Author Topic: The Cs should have signed Powe  (Read 35434 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #45 on: January 12, 2010, 04:41:11 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
It's funny, but everytime we struggle as a team, even if not at Powe's position, this thread pops back up.   ;D

Exactly. And an injured Powe wouldn't have helped the situation anyway. Go figure.::)

Helped? Helped what? When I keep making very clear that I'm not expecting his services until later in the year -- but feel it may be important for the Cs at that time -- what don't you understand?

  You keep saying that you're expecting his services later in the year.  But what are you expecting to see? His knee fully healed and him playing as well as he was this spring before he got hurt? His knee 50%? 75%? 90%? I expect to see him this year but I don't expect him to really get back into form until some time during the 2010-2011 season.

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #46 on: January 12, 2010, 04:41:33 PM »

Offline pearljammer10

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13129
  • Tommy Points: 885
Williams is playing just as good if not better than Powe but he cant perform when hes locked up on the bench... BBD has only played in what...7 games? KG and Rasheed have minor injuries...And our savior is Leon Powe? This blog gets crazier and crazier by the day.

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #47 on: January 12, 2010, 04:57:46 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
Williams is playing just as good if not better than Powe but he cant perform when hes locked up on the bench... BBD has only played in what...7 games? KG and Rasheed have minor injuries...And our savior is Leon Powe? This blog gets crazier and crazier by the day.

Short memory:

~ Calling Williams as good as Powe is absurd. Or maybe you don't recall the 2008 NBA Finals. 
 
~ You and I have no idea how minor KG and Sheeds injuries are. Or maybe you don't remember last year?

~ Davis and Powe played complimentary roles very well for the Cs.

I never called Leon a savior -- I said he could become helpful off the bench where others (Giddens) won't.
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #48 on: January 12, 2010, 05:06:45 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
It's funny, but everytime we struggle as a team, even if not at Powe's position, this thread pops back up.   ;D

Exactly. And an injured Powe wouldn't have helped the situation anyway. Go figure.::)

Helped? Helped what? When I keep making very clear that I'm not expecting his services until later in the year -- but feel it may be important for the Cs at that time -- what don't you understand?

  You keep saying that you're expecting his services later in the year.  But what are you expecting to see? His knee fully healed and him playing as well as he was this spring before he got hurt? His knee 50%? 75%? 90%? I expect to see him this year but I don't expect him to really get back into form until some time during the 2010-2011 season.

Indeed, he'll likely be at less than full strength. But he's performed very well after surgury in the past.
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #49 on: January 12, 2010, 05:11:03 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
Well, the Celtics tried to sign Powe.  Maybe they should have shown him more love, but they offered him the exact same deal Cleveland did:  a year at the minimum, and a team option for a second year.

Powe was miffed that we didn't pick up his qualifying offer.  I can understand Powe's angst, but I also agree with that aspect of Danny's decision.

He wasn't only miffed about the QO...he was miffed when DA said they would only revisit him once he showed that he could play again....ie they didn't want to be paying him to rehab his knee...a knee, by the way, that he blew out coming back early from an injury to his other knee because we needed him for the playoffs...

to say that BOS offered him the same money as CLE and Leon simply chose CLE over us leaves out major details in the negotiation between Leon and BOS.

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #50 on: January 12, 2010, 05:14:51 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
Well, the Celtics tried to sign Powe.  Maybe they should have shown him more love, but they offered him the exact same deal Cleveland did:  a year at the minimum, and a team option for a second year.

Powe was miffed that we didn't pick up his qualifying offer.  I can understand Powe's angst, but I also agree with that aspect of Danny's decision.

I don't have the energy to sift through a series of paper articles from last summer, but if I remember correctly, that was the Celtics version and likely came after they told him they needed roster flexibility. Leon's version was he was basically told to Go Fish. Am I right?



Here are some relevent quotes:

Quote from: Leon Powe
I told Danny that I would take the one-year deal, but that was it. After (talking to Pagliuca), I didn't call them no more.

Quote from: Boston Herald / Danny Ainge
Ainge said yesterday that there was considerable discussion within the front office about whether to make Powe a qualifying offer. The executive director of basketball operations also said that he raised the possibility of signing Powe to a veteran's minimum two-year contract with a team option in the second year - the very deal Powe just signed with Cleveland - but that the forward rejected the idea. The Celtics, in turn, weren't interested in bringing back Powe for one year.

``Unfortunately, the way things turned out, Leon took it to mean that we didn't want him back, and that wasn't necessarily the case,'' said Ainge. ``Though we didn't extend him the qualifying offer, we did talk to him about coming back. I told Leon from the beginning that what happened is what I thought would happen - that he'd get a two-year contract with a team option.

In other words, Danny broached the idea of a two-year deal, Leon said he'd take a deal for one year, and the Celtics moved on.  It sounds like both sides could have put a little more effort into this.

Danny stated very clearly that he did not want to use a roster spot on an injured player and that the organization would revisit him once he showed that he was able to play again.

Later, other teams started to show interest in signing Leon and that's when Danny went to Leon with an offer.

That's the timeline I remember...

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #51 on: January 12, 2010, 05:18:20 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club

A lot of 'what ifs' but we won't know unti he returns to the court. In any case, how are you coming up with $4mil?


Money the Celtics might have wasted by signing Powe and cutting Giddens

$1,028,000 - Giddens' contract that would have to be paid
$1,028,000 - luxury tax that would have to be paid on Giddens guaranteed contract even though he was cut.
$855,189   - Powe's contract
$855,189   - the luxury tax that would have to be paid on Powe's contract

That's a total of $3.776 million spent on two players that would be wasted if Powe, like so many other basketball players, can't come back and be 100% right away and so probably would be unable to earn playing time ahead of the other 6 big men on the team that are all vying for playing time in a nine man rotation.

At least this way, Giddens has value as a relative unknown with a contract that could be an expiring contract if the team trading for him doesn.t want to extend his rookie deal. An injured and rehabbing Powe has virtually zero trade value.

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #52 on: January 12, 2010, 05:19:31 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
Well, the Celtics tried to sign Powe.  Maybe they should have shown him more love, but they offered him the exact same deal Cleveland did:  a year at the minimum, and a team option for a second year.

Powe was miffed that we didn't pick up his qualifying offer.  I can understand Powe's angst, but I also agree with that aspect of Danny's decision.

I don't have the energy to sift through a series of paper articles from last summer, but if I remember correctly, that was the Celtics version and likely came after they told him they needed roster flexibility. Leon's version was he was basically told to Go Fish. Am I right?



Here are some relevent quotes:

Quote from: Leon Powe
I told Danny that I would take the one-year deal, but that was it. After (talking to Pagliuca), I didn't call them no more.

Quote from: Boston Herald / Danny Ainge
Ainge said yesterday that there was considerable discussion within the front office about whether to make Powe a qualifying offer. The executive director of basketball operations also said that he raised the possibility of signing Powe to a veteran's minimum two-year contract with a team option in the second year - the very deal Powe just signed with Cleveland - but that the forward rejected the idea. The Celtics, in turn, weren't interested in bringing back Powe for one year.

``Unfortunately, the way things turned out, Leon took it to mean that we didn't want him back, and that wasn't necessarily the case,'' said Ainge. ``Though we didn't extend him the qualifying offer, we did talk to him about coming back. I told Leon from the beginning that what happened is what I thought would happen - that he'd get a two-year contract with a team option.

In other words, Danny broached the idea of a two-year deal, Leon said he'd take a deal for one year, and the Celtics moved on.  It sounds like both sides could have put a little more effort into this.

Danny stated very clearly that he did not want to use a roster spot on an injured player and that the organization would revisit him once he showed that he was able to play again.

Later, other teams started to show interest in signing Leon and that's when Danny went to Leon with an offer.

That's the timeline I remember...

agreed. it sparked a strong reaction here on the blog.
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #53 on: January 12, 2010, 05:25:57 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403

A lot of 'what ifs' but we won't know unti he returns to the court. In any case, how are you coming up with $4mil?


Money the Celtics might have wasted by signing Powe and cutting Giddens

$1,028,000 - Giddens' contract that would have to be paid
$1,028,000 - luxury tax that would have to be paid on Giddens guaranteed contract even though he was cut.
$855,189   - Powe's contract
$855,189   - the luxury tax that would have to be paid on Powe's contract

That's a total of $3.776 million spent on two players that would be wasted if Powe, like so many other basketball players, can't come back and be 100% right away and so probably would be unable to earn playing time ahead of the other 6 big men on the team that are all vying for playing time in a nine man rotation.

At least this way, Giddens has value as a relative unknown with a contract that could be an expiring contract if the team trading for him doesn.t want to extend his rookie deal. An injured and rehabbing Powe has virtually zero trade value.

Right, but you said Williams wouldn't have been signed. So it's basically $2mil, which they're paying Giddens anyway to sit on the bench. That money is wasted regardless.

There's no difference in the trade value of expiring Giddens (no one's picking him up for his play or potential) and Powe with an unguaranteed second year (so essentially exiring, thou he may indeed have upside) in this scenerio -- except $172,111. In fact, I'd argue that the option to keep Leon on the cheap would be more valuable in trade than Giddens. But either way it's expiring money if you want it to be.
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #54 on: January 12, 2010, 05:26:25 PM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
Well, the Celtics tried to sign Powe.  Maybe they should have shown him more love, but they offered him the exact same deal Cleveland did:  a year at the minimum, and a team option for a second year.

Powe was miffed that we didn't pick up his qualifying offer.  I can understand Powe's angst, but I also agree with that aspect of Danny's decision.

I don't have the energy to sift through a series of paper articles from last summer, but if I remember correctly, that was the Celtics version and likely came after they told him they needed roster flexibility. Leon's version was he was basically told to Go Fish. Am I right?



Here are some relevent quotes:

Quote from: Leon Powe
I told Danny that I would take the one-year deal, but that was it. After (talking to Pagliuca), I didn't call them no more.

Quote from: Boston Herald / Danny Ainge
Ainge said yesterday that there was considerable discussion within the front office about whether to make Powe a qualifying offer. The executive director of basketball operations also said that he raised the possibility of signing Powe to a veteran's minimum two-year contract with a team option in the second year - the very deal Powe just signed with Cleveland - but that the forward rejected the idea. The Celtics, in turn, weren't interested in bringing back Powe for one year.

``Unfortunately, the way things turned out, Leon took it to mean that we didn't want him back, and that wasn't necessarily the case,'' said Ainge. ``Though we didn't extend him the qualifying offer, we did talk to him about coming back. I told Leon from the beginning that what happened is what I thought would happen - that he'd get a two-year contract with a team option.

In other words, Danny broached the idea of a two-year deal, Leon said he'd take a deal for one year, and the Celtics moved on.  It sounds like both sides could have put a little more effort into this.

Danny stated very clearly that he did not want to use a roster spot on an injured player and that the organization would revisit him once he showed that he was able to play again.

Later, other teams started to show interest in signing Leon and that's when Danny went to Leon with an offer.

That's the timeline I remember...

agreed. it sparked a strong reaction here on the blog.

and there were a lot of posters here that argued that this was the right strategy because no team would offer Leon a contract until he showed that he could play again.

many of Leon supporters were certain that some team would sign him because of his work ethic and the fact that he has already showed how hard he works to come back from such an injury.

The Cs definitely should have strongly pursued Leon right from the get-go without mixed signals about whether his injury precluded them from signing him and that IMO is why he didn't come back here...

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #55 on: January 12, 2010, 05:35:04 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Well, the Celtics tried to sign Powe.  Maybe they should have shown him more love, but they offered him the exact same deal Cleveland did:  a year at the minimum, and a team option for a second year.

Powe was miffed that we didn't pick up his qualifying offer.  I can understand Powe's angst, but I also agree with that aspect of Danny's decision.

I don't have the energy to sift through a series of paper articles from last summer, but if I remember correctly, that was the Celtics version and likely came after they told him they needed roster flexibility. Leon's version was he was basically told to Go Fish. Am I right?



Here are some relevent quotes:

Quote from: Leon Powe
I told Danny that I would take the one-year deal, but that was it. After (talking to Pagliuca), I didn't call them no more.

Quote from: Boston Herald / Danny Ainge
Ainge said yesterday that there was considerable discussion within the front office about whether to make Powe a qualifying offer. The executive director of basketball operations also said that he raised the possibility of signing Powe to a veteran's minimum two-year contract with a team option in the second year - the very deal Powe just signed with Cleveland - but that the forward rejected the idea. The Celtics, in turn, weren't interested in bringing back Powe for one year.

``Unfortunately, the way things turned out, Leon took it to mean that we didn't want him back, and that wasn't necessarily the case,'' said Ainge. ``Though we didn't extend him the qualifying offer, we did talk to him about coming back. I told Leon from the beginning that what happened is what I thought would happen - that he'd get a two-year contract with a team option.

In other words, Danny broached the idea of a two-year deal, Leon said he'd take a deal for one year, and the Celtics moved on.  It sounds like both sides could have put a little more effort into this.

Danny stated very clearly that he did not want to use a roster spot on an injured player and that the organization would revisit him once he showed that he was able to play again.

Later, other teams started to show interest in signing Leon and that's when Danny went to Leon with an offer.

That's the timeline I remember...

agreed. it sparked a strong reaction here on the blog.

and there were a lot of posters here that argued that this was the right strategy because no team would offer Leon a contract until he showed that he could play again.

many of Leon supporters were certain that some team would sign him because of his work ethic and the fact that he has already showed how hard he works to come back from such an injury.

The Cs definitely should have strongly pursued Leon right from the get-go without mixed signals about whether his injury precluded them from signing him and that IMO is why he didn't come back here...

  For a lot of posters it wasn't so much that no other team would sign Leon but it probably didn't matter because he probably won't be making a big impact this year. Come playoff time if he was even healthy enough he'd be battling big baby for 4th big minutes in a shortened rotation.

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #56 on: January 12, 2010, 05:35:12 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48121
  • Tommy Points: 8800
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club

A lot of 'what ifs' but we won't know unti he returns to the court. In any case, how are you coming up with $4mil?


Money the Celtics might have wasted by signing Powe and cutting Giddens

$1,028,000 - Giddens' contract that would have to be paid
$1,028,000 - luxury tax that would have to be paid on Giddens guaranteed contract even though he was cut.
$855,189   - Powe's contract
$855,189   - the luxury tax that would have to be paid on Powe's contract

That's a total of $3.776 million spent on two players that would be wasted if Powe, like so many other basketball players, can't come back and be 100% right away and so probably would be unable to earn playing time ahead of the other 6 big men on the team that are all vying for playing time in a nine man rotation.

At least this way, Giddens has value as a relative unknown with a contract that could be an expiring contract if the team trading for him doesn.t want to extend his rookie deal. An injured and rehabbing Powe has virtually zero trade value.

Right, but you said Williams wouldn't have been signed. So it's basically $2mil, which they're paying Giddens anyway to sit on the bench. That money is wasted regardless.

There's no difference in the trade value of expiring Giddens (no one's picking him up for his play or potential) and Powe with an unguaranteed second year (so essentially exiring, thou he may indeed have upside) in this scenerio -- except $172,111. In fact, I'd argue that the option to keep Leon on the cheap would be more valuable in trade than Giddens. But either way it's expiring money if you want it to be.
Then if you are accepting Williams not signing then you are accepting a team that at this point could have been a lot worse off because KG, Perk, Rasheed and Scal would have been your front court for the first two months of the season playing much longer minutes and possibly breaking down more than they already are. Such a scenario would also probably meant more losses.

So you see there is definitely a give and take in this scenario and it is definitely balancing act. If you accept this then you should accept that signing Powe would have meant more losses and more wear and tear on this team's front line thereby possibly weakening their chances of being healthy come the playoffs.

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #57 on: January 12, 2010, 05:40:40 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403

A lot of 'what ifs' but we won't know unti he returns to the court. In any case, how are you coming up with $4mil?


Money the Celtics might have wasted by signing Powe and cutting Giddens

$1,028,000 - Giddens' contract that would have to be paid
$1,028,000 - luxury tax that would have to be paid on Giddens guaranteed contract even though he was cut.
$855,189   - Powe's contract
$855,189   - the luxury tax that would have to be paid on Powe's contract

That's a total of $3.776 million spent on two players that would be wasted if Powe, like so many other basketball players, can't come back and be 100% right away and so probably would be unable to earn playing time ahead of the other 6 big men on the team that are all vying for playing time in a nine man rotation.

At least this way, Giddens has value as a relative unknown with a contract that could be an expiring contract if the team trading for him doesn.t want to extend his rookie deal. An injured and rehabbing Powe has virtually zero trade value.

Right, but you said Williams wouldn't have been signed. So it's basically $2mil, which they're paying Giddens anyway to sit on the bench. That money is wasted regardless.

There's no difference in the trade value of expiring Giddens (no one's picking him up for his play or potential) and Powe with an unguaranteed second year (so essentially exiring, thou he may indeed have upside) in this scenerio -- except $172,111. In fact, I'd argue that the option to keep Leon on the cheap would be more valuable in trade than Giddens. But either way it's expiring money if you want it to be.
Then if you are accepting Williams not signing then you are accepting a team that at this point could have been a lot worse off because KG, Perk, Rasheed and Scal would have been your front court for the first two months of the season playing much longer minutes and possibly breaking down more than they already are. Such a scenario would also probably meant more losses.

So you see there is definitely a give and take in this scenario and it is definitely balancing act. If you accept this then you should accept that signing Powe would have meant more losses and more wear and tear on this team's front line thereby possibly weakening their chances of being healthy come the playoffs.

negative. the business perspective was your call. you argued they'd be paying an extra 4mil after saying they wouldn't have signed sheldon, which is not the case. just wanted to make sure i had your argument straight.

i don't believe they would avoided signing sheldon knowing leon would not be back for months. as stated ad nauseum, i would have sacrified one of the eminently rhetorical and useless giddens and walker to keep powe and add williams OR simply not have added lester and cut one of those two jokers when we needed a spot.
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #58 on: January 12, 2010, 05:48:36 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
Well, the Celtics tried to sign Powe.  Maybe they should have shown him more love, but they offered him the exact same deal Cleveland did:  a year at the minimum, and a team option for a second year.

Powe was miffed that we didn't pick up his qualifying offer.  I can understand Powe's angst, but I also agree with that aspect of Danny's decision.

I don't have the energy to sift through a series of paper articles from last summer, but if I remember correctly, that was the Celtics version and likely came after they told him they needed roster flexibility. Leon's version was he was basically told to Go Fish. Am I right?



Here are some relevent quotes:

Quote from: Leon Powe
I told Danny that I would take the one-year deal, but that was it. After (talking to Pagliuca), I didn't call them no more.

Quote from: Boston Herald / Danny Ainge
Ainge said yesterday that there was considerable discussion within the front office about whether to make Powe a qualifying offer. The executive director of basketball operations also said that he raised the possibility of signing Powe to a veteran's minimum two-year contract with a team option in the second year - the very deal Powe just signed with Cleveland - but that the forward rejected the idea. The Celtics, in turn, weren't interested in bringing back Powe for one year.

``Unfortunately, the way things turned out, Leon took it to mean that we didn't want him back, and that wasn't necessarily the case,'' said Ainge. ``Though we didn't extend him the qualifying offer, we did talk to him about coming back. I told Leon from the beginning that what happened is what I thought would happen - that he'd get a two-year contract with a team option.

In other words, Danny broached the idea of a two-year deal, Leon said he'd take a deal for one year, and the Celtics moved on.  It sounds like both sides could have put a little more effort into this.

Danny stated very clearly that he did not want to use a roster spot on an injured player and that the organization would revisit him once he showed that he was able to play again.

Later, other teams started to show interest in signing Leon and that's when Danny went to Leon with an offer.

That's the timeline I remember...

agreed. it sparked a strong reaction here on the blog.

and there were a lot of posters here that argued that this was the right strategy because no team would offer Leon a contract until he showed that he could play again.

many of Leon supporters were certain that some team would sign him because of his work ethic and the fact that he has already showed how hard he works to come back from such an injury.

The Cs definitely should have strongly pursued Leon right from the get-go without mixed signals about whether his injury precluded them from signing him and that IMO is why he didn't come back here...

  For a lot of posters it wasn't so much that no other team would sign Leon but it probably didn't matter because he probably won't be making a big impact this year. Come playoff time if he was even healthy enough he'd be battling big baby for 4th big minutes in a shortened rotation.

if everyone's healthy.
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: The Cs should have signed Powe
« Reply #59 on: January 12, 2010, 05:49:07 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
Cutting Walker/Giddens would mean the Celtics would be paying double their salary (lux. tax) for nothing.

That just wasn't going to happen, Lester would have been the one to go if they had signed Powe.