to the guy we signed to a max deal. Hield matches age wise better with Tatum and Brown. I'm not going to knock Haywards play after injury, yet he kinda looked lost. He left as a main creator and came back to a team with Tatum in that role. How that effects him is TBD. I'm not banging the table to get this deal done, I'm so so on it. I prefer others guys like Turner a lot more. As a fallback option, over giving Hayward 80 million I like it. Put another way, what if Hayward wouldn't sign an extension? That's how I look at Hield, a decent fallback option, if you add the big Don wants it starts to make even more sense. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 8, 2020 14:11:36 GMT -5
This isn’t me not liking Hield, it’s me thinking Hayward is a better player. Nothing is getting in the way of Tatum and his playmaking at this point. He’s in control of that and the team will put the ball in his hands. I do want more shooting but I’m not trading Marcus Smart for JJ Reddick just to get more shooting. If you think the team is worse with Hayward on it, or if you don’t think Hayward can make it thru a season anymore I totally get it. I just disagree on the first part but I am concerned on the second part. If we could guarantee that the Hield that shows up to play against the Celtics is the Hield we’d get then it’s a no brainer but there’s a reason he got benched in Sacramento. I think Hayward is currently the better more complete player. Yet I can see Hield being the better fit, yet that takes projection. How you think Hield does going from #1 option to #4 option. Another way of looking at it, who's better over the next four years? Hield is two years younger and Hayward has aged a ton due to his injury. He's not close to the guy we signed to a max deal. Hield matches age wise better with Tatum and Brown. I'm not going to knock Haywards play after injury, yet he kinda looked lost. He left as a main creator and came back to a team with Tatum in that role. How that effects him is TBD. I'm not banging the table to get this deal done, I'm so so on it. I prefer others guys like Turner a lot more. As a fallback option, over giving Hayward 80 million I like it. Put another way, what if Hayward wouldn't sign an extension? That's how I look at Hield, a decent fallback option, if you add the big Don wants it starts to make even more sense. Yea we can’t judge Hayward in the Heat series the guy would never have been on the court if they weren’t desperate. I agree if you can’t extend Hayward that changes the calculus a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 8, 2020 18:16:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Oct 8, 2020 21:37:43 GMT -5
In an article for the Athletic, John Hollinger presents an offseason path that few Cs fans will be happy with.
Basically . . .
- Use the 30th pick to incentivize a team to take Kanter and Poirier in exchange for a 2nd (of course, assuming Kanter opts in)
- Use 26 on Bolmaro and stash him over seas
- Trade 14 for a future 1st.
- Use their exception on an upgrade for Wannamker
The idea is to maintain as much flexibility as they state down a future luxury tax bill. Figure out which of the young players (Langford and the Williams') can step up to be a part of a championship caliber rotation. Then make a move at the deadline (with the extra future pick as an added bullet) to pick up a player that gives them a push.
I neither endorse nor decry but present for discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 8, 2020 23:02:09 GMT -5
I neither endorse nor decry but present for discussion. I don't like that plan. I think this was a season for Danny to check out if the current core could chip. They can. Now he needs to deliver the final pieces around them and there's no better time than now. Get a good big, a bench scorer and let's rock. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 8, 2020 23:51:30 GMT -5
There has to be more to that plan. That reads like they are dumping better trade chips, contracts and players just to save money. They have never done that, heck they've done the opposite.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,451 
|
Post by ianrs on Oct 9, 2020 2:43:30 GMT -5
I neither endorse nor decry but present for discussion. I don't like that plan. I think this was a season for Danny to check out if the current core could chip. They can. Now he needs to deliver the final pieces around them and there's no better time than now. Get a good big, a bench scorer and let's rock. Agreed. You dont give away the pick you could steal Xavier Tillman with just to dump Kanter/Poirier. I guess you could argue you're freeing up a roster spot to get a player you like later. Draft Tillman and a solid scoring guard like Riller, and anything else is a bonus. Maybe steal Sam Merrill in 2nd round. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Oct 9, 2020 6:52:32 GMT -5
I would only argue that we should probably assume that Hollinger isnt endorsing throwing away the pick but that, instead, Cs could get a player with that early 2nd they like as much as they do a player at 30.
It's more of a "kick the moves down the road" plan than a "just move salary" plan.
It does, however, assume a LOT.
|
|
|
|
Post by philarhody on Oct 9, 2020 7:52:56 GMT -5
In an article for the Athletic, John Hollinger presents an offseason path that few Cs fans will be happy with. Basically . . . - Use the 30th pick to incentivize a team to take Kanter and Poirier in exchange for a 2nd (of course, assuming Kanter opts in) - Use 26 on Bolmaro and stash him over seas - Trade 14 for a future 1st. - Use their exception on an upgrade for Wannamker The idea is to maintain as much flexibility as they state down a future luxury tax bill. Figure out which of the young players (Langford and the Williams') can step up to be a part of a championship caliber rotation. Then make a move at the deadline (with the extra future pick as an added bullet) to pick up a player that gives them a push. I neither endorse nor decry but present for discussion. If you could guarantee me Bolmaro would be there at 26, I wouldn’t be mad at that draft. Especially if you get players like Flynn or Isaiah Joe or Paul Reed or Tillman with those second round picks. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 9, 2020 9:06:33 GMT -5
There was a lot more to that article and I know Tex isn’t suggesting there wasn’t. This was not an article to discuss how to make the Celtics the best team possible. It was an article about navigating the luxury tax. The teams desire to not pay massive tax could make them make moves that aren’t ideal from an in court perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Oct 9, 2020 13:35:00 GMT -5
There was a lot more to that article and I know Tex isn’t suggesting there wasn’t. This was not an article to discuss how to make the Celtics the best team possible. It was an article about navigating the luxury tax. The teams desire to not pay massive tax could make them make moves that aren’t ideal from an in court perspective. Yes, the tone of the piece was definitely a "warning" to the C's (and fans) about the pitfalls of certain decisions that would make the Luxury Tax rather unwieldy. But the plan, as he laid it out, does not prevent improvement. Just relies on some internal improvement and pushes the external (outside of a combo guard upgrade) back to the deadline (and in Europe) while avoiding the reactionary type moves that could push them into a very tough (tax-wise) situation. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 9, 2020 14:23:06 GMT -5
This isn't aimed at anyone, just in regards to the article and Hollinger.
