At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves

[wdleehi]

Some are saying they'd rather have one over-the-hill, 'sure thing' veteran than several low-risk, high-payoff rookies and castoffs from other teams.  And I appreciate that. But keep in mind, if any of the rookies or the castoffs prove to be anything, it'll mean Ainge will have additional chips for future trades. You don't get that with someone like P.J. Brown, or even Posey.

For instance, Leon Powe and Glen Davis are fairly redundant. So great, they're both young and have shown something.  Ainge will probably trade one of them when the time's right. And it might take several chips to get another franchise player.

What happens if all the low risks fail to deliver? 

Where are the 'sure things' that makes them 'low risk'?

[billysan]

1) By any stretch of the imagination, Posey's $7 million in 2011 wouldn't have "tanked" the season.  

2) We didn't lose any players to Europe.  Regardless of what happens sooner or later, the Celts have the bench they do because of choice, not necessity.

The team wasn't forced to go with a bench full of unproven / unhealthy / poor players.  They deliberately made that choice.  I find it to be a bit surprising, but we'll see how it turns out.

While I think I understand your points Roy, we only had the mid level and minimum contracts to offer. Signing Posey to the deal he wanted would have cost us all of that and we would be minus Eddie, POB, Tony Allen and have very little left to sign another player except the minimum.

The choice we made was to retain and add several players instead of just one. My memory was that we were rumored to have offered several players contracts but didnt have enough available cash. I am not so sure this was a matter of the Celtics not choosing to offer contracts as much as a matter of who and what was available for what price.

Didnt we make an offer of the whole midlevel to Maggette somewhere in there as well?

[Roy Hobbs]

1) By any stretch of the imagination, Posey's $7 million in 2011 wouldn't have "tanked" the season.  

2) We didn't lose any players to Europe.  Regardless of what happens sooner or later, the Celts have the bench they do because of choice, not necessity.

The team wasn't forced to go with a bench full of unproven / unhealthy / poor players.  They deliberately made that choice.  I find it to be a bit surprising, but we'll see how it turns out.

While I think I understand your points Roy, we only had the mid level and minimum contracts to offer. Signing Posey to the deal he wanted would have cost us all of that and we would be minus Eddie, POB, Tony Allen and have very little left to sign another player except the minimum.

We could have still signed P.O.B. (bi-annual exception) and Tony Allen (Bird rights).  We could have signed Eddie to a deal starting at $1.8 million (non-Bird rights).  We don't know if he would have taken that, but if not him, Tyronne Lue was willing to accept that amount.

I'm not saying that Posey was the only solution, of course.  There were several players who could have helped this team immediately.  P.O.B. and Miles, however, don't fit that description.

[cordobes]

1) By any stretch of the imagination, Posey's $7 million in 2011 wouldn't have "tanked" the season.  

2) We didn't lose any players to Europe.  Regardless of what happens sooner or later, the Celts have the bench they do because of choice, not necessity.

The team wasn't forced to go with a bench full of unproven / unhealthy / poor players.  They deliberately made that choice.  I find it to be a bit surprising, but we'll see how it turns out.

While I think I understand your points Roy, we only had the mid level and minimum contracts to offer. Signing Posey to the deal he wanted would have cost us all of that and we would be minus Eddie, POB, Tony Allen and have very little left to sign another player except the minimum.

(...)

Not true. We added Allen and POB without using the MLE. We could have signed House without using it as well. We had the MLE, the LLE and the non-Bird rights to our own free-agents.

[BillfromBoston]

Isn't THIS a little bit presumptuous?  Why assume Giddens and Walker are are better than 15 of the 30 or so players drafted before them, just because Ainge was the one that drafted them?  Are the other teams just so thick that they didn't think to draft these guys themselves?

Not saying these guys are going to be busts, I have faith that the team *might* have made some savvy picks here (of course they could have done better, but most teams could as well)...  And it's not like I'm against rooting for/hyping up your home team guys..  But if they were lottery players, they would have atleast gone early 20s, right?  What if these guys are the the 30th and 47th best players in the 08 draft, should I be riled up for that?

O'bryant and Miles were lottery picks. Experts have all said that Giddens and Walker would've been lottery little to do with their talent level.picks had it not been for some particular circumstances like "attitude problems" and injury concerns. They had

Could not disagree more with this. Paddy was a misspent lottery pick, and anyone who saw him play in college knew that. Miles, I don't know about. But being deemed unable to play isn't encouraging.

