Win it all next year vs. economic suicide

[timepiece33]

so there was ample opportunity to bring in players that don't work out. they can just  reload the following year and go again. do we all remember WHY we brought in Randy Moss? that receiving corp in 06-07 was like the closer by committee experiment.

If only, we could cut Scalabrine outright and use his money on another player OR ask Kevin Garnett to renegotiate his deal to make room for a bigger signing on a 1 year deal

[jay_jay54]

so there was ample opportunity to bring in players that don't work out. they can just  reload the following year and go again. do we all remember WHY we brought in Randy Moss? that receiving corp in 06-07 was like the closer by committee experiment.

If only, we could cut Scalabrine outright and use his money on another player OR ask Kevin Garnett to renegotiate his deal to make room for a bigger signing on a 1 year deal

Speaking about players and $$$,whats up with Pollard's future with the Celtics...talking about some economic suicide so far,what has he done for anybody lately?

[Brickowski]

Silas is a good example of a guy who didn't wow you with statistics but made all the key plays to win games.

Silas went to Denver for a year ands then to Seattle, where the team won 47, 52 and 56 games during the time Silas was there, including a title in 1979-80.

Then, after Silas retired and Dennis Johnson was traded, the Sonics won 34 games in 1980-81, and did not become a good team again until the early 90's with Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp, Detlef Schrempf, etc.

  A big part of that was Gus Williams not playing in 80-81. When he came back the following year they went from 34 wins back up to 52.

Yes, but then they were mediocre for a decade.

[jay_jay54]

When the Jazz acquired Derek Fisher, there were a lot of people that thought they were nuts.  Picking up a 31 year old with 4 years remaining on a $20+MM contract.

He ended up getting out of the contract for personal reasons, but that deal made a lot of sense.   At 33, he got 3 years and the MLE which will put him at 36.   

Was it a bad signing?  I see Posey and Fisher in the same light.

Actually, the circumstances are a bit different. It's one thing to create a new contract with your limited current resources than acquiring a contract and still have your resources available to make other moves.

Fisher was traded for. We have to sign Posey using our MLE.

Seeing that the Lakers are being used in some comparisons here,im looking at Luke Walton's(sixth man)contract,26mil.5 yr.deal approaching 29.Did they use their MLE to satisfy him,and if they did,i never heard a big deal in the media about it?I don't think Walton is a better player than Posey,maybe a little younger.

[BballTim]

When the Jazz acquired Derek Fisher, there were a lot of people that thought they were nuts.  Picking up a 31 year old with 4 years remaining on a $20+MM contract.

He ended up getting out of the contract for personal reasons, but that deal made a lot of sense.   At 33, he got 3 years and the MLE which will put him at 36.   

Was it a bad signing?  I see Posey and Fisher in the same light.

Actually, the circumstances are a bit different. It's one thing to create a new contract with your limited current resources than acquiring a contract and still have your resources available to make other moves.

Fisher was traded for. We have to sign Posey using our MLE.

Seeing that the Lakers are being used in some comparisons here,im looking at Luke Walton's(sixth man)contract,26mil.5 yr.deal approaching 29.Did they use their MLE to satisfy him,and if they did,i never heard a big deal in the media about it?I don't think Walton is a better player than Posey,maybe a little younger.

  And the Lakers must be thrilled to see that he'll be earning $5M-$6M until 2013...

  Not to mention Vlad making $6M for the next 3 years. If they either start Odom/Gasol/Bynum or trade Odom for another sf, they'll be paying $34M for backup forwards over the next 3 years.

[BballTim]

New article on the Herald related to this topic:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view/2008_07_06_C_s_deal_with_Green_stuff:_Might_have_to_take_Pats__cold__hard_salary-cap_line/srvc=celt&position=1

again, this all goes back to the "window of opportunity" question.

as we can see, the Patriots don't win Super Bowls every year. and we start with Brady and Belichick and Brady won his first Super Bowl at what 24, 25??

so there was ample opportunity to bring in players that don't work out. they can just  reload the following year and go again. do we all remember WHY we brought in Randy Moss? that receiving corp in 06-07 was like the closer by committee experiment.

i don't think we have the same luxury here. i mean, how often do you get a combo like GPA?

