Shavlik: Today is decision time

[LooseCannon]

That is a little surprising.

I'd actually say the opposite.

I thought for sure Danny would manage to trade him to a contender in a Reggie Evans role for a second round pick.  I am a little disappointed that we are losing a minor asset for nothing.

At this point in the (pre-)season, you have guys like Lou Amundson, Chris Wilcox, Jason Collins, and Earl Barron available.  You also have others I didn't name who are better than at least some of those guys.  The difference between Shavlik Randolph and those guys is not worth a second round pick.

If those teams wanted Randolph, they would just wait for him to get waived, picking him for slightly cheap with a shot at getting him to sign a partially guaranteed deal with future unguaranteed seasons and without having to lose a minor asset like a second round pick.

[Yogi]

At this point in the (pre-)season, you have guys like Lou Amundson, Chris Wilcox, Jason Collins, and Earl Barron available.  You also have others I didn't name who are better than at least some of those guys.  The difference between Shavlik Randolph and those guys is not worth a second round pick.

If those teams wanted Randolph, they would just wait for him to get waived, picking him for slightly cheap with a shot at getting him to sign a partially guaranteed deal with future unguaranteed seasons and without having to lose a minor asset like a second round pick.

That's exactly why I am surprised.  Why waive him when we could've kept him for almost nothing until a team needed depth?  I guess it wasn't much of a loss.

[LooseCannon]

At this point in the (pre-)season, you have guys like Lou Amundson, Chris Wilcox, Jason Collins, and Earl Barron available.  You also have others I didn't name who are better than at least some of those guys.  The difference between Shavlik Randolph and those guys is not worth a second round pick.

If those teams wanted Randolph, they would just wait for him to get waived, picking him for slightly cheap with a shot at getting him to sign a partially guaranteed deal with future unguaranteed seasons and without having to lose a minor asset like a second round pick.

That's exactly why I am surprised.  Why waive him when we could've kept him for almost nothing until a team needed depth?  I guess it wasn't much of a loss.

Because his salary isn't almost nothing when you consider the ramifications of the luxury tax.

[thirstyboots18]

Best of luck, Shav...you always played with effort and were fun to follow.

[aporel#18]

Wish him the best, this was the easiest way to go: not having to deal with another contract.

We want the guys in green to do well and become solid players, but cap flexibility and roster management is cold business.

I remember Tony Gaffney and Oliver Lafayette not long ago. DJ, T-Will and Shav have been the same type of safe bet. When you need a roster spot, you get rid of non guaranteed contracts. Not comparing Shav to them as players, just the contract situations.

[nickagneta]

I said this before and I will say it now, once again. Every decision made this off season has been a business decision to get under the luxury tax and to save money.

The Celtics will not be making the playoffs and so about 10% of their incoming cash flow will disappear. There has to be a balancing of the financial books. That balancing means Dumping Doc's salary and saving $3-4 million a year in getting rid of him. Dumping Garnett, Pierce and Terry and dumping another $10 million a year in salary.

Waiving Terrence Williams and Shavlik Randolph were decisions that were easy business decisions because their contracts were non-guaranteed and their all-around skills barely rotation worth for most NBA teams. In cutting those two guys the Celtics saved, with luxury tax implications, somewhere around $4-5 million.

Before the year is through, expect a player or three to be traded that saves this team another $2-3 million that would guarantee the Celtics are under the luxury tax and so save another $3-4 million.

Danny will have done this while increasing the chances of landing in the top three in next year's deep draft, collecting a few valuable expiring contracts to reduce next year's payroll even more, collecting at least 4 extra 1st round picks, and giving a young coach and team a year to grow together.

In the big picture, this was just about the easiest thing to predict. That people couldn't see this amazes me. Shav Randolph might catch on somewhere else in the NBA but maybe not. That is how marginal his overall talent is.

[thirstyboots18]

Ahhh, Nick!  It has always been my goal to amaze you!

            "In the big picture, this was just about the easiest thing to predict. That people        couldn't see this amazes me"....

Now I am working on astounding you!   

[Mattson]

I'm sad to see a dynamo like him go. But I bet some team picks him up. Energy guys land on their feet, especially if they are big and rebound.

[kozlodoev]

I thought for sure Danny would manage to trade him to a contender in a Reggie Evans role for a second round pick.

Perhaps that should serve as a reality check about who Shavlik Randolph really is in the NBA (hint: he's not Reggie Evans).

[mmmmm]

At this point in the (pre-)season, you have guys like Lou Amundson, Chris Wilcox, Jason Collins, and Earl Barron available.  You also have others I didn't name who are better than at least some of those guys.  The difference between Shavlik Randolph and those guys is not worth a second round pick.

If those teams wanted Randolph, they would just wait for him to get waived, picking him for slightly cheap with a shot at getting him to sign a partially guaranteed deal with future unguaranteed seasons and without having to lose a minor asset like a second round pick.

That's exactly why I am surprised.  Why waive him when we could've kept him for almost nothing until a team needed depth?  I guess it wasn't much of a loss.

Because his salary isn't almost nothing when you consider the ramifications of the luxury tax.

