Posey will opt out, House wants to return

[Hrvoje]

I'm not shocked by this at all either, but why start announcing these things now? The teams full focus should be on winning game 5 and getting the championship, anything else is a distraction until that goal is complete. Why have his celtic teammates worrying about next year when we still have this year to finish??

Exactly.

[P2]

Easy decision.

Give Posey the MLE and start whittling down the end of the bench.

Buh-bye, Tony Allen.

At the contrary. If we spend all the MLE on Posey, there's a good chance we keep Tony just because he doesn't take away any of the exceptions we can use to sign other players.

Exactly. The Tony situation fully depends on Posey. If Posey will opt out (which has a 90% chance right now) and re-signed at the full MLE, Tony will be re-signed for a bargain contract so that we aren't left with holes on the bench. But also, the maximum House would be able to get is the LLE, and other teams might offer more.

If we don't re-sign Posey, Tony is gone and we will use the MLE to find a backup SF, and use the rest of the MLE to re-sign House. The rookie will be a backup SG or a veteran minimum player.

Posey in --> Tony in, House out
Posey out --> Tony out, House in

[cordobes]

The only way I can see for us to keep Posey is by offering him a $25M/5 years contract using the non-bird exception. That would allow us to use the MLE on a backup center and a backup pg. But I don't know if the ownership buys this, and I can't blame them if they don't. We can't afford to spend the full-MLE in Posey (unless there are a couple of good veterans willing to play for the min a la PJ Brown and we use the LLE to resign House). 

[nickagneta]

The only way I can see for us to keep Posey is by offering him a $25M/5 years contract using the non-bird exception. That would allow us to use the MLE on a backup center and a backup pg. But I don't know if the ownership buys this, and I can't blame them if they don't. We can't afford to spend the full-MLE in Posey (unless there are a couple of good veterans willing to play for the min a la PJ Brown and we use the LLE to resign House). 

You want to give a five year $25 million contract to a 32 year old player who LeBron James and Kobe Bryant have already proven has lost the speed on his first step and whom you can exploit if you are young and have that quick first step speed and agility.

I wouldn't. That's just not smart business in my book. 2-3 years into that contract when SFs league wide are starting to blow by James, that contract is going tobe an albatross considering the Celtics will probably be over the luxury tax threshold.

[hpantazo]

The only way I can see for us to keep Posey is by offering him a $25M/5 years contract using the non-bird exception. That would allow us to use the MLE on a backup center and a backup pg. But I don't know if the ownership buys this, and I can't blame them if they don't. We can't afford to spend the full-MLE in Posey (unless there are a couple of good veterans willing to play for the min a la PJ Brown and we use the LLE to resign House). 

You want to give a five year $25 million contract to a 32 year old player who LeBron James and Kobe Bryant have already proven has lost the speed on his first step and whom you can exploit if you are young and have that quick first step speed and agility.

I wouldn't. That's just not smart business in my book. 2-3 years into that contract when SFs league wide are starting to blow by James, that contract is going tobe an albatross considering the Celtics will probably be over the luxury tax threshold.

yea, maybe he is slowing down a bit, but he has been huge for us in the playoffs and we have realistically, 2-3 more good years with this big three, so I would do it, 2-3 years of james posey being big game james off our bench for paying him for 5 years is worth it

[fairweatherfan]

I think we should offer him the MLE, but not for 5 years - maybe 4, 3 if we can get away with it.  San Antonio in particular I think will make a hard push for the new Robert Horry to help support their Big 3.  Either way, Posey is a huge part of this run and will be a great asset for any future runs we'd hope to make.

As far as TA goes, dump him, but I'm not sure why we can't keep Eddie as a part-time backup PG and a backup SG against teams with smaller or slower backcourts, or cross-match Eddie with the opponent PG and let Rondo harrass the SG.  This lineup would work well against lesser teams, but would probably not be usable for most of the playoffs.  I think the advantages of a proven deadeye shooter and hustle guy off the bench outweigh the negatives of keeping him, though.

[nickagneta]

That's bad business. Wanting to reward a guy who already got paid for his contributions this year by giving him a contract that you know he won't be able to perform up to is wasting valuable money.

I wouldn't offer him more than $4 million per for 3 years out of the MLE and use the rest on a backup big like Mourning possibly or maybe PJ Brown if he wants to return.