  Even with crappy receivers the Patriots lost a game in the conference finals that they were dominating early on to a team that easily won the Super Bowl. That's as much of a shot at the title as a team can reasonably expect. It's easy to point to the receivers as the reason that they lost, but the receivers weren't the only players that the Pats let leave during their title run (Law and Milloy and Vineteri, for example). They let non-essential players leave instead of overpaying them and still have as good a shot at winning the title as anyone in the league. If they signed all of their players to big contracts because they made key contributions to title teams they'd have spent the last year or two dumping players to get under the cap and would have REDUCED Brady's window significantly.

[winsomme]

New article on the Herald related to this topic:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view/2008_07_06_C_s_deal_with_Green_stuff:_Might_have_to_take_Pats__cold__hard_salary-cap_line/srvc=celt&position=1

again, this all goes back to the "window of opportunity" question.

as we can see, the Patriots don't win Super Bowls every year. and we start with Brady and Belichick and Brady won his first Super Bowl at what 24, 25??

so there was ample opportunity to bring in players that don't work out. they can just  reload the following year and go again. do we all remember WHY we brought in Randy Moss? that receiving corp in 06-07 was like the closer by committee experiment.

i don't think we have the same luxury here. i mean, how often do you get a combo like GPA?

  Even with crappy receivers the Patriots lost a game in the conference finals that they were dominating early on to a team that easily won the Super Bowl. That's as much of a shot at the title as a team can reasonably expect. It's easy to point to the receivers as the reason that they lost, but the receivers weren't the only players that the Pats let leave during their title run (Law and Milloy and Vineteri, for example). They let non-essential players leave instead of overpaying them and still have as good a shot at winning the title as anyone in the league. If they signed all of their players to big contracts because they made key contributions to title teams they'd have spent the last year or two dumping players to get under the cap and would have REDUCED Brady's window significantly.

well i disagree. i think it was pretty clear that not bringing in better receivers was a mistake that year, and there were reports that Brady was upset about it. the system can only get you so far.

there are lots of ways to close "windows" for teams and bad contracts is one of them, but the "window" is much smaller for GPA. so who makes up the team NEXT SEASON is really important.

you keep talking about Posey's spot on this team as "bit" and "non-essential" and i guess that is where our disagreement begins. i think what Posey did for the Cs was vital to their winning the Title. it is replaceable, but it matters who the replacement is...

plus it is not a foregone conclusion that signing Posey for 4 or 5 years would actually be that bad a contract.

[BballTim]

New article on the Herald related to this topic:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view/2008_07_06_C_s_deal_with_Green_stuff:_Might_have_to_take_Pats__cold__hard_salary-cap_line/srvc=celt&position=1

again, this all goes back to the "window of opportunity" question.

as we can see, the Patriots don't win Super Bowls every year. and we start with Brady and Belichick and Brady won his first Super Bowl at what 24, 25??

so there was ample opportunity to bring in players that don't work out. they can just  reload the following year and go again. do we all remember WHY we brought in Randy Moss? that receiving corp in 06-07 was like the closer by committee experiment.

i don't think we have the same luxury here. i mean, how often do you get a combo like GPA?

  Even with crappy receivers the Patriots lost a game in the conference finals that they were dominating early on to a team that easily won the Super Bowl. That's as much of a shot at the title as a team can reasonably expect. It's easy to point to the receivers as the reason that they lost, but the receivers weren't the only players that the Pats let leave during their title run (Law and Milloy and Vineteri, for example). They let non-essential players leave instead of overpaying them and still have as good a shot at winning the title as anyone in the league. If they signed all of their players to big contracts because they made key contributions to title teams they'd have spent the last year or two dumping players to get under the cap and would have REDUCED Brady's window significantly.

well i disagree. i think it was pretty clear that not bringing in better receivers was a mistake that year, and there were reports that Brady was upset about it. the system can only get you so far.

there are lots of ways to close "windows" for teams and bad contracts is one of them, but the "window" is much smaller for GPA. so who makes up the team NEXT SEASON is really important.

you keep talking about Posey's spot on this team as "bit" and "non-essential" and i guess that is where our disagreement begins. i think what Posey did for the Cs was vital to their winning the Title. it is replaceable, but it matters who the replacement is...

plus it is not a foregone conclusion that signing Posey for 4 or 5 years would actually be that bad a contract.

