Is DAnny making a qualifying offer to Tony tonight or not??

[wdleehi]

I've no qualms about relying on Giddens

Tony Allen doesn't have some huge important role on the team. The Celtics ran a three men on their wings in the playoffs with Pierce/Ray/Posey. As long as that trio is solid as a rock they can rely on a rookie for backup.

If Posey (1) leaves and (2) is not replaced. Then relying on Giddens is mistake.

You're one injury away from relying on a rookie though. We were very fortune last year as I said. We can't take it for granted.

I mean, what happened to all the talk about depth? What's wrong with it? It's overrated till you need it you know.

I've no qualms about relying on Giddens

Tony Allen doesn't have some huge important role on the team. The Celtics ran a three men on their wings in the playoffs with Pierce/Ray/Posey. As long as that trio is solid as a rock they can rely on a rookie for backup.

If Posey (1) leaves and (2) is not replaced. Then relying on Giddens is mistake.

look at Detroit.  They went with two rookies much of the season.



Boston used a rookie last year in spot duty at the 4/5.   Why not use a rookie for spot duty at the 2/3?

Other than Stuckey... how did the other rookies pan out during the playoffs?

How many got actual minutes on the top teams?  (thus ignoring Hortford)

Ah, so now we're back to the whole "if he doesn't get the minutes he can't produce" argument. Big Baby was quite bad during the playoffs, wether he got minutes or not.

Horford is a stud... so now we have a Horford in Giddens? Wow, not bad for a 30th pick that many here didn't want get drafted (wanted someone else). I know I'm putting words in your mouth, but you know... it's a bad idea to expect a rookie to produce and to rely on him.

I said

How many got actual minutes on the top teams?  (thus ignoring Hortford)

for the purpose of not looking at lotto picks in this discussion. 

I want to compare the Celtics rookies to the other good teams rookies (the ones likely picked in the 20s or later)

Davis did make his contributions during the season and playoffs.  They were small, but that is all the Celtics needed.


TA made his contributions during the season and playoffs.  They to were small, but that is all the Celtics needed.



Celtics do not need a guy that is going to play 15-20 minutes a night.  They need a guy that can play spot minutes.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I've no qualms about relying on Giddens

Tony Allen doesn't have some huge important role on the team. The Celtics ran a three men on their wings in the playoffs with Pierce/Ray/Posey. As long as that trio is solid as a rock they can rely on a rookie for backup.

If Posey (1) leaves and (2) is not replaced. Then relying on Giddens is mistake.

You're one injury away from relying on a rookie though. We were very fortune last year as I said. We can't take it for granted.

I mean, what happened to all the talk about depth? What's wrong with it? It's overrated till you need it you know.

I've no qualms about relying on Giddens

Tony Allen doesn't have some huge important role on the team. The Celtics ran a three men on their wings in the playoffs with Pierce/Ray/Posey. As long as that trio is solid as a rock they can rely on a rookie for backup.

If Posey (1) leaves and (2) is not replaced. Then relying on Giddens is mistake.

look at Detroit.  They went with two rookies much of the season.



Boston used a rookie last year in spot duty at the 4/5.   Why not use a rookie for spot duty at the 2/3?

Other than Stuckey... how did the other rookies pan out during the playoffs?

How many got actual minutes on the top teams?  (thus ignoring Hortford)

Ah, so now we're back to the whole "if he doesn't get the minutes he can't produce" argument. Big Baby was quite bad during the playoffs, wether he got minutes or not.

Horford is a stud... so now we have a Horford in Giddens? Wow, not bad for a 30th pick that many here didn't want get drafted (wanted someone else). I know I'm putting words in your mouth, but you know... it's a bad idea to expect a rookie to produce and to rely on him.

I said

How many got actual minutes on the top teams?  (thus ignoring Hortford)

for the purpose of not looking at lotto picks in this discussion. 

I want to compare the Celtics rookies to the other good teams rookies (the ones likely picked in the 20s or later)

Davis did make his contributions during the season and playoffs.  They were small, but that is all the Celtics needed.


TA made his contributions during the season and playoffs.  They to were small, but that is all the Celtics needed.



Celtics do not need a guy that is going to play 15-20 minutes a night.  They need a guy that can play spot minutes.

I completely agree with you... but ONE injury would change that and quickly, which was my main point.  If Pierce or Allen or Posey go down, I want someone more that can play those positions other than Giddens and possibly Pruitt.

