Celtics Salary Cap/Tax/Apron Restrictions Situation

DGreenwood

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2003
2,527
Seattle
I posted this in the Derek White thread but there is a lot of discussion in various threads talking about how the 2nd apron will impact the Celtics ability to roster build through the prime years of Jayson and Jaylen. Maybe it's better to have a single place to discuss that.

I don't listen to Bobby Marks often, and I know he's a bit of a joke around here, but he did about 10 minutes on how the Celtics are in really good shape to weather the 2nd apron rules (not the tax, there's no way around that). There are some things in here I hadn't heard before. For example, he said JBs contract is going to come in lower than it was projected when he signed it last summer. He said 5 years $286 million instead of over $300 million.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,309
Row 14
The Celtics are pretty set with their team for next year.

Their playoff rotation is locked in and they have a draft pick.

Most likely with Brissett leaving they will have space for vet min which I would guess would be Hayward.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,309
Row 14
with the NBA new tv deal in 25-26 ex the cap to go way up likely 25-40 mil per team
The cap will go up 10%, it has been mentioned before but the new CBA flattens cap increases to 10% of a course of years.
 

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
6,360
I'm reading about the 2nd apron, and **** Grant Williams and Co for agreeing to that awful CBA. Really helped the cheap, bad owners.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,902
I'm reading about the 2nd apron, and **** Grant Williams and Co for agreeing to that awful CBA. Really helped the cheap, bad owners.
Yup. I really don’t like the second apron due to how limiting it is. If you’re Brad Stevens and just made a great sequence of deals to add talent, you should be able to benefit from it without killing your owners’ cash flow and your ability to make further changes.

I get that they don’t want a bunch of Lacobs outspending everyone but, as you mention, all it really does is protect cheap owners while hurting mid-level guys who are deserving of more but who can’t risk playing hardball.
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,010
Yup. I really don’t like the second apron due to how limiting it is. If you’re Brad Stevens and just made a great sequence of deals to add talent, you should be able to benefit from it without killing your owners’ cash flow and your ability to make further changes.

I get that they don’t want a bunch of Lacobs outspending everyone but, as you mention, all it really does is protect cheap owners while hurting mid-level guys who are deserving of more but who can’t risk playing hardball.
Viewed solely through the lens of "what's good for the Celtics" rather than "what's good for the sport", is it possible to conclude that the new CBA hurts Boston long-term by making it increasingly punitive to keep the team together once the Tatum supermax kicks in... and, yet, improves Celtics' title equity from 2024 through, say, 2026 (let's pretend for the sake of discussion that Wyc keeps the current team together one year into the Tatum supermax years) by discouraging other teams from putting their own superteams together to challenge us? Or that just wish-casting and it's straight-up crappy for Boston any way you slice it?

When the new CBA was announced, I understood it as effectively punishing Boston for the sins of previous Warriors teams. But from what I've read more recently, it sounds like there's a window that Brad has leveraged into a temporary competitive advantage by effectively sneaking in one last pre-CBA-style team into the new CBA era (made possible by the fact that our stars are younger and not yet both supermax eligible).
 
Last edited:

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,010
I'm reading about the 2nd apron, and **** Grant Williams and Co for agreeing to that awful CBA. Really helped the cheap, bad owners.
I don't disagree, but there are some provisions there to punish cheap teams that don't meet the salary floor. To me, tilting a bit more towards parity over continuity is ok-ish overall. The real mistake is that the owners overreacted to the Warriors success resigning homegrown talent and decided to make that path unviable. Whereas that's a fairly unique (and somewhat commendable) approach— the focus should have been more on punishing teams that take the mercenary super-team route, and should have allowed a bit more relief for teams to resign homegrown talent. I suspect there's going to be so much payroll-driven superstar movement towards the end of the current CBA in 2028, 2029, it's going to feel senseless and debilitating for fan bases.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,902
Viewed solely through the lens of "what's good for the Celtics" rather than "what's good for the sport", is it possible to conclude that the new CBA hurts Boston long-term by making it increasingly punitive to keep the team together once the Tatum supermax kicks in... and, yet, improves Celtics' title equity from 2024 through, say, 2026 (let's pretend for the sake of discussion that Wyc keeps the current team together one year into the Tatum supermax years) by discouraging other teams from putting their own superteams together to challenge us? Or that just wish-casting and it's straight-up crappy for Boston any way you slice it?

When the new CBA was announced, I understood it as effectively punishing Boston for the sins of previous Warriors teams. But from what I've read more recently, it sounds like there's a window that Brad has leveraged into a temporary competitive advantage by effectively sneaking in one last pre-CBA-style team into the new CBA era (made possible by the fact that our stars are younger and not yet both supermax eligible).
Feels to me like there will always be a couple teams willing to make short term luxury tax sacrifices, if they feel they are close, so maybe won’t make that much of a difference in the next couple of years for the Celtics. However, it just makes things less fun for me since I enjoy watching GMs put really good teams together through shrewd moves.

