Are you happy with the House & Tony Allen signings?

[Chris]

Well, put it this way, I am not unhappy with them.  I think they made sense in the flexibility they gave the team, as well as for chemistry reasons.  I would have liked to see an upgrade, but I am not worried yet, because the team still has plenty of opportunity to do that before the playoffs.

[Mr October]

just curious what people think about the news. I for one am very happy that both are coming back, and two years each is perfect

My vote: Happy with House, on the fence with Tony, until we know more about other signings/trades/etc. (another FA, Giddens/Walker's)

[NicaraguanFan]

Happy with these guys coming back.. but not that happy with our bench at this point, let's see what is preparing for us.

[the_Bird]

I'm estatic about Eddie coming back.  He can man the point (Rondo should be playing more minutes next year anyway), and we really need his swagger out there. 

Tony, I'm a little puzzled by.  I'm not sure what they see in this kid, really, other than flashes that I think end up being frustrating more than anything else.  I'm surprised they didn't make a run at Matt Barnes for less money than locking up Tony Allen.  Ultimately, though, he *should* be a rotation player for us, and maybe with a little more time back from his injuries he'll round into the player we think he can be.  MAYBE - I ain't holding my breath.

Still one or two more moves...  if they can grab Kurt Thomas for two years at whatever they have left of the MLE, then maybe take a gamble on Darious Miles for one year at the minimum, I'll be a very happy fan.

[greg_kite]

Won't the C's be over the cap anyway? 

Why does this mean the C's can't use the full MLE next year?

I think the C's designated Posey as the only player worth the MLE and if he didn't sign no one was getting it.  Next year will be the same if there is someone Danny thinks is worth it for whatever years he determines I believe they would sign him.  I feel the Owners will do what Danny believes is best and why wouldn't they.

What about Maggette? With KG's contract dropping next year, I think the owners will be willing to spend the MLE, provided the player gives them more revenue now or down the road.... a young player to add to the core, or a big name who takes a discount for a year or 2, etc.

I think Maggette signed a long term deal with Golden State.

[Jon]

Well, put it this way, I am not unhappy with them.  I think they made sense in the flexibility they gave the team, as well as for chemistry reasons.  I would have liked to see an upgrade, but I am not worried yet, because the team still has plenty of opportunity to do that before the playoffs.

Not to be mean, but what type of flexibility does using two of our last three roster spots on Allen and House give the Celtics?  The ability to trot out an "all shooting guard" lineup? 

[Barnabas]

To answer the original question, I'm somewhat unhappy with these signings.  Not so much with Eddie, but with Tony Allen.

On the chance that Danny decides to stand pat, I think this current bench is not as good as last year's bench.  I really hope more changes are coming.  

[MaineBleedsGreen]

I doubt it, but maybe these signing are a sign of a trade coming. You can't get very good value back when all you have are rookie contracts and scals $3mil. But when you're able to combine some of those assets with two rotation guys locked in for more than one year ant under $3mil our options seem to open up a bit more ... obviously not saying this is gunna happen, but there does seem to be alot of redundancy in positions 2,3,4 right now.

[Jon]

I doubt it, but maybe these signing are a sign of a trade coming. You can't get very good value back when all you have are rookie contracts and scals $3mil. But when you're able to combine some of those assets with two rotation guys locked in for more than one year ant under $3mil our options seem to open up a bit more ... obviously not saying this is gunna happen, but there does seem to be alot of redundancy in positions 2,3,4 right now.

Maybe there is a trade coming, but it seems unlikely.  Why would any team want to trade for House or Allen when they could've just signed them to begin with?  Furthermore, why would a team want to trade for Giddens or Walker when they could have had them pretty easily in the draft.  Neither has done anything since then to improve their stock.  As for Powe and Davis, maybe something could be done with them: their stock is probably as high as it will ever be.  But then Danny better be getting a big back in return or have a plan to pick one up via the FA market. 

[bucknersrevenge]

People are seriously complaining about a 2 year contract? It's pretty clear the MLE was only being used for Posey so why not split it up.  Save some money and lose only 1 guy in the process.

Because it puts another $5mil on the salary cap which makes it difficult for the club to pay the MLE next season to a top tier role player. If that $5mil wasn't there, it would be easier.

That's my complaint with the second year of their contracts. Once there wasn't a suitable talent available at the MLE, I wanted to see Danny keep theat flexibility to try again next year for that high quality player. That meant one year contracts.

That puts us two years further into Ray/KG/Paul's careers and both years go by without that top reserve player to aid them. Next year's MLE was the next best option to fill that void after Posey left the club, now it's harder to use because of the salary cap implications from those second years on those two contracts.

I think the 2nd year makes the contract easier to trade.

Yes it does (in a years time) but I'd rather have the cap space. Cap space is more likely to net that high quality role player.

thats assuming they dont think they can fill that spot internally with the talent they drafted. and theyve given no indication they dont think that highly of it.

[Birdbrain]

Won't the C's be over the cap anyway? 

Why does this mean the C's can't use the full MLE next year?

I think the C's designated Posey as the only player worth the MLE and if he didn't sign no one was getting it.  Next year will be the same if there is someone Danny thinks is worth it for whatever years he determines I believe they would sign him.  I feel the Owners will do what Danny believes is best and why wouldn't they.

It's not that simple.  First of all, contrary to what someone said above, having a two year deal for Tony Allen doesn't help us next year with the MLE as we have his Bird rights.  However, having Allen and House under contract next year could hurt our chances of using the MLE because of luxury tax reasons.  Right now House and Allen are almost costing us the equivalent of the MLE (however, it is only being used towards House, because we don't have his Bird rights).  The same will be the case next year.  The question becomes, will Wyc and Co. be OK with Danny going out and spending close to 6 million (which will cost them 12 million) next year on top of that?  Maybe.  But it'd be more likely if House and Allen were coming off the books, freeing up over 5 million dollars (which because of the luxury tax, costs Wyc closer to 11 million). 

Plus, in a years time, will we even want Allen and House?  Who's to say Pruitt, Giddens, and Walker all don't pass them on the depth chart? 

I see your point although they would have needed to sign a few guys anyway to feel out the roster and to me House was a necessity and he wanted more than a 1 year contract.  You believe he didn't have options I believe he did. So a 2 year contract for 5 million for a guy that provides instant offense and some backup for Rondo seems like a pretty fair deal to me.  I also do not believe that if Danny wanted to sign someone for the full MLE next year that these signing will deter the owners in any way.  They were going to have to pay double anyway since they were over the cap.  If things change with the younger players (which I hope is the case) neither of these low budget deals will hinder the C's.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Won't the C's be over the cap anyway? 

Why does this mean the C's can't use the full MLE next year?

I think the C's designated Posey as the only player worth the MLE and if he didn't sign no one was getting it.  Next year will be the same if there is someone Danny thinks is worth it for whatever years he determines I believe they would sign him.  I feel the Owners will do what Danny believes is best and why wouldn't they.

It's not that simple.  First of all, contrary to what someone said above, having a two year deal for Tony Allen doesn't help us next year with the MLE as we have his Bird rights.  However, having Allen and House under contract next year could hurt our chances of using the MLE because of luxury tax reasons.  Right now House and Allen are almost costing us the equivalent of the MLE (however, it is only being used towards House, because we don't have his Bird rights).  The same will be the case next year.  The question becomes, will Wyc and Co. be OK with Danny going out and spending close to 6 million (which will cost them 12 million) next year on top of that?  Maybe.  But it'd be more likely if House and Allen were coming off the books, freeing up over 5 million dollars (which because of the luxury tax, costs Wyc closer to 11 million). 

Plus, in a years time, will we even want Allen and House?  Who's to say Pruitt, Giddens, and Walker all don't pass them on the depth chart? 

I see your point although they would have needed to sign a few guys anyway to feel out the roster and to me House was a necessity and he wanted more than a 1 year contract.  You believe he didn't have options I believe he did. So a 2 year contract for 5 million for a guy that provides instant offense and some backup for Rondo seems like a pretty fair deal to me.  I also do not believe that if Danny wanted to sign someone for the full MLE next year that these signing will deter the owners in any way.  They were going to have to pay double anyway since they were over the cap.  If things change with the younger players (which I hope is the case) neither of these low budget deals will hinder the C's.

Also, I think we should be in a better financial situation relatively next year with the paycut from Garnett. Then you consider that we'll have less rosters to fill, using some if not all of the MLE next year shouldn't be a problem, especially if it's spent on someone worthwhile (which they should be more willing to do with less rosters to fill). Then you consider Scal's expiring contract.

[Chris]

Well, put it this way, I am not unhappy with them.  I think they made sense in the flexibility they gave the team, as well as for chemistry reasons.  I would have liked to see an upgrade, but I am not worried yet, because the team still has plenty of opportunity to do that before the playoffs.

Not to be mean, but what type of flexibility does using two of our last three roster spots on Allen and House give the Celtics?  The ability to trot out an "all shooting guard" lineup? 

They added two tradable contracts, and still have half of the MLE (reportedly) to throw at someone else to fill a hole. 

Now, if they wanted to trade for someone at the deadline, they could send some combination of Scalabrine, Allen, and House (plus young guys/picks as needed) to bring in someone with a mid level, or slightly higher contract (if you used all 3 players, they could match a contract up to about $10 million with the 125% rule). 

Roster spots is not a problem.  They can always trade or cut someone if they need a roster spot that badly, but without contracts to trade, it is very tough to upgrade a team during the season.  And considering the lack of talent that was remaining on the FA market, their best bet was to see what they have in their young guys, and then fill the holes once they are able to evaluate them better.

[micah kenneth]

I'm quite happy with both singings Tony Allen is a much better player than most realize. I just wish someone would spend some time with him working on his outside shot, his technique is seriously flawed and it hampers his consistency !
I feel with a full year of recovery on his knee he'll come back closer to fully recovered without the mental and the physical limitations.
Tony is a very tough cover for most players in the league because of his quickness and strength, on defense he's a legitimate pest pressuring the ball ect.
As for House he comes in to score and scoring is what he does, nuff said for him, that's his role and he's very good at it.

[Jon]

Well, put it this way, I am not unhappy with them.  I think they made sense in the flexibility they gave the team, as well as for chemistry reasons.  I would have liked to see an upgrade, but I am not worried yet, because the team still has plenty of opportunity to do that before the playoffs.

Not to be mean, but what type of flexibility does using two of our last three roster spots on Allen and House give the Celtics?  The ability to trot out an "all shooting guard" lineup? 

They added two tradable contracts, and still have half of the MLE (reportedly) to throw at someone else to fill a hole. 

Now, if they wanted to trade for someone at the deadline, they could send some combination of Scalabrine, Allen, and House (plus young guys/picks as needed) to bring in someone with a mid level, or slightly higher contract (if you used all 3 players, they could match a contract up to about $10 million with the 125% rule). 

Roster spots is not a problem.  They can always trade or cut someone if they need a roster spot that badly, but without contracts to trade, it is very tough to upgrade a team during the season.  And considering the lack of talent that was remaining on the FA market, their best bet was to see what they have in their young guys, and then fill the holes once they are able to evaluate them better.

I think that's a stretch at best.  A team is going to want to take on three players, plus maybe young players, for one player?  The only way that happens is if the other team is trying to unload a big, long contract, which is precisely what Ainge was trying to avoid by not signing Posey.