The Second War on Theis: Celtics trade for Daniel Theis

[Fishy1]

Theis must be thrilled to be back. I'm sure he's aware Horford probably isn't long for the Celtics. He's got his big contract and he actually gets to play with good players on a system where's valued.

I think he'll look great next to TL. He's not the passer Horford is, nor the shooter or scorer, but he's brings a lot of the same positions versatility and court awareness. I wish he would sort out the three point shit, but you can't have it all.

I think I've been privately worried TL or Horford will go down, and this is nice insurance against that eventuality as well.

 

[NomarsFool]

As PBS sort of alluded to in an interview recently, the Celtics need to start developing some young players now that they traded last years FRP and their upcoming one, and some of their seconds.

They might need to flip some of that luxury tax money towards purchasing a second rounder in the draft. Getting some inexpensive role players is key to roster construction, like Brad Wannamaker and Theis v1.0 (v2.0 is unfortunately not cheap)

 

[sezwho]

Theis must be thrilled to be back. I'm sure he's aware Horford probably isn't long for the Celtics. He's got his big contract and he actually gets to play with good players on a system where's valued.

I think he'll look great next to TL. He's not the passer Horford is, nor the shooter or scorer, but he's brings a lot of the same positions versatility and court awareness. I wish he would sort out the three point shit, but you can't have it all.

I think I've been privately worried TL or Horford will go down, and this is nice insurance against that eventuality as well.

This is about where I’m at. According to BBall reference Theis has been sub 30% from 3 since leaving Boston but if he can recover that stroke a bit then even better

 

[NomarsFool]

I'm not terribly thrilled with the Theis trade. I think he could contribute a bit down the stretch, but I believe his contract is a negative asset (as did the Rockets, apparently). The Celtics have an unfortunate history with trading away their backup centers as of late as I don't feel like the Aron Baynes or Enes Kanter trades worked out well for the Celtics (nor did the first Theis trade).

 

[slamminsammya]

I'm not terribly thrilled with the Theis trade. I think he could contribute a bit down the stretch, but I believe his contract is a negative asset (as did the Rockets, apparently). The Celtics have an unfortunate history with trading away their backup centers as of late as I don't feel like the Aron Baynes or Enes Kanter trades worked out well for the Celtics (nor did the first Theis trade).

Can you explain a bit more why those trades didn't work out well? Theis being traded last year was to me a very obvious win getting the team under the luxury tax in a year where they were going nowhere fast in the playoffs.

And the first Baynes trade, what was the issue with that one? I don't think 10 backup minutes per game from him were going to swing the Miami series.

 

[mcpickl]

The trick was that there was no team willing to trade a second AND send back no salary... so you had to choose that deal (Schroder for a 2nd and a player or two who are terrible making $5M, OR the Theis deal, because otherwise you end up in the tax.

Way too many people had the same CHI deal for that not to have been really on the table to me... I'm pretty sure the CLE one was as well. The Theis trade is a much better trade, Theis is a good player, and his salary is essentially irrelevant this year, and pretty easy to plan around or move if you really need to, though I doubt they will, they're going to be much more open to the tax next year now that they know they can get through Brown's fully deal without the repeater.

You didn't have to choose. That could easily be turned into a three way deal with that expiring scrub salary you mentioned re-routed to Houston in place of Schroder, because Houston doesn't want Schroder, they just wanted to dump Theis. Or again, Houston would've just gladly re-flipped Schroder to CHI or whoever themselves if that was real.

And we can't keep saying salary is irrelevant when the Celtics keep dumping salary to duck the tax. This board said the same thing about Thompson last year. Who cares what he's paid, we're over the cap anyway? Then they had to give Theis away to duck the tax.

You can feel comfortable Wyc is willing to pay the tax year. I'm not. I'll believe it when I see it.

Last season was a bridge year once Hayward signed with Charlotte and it became obvious that rest and rehab were not enough to heal Kemba's knee. No need to pay luxury tax on Ainge's hastily assembled roster of misfits.

I don't consider Bol Bol or Dozier assets, and the two 2nd round picks were fine to lose.

We'll see what next season's team looks like; if they are true contenders (a big "if", but still), then they will be paying tax. Stevens will have an offseason not saddled with Ainge's mistakes to clean up.

I don't consider Bol Bol or Dozier assets either. Obviously they aren't.

They had to give up a bit of value to dump them.

It's a pretty simple issue to me. If you have an owner that has a propensity to duck the tax, don't take on a guy who's on a bad contract for free. Because you're putting yourself in a spot where you might have to, yet again, give up assets to duck the tax next year.

You just can't say Theis salary has no impact because they're operating as an over the cap team. Because they've been unwilling to operate as an over the tax team. Every dollar matters.

 

[mcpickl]

Can you explain a bit more why those trades didn't work out well? Theis being traded last year was to me a very obvious win getting the team under the luxury tax in a year where they were going nowhere fast in the playoffs.

And the first Baynes trade, what was the issue with that one? I don't think 10 backup minutes per game from him were going to swing the Miami series.

They traded Theis and Javonte Green for Luke Kornet and Mo Wagner, who they waived shortly thereafter
They traded Baynes and the 24th pick in the draft for Milwaukees first round pick the following year,, which ended up being 30th
They traded Kanter and that 30th pick, which ended up being Desmond Bane, for two future seconds (oddly this one pick value wise, could end up not horrible since one of the picks is from Houston next year as long as it isn't 31-32, tho will always look bad because of Bane)

It's hard to say any of those trades worked out well. All three of them are lost value

 

[slamminsammya]

They traded Theis and Javonte Green for Luke Kornet and Mo Wagner, who they waived shortly thereafter
They traded Baynes and the 24th pick in the draft for Milwaukees first round pick the following year,, which ended up being 30th
They traded Kanter and that 30th pick, which ended up being Desmond Bane, for two future seconds (oddly this one pick value wise, could end up not horrible since one of the picks is from Houston next year as long as it isn't 31-32, tho will always look bad because of Bane)

It's hard to say any of those trades worked out well. All three of them are lost value

I don't follow. We can evaluate trades as if the salary cap and luxury tax doesn't exist, or we can evaluate trades according to the way things actually are.

