Maggette says he could be willing to take pay cut to come to Boston

[BCelts]

I'm way too lazy to read 17 pages so maybe this has already been pointed out, but who says Maggette can't play D?

Here you go:

Hollenger on ESPN (insider): "Maggette's defense was what landed him in Mike Dunleavy's doghouse last season. He's an explosive athlete, but not the kind of nimble, quick-footed one who makes for a good defender. As a result, he was out of the starting lineup for much of last season. He also resorts to fouling quite a bit, ranking 11th among small forwards in personals per minute. Some of those are offensive fouls on his drives, but many are reaches and grabs after he's beaten on D. "

Ian Thompson, CNNSI (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1110497/index.htm): ". He'll come out of a timeout playing man-to-man defense when his teammates are in a zone, or he won't know the offensive play because he wasn't paying attention in the huddle--which, believe it or not, is a problem with a lot of guys in this league."

Maggette was benched last year for his lack of defense as widely reported: http://www.clipsnation.com/story/2007/8/8/24650/29577.

He's young, athletic, and seems to have some BB IQ.

Actually, his bball IQ is a serious question.  See above, for example.

Let's face it. the West and The Clippers and not known for defense. From what I saw last year, wost everyone played better defense on the Celtics. I can't say if it's Garnett, coaching, or whatever, but I saw Ray Allen playing his butt off on D and many people said he didn't play any. Same with Pierce, who pretty much shut down Bryant, so maybe he just needs a change in team.

In these 17 pages, the point has been made (by others) that Allen and Pierce have been under-rated defenders during their careers before this past year.  I agree that they were reasonable to good defenders before last year and were only made better by the committment to team defense.

I personally thought the team needed a scorer off the bench. If Posey was getting 25-30 minutes off the bench, I don't see why Meggette couldn't. I like Posey and will be happy if he resigns, but if not I would be okay with Maggette. I think he might even be an inprovement, as they wouldn't always need to have one of the "big 3" on the floor for scoring.

I agree.

[bucknersrevenge]

True.  However, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't make us worse.  And last time I checked, this team went to 7 games in two series, and the Cleveland series came down to 5 points.  So even a slight decrease in production could mean the difference between #18 or not.

We could roll out the same team and lose in the 1st, 2nd or conference final rounds next year. That's why you play the games, as they say.

I'm not totally sold against Maggette; I think he's a good player.  I just seriously question how you fit another scorer onto this team.  Rondo is going to want more shots next year and the Big Three aren't going to want less than they've already given up.  It's not like the Celtics are going to be magically given an extra 15 possessions per game to accommodate Maggette.  I know people talk about needing a scorer off the bench, but if Doc actually got his rotations down a bit better, he could be sure that there's almost always 2 members of the Big Three on the court at all times.  Then there wouldn't be a need for a bench scorer.

Either the core of this team buys into ubuntu or it doesn't. That means it's team first, or me first. There's no I'll put team first, as long as it only costs me 5 PPG off my average, that's me first. The whole point is for players to not even focus on the PPG production, touches, etc., because if that is the focus for the individual, it costs the team. Players either commit to team or they don't. If they don't, we'll probably not see 18 next year, regardless of who we sign.

The only relevent question here is would Maggette commit to team first. GPA have already proven they can put team first. If for some odd reason we lose that mentality, i.e., Pierce decides he wants HIS 20 PPG next year and plays with that mentality, it doesn't matter who we sign. Of course, I don't expect any of these guys to adopt that approach.

I know some of you are laughing at the Maggette/Posey comparison, and on paper it does look laughable.  But there were a ton of people thinking that Gary Payton was a huge upgrade for the Lakers over Derek Fisher in 2003-2004, and that didn't work out because Payton's style didn't mesh with the Laker's triangle.  And that was a seemingly even more lopsided upgrade that didn't work out.

And a ton of people made the same "roll out the balls" argument last year with GPA. Which scenario is more applicable to next year's Celt's?

I think that we're disagreeing on is how much everyone's willing to sacrifice.  You talk about if Pierce wants "his 20 points" next year, there will be problems.  Actually, if the team comes back as currently constructed, all Pierce will need to get "his 20" will be about .5 ppg. 

