What can we expect from Celtics ownership

[MBunge]

The news of TA being let go to the Grizz because Ainge won't give him a third year along with the apparent interest in Josh Howard has made me think about something.  How much money should we as fans reasonably expect Celtic ownership to spend on trying to win another banner with this core group?

I mean, let's get real.  Giving Tony a third year for 3 million dollars wouldn't really be that big an obstacle to the rebuilding process and it's especially weird to balk at paying that for one of the best wing defenders in the league when you're considering spending the same or more for two years of a guy coming off a major knee injury.

I think it's the luxury tax hit of using Sheed's contract as trade bait that's really behind TA's departure.  If Ainge gets a trade done, it'll mean an extra 10 million dollars in luxury taxes.  TA would have been an extra 6 million in luxury tax on top of that, and there's still Nate, Hanrangody and probably a couple of other players to sign that might add a few million on top of that.

With the championship window on this group of Celtics closing fast, should anyone be upset if ownership has placed certain restrictions on how much Ainge can spend?

Now, as much as I love TA, I would take a healthy Josh Howard over him without even thinking.  But in a perfect world, I'd want them both in green.

Mike

[Jon]

That might be part of it, but here's the other thing: if we get Josh Howard, Tony Allen isn't really worth 3+ million dollars per year.  Even if Doc severely limits Pierce and Allen's minutes to 32 mpg (and I don't even see that happening), that leaves 32 mpg of total backup minutes.  In theory, if Doc played his rotations right, we wouldn't need ANYONE else besides Howard to back up Ray and Paul.

Now of course we know that rotations can't be that perfect and foul trouble will inevitably creep up, but I can't see us needing someone for more than 10 mpg per night or so as the 4th wing.  We can probably achieve that with the minimum.  

So I can't blame ownership for letting him go if they have bigger plans like Howard.  

[wdleehi]

TA wanted to many years.



Ainge has decided he wants to have a clean plate in two years with a few exceptions (Rondo and Pierce right now)



TA isn't good enough to change that plan.  There are options out there that will fill his role (or improve on it with better shooting) for less money and/or years.  


The Celtics just spent 30+ million this year in resigning Pierce, Ray and adding O'Neal and are looking to trade Wallace's contract instead of just taking the savings.  


I am not worried about the Celtics not spending this season.  The key word right now for them seems to be spend wisely.

[CoachBo]

TA wanted to many years.



Ainge has decided he wants to have a clean plate in two years with a few exceptions (Rondo and Pierce right now)



TA isn't good enough to change that plan.  There are options out there that will fill his role (or improve on it with better shooting) for less money and/or years.  


The Celtics just spent 30+ million this year in resigning Pierce, Ray and adding O'Neal and are looking to trade Wallace's contract instead of just taking the savings.  


I am not worried about the Celtics not spending this season.  The key word right now for them seems to be spend wisely.

Agreed. $10 million for a limited player wasn't spending wisely.

I like the O'Neal signing - low post scoring, decent defense - and it's mid-July. I'm not ready to panic yet on the rest. Sometimes new faces and new, more balanced skillsets are good for a veteran club.

[CelticsWhat35]

It seems odd to me that they're not willing to offer Tony a third year at short money, but gave Pierce 4 years guaranteed at $15mil per.  If their plan is cap flexibility for 2012, Pierce's contract hurts that plan much more than Tony's would.  Granted, Pierce is far more important to the Celtics plans of winning right now.  But this just seems a little odd considering our painful lack of depth.  It also would be nice to have a defender of Tony's caliber going up against LeBron and Wade.

But it's still early, so I'll wait to see what shakes out for the rest of the off season.

[wdleehi]

It seems odd to me that they're not willing to offer Tony a third year at short money, but gave Pierce 4 years guaranteed at $15mil per.  If their plan is cap flexibility for 2012, Pierce's contract hurts that plan much more than Tony's would.  Granted, Pierce is far more important to the Celtics plans of winning right now.  But this just seems a little odd considering our painful lack of depth.  It also would be nice to have a defender of Tony's caliber going up against LeBron and Wade.

But it's still early, so I'll wait to see what shakes out for the rest of the off season.

Because one is very talented and is a main piece to the teams title run and will go on to have his number put in the rafters and has a shot at the hall of fame.


And the other is TA.

[MBunge]

That might be part of it, but here's the other thing: if we get Josh Howard, Tony Allen isn't really worth 3+ million dollars per year.  Even if Doc severely limits Pierce and Allen's minutes to 32 mpg (and I don't even see that happening), that leaves 32 mpg of total backup minutes.  In theory, if Doc played his rotations right, we wouldn't need ANYONE else besides Howard to back up Ray and Paul.
  

