Author Topic: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did?  (Read 56453 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did???????
« Reply #90 on: July 17, 2008, 12:03:30 PM »

Offline crownsy

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8469
  • Tommy Points: 157
He's the best role player on the market and he's proven to be a difference maker on the Celtics title winning team. Proven quality.
supposedly...

supposedly?

why don't you ask clev, detroit, and the lakers if they think his defense on them "supposedly" helped.

or ask the lakers how 18 points in a historic comeback felt, including a clutch three right in kobe's face.
“I will hurt you for this. A day will come when you think you’re safe and happy and your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth. And you will know the debt is paid.” – Tyrion

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did???????
« Reply #91 on: July 17, 2008, 12:07:51 PM »

Offline rondofan1255

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4383
  • Tommy Points: 527
If we sign Pargo to play the 1 and the 2 occasionally, and also sign Bonzi, I would be fine with that.

Too bad we can't sign TA anymore for the qualifying offer, as he didn't receive one?

The big men are for last. They aren't that wanted out there, especially their ages.

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did???????
« Reply #92 on: July 17, 2008, 12:08:15 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
Sure, nick.  But the team has to decide whether it makes sense to break from financial restraint on a one-time basis.  The Red Sox did that with Varitek, for instance.  That did not, however, lead to them totally throwing their financial model out the window.

If the case of the Celtics, if they assessed that Posey resigning gave them, say, a 50% greater shot at a title (which I think some on here assume), I absolutely, unequivocally guarantee that they would have signed him to a fourth year; $7 million is a small price to pay to increase your percentages by that much.  However, I think the team assessed the cost / benefit as being much less clear cut than that, and determined that the difference in value between Posey and his replacements was only incremental, or alternatively, would only have an incremental effect on our ability to win a championship within the next two seasons.

yeah....Lowell is another.....

IMO the only logical reason for Danny to do this is because he was confident in his other options.

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did???????
« Reply #93 on: July 17, 2008, 12:12:56 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
He's the best role player on the market and he's proven to be a difference maker on the Celtics title winning team. Proven quality.
supposedly...

supposedly?

why don't you ask clev, detroit, and the lakers if they think his defense on them "supposedly" helped.

or ask the lakers how 18 points in a historic comeback felt, including a clutch three right in kobe's face.
Yeah, Posey has proven he can have a 20-mpg role off the bench on a championship team. This, however, doesn't mean there are no other guys on the marked that can do that. And certainly doesn't make it a reason to kill the team budged it its entirety by giving him the type of contract he wants.


Heck, Kendrick Perkins had an 18-point, 16-rebound game in the playoffs. Does this mean he's due for 10 million per year next time his contract comes up?
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did???????
« Reply #94 on: July 17, 2008, 12:30:31 PM »

Offline TheReaLPuba

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1031
  • Tommy Points: 79
He's the best role player on the market and he's proven to be a difference maker on the Celtics title winning team. Proven quality.
supposedly...

supposedly?

why don't you ask clev, detroit, and the lakers if they think his defense on them "supposedly" helped.

or ask the lakers how 18 points in a historic comeback felt, including a clutch three right in kobe's face.
Yeah, Posey has proven he can have a 20-mpg role off the bench on a championship team. This, however, doesn't mean there are no other guys on the marked that can do that. And certainly doesn't make it a reason to kill the team budged it its entirety by giving him the type of contract he wants.


Heck, Kendrick Perkins had an 18-point, 16-rebound game in the playoffs. Does this mean he's due for 10 million per year next time his contract comes up?

Yes.

If Varejeo is looking for 5 years 50 million then I have to give Perkins that money too.

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did???????
« Reply #95 on: July 17, 2008, 12:58:19 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Sure, nick.  But the team has to decide whether it makes sense to break from financial restraint on a one-time basis.  The Red Sox did that with Varitek, for instance.  That did not, however, lead to them totally throwing their financial model out the window.

