Win it all next year vs. economic suicide

[cordobes]

TP Steve.

Very legitmate points behind a very good case to resign Posey.

Ditto.

[Steve Weinman]

TP Steve.

Very legitmate points behind a very good case to resign Posey. Color me conflicted about the last year, for sure, but a five-year deal isn't going to upset me.

You don't break up this team for the next two years, for certain, out of some fear that we're not young enough - or worse, out of an incessant need to tinker. The goal is two titles, and I am 100 percent opposed to throwing one or two of the next two years away worrying about five years down the road..

I wish - perhaps a futile wish - that Posey would sign on for a lesser term, but I cannot fault him for wanting security. Despite the vaccuous attempts on this board and others to diminish his contributions this season, we do not win the title without him.

I'd prefer less than five years, but I'm definitely not interested in swapping a Posey walkaway for a scorer.

Much thanks, Coach -- and cordobes.  I appreciate it -- and I'm certainly with the rest of what you said above.

-sw

[BillfromBoston]

I don't think teams head into 20 year droughts because they gave a $5m Sixth Man type one or two extra years on a contract.  It is important for Ainge to balance long term financial obligations with the need for a strong 2009 roster. 

He did an amazing job putting the Big Three together in a way that allowed for long term success, with an expiring contract in three consecutive years.  Ideally, Ainge will be able to line up all his ducks perfectly for 09 and beyond, but spending a few bucks in four years isn't going to hamstring the team too badly.  I'd trade another championship for two years of overpaying Posey by 40% four and five years from now. 

If the choice is Posey and Maggette both at the entire five years at the MLE, I'd probably take Maggs.  If Maggs goes in a different direction, and the choice is to pay Posey for five years instead of three, or let him go to a rival, I'd pay him. 

I think you are wrong and this is why.

The cap for the next 5 years or so will be increasing from it's present level to around $66 million in 5 years, maybe. That's an assumption based on regular increases. With the players already under contract the position that signing Posey long term to full MLE tremondously hampers this team.

Look here:

http://www.sportstwo.com/NBA/TeamSalaries/BOSTON

For the 2009-2010 season we are already projected to be nearly $5 million over the cap and have only 5 players signed. Posey would put us at the luxury tax limit with only 6 players signed.

In 2010-2011 when Allens' contract goes off the books this team would at present time have only 5 players signed and be nearly at the cap. Allen's salary does not mean we have that money to sign someone to replace him. It may at that time not even get us to a position of being under the cap.

Danny needs to use his MLEs over the next few years to bridge the talent gap into the next decade to keep this team competitive. The MLEs will have to be used on players who's skills and ability will need to be on the increase, not on the decrease, as James Posey's skills already are. The MLE over the next 5 years will be the only enticement we have to lure high quality players here. If we are going to clog up the payroll, let it be with younger players on the rise and not older players on the downside of their careers.

Otherwise come 2012 this team will be in the luxury tax paying a 36 year old James Posey $8 million to be injured or a bench fixture and another $8 million to the league. I'd rather be paying that to a player in their late 20s to early 30's who would still be a contributing member of this team.

The 2 extra years to a James Posey that will be useless for those two years could cost us players that will help us greatly.

Look at it this way. We pay Posey the cash but because of declining skills we don't win another title and because of the luxury tax, ownership decides they aren't spending anymore because it's just good money going after bad money. Suddenly the Celtics go into let's try to get under the cap to sign guys mode. That mode is very tough to get past for another title. Because Danny isn't signing someone with the MLE that could be a starter after the Big Three tail off this team could be doomed because ownership might pull the financial plug due to lack of being able to get another championship.

There's a chance of it happening.

We need players to grow getting the MLE full boat not guys that might help to repeat and then grow old doing nothing for this team for the final few years on their contract.

...actually, if you  look at the cap figures, the Celtics can be SUBSTANTIALLY below the cap by the summer of Pierce's expiration walk-year...While the team may only have a few players under contract it is the presence of GPA that makes contention possible while maintaining roster flexibility.

The Celtics can easily focus on giving 3 year deals and less to established veteran role-players while the GPA trio is going strong..lining up contract to expire on time with FA is the exact way to replenish the roster.

Boston now has Perk/Walker/Giddens/Pruitt all under contract through Pierce's walk year...KG will be signed too...Rondo will get a hefty extention, but Powe likely will not command a ton of money--that's 7 players under contract, plus whomever else the team drafts...with a major FA splash, the team can once again go get veteran minimum players, LLE,and MLE to fill the gaps around the concentrated talent.