Baynes was traded to make room to sign a max player (Kemba). Kemba didn't work out but there was a clear logic to the deal and the dropoff from 24th to 30th is very marginal to me. Dropping Theis to avoid the luxury tax last year again is a clear win to me. The Kanter trade wasn't great but the other two I just don't understand what the issue is.

 

[Jimbodandy]

I think that the issue is the inference that because ownership has wanted to avoid the tax for a couple of years that they're never planning to pay it. It's silly.

Getting under to delay the repeater is smart business. Grabbing a few extra bucks now is a nice bonus. But everyone knows that you have to be willing to pay if you want a real shot at the ring.

I'll be the first one to eat crow and throw the attaboys around to anyone who got it right, but I find it hard to believe that Brad grabbed Theis now and will throw him overboard next year to get under the tax. Maybe you guys don't think that Brad has earned the benefit of the doubt.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

I'm not terribly thrilled with the Theis trade. I think he could contribute a bit down the stretch, but I believe his contract is a negative asset (as did the Rockets, apparently). The Celtics have an unfortunate history with trading away their backup centers as of late as I don't feel like the Aron Baynes or Enes Kanter trades worked out well for the Celtics (nor did the first Theis trade).

The Rockets are a tanking lottery team so of course Theis’ contract had negative value to them. Once we were able to trade for White to assume Schroder’s role we swapped an expiring contract whose skillset we no longer needed for a frontcourt player who will have a mid-level tradeable contract next year while providing us depth. Theis has both left and returned as primarily a financial/flexibility piece.

 

[mcpickl]

I don't follow. We can evaluate trades as if the salary cap and luxury tax doesn't exist, or we can evaluate trades according to the way things actually are.

Baynes was traded to make room to sign a max player (Kemba). Kemba didn't work out but there was a clear logic to the deal and the dropoff from 24th to 30th is very marginal to me. Dropping Theis to avoid the luxury tax last year again is a clear win to me. The Kanter trade wasn't great but the other two I just don't understand what the issue is.

The issue is, quit spending money on fungible centers since your owner wants to duck the tax and you keep wasting assets to dump the fungible centers.

It's the whole point. It's been a continuous cycle. It's like the Celtics forget the luxury tax exists until they get to the deadline. Plan ahead. Don't overspend on these guys in the offseason, you won't have to waste assets to dump them at the deadline.

They dump Baynes with an asset, they replace him by overpaying Kanter.
they dump Kanter with an asset, they replace him by overpaying Tristan Thompson.
They dump Theis for garbage because they're over the tax because they overpaid Thompson.
They dump Thompson because he's overpaid, they might somehow have gotten out of that one even, they replace him with Kanter.
Kanter then goes as part of the salary dump platter to take back Theis bad contract.

February 2023, Celtics dump Theis with assets because he's overpaid and want to duck the tax...

 

[slamminsammya]

The issue is, quit spending money on fungible centers since your owner wants to duck the tax and you keep wasting assets to dump the fungible centers.

It's the whole point. It's been a continuous cycle. It's like the Celtics forget the luxury tax exists until they get to the deadline. Plan ahead. Don't overspend on these guys in the offseason, you won't have to waste assets to dump them at the deadline.

They dump Baynes with an asset, they replace him by overpaying Kanter.
they dump Kanter with an asset, they replace him by overpaying Tristan Thompson.
They dump Theis for garbage because they're over the tax because they overpaid Thompson.
They dump Thompson because he's overpaid, they might somehow have gotten out of that one even, they replace him with Kanter.
Kanter then goes as part of the salary dump platter to take back Theis bad contract.

February 2023, Celtics dump Theis with assets because he's overpaid and want to duck the tax...

They didn't dump Baynes to avoid the luxury tax.

Theis has a bad contract?

Are you seriously upset they dumped Theis last year? Or that they traded Thompson? This argument is pretty weak, spending assets is part of getting players, even backup centers, and the Thompson and Theis examples aren't great because those guys were starters. Why is there no mention of the fact that "planning ahead" also meant having a contingency if Rob Williams didn't develop?

 

[mcpickl]

I think that the issue is the inference that because ownership has wanted to avoid the tax for a couple of years that they're never planning to pay it. It's silly.

Getting under to delay the repeater is smart business. Grabbing a few extra bucks now is a nice bonus. But everyone knows that you have to be willing to pay if you want a real shot at the ring.

I'll be the first one to eat crow and throw the attaboys around to anyone who got it right, but I find it hard to believe that Brad grabbed Theis now and will throw him overboard next year to get under the tax. Maybe you guys don't think that Brad has earned the benefit of the doubt.

We spend a lot of time on this board patting the Celtics on the back for delaying the repeater tax.

It's never been an issue. It's impossible to be a repeat offender if you never pay the tax in the first place.

They've only paid the tax once since the repeater tax has existed.

As you say getting under to delay the repeater is smart business...won't it also be smart business to get under next season as well?

I don't know why next season would be that different from this season. Or last season.

 

[Jimbodandy]

We spend a lot of time on this board patting the Celtics on the back for delaying the repeater tax.

It's never been an issue. It's impossible to be a repeat offender if you never pay the tax in the first place.

They've only paid the tax once since the repeater tax has existed.

As you say getting under to delay the repeater is smart business...won't it also be smart business to get under next season as well?

I don't know why next season would be that different from this season. Or last season.

You have convinced yourself that this is their plan indefinitely. Your logic is circular...they have, so they will again. Maybe you're right. We'll see.

 

[Cellar-Door]

The issue is, quit spending money on fungible centers since your owner wants to duck the tax and you keep wasting assets to dump the fungible centers.

