Has Ray Allen played his last game as a Celtic?

[dlpin]

I think you are about as far off as you can be here. First off, once KG went down and even while he was here playing, it was evident that the chemistry this team had in 2007-08 was not there for 2008-09. Chemistry can be good but trades are not made or not made based solely on wanting to keep the the current state of chemistry. Trades will be made or not made to change the chemistry but never based on trying to keep it.

Second, Ray Allen is as valuable now as he is going to get and given that he is a $20 million expiring contract AND an All Star who can shoot 48% from the field, 40% from three and over 95%  from the free throw line AND a team leader AND has championship experience makes it almost impossible to expect only pennies on the dollar for Ray. Our team already has 2-3 other players who can be team leader types. Many teams don't have any, and will pay dearly for one.

And as for the cap, as long as we add viable, younger talent, we really aren't going to hurt our cap situation. As this team moves forward it's Perk and Rondo that will be at its center not Pierce and KG and because of this as Pierce and KG expire the cap situation will become excellent. Since Ray, Paul and KG expire in consecutive years, I don't see how trading Ray for good players who's contract run 3-5 years down the road hurts the cap situation.

Again, I'm not advocating a specific trade. I just want to make that clear. I think the point I am trying to convey is there is a distinct possibility that Danny MIGHT have to trade a Big Three member in order to improve this team more because he will have fiscal restraints being applied to him. I just see no other reason than to make some of the decision he has made over the last 12 months that explain his choices of player acquisition than a mandated maximum salary spending limit.

The thing that you are ignoring is that teams looking for an all star are different from the teams looking for cap relief.

Teams that are interested in trading for a 33 year old all star are teams that are contenders, and therefore not willing to part with significant talent.

Teams that are interested in trading for an 18 million dollar expiring contract might be willing to part with young talent, but that would mean that we would have to take back about 18 million dollars in new contracts that go beyond the next season.

So instead of resigning Ray Allen for substantially less than he will make last year, we will have at least the full 18 million dollars in new contracts. Add that to Pierce and KG, and I don't think we'd have money left over to sign Rondo and others.

Now, you know which team is a contender who would benefit from a 33 year old all star, and who would also benefit from his expiring deal and his resigning for less after next season? Oh, yeah, the celtics.

He won't be traded, because he doesnt make as much sense anywhere else as he does on the Cs. The only scenario where he might be traded would be if he demands a completely unreasonable contract to resign with the celtics.

[I Am A Boston Celtic]

One of the Big 3 must be traded! Simple as that!

I want, what this guys been smoking!!!

[nickagneta]

I think you are about as far off as you can be here. First off, once KG went down and even while he was here playing, it was evident that the chemistry this team had in 2007-08 was not there for 2008-09. Chemistry can be good but trades are not made or not made based solely on wanting to keep the the current state of chemistry. Trades will be made or not made to change the chemistry but never based on trying to keep it.

Second, Ray Allen is as valuable now as he is going to get and given that he is a $20 million expiring contract AND an All Star who can shoot 48% from the field, 40% from three and over 95%  from the free throw line AND a team leader AND has championship experience makes it almost impossible to expect only pennies on the dollar for Ray. Our team already has 2-3 other players who can be team leader types. Many teams don't have any, and will pay dearly for one.

And as for the cap, as long as we add viable, younger talent, we really aren't going to hurt our cap situation. As this team moves forward it's Perk and Rondo that will be at its center not Pierce and KG and because of this as Pierce and KG expire the cap situation will become excellent. Since Ray, Paul and KG expire in consecutive years, I don't see how trading Ray for good players who's contract run 3-5 years down the road hurts the cap situation.

Again, I'm not advocating a specific trade. I just want to make that clear. I think the point I am trying to convey is there is a distinct possibility that Danny MIGHT have to trade a Big Three member in order to improve this team more because he will have fiscal restraints being applied to him. I just see no other reason than to make some of the decision he has made over the last 12 months that explain his choices of player acquisition than a mandated maximum salary spending limit.

The thing that you are ignoring is that teams looking for an all star are different from the teams looking for cap relief.

Teams that are interested in trading for a 33 year old all star are teams that are contenders, and therefore not willing to part with significant talent.

