Proper business management vs win at all costs.

[timepiece33]

There may not be big men worth the MLE this year, but I think people are overlooking the fact that next year, or the year after that, that money that we don't lock up on Posey could be very beneficial for signings. There will probably be people we can go after, that might very well suit our needs.

However, it's a win-now situation, so it's really to me completely the management's call.. If they think the window can be longer the other way around, then so be it =P We might be able to sign someone next year, that opens our window even longer.

So in order to not make the bench a complete disaster this year, you could sign Ricky Davis to a 1 year, MLE contract if that's the belief.

IMO, not looking at the next 3 years as a "discrete" window is a mistake.   We have aging superstars.   We'll have flexibility once Pierce OR Garnett's deals end. 

If you are looking for the best alternative at this point.   Offer Ray Allen to a team with a long term contract who wants to get into the FA sweepstakes in the year he ends. 

[rondofan1255]

There may not be big men worth the MLE this year, but I think people are overlooking the fact that next year, or the year after that, that money that we don't lock up on Posey could be very beneficial for signings. There will probably be people we can go after, that might very well suit our needs.

However, it's a win-now situation, so it's really to me completely the management's call.. If they think the window can be longer the other way around, then so be it =P We might be able to sign someone next year, that opens our window even longer.

So in order to not make the bench a complete disaster this year, you could sign Ricky Davis to a 1 year, MLE contract if that's the belief.

IMO, not looking at the next 3 years as a "discrete" window is a mistake.   We have aging superstars.   We'll have flexibility once Pierce OR Garnett's deals end. 

If you are looking for the best alternative at this point.   Offer Ray Allen to a team with a long term contract who wants to get into the FA sweepstakes in the year he ends. 

I was saying that Posey is a bit of a risky signing at the proposed longevity and price.
After next year, Posey will probably be well on the decline. Some players rely on their athleticism more or less than others, I.E. Sam, so they decline at different paces.

Posey's value is going to decline, and we could definitely cripple our chances of a championship two seasons later, or even three, definitely. Our team will be classified as somewhat "old" IMHO. =/ It will be harder to improve, is all I'm saying.

[nickagneta]

It is not a myth an could happen. I could, if I felt like doing so by spending hours investigating the proper scenarios and checking the salaries and contracts to make sure all the numbers add up and are legal under the CBA, wite up quite more than one example showing exactly how it could affect it.

Or you could spend minutes using this thread

http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3578&Itemid=189

Without drastically increasing the salaries of 7 through 15, I'm not that worried about years 3 and 4. 

If Wyc was as worried about the salary cap as some of you are, we could go with a bench of O'Bryant/Powe/Walker/Giddens/Pruitt.   

Except what you are of course missing is that with Posey's contract being set, that makes 4 out of the top 6 position on the team set in stone for pretty much through the end of 2012 at the least if the Celtics decide to extend Pierce's and Allen's contracts or trade them for comparable salaried players. If they do, big if, but you want one scenario so here it is, that's nearly $68 miliion tied up in 4 of your top six guys.

Your scenario says don't increase the 7-15 salary. Okay let's not that's another $8.9 million. Thirteen playes at $76.8 but the 2 most important players on the team at the time Perk and Rondo who will both be looking for new contracts with increases that could total over $10 million combined a year over what they are geting paid combined now.

Does ownership say that we cannot afford to take care of them and let them go because their budget was for $80 million and they cost too much and all the other contracts are set in stone and pretty much untradeable? Does Posey's signing then make us lose out on the opportunity to hold onto our two best chances for future success because we are too invested in age that reaped it's benefits years earlier?

We do not know what ownership is willing to spend. Check back when the rumors of the KG trade was starting to come to fruition. Nearly 95% of the members of this blog were convinced based on the previous 5 years that this ownership group would never go over the cap, even if the KG trade was made. Even after the trade people were bemoaning not taking the full jump in and sign people with the LLE, calling  the owners short sighted and cheap.

One year later everyone is convinced this team will be in the luxury land for the reminder of their lives.(I know over exaggeration, you get the point.)

In the above scenario we could lose Perk or Rondo or both because of the exiestance of Posey's $7 million on the books at that time if ownership decides a reduction in salary out of the luxury area is needed.

That's unresearched and off the top of my head and from my point of view a viable way where signing Posey to 4 or 5 years of a full MLE could seriously cost this team long term. If we lose Rondo because that contract exists it would be one of the dumbest signings in Celtics history.

Don't assume ownerships stance years from now. Plan prudently and wisely now and assure longer viability at less money now even if it means taking the chance on contending for the next title(next year's) with someone other than Posey. Don't let Posey's contract that has to go to 4-5 years to retain him cost us our players at the center and PG positions for the next decade.

[cordobes]

BBallTim,

I'm struggling to understand what's exactly the point you are trying to make in this debate, if any at all. Allow me to clarify my point of view in very simple terms:

It was speculated in articles/posts that Posey would pick his option.
It was speculated in articles/posts that some team would offer Posey a 5yrs/MLE.

The above scenarios are both unrealistic, as I've stated before.

Posey has been offered a 3year/MLE deal. (disregarding peanuts to sign rookies).
Posey is asking for a 4year/MLE contract and will immediately sign it, if offered.

Can we agree in these?

My point is that if I was Danny Ainge, I'd match a 4year/MLE offer to keep Posey. You wouldn't. Is this a fair description?

I am not sure anyone is saying we shouldn't use the MLE at any point.

Whoever questions re-signing Posey because of the financial implications of the first two years of the contract is doing exactly that, because of the way our salaries are structured - there are no big contracts coming out of the books in the next two years.

Where if you sign someone that is 25 or 26 that risk is diminished greatly, thus stabilizing your business model, improving your value, longevity and productivity.

I understand that. But IMO there isn't a single free-agent in this market within that age range able to provide the same production than Posey in the next two years (being reasonable, one can always say that Diawara will be the 2010 MVP). I would also prefer to sign a younger player, if the decline in value wasn't too step. More, I'd even sign a younger and worse player, in the right circumstances: for example, if Rondo had already developed a reliable jumper with range, I'd rather sign Quinton Ross than Posey. But right now Posey is so heads and shoulders above anyone else still in free-agency, in terms of talent and fitting needs, that I don't want to risk such a decline in bench production.

[TradeProposalDude]

Proper business management in a sports venue attempts to incorporate cost-efficient personnel to a team while hoping to attain the same level of success that would be achieved on a team with more expensive, "high priority" options that are harder to find on the market. Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce are at a class that few others are situated in, so therefore the buck would need to be spent to sign or trade for either one of them.

While one may look to achieve a title through slightly different means with a younger group of players who come at a lighter price tag (i.e. Jefferson, Jeff Green, Gerald Green, Delonte West), the ultimate goal of attaining highest level success with them, as we've seen in past years, is nothing short a pipe dream. Their lack of experience and completeness are not satiable ingredients to a team's highest level success.

Now how does this all apply to Posey's situation with the Celtics? Ainge has to decide if having no Posey would adversely affect the team's ability to repeat. Would the Celtics continue to contend despite his departure while the core players are still on the payroll, who need the right role players around them to win title(s)?

The Celtics have the full MLE to operate with every year, but one must not neglect the obstacles that the luxury tax presents. By the look of it, the luxury tax is the single most deciding factor in determining whether to give said player "the offer" he wants.

Does the ownership feel uncommitted to giving Posey the kind of contract he is looking for? The full MLE is being offered, but not at the length that James and his agent desire. For that reason, I think savvy business management would look to search for inexpensive stop-gaps that provide the dimension Posey brings to the court about as effectively. Or, so would be the hope.

There are upsides and downsides with this alternate option, and it is far easier said than done. In my view of things, the draftings of Giddens and Walker have rendered Posey's return to a very unlikely prospect that will only take place IF he takes a paycut, or takes three years instead of the four or five he is demanding. That one or two years makes a bigger difference than one would like to imagine for the extra dough not invested in Posey could be used on an impact free agent in 2010. Just food for thought.

