Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did?

[BballTim]

it's not so much that it is impossible as it is an "unknown" how many of the prospective replacements would perform in our system and in the pressure of the playoffs.....

the actual contributions of PJ, Posey and Eddie were in line with things that each of them had done their whole careers....and there are other players out there who can do similar things (although for Posey who those players are is pretty unclear right now), but the difference between those players and Eddie, PJ and Posey is that they already showed they could do it...

  So Eddie House averages 8 minutes a game in the playoffs (3 minutes a game vs Det), shoots 17-56 from the field for the playoffs, and goes scoreless in 18 of the 26 playoff games and you're claiming that we'll have trouble replacing his clutch playoff play? PJ shot well against Cleveland but poorly against Det and LA, and didn't rebound particularly well. We can't replace his production?

again, you keep going back to simply stats and what i'm saying is that there is more to it than that....

can we get someone who can shoot the same percentage as PJ and Eddie and Posey.....? sure.

but will they make the big play....hit the big shot....make the key boxout or steal, etc....will they come into the game with the same focus....will they have the same positive effect on the players around them? i don't know.....maybe...

Bball, you basically keep ignoring my whole point here and keep going back to the stat lines. i mean, was it really that long ago that Eddie was chasing down that loose ball in the CLE series knocking it to Posey who got fouled by Wally - totally pumping up the fans and teammates?

  I'm not ignoring your point, I'm disputing it. PJ and Eddie weren't clutch over the course of the playoffs, they had a few clutch moments. You're thinking that every positive thing they did was critical and would be lost with a different player. That we'd bring in  another player who gave us the same production as Eddie House but none of their plays would be "clutch". That's highly unlikely. I don't think that they made such a high percentage of clutch plays that it wouldn't likely be duplicated by another player.

well i guess i dispute your assessment of how many  "clutch" moments a guy or a bench needs to have in order to make those contributions significant......

  The point isn't whether the clutch moments are significant, it's about whether or not they're replaceable. If the point you're trying to make is that many of the players on our bench were so clutch that we couldn't possibly expect another collection of players to duplicate the effort I'd disagree.

[bucknersrevenge]

all i can say is that championships are won with talent first and foremost. and last year our 5 most talented guys were all in the starting lineup and guess what? theyll all be back next year. this offseason weve already added more talent(albeit young) to that core. obviously you want some glue guys to help keep things altogether but you dont have to pay glue guys 25 mil over 4 years to do it. if you surround your talent with inexpensive role players that understand their roles theyll be clutch for you when they need to be. besides being "clutch" is relative. pj was clutch for hitting a big jumper to help win the cleveland series. he wouldnt get 6mil. but you wanna know who was really clutch? paul pierce who had 41. id say that guys pretty clutch. id say ray allen was pretty clutch in games 5 and 6 of the detroit series. how about perks 18-16 performance? yeah thats pretty clutch too. powe in game 2 vs la? clutch. "clutch" is a matter of focus and preparation really. "clutch"  is doing your job whatever it is when youre called on. its about being accountable. if they prepare themselves, if they are focused on the task at hand, even giddens or bill walker could be "clutch" next year.

[timepiece33]

all i can say is that championships are won with talent first and foremost. and last year our 5 most talented guys were all in the starting lineup and guess what? theyll all be back next year.

Depth is important and to be blunt, Posey had similar importance to both Perkins and Rondo in the championship run.  You can minimize his contribution all you want, but this team will need to amply replace his production if it is going to be just as successful.   

[cordobes]

I don't think that stats are a good way of evaluating your bench, or the players you want in your bench. And surely that how well/badly a player performed in a playoff for a single season is not a reason to sign/not sign him. More: I don't think that the right way of filling a bench is simply by pursuing the best players available, individually considered.

It's much more important to have the right blend of players that fit the team. The story may be different if you're just trying to build trade assets, developing players or just not expecting a deep playoff run, but for a contender like the Celtics fortunately are, there are more important things than "talent" or "productivity": for example, players who know their role and can play within the system. Players that fill the roles that the way the rest of the team is built, the game philosophy and off/deff game sets used demand to be filled - small things like hard screens or pressure on the leading guard. Players who can be productive coming off the bench and can solve some matchup problems. Essentially, players who know how to play safe and handle the pressure of the big games. Generally, this is an underrated characteristic because one tends to assume that any player can do this "providing the right environment", "he'll adapt himself", etc etc. That's not true, it's wishful thinking. It may be an intangible, but nevertheless it's a skill, like ball-handling or setting screens. I've already given the example of Pargo - not that I know for sure that he doesn't have that skill, but that one can't be sure he has it. Also, Dooling (in this case, I'm almost sure he doesn't have that skill) - I'd see no point in wasting a roster spot on Dooling, even if he was willing to play for free.

