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

[winsomme]

and someone made this point earlier...won't $20+ mil seem like overpaying for KG at that point, but aren't we also PERFECTLY okay with that based at least in part on last season and the next couple to come...?

And that argument, obviously, doesn't hold water. Garnett is making 16 million in 2008-2009. Aren't we underpaying him at this point?

considering he got paid 25 mil this season and 19 mill the season after...no, that seems actually pretty fair...

[Roy Hobbs]

I own a business. I would never  pay someone $6 million a year for 4 years and justify it by saying the real production I am pay for is in the first two years. That then logically thinking means I am paying him $12 million a year for 2 years and $0 for the last two year.

you might be willing to do it if in those two years your business became THE BEST at what you did in the entire country and you reaped the financial benefits from being the best for years to come...

True.  Under such hypothetical, nick would have to weigh the potential gain, versus the potential gain by going to a replacement plan, and then make a decision on whether that employee's production could be reasonably replaced.

I'm willing to see what Danny comes up with.  It's quite possible that Danny can now use the MLE to find two players who make the Celtics, overall, a better team.  I'm taking a wait-and-see approach.

(I do favor the financially prudent approach, as I understand Danny works within a budget.  Still, looking at next season, it's possible that we will have downgrade the bench in four areas: P.J., Posey, House, and Tony.  To me, that would be unacceptable.  My thought is that if you're going to lose Posey, fine, but you have to upgrade in other areas.  That's what we have to do, and the Paddy O'Blount signing hasn't instilled me with confidence to this point.)

[nickagneta]

The future flexibility argument was never meant for years 1 and 2 of Posey's contract. They were meant for years 3-5 of his contract.
That flexibility argument is based on the possibility of ownership suddenly not allowing Danny to go over the luxury tax at some given point because the window for championships had closed.

That flexibility argument would have then centered around having no flexibility to possibly resign developed youngsters because Danny can't go over a certain budget and hence would have to let them go. Perk, Rondo, and any other developing youngster would fall into that category. If Posey's contract cost the team a Rondo or Perk or Walker or Giddens(if they blow up as players) was it worth it?

That was the whole future flexibility argument as well as it being an albatross on the team towards having money under some arbitrary number set by ownership for Danny to stay under limiting our ability to sign FAs if we were able to retain the youngsters.

The other thing that I have seen written in places is that is that people claim that the Celtics would be paying Posey for 4 years for his contributions in the first 2 years because he is invaluable during big games.

I own a business. I would never  pay someone $6 million a year for 4 years and justify it by saying the real production I am pay for is in the first two years. That then logically thinking means I am paying him $12 million a year for 2 years and $0 for the last two year.

That can then be taken further and be said that if at anytime in those four years the team goes over the luxury tax the penalty can then logically be attributed to this contract. I will not assume we are over the luxury tax by the amount of this contract all 4 years, I think that is unfair and not likely. So let's say that over the four year the team pays $12 million in luxtax penalties.

Add those penalties onto the time that we are get the real production out of Posey and are willing to pay for it and now we are paying $18 million a year for those first 2 years and nothing for the lst two years.

That's $18 million a year for a 6th or 7th man to play around 20 minutes a game and give the team a nightly average contribution of 7 PPG and 4.5 RPG all because he might in 5-8 games each year come up big and help win that game rather than give his average nightly production.

That is a very realistic way for someone who has to sign that paycheck of Posey's to look at the situation. If I'm in that situation I shake James' hand, thank him for his contribution and wish him luck on his future endeavors so long as that luck doesn'tget in the way of my luck.

nick nobody is arguing that the "future flexibility" argument pertained to the next 2 seasons. the place where it doesn't make sense is for years 3 and 4...

and your point about the window closing in those later years is exactly the reason that we DON'T need flexibility in those years. why worry about having an extra few million to spend in a year where you most likely will not compete for a Title.

so we will have some money to spend and a team built around a seriously worked KG and possibly no more Paul Pierce.....i just don't see any way that THAT is the reason Danny didn't go four on Posey.

the only way this makes sense is if he thinks he can fill Posey's spot more than adequately for next season in other ways...

Because business owners worry about things like long term viability. Just because the team might not win the title in those years(which I do not concede) doesn't mean you waste money in those years because you believe you have no chance.

Ownership has lived through what it means financially to be a team that is not competitive and has little hope or chance at winning. They do not want to go there again for another prolonged period of time for the chance at possibly winning it all for the next 2 years.

