The idea that paying $7 million to a player is going to make a franchise inviable, or will have a major impact in its value, profitability and future, is so nonsense and out-of-the-world that I don't even know what to say.
I agree 100%. But please explain to me where that was discussed because it wasn't said or discussed here. You are taking stated overviews as a business system as a whole and now interjecting a particular circumstance and taking it to the extreme. Which is of course exactly what I said someone would do when I wrote this:
Of course specific examples of all the things that could result are too numerous to get into and if I attempted to use an example, most counter arguments would center on the breaking down of that specific example to the ridiculous simply to prove the entire concept wrong, so I am not going to delve into specific examples as to what could or will occur.
Which is again why I will agree with you said but not address the comment as a whole.
Nobody is talking about offering a big extension to Pierce or Ray Allen. Nobody is discussing Rondo's extension - and that will be a big decision, in terms of future and fiscal responsibility. Nobody is saying we must spend the MLE again next year (I don't think we should, precisely for fiscal reasons). Nobody is saying to re-sign Posey and House with the NBE and use the other exceptions to sign new players. I don't even care if the team decides to save the LLE this year for budgetary reasons. We're talking about 1 year, one freaking year, in a MidLevel contract.
Actually I am indirectly talking about all those things because when deciding as to the length of Posey's contract all those factors need to be considered and how a five year fiull MLE contract will affect all those other factors vs a contract of less money and/or less years.
Directly, you are the one talking about one freaking year.
I believe that making a discussion about if a Mid-Level player is worthy a 3 years or a 4 years contract into a proper business management vs win at all costs attitudes discussion is a gigantic fallacy. Strictus sense, we broke from fiscal responsibility when Ainge offered that extension to Garnett, didn't we? The same mistake that cost your company serious money is the same mistake you're making in the present analysis: confusing strategy with logistics, the important with the irrelevant.
Couple of points. No we did not break from fiscal responsibility when we extended Garnett. We extended Garnett for less money every year than he is currently making. He has proven to still be a top 3-5 player in the league and has been extended at less than top 3-5 money. I find that fiscally prudent to be paying a player for less than market value.
Strategy and logistics run hand in hand and hence both are relevant. Good strategy with bad logitics or vice versa is a recipe for financial disaster. Breaking one up without compensating on the other is as wrong a business mistake as one can make.
And once again the discussion is not over the specifics of just a 3 to four year contract. It is how that contract can affect other contracts, other decisions and set bad precedent that can ruin the model as a whole.
I'd ask you to show us a credible scenery where paying an additional $7M in salaries in 2011/2012 will curb the future of this franchise, if you please. What's exactly going to happen in 2012? The franchise will be sacrificing the future due to not be in position of landing a big FA in 2011 because they have that expiring in the books, is that it?
Otherwise, and until I read someone using the "win at any cost" approach as you describe it, I'll consider the use of this fallacy (as well as any use of argument from authority) extremely distasteful and fear-mongering. I would understand a fiscally responsible position like "don't spend the MLE at all this year, Posey is not worth of it". A "we should offer him 3 years, but that 4th year will jeopardize our entire future" fiscally responsible position is not respectable. It would be last Summer, centered in Garnett's extension. But not when the issues is a MLE contract.
The only reason for Ainge to offer a 3 year contract is being safe that Posey won't get a 4 year offer somewhere else. I'm pretty sure that Ainge will match any 4 year offer for Posey, if he's given the chance.
I am sorry if my discussion of this subject has introduced fear into your life that you then feel the need to overreact to the point of calling the idea and entire discussion a fallacy.
The idea of win at all costs is that we pay whatever we need to pay to retain Posey and/or anyone because he is invaluable to the situation and we only have so much time to win, is I believe a much greater fallacy.
Our three year window is already one year over. It ends, in the opinion of many, with the end of Ray Allen's contract. So giving Posey a 5 year full MLE to ensure the continuation of a three year window two more years is fiscally irresponsible. Because it is feasible to replace Posey for those two years using proper business management techniques and options available, still win the championships and still not to be burdened with a contract that, if at the end of that 2nd year of the contract Posey has a sizable diminishing in his skill and output, might be and probably will be costing the team upwards of $42 million dollars between paying the player and pay the luxury tax on that contract.
Here's the Celtics salary situation:
http://hoopshype.com/salaries/boston.htmThe financial realities of that 2010-2011 year, the third of Posey's contract where he will be earning about $6.5 million is that between Posey, Pierce, Garnett, and Perkins the Celtics will be paying $47.5 million to 4 players(a 33 yo Posey, a 33 yo Garnett, a 32 yo Pierce and Perk in the last year of his contract. If the Celtics are smart they will have extended Rondo and a $55 Million 6 year extension would probably be pretty close to what he will be worth so in 2010-2011 that would be worth around $8 million that year. So we are at $55.5 million with 5 players. Add in a million and change for that years first rounder and the third year of Giddens contract and that's about another $3 million. $58.5 million for seven players.
Here's the kicker. What becomes of Ray's salary? If they let it expire, they are screwed because they have no cap space to replace him. That is pretty self evident. So, logic dictates they will trade him before the trading deadline that year if so expect at the very least $16.5 million being on the payrol at least through the 2011 season and probably longer.
That throws them over the luxury tax in 2010-2011 and maybe longer and that is with 8 maybe nine guys signed.
Who says if the Celtics haven't won it all that ownership will allow management to continue to spend to that level. If that decision is made then maybe Ray's contract does expire. We are left with a team of 2 aging max contracts, a full MLE on the books for 3 years for a bench player, 2 promising young starters and a whole lot of developing flotsam and jetsam and we are at the cap. That spells big trouble for the competitiveness of this team if management is now under orders to fill out the rest of the roster while not hitting the lottery number.
So instead of having $7 million a year to play around with in flexibilty for that and the next two years to help rebuild while not going over the luxury tax the Celtics are stuck with him, his decreasing skills and a lack of flexibility to help extend the window of opportunity or start over.
Do I really need to list the teams that have been building and rebuilding while staying under the luxruy tax waiting to get good enough and have enough chips to cash in and go over the luxury tax and finally make a run. Let's just say that the amount of teams that have been doing that for more than a decade are over 20.
Is that a viable enough scenario that states that maybe being prudent with the money being throw at a 31 year old bench player and the number of years involved because it could trickle down and effect long term and effectiness, viability and valuation of the franchise as a whole.
Wyc and his group paid $360 million for this team when they sucked back at the end of 2002 when the franchise was worth only $274. They were good but not champions.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/32/biz_07nba_Boston-Celtics_326173.htmlThey are now valued at $381 million and are champions. What could they get for the franchise on the open market right now as currently constructed?
Now imagine what happens to the value of the franchise and what it could be sold for if after 2009-2010 things change and the team takes a turn for the worst, and maybe for a while.
Look at the charts on that Forbes page and look at the value, operating expenses and revenue back in the years where they had been exceptionally bad for a long time(98, 99, 00, 01). Do you think that ownership would ever want to return to those types of numbers?
Would Posey's contract be the determining reason for something like that to happen, no.
Could it be a contributing factor that compounds when looking at the entire picture and state of the Celtics as a whole and how the are contructed? [dang] straight it is.