It's the whole point. It's been a continuous cycle. It's like the Celtics forget the luxury tax exists until they get to the deadline. Plan ahead. Don't overspend on these guys in the offseason, you won't have to waste assets to dump them at the deadline.

They dump Baynes with an asset, they replace him by overpaying Kanter.
they dump Kanter with an asset, they replace him by overpaying Tristan Thompson.
They dump Theis for garbage because they're over the tax because they overpaid Thompson.
They dump Thompson because he's overpaid, they might somehow have gotten out of that one even, they replace him with Kanter.
Kanter then goes as part of the salary dump platter to take back Theis bad contract.

February 2023, Celtics dump Theis with assets because he's overpaid and want to duck the tax...

They dumped Baynes to get Kemba, not to dodge the tax, which was necessitated by Kyrie deciding he didn't want to be there, it wasn't particularly poor planning.
The Kanter trade was less about money than roster spots, they moved out of a late 1st and shed a guy they didn't want for a pair of 2nds, because they wanted to upgrade C (TT for all his flaws... way better than Kanter) and they were loaded with young recently picked guys.
They did move Theis to get out of the tax, and it was a smart move, they were moving to a smaller lineup and looking to give TL more minutes.
They got something back for Thompson... a decent 2nd, a good sized TPE and a look at a young big. They signed Enes for the literal minimum, his existence made no different to anything.
Theis is not a bad contract, he makes less than the MLE, if they want to move him, they can easily get a 2nd and expiring at the very least, just like Thompson (who he is better than and makes less than).

You ascribe a whole bunch of things to a pattern, that isn't really a pattern.

Maybe the Celtics will never pay the tax again... possible, but as one of the few teams that actually has paid tax fairly recently, I wouldn't jump to that assumption just because they stayed under when they had mediocre teams

 

[mcpickl]

They didn't dump Baynes to avoid the luxury tax.

Theis has a bad contract?

Are you seriously upset they dumped Theis last year? Or that they traded Thompson? This argument is pretty weak, spending assets is part of getting players, even backup centers, and the Thompson and Theis examples aren't great because those guys were starters. Why is there no mention of the fact that "planning ahead" also meant having a contingency if Rob Williams didn't develop?

Theis has a bad contract, yes. If he had a good contract, you couldn't get him for Schroder, Kanter and Fernando. One who's already been waived and another who probably will be.

And yes I was upset they dumped Theis last season because he was a starter for them.
And no I wasn't upset they traded Thompson, I was upset they signed him in the first place.

Spending assets is part of getting players, yes. It shouldn't be a part of sending players out the door. If you keep doing that, you're doing it wrong.

There is no mention of "planning ahead" also meaning having a contingency if Rob Williams didn't develop because you don't have to overpay players because you're afraid your young backup didn't develop. Theis was already here while Rob was developing. You didn't need to overpay another center worrying about it.

 

[benhogan]

I get what mcpickl is alluding to, we don't want to lose on the edge moves (especially the fungible Center game)

AND we're keeping score.... as we do around here

-taking Bruno/Dunn/TPE instead of Delon Wright in the TT deal
-keeping Jabari over Mathews for #15
-Houston should have paid a 2nd or at the very least the C's should have gotten a 2nd for DS as soon as White was consummated
-not getting Forbes
-'28 pick swap

You're not going to win every element of every trade. Danny sat on his hands and would only deal if he won every element of it, he clearly let perfect be the enemy of good

Brad has won 10 big moves since he has taken over, so in order to be commercial, he'll have to be willing to give a bit to get what he wants.

The Celtics are in much better shape roster & CAP-wise from where they were 8 months ago.

10 really good moves > 5 small questionable on the edge moves

Maybe I'm being too optimistic (8 game win streaks can do that) but expect as the JAYs peek, they will be an over-the-CAP team. Extending the TPEs will come in handy then, so I could even be wrong about a Hogan binky like Delon Wright

 

[slamminsammya]

Theis has a bad contract, yes. If he had a good contract, you couldn't get him for Schroder, Kanter and Fernando. One who's already been waived and another who probably will be.

And yes I was upset they dumped Theis last season because he was a starter for them.
And no I wasn't upset they traded Thompson, I was upset they signed him in the first place.

Spending assets is part of getting players, yes. It shouldn't be a part of sending players out the door. If you keep doing that, you're doing it wrong.

There is no mention of "planning ahead" also meaning having a contingency if Rob Williams didn't develop because you don't have to overpay players because you're afraid your young backup didn't develop. Theis was already here while Rob was developing. You didn't need to overpay another center worrying about it.

People have multiple times now pointed out that you are getting the facts wrong (e.g. dumping Baynes wasn't for the tax) or making nonsense arguments (Houston didn't trade Theis because he has a bad contract) and you just keep repeating the same things like it will eventually make sense.

 

[mcpickl]

They dumped Baynes to get Kemba, not to dodge the tax, which was necessitated by Kyrie deciding he didn't want to be there, it wasn't particularly poor planning.
The Kanter trade was less about money than roster spots, they moved out of a late 1st and shed a guy they didn't want for a pair of 2nds, because they wanted to upgrade C (TT for all his flaws... way better than Kanter) and they were loaded with young recently picked guys.
They did move Theis to get out of the tax, and it was a smart move, they were moving to a smaller lineup and looking to give TL more minutes.
They got something back for Thompson... a decent 2nd, a good sized TPE and a look at a young big. They signed Enes for the literal minimum, his existence made no different to anything.
Theis is not a bad contract, he makes less than the MLE, if they want to move him, they can easily get a 2nd and expiring at the very least, just like Thompson (who he is better than and makes less than).

You ascribe a whole bunch of things to a pattern, that isn't really a pattern.

Maybe the Celtics will never pay the tax again... possible, but as one of the few teams that actually has paid tax fairly recently, I wouldn't jump to that assumption just because they stayed under when they had mediocre teams

They also traded away a 2nd round pick swap, and a protected 2nd round pick to get rid of the dead salary they had to take back to dump Thompson, which is why I said they may have gotten out of his bad contract even.

