Win it all next year vs. economic suicide

[Casperian]

Adding Posey guarantees nothing. Contending is all we can hope for and whether his team has Pietrus, Maggette or Posey or none of the above, they will contend because of the 5 guys that start not the guys that might come off the bench.

One bad midlevel exemption contract can kill a team.

Don't forget Perk and Rondo will be asking for $10 million a year contract extentions in the next two years. Don't believe me? Look at what Beno Udrih just got. Look at what Samuel Dalembert is making. Giving Posey a 5 year full MLE could kill this team when they most need money to resign these guys.

Most will say that Ray Allen will be traded in his last year and another high priced productive guy may come in. But will ownership continue to pay luxury tax penalties while extending Rondo and Perk big time while holding onto the Big Three or the Big Two and a high priced replacement? Especially if Posey is sitting on the bench collecting $7 million and $8million a year contracts while doing next to nothing for this team.

Does anyone remember just how poorly Posey played in the first three playoff series?

Vs Atlanta he averaged his season averages but got torched defensively.

Vs Cleveland he averaged 5 pts, 3.5 rebs and shot 33% from three while being so bad against LeBron that Doc made the switch to Pierce on LeBron exclusively. At one point in one game Pierce came out replaced by Posey on LeBron. LeBron had been stifled that game. Pierce was in the game in less than 90 seconds later because LeBron put up like 7 or 8 points on Posey in that time because he was by Posey on the first step every time.

Vs Detroit 5.5 pts, 2.7 rebs while shooting 31% from three.

Is everyone forgeting the shooting slump Posey was in for a good portion of the last two months of the year?

Does everyone expect these things to get better?

He had a greta Finals against possibly Boston easiest matchup of the postseason and suddenly he is indispensible?

For what we paid for James Posey, we got a bargain. We need another bargain not a contract that could turn ownership off so bad in later years that they say to not resign Perk or Rondo or to dump salary because he's not paying double on bad contracts anymore.

This is afterall the first time this ownership group allowed Danny to spend money. There's no guarantee that lasts.

Danny has his contracts set up very intelligently right now with Powe, Davis, and Pruitt epiring at the end of this year, Scal and Ray after 2010, Pierce, Rondo, and Perk after 2011 and KG after 2012. If we assume that Perk and Rondo get extended the year Scal and Ray come off the books then it would make all the sense in the world to give Posey a 3 year contract that is where his value maxes out.

And that's where Danny should take a lesson from Bill Belichick and the Patriots. That have had it right every time. The keep competitive because they cut ties loose once the player has crested in is dollar value return to the team. Posey might already have done that here. I think with a three year contract we can at least equal that return for the length of that contract. After that, this team is taking a beating contractually concerning BGJ.

Make the stand Danny. It's 3 year max or we find someone else. there is now the structure for a larger strategy to be effective and Danny needs to stick by it and not cave on Posey.

You see Steve brought up Miami and it's a good example. Yes they won and then got old fast and now looks to be bouncing back quick. The Celtics won't do that. Miami's Finals MVP star the year after they won it all was 24 years old. Our Finals MVP star will be 31 when the next season starts.

We can't count on getting old, getting exceptional lottery luck(something this team has never had and should never rely on ever having), and getting another top 20 player in the league in return when we trade an old star of ours. Miami traded one of the top 5 centers of all timein order to get Marion. An aging Pierce or Allen and probably even Garnett will never net a player of Marion's quality coming back to us in return.  

We need to be smart. The tarting five we have is the best in the league bar none. We have three hall of famers still able to dominate a game, a young bruising 23 year old 5 year veteran defensive beast of a center that is still developing and a 22 year old PG that might already be the best defensive PG in the league, is developing a solid jumper and is a tremendous facilitator and looks to be a 14-16 pt/7-9 assist/4-5 rebound/2-3 steal player for the next decade or more.

Those are the pieces that need to be kept before foolishly spending money on a bench player who's contract could, I said could, have an impact on the thought process of ownership when it comes to making future monetary decisions.

3 years for Posey yes. He demands more, say thanks, we love ya James, but we're going in a different direction because we have to do what's right by the Celtics and our long term fanbase, not by James Posey.

I know lots of rambling and long winded crap but take in the whole picture. Is Posey really that important to this team. I think the the starters are the only guys on this team who deserve a contract over 3 years, anything else leads to bad decisions which tend to beget more bad decisions and before you know it a decade is gone and you're still wondering when the next banner is coming.

With all due respect, I think you´re the one who´s forgetting where Big Game James got his nickname from. My opinion to give Posey his due has nothing to do with green kool-aid.

If it comes down to Maggete vs Posey, it´s a toss-up, imo. I´d take the one with the shorter contract(although I´d prefer Posey).

If it comes down to Barnes/Jones(insert name here) vs Posey, I choose Posey, and it´s not even a question, imo. The better talent wins in the NBA, period. A great player and a mediocre player is always better than two good players, and the same goes for role-players, although to a lesser extent. Don´t forget that the second player would have to play instead of someone already on the team, so Barnes/Jones would have to make up for Posey + (House, Powe, Davis).

