Gordon Hayward 2020: I'm standing here in pieces and you're having delusions of grandeur!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
12,773
There is no way this is the most likely scenario with the Celtics having three bigger contracts than his, assuming Tatum extension, next year.

I'd be stunned if they had Turner they'd trade him for an even bigger salary.
Sure, the most likely scenario is he's never even on the team.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,168
the best part from the placed piece was the obvious Bam comp

With Sabonis out of the Pacers’ playoff series against the Heat, Turner played budding star Adebayo to a draw.

Bam was a +55 in that 4 game sweep. without reviewing the tape I doubt it was a draw
36534

I don't know that it's a draw, but Turner played very well in the Bam matchup, held his own on rebounds, got a bunch of buckets on Bam, held him to 48% from the field. The player tracking data showed him as being very effective in limiting scoring by his man in that series as well.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,729
The Heat organization would presumably be thrilled to know that Boston was taking on a tax hit just to slow Bam a little bit.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,355
Santa Monica
a couple of things happened to change the cap equation from the day Danny signed Kemba
1. Tatum - All-NBA leads to Super Max (Rose Rule) 30% of the cap
2. COVID which flattened the trajectory of the cap and cratered revenues

mcpickl/nighthob are pretty damn good at cap gymnastics and they can't be any more emphatic about the Celtics not retaining Hayward's and Kemba's full slot next season

The C's should continue to take advantage of the cheapness of the 5-position, while getting production out of a multi-head approach

Taking on Myles Turner and handing them Gordon Hayward would absolutely bail Indiana out. While potentially screwing our cap and creating unnecessary headaches down the road for maybe a minuscule/theoretical improvement. Danny doesn't need to "win" every trade but being a patsy for a direct competitor in the EC makes little sense.
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,168
The Heat organization would presumably be thrilled to know that Boston was taking on a tax hit just to slow Bam a little bit.
The Celtics aren't taking a tax hit to slow down Bam if they take Turner, they are getting a decent player and preventing the loss of an extremely valuable salary slot.
If the Celtics want to be out of the tax and have Turner... they can easily do that this year. It's honestly not even difficult (they'd be about 9M under if they take back Turner and a filler, given Kanter would become somewhat redundant, you can dump him and get to 14M, cut Ojeleye and you're over 15M).

I don't love Turner, but his contract isn't some albatross, it's pretty reasonable, and the Celtics are much better off getting Turner back than letting Hayward walk. MUCH.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,729
Well against BOS he was 22/11/5 on 61% shooting. If he was held to IND series numbers that may have changed the series :)
I would argue that the Celtics bigger problem that series wasn't Bam though he was an issue. It was that they didn't have enough wing depth. This debate is no fun - we are either Yanny or Laurel at this point.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,729
The Celtics aren't taking a tax hit to slow down Bam if they take Turner, they are getting a decent player and preventing the loss of an extremely valuable salary slot.
If the Celtics want to be out of the tax and have Turner... they can easily do that this year. It's honestly not even difficult (they'd be about 9M under if they take back Turner and a filler, given Kanter would become somewhat redundant, you can dump him and get to 14M, cut Ojeleye and you're over 15M).

I don't love Turner, but his contract isn't some albatross, it's pretty reasonable, and the Celtics are much better off getting Turner back than letting Hayward walk. MUCH.
No quibble with this though the fact that they are losing Hayward stinks from a pure skills perspective. I am just pointing out that people are overselling Turner for what he is. He should best be viewed more as a store of value rather than a core contributor. If the latter comes to pass, awesome but ostensibly, replacing Hayward with him is a step back.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,168
No quibble with this though the fact that they are losing Hayward stinks from a pure skills perspective. I am just pointing out that people are overselling Turner for what he is. He should best be viewed more as a store of value rather than a core contributor. If the latter comes to pass, awesome but ostensibly, replacing Hayward with him is a step back.
Sure, but if we make the trade it's because Hayward wants to sign elsewhere. Turner is honestly pretty decent return, I don't see much better out there, and I see a lot of much worse options (signs outright with NYK or ATL, or slightly better, we have to trade assets to make one of those a S&T to just get a TPE).

There is no reason to compare it as Team with Hayward, vs. Team with Turner. The real comp is.... Team with Turner, or... Team without Turner or Hayward.
Hayward opting out doesn't mean he can't come back, but also means you should assume he won't when determining value of a S&T.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
Trading a second round pick to the Hawks to generate a giant TPE sound objectively better than spending firsts to get rid of Indiana's flotsam so that Boston can pay objectively better players.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
168
Trading a second round pick to the Hawks to generate a giant TPE sound objectively better than spending firsts to get rid of Indiana's flotsam so that Boston can pay objectively better players.
Can you clarify how we'd be spending firsts to get rid of Indiana's flotsam? Looking at what Philly paid to get rid of Horford - who's on an objectively worse contract for more money and is a player with less upside than Turner - and it was a first five years from now along with a second rounder (and in return they got a useful player in Danny Green).

I don't see how Turner would be even more of an anchor than that at a moveable $18 mill a year.