With the C's over the luxury tax level that $25 million for an old bench player could be like paying $50 million. That's just nuts and again bad, bad business and the reason teams can't sustain greatness.

[Roy Hobbs]

The only way I can see for us to keep Posey is by offering him a $25M/5 years contract using the non-bird exception. That would allow us to use the MLE on a backup center and a backup pg. But I don't know if the ownership buys this, and I can't blame them if they don't. We can't afford to spend the full-MLE in Posey (unless there are a couple of good veterans willing to play for the min a la PJ Brown and we use the LLE to resign House). 

Here's the most we can offer Posey in each year using the non-Bird exception:

Year 1: $3,847,200 (20% raise from this year's salary)
Year 2: $4,154,976 (8% raise from Year 1 salary)
Year 3: $4,487,374 (8% raise from Year 2 salary)
Year 4: $4,846,364 (8% raise from Year 3 salary)
Year 5: $5,234,073 (8% raise from Year 4 salary)

Non-Bird deals are limited to five years.

Thus, the largest contract we can offer is:

One year deal:   $ 3,477,200
Two year deal:   $ 8,002,176
Three year deal: $12,489,550
Four year deal:  $17,335,914
Five year deal:  $22,569,987

While those figures are reasonable for Boston, they're really not for Posey.  Assuming the $5.8 million starting figure for the MLE is correct, another team could offer Posey a three year deal worth $18,829,120, or $1.5 million more than we could offer with the non-Bird exception on a four year deal.

I really think if we're going to retain Posey, we're going to have to use our own MLE, unfortunately enough.

[johnnyrondo]

I don't like when reporters bring this stuff up, during the middle of a series (or before the conclusion of the playoffs). It seems like reporters love that type of distraction stuff (spygate for example). Obviously Posey is going to opt out. No need to bring this up now. Reminds me of something Max Mercy would write.

[Chief]

Even if Posey does not come back, you got to think Boston will be the new destination of aging veterans looking for a title. I'd take Matt Barnes if Posey wanted big money else where.

[EJPLAYA]

The only way I can see for us to keep Posey is by offering him a $25M/5 years contract using the non-bird exception. That would allow us to use the MLE on a backup center and a backup pg. But I don't know if the ownership buys this, and I can't blame them if they don't. We can't afford to spend the full-MLE in Posey (unless there are a couple of good veterans willing to play for the min a la PJ Brown and we use the LLE to resign House). 

You want to give a five year $25 million contract to a 32 year old player who LeBron James and Kobe Bryant have already proven has lost the speed on his first step and whom you can exploit if you are young and have that quick first step speed and agility.

I wouldn't. That's just not smart business in my book. 2-3 years into that contract when SFs league wide are starting to blow by James, that contract is going tobe an albatross considering the Celtics will probably be over the luxury tax threshold.

I agree 100% on this one Nickagenta. 5 years is too long to pay that kind of money for a role player turning 32. 2-3 years is perfectly fine. We would regret that contract in 3 years. We do need to find a way to convince him though. We wouldn't be where we are without him.

I disagree with the House part though. I don't think we can find a guy for that kind of money that can bring us what this guy does. I'd sign him as well for 2-3 years. If Pruitt doesn't work out then we can look at adding a vet later in the year like the atrocious Sam pick-up. (with hopefully better results)

[BudweiserCeltic]

Easy decision.

Give Posey the MLE and start whittling down the end of the bench.

Buh-bye, Tony Allen.

At the contrary. If we spend all the MLE on Posey, there's a good chance we keep Tony just because he doesn't take away any of the exceptions we can use to sign other players.  I wouldn't give up on Tony just yet, even though it has been spot minutes here and there, I think he has been quite decent and composed during the playoffs (sure not a big enough sample to really determine). But I wouldn't be surprised if he plays much much better from next year on.

With that said I want House back too. I loved it when we signed him and I love PG's that can shoot.

No argument on House; plenty on Tony. I don't like unintelligent, mental mistake-prone players and I frankly don't think there's room for Tony on this roster. I'd like to send him on his way and use the roster spot on a more intelligent contributor.

Tony is not the bum he's being made out to be... he had a down year, with his recovery and all, but I think his "dumbness" and "mistake-prone" characteristics have been overstated quite a bit. First lets consider that he has been used out of position for most if not all the year. There's a slim chance of that happening from next year on.