  You're just cherry-picking. The Pats let a lot of veterans go and they didn't have the use of a crystal ball. They didn't know for sure that they could replace (for instance) Dillon and Vinateri and not Branch, so they would have had to sign them all to insure a slightly better chance at the title, killing their future flexibility in the process. And I don't know that it's a given that the owners won't try and replace GPA with other max contract players, so it's tough to say exactly how long our window is.

  And I'll bet I never referred to Posey as a "bit" player. Was he essential last year? Yes. Is he less essential going forward? Probably.

[winsomme]

New article on the Herald related to this topic:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view/2008_07_06_C_s_deal_with_Green_stuff:_Might_have_to_take_Pats__cold__hard_salary-cap_line/srvc=celt&position=1

again, this all goes back to the "window of opportunity" question.

as we can see, the Patriots don't win Super Bowls every year. and we start with Brady and Belichick and Brady won his first Super Bowl at what 24, 25??

so there was ample opportunity to bring in players that don't work out. they can just  reload the following year and go again. do we all remember WHY we brought in Randy Moss? that receiving corp in 06-07 was like the closer by committee experiment.

i don't think we have the same luxury here. i mean, how often do you get a combo like GPA?

  Even with crappy receivers the Patriots lost a game in the conference finals that they were dominating early on to a team that easily won the Super Bowl. That's as much of a shot at the title as a team can reasonably expect. It's easy to point to the receivers as the reason that they lost, but the receivers weren't the only players that the Pats let leave during their title run (Law and Milloy and Vineteri, for example). They let non-essential players leave instead of overpaying them and still have as good a shot at winning the title as anyone in the league. If they signed all of their players to big contracts because they made key contributions to title teams they'd have spent the last year or two dumping players to get under the cap and would have REDUCED Brady's window significantly.

well i disagree. i think it was pretty clear that not bringing in better receivers was a mistake that year, and there were reports that Brady was upset about it. the system can only get you so far.

there are lots of ways to close "windows" for teams and bad contracts is one of them, but the "window" is much smaller for GPA. so who makes up the team NEXT SEASON is really important.

you keep talking about Posey's spot on this team as "bit" and "non-essential" and i guess that is where our disagreement begins. i think what Posey did for the Cs was vital to their winning the Title. it is replaceable, but it matters who the replacement is...

plus it is not a foregone conclusion that signing Posey for 4 or 5 years would actually be that bad a contract.

  You're just cherry-picking. The Pats let a lot of veterans go and they didn't have the use of a crystal ball. They didn't know for sure that they could replace (for instance) Dillon and Vinateri and not Branch, so they would have had to sign them all to insure a slightly better chance at the title, killing their future flexibility in the process. And I don't know that it's a given that the owners won't try and replace GPA with other max contract players, so it's tough to say exactly how long our window is.

  And I'll bet I never referred to Posey as a "bit" player. Was he essential last year? Yes. Is he less essential going forward? Probably.

well that offseason after losing to the Colts was definitely a departure for the Pats. i don't think it is cherry picking. i think they realized that you need playmakers and that the system is not enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/sports/football/30moss.html

and the "essentialness" of Posey isn't really what i'm arguing here. what i'm arguing is the "essentialness" of what he did for the team. and that IMO doesn't change from last season to next.... whoever is filling the role.

i have agreed that Posey IS replaceable, but that who replaces him matters big time. Wells and Pietrus don't cut it for me, personally. i think we would still have a shot at a Title, but i wouldn't be as confident as i am with Posey.

just like the receiving corps that the Pats fielded in 06-07 IMO hurt their chances of winning a Super Bowl. it was still possible with Belichick, Brady, et al, but it was less....

