Worldwide Sports News

For most of the last two years, Payton Pritchard’s contract has been one of the easiest things on the Celtics’ books to celebrate.

A four-year, $30 million deal signed in October 2023 for a guard who can shoot, handle the ball, push pace, scrap in the paint, bomb away from the logo and swing games by himself? Yes, please and thank you. No further questions. Please put that receipt in a frame and hang it next to the 2024 banner.

That version of the conversation was fun while it lasted. Sadly for us, though certainly not for PP himself, it’s about to change.

Pritchard is no longer a plucky underdog value story. He isn’t the scrappy bench guard who outperformed expectations and turned into one of Brad Stevens’ better pieces of business. Well, in a way he’s still all of that, sure, but as we’re about to find out, he’s become so much more. After his last couple of seasons, Pritchard has become one of Boston’s more interesting offseason variables.

That’s what happens when a bargain starts playing like something much closer to a pillar.

The contract is still absurd. The role is anything but.

The Celtics are set to pay Pritchard $7.8 million next season. In the NBA’s current financial climate, that number feels like it was discovered in a couch cushion. Boston will owe Jayson Tatum, Jaylen Brown and Derrick White roughly $145 million combined next season, while no other player on the roster is currently set to make more than $11 million. Pritchard living in that range while producing the way he did is laughably amazing for Boston. It’s one of the reasons the Celtics stayed afloat, and then some, during a season that could have gone sideways fast.

But that’s also where this gets complicated.

Pritchard feels like he’s become more than a “nice to have” player. The Celtics leaned on him too much, and he delivered too often, for him to be treated like a budget-friendly depth piece.

He gave Boston real creation when the offense needed it. He played with pace when the game started to bog down. He punished defenses that lost him. He became more than just a catch-and-shoot threat. There were nights when he wasn’t simply supplementing the stars. He was the star, organizing possessions, creating advantages and forcing Joe Mazzulla’s hand to trust him with more responsibility.

Pritchard plays with the exact kind of irrational confidence that makes sense only after the shot goes in. When it doesn’t, you’re halfway through saying, “Payton, what are we doing?” When it does, you’re nodding like you saw the whole thing coming.

Jaylen Brown said during the season that Pritchard was playing at an All-Star level and that Boston trusted him to run things. That wasn’t a throwaway compliment. It reflected what the games looked like. Pritchard earned more trust because he kept giving the Celtics reasons to offer it.

Now the team has to decide what that trust is worth.

A bargain with leverage

Pritchard is extension eligible this offseason, and that’s where the current bargain starts becoming a bigger question.

Under normal circumstances, this would be easy enough. Pay the guy. Keep the guy. Celebrate the guy. Maybe build a statue of him launching that infamous halfcourt heave in Game 5 of the 2024 NBA Finals.

But Pritchard’s current contract is such a bargain that it limits how much Boston can offer him on an extension. The rules come into play here, and Keith Smith recently laid out the key point: because Pritchard’s salary is below the Estimated Average Player Salary, Boston may be able to offer more than a simple 140% raise off his current number.

That is real money, but it’s also not the same as open-market money.

Pritchard is making $7.8 million next season, which is among the league’s best value deals. But if he believes this past season was a new baseline rather than a peak, waiting could make sense. The cap is going up. The tax line is going up. Teams always need shooting, ball handling and competitive guards who don’t shrink from big moments.

Taking the extension would give Pritchard security now. Waiting could give him leverage in the future.

For once, Boston might not be the only side with it.

And that’s before getting into the roster-building piece of all this. Pritchard’s contract is valuable because he outplays it. That also makes him one of the few movable contracts on the roster that could actually interest other teams. Boston doesn’t have many mid-sized salaries. So, if the Celtics want to chase a center, add more size or reshape the roster in a meaningful way, rival teams are not going to start the conversation by asking for the guys Boston is already mentally Photoshopping out of next year’s team picture.

Pritchard’s value cuts both ways.

The Celtics have to decide what Pritchard means to them

If you extend Pritchard, you’re keeping a player who has become part of the team’s identity. He plays with the exact kind of edge Celtics fans love. He’s annoying in the best way. He rebounds like he has personally been offended by taller people his whole life.

If you move him, you better be doing it for something that clearly raises Boston’s ceiling.

Trading Pritchard because his contract helps make the math work is one thing. Trading him because the Celtics are hunting for a real upgrade is another. There’s a tightrope there, and it’s a narrow one to traverse.

