Signing Posey gave C's best chance to win a title. It did?

[Reyquila]

 Guys; Its overrrrrrr. Posey is not walking thru that door again. Finito! The powers that be did what they thought they had to do and did it. No use lingering on what should or could have done. The worry now is for the owners to think how they will continue to make money in the future. They will do what they think will necessary to have a watchable team on the floor. And there is nothing we can do about it except not to attend games as a monetary punishment for them. Since that is not an option for me, I wont worry about that one.
The owners put up a pennant winning team in 2007-2008 and we had nothing to do about it. They will do something for the 2008-2009 season without listening to our recommendations in here. So do not despair because whatever will be, will be. We just won Número 17. Isnt that what we've been waiting for for 22 years. So its here. Enjoy it till we are no longer the current champions. That cannot happen until june of 2009.
If the owners screw it up for next year, they  wont do it not knowing what we post in here; if they read it. Thats just the way it is. So relax and enjoy the ride for now. Have a safe day.

[kozlodoev]

Everyone is free to disagree. But Garnett, Pierce, and Allen are the heart and soul of this team, and everyone else is, well, replaceable to a degree. Obviously, some people are harder to replace then other. You can make the argument that Posey is the hardest to replace, but he _can_ be replaced.

OTOH, we have 21 million coming off the books in 2010. Considering that we have no first-round draft pick next season, and that we will be resigning some players along the way, that still leaves ~10 million to play with. I cannot stress how huge this will be. It will give the team the option to add a quality player to add to an aging but very skilled group of veterans. In addition, the team will have Bird rights on Allen, so when we're done with free agents, he can be easily resigned.

Finally, I must remind everyone that the only reason why we have Garnett and Allen in the first place is because our squad was constructed while considering the playing field 2 moves ahead. And even though I think Posey was the 4th best player on this team in the playoffs, I don't think 2 years of Posey are worth 2 more years of Posey after that.

[Roy Hobbs]

OTOH, we have 21 million coming off the books in 2010. Considering that we have no first-round draft pick next season, and that we will be resigning some players along the way, that still leaves ~10 million to play with. I cannot stress how huge this will be. It will give the team the option to add a quality player to add to an aging but very skilled group of veterans. In addition, the team will have Bird rights on Allen, so when we're done with free agents, he can be easily resigned.

Please read my post above.  If we go into 2010 with *only* Pierce, KG, Perk, Giddens, and Rondo (unsigned, meaning he's playing for the qualifying offer) we have less than $7 million in cap space.  To get that cap space, we would need to renounce *all* of our own free agents.  If you sign *any* player for more than the rookie minimum, that amount would go down even further.

(Also, in order to be able to use that cap space, we'd have to renounce both the MLE and LLE.)

[Edgar]

OTOH, we have 21 million coming off the books in 2010. Considering that we have no first-round draft pick next season, and that we will be resigning some players along the way, that still leaves ~10 million to play with. I cannot stress how huge this will be. It will give the team the option to add a quality player to add to an aging but very skilled group of veterans. In addition, the team will have Bird rights on Allen, so when we're done with free agents, he can be easily resigned.

Please read my post above.  If we go into 2010 with *only* Pierce, KG, Perk, Giddens, and Rondo (unsigned, meaning he's playing for the qualifying offer) we have less than $7 million in cap space.  To get that cap space, we would need to renounce *all* of our own free agents.  If you sign *any* player for more than the rookie minimum, that amount would go down even further.

just in case walker is the next coming of walker...

[winsomme]

OTOH, we have 21 million coming off the books in 2010. Considering that we have no first-round draft pick next season, and that we will be resigning some players along the way, that still leaves ~10 million to play with. I cannot stress how huge this will be. It will give the team the option to add a quality player to add to an aging but very skilled group of veterans. In addition, the team will have Bird rights on Allen, so when we're done with free agents, he can be easily resigned.

Please read my post above.  If we go into 2010 with *only* Pierce, KG, Perk, Giddens, and Rondo (unsigned, meaning he's playing for the qualifying offer) we have less than $7 million in cap space.  To get that cap space, we would need to renounce *all* of our own free agents.  If you sign *any* player for more than the rookie minimum, that amount would go down even further.

(Also, in order to be able to use that cap space, we'd have to renounce both the MLE and LLE.)

totally agree, Roy.

the "future flexibility" argument never made sense to me - especially for 2010......in fact, paying Posey 6 mil in 2010 will more likely look like a reasonable price to pay for a 6th man than not.