There are ways of making this team the favorites to win the title over the next two years that are as effective as just resigning the vets to overpaid, overextended contracts that will leave this team with as much of a chance to win now and still have the ability to win later and later still.

[nickagneta]

I own a business. I would never  pay someone $6 million a year for 4 years and justify it by saying the real production I am pay for is in the first two years. That then logically thinking means I am paying him $12 million a year for 2 years and $0 for the last two year.

you might be willing to do it if in those two years your business became THE BEST at what you did in the entire country and you reaped the financial benefits from being the best for years to come...

To the point where I then become a company that is losing money and then becomes unviable long term or for an extended term, no way not close, not even a little bit.

That is dumb and would risk putting a roof over my head and food on the table for years ahead of time simply so I could have some a spike in profits now and the ability to hang a plaque in my office saying that I was the best at what I did for a year or two. That is a risk I would not take.

[winsomme]

That can then be taken further and be said that if at anytime in those four years the team goes over the luxury tax the penalty can then logically be attributed to this contract. I will not assume we are over the luxury tax by the amount of this contract all 4 years, I think that is unfair and not likely. So let's say that over the four year the team pays $12 million in luxtax penalties.

this is another point that i don't understand....attributing any lux tax penalties in  2011 to Posey.

if we signed him to a four year deal now, we would be well under the the regular cap at that point, so any salary that went over the lux cap would be the OTHER contracts that we signed. not Posey's

and for 2010, why isn't it the rookies contracts that are being doubled or any other player that we sign next off season that is doubled...why is it only Posey's that is being counted in lux tax penalties?

same goes for this season, if we sign a couple of guys with the MLE...how many players out there are you comfortable paying double to? Lue? Thomas? Barnes?

i just don't see why this double salary thing is laid only at the feet of Posey.

[winsomme]

There are ways of making this team the favorites to win the title over the next two years that are as effective as just resigning the vets to overpaid, overextended contracts that will leave this team with as much of a chance to win now and still have the ability to win later and later still.

this the crux of the WHOLE debate.....what can Danny do to make this team as goodfor next season as if he had signed Posey for the full MLE....

that is why i have been saying that this strategy of not overpaying players was only as good as who the replacements are...

[winsomme]

I own a business. I would never  pay someone $6 million a year for 4 years and justify it by saying the real production I am pay for is in the first two years. That then logically thinking means I am paying him $12 million a year for 2 years and $0 for the last two year.

you might be willing to do it if in those two years your business became THE BEST at what you did in the entire country and you reaped the financial benefits from being the best for years to come...

To the point where I then become a company that is losing money and then becomes unviable long term or for an extended term, no way not close, not even a little bit.

That is dumb and would risk putting a roof over my head and food on the table for years ahead of time simply so I could have some a spike in profits now and the ability to hang a plaque in my office saying that I was the best at what I did for a year or two. That is a risk I would not take.

what is your basis for suggesting that the Cs would be losing money or not financially viable in 2011 due to Posey's contract?

[Roy Hobbs]

Ugh.  I lost a long post somewhere in cyberspace, darn it.

Anyway, long story short, don't you think you're using a bit of hyperbole, nick?  Unlike a small business owner, the Celtics don't have to worry about their actual livelihood; signing Posey wouldn't lead to Wyc, either literally or metaphorically, not being able to put a roof over his head.  Also, I will point out that in Steve's "pay up front" hypothetical, I don't think anybody assumed Posey would be worth $0 in years three and four.  He'll almost definitely be worth something.  Perhaps less than his contract -- maybe even 50% or more less -- but he'll still have a value.

That being said, I'm all for fiscal restraint, if it's not counter-productive.  Like in all businesses, the team needed to conduct a cost vs. benefit analysis.  Obviously, they did so, and determined that the cost was too great, especially when compared to replacement cost vs. replacement benefit.  Time will tell if they're right, but I'm inclined to trust their judgment, as they're the ones who 1) have access to all the available information, and 2) do this professionally.

[winsomme]

Ugh.  I lost a long post somewhere in cyberspace, darn it.

Anyway, long story short, don't you think you're using a bit of hyperbole, nick?  Unlike a small business owner, the Celtics don't have to worry about their actual livelihood; signing Posey wouldn't lead to Wyc, either literally or metaphorically, not being able to put a roof over his head.  Also, I will point out that in Steve's "pay up front" hypothetical, I don't think anybody assumed Posey would be worth $0 in years three and four.  He'll almost definitely be worth something.  Perhaps less than his contract -- maybe even 50% or more less -- but he'll still have a value.

That being said, I'm all for fiscal restraint, if it's not counter-productive.  Like in all businesses, the team needed to conduct a cost vs. benefit analysis.  Obviously, they did so, and determined that the cost was too great, especially when compared to replacement cost vs. replacement benefit.  Time will tell if they're right, but I'm inclined to trust their judgment, as they're the ones who 1) have access to all the available information, and 2) do this professionally.

yeah, and a strategy (ie not overpaying players or setting a price for a player and not going over) can't be proven good or bad based on one season or one player.

that is to say, not giving Posey the fourth year could be a mistake and it doesn't mean the strategy as a whole is bad....

BUT if that did prove to be the case for Posey, it would be bad to have risked a season of GPA.

this admittedly  over-discussed topic of "window of opportunity" actually does put greater risk into this strategy of not overpaying FAs that would not be there if GPA were all say 27-28 and signed for 4 or 5 more years...

anyway, long story short, it is not a certainty that we will be less good next season due to losing Posey or that his replacement will be less good. there is time fill the hole created by losing him, but it's gonna require some DA magic..... let's see what happens...

hey, maybe the magic is that Walker or JR are yet another huge draft steal by our man Danny...who knows.

[nickagneta]

That can then be taken further and be said that if at anytime in those four years the team goes over the luxury tax the penalty can then logically be attributed to this contract. I will not assume we are over the luxury tax by the amount of this contract all 4 years, I think that is unfair and not likely. So let's say that over the four year the team pays $12 million in luxtax penalties.

this is another point that i don't understand....attributing any lux tax penalties in  2011 to Posey.

if we signed him to a four year deal now, we would be well under the the regular cap at that point, so any salary that went over the lux cap would be the OTHER contracts that we signed. not Posey's

and for 2010, why isn't it the rookies contracts that are being doubled or any other player that we sign next off season that is doubled...why is it only Posey's that is being counted in lux tax penalties?

same goes for this season, if we sign a couple of guys with the MLE...how many players out there are you comfortable paying double to? Lue? Thomas? Barnes?

i just don't see why this double salary thing is laid only at the feet of Posey.

Your entiring thinking is based on renouncing Ray Allen's $18 million a year contract slot.

Not the best of things to do. Especially considering using that slot 6 months or a year earler to trade for players of quality would be the best way of extending the chance of winning. Add $18 million of salary to your thinking and now you see where I am coming from.

I believe the Celtics may as well hold a gun to their head and pull the trigger if they are deciding not to extend Ray Allen two years or don't trade him for other players. Renouncing that salary(which you are doing in your thinking of Posey's contract not being a part of a luxtax penalty after 2010) is suicide for this franchise.

Now if they extend Ray two years and then renounce both Ray's and KG's contracts at the same time, Then I think they are on the right path because now you are talking about having a ridiculous amount of money under the cap.

Ugh.  I lost a long post somewhere in cyberspace, darn it.

Anyway, long story short, don't you think you're using a bit of hyperbole, nick?  Unlike a small business owner, the Celtics don't have to worry about their actual livelihood; signing Posey wouldn't lead to Wyc, either literally or metaphorically, not being able to put a roof over his head.  Also, I will point out that in Steve's "pay up front" hypothetical, I don't think anybody assumed Posey would be worth $0 in years three and four.  He'll almost definitely be worth something.  Perhaps less than his contract -- maybe even 50% or more less -- but he'll still have a value.

That being said, I'm all for fiscal restraint, if it's not counter-productive.  Like in all businesses, the team needed to conduct a cost vs. benefit analysis.  Obviously, they did so, and determined that the cost was too great, especially when compared to replacement cost vs. replacement benefit.  Time will tell if they're right, but I'm inclined to trust their judgment, as they're the ones who 1) have access to all the available information, and 2) do this professionally.

Of course it is hyperbole and I think the symbolism still holds true.

Would Wyc be willing to sacrifice the roof over his head and the food he eats(profits long term due to a consistently competitive team based on prudent financial decisions) for the plaque that goes on the wall(the O'Brien Championship trophy)and possible short monetary gains?

What happens if they give the contract to Posey and make another bad contract(I am a believer that one bad contract almost always begets more to make up for the first mistake) but don't win another title? Does management then say "That's it Danny. Drop salary, don't resign the youngsters to market value contracts, renounce the old guys, here is your budget." and suddenly we are in another decade or more of rebuilding?

Wyc and the boys now know what it is like to be a viable sports entity in this town. This town doesn't expect a championship every year, they just want a chance at it.

Did the Pats fans go away in droves in 2002 or 2005, 06 when the Pats didn't win the Superbowl but was competitively good?

Did the Sox fans go away in 2005 and 06 when the Sox didn't win the Series but were competitively good?

Are the fans flocking into the Garden in droves for the Bruins, a team that hasn't had a sniff of a chance at inning the cup since the early 1990's vs Edmonton?

If the Celtics don't win it all over the next decade but because of financial prudence and smart player management and evalution remain competitive to the point where they are going deep into the playoffs every year and make a few ECFs and Finals, the fans will stay.

If the Celtics overspend foolishly  for the chance at cashing in on some supposed two year window and within 5 years are looking at a team that is comparable to the Celtics teams of 1997-2001 and 2003-2007, say bye-bye to the people at the box office, shirt and hat sales, national television exposure and local viability in the entertainment spending dollar.

[Roy Hobbs]

Sure, nick.  But the team has to decide whether it makes sense to break from financial restraint on a one-time basis.  The Red Sox did that with Varitek, for instance.  That did not, however, lead to them totally throwing their financial model out the window.

If the case of the Celtics, if they assessed that Posey resigning gave them, say, a 50% greater shot at a title (which I think some on here assume), I absolutely, unequivocally guarantee that they would have signed him to a fourth year; $7 million is a small price to pay to increase your percentages by that much.  However, I think the team assessed the cost / benefit as being much less clear cut than that, and determined that the difference in value between Posey and his replacements was only incremental, or alternatively, would only have an incremental effect on our ability to win a championship within the next two seasons.

[wdleehi]

What we do not know is what is the upper limit for Ainge? 


you know the owner gave him one. 



I wouldn't be surprised if Ainge felt that if Posey was here year 3 and 4 and had slowed down, he would not be able to afford the guys needed to put around Pierce and KG.  (Ray may or may not be here)



So, I would expect going forward this off season, we will not see any deal longer then 3 years. 

[Jon]

I think it is important to note that the Celtics are not in the same boat as the Pats and Sox.  When the Sox and Pats went through dry spells, the fans knew that they'd continue to be competitive and perhaps come back better in a year.  That's because the Sox and Pats during those dry spells were younger than the C's.  While we can argue back and forth about how many years the C's have left, I think it's unlikely the C's can continue to be championship contenders immediately after the departure of the Big Three.  If Ainge plays his cards right, he can dramatically shorten the bridge between contending with the Big Three and contending with a new core, but aside from having a series of small miracles like last summer, it won't continue indefinitely. 

The other point I'd make is that whenever the Sox and Pats showed "fiscal responsibility" they almost always used that money to bring in other quality players.  Cut Lawyer Milloy?  Bring in Rodney Harrison.  Let Pedro go one year and Damon the next?  Trade young talent for Beckett and Lowell.  That's not happening here. 

Part of the reason replacing Posey is so tough is because a) we don't have a couple years to wait around to find a new Sixth Man and b) there don't appear to be any viable replacements available on the free agent market or via trade.  If the Big Three were three years younger, I'd have no problem with this move. 

Finally, I just think it's Posey's skill set that we'll miss the most.  It's not so much that we won't necessarily find a "better" player, I just don't know if we'll find one that fits so well here.  If we were just looking for defense, Tony Allen could arguably come in here and do a better job.  But it's a combination of his defense, his ability to hit the open three, his ability to make key plays in key situations, his heart, and his total indifference to stats.  That wouldn't be a perfect fit for every team.  But since we already have two superstars at the 2/3 spots, it works pretty perfectly for the C's. 

[winsomme]

That can then be taken further and be said that if at anytime in those four years the team goes over the luxury tax the penalty can then logically be attributed to this contract. I will not assume we are over the luxury tax by the amount of this contract all 4 years, I think that is unfair and not likely. So let's say that over the four year the team pays $12 million in luxtax penalties.

this is another point that i don't understand....attributing any lux tax penalties in  2011 to Posey.

if we signed him to a four year deal now, we would be well under the the regular cap at that point, so any salary that went over the lux cap would be the OTHER contracts that we signed. not Posey's

and for 2010, why isn't it the rookies contracts that are being doubled or any other player that we sign next off season that is doubled...why is it only Posey's that is being counted in lux tax penalties?

same goes for this season, if we sign a couple of guys with the MLE...how many players out there are you comfortable paying double to? Lue? Thomas? Barnes?

i just don't see why this double salary thing is laid only at the feet of Posey.

Your entiring thinking is based on renouncing Ray Allen's $18 million a year contract slot.

Not the best of things to do. Especially considering using that slot 6 months or a year earler to trade for players of quality would be the best way of extending the chance of winning. Add $18 million of salary to your thinking and now you see where I am coming from.

I believe the Celtics may as well hold a gun to their head and pull the trigger if they are deciding not to extend Ray Allen two years or don't trade him for other players. Renouncing that salary(which you are doing in your thinking of Posey's contract not being a part of a luxtax penalty after 2010) is suicide for this franchise.

Now if they extend Ray two years and then renounce both Ray's and KG's contracts at the same time, Then I think they are on the right path because now you are talking about having a ridiculous amount of money under the cap.

no, i see what you're saying here. i just don't see why it is Posey's contract that is always being doubled and not the other players. if we signed Posey now, in 2011 regardless how who we sign or who we do or do not renounce, Posey's contract would be on the books already, so technically it would be the other contracts that we signed that put us over the lux cap...

Of course it is hyperbole and I think the symbolism still holds true.

Would Wyc be willing to sacrifice the roof over his head and the food he eats(profits long term due to a consistently competitive team based on prudent financial decisions) for the plaque that goes on the wall(the O'Brien Championship trophy)and possible short monetary gains?

What happens if they give the contract to Posey and make another bad contract(I am a believer that one bad contract almost always begets more to make up for the first mistake) but don't win another title? Does management then say "That's it Danny. Drop salary, don't resign the youngsters to market value contracts, renounce the old guys, here is your budget." and suddenly we are in another decade or more of rebuilding?

Wyc and the boys now know what it is like to be a viable sports entity in this town. This town doesn't expect a championship every year, they just want a chance at it.

Did the Pats fans go away in droves in 2002 or 2005, 06 when the Pats didn't win the Superbowl but was competitively good?

Did the Sox fans go away in 2005 and 06 when the Sox didn't win the Series but were competitively good?

Are the fans flocking into the Garden in droves for the Bruins, a team that hasn't had a sniff of a chance at inning the cup since the early 1990's vs Edmonton?

If the Celtics don't win it all over the next decade but because of financial prudence and smart player management and evalution remain competitive to the point where they are going deep into the playoffs every year and make a few ECFs and Finals, the fans will stay.

If the Celtics overspend foolishly  for the chance at cashing in on some supposed two year window and within 5 years are looking at a team that is comparable to the Celtics teams of 1997-2001 and 2003-2007, say bye-bye to the people at the box office, shirt and hat sales, national television exposure and local viability in the entertainment spending dollar.

i'm not convinced that STAYING competitive is the best way to be a Champion in the NBA. i think baseball and Football are very different beasts. in baseball you can get your star players in your farm system and not need to be bad to get them and there is no hard cap. also, in baseball just making the playoffs is enough to be a serious contender for the Title as witnessed by wild card teams winning it all. in the NBA, i really think you need to be an elite team to win the Title. with the length of the playoffs, the cream really rises to the top.

in the NFL, it is more about coaching, getting a HOF QB and the draft. the reason that not overpaying FAs works for the Pats is because of the combination of Belichick and Brady. and having Brady from the beginning.....if we had a lesser QB, i don't think we as fans would be as enamored of this not overpaying FA strategy because i don't think we would have the Super  Bowl wins...also winning a SB with Brady at 24 meant that the Pats could afford to have that stinker of a season in 2002 and it was not that big a deal.

like i said earlier, if GPA were all 27-28, there would be less risk in this strategy.

plus, going back to where i started, i'm not convinced that we can be a legit Title contender in 2011-2012 no matter how fiscally responsible we are...other than the Lakers, there really aren't teams in the NBA that haven't had to get bad before they became Title winners.....

i think with such a small group of seriously elite players in the NBA and in a game where having those players is almost necessity in winning it all, trying to stay competitive actually shouldn't be the goal.

[kozlodoev]

and someone made this point earlier...won't $20+ mil seem like overpaying for KG at that point, but aren't we also PERFECTLY okay with that based at least in part on last season and the next couple to come...?

And that argument, obviously, doesn't hold water. Garnett is making 16 million in 2008-2009. Aren't we underpaying him at this point?

considering he got paid 25 mil this season and 19 mill the season after...no, that seems actually pretty fair...

A similar logic would apply to Posey, if he were willing to take a 4 year contract starting at 4 million with max raises.

So the whole issue really boils down to paying 5.5 and 6 millions to Posey over the first 2 years is him being "underpaid" (and thus compensated by the last 2 years, where he's "overpaid"). I don't think this is the case.