Posey Update

[tenn_smoothie]

2 Years - where did that come from ?

that's an insult - give the guy his due and quit playing ego games Danny.

[wdleehi]

2 Years -?

that's an insult - give the guy his due and quit playing ego games Danny.

If it was an insult, the agent wouldn't still be in discussion with the Celtics and Posey would have signed with another team already. 


These are not ego games.  This is Ainge trying to set his team up for this season and the future. 

[Andy Jick]

reminds me of the scene from "Armagaddon" when steve buschemi's character said before leaving the astroid, "we're staying...we're going...we're staying...we're going - can somebody please make up their mind?!"...

[paintitgreen]

I, for one, would go up to 3 years at the full MLE, and 4 years for something less than the full MLE (i.e., leave enough leftover to sign Walker using MLE money so we have him for 3 years in case he blows up).

But if the Celtics are still in the running with a 2-year MLE offer ($11.6 mil), my hope would be we eventually get Posey with a 4 year non-Bird deal ($17.25 mil) with a player option on the final season. Posey gets a longer term deal than he's being offered and he gets to stay in Boston where he is appreciated and competing for titles. The Cs would save about $3.5 million in the next two seasons - which turns into $7 mil since we'll have to pay the luxury tax this year and next - and keep its top six intact for next season and a chance at a repeat. And, if we really need it, we'll have the MLE available this year.

I thought a non-Bird deal would not be a possibility, and it still may not be, but with the way things are turning and the market drying up, it might be the best option for Posey. He mentioned before how nice it was to see how much the fans appreciated him here in Boston, compared to Miami, even though he was a bench player here behind three All Stars. That might make it easier and more likely for him to get local endorsement deals in Boston than in cities like New Orleans and Cleveland and LA (where nobody would know or care about him). Those won't make up the nearly $2 mil in salary differential, but it could help some.

[RebusRankin]

I'd be estatic if we could get him for two years at the MLE. 4 years at the non-bird would be great too.

[Jon]

Well first of all, in most of these situations, nobody really knows what's going on.  I'm sure both Ainge and Posey's agent are trying to distort reality through the media.  For all we know, no team wants to offer Posey more than two years; but we all know that Posey's agent is going to say that and is probably leaking info to the contrary. 

That said, Danny's playing a dangerous game if he doesn't bring Posey back.  I worry that he--like some people on this board--has the mindset that he's the new Patriots/Red Sox, when nothing could be further from the truth.  Both in terms of construction and the simple nature of each sport, the Sox and Pats' "tough line" approach has little application to the C's current situation. 

1) Age.  Brady is Pierce's age in a sport where he could play longer.  Brady was in his 20s when they won their three titles.  Thus, Bellichick could always afford to take a temporary hit because he knew his window to win a title was wide open.  It's similar with the Sox.  Though Ortiz and Manny are older now, they weathered the storm in '05 and '06 and came back and won in '07.  That's not happening for the Celtics.  They can't afford to be tough about salary because they don't have a year or two to wait around to find a suitable replacement. 

2) Speaking of suitable replacements, that's also something the C's don't really have the luxury of having.  People forget, yes, the Pats cut Lawyer Milloy, but they brought in Rodney Harrison.  Yes, the Sox let Pedro go in '05 and Damon go in '06, but countered with the acquisition of guys like Beckett and Lowell.  Who are the Celtics going to replace Posey with?  Giddens?  Maybe if we're very lucky, but he's not going to get away with what Posey got away with as rookie?  A guy like Barnes?  Maybe, but he doesn't have all the intangibles Posey has. 

3) If the C's lose Posey and somehow win it all next year, good for Danny.  In Danny I will trust; however, if they come up just short, it's an enormous waste.  In life, I'm someone always looking to the future.  But what's the point of looking to the future if you're the Celtics?  The whole point of being a professional sports team is to win a championship.  The C's are doing that right now.  While I'd like to see them continue that success 5 years down the road, reality will tell us that even if Danny plays his cards right, they probably won't be winning a title then.  Remember, every era of basketball has a ton of good teams, but few of them ever win a title.  So to risk not winning a title when we're currently one of the "great" teams of an era is crazy.  Because even if Danny develops youngsters and clears cap space, it's far more likely that the next incantation of the C's is the '97 Jazz (or worse the '01 Sixers or '02 Nets) than the '97 Bulls. 

