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

[nickagneta]

Just trying to provide a different perspective.

BTW the bench wasn't good in the DET Series. They had 2 good games in the Cleveland series and 3 good games in the Atlanta series. There is more evidence that points to the fact that they played so well in the Lakers series because of matchups than there is any evidence that shows they got progressively better as the postsesson.

Great question Who? I don't know the answer because I didn't pay attention to other teams. It could be as erratic as the Boston bench was that they were one of the better benches. I do know that the Laker bench was playing very well until they played the Celtics and that the Atlanta bench was pretty decent for 3 of their games.

Wouldn't Kurt Thomas/Michael Finley/Eddie House be an good combo?

Experienced. Proven. Versitile.

What about other combos.

Thomas/Barnes/Arroyo
Ratliff/Childress/Livingston
Thomas/Barnes/Jason Williams
Ratliff/Devean George/Arroyo
Ratliff/Gomes/Williams

There's a bunch of other good options. Players that have made big shots before. Players that have played good defense before. Assuming that Posey, Cassell, Brown and House made those shots and other professionals are unable to is short sighted.

House never made big playoff shots before this season. Brown was always considered a steady playoff performer that played defense and rebounded, hitting big shots has never been his thing.

If House, who didn't have the best playoffs, but was also seriously jerked around by his coach, can hit a big shot or two and a guy that isn't know for taking big shots can do it then so can just about any of the better players that have been brought up.



I think we have broken down just about every angle of this debate as can be done. There's been some very different views of the same exact thing. All that says is if this many people can be split on whether it was wise to sign Posey and whether his presence gave us a better chance to win in next years playoffs than going in another direction, then the answer is obviously not a slam dunk.

Being prudent with tens of millions of dollars was probably at least a good decision. I mean I know I'd rather be wrong about something and save millions of dollars than to be wrong and waste millions of dollars.

We won't really know what the right decision was unless Boston wins another championship without Posey or Posey becomes an abject failure and stiff in New Orleans with his fat cat contract. Everything else will all, once again be debateable.

[nickagneta]

in 15 out of the first 20 playoff games, Ray Allen shot 32% from the field. that's a good 12-13 percent below his season average....

would you really want to trade what we got as a whole from Ray in the playoffs...?

plus, you guys are also arguing that we won't need as much from the bench because the starters will be better next season. well, why can't we argue that the bench would also be better based on playing together for a season.

What does Ray Allen's shooting woes have to do with James Posey signing elsewhere and whether it gave us a better chance to win this year or not.

Stop trying to move the argument elsewhere. Ray's shooting has nothing to do with how the bench performed. Ray's shooting wasn't good. His defense on Johnson in Atlanta was bad. Who cares? So what?

We are discussing how maybe the bench, with Posey, being inconsistently bad might be a reason that Danny went elsewhere for the money Posey was asking. It is a counter argument to the point that Posey and the bench came up clutch so often. It, to some extent, belies just how good Posey and the bench is perceived to have played. 15 of the first 20 games the team played the bench was bad. They didn't progressively get better. The bench's Detroit performance wasn't good. It was the starters that won that series.
 
Let's stay on subject.

As for the last sentence, yes that is a good and valid argument. It is also a very expensive argument and one Danny might feel he doesn't want to have. Danny might have no problem having his top 5 players who make about $65 million a year combined playing more together to get used to each other and get better. He may not want to pay players that are only going to be playing 30% of the team's minutes lots of money tosee if they will get better with more familiarity.

[BballTim]

it's not so much that it is impossible as it is an "unknown" how many of the prospective replacements would perform in our system and in the pressure of the playoffs.....

the actual contributions of PJ, Posey and Eddie were in line with things that each of them had done their whole careers....and there are other players out there who can do similar things (although for Posey who those players are is pretty unclear right now), but the difference between those players and Eddie, PJ and Posey is that they already showed they could do it...