Watching OKC prematurely dismantle their loaded team team really sucked although I guess Durant was probably leaving anyways.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,665
Viewed solely through the lens of "what's good for the Celtics" rather than "what's good for the sport", is it possible to conclude that the new CBA hurts Boston long-term by making it increasingly punitive to keep the team together once the Tatum supermax kicks in... and, yet, improves Celtics' title equity from 2024 through, say, 2026 (let's pretend for the sake of discussion that Wyc keeps the current team together one year into the Tatum supermax years) by discouraging other teams from putting their own superteams together to challenge us? Or that just wish-casting and it's straight-up crappy for Boston any way you slice it?

When the new CBA was announced, I understood it as effectively punishing Boston for the sins of previous Warriors teams. But from what I've read more recently, it sounds like there's a window that Brad has leveraged into a temporary competitive advantage by effectively sneaking in one last pre-CBA-style team into the new CBA era (made possible by the fact that our stars are younger and not yet both supermax eligible).
There was discussion here right after the CBA about whether fear of second apron restrictions would be so great that no one would dare go into it roster-wise (acknowledging that tax-wise is really an ownership question). I think what Celtics saw is that those frozen pick-type penalties may not be worse than having inferior players, and that the goal was to lock in the roster and salary slots before the penalties began to attach. And to your point, yes, I think there's a window for Celtics now whereas any team who hadn't already built their team and salary slots does not have the same opportunities. So they can look to trade out of some of these slots in the coming years so long as the core players (and what you can get for those slots) is useful.

If Wyc & Co. will continue to pay, of course....
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,992
Viewed solely through the lens of "what's good for the Celtics" rather than "what's good for the sport", is it possible to conclude that the new CBA hurts Boston long-term by making it increasingly punitive to keep the team together once the Tatum supermax kicks in... and, yet, improves Celtics' title equity from 2024 through, say, 2026 (let's pretend for the sake of discussion that Wyc keeps the current team together one year into the Tatum supermax years) by discouraging other teams from putting their own superteams together to challenge us? Or that just wish-casting and it's straight-up crappy for Boston any way you slice it?

When the new CBA was announced, I understood it as effectively punishing Boston for the sins of previous Warriors teams. But from what I've read more recently, it sounds like there's a window that Brad has leveraged into a temporary competitive advantage by effectively sneaking in one last pre-CBA-style team into the new CBA era (made possible by the fact that our stars are younger and not yet both supermax eligible).
I think this is correct. As mentioned in other threads, the restriction against aggregating isn't going to effect BOS at all and complicates things for other teams (LAC; MIA) in trying to get better. Plus, who cares about draft picks 7 years down the line?

And certainly DEN has been super aware of the repeater tac so they didn't re-sign Jeff Green and didn't try to add any vegerans at the trade deadline, which helped. MIN also has some hard tax decisions to face. OKC has about three years before they get really expensive too so if they don't make the correct moves, they could have tax issues.

The other timing thing that really helps the Cs is that their supermaxes are coming in before the new TV deal. Cap raising by 10% each year is really going to make JB's and JT's contracts seem a lot less onerous by their ends.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The cap will go up 10%, it has been mentioned before but the new CBA flattens cap increases to 10% of a course of years.
I know I read it someplace here about what happens to the excess revenues while the CBA prevents the cap increases from keeping pace, but I can't recall. I imagine there will need to be some adjustment at some point, especially if revenues in continue to outrace the cap increases.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,309
Row 14
I know I read it someplace here about what happens to the excess revenues while the CBA prevents the cap increases from keeping pace, but I can't recall. I imagine there will need to be some adjustment at some point, especially if revenues in continue to outrace the cap increases.
It gets thrown into an interest bearing pool which grows then gets drawn down to the next CBA to keep the cap raises going.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,309
Row 14
I'm reading about the 2nd apron, and **** Grant Williams and Co for agreeing to that awful CBA. Really helped the cheap, bad owners.
How so? This isn't baseball. There is a cap floor that requires teams to spend 90% of the cap.

The Second Apron was to increase parity in the league so Golden State and the Clippers can't just out spend people to oblivion. It helped the Celtics win last year.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
23,256
Pittsburgh, PA
I'm reading about the 2nd apron, and **** Grant Williams and Co for agreeing to that awful CBA. Really helped the cheap, bad owners.
Huh? It just redistributes the money. 50% of revenues still go to the players. Heck, they got more things included in revenue this time.

It sucks a bit for teams who have built a superteam, but it doesn't cost the players as a whole much, if anything at all.