If the case of the Celtics, if they assessed that Posey resigning gave them, say, a 50% greater shot at a title (which I think some on here assume), I absolutely, unequivocally guarantee that they would have signed him to a fourth year; $7 million is a small price to pay to increase your percentages by that much.  However, I think the team assessed the cost / benefit as being much less clear cut than that, and determined that the difference in value between Posey and his replacements was only incremental, or alternatively, would only have an incremental effect on our ability to win a championship within the next two seasons.
Excellent. Yes. Exactly.

The Red Sox decided that a starting player that might be playing one of the most important and hard to replace positions on any team was worth overspending on.

The Celtics decided that overpaying for a first or second man off the bench that is playing a position that is, though not always easily replaceable to the same quality, is replaceable to livable extent is something they could not do. If Posey was signed and the decision was for overpaying a starting PG or C, then the Celtics may have decided to overspend to maximize that window because the player was a starter playing a very difficult to replace position to a similar ability.

I really don't want to argue this point further. I feel financial prudence in the Posey signing was the right move and don't believe that signing Posey for 4 years $24 million would have been good long term for the team or was any more of a high percentage move at winning another title in the next two years as any of another 100 combinations of moves at a lower price could be.

That's my stance and I will stick by it.



BTW, and maybe this should be a thread all by itself, I have been extremely entertained and impressed with the quality of the discussion that has been brought forth this off season regarding Celtic off season moves.

Both for and against the Posey discussion has been as good and knowledgable and well behaved and poignant a discussion as has been on this board probably for the last six months or more.

winsomme, as much as I don't agree with you, you have brought forth many good points that have made me pause and think. I might have changed my mind if a thought Posey was more essential than he is(such as playing a different position or being a starter or being 2 years younger at the position he does play).

Steve, cordobes, timepiece33, Roy, wdleehi, CoachBo, Who, Brickowski, BrickJames, cdif, and a bunch of others who I haven't remembered have brought some of their best stuff in this debate an i applaude you all.

I think the entire membership that has had a say in this all deserve a Tommy Point for the quality that has been the Posey discussion.

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did???????
« Reply #96 on: July 17, 2008, 01:11:40 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
Sure, nick.  But the team has to decide whether it makes sense to break from financial restraint on a one-time basis.  The Red Sox did that with Varitek, for instance.  That did not, however, lead to them totally throwing their financial model out the window.

If the case of the Celtics, if they assessed that Posey resigning gave them, say, a 50% greater shot at a title (which I think some on here assume), I absolutely, unequivocally guarantee that they would have signed him to a fourth year; $7 million is a small price to pay to increase your percentages by that much.  However, I think the team assessed the cost / benefit as being much less clear cut than that, and determined that the difference in value between Posey and his replacements was only incremental, or alternatively, would only have an incremental effect on our ability to win a championship within the next two seasons.
Excellent. Yes. Exactly.

The Red Sox decided that a starting player that might be playing one of the most important and hard to replace positions on any team was worth overspending on.

The Celtics decided that overpaying for a first or second man off the bench that is playing a position that is, though not always easily replaceable to the same quality, is replaceable to livable extent is something they could not do. If Posey was signed and the decision was for overpaying a starting PG or C, then the Celtics may have decided to overspend to maximize that window because the player was a starter playing a very difficult to replace position to a similar ability.

I really don't want to argue this point further. I feel financial prudence in the Posey signing was the right move and don't believe that signing Posey for 4 years $24 million would have been good long term for the team or was any more of a high percentage move at winning another title in the next two years as any of another 100 combinations of moves at a lower price could be.

That's my stance and I will stick by it.



BTW, and maybe this should be a thread all by itself, I have been extremely entertained and impressed with the quality of the discussion that has been brought forth this off season regarding Celtic off season moves.

Both for and against the Posey discussion has been as good and knowledgable and well behaved and poignant a discussion as has been on this board probably for the last six months or more.

winsomme, as much as I don't agree with you, you have brought forth many good points that have made me pause and think. I might have changed my mind if a thought Posey was more essential than he is(such as playing a different position or being a starter or being 2 years younger at the position he does play).

Steve, cordobes, timepiece33, Roy, wdleehi, CoachBo, Who, Brickowski, BrickJames, cdif, and a bunch of others who I haven't remembered have brought some of their best stuff in this debate an i applaude you all.

I think the entire membership that has had a say in this all deserve a Tommy Point for the quality that has been the Posey discussion.

thanks for the shout out, nick. right back at you...

and i actually do i agree with one of your main points here and that is that Danny could make this team better than it would have been if he signed Posey.

for me, that lies not so much in what FAs we sign, but how good these draft picks were -  Giddens and Walker. we know that they are going to add a huge dose of athleticism to the squad and if one of them picks up the defense quickly and shows the ability to knock down open shots, it could be fun watching some new blood out there...

or maybe there is a trade to be had that none of us have really thought of yet.....who knows.

i definitely don't mean to sound doom and gloom because i am a huge Danny supporter.

anyway, thanks for the debate it was really good and your point of view actually re-charged my "in Danny we trust" feelings by allowing me to vent my concerns over losing Poz.

now i really wish we had a SL team so we could be watching Giddens, Pruitt and BBD to get excited about them being key role players for our team next season.

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did???????
« Reply #97 on: July 17, 2008, 01:19:15 PM »

Offline crownsy

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8469
  • Tommy Points: 157
If we sign Pargo to play the 1 and the 2 occasionally, and also sign Bonzi, I would be fine with that.

Too bad we can't sign TA anymore for the qualifying offer, as he didn't receive one?

The big men are for last. They aren't that wanted out there, especially their ages.

why would we sign TA for the qualifing offer?!?

the whole point of not extending him a 3 million dollar contract to fall back on was that they didnt think he was worth it. so far the market has proven them right.

not extending the qualifing offer and not signing the player at all don't go hand in hand.
“I will hurt you for this. A day will come when you think you’re safe and happy and your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth. And you will know the debt is paid.” – Tyrion

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did???????
« Reply #98 on: July 17, 2008, 06:52:24 PM »

Offline Steve Weinman

  • Author / Moderator
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2766
  • Tommy Points: 33
  • My alter ego
BTW, and maybe this should be a thread all by itself, I have been extremely entertained and impressed with the quality of the discussion that has been brought forth this off season regarding Celtic off season moves.

Both for and against the Posey discussion has been as good and knowledgable and well behaved and poignant a discussion as has been on this board probably for the last six months or more.

winsomme, as much as I don't agree with you, you have brought forth many good points that have made me pause and think. I might have changed my mind if a thought Posey was more essential than he is(such as playing a different position or being a starter or being 2 years younger at the position he does play).

Steve, cordobes, timepiece33, Roy, wdleehi, CoachBo, Who, Brickowski, BrickJames, cdif, and a bunch of others who I haven't remembered have brought some of their best stuff in this debate an i applaude you all.

I think the entire membership that has had a say in this all deserve a Tommy Point for the quality that has been the Posey discussion.

Agreed in whole, Nick.  Thanks for the shout-out, and right back at ya (read: TP  ;D).  While we certainly don't see eye-to-eye on this particular issue, we've really had what has been for the most part and excellent set of discussions as a community here thus far in the off-season.   Looking forward to more of the same in the days to come.

-sw


Reggies Ghost: Where artistic genius happens.  Thank you, sir.

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did?
« Reply #99 on: July 17, 2008, 08:18:34 PM »

Offline paintitgreen

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1109
  • Tommy Points: 154
Interesting thread to read through, from my perspective, though I never really saw any argument supporting what I saw as the thesis of the thread - that the Celtics would be better off in 08-09 and 09-10 without James Posey. Putting aside the later years, that is exactly what the title of the thread states. Yet as it went on, nick, your argument changed to "being competitive but not winning the title for a number of years is better than winning the title."

Now, I don't dispute that argument has some validity. Since they've won the title, ownership can probably now make as much money from being competitive with the least expensive possible team as they could from winning it all again with a more expensive team. I understand that. However, that does not give them a better chance to win a title, so the title of the thread is erroneous. Letting Posey go gives them a worse chance as was tacitly admitted.

I've had a tough time with this, because on the one hand, I try to be really rational in discussing sports, the Celtics, or really anything. But on the other hand, I absolutely love James Posey. Do I think the Hornets win the title or even get a little better next year? Not necessarily, because Posey seems redundant there. They have a lot of 3s who are closer to being 4s than they are to being 2s. They lack a true shooting guard, which is why I thought they should have used their MLE on that. I think it was a bad signing for them. But now, I'm thinking it was just as bad a non-signing for us. I'm not seeing replacements who can fill Posey's specific value.