I think both sides can agree that winning a championship is more important than our cap space in 4 years. IMO, "Bridging the gap" is not a strategy in the NBA. "Bridging the gap" is what the NY Knicks do. You have to embrace the extremes, a 40 win-team doesn´t help anyone. The only thing you can achieve if you focus on "Bridging the gap" is mediocrity. Considering the Celtics current situation, that´s a downgrade. Please, don´t bring examples of the NFL or Baseball. In both sports, you have a much bigger roster than in the NBA, and the impact of a single player is significantly smaller. In American Football, you can risk to swap three vets for three young players. It´s just not comparable.

The plan to succeed with cap flexibility is an even bigger "What if" than to assume that we need a high-class role-player to win the title.
The best way to overpay for players is the FA market. Look at GSW. They have a young, promising team. They play an exciting style, they have mild success in the strong west. The offered Gilbert Arenas, a hometown-player, 126-million-dollar, IIRC....and he declined! Does anybody think we could have signed KG or any other superstar on the FA market? Does anybody think we could get even a player like Arenas in three years with our precious cap space? In three years, the PGA Tour will be too old to contend for a title, yet everyone expects us to have a better chance at a star-player than an uprising team like GSW. The Celtics don`t have weather advantages, no tax advantages, and there`s no upcoming superstar from the Boston area.

Expiring contracts, on the other hand, are a valuable chip in today`s NBA, as proven by the transactions of last season. We acquired KG with a package of Big Al, Theo Ratliff`s expiring contract + Filler. Let´s assume the worst case, let´s assume the horror scenario of Posey´s contract killing our cap flexibility. It´s not even close to the sítuation the Heat were in at the start of last season, because of the expiring contracts of the PGA Tour, and they were able to acquire Shawn Marion for an over-the-hill Shaq.

With expiring contracts, you don´t have to negotiate with several teams, you only deal with one team. On the FA market, whenever there´s a real superstar available, you have at least 5 other teams who want to sign that player, too. Remember how KG refused to play for Boston before the Ray Allen trade? The only way you can get such a player if you´re not the Lakers is with expiring contracts.

Regarding the luxury tax: I think the owners are pretty happy to pay the tax if they make it to the finals. Not only do they present themselves this way, but they also earn a lot more money with a competitive team (playoff games, merchandising, etc).

So, whichever angle you use, the correct answer is always "pay the man", imo.
Short-term, we can expect Posey to contribute 2-3 years, which coincides with the PGA window. Long-term, we have a big expiring contract, which is more valuable than cap space for a franchise like the Celtics. There is no combination of players available that could contribute as much as Posey + (Powe, House, Davis). Maggete for Posey would be a nice move, but one where I would still have my doubts. Maggete may be a 22 ppg scorer, but he did that for the Clippers. Who knows how he plays as a bench player? You need a certain approach as a sub. Look at Cassell. He contributed to the Clippers while he was starting, but was nearly useless as a bench player here, and there are many more examples around the league. Additionally, both sides seem to agree that Posey would be the "better fit" for this team.

[BballTim]

  I think this is kind of a panic thread. Posey's a good player, and he did a great job for us, but we can probably win a title with or without him.

  While agree with the premise that it's worth it to overpay to win a title, you still have to be realistic. Posey's getting older and isn't going to be very effective in a few years. And it's not my money, but Wyc's going to be shelling out well over $60M for 2-3 years of good play from a backup sf.

  The concerns that we need to replace Posey are legitimate. But, again, he's a backup sf. Last year we won the title with strong play from out backup sf and very sketchy play from our backup pg and c. What if we solidify those two spots? Won't that more than offset the dropoff in sf play?

[CoachBo]

Adding Posey guarantees nothing. Contending is all we can hope for and whether his team has Pietrus, Maggette or Posey or none of the above, they will contend because of the 5 guys that start not the guys that might come off the bench.

One bad midlevel exemption contract can kill a team.

Don't forget Perk and Rondo will be asking for $10 million a year contract extentions in the next two years. Don't believe me? Look at what Beno Udrih just got. Look at what Samuel Dalembert is making. Giving Posey a 5 year full MLE could kill this team when they most need money to resign these guys.

Most will say that Ray Allen will be traded in his last year and another high priced productive guy may come in. But will ownership continue to pay luxury tax penalties while extending Rondo and Perk big time while holding onto the Big Three or the Big Two and a high priced replacement? Especially if Posey is sitting on the bench collecting $7 million and $8million a year contracts while doing next to nothing for this team.

Does anyone remember just how poorly Posey played in the first three playoff series?

Vs Atlanta he averaged his season averages but got torched defensively.

Vs Cleveland he averaged 5 pts, 3.5 rebs and shot 33% from three while being so bad against LeBron that Doc made the switch to Pierce on LeBron exclusively. At one point in one game Pierce came out replaced by Posey on LeBron. LeBron had been stifled that game. Pierce was in the game in less than 90 seconds later because LeBron put up like 7 or 8 points on Posey in that time because he was by Posey on the first step every time.

Vs Detroit 5.5 pts, 2.7 rebs while shooting 31% from three.

Is everyone forgeting the shooting slump Posey was in for a good portion of the last two months of the year?

Does everyone expect these things to get better?

He had a greta Finals against possibly Boston easiest matchup of the postseason and suddenly he is indispensible?

For what we paid for James Posey, we got a bargain. We need another bargain not a contract that could turn ownership off so bad in later years that they say to not resign Perk or Rondo or to dump salary because he's not paying double on bad contracts anymore.