When the new CBA was announced, I understood it as effectively punishing Boston for the sins of previous Warriors teams.
No, its intent was to prevent Steve Ballmer from buying a championship by not caring at all how much he went into the tax. Not even Kroenke is immune from feeling the pain of a couple hundred million in luxury tax (nor, in his particular case, is he motivated by anything other than maximizing his own take, as opposed to winning / having fun), but Ballmer is just that much richer than anyone else.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,550
Viewed solely through the lens of "what's good for the Celtics" rather than "what's good for the sport", is it possible to conclude that the new CBA hurts Boston long-term by making it increasingly punitive to keep the team together once the Tatum supermax kicks in... and, yet, improves Celtics' title equity from 2024 through, say, 2026 (let's pretend for the sake of discussion that Wyc keeps the current team together one year into the Tatum supermax years) by discouraging other teams from putting their own superteams together to challenge us? Or that just wish-casting and it's straight-up crappy for Boston any way you slice it?

When the new CBA was announced, I understood it as effectively punishing Boston for the sins of previous Warriors teams. But from what I've read more recently, it sounds like there's a window that Brad has leveraged into a temporary competitive advantage by effectively sneaking in one last pre-CBA-style team into the new CBA era (made possible by the fact that our stars are younger and not yet both supermax eligible).
I think the new CBA helps the Celtics a lot during this window. Most 2nd apron teams don't have their tradeable contracts and intact picks, which is what you need in order to navigate the 2nd apron.

Denver, for example, is in a rough place: they're relatively thin, without big tradeable contracts outside of MPJ, but also likely to end up over the apron. Ditto Minnesota, but without any draft picks either.

Obviously teams like OKC are in great shape in this environment, but a lot of Boston's competitors will be more hamstrung than Boston is.
 

Senator Donut

post-Domer
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2010
5,700
I think the new CBA helps the Celtics a lot during this window. Most 2nd apron teams don't have their tradeable contracts and intact picks, which is what you need in order to navigate the 2nd apron.
I agree completely and I'll also add that the 2023 offseason was executed perfectly, now that in 2024 aggregating salaries hard caps teams at the second apron. Last year, the Celtics aggregated Smart, Gallinari, Brogdon, and Williams into Porzingis and Holiday. Stevens got those done at the last possible moment.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,481
How so? This isn't baseball. There is a cap floor that requires teams to spend 90% of the cap.

The Second Apron was to increase parity in the league so Golden State and the Clippers can't just out spend people to oblivion. It helped the Celtics win last year.
My first thought is that outspending everyone didn’t get the Clippers anywhere. Most of these second apron teams are overloaded with vets who aren’t contributing up to their max contracts (suns, bucks, clips, etc). The new cap rules are a response to the black swan event of Durant going to the Ws, which isn’t going to happen again regardless because of the cap on tv revenue. It’s a solution to a problem that no longer exists.

And the new cap rules erode the middle class of the union. You have a select group of guys who are getting max contracts (not all of them equal, though their salaries are equal), rookie contracts, then a few smaller extensions, some MLEs, and everyone else is minimums. I wouldn’t believe that the union being so top heavy with salaries is positive for the members overall, but maybe some view it is.

IDK, I don’t think the new cap rules are good for the sport. If the parity comes at the cost of players moving around more often because of confusing salary cap machinations, that just doesn’t seem to be a way to build fanbases broadly or in specific markets.
 

jablo1312

New Member
Sep 20, 2005
1,054
Longer term, the repeater tax appears to be the thing that will eat away at this teams ability to keep the gang together. I know the Boston BBall Partners have a lot of obscenely rich guys involved, but its hard to see them stomaching a $300m+ tax bill for teams starting after next season. Here's an estimate of a potential cap sheet and total spend if they attempt to keep the team together beyond next year:

https://x.com/dangercart/status/1778418164595900546
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,309
Row 14
And the new cap rules erode the middle class of the union. You have a select group of guys who are getting max contracts (not all of them equal, though their salaries are equal), rookie contracts, then a few smaller extensions, some MLEs, and everyone else is minimums. I wouldn’t believe that the union being so top heavy with salaries is positive for the members overall, but maybe some view it is.

IDK, I don’t think the new cap rules are good for the sport. If the parity comes at the cost of players moving around more often because of confusing salary cap machinations, that just doesn’t seem to be a way to build fanbases broadly or in specific markets.
If the NBA didn't get the huge TV contract they did, you would be right. However in a world where the cap is going to increase 10% year after year for the next ten years or so, those middle class contracts become super valuable and more likely. Also the new CBA is going to make second rounders super valuable to good teams. In fact, all the the things you are worried about are alleviated with the new TV contract which means when negotiating the new CBA Silver convinced the NBPA that the new contract was going to be bonkers. Also things get even better for the players if the NBA expands which it will (probably next year).

