Celtics Sound Like a Team That Simply Wanted Off Jaylen Brown’s Contract

BOSTON — Brad Stevens defended an admittedly controversial and risky Jaylen Brown trade that angered, saddened and confused many across the Celtics fan base one week prior. He and his front office reached the conclusion independent of Jayson Tatum, Bill Chisholm’s ownership group and with analytics only playing a small piece in the decision, which stemmed from Tatum and Brown occupying the majority of the team’s salary cap and on-court usage.

“When I looked at our team, and I looked at where the league was heading, looked at the way that we’ve finished the last couple of years and also looked at the unbelievable way we played in the regular season the last couple of years, the path looked a little bit more challenging to me,” Stevens said. “I might be wrong, I’m not gonna stand up here and be defensive about that, but the path looked a little more challenging with 70% of our cap and such a high percent of our usage tied into two players.”

While sending praise and admiration toward Brown and steering clear of criticizing him, Stevens referenced recent disappointing endings to seasons as an argument for no longer standing behind the Brown and Tatum pairing. He cited all the information available to them, invoking that term several times while leaving the exact reasoning for the urgency behind Boston’s action unclear. The Celtics liked the return they received, he said, but provided little rational beyond that as a justification for Brown needing to go. Instead, he stressed that a Brown return was possible.

That didn’t happen — and Monday’s highly-anticipated press conference left everyone in the Celtics’ orbit with familiar talking points to debate and slightly more indication of how the team viewed Brown’s game. Boston wanted more flexibility, optionality and that didn’t necessarily mean on the cap sheet.

“When you use the term optionality, you’re talking about length of contract and assets,” Stevens said. “That’s where the increased optionality comes from, and listen, we’re gonna have to lean on our depth. That’s a big part of this … we felt like this was the best combination of player plus appropriate assets in return that we got.”

Stevens painted a picture of the Celtics following in the footsteps of the champion Knicks, Thunder and Pacers teams who competed for championships over the past two years while Boston faltered. He highlighted Paul George as a complementary player, who can carry a team for stretches, free agent additions Mitchell Robinson and Mike Conley, along with continued drafting-and-development that make the Celtics’ potential improvement a question beyond Brown-for-George.

But asked point-blank if they’re better, he wouldn’t answer: we’ll see.

That’s how most of Chisholm and Stevens’ attempt at explaining the Brown trade went. Stevens prefaced the session with an eight-minute preamble where he stressed he wouldn’t try to defend the move. They welcomed scrutiny. They understood the emotions the trade provoked.

Then, as he and Chisholm traded opportunities to speak about it, their explanation veered between Stevens’ discussion about the cap, Brown’s style on the floor, George effectively making the same money as Brown and how that shows it’s not a money move. They wanted to compile assets, though the Giannis Antetokounmpo offer they reportedly made would’ve sent multiple picks out. Chisholm appeared to distance himself from the decision at one point, labeling it as one Stevens needed to sell him on.

Through the array of explanations, a sense emerged that Brown simply needed to go for numerous reasons.

“This was all about trying to win,” Chisholm said. “I think really trusting in our process. I think we have the best front office in the NBA. They put in their work and they came to the conclusion that this was the best way for us to win. That’s the mandate, is to win. I keep saying that we’ll spend whatever it takes to do that. The mandate is to win and Brad and his team came with a recommendation, this is the way we’re gonna win, and I looked at it and I had the same reaction. I was like wow, the fan in me, this is really tough and then recognizing … I have accountability, I’m accountable for it, Brad’s accountable to me for it, and this team’s accountable to him. But the mandate was to win. We came to the conclusion, they convinced me, this was the best way for us to win and I got there. I did, but it was really hard. I recognize this was a big move, and frankly, I didn’t anticipate it would happen this fast under our ownership, but here we are.”

Stevens affirmed reports that no follow-up move is imminent, and so this is the roster. One still talented enough to hold the line, and one uncertain about where it stands in its path back to the championship. One that can hold the line with Tatum back to 100% health in the role Brown filled for much of last year. They’ll only have one star, though, a fate Stevens lamented as inevitable between the super-max contract system and the hard cap created by the salary aprons. And the Celtics won’t likely feel the relief for two years.

In the meantime, Boston empowered a rival with Brown starting in place of George for Philadelphia. The Sixers face their own fit questions, continued uncertainty surrounding Joel Embiid’s health and limited depth. Boston, following its thwarted Antetokounmpo pursuit, pivoted away from a potential all-in move toward contention toward embracing the layers remaining on the roster. Stevens alluded to players they can retain in Brown’s place, Neemias Queta already extended and Payton Pritchard eligible for one in October.

Stevens closed with a point that Brown and Tatum represented 47% of the Celtics’ cap when they won the 2024 championship. For a year, he relented when reminded, their 70% share will remain between Tatum and George. That somehow became the ideal pivot for a franchise long committed to both of its stars. Stevens imagined a world with some cap relief for home-grown stars, or smaller maxes where they might not be siting at the podium. Yet he and Chisholm shared it on Monday, providing only a slightly clearer view of why Brown couldn’t remain.

“I don’t know that you can perfectly predict the timing of these things,” Stevens said. “Obviously, this was not a secret, so people had plenty of information or at least had a reason to make offers, make a run, whatever the case may be … we tried our very best to look and really assess the value of what we thought a pick was worth, or best predict it. But it is an interesting time … it’s a move to keep us at a very competitive level and give us optionality moving forward.”