When have the Celtics every not gone for best team, with best assets to make future moves compared to saving money? Two years ago they were 2.5 million over luxury tax. They had 15 ways to get under and didn't. Simply dumping Yabu for likely a 2nd round pick would have done it. They weren't over last year.
If that's just a what the Celtics could do if saving money was the top goal ok. Yet why even bring it up? You're on the verge of creating maybe the next Warrior type team that could win multiple Championship's in the coming years. You just went to ECF for the third time in four years. Your tax bill to this point has been $3.6 million in 2018/2019. Seems like a conversation for the future when they start getting massive tax bills.
You want a mid season trade, yet you are shipping out like 8 million in contracts that will leave you with very few contracts to trade. Nevermind Danny hates mid season trades, he values chemistry. Why not make a move now?
So far his ideas basically go against our GM and owners way of doing business. Frankly it reads like he didn't do his homework on the team he's talking about and it's crazy. If you want to use the 14th pick to make a move, make it in the off season. That's our GMs way of doing things.
Your stash guy at 26 is 100% fine. Yet there's only one guy like him. Most top international guys want to come over now and most guys in this draft want that. What's your backup plan if he's gone?
26 and 30 seem like the likely picks to be traded for future picks. Any first rounder will equal there value. Pick 14 is crazy hard in this draft. Nevermind Danny loves building teams with young players. Add in that picking the right player at 14 could have much more long-term value than a future pick.
Which team wants to move up a few picks and pick up almost eight million in contracts? Plus two roster spots? It's not crazy, it could happen. Yet his whole plan has so many of these rather unlikely things that it's rather crazy when you add it all up. Finding the right value at 14, the right guy at 26 and a team willing to take on contracts to move up a few spots. Each one on it's own isn't crazy, yet added together it's crazy unrealistic. Too much if everything goes just right type crap.
I've long been a fan of trading 30 for 34 and 36 that the Sixers own. Seen this proposed a few times by Sixer people. Gives you two second round picks for the two way guys and one to sign for the active roster. Yet the issue is you need cap space or exceptions to give second round picks long-term deals like Edwards last year. Otherwise you run the risk of Gilbert Arenas and you can't get those long-term deals with team options. You run the risk of getting a Wood type guy you can't afford to resign because of no bird rights.
Overall we've wasted time talking about a plan that makes zero sense. It's just an article to get people talking. Now some of his ideas could happen, no way his whole plan equals Danny plan though. I feel crazy safe saying Danny's plan is to build the best long-term team, not the team with the lowest luxury tax bill. Fairly sure Hollinger would agree with that. Now he should go write an article about the Celtics building the best team they can. How a Turner/Lamb for Hayward/VP deal will save you more money and address more issues than his ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 9, 2020 18:06:30 GMT -5
So the things Tex outlined where a very small portion of the article, so I wouldn’t focus too much on those things. The take away is the luxury tax being something they need to deal with. The Celtics have paid the luxury tax 7 times for a total of less than 50m. They face a tax next year of 23m before they add anyone to the roster so it’s hard to just day they’ve never shied away from the tax so they’ll pay whatever they need to.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 9, 2020 18:36:34 GMT -5
Also, those weren’t all the things Hollinger threw out, for example he talked about trading Kanter, the 14th pick and Vincent Poirier to Cleveland for Nance. He then talked about the luxury tax ramifications now and down the line. I’m trying to illustrate that Hollinger wasn’t acting like those were the 3 options that Celtics had.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 9, 2020 19:21:30 GMT -5
So the things Tex outlined where a very small portion of the article, so I wouldn’t focus too much on those things. The take away is the luxury tax being something they need to deal with. The Celtics have paid the luxury tax 7 times for a total of less than 50m. They face a tax next year of 23m before they add anyone to the roster so it’s hard to just day they’ve never shied away from the tax so they’ll pay whatever they need to. The NBA salary cap in 2008 when they started paying taxes was 58 million, it's a 115 million next year. So you can't look at just the dollars and not address the fact that revenues have doubled in that time. 20 million today is 10 million back then. So he's more than willing to do that. Yet if that's your big worry, why are you trading or stashing picks? Hitting on late first round picks is the best value in the game, with five years of control and matching rights. That's the part I don't get, Robert Williams has a 2 million charge next year. Edwards is 1.5 million, yet only four years, no matching rights and requires you to use cap space or exceptions. I get it, it's certainly something to consider long-term. Yet our owner has payed under four million over like the last eight years and we aren't yet in the repeater tax. Way too early to start thinking they trade talent and assets this year over money. They also make a ton of extra money during the playoffs when they have long runs. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 10, 2020 6:05:03 GMT -5
If your take is the luxury tax this year or in the future will have no baring on what they do this season then you’d disagree with the article. If you believe it will have an effect to a degree, then it was an interesting article. It was long so nit picking a few elements of it like they were it’s entirety when it hasn’t been read is not a discussion worth having. When signing a player most teams do look how it affects their balance sheet a couple years ahead (for example he looked into what a Hayward extension looked like which wasn’t mentioned yet - it covered a lot).
|
|
|