That is a strong statement so I will break it down.

Mid level contracts mostly come from two things. People with cap space wanting to beat out MLE and people without cap space wanting to retain players who could fill in there. The new apron rules make teams more likely to do the second. There use to be ways to aggregate a bunch of back bench players to get to a solid rotation piece if you lost that FA. Think Derrick White. Now there is absolutely no way to fix that problem for second apron teams other than extending guys. That is why Pritchard got 7 million dollars.

All that being said lets talk about the first part. Those contracts for free agents can only grow 5% year to year which means they get more valuable year to year with the cap. Max contracts will always grow in value because they will always end as less of percentage of the team salary cap then they started (because they grow at 5 or 8 percent)

The NBA is about to add 30 roster spots and ~310-320 million in salary with a focus on middle class talent with expansion which only really works if you strengthen parity. I think we will see four more teams by 2030 which means 60 more rosters spots with 900 million to a billion in payroll.

All of this is going to let the NBA go more global while shedding China (some of the money they are getting is going to helping FIBA regain control of Europe as well as growing the game in Asia and Africa).
 
Last edited:

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,309
Row 14
Longer term, the repeater tax appears to be the thing that will eat away at this teams ability to keep the gang together. I know the Boston BBall Partners have a lot of obscenely rich guys involved, but its hard to see them stomaching a $300m+ tax bill for teams starting after next season. Here's an estimate of a potential cap sheet and total spend if they attempt to keep the team together beyond next year:

https://x.com/dangercart/status/1778418164595900546
There is no world where Kornet is getting 5 million a year from the Celtics while you have Tillman for 3 million. I get the premise but that chart makes weird assumptions about some roster decisions.

Yes guys like Pritchard and Hauser may be in traded away for draft picks to be replaced younger players but guys like Kornet will not get contracts outside the minimum. There is going to be a ruthlessness with the bench. Jaden Springer like trades will be the regular.
 

jablo1312

New Member
Sep 20, 2005
1,054
There is no world where Kornet is getting 5 million a year from the Celtics while you have Tillman for 3 million. I get the premise but that chart makes weird assumptions about some roster decisions.

Yes guys like Pritchard and Hauser may be in traded away for draft picks to be replaced younger players but guys like Kornet will not get contracts outside the minimum. There is going to be a ruthlessness with the bench. Jaden Springer like trades will be the regular.
Yea they'll probably attempt to replace end of rotation guys for cheaper, and every dollar saved there saves ownership many multiples worth in luxury tax payments. But even looking at payments for the top 5 (baking in White signing his extension) gets the team 40m above the salary cap in 2025-26 (when they'll officially be in the new repeater tax bracket I believe). Those 5 alone would equally a hefty 9 figure tax bill. I have no idea what ownerships actual willingness to pay is, but I'm very skeptical they'll be comfortable paying that much.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,656
Maine
I think a better question is what can Wyc and Pags do to raise funds. Can you sell some interest in the team? Can you sell "B" shares? (IOW raise money in return for either some really rich guys or a gazillion poor guys to say they own part of the Cs.....but dont have any sway)
I know my Boston and Mass Brethren will freak out.....but what about them pushing for a new Arena (paid for by you guys of course) which would have all the bells and Luxury Suites. (Dont they currently Rent from the Bs?)

How can the Celts raise money to make the Luxury Tax more palatable?
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,309
Row 14
Yea they'll probably attempt to replace end of rotation guys for cheaper, and every dollar saved there saves ownership many multiples worth in luxury tax payments. But even looking at payments for the top 5 (baking in White signing his extension) gets the team 40m above the salary cap in 2025-26 (when they'll officially be in the new repeater tax bracket I believe). Those 5 alone would equally a hefty 9 figure tax bill. I have no idea what ownerships actual willingness to pay is, but I'm very skeptical they'll be comfortable paying that much.
The Celtics can hold the load with nine figure luxury tax as long as they are winning, without issue. But you aren't going to pay 20 million a year to hold Kornet who at best gets you a win or two in the regular season. They will pay the top 5 and anyone in the rotation however the bench guys will always be in competition with the rest of the bench. If Pritchard comes back with a pot belly, he is out for a second and Jaden is taken his spot. The key is always having guys that can step up from late first round and second round picks.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,309
Row 14
I think a better question is what can Wyc and Pags do to raise funds. Can you sell some interest in the team? Can you sell "B" shares? (IOW raise money in return for either some really rich guys or a gazillion poor guys to say they own part of the Cs.....but dont have any sway)
I know my Boston and Mass Brethren will freak out.....but what about them pushing for a new Arena (paid for by you guys of course) which would have all the bells and Luxury Suites. (Dont they currently Rent from the Bs?)

