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

[Steve Weinman]

hes not gonna be doin the same stuff at 34-35

He's a lot more likely to be doing that sort of stuff at 32 and 33, which, incidentally, will directly coincide with the lion's share of the Celtics' continuing championship window with the three stars.


As I've stressed throughout the off-season, it seems the fairest way to consider the contract situation is that part of the price of having him here for the next two years (in addition to the monetary cost) would have been having to continue to pay him after that.  Since I take the approach that the primary goal far beyond all else is winning championships -- and it's my contention that Posey was an integral part of this team's ability to do so this year and would have been crucial to repeating as well -- that cost seems more than manageable to me, especially when one considers that he becomes valuable as an expiring contract if nothing else in the final year of his deal.

I've said this before, but I think it pertinent here as well.  This team has spent the majority of the last decade stockpiling assets and building to set the table for the future.  Effective July 31, 2007, the future became the present.

-sw

Excellent post (as usual; TP, as usual). All of it, but I highlighted that part in red because I believe that's where Hollinger, for example, is wrong in his assessment. What Steve explains here is the rationale behind NO decision of offering Posey the 4 year deal and, in another example, the reason why Garnett will be making +$21 million at 36 years old.

Much thanks for the far too-kind words, cordobes (and the TP-ing is reciprocated for your well-articulated points throughout this thread as well; a model of consistency).

I haven't had a chance to read through Hollinger's article yet, though I've read our thread on it, so I don't want to get too far into ripping the guy -- but given his usual penchant for evaluating the game without the parts of basketball that aren't to be evaluated on paper or by computer formula, I wouldn't be shocked if his assessment didn't thrill me.

While it's probably worth it's own thread, I think there's definitely a place in basketball evaluations for many of the ststs Hollinger espouses (in fact, I'm quite taken with offensive and defensive efficiency).  But there is also a point at which it can go too far and at which point we lose sight of the human and intangible factors that go into this game...and that's a line I feel we need to be careful of crossing.  To that effect, Hollinger does get me frustrated with some degree of regularity.

-sw

[Zoots]

hes not gonna be doin the same stuff at 34-35

He's a lot more likely to be doing that sort of stuff at 32 and 33, which, incidentally, will directly coincide with the lion's share of the Celtics' continuing championship window with the three stars.


As I've stressed throughout the off-season, it seems the fairest way to consider the contract situation is that part of the price of having him here for the next two years (in addition to the monetary cost) would have been having to continue to pay him after that.  Since I take the approach that the primary goal far beyond all else is winning championships -- and it's my contention that Posey was an integral part of this team's ability to do so this year and would have been crucial to repeating as well -- that cost seems more than manageable to me, especially when one considers that he becomes valuable as an expiring contract if nothing else in the final year of his deal.

I've said this before, but I think it pertinent here as well.  This team has spent the majority of the last decade stockpiling assets and building to set the table for the future.  Effective July 31, 2007, the future became the present.

-sw

Excellent post (as usual; TP, as usual). All of it, but I highlighted that part in red because I believe that's where Hollinger, for example, is wrong in his assessment. What Steve explains here is the rationale behind NO decision of offering Posey the 4 year deal and, in another example, the reason why Garnett will be making +$21 million at 36 years old.

Yeah.  +1.  I've been making the exact same arguments on a different Celts board the entire offseason too.  It's really all about maximizing the Big 3's window, which I reckon to be, realistically, the next two years.

[Steve Weinman]

hes not gonna be doin the same stuff at 34-35

He's a lot more likely to be doing that sort of stuff at 32 and 33, which, incidentally, will directly coincide with the lion's share of the Celtics' continuing championship window with the three stars.


As I've stressed throughout the off-season, it seems the fairest way to consider the contract situation is that part of the price of having him here for the next two years (in addition to the monetary cost) would have been having to continue to pay him after that.  Since I take the approach that the primary goal far beyond all else is winning championships -- and it's my contention that Posey was an integral part of this team's ability to do so this year and would have been crucial to repeating as well -- that cost seems more than manageable to me, especially when one considers that he becomes valuable as an expiring contract if nothing else in the final year of his deal.

I've said this before, but I think it pertinent here as well.  This team has spent the majority of the last decade stockpiling assets and building to set the table for the future.  Effective July 31, 2007, the future became the present.

-sw

Excellent post (as usual; TP, as usual). All of it, but I highlighted that part in red because I believe that's where Hollinger, for example, is wrong in his assessment. What Steve explains here is the rationale behind NO decision of offering Posey the 4 year deal and, in another example, the reason why Garnett will be making +$21 million at 36 years old.

Yeah.  +1.  I've been making the exact same arguments on a different Celts board the entire offseason too.  It's really all about maximizing the Big 3's window, which I reckon to be, realistically, the next two years.

Thanks, Zoots.  Wholly agreed about the window of opportunity here, though I'd lean toward the optimist's view and give it a third year.

-sw

[Truth Hurts]

We don't have any shooters anymore.

