NBA training camps open next week, and between now and then, we’ll be pondering 20 questions about the Boston Celtics as we head into the new season. Today we look at team ownership, and their willingness to spend if the time comes this season.
______________________________
[January 31, 2022
The Boston Celtics, fresh off an overtime win over the Miami Heat, are 35-17. They are on a 55-win pace, 3.5 games behind the Brooklyn Nets and a half game behind the Milwaukee Bucks for third in the east. The win broke a tie with Miami, pushing Boston a game ahead.
During the game, Brad Stevens gets a call from a GM offering a surprise deal for a significant player. The Celtics would be able to acquire him using their Evan Fournier traded player exception, adding salary and pushing them into the tax.
Stevens calls Wyc Grousbeck ...]
Yes, this is a bit of a fantasy scenario, but it’s not out of the question that some variation of this is possible. Things coming together for the Celtics and being in the mix, at least to this point of the seasons, is conceivable.
I chose this scenario specifically because it puts Boston in the mix, but not in the lead. It puts the Celtics in a spot where spending to add a player will help but Milwaukee and Brooklyn are still at the top of the conference, and Boston is fighting for positioning with teams below them.
Grousbeck and the Celtics ownership group have repeatedly said they’ll spend into the tax if they need to. When it comes time to build a winner, they will not handcuff the people putting that team together.
The Celtics can get under the tax with a couple of mostly inconsequential roster moves this season. If they’re a middle-of-the-pack team and the East elite are running away with things, it’s a pretty safe bet that Brad Stevens will make those moves and roll with the rest of the guys on the roster for the rest of the season.
At the same time, if disaster strikes the contenders and Boston has a real chance to be last season’s Phoenix Suns, there’s a bigger chance they’ll make the move to add help and pay the tax.
But what if they’re close? What if they’re in some variation of my initial scenario ... close to the top, but close to the middle? What if paying the tax to add that extra help keeps them in the mix but doesn’t guarantee much else? What will this ownership group do?
Their willingness to spend has come under increasing scrutiny, and each side has fair arguments to make.
As I’ve laid out in the past, the Celtics aren’t playing by the same financial rules as other big market teams. There’s a reason for being frugal, and it’s not entirely about rich guys being greedy about money. They don’t bring in revenue like some of the other taxpaying teams, so they don’t spend like them.
Yet, the team still brings in a lot of money (basketball-related income is basically split 50/50 between owners and players) and its value has jumped from the $360 million purchase price to $3.2 billion. No one is crying for these guys. They’re very rich and sitting on a gold mine if they wanted to sell even a portion of the team.
And, frankly, fans don’t really want to hear it. They want an owner that will spend some money to make the team better when they get the chance. Fans connect to these teams on a deep, personal level. Those cheers in the Garden come from one of the more passionate fan bases in sports. Those folks are spending hard-earned money on tickets, concessions, and souvenirs. They want that money used to improve the team, which, in turn, improves their experience.
Better teams win more games (that’s the high-end analysis that Greg Bedard is paying for), and fans enjoy themselves more when teams win (there it is again). Ownership spending money gets more happy fans spending more money on the product.
The team wants to know their hard work is being rewarded as well. If word filters into the locker room that ownership nixed a deal because they wanted to save on the tax, it could have a negative impact on team morale.
It’s hard to ask players to put in all the work, get to a point where it might pay off with some on-court success, and then not give them a boost if it presents itself.
Ultimately, this becomes a bit of a Sophie’s choice because of how punitive the repeater tax is. Diving into the tax now means the repeater hits one year earlier. With it will come even tougher decisions that will ultimately lead to the demise of whatever contender was built.
The ownership case can be stated as “do you want to pay for a player now, when it’s less of a guarantee, or later when the team is better and truly contending?” This is where Twitter would respond with the “why not both” meme, but the reality for the Celtics is that it’s most likely a choice between one or the other.
Or maybe it’s not. There is a new CBA coming soon and a new TV deal is right behind it. The repeater tax argument loses some steam when the tax line could move high enough to be rendered moot. The uncertainty of how the new TV money will enter the picture is part of this calculus.
Who knows if Boston will even be in a position to make this decision. But if they are, sacrificing a potential run will be a hard pill to swallow for fans and players, while adding a tax bill in a less-than-certain situation will be a tough one for owners.
Red pill or blue pill, owners. Which will you choose?
The 20 questions series: