Hornets Regret Signing Posey Already?

[BballTim]

you know this all comes down to relative risk. The risk of not having Posey this season and next (where most conceed that he would be valuable) weighed against the risk of having Posey the following two seasons (where his contract could pose a problem from a player who is no longer effective)...

for me, his effectiveness this year and next is much more clear than potential ineffectiveness in years 3 and 4.

and the hole created by him not being here is much more clear than impact of a 6-7 mil contract in 2010 and2011 (especially since in 2011 it would at the very least be an expiring contract).

  For you, there's no impact whatsoever to the team having to pay Posey $13M (plus $13M in luxury taxes). In that non-existent world of course it makes sense to sign Posey to whatever he wants for as long as he wants. There's no reason why any team wouldn't sign a player to a 4 year deal since the only downside is a contract that won't hurt the team at all.

no, the downside WEIGHED against the likelihood that the downside materializes and the acknowledged upside...

and again 6.5 million, not 13 million. You can't just decide which contract you want to double.

  I'm not deciding which contract to double, you are. Did you read the post where I explained it? You didn't disagree in any of your responses.

I'm not deciding who to double, i'm looking at what we know. we know that the Cs are under the luxury cap for 2010 and 2011.....

the rest of what happens in those years is to be determined....

  You just keep changing your argument. "You can't just decide which contract you want to double" makes no sense whatsoever if you're under the threshold. But fine. stick with your theory that we're done competing after 2 years and won't have to worry about those pesky max contracts anymore. Or, if you get bored with that, stick with your other theory that we'll be over the cap but Posey's contract doesn't count as double because the GM and owners don't understand simple math. We can resume the discussion in 2010 (or sooner in the unlikely event that you choose one opinion and stick with it).

[Fafnir]

It is clear to me that we miss Posey. I still can understand why Danny didn't want to give him $25 million.

But I really don't think it makes much sense to argue about this anymore. We're at the point where only time will tell.

[winsomme]

you know this all comes down to relative risk. The risk of not having Posey this season and next (where most conceed that he would be valuable) weighed against the risk of having Posey the following two seasons (where his contract could pose a problem from a player who is no longer effective)...

for me, his effectiveness this year and next is much more clear than potential ineffectiveness in years 3 and 4.

and the hole created by him not being here is much more clear than impact of a 6-7 mil contract in 2010 and2011 (especially since in 2011 it would at the very least be an expiring contract).

  For you, there's no impact whatsoever to the team having to pay Posey $13M (plus $13M in luxury taxes). In that non-existent world of course it makes sense to sign Posey to whatever he wants for as long as he wants. There's no reason why any team wouldn't sign a player to a 4 year deal since the only downside is a contract that won't hurt the team at all.

no, the downside WEIGHED against the likelihood that the downside materializes and the acknowledged upside...

and again 6.5 million, not 13 million. You can't just decide which contract you want to double.

  I'm not deciding which contract to double, you are. Did you read the post where I explained it? You didn't disagree in any of your responses.

I'm not deciding who to double, i'm looking at what we know. we know that the Cs are under the luxury cap for 2010 and 2011.....

the rest of what happens in those years is to be determined....

  You just keep changing your argument. "You can't just decide which contract you want to double" makes no sense whatsoever if you're under the threshold. But fine. stick with your theory that we're done competing after 2 years and won't have to worry about those pesky max contracts anymore. Or, if you get bored with that, stick with your other theory that we'll be over the cap but Posey's contract doesn't count as double because the GM and owners don't understand simple math. We can resume the discussion in 2010 (or sooner in the unlikely event that you choose one opinion and stick with it).

It's one theory BBall (not so much a theory as an observation). We are under the cap when we are signing Posey....so regardless of what happens in 2010 and 2011, it's not Posey contract that would put us over the threshold.

like i pointed out before, your way of looking at it would mean that we should look at Scals salary as being doubled because he is not part of the core even though we signed him 3 years ago. I mean, was the plan to not be competing in 2008 when we signed Scals?

my overall opinion is very straightforward. The pluses of having Posey on this team for this season and next outweigh potential negatives of years 3 and 4. in part because the potential negatives of those final two years IMO are being overstated (which i am trying to highlight in this thread)....but mostly because not having him could adversely affect our current Title chances.

[winsomme]

one more point on the doubling question:

let's say for the sake of discussion that going into the 2010 off season that we are nearing to lux cap and we decide to extend Ray's contract and keep him with Paul and KG. but a portion of his contract pushes over the lux tax....(say we signed him for 11 mil and 3 of it goes over the lux tax)

what is wrong with saying that we are paying Ray 14 mil for that season?

wouldn't it make more sense to do that than argue that it was some other guy that we had  signed two years earlier that we are doubling?

[BballTim]

like i pointed out before, your way of looking at it would mean that we should look at Scals salary as being doubled because he is not part of the core even though we signed him 3 years ago. I mean, was the plan to not be competing in 2008 when we signed Scals?

  Yes, you're finally catching on. Scal makes about $3M this year and $3.5M next year. If we trade him for an expiring contract before the deadline we save $7M next year. If we trade TA for an expirer before the deadline we save $5M from his $2.5M. If we trade Sam for a player who makes $1.5M in 09-10 that costs us $3M. Get it? Saying that Tony's contract counts as double and not Scals because of the order they were signed in is crazy. They're both seen as the same. If we're over the cap WITHOUT Posey then if he's on the books for $13M over the last 2 years of his contract he's costing is $26M whether it improves your argument or not.

  If, for some reason, you disagree with this, explain how I'm wrong. Explain how TA's contract counts as double and Scal's contract doesn't. Explain how the distinction either changes the amount the Celts pay this year and/or next in salaries and tax, or explain how calling one "double" and not the other changes the amount the Celts have to pay in luxury tax if they get rid of one of them as opposed to the other. If you don't see anything wrong with my logic, admit that the argument that you keep using about my not being able to choose which salary to double makes no sense at all.

  In effect, if you think that Posey will be a good player for the next 1.5 years or so then, unless Danny breaks up the team for a complete rebuild, we'd be paying $50M for him for those 2 good years and 2 years where, as you put it, it would be Bill Walker's turn to try and guard those wing players. Even if there's no tax in years 3 and 4 it's still $37M.

  Then take a look at all of those "lopsided: trades that I listed. Figure out how much money the team trading away the more talented players is saving and compare it to the $26M you wanted Ainge to pay Posey beyond the time he thought James would be worth the money. If you then consider that a) we could win the title without Posey and b) we could lose the title with him on the roster, then you might come to the conclusion that maybe Ainge made the right choice after all. Maybe you'll understand why other teams weren't fighting with NO to sign Posey.

  Or, more likely, you'll continue to insist that the money doesn't really matter and any chance to improve our odds is worth any amount of money.

[BballTim]

one more point on the doubling question:

let's say for the sake of discussion that going into the 2010 off season that we are nearing to lux cap and we decide to extend Ray's contract and keep him with Paul and KG. but a portion of his contract pushes over the lux tax....(say we signed him for 11 mil and 3 of it goes over the lux tax)

what is wrong with saying that we are paying Ray 14 mil for that season?

wouldn't it make more sense to do that than argue that it was some other guy that we had  signed two years earlier that we are doubling?

  Read my response to your last post. Hopefully you'll understand what's wrong with your logic. If not, let me know.

[winsomme]

you're gonna have to lay it out because I disagree with the conclusion that you are coming to that Posey's contract is the one that should be viewed as doubled under every future circumstance.

here's another scenario:

let's say that during the 2009 season we either extend Ray or we use him like an expiring contract to get someone who is signed past 2009. Thus, we add payroll to the 2010 season that pushes us closer to the Lux tax threshold. Then in that off season, we sign players like Eddie and TA, etc....and those players salaries push us over the the lux tax...

they're not core players....why aren't those the salaries that are doubled?

whose salaries are we doubling for this season? Isn't it Eddie, TA, POB and Sam....

the only fair way to look at it is to double the salaries that take you over the threshold....

plus, who's to say that we would be a full 6.5 mil over the threshold for 2010. what if we are 3 mil over the threshold in 2010...even using your logic, we would only be paying Pose 9.5 mil not 13 mil.

and remember, we are only talking about 2010 because in 2011, even under worst case scenario (ie Pose is totally useless as a player) as you have acknowledged, he can be looked at as an expiring contract to be moved for a useful player.

[winsomme]

like i pointed out before, your way of looking at it would mean that we should look at Scals salary as being doubled because he is not part of the core even though we signed him 3 years ago. I mean, was the plan to not be competing in 2008 when we signed Scals?

 
  If, for some reason, you disagree with this, explain how I'm wrong. Explain how TA's contract counts as double and Scal's contract doesn't. Explain how the distinction either changes the amount the Celts pay this year and/or next in salaries and tax, or explain how calling one "double" and not the other changes the amount the Celts have to pay in luxury tax if they get rid of one of them as opposed to the other. If you don't see anything wrong with my logic, admit that the argument that you keep using about my not being able to choose which salary to double makes no sense at all.

 

the reason you are wrong is because your way of looking at it is a shell game where you simply get to shuffle around the pieces based on what you want to cast in a negative light and based on which season you are deciding to talk about.

like i mentioned in the previous post, please point out to me which salaries you are doubling for this season....we are about 8 mil over the lux cap...

my way of looking at it is very straightforward and based on what the cap situation actually is at any point in time...

[winsomme]

like i pointed out before, your way of looking at it would mean that we should look at Scals salary as being doubled because he is not part of the core even though we signed him 3 years ago. I mean, was the plan to not be competing in 2008 when we signed Scals?

  Yes, you're finally catching on. Scal makes about $3M this year and $3.5M next year. If we trade him for an expiring contract before the deadline we save $7M next year. If we trade TA for an expirer before the deadline we save $5M from his $2.5M. If we trade Sam for a player who makes $1.5M in 09-10 that costs us $3M. Get it? Saying that Tony's contract counts as double and not Scals because of the order they were signed in is crazy. They're both seen as the same. If we're over the cap WITHOUT Posey then if he's on the books for $13M over the last 2 years of his contract he's costing is $26M whether it improves your argument or not.

they can't BOTH be seen as the same. If they were both seem as the same, then you would be doubling BOTH contracts.

under your scenario, any player that can be moved on a roster (ie not core) of team over the lux tax should simultaneously be viewed as a double salary. that would meant that we should be looking at Scals, BBD, Powe, POB, SAm, Eddie, TA, Walker, JR, Puitt all simultaneously as double their salary.

clearly that is not actually the case because if it were we would be paying 16 mil in lux taxes as opposed to 8...

[BballTim]

plus, who's to say that we would be a full 6.5 mil over the threshold for 2010. what if we are 3 mil over the threshold in 2010...even using your logic, we would only be paying Pose 9.5 mil not 13 mil.

  This is the only statment in your post that was correct.

and remember, we are only talking about 2010 because in 2011, even under worst case scenario (ie Pose is totally useless as a player) as you have acknowledged, he can be looked at as an expiring contract to be moved for a useful player.

  I haven't said anything yet about this, but you do realize that he expires in 2012, right?

[winsomme]

I think i figured out part of the problem with the way you are looking at this and it is based in part on what i already mentioned.

you are figuring that a player should be looked at as a double salary based on how much he would save the team if he weren't on the books in any particular year.

so, yes, under circumstances TA and Posey and Scals, as examples could be viewed as saving double what their salary is by either not signing them or trading them for an expiring contract...

so you're saving double by theoretically not having them on the books in a future year, but the problem with this construct is that it is predicated on the notion that at the earlier point in time every contract that could be moved or not extended should be simultaneously viewed as a double salary....

you're saving double in the future scenario, but you're adding it on in the current scenario in a way that it doesn't exist.

that is to say, while we might say that we could save double on all these contracts by not having them at a future date, we aren't paying double for ALL these contracts at the current date.

ie we are paying 8 mil in lux tax, not 16  mil.....

[winsomme]

plus, who's to say that we would be a full 6.5 mil over the threshold for 2010. what if we are 3 mil over the threshold in 2010...even using your logic, we would only be paying Pose 9.5 mil not 13 mil.

  This is the only statment in your post that was correct.

and remember, we are only talking about 2010 because in 2011, even under worst case scenario (ie Pose is totally useless as a player) as you have acknowledged, he can be looked at as an expiring contract to be moved for a useful player.

  I haven't said anything yet about this, but you do realize that he expires in 2012, right?

you said the difference between Pose and Wally was the extra year....

and by 2010 and 2011, i am referring to the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 seasons....

so 2 years where we agree he would be useful, one year where he would be an expiring contract and one year (the 3rd) where he could be potentially a detriment because his skills had declined to the point of him not being useful.

[BballTim]

like i pointed out before, your way of looking at it would mean that we should look at Scals salary as being doubled because he is not part of the core even though we signed him 3 years ago. I mean, was the plan to not be competing in 2008 when we signed Scals?

