It's rarely a great sign when an article opens with... maybe not quite a lie, but by actively misinforming the reader. To wit:
> My beloved Boston Celtics paid top dollar for an accomplished point guard to help win a championship two seasons ago. This year, they opted for a player who isn’t as good but reduces payroll.
That is not what happened. If you don't follow the nba: Their best player (Tatum), tore his achilles. Worse, in one of the last games of the season. That's typically a year plus injury to return to form, if you return to form.
Separately, the nba has, for the first time, essentially a hard salary cap (the 2nd apron). If you exceed the first cap -- which everyone with a competitive roster must do -- you have penalties that escalate the more years in a row you are within the penalty zone. Thus Boston ate a year, while their best player was injured so they have no real hope of winning anything, to reset their penalty status for next year.
tl;dr: they didn't dump someone to reduce payroll (that was a side effect, not the goal). They wanted to reset the repeater penalty in a year where without your best player, you ain't winning anything anyway. This is just competent cap management.