How can the Celts raise money to make the Luxury Tax more palatable?
The team already brings in over half a billion a year. They don't need funds so long as the value of the team is going up. Plus they are about to get a nice expansion check.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
21,122
Santa Monica

jablo1312

New Member
Sep 20, 2005
1,054
There is no world where Kornet is getting 5 million a year from the Celtics while you have Tillman for 3 million. I get the premise but that chart makes weird assumptions about some roster decisions.

Yes guys like Pritchard and Hauser may be in traded away for draft picks to be replaced younger players but guys like Kornet will not get contracts outside the minimum. There is going to be a ruthlessness with the bench. Jaden Springer like trades will be the regular.
Hey, I hope they do it. I'm very skeptical BBP would actually pay a luxury tax bill north of $200m in the next 3 years, even if they get a check worth ($200m? $300m?) for 2 additional expansion teams. I hope I'm wrong! But that is a historically large sum of money.
 

Double Down Trent

New Member
Jun 5, 2008
49
The second apron next year seems to be about 190 million. Based on those calculations we will be around 199 million. Brissett is gone, if we jettison Springer and then lose one of Kornet or Tillman (or both) there might be a chance to dip below the 2nd apron and avoid the repeater tax?
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
23,256
Pittsburgh, PA
The second apron next year seems to be about 190 million. Based on those calculations we will be around 199 million. Brissett is gone, if we jettison Springer and then lose one of Kornet or Tillman (or both) there might be a chance to dip below the 2nd apron and avoid the repeater tax?
no, not unless we fail to sign White or trade a starter. You have to get below the luxury tax line - not merely the second apron, you have to be a non-taxpaying team - in order to reset the clock on that.

The good news is that BBP has been drawing profits for years on end, to save up for just this eventuality. Maybe they have to sell a minority interest, or take debt up to the limit allowed by the NBA, or do other creative stuff, but they have the ammo to write the check. And the fact that they're not throwing good money after bad - that it comes with a real chance to get #19 or even #20 - may well stiffen their spines enough to write it.
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
9,350
Pags is worth multiple billions and could take a larger ownership % if needed. Besides, Wyc runs everything past his Dad as is. The big concern was ensuring they won a championship to allow for next year. That’s done, so next year is fine. Worry about 2 years out next year, but I think KP would be the first out. With Jaylen’s massive inprovement he’s more likely to stay now than he was prior to the year (when I think they fully intended to trade him after the 24/25 season).
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,665
The Celtics can hold the load with nine figure luxury tax as long as they are winning, without issue. But you aren't going to pay 20 million a year to hold Kornet who at best gets you a win or two in the regular season. They will pay the top 5 and anyone in the rotation however the bench guys will always be in competition with the rest of the bench. If Pritchard comes back with a pot belly, he is out for a second and Jaden is taken his spot. The key is always having guys that can step up from late first round and second round picks.
The issue that spreadsheet highlights is that even being willing to pay $100 mil is not obviously evidence they can pay $300 mil, given repeater.

Similarly, I agree some of the low-end player salaries in it are odd. Those also don't move the needle a lot - the story overall is that if they keep their top 5 players (assuming Al retires after next year) they are going to have an absoultely massive lux tax regardless of end of the bench (which is close to a rounding error, really, big picture)

I tend to think they know all this and plan to pay it, to be clear. But that is the story of these numbers
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,992
My first thought is that outspending everyone didn’t get the Clippers anywhere. Most of these second apron teams are overloaded with vets who aren’t contributing up to their max contracts (suns, bucks, clips, etc). The new cap rules are a response to the black swan event of Durant going to the Ws, which isn’t going to happen again regardless because of the cap on tv revenue. It’s a solution to a problem that no longer exists.

And the new cap rules erode the middle class of the union. You have a select group of guys who are getting max contracts (not all of them equal, though their salaries are equal), rookie contracts, then a few smaller extensions, some MLEs, and everyone else is minimums. I wouldn’t believe that the union being so top heavy with salaries is positive for the members overall, but maybe some view it is.