  So Eddie House averages 8 minutes a game in the playoffs (3 minutes a game vs Det), shoots 17-56 from the field for the playoffs, and goes scoreless in 18 of the 26 playoff games and you're claiming that we'll have trouble replacing his clutch playoff play? PJ shot well against Cleveland but poorly against Det and LA, and didn't rebound particularly well. We can't replace his production?

again, you keep going back to simply stats and what i'm saying is that there is more to it than that....

can we get someone who can shoot the same percentage as PJ and Eddie and Posey.....? sure.

but will they make the big play....hit the big shot....make the key boxout or steal, etc....will they come into the game with the same focus....will they have the same positive effect on the players around them? i don't know.....maybe...

Bball, you basically keep ignoring my whole point here and keep going back to the stat lines. i mean, was it really that long ago that Eddie was chasing down that loose ball in the CLE series knocking it to Posey who got fouled by Wally - totally pumping up the fans and teammates?

  I'm not ignoring your point, I'm disputing it. PJ and Eddie weren't clutch over the course of the playoffs, they had a few clutch moments. You're thinking that every positive thing they did was critical and would be lost with a different player. That we'd bring in  another player who gave us the same production as Eddie House but none of their plays would be "clutch". That's highly unlikely. I don't think that they made such a high percentage of clutch plays that it wouldn't likely be duplicated by another player.

[winsomme]

in 15 out of the first 20 playoff games, Ray Allen shot 32% from the field. that's a good 12-13 percent below his season average....

would you really want to trade what we got as a whole from Ray in the playoffs...?

plus, you guys are also arguing that we won't need as much from the bench because the starters will be better next season. well, why can't we argue that the bench would also be better based on playing together for a season.

What does Ray Allen's shooting woes have to do with James Posey signing elsewhere and whether it gave us a better chance to win this year or not.

Stop trying to move the argument elsewhere. Ray's shooting has nothing to do with how the bench performed. Ray's shooting wasn't good. His defense on Johnson in Atlanta was bad. Who cares? So what?

We are discussing how maybe the bench, with Posey, being inconsistently bad might be a reason that Danny went elsewhere for the money Posey was asking. It is a counter argument to the point that Posey and the bench came up clutch so often. It, to some extent, belies just how good Posey and the bench is perceived to have played. 15 of the first 20 games the team played the bench was bad. They didn't progressively get better. The bench's Detroit performance wasn't good. It was the starters that won that series.
 
Let's stay on subject.

As for the last sentence, yes that is a good and valid argument. It is also a very expensive argument and one Danny might feel he doesn't want to have. Danny might have no problem having his top 5 players who make about $65 million a year combined playing more together to get used to each other and get better. He may not want to pay players that are only going to be playing 30% of the team's minutes lots of money tosee if they will get better with more familiarity.

Ray's shooting woes is on topic.

you and Bball are using stat lines to build a case that our bench was not as effective in the playoffs as many are making them out to be. and i am pointing out that neither was Ray's until the Finals, but in the Finals he played MVP caliber ball....

the case that i'm making is that stat lines can belie the real impact of a performance. ESPECIALLY for bench/role players - who are not going to have the big stat lines every night. their job is almost by definition "highlight" in nature.

like you said, this team is built so that the majority of the stats are going to come from GPA. so whoever fills out the other spots by design is going to be a "highlight" contributor. the contribution is going to be a big GAME or STEAL or BUCKET (as in NOT plural). so the number of games or plays that Posey et al really had an impact may be small, but that is how the team is set up....

but whoever steps in is going to have to have an impact in the same limited number of opportunitie ....the question is: will they?

we KNOW that Posey et al had game altering performances in the high pressure of the playoffs, but the new crew will be a question mark....

you said yourself that you were scouring the box scores of the playoffs to make your case, and what i'm saying is: it's not In there...

if you can, cue up game 7 of the CLE series or game 4 of the Finals.....and then tell me that this bench wasn't integral in this team winning a Title

[winsomme]

it's not so much that it is impossible as it is an "unknown" how many of the prospective replacements would perform in our system and in the pressure of the playoffs.....

the actual contributions of PJ, Posey and Eddie were in line with things that each of them had done their whole careers....and there are other players out there who can do similar things (although for Posey who those players are is pretty unclear right now), but the difference between those players and Eddie, PJ and Posey is that they already showed they could do it...