Teams that are interested in trading for an 18 million dollar expiring contract might be willing to part with young talent, but that would mean that we would have to take back about 18 million dollars in new contracts that go beyond the next season.

So instead of resigning Ray Allen for substantially less than he will make last year, we will have at least the full 18 million dollars in new contracts. Add that to Pierce and KG, and I don't think we'd have money left over to sign Rondo and others.

Now, you know which team is a contender who would benefit from a 33 year old all star, and who would also benefit from his expiring deal and his resigning for less after next season? Oh, yeah, the celtics.

He won't be traded, because he doesnt make as much sense anywhere else as he does on the Cs.

Again, you are wrong.

Teams that want cap relief can also want salary relief because they are going broke and want to dump long term contracts for immediate payroll relief and will give up a lot to do that. Sacramento, Phoenix and New Orleans are just three teams that are currently in huge financial problems that would kill to be able to get $20-23 million off their books as soon as possible.

Also, you are under the assumption that Danny is resigning each of the Big Three for significantly less money after they expire. I find that notion to be misinformed. First off at 33 years old and still in excellent physical condition, there's no need for Ray, Paul or KG to expect to take significant pay cuts. Second, given the amount of time they have put in on the court, Danny might not think it a proper investment to re-sign any of them at any price. Therefore, he might look at trading each in their last season of each contract as a way of remaking the club through trades rather than through drafts, free agent signings and re-signings.

There are a ton of reason why teams make decisions to trade players away and to trade for players and not just to two very limited scenarios you presented.

[dlpin]

I think you are about as far off as you can be here. First off, once KG went down and even while he was here playing, it was evident that the chemistry this team had in 2007-08 was not there for 2008-09. Chemistry can be good but trades are not made or not made based solely on wanting to keep the the current state of chemistry. Trades will be made or not made to change the chemistry but never based on trying to keep it.

Second, Ray Allen is as valuable now as he is going to get and given that he is a $20 million expiring contract AND an All Star who can shoot 48% from the field, 40% from three and over 95%  from the free throw line AND a team leader AND has championship experience makes it almost impossible to expect only pennies on the dollar for Ray. Our team already has 2-3 other players who can be team leader types. Many teams don't have any, and will pay dearly for one.

And as for the cap, as long as we add viable, younger talent, we really aren't going to hurt our cap situation. As this team moves forward it's Perk and Rondo that will be at its center not Pierce and KG and because of this as Pierce and KG expire the cap situation will become excellent. Since Ray, Paul and KG expire in consecutive years, I don't see how trading Ray for good players who's contract run 3-5 years down the road hurts the cap situation.

Again, I'm not advocating a specific trade. I just want to make that clear. I think the point I am trying to convey is there is a distinct possibility that Danny MIGHT have to trade a Big Three member in order to improve this team more because he will have fiscal restraints being applied to him. I just see no other reason than to make some of the decision he has made over the last 12 months that explain his choices of player acquisition than a mandated maximum salary spending limit.

The thing that you are ignoring is that teams looking for an all star are different from the teams looking for cap relief.

Teams that are interested in trading for a 33 year old all star are teams that are contenders, and therefore not willing to part with significant talent.

Teams that are interested in trading for an 18 million dollar expiring contract might be willing to part with young talent, but that would mean that we would have to take back about 18 million dollars in new contracts that go beyond the next season.

So instead of resigning Ray Allen for substantially less than he will make last year, we will have at least the full 18 million dollars in new contracts. Add that to Pierce and KG, and I don't think we'd have money left over to sign Rondo and others.

Now, you know which team is a contender who would benefit from a 33 year old all star, and who would also benefit from his expiring deal and his resigning for less after next season? Oh, yeah, the celtics.

He won't be traded, because he doesnt make as much sense anywhere else as he does on the Cs.

Again, you are wrong.

Teams that want cap relief can also want salary relief because they are going broke and want to dump long term contracts for immediate payroll relief and will give up a lot to do that. Sacramento, Phoenix and New Orleans are just three teams that are currently in huge financial problems that would kill to be able to get $20-23 million off their books as soon as possible.