I don't understand how you can say if they want to move Theis they can easily get a 2nd and an expirining at the very least, when Houston just dumped him on us for expirings and zero 2nds. Did he just get more valuable overnight?

And the Celtics aren't one of the few teams that have paid the tax fairly recently. They've paid it once in nine years, for 3.4M bucks. There are at least ten other teams that have paid tax in that time frame, and many of them a significant amount more.

I mean, I have as a pattern that they've dumped useful players to not pay the tax two straight seasons.

The opposite side that says they'll be willing to pay the tax next season has as evidence, what exactly? Just hope?

 

[benhogan]

People have multiple times now pointed out that you are getting the facts wrong (e.g. dumping Baynes wasn't for the tax) or making nonsense arguments (Houston didn't trade Theis because he has a bad contract) and you just keep repeating the same things like it will eventually make sense.

from Houston's perspective, it was a bad contract
from Boston's perspective, it was fair

They ran out of time to drive a 2nd out of Houston. C'est la vie. I really don't value 2nds that much anyways

 

[slamminsammya]

They also traded away a 2nd round pick swap, and a protected 2nd round pick to get rid of the dead salary they had to take back to dump Thompson, which is why I said they may have gotten out of his bad contract even.

I don't understand how you can say if they want to move Theis they can easily get a 2nd and an expirining at the very least, when Houston just dumped him on us for expirings and zero 2nds. Did he just get more valuable overnight?

And the Celtics aren't one of the few teams that have paid the tax fairly recently. They've paid it once in nine years, for 3.4M bucks. There are at least ten other teams that have paid tax in that time frame, and many of them a significant amount more.

I mean, I have as a pattern that they've dumped useful players to not pay the tax two straight seasons.

The opposite side that says they'll be willing to pay the tax next season has as evidence, what exactly? Just hope?

Are we just going to ignore the 6 years in a row they spent the tax? Or neglect to mention why they weren't even close to being taxpayers from 2013-2017? Who did you want them to go into the luxury tax for over that timespan? Kelly Olynyk? Jared Sullinger?

 

[mcpickl]

People have multiple times now pointed out that you are getting the facts wrong (e.g. dumping Baynes wasn't for the tax) or making nonsense arguments (Houston didn't trade Theis because he has a bad contract) and you just keep repeating the same things like it will eventually make sense.

I didn't say that all those moves were done just to duck the tax. You responded to someone asking why the trades of all the backup centers didn't work out well. I gave you the list of what they gave away to move all of them and you responded with "We can evaluate trades as if the salary cap and luxury tax doesn't exist, or we can evaluate trades according to the way things actually are."

And I don't know man. If other people think Theis doesn't have a bad contract, does that mean I have to just change my opinion to suit them? A lot of people argued with me last year that Tristan Thompson contract was good too.

 

[mcpickl]

Are we just going to ignore the 6 years in a row they spent the tax? Or neglect to mention why they weren't even close to being taxpayers from 2013-2017? Who did you want them to go into the luxury tax for over that timespan? Kelly Olynyk? Jared Sullinger?

It's great they spent the tax a decade ago.

I don't even necessarily think they should spend over the tax now. Though I don't think we need to keep congratulating them for not doing so. I'm not as concerned with Wycs wallet as most of y'all are I suppose.

I just don't want them to burn assets trying to duck the tax.

Quit overvaluing fungible centers.

It cost them dumping Theis for nothing last year. It cost them a rotation guard in Schroder this year because they preferred Theis as a 4th big. And I think it will cost them next year as well.

 

[Jimbodandy]

It's great they spent the tax a decade ago.

I don't even necessarily think they should spend over the tax now. Though I don't think we need to keep congratulating them for not doing so. I'm not as concerned with Wycs wallet as most of y'all are I suppose.

I just don't want them to burn assets trying to duck the tax.

Quit overvaluing fungible centers.

It cost them dumping Theis for nothing last year. It cost them a rotation guard in Schroder this year because they preferred Theis as a 4th big. And I think it will cost them next year as well.

So the same ownership group paid the tax for years, but anyone who thinks that they will do so again is a chump with no evidence that they'll pay the tax. I just want to make sure that I'm following.

 

[mcpickl]

So the same ownership group paid the tax for years, but anyone who thinks that they will do so again is a chump with no evidence that they'll pay the tax. I just want to make sure that I'm following.

Nope, I don't think anyone is a chump for thinking they'll pay the tax next year. You could be right.

I just don't think they will.

I'm just pointing out I believe there is more evidence, based on their recent actions, that they won't pay the tax next season than there is that they will.

And I think it's much more likely if/when they do get around to paying the tax again, it will be for a player much better than Theis.

 

[Jimbodandy]

And I think it's much more likely if/when they do get around to paying the tax again, it will be for a player much better than Theis.

On this we agree.

There's a permutation where every trade that Brad tries to improve the team this coming offseason goes nowhere and he strikes out at next year's trade deadline too. This is definitely possible. In that case, yes maybe they'll be looking to cut payroll on another mediocre team to stay under the tax.

That said, we seem to be looking at a guy running the team that isn't scared to take chances and won't kill deals to get more blood from a stone. If anything, he's getting beaten up here and elsewhere for being too generous. But guys like that get deals done. This is a huge offseason. Brad has like a year to make a case to ownership that the team is worth paying retail for.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

People have multiple times now pointed out that you are getting the facts wrong (e.g. dumping Baynes wasn't for the tax) or making nonsense arguments (Houston didn't trade Theis because he has a bad contract) and you just keep repeating the same things like it will eventually make sense.

Theis has a terrible contract. Is that even debatable? Centers get paid nothing today, he's getting paid something. And for multiple years.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Theis has a terrible contract. Is that even debatable? Centers get paid nothing today, he's getting paid something. And for multiple years.