2011 was the year that had seemed more troublesome to many (and possibly legit), but my feeling is that at that point Paul is entering his 14th season and KG his 17th!!!! and at that point i don't think it is fair to expect that we will still the same Title contenders that we are now. it's possible, but i don't think it is fair to expect that.

we have a legit chance to win Titles the next two seasons, possibly three which would put us amongst the greatest of all time....and at this point, i think it is fair to say that we have been weakened by losing Poz.

there certainly is time to fill his spot, but it ain't gonna be easy....

[kozlodoev]

OTOH, we have 21 million coming off the books in 2010. Considering that we have no first-round draft pick next season, and that we will be resigning some players along the way, that still leaves ~10 million to play with. I cannot stress how huge this will be. It will give the team the option to add a quality player to add to an aging but very skilled group of veterans. In addition, the team will have Bird rights on Allen, so when we're done with free agents, he can be easily resigned.

Please read my post above.  If we go into 2010 with *only* Pierce, KG, Perk, Giddens, and Rondo (unsigned, meaning he's playing for the qualifying offer) we have less than $7 million in cap space.  To get that cap space, we would need to renounce *all* of our own free agents.  If you sign *any* player for more than the rookie minimum, that amount would go down even further.

(Also, in order to be able to use that cap space, we'd have to renounce both the MLE and LLE.)

I forgot to count Rondo's qualifying offer, true.

On the other hand, the cap is unlikely to stay at $58 million, so another 1-2 million will probably come from there. Likewise, I don't see many free agents that will command significant money. The bottom line is, the future flexibility argument is as moot as people think it is.

[winsomme]

As I've stressed throughout the off-season, it seems the fairest way to consider the contract situation is that part of the price of having him here for the next two years (in addition to the monetary cost) would have been having to continue to pay him after that.

This is surely true, but even if you slice it this way, the argument still doesn't hold water. We won't sign contracts that go past the year when Ray Allen expires. Why? Because if you can resign a 35-year Allen at a bargain price (and given how much he makes at this point, that won't be difficult), you'll be able to go after a player that's a bit more than a spare part.

So as much as we like Posey, it's extremely bad idea to hamstring our team by giving him a 4-year offer. Our team will be highly competitive next season -- with Posey, with Barns, Ross, or Giddens. But we won't be competitive 3 years from now with $7 spent on someone who won't play.

it may seem strange to say this, but being "highly competitive" just isn't good enough with the collection of stars that we have here. we would be highly competitive with the roster that we have now (ie Pruitt, the rookies, Powe, BBD, POB, Scal...) we would be highly competitive going into the season with that....

but we want more....going after a Dynasty deserves more than that. and it is totally conceivable considering that we have GPA locked up for two more years and we have hard-nosed youngs at the PG and C positions....


this team could seriously win Titles three straight years in a row.....that is insane. and planning for three or four years from now when this is at your doorstep is beyond illogical to me.

[Roy Hobbs]

OTOH, we have 21 million coming off the books in 2010. Considering that we have no first-round draft pick next season, and that we will be resigning some players along the way, that still leaves ~10 million to play with. I cannot stress how huge this will be. It will give the team the option to add a quality player to add to an aging but very skilled group of veterans. In addition, the team will have Bird rights on Allen, so when we're done with free agents, he can be easily resigned.

Please read my post above.  If we go into 2010 with *only* Pierce, KG, Perk, Giddens, and Rondo (unsigned, meaning he's playing for the qualifying offer) we have less than $7 million in cap space.  To get that cap space, we would need to renounce *all* of our own free agents.  If you sign *any* player for more than the rookie minimum, that amount would go down even further.

(Also, in order to be able to use that cap space, we'd have to renounce both the MLE and LLE.)

I forgot to count Rondo's qualifying offer, true.

On the other hand, the cap is unlikely to stay at $58 million, so another 1-2 million will probably come from there. Likewise, I don't see many free agents that will command significant money. The bottom line is, the future flexibility argument is as moot as people think it is.

I don't think you're fully comprehending my post, kozlodoev (which I can't blame you for, since the CBA is fairly complicated).

* Right now, our payroll is approximately $49 million in 2010. 

* To that, we need to add something called a "cap hold" to Rondo's 2009 salary.  That's going to be right around $6 million (for reasons explained in the 2008 Salary Cap FAQ in the Celtics Talk forum).

* We need to further add a "cap charge" equal to the rookie minimum for the number of players needed to get our roster to 12.  That's going to be around $3.6 million.

* Thus, our payroll *for salary cap purposes* will be around $58.6 million going into 2010.

* If the cap goes up to around $65 million (a reasonable projection) that means that in terms of "cap space", we'd have about $6.4 million.