Jon, I share your fears about Ainge too closely mimicking the Sox/Pats (i'm a Sox/Chargers fan so i'm less knowledgeable about the Pats).  But there are 2 key issue's i"d take with your post: 

So to risk not winning a title when we're currently one of the "great" teams of an era is crazy.  Because even if Danny develops youngsters and clears cap space, it's far more likely that the next incantation of the C's is the '97 Jazz (or worse the '01 Sixers or '02 Nets) than the '97 Bulls. 

Uh.... we're already diff. from the 97 Jazz, 01 Sixers or 02 Nets b/c in case you missed it we won the NBA Championship!!!. Those teams did not, so really the question should be  will we be the next 06 Heat/04 Pistons (1 time winners) or the 05/07 Spurs/01-03 Lakers (multiple time winners either sep. by a year (spurs) or repeating champs (fakers).

The second point is that a single player or 2 make such a bigger difference in the NBA (with smaller rosters, etc). This obvs. cuts both ways:  A player like Posey last year can make a huge diff., while losing him this year can too.  But replacing him with a Matt Barnes might make up 80% of that loss.

Don't get me wrong, i hope we resign Posey -- like 95% of Celtics fans do -- but i'm not gonna predict a new champ next year if we lose him.  We still have a couple scrubs named Pierce, Garnett, Allen and Rondo

Gainesville, my '97 Jazz reference wasn't in reference to last year's team, it was in reference to where the C's will be in 5 years.  I worry that Ainge won't pay Posey because he thinks it will hinder his "rebuilding" plans in 3-5 years as the Big Three fade out.  My point is that what any rebuilding plan is not worth risking a title now because only a small percentage of rebuilding efforts work and even a smaller percentage of them do well.  Hence my Jazz comparison.  Ainge might do an awesome rebuilding job, but he might be stuck in an era where LeBron, like Jordan, can't be stopped.  Thus, it wouldn't be worth sacrificing a title now to "rebuild better" only to fall short in the rebuilding effort. 

I mean when you think about it, generally speaking only a few teams have dominated each era of the NBA.  For Danny to risk the present on the presumption we can somehow become one of those again in 5 years is awfully ballsy. 

[Jon]

id like to bring posey back if for nothing else than hes one more veteran player that giddens and walker can learn from off the bench. but have posey here for a couple of years until giddens and walker are fully ready for bigger minutes and then you dont need posey anymore. id definitely like him back for next year to hopefully win another title. and the year after that. even 3 years. worse come to worse hes a trade asset in his 3rd year. but beyond that is where i get hazy. i think posey has another couple of good years in him but if we dont resign him im not convinced hes the only way we can compete for a title. this team had the best overall team defense BY FAR. and if we lose posey were gonna fall apart all the sudden? i dont buy that. considering the la lakers just competed for a title with kobe bryant and this group of wings: vladimir radmanovic, luke walton, sasha vujacic, and trevor ariza. and they came out of supposedly the tougher top to bottom conference.

i want posey back for the next couple of years but he he chooses elsewhere the sky is definitely not falling.

Depends what you mean by falling.  Would the C's have won #17 without Posey this year?  I'm not sure they would have.  So unless the C's can a) get a suitable replacement, b) make up for it in other areas, or c) face easier competition, I don't see how the team won't be worse next year without him.

"a" is easier said than done with the drying up free agent pool; however, given the C's status as champions, I'm holding out hope someone will want to jump on for the chance at a ring for less money. 

"b" is probably only going to happen if Rondo steps it up or a guy like Giddens matures a heck of a lot faster than we think.  Could happen, but probably not something to fall back on.

"c" probably isn't going to happen given Philly's improvement and the Cavs continuing presence.  Still, Detroit could be worse next year than they were this year depending on what Dumars does. 