I think all the Big Three will continue to sacrifice next year.  My only question is how much.  As I already said, Rondo's coming into his own.  I expect his shots to increase.  Throw in Maggette in there--who you think will score 16 ppg--and all of the sudden you're looking at 20 ppg or more, coming from somewhere.  Let's just say that somehow the extra firepower gives us an overall 5 ppg improvement on last year, that's still 15 ppg coming from somewhere.  What I'm saying is that, yes, Ray Allen is into ubuntu, but I don't know how much he's going to be into ubuntu if his ppg average drops from 17 to 12 after it was at 26 two years ago.  Yes, teams come first, but what's the national media going to say about that besides some crazy assertion that Ray Allen's game is slipping?  You talk about how everyone though GPA couldn't all share the basketball last year and they did.  Now you're trying to throw 1 1/2 more players into the mix?  I'm not sure how that works out. 

Also, you talk ubuntu, how does Maggette fit into that?  As I said before, the Big Three only sacrificed numbers.  We're asking Maggette to sacrifice salary, starting, touches, as well as numbers to come here.  Is he going to be hugging the starters before he games?  How's he going to feel when he's benched in every important part of the game? 

My last point that I haven't touched on much is Maggette's age.  I'd be more behind this move if he was in his early to mid 20s.  Sure, he's not old, but he'll be 29 in November, so it's not like he's really any part of Danny's rebuilding effort.  And while you could make the argument that he'll step into Allen's shoes as he slips, as I already said, I don't think that he's a good enough talent to take Allen's place and still maintain a championship mentality.  Furthermore, I don't think his game compliments Pierce's and Garnett's enough to work either.  It's really easy to say that Garnett + 2 great swing scorers = title, however some people forget how different Allen and Pierce really are.  If Ray Allen wasn't the greatest shooter in the game, there probably wouldn't be enough shots to go around for the Big Three.  However, since Ray can partially generate his offense from the weakside, it worked.  I don't think Maggette can do that. 

rajon so far in his career has been a pass first guy who will take the jumpshot when its open. hes not a scoring guard so im not sure how many more shots you expect him to need. the hope is that he recognizes the smarter shots in the offensive sets but i dont see him as a big scorer that will take a lot of shots as his game is still sharing the rock. as for maggette i think hell get his shots simply in the fact that paul and ray probably wont play as many minutes therefore less shots. if paul and ray go down to 32-33 min that gives corey 30 min to play.

another argument for maggette is that during the times we did struggle it was because other teams were more athletic than us and we didnt have much coming off the bench. we also had a tendency to fall in love far too often with the 3 point shot. but thats what happens when your top 2 scorers off the bench are spot up 3pt shooters. nobody else but paul was capable of creating fouls and getting to the line. corey helps with all of those problems. he attacks the rim, less reliance on 3.s brings offense off the bench helping keep paul and ray fresh. having maggette means the other teams dont get a break when paul leaves the game anymore.

mind you i dont think corey is coming but having him does make sense.

[sk7326]

If we signed him - you would be ticked off for years. Where was Posey on 2 years ago Miami team.. ?! That team sucked - and Posey was benched for conditioning failure.

Pete

On the other hand, Wade has said something along the lines of that Posey was a key to the Heat's championship and that not bringing him back was a huge mistake.  It really goes both ways.

Having said all that, there are also contract issues.  Were Posey unwilling to accept less than 5 years, and were Maggette willing to accept a one year deal with a team option, Posey is then introducing significant risk in years 4 and 5 of his contract.  That makes a swing back to Maggette reasonable, although it would be a tough call.  Are we winning now or risking or win now philosophy to look to the future as well?

These are not mutually exclusive goals.  We are defending champions, and all short term moves can be made with that in mind.  However in 3 years there is a legitimate flashpoint for this franchise, when Pierce's deal runs out and KG has one year left.  If Pierce retires, between his retirement, KG's expiring deal, there is a chance to revamp the franchise very quickly.  We must concentrate on the future to the extent that we are prepared for 2011.