In my mind, you've got to have a back up 2 and 3 for the coming season, not just one player to sub for both Pierce and Allen.  Not just for the regular season minutes, but also for the playoffs.  While Pierce and Ray still have some left in the tank, I don't think you can play them 40some minutes a game in the postseason anymore, no matter how much you limit their minutes before that.  Or to be more precise, I don't think you can play them 40some minutes in game 1 of a series and expect them to be productive playing 40some minutes every game after that.

It's a little like the situation with Shaq.  He could probably play a productive 15 minutes a game until he's into his early 40s, but trying to get anything more than that out of him will be disasterous.

Mike

[Jon]

It seems odd to me that they're not willing to offer Tony a third year at short money, but gave Pierce 4 years guaranteed at $15mil per.  If their plan is cap flexibility for 2012, Pierce's contract hurts that plan much more than Tony's would.  Granted, Pierce is far more important to the Celtics plans of winning right now.  But this just seems a little odd considering our painful lack of depth.  It also would be nice to have a defender of Tony's caliber going up against LeBron and Wade.

But it's still early, so I'll wait to see what shakes out for the rest of the off season.

The thing is, right now the C's only have Pierce and Rondo on the books for beyond 2012.  So that'd only be 26 million dollars.  In today's CBA, that'd be 32 million dollars worth of space, or about two max contracts. (I know that doesn't include cap holds, but it's still a lot of space.)

Now of course, we don't know what the new salary cap will be or what new max deals will look like two years from now.  And that 26 million dollar figure means that Perk, BBD, and Bradley would all be gone.  So I'm not quite sure that happens.  

However, even if we kept those three and upped that cap figure to something closer to 40 million dollars (with cap holds), but the point remains, we could still make a run at a big time free agent to add to Rondo and PP.  

And to Mike, I agree we need some depth at the 2/3; however, I don't blame the C's IF their thinking was that they didn't want TA to be paid 3 million a year to be their 4th wing. 

And as I laid out in my earlier post, in theory, we could play Pierce, Allen, and Howard all around 30 mpg and need very little out of our 4th wing (remember, there's only 96 mpg at the 2 and 3 spots combined).  Now I think due to the foul trouble we'll likely face guarding Wade and James we'll need some additional depth.  But I think we can probably find that at half the price. 

[wdleehi]

That might be part of it, but here's the other thing: if we get Josh Howard, Tony Allen isn't really worth 3+ million dollars per year.  Even if Doc severely limits Pierce and Allen's minutes to 32 mpg (and I don't even see that happening), that leaves 32 mpg of total backup minutes.  In theory, if Doc played his rotations right, we wouldn't need ANYONE else besides Howard to back up Ray and Paul.
  

In my mind, you've got to have a back up 2 and 3 for the coming season, not just one player to sub for both Pierce and Allen.  Not just for the regular season minutes, but also for the playoffs.  While Pierce and Ray still have some left in the tank, I don't think you can play them 40some minutes a game in the postseason anymore, no matter how much you limit their minutes before that.  Or to be more precise, I don't think you can play them 40some minutes in game 1 of a series and expect them to be productive playing 40some minutes every game after that.

It's a little like the situation with Shaq.  He could probably play a productive 15 minutes a game until he's into his early 40s, but trying to get anything more than that out of him will be disasterous.

Mike

That's why you get someone else to replace TA as the 4th SG/SF.  There are plenty of options.


They need to upgrade the 3rd SG/SF already.  

[MBunge]

TA wanted to many years.


Ainge has decided he wants to have a clean plate in two years with a few exceptions (Rondo and Pierce right now)


TA isn't good enough to change that plan.  There are options out there that will fill his role (or improve on it with better shooting) for less money and/or years.  

If Ainge can bring in someone as good or better than TA for less money, nothing more needs to be said.

I do think you're underestimating his value, though.  Since this team is too old to run a whole lot, a shooting wing would fit better than TA's slashing to the basket.  However, I don't think there are a lot of wings out there who are on TA's level defensively where they're not just solid on effort and technique but have some real strength and athleticism to match against the top scorers in the league.  For example, there may be guys out there who can stay in front of Kobe, but I think very few of them can body him up and physically bother him the way TA can.

Mike

[CelticsWhat35]

It seems odd to me that they're not willing to offer Tony a third year at short money, but gave Pierce 4 years guaranteed at $15mil per.  If their plan is cap flexibility for 2012, Pierce's contract hurts that plan much more than Tony's would.  Granted, Pierce is far more important to the Celtics plans of winning right now.  But this just seems a little odd considering our painful lack of depth.  It also would be nice to have a defender of Tony's caliber going up against LeBron and Wade.

But it's still early, so I'll wait to see what shakes out for the rest of the off season.

Because one is very talented and is a main piece to the teams title run and will go on to have his number put in the rafters and has a shot at the hall of fame.