It's also important to ponder how the "tangible" skills of a player meet the needs of the team. For example: we need some more scoring from the bench, I agree, but I'm not convinced at all that scorers are the priority. Ceteris paribus, I'd take a 9ppg player with a 39% 3pt over a 16ppg player with a 25% 3pt. With our current roster and offensive system, a guy who can provide spacing it's more useful than a high usage slasher who scores more.

For a concrete case of this, let's look at a crowd favourite, Arroyo (at least he's mentioned a lot in these threads): what exactly can Arroyo do for us? It's a honest question, I really can't see it. The arguments in his favor aren't very eloquent, to say the least - "he's good" and things of that kind. Well, IMO he's not that good to begin with. But let's assume he is. What are his strengths and his weaknesses? Rondo is a good defender, but sometimes he struggles against very quick opponent, because of gambling a little bit too much or not keeping a good defensive stance, and against bigger guards who can post him. Arroyo is worse on both aspects. We struggled when teams sagged off Rondo and did it well, making it very difficult for us to play inside. Will Doc be able to use Arroyo the same way he used Eddie House or Cassell? Not at all. Arroyo makes... who knows.. a long-range shot every 5 games or something? We'd be forced to just hope that Rondo starts taking shots and hitting them. Arroyo is good when he can run. But Doc is not going to chance the philosophy of the team because of a backup pg. He has not the personnel to play that way. Rondo would also be a more productive player in a fast paced team but the Celtics still played very slow last season. We've seen how the team struggled every time Cassell decided to bounce the ball indefinitely and initiate the offense too late. That's exactly how Arroyo played most of his entire career in half-court sets. And then there's the inconsistency. So, what's the point of adding a guy who wouldn't address none of our needs, wouldn't complement the starter and would struggle to fit in the established philosophy?

Another point, in case someone is still reading this: Posey, House, PJ, Arroyo, etc, are all known quantities. We've seen these guys playing for years. Who didn't know that Posey was clutch? Pat Riley even said something like "Boston will really start to love Posey when he starts hitting big shots during the playoffs". It wasn't the first time he was a top-5 player in a championship team. He didn't get a big contract exclusively because he player a role in the team that win it all: the year before he joined the Celtics he was making more money that he'll get next season.

With that being said, and barring trades, I don't see any possible combo of new signings that can give us a better bench than the one we'd have resigning the same guys. Can our bench be better than the last season's one? Sure, the other guys can improve, the rookies can be better than advertised, etc. Can we stil win? Absolutely, doubting that is insane. But better that it'd be with the same core, I really don't think so. The decalage between Posey and any other replacement is just too big (that's why none of the current free-agents will get a contract close to his).

IMO, there's only a possible combo that would make me doubt about my previous statement: Diamantidis-Evans-Thomas. Perhaps, Evans can be replaced with a couple of guys. But this is not going to happen (as we couldn't afford it even if we wanted), so at this moment, I'd rather take more modest and not so good players that fit the team needs and won't demand more than 1 year contracts and protect the budgetary flexibility to the next season and beyond. Barring injuries, we're still going to be major contenders anyway.  

[winsomme]

it's not so much that it is impossible as it is an "unknown" how many of the prospective replacements would perform in our system and in the pressure of the playoffs.....

the actual contributions of PJ, Posey and Eddie were in line with things that each of them had done their whole careers....and there are other players out there who can do similar things (although for Posey who those players are is pretty unclear right now), but the difference between those players and Eddie, PJ and Posey is that they already showed they could do it...

  So Eddie House averages 8 minutes a game in the playoffs (3 minutes a game vs Det), shoots 17-56 from the field for the playoffs, and goes scoreless in 18 of the 26 playoff games and you're claiming that we'll have trouble replacing his clutch playoff play? PJ shot well against Cleveland but poorly against Det and LA, and didn't rebound particularly well. We can't replace his production?

again, you keep going back to simply stats and what i'm saying is that there is more to it than that....

can we get someone who can shoot the same percentage as PJ and Eddie and Posey.....? sure.

but will they make the big play....hit the big shot....make the key boxout or steal, etc....will they come into the game with the same focus....will they have the same positive effect on the players around them? i don't know.....maybe...