But make no mistake about it, if the C's don't get Posey and fall just short next year (read: lose that very close Cleveland series), the sky will have fallen. 

if they resign posey and STILL lose that close series next year does the sky fall then too? oh yeah resigning posey does not automatically mean banner 18 nor does it assume future series wins. posey can make a big shot or 2 to help but championships are ALWAYS gonna be won by your best players, not by role players. do we win #17 without ray allen? kg? how about paul pierce? i dont think so either. do they win the cleveland series without a clutch shot from pj brown?? should we pay him 6 mil too? im sure the c's can find a suitable replacement if need be although where the sky would be falling is within people's subjective view of what is and what is not suitable.

You're right about some of what you say.  They absolutely could re-sign Posey and still not win it all next year.  I'm not saying that Posey = 18.  All I'm saying is what I saw last year: the Celtics were a bounce or two away from getting knocked out in the second round, Posey was a big part of their success in the playoffs, there is no apparent replacement for Posey on the free agent market or internally.  Now if Ainge has something up his sleeve or he knows something about Giddens no one else does, then maybe everything will be all right.  All I know is that the C's could really use a solid defender at the 2/3 who can guard multiple positions and hit the weakside trey (hugs wouldn't hurt).  I don't see anyone else besides Posey who unquestionably fills that role; thus, I want him back.  But if anyone else can do that, I'm not emotionally attached to the guy.

As for your statements about other guys, I mean of course they were important too.  The difference with guys like the Big Three is that they're coming back next year.  So it's not an issue.  As for P.J.'s loss, he's all the more reason to sign Posey. 

[Surferdad]

An "increased offer" is how Wyc Grousbeck described it when interviewed by Greg Dickerson at tonight's championship DVD showing at the Garden.  This part of the interview was shown tonight on CSN.

I agree with Dickerson that the longer this goes, the better odds that Posey returns.

[michael32951]

I think 2 years at full midlevel is a good offer, in two years if he is playing well he can sign another contract for maybe more than the midlevel is today.  Danny can't sign him for 4, Rondo, Powe, and Davis will need to be re-signed in a couple of years.

[Bankshot]

An "increased offer" is how Wyc Grousbeck described it when interviewed by Greg Dickerson at tonight's championship DVD showing at the Garden.  This part of the interview was shown tonight on CSN.

I agree with Dickerson that the longer this goes, the better odds that Posey returns.

I saw that too.  I wonder what the "increased offer" is.  If they increased it to 3 years at the full MLE, wouldn't Posey have accepted that?  Probably another low ball offer.

[scurvmeister]

The Boston Herald said that the offer may be 3 years MLE now...

The Celts still are apparently willing to go no further than three years at the mid-level exception of some $5.6 million to retain their key veteran reserve, so Posey is waiting.

[Andy Jick]

^^

the truth is probably no one even knows what the deal looks like in length...

[cmburrill]

 It has everything to do with age. You don't give the third year to a player that will be in physical decline. Especially when your core has a fixed amount dedicated with them. This is business. It hurts because of the emotion attached but they need to worry about the future as well. There is no debate about this, they have concerns about resigning players not at their full potential slipping away because of Posey's third year. Im not saying that it would happen, I'm saying that Posey's play will decline because of his age. It's not going to get better.

[hwangjini_1]

Well first of all, in most of these situations, nobody really knows what's going on.  I'm sure both Ainge and Posey's agent are trying to distort reality through the media.  For all we know, no team wants to offer Posey more than two years; but we all know that Posey's agent is going to say that and is probably leaking info to the contrary. 

That said, Danny's playing a dangerous game if he doesn't bring Posey back.  I worry that he--like some people on this board--has the mindset that he's the new Patriots/Red Sox, when nothing could be further from the truth.  Both in terms of construction and the simple nature of each sport, the Sox and Pats' "tough line" approach has little application to the C's current situation. 

1) Age.  Brady is Pierce's age in a sport where he could play longer.  Brady was in his 20s when they won their three titles.  Thus, Bellichick could always afford to take a temporary hit because he knew his window to win a title was wide open.  It's similar with the Sox.  Though Ortiz and Manny are older now, they weathered the storm in '05 and '06 and came back and won in '07.  That's not happening for the Celtics.  They can't afford to be tough about salary because they don't have a year or two to wait around to find a suitable replacement. 