IDK, I don’t think the new cap rules are good for the sport. If the parity comes at the cost of players moving around more often because of confusing salary cap machinations, that just doesn’t seem to be a way to build fanbases broadly or in specific markets.
I don't think the new cap rules were in response to KD's GSWs, it was in response to GSW of 2022 who won a championship having a league high salary of over $178M while spending an additional $170M on luxury taxes. Note that even at the payroll level, GSW out-spent BOS by approximately $36M, which at that time constituted a really good player who may have gotten BOS past GSW.
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
21,122
Santa Monica
That wasn't a partial divestment, it isn't his team anymore. Also the deal in Texas is a lot different than Boston.
1. Cuban divested a partial stake, he went from 100% to a 27% stake. He sold a 73% ownership at a $4B valuation ($2.9B into bank acct)
2. He runs Basketball Operations, which is the part he enjoys (& the part Wyc enjoys)
3. He is no longer on the hook for 100% of the Cap/Luxury Taxes
4. Cuban needed help on the property/hospitality/gambling side of the equation
5. He's no longer the Governor. Adelson's son-in-law is that
6. Draft Kings, MGM, a bunch of Indian Tribes, etc would give their front teeth to invest billions into the Celtics.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,309
Row 14
1. Cuban divested a partial stake, he went from 100% to a 27% stake. He sold a 73% ownership at a $4B valuation ($2.9B into bank acct)
2. He runs Basketball Operations, which is the part he enjoys (& the part Wyc enjoys)
3. He is no longer on the hook for 100% of the Cap/Luxury Taxes
4. Cuban needed help on the property/hospitality/gambling side of the equation
5. He's no longer the Governor. Adelson's son-in-law is that
6. Draft Kings, MGM, a bunch of Indian Tribes, etc would give their front teeth to invest billions into the Celtics.
You got a couple things confused here.

Cuban has no control over the Mavs. The NBA asked him to stay on a bit over the transition but he had no role by the time the playoffs started. He sold the team. The owners loved the price he got (he was selling to fund his pharma start up it had nothing on his end to do with gambling) but have real reservations with Adelson. She represents real issues especially in the Middle East and Europe as well as with US politics. I am going to leave it there before someone pings me for posting about this stuff outside of V&N but there was a really big issue letting her buy the team. They explicitly made a rule that she could not be the governor and the NBA created an exit valve due her "possible" funding certain "extremist" organizations. She bought the team to try to push gambling in Texas. Sands organization does not have a good relationship with the Indian Nations and Texas is one of the few places that has severely limited Indian Casinos unlike an Oklahoma. Cuban doesn't have a desk and he lost his courtside seats, he has a minority stake which affords you nothing the governor does not give to you.

Secondly Wyc is already divested. The Celtics are owned by a group, Boston Basketball Partners, and Wyc is the elected Governor of the group. They are already divested. The Group is pretty much the whose whose of in consulting, tech, and PE who are Boston fans. None of the guys in the ownership group are looking at the Celtics as meal ticket. In fact the Celtics might have the one of richest ownership group in sports it is so deep in rich owners.

DraftKings doesn't need the Celtics to get sports gambling in Massachusetts. DraftKings already got MA to legalize to sports gambling since IT IS LOCATED IN BOSTON. The company was founded by Wentworth Grads.

Edit - Adelson paid way over price for the team. The NBA owners did not want to deal with her but she gave a number before expansion they could not say no to. Cuban was really smart to sell.
 

the1andonly3003

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,678
3/4 Chicago, 1/4 Boston
I don't see KP or Holiday getting past year three on their current contracts, definitely can reload using their contracts.

Surely Boehly can make Atalanta richer and pay up for their young players to deepen Pags' pockets.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,481
I don't think the new cap rules were in response to KD's GSWs, it was in response to GSW of 2022 who won a championship having a league high salary of over $178M - see NBA Team Payrolls 2022: From the Thunder ($78M) to the Warriors ($178M) (usatoday.com) - while spending an additional $170M on luxury taxes. Note that even at the payroll level, GSW out-spent BOS by approximately $36M, which at that time constituted a really good player who may have gotten BOS past GSW.
Fair point, but they couldn’t have gotten there without KD and the cap spike. By being able to sign KD, they were able to then sign and trade him for DLo, which turned into the Andrew Wiggins salary cap slot (and they wouldn’t have won in 2022 without Wiggins). That $36 million is basically the extra max of KD/Dlo/Wiggins.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,665
You got a couple things confused here.

Cuban has no control over the Mavs. The NBA asked him to stay on a bit over the transition but he had no role by the time the playoffs started. He sold the team. The owners loved the price he got (he was selling to fund his pharma start up it had nothing on his end to do with gambling) but have real reservations with Adelson. She represents real issues especially in the Middle East and Europe as well as with US politics. I am going to leave it there before someone pings me for posting about this stuff outside of V&N but there was a really big issue letting her buy the team. They explicitly made a rule that she could not be the governor and the NBA created an exit valve due her "possible" funding certain "extremist" organizations. She bought the team to try to push gambling in Texas. Sands organization does not have a good relationship with the Indian Nations and Texas is one of the few places that has severely limited Indian Casinos unlike an Oklahoma. Cuban doesn't have a desk and he lost his courtside seats, he has a minority stake which affords you nothing the governor does not give to you.

Secondly Wyc is already divested. The Celtics are owned by a group, Boston Basketball Partners, and Wyc is the elected Governor of the group. They are already divested. The Group is pretty much the whose whose of in consulting, tech, and PE who are Boston fans. None of the guys in the ownership group are looking at the Celtics as meal ticket. In fact the Celtics might have the one of richest ownership group in sports it is so deep in rich owners.