Bball, you basically keep ignoring my whole point here and keep going back to the stat lines. i mean, was it really that long ago that Eddie was chasing down that loose ball in the CLE series knocking it to Posey who got fouled by Wally - totally pumping up the fans and teammates?

  I'm not ignoring your point, I'm disputing it. PJ and Eddie weren't clutch over the course of the playoffs, they had a few clutch moments. You're thinking that every positive thing they did was critical and would be lost with a different player. That we'd bring in  another player who gave us the same production as Eddie House but none of their plays would be "clutch". That's highly unlikely. I don't think that they made such a high percentage of clutch plays that it wouldn't likely be duplicated by another player.

well i guess i dispute your assessment of how many  "clutch" moments a guy or a bench needs to have in order to make those contributions significant......

  The point isn't whether the clutch moments are significant, it's about whether or not they're replaceable. If the point you're trying to make is that many of the players on our bench were so clutch that we couldn't possibly expect another collection of players to duplicate the effort I'd disagree.

like i have said before, they are replaceable, but the new crew will be less of a known quantity in that regard. 

by the way, this whole argument is a little premature because we don't know if TA, Eddie and (at some point) PJ will be back on the team.

and personally, at this point, i  would rather let the Rooks have a go at Posey's spot, and leave open much of the MLE in case someone shakes loose during the season..

[winsomme]

all i can say is that championships are won with talent first and foremost. and last year our 5 most talented guys were all in the starting lineup and guess what? theyll all be back next year.

Depth is important and to be blunt, Posey had similar importance to both Perkins and Rondo in the championship run.  You can minimize his contribution all you want, but this team will need to amply replace his production if it is going to be just as successful.   

i agree timep, and also as per my discussion with Bball and nick, it's not only his production (which may seem modest and in the playoffs inconsistent) that will need to be replaced, but his presence and his big play ability.....

[Who]

How many other team's benches performed better than the Celtics?

How about the teams that played from the second round on:

Cavs? Pistons? Magic? Hornets? Spurs? Lakers? Jazz?

If I were to rank them I'd place

(1) Boston

(2) Detroit - Very close for top spot. Detroit's bench was very important in the first two rounds. Stuckey could be seen as either a (a) the difference maker between the two benches (2) the saving grace. For example, Detroit's lack of a quality wing off the pine was killing them throughout the playoffs. Since they had a hole that was very serious I'm relegating them to second place. It's an easy hole to fix, and if they did fix it I'd consider them top spot, I'd then see Stuckey as the difference maker.

(3) Lakers - Outplayed the Spurs and Jazz benches. Were a very strong unit.

(4) Cavs - Good big man depth. Gibson was solid. Wings were dubious.

(5) Jazz - Got hurt badly when Williams got in foul trouble against the Lakers. Didn't have the type of bench players they really needed, like a big man who could defend the paint or a wing who could play one-on-one D. There's a lot of quality on that bench but where it's lacking hurt them.

(6) Spurs - Got outplayed by everyone except the Hornets and they barely did that. Poor bench.

(7) Hornets - Were destroyed by their lack of a quality backup big man. Pargo went missing in the second round. Bonzi struggled. Julian Wright was their best bench player but especially inconsistent offensively.

[Sweet17]

Our bench looked good in part because of our starters. Talentwise it could be easily upgraded and that is why Danny isn't so gung ho on signing our old bench guys.

[Who]

Our bench looked good in part because of our starters. Talentwise it could be easily upgraded and that is why Danny isn't so gung ho on signing our old bench guys.

Definitely. 100% Agreement.

The NBA Finals against the Lakers has been discussed a fair bit over the past couple of pages, in that the bench played particularly well in the final round. The reason the bench's production increased in that series was the Lakers defense. It was their trapping defense and constant double teaming which created a huge amount of space and opportunities for the supporting cast to come through offensively. That's why the team's assist numbers were so high in several games and in comparison to previous rounds. The Lakers defense induced our ball and player movement, they also forced the bench to punish them for their tactics and the bench did.

[CoachBo]

Oh, the bench can definitely be upgraded.