2) Speaking of suitable replacements, that's also something the C's don't really have the luxury of having.  People forget, yes, the Pats cut Lawyer Milloy, but they brought in Rodney Harrison.  Yes, the Sox let Pedro go in '05 and Damon go in '06, but countered with the acquisition of guys like Beckett and Lowell.  Who are the Celtics going to replace Posey with?  Giddens?  Maybe if we're very lucky, but he's not going to get away with what Posey got away with as rookie?  A guy like Barnes?  Maybe, but he doesn't have all the intangibles Posey has. 

3) If the C's lose Posey and somehow win it all next year, good for Danny.  In Danny I will trust; however, if they come up just short, it's an enormous waste.  In life, I'm someone always looking to the future.  But what's the point of looking to the future if you're the Celtics?  The whole point of being a professional sports team is to win a championship.  The C's are doing that right now.  While I'd like to see them continue that success 5 years down the road, reality will tell us that even if Danny plays his cards right, they probably won't be winning a title then.  Remember, every era of basketball has a ton of good teams, but few of them ever win a title.  So to risk not winning a title when we're currently one of the "great" teams of an era is crazy.  Because even if Danny develops youngsters and clears cap space, it's far more likely that the next incantation of the C's is the '97 Jazz (or worse the '01 Sixers or '02 Nets) than the '97 Bulls. 

Jon, I share your fears about Ainge too closely mimicking the Sox/Pats (i'm a Sox/Chargers fan so i'm less knowledgeable about the Pats).  But there are 2 key issue's i"d take with your post: 

So to risk not winning a title when we're currently one of the "great" teams of an era is crazy.  Because even if Danny develops youngsters and clears cap space, it's far more likely that the next incantation of the C's is the '97 Jazz (or worse the '01 Sixers or '02 Nets) than the '97 Bulls. 

Uh.... we're already diff. from the 97 Jazz, 01 Sixers or 02 Nets b/c in case you missed it we won the NBA Championship!!!. Those teams did not, so really the question should be  will we be the next 06 Heat/04 Pistons (1 time winners) or the 05/07 Spurs/01-03 Lakers (multiple time winners either sep. by a year (spurs) or repeating champs (fakers).

The second point is that a single player or 2 make such a bigger difference in the NBA (with smaller rosters, etc). This obvs. cuts both ways:  A player like Posey last year can make a huge diff., while losing him this year can too.  But replacing him with a Matt Barnes might make up 80% of that loss.

Don't get me wrong, i hope we resign Posey -- like 95% of Celtics fans do -- but i'm not gonna predict a new champ next year if we lose him.  We still have a couple scrubs named Pierce, Garnett, Allen and Rondo

Gainesville, my '97 Jazz reference wasn't in reference to last year's team, it was in reference to where the C's will be in 5 years.  I worry that Ainge won't pay Posey because he thinks it will hinder his "rebuilding" plans in 3-5 years as the Big Three fade out.  My point is that what any rebuilding plan is not worth risking a title now because only a small percentage of rebuilding efforts work and even a smaller percentage of them do well.  Hence my Jazz comparison.  Ainge might do an awesome rebuilding job, but he might be stuck in an era where LeBron, like Jordan, can't be stopped.  Thus, it wouldn't be worth sacrificing a title now to "rebuild better" only to fall short in the rebuilding effort. 

I mean when you think about it, generally speaking only a few teams have dominated each era of the NBA.  For Danny to risk the present on the presumption we can somehow become one of those again in 5 years is awfully ballsy. 

so, by "ballsy" you mean stupid?

if so, then i agree.

[Bankshot]

Well first of all, in most of these situations, nobody really knows what's going on.  I'm sure both Ainge and Posey's agent are trying to distort reality through the media.  For all we know, no team wants to offer Posey more than two years; but we all know that Posey's agent is going to say that and is probably leaking info to the contrary. 

That said, Danny's playing a dangerous game if he doesn't bring Posey back.  I worry that he--like some people on this board--has the mindset that he's the new Patriots/Red Sox, when nothing could be further from the truth.  Both in terms of construction and the simple nature of each sport, the Sox and Pats' "tough line" approach has little application to the C's current situation. 