[Edgar]

New article on the Herald related to this topic:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view/2008_07_06_C_s_deal_with_Green_stuff:_Might_have_to_take_Pats__cold__hard_salary-cap_line/srvc=celt&position=1

again, this all goes back to the "window of opportunity" question.

as we can see, the Patriots don't win Super Bowls every year. and we start with Brady and Belichick and Brady won his first Super Bowl at what 24, 25??

so there was ample opportunity to bring in players that don't work out. they can just  reload the following year and go again. do we all remember WHY we brought in Randy Moss? that receiving corp in 06-07 was like the closer by committee experiment.

i don't think we have the same luxury here. i mean, how often do you get a combo like GPA?

  Even with crappy receivers the Patriots lost a game in the conference finals that they were dominating early on to a team that easily won the Super Bowl. That's as much of a shot at the title as a team can reasonably expect. It's easy to point to the receivers as the reason that they lost, but the receivers weren't the only players that the Pats let leave during their title run (Law and Milloy and Vineteri, for example). They let non-essential players leave instead of overpaying them and still have as good a shot at winning the title as anyone in the league. If they signed all of their players to big contracts because they made key contributions to title teams they'd have spent the last year or two dumping players to get under the cap and would have REDUCED Brady's window significantly.

well i disagree. i think it was pretty clear that not bringing in better receivers was a mistake that year, and there were reports that Brady was upset about it. the system can only get you so far.

there are lots of ways to close "windows" for teams and bad contracts is one of them, but the "window" is much smaller for GPA. so who makes up the team NEXT SEASON is really important.

you keep talking about Posey's spot on this team as "bit" and "non-essential" and i guess that is where our disagreement begins. i think what Posey did for the Cs was vital to their winning the Title. it is replaceable, but it matters who the replacement is...

plus it is not a foregone conclusion that signing Posey for 4 or 5 years would actually be that bad a contract.

  You're just cherry-picking. The Pats let a lot of veterans go and they didn't have the use of a crystal ball. They didn't know for sure that they could replace (for instance) Dillon and Vinateri and not Branch, so they would have had to sign them all to insure a slightly better chance at the title, killing their future flexibility in the process. And I don't know that it's a given that the owners won't try and replace GPA with other max contract players, so it's tough to say exactly how long our window is.

  And I'll bet I never referred to Posey as a "bit" player. Was he essential last year? Yes. Is he less essential going forward? Probably.

well that offseason after losing to the Colts was definitely a departure for the Pats. i don't think it is cherry picking. i think they realized that you need playmakers and that the system is not enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/sports/football/30moss.html

and the "essentialness" of Posey isn't really what i'm arguing here. what i'm arguing is the "essentialness" of what he did for the team. and that IMO doesn't change from last season to next.... whoever is filling the role.

i have agreed that Posey IS replaceable, but that who replaces him matters big time. Wells and Pietrus don't cut it for me, personally. i think we would still have a shot at a Title, but i wouldn't be as confident as i am with Posey.

just like the receiving corps that the Pats fielded in 06-07 IMO hurt their chances of winning a Super Bowl. it was still possible with Belichick, Brady, et al, but it was less....

I understand the simil
but isnt this bkb and that football?
with dufferent salary rulezz and different flexibility
someone please explain this to me

[nickagneta]

Ah, we also need a 7th man... spend full MLE on him instead?

These are different sets of circumstances. You let me spend the MLE among other players, and allow me to trade for a 5 year worth of Posey, and I'd do it without thinking (depending on who we give up). But you tell me to spend the full MLE, and leave me with few resources to fill out the rest of my roster and I have to think twice, thrice, and more.

So the 3 minutes a game makes it OK to pay $5+MM for an in excess of 33 year old player? OK.  Got it.   

You've come up with options for the MLE among other players that frankly make our team worse and have tried to rationalize how Roger Mason and Matt Barnes makes us a better team.  When you come up with one that's close, we'll talk.  So far, that one doesn't do it for people for people that actually watch this team.     

Personally, I'm OK signing Posey to a 3 year MLE contract if Maggette passes.  I might even move to a 4 year deal.  Like most of the people on the board, I draw the line at 5 years and move forward.   

