When can we say that Ainge had a terrible offseason?

[hpantazo]

Do the 2009 Celtics w/ Marbury and Moore lose to the 2008 Celtics w/ Posey and PJ?

hmmm

We'll see how Starbury plays out, but thus far, I don't think this year's team is quite as good as last year's.  The defense has been more sporadic, and the team hasn't had the same energy overall.  That being said, it's the playoffs that matter.

I think you are right about the energy and defense not being there as much this year, but I think it's because the team knows what it takes to win it all in the playoffs and they are in some way conserving their energy, they don't have nearly as much to prove to themselves as last year's team.

[KCattheStripe]

the way some of you guys here think, we'll need to go back and start thanking the mom's of these players for their chromosome's correctly splitting...

Does that mean we can go back and complain to yours?

[BillfromBoston]

BillfromBoston, your last reply was about as eloquently put as any I have read on this board. I do, however, beg to differ, at least to a certain extent. If you are trying to put together a championship team, which I believe that Danny should be doing now, then you do go all in. If you are trying to be competitive and maybe go for a title a year or two down the road then that is a different "strategic" plan altogether. When you just won a title, and are probably favored to do so again, you do not plan instead for what might happen two or three years from now unless you are quite certain that you will be competing for it again then.

I agree that you go "all in." The difference in opinion I guess is what "all in" constitutes.

Regardless of what any of us think - Ainge has to make a personal judgment call on what the value of a player is going to be toward that "all in" scenario.

We can disagree on what those values are, but its ultimately a matter of choice, not fact, as many posters tend to posture it being.

I have no doubt that Ainge looked at what was available and made a judgment based off what he thought his current roster was capable of and what his chief rivals capability was.

Considering the options available and the potential to go into the season and increase the evaluation window while remaining highly competitive, I think Ainge made a smart call - but that is solely based off my opinion of this team's strengths and weaknesses.

I don't, however, beleive that if this team fails to win another title that this is proof of Ainge's off-season blunder - the team as built is extremely strong across the board and I think any series it plays will be long and hard-fought...I don't believe there was any move of greater impact that could have been pulled off that was greater than adding Marbury - his talent level exceeds any option this team had at any point in 2008 and fills three valuable needs: backup PG, 6th man scorer, and rest for Pierce/Allen.

I don't think you can isolate the summer's moves from the regular season moves because its all a continual process - one doesn't end and the other begin...

[Toine43]

BillfromBoston, your last reply was about as eloquently put as any I have read on this board. I do, however, beg to differ, at least to a certain extent. If you are trying to put together a championship team, which I believe that Danny should be doing now, then you do go all in. If you are trying to be competitive and maybe go for a title a year or two down the road then that is a different "strategic" plan altogether. When you just won a title, and are probably favored to do so again, you do not plan instead for what might happen two or three years from now unless you are quite certain that you will be competing for it again then.

I agree that you go "all in." The difference in opinion I guess is what "all in" constitutes.

Regardless of what any of us think - Ainge has to make a personal judgment call on what the value of a player is going to be toward that "all in" scenario.

We can disagree on what those values are, but its ultimately a matter of choice, not fact, as many posters tend to posture it being.

I have no doubt that Ainge looked at what was available and made a judgment based off what he thought his current roster was capable of and what his chief rivals capability was.

Considering the options available and the potential to go into the season and increase the evaluation window while remaining highly competitive, I think Ainge made a smart call - but that is solely based off my opinion of this team's strengths and weaknesses.

I don't, however, beleive that if this team fails to win another title that this is proof of Ainge's off-season blunder - the team as built is extremely strong across the board and I think any series it plays will be long and hard-fought...I don't believe there was any move of greater impact that could have been pulled off that was greater than adding Marbury - his talent level exceeds any option this team had at any point in 2008 and fills three valuable needs: backup PG, 6th man scorer, and rest for Pierce/Allen.

I don't think you can isolate the summer's moves from the regular season moves because its all a continual process - one doesn't end and the other begin...

Isn't it possible to like the Marbury move and still think that Danny should have signed Posey? We did not spend very much on Marbury and Moore, so it's not like they took Posey's 2008-2009 salary and gave it to those guys. I agree that this team as is has an excellent chance of repeating, but would Posey not make those chances better? I would say going "all in" would have been to sign Posey, and although I'm not liking the way a certain poster is attacking the ownership and Danny for not signing Pose, I think that Danny should have signed him.

[winsomme]

BillfromBoston, your last reply was about as eloquently put as any I have read on this board. I do, however, beg to differ, at least to a certain extent. If you are trying to put together a championship team, which I believe that Danny should be doing now, then you do go all in. If you are trying to be competitive and maybe go for a title a year or two down the road then that is a different "strategic" plan altogether. When you just won a title, and are probably favored to do so again, you do not plan instead for what might happen two or three years from now unless you are quite certain that you will be competing for it again then.

I agree that you go "all in." The difference in opinion I guess is what "all in" constitutes.

Regardless of what any of us think - Ainge has to make a personal judgment call on what the value of a player is going to be toward that "all in" scenario.

We can disagree on what those values are, but its ultimately a matter of choice, not fact, as many posters tend to posture it being.

I have no doubt that Ainge looked at what was available and made a judgment based off what he thought his current roster was capable of and what his chief rivals capability was.

Considering the options available and the potential to go into the season and increase the evaluation window while remaining highly competitive, I think Ainge made a smart call - but that is solely based off my opinion of this team's strengths and weaknesses.

I don't, however, beleive that if this team fails to win another title that this is proof of Ainge's off-season blunder - the team as built is extremely strong across the board and I think any series it plays will be long and hard-fought...I don't believe there was any move of greater impact that could have been pulled off that was greater than adding Marbury - his talent level exceeds any option this team had at any point in 2008 and fills three valuable needs: backup PG, 6th man scorer, and rest for Pierce/Allen.

I don't think you can isolate the summer's moves from the regular season moves because its all a continual process - one doesn't end and the other begin...

I agree, BFB, on the talent level of Marbury. I have said elsewhere that as big a fan as i am of Posey that Marbury is a more talented player.

but when building a bench, as we know, talent is not the only or sometimes even most important factor. the role filled can sometimes be more important.

personally, i feel that the role filled by Posey was more important than the one filled by Mar and that balances the difference in ability level of the two. that is to say, Marbury possesses the better skills while Posey possesses the more needed skills....

the fact that Rondo in the playoffs should be essentially a 40+ MPG player to me lessens the impact of a Marbury - especially with Eddie already showing he can contribute in the backcourt too. whereas Posey gets key rest for Ray and Paul and also can move over to the PF...

so the net effect? I'm worried about the lack of depth on the wing, but am interested to see the impact of a highly skilled back court addition...and am hopeful that it will be enough to get us over the hump...

[BillfromBoston]

Any GM worth his salt is aware of what teams have expiring contracts in a given year.  More specifically, contending teams are aware of rebuilding teams that have expirings.  If rebuilding teams have expiring veteran contracts that they were unable to trade at the deadline, there is always a fair chance that they'd be willing negotiate a buyout to save the franchise money (and provide the veteran to go to a contender).  That's merely due diligence.

So yes, Ainge was aware that certain veterans on certain struggling teams might well be available.  As expiring contracts are often times viewed as highly desirable purely for the financial benefits, sometimes those same struggling teams can turn the expiring contract into better talent (but with more onerous (read longer) contracts.  So there's the added risk that the veterans that Ainge had targeted might be traded and thus unavailable.

Add to that possibility that even if bought out, the player might choose a contender other than the Celtics to latch on to, and there is a definite risk factor.

The whole buyout phenomena seems of recent vintage to me.  Not something that you could take to the bank as a given.  PJ wasn't even a buyout.  He came out of retirement (thankfully).  Sam was brought on board as insurance in case Rondo was deemed unready.

There is foresight involved, but there is no denying that there is luck involved as well. 

As to being surprised by the KG and Ray signings, and whether they were part of a plan, I'd just say that Danny had skillfully positioned himself to be in a flexible position.

They were certainly not plan A.  Plan A was tanking the season and Getting Oden or Durant and putting them beside Pierce, Jefferson and Rondo.  When that went out the window, Danny immediately had to decide whether he was going to keep Pierce and cash in his chips immediately, or lose Pierce and continue with the slower build.  We all know how that went.

More than anything, Danny deserves credit for recognizing, when he took over, that what he inherited had no upside, and no real shot at contending, and having the courage to dismantle it.  Every move was about upgrading talent, even when it involved taking on guys with less than stellar reputations, character-wise, and even when it meant going with young, talented guys who were not yet ready to win, but who ultimately had more value on the market.

I always knew that Danny would trade some of them in.  Had no idea that he'd go the all in strategy that he eventually took.  I think his hand was a bit forced, in that it was either cash in or lose Paul.  Once he got rid of that 5th pick, 'all in' was really the only way to go, because just picking up Ray would not have put us even near to championship contender.