Two big X factors, and going into the season counting on them to produce when you were fully capable of adding depth to the team at the only expense of your owner's money, I think it's a mistake.

I thought the idea of this offseason was to improve our team, not move laterally, while it may be fine to stay pretty much the same, there's no reason to stay the same over improving the team and finding a real replacement for Tony or keeping Tony himself makes this team stronger. I don't know how that can be argued.

Let me put my position into better perspective. I think this team doesn't need Tony. We're fine as we are capable of winning everything again... BUT the discussion as I see it is about what makes our team better or not, not wether we're fine or not.

[Jon]

I know it's the offseason and we don't have much to talk about, but this is getting a little ridiculous.  What exactly did Tony Allen do for us last season?  The only meaningful game I can think of off the top of my head was the game he played point for us when Rondo was out against the Lakers.  Without that game...we would have only won 65 games. 

Furthermore, no one had a problem with Big Baby getting PT in the playoffs, and he was a rookie.  Furthermore, Rondo and Powe both managed to be more productive than Allen in the playoffs despite having less experience.  On top of that, Giddens is hardly an unpolished freshman.  He's a senior who knows how to play. 

Even more importantly, we're talking about a 6-4 shooting guard in Allen.  He's not that hard to replace.  We just need to try to sign Posey.  If Posey comes back, there's no worries as Giddens will just need to play 5-10 minutes a game in the regular season with probably very few minutes in the postseason.  If Posey doesn't come back, we'll need to upgrade at the 2/3 spot.  But some people on this board seem to forget that we're no longer a 24 win disaster.  Free agents want to come here now.  It shouldn't be hard to pick up solid vets, particularly at the 2/3 spot, which is far easier to fill than the 1 or 4/5. 

[wdleehi]

I completely agree with you... but ONE injury would change that and quickly, which was my main point.  If Pierce or Allen or Posey go down, I want someone more that can play those positions other than Giddens and possibly Pruitt.

Two big X factors, and going into the season counting on them to produce when you were fully capable of adding depth to the team at the only expense of your owner's money, I think it's a mistake.

I thought the idea of this offseason was to improve our team, not move laterally, while it may be fine to stay pretty much the same, there's no reason to stay the same over improving the team and finding a real replacement for Tony or keeping Tony himself makes this team stronger. I don't know how that can be argued.

We do not know what their plan is.


But we do have a good sense that the qualifying offer is higher then TA probably contract value around the league.  



And we are pretty sure that TA is an inconsistent player off the bench.  He has shown to be an average player starting, but that is not in the cards in Boston.

[cordobes]

Bud,

Even if we just resign House and stay pad not adding another guard, I'd have to think very well if I want to resign Allen or leave the spot open.

Rondo, Pruitt, House, Allen, Giddens. If an injury happens, we can always add another guy, depending on who gets injured. There are always plenty of guards available for the min sallary, especially SGs. Also, this gives us more flexibility if someone in our frontcourt goes down. I mean, imagine we sign Zo as our backup center. Imagine if he suffers an injury. What to you do next?

[BudweiserCeltic]

Bud,

Even if we just resign House and stay pad not adding another guard, I'd have to think very well if I want to resign Allen or leave the spot open.

Rondo, Pruitt, House, Allen, Giddens. If an injury happens, we can always add another guy, depending on who gets injured. There are always plenty of guards available for the min sallary, especially SGs. Also, this gives us more flexibility if someone in our frontcourt goes down. I mean, imagine we sign Zo as our backup center. Imagine if he suffers an injury. What to you do next?

In case you missed it, the post was kinda lost as the last post in page 3, here was my response to you on what I think are the ways to best improve our team (it assumes we have Posey btw):

From the scenarios that you have painted, this is what we have to weight in:

2 back-up PG's signed + Tony = In no way do I want this, unless a trade is in the making.
2 back-up PG's signed + Center = Makes sense, one of the back-up PG's needs to be a big one in my opinion.
1 back-up PG signed + Tony + Center = This would be my preffered arrangement... it could be House, it could be anyone.
1 back-up PG signed + 2 Centers = I also like this one, but once again it'll make BBD and Scal more than expendable. Look for some sort of trade.
1 back-up PG signed + 1 Center = Could work, depending on who the PG is and who the Center is.

With all of these, I'd preffer if either Walker is not part of the roster (signed by Euroleague, though I hope they don't release him), that they can muster up some trade of some kind that will take BBD and Scal away for a big man, or simply buy-out Scal and keep his roster open.  I really don't care much of what type of big man we get to tell you the truth, I see more value on the open roster... but some serviceable big-man to add some depth to our center position can be good. If not a big man, then for a serviceable big powerforward, or powerforward period... as long as we get that roster spot open.

*In the scenarios above you can substitute a PG with a SG who can also play some PG.

I completely agree with you... but ONE injury would change that and quickly, which was my main point.  If Pierce or Allen or Posey go down, I want someone more that can play those positions other than Giddens and possibly Pruitt.

Two big X factors, and going into the season counting on them to produce when you were fully capable of adding depth to the team at the only expense of your owner's money, I think it's a mistake.

I thought the idea of this offseason was to improve our team, not move laterally, while it may be fine to stay pretty much the same, there's no reason to stay the same over improving the team and finding a real replacement for Tony or keeping Tony himself makes this team stronger. I don't know how that can be argued.

We do not know what their plan is.


But we do have a good sense that the qualifying offer is higher then TA probably contract value around the league.  

Yep, I don't know what they plan is either... I just don't like many of the plans that have been suggested around here.

I've said it plenty of times before, I'm fine with them not offering a qualifying offer, that's a different argument. This is about keeping Tony or not, from my side at least I'm not arguing wether DA made a mistake or not in not offering the QO... I'm simply arguing on the merits of keeping TA period OR getting someone capable of replacing him in addition to Giddens; Giddens is not his replacement in my opinion.

[Who]

I've no qualms about relying on Giddens

Tony Allen doesn't have some huge important role on the team. The Celtics ran a three men on their wings in the playoffs with Pierce/Ray/Posey. As long as that trio is solid as a rock they can rely on a rookie for backup.

If Posey (1) leaves and (2) is not replaced. Then relying on Giddens is mistake.

look at Detroit.  They went with two rookies much of the season.

Boston used a rookie last year in spot duty at the 4/5.   Why not use a rookie for spot duty at the 2/3?

Yeah .... Detroit are a good example. Look at three areas of their team

(1) Backcourt
(2) Wings
(3) Bigs

They were fine in the backcourt because Stuckey was combined with a dependable vet in Lindsey Hunter

They were fine in the frontcourt because Amir/Maxiell had Theo

They were in trouble on the wings because the only veteran wasn't worth his pay - Jarvis Hayes. If Detroit had a decent veteran wing who they could rely on come playoff time they would have been in perfect working order and that's with a bench that's mostly youth.

We have James Posey backing up the wings. Giddens is a fine backup for Posey. We have Ray and Paul ahead of him Pose are both capable of 40 minute nights in the playoffs. Having an inexperienced bench player behind an experienced bench player works well. Giddens behind Posey or a Posey replacement is fine.

[Jon]

Why are some people assuming that if Tony and Posey go that we're automatically left with Giddens, Walker, and Pruitt?  Last time I checked there were plenty of other free agents out there that wanted to come to Boston.  Furthermore, the 2/3 spots are the easiest spots in the NBA to find talent. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

Why are some people assuming that if Tony and Posey go that we're automatically left with Giddens, Walker, and Pruitt?  Last time I checked there were plenty of other free agents out there that wanted to come to Boston.  Furthermore, the 2/3 spots are the easiest spots in the NBA to find talent. 

Why do you assume that those plenty of other free agents will want to come when we are left with nothing to offer other than the minimum? And of those that might come for the minimum, that they'll be better than Tony?

[cordobes]

Bud,

Even if we just resign House and stay pad not adding another guard, I'd have to think very well if I want to resign Allen or leave the spot open.

Rondo, Pruitt, House, Allen, Giddens. If an injury happens, we can always add another guy, depending on who gets injured. There are always plenty of guards available for the min sallary, especially SGs. Also, this gives us more flexibility if someone in our frontcourt goes down. I mean, imagine we sign Zo as our backup center. Imagine if he suffers an injury. What to you do next?

In case you missed it, the post was kinda lost as the last post in page 3, here was my response to you on what I think are the ways to best improve our team (it assumes we have Posey btw):

From the scenarios that you have painted, this is what we have to weight in:

2 back-up PG's signed + Tony = In no way do I want this, unless a trade is in the making.
2 back-up PG's signed + Center = Makes sense, one of the back-up PG's needs to be a big one in my opinion.
1 back-up PG signed + Tony + Center = This would be my preffered arrangement... it could be House, it could be anyone.
1 back-up PG signed + 2 Centers = I also like this one, but once again it'll make BBD and Scal more than expendable. Look for some sort of trade.
1 back-up PG signed + 1 Center = Could work, depending on who the PG is and who the Center is.