* Teams can't have both cap space and the MLE / LLE.  That means we'd have to renounce the MLE if we wanted to take advantage of the $6.4 million.

So, in 2010, we're really not in all that advantageous a position in reference to the salary cap.  2011 is a different story, of course, but for 2010, it's impossible for us to get any real room.

(Keep in mind this is an off-hand explanation; the figures may be off slightly, but they're close.  Check out the FAQ for more precise details.)

[kozlodoev]

* Teams can't have both cap space and the MLE / LLE.  That means we'd have to renounce the MLE if we wanted to take advantage of the $6.4 million.

I think I missed this one. It is mostly about being a sloppy reader I guess, the situation seems to be pretty straightforward (even if it has more variables than I thought it would).

However, all our talk is conditional on the assumption that we know what is in the conracts. I am not sure we do. The team policy is not to announce contract details, so I am not sure whether or not these numbers are accurate. About half a million off in the big contracts, and cap space is pushing  8 million.

I guess what I am saying is that Ainge knows what's in all contracts, and he's not stupid

[nickagneta]

The future flexibility argument was never meant for years 1 and 2 of Posey's contract. They were meant for years 3-5 of his contract.
That flexibility argument is based on the possibility of ownership suddenly not allowing Danny to go over the luxury tax at some given point because the window for championships had closed.

That flexibility argument would have then centered around having no flexibility to possibly resign developed youngsters because Danny can't go over a certain budget and hence would have to let them go. Perk, Rondo, and any other developing youngster would fall into that category. If Posey's contract cost the team a Rondo or Perk or Walker or Giddens(if they blow up as players) was it worth it?

That was the whole future flexibility argument as well as it being an albatross on the team towards having money under some arbitrary number set by ownership for Danny to stay under limiting our ability to sign FAs if we were able to retain the youngsters.

The other thing that I have seen written in places is that is that people claim that the Celtics would be paying Posey for 4 years for his contributions in the first 2 years because he is invaluable during big games.

I own a business. I would never  pay someone $6 million a year for 4 years and justify it by saying the real production I am pay for is in the first two years. That then logically thinking means I am paying him $12 million a year for 2 years and $0 for the last two year.

That can then be taken further and be said that if at anytime in those four years the team goes over the luxury tax the penalty can then logically be attributed to this contract. I will not assume we are over the luxury tax by the amount of this contract all 4 years, I think that is unfair and not likely. So let's say that over the four year the team pays $12 million in luxtax penalties.

Add those penalties onto the time that we are get the real production out of Posey and are willing to pay for it and now we are paying $18 million a year for those first 2 years and nothing for the lst two years.

That's $18 million a year for a 6th or 7th man to play around 20 minutes a game and give the team a nightly average contribution of 7 PPG and 4.5 RPG all because he might in 5-8 games each year come up big and help win that game rather than give his average nightly production.

That is a very realistic way for someone who has to sign that paycheck of Posey's to look at the situation. If I'm in that situation I shake James' hand, thank him for his contribution and wish him luck on his future endeavors so long as that luck doesn'tget in the way of my luck.

[winsomme]

OTOH, we have 21 million coming off the books in 2010. Considering that we have no first-round draft pick next season, and that we will be resigning some players along the way, that still leaves ~10 million to play with. I cannot stress how huge this will be. It will give the team the option to add a quality player to add to an aging but very skilled group of veterans. In addition, the team will have Bird rights on Allen, so when we're done with free agents, he can be easily resigned.

Please read my post above.  If we go into 2010 with *only* Pierce, KG, Perk, Giddens, and Rondo (unsigned, meaning he's playing for the qualifying offer) we have less than $7 million in cap space.  To get that cap space, we would need to renounce *all* of our own free agents.  If you sign *any* player for more than the rookie minimum, that amount would go down even further.

(Also, in order to be able to use that cap space, we'd have to renounce both the MLE and LLE.)

I forgot to count Rondo's qualifying offer, true.

On the other hand, the cap is unlikely to stay at $58 million, so another 1-2 million will probably come from there. Likewise, I don't see many free agents that will command significant money. The bottom line is, the future flexibility argument is as moot as people think it is.

I don't think you're fully comprehending my post, kozlodoev (which I can't blame you for, since the CBA is fairly complicated).

* Right now, our payroll is approximately $49 million in 2010. 

* To that, we need to add something called a "cap hold" to Rondo's 2009 salary.  That's going to be right around $6 million (for reasons explained in the 2008 Salary Cap FAQ in the Celtics Talk forum).

* We need to further add a "cap charge" equal to the rookie minimum for the number of players needed to get our roster to 12.  That's going to be around $3.6 million.