This is afterall the first time this ownership group allowed Danny to spend money. There's no guarantee that lasts.

Danny has his contracts set up very intelligently right now with Powe, Davis, and Pruitt epiring at the end of this year, Scal and Ray after 2010, Pierce, Rondo, and Perk after 2011 and KG after 2012. If we assume that Perk and Rondo get extended the year Scal and Ray come off the books then it would make all the sense in the world to give Posey a 3 year contract that is where his value maxes out.

And that's where Danny should take a lesson from Bill Belichick and the Patriots. That have had it right every time. The keep competitive because they cut ties loose once the player has crested in is dollar value return to the team. Posey might already have done that here. I think with a three year contract we can at least equal that return for the length of that contract. After that, this team is taking a beating contractually concerning BGJ.

Make the stand Danny. It's 3 year max or we find someone else. there is now the structure for a larger strategy to be effective and Danny needs to stick by it and not cave on Posey.

You see Steve brought up Miami and it's a good example. Yes they won and then got old fast and now looks to be bouncing back quick. The Celtics won't do that. Miami's Finals MVP star the year after they won it all was 24 years old. Our Finals MVP star will be 31 when the next season starts.

We can't count on getting old, getting exceptional lottery luck(something this team has never had and should never rely on ever having), and getting another top 20 player in the league in return when we trade an old star of ours. Miami traded one of the top 5 centers of all timein order to get Marion. An aging Pierce or Allen and probably even Garnett will never net a player of Marion's quality coming back to us in return.  

We need to be smart. The tarting five we have is the best in the league bar none. We have three hall of famers still able to dominate a game, a young bruising 23 year old 5 year veteran defensive beast of a center that is still developing and a 22 year old PG that might already be the best defensive PG in the league, is developing a solid jumper and is a tremendous facilitator and looks to be a 14-16 pt/7-9 assist/4-5 rebound/2-3 steal player for the next decade or more.

Those are the pieces that need to be kept before foolishly spending money on a bench player who's contract could, I said could, have an impact on the thought process of ownership when it comes to making future monetary decisions.

3 years for Posey yes. He demands more, say thanks, we love ya James, but we're going in a different direction because we have to do what's right by the Celtics and our long term fanbase, not by James Posey.

I know lots of rambling and long winded crap but take in the whole picture. Is Posey really that important to this team. I think the the starters are the only guys on this team who deserve a contract over 3 years, anything else leads to bad decisions which tend to beget more bad decisions and before you know it a decade is gone and you're still wondering when the next banner is coming.

With all due respect, I think you´re the one who´s forgetting where Big Game James got his nickname from. My opinion to give Posey his due has nothing to do with green kool-aid.

If it comes down to Maggete vs Posey, it´s a toss-up, imo. I´d take the one with the shorter contract(although I´d prefer Posey).

If it comes down to Barnes/Jones(insert name here) vs Posey, I choose Posey, and it´s not even a question, imo. The better talent wins in the NBA, period. A great player and a mediocre player is always better than two good players, and the same goes for role-players, although to a lesser extent. Don´t forget that the second player would have to play instead of someone already on the team, so Barnes/Jones would have to make up for Posey + (House, Powe, Davis).

I think both sides can agree that winning a championship is more important than our cap space in 4 years. IMO, "Bridging the gap" is not a strategy in the NBA. "Bridging the gap" is what the NY Knicks do. You have to embrace the extremes, a 40 win-team doesn´t help anyone. The only thing you can achieve if you focus on "Bridging the gap" is mediocrity. Considering the Celtics current situation, that´s a downgrade. Please, don´t bring examples of the NFL or Baseball. In both sports, you have a much bigger roster than in the NBA, and the impact of a single player is significantly smaller. In American Football, you can risk to swap three vets for three young players. It´s just not comparable.

The plan to succeed with cap flexibility is an even bigger "What if" than to assume that we need a high-class role-player to win the title.
The best way to overpay for players is the FA market. Look at GSW. They have a young, promising team. They play an exciting style, they have mild success in the strong west. The offered Gilbert Arenas, a hometown-player, 126-million-dollar, IIRC....and he declined! Does anybody think we could have signed KG or any other superstar on the FA market? Does anybody think we could get even a player like Arenas in three years with our precious cap space? In three years, the PGA Tour will be too old to contend for a title, yet everyone expects us to have a better chance at a star-player than an uprising team like GSW. The Celtics don`t have weather advantages, no tax advantages, and there`s no upcoming superstar from the Boston area.

Expiring contracts, on the other hand, are a valuable chip in today`s NBA, as proven by the transactions of last season. We acquired KG with a package of Big Al, Theo Ratliff`s expiring contract + Filler. Let´s assume the worst case, let´s assume the horror scenario of Posey´s contract killing our cap flexibility. It´s not even close to the sítuation the Heat were in at the start of last season, because of the expiring contracts of the PGA Tour, and they were able to acquire Shawn Marion for an over-the-hill Shaq.

With expiring contracts, you don´t have to negotiate with several teams, you only deal with one team. On the FA market, whenever there´s a real superstar available, you have at least 5 other teams who want to sign that player, too. Remember how KG refused to play for Boston before the Ray Allen trade? The only way you can get such a player if you´re not the Lakers is with expiring contracts.