The Celtics don’t have to decide whether Pritchard belongs anymore. He answered that.

The harder question is what kind of player they believe he will be going forward.

Is he the long-term sixth man who stabilizes the offense and closes certain matchups? Is he a possible starter if Boston’s backcourt thins out? Is he the kind of player you extend now because you know the price will only get scarier later? Or is he one of the few non-star pieces valuable enough to help the Celtics make a bigger move?

None of those questions are meant to be insulting. They’re the cost of becoming important.

Pritchard’s contract is still one of Boston’s best bargains. But because of how out-in-the-open good he’s become, the conversation around him can’t stay cheap forever.

Being able to bounce back from terrible losses has allowed the Cleveland Cavaliers to advance to the Eastern Conference Finals for the first time in eight years. They’ll need to do so again after they inexplicably blew a 22-point fourth-quarter lead and lost in overtime to the New York Knicks, 115-104, in Game 1.

“We lost, we f****** blew it,” Donovan Mitchell said afterward.

This terrible loss showed two things. Number one, the advantages that you thought the Cavs would have coming into this series proved true. And number two, this team struggles to counter in-game adjustments.

We’ll start with the positives, since those are easy to miss in a game defined by the final quarter.

The Cavs’ defense was up to the challenge.

Defense is the first thing that usually gets blamed when you blow a lead as large as the Cavs did. However, even in the Knicks’ fourth-quarter comeback, it was their inability to create offense that ultimately did them in far more than their defense.

Cleveland’s defense on Karl-Anthony Towns was excellent, especially when the Cavs had two bigs on the floor.

One of Towns’s best skills on offense is being able to pull the center out of the paint and then playmake from there. Having Evan Mobley providing on-ball pressure with Jarrett Allen off-ball at the rim short-circuited that process. This contributed to a few of his seven giveaways on the night.

Having Allen as the primary defender on Josh Hart paid off. The defense dared Hart to beat them off the dribble or with the three-ball. He wasn’t able to do so as he went 1-5 from three and finished with the worst plus/minus of anyone in Game 1 at -23.

Cheating off Hart can be risky because of what he can provide as an offensive rebounder. The Cavs did a good job of not losing track of him in these situations. Having two rim protectors, one to cheat off Hart and clog the paint, and one to guard Towns, worked perfectly

The Knicks weren’t able to generate many outside looks. The best way to defend the three-point line is to keep your opponent from getting those shots. The Cavs limited the Knicks to just 32 outside looks, which translated to a third of their shot attempts (24th percentile). That’s a win for a team that has been on fire from three throughout the postseason.

The Cavs were able to do so while still defending the rim. New York converted just 62.5% of their looks in the restricted area.

These are the signs of a good defensive process. It was their work on this end that led to their 22-point lead.

Offensively, Donovan Mitchell had much more space to operate compared to the previous two seasons. This allowed him to get to the paint more easily, especially during the second and third quarters when the Cavs were playing their best.

Cleveland’s bigs showed that they could be impactful in the paint. The guards didn’t feed them the ball as they should’ve, but when they did, good things happened.

Allen was impactful as an offensive rebounder. He grabbed six second-chance opportunities in a game that felt like it was going to be a reversal of the 2023 series.

The Cavs also generated clean three-point looks. The Knicks sell out more than nearly any other team to protect the basket. This is why they gave up the second-most threes in the league throughout the regular season.

Cleveland took nearly half of their shots from behind the arc. And while you don’t necessarily want to see Mobley attempt eight triples, most of the ones the Cavs did get were clean. The shot quality was good. The issue was that they only converted 32% of their looks. If they keep getting good shots, you’d expect that to turn around at some point.

Support us and Let ‘Em Know with Homage!

Anything bought from the links helps support Fear the Sword. You can buy the Let ‘Em Know shirt HERE. You can also shop all of Homage’s Cavs gear HERE.

Blowing a 22-point lead doesn’t come down to one thing. So many factors worked against the Cavs in the final eight minutes for them to give this away. But if you were forced to blame one thing, the offense’s inability to score down the stretch is what ultimately did them in.

The Cavs scored just 11 points in the final 13 minutes of regulation and overtime. The process went away, as they opted to bleed the clock instead of attacking whenever they saw an opening.

Basketball is a rhythm-based sport. If you halt your pace to waste time, you also take yourself out of the natural flow that allows you to perform your best. And then when you need to get back to it, as the Cavs did in overtime, it’s hard to find that again.