Also, you are under the assumption that Danny is resigning each of the Big Three for significantly less money after they expire. I find that notion to be misinformed. First off at 33 years old and still in excellent physical condition, there's no need for Ray, Paul or KG to expect to take significant pay cuts. Second, given the amount of time they have put in on the court, Danny might not think it a proper investment to re-sign any of them at any price. Therefore, he might look at trading each in their last season of each contract as a way of remaking the club through trades rather than through drafts, free agent signings and re-signings.

There are a ton of reason why teams make decisions to trade players away and to trade for players and not just to two very limited scenarios you presented.

Where exactly am I wrong?

You are still not making any sense. Who made any distinctions about cap relief and salary relief?  My point is that trading Ray Allen to a team looking to dump salaries means taking about 18 million in long term contracts back. This is a pretty bad deal for these celtics. It means that in 2010-11, when its time to resign Rondo, we'd have Pierce's contract, KG's contract plus the full 18 million in new contracts we'd get with the new players.

And with relation to Ray Allen taking a pay cut, I significantly doubt that he would require a max deal to resign, as he would be 34 by the time the extension kicked in. And if he is not getting a max deal, then by default he is taking a pay cut.  KG is younger, and his salary will go from 24 million a year this season, to 16 the next when his extension kicks in.

So, again, please show me where I am wrong. Am I wrong in saying that trading him for a team looking to dump means tying up a lot of money long term? That a team looking for an all star is not going to give back similar value?

Ray Allen with the celtics gives the celtics both an all star AND salary flexibility. Even if he demanded a max deal to resign with the celtics, it would still make more sense to simply let him walk than to trade him for major amounts of money tied long term.

[xmuscularghandix]

No.

[nickagneta]

You are wrong because you assume that Danny wouldn't want players signed to long term contracts. He may have n problem with that with the right players. Yes we get back that $18 million back you keep mentioning(I think Ray's number alone is $19.7 million) but if $10 million of it is tied up for 4 years with a player the Celtics would want that long at that price and another $8 million is tied up for 2 extra years for a player Danny feels is worth the price, then what does it matter?

In my example Ray would go to GSW for Maggette and Jackson. Danny might feel that Maggette and Jackson signed for what they are signed at for the length of time they are signed at is just fine.

You are wrong because it doesn't matter what we are paying Pierce and KG or any other player because we have Rondo's Bird rights and can re-sign him to whatever we want. How exactly does anyone else's contract have any bearing on retaining Rondo when we own his Bird rights and can offer him more money than anyone else.

You are wrong because even though Ray won't get a max deal, he isn't about to start earning vet minimum contracts either. Ray could still demand and get on the open market a three year deal in the $27-$33 million range. While that is a savings, it is not a savings that helps the Celtics because it doesn't get them under the salary cap so the Celtics would still be extremely limited in what they can offer future free agents. Heck, Ray could take a vet min contract and he still won't help the Celtics in getting under the cap to sign major free agents.

Since major free agency to better the team is out of the question, then the only other two options is to ride the Big Three into the dust while surrounding them with mediocre talent and hoping they stay healthy and can squeeze another championship out or by trading them for lateral talent movement and longer years on contracts and rebuilding through trades.

Danny has already mentioned that he felt the original Big Three were held onto for too long and that the proper move was to trade them away earlier and rebuild that way.

[CoachBo]

People need to realize that Ray Allen is not going to be traded, as it would make absolutely no sense. It would hurt chemistry, and trading him for talent would net us cents on the dollar in term of value, and actually hurts our cap situation.

I think you are about as far off as you can be here. First off, once KG went down and even while he was here playing, it was evident that the chemistry this team had in 2007-08 was not there for 2008-09. Chemistry can be good but trades are not made or not made based solely on wanting to keep the the current state of chemistry. Trades will be made or not made to change the chemistry but never based on trying to keep it.

Second, Ray Allen is as valuable now as he is going to get and given that he is a $20 million expiring contract AND an All Star who can shoot 48% from the field, 40% from three and over 95%  from the free throw line AND a team leader AND has championship experience makes it almost impossible to expect only pennies on the dollar for Ray. Our team already has 2-3 other players who can be team leader types. Many teams don't have any, and will pay dearly for one.

And as for the cap, as long as we add viable, younger talent, we really aren't going to hurt our cap situation. As this team moves forward it's Perk and Rondo that will be at its center not Pierce and KG and because of this as Pierce and KG expire the cap situation will become excellent. Since Ray, Paul and KG expire in consecutive years, I don't see how trading Ray for good players who's contract run 3-5 years down the road hurts the cap situation.

Again, I'm not advocating a specific trade. I just want to make that clear. I think the point I am trying to convey is there is a distinct possibility that Danny MIGHT have to trade a Big Three member in order to improve this team more because he will have fiscal restraints being applied to him. I just see no other reason than to make some of the decision he has made over the last 12 months that explain his choices of player acquisition than a mandated maximum salary spending limit.

Nick, I am afraid you are correct about management's lack of commitment to another title run this season. I hope - really hope - that changes, because if the number Ainge has to operate within stays the same or drops, our chances of 18 with Garnett and Pierce and Ray diminish significantly.

However, Danny made numerous bad personnel decisions over the past year. A bunch of them. He clearly can do better within the constraints of a budget, and he's going to have to.

As for Ray, I'm willing to listen to possibilities. I doubt, frankly, that there are going to be a lot of them this summer and my confidence in Danny making a good decision there isn't very strong. In fact, my confidence in management is pretty damaged at this point and that's why I'm whole-heartedly opposed to letting anyone walk after next year. There's simply no evidence to suggest Danny is capable of spending that money intelligently.

[JSD]

Nick, I see the case you are making here but I don't agree with it.

Your whole premise is built around this imaginary self imposed "Wyc cap" that there is no evidence of. All indications are that DA has had green light and the final decision on players and their contracts throughout his time here. He went about last off-season in search for value and he came up short. He made some miscalculations about the deadline buyouts and will learn from his mistake. I expect the full MLE to be utilized  and the expiring contracts of TA, Scal and House to be consolidated and used to bring in a 8 - 10 million dollar player of need. The Celtics are buyers not sellers.

[CoachBo]

Oh, I disagree totally about last summer. There's plenty of evidence of a "Wyc cap." In fact, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. They pinched pennies at the three and killed Pierce. Every decision was the cheapest option possible, except Tony Allen and the grotesque mistake that was is very obvious. Some may call that "searching for value." If so, they found nothing. I call it cheap.

Now, as for this summer, there's no evidence. Yet.

But we'll be watching, won't we? I totally understand the pessimism. Wyc has to prove he's willing to spend, not that he isn't.

[JSD]

Oh, I disagree totally about last summer. There's plenty of evidence of a "Wyc cap." In fact, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. They pinched pennies at the three and killed Pierce. Every decision was the cheapest option possible, except Tony Allen and the grotesque mistake that was is very obvious. Some may call that "searching for value." If so, they found nothing. I call it cheap.

Now, as for this summer, there's no evidence. Yet.

But we'll be watching, won't we? I totally understand the pessimism. Wyc has to prove he's willing to spend, not that he isn't.

How did they "pinch pennies at the 3"? They offered C.Maggette the entire MLE and were rejected. You wanted them to overpay for Posey and they didn't so they're cheap right? Well I disagree, unwillingness to overpay does not equate to a "Wyc Cap".

[CoachBo]

Oh, I disagree totally about last summer. There's plenty of evidence of a "Wyc cap." In fact, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. They pinched pennies at the three and killed Pierce. Every decision was the cheapest option possible, except Tony Allen and the grotesque mistake that was is very obvious. Some may call that "searching for value." If so, they found nothing. I call it cheap.

Now, as for this summer, there's no evidence. Yet.

But we'll be watching, won't we? I totally understand the pessimism. Wyc has to prove he's willing to spend, not that he isn't.

How did they "pinch pennies at the 3"? They offered C.Maggette the entire MLE and were rejected. You wanted them to overpay for Posey and they didn't so they're cheap right? Well I disagree, unwillingness to overpay does not equate to a "Wyc Cap".

We totally disagree, and you need look no further than at Pierce's playoff performance to see the real toll of "refusing to overpay," as you put it. I call it cheap, and I'd flatly tell you that the price Posey signed for with the Hornets is not "overpaying" for versatility: It's prudent management, because it prevents you from losing two players - Posey and ultimately, Pierce.

The decision on Posey was one major mistake; one that was compounded by ownership and management's steadfast refusal to attempt to fill the void he left with anyone besides Tony Allen, whose resigning was, frankly, a waste of $2.5 million. Paying Tony Allen at all is "overpaying." Pierce was out of gas in the second round and he didn't need to be.

[crownsy]

Oh, I disagree totally about last summer. There's plenty of evidence of a "Wyc cap." In fact, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. They pinched pennies at the three and killed Pierce. Every decision was the cheapest option possible, except Tony Allen and the grotesque mistake that was is very obvious. Some may call that "searching for value." If so, they found nothing. I call it cheap.

Now, as for this summer, there's no evidence. Yet.

But we'll be watching, won't we? I totally understand the pessimism. Wyc has to prove he's willing to spend, not that he isn't.

How did they "pinch pennies at the 3"? They offered C.Maggette the entire MLE and were rejected. You wanted them to overpay for Posey and they didn't so they're cheap right? Well I disagree, unwillingness to overpay does not equate to a "Wyc Cap".

We totally disagree, and you need look no further than at Pierce's playoff performance to see the real toll of "refusing to overpay," as you put it. I call it cheap, and I'd flatly tell you that the price Posey signed for with the Hornets is not "overpaying" for versatility: It's prudent management, because it prevents you from losing two players - Posey and ultimately, Pierce.

The decision on Posey was one major mistake; one that was compounded by ownership and management's steadfast refusal to attempt to fill the void he left with anyone besides Tony Allen, whose resigning was, frankly, a waste of $2.5 million. Paying Tony Allen at all is "overpaying." Pierce was out of gas in the second round and he didn't need to be.

how do you square this with posey having what many are calling a down year?

do you think if he had stayed here he would have played better?

[EDWARDO]

Ray Allen will retire as a Celtic, as will Kevin Garnett & Paul Pierce.

Together they brought us #17 and together, they may bring us another one.

We owe it too them, to retire as Celtics, if they so wish.

This is highly unlikely. There's very little chance all these guys retire as Celtics and as fans we should hope not, honestly. Let's not waste the same years that the 1980s Celtics did at the end of the Big 3 era. I know that Danny doesn't want that to happen: "As both A Boston player and executive, Ainge has not been afraid of the risks involved in acting boldly. Back in 1988, when he was one of the Celtics' backcourt starters, he was seated at a table with Bird, forward Kevin McHale and team president Red Auerbach during the organization's Christmas party. At the time Boston was reportedly considering trades that would have sent Bird and McHale to the Indiana Pacers and Dallas Mavericks, respectively. "Look at these two guys," Ainge told Auerbach, over the surrounding conversations of other players and their families. "Larry's got casts on his feet [from surgery to remove bone spurs in both heels], Kevin's got a screw in his foot [to repair a stress fracture]—you've got to trade these guys." Everyone laughed at Ainge's typical audacity, but he wasn't joking. "I would have traded Larry Bird," he insists today."

Let's hope that audacity is still alive. Every indication is that it is. Why let sentimentality prevent him from improving the team?? Ray Allen has been here for only two years. Its not like we've been rooting for him as a Celtic for 10 years. I'm not convinced they will find a good deal for him this year anyway. And I think it would tough to save a lot of money in dealing him - more likely to take back a longer/worse contract for perhaps a more talented player.

[CDawg834]

Ray Allen will retire as a Celtic, as will Kevin Garnett & Paul Pierce.

Together they brought us #17 and together, they may bring us another one.

We owe it too them, to retire as Celtics, if they so wish.

We do?  What if they all want 4-5 year deals @ max money when their contracts expire?  Would we owe that to them, too?  I think Pierce finishes his career in Boston, since Wyc loves him, but I can't be sure about the other two.

[bobdelt]

I wouldn't mind seeing RA gone, if we can get someone who can play defense and hit an outside shot, along with another bench player.

It takes two super stars to win a title - three helps, but I think we need someone who can keep up with Rondo.

I'm tired of seeing Rondo lead the fast break, only to pull up or take a bad shot because he has nobody to pass to. Nobody can keep up with him.