[TheReaLPuba]

Guys watch Game 6 again and imagine Posey and House not being there.

We are going to lose hustle, energy, deflections, in-your-face-defense, and clutch shooting. Guys who can hit open 3's under pressure in the playoffs are not easy to find!!!

Next year I won't be shocked to see PP and Allen log over 40 min. a game because we won't have a suitable backup to spell them for longer periods of time.

Unless the C's think Big Baby or Leon Powe can guard 2's and 3's in this league.....

[CoachBo]

hes not gonna be doin the same stuff at 34-35

He's a lot more likely to be doing that sort of stuff at 32 and 33, which, incidentally, will directly coincide with the lion's share of the Celtics' continuing championship window with the three stars.

As I've stressed throughout the off-season, it seems the fairest way to consider the contract situation is that part of the price of having him here for the next two years (in addition to the monetary cost) would have been having to continue to pay him after that.  Since I take the approach that the primary goal far beyond all else is winning championships -- and it's my contention that Posey was an integral part of this team's ability to do so this year and would have been crucial to repeating as well -- that cost seems more than manageable to me, especially when one considers that he becomes valuable as an expiring contract if nothing else in the final year of his deal.

I've said this before, but I think it pertinent here as well.  This team has spent the majority of the last decade stockpiling assets and building to set the table for the future.  Effective July 31, 2007, the future became the present.

-sw

This post ought to be stickied, Steve, required reading on this subject. Well done as usual and a TP. My primary goal, as yours, is championships with Ray, Paul and KG.

I thought last summer that we were gearing up for a three-year title run.

We're going to have to see what we end up with in November, but you're not going to buy a championship bench at Goodwill - the place we appear to be doing our shopping. The options to save this bench are very, very limited, in my view. You're also not going to win titles with the Big 3 playing 40 minutes a game like Bird, McHale and Parish in the late 80s. All that accomplished was to accelerate Bird and McHale's physical breakdowns.

Puba also gets a TP. The losses we've sustained this summer are real, they are significant and they're not going to be easily replaced, given the current status of the scrap heap.

I am shocked, frankly, and extremely disappointed to find ourselves in this predicament a month after winning the title.

[Who]

He's the best role player on the market and he's proven to be a difference maker on the Celtics title winning team. Proven quality.

Kurt Thomas - when Kurt joined the Spurs everyone assumed they got a massive steal. A high quality big man who'd done tremendous work over the past few seasons, a thorn in the Spurs side, and exactly the type of big they needed to win the Bigger West. Kurt didn't fit in well in San Antonio and they didn't get what they hoped to get out of him.

Posey's proven quality is both as an individual and to this team. The risk of signing him is lower than other players because you already know how he fits.

[kozlodoev]

As I've stressed throughout the off-season, it seems the fairest way to consider the contract situation is that part of the price of having him here for the next two years (in addition to the monetary cost) would have been having to continue to pay him after that.

This is surely true, but even if you slice it this way, the argument still doesn't hold water. We won't sign contracts that go past the year when Ray Allen expires. Why? Because if you can resign a 35-year Allen at a bargain price (and given how much he makes at this point, that won't be difficult), you'll be able to go after a player that's a bit more than a spare part.

So as much as we like Posey, it's extremely bad idea to hamstring our team by giving him a 4-year offer. Our team will be highly competitive next season -- with Posey, with Barns, Ross, or Giddens. But we won't be competitive 3 years from now with $7 spent on someone who won't play.

[Moranis]

He's the best role player on the market and he's proven to be a difference maker on the Celtics title winning team. Proven quality.

supposedly...

2 titles in 3 years says something.

It says he played with 6 HOFers (or potential HOFers) in Shaq, Payton, Wade, KG, Pierce, and Allen.

[CoachBo]

If management adopts your point about contracts related to Ray Allen's deal - and it might - then the commitment isn't to further titles in the next two years.

Matt Barnes doesn't defend or shoot like Posey, despite the exaggerations of his game you read here. Ross can't score. And Giddens isn't capable of contributing to this team next year.

Frankly, if we're worried about three years from now, we shouldn't have made the Garnett and Allen deals. We should have tried to move the kids for younger, more marginal talent - because we sure weren't ever going to win with the kids - and kept drafting. It makes VERY little sense to me to acquire KG and Ray, and not maximize your championship potential while you've got them in their prime.

[kozlodoev]

If management adopts your point about contracts related to Ray Allen's deal - and it might - then the commitment isn't to further titles in the next two years.

Matt Barnes doesn't defend or shoot like Posey, despite the exaggerations of his game you read here. Ross can't score. And Giddens isn't capable of contributing to this team next year.

Frankly, if we're worried about three years from now, we shouldn't have made the Garnett and Allen deals. We should have tried to move the kids for younger, more marginal talent - because we sure weren't ever going to win with the kids - and kept drafting.

Right now, it looks to me like "Rent A Title," and now we're back to squeezing the budget.