  So Eddie House averages 8 minutes a game in the playoffs (3 minutes a game vs Det), shoots 17-56 from the field for the playoffs, and goes scoreless in 18 of the 26 playoff games and you're claiming that we'll have trouble replacing his clutch playoff play? PJ shot well against Cleveland but poorly against Det and LA, and didn't rebound particularly well. We can't replace his production?

again, you keep going back to simply stats and what i'm saying is that there is more to it than that....

can we get someone who can shoot the same percentage as PJ and Eddie and Posey.....? sure.

but will they make the big play....hit the big shot....make the key boxout or steal, etc....will they come into the game with the same focus....will they have the same positive effect on the players around them? i don't know.....maybe...

Bball, you basically keep ignoring my whole point here and keep going back to the stat lines. i mean, was it really that long ago that Eddie was chasing down that loose ball in the CLE series knocking it to Posey who got fouled by Wally - totally pumping up the fans and teammates?

  I'm not ignoring your point, I'm disputing it. PJ and Eddie weren't clutch over the course of the playoffs, they had a few clutch moments. You're thinking that every positive thing they did was critical and would be lost with a different player. That we'd bring in  another player who gave us the same production as Eddie House but none of their plays would be "clutch". That's highly unlikely. I don't think that they made such a high percentage of clutch plays that it wouldn't likely be duplicated by another player.

well i guess i dispute your assessment of how many  "clutch" moments a guy or a bench needs to have in order to make those contributions significant......

[nickagneta]

in 15 out of the first 20 playoff games, Ray Allen shot 32% from the field. that's a good 12-13 percent below his season average....

would you really want to trade what we got as a whole from Ray in the playoffs...?

plus, you guys are also arguing that we won't need as much from the bench because the starters will be better next season. well, why can't we argue that the bench would also be better based on playing together for a season.

What does Ray Allen's shooting woes have to do with James Posey signing elsewhere and whether it gave us a better chance to win this year or not.

Stop trying to move the argument elsewhere. Ray's shooting has nothing to do with how the bench performed. Ray's shooting wasn't good. His defense on Johnson in Atlanta was bad. Who cares? So what?

We are discussing how maybe the bench, with Posey, being inconsistently bad might be a reason that Danny went elsewhere for the money Posey was asking. It is a counter argument to the point that Posey and the bench came up clutch so often. It, to some extent, belies just how good Posey and the bench is perceived to have played. 15 of the first 20 games the team played the bench was bad. They didn't progressively get better. The bench's Detroit performance wasn't good. It was the starters that won that series.
 
Let's stay on subject.

As for the last sentence, yes that is a good and valid argument. It is also a very expensive argument and one Danny might feel he doesn't want to have. Danny might have no problem having his top 5 players who make about $65 million a year combined playing more together to get used to each other and get better. He may not want to pay players that are only going to be playing 30% of the team's minutes lots of money tosee if they will get better with more familiarity.

Ray's shooting woes is on topic.

you and Bball are using stat lines to build a case that our bench was not as effective in the playoffs as many are making them out to be. and i am pointing out that neither was Ray's until the Finals, but in the Finals he played MVP caliber ball....

the case that i'm making is that stat lines can belie the real impact of a performance. ESPECIALLY for bench/role players - who are not going to have the big stat lines every night. their job is almost by definition "highlight" in nature.

like you said, this team is built so that the majority of the stats are going to come from GPA. so whoever fills out the other spots by design is going to be a "highlight" contributor. the contribution is going to be a big GAME or STEAL or BUCKET (as in NOT plural). so the number of games or plays that Posey et al really had an impact may be small, but that is how the team is set up....

but whoever steps in is going to have to have an impact in the same limited number of opportunitie ....the question is: will they?

we KNOW that Posey et al had game altering performances in the high pressure of the playoffs, but the new crew will be a question mark....

you said yourself that you were scouring the box scores of the playoffs to make your case, and what i'm saying is: it's not In there...

if you can, cue up game 7 of the CLE series or game 4 of the Finals.....and then tell me that this bench wasn't integral in this team winning a Title

Fine you win. We lose without Posey in game 7 and 4 so let's pay a guy $25 million over the next 4 years because he was clutch twice.