And the other is TA.

The fact that Pierce's # is going to be retired should have absolutely nothing to do with his new contract, and shame on ownership if it does.  I'm willing to give Ainge the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he's doing, but the future success of the team should not be jeopardized because Celtics ownership wants Pierce to retire a Celtic.

[wdleehi]

TA wanted to many years.


Ainge has decided he wants to have a clean plate in two years with a few exceptions (Rondo and Pierce right now)


TA isn't good enough to change that plan.  There are options out there that will fill his role (or improve on it with better shooting) for less money and/or years.  

If Ainge can bring in someone as good or better than TA for less money, nothing more needs to be said.

I do think you're underestimating his value, though.  Since this team is too old to run a whole lot, a shooting wing would fit better than TA's slashing to the basket.  However, I don't think there are a lot of wings out there who are on TA's level defensively where they're not just solid on effort and technique but have some real strength and athleticism to match against the top scorers in the league.  For example, there may be guys out there who can stay in front of Kobe, but I think very few of them can body him up and physically bother him the way TA can.

Mike

There are guys that defend close to what TA can.  The difference is they can hit the open jumpshots TA doesn't.

TA may have more physical gifts and will put up bigger numbers as a starter, but these other guys will compliment the stars of the Celtics better.  (think about Posey.  As starters, TA could blow him out of the water with stats.  But as reserves on the Celtics, Posey's ability to hit the outside shot made him worth more to the Celtics bench)


Guys like Bell, Bogans or Butler will replace TA just fine.

[Jon]

TA wanted to many years.


Ainge has decided he wants to have a clean plate in two years with a few exceptions (Rondo and Pierce right now)


TA isn't good enough to change that plan.  There are options out there that will fill his role (or improve on it with better shooting) for less money and/or years.  

If Ainge can bring in someone as good or better than TA for less money, nothing more needs to be said.

I do think you're underestimating his value, though.  Since this team is too old to run a whole lot, a shooting wing would fit better than TA's slashing to the basket.  However, I don't think there are a lot of wings out there who are on TA's level defensively where they're not just solid on effort and technique but have some real strength and athleticism to match against the top scorers in the league.  For example, there may be guys out there who can stay in front of Kobe, but I think very few of them can body him up and physically bother him the way TA can.

Mike

I agree that we could miss TA.  However, my feeling is that Danny has something lined up with Sheed's contract that will make us forget about TA.  If that's not the case, it's a problem though.  

[wdleehi]

It seems odd to me that they're not willing to offer Tony a third year at short money, but gave Pierce 4 years guaranteed at $15mil per.  If their plan is cap flexibility for 2012, Pierce's contract hurts that plan much more than Tony's would.  Granted, Pierce is far more important to the Celtics plans of winning right now.  But this just seems a little odd considering our painful lack of depth.  It also would be nice to have a defender of Tony's caliber going up against LeBron and Wade.

But it's still early, so I'll wait to see what shakes out for the rest of the off season.

Because one is very talented and is a main piece to the teams title run and will go on to have his number put in the rafters and has a shot at the hall of fame.


And the other is TA.

The fact that Pierce's # is going to be retired should have absolutely nothing to do with his new contract, and shame on ownership if it does.  I'm willing to give Ainge the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he's doing, but the future success of the team should not be jeopardized because Celtics ownership wants Pierce to retire a Celtic.

No.  It is because they want to keep the window open the next two years.  In two years, the Celtics will have to likely start rebuilding through the draft and through trade.  Pierce will likely still be a good trading piece.  

[CelticsWhat35]

It seems odd to me that they're not willing to offer Tony a third year at short money, but gave Pierce 4 years guaranteed at $15mil per.  If their plan is cap flexibility for 2012, Pierce's contract hurts that plan much more than Tony's would.  Granted, Pierce is far more important to the Celtics plans of winning right now.  But this just seems a little odd considering our painful lack of depth.  It also would be nice to have a defender of Tony's caliber going up against LeBron and Wade.

But it's still early, so I'll wait to see what shakes out for the rest of the off season.

Because one is very talented and is a main piece to the teams title run and will go on to have his number put in the rafters and has a shot at the hall of fame.


And the other is TA.

The fact that Pierce's # is going to be retired should have absolutely nothing to do with his new contract, and shame on ownership if it does.  I'm willing to give Ainge the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he's doing, but the future success of the team should not be jeopardized because Celtics ownership wants Pierce to retire a Celtic.

No.  It is because they want to keep the window open the next two years.  In two years, the Celtics will have to likely start rebuilding through the draft and through trade.  Pierce will likely still be a good trading piece.  

I hope you're right, but I just don't see a 35 yr old with $30 million left on his contract being that big a trade commodity.  Also, was Pierce granted a no-trade clause in this contract?  That wouldn't help either.