The fallacy you guys are operating under, though, is that it can be upgraded from the available pool of players. PJ Brown for O'Blount isn't an upgrade. There's no individual player on the list, save Childress, who can even approximate Posey's ability. Quinton Ross plus a reliable shooter may well, but who's that shooter? It isn't Matt Barnes.

Penny wise, trophy foolish.

[bucknersrevenge]

all i can say is that championships are won with talent first and foremost. and last year our 5 most talented guys were all in the starting lineup and guess what? theyll all be back next year.

Depth is important and to be blunt, Posey had similar importance to both Perkins and Rondo in the championship run.  You can minimize his contribution all you want, but this team will need to amply replace his production if it is going to be just as successful.   

i agree timep, and also as per my discussion with Bball and nick, it's not only his production (which may seem modest and in the playoffs inconsistent) that will need to be replaced, but his presence and his big play ability.....

replace poseys presence and bg play ability for the roughly 15mpg hed play this next year? would i rather have posey for this next year, sure. but i dont feel without posey we are sunk either. im not trying to minimize what he did last year. i love what he did last year. but unfortunately were not talking about last year anymore. signing posey for 2 years- good idea. for longer than that? bad idea.

[CoachBo]

We're not going to agree on this one, so this discussion has worn itself out. Cordobes makes a bunch of good points and gets a TP for his trouble, although he doesn't share my concern about Mo Evans' basketball IQ.

I agree with the above: Some of you are badly underestimating Posey's contributions to the championship.

The truth will be found in the results next year. We're going to need a championship-caliber bench to make another run next year, and right now I am pessimistic that we will even approximate one. The players simply aren't out there - save an MLE deal with an RFA - to pull it off.

[bucknersrevenge]

I don't think that stats are a good way of evaluating your bench, or the players you want in your bench. And surely that how well/badly a player performed in a playoff for a single season is not a reason to sign/not sign him. More: I don't think that the right way of filling a bench is simply by pursuing the best players available, individually considered.

It's much more important to have the right blend of players that fit the team. The story may be different if you're just trying to build trade assets, developing players or just not expecting a deep playoff run, but for a contender like the Celtics fortunately are, there are more important things than "talent" or "productivity": for example, players who know their role and can play within the system. Players that fill the roles that the way the rest of the team is built, the game philosophy and off/deff game sets used demand to be filled - small things like hard screens or pressure on the leading guard. Players who can be productive coming off the bench and can solve some matchup problems. Essentially, players who know how to play safe and handle the pressure of the big games. Generally, this is an underrated characteristic because one tends to assume that any player can do this "providing the right environment", "he'll adapt himself", etc etc. That's not true, it's wishful thinking. It may be an intangible, but nevertheless it's a skill, like ball-handling or setting screens. I've already given the example of Pargo - not that I know for sure that he doesn't have that skill, but that one can't be sure he has it. Also, Dooling (in this case, I'm almost sure he doesn't have that skill) - I'd see no point in wasting a roster spot on Dooling, even if he was willing to play for free.

It's also important to ponder how the "tangible" skills of a player meet the needs of the team. For example: we need some more scoring from the bench, I agree, but I'm not convinced at all that scorers are the priority. Ceteris paribus, I'd take a 9ppg player with a 39% 3pt over a 16ppg player with a 25% 3pt. With our current roster and offensive system, a guy who can provide spacing it's more useful than a high usage slasher who scores more.

For a concrete case of this, let's look at a crowd favourite, Arroyo (at least he's mentioned a lot in these threads): what exactly can Arroyo do for us? It's a honest question, I really can't see it. The arguments in his favor aren't very eloquent, to say the least - "he's good" and things of that kind. Well, IMO he's not that good to begin with. But let's assume he is. What are his strengths and his weaknesses? Rondo is a good defender, but sometimes he struggles against very quick opponent, because of gambling a little bit too much or not keeping a good defensive stance, and against bigger guards who can post him. Arroyo is worse on both aspects. We struggled when teams sagged off Rondo and did it well, making it very difficult for us to play inside. Will Doc be able to use Arroyo the same way he used Eddie House or Cassell? Not at all. Arroyo makes... who knows.. a long-range shot every 5 games or something? We'd be forced to just hope that Rondo starts taking shots and hitting them. Arroyo is good when he can run. But Doc is not going to chance the philosophy of the team because of a backup pg. He has not the personnel to play that way. Rondo would also be a more productive player in a fast paced team but the Celtics still played very slow last season. We've seen how the team struggled every time Cassell decided to bounce the ball indefinitely and initiate the offense too late. That's exactly how Arroyo played most of his entire career in half-court sets. And then there's the inconsistency. So, what's the point of adding a guy who wouldn't address none of our needs, wouldn't complement the starter and would struggle to fit in the established philosophy?