* Thus, our payroll *for salary cap purposes* will be around $58.6 million going into 2010.

* If the cap goes up to around $65 million (a reasonable projection) that means that in terms of "cap space", we'd have about $6.4 million.

* Teams can't have both cap space and the MLE / LLE.  That means we'd have to renounce the MLE if we wanted to take advantage of the $6.4 million.

So, in 2010, we're really not in all that advantageous a position in reference to the salary cap.  2011 is a different story, of course, but for 2010, it's impossible for us to get any real room.

(Keep in mind this is an off-hand explanation; the figures may be off slightly, but they're close.  Check out the FAQ for more precise details.)

yeah and going into the 2011-2012 season what can we fairly expect out of KG at that point. i think we are going to be looking at rebuilding time by then.....

and someone made this point earlier...won't $20+ mil seem like overpaying for KG at that point, but aren't we also PERFECTLY okay with that based at least in part on last season and the next couple to come...?

[kozlodoev]

and someone made this point earlier...won't $20+ mil seem like overpaying for KG at that point, but aren't we also PERFECTLY okay with that based at least in part on last season and the next couple to come...?

And that argument, obviously, doesn't hold water. Garnett is making 16 million in 2008-2009. Aren't we underpaying him at this point?

[winsomme]

The future flexibility argument was never meant for years 1 and 2 of Posey's contract. They were meant for years 3-5 of his contract.
That flexibility argument is based on the possibility of ownership suddenly not allowing Danny to go over the luxury tax at some given point because the window for championships had closed.

That flexibility argument would have then centered around having no flexibility to possibly resign developed youngsters because Danny can't go over a certain budget and hence would have to let them go. Perk, Rondo, and any other developing youngster would fall into that category. If Posey's contract cost the team a Rondo or Perk or Walker or Giddens(if they blow up as players) was it worth it?

That was the whole future flexibility argument as well as it being an albatross on the team towards having money under some arbitrary number set by ownership for Danny to stay under limiting our ability to sign FAs if we were able to retain the youngsters.

The other thing that I have seen written in places is that is that people claim that the Celtics would be paying Posey for 4 years for his contributions in the first 2 years because he is invaluable during big games.

I own a business. I would never  pay someone $6 million a year for 4 years and justify it by saying the real production I am pay for is in the first two years. That then logically thinking means I am paying him $12 million a year for 2 years and $0 for the last two year.

That can then be taken further and be said that if at anytime in those four years the team goes over the luxury tax the penalty can then logically be attributed to this contract. I will not assume we are over the luxury tax by the amount of this contract all 4 years, I think that is unfair and not likely. So let's say that over the four year the team pays $12 million in luxtax penalties.

Add those penalties onto the time that we are get the real production out of Posey and are willing to pay for it and now we are paying $18 million a year for those first 2 years and nothing for the lst two years.

That's $18 million a year for a 6th or 7th man to play around 20 minutes a game and give the team a nightly average contribution of 7 PPG and 4.5 RPG all because he might in 5-8 games each year come up big and help win that game rather than give his average nightly production.

That is a very realistic way for someone who has to sign that paycheck of Posey's to look at the situation. If I'm in that situation I shake James' hand, thank him for his contribution and wish him luck on his future endeavors so long as that luck doesn'tget in the way of my luck.

nick nobody is arguing that the "future flexibility" argument pertained to the next 2 seasons. the place where it doesn't make sense is for years 3 and 4...

and your point about the window closing in those later years is exactly the reason that we DON'T need flexibility in those years. why worry about having an extra few million to spend in a year where you most likely will not compete for a Title.

so we will have some money to spend and a team built around a seriously worked KG and possibly no more Paul Pierce.....i just don't see any way that THAT is the reason Danny didn't go four on Posey.

the only way this makes sense is if he thinks he can fill Posey's spot more than adequately for next season in other ways...

[TruthSerum]

Posey will be fun to watch wherever he is, but he can't carry a team any more than Pierce was able to carry the Cs w/o help. Besides, he's too much of an individual to remain in the shadow of the Big 3. He did his job in Boston and it's on to another job. I wish him the best. It's better for his career to be a big fish in a smaller pond. He's on a great pace. I'm REALLY looking forward to seeing more of Powe, the Celtics are fortunate to have him.

[winsomme]

I own a business. I would never  pay someone $6 million a year for 4 years and justify it by saying the real production I am pay for is in the first two years. That then logically thinking means I am paying him $12 million a year for 2 years and $0 for the last two year.

you might be willing to do it if in those two years your business became THE BEST at what you did in the entire country and you reaped the financial benefits from being the best for years to come...