 
  If, for some reason, you disagree with this, explain how I'm wrong. Explain how TA's contract counts as double and Scal's contract doesn't. Explain how the distinction either changes the amount the Celts pay this year and/or next in salaries and tax, or explain how calling one "double" and not the other changes the amount the Celts have to pay in luxury tax if they get rid of one of them as opposed to the other. If you don't see anything wrong with my logic, admit that the argument that you keep using about my not being able to choose which salary to double makes no sense at all.

 

the reason you are wrong is because your way of looking at it is a shell game where you simply get to shuffle around the pieces based on what you want to cast in a negative light and based on which season you are deciding to talk about.

like i mentioned in the previous post, please point out to me which salaries you are doubling for this season....we are about 8 mil over the lux cap...

my way of looking at it is very straightforward and based on what the cap situation actually is at any point in time...

they can't BOTH be seen as the same. If they were both seem as the same, then you would be doubling BOTH contracts.

under your scenario, any player that can be moved on a roster (ie not core) of team over the lux tax should simultaneously be viewed as a double salary. that would meant that we should be looking at Scals, BBD, Powe, POB, SAm, Eddie, TA, Walker, JR, Puitt all simultaneously as double their salary.

clearly that is not actually the case because if it were we would be paying 16 mil in lux taxes as opposed to 8...

  I'll respond to both of these at once. Of course they're all seen as having their salaries doubled. And it's not a shell game, even though you clearly wish it was.

  How do you think the luxury tax works? Do you think that the league says that your salaries total $80M and the threshold is $70M so you owe $10M in taxes (which is correct) or do you feel that the league says "we're doubling the salaries of Perk, Tony, Eddie and part of Ray Allen's contract so you owe $10M? I  mean, come on.

  I've patiently explained the concept more than once. I've asked you to show through real examples how your "only some contracts double" works. But you've refused. I'll try this one last time.

  Scal makes about $3M this year and $3.5M next year. Tony makes about $2.5M this year and $2.5M next year. Since Scal signed 3 years ago (when we were below the tax) and Tony signed last summer (when we were above the tax) by your thinking Tony's contract counts double and not Scals. If not, pretend by your thinking that Tony's contract counts double and not Scals. Assume that the Celtics pay $80M in salaries both years and the luxury tax is $70M both years, an that we're also over the tax in 2009-2010. Do whatever you want with the salaries. Trade them for expiring contracts. Trade them for contracts equal in size to their own. Extend them. Whatever.

  Either show me a case where you can make the same change to both contracts affects the money Wyc has to pay differently because one affects it by double and the other doesn't, admit that your claims of doubling one salary and not another is ridiculous, or I'll have to assume you're nothing but a troll. And, remember, use real numbers like Danny and Wyc do.

[BballTim]

I think i figured out part of the problem with the way you are looking at this and it is based in part on what i already mentioned.

you are figuring that a player should be looked at as a double salary based on how much he would save the team if he weren't on the books in any particular year.

so, yes, under circumstances TA and Posey and Scals, as examples could be viewed as saving double what their salary is by either not signing them or trading them for an expiring contract...

so you're saving double by theoretically not having them on the books in a future year, but the problem with this construct is that it is predicated on the notion that at the earlier point in time every contract that could be moved or not extended should be simultaneously viewed as a double salary....

you're saving double in the future scenario, but you're adding it on in the current scenario in a way that it doesn't exist.

that is to say, while we might say that we could save double on all these contracts by not having them at a future date, we aren't paying double for ALL these contracts at the current date.

ie we are paying 8 mil in lux tax, not 16  mil.....

  Show me what you mean with numbers.

[BballTim]

plus, who's to say that we would be a full 6.5 mil over the threshold for 2010. what if we are 3 mil over the threshold in 2010...even using your logic, we would only be paying Pose 9.5 mil not 13 mil.

  This is the only statment in your post that was correct.

and remember, we are only talking about 2010 because in 2011, even under worst case scenario (ie Pose is totally useless as a player) as you have acknowledged, he can be looked at as an expiring contract to be moved for a useful player.

  I haven't said anything yet about this, but you do realize that he expires in 2012, right?

you said the difference between Pose and Wally was the extra year....

and by 2010 and 2011, i am referring to the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 seasons....

so 2 years where we agree he would be useful, one year where he would be an expiring contract and one year (the 3rd) where he could be potentially a detriment because his skills had declined to the point of him not being useful.

  You're assuming, of course, that when he's an expiring contract that the salary cap fairy pays not only his salary but any luxury tax issues.