Another point, in case someone is still reading this: Posey, House, PJ, Arroyo, etc, are all known quantities. We've seen these guys playing for years. Who didn't know that Posey was clutch? Pat Riley even said something like "Boston will really start to love Posey when he starts hitting big shots during the playoffs". It wasn't the first time he was a top-5 player in a championship team. He didn't get a big contract exclusively because he player a role in the team that win it all: the year before he joined the Celtics he was making more money that he'll get next season.

With that being said, and barring trades, I don't see any possible combo of new signings that can give us a better bench than the one we'd have resigning the same guys. Can our bench be better than the last season's one? Sure, the other guys can improve, the rookies can be better than advertised, etc. Can we stil win? Absolutely, doubting that is insane. But better that it'd be with the same core, I really don't think so. The decalage between Posey and any other replacement is just too big (that's why none of the current free-agents will get a contract close to his).

IMO, there's only a possible combo that would make me doubt about my previous statement: Diamantidis-Evans-Thomas. Perhaps, Evans can be replaced with a couple of guys. But this is not going to happen (as we couldn't afford it even if we wanted), so at this moment, I'd rather take more modest and not so good players that fit the team needs and won't demand more than 1 year contracts and protect the budgetary flexibility to the next season and beyond. Barring injuries, we're still going to be major contenders anyway. 

i couldnt agree more that not just talent but having the right blend of roleplayers and talent is key. guys that known and understand their roles is crucial for sure. i dont believe posey and house are the only 2 guys in the league that understand that though. and while posey may have been the best guy for the job for the next couple of years things may be much different in 3 or 4. is it regrettable we could keep posey? absolutely. no question. but i have no doubts this team will still be formidable without him and that new roleplayers will establish roles and fit in.

as for clutchness and all which posey was, id say we still have SEVERAL clutch players on this team as proven by this last season. and who says we have to replace posey with another posey. we ran the offense we ran because thats what the personnel dictated. i keep hearing people say nobody else is gonna be as good standing around weakside at the 3pt line and hitting 3's. who says thats the way our offense has to be run in the future? we ran that postup-kickout 3 offense because we had a roster full of perimeter shooters. doc said post draft we had a lot of skill players but not much athleticism. perhaps had we had more our offense wouldve run differently. you tailor your offense to the personnel you have in order to make the best use of it, not the other way around.

[bucknersrevenge]

We're not going to agree on this one, so this discussion has worn itself out. Cordobes makes a bunch of good points and gets a TP for his trouble, although he doesn't share my concern about Mo Evans' basketball IQ.

I agree with the above: Some of you are badly underestimating Posey's contributions to the championship.

The truth will be found in the results next year. We're going to need a championship-caliber bench to make another run next year, and right now I am pessimistic that we will even approximate one. The players simply aren't out there - save an MLE deal with an RFA - to pull it off.

TPs to all for a lively debate and maybe we do have to agree to disagree but im still wondering who is undervaluing what posey did to help last year? posey was terrific last year. major contributor. his big shots, played some d. had a few big plays. i havent seen anyone here say he stunk. the things ive seen people take umbridge(sp?) with is the inference that were "screwed" without posey and we cant win in the FUTURE without him. will it require some lesser knowns maybe to step up in his place? sure but it certainly can be done. theres no certainty of winning if we resign him.

i think the vast majority on the site would have LOVED to get posey back for the next 2 years. its the years after that we werent so sure of. that said poseys minutes and amount of time to make an impact stood to be diminished this coming year with less minutes on the whole. the writing was on the wall for that much. so will it be tougher next year with more youth? maybe. but the 5 best players we had last year were all in our starting lineup and theyll all be back next year. and now everybody that returns from last year has championship experience. we still have GPA and rondo and perk look to improve as well. new challenges...so what else is new?

[Who]

How many other team's benches performed better than the Celtics?