The Celtics have to be very very conscientious with what they take on beyond that point.  Posey is a special role player, but he is a role player.  He is 32 and his value exists to the extent that he can contribute to a team that has talent already.  The Celtics should not offer him a 5th year for instance, and really should be wary of accumulating ANY contracts beyond 2011. 

[Jon]

If we signed him - you would be ticked off for years. Where was Posey on 2 years ago Miami team.. ?! That team sucked - and Posey was benched for conditioning failure.

Pete

On the other hand, Wade has said something along the lines of that Posey was a key to the Heat's championship and that not bringing him back was a huge mistake.  It really goes both ways.

Having said all that, there are also contract issues.  Were Posey unwilling to accept less than 5 years, and were Maggette willing to accept a one year deal with a team option, Posey is then introducing significant risk in years 4 and 5 of his contract.  That makes a swing back to Maggette reasonable, although it would be a tough call.  Are we winning now or risking or win now philosophy to look to the future as well?

These are not mutually exclusive goals.  We are defending champions, and all short term moves can be made with that in mind.  However in 3 years there is a legitimate flashpoint for this franchise, when Pierce's deal runs out and KG has one year left.  If Pierce retires, between his retirement, KG's expiring deal, there is a chance to revamp the franchise very quickly.  We must concentrate on the future to the extent that we are prepared for 2011.

The Celtics have to be very very conscientious with what they take on beyond that point.  Posey is a special role player, but he is a role player.  He is 32 and his value exists to the extent that he can contribute to a team that has talent already.  The Celtics should not offer him a 5th year for instance, and really should be wary of accumulating ANY contracts beyond 2011. 

I'm not sure that 2011 is going to be the total rebuilding that some people think it might be.  Pierce will be 34, which is on the early side for retirement for a player of his caliber.  It wouldn't shock me to see Danny hold onto Pierce until KG's contract is done. 

[cordobes]

Saying that someone can play defense because he's athletic and young is like saying that guys with 2 arms, 2 hands and 2 eyes who can jump can be good jump-shooters. 

Quote from: celts55 on Today at 10:07:40 AM
I personally thought the team needed a scorer off the bench. If Posey was getting 25-30 minutes off the bench, I don't see why Meggette couldn't. I like Posey and will be happy if he resigns, but if not I would be okay with Maggette. I think he might even be an inprovement, as they wouldn't always need to have one of the "big 3" on the floor for scoring.

Because we don't know if Maggette can be an effective scorer playing with low UsgRs. I can see Maggette being an improvement on the offensive side when we are resting GPA simultaneously, or even he's replacing Pierce playing along Allen. But how many times this will happen in the playoffs? And we'd be worse defensively in every case. Posey was getting 20-25 minutes in the playoffs because: he can play the 4; he can guard both wing positions; he can play as the weakside wing on the offensive side and our wing starters are both excellent playing on the ball.

[P2]

It's all about flexibility. You can't decide now what you are going to do in 4 years, because you don't even know what will happen this season. That's why you can't commit to paying a soon-to-be 32-year old player whose nickname is "Big Cash James" for the next 4 or 5 years, when he will be 36 and a lot more useless.

[Roy Hobbs]

That's why you can't commit to paying a soon-to-be 32-year old player whose nickname is "Big Cash James" for the next 4 or 5 years, when he will be 36 and a lot more useless.

Why all the vitriol for a player who is trying to get his market value?

[earl]

I think that we're disagreeing on is how much everyone's willing to sacrifice.  You talk about if Pierce wants "his 20 points" next year, there will be problems.  Actually, if the team comes back as currently constructed, all Pierce will need to get "his 20" will be about .5 ppg.

Possibly, I agree with most of your thoughts given the presumption that players to not buy into team first. But that is still aside from my point. If PP is worried about his 20, whether he gets it or not, we're going to have problems and I don't see another finals run. The problem is not whether he gets the points he wants or not, it's whether he's looking for his points (regardless of the number) or to put the team first.

Rondo demanding a ton of shots is a longshot to me. He had trouble not passing up even the wide open bunnies he saw last year. If he takes the shots where he's found open (and can hit a solid %) and when he reaches the basket unobstructed, he'd have progressed considerably (I think he will).

