Author Topic: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?  (Read 23663 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #45 on: August 13, 2010, 08:24:05 AM »

Offline LilRip

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6987
  • Tommy Points: 411
i don't know where people get all the optimism about MD. I like that he can cut well on offense and all, but he won't last all season long. If he plays 70 games, i'll be really shocked.

In hindsight (20/20, i know) i would've rather we kept TA and given him year 3. 3mil is not a lot. I don't think it would be a panic move. Especially when we sign MD for 2mil who can only play half the season. TA's not a complete player but we have a pretty big hole in the backup wing position. We need a guy who can play D and who can do one thing offensively, whether it's shoot or dunk. TA would've been good. Battier would be great. Ronnie Brewer is good. Jared Dudley is good. These are solid role players. We don't even need TA to be a playmaker. We have Nate and Shaq in that bench unit.

That's pretty much the reason why i would wanna see BBD traded. He's a solid role player who could fetch us some talented-enough wing in return. BBD as it stands is the 4th big in the rotation. 5th when Perk comes back later in the year (even in his hobbled state, playing at 80%). I'd much rather have a good first wing off the bench as opposed to a good 4th/5th big.



- LilRip
- LilRip

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #46 on: August 13, 2010, 08:25:00 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
What i find funny about TA's critics is that they pull out this microscope, and dissect him, but they only use that microscope on TA....if he was better at shooting, better at ball handling...well, he'd be a 10 mill player, easily...then what would we do....

Same goes for Big Baby.  
Yes how silly of us to discuss his rebounding at the SF compared to the SG position. Or BBD's various attributes. (I actually think BBD gets more crap because of how he looks than anything, now that is unfair)

This is a blog about a basketball team, we put a pretty big microscope to every player.

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #47 on: August 13, 2010, 08:27:03 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
i don't know where people get all the optimism about MD. I like that he can cut well on offense and all, but he won't last all season long. If he plays 70 games, i'll be really shocked.

In hindsight (20/20, i know) i would've rather we kept TA and given him year 3. 3mil is not a lot. I don't think it would be a panic move. Especially when we sign MD for 2mil who can only play half the season. TA's not a complete player but we have a pretty big hole in the backup wing position. We need a guy who can play D and who can do one thing offensively, whether it's shoot or dunk. TA would've been good. Battier would be great. Ronnie Brewer is good. Jared Dudley is good. These are solid role players. We don't even need TA to be a playmaker. We have Nate and Shaq in that bench unit.

That's pretty much the reason why i would wanna see BBD traded. He's a solid role player who could fetch us some talented-enough wing in return. BBD as it stands is the 4th big in the rotation. 5th when Perk comes back later in the year (even in his hobbled state, playing at 80%). I'd much rather have a good first wing off the bench as opposed to a good 4th/5th big.



- LilRip
Judging by Tony's comment I'm not sure we could have kept him even had we matched Memphis's offer.

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #48 on: August 13, 2010, 09:46:09 AM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3845
  • Tommy Points: 257
Danny is pretty afraid of creating a bad contract, which is his flaw (of few--he's great at picking in the draft and minimum contracts, and gathered a top-notch combo of superstars, but securing the in-between parts long-term has been his weaker area).  He's done great with what he's had, but hasn't had the luck of stumbling into a long-term solution through the draft or some lucky LLE or minimum guys that get sucked in for two years.

I would say his refusal to take on a bad contract that isn't a trade asset is one of Ainge's strengths.  He's not going to overpay marginal talent in a panic move.

+1

Well, it would be one thing to overpay marginal talent in a panic move, and what I suggested would be something completely different.  Signing an emerging yet competent rotation player with high-upside to a long term deal would be pretty smart.  That's what I suggested.  He's used the MLE for short-term deals instead. 

MLE-level players tend to be either:
1) 4th or 5th year players on the upswing (i.e. Outlaw, Ariza),
2) old timers coming off of big money deals (JO)
3) more talent than brains (Artest)
4) more hustle than talent (Nocioni?  Blount?)

Danny's screwed up by signing Blount to MLE money, and to signing Scal (who was coming off of a minor breakout year where he showed he could be a rotation player but had more hustle than talent), both for 5 year deals. I think he's gunshy about using the MLE for a long-term deal because that's were most of the salary cap mistakes get made.  Many of the "bad contracts" that we sometimes talk about around the league were once MLE signings, perhaps now with a trade kicker boosting the money some.

I'm not saying Danny's approach is 100% wrong, but only that by taking the short-term deals with the MLE (and for the same position 2-years running), the same roster spots need to be filled and re-filled (which is the point of the OP).

Cap flexibility doesn't win championships.

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #49 on: August 13, 2010, 09:57:55 AM »

Offline EDWARDO

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 642
  • Tommy Points: 93
Danny is pretty afraid of creating a bad contract, which is his flaw (of few--he's great at picking in the draft and minimum contracts, and gathered a top-notch combo of superstars, but securing the in-between parts long-term has been his weaker area).  He's done great with what he's had, but hasn't had the luck of stumbling into a long-term solution through the draft or some lucky LLE or minimum guys that get sucked in for two years.

I would say his refusal to take on a bad contract that isn't a trade asset is one of Ainge's strengths.  He's not going to overpay marginal talent in a panic move.

+1

Well, it would be one thing to overpay marginal talent in a panic move, and what I suggested would be something completely different.  Signing an emerging yet competent rotation player with high-upside to a long term deal would be pretty smart.  That's what I suggested.  He's used the MLE for short-term deals instead. 

MLE-level players tend to be either:
1) 4th or 5th year players on the upswing (i.e. Outlaw, Ariza),
2) old timers coming off of big money deals (JO)
3) more talent than brains (Artest)
4) more hustle than talent (Nocioni?  Blount?)

Danny's screwed up by signing Blount to MLE money, and to signing Scal (who was coming off of a minor breakout year where he showed he could be a rotation player but had more hustle than talent), both for 5 year deals. I think he's gunshy about using the MLE for a long-term deal because that's were most of the salary cap mistakes get made.  Many of the "bad contracts" that we sometimes talk about around the league were once MLE signings, perhaps now with a trade kicker boosting the money some.

I'm not saying Danny's approach is 100% wrong, but only that by taking the short-term deals with the MLE (and for the same position 2-years running), the same roster spots need to be filled and re-filled (which is the point of the OP).

Cap flexibility doesn't win championships.

I'm not saying that Danny is 100% right, but to make an argument under the assumption that his moves have been ANYWHERE near close to 100% wrong is absurd.

He took this team from having no talent to winning a ring and competing for multiple others, plus has given us max salary flexibility after the window has closed. The Blount contract was a mistake, but his record is as good as any GMs in the league and thank god he's afraid of giving away bad contracts because that's what kills 90%+ of the teams in this league.

Get real.

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #50 on: August 13, 2010, 10:14:38 AM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3845
  • Tommy Points: 257
Danny is pretty afraid of creating a bad contract, which is his flaw (of few--he's great at picking in the draft and minimum contracts, and gathered a top-notch combo of superstars, but securing the in-between parts long-term has been his weaker area).  He's done great with what he's had, but hasn't had the luck of stumbling into a long-term solution through the draft or some lucky LLE or minimum guys that get sucked in for two years.

I would say his refusal to take on a bad contract that isn't a trade asset is one of Ainge's strengths.  He's not going to overpay marginal talent in a panic move.

+1

Well, it would be one thing to overpay marginal talent in a panic move, and what I suggested would be something completely different.  Signing an emerging yet competent rotation player with high-upside to a long term deal would be pretty smart.  That's what I suggested.  He's used the MLE for short-term deals instead. 

MLE-level players tend to be either:
1) 4th or 5th year players on the upswing (i.e. Outlaw, Ariza),
2) old timers coming off of big money deals (JO)
3) more talent than brains (Artest)
4) more hustle than talent (Nocioni?  Blount?)

Danny's screwed up by signing Blount to MLE money, and to signing Scal (who was coming off of a minor breakout year where he showed he could be a rotation player but had more hustle than talent), both for 5 year deals. I think he's gunshy about using the MLE for a long-term deal because that's were most of the salary cap mistakes get made.  Many of the "bad contracts" that we sometimes talk about around the league were once MLE signings, perhaps now with a trade kicker boosting the money some.

I'm not saying Danny's approach is 100% wrong, but only that by taking the short-term deals with the MLE (and for the same position 2-years running), the same roster spots need to be filled and re-filled (which is the point of the OP).

Cap flexibility doesn't win championships.

I'm not saying that Danny is 100% right, but to make an argument under the assumption that his moves have been ANYWHERE near close to 100% wrong is absurd.

He took this team from having no talent to winning a ring and competing for multiple others, plus has given us max salary flexibility after the window has closed. The Blount contract was a mistake, but his record is as good as any GMs in the league and thank god he's afraid of giving away bad contracts because that's what kills 90%+ of the teams in this league.

Get real.

Get real?  Hey, what's your problem?  Reading comprehension?  Am I somehow trashing anybody?  No.  The OP wondered why we keep having the same hole(s) to fill.  I responded that he's been giving short term contracts, which leads to having the same spots open every year or two, rather than locking up a rotation player for the longer term.  I went on to suggest that he's made a couple of mistakes in the middle-salary areas, and is gunshy to do it again as a reason for the short term deals.  I never wrote that he's 100% wrong, that his moves are 100% wrong, and was very attentive to qualify and specify the area that I think his weakness seems to be, so I completely don't understand the "get real" and defensive tone in your response. 

In fact, the only thing that I wrote that could be considered the least bit controversial is the implication that Danny, who is generally thought to be a risk-taker, only takes relatively small, small risks and refuses to take any higher-stakes gambles (like offering a 5-year MLE).

I hope you don't interact with people this way in person.

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #51 on: August 13, 2010, 10:26:17 AM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4205
  • Tommy Points: 777
Danny is pretty afraid of creating a bad contract, which is his flaw (of few--he's great at picking in the draft and minimum contracts, and gathered a top-notch combo of superstars, but securing the in-between parts long-term has been his weaker area).  He's done great with what he's had, but hasn't had the luck of stumbling into a long-term solution through the draft or some lucky LLE or minimum guys that get sucked in for two years.

I would say his refusal to take on a bad contract that isn't a trade asset is one of Ainge's strengths.  He's not going to overpay marginal talent in a panic move.

+1

Well, it would be one thing to overpay marginal talent in a panic move, and what I suggested would be something completely different.  Signing an emerging yet competent rotation player with high-upside to a long term deal would be pretty smart.  That's what I suggested.  He's used the MLE for short-term deals instead. 

MLE-level players tend to be either:
1) 4th or 5th year players on the upswing (i.e. Outlaw, Ariza),
2) old timers coming off of big money deals (JO)
3) more talent than brains (Artest)
4) more hustle than talent (Nocioni?  Blount?)

Danny's screwed up by signing Blount to MLE money, and to signing Scal (who was coming off of a minor breakout year where he showed he could be a rotation player but had more hustle than talent), both for 5 year deals. I think he's gunshy about using the MLE for a long-term deal because that's were most of the salary cap mistakes get made.  Many of the "bad contracts" that we sometimes talk about around the league were once MLE signings, perhaps now with a trade kicker boosting the money some.

I'm not saying Danny's approach is 100% wrong, but only that by taking the short-term deals with the MLE (and for the same position 2-years running), the same roster spots need to be filled and re-filled (which is the point of the OP).

Cap flexibility doesn't win championships.

I'm not saying that Danny is 100% right, but to make an argument under the assumption that his moves have been ANYWHERE near close to 100% wrong is absurd.

He took this team from having no talent to winning a ring and competing for multiple others, plus has given us max salary flexibility after the window has closed. The Blount contract was a mistake, but his record is as good as any GMs in the league and thank god he's afraid of giving away bad contracts because that's what kills 90%+ of the teams in this league.

Get real.

Get real?  Hey, what's your problem?  Reading comprehension?  Am I somehow trashing anybody?  No.  The OP wondered why we keep having the same hole(s) to fill.  I responded that he's been giving short term contracts, which leads to having the same spots open every year or two, rather than locking up a rotation player for the longer term.  I went on to suggest that he's made a couple of mistakes in the middle-salary areas, and is gunshy to do it again as a reason for the short term deals.  I never wrote that he's 100% wrong, that his moves are 100% wrong, and was very attentive to qualify and specify the area that I think his weakness seems to be, so I completely don't understand the "get real" and defensive tone in your response. 

In fact, the only thing that I wrote that could be considered the least bit controversial is the implication that Danny, who is generally thought to be a risk-taker, only takes relatively small, small risks and refuses to take any higher-stakes gambles (like offering a 5-year MLE).

I hope you don't interact with people this way in person.

I think the situation is also complicated by the fact it's not just Danny giving contracts, it's also equally players accepting them.

I don't think as many players as we would like to think want to play 10-15 mpg for the MLE on a great team if they are up and comers...they'd rather play 25-30 mpg for the MLE and maybe have a better chance of increasing their future paydays. As for the short contracts, that's also the players. Posey was offered (and signed) a 2 year deal with a player option, but he WANTED a short contract so he could get overpaid after one good year.

Basically, if you sell off literally everthing except for Rondo, Perk, Pierce, Tony your MLE's, one 30th pick, one 19th pick and 3 2nd round picks from 50 on in order to get just 2 players (Ray and KG) you're going to end up with holes in your roster somewhere; there is no way to guarantee a solid 10 man roster like that. We were lucky that Eddie wanted to stay for cheap, that TA was at least playable, and really lucked out with Davis and lucky that Posey wanted a one-year showcase deal.

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #52 on: August 13, 2010, 10:42:05 AM »

Offline Meadowlark_Scal

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8193
  • Tommy Points: 670
  • You say when......
Ta's rebounding shouldn't be much of an issue..he WAS out covering the fastest, most athletic and talented guys in the LEAGUE....so what about his shooting, his rebounding....It was his real first year BACK, and he was great. (2nd year, but the first year is recovery) Too bad we won't see the rest of his development, like i said b4...he could practice running the point, can get better at ball handling...but no one really learns to be a defender like that...remember his block on gasol.....? Wasn't he covering kobe at the same time..you won't get D and O out of pp or ray anymore..not on the better guys. That is why TA in with one of them and rondo was a great play..we would have had PERFECT D...with TA....a lot of good size and shot blockers inside, and TA for the outside, along with nate and rondo ( at diff times, maybe both sometimes) I still cannot believe we let him go for a 1 year diff of opinion..now we are stuck with MD...who showed NOTHING, consistantly....!  MD never turned the ball over....because he never went after it...never drove...he showed me nothing, I would have dropped him and signed TA asap...especially with Wade and Lebron now coming at you..don't forget Chicago too.......Missing TA will be our short coming this year. Unless one of these guys can step up....!  A backup for pp...is usually a starter for other teams..we had too many holes to fill this year....

I still can't see how any reasonable Celtics fan can be upset over losing TA. You really think Doc or Danny would let him go if he was so vital to the success of the team like you claim? They didn't feel he was worth the money or the years, which neither was a lot. That says something.

He was a good defender. That's it. He brought nothing to the offense. Maybe some C's fans remember the rookie TA who crashed boards and was everywhere on the court. Or the TA who could put up 20 points a game on a team that was in the midst of an 18-game losing streak.

The only team I could see missing him for is the Heat, because of how strong their wings are (assuming they play Wade and LeBron at the wings, and not at PG). I'm not worried about Kobe, because the only reason we lost was because of their frontcourt (and Perk's injury, of course). There is no guarantee we face the Heat or the Lakers, so there is no point in overpaying a player who really won't help us much.

Bottom line, when healthy, Daniels is a significantly better all-around NBA player than TA. What happened last season is anyone's guess. He showed flashes early on, but for whatever reason, either mental or physical, he couldn't do it down the stretch or in the playoffs.

I would be a little surprised if that happened again.

  It sure sounded like Danny, Doc and the players were fairly upset over losing TA. He left for what he felt was a better opportunity, not because Doc and Danny didn't want him back.

So should Doc, Danny, and the players cried over the loss of TA? They took the politically correct route and said they would have liked to keep him and will miss him, but the truth is, they had a number in mind (as they did with Posey) and would NOT go over it. He chose to leave, which is fine, but Ainge could have upped the offer to make the decision harder, he chose not to.

He is as one-dimensional a player as it gets. Nothing but defense. Can't shoot, can't score on his own, can't pass, can't dribble, can't rebound well.

Adios TA, enjoy you PT on a lottery team. I MUCH rather take my chances on Wafer and Daniels, who actually have potential (on both ends).

Well, i think TA is not that one dimensional, he was the best slasher on the team, with some great, strong dunks, layups, and average shooting. He was given a different role than a scorer. He  (it looked like) was asked to be a pg and a defender. He wasn't great at pg...but i think he could develop that, his slashing is getting a lot stronger, and is hard to defend,

   The best thing he did though, is that he took the defense load off of  pp and ray, they can no longer do both defense and offense, so the TEAM needed TA to do that....that is the hard part about being part of a team..sometimes you have to do what the team needs, not what you want to do. EVERYONE wants to shoot...not just play D, and rebounding, well, when you are watching the best players...you need to do that ALL the time, because once they GET the BALL, it is usually 2 points, or 3. Covering the star requires a sacrifice, and most guys won't commit to it. He did. So, he was prob p---ed that they wouldn't give him the one more year he asked, same money. That isn't asking for much. That is all i am saying.

   Also, on this team, TA was the only guy that would run with rondo, up tempo, not walking up the floor, so pressure and tire out the other team, and TA can dunk on demand. When you have shooters like ray and pp, kg, you aren't going to be asked to shoot much. We need more inside slashers anyway, shooting only lasts so long, as we have seen. So, that is why he was the perfect fit here, and should have been given the little that he asked for. And he knows the team, and all the plays. You don't just get a guy like that......md never stuck his neck out..TA did, and through ALL the criticism, you know he heard it, but he kept at it, and he sure did a lot for us, and D is the no glamour, blue collar stuff that the Celtics are made of.

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #53 on: August 13, 2010, 10:45:06 AM »

Offline Meadowlark_Scal

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8193
  • Tommy Points: 670
  • You say when......
Danials potential....WHAT will it take, a HEART TRANSPLANT..? Wafer, maybe. We'll see. Taking chances....no need to take chances, when you had a proven entity.

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #54 on: August 13, 2010, 11:14:22 AM »

Offline KobeGotRondoD

  • Payton Pritchard
  • Posts: 112
  • Tommy Points: 27

The only team I could see missing him for is the Heat, because of how strong their wings are (assuming they play Wade and LeBron at the wings, and not at PG). I'm not worried about Kobe, because the only reason we lost was because of their frontcourt (and Perk's injury, of course). There is no guarantee we face the Heat or the Lakers, so there is no point in overpaying a player who really won't help us much.

It pretty much is a guarantee that we will have to face Miami and Lakers on the road to 18. It's pretty obvious we're Miami in one of the playoff rounds unless for some ridiculous reason they lose to someone else (not going to happen since Celtics are really the only team with the weapons to defeat them). And you really think some other team other than LA will be Western Conference champs? Yeah right.

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #55 on: August 13, 2010, 11:24:12 AM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3845
  • Tommy Points: 257
I think the situation is also complicated by the fact it's not just Danny giving contracts, it's also equally players accepting them.

I don't think as many players as we would like to think want to play 10-15 mpg for the MLE on a great team if they are up and comers...they'd rather play 25-30 mpg for the MLE and maybe have a better chance of increasing their future paydays. As for the short contracts, that's also the players. Posey was offered (and signed) a 2 year deal with a player option, but he WANTED a short contract so he could get overpaid after one good year.

Basically, if you sell off literally everthing except for Rondo, Perk, Pierce, Tony your MLE's, one 30th pick, one 19th pick and 3 2nd round picks from 50 on in order to get just 2 players (Ray and KG) you're going to end up with holes in your roster somewhere; there is no way to guarantee a solid 10 man roster like that. We were lucky that Eddie wanted to stay for cheap, that TA was at least playable, and really lucked out with Davis and lucky that Posey wanted a one-year showcase deal.

Good point, but the reason Posey took the short deal is that he didn't get the full MLE (House already got part of it if I remember right).  Pose (or someone else) could possibly have been locked up with a full 5 year MLE deal if we would have had it to offer, and we wouldn't be commenting in a thread about why we keep having a hole at backup SF.

I also think that there are a good number of swing or combo players in the MLE range that could get 30 minutes off the bench backing up 2 positions, as Posey backed up 3 spots at times.  The availability of playing time isn't really that much of an issue (but starting now would be).  

And quite a few players want the security of long term deals, rather than short-term ones, unless they're over the hill (see JO, Shaq, et. al.) or marginal and need to prove worth (Daniels, BBD).  We locked up Rondo and Perk by offering long term security that gave us the potential of a bargain in the late years.  Using the MLE similarly is a gamble, but could pay off with a high-value player.

On bad contracts:  Nobody ever gives a bad contract.  It always seems like a good idea at the time (like locking up Blount did).  It doesn't become a bad contract until sometime (could be a few years) afterward.  Fear of regret 3-years down the line can be a powerful deterrent to locking up a player for 5.