That is why its essential not to commit 5-8 million dollars to bit players now...the difference between 10+ million on the open market and 6-8 is substantial...

...Posey isnt' worth the cost...

[tallpaul]

What did Posey make for 2007-2008? Didn't he sign at a "discount" to have a shot at winning?

I certainly like Posey better than Maggette or Pietrus - especially for defense, being a proven winner, and being part of the core of this newly-assembled team. Of course I don't like the idea of a 37 year old guy being carried for 7 million. But if Posey has offers on the table for the full MLE for 5 years, that might be the price. I don't like to mess with something that works - and Posey worked well this year. Others "might" work as well -- or even better -- or not.

I'm not looking beyond the next two years with this team in terms of highest expectations - right now I'd favor sticking with Posey - even if that means "Overpaying" - if that is even a term that carries any meaning in the NBA. I mean the full MLE for Chris Duhon? (though it is only 2 years)

[timepiece33]

The Celtics can easily focus on giving 3 year deals and less to established veteran role-players while the GPA trio is going strong..lining up contract to expire on time with FA is the exact way to replenish the roster.

Boston now has Perk/Walker/Giddens/Pruitt all under contract through Pierce's walk year...KG will be signed too...Rondo will get a hefty extention, but Powe likely will not command a ton of money--that's 7 players under contract, plus whomever else the team drafts...with a major FA splash, the team can once again go get veteran minimum players, LLE,and MLE to fill the gaps around the concentrated talent.

That is why its essential not to commit 5-8 million dollars to bit players now...the difference between 10+ million on the open market and 6-8 is substantial...

...Posey isnt' worth the cost...

While I agree that 3 year deals make more sense, because of flexibility ... the likelihood that we use Allen OR Pierce's expiring contracts in trades to secure that player we want is higher than signing him outright.

Hate to say it, but name the last the free agent before Baron Davis who swapped teams for beyond the MLE and wasn't considered overpaid?   

Teams try to trade the guys they are going to lose.  That seems just as likely.

[winsomme]

I don't think teams head into 20 year droughts because they gave a $5m Sixth Man type one or two extra years on a contract.  It is important for Ainge to balance long term financial obligations with the need for a strong 2009 roster. 

He did an amazing job putting the Big Three together in a way that allowed for long term success, with an expiring contract in three consecutive years.  Ideally, Ainge will be able to line up all his ducks perfectly for 09 and beyond, but spending a few bucks in four years isn't going to hamstring the team too badly.  I'd trade another championship for two years of overpaying Posey by 40% four and five years from now. 

If the choice is Posey and Maggette both at the entire five years at the MLE, I'd probably take Maggs.  If Maggs goes in a different direction, and the choice is to pay Posey for five years instead of three, or let him go to a rival, I'd pay him. 

I think you are wrong and this is why.

The cap for the next 5 years or so will be increasing from it's present level to around $66 million in 5 years, maybe. That's an assumption based on regular increases. With the players already under contract the position that signing Posey long term to full MLE tremondously hampers this team.

Look here:

http://www.sportstwo.com/NBA/TeamSalaries/BOSTON

For the 2009-2010 season we are already projected to be nearly $5 million over the cap and have only 5 players signed. Posey would put us at the luxury tax limit with only 6 players signed.

In 2010-2011 when Allens' contract goes off the books this team would at present time have only 5 players signed and be nearly at the cap. Allen's salary does not mean we have that money to sign someone to replace him. It may at that time not even get us to a position of being under the cap.

Danny needs to use his MLEs over the next few years to bridge the talent gap into the next decade to keep this team competitive. The MLEs will have to be used on players who's skills and ability will need to be on the increase, not on the decrease, as James Posey's skills already are. The MLE over the next 5 years will be the only enticement we have to lure high quality players here. If we are going to clog up the payroll, let it be with younger players on the rise and not older players on the downside of their careers.

Otherwise come 2012 this team will be in the luxury tax paying a 36 year old James Posey $8 million to be injured or a bench fixture and another $8 million to the league. I'd rather be paying that to a player in their late 20s to early 30's who would still be a contributing member of this team.

The 2 extra years to a James Posey that will be useless for those two years could cost us players that will help us greatly.

Look at it this way. We pay Posey the cash but because of declining skills we don't win another title and because of the luxury tax, ownership decides they aren't spending anymore because it's just good money going after bad money. Suddenly the Celtics go into let's try to get under the cap to sign guys mode. That mode is very tough to get past for another title. Because Danny isn't signing someone with the MLE that could be a starter after the Big Three tail off this team could be doomed because ownership might pull the financial plug due to lack of being able to get another championship.