Billy Walker I saw a bunch of over a year and a half in college. The bad condition of his legs make calling him a lottery pick erroneous, as does his tendency to blow up emotionally. Giddens has shooting issues, and to a lesser degree character issues. I understand the desire to support Ainge. He had a great summer. Last year. But it's hideously presumptuous to call everyone he's added a lottery pick just because he added them.

There's nothing to disagree with. The statement in question was about the talent level, not about wether they should've been picked in the lottery or not. The general concensus between scouts and experts have considered Walker and Giddens as lottery level talent. As I mentioned, there were particular circumstances that prevented them from being so.

Links, please? I need to know who to take less seriously in the future.

...that's hilarious  of you "CoachBo", unfortunately its also the truth...

You are right, there is a reason they all were available to the Celtics as minimum contract types, (POB/Miles) and late in the draft, (Giddens/Walker) but these players were all evaluated from a physical  skills stand-point as top-level players.

3 out of 4 were McDonald's All-Americans, each was a mock-draft top 15 pick at one point in their NCAA careers, and each dropped in perceived value due to circumstances beyond their physical ability--that was my point.

The risk  is not in their talent, but in their various intangible flaws: POB has not shown heart, Miles has been a knuckle-head and has had a major injury, Giddens didn't break out until his senior year and was an off-court distraction to two NCAA teams, and Walker blew out both knees, played one NCAA season of solid, but non-dominant ball, and then came out in the draft and got injured in the middle of pre-draft process....

Of course these guys have flaws, they wouldn't have fallen to the C's if they didn't,  but those flaws increase the RISK involved in their development, not the innate talent each is perceived to have and what their potential is-that's the point.

[BillfromBoston]

Isn't THIS a little bit presumptuous?  Why assume Giddens and Walker are are better than 15 of the 30 or so players drafted before them, just because Ainge was the one that drafted them?  Are the other teams just so thick that they didn't think to draft these guys themselves?

Not saying these guys are going to be busts, I have faith that the team *might* have made some savvy picks here (of course they could have done better, but most teams could as well)...  And it's not like I'm against rooting for/hyping up your home team guys..  But if they were lottery players, they would have atleast gone early 20s, right?  What if these guys are the the 30th and 47th best players in the 08 draft, should I be riled up for that?

O'bryant and Miles were lottery picks. Experts have all said that Giddens and Walker would've been lottery picks had it not been for some particular circumstances like "attitude problems" and injury concerns. They had little to do with their talent level.

O'Bryant is a lotto pick where the team did not pick up the option

Miles is a lotto pick that the doctors have said is physically unable to play. 




This is a bench of potential.  Therefore, a good fit for a rebuilding team, not a title team. 

  Because it would be a shame if we developed some young talent at the expense of marginal backups who are well past their primes...

 

I'm on wdleehi's side.  Young talent is good, and I'm glad to see the rookies here.  However, I'd feel better if we had a few more vets to add to the mix.  I think proven vets who have shown they know how to win are with a lot more than what upside a 26 year old Darius Miles looking at knee replacement brings.

Of course, I think the shot of Miles making the roster is around 2%, meaning we'll be looking to pick up a vet with an open roster spot in the season.  That worked out fairly well last year.  However, I think it's pretty clear that every player added to the bench this off-season has been a complete unknown.  Many of us would feel better with a few sure things.

...I support you 100 percent on this point Roy, but  I don't think it'll be difficult to go and get those vets a some point if and when they're needed....worst case scenario the team can trade Davis/Powe with Scal's contract to nab a quality veteran during the regular season...

I don't believe for a second that Ainge is going to gamble with the teams ability to repeat as champions-not for one minute do I believe that-but allowing some low-risk, high-reward types to get a chance early in the year doesn't risk that...there are months and months to evaluate things before the trade deadline and there are ALWAYS solid-but-not-spectacular vets that fit the requirements needed to be stable role players in the event the higher end youth doesn't deliver...that's been my point this whole time.

The team got Cassell and Brown last year-the two consensus "best on the market" at each position...Posey was not a hot commodity last season either, he was gotten for a song...there is a great change Boston will be able to get comparable players if and when needed later down the road...

The beginning of the season is about maximizing potential because if even one of these guys works out, the team has just added a talent above and beyond what they could have gotten on the market...if not, they go get a vet or two to shore things up.

[JR Giddens]

No player is a sure thing on a new team no matter how much success and experience they have! Rememeber Karl Malone and Gary Payton.