Also Boson has no mid-tier contracts beyond Smart - it's all rookies and max players. Turner could be a valuable contract for trades if we're going after other players this year and next
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
4,182
around the way
Trading a second round pick to the Hawks to generate a giant TPE sound objectively better than spending firsts to get rid of Indiana's flotsam so that Boston can pay objectively better players.
You're the only one on the internet saying that Boston is sending firsts for the privilege of getting Turner.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,168
Trading a second round pick to the Hawks to generate a giant TPE sound objectively better than spending firsts to get rid of Indiana's flotsam so that Boston can pay objectively better players.
Yeah, I disagree with this quite a bit. First... I don't think Turner would cost a 1st to trade (also not sure we'd want to, he has value here on the court). Second... a TPE sounds great, but who are you filling it with? This is my question. Who are you dropping into a 22-25M exception that is available, and considerably more valuable than Turner... especially since you are going to have to move things of value to get the player.

Edit- honestly the more I look at it... if Turner were a FA right now, I'm not sure he doesn't get at least his current contract.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,471
Sure, but if we make the trade it's because Hayward wants to sign elsewhere. Turner is honestly pretty decent return, I don't see much better out there, and I see a lot of much worse options (signs outright with NYK or ATL, or slightly better, we have to trade assets to make one of those a S&T to just get a TPE).

There is no reason to compare it as Team with Hayward, vs. Team with Turner. The real comp is.... Team with Turner, or... Team without Turner or Hayward.
Hayward opting out doesn't mean he can't come back, but also means you should assume he won't when determining value of a S&T.
This isn't the real comp either. The real comp is team with Turner at 3/54, or team without Turner but the ability to use the full MLE and BAE this year.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,355
Santa Monica

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,168
This isn't the real comp either. The real comp is team with Turner at 3/54, or team without Turner but the ability to use the full MLE and BAE this year.
Sure. I guess. And my answer to that is... I'd much rather Turner and the tax MLE.

Though also, depending on other moves, the Celtics are very much in play to get Turner and still use the full MLE.

Edit- so with Kanter gone, the Celtics would be in position to use the full MLE even if they got Turner back.
 
Last edited:

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,471
Sure. I guess. And my answer to that is... I'd much rather Turner and the tax MLE.

Though also, depending on other moves, the Celtics are very much in play to get Turner and still use the full MLE.
Would be close now, with Kanter and Poirier off if nothing is coming back, and nothing else coming back with Turner, but probably still a bit short. And wouldn't allow them to use the BAE, or Kanter/Poirier trade exceptions this season.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,168
Would be close now, with Kanter and Poirier off if nothing is coming back, and nothing else coming back with Turner, but probably still a bit short. And wouldn't allow them to use the BAE, or Kanter/Poirier trade exceptions this season.
I have them at: 124,898,953 assuming Semi is not guaranteed but Green is and both picks sign at 120% scale (does not include 2 ways either). Probably gives the wiggle room to do it and get 1 of the Kanter/Poirier/BAE on the roster.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,471
I have them at: 124,898,953 assuming Semi is not guaranteed but Green is and both picks sign at 120% scale (does not include 2 ways either). Probably gives the wiggle room to do it and get 1 of the Kanter/Poirier/BAE on the roster.
The luxury tax is at 132, 627,000 and the MLE is 9,258,000 . So a bit short to use the MLE, and no room for the other exceptions.

So, close.
 

Average Game James

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
2,063
The luxury tax is at 132, 627,000 and the MLE is 9,258,000 . So a bit short to use the MLE, and no room for the other exceptions.

So, close.
You can go above the tax line as long as you don’t go over the apron, which is $139mn, I believe.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,471
You can go above the tax line as long as you don’t go over the apron, which is $139mn, I believe.
Yes, you're right. It's 6Mish above the tax to hit the apron.

So in this scenario, could probably get the full MLE if only Turner came back from Indiana, any maybe squeeze one of those smaller exceptions in, if the Celtics were willing to go up to the apron this year.

I don't think they'll be willing, but could be wrong there.
 

Marbleheader

Dope
Dope
Sep 27, 2004
10,512
The NBA salary rules are so goddamn absurd it's comical. A couple of years ago when people wanted Danny to trade for AD, but they couldn't because Kyrie and AD got extensions on their rookie contracts and you can't have two players with rookie contract extensions that were signed on a weekday between August and November on teams east of the Rocky Mountains.
 

Average Game James

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
2,063
The NBA salary rules are so goddamn absurd it's comical. A couple of years ago when people wanted Danny to trade for AD, but they couldn't because Kyrie and AD got extensions on their rookie contracts and you can't have two players with rookie contract extensions that were signed on a weekday between August and November on teams east of the Rocky Mountains.
Probably for the best. Would really suck to be watching Kyrie in Brooklyn, AD in LA, and Tatum in New Orleans.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
Yeah, the Hornets have long considered Hayward a target. Ainge and Kupchak seem to have a pretty good working relationship and they match up well with Boston (since their practical cap space is around $20 million, they probably need Boston's help to get him).
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
3,065
So Hayward was injured pretty much all the time in Boston, and he sucked in the playoffs, 10/4/2.6 in 30 minutes on 47.5%efg.