Makes sense to me. My office assistant came up big the other day and sent an e-mail I forgot to send and kept the customer very happy. I think I'll give her a $100K a year raise. Who cares if it will blow out my business's budget, she was clutch on Tues.

I guess I'll just forget all about her being late fairly often coming back from lunch, that she's out sick a bit more than I like, forgets to put the time of missed calls on memos, and is on the phone discussing personal matters way too much. She's a good employee other than that and she did come up clutch afterall. Who cares that she's just an assistant and will be making more money in salary than I will.

[winsomme]

in 15 out of the first 20 playoff games, Ray Allen shot 32% from the field. that's a good 12-13 percent below his season average....

would you really want to trade what we got as a whole from Ray in the playoffs...?

plus, you guys are also arguing that we won't need as much from the bench because the starters will be better next season. well, why can't we argue that the bench would also be better based on playing together for a season.

What does Ray Allen's shooting woes have to do with James Posey signing elsewhere and whether it gave us a better chance to win this year or not.

Stop trying to move the argument elsewhere. Ray's shooting has nothing to do with how the bench performed. Ray's shooting wasn't good. His defense on Johnson in Atlanta was bad. Who cares? So what?

We are discussing how maybe the bench, with Posey, being inconsistently bad might be a reason that Danny went elsewhere for the money Posey was asking. It is a counter argument to the point that Posey and the bench came up clutch so often. It, to some extent, belies just how good Posey and the bench is perceived to have played. 15 of the first 20 games the team played the bench was bad. They didn't progressively get better. The bench's Detroit performance wasn't good. It was the starters that won that series.
 
Let's stay on subject.

As for the last sentence, yes that is a good and valid argument. It is also a very expensive argument and one Danny might feel he doesn't want to have. Danny might have no problem having his top 5 players who make about $65 million a year combined playing more together to get used to each other and get better. He may not want to pay players that are only going to be playing 30% of the team's minutes lots of money tosee if they will get better with more familiarity.

Ray's shooting woes is on topic.

you and Bball are using stat lines to build a case that our bench was not as effective in the playoffs as many are making them out to be. and i am pointing out that neither was Ray's until the Finals, but in the Finals he played MVP caliber ball....

the case that i'm making is that stat lines can belie the real impact of a performance. ESPECIALLY for bench/role players - who are not going to have the big stat lines every night. their job is almost by definition "highlight" in nature.

like you said, this team is built so that the majority of the stats are going to come from GPA. so whoever fills out the other spots by design is going to be a "highlight" contributor. the contribution is going to be a big GAME or STEAL or BUCKET (as in NOT plural). so the number of games or plays that Posey et al really had an impact may be small, but that is how the team is set up....

but whoever steps in is going to have to have an impact in the same limited number of opportunitie ....the question is: will they?

we KNOW that Posey et al had game altering performances in the high pressure of the playoffs, but the new crew will be a question mark....

you said yourself that you were scouring the box scores of the playoffs to make your case, and what i'm saying is: it's not In there...

if you can, cue up game 7 of the CLE series or game 4 of the Finals.....and then tell me that this bench wasn't integral in this team winning a Title

Fine you win. We lose without Posey in game 7 and 4 so let's pay a guy $25 million over the next 4 years because he was clutch twice.

Makes sense to me. My office assistant came up big the other day and sent an e-mail I forgot to send and kept the customer very happy. I think I'll give her a $100K a year raise. Who cares if it will blow out my business's budget, she was clutch on Tues.