There's a chance of it happening.

We need players to grow getting the MLE full boat not guys that might help to repeat and then grow old doing nothing for this team for the final few years on their contract.

...actually, if you  look at the cap figures, the Celtics can be SUBSTANTIALLY below the cap by the summer of Pierce's expiration walk-year...While the team may only have a few players under contract it is the presence of GPA that makes contention possible while maintaining roster flexibility.

The Celtics can easily focus on giving 3 year deals and less to established veteran role-players while the GPA trio is going strong..lining up contract to expire on time with FA is the exact way to replenish the roster.

Boston now has Perk/Walker/Giddens/Pruitt all under contract through Pierce's walk year...KG will be signed too...Rondo will get a hefty extention, but Powe likely will not command a ton of money--that's 7 players under contract, plus whomever else the team drafts...with a major FA splash, the team can once again go get veteran minimum players, LLE,and MLE to fill the gaps around the concentrated talent.

That is why its essential not to commit 5-8 million dollars to bit players now...the difference between 10+ million on the open market and 6-8 is substantial...

...Posey isnt' worth the cost...

first off, being in contention isn't good enough when you have GPA.

second, all that is well and good about who we have locked up over the next five years, but the question not answered in your outline is who fills Posey's role next season and until that question is answered, it is impossible to evaluate your plan.

the difference between being in contention and being a Title winner is enormous. it's the difference between the DALs and CLEs of the world and the SAs, DETs and now Cs.

DET is actually a good example of the fact that when you have a solid core you can't just expect to get back to the dance with a "plug and play" mentality.

i just don't see how you can call Posey a "bit" player...

[Who]

One bad midlevel contract won't have ridiculously harsh consequences. You need 2-3 bad midlevel contracts for that. One has very little meaning.

[Steve Weinman]

I don't think teams head into 20 year droughts because they gave a $5m Sixth Man type one or two extra years on a contract.  It is important for Ainge to balance long term financial obligations with the need for a strong 2009 roster. 

He did an amazing job putting the Big Three together in a way that allowed for long term success, with an expiring contract in three consecutive years.  Ideally, Ainge will be able to line up all his ducks perfectly for 09 and beyond, but spending a few bucks in four years isn't going to hamstring the team too badly.  I'd trade another championship for two years of overpaying Posey by 40% four and five years from now. 

If the choice is Posey and Maggette both at the entire five years at the MLE, I'd probably take Maggs.  If Maggs goes in a different direction, and the choice is to pay Posey for five years instead of three, or let him go to a rival, I'd pay him. 

I think you are wrong and this is why.

The cap for the next 5 years or so will be increasing from it's present level to around $66 million in 5 years, maybe. That's an assumption based on regular increases. With the players already under contract the position that signing Posey long term to full MLE tremondously hampers this team.

Look here:

http://www.sportstwo.com/NBA/TeamSalaries/BOSTON

For the 2009-2010 season we are already projected to be nearly $5 million over the cap and have only 5 players signed. Posey would put us at the luxury tax limit with only 6 players signed.

In 2010-2011 when Allens' contract goes off the books this team would at present time have only 5 players signed and be nearly at the cap. Allen's salary does not mean we have that money to sign someone to replace him. It may at that time not even get us to a position of being under the cap.

Danny needs to use his MLEs over the next few years to bridge the talent gap into the next decade to keep this team competitive. The MLEs will have to be used on players who's skills and ability will need to be on the increase, not on the decrease, as James Posey's skills already are. The MLE over the next 5 years will be the only enticement we have to lure high quality players here. If we are going to clog up the payroll, let it be with younger players on the rise and not older players on the downside of their careers.

Otherwise come 2012 this team will be in the luxury tax paying a 36 year old James Posey $8 million to be injured or a bench fixture and another $8 million to the league. I'd rather be paying that to a player in their late 20s to early 30's who would still be a contributing member of this team.

The 2 extra years to a James Posey that will be useless for those two years could cost us players that will help us greatly.

Look at it this way. We pay Posey the cash but because of declining skills we don't win another title and because of the luxury tax, ownership decides they aren't spending anymore because it's just good money going after bad money. Suddenly the Celtics go into let's try to get under the cap to sign guys mode. That mode is very tough to get past for another title. Because Danny isn't signing someone with the MLE that could be a starter after the Big Three tail off this team could be doomed because ownership might pull the financial plug due to lack of being able to get another championship.