Regarding the luxury tax: I think the owners are pretty happy to pay the tax if they make it to the finals. Not only do they present themselves this way, but they also earn a lot more money with a competitive team (playoff games, merchandising, etc).

So, whichever angle you use, the correct answer is always "pay the man", imo.
Short-term, we can expect Posey to contribute 2-3 years, which coincides with the PGA window. Long-term, we have a big expiring contract, which is more valuable than cap space for a franchise like the Celtics. There is no combination of players available that could contribute as much as Posey + (Powe, House, Davis). Maggete for Posey would be a nice move, but one where I would still have my doubts. Maggete may be a 22 ppg scorer, but he did that for the Clippers. Who knows how he plays as a bench player? You need a certain approach as a sub. Look at Cassell. He contributed to the Clippers while he was starting, but was nearly useless as a bench player here, and there are many more examples around the league. Additionally, both sides seem to agree that Posey would be the "better fit" for this team.

TP, Casperian, to cap a good thread that has changed my thinking on this issue a bit.

Ultimately, I think, the issue is what is best for the Celtics during the two or three years we have left with GAP to make a serious title run. Posey is the clear answer to that.

[wdleehi]

I like Posey.  I like what he did for this team.


But he is replaceable.  He is not one of the three stars.   He isn't even Rondo or Perkins.



He is a SF that defends and can hit an open three.  He is a 15-20 minute player on this team.  He wasn't even the best defender at his position (Pierce was)


Magette is a big upgrade.  I think he will buy into the defense 1st approach the Celtics took last year and can be the 2nd best swing defender. 


Pietrus could also step in a fill that roll.  He might not be quite as good as Posey, but he would be good enough that the Celtics have the same chance to win a title. 



So to me, there is no need to give Posey a 4-5 year contract if the Celtics can replace him with an almost equal player. 


(If Posey was a starting player playing 30-35 minutes a game, this would be a different situation)

[nickagneta]

TPs go out to Steve, timepiece, winsomme,and cordobes for some very effective, well thought out responses. Good debate, the foundation upon which this country was built. How fitting most of it took place on July 4th.

I don't think the 5 of us are all that far away in what we believe. I, like you, all feel that Posey is the best thing for this team for the next 3 years. At the cost of those last 2 years and what those last two years will do to this team is the crux of the argument.

Just one last thing defending some of my salary assumptions for the next few years.
- with the 15% difference in salary for trading when matching salaries we could just as easily be looking at a $3 million increase in Ray Allen's salary. I assume about the same salary and didn't take into account already built in raises for the next year. I think an assumption of staying the same was extremely fair.
- you are probably right in that the $20 million for the last 7 guys on the bench number being high is correct but I'm not sure it's that high. My assumption is that if the team is going to pay a full MLE in one year when they are this close, why not another. Maybe bad, maybe not. But if they are illing to make that decision for a 31 year old James Posey is it really out of the question they make it again for another very good UFA that's willing to come here for the full MLE to win a championship? I don't think if they do it once it is out of the question that that is the only time the C's will do it. Also without high draft choices in 2 of the next 3 seasons, rookies will not be the way this team adds players. Free agency will be vet mins and LLEs and split MLEs will definitely be in play. So is $20 million for the last 7 spots high, yeah, but it could well be a lot less high than some expect.
- In 2012 I assumed Pierce taking a pay cut. That could well be a very, very, very bad assumption to the tune of $7 million or more. It fit your argument so you didn't question it, but he very well may not take that pay cut and this team would be killed locally if they allowed Pierce to walk. What he wants in that final Celtic contract moneywise per year, he will probably get. It will be for how long that will be the issue with his final year in Boston.

Still the point is in those later years a large reason we are paying lu tax penalties will be Posey's contract. I guess the entire thing will be over the thresehold come 2012. If I see that then so will Wyc and the accountants.

If the Celtics let Posey walk with a full 5 year MLE somewhere else, my guess is it will have been those last 2 years that cost us Posey because ownership didn't want to pay luxury taxes on his contract when he might be useless to the team.

I just look through the league and I see as high as 20 teams with at least one and sometimes more contracts that I know if that team looked at it logically at the time they knew it was a bad contract for the last 2-3 years and now they are dying for the opportunity to go back in a Delorean and switch things up so that they didn't make that decision because it is now seriously hampering their roster and current decision making strategies because they don't have his cash available.

[timepiece33]

I like Posey.  I like what he did for this team.

But he is replaceable.  He is not one of the three stars.   He isn't even Rondo or Perkins.

He is a SF that defends and can hit an open three.  He is a 15-20 minute player on this team.  He wasn't even the best defender at his position (Pierce was)

He is a 25 minute a game player who played better defense than Pierce throughout the year (atleast if you look at defensive statistics).  I acknowledge that Pierce is a better defender, but then again ... I don't see what relevance that has.   

Based on effectiveness, I'd rate him as important as Rondo or Perkins to our success. Rondo played 5 minutes more a game.  Perkins played less minutes per game than him.

Magette is a big upgrade.  I think he will buy into the defense 1st approach the Celtics took last year and can be the 2nd best swing defender.

Now if we can just convince him to take a massive paycut without offering the starting position or the cost of living/tax advantages that San Antonio can offer.   

Pietrus could also step in a fill that roll.  He might not be quite as good as Posey, but he would be good enough that the Celtics have the same chance to win a title.