[BballTim]

  I'll state that A) even if we were to spend the full MLE this year we might not want to spend it all on Posey and that B) Giving all that money to Posey could preclude our using the MLE next year. You might say that management and the ownership don't seem to agree with you, but you seem to:

There's something very clear to me: offering Posey (or any other player) a 2/3/4 year MLE contract means that we won't be spending the MLE in the next 1/2/3 years.

  What if Ainge expects better FAs next year than we got this year? What if Perk has more shoulder problems and we need to spend the MLE on a center? What if we also want to extend Powe or Davis?

A) The problem is that I don't see any other use of the MLE this season than can provide equal value to Posey.
B) Of course. What I'm saying is that I'd rather spend the MLE this year then next off-season, for reasons abundantly explained.

What if Ainge expects better FAs next year than we got this year?

It would be a drastic miscalculation. Next season the GPA will be 1 year older.

  Next year they'll be one year older. This year, according to your logic, they'll be playing the best ball of the remainder of their window so they can more likely survive a weaker bench.

What if we also want to extend Powe or Davis?

Why would the spending of the MLE on Posey or any other player, this season or in the next one, have any impact in this?

  Because Ainge doesn't have an unlimited budget. All of the salaries matter.

What if Perk has more shoulder problems and we need to spend the MLE on a center?

Who's that center? There is no free-agent center that it's worthy the LLE, let alone the MLE.

  Sorry, I wasn't specific. I meant next summer.

[BballTim]

There may not be big men worth the MLE this year, but I think people are overlooking the fact that next year, or the year after that, that money that we don't lock up on Posey could be very beneficial for signings. There will probably be people we can go after, that might very well suit our needs.

However, it's a win-now situation, so it's really to me completely the management's call.. If they think the window can be longer the other way around, then so be it =P We might be able to sign someone next year, that opens our window even longer.

So in order to not make the bench a complete disaster this year, you could sign Ricky Davis to a 1 year, MLE contract if that's the belief.
 

  So you think without Posey our bench is a complete disaster?

[BballTim]

BBallTim,

I'm struggling to understand what's exactly the point you are trying to make in this debate, if any at all.

  I didn't want to wander down this path. I thought it was ridiculous that you wanted me to prove that people used to think that Posey was going to get 5 years of full MLE.

Allow me to clarify my point of view in very simple terms:

It was speculated in articles/posts that Posey would pick his option.
It was speculated in articles/posts that some team would offer Posey a 5yrs/MLE.

The above scenarios are both unrealistic, as I've stated before.

  Before free agency started people on this blog and in the media thought that it was going to take 5 years of MLE to sign Posey. It's now seen as unrealistic because it hasn't happened. How does the full MLE at 4 years become realistic? It's the same type of speculation that you're labeling as unrealistic.

Posey has been offered a 3year/MLE deal. (disregarding peanuts to sign rookies).
Posey is asking for a 4year/MLE contract and will immediately sign it, if offered.

Can we agree in these?

  First of all, rookie money might not be peanuts, it might be $700k or so. Second of all, it's just speculation that Posey's been offered 3 years of the full MLE.

My point is that if I was Danny Ainge, I'd match a 4year/MLE offer to keep Posey. You wouldn't. Is this a fair description?

  I'm not in the "we can't win the title without Posey" camp. I don't think he's worth that money but if they can pay him that without hampering their budget then I don't mind.

[cordobes]

There may not be big men worth the MLE this year, but I think people are overlooking the fact that next year, or the year after that, that money that we don't lock up on Posey could be very beneficial for signings. There will probably be people we can go after, that might very well suit our needs.

However, it's a win-now situation, so it's really to me completely the management's call.. If they think the window can be longer the other way around, then so be it =P We might be able to sign someone next year, that opens our window even longer.

So in order to not make the bench a complete disaster this year, you could sign Ricky Davis to a 1 year, MLE contract if that's the belief.
 

  So you think without Posey our bench is a complete disaster?

I think that not exercising the MLE for budgetary restrictions this year means that our bench will be a complete disaster. At least, it's a very reasonable expectation.

Your reasons to not sign Posey because of budgetary restrictions - re-signing Powe, wait for the next free-agency period, etc - are valid to any other player.