This post is still wack!

Everyone starts from scratch next year!

[Roy Hobbs]

3 out of 4 were McDonald's All-Americans, each was a mock-draft top 15 pick at one point in their NCAA careers, and each dropped in perceived value due to circumstances beyond their physical ability--that was my point.

With all due respect to what you do over at draftexpress, wasn't Gerald Green projected as a top 15 pick in a mock draft?  Martynas Andriuskevicius?  Any number of other guys?

Just because somebody is projected to be drafted highly at one point doesn't mean that they were deserving of that distinction.  You guys miss on players all the time, as do NBA GMs.

Also, I think Walker and Miles were valued as much for their insane athleticism as they were for any particular "talent"; I think those two things are separate and apart.  Walker has now had, what, three knee injuries?  And Miles, of course, is looking at knee replacement surgery.

I just don't see a lot utility in the argument (boiled down to its core) that "these guys were projected to be good three years ago".  Big deal, honestly.  P.O.B. has shown nothing, and Miles is unable to play according to NBA doctors.  Walker was good but not great last season, as was Giddens.  Each could pan out (with Walker being the most likely in my opinion, and Giddens having a good chance at being a role player), but none of the four are sure things.  Results and track record are infinitely more important than talent and potential.  I'm definitely interested in the latter, but would be more comfortable if there was a bit more of the former.

[BillfromBoston]

Isn't THIS a little bit presumptuous?  Why assume Giddens and Walker are are better than 15 of the 30 or so players drafted before them, just because Ainge was the one that drafted them?  Are the other teams just so thick that they didn't think to draft these guys themselves?

Not saying these guys are going to be busts, I have faith that the team *might* have made some savvy picks here (of course they could have done better, but most teams could as well)...  And it's not like I'm against rooting for/hyping up your home team guys..  But if they were lottery players, they would have atleast gone early 20s, right?  What if these guys are the the 30th and 47th best players in the 08 draft, should I be riled up for that?

O'bryant and Miles were lottery picks. Experts have all said that Giddens and Walker would've been lottery little to do with their talent level.picks had it not been for some particular circumstances like "attitude problems" and injury concerns. They had

Could not disagree more with this. Paddy was a misspent lottery pick, and anyone who saw him play in college knew that. Miles, I don't know about. But being deemed unable to play isn't encouraging.

Billy Walker I saw a bunch of over a year and a half in college. The bad condition of his legs make calling him a lottery pick erroneous, as does his tendency to blow up emotionally. Giddens has shooting issues, and to a lesser degree character issues. I understand the desire to support Ainge. He had a great summer. Last year. But it's hideously presumptuous to call everyone he's added a lottery pick just because he added them.

There's nothing to disagree with. The statement in question was about the talent level, not about wether they should've been picked in the lottery or not. The general concensus between scouts and experts have considered Walker and Giddens as lottery level talent. As I mentioned, there were particular circumstances that prevented them from being so.

Links, please? I need to know who to take less seriously in the future.

Yeah, this is oft-repeated, but I haven't heard Walker described as a lottery-talent since his first knee injury (there have been, what, three now?) and I don't think Giddens has been projected at that level since he transferred to the Lobos.  Walker lost some of his athleticism (much of the reason he was projected so highly was because people thought he had the hops of Vince Carter; he doesn't have those any more), and Giddens showed that he wasn't as good as he looked coming out of high-school.  As much as it gets repeated, the reason Giddens didn't get drafted isn't because of character; players with character concerns get drafted every year (Sean Williams, for instance).  Rather, it was those character concerns combined with scouts not being as high on his upside any more.  Keep in mind, the kid is going to be 24 next season, and never dominated college.  *That's* why he slipped (and was projected to slip a lot farther if not drafted by Danny).

Just because a player was once highly-regarded or hyped doesn't mean he has a tremendous amount of talent.  NBA scouts miss all the time, which is why some of those same scouts had Gerald Green as a top-three pick at one time. 

I like Danny, and I hope the draft picks work out.  On paper, they certainly seem to have near-elite athleticism.  That does not, however, make them "lottery picks", and it doesn't make them sure things, either.

...not entirely true...