There's a chance of it happening.

We need players to grow getting the MLE full boat not guys that might help to repeat and then grow old doing nothing for this team for the final few years on their contract.

...actually, if you  look at the cap figures, the Celtics can be SUBSTANTIALLY below the cap by the summer of Pierce's expiration walk-year...While the team may only have a few players under contract it is the presence of GPA that makes contention possible while maintaining roster flexibility.

The Celtics can easily focus on giving 3 year deals and less to established veteran role-players while the GPA trio is going strong..lining up contract to expire on time with FA is the exact way to replenish the roster.

Boston now has Perk/Walker/Giddens/Pruitt all under contract through Pierce's walk year...KG will be signed too...Rondo will get a hefty extention, but Powe likely will not command a ton of money--that's 7 players under contract, plus whomever else the team drafts...with a major FA splash, the team can once again go get veteran minimum players, LLE,and MLE to fill the gaps around the concentrated talent.

That is why its essential not to commit 5-8 million dollars to bit players now...the difference between 10+ million on the open market and 6-8 is substantial...

...Posey isnt' worth the cost...

first off, being in contention isn't good enough when you have GPA.

second, all that is well and good about who we have locked up over the next five years, but the question not answered in your outline is who fills Posey's role next season and until that question is answered, it is impossible to evaluate your plan.

the difference between being in contention and being a Title winner is enormous. it's the difference between the DALs and CLEs of the world and the SAs, DETs and now Cs.

DET is actually a good example of the fact that when you have a solid core you can't just expect to get back to the dance with a "plug and play" mentality.

i just don't see how you can call Posey a "bit" player...

TP, winsomme.  I think you took the words right off my keyboard on that one.  Couldn't agree more.

-sw

[winsomme]

One bad midlevel contract won't have ridiculously harsh consequences. You need 2-3 bad midlevel contracts for that. One has very little meaning.

i completely agree. i'm not opposed to someone other than Posey, but if people are giving a plan where they can't tell us who replaces Posey next season (ie a list of reasonable replacements), then i have a hard time being able to evaluate it.

[orrzor]

I just don't see why people care about years 4 and 5 of Posey's contract. The point of getting KG and Ray Allen was to go all in and win titles, not just be a solid playoff team. I think most people thought this year we'd get to ECF at best and next year be in the finals. This is the second year when we expected the team to have greater chemistry and be at its best, why remove Posey when we know he was so clutch when it mattered most? Years 4 and 5, we will probably be on downslope, but who cares if we have won another title? And why plan to be merely an ok playoff team in years 4 and 5 and have good finances when the celtics should be conteding NOW?

And you have to be kidding if you think Pietrus replaces Posey. How many championships has Pietrus won? In my mind, the only guy who replaces Posey is Artest, but he's a nutcase.

[winsomme]

I don't think teams head into 20 year droughts because they gave a $5m Sixth Man type one or two extra years on a contract.  It is important for Ainge to balance long term financial obligations with the need for a strong 2009 roster. 

He did an amazing job putting the Big Three together in a way that allowed for long term success, with an expiring contract in three consecutive years.  Ideally, Ainge will be able to line up all his ducks perfectly for 09 and beyond, but spending a few bucks in four years isn't going to hamstring the team too badly.  I'd trade another championship for two years of overpaying Posey by 40% four and five years from now. 

If the choice is Posey and Maggette both at the entire five years at the MLE, I'd probably take Maggs.  If Maggs goes in a different direction, and the choice is to pay Posey for five years instead of three, or let him go to a rival, I'd pay him. 

I think you are wrong and this is why.

The cap for the next 5 years or so will be increasing from it's present level to around $66 million in 5 years, maybe. That's an assumption based on regular increases. With the players already under contract the position that signing Posey long term to full MLE tremondously hampers this team.

Look here:

http://www.sportstwo.com/NBA/TeamSalaries/BOSTON

For the 2009-2010 season we are already projected to be nearly $5 million over the cap and have only 5 players signed. Posey would put us at the luxury tax limit with only 6 players signed.

In 2010-2011 when Allens' contract goes off the books this team would at present time have only 5 players signed and be nearly at the cap. Allen's salary does not mean we have that money to sign someone to replace him. It may at that time not even get us to a position of being under the cap.