Anyway, just observing that the fact that Danny was well aware of which veterans might be buyout candidates is no earth shattering revelation.  It's the mere due diligence that any competent GM would do.

Beyond that, yes, there was some luck involved, and this present path we are on is very much owing to the serendipity of ping pong balls, even though at the time it seemed like the end of the world.  He did a [dang]ed good job of acquiring assets with which to trade (the proof being that teams did actually trade for them).  In Danny's case, flexibility served him well.

My view is that Danny took a calculated risk by not addressing a couple of the needs during the off-season, and fortunately it paid off, but risk it was.

I still would be more comfortable with a rugged and reliable veteran swing (bigger than 6'4"), so that has gone unaddressed, in my view.  Still, Marbury is an extraordinary talent to have gotten at such a bargain basement price, and hopefully his effect on the second unit will be enough to get us over the hump.

Sorry for the full length novel.

I agree with almost all of this, save a couple of points:

1. There are more factors in play when discerning whether or not a player will be bought out vs. traded and there are more factors leading to a player's decision to go to a contender.

Boston would have a good aproximation that Marbury was unlikely to be traded based off the size of his contract, the players or combo of players that may be available via trade, and the likeliness of NY taking on those contracts based off their building plans.

2. The choice to pursue KG was not mutually exclusive to the desire to win the lotto in the Oden/Durant year. Ainge had actually been making inquiries about KG's availability a season beforehand - as well as looking at Marion, AI, and a number of other players.

The loss of the lotto solidified the TIME to act, but not the intention and KG was always a target based off a multitude of factors that made it likely he'd come on the market at some point.

There was a great deal of luck associated with all these moves, but not blind luck or ping, pong bounces. Approximations were made and risks were calculated. Ainge couldn't control the rest of the market, but he could narrow down the potential scenarios to a few teams and their potential bids -- so the "luck" was in assuming he'd have the strongest hand - which he did in both example 1 and 2.

[wdleehi]

The offseason was not good.  No one that was added had trade value.  It was a bench of projects.


Now, we hope they get lucky with Marbury (loads of talent that has translated in lossing) and Moore (a 4th/5th big man) being bought out. 



How many title repeaters can you remember using this strategy when they repeated?

This idea that you MUST add someone of substance and contribution in order to have had a successful off-season has got to stop...sometimes NOT spending on someone because they aren't worth the price you pay in dollars or years, (or roster spots,) is the true victory.

Considering Ainge just added a high-energy, shot-making, 7 footer, and a former All-Star scoring/play-making PG, I'd have to say that abstaining from spending over the summer was the smart thing to do...

Yet POB got a contract.

[BballTim]

The offseason was not good.  No one that was added had trade value.  It was a bench of projects.


Now, we hope they get lucky with Marbury (loads of talent that has translated in lossing) and Moore (a 4th/5th big man) being bought out. 



How many title repeaters can you remember using this strategy when they repeated?

This idea that you MUST add someone of substance and contribution in order to have had a successful off-season has got to stop...sometimes NOT spending on someone because they aren't worth the price you pay in dollars or years, (or roster spots,) is the true victory.

Considering Ainge just added a high-energy, shot-making, 7 footer, and a former All-Star scoring/play-making PG, I'd have to say that abstaining from spending over the summer was the smart thing to do...

Yet POB got a contract.

  Which Ainge was able to unload when the experiment didn't work and he needed the spot on the roster. It's amazing that Danny could have avoided about 1/2 the criticism he gets on this board by leaving the 15th roster spot open instead of taking a risk-free chance on POB.

[winsomme]

The offseason was not good.  No one that was added had trade value.  It was a bench of projects.


Now, we hope they get lucky with Marbury (loads of talent that has translated in lossing) and Moore (a 4th/5th big man) being bought out. 



How many title repeaters can you remember using this strategy when they repeated?

This idea that you MUST add someone of substance and contribution in order to have had a successful off-season has got to stop...sometimes NOT spending on someone because they aren't worth the price you pay in dollars or years, (or roster spots,) is the true victory.

Considering Ainge just added a high-energy, shot-making, 7 footer, and a former All-Star scoring/play-making PG, I'd have to say that abstaining from spending over the summer was the smart thing to do...

Yet POB got a contract.

  Which Ainge was able to unload when the experiment didn't work and he needed the spot on the roster. It's amazing that Danny could have avoided about 1/2 the criticism he gets on this board by leaving the 15th roster spot open instead of taking a risk-free chance on POB.

Was POB signed with some of the MLE?

and what about Sam...was he signed with MLE money?

The MLE was what 6 mil?

Anybody know the breakdown of how that money was spent?