Mitchell and James Harden deserve the most blame for the offense falling apart in the fourth. They both failed to get the bigs involved, weren’t able to get downhill, and needlessly dribbled the air out of the ball.

The lack of aggressiveness from Mitchell was the most puzzling. He attempted just four shots in the fourth quarter, and mostly wasn’t a factor late.

Kenny Atkinson deserves blame for the collapse, most of all with how the team defended Jalen Brunson down the stretch.

New York hunted Harden defensively. They put him in 21 on-ball screens in the fourth quarter and overtime. This resulted in nine isolations, with the Knicks scoring 1.9 points per those possessions.

There’s no excuse for seeing that happen and not adjusting.

We know who Harden is as a defender. There are things that he can do well, given his size and strength. Hanging with a quicker guard like Brunson in isolation isn’t one of them.

If Harden is going to be targeted like that, he probably shouldn’t be on the court. But if you’re insistent on playing him for what he provides offensively, the game plan around him needs to be better.

It’s clear that the Cavs were willing to just give up the switch. Defenders weren’t fighting to stay with their assignment when the screen came. This strategy worked with Hart in the game; it didn’t when New York opted for shooting.

The Cavs weren’t prepared for a small-ball version of the Knicks.

Harden was able to be targeted because Landry Shamet (a shooter) was in place of Hart (not a shooter). If one of the bigs was able to roam off Hart, the paint still would’ve been clogged, and Brunson wouldn’t have been able to get going.

Not being prepared for this caused the Cavs to try to double these actions late, but it’s clear this wasn’t something they could execute. The double was more passive than anything, and the backside rotations weren’t where they needed to be for this to work.

This collapse was more a failure of preparation — which is understandable given the turnaround from Game 7 in Detroit — than anything else. The Cavs have the personnel to defend this better and have done so in the past.

You’d expect the Knicks to go with more five-out lineups in Game 2.

This game stings. You can’t afford to give away opportunities like this against an opponent as good as the Knicks and get away with it. At least not if you do so repeatedly.

That said, Game 1 doesn’t decide a series. And if it does, it wasn’t one that you were going to win anyway. The sky isn’t falling, at least not yet.

The Cavs have experience in these situations due to blowing multiple games already this postseason. They’ve responded well in each of those situations. They’ll need to do so again if they’re going to come back from a hole they dug completely on their own.

“It’s one game,” Mitchell said. “We could’ve lost by 40. It still would’ve been 1-0.”

The Spurs took homecourt advantage from the Thunder in Game 1, which became an instant classic. While missing De’Aaron Fox, who might still be out a while longer, they went to Oklahoma City and handed the home team its first loss of the entire playoffs in double overtime. Now they’ll look to take a commanding lead back to San Antonio by winning Game 2.

Dylan Harper did phenomenally in Fox’s stead, showing once again a maturity beyond his years, but the game belonged to Victor Wembanyama. The big man finished with 41 points on 25 shots, along with 24 rebounds, three assists, and three blocks, yet somehow the stat line doesn’t do his performance justice. The Thunder couldn’t do anything about him on offense as he punished the smaller defenders they used on him. His long three-pointer to send it to a second overtime feels like one of those highlights that will be remembered if the Spurs advance.

If there’s such a thing as a must-win game this early in a series, Game 2 is it for the Thunder. Heading on the road tied at one would be a reasonably good result. They could regain homecourt advantage quickly with a split in San Antonio. Another loss, however, puts them in a position to have to win four of the next five, with three of those away from Oklahoma City. After a not stellar performance for his standards, reigning MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander will surely look to exert his will on the game like Wembanyama did in the previous matchup.

San Antonio Spurs (1-0) vs. Oklahoma City Thunder (0-1)

May 20th, 2026 | 7:30 PM CT

Watch: NBC / Peacock | Listen: WOAI (1200 AM)

Spurs Injuries: De’Aaron Fox – Questionable (ankle)

Thunder Injuries: Thomas Sorber – Out (knee)

What to watch for:

Who guards Wemby?

The Thunder went with a common approach to defending Wembanyama: use a smaller player on him to push him out of position and take away his dribble. It’s been a tactic that has had success in the past, but not this time, as Wembanyama scored nine points in just five shots when guarded by Alex Caruso. Whenever he could catch close to the rim, either on cuts or after switches, it was a bucket. He also punished OKC in the offensive boards a couple of times. Wemby was too big, and the mismatch was a problem.

At the same time, can the Thunder really adjust? Wembanyama has gotten the best of Chet Holmgren for most of their pro career. Hartenstein could be a better option to guard him, but Wemby can just either draw him out to the perimeter or try to force a switch. There are just not a lot of bigs who can hang with The Alien, which is why the strategy of having strong perimeter guys guard him exists in the first place. It’s unlikely Mark Daigneault will completely switch his defensive game plan after one game, but he might mix things up more in Game 2.

The two young guards might need to step up again

De’Aaron Fox is listed as questionable and expected to be a game-time decision. There’s a chance he’ll suit up, but it’s also completely possible, and even likely, he’ll miss another matchup. If he does, Dylan Harper and Stephon Castle will need to once again answer the call and deliver like veterans on the biggest stage they’ve been on.

Their performances in Game 1 weren’t perfect, as they struggled with their outside shot and Castle was turnover-prone, but their defense was terrific, and they combined for 41 points, 17 boards, and 17 assists. Harper also pitched in seven steals. Lack of experience has been considered one of the Spurs’ weaknesses, but the two young guards looked comfortable despite the high stakes. If Fox is out again, hopefully they can have another consagratory performance, because the Spurs will probably need it.

Fatigue could be a major factor for both teams

The double overtime finish made Game 1 epic, but it also led to heavy minutes of intense play for most of the protagonists. All five Spurs starters were on the floor for more than 44 minutes, and Devin Vassell crossed the 50-minute mark. For the Thunder, Holmgren played 40+ minutes, SGA played 50+ minutes, and Jalen Williams, who is probably battling conditioning issues after injuries, got almost 40 minutes himself. There is only one day off between games, so the somewhat shallow San Antonio and the not-used-to-big-minutes OKC could struggle with exhaustion.

Fatigue could hurt the Spurs more, especially if Fox is not ready to go. While they are young, they had to play their main guys more in the first matchup. For San Antonio, a blowout, going either way, would provide an obvious signal they need to rest their guys, since there is no long break before the series continues. The hope is they can get production from their bench to avoid overloading their top players. But the potential of a 2-0 lead could be too enticing to resist, even if it means playing their starters heavy minutes to give themselves a chance. The Spurs are typically careful with load management, so it will be interesting to see how they handle playing time and rotations.

Game 7 in the NBA playoffs: a chance to kick back, enjoy the drama of a winner-takes-all shootout between basketball’s big beasts, and … switch over from your regular TV provider to Amazon Prime? The excitement drains from the occasion at the first touch of the remote. Amazon no doubt imagined it had landed a real coup when the Eastern Conference semi-final series between Detroit and Cleveland extended to its maximum length, thereby handing the retail giant’s streaming arm, Prime Video, the right to air a Game 7 in the first season of its partnership with the NBA. In the event, Sunday’s game was a dud: a blowout win for the Cavs, playing on the road, that had all the electricity and charm of a stint in the doctor’s waiting room. Fortunately for viewers, Prime Video did its best to match the moment by producing a broadcast that was every bit as dull and juiceless as events on the court.

The pre-tipoff highlight was an interview with Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, on the occasion of his coronation as this season’s MVP, in which the Oklahoma City star appeared to be speaking from a movie theater for some reason. Blake Griffin, the house beefcake on Prime Video’s studio set, chided ESPN insider Shams Charania for leaking this year’s MVP announcement hours earlier: “It’s Sunday, Shams – go to brunch, you nerd.” If Hillary had won and Shams had kept his trap shut, we’d all be at brunch! The game got under way, and things did not improve. During the half-time show, Dirk Nowitzki rambled Germanly about various topics, while fellow former MVP Steve Nash delivered lines like “That decisiveness in isolation is so important” with all the conviction of a hostage recording a ransom video. Host Taylor Rooks tried valiantly to compensate for the lack of chemistry on set by laughing at even the slightest hint of a joke from any of her panellists. Awkward laughter delivered over dead air on a platform it feels like a punishment to access: that’s the Prime Video NBA playoffs guarantee.

Related: Wembanyama’s 41-24 double-double silences Thunder in West finals: ‘The best player in the world’

These have been a difficult debut playoffs for Prime as it muscles in on the broadcast territory once ruled by what the media analysts call “linear TV”. The feed dropped out for several minutes during overtime in the play-in game between the Hornets and the Heat; buffering, the nightmare we all thought we outlived in 2006, has plagued the stream in several games; and video has frequently been mistimed with audio, producing delays and mismatches. There’s primetime, which is when the bulk of these playoffs are taking place, and then there’s Prime Video time, which comes in around three seconds later. The audio itself in many games has often, in my experience at least, been strangely soft, requiring a trip all the way to the top of the volume scale to hear what the analysts and announcers are saying.