1. Walker was projected as a lottery talent until his 2nd knee injury, which eliminated his freshmen year at KSU...his 1st knee injury was as a freshmen in HS, which he showed recovery from...this past draft was deep in big men and wings were going to drop...even then, Walker was getting a lot of buzz at 15-19 until the meniscus tear...at that point, he fell off the map...team's were already wanting him to go back to school another year and dominate in order to review his game more, Walker wanted to be "one and done" so he left despite the recommendations..even then he was still a top 20 projection by a number of teams and was getting draft promises until the meniscus.

2. Giddens was valued the highest as a freshmen in college, no doubt about that. But it was his off-court stabbing after his sophmore year that really damaged his stock. Scouts were sky-high on him after his freshmen year and he followed it up with a solid 2nd season...it was the altercation that started the downward trend...when he transfered and got in trouble again, his stock went to an all-time low...the fact that his game still looked the same further dropped his value to the point where he was no longer considered a draft prospect at all-we're talking rookie FA at best...then his senior season his game finally developed and his attitude was reported as being top-notch...it didn't undo the past 3 seasons he played, but he really started getting his "buzz" back on the scouting radar...Giddens was projected as a late first rounder on many draftboards, but as certain players slipped, Giddens dropped to 30 from the 22-30 area he was slotted on draft-boards...being a wing, older, and with question marks on attitude found him at 30-which was still a MAJOR comeback from the scouting oblivion he was in to begin the year.

That's how it went down with these two guys...they weren't evaluated as having "less talent" than before, it was the natural progress up-and-down scouts prospect lists based on their tenure as prospects being evaluated...

[BillfromBoston]

Good discussion, great posts from both sides. TP to Nick for starting it.

I think wdleehi's point above is absolutely correct.

With one individual "low risk, high reward" player, it's exactly that:  you're taking a gamble on a player, and if he doesn't work out, big deal.

With several "low risk, high reward" players, however, the *collective* risk is high, because if one or more of those players doesn't pan out, suddenly your roster is left with legitimate holes.

Yeps, this sums up my position. The truth is that the probability of the new guys being failures is a reason to be concerned. Players who are picked so late in the draft have more chances to be out of the NBA in 2 years than to be solid rotational players (and I've never heard that Giddens was being considered to be a lottery pick; Walker was considered one before college - like dozens of players that never make the NBA -, I saw him carefully in half-a-dozen of matches last season, when he was as healthy as he's now, and he's simply not lottery material; we still don't know if Pruitt is a NBA player). Tony Allen has never proved he can be good enough to be the 6th man on a contender. Miles would make history if he plays again. Lottery picks who don't get their contracts extentend generally aren't good enough to play in the NBA (and O'Bryant was never considered a sure thing, he carried a huge bust potential since the beggining). So, history is against us. One can say that we added "talent". Well, personally, I don't know. Maybe we did. Maybe not. I guess it depends on the definition of talent: some still say that Gerald Green has talent. But who cares? Fact is that none of these players have proved to be talented. Also, the problem is not that if "none of them" will be ready to contribute next May. That will be a really big problem. But, for example, if O'Bryant fails, we'll have a very big hole on our roster. Can we adress it during the season? Perhaps, but with someone better than Thomas, PJ Brown or Elson?

I predict Doc will be blamed if things don't work. But the fact is that most of our bench players haven't proved yet that they are NBA material, let alone good enough to be rotational players on a playoff run to win it all (I'm less worried about the reg. season). Also, besides the lack of experience, this roster has a glaring hole: not enough players who can shoot the rock from the outside. Teams without good outside shooters end up being teams whose offense is reduced to outside jump-shots.

I think that not re-signing Posey was the big mistake. He was much better than anyone else available and him alone would solve most of our bench problems during this title window.

...are you even remotely aware of how much statistical analysis the Boston Celtics do on the players they evaluate? They aren't "gambling" based off simplistic things like where the player was drafted...these players have been dissected to the Nth degree and compared historically to numerous players in order to get concrete odds on strength, weakness, and projected growth time lines...Boston is one of the most advanced front offices in regards to stat analysis and Ainge mixes that with a careful regard for traditional scouting, (watches more tape than anyone) and considers the mental aspects of the game as well...

These decisions weren't reached arbitrarily...knowing his process and seeing his track record with unproven players, which POB/Walker/Giddens all fall into that category--i REALLY like the chances of at least one of these guys  working out and i'd bank on all 3 actually being solid and still feel like its even money...

...Miles is Miles...if he can actually play,  it doesn't matter if its at or near his former ability...if he's healthy he is a 6th man type no problem...only question with him is IF he truly can play...if attitude is any type of issue he's gone, but if he can physically play, the team just improved...