1) Age.  Brady is Pierce's age in a sport where he could play longer.  Brady was in his 20s when they won their three titles.  Thus, Bellichick could always afford to take a temporary hit because he knew his window to win a title was wide open.  It's similar with the Sox.  Though Ortiz and Manny are older now, they weathered the storm in '05 and '06 and came back and won in '07.  That's not happening for the Celtics.  They can't afford to be tough about salary because they don't have a year or two to wait around to find a suitable replacement. 

2) Speaking of suitable replacements, that's also something the C's don't really have the luxury of having.  People forget, yes, the Pats cut Lawyer Milloy, but they brought in Rodney Harrison.  Yes, the Sox let Pedro go in '05 and Damon go in '06, but countered with the acquisition of guys like Beckett and Lowell.  Who are the Celtics going to replace Posey with?  Giddens?  Maybe if we're very lucky, but he's not going to get away with what Posey got away with as rookie?  A guy like Barnes?  Maybe, but he doesn't have all the intangibles Posey has. 

3) If the C's lose Posey and somehow win it all next year, good for Danny.  In Danny I will trust; however, if they come up just short, it's an enormous waste.  In life, I'm someone always looking to the future.  But what's the point of looking to the future if you're the Celtics?  The whole point of being a professional sports team is to win a championship.  The C's are doing that right now.  While I'd like to see them continue that success 5 years down the road, reality will tell us that even if Danny plays his cards right, they probably won't be winning a title then.  Remember, every era of basketball has a ton of good teams, but few of them ever win a title.  So to risk not winning a title when we're currently one of the "great" teams of an era is crazy.  Because even if Danny develops youngsters and clears cap space, it's far more likely that the next incantation of the C's is the '97 Jazz (or worse the '01 Sixers or '02 Nets) than the '97 Bulls. 

Jon, I share your fears about Ainge too closely mimicking the Sox/Pats (i'm a Sox/Chargers fan so i'm less knowledgeable about the Pats).  But there are 2 key issue's i"d take with your post: 

So to risk not winning a title when we're currently one of the "great" teams of an era is crazy.  Because even if Danny develops youngsters and clears cap space, it's far more likely that the next incantation of the C's is the '97 Jazz (or worse the '01 Sixers or '02 Nets) than the '97 Bulls. 

Uh.... we're already diff. from the 97 Jazz, 01 Sixers or 02 Nets b/c in case you missed it we won the NBA Championship!!!. Those teams did not, so really the question should be  will we be the next 06 Heat/04 Pistons (1 time winners) or the 05/07 Spurs/01-03 Lakers (multiple time winners either sep. by a year (spurs) or repeating champs (fakers).

The second point is that a single player or 2 make such a bigger difference in the NBA (with smaller rosters, etc). This obvs. cuts both ways:  A player like Posey last year can make a huge diff., while losing him this year can too.  But replacing him with a Matt Barnes might make up 80% of that loss.

Don't get me wrong, i hope we resign Posey -- like 95% of Celtics fans do -- but i'm not gonna predict a new champ next year if we lose him.  We still have a couple scrubs named Pierce, Garnett, Allen and Rondo

Gainesville, my '97 Jazz reference wasn't in reference to last year's team, it was in reference to where the C's will be in 5 years.  I worry that Ainge won't pay Posey because he thinks it will hinder his "rebuilding" plans in 3-5 years as the Big Three fade out.  My point is that what any rebuilding plan is not worth risking a title now because only a small percentage of rebuilding efforts work and even a smaller percentage of them do well.  Hence my Jazz comparison.  Ainge might do an awesome rebuilding job, but he might be stuck in an era where LeBron, like Jordan, can't be stopped.  Thus, it wouldn't be worth sacrificing a title now to "rebuild better" only to fall short in the rebuilding effort. 

I mean when you think about it, generally speaking only a few teams have dominated each era of the NBA.  For Danny to risk the present on the presumption we can somehow become one of those again in 5 years is awfully ballsy. 

so, by "ballsy" you mean stupid?

if so, then i agree.

Yep.  I think Danny took some stupid pills after they won the championship.