Compounding these technical difficulties has been the absence of any sense of occasion or big game feel on the Prime Video set. Inside the NBA, the program that anchored basketball coverage on TNT for many years before this season moving to ESPN, has become the pre-eminent talkshow in sports thanks to the alchemy of its stars, and the special qualities that each brings to the screen. The righteous fury of Charles Barkley, the bowtied jollity of Ernie Johnson, Kenny Smith’s calm assurance, Shaq’s dad mumble and roomy suits: each is critical to the show’s virtuosity and success. Shaq and Barkley, in particular, spar and talk over the top of each other so frequently they have developed a kind of harmonic verbal jazz that is now the show’s stylistic signature. And though the migration to ESPN has not been an entirely happy experience, the quad’s chemistry has thankfully survived the move.

Over on Amazon the contrast could not be more stark: the Prime Video playoffs have felt more like an extended quarterly corporate budget meeting than the pinnacle event in professional basketball. Nash and Nowitzki are Prime’s two heavy hitters, but even though they played together they often interact as if they’re vague acquaintances who’ve just bumped into each other at dinner; it’s all a bit too polite, a bit too safe, to make for compelling TV. Prime Video has exited the playoffs, the remainder of which will be shown on ABC/ESPN and NBC/Peacock. But the effect of Amazon’s shuddering experiment in anti-TV lingers.

For fans there is, of course, a real fragmentation to the viewing experience now that playoff basketball is parceled out across a number of platforms and viewing portals. Under the terms of the NBA’s new 11-year, $77bn media deal, live basketball is spread across NBC, Peacock, ESPN/ABC and Prime Video – a patchwork that includes broadcast TV, cable and streamers. This inevitably causes some disruption to the experience of watching live sport as we’ve become accustomed to it in the eras of channel surfing and multi-view, as an event in conversation with many others. For those of us with Prime Video and functioning fingers, that’s not exactly the end of the world – we all have the ability to handle the remote and press the right buttons to find what we’re looking for – but siloing premium live sports on streaming services does tend to make the viewing experience more static, more clunky, less zappy and less fun.

There’s also the question of access to consider. Instead of liberating us from the cable bundle, TV’s streaming era has ended up delivering us into a world where we all need to sign up for a retail goods delivery service to enjoy postseason basketball. To view the cream of the NBA in battle on the big screen from the comfort of your own home, you must first ensure you have a subscription for next-day delivery of toilet paper. On its own, $14.99 a month (the price of an Amazon Prime subscription) may not seem like much to pay for access to premium live sport – but that’s only one platform, and the costs of maintaining connection across all the different TV and streaming services that sports now live on are only multiplying (Amazon allows users to subscribe to streaming alone but structures it so that it’s most cost effective to pay for an entire Prime shipping subscription). Though precise figures are hard to come by, the most reliable estimates suggest that Amazon Prime has about 200 million customers in the US. On that basis it’s fair to assume that most basketball fans have Prime Video. But not all of them do – and not all neighborhood bars are prepared to pay the higher fees required to stream Prime in a commercial venue. At a time when the league is confronting a tanking epidemic and plagued by anxieties over its own product’s watchability, ripping a sizeable chunk of the postseason off normie TV and parking it on a streaming platform does not seem like the wisest strategy to allay those concerns and guarantee the sport’s long-term growth.

The NBA claims viewership is up across the board for the regular season and the playoffs – but data in the streaming era is notoriously chaotic and unreliable, so it’s anyone’s guess what the figures actually reveal. Ultimately the objective truth is probably less important than the semblance of growth, which is what the NBA and other big leagues need to keep attracting money. Appearance matters more than reality, the narrative more than the substance; the real audience for the NBA’s hosannas about market growth is not the fan on the couch but the underwriter in the corporate box. Viewership, popularity, even the public itself now seem increasingly incidental to professional sports, whose mega media deals are cooked up on the back of opaque datasets for the ultimate benefit of a tiny class of owners and investors. With each passing year televised sport becomes more and more like the unreal economy of venture capital, in which inscrutable claims about market size mix with a general contempt for the target public, and investment capital takes on a speculative character, unmoored from any objective metric of performance or even the need to show a profit.

