Is there any excuse for the Celtics not to resign BBD?

[CelticWes34]

People, people, people, as much as I love BBD he is not worth 4 million annually. Also, I doubt he will get that kind of amount on the open market anyhow seeing as there are much better players out there that will command more than he will.

I think we, as Celtics fans, fall in love with some of these players and then when it comes to re-sign them want Danny to do whatever it takes to get them back on the team no matter what the cost. Let's be real right now, there are about 8 or 9 other "bigs" out there that I prefer over Davis. Some of the top of my head include Sheed, McDyess, Charlie V, Hedo, David Lee, Millsap, Gortat, etc.

If what I have been reading has been correct (such as Charlie V possibly having to sign a deal for the MLE) then there is no way that BBD deserves anymore than 3 million annually.

Another concern with him is his weight. Sure, he seemed a little slimmer this season but what happens once he gets that big contract? I would hate for him to get paid like some players in the past and then just let the weight keep adding on.

Remember Isaac Austin? I would hate to see BBD wind up like him.

I say offer the kid a 2 year, 6 million dollar deal. It's low risk, high reward. If he continues to improve and lose weight, sign him to a more lucrative deal. But seeing as how the economy is and the other players out there that are better than him, I think 3 million annually is very fair.

[Jon]

We need to sign him, with or without sheed on our roster, he will be our future starter. I was so impressed with his stellar performance in the playoffs and I can't see Danny giving up on a player like that. He might have a much better carer that Sheed had.
I'm sure that well re-sign him soon, in a long term, with signing him we might end up saving money, and having him underpayed for a year or two, plus he would at least have a good/grate trade value.

I don't think he is the future starter on a title team in Boston.  He could be the future starter of a middle of the road Celtics team lost in NBA no-mans land.

I agree.  I think Davis belongs in the NBA, but let's face the facts: he's a 6-6 overweight PF who can only dunk the ball if no one is around because he can barely get it over the rim.  To compound things more, very rarely when he's on the court is he any more than the 4th biggest concern for the defense, and often he's the 5th (if he's on the floor with Rondo, Allen, Pierce, and KG).  He isn't going to get the open looks and chances he gets now if he goes to a team not loaded with stars.  Similarly, if Danny were to go crazy and think that Davis is cornerstone for the future, I think we're all going to be disappointed with how Davis performs if he was a primary option in the offense.  If you don't believe that, ask yourself this: if Davis could really be a starting PF on a championship team, wouldn't the C's with elite players at the 1, 2, 3, and 5 spots have gone further in last year's playoffs?  

If Wyc decides to throw caution into the wind and forget about the luxury tax, then I'm OK with signing him.  However, if these Sheed rumors are true and Wyc actually has some financial restraint, I don't know he we justify spending over 10 million dollars a year on Sheed and Baby combined when Sheed could probably backup the 4 and 5 positions by himself.  

I also don't see how we pay Baby 5 million a year if we have any hope that Powe can bounce back.  While I'd probably concede that Baby is better than Powe, if we can get Powe at the minimum, he's definitely a better value than Baby.  

[Prof. Clutch]

but is a 21 year old perk worse than a 21 year old Davis? You have to take into consideration that perk came right out of high school, I think when you go by age, perk is far better

agreed.

[BudweiserCeltic]

What's the harm in overpaying Baby? Seriously, we might've to pay the luxury tax this year (though few would have problems with that) and that's about it. Next few years we're in good financial situations but not good enough to be under the cap anyways, so where's the harm? Whatever he's offered we should match in my opinion, even if he's not worth it or if it's overpaying him. Having his depth and young talent as an asset will be more valuable to us.

[droopdog7]

What's the harm in overpaying Baby? Seriously, we might've to pay the luxury tax this year (though few would have problems with that) and that's about it. Next few years we're in good financial situations but not good enough to be under the cap anyways, so where's the harm? Whatever he's offered we should match in my opinion, even if he's not worth it or if it's overpaying him. Having his depth and young talent as an asset will be more valuable to us.

We are in good shape to replace the big three in the nextfew years with very good players from other teams.  Overpaying for BBD would hinder that plan.  Overpaying is never a good thing and very often a bad thing.

