Win a Championship or Die Trying?

[PhoSita]

LOL...It's easy to spend OPM. Our Government has made an art of it.

It's a business...you don't invest further in a business/team that is showing stagnant growth. When a team shows they're on the right track by over achieving, perhaps a step away from the finals and in need of a special piece, that's when you make the investment.

Not to take a wild swing or after a season of underachievement. If I were the ownership of the Celtics, I would like to see that my two best young players can play together before I pay a salary tax.

This is a frame that accepts as a given that we should care about the owners' finances.

I understand that the owners care about protecting their profit margin, but that doesn't mean we have to be cool with it.

I have no sympathy for the owners.  They ought to spend as much as possible every year.


My only sympathy is with arguments that talk about allocation of team building resources.  If there are advantages to team building to spending less money now rather than in the future, then that's a fair point to me.

If it's just "well the owners don't want to pay unless the team is good enough in their eyes," that certainly makes some sense, but only if you accept that the owners aren't expected to spend as much money as possible up to the point that it is detrimental to the long term team building plan.

[Big333223]

It looks more like the C's are positioning themselves to be able to make a big deal next summer. I think that's what this is all about, not about saving money per se but saving flexibility.

That said, if Fournier wants $20 mil a year, I think you pay it and he'll be moveable and maybe even an asset in acquiring a big name next year.

[Celtics4ever]

Really? How about win a championship or pay a lot of luxury taxes trying?

#PayFournier

Do you think we'd win a championship with resigning Fournier because I don't think we would.

It looks more like the C's are positioning themselves to be able to make a big deal next summer. I think that's what this is all about, not about saving money per se but saving flexibility.

Agree,

[td450]

Morris. Rozier. Horford. Hayward. Fournier.

All guys ownership did not pay the last 3 seasons and let walk away for basically nothing. Ownership is cheaping out. Fans literally cheering them signing bad players to one year deals is mind boggling. Cs guaranteed an 8 seed/first round exit next season.

It's funny that you mention those four, given there is a consensus that all four of them were significantly overpaid. If Fournier secures $20m a season, then he'll join them too.

How does a team find the balance between "cheaping out" and overpaying role players like Morris and Rozier?

Btw, Jeff Green and Rudy Gay are as good as Morris.

Sometimes you need to overpay to keep talent but apparently that isn’t the ultimate goal for the Cs this season. No one on the roster outside of JT and JB will be here next year if they are just gearing up for FA 2022. Guess they are putting all their eggs into that basket. This year is shaping up to be another bridge year.

Let's just stipulate that they aren't positioning for free agency. Do you pay Fournier then?

Worst strategy in the league is paying guys at his level the top number they can fetch in free agency. So, this becomes an asset decision, and nothing more.

You pick a number where the odds are still pretty good that the contract will be a positive asset. Fournier is not a foundational player, especially for a team built around Tatum and Brown. I'd put the limit at $16M tops.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Really? How about win a championship or pay a lot of luxury taxes trying?

#PayFournier

Do you think we'd win a championship with resigning Fournier because I don't think we would.

It looks more like the C's are positioning themselves to be able to make a big deal next summer. I think that's what this is all about, not about saving money per se but saving flexibility.

Agree,

Paying less doesn't always mean more flexibility, it may also simply mean less assets to use. If what we require is a trade, then having more assets gives us more flexibility. The only real consideration is the hard cap in this scenario (if its a S&T) and how we'll get below that, but by the same token you're able to keep more players of interest in the roster... assuming they're of interest.

So in the end, it really just depends.