Bad centers get paid nothing, competent centers get paid just fine, in fact the average positional spend on C is higher than PF and SG. Theis is pretty accurately paid for a rotational big under 30 who can play real minutes for a decent team... guys getting paid less than him fall into 3 categories:
1. Rookie Deal
2. Can't play real minutes
3. ring chasing old guys (most of whom also fall in category 2).

Theis is not a terrible contract, there is no justification for that. It's a neutral contract, and depending how it plays it will likely continue to fall in the range of slight overpay to slight underpay (mostly dependent on his shooting).

 

[Devizier]

Theis has a terrible contract. Is that even debatable? Centers get paid nothing today, he's getting paid something. And for multiple years.

Theis is the ~30th highest paid C in the league.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

The issue is, quit spending money on fungible centers since your owner wants to duck the tax and you keep wasting assets to dump the fungible centers.

It's the whole point. It's been a continuous cycle. It's like the Celtics forget the luxury tax exists until they get to the deadline. Plan ahead. Don't overspend on these guys in the offseason, you won't have to waste assets to dump them at the deadline.

They dump Baynes with an asset, they replace him by overpaying Kanter.
they dump Kanter with an asset, they replace him by overpaying Tristan Thompson.
They dump Theis for garbage because they're over the tax because they overpaid Thompson.
They dump Thompson because he's overpaid, they might somehow have gotten out of that one even, they replace him with Kanter.
Kanter then goes as part of the salary dump platter to take back Theis bad contract.

February 2023, Celtics dump Theis with assets because he's overpaid and want to duck the tax...

This seems like an obsessive focus on the negative.

They gave up a little value in the Baynes deal because they needed cap room to sign Kemba and they had a lot of draft assets that year. So what? If there is something to fault them for here, it is the big picture decisions, not the Baynes deal. Kyrie left, they allowed Horford and Rozier to leave, and then they slashed enough salary to accomodate Kemba. Maybe they could have kept Horford and Rozier and Baynes and won the bubble title?

They signed Kanter to a 2 year, $9.8 million total deal. They moved him out with a late first to some degree because they already had two first in that round. Yes they gave up some value here, but the track records of players drafted that low aren't great. It is a bigger problem that their own first first round pick from that draft has yet to contribute.

They trade Theis, making $5M, for essentially nothing, to get under the tax, and you hate the deal. They bring him back, making $9.0M, in exchange for some NBA flotsam and jetsam plus a good player who wans't a good fit here. You must think a) Theis can play and is a good value at $5.M (otherwise you would not care about giving him away for nothing) and b) Theis is overpaid at $9M. Fair enough. But that means we are modestly overpaying a guy who can fill a role here. What is so bad about that? This (second deal) was not a tax deal - they were already under.

As to Thompson, signing him was a move to patch a hole (or insurance for Rob not panning out/staying healthy). He wasn't really a roster fit so they move him. They don't get much back, but they don't have to attach value to him in order to move him.

Only the second Theis deal and the Thompson deal were made by Brad, and both of them clearly serve the purpose of getting players who fit on the team (and moving those who do not).

 

[lexrageorge]

The Celtics were slightly over the tax line going into the deadline, and were able to get under it by dumping mostly flotsam and jetsam and some random 2nd round picks they didn't need while turning JRich/DS/Kanter into White/Theis. Given the financial incentives to get under the tax this season, seems like smart asset management by Stevens. That's the big picture here, not what Ainge did 2 years ago with Baynes.

 

[ColonelMustard]

They gave up a little value in the Baynes deal because they needed cap room to sign Kemba and they had a lot of draft assets that year. So what? If there is something to fault them for here, it is the big picture decisions, not the Baynes deal. Kyrie left, they allowed Horford and Rozier to leave, and then they slashed enough salary to accomodate Kemba. Maybe they could have kept Horford and Rozier and Baynes and won the bubble title?

This hits the nail on the head for many in their frustration with team management. In asset management there is a basic concept of lifecycle management and asset maturity. Strategically the Celtics management seemed to change course away from the maturity timelines of Tatum and Brown. Irving was always a flight risk but that was ok as the Celtics took the gamble in that moment. We were all excited about Kemba's signing the first year but there was always a mismatch between his and the Jays' development curves.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Theis is the ~30th highest paid C in the league.

And signed for 3 more years after this one. That's why it's a horrible contract.

edit: Well the 3rd is a team option so it's slightly less awful.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

And signed for 3 more years after this one. That's why it's a horrible contract.

edit: Well the 3rd is a team option so it's slightly less awful.

Horrible is an exaggeration. There’s some value in having a ~$9M contract on the books for matching purposes. Theis will provide some value on the court. It’s not that bad.

 

[lexrageorge]

Horrible is an exaggeration. There’s some value in having a ~$9M contract on the books for matching purposes. Theis will provide some value on the court. It’s not that bad.

Agree. The Celtics have great to outstanding contracts in Tatum, Brown, and Robert Williams. Marcus Smart and Derrick White are fairly valued. And then they have a soon-to-be expiring in Horford and 3 rookie scale rotation players before one gets to the flotsam at the end of the bench. So the Celtics can absorb a moderately bad contract in Theis for the 2 upcoming seasons if it came down it.

He and RWill occupy the same salary tier, but I doubt Williams is going anywhere, so having Theis at $9M could be helpful in the event of a trade these next 2 offseasons.

 

[GreenMonster49]

I don't know if the Celtics will be taxpayers in 2022-2023, but if the plan is to be over the tax threshold in 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, it makes little sense to be taxpayers this year unless you do that to make a game-changing trade.

Being slightly over the tax threshold is being a sucker (not just for the $10,000,000+ you lose out on from not getting a share of the tax receipts but also being subject to the repeater tax in 2023-2024).

 

[slamminsammya]

And signed for 3 more years after this one. That's why it's a horrible contract.

edit: Well the 3rd is a team option so it's slightly less awful.