So to me, there is no need to give Posey a 4-5 year contract if the Celtics can replace him with an almost equal player. 

 

I'd argue that Pietrus athletically is similar and has the potential to be a James Posey type player, but his lower basketball IQ and general attitude is a negative.  If you are talking a 3 year contract ... he might fit if you believe he will conform. 

I'm open to a 4 year contract for James because of the timing of other contracts.  Obviously, I'd rather have Maggette.   Don't see it happening. 

If you are looking at cheaper alternatives, two veterans fit "the mold".  Michael Finley could play James Posey's role.  Less effective, but I believe he could do it.   The other one is Ruben Patterson, but he is certifiable.

[timepiece33]

Nickagneta,

This is actually really good thread and it has some interesting discussion points.

The fundamental issue I have with your assumptions are that every other move is the reason that they are paying $20MM in luxury tax.

As Who mentioned, they can simply let Ray Allen's contract expire if they choose.  I seriously doubt they take breakeven or a 15% increase.   If you are talking about a swap of big time player for Ray, escalating contracts dictate that it will likely be below.  In fact, they probably could take a $8 to $11 MM player if need be.

If the argument is that Posey's deal hurts flexibility, that is a lot more effective argument. Instead the thread gets caught up in accurate hyperbole. 

[nickagneta]

Nickagneta,

This is actually really good thread and it has some interesting discussion points.

The fundamental issue I have with your assumptions are that every other move is the reason that they are paying $20MM in luxury tax.

As Who mentioned, they can simply let Ray Allen's contract expire if they choose.  I seriously doubt they take breakeven or a 15% increase.   If you are talking about a swap of big time player for Ray, escalating contracts dictate that it will likely be below.  In fact, they probably could take a $8 to $11 MM player if need be.

My contention is that the other moves are moves that are going to happen no matter what.

They are going to extend Perk and Rondo and Pierce. At what value is debateable but considering what other players of similar skills are getting at the age of those players, I thought the numbers I gave them to be fair. Other players will also by league rules have to be added. You have to have at least 12 spots filled. I refuse to believe that the team will be filled with 6 other second rounders making $400K per year each. These are moves that are inevitable.

Some logic dictates at least one or two of those players will be making more than $1 Million per year and that it could well be likely that 1 will be making a full MLE contract. If the team is likely to use it once to keep Posey it could very well use it again to retain Glen Davis if he loses 30 lbs and becomes a force or an UFA that is willing to take a cut to $6 million per to get a ring in the final year of the Big Three window.

If they trade away Ray Allen in his final year of his contract as an expiring contract at $18.8 million for that year, they will by rule of the CBA have to get in return contracts equally within 15% of that $18.8 million. That means they would be receiving guaranteed contracts in return totaling somewhere between $16 million and $21.6 million. My guess is that those contract(s) will not be one(s0 that expire immediately. Teams don't trade expiring contracts for expiring contracts. The idea is contradictory to why someone would want to obtain an expiring contract in the first place.

Thinking the Celtics will trade Allen's contract away and only have an $8 million to $11 million player on the payroll the next year is wrong. The CBA and general trading logic doesn't allow it. Almost always if not always the team trading away the expiring contract is doing so to have players on their team the next year at the payroll number they traded away.

So if the trade of Ray and the other moves are definitely going to happen, the optional variable is Posey's contract. If the Celtics sign someone like Maggette instead of Posey, the MLE signing the next year or two is probably not necessary so that money is saved. If we sign Posey to a 2-3 year full MLE, when his contract expires we sign another full MLE that is an effective player. Hence once again not having to sign that second MLE player.

But if we sign Posey to the 5 yr MLE and his skills decline and we arestuck with him and then we use another MLE to make up for the decline in Posey's game those last two years, then Posey's contract albatross's on the Celtics.

I hope that clarifies where I am coming from. Posey's decline may well precipitate another signing to make up for his decline. That is where I see the Celtics getting killed. And if the Celtics aren't contending perhaps the ownership pulls the plug because they can't pay big taxes anymore.

Well it is all a mute point if they simply sign Posey to a 3 year deal.

[winsomme]

I like Posey.  I like what he did for this team.


But he is replaceable.  He is not one of the three stars.   He isn't even Rondo or Perkins.



He is a SF that defends and can hit an open three.  He is a 15-20 minute player on this team.  He wasn't even the best defender at his position (Pierce was)


Magette is a big upgrade.  I think he will buy into the defense 1st approach the Celtics took last year and can be the 2nd best swing defender. 


Pietrus could also step in a fill that roll.  He might not be quite as good as Posey, but he would be good enough that the Celtics have the same chance to win a title. 



So to me, there is no need to give Posey a 4-5 year contract if the Celtics can replace him with an almost equal player. 


(If Posey was a starting player playing 30-35 minutes a game, this would be a different situation)

it is amazing to me how quickly people downplay  what Posey did for this team.

of course Posey is replaceable. the question is who is the replacement. Pietrus is a big step down in terms of ability to fill a role and in terms of intensity and versatility.

heck, we could play Giddens in that role and it would still be "possible" to win a Title, but it would hurt our chances.

a lot of teams have made the mistake that you can just keep the "core" and still have the same chances to win again. while it is possible, i think we are looking for probable.

Posey was more than a backup SF. he was the 6th man, and that can be a very hard/tricky role to fill.

anyway, i do trust Danny to fill the role well if he goes a different direction. and i guess that is the most important factor of all.