Danny needs to use his MLEs over the next few years to bridge the talent gap into the next decade to keep this team competitive. The MLEs will have to be used on players who's skills and ability will need to be on the increase, not on the decrease, as James Posey's skills already are. The MLE over the next 5 years will be the only enticement we have to lure high quality players here. If we are going to clog up the payroll, let it be with younger players on the rise and not older players on the downside of their careers.

Otherwise come 2012 this team will be in the luxury tax paying a 36 year old James Posey $8 million to be injured or a bench fixture and another $8 million to the league. I'd rather be paying that to a player in their late 20s to early 30's who would still be a contributing member of this team.

The 2 extra years to a James Posey that will be useless for those two years could cost us players that will help us greatly.

Look at it this way. We pay Posey the cash but because of declining skills we don't win another title and because of the luxury tax, ownership decides they aren't spending anymore because it's just good money going after bad money. Suddenly the Celtics go into let's try to get under the cap to sign guys mode. That mode is very tough to get past for another title. Because Danny isn't signing someone with the MLE that could be a starter after the Big Three tail off this team could be doomed because ownership might pull the financial plug due to lack of being able to get another championship.

There's a chance of it happening.

We need players to grow getting the MLE full boat not guys that might help to repeat and then grow old doing nothing for this team for the final few years on their contract.

...actually, if you  look at the cap figures, the Celtics can be SUBSTANTIALLY below the cap by the summer of Pierce's expiration walk-year...While the team may only have a few players under contract it is the presence of GPA that makes contention possible while maintaining roster flexibility.

The Celtics can easily focus on giving 3 year deals and less to established veteran role-players while the GPA trio is going strong..lining up contract to expire on time with FA is the exact way to replenish the roster.

Boston now has Perk/Walker/Giddens/Pruitt all under contract through Pierce's walk year...KG will be signed too...Rondo will get a hefty extention, but Powe likely will not command a ton of money--that's 7 players under contract, plus whomever else the team drafts...with a major FA splash, the team can once again go get veteran minimum players, LLE,and MLE to fill the gaps around the concentrated talent.

That is why its essential not to commit 5-8 million dollars to bit players now...the difference between 10+ million on the open market and 6-8 is substantial...

...Posey isnt' worth the cost...

first off, being in contention isn't good enough when you have GPA.

second, all that is well and good about who we have locked up over the next five years, but the question not answered in your outline is who fills Posey's role next season and until that question is answered, it is impossible to evaluate your plan.

the difference between being in contention and being a Title winner is enormous. it's the difference between the DALs and CLEs of the world and the SAs, DETs and now Cs.

DET is actually a good example of the fact that when you have a solid core you can't just expect to get back to the dance with a "plug and play" mentality.

i just don't see how you can call Posey a "bit" player...

TP, winsomme.  I think you took the words right off my keyboard on that one.  Couldn't agree more.

-sw

right back 'atcha.

[timepiece33]

One bad midlevel contract won't have ridiculously harsh consequences. You need 2-3 bad midlevel contracts for that. One has very little meaning.

i completely agree. i'm not opposed to someone other than Posey, but if people are giving a plan where they can't tell us who replaces Posey next season (ie a list of reasonable replacements), then i have a hard time being able to evaluate it.

Another TP. 

I believe the best set of reasonable replacements was splitting the MLE among Roger Mason and either Matt Barnes or James Jones.

[winsomme]

One bad midlevel contract won't have ridiculously harsh consequences. You need 2-3 bad midlevel contracts for that. One has very little meaning.

i completely agree. i'm not opposed to someone other than Posey, but if people are giving a plan where they can't tell us who replaces Posey next season (ie a list of reasonable replacements), then i have a hard time being able to evaluate it.

Another TP. 

I believe the best set of reasonable replacements was splitting the MLE among Roger Mason and either Matt Barnes or James Jones.

Barnes is an interesting guy. especially the Barnes of two years ago, but i think he is looking at a similar payday to Posey (ie multi-year MLE money)....i would bet he is on the radar.

TP, timeP.

[winsomme]

yeah, i was just looking over the list of FAs at the SF position and it is really slim-pickens. Gomes is a RFA. i know he lost some weight last season, but i didn't see him enough this year to know if he could guard the SF spot in our system....

but MINN probably would match any offer we could give him.

and i would still rather Posey. as much as i like Ryan, it's hard to argue with success.

[jay_jay54]

Just as i thought about KG,Ray,and PP retiring in Green someday,my thoughts were hoping Posey possibly would to...the Celtics has had a host of "classic" role players retire in Green over the years.My feelings JP might someday become one of them.

             Ubuntu vs $$