This take is nuts. He is getting MLE money to bring one above average skill for two years after this one. This year and next he is a good bet to be paid exactly what he is worth - go check out what kinds of players you get for the MLE. Maybe he is in decline 2 years from now, but a 9 million dollar expiring isn't crippling anyone. The team option just makes it even better.

What is your conception of a "horrible" contract if you think Theis' is horrible?

 

[Cesar Crespo]

This take is nuts. He is getting MLE money to bring one above average skill for two years after this one. This year and next he is a good bet to be paid exactly what he is worth - go check out what kinds of players you get for the MLE. Maybe he is in decline 2 years from now, but a 9 million dollar expiring isn't crippling anyone. The team option just makes it even better.

What is your conception of a "horrible" contract if you think Theis' is horrible?

Maybe horrible is a bad word but it's a bad contract. In a year or two, they probably will be looking to dump Theis.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Theis' contract is likely to look better (unless his play craters of course) not worse as time goes on. He's 30th in the league, and several guys on rookie deals will pass him, as will any Cs signed on the MLE, because the cap is going up (faster than expected based on the NBA's latest adjustment). It's almost impossible for a 2 year deal below the MLE to be "Terrible". I also think the Celtics will keep him through the deal barring something unusual. I expect this is Horford's last year in BOS, and having Theis slide into that roster role at a cheaper price (he won't start I bet, but he will probably play 20-27 MPG next year), and lock up basically all the C minutes for $20M a year total with TL is really valuable.

 

[slamminsammya]

Maybe horrible is a bad word but it's a bad contract. In a year or two, they probably will be looking to dump Theis.

Is this because you think Theis is making more than he is worth this year? What do you think $9 million gets you? Or is your argument team contextual, that his contract is constraining the Celtics ability to make trades or sign higher impact guys?

Theis is an above average backup center who is getting paid about what solid backup center's get paid, as alluded to before he is 30th among centers in salary this year. Even if he is worthless two years from now, having the expiring contract at that value is useful for trades. Was Theo Ratliff in 2007 a horrible contract or was his 10 minutes of production + expiring contract the next season actually a precious jewel that allowed us to get KG?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

As to Thompson, signing him was a move to patch a hole (or insurance for Rob not panning out/staying healthy). He wasn't really a roster fit so they move him. They don't get much back, but they don't have to attach value to him in order to move him.

I don't know if people forget but after the bubble, but as you say, the Cs had pretty high expectations and they had an obvious and gaping hole in their roster - a big that would fit Brad's system plus defend bigs like Embiid and Jokic and could help build a wall against Giannis. Plus Bam killed Theis in the playoffs. So DA saw a need, identified a player, gave him an offer he couldn't refuse so he wouldn't miss out on him as the other centers available really didn't fit that need.

TT was really signed for the playoffs in mind. The Cs obviously saw themselves as contenders, and maybe there's a universe where COVID didn't happen and Kemba was better able to manage his knee and we would have bemoaned the fact that the Cs got bounced out of the playoffs because we didn't have a true center against one of the other contenders. But that didn't happen at the end of the day, it was just lost money (and a lost season).

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Is this because you think Theis is making more than he is worth this year? What do you think $9 million gets you? Or is your argument team contextual, that his contract is constraining the Celtics ability to make trades or sign higher impact guys?

Theis is an above average backup center who is getting paid about what solid backup center's get paid, as alluded to before he is 30th among centers in salary this year. Even if he is worthless two years from now, having the expiring contract at that value is useful for trades. Was Theo Ratliff in 2007 a horrible contract or was his 10 minutes of production + expiring contract the next season actually a precious jewel that allowed us to get KG?

If/when they want to avoid the luxury tax and/or make a trade and his salary becomes the easiest to remove by attaching a first or another asset to it. I also don't think he's actually needed and that he is in decline. People are saying it's great for next year's team but I'm sure the C's could have found someone comparable to Theis in the offseason for cheaper money.

Theis is good salary ballast for a trade but if that trade isn't available, he becomes the "luxury tax victim" and the C's will ultimately have to use an asset to move him.

I'm all on board with TL playing 30 mpg and don't care to see him "rest." I would like Horford to be closer to 20-24, but even with a reduction in minutes, there isn't much room for Theis. I guess he's good for injury insurance. I think his 3 point shooting is overstated and doesn't provide spacing. Other teams want him to shoot the 3. And while he's only the 30th highest paid center in the league, there are only 30 teams in the NBA. He's getting paid (barely) starter tier money to be the 3rd string center. The only way it makes sense to pay him that much is if he's playing 20ish minutes a night.

I don't see where he gets those 20 minutes unless it's 2 bigs and/or less TL/Al. I'm on board with less Al, but even that's only 4-8 minutes a game. I don't think DT is a particularly good fit next to Al or TL but if he is the 8th man, I don't see any way around it. I just don't care for the acquisition this year and I don't think DT is a player you acquire for the next 2+ years with the intentions of moving Al. There's no real reason to replace Al until you have to. How many more minutes a game does Theis play than Kanter did? How does he get those minutes? It'll be interesting to see how it plays out anyway. If he does get 20 minutes a game, there's going to be 2 bigs for most of the game. If he's getting 10 mpg and PP/buyout is the 8th man in the rotation, why did the C's bother?

I guess he's a better fit than DS, so there's that. I just wish he wasn't signed for another 2 years after this one. This is especially true if Horford is back next year. It's too much money tied into one position and I think DT is fungible. I also hope DT doesn't stop the Cs from looking to improve the Center spot in the offseason (assuming they do move Al) with a guy who does provide spacing and/or can also play the 4 just as easily.

I mostly don't get why they even bothered making the trade at all.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I don't know if people forget but after the bubble, but as you say, the Cs had pretty high expectations and they had an obvious and gaping hole in their roster - a big that would fit Brad's system plus defend bigs like Embiid and Jokic and could help build a wall against Giannis. Plus Bam killed Theis in the playoffs. So DA saw a need, identified a player, gave him an offer he couldn't refuse so he wouldn't miss out on him as the other centers available really didn't fit that need.

TT was really signed for the playoffs in mind. The Cs obviously saw themselves as contenders, and maybe there's a universe where COVID didn't happen and Kemba was better able to manage his knee and we would have bemoaned the fact that the Cs got bounced out of the playoffs because we didn't have a true center against one of the other contenders. But that didn't happen at the end of the day, it was just lost money (and a lost season).

This is another reason I don't get the DT trade. We saw him get murdered by potential playoff opponents already.

 

[Cellar-Door]

If/when they want to avoid the luxury tax and/or make a trade and his salary becomes the easiest to remove by attaching a first or another asset to it. I also don't think he's actually needed and that he is in decline. People are saying it's great for next year's team but I'm sure the C's could have found someone comparable to Theis in the offseason for cheaper money.

Theis is good salary ballast for a trade but if that trade isn't available, he becomes the "luxury tax victim" and the C's will ultimately have to use an asset to move him.

I'm all on board with TL playing 30 mpg and don't care to see him "rest." I would like Horford to be closer to 20-24, but even with a reduction in minutes, there isn't much room for Theis. I guess he's good for injury insurance. I think his 3 point shooting is overstated and doesn't provide spacing. Other teams want him to shoot the 3. And while he's only the 30th highest paid center in the league, there are only 30 teams in the NBA. He's getting paid (barely) starter tier money to be the 3rd string center. The only way it makes sense to pay him that much is if he's playing 20ish minutes a night.

I don't see where he gets those 20 minutes unless it's 2 bigs and/or less TL/Al. I'm on board with less Al, but even that's only 4-8 minutes a game. I don't think DT is a particularly good fit next to Al or TL but if he is the 8th man, I don't see any way around it. I just don't care for the acquisition this year and I don't think DT is a player you acquire for the next 2+ years with the intentions of moving Al. There's no real reason to replace Al until you have to. How many more minutes a game does Theis play than Kanter did? How does he get those minutes? It'll be interesting to see how it plays out anyway. If he does get 20 minutes a game, there's going to be 2 bigs for most of the game. If he's getting 10 mpg and PP/buyout is the 8th man in the rotation, why did the C's bother?

I guess he's a better fit than DS, so there's that. I just wish he wasn't signed for another 2 years after this one. This is especially true if Horford is back next year. It's too much money tied into one position and I think DT is fungible. I also hope DT doesn't stop the Cs from looking to improve the Center spot in the offseason (assuming they do move Al) with a guy who does provide spacing and/or can also play the 4 just as easily.

I mostly don't get why they even bothered making the trade at all.

That's a lot of confidence to have on something that seems dubious given the players available and the paths to acquiring them the Celtics have.

The Celtics haven't had much success finding fits at C on the cheap. The odds are they could have added a C cheaper than Theis in the summer, and he'd have been nowhere near as good. The Celtics are MAYBE paying an extra million or two a year for 2 years to add a guy that they have a good level of confidence in because he's been in the system and lockerroom before.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

If/when they want to avoid the luxury tax and/or make a trade and his salary becomes the easiest to remove by attaching a first or another asset to it. I also don't think he's actually needed and that he is in decline. People are saying it's great for next year's team but I'm sure the C's could have found someone comparable to Theis in the offseason for cheaper money.

Theis is good salary ballast for a trade but if that trade isn't available, he becomes the "luxury tax victim" and the C's will ultimately have to use an asset to move him.

It can be hard to distinguish between decline and fit with a player like Theis. If nothing else he fits the system the Celtics want to play and knows how to seal his man to open driving lanes for Tatum. And it is not that long ago that the Celtics had too few mid-tier contracts (almost eveyone was either a rookie deal or a max) for inclusion in deals and it limited their options.

I'm all on board with TL playing 30 mpg and don't care to see him "rest." I would like Horford to be closer to 20-24, but even with a reduction in minutes, there isn't much room for Theis. I guess he's good for injury insurance. I think his 3 point shooting is overstated and doesn't provide spacing. Other teams want him to shoot the 3. And while he's only the 30th highest paid center in the league, there are only 30 teams in the NBA. He's getting paid (barely) starter tier money to be the 3rd string center. The only way it makes sense to pay him that much is if he's playing 20ish minutes a night.

Horford and Williams have missed 20 games between them already this year. Theis would have been useful in all of them. When everyone is healthy I do think he'll be coming in well under 20 minutes per game.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Horford and Williams have missed 20 games between them already this year. Theis would have been useful in all of them. When everyone is healthy I do think he'll be coming in well under 20 minutes per game.

That's my issue with the trade, essentially. He's a somewhat expensive insurance policy. If the team isn't fully healthy, they aren't going to compete in the playoffs, DT or not. If they are, DT is playing the Kanter role and is a luxury that isn't needed.

Thing is, Marcus Smart and White are also "injury prone." Why not keep DS an an insurance policy? Maybe they think the drop off from White/Smart to PP is less than TL/AL to Kanter.

It's just odd to trade for a guy who doesn't really have a role unless an injury occurs, especially when he has 2 more years after this and they are trading away a player who would be 8th in the rotation. I wonder if dumping DS was partially motivated by wanting to open up some playing time for PP (and/or opening roster spots for buyouts). I wouldn't have guessed he would be the one to benefit the most from all these moves but that's the case in the early going. It does make sense though. PP is a better fit next to MS or DW than Schroder is. PP is also not a very good fit next to DS. His 3 point shooting is a really big team need and his lack of playmaking and poor D are far less of an issue with White (and to a lesser extend Smart) than they are with DS. DS and MS were also unplayable together.

I guess it's possible DT and PP just split the DS minutes and get around 14-15 mpg each. Gives the team a 9 player rotation.