[timepiece33]

My contention is that the other moves are moves that are going to happen no matter what.

And the ones I didn't point out, I agreed with.

You have to have at least 12 spots filled. I refuse to believe that the team will be filled with 6 other second rounders making $400K per year each. These are moves that are inevitable.

In doing so, you increased the expected spend for the final 7 players by 400% from the average of the final four this year.  I have a fundamental problem with viewing that assumption as inevitable. 6 second rounders making $400k apiece is roughly $4MM less than I suggested.  Not sure where that came into the fray.

How many teams have multiple multi year MLE's among the major contenders?

That means they would be receiving guaranteed contracts in return totaling somewhere between $16 million and $21.6 million. My guess is that those contract(s) will not be one(s0 that expire immediately. Teams don't trade expiring contracts for expiring contracts. The idea is contradictory to why someone would want to obtain an expiring contract in the first place.

Thinking the Celtics will trade Allen's contract away and only have an $8 million to $11 million player on the payroll the next year is wrong. The CBA and general trading logic doesn't allow it.

Teams trade for cap space.  The fundamental problem in your assumptions is that you are talking about 2 offseasons AFTER Ray Allen's contract expires.

1. If the team is offering multiple players, you believe it is unlikely that some of those players won't have 2 year contract outs?  Are we limited to taking 4 year contracts back?  IMO, it is more likely that both contracts will have expired AND you will be extending just one player than the scenario you are laying out.  The Allen contract has value and it should be relatively easy to space out the secondary contracts

2. If the team is offering one player, you are talking about a major player locked into a contract longer than Allen.  As a result, you are talking about the third or fourth year of a max contract as opposed to the last.  Escalating salaries suggest that there will be a 10 to 15% gap. 

You might have to include a second player AND you'll have control over contract length.  Again, it is two years after Ray Allen's contract expires. 

And if the Celtics aren't contending perhaps the ownership pulls the plug because they can't pay big taxes anymore.

We won't be contending?   What's the point of resigning Pierce then?   

[nickagneta]

My contention is that the other moves are moves that are going to happen no matter what.

And the ones I didn't point out, I agreed with.

You have to have at least 12 spots filled. I refuse to believe that the team will be filled with 6 other second rounders making $400K per year each. These are moves that are inevitable.

In doing so, you increased the expected spend for the final 7 players by 400% from the average of the final four this year.  I have a fundamental problem with viewing that assumption as inevitable. 6 second rounders making $400k apiece is roughly $4MM less than I suggested.  Not sure where that came into the fray.

How many teams have multiple multi year MLE's among the major contenders?

That means they would be receiving guaranteed contracts in return totaling somewhere between $16 million and $21.6 million. My guess is that those contract(s) will not be one(s0 that expire immediately. Teams don't trade expiring contracts for expiring contracts. The idea is contradictory to why someone would want to obtain an expiring contract in the first place.

Thinking the Celtics will trade Allen's contract away and only have an $8 million to $11 million player on the payroll the next year is wrong. The CBA and general trading logic doesn't allow it.

Teams trade for cap space.  The fundamental problem in your assumptions is that you are talking about 2 offseasons AFTER Ray Allen's contract expires.

1. If the team is offering multiple players, you believe it is unlikely that some of those players won't have 2 year contract outs?  Are we limited to taking 4 year contracts back?  IMO, it is more likely that both contracts will have expired AND you will be extending just one player than the scenario you are laying out.  The Allen contract has value and it should be relatively easy to space out the secondary contracts

2. If the team is offering one player, you are talking about a major player locked into a contract longer than Allen.  As a result, you are talking about the third or fourth year of a max contract as opposed to the last.  Escalating salaries suggest that there will be a 10 to 15% gap. 

You might have to include a second player AND you'll have control over contract length.  Again, it is two years after Ray Allen's contract expires. 

And if the Celtics aren't contending perhaps the ownership pulls the plug because they can't pay big taxes anymore.

We won't be contending?   What's the point of resigning Pierce then?   

1.) Regarding the bench payroll. You scoff at a $20 million for the last 7 positions to fill in the 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasons. Except that last year the lst 7 positions held on the bench were by Allen($1.9M), Powe($700K), Davis($400K), Pruitt($650K), Scal($3M), House($1.5M), and Pollard($750K). That's a total of $8.9million with three second rounders and a vet minimum contract in the mix. My contention about 6 second rounders were an overexaggeration of what was occuring this year. With no first rounder in 2009 or 2011 there is not likely to be a ton of cheap rookie talent on the team. There might be a Davis or Walker leftover but not at the current half million dollar figure. It will be higher. And if Posey's game suffers over the next two years yes, another full MLE signing might be necessary for a player to replace his lack of production. So is $16 million completely out of the question for the roster spots I didn't include in my list of:

2010-2011 Boston Celtics
Expected Salary Cap: $63 million given 4% yearly increases.
Expected Luxury Tax Threshold: $76.5 million given 4% yearly increase.