As a fan, and somebody with no vested interest in the financial well being of the Celtics, I don't care that they can make more money by being less competitive and less expensive. That's exactly what I don't want them to do. I want them to win titles. The thread bears out the fact that the Celtics have a lesser chance to win because James Posey is gone. For that reason, I think it's a bad move.
Go Celtics.

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did?
« Reply #100 on: July 17, 2008, 08:29:07 PM »

Offline Jon

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6500
  • Tommy Points: 385
The thread bears out the fact that the Celtics have a lesser chance to win because James Posey is gone. For that reason, I think it's a bad move.

That's exactly my sentiments.  People forget how close the Celtics were to being eliminated in the second round.  People also forget how many championships come down to a play or two either in the Finals or in an earlier round (Bill Russell's last title in'69 comes to mind as the C's prevailed 108-106 in game 7 over the Lakers). 

If the Big Three were in their mid 20s and had a ten year window to win titles, letting Posey go would've definitely been the right move.  However, now if they fall just short the next year or two, the C's time to shine may be over.  Because not only are we worrying about the Big Three declining, we also have to worry about teams like New Orleans, Cleveland (or wherever LeBron goes), Utah, Portland, and even Philadelphia coming into their own. 

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did?
« Reply #101 on: July 18, 2008, 09:27:58 PM »

Offline jxu66

  • JD Davison
  • Posts: 3
  • Tommy Points: 1
Celtics has a financial budget restraint due to not owning fleet center and high debt ratio (around 46%) according to Forbe magazine.  Last year, they spent around $84.3 millions dollars on players' salary (jump from $67 millions the year before).  According to DA, they overspent on the budget last year (i.e. owners made a little or no money last year). So far this year, they spent around $74 millions already on the salary.  So had they spent on Posey, they would only sign minimum salary players. 

Anyway, we all wish the owners to be Cuban, but Celtics' owners are not Cuban.  They want to make money (or at least no lose money) on the team.  Of course, fans don't care about that, but we need to realize that Celtics organization is business as well.

Pats (1.2 billions) and Red Sox (816 millions) are not good comparison.  Celtics only worth $391 millions dollars.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2008, 09:33:01 PM by jxu66 »

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did?
« Reply #102 on: July 18, 2008, 09:37:02 PM »

Offline CoachBo

  • NCE
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6069
  • Tommy Points: 336
The thread bears out the fact that the Celtics have a lesser chance to win because James Posey is gone. For that reason, I think it's a bad move.

That's exactly my sentiments.  People forget how close the Celtics were to being eliminated in the second round.  People also forget how many championships come down to a play or two either in the Finals or in an earlier round (Bill Russell's last title in'69 comes to mind as the C's prevailed 108-106 in game 7 over the Lakers). 

If the Big Three were in their mid 20s and had a ten year window to win titles, letting Posey go would've definitely been the right move.  However, now if they fall just short the next year or two, the C's time to shine may be over.  Because not only are we worrying about the Big Three declining, we also have to worry about teams like New Orleans, Cleveland (or wherever LeBron goes), Utah, Portland, and even Philadelphia coming into their own. 

TP, Jon, for voicing my concerns. We've got a couple or three more years to worry about winning titles, and I frankly am puzzled by the downgrades that have occurred thus far - and equally unimpressed with the "planning for 2010" argument. It's highly unlikely we'll be young enough to contend for anything in 2010, and I thought management accepted that with the deals made last summer. If we're worried about 2010, I don't understand why we built a middle-aged team last summer.

If the truth is that we've won our title and we're back to the budget trumping wins and losses, then tell me. I'll at least respect the truth, although I disagree vehemently with it.
Coined the CelticsBlog term, "Euromistake."

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did???????
« Reply #103 on: July 18, 2008, 10:03:05 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
He's the best role player on the market and he's proven to be a difference maker on the Celtics title winning team. Proven quality.

