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.
So let me get this straight:
the boston celtics would trade ray allen because they have no problems addind 18 million dollars in long term contracts. plus the contracts of pierce and garnett, plus resigning rondo?
That would require taking on a lot of money long term. I don't think there is any doubt in my mind that Ray Allen is going to get at the very least about 5 to 6 million cheaper after this season. So we trade him, losing not only a talented all star, but some cap and salary relief as well.
And whether or not we own Rondo's Bird rights is irrelevant. A couple of a million a year was the difference between signing Posey and letting him go, but they would completely obliterate any sort of financial flexibility in order to trade Ray? Because even a 3 year, 33 million dollar contract (to cite the high end of your figure) is still 8 million dollars worth of savings.
As for your example, do you really think that after not matching the MLE for 32 year old Posey, they'd be willing to take Maggete AND Jackson, both will be 30 or over when next season starts and are signed for 10 mill a year for 4 additional years?
Ray won't be traded. He is exactly what Boston wants in all senses: veteran all star with leadership skills suited for a run at the title, and not only that, but also gives the celtics additional flexibility. Whether or not we have Bird rights on any player is irrelevant if the owners won't spend more than a certain amount, and so taking 18 million dollars worth of long term contracts, even if it is not cents on the dollar, is still hurting our chances at keeping Rondo.
Facts are that trading Ray reduces financial flexibility. I mean, it is only logical: we can't trade away an expiring contract and get salary relief in return. And given that we know that there is a certain amount of money the owners wont spend, adding unreasonable contracts for a long time.
Topic: Has Ray Allen played his last game as a Celtic? (Read 27108 times)