Kevin Garnett - $18.8 million
Paul Pierce - $21.8 million
Ray Allen or replacement (this assumes that Ray Allen is extended at approx same figure as 2009-2010 or is traded for a player or players that are within 15% of his salary and who's contract do not expire the next year. Seems logical considering who would trade expiring contracts for expiring contracts. Assuming Ray is allowed to expire is rather not logical) - $19 million
Rajon Rondo - $3 million
Kendrick Perkins - $4.5 million
James Posey(assuming he resigns full MLE through 2012) -$7.3million
J.R. Giddens - $1.3 million.

2. Regarding the player or players replacing Ray Allen, here is my scenario that I think makes unbelieveably more sense than yours.

He plays next year in 2008-09. He plays for half of the 2009-10 season at which point we trade him at the deadline as an expiring contract for a player or players that equal his salary plus or minus 15%. My first year discussed was 2010-2011, Ray's first year off the books. In your scenario you have one or more of the players we trade for in the Allen deal expiring this year. Sorry check history, that isn't what happens. We will more than likely get a player or players with at least two years of contract on them after the Allen contract would have expired. That would bring those player or players on the payroll untill at least the end of the 2012 season, which is what I had in my assumptions for both the above quoted year of 2010-2011 and the following one of 2011-2012:

2011-2012 Boston Celtics
Expected Salary Cap: $65.6 million given 4% yearly increases.
Expected Luxury Tax Threshold: $79.5 million given 4% yearly increase.

Kevin Garnett - $21.2 million
Paul Pierce (I'm assuming Pierce is the guy thet keep forever out of the Big Three and he will be extended but not at max. Let's put him at) - $15 million
Ray Allen or replacement (see 2010-2011) - $19 million maybe less if one of the players we received expires this year.
Rajon Rondo (assumes 6 yr $60 million extention starting at)- $8 million
Kendrick Perkins(assumes 6 yr $60 million extention starting at) - $8 million
James Posey(assuming he resigns full MLE through 2012) -$7.9million
J.R. Giddens (assumes picking up option for 4th year)- $1.8 million.

Notice in both cases we are at the luxury tax threshold and have to add between 4 and the more likely number, 7, more bodies. If we do so at the exact same number that those positions are being paid out to this year, that number is $8.9 million(see above). If any of those figures in the bottom 7 are increased, and considering we have 3 second rounders in that bunch and a vet min $750K contract, there seems to be a fairly good chance of that, then the numbers start looking more and more like the numbers I have been discussing all along.

You need to remember the years that I have discussed numbers are the 3rd and 4th of the Posey MLE 5 yr deal not the 4th and 5th. I hope that is not confusing you.

I stand by my logic and the numbers I have arrived at. The future could get very expensive and a bad 3rd, 4th, 5th year of a Posey 5 year MLE will kill this team if they have to go looking for help using another MLE to replace a declining Posey's production.

Before typing review the numbers. I'm not that far off.

[wdleehi]

I like Posey.  I like what he did for this team.


But he is replaceable.  He is not one of the three stars.   He isn't even Rondo or Perkins.



He is a SF that defends and can hit an open three.  He is a 15-20 minute player on this team.  He wasn't even the best defender at his position (Pierce was)


Magette is a big upgrade.  I think he will buy into the defense 1st approach the Celtics took last year and can be the 2nd best swing defender. 


Pietrus could also step in a fill that roll.  He might not be quite as good as Posey, but he would be good enough that the Celtics have the same chance to win a title. 



So to me, there is no need to give Posey a 4-5 year contract if the Celtics can replace him with an almost equal player. 


(If Posey was a starting player playing 30-35 minutes a game, this would be a different situation)

it is amazing to me how quickly people downplay  what Posey did for this team.

of course Posey is replaceable. the question is who is the replacement. Pietrus is a big step down in terms of ability to fill a role and in terms of intensity and versatility.

heck, we could play Giddens in that role and it would still be "possible" to win a Title, but it would hurt our chances.

a lot of teams have made the mistake that you can just keep the "core" and still have the same chances to win again. while it is possible, i think we are looking for probable.

Posey was more than a backup SF. he was the 6th man, and that can be a very hard/tricky role to fill.

anyway, i do trust Danny to fill the role well if he goes a different direction. and i guess that is the most important factor of all.

He is a good player.  He helped the Celtics win.


But the Celtics have just as good of a chance winning with another player there. 


I am not trying to downgrade Posey as a player or what he can do. 

The talent of the three stars is high enough that role players are interchangeable. 

[winsomme]

I like Posey.  I like what he did for this team.


But he is replaceable.  He is not one of the three stars.   He isn't even Rondo or Perkins.



He is a SF that defends and can hit an open three.  He is a 15-20 minute player on this team.  He wasn't even the best defender at his position (Pierce was)


Magette is a big upgrade.  I think he will buy into the defense 1st approach the Celtics took last year and can be the 2nd best swing defender. 


Pietrus could also step in a fill that roll.  He might not be quite as good as Posey, but he would be good enough that the Celtics have the same chance to win a title. 



So to me, there is no need to give Posey a 4-5 year contract if the Celtics can replace him with an almost equal player. 


(If Posey was a starting player playing 30-35 minutes a game, this would be a different situation)

it is amazing to me how quickly people downplay  what Posey did for this team.

of course Posey is replaceable. the question is who is the replacement. Pietrus is a big step down in terms of ability to fill a role and in terms of intensity and versatility.

heck, we could play Giddens in that role and it would still be "possible" to win a Title, but it would hurt our chances.

a lot of teams have made the mistake that you can just keep the "core" and still have the same chances to win again. while it is possible, i think we are looking for probable.