[cordobes]

Isn't THIS a little bit presumptuous?  Why assume Giddens and Walker are are better than 15 of the 30 or so players drafted before them, just because Ainge was the one that drafted them?  Are the other teams just so thick that they didn't think to draft these guys themselves?

Not saying these guys are going to be busts, I have faith that the team *might* have made some savvy picks here (of course they could have done better, but most teams could as well)...  And it's not like I'm against rooting for/hyping up your home team guys..  But if they were lottery players, they would have atleast gone early 20s, right?  What if these guys are the the 30th and 47th best players in the 08 draft, should I be riled up for that?

O'bryant and Miles were lottery picks. Experts have all said that Giddens and Walker would've been lottery little to do with their talent level.picks had it not been for some particular circumstances like "attitude problems" and injury concerns. They had

Could not disagree more with this. Paddy was a misspent lottery pick, and anyone who saw him play in college knew that. Miles, I don't know about. But being deemed unable to play isn't encouraging.

Billy Walker I saw a bunch of over a year and a half in college. The bad condition of his legs make calling him a lottery pick erroneous, as does his tendency to blow up emotionally. Giddens has shooting issues, and to a lesser degree character issues. I understand the desire to support Ainge. He had a great summer. Last year. But it's hideously presumptuous to call everyone he's added a lottery pick just because he added them.

There's nothing to disagree with. The statement in question was about the talent level, not about wether they should've been picked in the lottery or not. The general concensus between scouts and experts have considered Walker and Giddens as lottery level talent. As I mentioned, there were particular circumstances that prevented them from being so.

Links, please? I need to know who to take less seriously in the future.

Yeah, this is oft-repeated, but I haven't heard Walker described as a lottery-talent since his first knee injury (there have been, what, three now?) and I don't think Giddens has been projected at that level since he transferred to the Lobos.  Walker lost some of his athleticism (much of the reason he was projected so highly was because people thought he had the hops of Vince Carter; he doesn't have those any more), and Giddens showed that he wasn't as good as he looked coming out of high-school.  As much as it gets repeated, the reason Giddens didn't get drafted isn't because of character; players with character concerns get drafted every year (Sean Williams, for instance).  Rather, it was those character concerns combined with scouts not being as high on his upside any more.  Keep in mind, the kid is going to be 24 next season, and never dominated college.  *That's* why he slipped (and was projected to slip a lot farther if not drafted by Danny).

Just because a player was once highly-regarded or hyped doesn't mean he has a tremendous amount of talent.  NBA scouts miss all the time, which is why some of those same scouts had Gerald Green as a top-three pick at one time. 

I like Danny, and I hope the draft picks work out.  On paper, they certainly seem to have near-elite athleticism.  That does not, however, make them "lottery picks", and it doesn't make them sure things, either.

...not entirely true...

1. Walker was projected as a lottery talent until his 2nd knee injury, which eliminated his freshmen year at KSU...his 1st knee injury was as a freshmen in HS, which he showed recovery from...this past draft was deep in big men and wings were going to drop...even then, Walker was getting a lot of buzz at 15-19 until the meniscus tear...at that point, he fell off the map...team's were already wanting him to go back to school another year and dominate in order to review his game more, Walker wanted to be "one and done" so he left despite the recommendations..even then he was still a top 20 projection by a number of teams and was getting draft promises until the meniscus.

2. Giddens was valued the highest as a freshmen in college, no doubt about that. But it was his off-court stabbing after his sophmore year that really damaged his stock. Scouts were sky-high on him after his freshmen year and he followed it up with a solid 2nd season...it was the altercation that started the downward trend...when he transfered and got in trouble again, his stock went to an all-time low...the fact that his game still looked the same further dropped his value to the point where he was no longer considered a draft prospect at all-we're talking rookie FA at best...then his senior season his game finally developed and his attitude was reported as being top-notch...it didn't undo the past 3 seasons he played, but he really started getting his "buzz" back on the scouting radar...Giddens was projected as a late first rounder on many draftboards, but as certain players slipped, Giddens dropped to 30 from the 22-30 area he was slotted on draft-boards...being a wing, older, and with question marks on attitude found him at 30-which was still a MAJOR comeback from the scouting oblivion he was in to begin the year.

That's how it went down with these two guys...they weren't evaluated as having "less talent" than before, it was the natural progress up-and-down scouts prospect lists based on their tenure as prospects being evaluated...