And you talk about using the roster spot for a more intelligent contributor, but how? Who? And is this intelligent contributor even skilled?

I don't think we'll be able to find someone as afordable as Tony Allen is, with his defensive skillset, even though he is "mistake prone". I really doubt we'll be able to afford/acquire anyone better than what Tony Allen brings. Also, we should have plenty of roster spots available, so I don't see any downside in keeping Tony AND go after this intelligent player you talk about. As I said, keeping Tony Allen doesn't hinder our ability to get other talent... only in luxury tax, but that's all up to what the owners are willing to spend, nothing to do with basketball/roster implications.

Tony Allen is fairly down in our current roster, and with the role he plays in it, I really don't see who we could acquire that would be any better than what Tony Allen already brings, and I really think he still has plenty of room to improve and contribute even more.

[nickagneta]

Thanks Roy I just knew when I saw you posting elsewhere you'ld come in with your usually and sometimes unappreciated facts on the contracts and basketball business knowledge. TP.

I love Big Game. I really do. But the whole MLE for three years for a guy who's first step has already shown to be deteriorating is too much in my opinion. Just because other teams are willing to overspend doesn't mean we should.

Make a deal for a younger version or sign someone like Matt Barnes for the same type deal Posey got.

But again just my opinion and if they went with the MLE over 3 years I won't say I'm disappointed in the deal because I do like Posey and his game that much. His locker room presence alone is worth the value of half that contract. But I'd hate 3 years from now for that contract to be a heavy chain around our financial necks.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Thanks Roy I just knew when I saw you posting elsewhere you'ld come in with your usually and sometimes unappreciated facts on the contracts and basketball business knowledge. TP.

I love Big Game. I really do. But the whole MLE for three years for a guy who's first step has already shown to be deteriorating is too much in my opinion. Just because other teams are willing to overspend doesn't mean we should.

Make a deal for a younger version or sign someone like Matt Barnes for the same type deal Posey got.

But again just my opinion and if they went with the MLE over 3 years I won't say I'm disappointed in the deal because I do like Posey and his game that much. His locker room presence alone is worth the value of half that contract. But I'd hate 3 years from now for that contract to be a heavy chain around our financial necks.

I've been lobbying for Barnes for quite a bit now. He should be quite affordable. Last year he couldn't get a good contract, and this year he didn't play better than the previous one, so I don't see him getting a bigger contract. He should be quite affordable, and he can play multiple positions, knock down the three, penetrate... he can be very useful in a team like ours.

[nickagneta]

The only way I can see for us to keep Posey is by offering him a $25M/5 years contract using the non-bird exception. That would allow us to use the MLE on a backup center and a backup pg. But I don't know if the ownership buys this, and I can't blame them if they don't. We can't afford to spend the full-MLE in Posey (unless there are a couple of good veterans willing to play for the min a la PJ Brown and we use the LLE to resign House). 

You want to give a five year $25 million contract to a 32 year old player who LeBron James and Kobe Bryant have already proven has lost the speed on his first step and whom you can exploit if you are young and have that quick first step speed and agility.

I wouldn't. That's just not smart business in my book. 2-3 years into that contract when SFs league wide are starting to blow by James, that contract is going tobe an albatross considering the Celtics will probably be over the luxury tax threshold.

I agree 100% on this one Nickagenta. 5 years is too long to pay that kind of money for a role player turning 32. 2-3 years is perfectly fine. We would regret that contract in 3 years. We do need to find a way to convince him though. We wouldn't be where we are without him.

I disagree with the House part though. I don't think we can find a guy for that kind of money that can bring us what this guy does. I'd sign him as well for 2-3 years. If Pruitt doesn't work out then we can look at adding a vet later in the year like the atrocious Sam pick-up. (with hopefully better results)

BTW EJ, off topic but real quick. I would like to apologize for some of the heated arguments we had over Sam Cassell. I was wrong about him and you were right and I wanted to acknowledge publically that I was wrong. He was a complete and utter waist. When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong and TP for you and for me not seeing your insight.

All that said I don't see Eddie back. I think the luxury tax might be a bigger deal than some here are thinking and that maybe someone cheaper like a Kenyon Dooling or the guy from Washington Roger Mason might come as a real bargain. Besides I see Pruitt being given a bunch of run as well.