Posey was more than a backup SF. he was the 6th man, and that can be a very hard/tricky role to fill.

anyway, i do trust Danny to fill the role well if he goes a different direction. and i guess that is the most important factor of all.

But the Celtics have just as good of a chance winning with another player there. 
 

The talent of the three stars is high enough that role players are interchangeable. 

wdlh, i'm not sure until you know who the the "other" player is that you can say they have "just as good a chance" of winning....

as for GPA being enough, i again point you too DET. they kept that core together and i'm sure there were people in DET saying the exact same thing you are saying about GPA. i'm sure many felt the Chauncey, Rip, Prince and Rasheed was enough that you could plug in new role players and they would be fine.

it matters who the replacements are, and until we know who is going to be filling that role (by the way this is a totally theoretical debate because for all we know Posey will be back), but until we know the actual player, there is no way to be certain that we will be as good as last season.

the planning for the future strategy is such a crap shoot any way. i mean, look at Utah. their front office must be in a total panic at the thought of losing Boozer.....IMO when you got people locked up like we have with GPA, you can't be afraid of something like a 5th year on an MLE contract.

the contracts to be afraid of IMO are the one's Rashard Lewis signed in ORL. now THAT is a contract that could cause problems down the road.

[BballTim]

I like Posey.  I like what he did for this team.


But he is replaceable.  He is not one of the three stars.   He isn't even Rondo or Perkins.



He is a SF that defends and can hit an open three.  He is a 15-20 minute player on this team.  He wasn't even the best defender at his position (Pierce was)


Magette is a big upgrade.  I think he will buy into the defense 1st approach the Celtics took last year and can be the 2nd best swing defender. 


Pietrus could also step in a fill that roll.  He might not be quite as good as Posey, but he would be good enough that the Celtics have the same chance to win a title. 



So to me, there is no need to give Posey a 4-5 year contract if the Celtics can replace him with an almost equal player. 


(If Posey was a starting player playing 30-35 minutes a game, this would be a different situation)

it is amazing to me how quickly people downplay  what Posey did for this team.

of course Posey is replaceable. the question is who is the replacement. Pietrus is a big step down in terms of ability to fill a role and in terms of intensity and versatility.

heck, we could play Giddens in that role and it would still be "possible" to win a Title, but it would hurt our chances.

a lot of teams have made the mistake that you can just keep the "core" and still have the same chances to win again. while it is possible, i think we are looking for probable.

Posey was more than a backup SF. he was the 6th man, and that can be a very hard/tricky role to fill.

anyway, i do trust Danny to fill the role well if he goes a different direction. and i guess that is the most important factor of all.

But the Celtics have just as good of a chance winning with another player there. 
 

The talent of the three stars is high enough that role players are interchangeable. 

wdlh, i'm not sure until you know who the the "other" player is that you can say they have "just as good a chance" of winning....

as for GPA being enough, i again point you too DET. they kept that core together and i'm sure there were people in DET saying the exact same thing you are saying about GPA. i'm sure many felt the Chauncey, Rip, Prince and Rasheed was enough that you could plug in new role players and they would be fine.

  They didn't keep their core together. They lost Ben Wallace to free agency. He was their best defender and rebounder.

[wdleehi]

I like Posey.  I like what he did for this team.


But he is replaceable.  He is not one of the three stars.   He isn't even Rondo or Perkins.



He is a SF that defends and can hit an open three.  He is a 15-20 minute player on this team.  He wasn't even the best defender at his position (Pierce was)


Magette is a big upgrade.  I think he will buy into the defense 1st approach the Celtics took last year and can be the 2nd best swing defender. 


Pietrus could also step in a fill that roll.  He might not be quite as good as Posey, but he would be good enough that the Celtics have the same chance to win a title. 



So to me, there is no need to give Posey a 4-5 year contract if the Celtics can replace him with an almost equal player. 


(If Posey was a starting player playing 30-35 minutes a game, this would be a different situation)

it is amazing to me how quickly people downplay  what Posey did for this team.

of course Posey is replaceable. the question is who is the replacement. Pietrus is a big step down in terms of ability to fill a role and in terms of intensity and versatility.

heck, we could play Giddens in that role and it would still be "possible" to win a Title, but it would hurt our chances.

a lot of teams have made the mistake that you can just keep the "core" and still have the same chances to win again. while it is possible, i think we are looking for probable.

Posey was more than a backup SF. he was the 6th man, and that can be a very hard/tricky role to fill.

anyway, i do trust Danny to fill the role well if he goes a different direction. and i guess that is the most important factor of all.

But the Celtics have just as good of a chance winning with another player there. 
 

The talent of the three stars is high enough that role players are interchangeable. 

wdlh, i'm not sure until you know who the the "other" player is that you can say they have "just as good a chance" of winning....

as for GPA being enough, i again point you too DET. they kept that core together and i'm sure there were people in DET saying the exact same thing you are saying about GPA. i'm sure many felt the Chauncey, Rip, Prince and Rasheed was enough that you could plug in new role players and they would be fine.

  They didn't keep their core together. They lost Ben Wallace to free agency. He was their best defender and rebounder.

And the downgraded the coach.  Still were talented enough to make the East Finals those 3 years.


Plus, the 3 stars the Celtics have are more talented.