How about the teams that played from the second round on:

Cavs? Pistons? Magic? Hornets? Spurs? Lakers? Jazz?

How about shifting the question, how did each team's sixth man fare?

It seems silly to compare Manu to Posey when he should be compared to Ray Allen, so let's take Michael Finley as the Spurs representative. Farmer to represent the Lakers. Pargo for the Hornets. Korver for the Jazz. Bogans for the Magic, weak bench. Stuckey for the Pistons. Who for the Cavs? Could be Joe, Andy or Gibson.

How does Posey's contributions measure up to those players?

My rankings would be:

(1) Stuckey
(2) Posey
(3) Whichever Cav is chosen.
(4) Pargo
(5) Korver
(6) Farmer
[7] Bogans
[8] Finley

Some explanations of why I ranked them in those spots for those who are wondering:

Stuckey for me is the frontrunner. He was sensational when Billups went down and was the best bench player in his final two series. He only shot 38% from the floor but he was dynamic off the dribble regularly forcing opposing defenses to collapse and gave the Pistons a huge lift. He pretty much won the top spot because of how the Pistons closed out Orlando without Billups and how large a threat he was against the Celtics. Started slowly against Phily.

We know Posey's credentials. By the way he scored a very impressive 1.46 points per shot during those 26 playoff games that the C's played. The 26 games is the most interesting part, he was red hot over the course of the longest playoff run ever. I was interested to see if his hot shooting held up for Miami's championship run, it did, as he scored 1.40 points per shot. Posey probably could go top spot because of his defense but I'm comfortable enough placing him second.

The Cavs had a very good bench. Gibson was excellent against the Wizards scoring 12ppg on 47%/50% shooting, he dipped a fair bit against the Celtics but was still a good threat. Joe Smith and Varejao were both excellent backup big men who hit the boards hard, played good defense (great defense for Varejao), and Joe hit a bunch of huge shots. I'd go with Joe Smith but it could be any of the three.

Pargo had a great first round series against where he scored almost 15ppg and killed the Jazz whenever he pleased. Against the Spurs he ran into a road block with his scoring halved and shooting only 28% from the floor. His lack of scoring (7ppg) against the Spurs killed the diversity of the Hornets offense and led them down a two-on-five offensive game plan that doomed them.

Korver struggled a bit with his shooting in the playoffs shooting only 41% from the field and 29% from three. He made it up at the line where he shot 92% on 2.1 FTs per game for a 1.29 points per shot. His energy, hustle, defense, movement off the ball, and smarts were all valuable for the Jazz.

Farmer was the leader of the Lakers bench all season. He controlled the tempo, scored the most, and was the most creative player off the dribble. He was very valuable to the Lakers. Unfortunately his playoff run was quite inconsistent and his best moments rarely reached the pinnacles of his teammate Sasha Vujacic. Against Utah he was awful, regularly getting torched by Deron Williams and unable to score on the other end. Against Denver, he was so-so but probably the third best bench player behind Luke Walton and Vujacic. In the Conference Finals Farmer got himself back into the flow of the offense, unfortunately he proved incapable of getting his teammates involved ... he was purely a scorer dropping 8ppg but was easily his best series so far. He had a good run in the Finals where he was very solid and had some good performances. Personally I think Vujacic outdid him. He only scored 5.7ppg despite being the Lakers best offensive player off the bench with only 1.3apg and 38% shooting.

The final two names - Finley and Bogans - are interesting because both are sharp shooters. Both only scored 1.07 points per shot in the playoffs. Since Finely is only a spot shooter at this stage of his career, that's very poor. Finley shot 40% and 37% from three, Bogans 37% and 33% from three but took 50% more three pointers to even out the true shooting percentages. Bogans is the superior defender and rebounder and contributed in more ways than Finley did. Finley did hit some huge shots, especially against the Hornets, so that could go either way but since Bogans adds more all round game I'll go with him. Finley scored 6.7ppg just like Posey did, Bogans went for 7.3ppg.



There was one other thing I was interesting in, how did the teams acquire their sixth man:

(1) Stuckey - Draft #15 pick from trading Darko #2 pick
(2) Posey - Free agency
(3) Cavs - Gibson, second round. Varajeo late first round. Joe trade.
(4) Pargo - free agency
(5) Korver - trade, second round pick
(6) Farmer - Draft, late first round
(7) Bogans - free agency
[8] Finley - free agency