If you're Tatum you say "Oh this is the best chance for me to play with my buddy another star who I've been wanting to play with for years? Sounds good to me" Doubt he'd be too thrilled if signing Gay or Green or whoever cost them Beal
Except reasonable minds can differ on what is necessary to get him Beal. And more importantly the original threat this came from was the idea that player like Tatum are fine with staying under the tax for multiple years to save money. The Celtics have a number of ways to go over the tax while still setting up options to sign Beal next year (trading Horford for example, might be pricey, but you could swap him out of more money this year but less next, actually making it easier for you to sign Beal without losing as many long term assets, AND maybe improving this year's team).
It's all hypothetical, but the general point is, players of Tatum's caliber don't want to feel like the team is wasting a year of their prime over the billionaire owner's tax bill, especially when they just last year had a re-set year where they didn't aggressively pursue big money assets and moved depth because they wanted to re-set the tax
The idea that creating the ability to renounce everyone and sign Beal next year and not spending into the tax are necessarily one and the same is not accurate. Tatum could very well say,,, "sure do what you can to get me Beal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't spend this year too"
6-8 team trade, that won't fall apart.
Might, but more likely it's just tying 2 or 3 existing pending trades together, so it really only take 1 or 2 teams to do it not all 6 or 8.