With all of these, I'd preffer if either Walker is not part of the roster (signed by Euroleague, though I hope they don't release him), that they can muster up some trade of some kind that will take BBD and Scal away for a big man, or simply buy-out Scal and keep his roster open.  I really don't care much of what type of big man we get to tell you the truth, I see more value on the open roster... but some serviceable big-man to add some depth to our center position can be good. If not a big man, then for a serviceable big powerforward, or powerforward period... as long as we get that roster spot open.

*In the scenarios above you can substitute a PG with a SG who can also play some PG.

Yeah, I completely missed it, sorry.

Trades are not happening. Ainge would gladly trade Scal/BBD/any 3rd string player for a serviceable big man, but no team is going to offer that.

Then, first of all we need a long-range shooter in our backourt. Ray Allen is our only guard who can shoot - Rondo can't, Giddens can't, Allen is not the solution here because he can't, Pruitt... meh... it's not going to be him to space the floor in a elimination game in the playoffs.

So, if we can nab a guard who runs the point and can shoot, while not being a complete defensive liability, we may do it. But who is this guy? Also, how can we sign him and still be able to sign a center? If we waste our MLE on Posey, we'll only have the LLE.

If not, I think we should keep House. In that case, I see no place for Tony Allen:
House+center+open spot>House+Allen+center
This because we may need to sign a "Cassell", if Pruitt doesn't do well during the reg. season. It's very important to notice we can keep House with the non-Bird exception, so at least we'd have the LLE available to sign our center (or another guard).

If Walker goes to Europe, as I also think he should (for his own good), then I think Tony could stay. But still, only disregarding money issues and I don't think that's wise - the money they save now is the money they can spend tomorrow, when it can be way more useful. And I've noticed that sending Walker to Europe is very unpopular over here.

In the end: if Walker is not stashed overseas and if we keep one or both of Posey and House via non-Bird contracts (and I think that resigning House that way is doable), I don't think Allen should stay:

- During the reg. season we need to give minutes to the kids.

- Our rotation in the playoffs will be House(or backup pg), Posey, Powe, Center. If one of this guys goes down, I'd rather have an open spot in the roster than Tony Allen.

[BudweiserCeltic]

cordobes, I don't know... but I can see a BBD + Scal being attractive to some. May add a pick if the right situation arises.

You get a young PF with some promise, at worst he expires after this season. Scal expires after next season, not a bad contract to have on the eve of the 2010 free-agent class. There should be some takers out there that would give us the roster flexibility we seek, and maybe just maybe one of their spare PF/C that can be used by the Celtics for emergency situations...

I don't think Scal can be of much use next season becuase we won't have much chips to trade anyways by the look of it, might as well get rid of him now and put his roster spot to use. Unless we want to trade Ray, and that's a whole different discussion. I think a Scal + BBD combination is as good as it's going to get.

[Jon]

Why are some people assuming that if Tony and Posey go that we're automatically left with Giddens, Walker, and Pruitt?  Last time I checked there were plenty of other free agents out there that wanted to come to Boston.  Furthermore, the 2/3 spots are the easiest spots in the NBA to find talent. 

Why do you assume that those plenty of other free agents will want to come when we are left with nothing to offer other than the minimum? And of those that might come for the minimum, that they'll be better than Tony?

Well, last year Posey, Cassell, and Brown chose the C's over other offers, and that was before the C's actually won a title. 

The second reason, Tony Allen isn't that good.  It shouldn't be hard to find a replacement if he leaves. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

Why are some people assuming that if Tony and Posey go that we're automatically left with Giddens, Walker, and Pruitt?  Last time I checked there were plenty of other free agents out there that wanted to come to Boston.  Furthermore, the 2/3 spots are the easiest spots in the NBA to find talent. 

Why do you assume that those plenty of other free agents will want to come when we are left with nothing to offer other than the minimum? And of those that might come for the minimum, that they'll be better than Tony?

Well, last year Posey, Cassell, and Brown chose the C's over other offers, and that was before the C's actually won a title. 

The second reason, Tony Allen isn't that good.  It shouldn't be hard to find a replacement if he leaves. 