[Jon]

What's the harm in overpaying Baby? Seriously, we might've to pay the luxury tax this year (though few would have problems with that) and that's about it. Next few years we're in good financial situations but not good enough to be under the cap anyways, so where's the harm? Whatever he's offered we should match in my opinion, even if he's not worth it or if it's overpaying him. Having his depth and young talent as an asset will be more valuable to us.

I think the harm is next year.  If the C's extend Ray at around 8-10 million a year and extend Rondo for about 8-10 million a year, then the savings we get from Ray's contract is pretty much negated.  So come next year, if the C's are looking to add a free agent to the MLE, Baby's contract could bite us in the butt if we want to try to sign another MLE guy next year.  

You might say that that is OK, however, you have to ask yourself, if KG is going to play 32-35 mpg and Perk 30-32 mpg, then can't Sheed backup both spots?  If so, why would we want to blow 5 million a year for BBD to play 5 mpg?  Couldn't Oberto, Powe, or even Scal do that for us?  

I'd be behind it if I thought it was money well spent, but I'd rather get Sheed, get a backup at the 2/3 at the LLE, then next year make a run at another MLE guy.  

[Fafnir]

What's the harm in overpaying Baby? Seriously, we might've to pay the luxury tax this year (though few would have problems with that) and that's about it. Next few years we're in good financial situations but not good enough to be under the cap anyways, so where's the harm? Whatever he's offered we should match in my opinion, even if he's not worth it or if it's overpaying him. Having his depth and young talent as an asset will be more valuable to us.

The harm would be if Wyc tightens the purse enough that Danny wouldn't be able to make additional moves to keep the Celtics title contenders.

In an ideal world I'd say just keep him no matter what, but Danny has a budget.

[BudweiserCeltic]

What's the harm in overpaying Baby? Seriously, we might've to pay the luxury tax this year (though few would have problems with that) and that's about it. Next few years we're in good financial situations but not good enough to be under the cap anyways, so where's the harm? Whatever he's offered we should match in my opinion, even if he's not worth it or if it's overpaying him. Having his depth and young talent as an asset will be more valuable to us.

We are in good shape to replace the big three in the nextfew years with very good players from other teams.  Overpaying for BBD would hinder that plan.  Overpaying is never a good thing and very often a bad thing.

When? In next year's free-agency? We won't be enough under the cap to replace them. In 2011? At the moment we have plenty of room, in fact, we need some bodies and with Garnett still in there the championship window should still be there, so Baby's depth will be an asset. After that, again, it seems like we will have a ton of space as it stands and by then it would be a short years remaining (if it's a 5 year deal he gets).

What's the harm in overpaying Baby? Seriously, we might've to pay the luxury tax this year (though few would have problems with that) and that's about it. Next few years we're in good financial situations but not good enough to be under the cap anyways, so where's the harm? Whatever he's offered we should match in my opinion, even if he's not worth it or if it's overpaying him. Having his depth and young talent as an asset will be more valuable to us.

The harm would be if Wyc tightens the purse enough that Danny wouldn't be able to make additional moves to keep the Celtics title contenders.

In an ideal world I'd say just keep him no matter what, but Danny has a budget.

Again, we're in good financial situations going forward, that won't be an issue. After we spend the MLE in whomever, Danny would be dumpster diving anyways.

[Jon]

What's the harm in overpaying Baby? Seriously, we might've to pay the luxury tax this year (though few would have problems with that) and that's about it. Next few years we're in good financial situations but not good enough to be under the cap anyways, so where's the harm? Whatever he's offered we should match in my opinion, even if he's not worth it or if it's overpaying him. Having his depth and young talent as an asset will be more valuable to us.

We are in good shape to replace the big three in the nextfew years with very good players from other teams.  Overpaying for BBD would hinder that plan.  Overpaying is never a good thing and very often a bad thing.

When? In next year's free-agency? We won't be enough under the cap to replace them. In 2011? At the moment we have plenty of room, in fact, we need some bodies and with Garnett still in there the championship window should still be there, so Baby's depth will be an asset. After that, again, it seems like we will have a ton of space as it stands and by then it would be a short years remaining (if it's a 5 year deal he gets).

What's the harm in overpaying Baby? Seriously, we might've to pay the luxury tax this year (though few would have problems with that) and that's about it. Next few years we're in good financial situations but not good enough to be under the cap anyways, so where's the harm? Whatever he's offered we should match in my opinion, even if he's not worth it or if it's overpaying him. Having his depth and young talent as an asset will be more valuable to us.