The shackling of this year’s NBA playoffs to Prime Video has coincided with the emergence of a number of exotic new insults to the broader sports-loving public, most notoriously the extortionate pricing of tickets for the approaching World Cup. This weekend 40 dishonorables from the worlds of swimming, athletics and weightlifting will convene in Las Vegas for the inaugural drug-assisted Enhanced Games. The event will take place before “2,500 invite-only spectators” in a custom-built competition complex, according to organizers. The idea of a public sporting event restricting spectator entry to invitees in the way that a private club may seems shocking at first, but on closer inspection it’s no more than a signal confirming professional sport’s general direction of travel.

Once a gathering ground for the poor and disadvantaged, live sport – whether experienced in person or on screen – increasingly feels like an exclusive privilege for the global elite. Eventually it won’t even be enough to pay to gain access to it. In a sense, there’s something truly forward-looking about Prime Video’s janky first attempt at covering the NBA playoffs: Amazon has given us a broadcast so powerfully alienating it effectively anticipates sport’s viewerless future. Let’s appreciate it, then, while we still can – before professional sport slips behind the curtain of wealth and celebrity for good.

Math is hard. NBA math can be absolutely mind-dumbing even for “smart” people who write about the team. So when the cap experts talk, I like to listen.

I was watching old friend Keith Smith discuss the Celtics options on the Celtics Beat podcast and keyed in on some of the things he mentioned about the Celtics financial options (starting at about the 38:25 mark). He ran the numbers on the returning Celtics guaranteed contracts, the draft picks, and reasonable assumptions around the end of the roster guys and the two key figures he came up with are as follows.

The Celtics are about $15M under the luxury tax threshold and about $36M under the 2nd apron.

Here’s what that means to some potential paths forward for the team.

Duck the tax again, use the MLE

The math: The Celtics have roughly $15M under the tax threshold. The MLE is right around $15M.

So they’ll be close enough to under the tax that they will be able to once again find a way to stay under and still upgrade the roster with a quality free agent. That could mean bringing back Anfernee Simons. It could mean getting a guy like Mitchell Robinson (though that might be a long shot). Keith mentioned guys like Brook Lopez or even bringing back Nic Vucevic on short term (tradable) deals if all else fails. Perhaps there’s someone I’m not even tracking that makes sense at that number. The point is, it is a valuable tool for the team to use.

Another thing to note is that you could forget the MLE and use the space you have to make an unbalanced trade. One that comes to mind is dealing Hauser to the Pistons for Isaiah (Beef Stew) Stewart. That would save the Pistons about 4M and give them a floor spacing wing to add to their offense.

Theoretically, if the team is able to duck the tax one more time, they’ll be more willing to spend into the tax for the next several years (as it becomes harder and harder to fill out the roster around the Jays).

Pay the tax, use both the MLE and TPE

The math: The Celtics are about $36M under the 2nd apron. They could use the MLE and as much of the $27.7M trade exception as you can fit under the 1st apron.

An important note: Using either the MLE or the TPE would (by rule) hard cap the team at the 1st Apron ($195.9M) which is above the tax threshold ($187.7M) but obviously below the 2nd Apron ($207.8M).

This would only be worth it if they can really make a go-for-it title chasing move. We’re talking the equivalent of adding Jrue Holiday and Kristaps Porzingis back in 2023-24.

I have no idea who the names would be that fit that bill. Perhaps the Cavs end up winning the Giannis sweepstakes and decide that they need to offload a center and the Celtics happily oblige by taking Jarrett Allen (in exchange for picks) off their hands. Not sure how realistic that is, but the point is that you can do a lot with a $27.7M trade exception if you have an owner that is willing to pay the tax bill. But again, it has to be for the exact right guys that could put this team over the top.

Keith wisely points out that the one number the Celtics won’t go over is the 2nd Apron (if that’s even possible), because of all the roster restrictions that come with that (including the frozen future draft pick). Brad moved a lot of salaries to get out of that particular jail cell, and he’s not going to jump right back into it any time soon.

Blockbuster trade (involving Jaylen Brown or Derrick White)

We’ve already put a great deal of time and virtual ink dedicated to the blockbuster options. You know the names and potential impacts by now. I don’t think Brad is in any particular hurry to move either Jaylen or Derrick. On the other hand, I don’t think he would hesitate to sell high if the right return came back either.

What would you prefer to see the Celtics do? What are some names of players that you would want them to pursue this offseason?