1. So Walker was projected as a lottery talent basically before playing in college - how many games has he played as a freshman? Five? I consider that kind of draft stock highly irrelevant. If he was projected to be a 15-19 pick in this draft, why had he hurt his knee working out for the Pistons, who had the 29th pick?

2. If Giddens was considered lottery talent after his freshman year, why didn't he declare to the draft? DX labels his freshmen year as "promising", but that's all.

[JR Giddens]

"With all due respect to what you do over at draftexpress" - Roy Hobbs

*instant and legendary quotable"  

[BillfromBoston]

This thread reminds me of famous Boston basketball writer, Bob Ryan's infamous article in the Boston Globe last year after the trades for RA and KG. He stated simply that we should not get too excited because we were not going anywhere because we quite possibly had the worst bench in the NBA. Most of the NBA questioned our bench all year long. Remember coming into the finals the Lakers bench was being touted over ours?

No one knew what exactly was going to happen last year, and the same holds true this year. There are always question marks about every team's off season moves. What seems like a gamble sometimes turns out to be a real winner, and what seems like a no brainer can turn out to be a fiasco.

I stay positive because it is so exciting to see how everything will turn out. The unknown is what people are worried about. No one can truly predict the future so why not have an optimistic outlook?

Did any of us know for SURE that we were going to win #17 last year? Were we optimistic or were we like Bob Ryan and found reasons why we wouldn't.

We like to think that proven veterans are the answer to winning it all. If you ask me, the acquisition of Sam Cassell almost single-handedly torpedoed our chances to win the championship last year. Yes we knew what he could do, and he did have lots of experience, but how do you explain the coach saying that we don't want to take any "hero" shots during the game when Sam's whole game is based on just that? He "seemed" to be a good asset to add to the team at the time, but it didn't actually work out as planned - did it?

Building a team (and a bench)is not an exact science. There are many things that can happen. Injuries, chemistry issues, players who do not improve and do not live up to their potential, players who simply improve from the previous year's experience, players who have lost a step and aren't what they used to be, players who are perceived to be better because they have more experience, players who have bad reps but overcome them with their new team, players who have little experience but get the job done, players who step up (or not) when given increased PT, players who get much better much quicker than anticipated, etc... are all things that can happen and more.

DA is playing his hand - even he doesn't know how it will all turn out. We all had heart attacks from the results at the previous year's lottery didn't we? We ALL had plenty of reasons for "not being able to stay positive during that off season" - didn't we? Did Danny or any of us know that when the ping pong balls gave us the #5 pick that that was actually a good thing and that it would lead to a chain of events that ended with the raising of banner 17?

DA has made moves which none of us can truly know how they will all turn out. Why be negative?

Why not be optimistic?

I say that it will take A LOT for me to NOT be able to stay positive this off season and for the upcoming season.

The only thing to fear is fear itself!

P.S. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't just have a flash back to the 80's this past June - we did win the title - didn't we?

...this post sums it up best...kudos to you bossco...

[billysan]

1) By any stretch of the imagination, Posey's $7 million in 2011 wouldn't have "tanked" the season.  

2) We didn't lose any players to Europe.  Regardless of what happens sooner or later, the Celts have the bench they do because of choice, not necessity.

The team wasn't forced to go with a bench full of unproven / unhealthy / poor players.  They deliberately made that choice.  I find it to be a bit surprising, but we'll see how it turns out.

While I think I understand your points Roy, we only had the mid level and minimum contracts to offer. Signing Posey to the deal he wanted would have cost us all of that and we would be minus Eddie, POB, Tony Allen and have very little left to sign another player except the minimum.

(...)

Not true. We added Allen and POB without using the MLE. We could have signed House without using it as well. We had the MLE, the LLE and the non-Bird rights to our own free-agents.

You are telling me that only Eddie House is counted against our MLE? Then we should have about 4 million give or take left over instead of the 1.8 million number I hear being tossed around. Sorry, I am not sure I believe that we have only used the MLE on Eddie.

[wdleehi]

No player is a sure thing on a new team no matter how much success and experience they have! Rememeber Karl Malone and Gary Payton.

This post is still wack!

Everyone starts from scratch next year!

Posey was a sure thing.  You had a good idea what he would provide night to night.  PJ was a sure thing in the playoffs.


On the Celtics bench, only House fits that description right now.  Sure, there are bad games, but they are not the tragedies other bench players can and did have.



Powe is close to being a sure thing.