The harm would be if Wyc tightens the purse enough that Danny wouldn't be able to make additional moves to keep the Celtics title contenders.

In an ideal world I'd say just keep him no matter what, but Danny has a budget.

Again, we're in good financial situations going forward, that won't be an issue. After we spend the MLE in whomever, Danny would be dumpster diving anyways.

For me, it's more about the MLE next year and the fact that Davis doesn't really offer all that much if Wallace is in green next year. 

[Birdbrain]

I'm behind Danny and I assume he'll be resigned.

Perkins/Wallace
KG/BBD

Best front line in league by far.

[Edgar]

6
dont count him out hes cheap yes trying to post my little sister


Ask ANY team in this league if they want to go against that rotation....

[BudweiserCeltic]

What's the harm in overpaying Baby? Seriously, we might've to pay the luxury tax this year (though few would have problems with that) and that's about it. Next few years we're in good financial situations but not good enough to be under the cap anyways, so where's the harm? Whatever he's offered we should match in my opinion, even if he's not worth it or if it's overpaying him. Having his depth and young talent as an asset will be more valuable to us.

We are in good shape to replace the big three in the nextfew years with very good players from other teams.  Overpaying for BBD would hinder that plan.  Overpaying is never a good thing and very often a bad thing.

When? In next year's free-agency? We won't be enough under the cap to replace them. In 2011? At the moment we have plenty of room, in fact, we need some bodies and with Garnett still in there the championship window should still be there, so Baby's depth will be an asset. After that, again, it seems like we will have a ton of space as it stands and by then it would be a short years remaining (if it's a 5 year deal he gets).

What's the harm in overpaying Baby? Seriously, we might've to pay the luxury tax this year (though few would have problems with that) and that's about it. Next few years we're in good financial situations but not good enough to be under the cap anyways, so where's the harm? Whatever he's offered we should match in my opinion, even if he's not worth it or if it's overpaying him. Having his depth and young talent as an asset will be more valuable to us.

The harm would be if Wyc tightens the purse enough that Danny wouldn't be able to make additional moves to keep the Celtics title contenders.

In an ideal world I'd say just keep him no matter what, but Danny has a budget.

Again, we're in good financial situations going forward, that won't be an issue. After we spend the MLE in whomever, Danny would be dumpster diving anyways.

For me, it's more about the MLE next year and the fact that Davis doesn't really offer all that much if Wallace is in green next year. 

There's still plenty of room before we reach tax land next year. And again, overpaying is useful because it's a contract with some value you can use in trades. That's the problem when you have too many cheap contracts, it's really hard to move them. Baby is not a bad guy to overspend on considering that he brings depth to the 4/5 position.

If there's someone that we need and we have to spend the full MLE on next year, we'll spend it. Wyc has no problem with that. He'll do it next year, he would've done it last year (he offered Posey full MLE) in worse financial situations.

Also, more than anything we need bodies and as it stands we'll probably have only the MLE and some extensions to fillout the bench. I think that's a bigger asset... one less roster space to fill using our exceptions.

Remember Pierce can also opt-out that year, so we might find ourselves with a ton of cap room or Pierce taking less money to help out. But we still need a ton of roster to fill.

We still have to see how the rest of the free-agency goes and how our roster situation develops, it's a fluid situation.

I understand the concern with overpaying a guy, especially with the role he might play assuming we get someone like Sheed. But I see some value elsewhere beyond that value of the skill level of the player... that's my opinion though.

[Fafnir]

I hate the argument that it is okay to overpay a guy because his "expiring deal" will be a valuable chip. If you're telling yourself that its okay to sign a player because he'll be a big expiring deal it is a sign you're giving him too much.

That's how you end up a bad team....

[Moranis]

What's the harm in overpaying Baby? Seriously, we might've to pay the luxury tax this year (though few would have problems with that) and that's about it. Next few years we're in good financial situations but not good enough to be under the cap anyways, so where's the harm? Whatever he's offered we should match in my opinion, even if he's not worth it or if it's overpaying him. Having his depth and young talent as an asset will be more valuable to us.

people said that about the gross overpaying of Scalabrine and last year, Scalabrine's contract may have prevented a better free agent signing.

Over paying a player should never be an option for a well run franchise.  When you over pay, no good can come from it.

[RAcker]

My answer to the OP is simply "price".