Also, you talk ubuntu, how does Maggette fit into that?  As I said before, the Big Three only sacrificed numbers.  We're asking Maggette to sacrifice salary, starting, touches, as well as numbers to come here.  Is he going to be hugging the starters before he games?  How's he going to feel when he's benched in every important part of the game?

Yep, and that's why I'm not holding my breath on seeing a "Maggette to the Celtics" headline anytime soon. I don't know if he's willing to do that, I personally lean towards not. But I do think he's not too dumb to realize what his role would be if he signed here for the MLE as a backup. If he's willing to do that, then he's probably willing to accept his role. My entire point has been qualified by assuming Maggette is willing to accept his role. I never once suggested that if he came in expecting to be a starter, wanted his touches, etc., that he wouldn't be a problem.

What I do suggest is the following:
- If Maggette is willing to accept his role, he can be a [dang] effective player for us, and an overall upgrade from last year.
- Right now the Celtics consist of the starting five and Powe/BBD. That's a championship core, but an incomplete basketball team at best. We have no bench, and thus no scoring off the bench, and no defense off the bench. We _sorely_ need both to build a championship caliber team for next year.

I really fail to see how you can come to such specific conclusions about points and team defense just by adding Maggette. We'd still have huge holes to fill, those holes would just be different if we were to resign Posey back instead.

[cordobes]

- If Maggette is willing to accept his role, he can be a [dang] effective player for us, and an overall upgrade from last year.

How are you sure about this? Is Maggette that better than Posey as a weakside player who sets screens? I can't see him being the next Dell Curry, so I have serious doubts that he'd make up for the amount we'd lose defensively: directly and indirectly, because we'd have to force Allen/Pierce to defend the best opp. player all the time and they'd be less productive on the offensive side.

[BCelts]

If we signed him - you would be ticked off for years. Where was Posey on 2 years ago Miami team.. ?! That team sucked - and Posey was benched for conditioning failure.

Pete

On the other hand, Wade has said something along the lines of that Posey was a key to the Heat's championship and that not bringing him back was a huge mistake.  It really goes both ways.

Having said all that, there are also contract issues.  Were Posey unwilling to accept less than 5 years, and were Maggette willing to accept a one year deal with a team option, Posey is then introducing significant risk in years 4 and 5 of his contract.  That makes a swing back to Maggette reasonable, although it would be a tough call.  Are we winning now or risking or win now philosophy to look to the future as well?

These are not mutually exclusive goals.  We are defending champions, and all short term moves can be made with that in mind.  However in 3 years there is a legitimate flashpoint for this franchise, when Pierce's deal runs out and KG has one year left.  If Pierce retires, between his retirement, KG's expiring deal, there is a chance to revamp the franchise very quickly.  We must concentrate on the future to the extent that we are prepared for 2011.

The Celtics have to be very very conscientious with what they take on beyond that point.  Posey is a special role player, but he is a role player.  He is 32 and his value exists to the extent that he can contribute to a team that has talent already.  The Celtics should not offer him a 5th year for instance, and really should be wary of accumulating ANY contracts beyond 2011. 

I'm not sure that 2011 is going to be the total rebuilding that some people think it might be.  Pierce will be 34, which is on the early side for retirement for a player of his caliber.  It wouldn't shock me to see Danny hold onto Pierce until KG's contract is done. 

It wouldn't shock me to see a partial rebuilding as things go on either.  Replacing RA using his expiring contract and Scals for a big salaries vet that wants out while his team wants to rebuild (like Gasol, for a recent example) is a clear possibility.  Reloading while keeping Pierce and KG at small numbers as they age is quite possible.  However, a re-signed but less efficient Posey would also hamper these efforts under salary cap rules, so the same concern over a long Posey contract is present.

[celts55]

I'm way too lazy to read 17 pages so maybe this has already been pointed out, but who says Maggette can't play D?

Here you go:

Hollenger on ESPN (insider): "Maggette's defense was what landed him in Mike Dunleavy's doghouse last season. He's an explosive athlete, but not the kind of nimble, quick-footed one who makes for a good defender. As a result, he was out of the starting lineup for much of last season. He also resorts to fouling quite a bit, ranking 11th among small forwards in personals per minute. Some of those are offensive fouls on his drives, but many are reaches and grabs after he's beaten on D. "

Ian Thompson, CNNSI (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1110497/index.htm): ". He'll come out of a timeout playing man-to-man defense when his teammates are in a zone, or he won't know the offensive play because he wasn't paying attention in the huddle--which, believe it or not, is a problem with a lot of guys in this league."

Maggette was benched last year for his lack of defense as widely reported: http://www.clipsnation.com/story/2007/8/8/24650/29577.

He's young, athletic, and seems to have some BB IQ.

Actually, his bball IQ is a serious question.  See above, for example.

Let's face it. the West and The Clippers and not known for defense. From what I saw last year, wost everyone played better defense on the Celtics. I can't say if it's Garnett, coaching, or whatever, but I saw Ray Allen playing his butt off on D and many people said he didn't play any. Same with Pierce, who pretty much shut down Bryant, so maybe he just needs a change in team.

In these 17 pages, the point has been made (by others) that Allen and Pierce have been under-rated defenders during their careers before this past year.  I agree that they were reasonable to good defenders before last year and were only made better by the committment to team defense.

I personally thought the team needed a scorer off the bench. If Posey was getting 25-30 minutes off the bench, I don't see why Meggette couldn't. I like Posey and will be happy if he resigns, but if not I would be okay with Maggette. I think he might even be an inprovement, as they wouldn't always need to have one of the "big 3" on the floor for scoring.

I agree.

Thank you. You answered my questions clearly and logicly. As I stated I hadn't read the whole 17 pages and to be really honest i haven't seen Maggette play enough to make a real determination on his D. I really was asking a question. TP for you

[earl]

- If Maggette is willing to accept his role, he can be a [dang] effective player for us, and an overall upgrade from last year.

How are you sure about this? Is Maggette that better than Posey as a weakside player who sets screens? I can't see him being the next Dell Curry, so I have serious doubts that he'd make up for the amount we'd lose defensively: directly and indirectly, because we'd have to force Allen/Pierce to defend the best opp. player all the time and they'd be less productive on the offensive side.

Listen man, I think most would agree that the 6th man is one of the key players on the team (or could be one of the better players on the team, perhaps not starting due to position, re: Manu), but I don't know where this "the 6th man's job has to be only setting screens, etc." to be effective comes from. Of course that doesn't mean a 6th man couldn't be effective doing that, but I digress.

The logical argument as I see it here is basically: Posey was effective by doing x, y and z (i.e., setting screens, whatever else). Maggette is not Posey. Maggette does not do x, y and z. Therefore, Maggette would not be effective.

I understand the differences between Maggette and Posey, the offense vs. defense tradeoff, and I believe signing one or the other changes how we would want to fill out the remainder of the roster. But the argument above, that Maggette wouldn't help irrespective of other considerations, to me, is complete crap (no offense).

[cordobes]

- If Maggette is willing to accept his role, he can be a [dang] effective player for us, and an overall upgrade from last year.

How are you sure about this? Is Maggette that better than Posey as a weakside player who sets screens? I can't see him being the next Dell Curry, so I have serious doubts that he'd make up for the amount we'd lose defensively: directly and indirectly, because we'd have to force Allen/Pierce to defend the best opp. player all the time and they'd be less productive on the offensive side.

Listen man, I think most would agree that the 6th man is one of the key players on the team (or could be one of the better players on the team, perhaps not starting due to position, re: Manu), but I don't know where this "the 6th man's job has to be only setting screens, etc." to be effective comes from. Of course that doesn't mean a 6th man couldn't be effective doing that, but I digress.

The logical argument as I see it here is basically: Posey was effective by doing x, y and z (i.e., setting screens, whatever else). Maggette is not Posey. Maggette does not do x, y and z. Therefore, Maggette would not be effective.

I understand the differences between Maggette and Posey, the offense vs. defense tradeoff, and I believe signing one or the other changes how we would want to fill out the remainder of the roster. But the argument above, that Maggette wouldn't help irrespective of other considerations, to me, is complete crap (no offense).