One argument that could be made is if Danny had not signed Sam and POB (if they were signed with MLE money), he would have had more of that money to go after Smith....If money was in fact was the deciding factor...

[winsomme]

just reading this bit:

BOSTON -- Stephon Marbury will earn $1.2 million from the Boston Celtics over the remainder of the NBA season, ESPN.com learned Friday.

A source with knowledge of league finances told ESPN.com that Boston used $1.2 million of the $2.4 million it had remaining from the midlevel salary exception. Marbury's salary will not be prorated, meaning he will earn $52,174 for each of Boston's remaining 23 regular season games.

Previous reports in various media outlets stated that Marbury would be playing for a prorated version of the NBA minimum salary, which would amount to less than a half-million dollars.

In actuality, under a deal negotiated by National Basketball Players Association attorney Hal Biagas, Marbury will be making more than double that amount, offsetting part of what Marbury gave back to the Knicks from his $20.8 million New York salary in his buyout earlier this week. Marbury does not have an agent, and Biagas represented him in his dealings with Knicks president Donnie Walsh.

The Miami Heat also were interested in signing Marbury, but the Heat could not compete with Boston's financial offer without going over the luxury tax threshold.

The Celtics still have $1.2 million of their midlevel exception to use this season, and they will have a $1.8 million biannual exception available in the offseason because they did not use it in 2008-09.

so now i am confused. how much of our MLE have we actually spent and who did we spend it on.

If we have 1.2 mil left of our MLE, that's a pretty good offer if someone comes available...

[Roy Hobbs]

To repeat from another thread, we had $2.392 million of the MLE, before any prorating (the rest was used on House and Walker).  The amount that we had left was decreased by roughly 50/180ths (one 1/180th for every day after January 10th).  That leaves about $1,727,555.56 available.  Assuming that we really gave $1.2 million to Starbury, that leaves us just about $500k to give to a free agent.

$500,000 does us no good.  After prorating the minimum salary, Gooden would be paid about $772,863 on a minimum deal, Smith would earn roughly $911,643.06 (again, these calculations assume a prorating of 50/180ths.)

I'm not at all sure that the ESPN report is correct, but if it is, we have essentially no money left to spend.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Seriously, we're talking about the same thing in like 4 different threads.

Yet POB got a contract.

Does it matter? Ainge converted it into a possible second rounder and Mikki Moore.

[cordobes]

Seriously, we're talking about the same thing in like 4 different threads.

Yet POB got a contract.

Does it matter? Ainge converted it into a possible second rounder and Mikki Moore.

Mikki Moore was a free-agent, I doubt the Kings waived him because they got Will Solomon. We'll never get that 2nd rounder. Trading POB was strictly a financial move, like Cassell. Still, it was money wasted on him (plus the energy and time of coaches and teammates, plus the opportunity cost of not having a center with the team since the start of the season).

[winsomme]

Seriously, we're talking about the same thing in like 4 different threads.

Yet POB got a contract.

Does it matter? Ainge converted it into a possible second rounder and Mikki Moore.

Another question is if we hadn't signed POB is that money that we could have used to sign another player...

could we have used that money to sign Marbury, for instance, and still had the rest of the MLe to sign a Gooden or a Smith if they come available?

[BudweiserCeltic]

Seriously, we're talking about the same thing in like 4 different threads.

Yet POB got a contract.

Does it matter? Ainge converted it into a possible second rounder and Mikki Moore.

Mikki Moore was a free-agent, I doubt the Kings waived him because they got Will Solomon. We'll never get that 2nd rounder. Trading POB was strictly a financial move, like Cassell. Still, it was money wasted on him (plus the energy and time of coaches and teammates, plus the opportunity cost of not having a center with the team since the start of the season).

You're taking the comments to literally.

Anyways, since POB was signed, Ainge had made it quite clear that POB was merely signed for depth. He was filler in there, with the hope that he might improve enough to contribute... if he didn't, well... the rest speaks for itself.

Another question is if we hadn't signed POB is that money that we could have used to sign another player...

Like who? Who was available at value that would've really been of real use? Who did POB really prevent us from getting?

could we have used that money to sign Marbury, for instance, and still had the rest of the MLe to sign a Gooden or a Smith if they come available?

The two things are unrelated, since by all accounts POB was signed to the minimum. The signing Marbury doesn't really relate to the POB situation or the usage of the MLE. In fact, you might argue if we didn't sign someone to a POB contract, that Ainge might have used some of the MLE unwisely on someone that might have not help much, and now be without the means ot sign someone like Marbury.

But these are all hypotheticals.