I guess I'll just forget all about her being late fairly often coming back from lunch, that she's out sick a bit more than I like, forgets to put the time of missed calls on memos, and is on the phone discussing personal matters way too much. She's a good employee other than that and she did come up clutch afterall. Who cares that she's just an assistant and will be making more money in salary than I will.

well you have a notoriously cheap owner willing to pay that figure. maybe they are looking at their team as being a few huge plays away from a Finals appearance themselves...

and Danny was so unimpressed with Posey that he offered him the full MLE for three years.....

[winsomme]

if Pargo makes that game tying three in game 7 are we talking about the World Champion NO Hornets right now?

[nickagneta]

in 15 out of the first 20 playoff games, Ray Allen shot 32% from the field. that's a good 12-13 percent below his season average....

would you really want to trade what we got as a whole from Ray in the playoffs...?

plus, you guys are also arguing that we won't need as much from the bench because the starters will be better next season. well, why can't we argue that the bench would also be better based on playing together for a season.

What does Ray Allen's shooting woes have to do with James Posey signing elsewhere and whether it gave us a better chance to win this year or not.

Stop trying to move the argument elsewhere. Ray's shooting has nothing to do with how the bench performed. Ray's shooting wasn't good. His defense on Johnson in Atlanta was bad. Who cares? So what?

We are discussing how maybe the bench, with Posey, being inconsistently bad might be a reason that Danny went elsewhere for the money Posey was asking. It is a counter argument to the point that Posey and the bench came up clutch so often. It, to some extent, belies just how good Posey and the bench is perceived to have played. 15 of the first 20 games the team played the bench was bad. They didn't progressively get better. The bench's Detroit performance wasn't good. It was the starters that won that series.
 
Let's stay on subject.

As for the last sentence, yes that is a good and valid argument. It is also a very expensive argument and one Danny might feel he doesn't want to have. Danny might have no problem having his top 5 players who make about $65 million a year combined playing more together to get used to each other and get better. He may not want to pay players that are only going to be playing 30% of the team's minutes lots of money tosee if they will get better with more familiarity.

Ray's shooting woes is on topic.

you and Bball are using stat lines to build a case that our bench was not as effective in the playoffs as many are making them out to be. and i am pointing out that neither was Ray's until the Finals, but in the Finals he played MVP caliber ball....

the case that i'm making is that stat lines can belie the real impact of a performance. ESPECIALLY for bench/role players - who are not going to have the big stat lines every night. their job is almost by definition "highlight" in nature.

like you said, this team is built so that the majority of the stats are going to come from GPA. so whoever fills out the other spots by design is going to be a "highlight" contributor. the contribution is going to be a big GAME or STEAL or BUCKET (as in NOT plural). so the number of games or plays that Posey et al really had an impact may be small, but that is how the team is set up....

but whoever steps in is going to have to have an impact in the same limited number of opportunitie ....the question is: will they?

we KNOW that Posey et al had game altering performances in the high pressure of the playoffs, but the new crew will be a question mark....

you said yourself that you were scouring the box scores of the playoffs to make your case, and what i'm saying is: it's not In there...

if you can, cue up game 7 of the CLE series or game 4 of the Finals.....and then tell me that this bench wasn't integral in this team winning a Title

Oh and not only is Ray's shooting off topic and have nothing to do with the subject but it's a bad example.

You say Ray was bad for a good portion of the playoffs but came up big and that's what he's remembered for. You then say that Posey's stats belie what he did for the team.

But Ray's stats said he was bad until the Finals and that's what I remember. The stats say the bench was bad until the Finals and that's what I remember. The stats don't lie about their contributions. Posey had a big moment in the first 20 games of the playoffs and a great half in another game in the Finals.


Let's stop making it out like it was more than that and that someone else can't also give the Celtics big moments and win us games.

Hell, Milt Palacio twice had big moments to win the Celtics big games, did we pay him millions of dollars for it. Look at some of the biggest moments and games in Celtic history. There's lots of mediocre at best players that did big things at important times for the Celtics. Gerald Henderson and Glenn McDonald are a couple of others. Were they handsomely rewarded for being clutch and helping to win the Celtics championships almost singlehandedly?

[nickagneta]

in 15 out of the first 20 playoff games, Ray Allen shot 32% from the field. that's a good 12-13 percent below his season average....

would you really want to trade what we got as a whole from Ray in the playoffs...?

plus, you guys are also arguing that we won't need as much from the bench because the starters will be better next season. well, why can't we argue that the bench would also be better based on playing together for a season.

What does Ray Allen's shooting woes have to do with James Posey signing elsewhere and whether it gave us a better chance to win this year or not.

Stop trying to move the argument elsewhere. Ray's shooting has nothing to do with how the bench performed. Ray's shooting wasn't good. His defense on Johnson in Atlanta was bad. Who cares? So what?

We are discussing how maybe the bench, with Posey, being inconsistently bad might be a reason that Danny went elsewhere for the money Posey was asking. It is a counter argument to the point that Posey and the bench came up clutch so often. It, to some extent, belies just how good Posey and the bench is perceived to have played. 15 of the first 20 games the team played the bench was bad. They didn't progressively get better. The bench's Detroit performance wasn't good. It was the starters that won that series.
 
Let's stay on subject.

As for the last sentence, yes that is a good and valid argument. It is also a very expensive argument and one Danny might feel he doesn't want to have. Danny might have no problem having his top 5 players who make about $65 million a year combined playing more together to get used to each other and get better. He may not want to pay players that are only going to be playing 30% of the team's minutes lots of money tosee if they will get better with more familiarity.

Ray's shooting woes is on topic.

you and Bball are using stat lines to build a case that our bench was not as effective in the playoffs as many are making them out to be. and i am pointing out that neither was Ray's until the Finals, but in the Finals he played MVP caliber ball....

the case that i'm making is that stat lines can belie the real impact of a performance. ESPECIALLY for bench/role players - who are not going to have the big stat lines every night. their job is almost by definition "highlight" in nature.

like you said, this team is built so that the majority of the stats are going to come from GPA. so whoever fills out the other spots by design is going to be a "highlight" contributor. the contribution is going to be a big GAME or STEAL or BUCKET (as in NOT plural). so the number of games or plays that Posey et al really had an impact may be small, but that is how the team is set up....

but whoever steps in is going to have to have an impact in the same limited number of opportunitie ....the question is: will they?

we KNOW that Posey et al had game altering performances in the high pressure of the playoffs, but the new crew will be a question mark....

you said yourself that you were scouring the box scores of the playoffs to make your case, and what i'm saying is: it's not In there...

if you can, cue up game 7 of the CLE series or game 4 of the Finals.....and then tell me that this bench wasn't integral in this team winning a Title

Fine you win. We lose without Posey in game 7 and 4 so let's pay a guy $25 million over the next 4 years because he was clutch twice.

Makes sense to me. My office assistant came up big the other day and sent an e-mail I forgot to send and kept the customer very happy. I think I'll give her a $100K a year raise. Who cares if it will blow out my business's budget, she was clutch on Tues.

I guess I'll just forget all about her being late fairly often coming back from lunch, that she's out sick a bit more than I like, forgets to put the time of missed calls on memos, and is on the phone discussing personal matters way too much. She's a good employee other than that and she did come up clutch afterall. Who cares that she's just an assistant and will be making more money in salary than I will.

well you have a notoriously cheap owner willing to pay that figure. maybe they are looking at their team as being a few huge plays away from a Finals appearance themselves...

and Danny was so unimpressed with Posey that he offered him the full MLE for three years.....

Knowing full well he wouldn't take it.

[winsomme]

in 15 out of the first 20 playoff games, Ray Allen shot 32% from the field. that's a good 12-13 percent below his season average....

would you really want to trade what we got as a whole from Ray in the playoffs...?

plus, you guys are also arguing that we won't need as much from the bench because the starters will be better next season. well, why can't we argue that the bench would also be better based on playing together for a season.

What does Ray Allen's shooting woes have to do with James Posey signing elsewhere and whether it gave us a better chance to win this year or not.