Except ... not taking Shav on doesn't get us under the luxury tax.   You are over-stating Shavlik's 'ramifications'.

Independent of Shav, Danny STILL has to make a larger move, reducing a net of at least 2M in salary commitment.  To do this, he'll have to move a minimum of 3M outgoing.

The only real advantage to NOT guaranteeing Shav is so that Danny has the option of reducing salary in a player-for-player exchange, rather than having to send out more players than he takes back.

[kozlodoev]

Independent of Shav, Danny STILL has to make a larger move, reducing a net of at least 2M in salary commitment.  To do this, he'll have to move a minimum of 3M outgoing.

Except he doesn't have to. And we don't have a roster spot to just keep Randolph around. Tough luck.

[mmmmm]

Independent of Shav, Danny STILL has to make a larger move, reducing a net of at least 2M in salary commitment.  To do this, he'll have to move a minimum of 3M outgoing.

Except he doesn't have to. And we don't have a roster spot to just keep Randolph around. Tough luck.

Interesting that my earlier response seems to have been deleted.   Not sure why since as far as I can tell it had no forum violations.

At any rate, as I had hoped was clear from the context of my response (the first sentence and of course the comment it was responding to) the qualifier to the 'has to' is "if he wants to get under the luxury tax".

Restated, if Danny wants to get under the luxury tax line, he still HAS to make a larger deal, reducing a net of at least 2M in salary commitment.

I guess that just wasn't clear enough in my original comment.

But thanks for your useful remark anyway.

[kozlodoev]

Independent of Shav, Danny STILL has to make a larger move, reducing a net of at least 2M in salary commitment.  To do this, he'll have to move a minimum of 3M outgoing.

Except he doesn't have to. And we don't have a roster spot to just keep Randolph around. Tough luck.

Interesting that my earlier response seems to have been deleted.   Not sure why since as far as I can tell it had no forum violations.

At any rate, as I had hoped was clear from the context of my response (the first sentence and of course the comment it was responding to) the qualifier to the 'has to' is "if he wants to get under the luxury tax".

Restated, if Danny wants to get under the luxury tax line, he still HAS to make a larger deal, reducing a net of at least 2M in salary commitment.

I guess that just wasn't clear enough in my original comment.

But thanks for your useful remark anyway.

I see my remark as making a valid point.

If your statement intended to show the obvious fact that cutting Randolph doesn't get us under the cap, then fine. This is, however, not the same as "we gain nothing if we cut Randolph now".

The situation is as follows:

(1) Ainge can waive Randolph right away and not have to do anything with the roster at all. He can still trade later to get under the tax cap, if he so desires.

(2) Ainge can choose to pick up Randolph's option, and then he must trade (which may or may not happen, and it doesn't depend entirely on Ainge), or pay a player who is not going to be on the roster for the season, since he has to trim down the roster to 15.

I don't think Randolph brings enough value to the team for the management to go the second route, and Ainge agrees with me. This much should have been obvious when they chose  to sign Faverani.

[Fafnir]

Interesting that my earlier response seems to have been deleted.   Not sure why since as far as I can tell it had no forum violations.

It contained multiple violations, the most important being its overall tone and the number one guideline of CB, respect each other at all times. Your subsequent response is better though the final line approaches the same sort of thing that got your first post hidden.

Even if you disagree with someone, don't disrespect them.

[mmmmm]

Independent of Shav, Danny STILL has to make a larger move, reducing a net of at least 2M in salary commitment.  To do this, he'll have to move a minimum of 3M outgoing.

Except he doesn't have to. And we don't have a roster spot to just keep Randolph around. Tough luck.

Interesting that my earlier response seems to have been deleted.   Not sure why since as far as I can tell it had no forum violations.

At any rate, as I had hoped was clear from the context of my response (the first sentence and of course the comment it was responding to) the qualifier to the 'has to' is "if he wants to get under the luxury tax".

Restated, if Danny wants to get under the luxury tax line, he still HAS to make a larger deal, reducing a net of at least 2M in salary commitment.

I guess that just wasn't clear enough in my original comment.

But thanks for your useful remark anyway.

I see my remark as making a valid point.

If your statement intended to show the obvious fact that cutting Randolph doesn't get us under the cap, then fine. This is, however, not the same as "we gain nothing if we cut Randolph now".

The situation is as follows:

(1) Ainge can waive Randolph right away and not have to do anything with the roster at all. He can still trade later to get under the tax cap, if he so desires.

(2) Ainge can choose to pick up Randolph's option, and then he must trade (which may or may not happen, and it doesn't depend entirely on Ainge), or pay a player who is not going to be on the roster for the season, since he has to trim down the roster to 15.

I don't think Randolph brings enough value to the team for the management to go the second route, and Ainge agrees with me. This much should have been obvious when they chose  to sign Faverani.

All your remarks here are perfectly fine. 

But your original response to my comment had nothing to do with my comment since my comment was completely accurate given the context (luxury tax ramifications) and further wasn't at all asserting that the Celtics "had to have a roster spot just to keep Randolph around".  So it seemed a bit off.

I mean, seriously.  Why the snark?   It just seemed totally unwarranted.