Then there are buyouts. I really want Gary Harris. He fits everything the team wants to do and his shooting has rebounded this year. Add him and hopefully a sharpshooter and this team could make some noise in the playoffs with a little luck.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I think they are also covering themselves for next year in the event that Horford is released or traded. I don’t see them doing the 2-big lineup with Rob and Theis, but maybe they start Grant or White and play smaller. Maybe they think that Theis is good enough that after him and Rob they can fill out C on the cheap rather than having to invest. It may not matter if they bring Horford back, but they make it easier to walk away from Al if that is what they want to do.

 

[Cellar-Door]

That's my issue with the trade, essentially. He's a somewhat expensive insurance policy. If the team isn't fully healthy, they aren't going to compete in the playoffs, DT or not. If they are, DT is playing the Kanter role and is a luxury that isn't needed.

Thing is, Marcus Smart and White are also "injury prone." Why not keep DS an an insurance policy? Maybe they think the drop off from White/Smart to PP is less than TL/AL to Kanter.

It's just odd to trade for a guy who doesn't really have a role unless an injury occurs, especially when he has 2 more years after this and they are trading away a player who would be 8th in the rotation. I wonder if dumping DS was partially motivated by wanting to open up some playing time for PP (and/or opening roster spots for buyouts). I wouldn't have guessed he would be the one to benefit the most from all these moves but that's the case in the early going. It does make sense though. PP is a better fit next to MS or DW than Schroder is. PP is also not a very good fit next to DS. His 3 point shooting is a really big team need and his lack of playmaking and poor D are far less of an issue with White (and to a lesser extend Smart) than they are with DS. DS and MS were also unplayable together.

I guess it's possible DT and PP just split the DS minutes and get around 14-15 mpg each. Gives the team a 9 player rotation.

Then there are buyouts. I really want Gary Harris. He fits everything the team wants to do and his shooting has rebounded this year. Add him and hopefully a sharpshooter and this team could make some noise in the playoffs with a little luck.

I think it's clearly a move about both this year and future years.
DS had a diminishing role this year and none next year.
Al has a huge role this year but likely won't be here long term.

Theis is a guy who can give you good minutes this year as needed (more 2 big bench units, plus some injury insurance, and matchup flexibility) and can be your Horford replacement for relatively modest cost, allowing you to use Horford's salary slot in part or whole on a wing/swing who is an offensive threat.

Theis having multiple years is a key reason they made the trade, if he was expiring they probably take the Lakers' offer that was leaked this morning. However, the ability to have a solid big under contract at less than MLE prices (and potentially as non-negative salary fill in a trade) was much more in line with what they wanted.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

That's my issue with the trade, essentially. He's a somewhat expensive insurance policy. If the team isn't fully healthy, they aren't going to compete in the playoffs, DT or not. If they are, DT is playing the Kanter role and is a luxury that isn't needed.

It's not just an expensive insurance policy. Theis is going to play. Maybe not 20 minutes a game, but he will play regularly. One of the problems that Ime has - as pointed out by BenHogan - is that when he starts Al and TL together, he needs a 3rd center to soak up minutes. For example, if Al and TL play together for 6 minutes at the start of the 1Q and 3Q, and if you want to limit Al to 24 minutes and TL to 30 minutes, there are 6 uncovered minutes during which Ime previously had to play Freedom or GW at the 5. Up that to 8 minutes at the start of the 1Q and 3Q and that's 10 uncovered minutes.

According to NBA.com, the starting 5 has played 296 minutes in 23 games, so not quite 13 minutes per game. My guess is that Ime will up this now that Theis is here. Plus, Theis can definitely play minutes with Al (he's done it before) and I will be interested in seeing if Theis and TL can play together (which I don't think happened much while they were here).

Also, as EJ and several others noted, Theis is insurance in case Al can be moved or wants to leave.

People think backup centers are fungible but we've seen that one backup center couldn't cut it defensively in Ime's system. Not sure there are a lot of other backups out there that can give hte Cs what Theis theoretically can - some ability to switch on defense; some ability to defend the rim; and some ability to stretch the floor (even up to 20 feet).

 

[shoelace]

That's a lot of confidence to have on something that seems dubious given the players available and the paths to acquiring them the Celtics have.

The Celtics haven't had much success finding fits at C on the cheap. The odds are they could have added a C cheaper than Theis in the summer, and he'd have been nowhere near as good. The Celtics are MAYBE paying an extra million or two a year for 2 years to add a guy that they have a good level of confidence in because he's been in the system and lockerroom before.

This is exactly right. My recollection, other posters can feel free to correct me on it if I'm wrong, of the reporting at the time of the Tristan Thompson signing was that the Celtics preferred guys like Milsap and Ibaka and those players rebuffed them. And your point about the system is well made. There's no guarantee that whatever "fungible big" is out there can actually play Ime's defense.

The idea that Daniel Theis on a two-year, $17,800,000 deal is a terrible, underwater contract seems like an overreaction. Especially if you think they are likely to move off of Al Horford this offseason. This just feels like an extension of certain posters hating the two big lineup, despite its being successful for the Celtics this season, and helping to lead to a huge defensive turnaround from last season.

That's my issue with the trade, essentially. He's a somewhat expensive insurance policy. If the team isn't fully healthy, they aren't going to compete in the playoffs, DT or not. If they are, DT is playing the Kanter role and is a luxury that isn't needed.

I don't think there was a "Kanter role" on this team. Ime didn't limit Kanter's minutes because there weren't minutes available for another big, he limited them because Kanter sucks. You were a Rob or Al injury away from potentially having to give that player more minutes and the Celtics wanted to address that vulnerability.

Going from a guy who is unplayably bad to Theis is a significant upgrade even this season, and that's before you include the benefit of being able to potentially load manage Al and Rob now. They probably won't do it, but it wouldn't kill them if they decided to give Al the second night of a back to back off against a bad team (like against Detroit, Indiana or OKC in the coming weeks). I don't really think they could have considered that with Kanter.