The main reasons we won a title this season are Pierce, Allen and Garnett, not James Posey. Hopefully this will put things in perspective.

[Moranis]

I like Posey but 4 years at that price will be detrimental to the team long term.  Look what happened to Miami in the wake of all the big contracts they gave to win the title, and they gave them to actually win the title not to try and repeat after winning a title.  Don't get me wrong I want to win more titles, but giving Posey that contract will hurt the team and hasten the end of the window by tying up roster spots and money that could have been used on better players.

[CoachBo]

If management adopts your point about contracts related to Ray Allen's deal - and it might - then the commitment isn't to further titles in the next two years.

Matt Barnes doesn't defend or shoot like Posey, despite the exaggerations of his game you read here. Ross can't score. And Giddens isn't capable of contributing to this team next year.

Frankly, if we're worried about three years from now, we shouldn't have made the Garnett and Allen deals. We should have tried to move the kids for younger, more marginal talent - because we sure weren't ever going to win with the kids - and kept drafting.

Right now, it looks to me like "Rent A Title," and now we're back to squeezing the budget.

The main reasons we won a title this season are Pierce, Allen and Garnett, not James Posey. Hopefully this will put things in perspective.

And that would be where we disagree. Posey was an equal partner in the title, as Steve has so eloquently pointed out. You cannot win a title riding starters for 40 minutes a game. It requires a commitment to a bench, like the one we HAD. I have no idea where this notion that you can just plug anyone into a bench and win comes from - apparently the same place that the "all you need is a few scorers" notion comes from - but I can tell you from years on the bench that both are gross oversimplifications.

Now, the trick will be duplicating that bench. It will be EXTREMELY difficult given the quality of talent still on the board.

[meesho33]

If management adopts your point about contracts related to Ray Allen's deal - and it might - then the commitment isn't to further titles in the next two years.

Matt Barnes doesn't defend or shoot like Posey, despite the exaggerations of his game you read here. Ross can't score. And Giddens isn't capable of contributing to this team next year.

Frankly, if we're worried about three years from now, we shouldn't have made the Garnett and Allen deals. We should have tried to move the kids for younger, more marginal talent - because we sure weren't ever going to win with the kids - and kept drafting. It makes VERY little sense to me to acquire KG and Ray, and not maximize your championship potential while you've got them in their prime.

Here, here.  There is NO ONE on the market who can replace the things that Posey brought to the C's.  He is the kind of guy every title team has on it - and now we don't have that guy - period.

This was a mistake.  The big shots, big steals, the big hugs   We are going to miss that stuff when crunch time comes in May and June.

Furthermore, his presence and rep he carried with guys like Paul and KG will be nearly impossible to replace - who else are we going to bring in that can bark at KG and KG will listen??

Posey's expiring deal in 3 years would have been a great trade asset - I am terribly disappointed in this decision.

Teams in our conference are going to be much better next year - Miami, Philly, Wash and we just got worse.

[Roy Hobbs]

We won't sign contracts that go past the year when Ray Allen expires. Why? Because if you can resign a 35-year Allen at a bargain price (and given how much he makes at this point, that won't be difficult), you'll be able to go after a player that's a bit more than a spare part.

Several people keep repeating this, and it's not true.  Even if we renounced Ray, we wouldn't have more than $6.5 - $7.0 million cap room, max (assuming a $65 million salary cap).

13) ... it looks like the Celtics only have around $49 million in salaries committed for 2010.  If the cap goes up to around $65 million, does that mean they can spend $16 million on free agents?  Could they then resign Ray Allen with their Bird rights?

No and no.  Surprising to many, free agents continue to count against a team's salary cap until they're either signed or renounced.  This is called a "cap hold".  Free agents essentially count against the cap at a figure greater than their previous salary.

The amount of these cap holds varies significantly; for actual percentages, see here.  For purposes of the Celtics, Ray Allen would have a cap hold in excess of $20 million.  While the team could renounce Ray, if they did so they would only be able to pay him the minimum salary.

Of even more significance is the cap hold of Rajon Rondo.  As a restricted free agent, he carries a cap hold of 300% of his previous salary, or approximately $6.3 million.  Thus, under the above scenario, the Celtics actual cap room would be approximately $10 million, rather than the $16 million anticipated.  Further, there would be additional salary slots or cap holds for any other players on the roster.  For instance, teams must have 12 players on their roster; for every player less than 12, the team is charged a "cap charge" equal to the rookie minimum salary ($457,588 in 2010).  That's equal to $3,660,704.  That means our cap space is reduced to approximately $6.4 million, or an amount roughly equal to the MLE.  That's assuming we renounce *all* of our free agents.  Long story short, unless we're starting over with ten or more new players, we don't have significant cap room in 2010-11, even if we renounce Ray.

Obviously, if we resign Ray for *any* amount, that $6.4 million goes down even further (as it assumed that Ray's salary slot is being filled by somebody making the rookie minimum).