Stop trying to move the argument elsewhere. Ray's shooting has nothing to do with how the bench performed. Ray's shooting wasn't good. His defense on Johnson in Atlanta was bad. Who cares? So what?

We are discussing how maybe the bench, with Posey, being inconsistently bad might be a reason that Danny went elsewhere for the money Posey was asking. It is a counter argument to the point that Posey and the bench came up clutch so often. It, to some extent, belies just how good Posey and the bench is perceived to have played. 15 of the first 20 games the team played the bench was bad. They didn't progressively get better. The bench's Detroit performance wasn't good. It was the starters that won that series.
 
Let's stay on subject.

As for the last sentence, yes that is a good and valid argument. It is also a very expensive argument and one Danny might feel he doesn't want to have. Danny might have no problem having his top 5 players who make about $65 million a year combined playing more together to get used to each other and get better. He may not want to pay players that are only going to be playing 30% of the team's minutes lots of money tosee if they will get better with more familiarity.

Ray's shooting woes is on topic.

you and Bball are using stat lines to build a case that our bench was not as effective in the playoffs as many are making them out to be. and i am pointing out that neither was Ray's until the Finals, but in the Finals he played MVP caliber ball....

the case that i'm making is that stat lines can belie the real impact of a performance. ESPECIALLY for bench/role players - who are not going to have the big stat lines every night. their job is almost by definition "highlight" in nature.

like you said, this team is built so that the majority of the stats are going to come from GPA. so whoever fills out the other spots by design is going to be a "highlight" contributor. the contribution is going to be a big GAME or STEAL or BUCKET (as in NOT plural). so the number of games or plays that Posey et al really had an impact may be small, but that is how the team is set up....

but whoever steps in is going to have to have an impact in the same limited number of opportunitie ....the question is: will they?

we KNOW that Posey et al had game altering performances in the high pressure of the playoffs, but the new crew will be a question mark....

you said yourself that you were scouring the box scores of the playoffs to make your case, and what i'm saying is: it's not In there...

if you can, cue up game 7 of the CLE series or game 4 of the Finals.....and then tell me that this bench wasn't integral in this team winning a Title

Oh and not only is Ray's shooting off topic and have nothing to do with the subject but it's a bad example.

You say Ray was bad for a good portion of the playoffs but came up big and that's what he's remembered for. You then say that Posey's stats belie what he did for the team.

But Ray's stats said he was bad until the Finals and that's what I remember. The stats say the bench was bad until the Finals and that's what I remember. The stats don't lie about their contributions. Posey had a big moment in the first 20 games of the playoffs and a great half in another game in the Finals.


Let's stop making it out like it was more than that and that someone else can't also give the Celtics big moments and win us games.

Hell, Milt Palacio twice had big moments to win the Celtics big games, did we pay him millions of dollars for it. Look at some of the biggest moments and games in Celtic history. There's lots of mediocre at best players that did big things at important times for the Celtics. Gerald Henderson and Glenn McDonald are a couple of others. Were they handsomely rewarded for being clutch and helping to win the Celtics championships almost singlehandedly?

the stats line argument isn't mine, it's yours and Bballs. i'm merely pointing out that using your logic, we would have to say that Ray was dispensable, which clearly he was not.....

and if you are seriously comparing what Posey did for this team to Milt Palacio, we have officially hit the point of no return...

[winsomme]

in 15 out of the first 20 playoff games, Ray Allen shot 32% from the field. that's a good 12-13 percent below his season average....

would you really want to trade what we got as a whole from Ray in the playoffs...?

plus, you guys are also arguing that we won't need as much from the bench because the starters will be better next season. well, why can't we argue that the bench would also be better based on playing together for a season.

What does Ray Allen's shooting woes have to do with James Posey signing elsewhere and whether it gave us a better chance to win this year or not.

Stop trying to move the argument elsewhere. Ray's shooting has nothing to do with how the bench performed. Ray's shooting wasn't good. His defense on Johnson in Atlanta was bad. Who cares? So what?

We are discussing how maybe the bench, with Posey, being inconsistently bad might be a reason that Danny went elsewhere for the money Posey was asking. It is a counter argument to the point that Posey and the bench came up clutch so often. It, to some extent, belies just how good Posey and the bench is perceived to have played. 15 of the first 20 games the team played the bench was bad. They didn't progressively get better. The bench's Detroit performance wasn't good. It was the starters that won that series.
 
Let's stay on subject.

As for the last sentence, yes that is a good and valid argument. It is also a very expensive argument and one Danny might feel he doesn't want to have. Danny might have no problem having his top 5 players who make about $65 million a year combined playing more together to get used to each other and get better. He may not want to pay players that are only going to be playing 30% of the team's minutes lots of money tosee if they will get better with more familiarity.

Ray's shooting woes is on topic.

you and Bball are using stat lines to build a case that our bench was not as effective in the playoffs as many are making them out to be. and i am pointing out that neither was Ray's until the Finals, but in the Finals he played MVP caliber ball....

the case that i'm making is that stat lines can belie the real impact of a performance. ESPECIALLY for bench/role players - who are not going to have the big stat lines every night. their job is almost by definition "highlight" in nature.

like you said, this team is built so that the majority of the stats are going to come from GPA. so whoever fills out the other spots by design is going to be a "highlight" contributor. the contribution is going to be a big GAME or STEAL or BUCKET (as in NOT plural). so the number of games or plays that Posey et al really had an impact may be small, but that is how the team is set up....

but whoever steps in is going to have to have an impact in the same limited number of opportunitie ....the question is: will they?

we KNOW that Posey et al had game altering performances in the high pressure of the playoffs, but the new crew will be a question mark....

you said yourself that you were scouring the box scores of the playoffs to make your case, and what i'm saying is: it's not In there...

if you can, cue up game 7 of the CLE series or game 4 of the Finals.....and then tell me that this bench wasn't integral in this team winning a Title

Fine you win. We lose without Posey in game 7 and 4 so let's pay a guy $25 million over the next 4 years because he was clutch twice.

Makes sense to me. My office assistant came up big the other day and sent an e-mail I forgot to send and kept the customer very happy. I think I'll give her a $100K a year raise. Who cares if it will blow out my business's budget, she was clutch on Tues.

I guess I'll just forget all about her being late fairly often coming back from lunch, that she's out sick a bit more than I like, forgets to put the time of missed calls on memos, and is on the phone discussing personal matters way too much. She's a good employee other than that and she did come up clutch afterall. Who cares that she's just an assistant and will be making more money in salary than I will.

well you have a notoriously cheap owner willing to pay that figure. maybe they are looking at their team as being a few huge plays away from a Finals appearance themselves...

and Danny was so unimpressed with Posey that he offered him the full MLE for three years.....

Knowing full well he wouldn't take it.

are you arguing that it was expected that the NO Hornets were going to pony up a 4 year full MLE contract....

i think if anything, Danny was playing chicken with the other teams in the league more than Posey.

i don't think he thought Posey wouldn't take it. i think he thought nobody else would go to 4 years.

[timepiece33]

and if you are seriously comparing what Posey did for this team to Milt Palacio, we have officially hit the point of no return...

Agree.  Milt Palacio?   I'm fine with the discussion of financial prudence, though the alternatives being brought up by the guys quoting it are for the most part a regression of the bench they are trying to minimize.   

[bbc3341]

We can acknowledge Posey's contribution last year AND also the fact that he is now being over paid... good for him and his family, bad for us as C's fans for the next year or so, but good for us, I think, ultimately...

[jdub1660]

I think posey's comments at the DVD signings were misleading. Either he was planning all along on taking the largest, longest contract offered, or he suddenly made the decision like 20 seconds before he signed it. Once he opted out that was the clear cut sign that he wasn't planning on coming back for a reasonable contract, that he wanted to be overpaid. anyways, an article had quoted him responding to fans' pleas for him to say and win a championship here, he responded with "i hope so too, I hope so too". Oh well. let him go and lets focus our attention on our own free agents then others out their to fill that void