Then bring in House at non bird rights and a center at the LLE.   Because we are a good team, we probably will have options with minimum contracts as well.   

I'm not sure what your fascination with keeping him below the MLE is.  I am amazed that you aren't even contemplating years here.  IMO, years are the big question.  Being able to spread the MLE among multiple players assumes that you leave more than enough space to be more than the LLE.  That isn't going happen.  It isn't realistic.

I agree and as I have said many times on this thread the full MLE dollar for 3 year isn't my problem. It is the length when it goes out to 5 years.

If Posey will take a 3 year full MLE with a team option 4th year, I say do it, that is a fair contract. I like the team option 4th year because if he is still producing and healthy, Posey will be worth that last year. If he isn't we have our out and some fiscal responsibility built in.

The 5 years guaranteed no matter what is a horrible deal for the C's and they should walk away with the mindset that that part of Celtic history is over.It's would be time to move on and just forget about the, "yeah but will he give us what Posey gave us" attitude and just max out what you can talent-wise and value-wise and do the best with what you have. It will probably still be enough to win it all in this league.

[winsomme]

New article on the Herald related to this topic:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view/2008_07_06_C_s_deal_with_Green_stuff:_Might_have_to_take_Pats__cold__hard_salary-cap_line/srvc=celt&position=1

again, this all goes back to the "window of opportunity" question.

as we can see, the Patriots don't win Super Bowls every year. and we start with Brady and Belichick and Brady won his first Super Bowl at what 24, 25??

so there was ample opportunity to bring in players that don't work out. they can just  reload the following year and go again. do we all remember WHY we brought in Randy Moss? that receiving corp in 06-07 was like the closer by committee experiment.

i don't think we have the same luxury here. i mean, how often do you get a combo like GPA?

  Even with crappy receivers the Patriots lost a game in the conference finals that they were dominating early on to a team that easily won the Super Bowl. That's as much of a shot at the title as a team can reasonably expect. It's easy to point to the receivers as the reason that they lost, but the receivers weren't the only players that the Pats let leave during their title run (Law and Milloy and Vineteri, for example). They let non-essential players leave instead of overpaying them and still have as good a shot at winning the title as anyone in the league. If they signed all of their players to big contracts because they made key contributions to title teams they'd have spent the last year or two dumping players to get under the cap and would have REDUCED Brady's window significantly.

well i disagree. i think it was pretty clear that not bringing in better receivers was a mistake that year, and there were reports that Brady was upset about it. the system can only get you so far.

there are lots of ways to close "windows" for teams and bad contracts is one of them, but the "window" is much smaller for GPA. so who makes up the team NEXT SEASON is really important.

you keep talking about Posey's spot on this team as "bit" and "non-essential" and i guess that is where our disagreement begins. i think what Posey did for the Cs was vital to their winning the Title. it is replaceable, but it matters who the replacement is...

plus it is not a foregone conclusion that signing Posey for 4 or 5 years would actually be that bad a contract.

  You're just cherry-picking. The Pats let a lot of veterans go and they didn't have the use of a crystal ball. They didn't know for sure that they could replace (for instance) Dillon and Vinateri and not Branch, so they would have had to sign them all to insure a slightly better chance at the title, killing their future flexibility in the process. And I don't know that it's a given that the owners won't try and replace GPA with other max contract players, so it's tough to say exactly how long our window is.

  And I'll bet I never referred to Posey as a "bit" player. Was he essential last year? Yes. Is he less essential going forward? Probably.

well that offseason after losing to the Colts was definitely a departure for the Pats. i don't think it is cherry picking. i think they realized that you need playmakers and that the system is not enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/sports/football/30moss.html

and the "essentialness" of Posey isn't really what i'm arguing here. what i'm arguing is the "essentialness" of what he did for the team. and that IMO doesn't change from last season to next.... whoever is filling the role.

i have agreed that Posey IS replaceable, but that who replaces him matters big time. Wells and Pietrus don't cut it for me, personally. i think we would still have a shot at a Title, but i wouldn't be as confident as i am with Posey.

just like the receiving corps that the Pats fielded in 06-07 IMO hurt their chances of winning a Super Bowl. it was still possible with Belichick, Brady, et al, but it was less....

I understand the simil
but isnt this bkb and that football?
with dufferent salary rulezz and different flexibility
someone please explain this to me

there definitely is not a one to one correlation between the NBA and the NFL. but i think the main point that some are making is that the wisdom of fiscal restraint and not overpaying players has kept the Pats competitive every year.

but i agree that they are VERY different beasts. for one thing, the availability of players is much less in the NBA....which is one of the things that worries me about not bringing Posey back...considering who the alternatives are.

if there was a long list of great replacements, then it would be easier to let him go. but after Maggette, who we don't even really know what the possibility of acquiring is, there is just not that many attractive prospects...

again though, i want emphasize, that i trust Danny here. and if he believes that there is an affordable option that will fill Posey's shoes, then i will buy it. he has earned that from us.

[Edgar]

there definitely is not a one to one correlation between the NBA and the NFL. but i think the main point that some are making is that the wisdom of fiscal restraint and not overpaying players has kept the Pats competitive every year.

but i agree that they are VERY different beasts. for one thing, the availability of players is much less in the NBA....which is one of the things that worries me about not bringing Posey back...considering who the alternatives are.

if there was a long list of great replacements, then it would be easier to let him go. but after Maggette, who we don't even really know what the possibility of acquiring is, there is just not that many attractive prospects...

again though, i want emphasize, that i trust Danny here. and if he believes that there is an affordable option that will fill Posey's shoes, then i will buy it. he has earned that from us.

[/quote]
thanks
you clear a ccouple of things to me about football  (meaning that thing USA people plays without their feet   ) that i dont know that much
and this far sounds fair and coherent

[nickagneta]

Regarding Pats vs C's we have to remember that football has non guaranteed contracts so the Pats can literally tinker in major ways each year while retaining a core and if someone doesn't work out, they are gone. In basketball, you make a contractual mistake on a non core player you can kill your contractual flexibilty for years to come.

And winsomme, you are about as wrong as wrong can be by making this statement:

i don't think it is cherry picking. i think they realized that you need playmakers and that the system is not enough.

With Belichick everything is the system. The system remains while players who maximize their value disappear. And the Pats are never wrong in letting go of players

Lawyer Milloy
Ty Law
Willie McGinest
Damian Woody
Antoine Smith
Deion Branch
David Patten
Joe Andruzzi
Corey Dillon
Booby Hamilton
Rosie Colvin
David Givens
Ted Washington
Daniel Graham
Asante Samuel
Drew Bledsoe
TeBucky Jones
Roman Phifer
Adam Vinetieri

All were players considered essential role player or essential stars at a point in their Patriots career and all gone and none missed to the point where their absence cost us a championship.

Not a one.

And that's because of the system. The play makers didn't win the last Superbowl after all. We lost. And we lost because the offensive protection system broke down and because the Giants defensive line played unworldly.

And yet we lost by three points. Why?

It certainly wasn't because the playmakers were making plays. It was because as bad as the Pats played and as good as the Giants played, the Pats system is superb and better than anyone else's in the league.

Now enough about football let's get this back on track as a Celtic thread. Danny needs to recognize, at least IMO, that older role players cannot be costing you contractual flexibility simply because that combo worked once. There are no guarantees either way, winning or losing. But logic dictates that a player who is coming of your bench and is 31 years old shouldn't be the guy on the team with the longest contract. extend Rondo and Perk long term. Give a 28 year old Maggette a long term deal. But please not Posey.

3 years is the right length, any more and thank him for his services, invite him back for the ring and banner ceremony and move on.

[cordobes]

New article on the Herald related to this topic:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view/2008_07_06_C_s_deal_with_Green_stuff:_Might_have_to_take_Pats__cold__hard_salary-cap_line/srvc=celt&position=1

Ainge, who tends to fall in love with scorers (...)

Brrr... I'm already seeing it: Marbury, Maggette and Krstic. My hope rests in the Brain Doctor vetoing this: