Ray Allen

[wdleehi]

Ray is no MLE player, and to think we should offer him something around it is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned.

If he was still playing on a bad team, then yes, he could have been an MLE player.


But as a key cog in the Celtics machine, he is worth more then that to the Celtics. 



I also agree that the best route would probably be to resign him.

[Roy Hobbs]

I think the team should do everything in their power to keep the core together.  That means bringing back Ray, and getting Perk signed, as well.  You'll always be able to find vets willing to come here for relatively small salaries (MLE and below), but you're not going to find a lot of legit impact starters. 

I'd be all for a two year deal for Ray at prety high money. If he wants longer it'd have to be only an MLE deal.

I don't think it has to be strictly MLE.  I do agree, though, that his play is likely to decline, so a decreasing deal over time makes some sense.  How about $8m, $7.2 million, $6.4 million?  Or even $9 million, $8.1 million, $7.2 million?  (Salaries can decline over time, but no more than 10.5% of the value of the first year.)

[BudweiserCeltic]

Ray is no MLE player, and to think we should offer him something around it is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe, if you are offering him a one year deal, but if you are offering a three-year deal it will end when he is 38 years old. How important do you think he might be then, and will he be worth much more money at that time? I love Ray as much as anyone and I want to see him retire a Celtic, so I would prefer they offer a long-term deal at a reduced rate. I don't think, however, I want to pay him 10 million a year when he is 38 years old. I think something around three years at 20 million (an average of about 6.7 a year) is far from a rediculous low-ball offer and still "around" MLE type money.

Considering, that next year he should be making about 12 million+ at least, 6.7 per year is quite low.

You might not like his age, but even so he's coming off one of his most efficient scoring seasons in his career (2nd most efficient), and this year, even with his early struggles during the first two games, he's still above his career averages in efficiency.

Surely, for more years, he'll be making less in a per year basis... but not at mid-level range.

We have plenty of expiring contracts this coming offseason, there's room to give Ray good decent fair money and not blowout or salary out of proportion. I would be surprised if we spend more than we did this year even if we give Ray good money.

[wdleehi]

I think the team should do everything in their power to keep the core together.  That means bringing back Ray, and getting Perk signed, as well.  You'll always be able to find vets willing to come here for relatively small salaries (MLE and below), but you're not going to find a lot of legit impact starters. 

I'd be all for a two year deal for Ray at prety high money. If he wants longer it'd have to be only an MLE deal.

I don't think it has to be strictly MLE.  I do agree, though, that his play is likely to decline, so a decreasing deal over time makes some sense.  How about $8m, $7.2 million, $6.4 million?  Or even $9 million, $8.1 million, $7.2 million?  (Salaries can decline over time, but no more than 10.5% of the value of the first year.)

I like the sliding scale numbers.


You can even sell him on it would be easier to trade him to a contender his last year if the Celtics are no longer the title level team.

[Jon]

I'd rather just offer him more money at two years. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

I'd rather just offer him more money at two years. 

I think that's what we're looking at, I really doubt we're looking long term. 3 years is too much in my opinion with the uncertainty of his health, not necessarily because of his decline in play which is really the least of my concerns.

[wdleehi]

I'd rather just offer him more money at two years. 

I think that's what we're looking at, I really doubt we're looking long term. 3 years is too much in my opinion with the uncertainty of his health, not necessarily because of his decline in play which is really the least of my concerns.

I think a three year, money shrinking contract is a great way to go.


At worst, Ray is still a valuable outside shooter for a contending team in three years.  And with a shrink short contract, I could see a team offering a nice (though small) trade package for him if KG and Pierce are either gone or regressed to the point that the Celtics are no longer contenders.

[greenwise]

How about a 2 year / 18 million deal? Would it be fair for both?

[ManUp]

Ray Allen is the most inconsistent great shooter I think we will ever see.

1-7 from three last night when practically every three he took was wide open.

Am I by myself on this?

[Chris]

How about a 2 year / 18 million deal? Would it be fair for both?

I think that would be ideal for the C's.  It keeps their flexibility in 2 years, but gives Ray decent money. 

Although I think it might actually take something closer to 2 years $20 million to get it done.

[idrinkdetergent]

Ray Allen is the most inconsistent great shooter I think we will ever see.

1-7 from three last night when practically every three he took was wide open.

Am I by myself on this?

Everyone was missing last night. Eddie had an airball, how often do we see that? but he has been inconsistent this season so far I am hoping ray can get it together because I Love seeing him hit the 3 to put the dagger in a team or the last second one. Even if hes missed 10 shots in a row Id still have him take the last second 3.

[ManUp]

Ray Allen is the most inconsistent great shooter I think we will ever see.

1-7 from three last night when practically every three he took was wide open.

Am I by myself on this?

Everyone was missing last night. Eddie had an airball, how often do we see that? but he has been inconsistent this season so far I am hoping ray can get it together because I Love seeing him hit the 3 to put the dagger in a team or the last second one. Even if hes missed 10 shots in a row Id still have him take the last second 3.

I agree, but it's not like it's a one time thing. When Ray shoots a wide open shot it doesn't necessarily make it more likely to go in. When he's feeling it he's feeling it when he's not he's not. Just my observation.

[idrinkdetergent]

Ray Allen is the most inconsistent great shooter I think we will ever see.

1-7 from three last night when practically every three he took was wide open.

Am I by myself on this?

Everyone was missing last night. Eddie had an airball, how often do we see that? but he has been inconsistent this season so far I am hoping ray can get it together because I Love seeing him hit the 3 to put the dagger in a team or the last second one. Even if hes missed 10 shots in a row Id still have him take the last second 3.

I agree, but it's not like it's a one time thing. When Ray shoots a wide open shot it doesn't necessarily make it more likely to go in. When he's feeling it he's feeling it when he's not he's not. Just my observation.

Oh I know I just wanted to point out that it wasn't just Ray missing.

[Mr October]

I have no reason to think Ray isn't exactly the same guy from last year, and that guy was pretty good.  I say keep playing Ray and go for another championship.

yup. He's still a borderline bubble all-star, and a tremendous threat from the 3 point line. I'd like to keep him for 2 more years.

[LooseCannon]

Seeing how Bird, Parish, and McHale declined and Ainge's comments on how the Celtics should have traded the latter two seems to have made some people overly paranoid about having aging stars on the team who aren't in the category of life-long Celtics who you can't bear to see in another uniform (Bird, Pierce).  Ray Allen has the skill set where he might be a quality NBA starter for more than just 2-3 years more. 

Ideally, the Celtics would like to wring value out of those 2-3 years when he is very likely going to be near All-Star level and then trade his name value and last few years for draft picks or younger players.

Instead, what the Celtics need to think about is configuring their bench to fit the flaws of Allen's skill sets.  As the worst defender in the starting lineup, Allen is going to be one focus of offensive schemes.  It wouldn't be a bad idea for the Celtics to have a one-way defensive stopper who might play in the place of RA at the end of close games with a small lead (but you would keep Ray out there when trailing because you want his offense), someone who you might swap with Ray Allen on offense and defense when there are a lot of time outs and fouls and other stoppages in play in the last minutes of a tight game. 

The Celtics wanted Tony Allen to be that guy, but he wasn't.  It doesn't have to be some Posey-like super-sub who can soak up a lot of minutes at multiple positions.  It might be a better allocation of resources to find the SG equivalent of Sheldon Williams for the minimum.