Posey was more than the min, so he doesn't count. By the looks of it, we wont have a portion of the MLE to waive around. Cassell and Brown are extremely rare cases, and relying on luck towards the end of the season to get your final pieces isn't my idea of good planning. One came out of retirement, and another got a buyout. None of them really were players during free-agency.

Still, I don't see Tony preventing us from getting deals like that if they arise, if Danny plans it right.

Also, I don't think I've said that I'm opposed to having a suitable replacement for Tony... I'm just quite skeptical that we can find one, and I would hate for Giddens to be the replacement instead of the addition to this team.

[Jon]

Why are some people assuming that if Tony and Posey go that we're automatically left with Giddens, Walker, and Pruitt?  Last time I checked there were plenty of other free agents out there that wanted to come to Boston.  Furthermore, the 2/3 spots are the easiest spots in the NBA to find talent. 

Why do you assume that those plenty of other free agents will want to come when we are left with nothing to offer other than the minimum? And of those that might come for the minimum, that they'll be better than Tony?

Well, last year Posey, Cassell, and Brown chose the C's over other offers, and that was before the C's actually won a title. 

The second reason, Tony Allen isn't that good.  It shouldn't be hard to find a replacement if he leaves. 

Posey was more than the min, so he doesn't count. By the looks of it, we wont have a portion of the MLE to waive around. Cassell and Brown are extremely rare cases, and relying on luck towards the end of the season to get your final pieces isn't my idea of good planning. One came out of retirement, and another got a buyout. None of them really were players during free-agency.

Still, I don't see Tony preventing us from getting deals like that if they arise, if Danny plans it right.

I have no problem with them bringing Allen back; however, I don't think it's some sort of crisis if he leaves.  The guy was the twelfth man this season.  Of everyone who made the playoff roster, he mattered the least.  It's entirely possible if he does comeback, he might not even make the postseason roster next year, depending on the play of guys like Pruitt and Giddens. 

I'm already late for something right now, so I don't have time to go through the entire free agent list, but I'm sure there are guys out there who will be available for the minimum that will be able to take Allen's place if he walks. 

I can only imagine what fans of another team would be thinking right now as we debate the impact Tony Allen's loss could have on this team...

[BudweiserCeltic]

Why are some people assuming that if Tony and Posey go that we're automatically left with Giddens, Walker, and Pruitt?  Last time I checked there were plenty of other free agents out there that wanted to come to Boston.  Furthermore, the 2/3 spots are the easiest spots in the NBA to find talent. 

Why do you assume that those plenty of other free agents will want to come when we are left with nothing to offer other than the minimum? And of those that might come for the minimum, that they'll be better than Tony?

Well, last year Posey, Cassell, and Brown chose the C's over other offers, and that was before the C's actually won a title. 

The second reason, Tony Allen isn't that good.  It shouldn't be hard to find a replacement if he leaves. 

Posey was more than the min, so he doesn't count. By the looks of it, we wont have a portion of the MLE to waive around. Cassell and Brown are extremely rare cases, and relying on luck towards the end of the season to get your final pieces isn't my idea of good planning. One came out of retirement, and another got a buyout. None of them really were players during free-agency.

Still, I don't see Tony preventing us from getting deals like that if they arise, if Danny plans it right.

I have no problem with them bringing Allen back; however, I don't think it's some sort of crisis if he leaves.  The guy was the twelfth man this season.  Of everyone who made the playoff roster, he mattered the least.  It's entirely possible if he does comeback, he might not even make the postseason roster next year, depending on the play of guys like Pruitt and Giddens. 

I'm already late for something right now, so I don't have time to go through the entire free agent list, but I'm sure there are guys out there who will be available for the minimum that will be able to take Allen's place if he walks. 

I can only imagine what fans of another team would be thinking right now as we debate the impact Tony Allen's loss could have on this team...

I don't think it's a crisis... just a simple debate of what's best for our team and what not. As I said in some previous post, the way we are now we can go out and repeat as champions... that's my true belief (filling the C and PG spots of course). But that's irrelevant to me. To me what's of relevance is wether we are better off not replacing Tony (by my definition of replacing him) and letting him walk against keeping Tony or finding a suitable replacement. And if we find a suitable replacement, would he be better than Tony. That's all I'm arguing, not bunching up my panties about how horrible it'll be for the Celtics, or how disastrous it'll be. Far from it. I really like were we are as a team, but I see our team getting better, and if we can get better, there's no reason not to do it.