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #56 on: August 13, 2010, 11:39:28 AM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
TA was defense-only, one-dimensional player.  But here's the thing.  He was better at defense than similar defensive specialists.  He's not interchangeable with players like Ime Udoka or Rasual Butler;  Tony Allen is more valuable than them.  I think it's reasonable to say that TA as a defensive specialist has about the same value as an offense-only, no-defense player like Kyle Korver or Jason Kapono. 

Or, at least he does when healthy, and it's the injury history which makes TA a bad candidate for a long-term contract.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #57 on: August 13, 2010, 11:43:40 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
I think the situation is also complicated by the fact it's not just Danny giving contracts, it's also equally players accepting them.

I don't think as many players as we would like to think want to play 10-15 mpg for the MLE on a great team if they are up and comers...they'd rather play 25-30 mpg for the MLE and maybe have a better chance of increasing their future paydays. As for the short contracts, that's also the players. Posey was offered (and signed) a 2 year deal with a player option, but he WANTED a short contract so he could get overpaid after one good year.

Basically, if you sell off literally everthing except for Rondo, Perk, Pierce, Tony your MLE's, one 30th pick, one 19th pick and 3 2nd round picks from 50 on in order to get just 2 players (Ray and KG) you're going to end up with holes in your roster somewhere; there is no way to guarantee a solid 10 man roster like that. We were lucky that Eddie wanted to stay for cheap, that TA was at least playable, and really lucked out with Davis and lucky that Posey wanted a one-year showcase deal.

Good point, but the reason Posey took the short deal is that he didn't get the full MLE (House already got part of it if I remember right).  Pose (or someone else) could possibly have been locked up with a full 5 year MLE deal if we would have had it to offer, and we wouldn't be commenting in a thread about why we keep having a hole at backup SF.


  That's kind of hindsight, though. There were multiple teams willing to give Posey a multi-year full MLE deal after his year with the Celts. The summer the Celts signed him, though, it was probably later than this in the offseason and he was unsigned. You don't generally offer a player a 5 year full MLE deal when nobody else is offering him more than a fraction of that. It would be like if we signed Marquis to a 5 year MLE last summer.

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #58 on: August 13, 2010, 11:50:48 AM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6846
  • Tommy Points: 448

On bad contracts:  Nobody ever gives a bad contract.  It always seems like a good idea at the time (like locking up Blount did).  It doesn't become a bad contract until sometime (could be a few years) afterward.  Fear of regret 3-years down the line can be a powerful deterrent to locking up a player for 5.

Joe Johnson's max deal this summer disagrees.  So does Rudy Gay's (though maybe he makes some sort of jump to being a superstar, but I doubt it).


Anyways, I think it's just a money issue.  Most of our money is locked up in our starting five, and we have needed to address post issues ever since the Big Three have come here, so that has been where we spent money.

If money was no issue we would have a good backup but that has just ended up being where we have had to cut cost over these last few years.
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: Why has it been so difficult to find a back up for Pierce?
« Reply #59 on: August 13, 2010, 12:28:36 PM »

Offline Tai

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2230
  • Tommy Points: 32
I have to agree with those that simply think we haven't had the money. 3 out of our 5 starters were on max contract money (or near?) for a few years, if I'm not mistaken. I wonder who those guys were....but yeah, most of our payroll is invested in our starting lineup. That doesn't leave as much for the bench, unfortunately.

Last summer, I think a similar topic was made asking why it's so hard to find a backup PG for Rondo so that he doesn't have to play so many games for 40+ minutes. Thank god for Nate, huh?  :D

I have to agree with those that think that TA was great for us.

None the less, it's unfair to give up on Marquis Daniels now before the season even starts. I'm not sure what previous injuries he had beforehand, but injuring a finger can happen to anyone. Wasn't TA always the ones with bad knees, anyways? On top of our backup PG problem last year, we also talked about how TA was done thanks to his many flaws, would never be quite healthy enough to contribute, and how we should've traded him to Indiana to get Marquis Daniels more money. Now, we can't do without TA? Strange how perceptions change like that....and for most of the season, people were still telling us how TA would just come back down to earth.

I dunno, I just don't want Marquis Daniels to be failed before he can even try (albeit again), since that's what always seemed to happen to TA.