This has nothing to do with the "6th man role". Nothing at all. It's a matter of offensive system, rotations and the players we already have. And I'm not even talking about the offensive/defensive trade off. When you said "If Maggette is willing to accept his role", what exactly do you mean by role?

[earl]

- If Maggette is willing to accept his role, he can be a [dang] effective player for us, and an overall upgrade from last year.

How are you sure about this? Is Maggette that better than Posey as a weakside player who sets screens? I can't see him being the next Dell Curry, so I have serious doubts that he'd make up for the amount we'd lose defensively: directly and indirectly, because we'd have to force Allen/Pierce to defend the best opp. player all the time and they'd be less productive on the offensive side.

Listen man, I think most would agree that the 6th man is one of the key players on the team (or could be one of the better players on the team, perhaps not starting due to position, re: Manu), but I don't know where this "the 6th man's job has to be only setting screens, etc." to be effective comes from. Of course that doesn't mean a 6th man couldn't be effective doing that, but I digress.

The logical argument as I see it here is basically: Posey was effective by doing x, y and z (i.e., setting screens, whatever else). Maggette is not Posey. Maggette does not do x, y and z. Therefore, Maggette would not be effective.

I understand the differences between Maggette and Posey, the offense vs. defense tradeoff, and I believe signing one or the other changes how we would want to fill out the remainder of the roster. But the argument above, that Maggette wouldn't help irrespective of other considerations, to me, is complete crap (no offense).

This has nothing to do with the "6th man role". Nothing at all. It's a matter of offensive system, rotations and the players we already have. And I'm not even talking about the offensive/defensive trade off. When you said "If Maggette is willing to accept his role", what exactly do you mean by role?

His role as a backup. His role as a "role player," not the star, not the first option, be a cog in the machine, however you want to put it.

Maggette accepts his role if he:
 - Accepts he comes off the bench.
 - Accepts the fact that he will have reduced minutes, reduced stats, etc.
 - Commits to 100% effort on defense.
 - Commits to making the best play for the team on every offensive trip (i.e., to play unselfish ball).
 - In general, does whatever the coach asks of him.

[cordobes]

- If Maggette is willing to accept his role, he can be a [dang] effective player for us, and an overall upgrade from last year.

How are you sure about this? Is Maggette that better than Posey as a weakside player who sets screens? I can't see him being the next Dell Curry, so I have serious doubts that he'd make up for the amount we'd lose defensively: directly and indirectly, because we'd have to force Allen/Pierce to defend the best opp. player all the time and they'd be less productive on the offensive side.

Listen man, I think most would agree that the 6th man is one of the key players on the team (or could be one of the better players on the team, perhaps not starting due to position, re: Manu), but I don't know where this "the 6th man's job has to be only setting screens, etc." to be effective comes from. Of course that doesn't mean a 6th man couldn't be effective doing that, but I digress.

The logical argument as I see it here is basically: Posey was effective by doing x, y and z (i.e., setting screens, whatever else). Maggette is not Posey. Maggette does not do x, y and z. Therefore, Maggette would not be effective.

I understand the differences between Maggette and Posey, the offense vs. defense tradeoff, and I believe signing one or the other changes how we would want to fill out the remainder of the roster. But the argument above, that Maggette wouldn't help irrespective of other considerations, to me, is complete crap (no offense).

This has nothing to do with the "6th man role". Nothing at all. It's a matter of offensive system, rotations and the players we already have. And I'm not even talking about the offensive/defensive trade off. When you said "If Maggette is willing to accept his role", what exactly do you mean by role?

His role as a backup. His role as a "role player," not the star, not the first option, be a cog in the machine, however you want to put it.

Maggette accepts his role if he:
 - Accepts he comes off the bench.
 - Accepts the fact that he will have reduced minutes, reduced stats, etc.
 - Commits to 100% effort on defense.
 - Commits to making the best play for the team on every offensive trip (i.e., to play unselfish ball).
 - In general, does whatever the coach asks of him.

Well, that's extremely vague, I'd assume that Maggette or every other player accepts that. I was speaking from a coaching perspective. For starters, what role will Maggette have on our offensive system? Will he play primarily on the strongside?