As long as Ainge can spin his salary slot into something, I will be happy. The idea of a Gordon Hayward is quite appealing, but the actual Hayward in Boston really wasn’t.

I’ll take Myles Turner and a generic, hard nosed veteran wing and be happy.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,991
Palo Alto
Something that hasn't been mentioned regarding Turner yet - I find it intriguing that he would allow the Celtics to play 5 out while still having a legitimate center on the floor. I think that concept has been shown to be very effective if you have the players for it.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
9,302
Not a huge Turner fan but seems like he's going to be a part of it I guess.

Only Indy players I'd like are Warren, Brogdon, Sabonis (though not with Turner), or Oladipo (though quad injury a bit scary).
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
9,302
Turner and Warren or Oladipo for Hayward + pick would be a pretty lucky outcome. Only 1 yr and 21M left on Oladipo deal... not sure how salaries would match up.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
3,065
What's the "meet in the middle" offer between what Washburn just said?
Hayward and a first for Warren and Turner. Warren is as good as Hayward, if not better, and Turner is a 24 year old shot-blocking center who can step out beyond the arc, on a contract that might be a bit high, but not outrageous.

If the Celtics had Warren and Turner in the bubble instead of an Out of service Hayward, they probably would have won it all.


Tatum, Brown, and Warren is a great trio of wings. Ainge should send next year’s first and whatever else he has lying around for picks to make this happen.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
This isn't the real comp either. The real comp is team with Turner at 3/54, or team without Turner but the ability to use the full MLE and BAE this year.
We’re a little worse this season, but a lot better in a couple years if Turner’s cap number would keep us from re-signing Smart. You can’t count on unloading expiring deals anymore, especially with the uncertainty about how pro sports will bounce back economically from the pandemic.
 

Average Game James

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
2,063
Max Tatum, Kemba, Jaylen, and Turner would combine for over $110 million in 2 years when Smart is up for a new deal. They would end up deep in the luxury tax, not quite in the GS paying $80 million for a year of Kelly Oubre stratosphere, but not far off...
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
Max Tatum, Kemba, Jaylen, and Turner would combine for over $110 million in 2 years when Smart is up for a new deal. They would end up deep in the luxury tax, not quite in the GS paying $80 million for a year of Kelly Oubre stratosphere, but not far off...
But, if that's the theory you aren't going to have the money to sign Smart anyway unless he craters. I don't think you can manage your cap that far out in the NBA. What I think is more realistic is saying that IF nothing changes you'll face a choice them...which is how the NBA works.

This is not the Pacers---they will pay the tax.

I'm not a huge Turner fan, but if you're looking at losing Hayward for nothing he's far better...even if just as a contract. Now, I'd rather keep Hayward but that is out of the Cs hands
 

Average Game James

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
2,063
But, if that's the theory you aren't going to have the money to sign Smart anyway unless he craters. I don't think you can manage your cap that far out in the NBA. What I think is more realistic is saying that IF nothing changes you'll face a choice them...which is how the NBA works.

This is not the Pacers---they will pay the tax.
They will absolutely pay the tax, up to a point, and I’m sure they will pay a lot if it means a very good shot at another banner. The repeater tax gets pretty severe though. You need to reset it at some point. The question is, do you blow up the payroll for Myles Turner?
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
3,065
If the Celtics don’t play ball and make a deal with Indy, can they walk back from that and re-sign Hayward? I can’t imagine the Haywards would be thrilled that Boston didn’t accommodate him, especially of multiple relatively acceptable deals were on the table.

Or will he have to take them money from the Hawks or Knicks or Hornets?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
They will absolutely pay the tax, up to a point, and I’m sure they will pay a lot if it means a very good shot at another banner. The repeater tax gets pretty severe though. You need to reset it at some point. The question is, do you blow up the payroll for Myles Turner?
This is a topic that's been discussed a lot here, and I get a bunch of people only check this forum when there's big deals brewing or free agency. But the reality is that the choice is whether you maintain a salary slot or not before you hit any of the tax questions. There are a lot of moving pieces in the NBA year to year, and it's nuts to manage the cap the way some people are suggesting---there are zero teams who approach it that way for good reason. This is not the NFL, with an essentially hard-cap and few exceptions.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,168
Max Tatum, Kemba, Jaylen, and Turner would combine for over $110 million in 2 years when Smart is up for a new deal. They would end up deep in the luxury tax, not quite in the GS paying $80 million for a year of Kelly Oubre stratosphere, but not far off...
We’re a little worse this season, but a lot better in a couple years if Turner’s cap number would keep us from re-signing Smart. You can’t count on unloading expiring deals anymore, especially with the uncertainty about how pro sports will bounce back economically from the pandemic.
People are not finding it difficult to dump bad multi-year deals. an expiring for a league average 27 year old big man won't be hard to move. There is no reason to think that Turner's deal would be hard to move. If you need more proof, the Heat just signed a terrible C to a 10M+ deal simply because they wanted a $10M expiring on the books.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.