I'm not a big fan of drive by or drive thru ring collectors. I also don't like signing 31 year olds to 4 year contracts for big money

Re: Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did?
« Reply #104 on: July 18, 2008, 10:41:17 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Celtics has a financial budget restraint due to not owning fleet center and high debt ratio (around 46%) according to Forbe magazine.  Last year, they spent around $84.3 millions dollars on players' salary (jump from $67 millions the year before).  According to DA, they overspent on the budget last year (i.e. owners made a little or no money last year). So far this year, they spent around $74 millions already on the salary.  So had they spent on Posey, they would only sign minimum salary players. 

Anyway, we all wish the owners to be Cuban, but Celtics' owners are not Cuban.  They want to make money (or at least no lose money) on the team.  Of course, fans don't care about that, but we need to realize that Celtics organization is business as well.

Pats (1.2 billions) and Red Sox (816 millions) are not good comparison.  Celtics only worth $391 millions dollars.
A Tommy Point on your first post, well done!! An excellent and different way of looking at things and it demonstrates exactly why the Celtics need to exercise caution and financial prudence.

Resigning Posey doesn't do anything more to get this team closer to winning a championship than any other move or group of moves will. His presence is not some special "Go directly to the Finals. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200." card. All his presence does is put confidence in the fans due to the familiarity of what we had and that it is still here.

But a mentor of mine once told me that there is a million ways to make a million dollars. The same result often can be reached by taking different paths.

Danny chose, for reason of his own knowing that his bench player that is 1st or 2nd off the bench, who has a deadly and timely three point shot but otherwise quickly eroding offensive game, a very good defensive game against larger more physical 2s, 3s, and smallish quick 4's, and who produces only about 7.5PPG, 4.5RPG and 1 SPG isn't worth, due to every contract that gets signed from this point on this year $11 million in salary and penalties and at the very least another $19 million over the next 3 years.

Danny stated in an interview that with Posey playing the 4 they were not a successful time. Danny and Doc may have decided that with their half court offensive proficiency playing big is a better option for them. If so Posey's presence would only then been religated to playing behind Pierce which is a significant decrease in minutes. The cost may not have been worth it.

If indeed the team will be playing a more conventional lineup or big lineup next year because the management and coaches feel that is a better game for them than Posey would not be as important in that scheme as possible players Danny may pick up.

Speculation? Absolutely, 100% of it. But if that is what management is looking to do, then thye deemed Posey expendable and too expensive.



Also can we please stop with the "if the Big Three were young stuff then the move would be okay". NBA Champions, with the exception of the 2000 and 2002 Lakers have all been teams with average age being 28 years old or older going all the way back to the early Bulls teams. With the exception of taking the two best basketball players on the planet who neither were older than 29 when they won their third and last championship together and putting them on the same team, NBA Champions are older teams.

It's been pretty much an axiom in the NBA forever. Older experienced teams win championships. You say if they were three years or more younger than signing Posey was the right move. I say if they were 3 years younger they wouldn't have been mature enough to blend their talents and win it all. They wouldn't have been NBA champions. So can we please stop using that saying. They won because they are older and wiser and more experienced.

The team has their older core together and in place and like the Spurs of 2004, they have some very young and promising talent around it that could, because of their presence around the veteran core, move this team forward in the coming years like Parker and Ginobelli did with the Spurs.

With the exception of the Bulls and Lakers every team has been talking about a window of opportunity since the 90's Pistons. That window hasn't closed or isn't any less open because James Posey won't be on the bench collecting $5.6 million paychecks and playing 20 or less MPG over the next 4 years. Others will be brought in and melded into the experienced older core and the youth will grow faster and better because of their proximity to the older core.

I think that with good drafts, smart trades, wise financial planning, mixed with an astute eye for talent and where that talent is heading, and proper player development and integration to the team this team can still win a couple of championships over the next 5-6 years not just 2 years. But if management overreacts and overspends everytime someone's contract expires or someone gets injured, they will never win another championship.

Patience people. Let's wait til opening day or at least until Danny has 14 players signed before labeling a Posey leaving as the reason for the Celtics falling back into some serious decline(overstatement but you get the point)!