DraftKings doesn't need the Celtics to get sports gambling in Massachusetts. DraftKings already got MA to legalize to sports gambling since IT IS LOCATED IN BOSTON. The company was founded by Wentworth Grads.

Edit - Adelson paid way over price for the team. The NBA owners did not want to deal with her but she gave a number before expansion they could not say no to. Cuban was really smart to sell.
The Celtics really do not have "one of the richest ownership groups in sports".

It's doubtful they are in the top 10 even in the NBA - feel free to post something credible if you can document otherwise, but I think most of us realize that is not close to the case. Some sources here https://www.thebiglead.com/posts/richest-nba-owners-list-01hq9c2n8mh0 here https://www.axios.com/2022/10/20/ballmers-billions-sports-owners-chart and here https://www.statista.com/statistics/1179615/wealthiest-sports-teams-owners/ and here https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elite-billionaires-sports-ownership-meet-153216209.html

That does not mean they will not pay up for this roster going forward, but they do not have unlimited money or even close. And I get they have multiple owners in their group, but there just isn't credible math that gets them into the top tier of owners in terms of net worth. What they will spend? I can EASILY believe they will spend near or at the top of owners...but that's a little harder to discern prospectively.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,992
Fair point, but they couldn’t have gotten there without KD and the cap spike. By being able to sign KD, they were able to then sign and trade him for DLo, which turned into the Andrew Wiggins salary cap slot (and they wouldn’t have won in 2022 without Wiggins). That $36 million is basically the extra max of KD/Dlo/Wiggins.
Understood but GSW managed to get under the cap in 2017 and 2020. It wasn't until 2021 and 2022 that their salaries really spiked - including their luxury tax payments - and from what I recall, the rest of the owners wanted to figure out how to stop it. As I said, in 2022, GSW had a payroll + luxury tax of over $340M, which was over 4 times what OKC spent ($78M) and 3 times over what several other teams spent. And the next year, payroll + tax was close to (or over, I can't remember the final figures) $400M.

Their history up to 2022:

84711

Cite.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,309
Row 14
The Celtics really do not have "one of the richest ownership groups in sports".

It's doubtful they are in the top 10 even in the NBA - feel free to post something credible if you can document otherwise, but I think most of us realize that is not close to the case. Some sources here https://www.thebiglead.com/posts/richest-nba-owners-list-01hq9c2n8mh0 here https://www.axios.com/2022/10/20/ballmers-billions-sports-owners-chart and here https://www.statista.com/statistics/1179615/wealthiest-sports-teams-owners/ and here https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elite-billionaires-sports-ownership-meet-153216209.html

That does not mean they will not pay up for this roster going forward, but they do not have unlimited money or even close. And I get they have multiple owners in their group, but there just isn't credible math that gets them into the top tier of owners in terms of net worth. What they will spend? I can EASILY believe they will spend near or at the top of owners...but that's a little harder to discern prospectively.
The founders of Flex, Bain, Silver Lake, TPG, Vertex Pharma, Arch, and RA Capital might not have Balmer money but they are individuallly in the ball park with a lot of single owners in the NBA. Bonderman is worth over 6 billion, and there is a group of those guys who are in the 1-5 billion range. They are very rich group of Harvard grads. They will always have more resources than a team with majority billionaire besides Balmer. They all have other business interests worth billions unlike a Fenway Sports Group who have a lot of people whose main portfolio piece is FSG.

I don't think these guys are in the business of bleeding money but they certainly collectively bought the team as Harvard friends club. A lot of the guys own other teams in other leagues individually.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,665
The founders of Flex, Bain, Silver Lake, TPG, Vertex Pharma, Arch, and RA Capital might not have Balmer money but they are individuallly in the ball park with a lot of single owners in the NBA. Bonderman is worth over 6 billion, and there is a group of those guys who are in the 1-5 billion range. They are very rich group of Harvard grads. They will always have more resources than a team with majority billionaire besides Balmer. They all have other business interests worth billions unlike a Fenway Sports Group who have a lot of people whose main portfolio piece is FSG.

I don't think these guys are in the business of bleeding money but they certainly collectively bought the team as Harvard friends club. A lot of the guys own other teams in other leagues individually.
Since you brought up FSG, keep in mind that approaching Red Sox ownership the way you have described the Celtics you'd have to include all their wealthy limited partners too, and they have plenty of those guys with lots of independent income. The challenge with larger partner groups (and FSG, since you raised it, shows this) is we should not assume that everyone in the ownership group has unlimited financial commitment to the Celtics. That is almost surely not the case (it has not been in any of the public statements or other similar ownership groups that have been visible over the years). You can't just add up total wealth of all people with any ownership share---you have to assess what they are willing to put against the Celtics as a business separate from their others. What made Cuban interesting wasn't his total wealth so much as his commitment level; with the Celtics, we have less visibility and also less obvious wealth among the active owners than many other teams.

I think we agree that the Celtics are not a poor ownership group - and we should also all recognize they are also nowhere near one of the wealthiest, either. They can afford to pay for this team, and my guess is they will..but they will have limits somehwere, and it will hurt
 
Last edited:

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,010
There's generally an assumption that Jaylen will be the first casualty of the repeater tax. But, given the age and durability of the Jays, I wonder if the approach should be to sell off everything around them in the summer of 2026 (I'm assuming for the sake of discussion that the ownership group stomachs exactly one season of ~$300 tax bill), do a mini-rebuild for a year or two to get under the cap, and rebuild around younger players, accrued draft picks and a reset tax situation. Then, they can make another run while both Jays are still just entering their 30s. Of course, it's kind of ridiculous to project out this far (there will be a whole other CBA by the end of the decade anyway) but It would be an interesting approach to do a hard reset rather than trying to continually patch holes created by the punitive salary cap situation.

Edit: it would wind up being a bit like the 90s Bulls, where you had Jordan and Pippin as constants and then two phases of role players around them, with the same player types recurring (Grant -> Rodman, Cartwright -> Longley, Paxson -> Kerr, etc)
 
Last edited:

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,815
There's generally an assumption that Jaylen will be the first casualty of the repeater tax. But, given the age and durability of the Jays, I wonder if the approach should be to sell off everything around them in the summer of 2026 (I'm assuming for the sake of discussion that the ownership group stomachs exactly one season of ~$300 tax bill), do a mini-rebuild for a year or two to get under the cap, and rebuild around younger players, accrued draft picks and a reset tax situation. Then, they can make another run while both Jays are still just entering their 30s. Of course, it's kind of ridiculous to project out this far (there will be a whole other CBA by the end of the decade anyway) but It would be an interesting approach to do a hard reset rather than trying to continually patch holes created by the punitive salary cap situation.

Edit: it would wind up being a bit like the 90s Bulls, where you had Jordan and Pippin as constants and then two phases of role players around them, with the same player types recurring (Grant -> Rodman, Cartwright -> Longley, Paxson -> Kerr, etc)
I think the bolded was an assumption some posters here were making when Jaylen became eligible for the super-max. That assumption is probably no longer valid, and is certainly not generally assumed by those that follow the league or team closely.

The team signed Jrue and is likely to sign White to an extension. That doesn't stop them from selling off some pieces in a couple of years, and there will be some natural movement anyway. But I don't think we can just assume that the team will sell off one of their stars just to get under the tax. Nothing they've done so far indicates they intend to do this.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,293
I think the bolded was an assumption some posters here were making when Jaylen became eligible for the super-max. That assumption is probably no longer valid, and is certainly not generally assumed by those that follow the league or team closely.

The team signed Jrue and is likely to sign White to an extension. That doesn't stop them from selling off some pieces in a couple of years, and there will be some natural movement anyway. But I don't think we can just assume that the team will sell off one of their stars just to get under the tax. Nothing they've done so far indicates they intend to do this.
That assumption is certainly no longer valid even if it was a possibility back then. In the summer of 2026 if I had to guess it would be Jrue at age 36 who would be the most likely to be moved as well as possibly a banged up Porzingis. The Jays have entered a new stratosphere together with this Championship and the cohesion they have found together.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,995
St. Louis, MO
One three year run with this core and then Jrue and KP move on. Already a success but one more ring and it’s well worth the tax paid.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,895
Hingham, MA
That assumption is certainly no longer valid even if it was a possibility back then. In the summer of 2026 if I had to guess it would be Jrue at age 36 who would be the most likely to be moved as well as possibly a banged up Porzingis. The Jays have entered a new stratosphere together with this Championship and the cohesion they have found together.
I've been thinking similar with regard to KP and Jrue. White will be around for the length of his new deal, hopefully Sam and PP for the next 3-4 years as well, Al as we know is probably on his last ride. But I can't see more than 1-2 more years with Jrue and KP as part of the mix (hope I am wrong about this).

While the team (or at least top 8) is more or less set in stone for next year, if I'm Brad my medium-term concern is the big man situation.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,309
Row 14
Since you brought up FSG
FSG is way different that Boston Basketball Partners. You can't compare them at all. FSG has private equity money in it and some very poor partners. It is an portfolio asset. It will always be treated differently than BBP.

BBP is not a charity but it is not really investment class asset looking for yearly returns and they aren't looking to add revenue streams beyond the underline investment. If it was it would have been rolled into Wyc's Causeway. It is set up closer to a high end country club in structure.